Posted on 02/11/2009 8:07:30 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Darwin, Intelligent Design, and Freedom of Discovery on Evolutionists' Holy Day
By Casey Luskin
Posted February 10, 2009
February 12 used to be universally recognized as the birthday of Abraham Lincolna day celebrating freedom. Needing a patron saint, Darwinists in recent years have converted February 12 into "Darwin Day."
There's nothing wrong with celebrating Darwin's birthdayif that's what you really want to do. But in recent years the advocacy of evolution has become increasingly associated with attempts to subvert freedom. To reclaim February 12 for those who love freedom, Discovery Institute and others in the intelligent design (ID) movement are calling February 12, 2009, "Academic Freedom Day" (see www.AcademicFreedomDay.com).
To be sure, Darwin supported academic freedom. In On the Origin of Species, he openly discussed weaknesses in his arguments and declared that "a fair result can only be obtained by stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."
One would think that Darwin's latter-day defenders would follow his approach and allow debate over evolution in the classroom. But a lot has changed in the past 150 years.
Darwinists today seek to stifle scientific dissent from their viewpoint by asserting that there are no serious scientific weaknesses in modern evolutionary theory (called neo-Darwinism). The real losers here are students and scientific progress.
The more we discover about the cell, the more we are learning that it functions like a miniature factory, replete with motors, powerhouses, garbage disposals, guarded gates, transportation corridors, and most importantly, CPUs. The central information processing machinery of the cell runs on a language-based code composed of irreducibly complex circuits and machines: The myriad enzymes used in the process that converts the genetic information in DNA into proteins are themselves created by the process that converts DNA into proteins.
The problem for Darwinists is obvious: The simplest cell won't function unless this basic machinery is intact, so how does such complexity evolve via a "blind" and "undirected" Darwinian process of numerous, successive, slight modifications?
Even scientists who reject ID admit that neo-Darwinism is lacking. Biochemist Franklin Harold stated in a 2001 Oxford University Press monograph that "there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." Indeed, over 750 Ph.D. scientists have signed a list declaring their view that random mutation and natural selection are impotent to explain the complexity of life (see www.dissentfromdarwin.org).
As we sequence more genomes of species, biologists are also finding that one gene or trait implies one evolutionary tree, while another gene yields an entirely different tree. No wonder the cover of the journal New Scientist recently declared that with respect to his vision of a grand tree of life, "Darwin Was Wrong."
Common descentthe view that all species are relatedhas also failed to overcome a problem that Darwin recognized in his own day: the lack of evolutionary transitions documented in the fossil record. Instead, what we see are new biological forms coming into existence in "explosions," without clear evolutionary precursors.
Finally, Darwinists have long-argued that our cells can't be designed because they are full of functionless "junk DNA." But in recent years, biologists have discovered that the vast majority of our DNA is performing vital cellular functions and isn't "junk" at all. The wrong-headed conclusions of modern Darwinists have stifled scientific progress and slowed discovery of function for noncoding DNA.
Despite the bluffs of Darwinists, neo-Darwinism has plenty of scientific weaknesses that are discussed in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Since cellular language implies an author, and microbiological machines imply an engineer, and genetically encoded programs imply a programmer, increasing numbers of scientists feel the solution is intelligent design.
-------------------
Casey Luskin is cofounder of the Intelligent Design & Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center and program officer in public policy and legal affairs at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. He holds bachelor's and master's degrees in Earth sciences from the University of California-San Diego and a law degree from the University of San Diego.
oops apologies for double post - darned laptop nipple.
You can’t refute that the NEA is what it is. Your first statement was just sheer projection...but what’s new?
I don’t see anybody ageeing with you.
"wierd"???
Nah, I just expose liberalism.
I only ever posted that those who lie under oath should be prosecuted not what argument theyre making. If thats not true, youll be able to link to a post that shows otherwise, right? Do you agree with that position?
I think it's silly that it comes to this is what I think. For people that are so insecure about their cult they have to sue someone to enforce their views, I think they'd be infinitely more happy in some place like Cuba...you know where y'all won't be so offended.
I have never given fakers a free pass. If youre feeling touchy about it then, to keep your fever down, I can state categorically that any faker who breaks the law (pro-evolutionist or pro-creationist), then they should be prosecuted. I take it that you also agree with that position?
Actually no, I don't think they should be prosecuted, rather examine the fossil, because all kinds of pandora's boxes are opened, for instance:
1. A fossil is really genuine but found to be fake, thus an innocent person is prosecuted for no reason.
2. A fossil could be planted but the person finding it gets to hold the bag, again an innocent person is punished.
3. Endless litigation is part of what's wrong with this country in the first place.
As to the lawsuits, you still havent answered the question - a favored tactic I notice and something you gave me a hard time about. Its amazing how all these websites, articles and films continue to get published/made under such a flurry of lawsuits. Lol!
I would imagine that the movie Expelled probably has had, has and will have lawsuits surrounding it.
Because that's what liberals do. To the point it looks like normal people are now having to fight more and more in the courts to keep pace.
you’re projecting again.
When you run out of arguments, every answer is “projection”.
AZctually, when it comes right down to it, your every argument IS projection.
Darwin was not a scientist. Nor did he follow the scientific method. He was a med-school dropout turned amateur naturalist. [excerpt]You forgot trained theologian.
Fortunately, nobody who anybody would believe has ever said that.
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.