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.
galaxies crashing into one another is evidence of an INTELLIGENT designer?
:->, people were throwing around so many, I thought I should include some of my favorites.
No it doesn't. It means nevertheless. I posted the hint in my reply to your hypothesis demand. And your continued attempts at your own meanings runs afoul of the dictionary.
nev·er·the·less 
( P ) Pronunciation Key (n
v
r-th-ls
)
adv.
LOL! Thanks for the late-night snicker!
Want a Milky Way too?
I guess the education establishment must be doing a mighty poor job of teaching this science. Else, why this common misconception after having a generation to teach evolution to American students?
shut your yap
And you are certainly not teaching me doctrine, LOL
This is a public forum, not a church
I must be getting to you as you are losing your temper, Tsk, tsk little Libertarian
If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch
And how is it evidence against intelligent design? Where did you ever pull that one out from?
"God" is not a name - it is a title or "species" taxonomic tag for vastly potent paranormal entities. same with "devil", "deva", "angel", "djinn", "asura", "elohim", etc...
it ain't the proper name of the pancreator-god of the Jews and Christians - that'd be yodhehvauheh/yahweh/jehovah
I really do dislike that "G_d" affectation - it seems to me that it is not merely silly, but in fact rather ostentatious public vanity.
So, to our credit, we invented religion.
Which has been "something" to a lot of us.
nev·er·the·less ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nvr-th-ls)
adv.
In spite of that; nonetheless; however: a small, nevertheless fatal error.
essentially congruent with what I posted.
your linguistics skills are weak, grasshopper.
If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch
Hey, LIb's a good guy. No reason to do the siwy witto put-downs. By the way, little dogs like me stay UNDER the porch so that we don't have to get near the crap of the big dogs. :)
your IDeists push the notion of complex order as evidence of intelligent design.
you put forth the "heavens proclaim" splinter of writ
I brought up colliding galaxies and asked a question.
want to try to answer it now?
or do you prefer to dodge some more?
your linguistics skills are weak, grasshopper.
Well-geez, what do you expect a grasshopper to be able to do? Sing and dance the Charleston??? Jimney Crickets, have a conscience. :)
the ones who irk me are those who have but modest skill (I'm being charitable) in parsing their phrases, and too little wit to know when they've been skewered with their own words.
You call yourself a libertarian and endorse that kind of censorship on an open forum? And you misquote Scripture to fit your own ends in the suppression of women? It's pretty hypocritical of you to believe in no government interference and then try to control someone's life because you don't like what they say. That's practicing the very thing you condemn in others. You are certainly no ones better on this thread.
Tell me about STILL and nevertheless.
I have a conscience. that is why I have not used the old sun-and-lens routine. yet.
'nite.
you've been entertaining and a relief, as usual.
I brought up colliding galaxies and asked a question.
want to try to answer it now?
or do you prefer to dodge some more?
I drive a Dodge, so don't knock them. :). Colliding galaxies happen when God is playing marbles.
re-read your own post, then re-read my definitions, o benighted mind.
I know. Thank you for being one of the few who realize me for what I am. HEHE. Man, of all things, getting reported to a MOD. (shaking my head).
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.