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.
Oh the wife and/or child abuser. If you quote me, I will deny it.
He cannot do anything He wants.
I'm sure not going to argue that with HIM:()
"Among scientists, "Darwinism" is no more controversial than Euclidism or Copernicism or Pasteurism"
So they have resolved the conflict between gradualism (Darwin's concept) and punctuated equilibrium (Gould's theory)?
Why can't I believe that God put into place the natural laws of physics which allowed us to become what we are?
Have you ever contemplated how many galaxies there are, not to mention how many stars, or planets? There may well be multiple universes, and I hope they don't collide.
I believe God created life on this planet. I believe evolution is what we see today. And I think that was God's plan.
So shoot me.
....it's all about free will.
Didn't he die?
Well, yes, I suppose a logical atheist would have a hard time with the idea that something alive was responsible for some of the life around us. A religious person, OTOH, being used to the idea of a deity at work within human history, would be far more open to the idea of ID, even if the deity were not necessarily the responsible party.
25 Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe.
During the winter, I bill 24/7.
I'll let you live.
God created/designed evolution.
A theory that beats the crap out of assigning the truth behind the existence of everything to this uy:
who die.....??
Gosh, another frenzied religious fanatic comes out of the closet. Oh dear. And I don't even own a gun!
During the winter, I bill 24/7.
Remind me never to write you an IOU.
Yep exact same guy Hagelin
Not exactly the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
Yes Exactly. The Institute for Science, Technology, and Public Policy, of which Hagelin is head, is a Maharishi front
Willie the Dolphin.
if letters imperfectly self-replicated, "every letter is a transitional sentence" would be quite factual.
you folks keep forgetting important details.
please do better.
Is that Bing Crosby too?
The creationist however, in my opinion have went the other way....they say 6,000 years.....which is in my opinion and based on analysis other than mine, incorrect. That Gods 7 days are different than out calendar.....
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.