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.

[Elsie]

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.

---

That's why Islam is still going strong, nearly 1400 years after its founding, despite all of the lies the Christians tell about it.

[Elsie]

(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)

Smarmy hive-fives for my buds!

[Elsie]

If you could prove the existence of God, how would that impact science?

We'd ALL live more circumspect lives?

[r9etb]

Hm. An interesting response.

[Elsie]

Are not parables often used to illustrate a point?

It appears so...

---

NIV Matthew 13:34
  Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable.

 

NIV Psalms 78:2-4
 2.  I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter hidden things, things from of old--
 3.  what we have heard and known, what our fathers have told us.
 4.  We will not hide them from their children; we will tell the next generation the praiseworthy deeds of the LORD, his power, and the wonders he has done.

 

NIV Matthew 13:10-16
 10.  The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"
 11.  He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.
 12.  Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.
 13.  This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
 14.  In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: "`You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
 15.  For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.'
 16.  But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear.

 

 

[b_sharp]

"The efforts we see from the current ID movement match The Wedge Strategy as published. What else are we to conclude?

I agree. However just telling the IDists who insist ID is scientific that it is not scientific will not work, they have to be shown. The best way to do that is to get them to actually try the method, whatever it is, on real world examples.

It's easy to see that the current methods used to identify artifacts will not work for such things as the genome but not so easy to see that complexity (which in Dembski's case is just low probability), information content and order, while attractive on the surface, simply can not be used to identify design without first assuming design.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Bear in mind that Kepler did not observe the elliptic orbits, but derived the concept... philosophically.

Actually he had nearly 30 years of almost nightly observations provided by his teacher, Tycho Brahe.

[b_sharp]

"So useless it drew a response. Heisenberg might say "It was observed, therefore it is." And Schroedinger agrees, wherefrom the waveform integral over infinite superpositions of states pops out one weasel extant: a response is a use."

Relevance?

The question is not does the post exist or was it read, but does it support the OP's argument.

"The rest of your post I don't quite follow.

The OP used Ad Hom and Appeal to Authority to prove his point. I simply explained that in this case it did nothing for his argument.

[Stultis]

Its become taboo, even sacrilege for scientists to explore the divine as though any deviation of Newtonian physics as the ultimate answer

Your assessment bears no relation to reality. Reading too much Deepak Chopra perhaps?

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

So where are the transitional species?

They're transitioning right under your nose, but you aren't you paying attention.

In China, researchers recently discovered that tuskless elephants now make up 5-10% of the wild population whereas they used to be 2-3%.

They postulate the cause for the increase is that the tusked elephants are being culled for their ivory.

If the trend continues, eventually, all wild elephants in China will be tuskless.

That's evolution in progress by way of natural selection.

[jec41]

don't sneer too much at philosophy

Not at all. I'm one of the few squirrels you will meet that has a chemical engineering degree and a degree in philosophy but in the 40 years since much has changed. As late as 1929 all the known chemistry in the world could be published in one text book and was studied for years. By 1980 a large library would be needed. More chemistry was being discovered in a single day than was known the previous
day. My position is that those things that lack empirical evidence are better argued by philosophy and those things for which there is empirical evidence are better explained by science. My biggest complaint is that education has failed in its task to explain and define such things as evidence, empirical evidence, theory, hypotheses, opinion. observation, proof, subjective, assumption, logical deduction and thought. It would appear, that for most, the meaning and definition of each are interchangeable, blurred, and misused to the point that most positions are meaningless. That they themselves have little idea of what they actually stated, or implied. It is particular interesting that science was was reasoned and deducted from philosophy and not the opposite.

[bvw]

Arguments are like war. There are a plethora of fronts, and the manifold is not compact.

[Stultis]

Why can't it [creation] be EVERYTHING?

If EVERYTHING was understood as created then God's creative powers would extend to objects and phenomena that everyone agrees are (also) explained by natural causes. This would destroy the creationists' principle anti-evolution/anti-science critique: that evolution (or historical geology, etc) is atheistic because it "leaves out God".

Creationism always tends to Deism since it looks for evidence of a God that is sometimes present in nature. But the corollary to a God who is sometimes present is one who is at other times absent.

[r9etb]

If we apply our current design recognition methodology to 'rocks' in an attempt to determine human design, we must know a number of things, no single one of which is sufficient to make the determination. We need to know that humans have frequented the area and when, whether or not those humans were capable of producing an artifact of this level as well as what tools they had to create the artifact. Of course the reason we singled out this particular rock from a host of others is because something about it looked out of place when compared to our knowledge of naturally occurring rocks.

See this thread for an interesting reversal. Essentially, they're trying to prove human habitation based on the supposed presence of paleolithic tools. An interesting case study....

[b_sharp]

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. "

I'm not sure how you jump from the ~15 byo age of the universe to the need for religion and philosophy to use or relate infinite age, but there is no cause/effect or correlation there. The true age of the universe and the speculations of Philosophy and Religion are independent. All you needed to do was state that some philosophy and religion deal with states beyond 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.

Again, your logic is taking a large jump. Within the first Planck second there was no need for cause/effect. Before that there was no need for a creator.

"It[The creator] also exists and is created from outside of matter, energy, and space time dimensions of our known universe. "

The existence of the universe does not prove the existence of a creator.

Your concept of 'beyond' the universe brings up a few questions. If this 'void' can lead to the creation of a creator does the creator have substance? Can a non-substancial creator create something physical? What or who created the creator? If the creator can be created, who created the creator's creator? If the creator did not have a creator but 'self created' because of some feature of this void, what prevents the universe from 'self creating' in the same manner in this same void?

"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.......

The specific universal characteristics become irrelevant if the multiverse exists. There is also something to be said for the idea that only those characteristics are possible. It could also be the luck of the draw, sometimes the Ace *is* the first card drawn.

I have no idea what characteristics the galaxy has necessary for life, but they would all be covered by the universal characteristics.

As far as the Solar system characteristics, such as distance from the sun, type of sun, size of earth, presence of a large satellite, those did not have to occur in this specific galaxy, in this specific point in the galaxy, at this specific time. This just happens to be the galaxy where those conditions occurred.

"and not just life as we know it. That is the tune of science fiction.

Sorry, but the conditions of our solar system, or rather the absence of those specific conditions, do not preclude some form of life from existing.

"What does this mean...well only a super-intelligent, super-powerful Person could design and manufacture what we see, to include life.

This is a rather large jump in logic. Your argument does not prove a creator. Even if your argument did suggest a creator of the universe your anthropomorphizing of it is unfounded. It would be just as likely a non-person or a non-intelligence created the universe as a 'person'.

"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.

Irrelevant to your argument. BTW, he didn't change any of his work because he found evidence of a god.

"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.

A beginning does not imply a creator, just 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.

Good for Einstein. However because someone as notable as Einstein questions his beliefs is not an argument for a creator. I suspect that Einstein would require validating evidence before believing something based on an appeal to authority.

[b_sharp]

"Yes, every day......it hasn't stopped. Evidence....every time there is an earthquake or volcano eruption. or a etc....."

What? Are you saying that plate tectonics is designed? Or are you saying plate tectonics *is* the designer? Hmmm.
I assume you have evidence of this?

[Stultis]

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.

Marx himself may have been enthusiastic about Darwin's theory, but Engels soon realized that it was laced with Malthusian presuppositions, and therefore contradictory to Communism/Socialism unless drastically reformed. Indeed for the next hundred years and more Communism, and often the left generally, remained hostile to Darwinism and consistently favored Lamarkian versions of evolutionary theory. (Admittedly they would often claim to be Darwinists, but while forwarding understandings of evolution that were in fact Lamarkian/anti-Darwinian.)

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.

Huh? Could you try rewriting that sentence? It doesn't seem to make any sense as it stands.

Pasteur made similar statements about the implausibility of spontaneous generations.... yet another evidence.

Darwinism actually required that spontaneous generation be false. Otherwise, if new living things were continually coming into existence as a mundane process of nature, then common descent -- a central feature of Darwin's theory -- must be false. Living things can only all be related by common descent if there was single origin of life.

[b_sharp]

"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. "

I have no idea what logic you are using but the existence of something is not proof of the cause. The beginning of the universe is not proof of a creator.

[b_sharp]

Just as long as Philosophers don't think themselves to death.

[Elsie]

In China, researchers recently discovered that tuskless elephants now make up 5-10% of the wild population whereas they used to be 2-3%.

They postulate the cause for the increase is that the tusked elephants are being culled for their ivory.

postulate = guess

---

I guess if you had a WILD group of 10,000 and of those 200-300 were tuskless, and then the Ivory hunters went in and 'harvested' 6000 of the ones WITH tusks, leaving about 4000 WILD ones; then, of COURSE the 'percent' would go up, and having NOTHING to do with your sacred 'theory' at all!