Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
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.
you had to get one of them :)
that's okay......what's a whale or a Dolphin.....It's the idea of Flipper getting legs and walking and then turning into an Elephant, that bothers me....lololol....:) Maybe it was an Orca that turns, evolves I mean into an Elephant millions of years later.....:))
God didn't use evolution. He created the living things as they are. I would love to see the fish that evolved into an Elephant. :))
before I or anyone else attempts to correct your misconceptions, and before Ichneumon dumps and incredibly lengthy and detailed taxonomic study of land-to-sea whale evolution on you, I must ask: were your ludicrously cartoonish Jack Chick-ish posts regarding evolution an attempt at levity, or were you serious?
I don't believe in Evolution at all. They have never proved it was an actual process. In many cases they've proved that so far it didn't. Evolution was not a process used by God to bring about life. This is man's way of explaining it in his terms.
So, doubtful is anyone can correct my misconceptions as Evolution has yet to be explained in and of itself.
Sure, my knock at the admin's door was to the account of many, not directly to you.
Ichneumon has an extremely high degree of patience and tenacity in refuting the militantly, self-righteously ignorant.
nite, moog. be good - if you can't, then be careful :)
Good advice.
Sure, my knock at the admin's door was to the account of many, not directly to you.
THEN STATE THAT NEXT TIME. I offer dumb one-liners, some bad sarcasm, and such, but I don't try to name call or insult others. Yes, I will respond "in kind" so to speak at someone who does it to me (though often I agree with them). Sometimes it seems like I'm the only one who doesn't on some threads.
Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
Actually, that's not so farfetched. Manatees are related to elephants (of course different orders) if I remember right (as are hyraxes).
Not really, just polking a little fun but the pigs have promise.
Get me some colorful fireflies and we have a deal.
So true,
But I still haven't been able to resist the crevo threads. I've been itching for one for a while.:)
Let's turn that around for a moment. Suppose you come across a herd of Taiwanese glow-in-the-dark pigs. Your task is to explain them. I'll challenge you to come up with a testable, falsifiable evolutionary argument for their origin.
Now, as it happens, we know the real explanation is that people did genetic engineering to make the pigs that way, by adding jellyfish DNA to the pig genome. This is an example of intelligent design, obviously.
A bit of imagination suggests that the test for it would involve sequencing the genome, isolating and identifying the imposed difference, and asking a simple question: how could it have gotten there? You've supposedly come up with your evolutionary hypotheses; and we can obviously also propose an ID hypothesis. Which is the most likely to have occurred?
Also, let me know how we can use it to predict the results of experiments with it.
I'm rather certain that the folks who invented the Taiwanese glow-in-the-dark pigs were rather specific in their intent: their design goals are their predictions. So this complaint fails miserably.
Oddly enough, there is no theory or hypothesis in science that closes the door on belief in a creator God. Evolution, like everything else in science, is the best available description of how things work. It does not describe how or why existence came to be.
The problem with ID is that it does not attempt to describe how things work. It has no theories or hypotheses that would suggest research. It does no research. It proposes no research.
Boy, you're going to open up a powder keg on that one. I'm going to sit back and watch the sparks fly.
You haven't been on many of these threads. I say this in different words on every thread. Even the Discovery Institute and Michael Behe admit that there is no ID research.
There is published research by people who say they believe in ID, but their research supports evolution.
Perhaps that is why Behe, Denton and Dembski accept common descent as a given. and only argue about mechanisms.
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.