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.
Darwinists don't deal with the origin of life in a scientific fashion that just assume that it kind of magically happened.
well, old French gals have some advantages...
no... no... on wiser reflection, let's just stop there - I'll be needing to get to bed soon, and don't need the nightmares such a digression is apt to inspire.
'nite, moog. be good - if you can't, then be careful :)
He's exposin' yer ancient tibetin beliefs there. Looks like the cat's out of the bag now.
Considering all the misconceptions in the original post, and the the many misconceptions posted on this thread, I'm left wondering if the schools are even teaching Evolution, since so many on here barely understand what it is and what it isn't!
For instance, Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life on the planet.
We assume nothing. It's test tube juju.
"Darwinist" is the term that most closely describes the religion that suggests that all biological life had a common origin and then gradually changed through "mutations" that somehow added very complex features just by changing genes.
The term "evolution" has become largely as meaningless as the term "democracy". I.D. advocate Michael Behe calls himself believes in an evolutionary process (a process that humans use to develop everything from technology to literary works to computer programs) . Stephen Jay Gould considered himself an evolutionist even though he disagreed with the idea of slow gradual change through whatever "natural" process produced life. Carl Woese gives lip service to the term even though he believes early cells initially accumulated large amounts of different sets of DNA before beginning to develop as complex species.
my cat is on my right foot under my desk. my dog is to my left on the floor. both are asleep, as soon shall I be. all is right with the world. 'nite.
nite.
ooo! 369... uber-Prime!
neener-neener-neee-nerrrr!
So an argument that starts with a flawed assumption doesn't work.
Actually the assumption is if God is perfect can he build a rock so big he could not lift it. The context in which it was used was to refute Descartes attempt to prove that God is perfect. I assumed nothing but only ask the question. Emperical evidence has yet to be found for the existance of God but the most well known proof for the existance of God is simply that most people believe in God therefore he must exist. It was refuted by most most people believe in a flat earth therefore the earth must be flat. Most religions seek to prove that its God is the only true God. The logical refute is that out of billions of people that have existed and the millions of religions that have existed what are the odds that any one religion is of the true God. At best a million to one.
one minor side note: it does not appear to have been true that most people who considered the matter at all ever considered the earth to be flat.
that is an antireligious myth coined (independently?) by some frenchman and Nathaniel Hawthorne (iirc) as a prop to extol the virtues of the Enlightenment over the "dark and superstitious foolishness" of earlier church-dominated times.
Certainly from at least the time of the early Roman Empire (as evidenced by imperial statuary and regalia) the educated classes knew quite well that the Earth was a sphere (see the orbis terrarum in such statuary, and in imperial and later royal paraphernalia).
IIRC, there is no mention of belief in a flat earth in navigational treatises contemporary to Columbus, and no mention of any such generalized belief until the early 1800's and their anti-religious/anti-papacy broadsides and "histories".
let's not accuse religious folk of sins they didn't own, ok?
we must strive to be fair in our little wars, yes?
Uh-oh, another somebunny who wants to get into an argument.
Not really, just polking a little fun but the pigs have promise.
I can't wait until Barney Brenner posts his thoughts on the theory of relativity. I'm sure Einstein made a ton of mistakes.
When the cost of honesty lessens, more scientsts will tell the truth about the laughable toe - it'll be drain time. Tenure and publication and grants and conference invites won't depend so much on sycophanting the hoax...
So where are the trasitional species?
They are being found wherever paleontologists are digging. In China lightly build feathered dinosaurs appear transitional to archeopterix which appears transitional to birds, as one example. Forty million years of whale evolution has been traced through a number of species from a land walking animal to the one that swallowed Jonah. The formation of fossils is very rare as most dead are eaten or rot before they fossilize. Thousands of deer drop antlers in our woods every year. Why don't we find many? Because they are eaten for their calcium content by mice, etc.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Missing evidence of the earliest forms is probably a combination of the soft bodied earlier forms (fossil jelly fish anyone?), and catastrophic meteor strikes (at least 3) before the first hard calcium structure beings developed 1/2 billion years ago. Check out the web sites about Meteor Impact Crater. Scary stuff.
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.