Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Are Darwinists So Afraid of Intelligent Design?
Human Events ^ | Jan 17, 2006 | Barney Brenner

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creationisminadress; crevolist; dishonestfundies; dishonestmonkeymen; goddooditamen; iddupes; idiocy; idjunkscience; ignoranceisstrength; junkscience; madmokeymen; pseudoscience; superstitiousnuts; yeccultists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 741-759 next last
To: moog

toenails: more robust and flavorful and "al dente"


341 posted on 01/16/2006 11:38:47 PM PST by King Prout (many accuse me of being overly literal... this would not be a problem if many were not under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
the fact that no one knows everything - indeed, that the sum of all human knowledge is miniscule in comparison to human ignorance - is a source of delight to me: there is so much left to learn. that's what science is about, at root.

NOW I can appreciate this statement. Science is fascinating and I can't wait to see what we find out and yet I am uncertain where it will take us. It will indeed be a wild ride.

342 posted on 01/16/2006 11:40:27 PM PST by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

toenails: more robust and flavorful and "al dente"

Do those grains of dirt taste good?:)


343 posted on 01/16/2006 11:41:17 PM PST by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

Gotta run. See ya.


344 posted on 01/16/2006 11:42:55 PM PST by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: moog
Do those grains of dirt taste good?:)

them thangs puts harr on yer chest, bo-ah!

345 posted on 01/16/2006 11:43:42 PM PST by King Prout (many accuse me of being overly literal... this would not be a problem if many were not under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

them thangs puts harr on yer chest, bo-ah!

Ok, now you can take the tape off:)


346 posted on 01/16/2006 11:44:25 PM PST by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader; King Prout
There are no transitional species,

See below.

if there were, the Darwinsits would be lifting them up high and trumpeting to the world that they've discovered the "Holy Grail of Evolution".

They're reported in the science journals very regularly, and show up in the newspapers pretty damned often too, son. It's not our fault you have your eyes tightly closed.

Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CC200: There are no transitional fossils.

Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record

On Creation Science and "Transitional Fossils"

The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"

No transitional fossils? Here's a challenge...

Phylum Level Evolution

Paleontology: The Fossil Record of Life

Cuffey: Transitional Fossils

What Is A Transitional Fossil?

More Evidence for Transitional Fossils

The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

Transitional Forms of Whales

Fossil Horses FAQs

PALAEOS: The Trace of Life on Earth

Mammaliformes: Docodonta

Transitional Fossil Species And Modes of Speciation

Evolution and the Fossil Record

Smooth Change in the Fossil Record

Transitional fossil sequence from dinosaur to bird

Transitional fossil sequence from fish to elephant

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ


347 posted on 01/16/2006 11:44:30 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: moog

yeah, gotta do some trollhunting pinglist housekeeping, and then I'm out for the night, too.

seeya round, moog.


348 posted on 01/16/2006 11:44:35 PM PST by King Prout (many accuse me of being overly literal... this would not be a problem if many were not under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: moog
You know moog,

I have not read enough to know 'which side' you are on, But I like what I see!!

frisky alert Wolf sparkle in eye, pant pant pant

Wolf
349 posted on 01/16/2006 11:47:01 PM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

night


350 posted on 01/16/2006 11:47:33 PM PST by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

thanks, again. of course, they won't be read by the other addressed recipient, you realize?


351 posted on 01/16/2006 11:47:45 PM PST by King Prout (many accuse me of being overly literal... this would not be a problem if many were not under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: moog

tape?
I am often puzzled, but seldom stumped.
ya got me.
tape?


352 posted on 01/16/2006 11:49:18 PM PST by King Prout (many accuse me of being overly literal... this would not be a problem if many were not under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
You know moog, I have not read enough to know 'which side' you are on, But I like what I see!! frisky alert Wolf sparkle in eye, pant pant pant Wolf Thanks...I think:). Actually, I'm a pretty staunch ID'er, but I don't have a problem learning evolution nor with science. I am content that I know what my beliefs are and I have faith in them and I allow others to have their own beliefs about the creation--one thing that people don't point out is that among creationists there are a lot of differences too. We talked about it once in Sunday School and each of the 10 people had 10 different opinions. We've used science in about every convenience we have today and will have.

I think sometimes we can get too much into something and forget some of the things that really matter in life. That's where I want to put my focus.

Oh crap, I've gotten too serious for too long. Thanks for the comment.

Glad you "wear" pants.

353 posted on 01/16/2006 11:54:22 PM PST by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

tape?
I am often puzzled, but seldom stumped.
ya got me.
tape?

Well, you had to make that dirt look like hair SOME way didn't you?:) Tape hurts when it comes off a chest. hehe.


354 posted on 01/16/2006 11:55:54 PM PST by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: moog
Tape hurts when it comes off a chest. hehe.

not being a metrosexual, I wouldn't know ;)

(BURN!)

355 posted on 01/16/2006 11:58:05 PM PST by King Prout (many accuse me of being overly literal... this would not be a problem if many were not under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
thanks, again. of course, they won't be read by the other addressed recipient, you realize?

I'm well aware of how they maintain their false beliefs about there being "no evidence" for evolution.


356 posted on 01/16/2006 11:58:39 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

ah.
doin' it fer tha lurkers.
gotcha.


357 posted on 01/17/2006 12:00:28 AM PST by King Prout (many accuse me of being overly literal... this would not be a problem if many were not under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
You have it backwards. It's the Darwinist religious fanatics who are ignorant, dishonest or both. Darwinism is a religious belief that has nothing to do with science. Darwinists have adopted the beliefs of various groups and covered them with a pseudo scientific veneer. The idea that current species once looked different comes from various North American beliefs. The idea of humans being descended from monkeys/apes comes from ancient Tibetan beliefs. The Darwinist belief that all life has a common origin is pure religion and is scientifically impossible if life developed without the aid of some Intelligence. A "natural" process would have been able to produce many different life forms from scratch independently from each over a long period of time. The life forms observed after mass extinctions could have developed from scratch as new species if life developed "naturally". Most Darwinists seem incapable of understanding what Intelligent Design means. I.D. looks at biological life and recognizes that the only physical systems that are comparable to biological organisms in terms of structure and regularity of operation are the machines constructed by human beings, generally considered to be intelligent beings. The biological cell is a biochemical computer with molecular memory that is organized in a manner that can be expressed as "0's" and "1's".
358 posted on 01/17/2006 12:00:32 AM PST by reasonmclucus (solving problems requires precise knowledge of the cause and nature of the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

I asked your old French girlfriend. Hehe.


359 posted on 01/17/2006 12:00:51 AM PST by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

oh, my...
look at 358.
that CAN'T be sincere.
can it?


360 posted on 01/17/2006 12:02:28 AM PST by King Prout (many accuse me of being overly literal... this would not be a problem if many were not under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 741-759 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson