Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Are Darwinists So Afraid of Intelligent Design?
Human Events ^ | Jan 17, 2006 | Barney Brenner

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creationisminadress; crevolist; dishonestfundies; dishonestmonkeymen; goddooditamen; iddupes; idiocy; idjunkscience; ignoranceisstrength; junkscience; madmokeymen; pseudoscience; superstitiousnuts; yeccultists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620621-640641-660 ... 741-759 next last
To: tgambill
"*****Intelligent design is just another word for creation by God.

Not according to the official line from DI.

"and God is real as most Scientist are actually discoving."

You have links that verify this?

621 posted on 01/18/2006 5:37:17 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 617 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

"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, I'm right. It already exploded. It is in inflation mode. You are reworking the words. I am correct. The Inflation is a result of the explosion. Won't work......


622 posted on 01/18/2006 5:50:07 PM PST by tgambill (I would like to comment.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 619 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

I'll search for that and the Einstein links.....I need to anyway....


623 posted on 01/18/2006 6:28:39 PM PST by tgambill (I would like to comment.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 621 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

I'll search for that and the Einstein links.....I need to anyway....


624 posted on 01/18/2006 6:30:00 PM PST by tgambill (I would like to comment.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 621 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

"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."

*******Err, not really, I covered that already.....


"I meant it is an assertion without backing evidence."

****** True...


"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?"

******no, because the creator sets them into motion. You think that your off spring is yours. And we think that what we own is ours. Neither is ours. The Earth is God's house and we are renting it. Offspring is made by the union of man and woman..or by sperm and egg....(in case of artificial science...etc... However, God breathes the breath of life which is something we can't do......We are just raising them.....:)




625 posted on 01/18/2006 6:42:14 PM PST by tgambill (I would like to comment.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 619 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

"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"

****** Creationists are not correct in some of their assertions. The creation is 6,000 years old...no...and this. God makes the rules. If he took a void once and make the creation he can do it again. He's not like a Genie with only three wishes.....:)


"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."

****** NO, not really because as we said before the conditions have to be manipulated by God in the first place. You're just saying the same thing but in different words. It's called double talk. Very clever.


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.

*****Now, this is another form of confusing double talk. It's effective some of the time in that it confuses people that might have a hard time understanding and thus becoming distracted, frustrated, angry, whatever emotion goes along with it. However, the rules of the void, as I said before is made by God. The universe started out as a void. the term "can be an uncreated creator" is not possible. There is no force that can uncreate God since he is the creator. When you say "they" of the universe, well he is the big "HE", there is no they.....:)))))




"Remember, the universe did not expand into an existing space."

Your Astronomer friend wrote.........and is correct. As I was also correct....we both were correct. However, you are saying, "remember, the universe did not expand into an existing space..."

He said....


"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."

*****Which means that the universe is expanding into an preexisting space as a result of an explosion called the BB. It did not do it by itself, it was created by the hand of God. The expanding universe is finite and not a void at the outer edges..it is space. simple......


626 posted on 01/18/2006 6:53:53 PM PST by tgambill (I would like to comment.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 620 | View Replies]

To: tgambill
The centre of the universe

The balloon analogy is very good but needs to be understood properly otherwise it can cause more confusion. As Hoyle said "There are several important respects in which it is definitely misleading." It is important to appreciate that three dimensional space is to be compared with the two dimensional surface of the balloon. The surface is homogeneous with no point which should be picked out as the centre. The centre of the balloon itself is not on the surface and should not be thought of as the centre of the universe. If it helps you can think of the radial direction in the balloon as time. This was what Hoyle suggested, but it can also be confusing. It is better to regard points off the surface as the balloon as not being part of the universe at all. As Gauss discovered at the beginning of the 19th century, properties of space such as curvature can be described in terms of intrinsic quantities which can be measured without needing to think about what it is curving in. So space can be curved without there being any other dimensions outside. Gauss even tried to determine the curvature of space by measuring the angles of a large triangle between three hill tops.

When thinking about the balloon analogy you must remember that. . .

The 2-dimensional surface of the balloon is analogous to the 3 dimensions of space.

The 3-dimensional space in which the balloon is embedded is not analogous to any higher dimensional physical space.

The centre of the balloon does not correspond to anything physical.

The universe may be finite in size and growing like the surface of an expanding balloon but it could also be infinite.

Galaxies move apart like points on the expanding balloon but the galaxies themselves do not expand because they are gravitationally bound.

... but if the Big Bang was an explosion

In a conventional explosion material expands out from a central point. A short moment after the explosion starts the centre will be the hottest point. Later there will be a spherical shell of material expanding away from the centre until gravity brings it back down to Earth. The Big Bang as far as we understand it was not an explosion like that at all. It was an explosion of space, not an explosion in space. According to the standard models there was no space and time before the big bang. There was not even a "before" to speak of. So, the Big Bang was very different from any explosion we are accustomed to and it does not need to have a central point.

If the big bang were an ordinary explosion in an already existing space we would be able to look out and see the expanding edge of the explosion with empty space beyond. Instead we see back towards the big bang itself and detect a faint background glow from the hot primordial gases of the early universe. This Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) is uniform in all directions. This tells us that it is not matter which is expanding outwards from a point but rather, it is space itself which expands evenly.

It is important to stress that other observations support the view that there is no centre to the universe, at least in so far as observations can reach. The fact that the universe is expanding uniformly would not rule out the possibility that there is some denser, hotter place that might be called the centre, but careful studies of the distribution and motion of galaxies confirm that it is homogeneous on the largest scales we can see, with no sign of a special point to call the centre.

_______________________________________________

This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other.

About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.

__________________________________________

As the Universe can be described by such coordinates, the Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty Universe; what is expanding is spacetime itself.

It is this expansion that causes the physical distance between any two fixed points in our Universe to increase. Objects that are bound together (for example, by gravity) do not expand with spacetime's expansion because the physical laws that govern them are assumed to be uniform and independent of the metric expansion. Moreover, the expansion of the Universe on today's local scales is so small that any dependence of physical laws on the expansion is unmeasurable by current techniques.

__________________________________________

Though the Big Bang suggests a colossal explosion, it wasn't really an "explosion" in the sense that we understand it.

_____________________________________________

Unfortunately, this comparison wouldn't work. The Big Bang is not actually an explosion.

When bombs explode, they convert their internal energy to kinetic energy and heat. This cause the explosion of the bomb and surrounding matter. In the Big Bang, however, energy and matter were created, not just transformed. Also, here space-time itself is actually expanding, not just matter in space.

_______________________________________

Good short explanation

_______________________________________

627 posted on 01/18/2006 7:08:18 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 622 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

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



Nature does not know the future, hence, a surviving specie might be localy surviving while around those localities new beasts or environmental changes come up which makes this race not viable. Darwinism does not address the issue of being able to survive in a changing dynamic environment.

Cancer research points that cancer is not a disease but a way for certain of our cells to survive in an environment which has become hostile in our own bodies (infections, autoimmune attacks, toxins, oxygen deprivation). Aerobic cells enduring the toxicity of anearobic or other carcinogenic products could "mutate" to survive this new environment, death being a scattering of dna into nature.

Thus there seem to be an underlying "strategy" behind evolution, and not just a tactical adaptation to static environments to explore, but a definite adaptation to dynamic changes too.


628 posted on 01/18/2006 8:51:02 PM PST by JudgemAll (Condemn me, make me naked and kill me, or be silent for ever on my gun ownership and law enforcement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

yep, you did a lot of work to discuss the Balloon analogy...however, it is once again filled with a lot of double talk and distractions to make up for substance.....

You have a lot of descriptions and explanations that does not explain what we are talking about.......


629 posted on 01/18/2006 11:41:56 PM PST by tgambill (I would like to comment.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

I read the links....they are very clever. They start with the agreement of the Big Bang and the way it started. Then, the explanations turn away very cleverly and deceitfully to non-scientific terms and priniciples. You can't put God in a box that you can now understand. This won't work.......it's not accurate....

Tom


630 posted on 01/19/2006 12:18:29 AM PST by tgambill (I would like to comment.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader
Darwin wrote that his objective was to overturn the authority of the Bible.

Where?

631 posted on 01/19/2006 1:29:31 AM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: fizziwig
Well, either all of these religions are invented and thus nonsense, or one of them is revealed from God and thus true. If the latter, the "true" one may also incorporate "truths" from the other religions.

Shame there aren't more Muslims on these threads. The Koran explicitly claims to correct the errors that have crept into Judaism and Christianity.

632 posted on 01/19/2006 2:06:31 AM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 463 | View Replies]

To: tgambill; b_sharp

Hey Tom. I have been pretty much out of it for the past two weeks, so my apologies for not popping on earlier.

I have very little time this morning, however, I wanted to point you to a very nice online tutorial that may clear up any misconceptions you may have.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

BTW, nice set of links b_sharp. :-)


633 posted on 01/19/2006 4:39:12 AM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
So you admit you're a troll. You are aware that people are routinely banned for such behavior, right?

I admit you THINK I am.

Burr under one's saddle, perhaps, but hey! Welcome to America!

634 posted on 01/19/2006 5:28:21 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 585 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
Actually, it has everything to do with the theory of evolution. That is how natural selection works.

How did you think it worked?

Hello!!

NOTHING has been SHOWN that indicates that MORE tuskless than tusked are being born!!!!

Is this how you E dudes think you can say, "Ignore the man behind the curtain!" and we C types will?


635 posted on 01/19/2006 5:31:04 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 589 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
Even if the 'tuskless' gene is recessive, all members will become homozygous for that allele.

Real easy to SAY this stuff; ain't it!

My math teacher ALWAYS told me, "Show your work!"

636 posted on 01/19/2006 5:32:19 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 591 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker; b_sharp
Keep harping away at this; it STILL won't work!

(And the Bible Creationists get flack because of some sticks placed in front of the animals!)

637 posted on 01/19/2006 5:34:02 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 594 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
Is that better?

Not really, but His Noodly Appendage will not strike thee just yet.

638 posted on 01/19/2006 5:35:06 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 596 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

A suspect has been arraigned in the Tony Blair child kidnapping case....

639 posted on 01/19/2006 5:36:20 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 598 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Perhaps I'd post to you more often if you would read what I actually say instead of what you want to see.

Sigh...

Isn't this a basic human shortcoming?

I think EVERYONE fits this...

640 posted on 01/19/2006 5:38:24 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 603 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620621-640641-660 ... 741-759 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson