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 see, they are related as they are made by the same creator. Of course there are similarities in the species because of this. In any case....:) I suspect that a little dust will be raised by this evening. :))
But, I'd still Kill Flipper for a tuna sandwich...love those things, especially if they are toasted.....
Tom
naw, just the facts.......no evolution. Evolution is mans way of boxing Gods's creation so that he (man) can understand it in his four dimentional thinking. It makes him feel safe. My belief in this, actually cannot be a misconception as any taxonomic study won't prove a thing. He will show just animals that look similar over a period of time that ended up as they are now. The reason that they are similar is that they were created by the same creator, not because they evolved. Species do change due to certain mutations...but it is not the order of things. If so, where are the six toed Humans from the stone age....:))
I have been on enough to know that you do that.
I do believe in ID, but I don't believe we "descend" so to speak. While that may seem so in our society today, I think that God wants us to PROGRESS rather than REGRESS.
But that's just my progressive opinion.
They actually had a guy come out once and teach creation at our high school years ago--a minister.
You see, they are related as they are made by the same creator. Of course there are similarities in the species because of this. In any case....:) I suspect that a little dust will be raised by this evening. :))
I met taxonomically, but I can't remember for sure. I'll check back this evening to see what else is new. Enjoy your tuna--just don't watch that one Simpson's episode about the dolphins.
That is an astoundingly bad leap of logic.
Some evolutionists have origin of life ideas just as some have firm beliefs in an afterlife. It doesn't make either of those concepts which are unrelated to evolution more or less true.
So did you descend from your ancestors or progress? You are using words outside of their intended meaning. Descent refers to lineage, not direction or value.
So did you descend from your ancestors or progress? You are using words outside of their intended meaning. Descent refers to lineage, not direction or value.
I'm progressing towards the descent of my ancestors--hehe. Thanks for taking the bait. Just wanted to see if we were all awake. As you noticed, I use words often in double meanings--known as puns (and dumb ones at that):).
Sorry about that. I'm going to watch you guys duke it out.
I'm not sure that's an appropriate description, as forensic is defined as "relating to or dealing with the application of scientific knowledge to legal problems."
If I'm not mistaken, what you're really saying is that evolution attempts to explain how things got to be the way they are. That's a reasonable description, although I suspect that you're not actually stating the majority opinion on that, because you'd be faced with the same problems of testability and predictability that supposedly face an ID hypothesis.
Your glow-in-the dark pigs are and interesting challenge, but that is all.
They're an interesting test of "evolution as forensic science." We already have "the best available explanation," in that we already know the real answer. The test for your "forensic science" is to see whether or not it can come up with the real answer on its own. And if it cannot ... well, that does raises a rather interesting scientific problem, doesn't it?
Forensic science works with probabilities and best available explanations. It does this all the time.
And in the case of glow-in-the-dark pigs, what do your forensic probabilities tell you about the "best available explanations?" Can your forensic science tolerate a hypothesis that these pigs were caused by intelligent agents?
Why not exercise your brain on something interesting? Tell me how a forensic science would go about solving puzzles for which we do not yet have a certain answer?
Hmmmm..... Well, I'd say that testing the ability of your forensic science to get the right answer in this case is an interesting exercise.
What is more, science by nature entails reasonable conjecture. It is hardly unreasonable to conjecture that, where there is organized matter, there may be a designer. Indeed, every instance of organized matter may be reasonably construed as evidence of intelligent design.
A good many of Darwins disciples loudly proclaim themselves as sole arbiters of what consitutes science, invoking words such as "hypotheses," "falsifiability," "scientific method" all the while disavowing the overarching principle(s) they themselves have adopted as observers, as if science can somehow entirely divest itself of subjectivity, general principles, and philosophy.
Many of them furthermore assert that words such as "faith" and "belief" must only be applied to religion, when in fact none of them have direct knowledge of evolution, but have only reasonable conjecture and inference subjectively drawn from a static record. No one has directly observed a transition from ape to human. One may only subjectively infer as much.
But what are they afraid of? A theocracy? That "real science" will somehow be damaged? I don't think so.
Words like "intelligence," "design," "simple," "complex," etc. are notably absent from the vocabulary
Heck, they're absent from most people's vocab--especially mine.
Yours is a most reasonable request. Thanks for the advice.
I use the proper term "Scientific Design", rather than the less explanatory "Intelligent Design". For not only is the Universe's design obviously intelligent -- it is obviously condusive to and even welcoming of "Science".
Sorry, Barney boy, your buds got busted.
Speaking on behalf of the Christian Church of Organized Matter I can say without reservation that you are correct in presenting the Law of Chaos as currently inoperative on this planet.
Well, summer movies with back-to-back explosions were presumably designed by (somewhat) intelligent writers and directors.
This has been swatted down so many times that I'm surprised that even the most stalwart creationists still try to advance it.
One thing we know for sure about Intelligent Design. It casues people to lie.
Uhhh, yeah really. There are certain discoveries that any biologist could describe to you that, if found, could invalidate the theory or would at least require it to be reworked. So far, everything fits.
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.
