Slashdot Mirror
Equal Time For Creationism
Brian Berns writes "Many news sources reported on
President Bush's recent semi-endorsement of 'intelligent
design', the politically correct version of
creationism that is currently in vogue among groups of conservative
Christians in the U.S.. While Mr. Bush was reportedly reluctant to make news on
this topic, he apparently felt it was an issue he could not duck. Most of those
same news sources, however, missed the
recent condemnation of Darwinian evolution by the Catholic cardinal
archbishop of Vienna. This NY Times op-ed appears to mark a deliberate attempt
to reverse the late Pope John Paul II's acceptance of evolution as 'more than
just a hypothesis'."
The article said nothing about Bush supporting "Equal Time". Also, why lump Bush with other religious leaders who condemn evolution? This whole summary smacks of Slashdot sensationalism.
Intelligent Design is an invention of creationists, and its intended purpose is to seem non-religious. Evaluated as science, it is based on two fallacies.
The first fallacy is its claim that evolution is a "random" process. Evolution is not random at all, as its progress is determined by natural selection (or the selection of God, if you prefer).
From that it moves to its second fallacy, the claim that living systems are too complex to arise from a random process. However, no mathematical evaluation of the level of complexity or the amount of intelligence required is ever made. As a matter of fact, the math was done decades ago, and it turns out that evolution works.
Intelligent Design does not belong in the classroom except as an example of poor scientific reasoning.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
The American Geophysical Union also weighs in on this recent news.
Quote:
"Scientific theories, like evolution, relativity and plate tectonics, are based on hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification," Spilhaus says. "The President has unfortunately confused the difference between science and belief. It is essential that students understand that a scientific theory is not a belief, hunch, or untested hypothesis."
Oh, where to begin...
A real scientist also knows that for every question science answers, another question is raised. Why is gravity inversely proportional to the square of the distance between two objects, for instance? We know it to be (roughly) true, but why?
Science is just a method for building a model to describe the universe, nothing more and nothing less. Science is not a belief system; the two can coexist.
Maybe you're confusing "faith" with "dogma". In any case, I would suggest you read up more on both religion and science.
Note: I am not religious. Do not bother attacking me on those grounds.
"Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
A nineteenth century pope (Leo the somethingth, I think) went so far as to lay out sensible boundaries for religion and science, essentially asserting that science has no business telling people what to believe about God, and the Church has no business entering into debates over empirical study.
Accordingly, the Church has never actually opposed most of Darwinism, and has tacitly accepted it, with the critical caveats that Catholics cannot believe in the process being 'random', as whatever happened has to be part of God's plan. (Also, Catholics have to believe that humans exclusively have souls.)
This position won't change any time soon, notwithstanding the odd vocal Archbishop.
Creationists and IDists - careful what you say. You could be blocked from posting for over a month.
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
- This is the first time that Bush has endorsed Intelligent Design as President, though he held the same position as governor of Texas.
- President Bush does not think that curriculum decision concerning Intelligent Design should be made at the federal level; they should be left up to local school districts.
- A quote from President Bush: "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about."
- Another quote: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."
So here are some conclusions: First, the president is not making any sort of federal policy shift to cause Intelligent Design to be taught in schools. Second, despite that, the President knows that a high-level endorsement of Intelligent Design will be the difference-maker for some local school districts. Finally, Bush does not say that only Intelligent Design should be taught; he advocates for contrasting ideas to be presented to school children on the subject of the origin of species.
First of all, let me say that I am a physicist. This Slashdot article is an unfair description of what the OpEd piece is about. The piece does not condemn Darwinism. It does question Neo-Darwinism, which strays beyond the theories of Darwinism. The realm of science is to describe the behavior or processes (i.e. develop theories or models) of the mechanisms underlying physical reality and test them againt their predictions. When scientific theories (confirmed or not) go beyond describing behavior, into speculating on the purpose (or lack thereof) behind the processes, those theories are no longer science, but philosophy. It is inappropriate for science to assume that a correct description of a mechanism implies purpose or reason for that mechanism. Neo-Darwinism is Darwinism plus untestable (i.e. non-scientific) philosophical theories about purpose.
Actually we have an incorrect idea of what a "Law" is. It is not a theory that has stood up to rigorous testing.
Theory vs. Law
Essentially, a law describes what happens. Theories attempt to explain why.
"People might cite George Bush as proof that you can be totally impervious to the effects of Harvard and Yale education."
-- washington post 8/3/05
Um, Intelligent Design and Creationism are two completely different ideas.
Creationism believes that the Christian God created the universe and life, as described in the Bible. Sometimes literally.
Intelligent Design believes there was SOME intelligence that we don't understand that had influence on creating the universe and life and our physical world, but doesn't speak to religion at all.
Not in a science class, it doesn't.
Perhaps that's why right after what you quoted...
Intelligent Design certainly has a place in the classroom.
...my very next sentence was:
But not the biology or science classrooms.
(WTF?)
I can only assume you are a retard.
Physics, Biology, Mathematics, Chemistry...All these sciences were once branches of philosophy.
A good number of theologians have tried over the years to prove the existence of God using philosophical methods. They all failed. The very idea of a falsifiable claim is direct from philosophy.
Just because your idea of philosophy is something to talk about while you're smoking pot, doesn't mean that's all there is to it.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
No; first I say that evolution is not random, and then I say that there is no science, math, or logic to support the hypothesis that the complexity of life requires a design.
I have no need to say that a random system could create a living system, but creationists need to prove that it can't, just for starters.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
Who needs millions of years to see how strong selective pressures (in this case, humans wanting wierd looking pigeons) can radically alter the shape of an animal?
There are thousands of examples of observed speciation. At the single-cell level, we've seen whole new *families* come into existance. We've even already gotten a bacteria that can feed on nylon oligomers (something which clearly didn't exist in the natural world). To do so, it requires *two* enzymes to be evolved at the same time, neither of which is even close to a simple frame shift mutation.
Then there's the evidence left behind, in the ground and inside of us. Just like police investigating crimes don't have to see the crime in progress if there is copious forensic evidence linking them to it, so holds true with the world. For what reason do whales have sockets for legs? Why do, on occasion, mutations reactivate dormant genes in their body causing whales with small legs to be born? Why does the same occur with human tails (true tails, with cartlidge, muscle, etc) and genitalia features on occasion? Why do we never find, say, modern fish in the same layer as trilobites - *anywhere in the world*, despite both being quite common in the rocks? Why does everything always stratify into perfect sorted morphologically-progressive layers, with the sorting unrelated to mass, shape, or any other potential sorting factor**? Why do radioisotope dates correspond with this***? Why do completely different radioisotope dating methods point to around the same date****? In short, why does every point to this as being the case?
** - There are cases in which layers are broken up and jumbled together before being re-merged, with the original fossils still intact. Thankfully, these tend to be quite obvious formations. Scientists often use these things (as well as attempting to date sedimentary rock or partially heated rock) to try and challenge their own dating methods - something that creationists sometimes grab on the results of and toss away the obvious, necessary context to claim that radioisotope dating doesn't work.
*** - Dont comment on this section until you've read up on how and why concordia-discordia dating methods work, and are familiar with when various dating methods should be used and shouldn't (i.e., no carbon-dates from near volcanic vents or of oceanic animals). Lastly, don't comment until you're familiar with how intrusions of heat affect the process. In summary, don't comment until you actually know what you're talking about.
**** - No, speeding up radioactive decay won't help you. The heat alone would turn the Earth to slag, and you'd have to alter the speed of each reaction individually. There are other problems to deal with as well, such as the missing isotopes.
"It felt almost as good as stealing cars from grandma." -- Margaret Thatcher, probably.
"The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously." [Letter of 1946, Hoffman and Dukas]
"What I cannot understand is how there could possibly be a God who would reward or punish his subjects or who could induce us to develop our will in our daily life. I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws." [The Private Albert Einstein]
"The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events - provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously." [New York Times Magazine November 9, 1930]
"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events." [Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium]
"Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning." [Letter of 5 February 1921]
"An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls." [The World as I See It]
and finally
"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being." [Einstein - The Human Side]
Intelligent design is not a hypothesis, because it's not falsifiable. There is nothing that an intelligent designer, (oh let's just admit it - God), couldn't do, thus no way to disprove His influence. Discoveries could be made, however, that would necessitate the theory, that the evolutionary process has influenced all life on Earth, to be changed or even abandoned.
Falsifiable? How? What experiment could you devise that would test this? I can guarentee that anything you try to do I can just say "well, the Wizard made it look like that".
The biggest problem with ID is that it doesn't follow the scientific method. The result for these unfortuante schoolkids is that they take the first 3 weeks of class to learn about the scientific method and how wonderful it is and how it's the foundation of all science, then you throw it away and say "well, except for the origin of species stuff, in that case A Wizard Did It(tm)". Do you not see how this is dangerous and foolhardy?
I read the internet for the articles.
Not the first time to endorse creationism. Disingenous rat.
The Washington Post, August 27, 1999:
Bush spokeswoman Mindy Tucker said, "He believes both creationism and evolution ought to be taught.... He believes it is a question for states and local school boards to decide but believes both ought to be taught."
The Kansas City Star, September 9, 1999:
"I think it's an interesting part of knowledge (to have) a theory of evolution and a theory of creationism. People should be exposed to different points of view. Should the people choose in my state (to adopt a rule similar to Kansas') I have no problem" with public schools teaching both creationism and evolution.
Reuters, November 4, 1999:
Bush supports the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in public schools. Bush stated, "I have absolutely no problem with children learning different forms of how the world was formed." Bush believes decisions regarding curriculum should be made by local school districts.
Neither evolution and I.D. belong in the Science classroom. They're both historical hypothesis.
By that reasoning, neither do any of the historical sciences. And we should get rid of history classes too.
They are both historical hypotheses, but one has supporting evidence. The other has none, and is unfalsifiable to boot.
No. It can be infinite and expanding. Infinity plus anything still equals infinity. Infinity minus anything still equals infinity. It can have boundaries and be infinite. For instance, a line can be infintely long but it still has boundaries. Infinity is a weird thing.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
To help frame some more discussion here is an excerpt from the following article about Intelligent Design giving some definitions.
r risCalvert.pdf
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3Ha
Intelligent Design
ID is a scientific theory that intelligent causes may have played a crucial role in the origin of the universe and of life and its diversity. It holds that design is empirically detectable in nature, and particularly in living systems. ID is an intellectual movement that includes a scientific research program for investigating intelligent causes and that challenges naturalistic explanations of origins that currently drive science education and research.
The theory of intelligent design has been described by ID theorist Professor William Dembski of Baylor University as follows:
Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent causes can do things that undirected natural causes cannot. Undirected natural causes can place scrabble pieces on a board, but cannot arrange the pieces as meaningful words and sentences. To obtain a meaningful arrangement requires an intelligent cause. This intuition, that there is a fundamental distinction between undirected natural causes on the one hand and intelligent causes on the other, has underlain the design arguments of past centuries.
To the unbiased eye, the design hypothesis veritably leaps from the study of nature. It is an instinctive mental reaction to the observed data. Even the most ardent evolutionary biologist acknowledges that living systems look designed for a purpose.22 Currently ID scientists are developing ways to empirically and objectively test and confirm the hypothesis that life and certain aspects of its diversity may be the product of an intelligent cause. They do this not only by showing positive evidence of design that "rules in" the hypothesis (e.g., the existence of cellular message-bearing systems), but also by seeking evidence that "rules out" the competing naturalistic hypotheses of chemical evolution, Darwinian evolution, and a variety of new "self organization" theories.
Creation Science
Creation science seeks to validate a literal interpretation of creation as contained in the book of Genesis in the Bible. Creation science was defined in a statute that was litigated in a 1982 Arkansas case. In that case, the district court found that, as defined, the teaching of "creation science" was unconstitutional because it was, in effect, a restatement of the Genesis account of origins, and that teaching this material would have the effect of promoting that particular religious view. A similar "creation science" statute was held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard where the holding was based on the same reason--that the statute had the effect of promoting a particular religious view.
Relationship between Intelligent Design and Creation Science
Intelligent Design is not creation science. ID is simply an hypothesis about the direct cause of certain past events based on an observation and analysis of data. ID does not arise from any religious text, nor does it seek to validate any scriptural account of origins. An ID proponent recognizes that ID theory may be disproved by new evidence.
Neutrons are slippery little rascals, they can fool you. They can bounce and show up around corners you don't expect.
Actually the Catholic Church has generally stayed away from confrontations with scientific theory ever since getting egg on its face around the Galileo fiasco and heliocentrism.
Which was then and is now grossly misunderstood. The Church, at no point, ever condemned heliocentrism.
Accordingly, the Church has never actually opposed most of Darwinism, and has tacitly accepted it, with the critical caveats that Catholics cannot believe in the process being 'random', as whatever happened has to be part of God's plan.
Well, what the Archbishop was trying to say is that many people took JPII's statement on evolution as saying more than it did. That somehow he was allowing 'random' evolution, not evolution as planned before time began by God to provide what we have now.
BTW, schools need to neither teach Theistic nor Atheistic evolution - but simply that there is a process. I had teachers throw their atheistic beliefs at us as 'truth' we had to accept in Jr. High and HS, and that was accepted like someone teaching a religious faith would never have been.
The Catholic Church actually doesn't have much official teaching on the origin of the Universe, and allows both Theistic Evolution and Pure 6-day Creationism (and just about everything in between. If you believe the Universe was created and guided by God, then you're in line what the church requires).
(Also, Catholics have to believe that humans exclusively have souls.)
Nit-Pick: According to Catholic teaching, of the creatures on Earth, only humans have spiritual souls, while other creatures have non-spiritual souls. Catholic teaching does not preclude the possibility of non-terrestrial creatures having spiritual souls.
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
a) The universe is infinite spacially... This is just wrong and not worth discussing. You may get varying opinions about the rate of expansion/contraction of the universe from astronomers, but the scientific community has a pretty good idea of the size of the universe.
Most theorists believe that the universe is spacially infinite (although the issue hasn't been completely settled). Terms such as "the size of the universe" refers to the universe which is within a distance [Time since big bang]*[Speed of light] of us. This is the universe which we can ever hope to have some form of contact or learn anything about (or make falsifiable predictions about)- and so it is the universe which is of interest to scientists. But for metaphysical arguments such as the one presented (infinite number of worlds, finite probability of life -> certain life) the spacial infinity should be of interest.
c) The universe exists... Here is where I personally find some of the best evidence for the existence of God, the philosophical first cause argument, as well as the beauty and symmettry of the universe.
I was never very impressed by these arguments... OK so if you start to assume causality (which is a big assumption if you are discussing the origin of big bang), then something must have caused us... but why a "god" in the sense of a human-like creature with special interest in life on earth? Why not a quantum mechanical process or something? And regarding the symmetry of the universe, it could be because said process favors symmetry, or because an infinte number of worlds were created (and only the well-behaved gave life, so that is what we see), or that some wise god sat and pondered for a while and came up with this particularly symmetrical solution. The last alternative seems most contrived, and also is the only one that fails to reduce the answer to something simpler: for now we must explain the presence of this extremely sophisiticated god and how he came about, and why he was motivated to create a symmetrical world... was he made by an even more powerful god, and so on (this is the logical conclusion, if you buy the ID argument)?
Tor
That would be true, if you assume the two premises. However, not many scientists will. By all astronomical accounts, a "Big Bang" occured a long (but finite) time ago. At this event, a very (but finitely) dense volume (again, finite) began expanding rapidly.
Granted, astronomy can't and doesn't tell us about before this event, but it is doubtful that life as we know it (which is what "the odds" measure) could have come to be in that state of extreme density. So we are left with finite matter and finite time, and your logic fails.
The idea of Democratic Republics came from Rome and Greece before they were Christianized. These ideas were revived during the 17th/18th century Enlightment, first incorporated in the US government, then France and so on.
Pope Benedict XVI (current pope) has also made some indirect statements on the matter since his election too.
But to really undertand the beginnings of the modern Catholic "handling" of the issue, from the "top down" as it were, it is important for Catholics and non-Catholics/Christians alike to read Pope Pius XII's encyclical, Humani Generis, promulgated on August 12, 1950.
It is really worth one's time to read the whole thing, but allow me to post the relevant quote that is still considered binding Catholic teaching on the matter:
IC XC NIKA
Damn. You mean the research I based my second degree on didn't exist?
And the books I read were figments of my imagination?
Wow.
Can I have a proof for that now please? Or are you following the ID methodology of "It's true because I say it's true!"
As evolution is not random, but directed by selection, why can't Intelligent Design be achived through evolution?
"why the Universe must be the way it is for life to exist"
I'm so tired of this anthropomorphism. We can only exist in the Universe as it is today. If there were a lot of different natural laws, or a slightly different unfolding in the first few seconds of the universe or something, other creatures would live there and say "wow, it looks like this universe was tailor made for us".
We are tailor made for our environment, not the other way around. And it's a pretty broad environment, including organisms living near hot springs deep underwater feeding on minerals, blind fish living in caves miles from sunlight, etc. Most of the individual things you'd think to point at as essential for life: sunlight, atmosphere, etc. we can find plenty of examples on earth of organisms that do not need those to live.
> There is a huge difference here. With Muslims, the religous leaders are not standing up and preaching terrorism is bad.
Hmm. I must have imagined this news report for the other day where "The Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) released a fatwa, or Islamic religious ruling, against terrorism and extremism last week"
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Eh, I have some issues with Star Trek's new-ageism and incoherent dualism. Bless you and your rant, Justin B Rye...
Still, that Patrick Stewart sure can deliver a line, can't he.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Crap.
Design is worthless, because it becomes recursive. You have to have an undesigned designer at some point, or you're left in the same boat. If something like a sea slug can't just evolve into being through chemical syntesis and natural selection, then something like GOD sure as hell can't just be.
The ontological argument is the same. The existence of god is not a prerequisite for the existence of the universe. It can be claimed that it is, but really the argument that it just is has equal weight.
And by the epistemological proof, I assume you're referring to Kant, but Kant himself, in the Critque stated that he believed that it was not possible to construct conclusive logical proofs for the existence of God, which to my mind puts the subjective proofs he then puts forward on the same ground as the subjective proofs of Kierkegaard and Descartes, which is to say, cute, but not compelling.
Mind you, I myself am an agnostic. I think the arguments against the existence of god are equally trite and meaningless, though I don't ascribe to any organized idea of what it would be to be god, so...
The only provable god is Spinoza's holistic god, but since that 'god' is just the sum of existence, it would be hard to argue against its existence.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
You're incorrect. The problem with ID is that the Intelligent Designer in question can potentially be omnipotent and omniscient. Indeed, most proponents of ID are Christians that believe that an all-powerful, all-seeing God created the Universe.
Now, a scientific theory must be falsifiable by observational evidence. With ID, because the Designer can be omnipotent and omniscient, any evidence can be faked, and therefore is no evidence at all. Indeed, with ID, the Universe could have been created a mere two seconds ago, and all of our memories mere fabrications.
Intelligent Design is, by definition, not scientific, because it places no limits on the capabilities of the Designer, and therefore cannot be proven false. Don't believe me? Then give me an example of evidence that would disprove ID.
Evolution, on the other hand, is falsifiable because, unlike ID, it is restricted by physical laws.
Well, this is a pointless thread.
All religion is bad.
Here is the first item that came up with my simple search (and there are hundreds of articles).
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Dec03/chimp.l ife.hrs.html
And here is a useful quote...
"Celera generated some 18 million DNA sequence "reads," or about two-thirds as many as were required for the first sequencing of the human genome. "
Few more than a "few base pairs", I'd say...
What you are talking about is data that supports the theory. But data can never prove the theory correct; that is inherently impossible. Theories never become facts, they can only be disproved by facts or supported by facts. So that you and I are the result of an evolutionary process is a theory, albiet a theory well supported by the facts.
Most mainstream religions do specifically speak out against such actions. "Thou shall not murder...", etc., is fairly well known. Those that teach otherwise are not part of the mainstream and have purposely had distance placed between them and their ideaologies. This is why, when a crackpot popped up in Wacko, Texas, everyone knew he was a crackpot...yet he proclaimed to be Christian.
So, instead of wasting a lot of time trying to preach religion in the guise of science (intellegent design) we should just put disclaimers in front of all science textbooks.
;-pp
To the Junk filter:
Hey you! Yeah, you the fundie about to have a coniption fit. Science is a journey, not a destination. Nothing in this book is written in stone. I may well all be re-written tomorrow. It probably won't, but it CAN be.
So don't get your panties in a bunch just because a bunch of University professors have come up with ideas that happen to contradict some immutable truth you've been taught.
It's science. It could all change tomorrow.
If you want to find comfort in certainty and
appeals to authority, go to the religous
establishment of your choice. You will not
find it here.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Well, I go to church so hopefully I can answer some of your questions, at least from an apostolic Christian church viewpoint since there, unfortunately, isn't a universal Christian church.
Like after someone shoots an abortion doctor in the name of "unborn children", or a gang beats a gay guy to death: do Christian preachers immediately denounce the perpetrators as perverted sinners, "taking the lord's name in vain" or somesuch?
Matthew 5:43-44 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; So Christians are taught (from the Bible and from any pulpit that preaches from the Bible) that you are to love they enemy. All the people who laugh at creationism, pray for them and love them. All those who have and perform abortions, love and pray for them. All those who live homosexual lifestyles, pray for them and love them. This is terribly important, we should pray and love for them because God is the righteous Judge.
Do Christian priests teach their congregations that the killing in war is evil, that killers go to hell?
Yes, as a matter of fact. And the military has the option for convicted Christians to serve as conscientious (sp?) objectors. Most serve in medical or other support areas and do not carry a weapon. This is one area that many Christians don't agree on, but there is a lot of scripture pointing to non-violence (love thy enemy, not shoot them. As well as the turn the other cheek when struck).
Finally, I've never heard a preacher teach specifically on torture, but that logically follows from the previous two areas and if it came up it would definitely be addressed as against God's will. Hopefully that helps clear things up? The big problem with modern Christianity (there are many) is that many many people call themselves Christians but don't 'walk the walk'.
So in theory, as long as you don't start out with the assumption that divine revelation is bunk,
Translated means "as long as you assume devine revelation is true". That's the issue I have with most religionists - there is always an underlying assumption that something is true simply because it says it is.
You do know lots of science looks at stuff in the past right? From the near past with things like forensic science to the begining of the universe with astrophysics.
Its quite possible to have a scientific hypothesis that says "if event X occured we should see evidence of it in the form of Y".
You also seem to be discounting current and recent experiments in evolution that observe it happening right now.
As for "Theology however has authoritative divine revelation" theology is the study of the nature religion, relgious truth and God. It certainly does not have authoritative divine revelation. Some people may beleive their religion has such a thing, but that is different.
No, you've got it all wrong! Observation come before theory -- not the other way around!
The scientific method
(as stolen from:)
Required reading for internet skeptics
I think it should be known that most real Christians don't like to impose themselves on people. They are compelled to spread the gospel because, to them, it is a matter of saving people from a terrible fate. It should also be known that real Christians aren't willing to do the things it would take to gain the favor of Bush or any other politician, so this group of conservatives shouldn't be considered a representation of the rest of us just because they're saying "God bless America" and using our name as an excuse for everything.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%20 1&version=31
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=is%204 5:12;&version=31;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jo%203 8;&version=31;
you're also an idiot.
There's a problem with intent that you're just not dealing with. Terrorists intend to kill women and children (innocents). Whereas, Israeli and American armed forces solely target military or other combatants. Any others who die in the resulting battle (which can just as easily be blamed on the other combatant), are accidents. The U.S. and Israeli forces do not want to kill civilians. In fact, it's in their best interest that they do not, because as soon as they do, Al Jazeera and the rest of the Arab media is there to stir up hatred.
Now, here's the interesting part. Knowing that it's not in the best interest for the U.S. or Israeli forces to kill civilians, many terrorists actually put their own innocents in danger through various means such as: putting weapons caches in schools/hospitals, using their own innocents as human shields, and so on.
In light of this, do you really think it's fair to draw analogies between uniformed soldiers not intending to harm innocents and murderous saboteurs who hide behind their women and children? To me, the difference is night and day.
-Grym
"Admittedly, the old testament specifically forbids killing
This statement shows one thing. Namely that you do not have the basic knowledge to speak about the Bible on this subject.
I am sorry if that sounds harsh, but it is quite simply true. The commandment that you are referring to says that MURDER, not killing is wrong. Grab a Hebrew Bible and a Hebrew dictionary sometime. Find the passage, match the letters, and read what it says specifically.
Killing in warfare is not wrong according to the Bible. Killing as punnishment for certain crimes (murder, rape, some others) is acceptable.
There is actually a firmly defined ethos for the taking of life in the Bible. Unfortunately hearing or reading one (mistranslated or misunderstood) line of one passage in one chapter is not gonna cut it. If you really want to understand it you might want to read a bit deeper.
As for Jesus, the fulfilling of the law brought many changes. However, even He told his Disciples to carry swords for protection from bandits and such.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.