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.
WhY? Because sexual practices and religious practices are unyeildingly welded together.
And some practices are perceived as being more rewarding, within the context of that 'faith system', than other practices. Those other practices, though unsampled and unexperienced, are assumed to be unfulling a priori, and thus the associated 'faith system' must, by definition start out as being 'not worthy of reason'.
The key step is the leap of faith that the Missionary's Position is wrong. By looking over the shoulder during the act of falling, the Darwinist has a big problem: first, how to stop falling, and second, how to trust reports that the practices in the other faith system are actually MORE rewarding.
Some people would rather continue falling and make believe they are standing. I encountered this in real time on a plane flight across the Atlantic. I asked the pretty stewardess with the British accent why so many beautiful churches in Europe were so empty ... the religious wars?
No, she said ... it was that religious people were seen as nutty and worth only sarcastic laughter. She said it was sad, but that the fear of being laughed at was the number one motivator in her view. At the time I asked her this, I was in the process of fixing the falling issue ....
It's a tough nut to crack, and my heart goes out to those Darwinists out there.
Nope. It is a proper word derivation: bible(n.); to bible (v.); bibler(n.) - one who bibles; bibly(adv.); bibling and so on. Ditto for quran, torah, book of mormon, zoroastian texts and so on.
Umm..... can somebody recognize a dumb joke?????
Geez. I did it again.
So is King Kong a relative of yours?
Or do you believe that ID is just bad science and there is a Creator (God)?
The term "intelligent design" is a fancy term for creation.
I do believe that.
You are not into metaphorical miracles I take it?
So the folks who created the Taiwanese glow-in-the-dark pigs were fulfilling a religious duty?
Well, about 2 million were in the elephant poop alone.
I'd like to have a head count of everyone who believes in ID, but does not believe in God.
every unique life form you see, including what you see when you look in the mirror, is an individual genomic snapshot of the species it IS moving from the species it CAME FROM towards the species it SHALL GIVE RISE TO.
assuming that individual has progeny, and that the species as a whole doesn't die out before diverging, of course.
Are you mocking God and the believe in Him?
Hm. And why couldn't it be shorthand for genetic engineering?
So the folks who created the Taiwanese glow-in-the-dark pigs were fulfilling a religious duty?
Well, if you "follow the light" things usually turn out ok.
heh :)
It may be that, but different domain subsets have meaning, and to claim the Darwinist/Evolutionist posit about how non life became life is to muddy the waters for tendentious purposes in my opinion, in order to flay an over-reach strawman that isn't there.
Hm. And why couldn't it be shorthand for genetic engineering?
Uh-oh, I forget which team you're on. Um....you know, shorthand for the gene code would be something interesting to learn, pretty long though don't you think?
By the way, I was only agreeing with someone else's statement. I am an ID'er, but don't have a problem with evolution.
Yawn
I'm a deist. I believe in God. I'm mocking those who believe ID is a science rather than faith-based belief.
You do understand that the glow-in-the-dark pig (among a host of other things) proves that ID is a scientific concept?
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.