Intelligent Design, but is God Smart Enough?

Guy Threepwood said:

I agree entirely, and by which definition, the maintenance man at my school who employed some fairly tricky physics and chemistry to keep everything running, was a true scientist. While the physics teacher who simply read from books, was not.

I'm glad we agree, but you run into many people who insist that the label 'scientist' should explicitly be restricted to someone with official academic credentials, regardless of demonstrable achievements


Similarly we have no doubt that the Wright brothers, Edison, Gates employed the method- even though they were not labelled scientists, because there are demonstrable results.

But do you think those actual academic 'scientists' by profession that believed in phrenology, eugenics, Piltdown man, were rigorously employing the scientific method? or was something quite different guiding their far more authoritative academic opinions? It's debatable at the very least

Click to expand...

That's what makes the scientific method so wonderful. Fallible individual scientists who may have an agenda or bias are eventually exposed.

Hockeycowboy said:

Evide


Evidently, he's real smart:

Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code | UW News


This discovery is 4 years old, but it certainly hasn't been highlighted. I wonder why? Too much implied design? Hard to explain how it originated by chance?

Click to expand...

If it were proven life on earth was designed, I wouldn't automatically credit a mythical being dreamed up by ancient superstitious men with doing it. All we would know at that point was that "something" designed the life we see on earth. Even then, life may have started forming before they showed up and they modified what was already there.

QuestioningMind said:

That's what makes the scientific method so wonderful. Fallible individual scientists who may have an agenda or bias are eventually exposed.

Click to expand...

Very true, like Hoyle, who mocked and rejected the primeval atom as 'religious pseudoscience' and 'big bang' for it's theistic implications.

Dawkins isn't doing so great in scientific credibility either!

Hockeycowboy said:

Evide


Evidently, he's real smart:

Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code | UW News


This discovery is 4 years old, but it certainly hasn't been highlighted. I wonder why? Too much implied design? Hard to explain how it originated by chance?

Click to expand...

There is only one way we know of by which digital information systems like these are created, and it's not by chance. Not to say chance is impossible, but it strains credulity for most.

@Ingledsva :

Regarding Deuteronomy 22, you should consider the context, not just those two verses.

The previous verses stated a woman 'should scream', if it was indeed rape.

Vss 28,29 is about seduction of a virgin. As what Shechem did with Dinah, in Genesis 34:2-6. (It wasn't violent rape; if it had been, she would've run away, and Shechem would not have been able to 'speak persuasively' to her.)

Back then, as it should be today, conduct like that was considered defiling.

I will post an article on the subject soon.

The Law here really illustrates God's concern, not heartlessness.

That's why I've said before, these words are thousands of years old (the words were no different than what we have today), and people in the past almost always recognized them as coming from a God of Love, not cruelty. As with Newton, Boyle, Keppler, Milton, and other educated men. So, perhaps the interpretation that you and other skeptics promote, is inaccurate?

As I said, I will post an article with further information and reasoning on the subject soon.

Hockeycowboy said:

@Ingledsva :

Regarding Deuteronomy 22, you should consider the context, not just those two verses.

The previous verses stated a woman 'should scream', if it was indeed rape.

Vss 28,29 is about seduction of a virgin. As what Shechem did with Dinah, in Genesis 34:2-6. (It wasn't violent rape; if it had been, she would've run away, and Shechem would not have been able to 'speak persuasively' to her.)

Back then, as it should be today, conduct like that was considered defiling.

I will post an article on the subject soon.

The Law here really illustrates God's concern, not heartlessness.

That's why I've said before, these words are thousands of years old (the words were no different than what we have today), and people in the past almost always recognized them as coming from a God of Love, not cruelty. As with Newton, Boyle, Keppler, Milton, and other educated men. So, perhaps the interpretation that you and other skeptics promote, is inaccurate?

As I said, I will post an article with further information and reasoning on the subject soon.

Click to expand...

Next time reply to the post so I don't have to search for the context.

Deu 22:28 And if a man catch a young girl that is bethulah/virgin, and not betrothed, and taphas/seize/capture/use unwarrantably for sex/ravish her before they be found;

Deu 22:29 Then shall handover, the man that ravished, to the father of the young girl/naarah fifty shekels of silver, and the female in-lew-of that, because he anah/humbled/defiled/ her, never shall be sent away in all his days.

These below show anah - humbled her means sex against her will, rape.

"2 -This argument however is incorrect. First it denies the fact that a female captive would be forced into marriage by her captor [ which is equal to rape ] 3 . Secondly this argument is based on an inaccurate or non- literal translation of the Hebrew text in v. 11. A literal translation of the text reads: [ v. 11 ] “…and hast seen in the captivity a woman of fair form, “and hast delighted in her” , and hast taken.to.thee.for.a.wife…”.

[.Young’s.Literal.Translation.]

A literal translation of the Hebrew text reveals us that the biblical warrior “enjoyed” the captive woman. The expression “and hast delighted in her” is a reference to sexual intercourse by force. The renown Bible scholar Mathew Poole confirms this view. In his commentary on v. 11 Poole writes: 11.... “hast taken delight in her” ; which may be a modest expression for lying with her, and seems probable, because it is said, ver. 14 “that he had humbled her”, to wit, by military insolence, when he took her captive, not after he had married her, for then he would have expressed it thus, “because thou hast married her”, which had been more emphatical than to say, “because thou hast humbled her” 4

Let us take a look again at Deut. 21:14: “….And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou.hast humbled..her…..” [.“initah”.from.the.root.“anah”.] The Hebrew verb “anah” which is often translated as “humbled her” in this verse [ v. 14 ] describes the harm done to the captive woman after the warrior “hast taken delight in her” [ enjoyed her by sexual intercourse ]. Classical reference books indicate that the verb “anah” signifies and act of violence. For example, the concordance of Madelkern offered the Latin equivalent “opprimere, vin affere” 5 , which refers to violent and oppressive action. 6 Francis Brown, S.R. driver, and Charles A. Briggs translated the verb as ”1. humble, mishandle, afflict ; 2. humble a woman by cohabitation 3. afflict ; 4. humble, weaken“. 7 Wilhelm Gesenius translated the verb as “to weaken a woman through rape”. 8 Therefore the use of the verb “anah” in Deuteronomy 21:14 shows us that biblical law permits a warrior to “mishandle” , “opress” or “humiliate” his gentile female captive. The use of the verb “anah” to describe the harm done to the woman after the warrior “hast taken delight in her” [ enjoyed her by intercourse, v. 11 ] points out that the woman was raped by the warrior. 9"

4: Matthew Poole's Commentary on the Holy Bible, vol. 1: Genesis- Job ( Hendrickson Publishers 1985 ) p. 376

5: Solomon Mandelkern, “Veteris Testamenti Concordantiae Hebraicae atque Chaldaicae” ( Tel Aviv: Schocken.,.1967.).,.p..902

6: P.G.W. Glare, ed. , Oxford Latin Dictionary, vol. 2 ( Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press 1973 ) , p. 1257: “opprimo”

7: no. 1-7;. P.G.W..Glare, Oxford Latin Dictionary, vol. 1 ( Oxford, Clarendon Press 1968 ) p.78: “affero” , no. 9

7: Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, eds. , “Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, based on the Lexicon of William Gesenius” ( Oxford: Oxford University press, 1951 ) , p. 776

8: Wilhelm Gesenius, “Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament( Berlin: Springer,.1962.).,.p..604:.“ein.Weib.schwächen,.durch.Notzucht”.

"“Humbled her.” That is, changed her status. There is an advancement in thought. First he took her, that is sent his men to fetch her, and then he raped her. And the final result was that she was ‘humbled’ and lost her status. She was morally and socially degraded and lost the expectancy of a fully valid marriage. No act to a woman of Dinah’s status could have been more cruel. We must recognize this when we consider the passage." Genesis 34 Commentary - Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible
*