If the Children of Israel Were Giant Squid

Hello Gabriel, you seem like a smart guy -- have you not read the subtitle of this blog? This is not a blog about science per se. It's about the worldview of the Hebrew Bible. Now there's obviously an overlap. That there *is* indeed such an overlap is part of my ongoing argument. I don't buy Stephen Jay Gould's NOMA concept. However, I do not offer original scientific arguments here. If that's what you want to read -- and if so, I applaud you -- then there are lots of resources available. I commend to you, for example, Stephen Meyer's new book "Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design," published just today by HarperOne. Here's a link: http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell-Evidence-Intelligent-Design/dp/0061472786/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245770758&sr=1-1

Ah, but if I recall from a previous comment you made, you don't feel you need to read new books. You've already got it all figured out. If so, I'm really not sure how in the world I can help you.

At any rate, David, arguing with you is pointless. You just repeat the very same thing in some other place as though the objection had never been made.

I assume you are waiting for your critics to get bored and go away.

You've never retracted or even acknowledged your absurd characterization of Hitler's viewpoints (how you thought you could get away with distorting the views of one of the most studied humans in history I don't know). You've never acknowledged or retracted your distortion of orthodox Jewish doctrine on the incorporeality of God. (You left out Maimonides!)

You will just move on to a new audience that hasn't heard the objections.

This is why I, and some of others of your critics, will continue to challenge you here and elsewhere.

Sigh. Gabriel, you really need to follow this issue a little more closely than you do before trying to weigh in and comment. ID doesn't entail God's existence, though it doesn't undercut belief either. Theistic evo does undercut key tenets of theistic belief. No one I work with is trying to mandate that ID be taught in the schools as a substitute for Darwinism. They are trying to make room for teachers who want to teach about the scientific shortcomings of Darwinism as well as about the scientific case for evolution. Darwinism has clear theological implications -- it undermines traditional religious belief. It's taught in the schools nevertheless, and that's fine. Why not allow both sides in the debate to be heard by students? Why limit the presentation to propaganda and indoctrination?

David, theistic evolution POSTULATES God. You didn't even attempt to prove that the postulate is incompatible with the conclusion--all you did was ridicule it--a Bible written for squids, how hilarious. And you ignored one of the most influential figures in Jewish theology who said the exact opposite of what you said.

ID, you claim, DOES NOT postulate God. Anything at all could have been designed in place of humans and their Bibles could be whatever.

How can you hold up a view that DOES NOT require God as superior, from a religious standpoint, to one that DOES, without contradiction?

You are arguing A in court and not-A here.

Are you lying to believers or to judges?

You and I both know you are lying to judges. You don't believe in "ID" any more than you believe in the Man in the Moon. You believe that the God of Abraham created the Universe basically just like it is now; furthermore you asserted in your "squid" posts that He could ONLY have done so in one way. He couldn't have made anything He pleased--He HAD to make humans as they are now, so they could write the Bible as it exists now. (That's a huge burden of proof you've taken upon yourself).

You just want a fig leaf, or a wedge, if you will, so that people who want to teach God in SCIENCE CLASS can have some legal pretence for doing so in spite of the Supreme Court's clear ruling on what does or does not constitute science.

Judges of course notice when you make arguments in one forum that are exact opposite of the arguments you make in another, as you discovered to your chagrin in Pennsylvania.

You will not get away with it.

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.

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.

Hahaha!