Re: 2 questions about Inteligent Design vs Evolution

On 17 Aug 2006 15:14:38 -0700, "eyelessgame" <aamp@xxxxxxx> wrote:


boltzenator@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hello,

I would like to ask two questions related to Intelligent Design (ID).

2) My second question has to do with the particular faith I was brought
up with (Christianity), and the question will be perhaps better
answered by someone who was brought up in the Christian faith but later
succeeded in having a worldview free of any conception of God.

Yo.

I find it surprising that the bible is not full of claims easily dismissible.

It might be useful, in going down this path, to first make a list of
bible claims that are specific enough that they in principle *might*
have been easily dismissible, but turned out not to be.

In other words. The bible certainly makes some statements that were
observably correct to the people at the time (rainbows come after rain,
or the interesting application of recessive genes, alongside some
preposterous witchcraft, in the Jacob story.)

It would have been
simpler if there were in the bible claims that later turned out clearly
proven false by science. For example if the bible had said things like
"the world is flat"

Um, it says the world is flat in several places. They're
"reinterpreted" to be poetic license these days, simply because anyone
who claims the earth is flat has to endure everyone else pointing at
him and laughing.


or "God created man and woman first, then the animals",

That's a reasonable interpretation of Gen 2:19 (this story has Adam
created before the animals, and Eve after.)

then it would have been very easy to dismiss the whole thing
because it is a hard fact that the world isn't flat, nor did human
evolved on earth before animals. I expected the bible to be full of
misconceptions about the universe that should be pretty characteristic
of the ancient times when the bible was written. Am I ready too much
into this?

Apart from the list of things in Gen 1-2 that are obviously crocked,
let's go through some others.

The earth is described as flat with four corners, with a foundation of
rock, fixed and immobile; the sky is described as a dome, held up with
pillars, with windows for God to look through and rain to come out of;
there are mountains where you can stand and see all the kingdoms of the
earth; the sun and moon can stop in the sky and even move backwards.
The bible talks about dragons, cockatrices, satyrs, giants, talking
snakes and talking bushes. It ascribes supernatural causes to
earthquakes, storms, droughts, infertility, blindness and leprosy. It
describes a world wide flood that covered the highest mountain tops
with fifteen cubits to spare.

The Bible is pretty much consonant with its culture; these were beliefs
typical of people thousands of years ago. I'm not ridiculing it: it
says what the people of the time said, that's all.

I'd be interested in seeing any similar list of things the Bible was
/right/ about, that people of 2-3 thousand years ago would not have
been expected to know, if you think there is such a list.

As things stand, it seems to me that you can always come up
with explanations that interpret the bible in some ways that would make
things blur or even compatible with scientific fact.

But that requires only that the Bible be vague, not correct. Why "blur"
things?

For example, about
the age of the earth (about 10000years in biblical term vs. few
billions of years according to science), one can simply argue that a
'year' in biblical sense is symbolic of a longer time period than a
normal year.

But why do that? Why assume it has any special insight?

Of course, for an objective judge, any inconsistency and intrepretative
game is a good reason to dismiss Christianity/religion but I have to
say that I personally tend to look for hard proof of incorrectness.

Start with the list above?

Does anyone else find it surprising that there "seem" to be no hard
claim in the bible about the universe that have been clearly proven to
be wrong by science?

I find it moderately surprising that the list above isn't known by
everyone who claims to have read the Bible...

Are there such facts that I'm simply not aware of?

Please do not take these as questions I'm asking just to fuel the
controversy; I truly am seeking answers to those questions.

That's cool. HTH.

eyelessgame

Did you have a conclusion? "That's cool" is not supported in your
observations.

dick

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: My take on teaching creationism in the public schools.
    ... anywhere except on a Flat Earth. ... He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth ... If you believed in evolution you'd agree that this is what the science says. ... This is as accepted a scientific fact as scientific facts get; if you don't accept them, then you don't "believe in evolution" or "put your faith and trust in" science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: 2 questions about Inteligent Design vs Evolution
    ... up with (Christianity), and the question will be perhaps better ... proven false by science. ... it says the world is flat in several places. ... evolved on earth before animals. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: 2 questions about Inteligent Design vs Evolution
    ... I would like to ask two questions related to Intelligent Design. ... benevolent God as defined by Christianity. ... proven false by science. ... evolved on earth before animals. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Earth rotation
    ... That's an assertion, not science. ... >> The earth is observed to be differentiating, ... >> What planet are you looking at in saying that mountains are flat? ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Earth rotation
    ... That's an assertion, not science. ... >> The earth is observed to be differentiating, ... >> What planet are you looking at in saying that mountains are flat? ...
    (sci.geo.geology)