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.
primary sources placemarker
True, in this universe 'things' do not just create themselves, but the 'thing' that creates them does not need to be an intelligent human-like creator, it can be a simple natural process. Of course this does not explain the existence of the universe itself unless there is a point at which the need for cause/effect or any other natural law does not exist, such as the conditions before the BB.
Outside this universe, the same conditions or lack of conditions postulated for the existence of a human-like intelligent creator can be postulated for the existence of the universe itself.
Perhaps I'd post to you more often if you would read what I actually say instead of what you want to see.
Perhaps the word philosophically is getting in the way of understanding here. Most phenomena studied by science are not observed, but are derived from the cycle of analysis, speculation, and theorizing. Even direct observation is subject to amendment based on theory, as when we observe mirages.
"but the 'thing' that creates them does not need to be an intelligent human-like creator" "it can be a simple natural process"
*****Yes, but a simple natural process, would not be able to make such perfect creations and order. It would be made into a Chaoatic (spelling)...state and not able to sustain life. But, the natural processes and materials would have to be orchestrated. It's not a Human like creator, it's a superior reasoning power that has a soul of which we were made in his image. Not human, but with an energy form of great power, thought and feelings.......a powerful soul in other words that can manipulate the molecules, energy and just about anything he wants. In the Bible itself, it says, that..."I am that I am"....That is near impossible for us to conceive that this "entity" had no beginning.....my mind stops when I try to imagine it....but, then again I'm only a four dimentional thinking being......
OK, I'll take your word for it.
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.
Actually we don't. Although the tools are used to indicate settlement, the recognition of them as tools is based on previous sites where the designer was known before the design was recognized.
"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.
I agree. Yet when we look at the genome with that in mind it does not look like something we would produce. Of course it may be that the designers simply designed the original DNA sequence and the rampant variation of evolution over millions of years removed the evidence of their work. But if that is the case then we can not expect current methods to tell us much, new methods need to be devised. So far the methods of ID consist of various uses of probability, information, complexity, even order. However, unless the genome is 'refreshed' every once in a while by the designers, the information, complexity and order will be changed by the accumulated non-directed actions of evolution that have taken place since that original sequence was created.
O.K. SOME people may believe that pure miracle (as opposed to a chemical reaction in the petiole) causes leafs to fall from trees in the Autumn, or that every breeze blows due to direct Divine intervention (rather than because conduction cells organize in the atmosphere in accord with the laws of thermodynamics). But I think those with such views can be readily dismissed by anyone interested in productive conversation.
Why?
What natural process creates atoms. Do atoms have order? What natural process creates crystals? Do crystals exhibit order?
"It would be made into a Chaoatic (spelling)...state and not able to sustain life. But, the natural processes and materials would have to be orchestrated.
Not so long ago wasn't it you who stated that the characteristics found in the universe are necessary and sufficient for the development of life. Now you are saying that even they need to be watched and manipulated to support life. I'm confused. Which is it?
"It's not a Human like creator, it's a superior reasoning power that has a soul of which we were made in his image. Not human, but with an energy form of great power, thought and feelings.......a powerful soul in other words that can manipulate the molecules, energy and just about anything he wants. In the Bible itself, it says, that..."I am that I am"....That is near impossible for us to conceive that this "entity" had no beginning.....my mind stops when I try to imagine it....but, then again I'm only a four dimentional thinking being......
Sorry, but this is just a bald assertion.
______________________________________
"****** Great point! There is this point. Einstein's General Relativity does imply that the age of the universe is very much past 6,000 years. His theory coupled with Hubble and the rest establishes a "creation date" or "beginning date", okay.
OK. We have determined that the universe has a beginning. I have no argument with that.
"If you have an explosive device dangling from a tree, you set it off, it will explode sending fragments in all directions. Those fragments are expanding and decelerating. This means it had a starting point and a finite point as the fragments decelerate from the orgin or one point. It's the same in the BB. The expansion, plus the deceleration would then indicate a universe that is exploding outward from a point.
Actually not. There is no point of origin. The BB is not an explosion but an inflation.
"NOW, I'm needing a drink about now....it's making me think too much for this ole country boy.... The equations of Relatively, one (who knows how.. not me), can trace the explosion back to its' one starting point. This would be the point when the whole universe exploded from a single point of "infinite density"...
Sorry but you misunderstand how the BB started, it is not possible to trace back to a simple point of origin. One way to view it is we are 'on the surface' of that point as it inflates. Another way to look at is that the point of origin is outside of the universe. Or that the point is equidistant from all other points in the universe.
"Now, that particular point of orgin, where it was "no size" at all, is called a "singularity".....Here is where your statement is great and very astute.....at this singularity there is no scientific model, no application of the laws of physics, that can describe what happens before it......In other words, somehow from beyond itself the universe can into being. It began; and a limited time ago, or finite not infinite.
OK. Although the universe could very well be infinite in size.
This is also where the implications of this process, or condition....for lack of a better word, is monumental. This also means that the "isms" connected with thoughts of the days...."Atheism, Darwinism, and almost all the rest are built upon the incorrect assumption that the Universe is infinite or no creator...
OK. Connect the dots for me. How does the universe having a beginning mean that all 'isms' are based on an incorrect assumption? I will assume you are using 'infinite' to mean 'has no beginning' rather than infinite in size. Atheists, of which I am one, do not believe the universe has always existed, because the evidence tells us it had a beginning. I do view the physical evidence of the various fields of science to be evidence against the existence of God, the tooth fairy, Santa Clause, Goblins, Unicorns and many other fantasy characters. The only 'creator' I view as reasonable is the BB itself, which is a non-intelligent non-god phenomenon.
So, this singularity thing, has created a cause or causer.
The BB has provided energy and matter that reliably and predictably, as far as we have observed, interact in specific ways. We call these observed consistencies 'laws'. These laws, or interactions, in their consistency have created, in a stepwise manner, all we see about us. These laws are consistent because of the interaction between themselves and the resultant feedback systems. Unless you consider these feedback systems to be the 'creator' there is no need for a creator within the universe.
There is a centuries old cosmological argument for God's existence....that is everything that begins to exist must have a cause for it's existence. and the Universe began to exist, therefore the universe must have a cause for its existence..... I need to rest....... my mind is spinning....
And this centuries old argument no longer has validity because our knowledge of the universe has expanded well beyond anything they knew at the time.
They are afraid because of the flimsiness of current their pet theory...and all the horrors it has spawned in the past 100 or so years.
If it's just a matter of maintenance, how come babies are born with serious genetic defects? This is not a matter of poor maintenance on the babies' part, or on the part of their parents. It's just random back luck.
Yes. In this case the data made it obvious that Mars was not moving in a circular orbit. Analysis of the data suggested elliptical motion. At that point in history this was a philosophical change.
My point was that Kepler didn't disappear into his room and propose elliptical orbits. It was the only solution that fit the considerable volume of data.
I read your posts.....in some you saying things that are opposite and have no logical basis. For instance an inflation is an explosion that has inflated more than the singularity could contain. A balloon, inflated, and then air continues to "inflate" the balloon, you will have an explosion at the point it reaches the end of its' containment field (rubber can't expand any longer). The "singularity" is the containment field and it explodes.
Natural process, our chemicals, genetics, luck, smoking for some, alcohol for another.... It has a lot to do with maintenance by the parents of course. What the mother eats, drinks, takes drugs, chemicals...(ever been to Kosovo with the defects and effects the polution causes.....Of course it a matter of poor maintenance on the parents fault and the environment .....
"Outside this universe, the same conditions or lack of conditions postulated for the existence of a human-like intelligent creator can be postulated for the existence of the universe itself."
**** This is philosophical "double talk" or reverse. You are also assuming that there is something outside the universe. The big bang says no.....it's finite. Again, we are postulating that there is a creator and there is a lack of conditions in the universe for life....as evidenced by our inability to survive without the conditions....(oxygen, gravity, etc.....)
"Perhaps; but he's DEEP into synthesis!"
Got me that time:). I don't like the SOUND of that, it's not in the right TONE, but I would actually describe myself as the antisynthesis of that statement. :)
This is exactly why ID has been rejected as being non-science.
"This is exactly why ID has been rejected as being non-science."
This will give some ideas about birth defects. (http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/681_1206.asp)
What causes birth defects?
Both genetic and environmental factors can cause birth defects. However, the causes of about 60 to 70 percent of birth defects currently are unknown.
and.......
Birth defects also may result from environmental factors such as drug or alcohol abuse, infections, or exposure to certain medications (such as the acne drug Accutane) or other chemicals. Many birth defects appear to be caused by a combination of one or more genes and environmental factors (called multifactorial inheritance). Some examples include cleft lip/palate, clubfoot and some heart defects.
"I read your posts.....in some you saying things that are opposite and have no logical basis. For instance an inflation is an explosion that has inflated more than the singularity could contain. A balloon, inflated, and then air continues to "inflate" the balloon, you will have an explosion at the point it reaches the end of its' containment field (rubber can't expand any longer). The "singularity" is the containment field and it explodes.
Sorry but you are wrong. It is called an inflation because 'space' itself is expanding, including the space between galaxies, it is not exploding 'into' preexisting space.
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sorry but you misunderstand how the BB started, it is not possible to trace back to a simple point of origin. One way to view it is we are 'on the surface' of that point as it inflates. Another way to look at is that the point of origin is outside of the universe. Or that the point is equidistant from all other points in the universe."
"****** No disrespect meant, but I do understand how the BB started. It happened from a single point. Due to the "proven" theory of Relatively, and Hubble's red shift concept you can theorically trace back to a simple point of origin. The point of origin cannot be outside the known universe due to the BB activity. The red and blue shifts eliminates the possibility of all other points being equidistant from the point of origin.
"http://www.pbs.org/deepspace/classroom/activity2.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The cosmic background radiation: All objects at a temperature above absolute zero ``glow''. i.e. they emit electro-magnetic radiation. This radiation is called black body radiation. The average wavelength of this radiation depends only on the temperature. A ``red-hot'' poker is an example of black body radiation. The surface of the Sun also emits black-body radiation with an average wavelength (yellow) corresponding to the temperature of its surface of about 6000 K (6000 degrees C above absolute zero temperature). One prediction of the big bang model is that in the past, the universe was much hotter than it is today. As it expanded it cooled. At some time in the past (before there were stars or galaxies) the temperature of the Universe was about the temperature of the surface of the Sun. At temperatures above this, the atoms in the Universe were ionized (that is, the electrons were not bound to the atoms, but could wander around freely in space), and the universe was opaque, just as the Sun is opaque (the Sun is a ball of ionized gas). Black-body radiation with a wavelength corresponding to this temperature filled the Universe. As the Universe expanded, it cooled below this temperature, and the electrons recombined with the atoms. When this happened, the Universe went from opaque to transparent. According to the big bang model, this black-body radiation should still be present today, although shifted to a much larger wavelength due to the expansion of the Universe. This residual black-body radiation was predicted by George Gamow (who also coined the term ``big bang'', and wrote the book ``Mr. Tompkins in Wonderland'').
This says absolutely nothing about tracing back to a starting point.
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Unless you consider these feedback systems to be the 'creator' there is no need for a creator within the universe."
"****** uh, If you want to tell the creator of the known universe that there is no more need for him, be my guest, but don't expect any special favors when he returns shortly. It's like you built a house and your neighbor comes over and says you no longer are needed he is going to move in...????
OK.
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What natural process creates atoms. Do atoms have order? What natural process creates crystals? Do crystals exhibit order?"
"*******God can create something from nothing. This is hard to understand...I know. Atoms have order....check it out......
Yes atoms do have order, as do molecules yet there is no cause other than the natural that enables them to combine into that order. You made the assertion that without some intelligent all powerful creator nature could not create order, I gave examples of where this is not true.
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Now you are saying that even they need to be watched and manipulated to support life. I'm confused. Which is it?"
"****** the natural process were established by God before any life could develop. Once they were set in motion they then started their own activity...due to natural processes established by God.
OK, understood.
"Sorry, but this is just a bald assertion. "
"****** However it's a true assertion, I assume that you meant..
I meant it is an assertion without backing evidence.
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The only 'creator' I view as reasonable is the BB itself, which is a non-intelligent non-god phenomenon."
"****The BB couldn't possibility be the creator. It's a non-entitity and a process that was caused by God's hand.
If I am a creation of molecules, and molecules are a creation of atoms and atoms are creations of 'natural laws' then the BB, which created the natural laws is indeed a creator. I did say that some creators are simply processes did I not?
"******
"**** This is philosophical "double talk" or reverse. You are also assuming that there is something outside the universe. The big bang says no.....it's finite. Again, we are postulating that there is a creator and there is a lack of conditions in the universe for life....as evidenced by our inability to survive without the conditions....(oxygen, gravity, etc.....)
Actually I am not assuming something outside the universe. There is nothing outside the universe. Some creationists here call that 'nothing' the void and claim that because there are no 'rules' in that nothing (void) God can be created as an uncreated creator. I am saying that whatever conditions or non-conditions that gave rise to your God can also be used to explain the creation of the universe. Given the void has no rules, the universe, which came from the void, can be an uncreated creator. Remember, the universe did not expand into an existing space.
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.