Why Are Darwinists So Afraid of Intelligent Design?

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.

You said: Darwin wrote that his objective was to overturn the authority of the Bible.

I said: Where?

[your replies in italics]

...Darwin's life was a study in the evolution of having faith and then losing it to pride...

To pride, eh? Care to back that up?

Most biographies say that his "loss of faith" had more to do with the death of his daughter than his study of natural history.

...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

It does?

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

Quite true. the law of faunal succession was known circa 1790, and Cuvier, Lamarck, and others came up with various hypotheses to explain it. Darwin's hypothesis, that it could be explained by the same mechanisms that pigeon and dog breeders had been using for millenia, is the only one to have withstood rigorous testing.

Since the common meaning of ‘evolution’ in those days implied progress

Can you source this? I've never heard the claim before

Darwin wrote:

” ‘…I cannot avoid the conclusion that no inherent tendency to progressive development exists.”

And you said

So it becomes clear that Darwin’s little ‘theory’ was very much intended to preclude any notion of there being a Creator.

And here's one of the places you show confusion: Darwin **concluded**, the lack of **progress** by examining the **evidence**. This was actually an argument against another theory of evolution, the theory of orthogenesis.

But somehow, you get an intention to prove atheism from this. I don't see how it follows at all, unless there is some theological reason to suppose that the existence of God implies progress in faunal succession.

(Keep in mind that Darwin was the authority on barnacles)

...

...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: ...

He was aware of how his theory would be perceived. It's reminiscent of Copernicus not publishing until he was dying - he too knew what sort of reaction to expect.

...

...Darwin’s theory is inherently anti-plan, anti-purpose, anti-meaning. Darwin knew this very well and meant it to be so....

Again, you attribute intention to Darwin. Why? Do you expect him to lie about his observations and the theory they entail?

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."

Remember, this was around the time that is was conclusively shown that Noah's flood didn't happen; the rocks say "no"!

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,"

Hmm, he doesn't like a doctrine that says his father is going to burn for all eternity.

...T.H. Huxley ... like Darwin he was an avowed anti-religionist.

You haven't shown Darwin to be anti-religion. He thought Christianity was bad for consigning his father and friends to hell, and he knew that the Old Testament was wrong in places, and had doubts about the New.

This is hardly anti-religion; it's more like what leads people to Deism.

...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 what would you have had them do instead?

And it looks to me like they've succeeded to a large degree in stealing souls away from God.

It would be nice if the Flood story were true. But it isn't. That turns people away from Genesis literalism, but not necessarily away from Christianity. think of the Pope, for example.

Where is Darwin buried?

"You said: Darwin wrote that his objective was to overturn the authority of the Bible. I said: Where?"

And I listed more than several of Darwin's anti-Bible, anti-Jesus Christ, anti-religion quotes, along with quotes from his diary and personal notes reminding himself how to publicly deflect questions by giving non-scientific, static replies to questions concerning human qualities which implied an intelligent Creator. These devious little notes to himself are striking evidence that he was espousing a controversial theory of which he could not scientifically support, hence the need for written reminders of how to deflect questions which could embarrass him.

I clearly detailed how Darwin's loss of faith was a gradual process which began which began in 1836, while still a very young man, and steadily progressed as he delved deeper into the study of evolution. I listed quotes with their dates and sources, but I guess they were 'overlooked', so I have posted them again, below.

Though Darwin is erroniously presented to the general public today as being the founder or 'father' of the theory of evolution, the fact is that Charles Darwin was not the originator of the theory of evolution. This theory pre-existed Darwin by centuries, and was shared by many 19th Century scientists while Darwin was still a young man professing the Christian faith.

So why then is Charles Darwin the most prominent name in Evolution if he didn't even come up with theory in the first place? Did he come up with some sort of break-through discovery, or astounding piece of evidence to support evolution? NO, he did not do that either. In fact, Darwin himself openly admitted this lack of conclusive evidence when he wrote that the linking fossils and/or transitionary forms must be found [or else his theory could never be proven].

What made Charles Darwin so prominent among evolutionists was his bold and outrageously controversial claim that all life forms had somehow come into existence by random chance, without benefit of design or plan. His writings were not rock-solid, authoratative science, but were far more philosophically appealing to many men then anything else. His position that life somehow came into being through that which was lifeless appealed to people who didn't like the idea of answering to God or holding to His Commandents. Darwin was claiming in effect that the masterpiece didn't need a painter, and that human beings [and all other life forms] didn't need a Creator. He was declaring through his theory that God had been created by man and that the Bible was myth. Darwin in fact wrote that he believed the Bible was a myth and that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God.
Strange things, indeed, for an "open-minded scientist" to claim.

So THIS is why his avowed cultists love him so much. He was not the originator of evolution, nor did he discover anything great to support it; but his "Origin of the Species" amounted to a powerful philosophical essay that would give great assistance to the agenda of the socialists of his day, (and ours) and comfort the unsettled minds of atheists.

"Most biographies say that his "loss of faith" had more to do with the death of his daughter than his study of natural history."

This is a very typical, lying Darwinist assertion. Darwin began documenting his own loss of faith in the late 1830's to early 1840's, (his daughter died in 1851).
"I had gradually come by this time, [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 autobiography).

"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." (Letter to friend Hooker, 1844).

"...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"

"It does?"

Yes, it does, as old Mr. Darwin himself wrote" "I cannot avoid the conclusion that no inherent tendency to progressive development exists.”.
In other words, for Mr. Darwin, everything is random and there is no chance for 'progressive development' in his own evolution theory because that would strip away the "randomness" of his God-hating hypothesis.
Why do you think Darwin avoided using the term 'evolution' until near the end of his life, if not because many of his contemporaries didn't see at least the chance of an intelligent Designer in the non-Darwin understanding of evolution??? Why else would Darwin have avoided using the very term that had catapulted him into renown? The answer is that Darwin first had the literally redefine the animus of 'evolution' to make it fit comfortably into the arms of ATHEISM.

"...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:" ...

"He was aware of how his theory would be perceived. It's reminiscent of Copernicus not publishing until he was dying - he too knew what sort of reaction to expect."

Spoken like a true Darwinist; these are two completely different periods in history. Copurnicus had to worry about being seen as a heretic, while Darwin proudly and openly proclaimed his apostacy from Chrisitianity both in word and pen. Copurnicus lived in what was still Christendom; Darwin lived long after faith had fallen in Europe and the U.S., and the Church was forcibly seperated from government. In Copurnicus' day one could be tried for heresy, in Darwin's day the elitists were often venerated and culturally rewared for opposing Christianity.

"Where is Darwin buried?"

I can answer that in two ways. Darwin's faith was burried long before his physical death.

1882
Francis Galton asked William Spottiswoode (at the time president of the Royal Society) if he would try to get the consent of the Darwin family for Darwin to be buried at Westminster Abbey, in London. Meanwhile, Sir John Lubbock, now an MP with quite a lot of political influence, went to the House of Parliament to petition for the burial. The petition was easily granted.

Soon letters from all over Britain were appearing in newspapers urging the Darwin family to allow internment at Westminster. After all, people argued, Sir Isaac Newton was interred at Westminster Abbey and Charles Darwin deserved no less an honor. The family soon gave their consent.

1882 April 26
Charles Robert Darwin was buried at Westmineter Abbey. The pall-bearers included: the Duke of Argyll, James Lowell (American Ambassador to Britain), Joseph Hooker, Thomas Huxley, William Spottiswoode, Sir John Lubbock, Lord Derby, Duke of Devonshire and Cannon Farrar.

Interesting, but really not very important. Charles Darwin's religious beliefs matter about as much as Cuvier's or Lamarck's. The science he did is all that's important.

But I do have some quibbles about what you posted:

Though Darwin is erroniously presented to the general public today as being the founder or 'father' of the theory of evolution, the fact is that Charles Darwin was not the originator of the theory of evolution. This theory pre-existed Darwin by centuries, and was shared by many 19th Century scientists while Darwin was still a young man professing the Christian faith.

The law of faunal succession was formalized in the late 1700s, although fossils of various kinds have been known forever. The idea that they represent ancestral animals is obvious enough, but AFAIK there were no theories to explain this until Cuvier, Lamarck, et al in the late 1700s - early 1800s.

Darwin was the first to publish the theory that natural selection was the reason, although Wallace had come to the same conclusion.

So I'd like some documentation that

"This theory pre-existed Darwin by centuries, and was shared by many 19th Century scientists while Darwin was still a young man professing the Christian faith."

You said NO, I'd say yes.

There are at least two things he did: One was coming up with the hypothesis that the same process used by animal breeders occurred naturally, and that it was sufficient to explain the diversity of life. (and supporting the hypothesis with a lot of data)

The other is that Darwin introduced the concept of thinking of living things as members of an interbreeding population of **similar** things, as opposed to the previous idea of organisms as imperfect copies of an "ideal", or representatives of a fixed "kind".

This is not completely true. Natural selection is not random chance. The lack of design or foresight is part of the theory. Randomness enters the theory in the form of mutations; although randomness is not necessary here, it does fit the evidence.

. His position that life somehow came into being through that which was lifeless...

The "Origin" speaks of the Divinity "breathing" life; in a private letter he famously mused

...But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed...

...appealed to people who didn't like the idea of answering to God or holding to His Commandents. ...

Yes, of course, that must be it!

Darwin was claiming in effect that the masterpiece didn't need a painter, and that human beings [and all other life forms] didn't need a Creator.

One way to look at it.

Darwin in fact wrote that he believed the Bible was a myth and that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God. Strange things, indeed, for an "open-minded scientist" to claim.

I don't see how being open minded and recognizing that at least some parts of the Bible are mythical are in conflict. Remember, the Flood was **known** to be mythical decades before Darwin.

...amounted to a powerful philosophical essay that would give great assistance to the agenda of the socialists of his day, (and ours) and comfort the unsettled minds of atheists.

Socialists? This is an absurd statement. What does the ToE have to do with socialism? Be specific.

Unsettled minds of atheists? Any evidence for this generalization? (There's one quote from Dawkins, anything else?)

And anyway, what does atheism have to do with anything? Most US biologists are Christians

My own theory is that the people who deny evolution have a little voice in the back of their minds, a conscience, that whispers things like

"You know, they really are telling the truth - there are no dissident biologists - all the IDists are engineers, chemists, lawyers, and so forth"

"Why don't the oil companies hire the IDists and creationists?"

"It really does **look** old!"

"There have been a lot more ID-ists and creationists who were banned from FR for bad manners than there are banned evos; where did all that anger come from? Guilty conscience, perhaps?"

"If Helen Thomas is human and resembles a hairless gorilla..."

Just my guess, that creationists and ID-ers really do have consciences.

But you left something out of your characterization of "Origin": It may be a powerful philosophical essay, but it also made true predictions about things that would be found in the natural world: Proto-humans in Africa, intermediate forms between land animals and cetaceans, the sorts of things that will be found on islands, etc.

This is something no creationist or ID-er has ever done. It's also the one thing that really, really, impresses scientists (and other people with open minds)

...Why do you think Darwin avoided using the term 'evolution' until near the end of his life, if not because many of his contemporaries didn't see at least the chance of an intelligent Designer in the non-Darwin understanding of evolution??? Why else would Darwin have avoided using the very term that had catapulted him into renown?

I don't know. I was merely saying that I never heard that evolution somehow entailed progress; I thought it simply meant change.

Who's losing their temper? I'm merely issuing Biblical directive: shut your yap! What, no snappy scripture to demonstrate how you, one of the inferior sex, have God's permission to lecture any male on Christ's teachings? And you've been so good flipping through your dogeared text so far!

I Corinthians 11:3
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

I'm in charge here, honeypot. Shut your yap. Jesus said so. Paul told me. It's in the Book.

LibertarianInExile, while I've enjoyed a number of pings back and forth on lighthearted topics, MOST REGRETFULLY I don't see any 'smiley' or /sarc at the end of this post or some of your other ones on this thread.

There is no Biblical directive for anyone to lord any position over anyone else and tell them to shut up; those in leadership are to be held to a higher standard of righteousness and to model being a servant, with humility. I don't see any of that humility in your post. Christ modeled the ultimate servant-leadership and didn't put down women--who in His day were indeed the second class citizens you seem to think they still are. Christ treated women and men as equals, while not being ignorant of cultural norms.

Your comment about women being subject to men is out of context. A married woman, according to Christ, is under the headship of her husband and her husband is under the headship of Christ. Christ said that the husband was to be willing to lay down his life for the woman, like He did for the Church. Ultimate servant-leadership and preferring one another. This is not the attitude of heart you display in this post.

Jesus also pointed out that no authority is in place without God's permitting it to be so, that's true. But you have absolutely no Scriptural authority over a woman who is not your wife.

No man has superiority over a woman in value--God created the sexes so that the man was to be responsible for protecting the woman and loving her even to the point of dying while protecting her--THAT is being head of the household. That's not what I read in your post here, Sir, nor in your posts 312, 314, 332 etc.

And you call FReeperettes witches who should be executed?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1559357/posts?page=332#332

The term 'honeybunch' might be used rather sarcastically but you have used a MUCH more vulgar and degrading term. 'Honeypot' is slang for the vile buckets used in some countries to empty outhouses. And vile, Sir, is your apparent attitude toward women.

I ask you to publicly apologize for your reprehensible and degrading comments and pray you will privately also repent. These posts of yours, if meant to be taken humorously, have not been so taken.

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.