The Doctrine of Signatures was a belief popular among herbalists, in the 16th century, that held that God had placed a sign in various medicinal plants indicating what the plant was best used for.
For example, if the plant had heart shaped leaves, it was believed that the plant was good for heart troubles. If the plant had leaves shaped like a liver, it was good for liver diseases. The Mandrake root, which looked something like a human body, was thought to be good for the entire body.
My question is why this doctrine is not in wide use among the ID proponents today? It would seem to be an excellent indication of an intelligent designer, who had specifically intended these plants to be used for medicinal purposes. Also, it would give the IDists an actual testable hypothesis to explore.
So, why are IDists wasting their time with things like the bacterial flagella, or the blood clotting system, and not demanding that the Doctrine of Signatures be taught in medical schools? Why are they allowing "Darwinian" biochemists, and pharmacologists to be dictating what drugs are effective, based only on clinical testing, which only uses naturalistic means of testing the effectiveness of the medicine?
Obviously, if God placed a signature on a plant, that should be good enough for them. After all, who knows the human body better than the original designer, and who would know which plants are the best medicine better than God? So, why are the IDists using modern "man made" medicines, and techniques, and not adhering to God's own method of signatures?
>The Doctrine of Signatures was a belief popular among herbalists, in >the 16th century, that held that God had placed a sign in various >medicinal plants indicating what the plant was best used for.
> For example, if the plant had heart shaped leaves, it was believed >that the plant was good for heart troubles. If the plant had leaves >shaped like a liver, it was good for liver diseases. The Mandrake >root, which looked something like a human body, was thought to be good >for the entire body.
> My question is why this doctrine is not in wide use among the ID >proponents today? It would seem to be an excellent indication of an >intelligent designer, who had specifically intended these plants to be >used for medicinal purposes. Also, it would give the IDists an >actual testable hypothesis to explore.
> So, why are IDists wasting their time with things like the bacterial >flagella, or the blood clotting system, and not demanding that the >Doctrine of Signatures be taught in medical schools? Why are they >allowing "Darwinian" biochemists, and pharmacologists to be dictating >what drugs are effective, based only on clinical testing, which only >uses naturalistic means of testing the effectiveness of the >medicine?
> Obviously, if God placed a signature on a plant, that should be >good enough for them. After all, who knows the human body better than >the original designer, and who would know which plants are the best >medicine better than God? So, why are the IDists using modern "man >made" medicines, and techniques, and not adhering to God's own method >of signatures?
>DJT
I wonder - just speculating - if there were many arguments in favor of the Doctrine of Signatures which have been repeated by creationism.
It would be amusing if there were something like "irreducible complexity" in the history of the Doctrine of Signatures.
-- ---Tom S. the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to the currant jelly. Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
> The Doctrine of Signatures was a belief popular among herbalists, in > the 16th century, that held that God had placed a sign in various > medicinal plants indicating what the plant was best used for.
> For example, if the plant had heart shaped leaves, it was believed > that the plant was good for heart troubles. If the plant had leaves > shaped like a liver, it was good for liver diseases. The Mandrake > root, which looked something like a human body, was thought to be good > for the entire body.
> My question is why this doctrine is not in wide use among the ID > proponents today? It would seem to be an excellent indication of an > intelligent designer, who had specifically intended these plants to be > used for medicinal purposes. Also, it would give the IDists an > actual testable hypothesis to explore.
> So, why are IDists wasting their time with things like the bacterial > flagella, or the blood clotting system, and not demanding that the > Doctrine of Signatures be taught in medical schools? Why are they > allowing "Darwinian" biochemists, and pharmacologists to be dictating > what drugs are effective, based only on clinical testing, which only > uses naturalistic means of testing the effectiveness of the > medicine?
> Obviously, if God placed a signature on a plant, that should be > good enough for them. After all, who knows the human body better than > the original designer, and who would know which plants are the best > medicine better than God? So, why are the IDists using modern "man > made" medicines, and techniques, and not adhering to God's own method > of signatures?
> DJT
Intelligent design was just a scam. Just as any creationist rube that is bending over to take the switch scam. The above avenue of research could result in something useful. No doubt there would be a low probability of getting something useful, but that was never the plan for ID.
> The Doctrine of Signatures was a belief popular among herbalists, in > the 16th century, that held that God had placed a sign in various > medicinal plants indicating what the plant was best used for.
> For example, if the plant had heart shaped leaves, it was believed > that the plant was good for heart troubles. If the plant had leaves > shaped like a liver, it was good for liver diseases. The Mandrake > root, which looked something like a human body, was thought to be good > for the entire body.
> My question is why this doctrine is not in wide use among the ID > proponents today? It would seem to be an excellent indication of an > intelligent designer, who had specifically intended these plants to be > used for medicinal purposes. Also, it would give the IDists an > actual testable hypothesis to explore.
> So, why are IDists wasting their time with things like the bacterial > flagella, or the blood clotting system, and not demanding that the > Doctrine of Signatures be taught in medical schools? Why are they > allowing "Darwinian" biochemists, and pharmacologists to be dictating > what drugs are effective, based only on clinical testing, which only > uses naturalistic means of testing the effectiveness of the > medicine?
> Obviously, if God placed a signature on a plant, that should be > good enough for them. After all, who knows the human body better than > the original designer, and who would know which plants are the best > medicine better than God? So, why are the IDists using modern "man > made" medicines, and techniques, and not adhering to God's own method > of signatures?
> DJT
I see you cannot tell the difference between herbs that actually heal and those that don't.
> On Nov 20, 12:41 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> > The Doctrine of Signatures was a belief popular among herbalists, in > > the 16th century, that held that God had placed a sign in various > > medicinal plants indicating what the plant was best used for.
> > For example, if the plant had heart shaped leaves, it was believed > > that the plant was good for heart troubles. If the plant had leaves > > shaped like a liver, it was good for liver diseases. The Mandrake > > root, which looked something like a human body, was thought to be good > > for the entire body.
> > My question is why this doctrine is not in wide use among the ID > > proponents today? It would seem to be an excellent indication of an > > intelligent designer, who had specifically intended these plants to be > > used for medicinal purposes. Also, it would give the IDists an > > actual testable hypothesis to explore.
> > So, why are IDists wasting their time with things like the bacterial > > flagella, or the blood clotting system, and not demanding that the > > Doctrine of Signatures be taught in medical schools? Why are they > > allowing "Darwinian" biochemists, and pharmacologists to be dictating > > what drugs are effective, based only on clinical testing, which only > > uses naturalistic means of testing the effectiveness of the > > medicine?
> > Obviously, if God placed a signature on a plant, that should be > > good enough for them. After all, who knows the human body better than > > the original designer, and who would know which plants are the best > > medicine better than God? So, why are the IDists using modern "man > > made" medicines, and techniques, and not adhering to God's own method > > of signatures?
> > DJT
> I see you cannot tell the difference between herbs that actually heal > and those that don't.
actually, no herbs "heal". At most, some herbs may have factors helpful in treating diseases, but it's the immune system that heals the body.
You seem to have missed the point. According to the doctrine of signatures, there should be signs provided by God as to which herbs are useful, and which are not. Why would God not give people clues like this?
Apparently you lack the perception to see these signs, or perhaps you don't believe that God intended herbs as medicine, and so left off any signatures. In any case, why don't ID proponents use those plants that kinda sorta look like body parts for healing those body parts?
Why are they allowing biochemists and pharmacologists to use science to determine what compounds are effective, instead of taking the "intelligent design" way, and looking for signatures?
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:04:12 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>I see you cannot tell the difference between herbs that actually heal >and those that don't.
neither could the ancients. scientific methodology is needed to do this, and with their...and your...demon centered view of reality they were unable to differentiate good from bad herbs
> On Nov 20, 12:41 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> > The Doctrine of Signatures was a belief popular among herbalists, in > > the 16th century, that held that God had placed a sign in various > > medicinal plants indicating what the plant was best used for.
> > For example, if the plant had heart shaped leaves, it was believed > > that the plant was good for heart troubles. If the plant had leaves > > shaped like a liver, it was good for liver diseases. The Mandrake > > root, which looked something like a human body, was thought to be good > > for the entire body.
> > My question is why this doctrine is not in wide use among the ID > > proponents today? It would seem to be an excellent indication of an > > intelligent designer, who had specifically intended these plants to be > > used for medicinal purposes. Also, it would give the IDists an > > actual testable hypothesis to explore.
> > So, why are IDists wasting their time with things like the bacterial > > flagella, or the blood clotting system, and not demanding that the > > Doctrine of Signatures be taught in medical schools? Why are they > > allowing "Darwinian" biochemists, and pharmacologists to be dictating > > what drugs are effective, based only on clinical testing, which only > > uses naturalistic means of testing the effectiveness of the > > medicine?
> > Obviously, if God placed a signature on a plant, that should be > > good enough for them. After all, who knows the human body better than > > the original designer, and who would know which plants are the best > > medicine better than God? So, why are the IDists using modern "man > > made" medicines, and techniques, and not adhering to God's own method > > of signatures?
> > DJT
> I see you cannot tell the difference between herbs that actually heal > and those that don't.
That's not the issue.
The issue is, why didn't the designer use this obvious tool to alert humans? If, say, foxglove leaves were heart-shaped, it would be so much easier to figure out that they should be used in some kind of cardiac situation. Likewise, if liverwort is shaped so much like a liver, why is it NOT useful in treating liver ailments?
>On Nov 20, 12:41 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote: >> The Doctrine of Signatures was a belief popular among herbalists, in >> the 16th century, that held that God had placed a sign in various >> medicinal plants indicating what the plant was best used for.
>> For example, if the plant had heart shaped leaves, it was believed >> that the plant was good for heart troubles. If the plant had leaves >> shaped like a liver, it was good for liver diseases. The Mandrake >> root, which looked something like a human body, was thought to be good >> for the entire body.
>> My question is why this doctrine is not in wide use among the ID >> proponents today? It would seem to be an excellent indication of an >> intelligent designer, who had specifically intended these plants to be >> used for medicinal purposes. Also, it would give the IDists an >> actual testable hypothesis to explore.
>> So, why are IDists wasting their time with things like the bacterial >> flagella, or the blood clotting system, and not demanding that the >> Doctrine of Signatures be taught in medical schools? Why are they >> allowing "Darwinian" biochemists, and pharmacologists to be dictating >> what drugs are effective, based only on clinical testing, which only >> uses naturalistic means of testing the effectiveness of the >> medicine?
>> Obviously, if God placed a signature on a plant, that should be >> good enough for them. After all, who knows the human body better than >> the original designer, and who would know which plants are the best >> medicine better than God? So, why are the IDists using modern "man >> made" medicines, and techniques, and not adhering to God's own method >> of signatures?
>> DJT
>I see you cannot tell the difference between herbs that actually heal >and those that don't.
Are you saying that all the thousands of herbalists who believed in the Doctrine of Signatures were all wrong? What are the odds of that?
> On Nov 20, 12:41 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> > The Doctrine of Signatures was a belief popular among herbalists, in > > the 16th century, that held that God had placed a sign in various > > medicinal plants indicating what the plant was best used for.
> > For example, if the plant had heart shaped leaves, it was believed > > that the plant was good for heart troubles. If the plant had leaves > > shaped like a liver, it was good for liver diseases. The Mandrake > > root, which looked something like a human body, was thought to be good > > for the entire body.
> > My question is why this doctrine is not in wide use among the ID > > proponents today? It would seem to be an excellent indication of an > > intelligent designer, who had specifically intended these plants to be > > used for medicinal purposes. Also, it would give the IDists an > > actual testable hypothesis to explore.
> > So, why are IDists wasting their time with things like the bacterial > > flagella, or the blood clotting system, and not demanding that the > > Doctrine of Signatures be taught in medical schools? Why are they > > allowing "Darwinian" biochemists, and pharmacologists to be dictating > > what drugs are effective, based only on clinical testing, which only > > uses naturalistic means of testing the effectiveness of the > > medicine?
> > Obviously, if God placed a signature on a plant, that should be > > good enough for them. After all, who knows the human body better than > > the original designer, and who would know which plants are the best > > medicine better than God? So, why are the IDists using modern "man > > made" medicines, and techniques, and not adhering to God's own method > > of signatures?
> > DJT
> Intelligent design was just a scam. Just as any creationist rube that > is bending over to take the switch scam.
Speaking of "bending over", the only reason that the ID scam continues to sell is because many (most?) people like to say "Thank you sir, may I have another?"
> The above avenue of research > could result in something useful. No doubt there would be a low > probability of getting something useful, but that was never the plan > for ID.
> The Doctrine of Signatures was a belief popular among herbalists, in > the 16th century, that held that God had placed a sign in various > medicinal plants indicating what the plant was best used for.
> For example, if the plant had heart shaped leaves, it was believed > that the plant was good for heart troubles. If the plant had leaves > shaped like a liver, it was good for liver diseases. The Mandrake > root, which looked something like a human body, was thought to be good > for the entire body.
> My question is why this doctrine is not in wide use among the ID > proponents today? It would seem to be an excellent indication of an > intelligent designer, who had specifically intended these plants to be > used for medicinal purposes. Also, it would give the IDists an > actual testable hypothesis to explore.
> So, why are IDists wasting their time with things like the bacterial > flagella, or the blood clotting system, and not demanding that the > Doctrine of Signatures be taught in medical schools? Why are they > allowing "Darwinian" biochemists, and pharmacologists to be dictating > what drugs are effective, based only on clinical testing, which only > uses naturalistic means of testing the effectiveness of the > medicine?
> Obviously, if God placed a signature on a plant, that should be > good enough for them. After all, who knows the human body better than > the original designer, and who would know which plants are the best > medicine better than God? So, why are the IDists using modern "man > made" medicines, and techniques, and not adhering to God's own method > of signatures?
> DJT
You're missing the whole point of the ID scam, which is to say as little as possible about any other possible "theory," and keep the focus on misrepresenting evolution. That way the clueless rubes can infer whichever of the mutually-contradictory fairy tales they're comfortable with, while the critics who should know better, feeding the scam artists (1) facts that they can spin as more "gaps," and (2) more opportunities to say that "Darwinists" don't "understand" ID. So IDers will never admit that it's about God, nor will they ever propose anything testable in terms of what the unnamed, possibly deceased, designer did, when or how.
The fatal problems with the bacterial flagellum argument may be obvious to scientists, but the argument is a brilliant strategy to mislead nonscientists. Everyone from "6-day-6000-year-ago" literalists to the "I guess something like evolution happened but the jury's still out" crowd will be wowed by it, oblivious to the fact that it proposes no testable alternative, and only vaguely hints that whatever unusual process occurred, it was so long ago that it makes no sense to try to "connect the dots."
In article <67d548b8-5f47-4bc0-981e-2c515bdd1...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote: > The Doctrine of Signatures was a belief popular among herbalists, in > the 16th century, that held that God had placed a sign in various > medicinal plants indicating what the plant was best used for.
> For example, if the plant had heart shaped leaves, it was believed > that the plant was good for heart troubles. If the plant had leaves > shaped like a liver, it was good for liver diseases. The Mandrake > root, which looked something like a human body, was thought to be good > for the entire body...
* Dana: Greetings!
Even today the 'ginseng' root, which looks like the male sex organ, is thought to enhance man's sexual ability. The two Chinese character for 'gin' and 'seng' mean 'man' and 'root'.
> On Nov 20, 1:41 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote: > > The Doctrine of Signatures was a belief popular among herbalists, in > > the 16th century, that held that God had placed a sign in various > > medicinal plants indicating what the plant was best used for.
> > For example, if the plant had heart shaped leaves, it was believed > > that the plant was good for heart troubles. If the plant had leaves > > shaped like a liver, it was good for liver diseases. The Mandrake > > root, which looked something like a human body, was thought to be good > > for the entire body.
> > My question is why this doctrine is not in wide use among the ID > > proponents today? It would seem to be an excellent indication of an > > intelligent designer, who had specifically intended these plants to be > > used for medicinal purposes. Also, it would give the IDists an > > actual testable hypothesis to explore.
> > So, why are IDists wasting their time with things like the bacterial > > flagella, or the blood clotting system, and not demanding that the > > Doctrine of Signatures be taught in medical schools? Why are they > > allowing "Darwinian" biochemists, and pharmacologists to be dictating > > what drugs are effective, based only on clinical testing, which only > > uses naturalistic means of testing the effectiveness of the > > medicine?
> > Obviously, if God placed a signature on a plant, that should be > > good enough for them. After all, who knows the human body better than > > the original designer, and who would know which plants are the best > > medicine better than God? So, why are the IDists using modern "man > > made" medicines, and techniques, and not adhering to God's own method > > of signatures?
> > DJT
> You're missing the whole point of the ID scam, which is to say as > little as possible about any other possible "theory," and keep the > focus on misrepresenting evolution. That way the clueless rubes can > infer whichever of the mutually-contradictory fairy tales they're > comfortable with, while the critics who should know better, feeding > the scam artists (1) facts that they can spin as more "gaps," and (2) > more opportunities to say that "Darwinists" don't "understand" ID. So > IDers will never admit that it's about God, nor will they ever propose > anything testable in terms of what the unnamed, possibly deceased, > designer did, when or how.
> The fatal problems with the bacterial flagellum argument may be > obvious to scientists, but the argument is a brilliant strategy to > mislead nonscientists. Everyone from "6-day-6000-year-ago" literalists > to the "I guess something like evolution happened but the jury's still > out" crowd will be wowed by it, oblivious to the fact that it proposes > no testable alternative, and only vaguely hints that whatever unusual > process occurred, it was so long ago that it makes no sense to try to > "connect the dots."
* Is the bacterial flagellum still the latest and best ID example? As I recall, the first was the human eye, then the blood clotting cascade, and then some others. Aren't there some more and better examples of 'irreducible complexity' from the ID world?
|
