The alternative is the atheist mode of Darwin [and I don't care if, in his youth for which he is not known, Darwin MAY have believed in God however briefly when Darwin was failing as a mainline Protestant seminarian (see Nietzsche, see Bishop Spong, see Stalin for the Russian Orthodox apostate version and Hitler for the Catholic apostate version) given that he wound up a propagandist for the enemies of God, of which he was certainly one.] Faith in God or faith in Darwin. Scripture or the voyage of the Beagle. That's a no brainer of a dichotomy if I ever heard one and it does not favor Darwin or his love slaves.
If you REALLY, REALLY want to believe that the universe occurred accidentally, that there was a big bang of some sort, utterly undirected and utterly chaotic, that you are somehow descended from apes, perhaps your beliefs are proof of at least the last of those propositions (he says sarcastically) but insufficient proof. If there is a watch, there MUST have been (and is) a watchmaker.
More dichotomies: Either God created the universe and all within it or He did not. He did. St. Thomas Aquinas or Charles Darwin???? Scholastic philosophy or the irreligion of the Public Misedjamakashun monopoly???? Public skewels are the parochial skewels of secular humanism. As to me and mine, we are going with God, Scripture, St. Thomas, and Scholastic Philosophy. I cannot imagine the relevance of the Scriptural crutch you have cited to this discussion although I have heard that the Good Book can be cited by you know whom for his own purposes.
Oh, and in a chaotic "big bang" universe without God, why would there be reliable laws of physics, chemistry, biology, et al.? I don't need to know the "science" of Intelligent Design. I'll leave that to Intelligent Design scientists. I need only have faith in God and the use of logic. Our universe is NOT an accident. It and we were designed and created wonderfully by One infinitely more capable than thee or me.
Darwin, his successors, atheists and agnostics, and every ism that seeks or ism pusher who seeks to enslave man to "perfect" the society of the very temporarily living (on earth or on whatever planet) at the expense of the recognition of eternal life, moral authority, moral obligation, eternal punishment and eternal reward can bray as jackasses in the wilderness against the reality of Creation but they cannot change that reality.
Conservatism is what this website is about. Conservatism has a canon of beliefs, of which theism is one. It is not an airheaded libertarianism that encourages each of us to believe whatever fantasy we may, nor an equally airheaded indifferentism which claims that one's specific beliefs do not matter. We do not exist to shape, fit and trim reality into a pre-ordained ideological box which we individually design to suit our own respective tastes.
John Lennon's Imagine is NOT a conservative anthem. It is a nihilist anthem.
Intelligent Design is a brand name for the praiseworthy attempts of Bible Christians to try to re-inject reality into public skewels. God bless them for trying. As a Catholic educated in Catholic schools and as a conservative, I prefer to avoid wasting time (just one life to live, after all) struggling in futility with the public ignorance factories. I prefer abolition of public skeweling altogether, immediately or on the installment plan, the sooner the better and the absolute defunding of those skewels. Then parents should create schools outside of all gummint restrictions on truth, create quality education, and do what the special interest disgrace of public misedjamakashun can never do, actually educate students in something other than PC. The Darwinian nonsense is just one of a thousand reasons for abolishing the organized evil of public skewels.
Nevertheless: If Intelligent Design is not science, then science is NOT the search for truth and therefore is not science. Intelligent Design or Chaotic Cosmic Accident??? Intelligent Design!
I have no faith in Darwin. I don't even know the man.
"Either God created the universe and all within it or He did not."
God's only interested in a person's response to the Holy Spirit. That's why He gave no sign in His creation. That's what He explicitly said in Matt 12:37-38.
"Conservatism has a canon of beliefs, of which theism is one. "
No.
"Intelligent Design is a brand name for the praiseworthy attempts of Bible Christians to try to re-inject reality into public skewels."
I gave you a rigorous definition and proved that it is not science. I also gave you God's word on the matter, which you failed to address. The problem is a dual. God's only sign given was the sign of Jonah, the Holy Spirit. Religion is not to be taught in the public schools.
" Nevertheless: If Intelligent Design is not science, then science is NOT the search for truth and therefore is not science."
"I prefer abolition of public skeweling altogether, immediately or on the installment plan, the sooner the better and the absolute defunding of those skewels."
Then where would the students go? You'd abandon them to ignorance? Then, to hell with them?
" Nevertheless: If Intelligent Design is not science, then science is NOT the search for truth and therefore is not science."
This does not follow. IOWs, it's illogical, as has been shown.
" Oh, and in a chaotic "big bang" universe without God, why would there be reliable laws of physics, chemistry, biology, et al.?"
Nature is the laws of physics. There would be nothing if nature and the laws of physics weren't eternally constant. God Himself depends upon them. If their were no physics, there'd be nothing to support His existance. There'd be nothing at all.
"Our universe is NOT an accident."
The universe itself appears to be a phase transition from a higher space. You can't point to a phase transiiton and proclaim God. You must point to God and say, "this is Him". If they don't know God, they'll naver understand the dual.
ping to BlackElk's #71, most of which could be said by a biblical protestant.
BE, your posts evidence a very high view of biblical inspiration and authority. That is encouraging to me.
Thanks for this excellent essay.
Nope. It's an effort by one group to inject their particular Invisible Sky Fairy myth into science classes by stealth and deception. Nothing more, nothing less.