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.
"whilst others grow spontaneously and not from kindred stock; and of these instances of spontaneous generation some come from putrefying earth or vegetable matter"
****:)) Just a note, no living things came about due to just spontaneous generation or whatever. Someone mentioned that 150 years of science can't be wrong? Of course it is. Scientific reasoning are born of humans with a limited dimensional understanding. As I put it in another post,
"Evolution is man's way of boxing Gods's creation so that he, (man), can understand it in his limited four dimentional thinking". The God of the Bible generated the universe independent of energy, matter, and the dimensions of length, width, height, and time. God personally designed and built the universe and the solar system for life to flourish. The Bible, however does not address how he produced lower life forms, he created through miracles the birds, mammals, and human beings as they are now. Since the time these animals were created by God, they have been subject to minor changes in accordance with the laws of nature, which God also established. It is to be noted that the bible clearly denies that any of the species decended from lower forms of life. Humans alone also possess body, soul and spirit which the others do not possess. This is the image of God.
It is also interesting to note that the sequence of the events as written in the Genesis 1 events. A study of the events are in perfect order to allow creation to happen. The Bible has proved to be scientific sound as it was recorded 3,400 years ago....Mainly because those living then had no idea of the events to get 10 events in perfect order. It couldn't have been a lucky fluke. This demonstrates the supernatural orgin of the Bible........
As I mention, and of course research this..virtually all astronomers agree on.
1. FACT: The universe is only billions of years old, not quadrillions of a near infinite number of years. This means that most of the Religious and philosophical systems depends on infinite or near infinite age, which has no foundation in reality.
2. FACT: The universe can be traced back to a single, ultimate origin of matter, energy, time and space (with the dimensions of length, width, and height). This means the cause of the universe - was brought into existence by a creator. It also exists and is created from outside of matter, energy, and space time dimensions of our known universe.
3. FACT: This fact is very compelling, in that our galaxy , universe, and solar system, shows more than 60 characterics that require fine tuning and exactness for their very existence and also for the existence of life.......and not just life as we know it. That is the tune of science fiction. What does this mean...well only a super-intelligent, super-powerful Person could design and manufacture what we see, to include life. Even Einstein who was a non-believer in God, proved to his dismay that there was the presence of a "superior reasoning power". He was not happy with this to the extent that he modified his theories.
In short, the beliefs back in the turn of the century was that the universe was static and infinite. Einstein's theory, Hubble's Red shift theories circa 1931, demonstrated that the universe was expanding and decelerating. This means that is had a beginning point. Check this out......on your own. Enstein finally conceded to the necessity for a beginning. As many intellects, Einstein wrestled with the age old paradox of a personal God. I won't bore you with this paradox but it has held many back from believing in this personal God.
I am not a scientist, I am a researcher and wanted to know myself years back. Don't take my word for it....do your own research not from the same sources....but form neutral Astromers and Physicist.....
"Is ID still occurring"
Yes, every day......it hasn't stopped. Evidence....every time there is an earthquake or volcano eruption. or a etc.....
Yeah, like you could do a better job.
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. (Psalms 139:14 KJV)
that's easy.......the fact that it happened is the evidence, the cause was billions of years ago when the creator put the wheels or principles in motion. The fact that is now accepted, the universe started from a singularity, is the proof.
Also, look within yourself to see the biggest miracle and proof of all..............your existance.......
Darwinism is flawed in that it is a tactical pragamatic adaptation theory. Strategical long term type adaptation of nature and species is a fact, yet not explainable by Darwinism. This is where Intelligent Design will ultimately rule the day. Then we have the act of barvery observed by others, which is an empirical ethical approach to survival, putting on one's shoulders the responsibility as a specie for other specie's sakes. This latter tends to the creationist side.
Note that mankind cannot adapt to each other nor to this world as proven by this very debate. It all hinges on on the fact that tactical pragmatic adaptation leads to disastrous dead ends, and this is what politics is all about, really.
it has nothing to do with guilt by association, it has to do with probable cause that Darwin is a man, Darwin's theory a theory with its own prejudices and Darwinism is a cult of social scientists suspected of using it as Marxist back door according to their own antichristian tenet: in the beginning there was matter and matter made the word.
That's the evidence.
Another evidence is Marx used Darwinists as useful idiots, because he himself knew like Mao and Lenin that Strategy is superior to tactics and pragmatic adaptations. Darwin does not address the survival of nature through a strategy of nature, and nature cannot survive and therefore let alone be born and exist without such. Pasteur made similar statements about the implausibility of spontaneous generations.... yet another evidence.
But why would all of a sudden God have a consideration? A consideration about what aspects of science?
Ptolemy, it turns out.
don't sneer too much at philosophy - the ptolmaic model did predict the motions of the planets better than the heliocentric model, UNTIL Kepler realized the orbits are elliptic rather than circular. Bear in mind that Kepler did not observe the elliptic orbits, but derived the concept... philosophically.
some epicurean philosophy bears shocking similarity to modern particle physics. not bad for thoughts derived from deduction based on macroscopic evidence, no?
yes.
I'm SURE there's an Evo joke in here somewhere... ;^)
Actually, about the same as if you'd say, "Accumulated changes got us to where we are today."
Fine -- then I'll expect never to see that particular complaint from you again about ID. The rest of your post fails, however, because of this.
*HOWEVER*, "ID" in the way it's usually meant by "ID proponents" is neither specific nor narrow.
Hm. Perhaps so. But generalities are not terribly helpful in a discussion of specifics, so that whole section of your post turns out to be useless, except as a diatribe.
The only testable "ID" hypotheses I've seen involve "HUMAN intelligent design",
Fine. Of course, the cases in point were very specific, and thus not subject to your generalities. The reason I keep bringing up those examples is because we know the correct answer a priori -- it's a great chance to test whether "science" can, or cannot, correctly infer the presence of design in a case where it's already known to be involved. If scientific methods can be used to detect design, then your entire complaint about ID is groundless. And if scientific methods are incapable of getting the correct answer ... well, I guess science has a problem.
UNKOWN blah blah UNKNOWN blah blah.... This position is, indeed, unfalsifiable. It's too freaking flabby.
No, your complaints are flabby. You're basically saying that there's not gonna be any evidence, so there's no point in looking for it. That's just lazy, and not scientific.
Your little rants are tiresome. I'm done.
Then you'll miss out on some great stuff being exchanged.
Sometimes the choir does things other than sing!
Perhaps; but he's DEEP into synthesis!
Why can't 'creation' be interpreted as man?
Why can't it be EVERYTHING?
Since there is a BIG fault underlying the Holy Land, I'm sure they knew about earthquakes. (They are mentioned a few times in the book.)
I see, Grasshopper.
But I get such a GOOD reaction from them.
Such puffery and hubris is refreshing!
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.