What Are The Darwinists Afraid Of?

The Post Chronicle | 8\07\05 | Patrick J Buchanan

[RepublicNewbie]

In the "Monkey Trial," 80 years ago, the issue was: Did John Scopes violate Tennessee law forbidding the teaching of evolution? Indeed he had. Scopes was convicted and fined $100.

But because a cheerleader press favored Clarence Darrow, the agnostic who defended Scopes, Christian fundamentalism -- and the reputation of William Jennings Bryan, who was put on the stand and made to defend the literal truth of every Bible story from Jonah and the whale to the six days of creation -- took a pounding.

[TomB]

The more complex, the more proof of a designer.

Once again you make a hand-waving statement and expect us to take that as some sort of scientific evidence. You may feel or believe that complexity indicated a designer, but that does not prove anything. You are arguing philosophy, not science.

[TomB]

From this:

the evolutionists are unable to recognize Him by definition.

You make the jump to this:

Evolutionists are unable to recognize intelligence.

That makes no sense at all. That's quite a jump.

[Gumlegs]

You see, evolutionism definitionally confines itself to unintelligent process. If there were a Creator (who may have endowed people with certain rights, etc...) the evolutionists are unable to recognize Him by definition. Evolutionists are unable to recognize intelligence. Very indescriminate beings, these evolutionists. There are words for people who are unable to recognize intelligence.

There are also words for people who don't know what they're talking about. "Evolutionism" (your term), confines itself to natural processes, not unintelligent processes, which makes it exactly like all of science. If you don't care for science, fine, but at least try to get your facts straight.

[PatrickHenry]

TIME CUBE .

[LifeOrGoods?]

How would you say that design is not scientific? All animals must eat to live--a scientific fact. How is chance(evolution) able to produce such a perfect order? The probability lies with design over chance. Scientific evidence demonstrates time after time that when design is known, a designer is assumed.

[Gumlegs]

That's quite a jump.

Indeed. Mike Powell would be envious.*

^*IAAF world record holder, long jump.

[LifeOrGoods?]

Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. 'So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job . . .'

[TomB]

How would you say that design is not scientific?

Because you have yet to present a single shred of scientific fact to support design. Saying that things are so complex that there must be a designer is NOT a scientific fact. No matter how many times you state it.

. Scientific evidence demonstrates time after time that when design is known, a designer is assumed.

OK, now we are getting somewhere. Let's see this "scientific evidence".

[forgivenyeah]

Natural processes are by definition unintelligent.

You see, your vehement evolutionary militancy marches on: Because I believe in intellegence, I am somehow anti-scientific. Oh my!

So someone who wants science to be able to discriminate between intelligence and the lack thereof is unscientific. 1984.

Vis-a-vis intelligence, I am afraid you have made it known in which camp you reside.

[Gumlegs]

How would you say that design is not scientific?

I'd form the sounds with my mouth; do you know a better oriface?

I'll be here all week; try the veal!

No one says "design is not scientific," we say, "assuming design in the absence of evidence is not scientific." See the difference?

All animals must eat to live--a scientific fact. How is chance(evolution) able to produce such a perfect order?

If it didn't, you wouldn't be here to object to it.

The probability lies with design over chance.

How would you go about demonstrating that? ("Evolution" is not the same as "chance"). Also, when you have two unquantifiable properties, in this case, "design" and "chance," "probability" is meaningless.

Scientific evidence demonstrates time after time that when design is known, a designer is assumed.

??? You assume quality "a" and then further assume a responsible agent. I don't follow that one.

[PatrickHenry]

Flat Earth Society .

[R. Scott]

Yea.... right.
It's mad to believe that demons cause illness, but sane to believe that the entire universe and everything in it was created in 7 days of 24 hours.

[VadeRetro]

1.) Velociraptor.

2.) Archaeopteryx.

3.) Pigeon.

[Gumlegs]

More sloppy thinking.

Natural processes are by definition unintelligent.

You see, your vehement evolutionary militancy marches on: Because I believe in intellegence, I am somehow anti-scientific. Oh my!

No, it's because you assume the undemonstrated and unquantifiable and think that can be part of science, that's why you're anti-scientific.

So someone who wants science to be able to discriminate between intelligence and the lack thereof is unscientific. 1984.

You're missing the point. 5,000BC.

Vis-a-vis intelligence, I am afraid you have made it known in which camp you reside.

I'm happy to go with science.

[walden]

Since according to Genesis, God didn't create the sun until the 4th day, how was a 24 hour day measured the first three days? (Hint: in Hebrew, the original language of the Old Testament, the word "day" can refer to an undetermined period of time, an era. The same is true of English, of course-- remember the movie "The Day of the Jackal"? Which day was that?)

If you're really interested in the issue, you should sit down and read the first few chapters of Genesis. And, remember, the orthodox Christian view is that the bible is God's revelation to us-- that it is true information, but not necessarily exhaustive.

[forgivenyeah]

When it comes to evolutionism, I do not make assumptions. Your inability to quantify and recognize intelligence does not make me unscientific.

It is my love for intelligence and science that makes me want to strip evolutionism from the scientific mainstream.

[Textide]

That's perfect, Nice job!

[woodb01]

To summarize Popper’s two principles, no theory can be absolutely proven, regardless of the number of positive results, but any theory can be disproven by a single negative observation.

---

To which I now reply "Big Bang," order from disorder, something from nothing, life from gasses and dust, and then later "Miraculous conception" of life from rocks and water...

And **I'm** a religious fanatic?? Evolutionists DEMAND blind zealous religious faith even in the face of impossible and silly theories.

Anyone with half a brain that is not steeped in the blind, zealous religious faith of the religion of evolution can quickly see SPONTANEOUS LIFE FROM ROCKS AND WATER?? And they think **'I'm** crazy for believing in an intelligent designer?

When one steps back from the absurdity and lunacy of the genesis of life that evolutionists expect everyone to accept on THEIR BLIND ZEALOUS FAITH, that we come from ROCKS AND WATER, then it's much easier to see their blind adherence to religious dogma...

In other words, how dare ANYONE challenge evolutions religious zealots.

Ooooopps, all the transitional life forms? Spontaneous life from rocks and water? Something from nothing (the Big Bang)? The IMPOSSIBILITY of the DNA coming about by "accident"? And on and on...

EVOLUTION IS A RELIGIOUS BELIEF THAT IS BASED ON PURE, BLIND, RELIGIOUS ZEALOTRY!! Plain logic does not support it if you start to peel back all the religious fervor from a science FRAUD!

ANTI-DNC Web Portal at ---> http://www.noDNC.com

Come on people, OPEN YOUR EYES!! The religious zealots in the evolution camp will NEVER be converted, BUT STOP LETTING THEM CARRY THE DAY WITH THEIR RIDICULOUS RELIGIOUS FAITH!

Evolutionist PROVE YOUR THEORY!!!

[185JHP]

BTTT

[The Red Zone]

eep eep eep eep eep