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.
So ID is NewAge Mysticism? I thought that died out 20 years ago.
With me, he would have to go back to school.
;So where are the transitional species?
Destroyed by global warming is my guess ;-)
Darwinism (read: evolution) and intelligent design are entirely compatible.
Show your neighborhood evolutionist Genesis 1:27 and point to him/her the word "created".
I love the term "Darwinists" that ID kooks use to describe scientists who propound a legitimate scientific theory. What next..physicists and Chemists are "Newtonists", "Bohrists" and "Faradayists"
Biogenesis is only another concept like Evolution, and others....they actually don't explain anything and serve the same purpose as theories. The fact that one life form makes another still doesn't explain the beginning of new life....
"It should be noted anything divine cannot be "proven" since it cannot be tested nor queried. Whereas possible avenues of abiogenesis can be scientifically explained and tested."
****** It's not proven because man does not have the knowledge nor capability to prove it. It's like a primitive trying to prove that computers exist in the civilized world.........with only his words and primitive tools.....
Should be babble
Nope. Typical strawman.
IDers would suggest that the two are not incompatible, I suppose, but from a purely scientific perspective there is no need to invoke the Bible at all... Unless, of course, there are motives other than science at play.
The advocates of "Intelligent Design" are ignorant, dshonest, or both.
Now, now. I support Intelligent Design. I am ignorant (on things in general, not anything specific), but not dishonest. Geez, get it right, will you?:)
Actually I was wondering why transitional species are all
fossilized that there are few examples ,microbes being one,
of present day transitional species.
I'm auditioning at the bowling alley next week.
Evolution has never been proven. Also, Darwinism is contrary to Creation which is how we got here. The term "intelligent design" is a fancy term for creation. The earlier creations were destroyed by extinction not evolving. A God that created a universe from nothing, can certainly create life from nothing.....it's easy....
och... another steamer from the same dungheap
Hey, don't knock my cowpies! I baked them just special.
Paleyists don't like to be referred to as "ID kooks"
You're just wrong. And I defy you to prove otherwise.
Evolution is about the origin of species, a completely different concept than the origin of life.
Clinton's pleased with his body too. LOL
If it's not a science, then scientists has no basis for determing whether or not it's nonsense. By that reasoning, art, poetry, music, emotions, society, are all nonesense. You can measure wavelenghts of light, analyze pigments chemical content and determine how the paint was put on the canvas, and it doesn't tell you a thing about what art is really all about. How limited.
DNA studies show that some genes don't mutate for several generations while others mutate much more frequently. I think secularist must belong in the latter group as they seem to think they're smarter than God.
Anyway, some of the most famous scientist believed in Creationism; Lord Kelvin and Newton among them.
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.