Skip to comments.National Geographic Finds Opportunity to Conflate Intelligent Design with Creationism
Posted on 07/11/2008 7:21:18 AM PDT by Soliton
In the past, I have observed that the newsmedia and scientific establishment commonly promote the Darwinist bias against intelligent design (ID), where the media "carefully selects the sources of information it will broadcast to the public on this issue." (To see how various groups in the establishment serve as checkpoints to prevent scientific information that challenges neo-Darwinism from reaching the public, observe the diagram at left.) National Geographic (NG) is doing its job as a media checkpoint, promoting biased information to the public on ID.
(Excerpt) Read more at evolutionnews.org ...
The Discovery Institute created the Intelligent Design movement deliberately to get around the supreme court ruling prohibiting teaching creationism in public schools.
ID was found to be just another name for creationism by a court of law headed by a church-going Republican.
A textbook that they created before the SCOTUS ruling used creationism throughout. Shortly after the ruling, they changed it to Intelligent Design. Here is a short video showing the "smoking gun."
To Christian FReepers: Is it acceptable to break one of the ten commandments to try and promote religion?
Obviously YOU deny God, in calling those that believe in Him, “liars”. Gee, can if be MORE obvious that YOU are so BIASED?
“The Discovery Institute created the Intelligent Design movement deliberately to get around the supreme court ruling prohibiting teaching creationism in public schools.”
NO, it's another form of the 2nd Amendment, or is that ONLY reserved for atheists and evolutionists to pursue the truth?
“ID was found to be just another name for creationism by a court of law headed by a church-going Republican.”
No, SCIENCE actually backs up “Creation” or “ID”. Must really make you angry ... .
“A textbook that they created before the SCOTUS ruling used creationism throughout. Shortly after the ruling, they changed it to Intelligent Design. Here is a short video showing the “smoking gun.” “
Since using the word “God” is so offensive to people like YOU, they tried to neutralize things by referring to God as an “Intelligent Designer”, hence the term, “ID”. Even that makes YOU paranoid.
“To Christian FReepers: Is it acceptable to break one of the ten commandments to try and promote religion? “
As a Christian, I am troubled that YOU have no respect or tolerance for another view founded on objective SCIENCE.
Perhaps YOU need to visit the “Ten Commandments” and stop the lying? Christians are speaking the truth about Creation. The truth is that the MAJORITY of people, don't beleive in eolution so I suppose this bothers you all the more. There is NO case for evolution.
You perhaps have some evidence to back up this statement?
“There is NO case for evolution.” ~ nmh
Of course we must all be on the same page with our terms before any valid debate can occur, to wit:
“Which theory of evolution are you talking about? “...What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology.
A theory is a metascientific elaboration distinct from the results of observation, but consistent with them.
By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation.
A theory’s validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.
Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.
And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution.
On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based.
Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations.
What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider _the spirit_ as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. ...”
Theories of Evolution
John Paul II
Copyright (c) 1997 First Things 71 (March 1997): 28-29. Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996
And no, I’m not RCC, Baptist, nor any so-called “fun
No, I call people who lie liars. The Discovery institute was busted in a court of law for bearing false witness when they claimed that ID wasn't just another name for creationism They lied in order to break the law. There are many believers who consider lying a sin. Do you?
The Reverend Sir John Houghton, former head of the UK Meteorological Office, Publisher of Al Gores book on GW and Former Co-Chair of the IPCC, said this (with what some would call, "malice aforethought"):
.. human induced global warming is a weapon of mass destruction at least as dangerous as chemical, nuclear or biological weapons that kills more people than terrorism.
Personally, I think that Houghton, Algore, Hansen, et.al., should be arrested and brought up on charges for the horrible suffering and nightmares they have caused to little children and adults around the world as a direct result of their deliberate "scare-mongering".
This is merely the _latest_ example of it (There are many more):
I UNDERSTAND the basics of evolutionary science and am in awe of God's wonderful works. Evolution is a miraculous thing, and to me it's so clear ... it IS intelligent design on many levels, physical and spiritual. Evolution sends a clear message that we must adapt to God's laws or perish.
YOU, on the other hand, presume to name me an atheist because some poor, pitiful atheist scientists have used the reality of evolution as an argument that God doesnt' exist -- really it is EXACTLY like the guy who says cavities prove God doesn't exist because if He really loved us, why would he give us teeth that rot?
Soliton has it right: you guys are Liars for God, you do it out of pride, and YOU are the ones being conned by the devil in disguise. God is truth and God is love. If evolution is truth -- and there's every indication that it is -- then it IS GOD. You are shallow, emotional, and uninformed enough to think that "survival of the fittest" means "lack mercy and compassion promotes survival," which goes against God. But that is in truth NOT what evolution is about; evolution says that adaptability equals survival. We humans must ADAPT to God's laws or we perish, just as all of God's creatures, for the past 4.5 billion hears, have either adapted to changing environments or perished.
God's steady and wise hand is very visible in evolution. Your pride and unwitting league with the Creationist devil, who has made you comfortable with falsehood, blinds you to it. Wake up and stop serving the real devil.
Intelligent Design = Creationism
Anybody who has been following this debate knows that the whole ID fig leaf was created to prevent accusations of pushing religion as science.
It was proven in court.
Undeniable truth of life # 23. Evolution cannot explain Creation. — Rush Limbaugh (1980’s)
“...evolution does take place, but it doesn’t explain Creation. Obviously, it can’t ..” Rush Limbaugh Facts, Science Smash the Global Warming Myth February 28, 2007
“No science is ever frightening to Christians. Religious people don’t need the science to come out any particular way on IQ or AIDS or sex differences any more than they need the science to come out any particular way on evolution...If evolution is true, then God created evolution. ... Although God-believers don’t need evolution to be false, athiests need evolution to be true. “. — Ann Coulter (from her 2006 book, “Godless”)
Limbaugh got it wrong, says intelligent designer
Radio host wants theory’s pushers to ‘call it what it is’ creationism
Posted: December 24, 2005 5:00 p.m. Eastern © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
anything and everything has to be done to prop up the humanist religion of evolutionism, so whenver valid criticisms are raised against the government supported faith....name calling and whining are the two biggest weapons in the humanist arsenal...
we see it on this thread many times.....
May 11, 2007, 10:19 am
Romney Elaborates on Evolution By Michael Luo
DES MOINES, May 11 Mitt Romney expanded on his belief in evolution in an interview earlier this week...
I believe that God designed the universe and created the universe, Mr. Romney said in an interview this week. And I believe evolution is most likely the process he used to create the human body.
He was asked: Is that intelligent design?
Im not exactly sure what is meant by intelligent design, he said. But I believe God is intelligent and I believe he designed the creation. And I believe he used the process of evolution to create the human body.
While governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Romney opposed the teaching of intelligent design in science classes.
In my opinion, the science class is where to teach evolution, or if there are other scientific thoughts that need to be discussed, he said.
If were going to talk about more philosophical matters, like why it was created, and was there an intelligent designer behind it, thats for the religion class or philosophy class or social studies class.
Intelligent design is typically defined as the claim that examination of nature points to the work of an intelligent designer, as opposed to the utterly random, naturalistic processes that are taught as part of evolutionary theory. Critics have called intelligent design a thinly disguised version of creationism, which takes a literal approach to the creation account in Genesis, that the earth was created in six days and is less than 10,000 years old.
Mr. Romney ..told his interviewers that he did not believe there was a conflict between true science and true religion, he said.
True science and true religion are on exactly the same page, he said. they may come from different angles, but they reach the same conclusion. Ive never found a conflict between the science of evolution and the belief that God created the universe. He uses scientific tools to do his work. ..”
“anything and everything has to be done to prop up the humanist religion of evolutionism, so whenver valid criticisms are raised against the government supported faith....name calling and whining are the two biggest weapons in the humanist arsenal...we see it on this thread many times.....” ~ RAYGUNFAN
If quotes like the ones below seem to contradict each other to you, I would suggest that the subject under discussion is waaaaaaay more complicated than your “teachers” (religious or secular) have (ignorantly or otherwise) led you to believe. :)
QUOTE: Evolution by natural selection in the classical senseunguided, with no transcendent agent to direct mutations along certain beneficial lines, as Asa Gray put it, hasnt a clue about how to explain religionor mathematics, or philosophy, or our ability to do science, for that matter.
Evolution might or might not be able to account for the complexity of our brains, per se, but its mute and powerless to explain the higher products of our brains, which are of course by far the most complex objects yet known to us anywhere in the universe. Many agnostic and atheist philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists have stated this much in frank terms.
Our ability to do higher mathematics, for example, was utterly irrelevant to our survival in evolutionary termsour ancestors needed to know absolutely nothing about topology or fractals, manifolds or tensors, even differential calculus, in order to outwit mammoths and saber-tooth tigers. Nor did they need to know the profoundly shocking fact (from the point of view of naturalism) that mathematics of the kinds just mentioned is incredibly powerful for understanding the external worlda fact that just cries out for a deeper explanation. Pinker, Dawkins, Dennett and company are flying into the face of the facts on this one.
We can not only do mathematics, but our mathematics actually matches the subtlest details of the external world.
How does this make any sense at all, if we arent in a very real sense created in the image of God, the divine mathematician (as Kepler, Galileo, and Copernicus regarded God) who also created the external world? ~ Ted Davis 3/24/08 Professor of the History of Science Web page: http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/
QUOTE: See here if any of you find this objectionable http://www.sciencemag.org/about/authors/prep/gen_info.dtl).
My patience has been exhausted. Rather than accept the fact that ID proponents have not stepped up to the plate this myth continues to be propogated. So, let me suggest one more avenue for the ID proponents to prove their point. Poll your colleagues ask them how many papers were rejected and from what journals. Summarize here with the number of researchers polled and the results. We can compare the rejection rates with people here that are not ID proponents. If I hear crickets, combining this with what I have previously presented it should be patently obvious to all that ID is truly a science stopper. ~ Rich Blinne
Thu, 3 Jul 2008 The Myth of the Rejected ID Paper Click next in thread http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200807/0067.html
QUOTE: ..I do have an idea for their [the Intelligent Design Movement] research program. Show how the evolutionary process is not random, not how it cannot happen. We can give them help here. This could be like the 95 Behe/Miller debate in reverse where Behe showed that Millers textbook claimed purposeless evolution and Miller knowing that evolution is not random in the popular sense fixed the error. It came back to bite him in the Dover trial where the old version was being used and Miller pointed to the new version. If the heart of the problem ID has is a random, purposeless, evolution, then we are here to help show how current, mainstream, evolutionary theory shows otherwise. It would require them to risk getting expelled by their YEC allies, though. ~ Rich Blinne Member ASA 04/24/2008 http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200804/0583.html Other interesting conversation may be found here: http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200804/
regardless of the quotes you submitted, my point is still the same.
all sorts of shrill voices chime in from the anti christian, anti religion, anti free inquiry, whenever the forced religion of humanism and its sacrement of evolutionism is challenged....
name calling, whining, elephant hurling (confusing length of a ‘rebuttal’ with substance or fact) scare tactics that the ‘religious bible thumpers’ are coming, etc...
it’s all part of their game plan.....
“anything and everything has to be done to prop up the humanist religion of evolutionism,”
You clearly don’t understand the difference between science and religion. Evolution, like all science, explains observed phenomena using natural processes. When observations (including those of the fossil record) don’t match the theory, a new theory is conceived. This is part of the “scientific method”.
Religion, on the other hand, invokes the “unknowable” and “supernatural”. In the face of observed facts that contradict religious dogma, that religion generally stridently insists that its dogma is correct, and the observations are wrong. Examples of this from history include the Church insisting that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and that the Earth is the center of the Universe. Most Christian sects have admitted their error in these cases. One notable current issue of this nature is the insistence by some Christians that the Earth is only 5,000 years (or so) old. Numerous scientific evidence indicates that’s just not true...we’ll see if religion accepts reality once again.
Given the historical track record of religion vs. science on issues considered just as fundamental and important as evolution at the time, I invite you to consider the likely outcome.
yes of course, there is that tired old, “you dont understand science”...uh huh, thanks for enlightening me, im such a backward-ass country bumpkin....
please, modern evolutionary science is part and parcel of the humanist religion, and all the ‘whining’ about us poor uneducated fools, who dont ‘understand’ science like you intellectucal giants, well, you can stuff that crap pal...i dont fall for that and never have....try something else.....
“.i dont fall for that and never have....try something else.....”
‘None are so blind as they who will not see.’
Sorry for your loss.
no loss here...lucidity is a great gift when confronted with lies......
“lucidity is a great gift when confronted with lies......”
Please explain what the ‘lie’ is exactly. Are you claiming scientists are fabricating evidence such as the fossil record or DNA evidence? Or....?
Alternatively, are you claiming evolution is a ‘lie’ simply because it conflicts with your religious beliefs? If so, I’m afraid that’s a fruitless accusation, since both the scientific method and the evidence of evolution are well documented, and the term ‘lie’ isn’t applicable unless fraud is involved. It is simply the best, simplest scientific theory that explains the observed facts.
Just out of curiosity, do you consider the Church to have ‘lied’ when it instructed the faithful that the Sun revolved around the Earth?
And by sticking up for those who engage in that sort of behavior on the "other side" (and maybe even also engaging in it, how can you legitimately excuse yourself?
actually, the conflict arose because the catholic church asked galileo to keep quiet about his discoveries, until the church could verify them with those who were scientists within the church..
galileo refused to do so, and therefore, the church took action against him. which by the way, was basically house arrest in, for the time, an apartment with all the amenities of the time.
this is what you never hear about from the ‘media’ or ‘science news’ which always tries to paint the church as being anti science....
it makes for good fodder for anti christians...but as i noted before, lucidity helps one see through the lies.
one can be deceived and thus be lying, without doing it on purpose.
history is abound with the the ‘honest’ scientists’ fabricating fake missing links, i.e. using the pig tooth and building an entire non existant missing link that was displayed for years...etc....
but generally speaking, folks like you and those you support, are looking at the exact same evidence, fossil wise, dna wise, astronomy wise, etc....
it is the starting point that differs, we believe in what God said, and look at the evidence thusly.
those in the other camp, start with the premise of ‘nature is all there ever was’ and proceed to interpret the same evidence....
that fact that they are lying, and dont know it, well, that is the problem isnt it?
“one can be deceived and thus be lying, without doing it on purpose.” ~ raygunfan
Kurt Wise: “Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant. “
Who is Kurt Wise?:
Towers Online - The News Service of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary http://www.towersonline.net/story.php?grp=news&id=344
April 13, 2006 By Jeff Robinson
“Trustees at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on April 11 unanimously approved the creation of two new theological study centers...
Seminary President R. Albert Mohler Jr. said the new study centers aim at equipping pastors and church leaders to think biblically about pivotal issues which dominate contemporary culture.
“One of the ways we want to lead Southern Baptists is through helping evangelicals and Southern Baptists in particular to engage some of the most critical issues of our day,” Mohler said.-
“This is not a time for Christians to be out-thought by the world, but in general that is what happens. We find the church behind the times in thinking about some of the most crucial issues of our day.”
...Mohler also named Kurt Wise as the new director for Southern’s Center for Theology and Science, and professor of theology and science. Wise currently serves on the faculty of Bryan College in Dayton, Tenn., where he is also director of the Center for Origins Research.
Wise earned both a doctor of philosophy and master of arts in paleontology from Harvard University. He and his wife Marie have two daughters.
Wise replaces William Dembski, who is leaving Southern Seminary to join the faculty at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary so he can be closer to his family.
“With the addition of Kurt Wise, we are recognizing that creation is a ground zero theological crisis point right now in American culture and even in our churches,” Moore said. [snip] ..
A couple of interesting items on the web regarding Kurt Wise:
 7/3/2003 http://www.christianforums.com/t43741&page=12 “Ok, I just got a email from Dr. Wise. This is what he said:
“I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young. Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant. Thus I would suggest that the challenge you are trying to meet is unmeetable.” ~ Kurt Wise
 December 19th 2004 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=44017 Theologyweb.com
Post # 7:
“...there is new breed of YEC out there, of which Kurt Wise is an example, who recognize that there are scientific problems with their Weltanschauung. I knew Kurt was exceptional, but there are more of his stripe. Affectionately, I’d like to refer to them as neo-YECs, as opposed to the Wieland-Ham-Morris-Safarti-Jorge YECs for which I would propose the oxymoronic moniker paleo-YECs.”
Of course, that sort of stance rightly invites articles such as this from snickering, rabid atheists like Richard Dawkins:
Sadly, an Honest Creationist - by Richard Dawkins http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=dawkins_21_4
see quotes wars can be amuzing...but, again, those who are part of the yec group, sarfati, morris, et al, are emminently qualified to speak in favor of YEC.
“that fact that they are lying, and dont know it, well, that is the problem isnt it?”
That is a BIG problem, since one is not lying if one does not intend to deceive. From Merriam-Webster:
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
Statements made by the merely ignorant aren’t “lies”.
It’s difficult to hold a conversation when basic terms are open to interpretation.
I’m done with this thread, enjoy your weekend.
yes, it is difficult, but i tried my best, i dont usually speak in dictionary terms, one usually can convey the meaning without having to resort to looking up a word in the dictionary, to get a point across.
I don’t know what your father did to you but it must have really made you angry at God. I don’t believe that you are an atheist.
No, I am agnostic. I am not angry with God, but with the anti-science nutjobs on FR who aren't content to worship in church, but want religion taught in science class.
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.