George Neumayr Ping
> Lehigh university biochemist Michael Behe. A dreaded scientist who perversely
Well, at least there's one accurate thing in this editorial: Behe = perverse.
BUMP!
Weak ankles are not evidence of unintelligence. Eagles see better, Cheetahs run faster, Bears are stronger, but Man's design still dominates the planet. We know that we are not optimally designed, for "we were made lower than the angels", who have far superior bodies and abilities.
Diabetes and the probability of future death is not evidence of unintelligence. For we have been told clearly that our original design was modified to allow death and disease when we sinned.
Wrong, dead wrong. Read The Physics and see for yourself. (The "teeth" stuff is in Book II Part 8). He argues that Nature is purposive, not intelligent. Which is exactly the position of the evolutionist: the purpose of living things is to survive, be fruitful, and multiply.
Aristotle of course never wore a toga - that's truly a schoolboy howler. And he hardly ever went to a temple, which is one reason he was accused of impiety and exiled. He taught, you may recall, that the Gods had no need of our worship, being utterly outside the natural order.
Points out the folly of academic snobbery, now attempting to use censorship to accomplish academic excellence.
Let's not confuse the Darwinian teachings on mutation and natural selection with its many proponent's rediculous and unsubstantiated claims that they can be used to solve the mystery of the origin of life itself.
In this arena Behe shines and the godless Darwinists want him censored. They maintain that the evidence cannot point in Behe's direction of Intelligent origins, merely because of their own godless presuppositions.
It's the teachers who are the plaintiffs in the case. The argument is that the school board can't use the pretext of charlatan pseudo science to sneak religious superstitions into science class and force qualified teachers who know better to teach it against their will and better judgment.
ID "IS" a criticism of evolutionary theory and problems with it. It has not been presented as an alternative theory, but as a criticism.
That said, an "intelligence" does not have to be personal or divine. It can be an "organizing principle." For example, I know when I enter a cave that I'll see things growing out of the ceiling and of the ground. I could say, "See a miner has been in here and has carved these neat pillars in the ground and on the ceiling." However, we know that the deposit of minerals from dripping groundwater has, via gravity, caused the formations. Gravity, it turns out, was an "organizing principle."
In that light, Darwin proposed an organizing principle (intelligence) to account for the variety of life as we see it. His "intelligence" or "organizing principle" was natural selection operating on random variation.
The problem with natural selection has been highlighted by Behe. Given the theorized age of the earth and of life on earth, there simply isn't enough time to account for the irreducible complexity that is seen.
Natural Selection is not a sufficient organizing principle/intelligence.
The criticism leveled by ID is valid, imo. Either Natural Selection requires a serious recalibration or we need to look for another organizing principle/intelligence.
Some people have a blind faith in global warming and others in evolution. Science of course is 100% accurate, that's
why the National Hurricane Center shouldn't bother updating
reports on Hurricane Wilma every few hours. Why does the National Weather service give us new forcasts every six hours? Meteorologists can project the weather days ahead
and just go on vacation, right.
The dogmatic darwinists and athiests at FR are getting nervous.How do we know?
They`re getting more shrill and DU sounding everyday.
Mehhh,better that they`re purged and sent packing to DU-ish lands anyhow.
Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
This writer should check his facts before spewing out his uninformed opinions.
The case is in fact about a statement about intelligent design written by a school board and read out by an administrator. The teachers oppose ID and support the teaching of evolution. Several of the plaintiffs are in fact teachers.
While certainly not possessed with Godlike intelligence, automakers produce the occasional lemon among the thousands of perfectly fine vehicles also produced. The design was the same as the others, but things do go wrong on the production line.
I will believe in evolution when evolutionists tell me how the universe was created, and the name of the person who created it.
YEC SPOTREP