If the post-larval juvenile squid of Israel were taken captive by their natural predators and sent into exile in a marine Babylon, perhaps they would sing this lament -- if they could sing underwater. When discussing evolution, Dr. Collins is known to enjoy taking a break to strum a guitar and sing inspiring hymns. Too bad this would likely not work with stalk-mounted suction cups:
Psalm 137
In the oceans of Babylon, there we jetted, yea, we discharged ink, when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps over our mantles and swimming fins in the midst thereof. For there, at depths greater than 300 meters, they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that preyed upon us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How shall we sing the LORD's song in a strange sea? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right tentacle forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue with its arrangement of small, file-sharp teeth cleave to the roof of my parrot-like beak; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy, namely fish, shrimp, and other squid. Remember, O LORD, the pods of the Sperm Whale in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Bite it, eat it, even to the foundation thereof. O cetaceans of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy calf into our eight arms, two long tentacles, and serrated sucker rings.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
David: Purportedly religion-friendly Darwinists like genome scientist Francis Collins....
Another one of your subtle rhetorical tics--calling into question the bona fides of Collins et al. by using "purportedly" and then using "Darwinism" as if to indicate an ideology and to imply deceit. It's almost like saying, "Purportedly Christian atheists...."
ID doesn't entail God's existence, though it doesn't undercut belief either.
I'm inclined to think that most of the ID people are using ID as a backdoor way to push Christianity (Wedge Strategy, anyone?). However, suppose you're right, and suppose ID were universally accepted tomorrow. Then it's a free-for-all between Gnostics (who think the Designer is evil), proponents of aliens from Alpha Centauri (as Behe suggested), etc. Judaism and Christianity wouldn't necessarily win out, would they? In fact, without prior theological commitments, one might say that ID makes the Demiurge more likely, since it's hard to see why a benevolent Creator would set up ichneuomonid wasps the way they are (as Darwin himself noted).
Theistic evo does undercut key tenets of theistic belief.
No, it doesn't, and you have not yet demonstrated how it does.
Darwinism has clear theological implications -- it undermines traditional religious belief.
1. To consistently use the term "Darwinism" is a rhetorical trick by which you attempt to turn a well-established scientific consensus into an ideology or religious analogue. Several of us have pointed this out before.
2. Evolution has no theological implications beyond indicating that naive Biblical literalism (which you claim not to hold) is not possible.
I notice that several posters pointed out on the last thread, from Jewish as well as Christian sources, that the "image and likeness" of God is not to be understood in a physical way (as even you began by saying). So, had it suited God to do so, why couldn't he have made squid intelligent?
On the other hand, are you implying that if intelligent life exists elsewhere in the cosmos that it must look like us, and couldn't be, say, intelligent squid, since tzelem by your confused and contradictory reading seems to mean "having the physical form of an incorporeal God"? A response would be appreciated.
Why no, it only entails a god-like being who is utterly inscrutable and beyond investigation. The designer can create an entire universe, and follows no rules, except, oddly enough, those of evolution--which is okay, because IDists always refuse to deal with such facts and only assume that a god-like being can choose to do anything for any reason or no reason at all.
How could anyone ever suppose that such a being is god? Only those evil atheists, and the theistic evolutionists who are always disparaged as lackeys of the atheists. The curs.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Bruce Chapman (June 24, 2009 3:17 AM) "The satire is hilarious and spot-on."
Mr. Chapman's sense of humor, like most creatioonists', could use some work.
If the Children of Israel were giant squid, then we would have no trouble making arguments like "on one hand...", "on the other hand...", "and on another hand..."
Hahaha!
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.