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.
That's over-culling by way of poaching.
Since THIS will NEVER happen, on ANY subject, your analysis is fairly useless.
Oh?
An object at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force.
But I get such a GOOD reaction from them.
So you admit you're a troll. You are aware that people are routinely banned for such behavior, right?
Good example of the process in action. I did notice the lack of a link to the article though so its validity is questionable.
You did notice the comparison of the 'tools' to a knowledge base(old world archaeologists) I hope. If ID really does have a successful method for design determination this would be an excellent case study in which to apply it.
"Irrelevant to your argument. BTW, he didn't change any of his work because he found evidence of a god."
******I'll answer some of your questions in a few. Many are made from your 4th dimensional view as a human and I understand. The other assertions are not scientifically correct about what you state. The science and Religion is directly related like hand and glove. You are not aware of this.
Secondly, it's a fact from extensive research that Einstein's reactions to his own equations acknowledged the threat of an encounter with God. Look up details concerning his cosmological inferences from the theory of Relativity. Before he published these works he searched for a way to fix up the equations. Whatever he could do to make the universe a static solution. In other words, a universe that is expanding and decelerating, demonstrates that it had a beginning. If you don't agree with this, I suggest that you do your own investigation and see for yourself. Investigate the "de Sitter Effect".....and work of Howard Robertson of 1928. In 1914, Vesto Slipher had a chance discovery in 1914, that a number of Nebulae were receding away from the Earth as very high speeds. Also the discoveries of Edwin Hubble.
Now, the idea of an exploding universe was not well accepted by the scientific community. Einstein was very blantant aboutt he idea of a beginning point. Hubble's law of red shifts caused Einstein to discard his cosmological constant, to an unhappy conclusion. Because the universe had a beginning gave way to the presence of a superior reasoning power.....events don't just happen for no reason therefore the big bang (proved by science), has a cause and a power that made it happen. Einstein just couldn't accept the personal God idea......
So, Einstein's first theory went along with current thinking then, to a static universe meaning that the universe was always here, no beginning and no end. Thus no creator. However, with an expanding and decelerating universe as evidenced by Einsteins previous theory, and supported by Hubble's Red shift theory, (proven now), demonstrated a universe that had a beginning. This means its not infinite but finite.......with a creation and an end. The proof of a creator. He did change his cosmological constant to reflect a static universe until it was proven incorrect.....Do a little more research.......
"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."
****** yes it does actually......even an atheist knows that events don't just happen all by themselves......in all due respect you might need to rethink....The beginning of the known universe is exact proof of a creator. "things" don't just create themselves.....?? and, in perfect order. The existence of something means it had a cause for becoming.....otherwise it wouldn't exist at all......things don't just create themselves from nothing.....the life energy force does not create itself.....and bring such order.
Actually, it has everything to do with the theory of evolution. That is how natural selection works.
How did you think it worked?
It's also 4 years old. However, it was posted by blam, whose reliability is not questionable. I think we can assume that the controversy, at least, is real.
You did notice the comparison of the 'tools' to a knowledge base(old world archaeologists) I hope.
Sure -- and a good first guess at the knowledge base for, say, a genetic analysis would be to assume that the techniques used were similar to what humans would use -- similar techniques on similar materials to produce specific results.
If ID really does have a successful method for design determination this would be an excellent case study in which to apply it.
In the case of stone tools, that set of criteria already exists and is widely accepted among archaeologists -- and was allegedly applied in this case.
That's not really the point, however: here we see a complete reversal of the "gotta know the designer before you can find the design" argument.
This same math proves our theory. Cycle this calculation through a few times making sure to include births of tuskless elephants and you will find the percentage of tuskless to tusked goes up. Eventually all that will be left are those elephants without tusks. Even if the 'tuskless' gene is recessive, all members will become homozygous for that allele.
:)) a beginning exactly implies a creator.....this is getting funny now...it's called damage control....
But what effect does that over-culling have on the allele frequencies within that group?
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
Whatever you call it, the process remains the same.
Whichever mutation gives an advantage in the current environment will be the one to survive. Those not adapted will be weeded out.
We got the typical response from him, so...
It would be nice to get a clear description of what the IDists here believe their methodology can accomplish.
Yes, that would be nice, but r9etb ran away from my invitation for him to cut to the chase and describe ID's hypothesis and/or how it would actually be tested.
Clearly, he knows he's trying to defend an empty shell, and he's just frantically trying to cover up the fact.
Then he accuses *me* of arguing "generalities", LOL! He's the one who refuses to be pinned down on anything specific, and just argues that ID is "in general" possible to detect.
Actually, no ... I became tired of you.
That's because ID isn't about detecting anything. It's a shabby, devious ploy "designed" (as it were) to prevent the courts from detecting creationism when it's presented in public schools. But no amount of pseudo-scientific double-talk can conceal the underlying nature of ID. Except for a few truly baffled souls, the whole world can see what ID really is.
The science of what is directly related to religion?
"Secondly, it's a fact from extensive research that Einstein's reactions to his own equations acknowledged the threat of an encounter with God. Look up details concerning his cosmological inferences from the theory of Relativity. Before he published these works he searched for a way to fix up the equations. Whatever he could do to make the universe a static solution. In other words, a universe that is expanding and decelerating, demonstrates that it had a beginning. If you don't agree with this, I suggest that you do your own investigation and see for yourself. Investigate the "de Sitter Effect".....and work of Howard Robertson of 1928. In 1914, Vesto Slipher had a chance discovery in 1914, that a number of Nebulae were receding away from the Earth as very high speeds. Also the discoveries of Edwin Hubble.
I'm not arguing against the expansion of the universe or the Big Bang. What I am arguing about is your use of an appeal to authority to bolster your argument.
I tried to look up Einstein's fears as you suggested but found only creationist sites. If you want me to accept your assertion you'll need to come up with a link to Einsteins own words.
"Now, the idea of an exploding universe was not well accepted by the scientific community. Einstein was very blantant aboutt he idea of a beginning point. Hubble's law of red shifts caused Einstein to discard his cosmological constant, to an unhappy conclusion. Because the universe had a beginning gave way to the presence of a superior reasoning power.....events don't just happen for no reason therefore the big bang (proved by science), has a cause and a power that made it happen. Einstein just couldn't accept the personal God idea......
Again, you need to show Einsteins own words for this assertion to have any validity.
"So, Einstein's first theory went along with current thinking then, to a static universe meaning that the universe was always here, no beginning and no end. Thus no creator. However, with an expanding and decelerating universe as evidenced by Einsteins previous theory, and supported by Hubble's Red shift theory, (proven now), demonstrated a universe that had a beginning. This means its not infinite but finite.......with a creation and an end. The proof of a creator. He did change his cosmological constant to reflect a static universe until it was proven incorrect.....Do a little more research.......
Your research should include Einstein's words rather than just creationist sites.
"The science of what is directly related to religion?"
Physics and Astrophysics for two......and Astromony....to name three.
Let me do the search for Einsteins own words.....As I agree and would need the same.
Tom
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.