Why Are Darwinists So Afraid of Intelligent Design?

Human Events ^ | Jan 17, 2006 | Barney Brenner

[r9etb]

ID isn't a 'Christian' or 'Evolution' argument, it is an openness to questions. One of those questions is Why?, why are we here, how are we here?

That's not entirely correct, at least in the current debate. There are those on both sides of the debate who treat ID as a purely religious topic.

[peyton randolph]

it does leave open the conclusion that the designer is the biblical God

Hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster, full of grace...the designer is with us.

[moog]

Darwinists accept the fact that evolution and the bible can not be straightforwardly resolved. So do Creationists.
IDers insist on making the two fully compatible -- whatever nonsense it takes.

I think you make some great points and connections. Yes, I am an ID'er and I do make connections. I've never had any problems with evolution whatsoever. I simply put it as man's way of understanding of one of God's processes. Can I prove it? NO. ID depends on some science being true, but it chiefly depends on the existence of God (sorry that "higher power" is none other though some insist it isn't God). That was not "proven" to me, but I came about it through faith. I don't attempt to "prove" my position because no one else can understand how I reached it because it is a faith-based position. Thereby, I can respect one's belief that is different from my own and ask that they do the same.

[moog]

put bluntly: everywhere you look among the living and the dead, there they are.

Dang zombies anyway:)

[mnehring]

So ID is NewAge Mysticism?

Nice label. I'm sure particle physicists like David Albert, Stephen Hawking, Amit Goswami and John Haglin would love to know they are 'New Age Mystics' because they are coming to accept that there is a 'spiritual' side to existence through their research in the deepest essence of existence.

Why should there be a gap between science and religion? Just the fact that there is religion should be a scientific question.
How could the finite ever even envision the infinite through a purely scientific explanation?

[moog]

So the Taiwanese glow-in-the-dark pigs are the product of nonsense, and not science?

They're running short on light bulbs.

[GSlob]

Nope. It is a proper word derivation: bible(n.); to bible (v.); bibler(n.) - one who bibles; bibly(adv.); bibling and so on. Ditto for quran, torah, book of mormon, zoroastian texts and so on.

[lonestar67]

Evolution is falsifiable.

[GSlob]

zoroastian=zoroastrian

[Hodar]

The advocates of "Intelligent Design" are ignorant, dshonest, or both.

How so, I can quote observable, demonstable and qualitative examples. If ID were dishonest, then the laws of choas would be true. The Universe would be a homogenius mass of Hydrogen, Helium and the such. We see the opposite, we see gas clouds collapsing due to gravity to form stars. We see stars use Nuclear Fission to create heavier atoms, until they reach Iron. Now, anyone can tell you that Fe is a more complex atom than H or He.

Dinosours had primitive hearts, digestive systems, brains, ect. Modern reptiles exhibit not only more complex hearts, they can tolerate greater changes in temperature than what we have learned that Dinosaurs could.

From evolution, we see that single cell organisms evolve to create colonies; further evolution shows that these colonies eventually 'specialize'; thus becoming more complex.

These examples fly in the face of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Specifically, this law states that everything in any given environment tends to go from an ordered state, to a state of homogenius pressure, temperature and a state of balanced forces. I submit that a solar system is a more ordered state than a gas cloud.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Fourteen million species on Earth today...that must have been one hell of an Ark Noah built.

[EagleUSA]

If we were designed by God, he needs to go back to the drawing board ASAP.
-----
There is no question that the theory of intelligent design is flawed -- the liberal Dems are living proof of that. End of discussion :-)

[moog]

Actually I was wondering why transitional species are all
fossilized that there are few examples ,microbes being one,
of present day transitional species.

Microbes are indeed an interesting study that we can use today.

[Radix]

"Evolution doesn't address the origin of life, no matter how many times it's accused of that."

That is probably why Darwin wrote his thesis and called it "The origin of species."

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html

[only1percent]

"Intelligent Design" isn't science, it's religion. I have no objection to teaching it as religion, assuming that it actually is a tenet of anyone's religion, instead of merely a pretense of creationists to distort biology classes.

Those who advocate it as anything other than religion won't be, and shouldn't be, taken seriously until they start screening their and their family's medical care to make sure that their doctors and the biologists who developed their prescriptions are all advocates of intelligent design, being as it that evolution -- not provably inspired by anything divine -- is the beating heart of all life sciences.

[LibertarianInExile]

"Why Are Darwinists So Afraid of Intelligent Design?"

Why do people insist that there are 'Darwinists,' or that they are afraid of anything? I don't know anyone who calls themselves a 'Darwinist.' Now, I'll admit I'm a little afraid of the Flying Spaghetti Monster who created the universe. After all, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is the only religion tactitly endorsed by both the NFL AND Major League Baseball.

ARRRGH!
Those of us nestled in his Noodly Appendage know better than to push that lame ID stuff, when FSMism is far, far more accurate and far, far more scientific. We have books, just ask us. And endorsements! Boy, do we have endorsements! And a stripper factory and beer volcano! Does YOUR theory even have a beer volcano INVOLVED? What kind of theory of origin doesn't have a beer volcano?!?!?!? HERESY!

[r9etb]

Evolution is about the origin of species, a completely different concept than the origin of life.

Nope. When you go back to square one, you've got to deal with the non-living/living problem, haven't you? The logic of pure, materialistic evolution absolutely must all the way back to raw, non-living components, somehow assembling themselves into living matter. Were it not to assume this, then there would be no dismissal of ID as "non-science."

Of course, the real "proof," if you will, is in the fact that people have been and continue trying very hard to replicate the origins of life, "in a test tube," as it were. Why would they do that, if they didn't already think that's how it happened in the first place?

An honest "we don't know" would be refreshing, as would an honest "we think it happened this way." But the "doesn't address the beginning of life" argument is a cop-out.

[apackof2]

If we were designed by God, he needs to go back to the drawing board ASAP.

I am sorry you have such low self esteem

[moog]

That's not entirely correct, at least in the current debate. There are those on both sides of the debate who treat ID as a purely religious topic.

Good point.