Why Are Darwinists So Afraid of Intelligent Design?

Human Events ^ | Jan 17, 2006 | Barney Brenner

[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.

[fizziwig]

"So, to our credit, we invented religion"

You assume that man "invented religion" and did not recieve it (Christianity to be specific) by revelation from God. If Man "invented" Christianity then it has no meaning whatsover except as an opiate of the masses as put by Marx.

I believe that Man "invented" Athiesm as a, now subconcious, means to skip out on his responsibility to God. This allows Man to think he can sin endlessly without consequence. What a great deal...eh? NOT!

[tallhappy]

Uhhh, yeah really. There are certain discoveries that any biologist could describe to you that, if found, could invalidate the theory

Name one.

or would at least require it to be reworked.

Oh, OK. Now I see -- you get to change the statement as you go along. This latter new statement on your part is very different from what you first said and I replied to and is of course correct -- I agree there.

So what is it? make a decision if you can. "Invalidate" or "require re-working"?

And, don't forget, specify an example of a discovery "any biologist" (which clearly excludes you) that would either invalidate or cause a requirement for re-working the theory.

[From many - one.]

Doctors treating infectious diseases: Kochists. ;-)

[From many - one.]

I'e seen moog on other threads.

Moog is straight up, and an honest debater. We could use more, it would clean up the discusssions.

[From many - one.]

They aren't all fossilized.

[From many - one.]

But it claims to be science.

[js1138]

Counterfeit critters could make the study of lineage difficult, just as counterfeit money make trouble for the banks. In the case of living things, everyone has asscees to the real paper and ink.

I'm not sure what you point is. Are you suggesting that because it is physically possible for things to have been individually created, that this is the best and most reasonable explanation?

In any cast, this would not help explain ongoing, observable examples of evolution. It would leave observable instances of mutation and selection unanchored. all the Darwinian mechanisms are observable and happen in the here and now, regardless of whether they explain the past.

The ID position is rather like asserting that the shape of the continents is the work of Superman, even though we can observe continents shifting in real time.

[b_sharp]

I was wondering why you were here at 3:30am my time. At the time I was thinking that anyone up this late must be nuts.

[RightWingAtheist]

Darwinist religious fanatics

Ken Miller? Asa Gray? Robert Millikan? Owen Gingerich?

[BMCDA]

And in the case of glow-in-the-dark pigs, what do your forensic probabilities tell you about the "best available explanations?"

Well, that depends on the situation. As it is now we know that humans can genetically manipulate organisms and that these pigs are only of recent origin.
Now if such pigs existed for several centuries before we were able to directly manipulate their genes, the best available explanation would be that it is a natural occurrence since humans and their crude technology at that time can be ruled out and other intelligent agents who could have fiddled with the pig's genes are not known.

But this is not what we observe. Rather, what we do observe is a nested hierarchy that is only destroyed when humans take genetic material from an organism on one "branch" of the "tree" and insert it into an organism on an other "branch".
So if the "designer" were anything like us humans we shouldn't see a tree but a spider's web.

Can your forensic science tolerate a hypothesis that these pigs were caused by intelligent agents?

Yes, and very often forensic science does exactly that. However, an intelligent agent is only invoked if we have a fairly good model of him, i.e. we know his abilities and limitations, maybe even his motivations. And this is certainly the case with humans (or other animals) as designers.
On the other hand, ID explicitly refuses to identify the designer which is the reason why ID is unscientific and not because they propose a designer in the first place.
The ID-designer could have done anything and there's also no identifiable reason why he did it this way and not in some other way. In other words every observation is compatible with the ID-designer.
And this is the reason why the ID-designer is ruled out as a scientific explanation and not as you and other ID'ers often imply because he could not have done what we observed.

Of course I don't deny that a scientist could be wrong when he excludes the unidentified ID-designer but this is an error that can be more easily corrected than the acceptance of an unidentified designer as an explanation for a phenomenon that, at the moment, is not satisfactorily explainable in naturalistic terms.

Consider the following gedankenexperiment: someone has developed a method which allows him to create artificial granite that looks just like natural granite. He can even create granite with the correct isotope mix.
A geologist confronted with different samples (natural and artificial) will most likely conclude that they are all of natural origin. Of course he would be wrong but with the information that's available to him that is the best explanation he can give.
Even if he knows that the creation of natural-looking granite is possible, without any additional information he cannot tell the artificial pieces from the natural ones.
But what would an ID'er do in the same situation? What's his method to identify the artificial samples? Or does he simply state that all are "intelligently designed"? What if he has only natural granite in front of him?

[r9etb]

Are you suggesting that because it is physically possible for things to have been individually created, that this is the best and most reasonable explanation?

I'm saying that it's no longer rational to simply rule out the ID hypothesis as a priori impossible. And it also raises the threshold of proof for evolutionary hypotheses. You've noticed, I'm sure, that a lot of evolutionary "explanations" include a chain of "this must have happened next..." type statements, which are "scientific" only because they're made in the context of the assumption that only naturalistic processes can explain things.

In any cast, this would not help explain ongoing, observable examples of evolution.

And there's no reason to deny that those processes can and do occur. Your mistake is in continuing to assume that ID and evolution are either/or explanations, despite the fact that they're obviously not.

[BMCDA]

The ID position is rather like asserting that the shape of the continents is the work of Superman, even though we can observe continents shifting in real time.

The ID position is like that of the little old lady down the street who constantly mumbles that her neighbors are "criminals, all criminals I tells ya!"
Of course that may be true but it's certainly not a particularly useful position to take.

[little jeremiah]

"Out of many thousands among men, one may endeavor for perfection, and out of those who have achieved perfection, hardly one knows Me in truth."

Atheists and religious believer with little realization think there are many Gods or gods. It's like people in different parts of the world thinking there are many suns. A Californian sun, and a Washington state sun, and a Canadian sun. All differently located.

Nope, one sun. One Supreme Being, seen differently according to one's realization.

[RunningWolf]

Thanks for the help>

I know that and you know that.

[DesScorp]

Darwinists are afraid of ID because it's a threat to The Church of Science. Not the scientific method, mind you...just the reigning Priesthood in univeristies that defend their orthodoxy jealously, and visciously.

What? Orthodoxy in science? No! It can't be! There's no such thing! Just like there was no crime or poverty in the New Socialist Paradise of the USSR!

[BMCDA]

I'm saying that it's no longer rational to simply rule out the ID hypothesis as a priori impossible.

And no one here claims that the ID hypothesis is impossible.
That an unknown entity with unspecified abilities and limitations and for inscrutable purposes might have done whatever you just happen to observe is trivially true but this also makes it scientifically useless.

[jec41]

So, to our credit, we invented religion"

No, to mans credit he has invented millions of religions each proclaiming that it is the real truth.

[r9etb]

That an unknown entity with unspecified abilities and limitations and for inscrutable purposes might have done whatever you just happen to observe is trivially true but this also makes it scientifically useless.

You've made a lot of assumptions about the need to identify and understand a designer before identifying something as "designed." This is convenient for your argument, but not logically necessary.

[Elsie]

 All of us have sinned:

 

NIV Romans 3

 22.  This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,
 23.  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
 24.  and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

 

NIV Romans 6:23
  For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in  Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

But...

 

NIV Matthew 1:21
   She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,  because he will save his people from their sins."

 

NIV John 1:29
   The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 

 

NIV Romans 8:1-2
 1.  Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,
 2.  because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.

---

---

 

 

 

Do the ex-Khmer murderers, if their faith is sincere, go to Heaven?

According to the Book; Yes.

NIV Mark 3:28
   I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them.   (all; not SOME)

NIV Matthew 12:31-32
 31.  And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
 32.  Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

NIV Matthew 6:14-15
 14.  For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
 15.  But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.   (But beware...)

NIV Matthew 18:21-22
 21.  Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"
 22.  Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.

NIV Romans 4:7-8
 7.  "Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.
 8.    Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him."

 

---

Given that most of ther victims were not Christian, do they go to Hell forever?

Depends...... (also, according to the book.)

 

NIV John 14:6
  Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

NIV John 15:22
   If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin.

NIV Romans 2:12-16
 12.  All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.
 13.  For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.
 14.  (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,
 15.  since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
 16.  This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

 

 

So, are you saying that since there are a lot of false one's; then NONE can be real??

[Elsie]

WOW!

That was a big mispost!!!

---

---

---

No, to mans credit he has invented millions of religions each proclaiming that it is the real truth.

So, are you saying that since there are a lot of false one's; then NONE can be real??