4 ms·

And the most irritating part about this is you mention ID. The most ironic part of ID is that it's not inconsistent with evolution. Evolution is just the mechan

And the most irritating part about this is you mention ID. The most ironic part of ID is that it's not inconsistent with evolution. Evolution is just the mechanism. It's well within human capacity to design evolving systems, so why couldn't an omniscient God do the same? And indeed, wouldn't this vastly simplify the process? I personally don't wish to add any power to the whole ID "debate". But the point you raise is one that I have often thought about myself. It's only that certain groups need to hold to the bible as the "inerrant word of God" (the earth is ~5000 years old, dinosaurs did not exist and obviously fossils were planted by God to test our faith, Adam was created first and then Eve from his rib bone etc.) that makes them fail to realise exactly this: Evolution could fit into their world view (slightly adjusted) as the mechanism put in place by their "intelligent designer".

KirinDave 18y ago
Right. What you have to understand is that ID isn't really what most of the vigorous ID proponents are really arguing for. What they're really arguing for is a literal interpretation of the english transliteration of the Bible, including a <10k yr old earth, genetic stasis, and biblical creation. That's why it's not enough to get the "whys" for an unverifiable non-scientific explanation like ID. The "Whats" are also equally important to these people. Evolution cannot be accepted because Evolution requires time on a scale that rejects a biblically literal timescale.
- jonny_noog 18y ago
  Indeed, I think everyone knows what ID is really about by now. The time scale issue is one that I have sometimes thought of in the same context though. To a person who does not see how any version of the Bible could be the inerrant word of God, it seems eminently possible that the units of time that have been translated as years could well actually be units of time that are much longer than years. But as we both say, this would of course mean that one would have to be open to the possibility that a text originally based on oral history, which has been translated into and out of who knows how many languages, subject to all manner of surreptitious political motivations in the process, over the course of thousands of years, may be subject to some inaccuracies.

KirinDave 18y ago

Right. What you have to understand is that ID isn't really what most of the vigorous ID proponents are really arguing for. What they're really arguing for is a literal interpretation of the english transliteration of the Bible, including a <10k yr old earth, genetic stasis, and biblical creation. That's why it's not enough to get the "whys" for an unverifiable non-scientific explanation like ID. The "Whats" are also equally important to these people. Evolution cannot be accepted because Evolution requires time on a scale that rejects a biblically literal timescale.

jonny_noog 18y ago
Indeed, I think everyone knows what ID is really about by now. The time scale issue is one that I have sometimes thought of in the same context though. To a person who does not see how any version of the Bible could be the inerrant word of God, it seems eminently possible that the units of time that have been translated as years could well actually be units of time that are much longer than years. But as we both say, this would of course mean that one would have to be open to the possibility that a text originally based on oral history, which has been translated into and out of who knows how many languages, subject to all manner of surreptitious political motivations in the process, over the course of thousands of years, may be subject to some inaccuracies.