Posted on 01/16/2006 8:32:58 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
Darwinists must be an endangered species. How else to explain their 80-year need for court protection to ensure their survival?
In 1925, an ACLU-driven defense team in the Scopes-Monkey Trial wanted a court to declare that laws forbidding the teaching of evolution were unconstitutional. In recent weeks, in a courtroom in Dover, Pa., the same organization applauded a judge’s ruling that the teaching of ideas contrary to evolution, in this case Intelligent Design, were unconstitutional.
The same ACLU that once advocated for free and open discussion in schools is working to see it stifled today.
Its website boasts, “Intelligent Design is a religious view, not a scientific theory, according to U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III in his historic decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover. The decision is a victory not only for the ACLU, who led the legal challenge, but for all who believe it is inappropriate, and unconstitutional, to advance a particular religious belief at the expense of our children's education.”
Science involves observing nature and producing hypotheses which explain the data -- and of discrediting theories which don’t fit new observations. Having judges decide what constitutes science is as nonsensical as scientists issuing judicial decisions.
And the irreligious left, perpetually misusing the First Amendment, can’t identify which religion is being established. Is it that of the Jehovah’s Witnesses or of Catholicism? Perhaps Mormonism or Orthodox Judaism? Among many others, these disparate faiths all claim as canon the book of Genesis, where the religious version of creation is found.
But ironically, while no particular religion is being promoted by the teaching of Intelligent Design, there’s a belief system, which has established “churches” in several states, that is being favored by ACLU-- and court-imposed censorship: atheism, whose worldview promotes moral relativism and secular humanism.
The left maintains that Intelligent Design is merely creationism -- a literal reading of the Bible’s account of creation -- camouflaged in scientific language. But even a casual perusal of ID demonstrates there is no dependence on Genesis for any of its arguments, nor does it teach any biblical doctrine. It merely demands an examination of the evidence -- or lack thereof -- that uncountable species arose from primordial soup, or that they evolved over time from one to another.
To support Darwin’s theory, the earth should be teeming with myriad transitional specimens, but they are noteworthy, despite incessant extrapolation, only by their absence.
Other modern observations are daunting for Darwinists: digital information -- universally a mark of design -- in the genetic code and irreducibly complex structures such as miniature molecular machines within the cell which Darwin could hardly begin to imagine. Using the eye as an example, he coined the phrase, “organs of extreme perfection and complication” and recognized his theory’s inability to explain them. New discoveries only exacerbate these shortcomings.
And despite frequent references to “organic chemicals” present on the formative earth, neither Darwin nor modern scientists can demonstrate how to get from these compounds to just a single-cell living organism, or even a virus -- let alone the complex life forms. The search for that initial “spark” of life, or an explanation of why it is no longer in evidence, has been forever elusive.
Ironically, the scientific community, which anxiously tries to find evidence of other intelligent life in the universe, blatantly turns its back on the one intelligence we have the most indication of: a creator; a master chemist for whom the DNA code -- a puzzle which even our terrestrial species is just starting to grasp -- is a simple blueprint.
Even though ID relies not at all on the Bible, it does leave open the conclusion that the designer is the biblical God and this implication of God is what the Darwinists seem to fear.
So there may yet be hope for these folks since the Psalmist says, “The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.” Let’s hope they eventually wise up.
Nice pic. And what does it mean, or is it just nice?
intelligent design is science.
In my case, the big band was named Cecilia (last name to be omitted in the name of decency), a senior when I was a mere freshman.
Accountability to the Creator is why Evolutionists hate God and His creation.
Unless you count some UFO wingnuts. That's why I say that those of us who believe in ID cannot help but believe in God because to say the "higher power" is anything else denies HIM.
That is about as useful as "every letter is a transitional sentence".
Thank you for proving my point
They are both accounted for in Post #96.
No you're just not happy the scientists don't see it the way you do. Abiogenisis is a seperate topic. Just like zoology, or microbiology are seperate topics.
Ditto. I have no problem with evolution or God.
No reason to. I'm more concerned about where I'm going anyways (but I seriously cannot resist these crevo threads:).
"I'd like to have a head count of everyone who believes in ID, but does not believe in God."
Posit a designer, posit an intelligence so advanced, in comparison to our own, that the distinction would be moot . As far as your proposal, that would be almost as interesting and informative as a head count of everyone who believes in Evolution, but does not believe in God.
Notice how I don't hyphenate. :)
It spans a little more.
Aside: Will someone please post the "aw, geez, not this s--- again" pic so I can bookmark it?
This is akin to the kid who kills his parents and then pleads for mercy on the grounds that he is an orphan. Evolution is deemed to lean on "court protection" because it has stood up to a torrent of litigation and legislation in an effort to make it go away.
Among scientists, "Darwinism" is no more controversial than Euclidism or Copernicism or Pasteurism. The controversy is not a scientific controversy; it's a political controversy over whether or not science should be taught.
So, the definition of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics MUST be wrong? I provided proof; I provided examples; you said I'm wrong. My examples are gas clouds forming stars, Stars exploding and forming solar systems. Then we have Hydrogen in nuclear Fission moving UP the periodic table to stall at Iron. Or would you argue that Fe is a less complex atom than H?
Then we see evolution giving way to more complex lifeforms, the lowest form of mammal is far more complex than any single cell organism. Yet, this flies in the face of conventional logic. Ordered systems MUST degernerate to disorder.
A sperm and egg is far less complex than the plant, animal or person they become.
If everything went to disorder; as some would have us believe, then the universe would be a homogenius mix of simple atoms. It's not.
So where are your proofs? Where are your examples? Again, cite your evidence.
Notice how I don't hyphenate.
Then how DO you sleep in the winter???:)
I take it you're not a big fan of Bill's.
One of his best routines was the conversation between Noah and God when God enjoined Noah to build the Ark.
The earlier creations were destroyed by extinction not evolving. A God that created a universe from nothing, can certainly create life from nothing.....it's easy....
Can this perfect God build a rock so big he cannot lift it?
Noting any problems does not equate with low self esteem.
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.