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 judges 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 dont 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, cant identify which religion is being established. Is it that of the Jehovahs 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, theres 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 Bibles 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 Darwins 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 theorys 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. Lets hope they eventually wise up.
Sure a fine enough job. Galileo then was left with the words choked in his throat for fear, today the keybaords of the meek are stilled by abusive posters who bully with name-calling, inanity, and mud-slinging.
YOU told me that God created evolution
I only asked you to support your "opinion" from the source, His Word
Obviously you can't
I bet it's painful just about anywhere, although I suppose it's probably less painful in some less-endowed subgroups of humanity, those subgroups having less to lose.
The Privy part was even more painful to Ben Franklin. He had to leave Britain ASAP, least his own be rendered.
And I told you why. Logic does not require a null hypothesis. Your "premise" is false. Letters do not self-replicate.
Dinosours had primitive hearts, digestive systems, brains, ect
Otherwise they would have been better, not bitter
in case you have not noticed:
1. there are no "meek" on CREVO threads.
2. no one on CREVO threads have their keyboards "stilled".
3. histrionics and florid orotundery are quaint, but uncompelling in an arena of science.
Matthew 12:39
" He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
I bet it's painful just about anywhere, although I suppose it's probably less painful in some less-endowed subgroups of humanity, those subgroups having less to lose.
HEHE:) Good one.
Your quoting form the old covenant of the Law
There's a New Covenant, or haven't you heard?
Luke 22:19-21
19And he (Jesus) took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
BTW I don't have to worry about the "family jewels", I am a woman
LOL!
Why Are Historians So Afraid of Holocaust Revisionism?"TeeheeheeWWII historians must be an endangered species. How else to explain their 50-year need for court protection to ensure their survival? ...
The Privy part was even more painful to Ben Franklin. He had to leave Britain ASAP, least his own be rendered.
That's why he bought stuff, so he wouldn't have to be a render.:)
Richard Weikart, Ph.D., is associate professor in the department of history at California State University, Stanislaus. Before joining the faculty there he was a visiting assistant professor at the University of Iowa. He has been a Fulbright and Gordon Prange fellow, and has written for various periodicals, including the Journal of the History of Ideas, Books and Culture: A Christian Review, and Fides et Historia. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Iowa, and his M.A. and B.A. from Texas Christian University.Dr. Weikart has an On Line Lecture on the topic: "From Darwin to Hitler: Does Darwinism Devalue Human Life?" (2004). You can link to the free webcast video HERE: http://webcast.ucsd.edu:8080/ramgen/UCSD_TV
Would you care to list these court cases for us? It would enlighten me on how historians need protection from the likes of "Calypso Louie".
I know in Whom I believe
Neither a render nor a borrower be.
nice dodge. total lie on your part. typical.
I stated: "if letters imperfectly self-replicated, 'every letter is a transitional sentence' would be quite factual."
You replied: "and STILL be useless."
STILL is the key word. In your application, it means, denotation, literal: "even under those specific conditions you set forth"
you are too clever an irritant to not know this.
you are, thus, engaged in willful and deliberate falsehood and self-aggrandizement.
go 'way, blowfly. shoo.
Neither a render nor a borrower be.
I owe you one. :)
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.