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.
I'm not sure it even rises to the level of a "philosophy". As I wrote in an earlier post:
Isn't that going to be a mighty short philosophy segment? Other than stating, "it's in concept possible that some unspecified portion of the Universe or its contents were constructed at some unspecified time by some unspecified intelligence", exactly what else *is* there to the "philosophy of ID" (especially after it's divorced from theology, as the IDers studiously assert)?As paper-thin as the "science" of ID is, the "philosophy" of it is even more limited in scope.
Just because evolution has results and ID doesn't is no reason for you to run around like a bully. It's not fair to kick the little guy. ID has rights too. All ID wants is an equal opportunity to be heard. Stop the discrimination! Present both theories! Free speech! What are you afraid of? Are you so frightened, is your faith so weak, that you can't allow the other side presented? End the censorship! Teach the controversy! Let the children decide.
</creationism mode>
We understand that just fine, actually. That's why evolutionary biology is still going strong, nearly 150 years after its founding, despite all of the lies the creationists tell about it. I pointed out some of your own lies in an earlier post. Perhaps you might want to retract them, rather than ignoring my rebuttal and posting another bombastic screed.
On the other hand you have the Darwinists, who have engaged in elaborate hoaxes to "prove" their beloved theory,
I can't think of a single one. I doubt you can either.
The only hoax in evolutionary biology is Piltdown Man, and that one was done by unknown persons for unknown motives. There are 3-4 likely suspects, but no one's ever managed to resolve the who and why. It could as easily have been done for the purpose of embarrassing or playing a trick on a colleague, or to gain personal fame, as for any desire to fraudelently advance evolutionary biology. In fact, the former reasons are more plausible, given the circumstances.
It's also unclear as to the reasons for the flaws in Haeckel's drawings. It may have been a simple matter of professional sloppiness and presumption, not necessarily conscious fraud. In any case, as other biologists have pointed out, Haeckel's drawings would actually be *better* evidence for evolution if they had been *accurate*. His inaccuracies didn't help in that regard.
So what else do you have? Oh, right, nothing but two ambiguous cases from around a century ago, and your slanderous but false implications.
so Darwinism too has been swatted down repeatedly.
In your dreams. Thanks ot the wealth of DNA evidence flooding out of labs over the past twenty years, "Darwinism" is on even stronger footing than ever before.
But because Darwinism can't be proven and must lie to establish itself, it swats itself down.
Obviously, because *you* have to lie like this to attack "Darwinism", and can't actually refute the wealth of evidence I presented you with in a previous post, ANTI-Darwinism must lie in a feeble attempt to establish itself.
But then, this is nothing new at all. This sort of behavior, unfortunately, is *typical* of creationists. Here, want dozens of more examples of their distortions? A few more for the road? Another? Still more, perhaps? How about even more? Ooh, here are some good examples. And there's lots more where that came from, like this and this and this and lots more here and *tons* here and countless more here and yet more here, a goodie... Wait, there's more over here, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., *ETC.*, etc., etc., etc., . How about 300 more creationist misrepresentations? Not enough, you say? Well then visit Creationist Lies and Blunders. Hey, what about Freeper metacognative's (he's a creationist) ability to accuse Daniel Dennett (evolutionary scientist) of wanting to put Christians into concentration camps for their beliefs, when Dennett was *actually* clearly writing about how RADICAL ISLAM may need to be contained? The ugly details here.
There, that's SEVERAL HUNDRED TIMES AS MANY anti-evolution frauds as (alleged) pro-evolution frauds. Deal with it.
Is that not enough for you? Here are a few hundred more anti-evolution misrepresentations.
So I give the Devil his due, he puts up a relentless fight.
Yes, you do indeed.
But his fight is not eternal, and it's not representative of the truth, so it will die by its own hand; it's just a matter of when.
That's comforting. Let me know when you liars finally give it up.
Even in Darwin's own day, his fellow scientists, (many of them world renowned to this day), greatly opposed his silly theory.
ROFL! So what? All your examples are from just a few short years after Darwin published his book, when it was indeed a controversial and as yet untested new idea. Are you under the impression that this helps "disprove" evolutionary biology in some manner?
Hint: VAST amounts of evidence and cross-validated research findings have been accumulated since then, which is why evolutionary biology today is as strong as any field of science. And that just p***es you guys off, doesn't it?
Hint: Even if large numbers of prominent scientists opposed evolutionary biology today (and that's not the case), that *still* wouldn't count for squat, because science rests on the *evidence*, the *research findings*, not whether any particular person might be too pig-headed or politically/religiously motivated to discount it. When you think you have something which undermines the actual *evidence* for evolution, *do* feel free to get back to us. Until then, you're just ranting.
Louis Pasteur (who pioneered immunization, developed the Law of Biogenesis — life comes only from life, the fundamental law of biology
Clue for the clueless: There is no such thing as the "law of biogenesis" -- only creationists are ignorant enough of science to think there is. Nor did Pasteur establish that "life comes only from life". Here, read this if you want to correct your erroneous ignorance. And hey, does *this* passage from Pasteur's writings sound like the words of a man who was "strenuously opposed" to evolution?
"Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages (an evolution which, as we now know, has been going on for millions, nay, hundreds of millions of years), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of producing virulent or contagious diseases -- which does not seem very likely."Feel free to support your claim that Pasteur was "strenuously opposed to Darwin’s theory". If he was, it has totally escaped the attention of his biographers and the compilers of Pasteur's writings. The only place that Pasteur's "strenuous opposition" to Darwin's theory appears is in creationist claims. Funny that, huh?
Karl Marx eagerly embraced Darwin's theory to help foster Communism,
Even if true, this does nothing to challenge the truth of the theory. Only the evidence can do that. Care to discuss the evidence, or do you want to play more empty "guilt by association" games?
You have put a lot of work into your post #523, to provide educational links....dont know if any of those who have been disagreeing with you, will bother to read any of those links...but rest assured, many will bother to go to the linked material and actually educate themselves, and be all the wiser....thanks...
Did someone rewind the tape?
Darwin is the hatchet employed by Huxley applied to the craft of social deconstruction. And while some part of the art of science is an detached nigh-atheism -- for example a atheistic zealotry against explantions that shortcut or fail to continue because of claimed "miracles" or "acts of Providence" is a good science and a mature approach to G-d as well -- it can not be but that we will all advance in science and wisdom both when we deconstruct the deconstructist themseleves, and defang the secularist G-d Deniers.
Nice post, btw.
Paging Nehemiah Scudder!
Yeah, but most of those fellows were not as "enlightened" as we are today. Now that we understand life is comprised of such things as DNA molecules it is plainly apparent that organized matter, intelligent design, and scientific arguments regarding simple vs. complex entities are mere fantasies, appearances, natural products of chaos, and so forth. C'mon. Get with the program. 150 years of modern science can't be wrong.
Competition in science is as good as competition in capitalism.
If you could prove the existence of God, how would that impact science?
[Thunderous applause!]
Don't you mean, useless post?
The use of logical fallacies, while not necessarily the death of an argument, when coupled with bad premises makes the argument meaningless.
After watching these threads for many moons, I can only conclude that ID is creation lite, designed to sneak a specific type of religion into the schools.
The method for doing this was laid out in detail in The Wedge Strategy in the 1990s.
Are we now supposed to believe that they developed this strategy after the Edwards decision (in which the US Supreme Court determined that creation "science" was religion in disguise), used the strategy in their fundraising, but are not following up with that strategy now?
The efforts we see from the current ID movement match The Wedge Strategy as published. What else are we to conclude?
RAH wrote fiction, the Prophets wrote History. When you are in the field on a survey do you stop at the local open-air market and buy plastic replica artifacts, or do you insist on the real thing? You do not publish papers confusing the plastic look-likes with the prehistoric flints, bones and other diggings, eh?
Wisdom is where you find it. Are not parables often used to illustrate a point?
The rest of your post I don't quite follow.
Still, the hebrew written three millenium and more ago will outlast him, and be as young and apt as long as we all get to hang out here on Earth, when most likely all RAH's work will have been forgotten.
Darwinism has expanded to something akin to a great cultish following, one that worships the evolution-god Darwin and defends his theories as rabidly as any wahabbi muslim would defend mohammed's b.s. They have developed an entire set of doctrines, dogmas and beliefs to follow, they are like mice marching in the fantasy of Darwin's pipe-dreams. Darwin is the pied piper who easily leads their faithless souls astray.
Most scientists today have long forgotten that all 'science' really is in the first place is God's revealing some of His secrets and mysteries to man. But these prideful buffoons want to take all credit for their 'discoveries', put forth their personal theories and in essence try to be like God.
It seems that when science' is used to the glory of God and the real benefit of man it is a great gift; but when men apply pseudo-science, (like 'evolution'), to foster an agenda or make lots of money it's always destructive and attempts to diminish the glory of God.
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.