« Jan. 30, 2008 | Main | Feb. 1, 2008 »

January 31, 2008



"when people of faith use sacred writ as a scientific textbook it gets them into trouble almost every time"

No, the Bible is not a scientific textbook. But if the Bible is what is claims to be, "every little bit of the whole" of it inspired by God, and it is not scientifically (as well as historically) accurate, then it really is worthless, for it was either not inspired by God, or the God that inspired it is insufficiently knowing and powerful enough to get it right. If God expects us to trust His Word in matters of faith, we have to be able to trust His Word period. And the truth is, we can. Archaeology continues to verify rather than contradict the history given in the Bible. And science is in the process of showing the truth of the Bible as well.

Agent xxx

NOw whose side is it that Bill is on? Would someone tell me again?

Agent xxx

The beliefs Bill describes could be described as dangerous.

What would an ATHIEST do with such people, being as ATHEISTS are all peaceloving and for life?

Well, a leading atheist is SAM HARRIS, who wrote The End of Faith. They pushed his book for a while at THE COMMUNITY OF REASON, a local atheist CELL.

Sam says, "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to KILL PEOPLE for BELIEVING them.". (p 52-53)

So there you have it, a leading athesit says it is ethical to kill people for what they BELIEVE. Not just their actions, mind you, but their BELIEFS.

And who is to determine what beliefs are best? The ATHEISITS of course...after all, Christians are DELUSIONAL ANIMALS.

So draw your own conclusions.

AGent xxx

And when people try to draw ethical conclusions from scientific theories, which are provsional and subject to change anyway, you end up with Social Darwinists, Eugenics, genetics experimentation, extermination in mass, death camps, abortion, killing of old people, etc. etc.

After all, scientists don't hesitate to keep filling the world with WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION.

Only evil people would keep putting such weapons in the hands of waring gangs.

Who ya kiddin?

Dave Miller

Wish I had more time for comments today. The NAS publication misses the mark, I believe, by conflating creationism and ID. The former is based on using the Bible as a science textbook, while the latter isn't. I wish the press could get this straight. (I believe the NAS authors actually know better.)


The NAS publicity brochure seems to me to be addressing one central theme: that creationism and attendant philosophies do not belong in the science classroom. The reason is simple. They are not science.

That's quite different from saying that creationism or ID is wrong or in error. It is simply noting that neither falls into the realm of science, but rather, function as religious philosophies. In the case of ID, it is a nature philosophy contrived to support creationism and religion. ID is not a science.

All this by way of saying that I disagree with you as to the mistake of conflating ID with creationism, Dave. They are both in the same ballpark.

The most important thing to take away from discussions of evolution is the simple fact that it is the basis of modern biology. If American school children are to be competitive and educated in this science, then they need to have the knowledge. It deserves to be given its prominent and respected role in the science classroom. Creationism, ID, and other philosophies designed to obfuscate its science, belong in the church or philosophy classroom.

I've recommended this film before as an excellent teaching tool on the issue: "Flock of Dodos". http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800334/ And you might be surprised to learn that it's not only the ID advocates and creationists who get associated with the dodo. The scientists do, too.


Patricia, you're back! I hope all is well with you.

Of course, I have to jump right in here and disagree with you. First of all with the contention that ID is not science - it is in every way that evolution is, and is not in every way that evolution is not.

Further, you say, "The most important thing to take away from discussions of evolution is the simple fact that it is the basis of modern biology." But that is really not true. Here's a quick little read to rebut that: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions04.html. Something of a summary quote from it is, "if all references to Darwinism suddenly disappeared, biology would remain substantially unchanged."


"But if the Bible is what is claims to be, "every little bit of the whole" of it inspired by God, and it is not scientifically (as well as historically) accurate, then it really is worthless, for it was either not inspired by God, or the God that inspired it is insufficiently knowing and powerful enough to get it right."

This is an interesting point. For the Bible to be scientifically and historically accurate, it has to be confirmed by other scientific and historical sources. In this way it sounds like it's on the same level as other scientific and historical sources.

In my mind, the Bible is in a different category than historical and scientific sources.

Science and history are not the only means for conveying truth, IMHO. I believe that poetry and literature also convey truth. However, the truth of these genres is confirmed by the readers' resonance with them, not by scientific and historical sources. Flanner O'Connor writes about truth, IMO, but in a much different way than the NAS does. You can decide who is more "inspired."

Pythagoreans believed that God revealed himself--and continues to reveal himself--in math and science. The Bible, though, claims that God was revealed--and continues to reveal himself--in literature, namely, the Bible.

Rabble Rouser

Patricia is back! And Iggy says he will start ignoring us tommorrow!

How convenient, "Patricia".

Rabble Rouser

Patricia, you going to keep an eye our our IPs for us? (chuckle)


Thank you for the welcome, PDJ. Nice to be "disagreeing with you again".

"ID is not science - it is in every way that evolution is,"

The majority of scientists tell us that it is not science because it does not follow the steps of theoretical proof that the discipline requires. The pamphlets goes through some of the flaws in its scientific logic.

Again, that doesn't mean that ID doesn't fulfill the requirements of being a nature philosophy and one that minor scientists and religious followers want to consider.

Like it or not, the standards of science must be designed by the most respected scientists. With all due respect, your website link was not designed by same. The most important and respected biologists and geneticists insist that evolution is the basis of modern biology work and theory.

It really becomes a question of whether or not religious philosophers and adherents are the proper people to determine the standards of the work of specialists in their field and apply their layman beliefs and judgments to the field.

Dolores Lear

I received an e-mail today, that they have finally, found chariot remains and human bones in the red sea.

Also on Bill's referral above, 'a commentary, I posted about the 6 Days of Creation, as 6000 years of High Tech Colonization. A wait is necessary, as they review comments, so do not know yet, if it will post or not.

We do know how to Colonize a planet today, supernaturally, by High Tech Science, and how to reproduce, supernaturally, by High Tech Science. That is how Life on Earth started, not by Evolution. The Gods that walked and talked and looked like Humans, were Pure-bred Humans.

The GOD that made the elements that Humans are made of, is not Known, and could not be a Human, before the Elements and Universes were made, that make Humans.

Jesus is also called God, as the Son of God. If you have seen Pure-bred Jesus, you have seen the God of Life on Planet Earth, our Pure-bred High Tech Human Ancestors.

Our Asexual Brother/Sister Clone Ancestors and Jesus, do have Peace, and Eternal Physical Life After Birth, on Planets and in spaceships.


Iggy, your assumption that those names refer to people actually working at those places is flawed.

Further, it does not account for breaks, etc. You simply don't have enough facts, and you are making baseless accusations.

Good to know you are watching peoples IPs though.

Thanks to BILL TAMMEUS for making sure you have this information.

Hey, everybody, why don't you all thank BILL for giving IGGY and Patricia the opportunity to police the blot.


Further, for all we know you are using some kind of proxy server to make those visits. After all, hardly any of them have posted that I can tell.

Is that the best ya gotta, succa?

Keith, a Jewish Blogger

When proponents of ID embrace the closing scene of the movie, "Men in Black," as a viable theory, I'll believe it's a scientific rather than a theological movement.

Silly me, I'm still pondering what kind of intelligence designed Alzheimer's.

I can't agree with you on this one, Dave, but it's good to see you posting!


Its really eating at IGGY that someonw in bis own group is feeding us info.

It gives me a chuckle to seem him so obsessed,



At modnite IGGY is going to RUN AWAY! (He is calling it ignoring us, but what he is really saying is that he knows his two month hate has failed, and he has to get out!)



There are many reasons for the current propensity to place science and religion at odds with each other and lots to discuss, but RichB you touched on an important one- the (I think) odd agreement of some Christians in accepting the materialist view that "science" is the most important thing and even the only thing that matters. It is the idea that the world is "nothing but" what science can prove. And as RichB rightly pointed out there is much more to the world than "science".

Part of what needs to be addressed in science and religion discussions has to do with the topic of Biblical interpretation. For Christians (including this one) the Bible is the written Word and is our world view orienting text. As John Calvin and others have pointed out, God comes to us, is revealed to us, in ways that we can understand. God accomodates God's self to us and our limitations. The first hearers of the early stories in Genesis lived in a pre science world, no telescopes, no satellites,no calculus, no DNA technology and so on. So one doesn't need science to understand the story. Because (in my opinion-and others) the story isn't about the "nuts and bolts" of how the universe got here, the creation; the story is about the creator and who that is and what that creator is like. It is a wonderful, powerful statement of faith, not science.
This is a long post, sorry, I will get off my soap box now :)

Mary Behr

Re: Phil Elias article. As Bill suggested, the comments at the end were most interesting. I found it refreshing that the commenters did not devolve into bickering and sarcastic backbiting. Stuck to the subject and brought out serious questions. Mr. Elias answers also were respectful. I found SOME comments in this blog today fit into that category as well. Now that does not distract with irrelevant trivialities. I'll pass the article on to my scientist son. He will have some intelligent input to educate me further.

Dolores Lear

People handed down their writings, usually by religion, and called it supernatural Gods that walked and talked like Humans. Natives today, think Humans that they come in contact with, that fly in airplanes or ballons, are Gods also.

Now we are like the Gods of religion. We do know how to Colonize a planet, like Earth was Colonized. We do know how to reproduce Humans without the Sex Act, in the lab. With a High Tech Womb, could reproduce them without Body Birth. So supernatural creation, and reproduction of humans and all Life, is not a mystery anymore.

High Tech Science is supernatural to natural humans. Life did not evolve on Earth, but was started by Humans that reproduced us in their Image. They may have evolved on their planet, but Life on Earth was Colonized.

We could call Human Life evolving today, since we are up to this High Tech Science Knowledge. Except, we have religious writings that were preseved, with the High Tech Science Knowledge in them, of humans sitting on thrones and pillars of fire, up in the air, like our humans sit in airplanes, and shuttles.

We do know the steps on how to Colonize a planet, and reproducing in the lab. If our resources were not used for nuclear bombs, and killing our overpopulation from Body Birth, we could be like the Human Gods that came to Earth, and travel in space in spaceships, like they did when they came to our planet.

So why not look into all the Scriptures and Myths and see how much High Tech Science Knowledge is there for our Good, instead of using it for Evil.

Dolores Lear


It is not absurd, if a High Tech Science translation of religion and myth, is used to understand the Noah Society was the same as the Atlantis High Tech Society, before the Planetary Flood Catastrophe.

The land sank below the water, in both stories, and split down the middle. Our continents are split down the middle from the Arctic Ocean through the Atlantis Ocean.
Noah was in a boat as large as the Titanic, and could last over the year, and more, of the Flood in Genesis.

And God does not make everyone sick and die, the Original Pure-bred Humans, with High Tech 'regeneration' do Live Forever. The Perfect Adam and Eve, that started Heterosexual Body Birth, made Mis-bred Genetic and Physical defective Humans. And Fallen Humans do kill, and treat their Brothers/Sisters of Life Inhumanly.

God does not cause all of nature's disasters, Fallen Human's pollution does. Now we are about to break the Ozone Canopy, and then Life as we know it cannot exist.


Iggy, "KU Atheist", why should we take time to watch 15 videos you recommend.

You are a proven liar, you are not even at KU.

The videos are just propaganda, like the Bolshevik Bull you have been spreading for two months.

Its time for you to leave. We all look foward to Feb 1st,


The Bible is the equivalent of the Brothers Grimm, it's just a lot less entertaining.

Joe Barone

I, too, am pleased to see Patricia posting again.

a theist

More Foolishness From The Bible

Matthew 7:6
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Proverbs 12:23
A prudent man concealeth knowledge: but the heart of fools proclaimeth foolishness.

Proverbs 15:2
The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness.

Proverbs 19:3
The foolishness of man perverteth his way: and his heart fretteth against the LORD.

Ecclesiastes 10:13
The beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness: and the end of his talk is mischievous madness.

Or not.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo

About Me

  • Who is Bill?
    I'm the former Faith columnist for The Kansas City Star. For a more detailed bio, look under the "Check this out" headline below. My Twitter handle is @BillTammeus. Friend me on Facebook and you'll see this blog every day in your feed.

Become a Fan

MoJo Blog Ring

  • MOJO Bloggers
    Bloggers with connections to the University of Missouri School of Journalism.


Blog powered by Typepad

Google analytics


  • .