Revealed knowledge

| 53 Comments

53 Comments

So does the increasing popularity of ID mean we can we start using human beings as counter-examples of good design in Engineering classes now?

“I mean, that’d work better than just a hastily-modified monkey, right?”

LOL

Felber was obviously touched by “His Noodly Appendage.”

It’s a funny article and well illustrates an argument that many of the great unwashed, fundamentalist public out there will not be happy to hear.

Their typical reaction to such evidence is to blame horrors like the pain of childbirth on “The Fall” but it doesn’t wash. To do so doesn’t explain all of the human anatomical deficiencies mentioned in the referenced article (even as evolution points us towards many good explanations as to why human beings are built that way).

Perhaps they can claim that, post-Fall, God redesigned human beings–introducing the Mark II model, if you will, new and decidedly unimproved–in order to add a little pain and suffering into their lives as punishment for Eve’s little transgression?

IDists are always claiming that we can’t divine who the designer is or what his/her/its intentions were. Perhaps if the designer simply created DNA and then left the scene they could get away with that. But fundamentalists “know” who the designer is and that He created the world as we see it (or just about, anyway).

The results of his design are plain to see, they tell us. Fair enough, but maybe it’s time to start looking beyond all those cuddly Pandas, fluffy white clouds, and spectacular sunsets, and take a closer, less rose-tinted look at the results of his supposed design efforts.

If that happens, I think the IDists will begin to find that its getting little lonely in that big white tent of theirs.

Ahhh yes…the old “flawed design = no design” argument.

Let’s not worry about God until we have first agreed that there *is* an intelligent designer. Then we can ask ourselves why he/she/it designed things in the way we see: possibly for aesthetic reasons, possibly for amusement…who knows?

Life is how Man found God =TRUE Man is how Life found God =TRUE God is how Life found Man= TRUE Life is how God found Man =TRUE Man is how God found Life =TRUE God is how Man found Life= TRUE

oooh look no science (…behind the curtain the negative is TRUE at the same time QED God = pure metaphysics or any other magical thought that makes one feel, good or bad or ugly)

That is why we have ID …it appeals to atheists… yes even Calvinist’s.…except for one small problem tautology.…. and THAT is why the big tent want to fire their ass!

Let’s not worry about God until we have first agreed that there *is* an intelligent designer. Then we can ask ourselves why he/she/it designed things in the way we see: possibly for aesthetic reasons, possibly for amusement…who knows?

You missed the whole point of my post. Christian fundamentalists don’t want the “is there a designer” debate. For them, it’s pointless, it’s already over, done, finished. They know who it is, it’s God, end of discussion.

They don’t want some wishy-washy IDist dropping by and telling them to say “shh, don’t say anything, we don’t want those horrid atheistic scientists to know who the designer really is yet, or we’ll never get ID past them.” Hell, even the Answers In Genesis crowd can see how dishonest and dishonourable that is.

The last thing they need is even a vaguely “scientific” debate than would, without *any* doubt, quickly bring along with it some very difficult and unwelcome questions about the nature of God’s design philosophy.

Logan, you completely miss the point. The argument is that such flaws are easily accounted for within the framework of evolution while such flaws make little sense from an ID standpoint.

Indeed saying we should first agree on design reeks of distancing ID from science. Science works by modifying a hypothesis when challenged. Keeping the ID hypothesis so general despite an abundance of evidence to constrain it, just keeps ID from being science (i.e. testable). Strange strategy given that ID proponents insist ID is science.

According to Jewish traditions, which I believe the Church fathers accepted, the animals in the garden didn’t eat meat before the Fall. But if that’s true, why were lions and tigers equipped with such terrible claws and teeth and spiders and scorpions furnished with poison glands? To subdue the odd recalcitrant vegetable? Or was the fix in on Adam’s transgression?

According to Jewish traditions, which I believe the Church fathers accepted, the animals in the garden didn’t eat meat before the Fall.

Yep, most young-earth creationists still believe that today. The reasoning is that the Bible says there was no death in the world before “the Fall” (there’s that pesky incident with fruit again) so that must include all animal life too. (I’m assuming they believe that plant life doesn’t count, somehow.)

So… in order for a couple of verses in the Bible to be literally true, they must go way out of their way to construct the far-fetched hypothesis that all animals were once vegetarians. Maybe God’s Mark II downgrade included retrofitting fangs and claws suitable for carnivores on at least some of the animals. I guess the lions lucked out, to the detriment of zebras and antelope everywhere.

But, all are welcome in the big white tent… we’ll just sort through all those little inconveniences at a (much) later date.

According to Jewish traditions, which I believe the Church fathers accepted, the animals in the garden didn’t eat meat before the Fall. But if that’s true, why were lions and tigers equipped with such terrible claws and teeth and spiders and scorpions furnished with poison glands? To subdue the odd recalcitrant vegetable? Or was the fix in on Adam’s transgression?

Whatever one’s view as to the historical accuracy of the bible is, it seems rather clear to me that any reasonable conception of God would have wanted Adam and Eve to eat from the tree, and wanted Jesus to get nailed to the cross, and in fact had both of these events planned in full from the beginning. God certainly could have avoided either of these things entirely by merely lifting a finger– an all-powerful God could have prevented either event, an all-knowing God would have seen both events coming from a mile away. Since these events occurred apparently without God’s objection, the most obvious conclusion would be that they were in fact God’s will. You could try to phrase both these events as being tests of free will of some kind which mankind failed, but what would be the purpose? What possibly do you test by taking creatures which do not know the difference between right and wrong (they haven’t eaten the damn apples yet!) and seeing whether they follow a command? Of course they’ll disobey your orders; they don’t realize yet that disobeying your orders is wrong. Meanwhile, the crucifiction would seem, in retrospect, to be the entire purpose and validation of Jesus’ existence in the first place. How is Jesus meant to serve as the sacrifice which cleanses the sins of mankind if Pontias Pilate forgives him and he dies of old age in a lavish apartment in Jerusalem?

So if the Fall was God’s plan all along, then of course it would make sense for God to plan ahead and give predators big teeth and claws to begin with. This would at least make a lot more sense than the idea of forcing the Tigers to start out vegetarian would make in the first place, anyway; I mean, come on, it wasn’t the tigers or the rabbits who ate the damn fruit of knowledge, so why are they getting punished for it?

This is all of course just idle speculation, since it seems that most Christians, especially the ones of the diehard creationist kind, would be extremely loath to so much as consider the above possibilities. Which is really too bad, because all the really interesting theological questions seem to lie just beyond there. This ranges from the obvious question of “now why on earth did god do all that?” to more complex ones, for example: Who was Judas really working for, exactly? Or for that matter, whose will was Lucifer enacting in the Garden?

Just a thought ^_^

Just a minute there Andrew are you actually saying that the stories might be true ?

Wow, I hadn’t actually considered that.

I thought they said the designer was Intelligent!

Hey, mythology doesn’t need to be true to be interesting…

Don’t I know it The fun part is finding out what it really means I havn’t been able to chase this up yet but I heard Harold Bloom recons the OT was written by Women.

Bag of gravel please.

Posted by k.e. on November 27, 2005 04:17 AM (e) (s) … Bag of gravel please.

Would you be wanting a false beard with that?

hmmmmm ahh HMMMMMMM I didn’t say Jehova .…he did!

Posted by k.e. on November 27, 2005 10:00 AM (e) (s)

hmmmmm ahh HMMMMMMM I didn’t say Jehova .…he did!

IMO, One of the funniest films ever made. I seem to find something new every-time I watch it (or maybe something I forgot).

Brain (to the multitude): “You are all individuals”. Multitude (in unison): “We are all individuals”. Lone Voice: “I’m not”.

Classic!

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 15, column 2, byte 1218 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

Dang Then there is the ‘Count’ Dembski and his “TornadoTM” that sucked up Sal and his Pals in Kansas

Paper Tiger vs Straw-man indeed.

The Yahoo’s seem to have an Erie parallel to a certain youth group in the 1930’s complete with Jack Chick Propaganda just put a certain symbol on those kids– freaky

A Reading from the Book of Armaments, Chapter 4, Verses 16 to 20: The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch

Then did he raise on high the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, saying, “Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.” And the people did rejoice and did feast upon the lambs and toads and tree-sloths and fruit-bats and orangutans and breakfast cereals … Now did the Lord say, “First thou pullest the Holy Pin. Then thou must count to three. Three shall be the number of the counting and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count two, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the number of the counting, be reached, then lobbest thou the Holy Hand Grenade in the direction of thine foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.”

– Monty Python, “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”

Posted by k.e. on November 27, 2005 11:06 AM (e) (s)

Dang.…

Holy Grail very is funny, but not a patch on Brian.

BTW My favourite line in your quote is.… “blow thine enemies to tiny bits; in thy mercy”

Oops going way off topic…we will be reprimanded. But I can’t help myself with Monty Python.

MP is a definite help in debates like this. Thats the crazy irony of ID we didn’t have to use “THE ULTIMATE WEAPON The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch” Bwhwhahahha Well maybe on Sal but he seems to be doing a good job of blowing himself up. I still remember bits of the original series… priceless. Remember the Aliens at the end of TLOB - oorrrr your a lucky bugger.

Hermit:”15 years I haven’t said a word; then he comes along”. Crowd:”A miracle”! Hermit:”No it isn’t”. Crowd:”Blasphemer”!

ROFLMAFO I have to see that again. Sermon on the mount, put yourself there.Wind …no sound system. Brian: Blessed Are The Peace Makers Cleese: What did he say? Disinterested Bystander;Oh… I think he said Blessed are the Cheese Makers. Cleese:confused Blessed are the …Cheese… Makers? Now if that isn’t ID I don’t know what is.

To set the record straight:

Jewish tradition and a literal reading of the original Hebrew Bible simply states that God originally tendered permission to humankind to eat plants and fruits, but witheld permission for them to kill other creatures for food. Since the world belongs to God, witholding permission is tantamount to prohibition. So it’s not that humans couldn’t eat animals, they were forbidden to. This prohibition was lifted by God after the flood. Lions and tigers and other animals were always permitted to eat other animals.

Adam and Eve are nowhere in the original Hebrew Bible described as the first homo sapiens or human beings. A lot of confusion in this regard flows from the fact that the Hebrew word AUDUM sometimes refers to humankind, sometimes to man (as opposed to woman) and other times to Adam, the name of an individual. And in Genesis the word shifts meaning according to the context but many translations (including the KJV) are not sophisticated enough to pick up on these nuances.

Bottom line: All the silly questions about why, according to the Bible, do tigers have claws (to subdue the vegetables, ha, ha) are just that, silliness based on ignorance.

For a more complete discussion of the correct translation of the original Hebrew Bible, see such books as: IN THE BEGINNING OF by Judah Landa, or THE FIVE BOOKS OF MOSES by Robert Alter.

I predict that the good Rev Dr will pop up within ten minutes to inform everybody that I was the editor and work for the publisher of Landa’s book. That is correct. That doesn’t however change a thing about the points I made.

My guess is that Mr. Felber gained his insight by asking the vessel by which the Intelligent Designer communicates with his designs. I speak, of course, of Pat Robertson! Pat relayed this account and then declared a Patwah against anyone who doubted it.

Gee, Carol, thanks for the shilling.

Has anyone out there actually bought a copy of Carol’s Favorite Book? or is she just wasting time (hers and ours) by continually shilling for it?

a literal reading of the original Hebrew Bible

Q1: How many people on earth are fluent in “original Hebrew” and how many of these people have actually read the oldest known copy of the book of Genesis?

Q2: Why should anyone believe what these people claim the “original Hebrew” says when it is translated “literally” into English?

Q3: Does God drive a stick or an automatic?

A1: 3 A2: Because they have the bible to back them up. A3: God uses a segway.

Tiax I think Carol’s “Version of godTM” would not know how to drive anything but a black hole.

A3: God uses a segway.

According to Felber’s article, it’s a Chevy. Can you do a burnout with a Segway?

I can tell you one thing for sure he wouldn’t walk on water- except in the metaphorical sense.

Registered User,

A1: A few million folks, the same people who cherished the document (the so called “old” testament) for millenia, then allowed the world to have a look. The world then promptly proceeded to distort and misunderstand it.

A2: Because any original is always more authentic than a translation and this is even more poignantly the case with translations from ancient languages, particularly Hebrew, Aramaic and other Semitic tounges. There also are other reasons.

A3: He rides a chariot.

Sure she does Carol and wears a dress (giggle) Smite me !

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 5, column 1, byte 162 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

A3: God uses a segway.

According to Felber’s article, it’s a Chevy. Can you do a burnout with a Segway?

God can do a burnout in a segway if He wants to. Also, his segway has spinners. It’s pretty hot.

Biblically speaking, God rides around in clouds. See Psalms 68:4, Isiah 19:1. Of course, ‘clouds’ is just a mistranslation of the hebrew. Segway is the correct translation.

Ignore the above, I used the wrong kind of slash to close a tag.

Carol:

A1: Noone speaks ‘Old Hebrew’, just like noone ‘speaks Latin’. It is a dead language. They might say they do, but all it will be is a non-native version of the language. This means that subtle constructions and some words may be lost on the translator forever. As translators, they must therefore fail, no matter their capability. Then there is the fact that the Bible was written by a man. A fallible man. Ergo, the word of God must be distilled through the errant words of this man. God may have initially written it, but there are so many stylistic differences across the board -not to mention contradictions in content some have already noted- that it is truly impossible to tell which words are truly his, no doubt.

A2: This is true, as far as translations being less valuable than the original. However, your claim that ancient languages are more difficult to translate than modern languages is bogus. Every language is as difficult to translate as the other if there is no relationship between one and the other. For example, Classic Hebrew would translate reasonably or even very well into Hebrew, less well into Arabic and quite poorly into Chinese. But ‘untranslatable’ does not exist. You are right in saying that it is a dead language and therefore harder to translate. But you should stretch this to ‘impossible’, because like I said, you don’t speak classical Hebrew at all. And the really poignant thing is, noone does, by definition.

So tell me again, why should we trust your translation?

Who is this Mr. Noone? Never heard of him.

I second the call for Carol to say why her interpretation.. eh.. translation.. eh.. misrepresentation is divine (bovine) and all the others are pure BS.

A3: He rides a chariot.

Nope, it is an intelligently designed super charged donkey with GPS and a bag containing the marbles that you have lost.

Edin,

You are quite wrong on a few counts. There are millions of people who are fluent with ANCIENT Hebrew, millions more with modern Hebrew. Even if some folks do not speak ancient Hebrew on a daily basis, they are still “fluent” in it if they spend years of their lives studying it and speaking it in their studies and scholarly pursuits and quote from it on an almost daily basis. And but for the new, added words, modern Hebrew is certainly closest to ancient Hebrew than any other language. This makes the modern Hebrew speakers most qualified to translate the ancient Hebrew. Finally, most of the mistranslations in the KJV are not defensible - they are clear cut cases of sloppy translations according to all scholars of the language.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 1, column 58, byte 58 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

Carol, is it possible that Judah made mistakes in his book, that there are errors and false assumptions? Is it possible that your interpretations are wrong?

Carol,

Oh, I am pretty sure there are millions who are fluent in Classical Hebrew. Fluency is however not in any case comparable to nativity. I am not a native speaker of English and can never claim to be. I speak Dutch and Serbocroatian natively, and that would show. However, I can claim fluency in many more languages, including two dead ones (Latin and Gothic) one imaginary one (Blast you, Tolkien! :) and English. This would also show as a tangible difference in how I speak or read these languages in comparison to my native language.

This difference is rather negligible when living languages are concerned. If a question on the interpreconstruction arises, you can go out and ask a native toexplain it for you. Unwitting mistakes will still be made but they will be no more than slight nuisances that could only be discerned by native speakers. Howewever, when doing dead languages, any questions on constructions or interpretations of words will have to be based on deduction. And what’s more, it will not even be direct deduction beause nowhere will a native speaker in 2000 BC start writing a dictionary where he will explain away all the constructions and forms he uses. We have only one example of such an enlightened person and he (probably) predates many parts of the old testament. His name is Panini and he is an Indian writer somewhere around 1000 BC (we are not sure), he explains the Veda.

The controversy around the interpretation of ‘yom’ in genesis 1 is a good example to me. You claim interpretation of ‘era’ because yom is translated as ‘era’ in many other contexts. But the cold truth is you do not KNOW what these contexts are, and whether one interpretation is admissible for one but inadmissable for the other. Fluency can make you guess well, but with dead languages, there is never something even remotely close of ‘sureness’. Therefore, any interpretation the ‘fluent’ make can never help or discredit the inerrancy of the Bible. To be blunt, the more they study it, the closer they’ll get, but they’ll never fully understand.

If you do not believe this, I could point you to many linguistic studies which show the great rift between native and ‘fluent’ speakers.

Renier,

It is not only possible that Judah did as much, it is highly improbable that he didn’t.

http://www.bibleorigins.net/YahwehYawUgarit.html

There is even much evidence that the Hebrew religion came from another previous religion, surprise, surprise!

Carol Here is a good example of how interpretations can be flawed.

The Rabbi’s Gift

You and your friend’s Literal and purely objectivist stance in my opinion cuts you off from the story behind the text.

The Fundamentalist mindset the has resurfaced here time after time all suffer from a complete and utter blindness to the real beauty behind the text. Nabokov identified the Fundamentalist guilt.… no prizes for guessing what the book title is.

“Objectivist History”- look it up …is great if you can dig up enough facts and even then the views will be colored - she who writes history makes history in the image of her own mind.

The Old Testament is the imagined history of the Jewish people you need imagination to interpret it, not a bag of facts no matter what you SAY Carol.

Have a look at this link. It explains the limitations of your method in a neutral environment.

I hope it helps. “ The Indian poet and philosopher A.K. Ramanujan, sees the West’s focus on the text despite its context, as being biased to a ‘context free’ hermeneutic”

The Unlimited Word beyond the textual word.

efin Kw&*^%

http://www.multifaithnet.org/mfc-pages.asp?ID=13

OK Go to page above & scroll down to

Resisting the myth of finality: Hermeneutics, Nonduality and the Japji

Rocky - great link Finally some real religion not buckets of dusty letters from the underworld of cc’s mind.

You are quite wrong on a few counts. There are millions of people who are fluent with ANCIENT Hebrew, millions more with modern Hebrew. Even if some folks do not speak ancient Hebrew on a daily basis, they are still “fluent” in it if they spend years of their lives studying it and speaking it in their studies and scholarly pursuits and quote from it on an almost daily basis. And but for the new, added words, modern Hebrew is certainly closest to ancient Hebrew than any other language. This makes the modern Hebrew speakers most qualified to translate the ancient Hebrew. Finally, most of the mistranslations in the KJV are not defensible - they are clear cut cases of sloppy translations according to all scholars of the language.

How dreadful.

Why, again, are Judah Landa’s interpretations any more authoritative or divine than anyone else’s? Other than his (and your) say-so?

There are zillions of Biblical scholars, all saying different things. Why is that? And how do we tell which is the True and Corect One™(c) and which isn’t?

Or do you jsut want us all to take Judah Landa’s word for it.

Lenny. please refrain from using the full name (JL) for Carol’s hero. I think she is only here to get the google rating up.… just think of all the peddling…

Edin Najetovic You speak old Goth? That’s very impressive. Is it possible that I may contact you somehow? I have great interest in the late roman era and the transition period into the dark ages.

Renier,

Well, not so much speak as read. There is no speaking a dead language, really ;) But yes, I read gutisk pretty well. It was a subject I had to do some research on trying to discern the syntax of dead languages. I failed, mostly, but at least I now do more languages!

You can contact me of course, if you wish, but you should know that the extent of Gothic writing that survives to this day is no more than a handful of bible translations. I assume that, given your name, your interest is in the Visigoths of Toulouse mainly? By all means, contact me at enajetovic (at) hotmail.com, but I don’t think I’ll be of much use to you.

God is perfect,so his creation,Adam, was perfect, with a perfect free will, how could Adam have sinned?If Adam did sin, why am I being punished for it,does that make sense to anyone? Yom must mean a definite 24 hour period,if a day is an era then much of the Old Testament becomes chaotic,if God rested on the 7th day is he still resting?

Good point JONBOY.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PZ Myers published on November 26, 2005 6:09 PM.

Call for links for the Tangled Bank was the previous entry in this blog.

2nd KU class denies status of science to design theory is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter