Posted on 01/18/2005 3:59:26 PM PST by Mr. Silverback
Last week a federal judge, egged on by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ordered a Georgia school district to remove stickers from biology textbooks. Why? Because, according to the judge, a simple statement written on the stickers—that evolution is a theory, not a fact—was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. He held evolution as fact!
This is just the latest example of a plague of intellectual blindness among our secular elites.
In Georgia’s Cobb County, school officials added the stickers two years ago onto the textbooks which presented evolution as an established fact, ignoring competing ideas about life’s origins. Now, this is not just another burst of Christian-bashing. What this ruling really represents is a blindness to reality—a mindset rampant within our culture.
According to this mindset, any challenge to Darwinism is by definition religious. Now, imagine applying this logic to any other area. Suppose your state passed a law against murder, and the ACLU went to court, claiming it was an endorsement of religion. After all, the Ten Commandments prohibit murder! Or imagine someone suing a town over its zoning laws. The Bible tells us to put a fence on our roof so that no one will fall off. Are building codes, therefore, religious? If the courts approached conflicts over other laws the way they do over biology, we’d soon have no laws left at all—except maybe pooper-scooper laws, because I don’t think the Bible says anything about that.
The constitutional argument is phony. Honest observers quickly realize that the debate here over life’s origins is not one of science versus religion, but of science versus science. Take the work of biochemist Michael Behe, a professor at Lehigh University. Initially, Behe accepted Darwinist teachings. But then he began reading articles questioning evolutionary theories. He found the arguments compelling. So he began to do research of his own.
In his book published ten years ago, Darwin’s Black Box, he introduced a concept he calls “irreducible complexity.” He argues that complex structures like proteins cannot be assembled piecemeal, with gradual improvement of function. Instead, like a mousetrap, all the parts—catch, spring, hammer, and so forth—must be assembled simultaneously, or the protein doesn’t work.
Soon after the book was published, its thesis was challenged by the leading expert in America on cell structure, Dr. Russell Doolittle at the University of California. He cited a scientific study supposedly disproving irreducible complexity. Behe immediately researched it and found it proved just the opposite: It confirmed him. So Behe went back to Dolittle. In a phone conversation, Doolittle admitted he was wrong, but he has never made a public retraction.
This is the strategy of Darwinists: to simply deny what they know to be true. Look, nobody was around at the time of the creation with a video camera. Naturalism requires at least as much faith as intelligent design. And then science has to be objectively examined, but Darwinists won’t do this. So, when judges rule scientific ideas out of bounds, well, it’s time to expose all of this for what it is: know-nothingness of the worst kind, willful blindness.
Don’t you be taken in. Keep demanding the truth, and in time, we’re going to win an honest debate.
Here are a couple of links (there are more at the source doc):
Here is Michael Behe's response to Doolittle and some other folks who claimed they had disproved the irreducible complexity of the blood clotting cascade. Interestingly, they didn't publish their criticism in peer reviewed scientific journals, but I guess that criteria is only important if one is criticizing Darwinism.
Here is Breakpoint's own info page on intelligent design and evolution.
BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
We really do need to remove these little Popes from the bench and give them jobs slopping the hogs or something useful.
How is it if one does NOT endorse evolution as 'Fact' that non-evolution is a religion?
One could say aliens seeded life on this planet and used genetic manipulation to create diversity..therefore evolution is just a theory...and not an accurate one at that...
Evolution in that sense takes as much faith..if not more...than to believe God created life on earth or aliens transplanted and manipulated it..
The judge used his judical thugness to force his personal beliefs on 'we the people'...
imo
Worldnetdaily has a link to an AP article that the school district is appealling the verdict and the lawyer that is representing the school district is doing the rest of this case pro bono.
Unless you folks want to go over the same ground again and again (and it seems many do), you can just check out this thread from a few days ago, which was about the same case:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1321548/posts
It is my sincere belief that the best thing we can do for the health of the Republic at this point is impeach some judges. A whole mess of these folks need a brush-back pitch in a big way.
Good deal, thanks for the info.
The Constitution simply says we can't reduce their compensation. It does not say we have to maintain their jurisdiction.
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.