Creation Myth: "Intelligent Design" *isn't* just Creationism
16th Nov. 2021 | Creation Myths
- The correct statement would be : Intelligent Design isn't just Young Earth Creationism.
A bit less easy to debunk, right?
1:23 And more relevantly, it is not just Christian and Biblical creationism.
Behe might be a Protestant, but Voltaire - who was neither Protestant nor a Catholic Christian - would have perfectly agree with the things he states.
- 3:13 Check : Creation science involves defense of the Biblical Noah's Flood as compatible with fossil remains.
Voltaire would not have agreed, so this is "religious based" as a collation between Biblical history and fossil / geological data.
Creation science involves or used to involve some idea of near total species fixism (Edgar Andrews did and most YECs now don't).
If you ask a Young Earth Creationist now, this came from a misreading of the Bible - even if probably Voltaire would have agreed. So, again, religious based.
Now, Creation science also involves ID arguments, like a man that can think has to have been created.
Voltaire would have agreed. Babylonians agreed. Hindoos agree. Not religious based, since all over the spectrum.
Hence, a campaign limited to those arguments does not violate the supreme court ruling of 1987. For what it is worth ... Supreme Court has been run by Masons for a while ...
- 3:53 Of Pandas and People ... does it, did it even in the version titled Creation Biology, include a section on Flood geology?
If not, it was within the part of Creationism that also Voltaire would have agreed on, hence not religious based. Hence, it can be taken out of its earliest social context and into the ID without violating the actual terms of the 1987 SC decision.
Note, I said the actual terms, since the judges may of course have been, as those in the later Kitzmiller v. Dover case, rabidly anti-everything Creationist, never mind if Biblical or Philosophical in type of argument.
The change obviously reflects taking into account the court decision.
Like re-uploading a video with copy righted material in first upload and now making same video without the copy-righted material, and making it clear one is not using the copy-righted material, even if it is otherwise the same video.
5:50 The definition of creation given here is such that even Voltaire would have agreed on it, hence not religious based, hence outside the scope of why "creation science" - at least purportedly - was forbidden from public schools in 1987.
But as said, Edwards v. Aguilar judges are into a movement of religious evolutionary atheism or at least bad (in theoretical grasp) heavily evolution tinged theism and so are those of Kitzmiller case. Therefore, they won't bother with that kind of distinction.
- 6:29 This particular textbook obviously does slight this benighted part of Christendom called Theistic Evolutionists (including some "Catholics" alas ...)
It would also involve more than one Lutheran ... "Jones is a Lutheran of Welsh descent." (from wiki, John E. Jones III).
He could have ruled by a progressive Lutheran bias in favour of liberal theology (I've been exposed to that while in Sweden, both before converting to Catholic and even some after that) or from a conservative Lutheran bias in favour of "two sword régime" like stating that what concerns the state doesn't need to be bound by what concerns the life of a Christian, like the Bible. The two overlap, btw.
- 8:58 / Dembski ... while there is a reference to the Bible, this would normally be shared even by non-Christians such as Platonists or Sikhs, and, to some degree even by Voltaire.
Plus, how a scientist came around to his theory doesn't show its scientific value.
First, the Bible being true, there are many areas - including this one - where a good investigation of what goes around will directly confirm what the Bible says quicker, with less human effort. Second, a Bible believer who is also a scientist, may bungle the Bible and therefore bungle the science too.
Now, you may argue that if I stated "the Bible being true, there are many areas ... where a good investigation of what goes around will directly confirm what the Bible says quicker, with less human effort," this is not a scientific statement. True, it is a metascientific one. But if from that you would argue I could do no science, you would be actually demanding, as the infamous "Anglican Communion" of the Test Act, the openness to the Bible being flat wrong in central theology as a pre-requisite for doing science at all. Or at least totally shutting up about all metascientific considerations while doing science.
Forrest Valkai peppered a video about Radiometric dating on a very metascientific outro on why not to take the Biblical genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 as anything like a good cue. Why does he get to do meta-science and Dembski doesn't?
(Apart from being metascientific, it was also mathematically inaccurate and showed heavy social bias against numerous families.)
- 9:42 Man being impossible as anything except either eternal (anyway out of the game) or a creation by God or some gods it is still a scientific or philosophical proposal.
Voltaire entirely did agree on that one (but after Genesis 1, his adherence to the Bible obviously falters very seriously).
No, not religious in nature, but theistic in nature.
- 10:40 Bruce Chapman's cited words "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic undertanding that nature and human beings are created by God," would perfectly be acceptable to Voltaire (an anti-Christian) and to Plato (a pre-Christian) as to Plotinus (disciple of Plato and opponent of Christians).
No, there is not a question of any given confession or religion, as relevant to the establishment clause, which was anyway heavily mis-construed in its scope by lots of 20th C. Supreme Court Rulings, it is a question of natural philosophy having theism rather than materialism as ultimate explanation.
Since theism is the correct ultimate explanation, specifically precisely for science, and since materialism makes very heavy blunders (see for instance Evolutionist efforts to try to explain human language, though I haven't read Jean Aitchison's one yet) labelling this stance as "religious" equals the pretence that materialism is somehow not a religion.
- 10:51 Observations may be a scientists ultimate proofs, they aren't his ultimate explanations.
ID means that added up observations support theistic and un-supports a purely materialistic explanation of what we observe.
- Debate followed
- Ugly German Truths
- No it does not. It may CLAIM that, but it cannot support it with reality.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Ugly German Truths So, I claim the observation of human language shows evolution impossible.
Or, not impossible overall, but impossible as the total and adequate origin of man.
You claim I cannot support it with reality, your turn!
- 11:26 And you still have not answered the proposal that:
- while Edward v. Aguilar is in itself unreasonable and a gross abuse of the establisment clause (SC was - by case law - legislating about establishment, as in against it, and "congress shall not" doesn't mean "SC shall"), it still has a "reasonable" scope;
- and the part of Creationism that was relabelled ID does not fall under this relatively speaking reasonable scope of Edwards v. Aguilar.
- 11:36 That's like saying anyone who for instance self identifies as "racist" or "antisemite" automatically falls under the scope of laws against incitation of hatred against people of certain skin colours or ways of mis-reading the Torah.
Even if there is a verbal agreement between what the supposed culprit says and what the law says, the law - or in this case the case law - may mean one fairly specific thing with the term condemned (overall or for in public schools) and imposing the ban outside that specific thing, well, that is "faire le procès de l'intention" as the saying goes here in France.
It's inviting to collective hysteria, and it's demanding not just respect of the human law but even zeal for it. It's barbaric.
Post a Comment