fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3217 ]

[ SECRET POST #3217 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3217 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 064 secrets from Secret Submission Post #460.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

So when you say "intelligent design", do you mean "literal interpretation of a creation story that took place in six days and the earth is 6,000 years old" or do you mean "believing in a higher power who influenced the existence of life/the universe"? Because if it's the former, I kinda get where you're coming from, but if it's the latter, then I think you sound pompous and narrow-minded.

God's day isn't necessarily = to our 24 hour model.

Any which way you can twist it to justify it.

Found the atheist.

There's one in every pack! (Like the jokers, only more tedious.)

(no subject)

dethtoll - 2015-10-25 21:21 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-10-25 21:34 (UTC) - Expand

The irony is Creation Literalists would say the same thing.

Or you can just call it a metaphorical fable that teaches about morality. You know, like everything else in Genesis.

Actually a good chunk of Genesis is not necessarily about morality. Most of that comes later.

I think the whole concept of original sin kind of sticks out in peoples' minds as a signficant chunk.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-10-25 23:44 (UTC) - Expand

Some of Genesis.

John Calvin actually found the story of Joseph to be extremely worrying, since it basically involves a hero of the faith propping up a dictatorial regime that trades freedom for food. It's an interesting stance.

I read Fred Clark too. He's terrific, isn't he? :)

that...isn't contradictory to what I was saying?

like I personally am not really interested in trying to smush around the Genesis story to make it fit evolution, but if you want to do that, then go ahead I guess, you can make pretty much anything work if you're approaching it from a "God's time/God's rules" perspective. I personally see Genesis as being way more metaphorical. (Not in its entirety, even. I don't really buy into the whole "women are the downfall of man" line. More just the "God made the world" general theme. I'm not super fussed about the details.)

actually the Hebrew word for day in the genesis story is a literal 24 hour day.

Moses didn't equivocate on that one.

Pretty sure, in common usage, ID is specifically a theory that rejects basic points about the theory of evolution. Not just any view that includes God at some point along the way.

If it makes predictions about the state of the world, it enters the scientific arena as a hypothesis that can be proven false. It only stays out of science's domain if it's too broad to falsify.

eh, well if it is, then yeah. I thought it was more just "believes in a Creator who had some idea of what the final product* would look like" kind of thing.

*even "final product" is a weird phrase to use because we're all still evolving. but you get the idea

yeah, here's the thing: I am a scientist, through and through. I had a Creationist for a biology professor in college who was a jackass (he was tenured; I guess he didn't let them in on his beliefs until after he achieved tenure) and reserved his final lecture for teaching us all about Creationism. Not only that, but he put 10 questions on our final exam that were, I kid you not, e.g. "How long ago did God put the fossils under the Earth?" and "What was God's purpose in putting the fossils under the Earth?" (to test scientists' belief, in case you were wondering). Well, let's just say I got exactly 10 questions of the final exam wrong because I refused to answer that shit.

At the same time I was taking this biology class I was also taking an anthropological biology class taught by a terrific professor who wasn't a creationist, wasn't an ID scientist, was just a straight-up anthropological biologist. He taught me how DNA works. How it *evolved* into working. And I will tell you: learning how DNA evolved will make you more of a believer in somehow, some smart-as-fuck engineer having a hand in it somewhere, because that shit is too fucking sweet to just have happened. I mean, did you know that your own DNA has proofreading and error-correction during replication? That there are little enzymes produced just to prevent tangling of the divided strands during the replication process? Wut.

I do not believe in God. I do not believe in a higher power. But it sure is a touch of the awesome the DNA replication process came into existence and so, hence, evolution. How DNA evolved appears to be a natural process. Based on the three classes of ribonucleotide reductases (I, II and III) that have been discovered so far it appears to have evolved 3 separate times. So what does that mean? Either someone really, really thought it was a good idea, or Nature did. Either way, DNA is, literally, awesome enough for me. I don't need to look any deeper for ID.

I'm just gonna say I really like this comment for the most part, I'm sorry you had a shitty bio teacher, and I agree with your general worldview (except I do believe in God myself), but I'm not really sure what you're trying to say to me specifically; it started with "here's the thing" so it sounded like you were going to disagree with me? but you didn't really?

unless it's just about the meaning of "intelligent design" which is what I wasn't even sure about (people use it in different ways)

oh, sorry, I'm agreeing with you about the pompous and narrow-minded, saying yeah, here's why. :)

Gotcha!

(is that your dog in your icon??)

(no subject)

esteefee - 2015-10-26 21:24 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

diet_poison - 2015-10-27 16:20 (UTC) - Expand

I'm sorry about your biology professor. He sounds a bit backwards from a modern creationists thinking as, well, most modern creationists will tell you the fossil record was created by the flood.

Sure, the Bible says God created the earth mature and fully formed, that doesn't mean he buried fossils in it. It means more that it was a complete creation and didn't go through growing phases.

Your DNA story reminds me of the story about how Darwin admitted that there had to be some sort of intelligent design to the universe after examining an eyeball. I don't know how true the story is though.

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”

the tl;dr "Some might say the eye is too complex to evolve on its own and a God had to make it. But that's just because we're always learning new things and here's how to prove it was evolution by means of natural selection"

And people go "...the eye is too complex to evolve on its own and a God had to make it" SEE?!!?! HE BLEVED IN JEBUS AND NOT SCIENCE!!!!!

The point of the story about my biology professor was that I paid money for an education, not for his personal religious ideas that had no basis in science fact. The prof exploited his position. I received a more religious education when the scientist stuck to the science.

That's a mis-paraphrase of Darwin's quote you got there. He posits the question, then goes on to answer: the human eye did evolve, and here's how it possibly happened. What he posited has since been supported by lots of research into the evolution of eyes and sensory structures.

Also, I have to say, the human eye would be a very poor design, since it has a blind spot where the optic nerve leaves the retina. A much better design would be the squid eyeball, where the nerve fibers route around the retina altogether. So did the Designer make a mistake and then fix it in the squid in their experimenting, or did humans get the poorer design after the first squid was designed? Why? Both sets of eyes evolved from a long-long-ago (500 million years ago) patch of sensory cells we shared with our cephalopod ancestor. How come we got the squishy end of the cuttlefish?

I'm going with evolution. With an option of awe for the unbounded complexity of the universe.

"Intelligent Design" has a fairly specific meaning. "Believing in a higher power who influenced the existence of life/the universe" is Creationism. ID is the supposedly scientific argument that Creationism is real, except that the science is... well, not really there. So generally when someone says they believe in ID, they're not just saying they believe a god or deity created the universe, they're saying they believe believe a god or deity created the universe and that there is actual scientific and geological proof for it.

It's a fine, but significant distinction.

Fair enough. I think some people use them interchangeably. And I have a bit of a kneejerk reaction to people on sides (those who are atheists and those who are religious and believe evolution is wrong) being jackasses about it, so I wanted to be sure what was going on in the post exactly.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only