Posted on 08/04/2005 6:47:03 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
President Bush sent reporters into a tizzy this week by saying that he thought schools ought to teach both evolution and intelligent design. Students ought to hear both theories, he said, so they “can understand what the debate is about.”
Well, the usual critics jumped all over the president, but he’s absolutely right. Considering all competing theories was once the very definition of academic freedom. But today, the illiberal forces of secularism want to stifle any challenges to Darwin—even though Darwin is proving to be eminently challengeable.
Take biochemist Michael Behe’s argument. He says that the cell is irreducibly complex. All the parts have to work at once, so it could not have evolved. No one has been able to successfully challenge Behe’s argument.
In fact, the scientific case for intelligent design is so strong that, as BreakPoint listeners have heard me say, even Antony Flew, once the world’s leading philosopher of atheism, has renounced his life-long beliefs and has become, as he puts it, a deist. He now believes an intelligent designer designed the universe, though he says he cannot know God yet.
I was in Oxford last week, speaking at the C. S. Lewis Summer Institute, and had a chance to visit with Flew. He told a crowd that, as a professional philosopher, he had used all the tools of his trade to arrive at what he believed were intellectually defensible suppositions supporting atheism. But the intelligent design movement shook those presuppositions. He said, however, on philosophical grounds that he could not prove the existence of the God of the Bible.
In the question period, I walked to the microphone and told him as nicely as I could that he had put himself in an impossible box. He could prove theism was the only philosophically sustainable position, but he could not prove who God was. I said, “If you could prove who God was, you could not love God—which is the principle object of life.”
I admitted that I had once gotten myself into the same position. I had studied biblical worldview for years and believed that I could prove beyond a doubt that the biblical worldview is the only one that is rational, the only one that conforms to the truth of the way the world is made. But that led to a spiritual crisis of sorts, when one morning in my quiet time I realized that while I could prove all of this, I could not prove who God was. I began to worry: When this life was over, would I really meet Him?
Some weeks later, as I describe in my new book The Good Life, it hit me that if I could prove God, I could not know Him. The reason is that, just as He tells us, He wants us to come like little children with faith. If you could resolve all intellectual doubts, there would be no need for faith. You would then know God the same way that you know the tree in the garden outside your home. You would look at it, know it is there, and that’s it, as Thomas Aquinas once said.
Faith is necessary because without it you cannot love God. So as I said to Dr. Flew, if you could prove God, you couldn’t love Him, which is His whole purpose in creating you. He later told me that I have raised a very provocative point that he would have to give some thought to.
So, I hope you will pray for Antony Flew—a gentle and courageous man who appears to be seeking God. And we should remember that if this brilliant man can be persuaded out of his atheism by intelligent design, anyone can see it. Those of us contending for the intelligent design point of view, which now includes among our ranks the president of the United States, I’m happy to say, are on increasingly solid ground.
I agree and disagree.
Yes, it's a waste of time in the sense that none of the hard core FR creationists and evolutionists are going to switch sides.
No, it's not a waste of time because someone who is open-minded could have their mind changed. Most of the current crevo participants don't fall into that group, but we get new Freepers and lurkers every day.
And if Colson writes something, I post it, no matter what the subject.
I'd say he gave us the intelligence and means to invent science.
This sounds like a case of "My creation story is better than yours!"
As for the "straw men" which I dredge up on a regular basis? I am simply sharing other people's creation stories. So far no one has pointed out to me where they are incorrect, except in relation to other creation stories.
I have not seen or heard any suggestions that various creation stories be taught in science classes, if that is what you mean.
These threads are here only because some people propose to teach bible creationism in science classes in place of, or as a part of, evolutionary studies; they attack evolution as a means toward that end.
I am simply pointing out that there are various creation stories. The usual responses to my posts may be paraphrased as "my creation story is better than your creation story."
It could be said, but that would be an inaccurate statment. The Theory of Evolution is well-supported by empirical evidence and is potentially falsifiable, the last point being the crucial difference.
A lab setting is only one way to collect empirical evidence. If the inside of a lab was the only way to gather empirical data, there would be no archeology, paleontology, astronomy, geophysics, oceanography, etc. Empirical evidence can also be collected and observed in nature, and commonly is.
So we quickly get "social darwinism" and eugenics, because each serves the purposes of those who rule society.
Both social darwinism and eugenics are discredited principles based on faulty pseudoscientific applications of evolutionary biology. The emergence of these dangerous ideas only emphasizes the point that evolution needs be learned and understood properly; poor education about the principles of evolution only makes its misapplication more likely.
Conventional wisdom to this very day makes Bryan out to be a fool, because he resisted the claims of the powerful to a natural superiority.
I don't believe Bryan was a fool; but he definitely went down the wrong route with the Scopes trial. Keep in mind that even William Jennings Bryan conceded that not everything in the Bible was meant literally; he did not believe in a literal six-day Creation within the last few thousand years, for example.
Nope. The biblical text is not the product of an individual who can claim it as his own. It is absolutely a better account of creation than any other one spun out of individual imagination and experience. There is no better text for understanding where the world and mankind came from, and where it is headed.
Cultures that place confidence is tales spun out of the imagination would be grateful to receive and ponder the biblical text, as it is more accurate, more detailed, more helpful, and more reliable than any other text. And so it happens. Wherever the biblical text is read and pondered, a clearer picture of the grand scheme of things is evident to all but the most willfully deceived of people.
These threads are here only because some people propose to teach bible creationism in science classes in place of, or as a part of, evolutionary studies; they attack evolution as a means toward that end.
There may be a few people who want to bring creationism into the science class, but they are no more justified in doing so than evolutionists who bring evolution into science class. As it stands, I think you are overly paranoid, thinking a wider agenda than exists under the circumstances.
You are correct here.
However, the value of any scientific theory lies in its ability to make specific predictions. What specific predictions does intelligent design make?
I don't deny that intelligent design is a real possibility. It just doesn't seem to have any scientific use.
Actually Chihuahua's aren't a very good example.
Different dogs were bred,by people to serve a certain purpose, not through evolution
So I guess you think that eventually science will find the "missing link?"
Evolution hasn't explained everything found in nature, no one would expect it to. It has, however, explained a large number of complex phenomena, many of which were once thought to be "irreducibly complex". To say evolution absolutely can't explain specific phenomena is a premature conclusion.
The forces inside of the nucleus of an atom are too complex to be explained exactly by our current knowledge of nuclear physics. Should we propose that an Intelligent Binder must be holding the particles in the nucleus together? Wouldn't be a very useful theory; neither is Intelligent Design.
>> I don't deny that intelligent design is a real possibility. It just doesn't seem to have any scientific use.<<
Acedemically that is correct. Practically, it is not, for if ID is, in fact, how everything came about, then trying to understand biology from an ID model will get you a lot farther in understanding life using the evolution model. It may work to a point just as Ptolomy's model of the solar system worked to a point.
Science is just a word. A definition. And the pursuit of science is not the loftiest of mans endeavors, although it can be the most fun sometimes.
How do you know? I bet there's some pretty good creation theories out there! Personally, I think Shiva, Vishnu and Kali are much more entertaining than the Father, Son and Holy Ghost!
>>Should we propose that an Intelligent Binder must be holding the particles in the nucleus together? Wouldn't be a very useful theory; neither is Intelligent Design.<<
Actually, the most useful theory/hypothesis is always the one that turns out to be true.
I thought you'd never ask!
People did not always live on the surface of the earth. At one time people and animals lived underneath the earth with Kaang, the Great Master and Lord of All Life. In this place people and animals lived together peacefully. They understood each other. No one ever wanted for anything and it was always light even though there wasn't any sun. During this time of bliss Kaang began to plan the wonders he would put in the world above.
First Kaang created a wondrous tree, with branches stretching over the entire country. At the base of the tree he dug a hole that reached all the way down into the world where the people and animals lived. After he had finished furnishing the world as he pleased he led the first man up the hole. He sat down on the edge of the hole and soon the first woman came up out of it. Soon all the people were gathered at the foot of the tree, awed by the world they had just entered. Next, Kaang began helping the animals climb out of the hole. In their eagerness some of the animals found a way to climb up through the tree's roots and come out of the branches. They continued racing out of the world beneath until all of the animals were out.
Kaang gathered all the people and animals about him. He instructed them to live together peacefully. Then he turned to the men and women and warned them not to build any fires or a great evil would befall them. They gave their word and Kaang left to where he could watch his world secretly.
As evening approached the sun began to sink beneath the horizon. The people and animals stood watching this phenomenon, but when the sun disappeared fear entered the hearts of the people. They could no longer see each other as they lacked the eyes of the animals which were capable of seeing in the dark. They lacked the warm fur of the animals also and soon grew cold. In desperation one man suggested that they build a fire to keep warm. Forgetting Kaang's warning they disobeyed him. They soon grew warm and were once again able to see each other.
However the fire frightened the animals. They fled to the caves and mountains and ever since the people broke Kaang's command people have not been able to communicate with animals. Now fear has replaced the seat friendship once held between the two groups.
As a 12 yo girl once said in answer to a question on this subject: In sunday school, we learn that God created the universe an all living things; in science class at school, we learn how He did it.
Here is a collection (courtesy the Smithsonian) showing the progression of hominids from Australopithecus to modern humans,
except for the upper left (A), which is a chimpanzee.
Where is this missing link you are referring to? 
The "missing link" issue is little more than a red herring thrown out by creationists. There is no concisely defined "missing link".
I guess you can say that - but science doesn't really deal with "truths". A theory remains successful through the lens of science if it continues to predict empirical observations and remains unfalsified; that's it.
Can it be definitively shown that any of those skulls are "related" or are "not related?" The problem is, for an evolutionist, common descent is already a given, no sense even asking the question. Once you accept the theory that common genetic patterns = common descent, why test? Maybe I'm missing something though.
Simply & well stated! (Wisdom from the mouths of children...)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.