Okay, according to the Bible, God created the rainbow after the Flood as a sign of his promise that He’d never flood the world again. So, do any of the Intelligent Design advocates make the claim that optical physics, because it explains how water refracts light to create rainbows is false and/or is an attempt to deny the existence of God?
I haven’t heard that. Presumably they would argue that God designed the laws of refraction in order that a rainbow is possible. That wouldn’t contradict the word of the Bible. (So that’s okay then.)
I will bet that if you had the patience and asked people, you could find some that would. You can find somebody that supports any view or statement no matter what states. People that support a statement will gravitate together for mutual support if they find each other.
These would be the same people who deny that moonlight is reflected sunlight.
Idiots. Everybody knows cheese is luminescent.
You can find people who defend the fact that a man walked on water, and then rose from the dead.
I’ll defend that. Those are both miracles, not natural philosophy or modern science or anything else of the kind. Miracles don’t have to make sense; that’s why they’re miracles.
ID concerns itself with living organisms. Do ID advocates get involved in physics? Perhaps you mean YECs.
But I don’t remember the Biblical story of Noah containing a statement that God created the rainbow after the flood, only that he put one up as a sign.
That does seem consistent with the plain meaning of the text, but I have often seen claims by believers that no rainbows existed before the flood.
I posted a translation, of course, and I don’t know what the Hebrew or Greek text says. I’m sure there are many people who claim many things that they “know” from Bible.
I don’t know Hebrew or Greek either, nor, I expect, do most of those who make the claim that no rainbows existed before the flood. I suppose I’d be one of those, since I don’t believe the flood happened at all.
Luminescent Cheese = Band name.
One of those heretical Gilgamesh deniers, ehh? I won’t worry about it. The smiting will come, in the gods’ own good time.
Well, I believe that a chicken was beheaded and lived.
The best explanation I’ve heard is that it had simply never rained before The Flood. No rain = no rainbows.
This theory is also tied in with the long lifespans attributed to pre-diluvean people, with the idea that the earth was protected by a thick cloud cover (or the Firmament, which is something else entirely and which I can’t explain from memory) which blocked the sun’s harmful UV rays. The idea is that all that water was suspended in the atmosphere, protecting earth’s inhabitants. God got pissed and let all that water fall out of the sky.
The no rain theory also explains part of why Noah’s neighbors were so eager to ridicule his ark-building. Not only were they far from the sea, but when Noah said it’s gonna rain, the neighbors were all like, “Um, what? What’s rain?”
Well, my point is that why does scientific evidence in one area (optical physics) not negate the concept of God, when other areas (evolution) are considered to do this? Seems to me that revealing one thing to be rather mundane and non-miraculous, would pretty much put the ol’ nail in the coffin as it were. And physics is tied in with evolution in a number of ways, flight, for example (and even if you don’t believe in evolution, you have to admit that physics governs flight).
So advanced irrigation was used, even for all the wild vegetation? :dubious:
Tukerfan I decided to post this link for you after your last statement. I think it’s a good essay. Essay here.
But the account in Genesis doesn’t say that no rainbows existed before the flood. Besides, if you’re a biblical literalist, you can explain anything away as being a miracle.
Think “giant terrarium” 
The theory I related was in the context of “intelligent design” or “creationism”. Assuming an all-powerful creator, there’s no reason to think he couldn’t create the world with a network of streams combined with a water table adequate to sustain all the plant life. The Flood story makes reference not only to rain but also to water coming up from underground, which would seem to indicate a vast subterranean water supply. Or perhaps it did rain when necessary … again assuming an all-powerful designer, he might have set it up so that it only rained at night when everybody was sleeping, or only in the distant highlands (to keep the streams flowing - that river water had to come from somewhere).
So, to answer the OP, I’d say “no”, the post-Flood rainbow story does not contradict optical physics, and I don’t think any ID advocate would make such a claim.