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.
1. King Kong is a fictional and impossible organism.
2. I believe in God.
3. ID is not to be dignified as even "bad" science: it is a steaming pantsload.
happy?
I'm a deist. I believe in God. I'm mocking those who believe ID is a science rather than faith-based belief.
ID is faith-based with some science, plain and simple.
Now don't mock me, because I'm a re-mock-able person.:)
Ah, the 2nd law violations again. Your definition is wrong. After you get a good one, provide an example of where the 2nd law is violated. Note that you didn't give any examples in your post.
"If ID were dishonest, then the laws of choas would be true. The Universe would be a homogenius mass of Hydrogen, Helium and the such."
Ridiculous!
One does not validate the other.
Evolution = Evolve
Like a Model T to Modern day SUV
But It took Intelligent design
No, it's not. We know it's a reasonable hypothesis, because we know for a fact that it can be done. You can even buy stock in companies that make money doing it.
What would be really interesting is to see how "science" would explain a glow-in-the-dark pig, without an ID explanation.
I don't know where you've been, but everything I've been reading in scientific journals has been giving you everything you're calling for. Maybe they haven't been wailing enough and calling for ID as their savior. I dunno.
Evolution never has tried to explain origin of life. Never.
For you or anyone else to set it up as something it isn't in order to knock it down is just silly. Stop it. I respect your intellect more than to let you do this.
Evolutionary theory doesn't address origin of life. It addresses what happened after life appeared. Nothing more.
Hey, why not? I personally am entertained by the whole "Darwinist" thing. As if Darwinists can't label them "IDeists" to demonstrate exactly what the whole ID movement is all about.
YEC SPOTREP
Kinda like asking about those "lifelong Republicans" who voted for Kerry.
OK, then it merely assumes it. You know this.
"I'd like to have a head count of everyone who believes in ID, but does not believe in God."
If we're betting on numbers, I guess 2.
/sarcasm
It depends on how you define ID. Jwalsh07 uses it to mean the big bang (well he uses the word creationism, but whatever, let's not get caught up in such trivia). If that is what it means, then count my head. :)
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Snore
If you accept that evolution is how God made us, then you do not support "ID". If you need to call it something, a common term is "evolutionary creation". ID supports throwing away one of the most valuable of God's gifts to man. EC is fully compatible with ALL scientific observation AND with the Christian faith.
Oh joy, why do I get in the middle of these arguments? I'm only here to see both sides and you guys duke it out. I do support ID. But I actually came to that conclusion long ago about ID through learning about evolution--I thought that it was too complex just to be designed by anyone other than God. AND you point out one thing. EC needs at least some of evolution to be true in order to work. IT also needs the existence of God to be true. That's why I have no problem with either. Please take your arguments to someone who's looking for one. I agree with you, but I'm not one to try and "outprove" the other. I can't prove my own personal faith experiences. No one can.
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.