The Threat From Intelligent Design

[truthfinder9]

By Al Ruechel | 01-24-06

I loved Mr. Madson’s Biology class. He was a first rate teacher passionate about sc! ience and the scientific method and the pursuit of truth. He was also a good church-going man and a role model for many students who wanted to be scientists. I was one of those.

Back in 1969 no one had even heard of something called Intelligent Design or irreducible complexity. What was made very plain to us over and over again was that evolution, as a mechanism to explain the state of the world today, was a theory, not a law. You could “test” some of its basic premises and observe its genesis through bones and tissue and the fossil record. But until scientists are able to create life in some primordial slug-pit triggered by flashes of lightning Darwin’s observations were simply that, one explanation of how man may have begun his existence from a collection of amino acids and carbon particles and changed and adapted to new surrounds.

Mr. Madson was always careful to point out that evolution within a given species was a! fact, but evolution between species was still replete with holes large enough to drive a universe through. Which is why we always spent several days talking about alternative theories for the existence of life on Earth. We talked about God, aliens, and other religious perspectives. We talked about those missing links. We always came back to the theory of evolution and talked about why it appears as the most logical explanation. Yet, Mr. Madson would lecture us over and over again: if you set a theory in stone that can never be completely proven you are effectively discounting that part of the brain that separates us from the rest of the animal world; the power to imagine and question.

I kept my old Biology book, written in 1968, and went through it last night. I was pleasantly surprised it had one whole chapter dedicated to alternative theories to evolution. I don’t remember anyone protesting that book or demanding it be b! anned for even mentioning, in an intellectually honest fashion, the possibility that there could be other explanations for the origins of mankind.

Fast forward to 2006. The state of Florida has approved a science textbook called: Biology: The Dynamics of Life. Some teachers and editorial boards on newspapers want the book banned because under the heading “The Origin of Life” it contains two paragraphs on the belief that a supreme being created life. It goes on to mention that cultures throughout history have had their own religious explanations for the origins of life. Gee, it reads just like my old biology book! It also tosses in a quick reference to intelligent design. Here’s the biggest sin. It suggests the class engage in a debate on the origins of life. Discussion? Free speech? Opposing viewpoints? I can think of nothing more tragic then open-minded discussion. I hear its been banned on high school and college camp! uses of late. And what if the theory of evolution isn’t able to stand up to the ramblings of mere high school students? Where is Charles Darwin when you need him? “This kind of discussion will only breed confusion,” says a local newspaper editorial (St. Pete Times, Monday, Jan 23, 2006).

Confusion? Who is confused here? You don’t think high school students are capable of handling religious explanations of evolution? You don’t think they understand putting a gag order on speech and thought just because it happens to have a religious tone?

Here’s my take. The fear from many members of the academic community is that new scientific explanations of the holes in Darwin are gaining ground among more in the scientific community itself. Even some professors and researchers who have spent their entire lives studying evolution have reversed course or are at least question their initial assumptions.

Dr. Michael Behe’s book, Dar! win’s Black Box, continues to send shock waves through academia with its thoughtful dissection of the biochemical challenges to evolution. He rules out evolutionary process as the only answer because, biochemically, they are: "irreducibly complex," meaning that if they are missing just one of their many parts, they cannot function, therefore cannot evolve in a Darwinian fashion. Why not? Because natural selection works on small mutations in just one component at a time. If dozens or even hundreds of distinct proteins, precisely fashioned, are required to make a functional cilium, how could natural selection slowly and patiently craft them, one at a time, while waiting for the complex function of ciliary movement to emerge?” You need to read this book. I can’t do it justice in none paragraph.

In the end it is not important whether Behe and a growing list of scientists continue expanding their scientific research on Intel! ligent Design. For all I know, they could be wrong. At least they are open enough to examine other explanations for things we do not fully understand. I thought that’s what scientists were supposed to do? Since when is science afraid of the unknown?

You can label those scientists who support Intelligent Design religious zealots if you wish. But at least they are being intellectual honest by admitting evolution’s flaws and offering other explanations for consideration. Would that be a crime or unconstitutional? And does two paragraphs in a 700-page textbook equal government support of religion? Please????

Intelligent Design supporters don’t want or need to have it etched in stone wiping out Darwin’s evolutionary matrix. They just want it footnoted in an honest fashion so if today’s young scientist happen to turn the stone over and it says, “made in heaven” they won’t be too shocked!

[My2Cents]

I suspect the defensive evolutionists will demand that your post be pulled because it doesn't cite its source, and suffers from a "missing link."

[truthfinder9]

http://www.glennbeck.com/al/index.shtml

[GSlob]

All those failing to evolve by 5pm this Friday will be given extinction final warning.

[metmom]

LOL. That's bad.