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.
(you think these people may accuse me of not taking the topic seriously?)
Genesis 38:7-10
"And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also."
No, I provide you cover here on that one. I am way ahead of you. :)
And which of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth had the crabs?
Surely one of them God-fearing folk would fess up to having crotch crickets ...
I think Noah did from sitting on the throne during his long "rain." Crotch crickets? EWWWWW! Wonder if that's where dung beetles came from.
so you are safe from my malpractice.
Don't put yourself down like that!:)
perish the thought!
And thus no theory of common descent?
The field of abiogenesis is complex and no link to evolution CAN be made. Evolution stands by itself.
Oh, pooh. Abiogenesis attempts to explain, among other things, the pre-biotic development of the stuff that makes life possible, does it not? And golly ... evolution is based on none other than those very same things. C'mon spunkets: NO link? The fact is that evolution begins where abiogenesis leaves off.
"I am the Lord, thy God."
Yeah...I can see how He could have been more assertive.
Yet you say "An outside force, energy, can easily cause hydrogen atoms to combine into higher states."
Well, first, thanks for fighting the sewery tide with that contribution of higher thought.
Then, second to the second law. It applies to that idea of protons married to electrons excited by external energies. What is found in nature of such excitations of massed amounts of simple hydrogens? Order or more disorder? I say the order is not increased for in nature we see no hydrogen lasing. Stars afire, but nary one alase.
a spiritualist is a lapsed-deist grifter.
After you dear sir. But I will say, letters do not self-replicate.
Someone once suggested I was a vague Deist. Is that the same as a spiritualist?
I suppose. Heck I don't need to be a deist to be vague. I've already had to explain about 3 one-liners already. Usually it's only 2 per thread.
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
Gen. 1:27
To begin with....
"He cannot lie and He cannot change."
So how does that exclude Him from making a rock too big for Him to lift, exactly?
I'll stick with Pastafarianism, thanks. We have Fridays off as religious holidays.
I guess then that I have one more level yet to sink into the abysmal pit of despair.
Tom Cruise and that French guy that started the Raelians
Didn't Ella Fitzgerald have a PhD in that?
letters do not self-replicate.
they don't? they don't? they don't? they don't? they don't? they don't? they don't? they don't? they don't? they don't? they don't? they don't? they don't? they don't? they don't? they don't? they don't? they don't? they don't? they don't? they don't? they don't? they don't?
"...scatology..."
Didn't Ella Fitzgerald have a PhD in that?
No, that's crap....:)
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.