Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Are Darwinists So Afraid of Intelligent Design?
Human Events ^ | Jan 17, 2006 | Barney Brenner

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creationisminadress; crevolist; dishonestfundies; dishonestmonkeymen; goddooditamen; iddupes; idiocy; idjunkscience; ignoranceisstrength; junkscience; madmokeymen; pseudoscience; superstitiousnuts; yeccultists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 741-759 next last
To: reasonmclucus
 
 It's the Darwinist religious fanatics who are ignorant, dishonest or both. Darwinism is a religious belief that has nothing to do with science.
 
Well... maybe not.


Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proven to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye witnesses;—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many fake religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wildfire had some weight with me. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct."

( Charles Darwin in his Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Dover Publications, 1992, p. 62. )


Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

"I think that generally (& more & more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

( Quoted from Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1991, p. 636. )


461 posted on 01/17/2006 9:21:05 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: jec41
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.

And what are the 'odds' of winning the PowerBall???

Yet, people do it quite regularly.

462 posted on 01/17/2006 9:22:59 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: jec41

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

Well, either all of these religions are invented and thus nonsense, or one of them is revealed from God and thus true. If the latter, the "true" one may also incorporate "truths" from the other religions.

As a Christian I believe that Christianity is the revealed truth from God and Atheism was invented by man to escape responsibility to God.

In essence, Atheism is the opiate of the asses...so to speak.


463 posted on 01/17/2006 9:25:03 AM PST by fizziwig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
Hell, on this I'm kind of an extremist, considering every living fertile individual a potential progenitor of substantial speciation, and thus in themselves being transitional specimens within their species pools, which themselves are by default transitional :)

And this is why we find SO many critters today, running around with partially-complete THINGS; that will, someday, have a survival advantage!

464 posted on 01/17/2006 9:25:47 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: Cindy
Answer: They are really afraid of God.

Only the CHRISTIAN god.


Do we see any Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists or Shintos being raked consistantly over the coals for THEIR beliefs??


Our GOD says:

"You have sinned: I can help."

The other religions say:

"Work it out for yourself."


465 posted on 01/17/2006 9:28:52 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
If, however, you meant to slur the millions of people who know that evolutionary biology is valid, then you're just engaging in silly ad hominem.

Know??

466 posted on 01/17/2006 9:30:04 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.

I guess I can abuse you at will now! ;^)


Uh... isn't that supposed to be ignorami?

467 posted on 01/17/2006 9:33:31 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

Both Theistic Evolution and Old Earth creationism are much more compatible both with Genesis and Science than Darwinism, or Young Earth Creationism.


468 posted on 01/17/2006 9:35:34 AM PST by RockinRight ("It's as if all the brain-damaged people in America got together and formed a voting bloc" - Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: js1138
like asserting that the shape of the continents is the work of Superman

You're saying Superman didn't do that?

469 posted on 01/17/2006 9:39:07 AM PST by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Proof of evolution. Parrot turns into pigeon.
470 posted on 01/17/2006 9:45:17 AM PST by P8riot (When they come for your guns, give them the bullets first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moog

I've been out of the mainstream for the past 10 years....overseas. However, I have heard about the "adult" cartoons and their messages....

Now you got me curious about the Dolphins....


471 posted on 01/17/2006 10:06:36 AM PST by tgambill (I would like to comment.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
the geocentric model predates christianity by quite a few years - was it Ptolemy or Plato

Plato I believe and even though the model predates Christianity it does not predate religion. I have no quarrel with your flat earth examination. I only stated it was a argument presented and used to refute. It should be tested as should all arguments. Philosophy has presented very little new thought for centuries and most of these are only variables of thought that have previously existed. Science on the other hand has presented more new thought and proof in the last 100 years than it had presented in the previous 5000 years. The question is how can the conflict between science and philosophy be resolved if philosophy does not present new thought and only chooses to recite refuted thought.
472 posted on 01/17/2006 10:15:57 AM PST by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
"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?

In all likelihood, biologists would realize rather quickly that the sequence was out of place, simply by comparing it to other pig genomes. This is one of the criteria used in current methods of identifying Earthly design, both human and animal. The ability to determine if something is non-natural is based on our familiarity with our surroundings. We are able to pick out those objects that look out of place.

Another important tool of design identification is knowledge of the designer - has the designer been known to frequent a specific area, in which time frame was the designer there, what is the probable use of the artifact (designer's intent), what tools were available to the designer and what were the capabilities of the designer at that time.

In your scenario, if we were confident that humans do not have the ability to insert genes into a genome it would be very difficult for us to assume it was designed; we would need corroborating evidence of the availability of a designer to do the work, otherwise it would be nothing but speculation. If corroborating evidence was found then the ID inference could be more readily made.

If nothing is known about the designer it becomes very difficult to differentiate between the designed and the non-designed particularly if the designed artifact is marginal.

However, in no case do we analyze the 'complexity' of the object, nature provides far too many instances of complexity to assume that complexity requires a designer.

The attempt by Dembski to qualify 'complexity' by tying it to the intent of the designer is doomed to fail, unless the designer is known as listed above, because it relies on the 'appearance' not 'certainty' of intent. If the designer is known, including its intended purpose for the artifact, the difference between natural and artificial complexity becomes more obvious.

473 posted on 01/17/2006 10:29:05 AM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: jec41

Scientists often disagree. Why can't religious people?


474 posted on 01/17/2006 10:52:59 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
In all likelihood, biologists would realize rather quickly that the sequence was out of place, simply by comparing it to other pig genomes.

Testable, falsifiable. So ID is, in this case, scientific.

The ability to determine if something is non-natural is based on our familiarity with our surroundings. We are able to pick out those objects that look out of place.

Fine. IOW, "familiarity" translates into being able to describe the path from here to there, and to identify anomalies based on that expectation.

Another important tool of design identification is knowledge of the designer - has the designer been known to frequent a specific area, in which time frame was the designer there, what is the probable use of the artifact (designer's intent), what tools were available to the designer and what were the capabilities of the designer at that time.

This is not necessary. A familiarity with our techniques provides a set of first-level tests, which are justified by the fact that the product of any designer, human or otherwise, is subject to the same physical laws.

In your scenario, if we were confident that humans do not have the ability to insert genes into a genome it would be very difficult for us to assume it was designed...

But of course, humans do have that ability. And if humans do, there's no reason why any putative designer cannot use essentially the same approach. All you've really done is to affirm the validity of the ID hypothesis. As I try always to clearly state at this point in the argument, verification of such a hypothesis is still required.

If nothing is known about the designer it becomes very difficult to differentiate between the designed and the non-designed particularly if the designed artifact is marginal.

Implying that some things may not be marginal at all, which is pretty obvious when you think about it. As for the "marginal" cases, we can note that archaeologists have developed a set of tool/non-tool criteria for ancient stone tools, so the methodology for distinguishing between design and nature has precedent in similar contexts.

However, in no case do we analyze the 'complexity' of the object, nature provides far too many instances of complexity to assume that complexity requires a designer.

Complexity and information aren't the same thing. IIRC, Dembski's arguments have more to do with the latter. The SETI folks seem to have succeeded in making a scientific connection between information content and intelligent sources, so again there seems to be a precedent.

475 posted on 01/17/2006 10:53:29 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 473 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
"And this is why we find SO many critters today, running around with partially-complete THINGS; that will, someday, have a survival advantage!

You mean like a pengiun's wing? Or a flying squirel's wing? Or a lungfish's lung? Or the Spotted handfish's 'legs'?

476 posted on 01/17/2006 11:06:14 AM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Scientists often disagree. Why can't religious people?

If you think these threads are bad, you should check out FR's religion forum.

477 posted on 01/17/2006 11:23:03 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%

I am not THAT brave! LOL


478 posted on 01/17/2006 11:27:33 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 477 | View Replies]

To: tgambill; King Prout
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.....:))

Your post is incoherent enough that it's hard to tell exactly what you're talking about, but both the fish-to-mammal transition and the land mammal-to-whale transition are covered here. There is overwhelming fossil and DNA and biochemical evidence for both, along multiple independent cross-confirming lines. If you're still unclear on any point after reading those links, just ask and I'll be happy to clear it up for you, or provide detailed examinations of the evidence for you.

Later you wrote:

The reason that they are similar is that they were created by the same creator, not because they evolved.

It may appear that way superficially if you're not familiar with the field, but that's not how the DNA and fossil and biochemical analysis is actually done, nor is it based on anything as trivially incidental as mere "similarity". There are very specific kinds and patterns of similarities, *and* differences, along multiple independent and cross-confirming lines of evidence, which overwhelmingly support evolutionary origins. See the links I provide if you want to start delving into the details, but the short form is that evolutionary processes would produce *very* specific kinds of similarities across lineages, and *very* specific kinds of differences -- patterns which would *not* be produced by "design" processes, unless the designer was being intentionally deceitful and purposely mimicking the byproducts of evolution. And those evolutionary patterns are exactly what we find when we analyze DNA, at every level, in every genome, in every way we've thought to test so far, hundreds of thousands of times over.

This is not some mere coincidence or loose "similarity". This is a rich, deep, detailed history of evolutionary "tracers" which are embedded in every genome in hundreds of conceivable ways.

It's no overstatement to say that to any objective observer who has taken the time to actually view and understand the DNA evidence, the debate over whether life on Earth evolved through common ancestry is *over*. The evidence is just vastly overwhelming that it did.

For just a few small examples: the "tip of the iceberg" evidence of evolution post.

If you're unclear as to how science actually tests its analyses of the evidence to ensure that they are valid, see this post. This post also covers, in general, how common descent is distinguished from design hypotheses when testing the evidence.

479 posted on 01/17/2006 11:34:04 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
[If, however, you meant to slur the millions of people who know that evolutionary biology is valid, then you're just engaging in silly ad hominem.

Know??

Yes, "know". Knowledge is a good thing. It comes from learning and understanding and testing ideas against reality.

480 posted on 01/17/2006 11:48:26 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 741-759 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson