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.
I detect a subject change.
I haven't dumped a list-o-links on you yet ;^)
I hope you don't equate this to a bunch of do's and don'ts that a certain part of the modern church has saddled their believers with!
Oh that this were true; but, unfortunately, some parents will NEVER get it!
Their baby can do no wrong!
And I detect someone dodging a relevent question about something she posted.
Ya got these groups reversed.
The present JW's believe that THIS Earth will be cleaned up and they'll be living here in harmony: for Heaven will have been filled up.
You see, after the 144,000 number got passed years ago, the Organization had to come up with SOMETHING to tell the newer folks who were getting on board.
I don't know for sure, I suspect, however, that THESE verses may NOT be in their Organizations 'bible':
NIV John 14:1-3
2. In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you.
3. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.
After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.
It ain't the 'truth' that's in 'em that'll mess ya up; but the OTHER stuff!
Amen!
And yet many 'christian' paents see no problem with the lie of Santa or the Easter Bunny or the tooth Fairy.
Now you STILL want me to 'believe' in this OTHER invisible GOD, and that HE'll grant me great favor?
What!?
Americans didn't invent EVERYTHING??? ;^)
And I detect someone dodging a relevent question about something she posted.
|
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 7:31:04 AM CST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: Elsie
NOTHING has been SHOWN that indicates that MORE tuskless than tusked are being born!!!!
Obviously, tuskless elephants are being born. (right?) Their numbers are increasing for two reasons. 1) Poachers are killing the tusked elephants, thus reducing the size of the tusked gene pool. (right?) If the trend continues, then eventually, there will be no more tusked elephants because their gene pool will have been depleted through poaching, leaving only the tuskless gene pool from which elephants will be born. (right?) I can't believe we're debating these simple breeding techniques used since time immemorial to control and direct the results of breeding, but there you have it --creationists on parade. If you think this is incorrect, please explain how you think natural selection works and we'll go from there. Or, do you think natural selection is a bogus concept and that everything (and I mean EVERYTHING!) that happens on Earth is as a direct result of divine intervention? Do you believe animals breed and pass along their traits (good and bad) to future generations? Or, do you believe that all (and I mean ALL!) animals appeared on the Earth in their current form as a direct result of divine intervention? To: Ol' Dan Tucker
2) Poachers aren't killing the tuskless elephants, thus the size of the tuskless gene pool is increasing because the tuskless elephants are breeding. (right?)
They STILL haven't shown that tuskless breed true, or that it's recessive. Just a lot of words about about what MIGHT be going on. 659 posted on 01/19/2006 11:42:18 AM CST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: Elsie
They STILL haven't shown that tuskless breed true, or that it's recessive.
Recessive genes? That sounds positively evolutionary! What's a recessive gene? Just a lot of words about about what MIGHT be going on. Unless I'm mistaken, I think the same thing can be said about Intelligent Design. Lots of words about what might be going on. 661 posted on 01/19/2006 12:25:22 PM CST by Ol' Dan Tucker (Karen Ryan reporting...) |
Mormon planet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob
DD vs DT.......:) I found a very good article in Newsweek dated November 28, 2005; "The Real Darwin; His Private Views on Science & God".....I'm reading it this weekend.....
Have a good weekend....
Tom
thanks........you are correct.....either way......:) it may come up again...
BTW, you missed an important one. (See #4)
1) How did you think it [natural selection] worked?
2) Or, do you think natural selection is a bogus concept and that everything (and I mean EVERYTHING!) that happens on Earth is as a direct result of divine intervention?
3) Do you believe animals breed and pass along their traits (good and bad) to future generations?
4) Or, do you believe that all (and I mean ALL!) animals appeared on the Earth in their current form as a direct result of divine intervention?
5) What's a recessive gene?
Now, as to the original claim: they have NOT shown that the tuskless are breed ONLY tuskless offspring.
Not so fast, pardner. Simply stating the fact that I've asked more unanswered questions, then ignoring them is no way to discuss a topic.
Are you going to answer my questions or not?
They aren't rhetorical. I asked them for a reason.
Thanks for the tip.
Have a good weekend, yourself.
Huh? Come again?
Where? Just about everywhere; in his own pen, in his words, and in his entire life. In fact, Darwin's life was a study in the evolution of having faith and then losing it to pride. Baptised in the Anglican Church, Darwin grew up with strong faith and eventually became a theology major. But his study of evolution turned him against his own faith, and thus he SURELY knew that releasing his book “The Origin of Species” would have the same effect on a great many others.
It’s interesting to note that Darwin himself never used the term “evolution” until his last book in 1881. He believed that the term implied progress, which implied a plan, which implied a God. He gave in to the term “evolution” in 1881 only because it had already become the popular term in those days. (If anyone believes that Darwin himself is the actual author of the concept of evolution think again. The concept was already a very popular one in the various circles of scientists, avowed atheists and theists in Darwin’s early days). Since the common meaning of ‘evolution’ in those days implied progress, Darwin could not accept this notion, so he writes in a letter to the paleontologist Hyatt:
” ‘…I cannot avoid the conclusion that no inherent tendency to progressive development exists.”
So it becomes clear that Darwin’s little ‘theory’ was very much intended to preclude any notion of there being a Creator.
In a private notebook, Darwin’s dark agenda becomes clear. He reminds himself to publicly deny that emotions, instincts and varying degrees of human talent could come from God. He reminds himself to attribute these things strictly as being hereditary:
” ‘to avoid saying how far I believe in materialism, say only that emotions, instincts, degrees of talent which are hereditary are so because brain of child resembles parent stock.”
(Ernst Mayr, ‘One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Evolutionary Thought’)
It’s clear that Darwin was fully aware that his theory was a frontal attack on the very notion of an intelligent Creator behind the universe. Darwin’s theory is inherently anti-plan, anti-purpose, anti-meaning. Darwin knew this very well and meant it to be so. The most influential man in Charles Darwin's early university life was Robert Grant. Grant held a medical degree from Edinburgh, and became the leading British authority in invertebrate zoology. Grant was an avowed atheist, and evolutionist, and also a social and political radical.
In his autobiography Darwin wrote: "I had gradually come by this time, [i.e. 1836 to 1839] to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian."
Darwin’s loss of faith came directly from his overpowering Pride. Though he once had a strong Christian faith, (according to his own writings), his faith gradually slipped away the more he delved into his ‘science’ of evolution and the more he came to believe that species were not immutable. In 1844 Darwin wrote to his friend Joseph Hooker:
“I am almost convinced... that species are not, (it is like confessing a murder) immutable."
Darwin’s biographers have pointed out that the 'murder' he spoke of was in effect the murder of GOD.
Darwin went from abandoning his faith in the Old Testament to losing faith in the Gospels. He also wrote to Hooker, in 1844:
"the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events----"they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me, to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses.-----by such reflections as these... I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation."
Darwin’s doubt about the Bible eventually morphed into a hatred for it. He viciously attacked sacred Scripture when he wrote:
”I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine,"
Still later, Darwin again wrote against the concept of God: In 1876, in his Autobiography, he wrote:
"Formerly I was led... to the firm conviction of the existence of God and the immortality of the soul-----But now [even] the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind."
In 1880, in reply to a correspondent, Darwin again denies the concept of God, but this time he decides to specifically target the Divine Saviour:
"I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God."
Darwin’s entire life is a study in how a man can lose his faith through the study and gradual belief of 'evolution', and then how he comes to actually HATE religion and exist just to deny its reality.
Of particular interest to this debateis something written by the anatomist T.H. Huxley. Huxley was a personal friend of Charles Darwin, and like Darwin he was an avowed anti-religionist. In a letter to his pal Charles Darwin, Huxley wrote this statement directed to one Samual Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford, (of whom he had been debating with about 'evolution'). :
"As for your doctrines I am prepared to go to the Stake if requisite… I am sharpening up my claws and beak in readiness', and "ready to disembowel" [any cleric]
"Letter to Charles Darwin", regarding The Origin of Species
Huxley, Darwin and the rest of the atheist gang of religion-bashing 'scientists' knew exactly what they were trying to accomplish by fostering their demonic theory. And it looks to me like they've succeeded to a large degree in stealing souls away from God. It's no wonder that Karl Marx quickly embraced "The Origin of the Species" and effectively used to to foster his own agenda, (which, by the way, was nothing more than the logical end of Darwinism).
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.