There are contradictions here. I think you are trying to imply a duality to the writings. That's fine - but understand not everyone can reconcile that it's both "literal word of god" and "interpreted word of god".
The words on the pages are exactly as God wanted them to be... his words. Those words are then open for interpretation because we have the mental capacity to do so (a gift from God), and the verses of the Bible can apply to more then one aspect of your life and at times have more then one meaning. People can read the same thing and have it touch them all in different ways, just as people can all see the same thing and give different stories of what exactly happened. We are all different and how the Bible applies to us is no different. As said earlier, there is only one area of the Bible that we all must agree on and that is simply coming, sacrifice and resurrection of the Messiah. We have different denominations because we have different interpretations, but that doesn't make any of them right or any of them wrong.
When I say they are part of the same whole I’m going a lot farther than you are. I would say that they both address realities and indeed are ultimately merely different descriptions of the same realities. Your suggestion of a “misunderstanding regarding science” rings a little bit of you trying to put a box around what science can be, IMO. At one point many scientists would have said that the idea of bending light and that diseases were spread by microscopic creatures were “magical thinking”. Indeed even the use of that term suggests intellectual laziness because you are suggesting that you know what the limits of science are, and that anything outside of that is merely to be written off as “magical thinking” without even bothering to think it through. That term suggests a “fundamentalist” thinking, not true scientific thinking. Another feature of fundamentalist thinking is the incessant reliance on old, tired, clichés and spurious issues, and your incessant references to “going beyond a rational, empiracal, quantifiable and systemitized way of answering questions” certainly falls into this category. These have been addressed and disproven again and again and again and again and again here on this board, but you show a profound inability accept proofs that would possibly undermine your wildly unscientific faith in your limited definition of “science”. It’s truly astonishing. How many times have these false claims been disprove to you?! Half a dozen at least I’d say. Truly remarkable. If facts and proofs are unimportant to you, as they clearly are in this case, then there is no point continuing this discussion with you, is there? For the others reading this I’ll address a couple of other points he raises. If an engineer encounters a situation that falls outside the current limits of engineering knowledge and practice, the collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, for example, he doesn’t write the situation off as some kind of magic. Sishir Chang would presumably write of what happened as “magic”, and perhaps deny it happened at all, because what happened fell outside the box of what was then the extent of the technical knowledge. Real science looks beyond the boarders of current knowledge, however, and engineers did in fact go beyond and discover the problem and you will be happy to know that that exact problem won’t happen again. You have to look outside the box to learn more about science, however, and you have to be intellectually honest in doing so. You can’t deny the proof that others show you and simply continue to call what happened “magic” because it falls outside the limits of your knowledge. Sishir Chang has a real problem with this issue that prevents him from addressing this issue in any kind of scientifically appropriate or honest way. The problem Sishir Chang raises here is the question of what “literal” means in this context. Can a poem be literally interpreted? There are really two questions here. Is the Bible the inspired word of God without error? And, does the Bible mean the same thing to every one who reads it or even every time a person reads it? It really is problematic to talk about a literal interpretation of the Bible without a lot of context around what you mean, because without it you are suggesting a literal interpretation of something that was meant to be interpreted, which doesn’t make much sense.
I probably said 'literal' I like the word accurate better. I need Divine help to understand the Divine message.
Grizzled; I don't know if I'm not communicating this properly or just don't understand it. Of course I'm trying to put a box around science. I said that already that I think science should be limited to addressing materialistic problems in a rational, qualifiable, empiracal and systemized way. Now is germ theory and bending light not inherently materialistic problems that were resolved in rational, qualifiable, empiracal and systemitized ways? Magical thinking would be saying that the devil causes disease because we won't bother or can't explain at the moment using present technology what causes disease. My argument is that this is a physical problem and that using, once again, a rational, qualifiable, empiracal and systemitized method of study we can figure it out rather than just say the Devil did. Lo and behold that is exactly what Pasteur and others did. They proved germ theory using the scientific method and not faith. YOu seem to mistaking a defense of the scientific method as a defense of the status quo of knowledge when its anything but. Its a defense of a scientific methodology that has served us well and as an engineer you should be aware of the importance of that. That doesn't mean that its fundamentalists in terms of not looking at any controversial materialistic problems. Global warming is a controversial problem and I'm all for investigating Global warming. Under the Heisenberg principle its impossible to observe atoms directly yet I'm all for studying atomic theory. What I'm against is reaching for metaphysical explanations to explain physicl phenomena. Most ID theories posit metaphysical explanations for the physical question of how speciation came about. Others involving aliens have yet to present solid empirical evidence to support it. Your argument keeps on boiling down to that ID isn't accepted and that the scientific community and those defending Evolution are close minded. Yes, we are because to accept a new scientific theory it needs to be proven using the scientific method. I can't speak for others but as I've said before I would accept ID if it can be proven empiracally using the scientific method. OTOH you continue to argue that its just political while ID isn't accepted. Instead of arguing that its just politics and close mindedness you should concentrate on showing the proof that ID, whether by angels, aliens or whatever, has any validity.
Sishir- You should give Aquinas' Division and Methods of the Sciences a Look; it's a difficult read but basically he states that all science ultimately leads to the asking and attempt at finding metaphysicals. Shoot that's what the Big Bang Theory is....
Go back further... what if God was a complex cell with several functions? Or let's say that life here really did originate from inaminate organic goo. You could claim that that stuff is really made from stars or from something higher... Isn't arrogant to assume that only humans are made in God's image? Is what makes the Mona Lisa special only the eyes? Perhaps Evolution allows something truly unique whether it be humans, dolphins, or even aliens. It doesn't mean they all came from a different stock.
SC: Now we’re back into this infinite loop where you continually move the goalposts and and change definitions and infinitely restate things that have been disproven to you literally a half dozen times before on this very board. I’ll answer some points here for other readers but I know full well that in a week you’ll be back making the exact same claims, so bookmark this thread people and we’ll come back to it when he pretends for at least the 7th time that he didn’t know the things that will be pointed out to him, yet again, here. So you’re saying that you don’t believe that social science is really a science then? You said earlier that you believed archaeology was a science, but it’s a social science, so given that you clearly have a very non-traditional definition of science could be please be clear on what you do and don’t consider science? Apart from this, however, clearly most people believe that there is more we can know about ourselves and our world than can be discovered through studies limited to material things. And note that social sciences use rational, qualifiable, empirical and systemized studies and thought processes to reach their hypothesis and conclusions. Wonderful. And your point is? How does this relate to anything in this discussion? I’m not catching you point, unless you are trying to misrepresent what I’ve been saying … again. Of course the theory of vertical evolution has yet to present solid empirical evidence either. There is no dispute about that. So presumably you don’t consider it science either? It’s hard to follow your argument about scientific method when you apparently deny it’s validity in the social science context, and then hold it up in a situation where it has produced no solid empirical evidence to support a theory you appear to be supporting? This is convoluted to say the least. There is about as much empirical evidence for extraterrestrial influence as there is for vertical evolution. They are both highly speculative theories, but the nature of the problem suggests that they would be. There are not easy things to test and the time lines are long. So what exactly is your point? There is as much good science being used in each case. I don’t think any objective observer could deny that, and neither has anything to do with metaphysics. Back to the topic at hand, however, many things that were once considered metaphysics are now part of hard science. To dismiss metaphysics is to cut off huge growth areas for good science, but admittedly it is threatening to bad science and “normal” scientists, to use Kuhn’s term. I think Kuhn’s concept is what best describes your position. You say you’re prepared to think outside the box but really you just want to fill in the box. You don’t want to challenge your worldview in any way, in other words. You want to discover things that fit your worldview but you get very uncomfortable when something challenges the framework of the world you’ve constructed for yourself. And you appear to get very panicky when it’s challenged, perhaps leading to all these changing definitions and nonsense comments about scientific method? Hmmm… I thought we were talking about science and spirituality being part of the same whole, no? ID really has nothing to do with that discussion, but back to ID if you wish. Check that. I’m reading more misdirection about scientific method. See above for that discussion. I’ll just state one more time that there is about as much empirical evidence to suggest extraterrestrial interference as there is for vertical evolution. One theory is no more speculative than the other, so the argument about the use of scientific method is not germane to this discussion.
Again, you are crossing discussions. Either prove ID or disprove evolution. Yet again, you keep crossing the two together. If you disprove evolution, kudos to you. You win the Nobel Prize. None of us here said evolution is a fact, rather it has a lot of evidence backing it up and is the best scientific theory thus far. But you CAN'T prove ID because it's impossible. How will you prove God exists? The only thing you can do is use buzzwords like "irreducibly complex" or bash evolution. Typical.
Regardless, you have to respect his faith. I do, at any rate. Ultimately, it's what drives ID. I have the utmost respect for those of faith who have the courtesy, and open-mindedness, to respect my lack of it. I don't believe in ID, and I think there is a massive amount of evidence pointing towards evolution being the source of man. Having said that, a certain amount of faith is required of it as well, due to science still filling in the "missing links." And having said that, faith can come in many forms. My own father believed that the reason the missing links existed, and it is puzzling, was due to humanity being descended from space travelers, who were either stranded here, or decided to have a bit of fun with the planet we call Earth. Dad, as I've mentioned before, was a brilliant man and a department chair at a major Houston university for almost 30 years, who had a great depth of scientific knowledge. That's what he chose to believe, as crazy as it may sound to a lot of people. For me, it's no more crazy than intelligent design, but I'm a big science fiction fan. (is it any wonder?? ) Keep D&D Civil.
Did your father moonlight as a comic book writer? I think the next 50 years will be as exciting for biology as the last 50. Who would've seriously thought a chain of acids would be the information of life over the proteins and fat we eat everyday? In the last millenium, the major thought in biology was that genes were the end-all in mapping the functions of a body. Now scientists discover that millions of human functions are based on the blueprint of 20,000-50,000 or so genes with a near infinite combinations of proteins possible. That number of human genes is relative to the number a common fly has.... So what's in store for the future? One latest theory is that our bodies are conglomerations of several foreign bodies, such as bacteria and parasites, that mold particular functions into our systems. It's been postulated that the brain's increased function during adolecence gets help from parasites. (too lazy to Google). I mean one of the great advances in cell structure, eukaryotes, was made possible by the incorporation of mitochondias and chloroplasts (in plant or plantlike organisms) into larger cells. Using that idea, you can say that our DNA made a hull (body) for specialized cells to operate inside (such as bacteria living inside our intestines) AND manipulate (such as viruses along with other foreign agents). Our body would then be very similar to how a port functions and would mean that DNA (or RNA) is not the end-all in the Nature aspect of life. In fact, the Nature vs. Nurture debate could become a misnomer in the future. So much for the commonly held Central Dogma of molecular biology... Also, I think the only way for the missing link debate to be definitely resolved is if humans could live or witness a few million or so years and get some observations out of it. Yeah, so the average rate of these threads per year won't drop anytime soon...
Respect his faith? No. I respect many things, kindness, justice, intelligence, and truth, but faith is a dangerous thing. Faith has been used for great evil...and for great good I'll admit, but it's definitely not something that I respect by itself. Maybe faith and goodness or faith and kindness I'd respect, but faith by itself, I don't respect at all.
That is an ID theory Deckard. Your father believed in ID, but you should scan this thread to catch up on this “debate.” It’s something to behold. This guy and flamingmoe are a couple of the most extreme fundamentalists of any sort that I think I’ve ever come across. This post, for example is so unrelated to the discussion it’s as if he posted it in the wrong thread. Apparently in MM’s mind there is only one way to look at this issue, Darwinian Fundamentalism, as Gould called, something that Darwin himself opposed. (And note that this is discussed in this very thread.) Anything else is apparently not to be even considered. I don’t think I’ve actually seen him even address the issues in a single post, anywhere. I don’t think he’s even read the arguments. I’m sure he hasn’t read the article in this thread on Darwinian Fundamentalism. He literally has no idea what the issue is, and yet he calls his position the scientific one. Take this for example. Crossing discussion?! God only knows what he’s talking about. Prove ID?! ID of course is not even a single theory. It’s a general approach to a problem. Your father's beliefs represent one ID theory. This guy’s comments are so out to lunch it’s clear that he has no idea what he’s talking about, yet he’s been talking like this for weeks if not months on the subject! Apparently Darwin himself, Gould and I are all creationists because we even dare to question Darwinian Fundamentalism!? This would no doubt be amusing to Gould, who I’m sure was an atheist, but perhaps not so amusing to Darwin, whose theory MM and his band of like minded drones have hijacked. I’m amused, and somewhat dumfounded, as I have never once taken a creationist position on this argument. Not in this or any other thread. Yet to MM if you’re not marching in lockstep with his narrow point of view then you are apparently a creationist. Anything else, and I mean anything = creationism for him. And again, he calls his position the scientific one… These guys may be the least critical and least objective “thinkers” I’ve ever met, other than our gaggle of neocons that is, and these guys are very much like some kind of mutated mirror image of bigtexxx or TJ or basso. You’re either for or against their position. They don’t have a clue what any other positions are about. They literally don’t understand, and usually don’t even refer to, the issues others bring up. You’re either fer them or agin’ them, GWB style, and that’s the end of it. How's that for good science?
