Southern Methodist University speaks out against Intelligent Design

[Sisyphus]

Because of techboy's response below ... let's not confuse "the wisdom of emptiness" with either "an empty head" or "an intellectually dishonest head."

I interpreted your use of the term "wisdom of emptiness" to reflect the old adage that a man can only begin to attain true wisdom once he has come to grips with how precious little he actually does "know."

Agreed ... karma runs over dogma.

In the business world I've had many, many tiresome meetings with venture capitalists about new ideas, but one thing the smart ones always ask a simple question:

"What are your assumptions, and are they correct?"

[PeterMP]

The important question in my mind is why is "science" the ONLY human discipline that is trying to seek an alternative answer via a unifying theory of everything.

Logically, philosophically, AND spiritually this is firm ground.

Because practically only science can provide an answer that is defendable w/ facts and not just opinions and faith. And if you don't like that answer, I guess the people in the other fields are too lazy to try.

[headexplode]

Logical fact.

Something can not come from nothing.

I'm not so sure about that. I would think it "logical" to assume that everything has a beginning, somewhere. And probably an end as well. Is it difficult to imagine? Sure it is. But no more difficult in imagining that there is no beginning or end. Either idea is equally distressing to me.

[headexplode]

Sure its concievable, do you deny its concievable that the Bible is true?

I think it's conceivable the bible is true. I don't think it's likely but it's certainly conceivable.

[portisizzle]

I'm not so sure about that. I would think it "logical" to assume that everything has a beginning, somewhere. And probably an end as well. Is it difficult to imagine? Sure it is. But no more difficult in imagining that there is no beginning or end. Either idea is equally distressing to me.

There is no distress in extending the logic that there is no such thing as infinity. I guess there is a place for theoretical infinity so we can get from point A to point B. But what if getting to point B via infinity means that we are not on the right track?

My opinion (subject to change) is that there was a beginning. Can science fathom that? And come up with some theories as to what that means? I am all ears.

[portisizzle]

Because practically only science can provide an answer that is defendable w/ facts and not just opinions and faith. And if you don't like that answer, I guess the people in the other fields are too lazy to try.

Like I just said, why can't science drive down an alternative path of explaination without having a stigma attached to the pioneer willing to drive it being called "lazy"?

[headexplode]

There is no distress in extending the logic that there is no such thing as infinity. I guess there is a place for theoretical infinity so we can get from point A to point B. But what if getting to point B via infinity means that we are not on the right track?

My opinion (subject to change) is that there was a beginning. Can science fathom that? And come up with some theories as to what that means? I am all ears.

The distress is all my own.

I don't think science can fathom the unfathomable. I don't think science, or religion, or any other thing can explain those deepest, darkest questions. The difference, in my mind, is that science tries to explain these mysteries through observable evidence, whereas religion and faith have little to go on except faith and stories written thousands of years ago.

[portisizzle]

I think it's conceivable the bible is true. I don't think it's likely but it's certainly conceivable.

What if the bible was true.

That instead of GOD they meant "Alien" as we currently understand the term.

That in fact we were created exactly as the bible described by an immensely powerful being that had powers that we, even today, can not even fathom.

Why is it I could see more people on this board agreeing with this logic because is was an alien from Ceti Alpha 6(???) that created us and not the GOD as described via Christianity.

Just a thought.

[headexplode]

What if the bible was true.

That instead of GOD they meant "Alien" as we currently understand the term.

That in fact we were created exactly as the bible described by an immensely powerful being that had powers that we, even today, can not even fathom.

Why is it I could see more people on this board agreeing with this logic because is was an alien from Ceti Alpha 6(???) that created us and not the GOD as described via Christianity.

Just a thought.

Either scenario is equally plausible. The problem I have with the god from the bible is that "He" displays the same qualities of the people he created. He is, at times, angry, jealous, whiny, cowardly, happy, satisfied, etc. This suggests to me that god is a projection of human proclivities--i.e. that god was made in man's image not the other way around. He is not exactly what comes to mind when I think of an omniscient deity.

[Sisyphus]

You see I am OK with you saying what you said so long as you include all of these key words in the discussion. IF you believe what you just wrote, though, remember you are taking this on faith. YOUR faith.

I'll try one more time.

A purely naturalistic origin for the Universe is completely consistent with real stuff we measure today. Quantum physics is strange, but real. Quantum cosmology demonstrates that no magic is required, no supernatural being is necessary for the Universe to come into existence.

It would be a leap of faith to say this knowledge proves there is no god. But I've never seen a scientific paper with such a conclusion.

It's usually the theists who are arguing "If there's no god, then explain X". In fact that statement is probably posted here on this football message board every day of the week. When X is explained, the theists move the 'goal posts' somewhere else to find a field goal that they think science can't make. Kicking field-goals against religion is not what science is about. Science and religion are two different sports in my view, played on different fields with different rules.

Even if there is no requirement for a god to explain the world we see around us, there may still be one (playing in a different stadium :doh: ). My point is that a big bang (nor anything else we have observed in the physical world) does not prove your god.

Conversely of course, quantum cosmology does not prove the impossibility of your god or any other one. The Patriots winning their recent Superbowls does not make any statements about the merits of the Yankees nor their ability to win the World Series.

[portisizzle]

Either scenario is equally plausible. The problem I have with the god from the bible is that "He" displays the same qualities of the people he created. He is, at times, angry, jealous, whiny, cowardly, happy, satisfied, etc. This suggests to me that god is a projection of human proclivities--i.e. that god was made in man's image not the other way around. He is not exactly what comes to mind when I think of an omniscient deity.

Interesting. I had not thought of the bible like this. You seem to think that the bible was created by man to control man?

[portisizzle]

Actually I am gone for a few hours. Sorry to end like this.

[headexplode]

Interesting. I had not thought of the bible like this. You seem to think that the bible was created by man to control man?

No, I just think it was written because human beings have been writing stories ever since the beginning of language, maybe even before. The bible is an amalgamation of all the stories that came before it. For a great read on creation mythology and the similarities between the stories of different cultures check out Joseph Cambell's The Masks of God.

[headexplode]

Actually I am gone for a few hours. Sorry to end like this.

That's alright--now we can talk about you while you're gone.

[headexplode]

headexplode,

In case you were wondering, I haven't been ignoring your posts. Just havent' been sure where to go with them. Not sure how to say any of this without sounding condescending, so if it does please accept my word it's not intended that way.

You sound very much like I did in my 20's. Like a guy deeply interested in the human condition and his own and Man's place in the Big Picture, coming to grips with the inherent deep contradictions and unanswered (and unanswerable, says me) questions associated with them. I hope you never stop.

I hope you will succeed in finding the right balance, for YOU, no matter what life brings. That you can live within and fully appreciate the moment ... while also keeping in touch with your past ... while also looking to and planning for your and your family's future ... and while also having the human condition in mind, looking far ahead, because you never know if yours might not be the mind that comes along and creates the idea or inspiration that inspires and ultimately improves the lives of all the humans yet to come. Someone is going to be that person ... it could be you.

For what it's worth, in my own life I've found it is possible to have a job and pay the bills and fix the toilet and take the kid to karate practice, while ALSO stopping in utter awe by a sunset, and moved to tears at sight of a fellow human being's triumph OR tragedy, and continuing to challenge my mind and sharing what little I think I've I've learned as best I can. I don't plan to stop until my time is up. Of that I am sure.

What I'm not sure of yet is whether one can do all that and not sound like a condescending rambling old idiot on a football message board.

You don't sound condescending at all--and I thank you for taking the time to make a thoughtful response.

I'm trying to find that balance, Om, and some days it works out better than others, but I'll get there somehow. I have a stable job. I'm buying my first house. I'm thinking about the future, something that was absurd to me just four years ago. I'm thinking, wow, I might actually live past thirty and then what? What could I say of my life, and the person that I've become? I still try to find the beauty in the everyday--the majesty in the mundane. It's there, waiting to be stumbled upon, waiting to be revealed.

The most beautiful thing to me is rain. A hard rain on a grey day when the lush greens and yellows of spring or the striking oranges and reds of autumn seem pregnant with some eternal light, infused with the sort of "meaning" that perhaps we're talking about here, and staring off into the distance I can be lulled into a trance where the steady drops of rain become my thoughts all draining away into the gutters and soaking into the ground and dissolving in the air and I'm as close to nowhere as I've ever been and that comforts me in some small way and then I can walk inside and do my taxes and pay my bills and check my Thrift Savings Plan with a tiny sense of satisfaction.

(Talk about idiotic rambling. )

[dfitzo53]

What if the bible was true.

That instead of GOD they meant "Alien" as we currently understand the term.

That in fact we were created exactly as the bible described by an immensely powerful being that had powers that we, even today, can not even fathom.

Why is it I could see more people on this board agreeing with this logic because is was an alien from Ceti Alpha 6(???) that created us and not the GOD as described via Christianity.

Just a thought.

I doubt very strongly that that's how it all went down, but creation by an imperfect being would certainly explain the numerous design problems in the human body.

That's alright--now we can talk about you while you're gone.

I heard he smells.

[headexplode]

I heard he smells.

And he's got buckteef.

[Zguy28]

I think it's conceivable the bible is true. I don't think it's likely but it's certainly conceivable.

Therein lies the difference. You think its conceivable. Ask folks like Sagan (if he was alive) or Dawkins that question. I bet you get a different answer.

What I don't think people understand about Christianity and the Bible is not that we just blindly believe stuff.

Biblical exegesis & hermeneutics is a discipline. Christians don't believe the Bible is just a bunch of stories, and as a matter of fact archaeology is proving more and more of the Bible is accurate. We believe the Bible is a revelation (unveiling) of knowledge we otherwise would not know. Its known to Christians as the Doctrine of Revelation.

For example, the Bible speaks of how the heavens were "stretched out." Makes sense when you look at Big Bang theory. It also speaks of how the earth was formless and dark in its beginning (Gen 1), which is in line with the current scientific view on the formation of the earth.

Allow me to quote from a site I find useful.

They explain it so much better.

The Big Bang Theory postulates the universe sprang into existence from nothing some 13.7 billion years ago. It began as a very small, dense singularity. Since then, the universe has expanded into the vast cosmos we inhabit. Thus, all matter, energy, space and time are the result of this single cosmic event dubbed the "big bang."

How was our solar system formed? Scientists believe, after the big bang, there were fluctuations in the density of the universe. Eventually, gravity condensed clumps of matter together into gaseous clouds and formed protogalaxies. Within our region of space, this molecular cloud was disturbed (perhaps by the explosion of a nearby star) and waves in space squeezed the cloud causing it to collapse. As gravity pulled the gas and dust together, the cloud began to spin. Eventually, the spinning disk became hot and dense in the center and cool at the edges. When the density and temperature high enough at the center, fusion ignition occurred, creating the Sun. Meanwhile, at the cool edges, particles collided and clumped together (a process known as accretion) to form the planets, all of which are about the same age.

The Big Bang Model has been subjected to numerous tests and thus far agrees with virtually all the data. Three compelling reasons to believe big bang cosmology are the Hubble expansion, cosmic microwave background and big bang nucleosynthesis. Hubble Expansion is the observed phenomenon that all galaxies (outside our local group of galaxies) appear to be moving away from us, implying the universe is expanding. Cosmic microwave background is observable radiation left over from the big bang. Big bang nucleosynthesisis the process by which lighter elements (such as hydrogen, helium and lithium) were formed. Scientists can calculate how much of which elements should have formed and observations agree with those calculations.

Scientific resistance to the big bang arises not from the data but from its profound theological implications-implications of a transcendent cosmic creation event and of supernatural design in so many of the universe's characteristics. That is the reason most of the competing models (e.g., infinite universes) seek to downplay the uniqueness of our universe and eliminate the need for a beginning. Since many atheists resisted the big bang model until the evidence compelled its acceptance, it is fallacious to characterize it as an atheistic proposal.

Does science conflict with the Bible? No. The Bible tells us the universe was formed at God's command from nothing that preceded it (Hebrews 11:3). This agrees perfectly with the scientific view of an initial "big bang." The Bible speaks of the universe being "stretched out." This fits the big bang concept of cosmic expansion. The Bible also tells us God created the heavens and the earth "in the beginning" but does not specify how it occurred. Therefore, it is entirely possible that God created the heavens and the Earth through a series of events consistent with big bang cosmology.

As to the issue of light on Earth, science maintains our young solar system was filled with a cloud of gas, dust and debris. As the Earth cooled and its gravitational field strengthened, it attracted meteorites and other objects that bombarded the earth for over 500 million years (known as the Hadean Era). Thus,although the Sun ignited before the Earth formed, the early Earth would have been surrounded by a thick, dense mixture of cosmic gases and debris that blocked the sunlight for many millions of years.

Does this conflict with the Bible? No. The Bible tells us the earth was dark and formless as God prepared to begin His creative activity on Earth. On the first "day," God separated light from darkness and caused daylight to appear. On the fourth "day," God caused the Sun, Moon and stars to appear in the sky. This agrees perfectly with the scientific view of the early Earth. Initially, the atmosphere would have been opaque and blocked all sunlight. Over time, the atmosphere would have become translucent, allowing some sunlight to penetrate the darkness (the first "day"). Later, the atmosphere would have become transparent, revealing the heavenly bodies in the sky (the fourth "day").

[dfitzo53]

Looking at Genesis, Zguy, I'm noticing that according to the Biblical creation account God created plants before he created the Sun. Given what we know about plant biology, that seems impossible.

[Zguy28]

Looking at Genesis, Zguy, I'm noticing that according to the Biblical creation account God created plants before he created the Sun. Given what we know about plant biology, that seems impossible.

No, in verse 1, it states God created the heavens, this includes stars and other heavenly bodies. A careful examination of the text shows that the light God caused to appear on the first "day" was from the sun. This fact is specifically stated in Genesis 1:5.

What many people cannot reconcile is, if God did this, and told us about it, why did He omit so many details?

I answer with a question, is that much detail necessary?

For example, when I ask you how old you are, you say 22. But that's not true. You are 22 years, 6 months, 14 days, 12 hours...etc.

[dfitzo53]

No, in verse 1, it states God created the heavens, this includes stars and other heavenly bodies. A careful examination of the text shows that the light God caused to appear on the first "day" was from the sun. This fact is specifically stated in Genesis 1:5.

What many people cannot reconcile is, if God did this, and told us about it, why did He omit so many details?

I answer with a question, is that much detail necessary?

For example, when I ask you how old you are, you say 22. But that's not true. You are 22 years, 6 months, 14 days, 12 hours...etc.

Ok, the following comes from http://aol.bartleby.com/108/01/1.html#1:

14 ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

I understand what you're saying about God having said "Let there be light" earlier, but I don't see how that light could have been the Sun. What's tripping me up is the use of the word made. To me that means the Sun, moon and stars didn't exist prior to the fourth day. Am I missing something?

[Sisyphus]

Looking at Genesis, Zguy, I'm noticing that according to the Biblical creation account God created plants before he created the Sun. Given what we know about plant biology, that seems impossible.

Evolution is explicitly described in the bible though.

"For many are called, but few are chosen." (Matthew 22:14).

[Zguy28]

Ok, the following comes from http://aol.bartleby.com/108/01/1.html#1:

I understand what you're saying about God having said "Let there be light" earlier, but I don't see how that light could have been the Sun. What's tripping me up is the use of the word made. To me that means the Sun, moon and stars didn't exist prior to the fourth day. Am I missing something?

They are two different Hebrew verbs bara (created; Gen 1:1) and asah (made; Gen 1:7). Asah means to fashion, like from something already existing.

[techboy]

The fictional "slippery debater" in this dialogue, for instance, is not a lousy example of a guy who's attained any kind of wisdom. He sounds more like a guy who's lazy, or not very bright, or perhaps irritated at the bald presumption of a guy throwing the loaded statement "Jesus is the only way to Heaven" at him in line at Starbucks and apparently expecting a meaningful response, or just messing with the guy for grins, or simply trying to extricate himself from another situation where a dogmatist equates "debate" with quoting scripture.

Actually, the lazy guy is me, as the fictional dialogue is an extremely oversimplified and dumbed down version of far more intricate discussions I've witnessed (though never participated in). I don't think anybody's that blatant, at least that I've seen (on either side).

P.S. My comment (as almost always, really) was intended to be lighthearted. Possibly even funny, though I frequently fall short.

It was certainly not intended to accurately represent either the Christian or the Eastern outlook, and should not be taken as such. All such viewpoints are, of course, far more complex and intricate, and also, as a result, much less suitable for smart remarks than cariactures, such as the one I presented.

[dfitzo53]

They are two different Hebrew verbs bara (created; Gen 1:1) and asah (made; Gen 1:7). Asah means to fashion, like from something already existing.

Can you read and write Hebrew? It sounds like I'd want to be able to if I were going to be a pastor.

So what's an Old Earth Creationist's take on evolution? I'm sure you've been through this in other threads, but I tend to stop reading them after they've degenerated into shouting matches. Did God create the original life from which everything else evolved? Has the hand of God guided the evolutionary process? Was everything created exactly as we see it today? To me that would seem to raise more questions than it answers.

I also wonder why Old Earth Creationists hold the views that they do. In other words, why not a young Earth? Are there passages in the scripture that lead you to believe the 6,000 year old estimate is wrong, or is it due to scientific evidence that the world is roughly 4.5 billion years old? A little bit of both?

For numerous reasons, I don't see how one can accept the position that all of life on Earth was created in its present form.