Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Verdict that Demands Evidence: Darwinists, not Christians, are stonewalling the facts
Christianity Today ^ | 3/28/05 | Charles Colson

Posted on 03/28/2005 1:29:18 PM PST by Zender500

It was one of the first—and angriest—post-election hissy fits: In The New York Times, Garry Wills credited White House political adviser Karl Rove for getting millions of religious conservatives (whom he compared to Muslim jihadists) to the polls and sneered, "Can a nation which believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an enlightened nation?"

< snip >

Committed Darwinists continue this strategy today. For example, nine years ago biochemist Michael Behe published Darwin's Black Box (Free Press, 1996). Behe argued 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.

Behe's thesis faced a challenge from the nation's leading expert on cell structure, Dr. Russell Doolittle at the University of California-San Diego. Doolittle cited a study on bloodletting in the journal Cell that supposedly disproved Behe's argument. Behe immediately read the article—and found that the study proved just the opposite: It supported his theory. Behe confronted Doolittle, who privately acknowledged that he was wrong—but declined to make a public retraction.

So who's really rolling back the Enlightenment? Those who invite us to follow the evidence wherever it leads—or those demanding that we ignore it? The folks who want both evolution and Intelligent Design taught in school, with all their strengths and weaknesses—or those who attempt to silence any opposition?

The evidence for Intelligent Design has become so persuasive that the 81-year old British philosopher Anthony Flew, a lifelong atheist who once debated C. S. Lewis over the existence of God, recently admitted that a creator-God must exist.

In the final analysis, any objective observer must conclude that belief in either the biblical or the naturalistic worldview demands faith.

(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: behe; charlescolson; creation; crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last

1 posted on 03/28/2005 1:29:23 PM PST by Zender500
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Zender500

How does Intelligent Design explain male nipples?


2 posted on 03/28/2005 1:30:41 PM PST by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zender500

Check out the latest Weekly Standard for a well written piece on this issue. Quite interesting.


3 posted on 03/28/2005 1:31:39 PM PST by lawnguy (But we both know I'm training to be a cage fighter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gdani

vestigal organs from when we were asexual primordial slime or something.....


4 posted on 03/28/2005 1:33:54 PM PST by RaceBannon ((Prov 28:1 KJV) The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gdani

"I've got nipples, Fokker, can you milk me?"


5 posted on 03/28/2005 1:35:30 PM PST by RightResponse (What if the Left, just got up and .....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gdani

How does evolution explain male nipples?


6 posted on 03/28/2005 1:38:43 PM PST by mother22wife21 ( I believe that Rough Beast Yeats was talking about just got the keys to the city.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lawnguy
Check out the latest Weekly Standard for a well written piece on this issue. Quite interesting.

I did. Thanks for the tip on Teaching Darwin

7 posted on 03/28/2005 1:38:57 PM PST by Zender500
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gdani
"How does Intelligent Design explain male nipples?"

I thank my Designer for my nipples, every time my wife kisses them.

8 posted on 03/28/2005 1:39:50 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mother22wife21
How does evolution explain male nipples?

I asked first.

9 posted on 03/28/2005 1:40:22 PM PST by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: gdani; PatrickHenry

Lol, too good!


10 posted on 03/28/2005 1:40:38 PM PST by GreenFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gdani; PatrickHenry

Lol, too good!


11 posted on 03/28/2005 1:40:47 PM PST by GreenFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

TMI!


12 posted on 03/28/2005 1:40:48 PM PST by Pyro7480 ("All my own perception of beauty both in majesty and simplicity is founded upon Our Lady." - Tolkien)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; betty boop

Ping but the debate just about over except for the screaming


13 posted on 03/28/2005 1:41:18 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gdani

and I asked second.


14 posted on 03/28/2005 1:42:08 PM PST by mother22wife21 ( I believe that Rough Beast Yeats was talking about just got the keys to the city.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Zender500

The more they find out about the universe the faster they flock to Intelligent Design...scientists with humility that is.

The others will never allow themselves to work within the Lord's framework.


15 posted on 03/28/2005 1:42:14 PM PST by eleni121 ('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lawnguy

"Check out the latest Weekly Standard for a well written piece on this issue. Quite interesting."

Agreed. What was especially interesting was that the author's critique of evolution seemed to begin and end with Darwin himself, and didn't bother to address the 149 years of advances in evolutionary biology that have occurred since then.


16 posted on 03/28/2005 1:43:49 PM PST by Chiapet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Zender500

-"Can a nation which believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an enlightened nation?"-

It was good enough for our founding fathers, wasn't it?


17 posted on 03/28/2005 1:44:45 PM PST by AmericanChef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gdani
How does Intelligent Design explain male nipples?

Or cockroaches?
Mosquitos?
Liberals?

18 posted on 03/28/2005 1:44:56 PM PST by Publius6961 (The most abundant things in the universe are ignorance, stupidity and hydrogen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Chiapet
didn't bother to address the 149 years of advances in evolutionary biology that have occurred since then.

Au contraire, mon frere... that is exactly what is driving famous and not so famous evolution supporters into the other camp. At least the honest ones, who can allow that both extremes require a measure of faith.

19 posted on 03/28/2005 1:49:02 PM PST by Publius6961 (The most abundant things in the universe are ignorance, stupidity and hydrogen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Zender500

It's really astonishing that after sending men to the moon and back, sending robots to Mars, curing Polio, and creating the internet a large segment of our country still clings to primitive Bronze Age superstitions regarding our origins.

It is utterly pathetic, and I can assure you that unless things change our country is going to sink into a new Dark Age of sorts as the Chinese, Indians etc. pass us in the race to the stars.


20 posted on 03/28/2005 1:49:35 PM PST by Mike85
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gdani

My understanding is, in the same way evolution does: a rudimentary organ useful at one point along the evolutionary path, then disused.

Intelligent design's claim is not that nothing occurs through evolution, but rather that at pivotal points in the evolitionary process things happen by design and not randomly. For example, differentiation of sexes and development of diverse sexual organs might involve steps by design, as well as random evolutionary steps.

The designer left the male nipples in place for the same reason a gardener might leave a tree stub in place: it does not hinder the new landscape, and may have some positive use (male nipples are erogenous), future will tell if the marginal value of the rudimentary organ is sufficient to prevent its atrophy and disappearance.


21 posted on 03/28/2005 1:50:47 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
As Johnson puts it, "It is not now the men of faith; it is the skeptics who have reason to fear the course of discovery."

Sure, there's evidence that evolution takes place within a species — but the fossil record has not yielded evidence of one species becoming another, as Darwin confidently predicted. This lack of evidence has not gone unnoticed by sociologist Rodney Stark. Stark calls himself neither an evolutionist nor an advocate of Intelligent Design; instead, he says, he is merely a scholar pursuing the evidence where it leads. In For the Glory of God (Princeton University Press, 2003), Stark offers startling evidence that Darwinists have covered up mounting flaws in their theory. He concludes that the battle over evolution is hardly a case of "heroic" scientists fighting off the persecution of religious fanatics. Instead, from the start, evolution "has primarily been an attack on religion by militant atheists who wrap themselves in the mantle of science in an effort to refute all religious claims concerning a creator — an effort that has also often attempted to suppress all scientific criticisms of Darwin's work."

Only the "guilty" have reason to scream, Tribune!!! Thanks for the ping!

22 posted on 03/28/2005 1:53:43 PM PST by betty boop (If everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking. -- Gen. George S. Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

p.s.: Nobody likes it when "their [pet] ox is gored...." :^)


23 posted on 03/28/2005 1:54:48 PM PST by betty boop (If everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking. -- Gen. George S. Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
"Or cockroaches?"

If you've ever had a large dog, you begin to appreciate the role of cockroaches, everytime you walk in your back yard and there's no more than a week's worth of poop back there.

"Mosquitos?"

1) Mosquitos are here to select for sickle cell anemia, so evolutionists can point to the blood defect and say, "see a positive mutation".

2) I don't know if ID has an answer for mosquitos, but creationists can tell you that Mosquitos might be part of the curse on the earth after Adam and Eve sinned.

Liberals?

ID - Design failure.

Creationist - SIN! Rebellion!

Now how does evolution explain Liberals?

24 posted on 03/28/2005 1:55:31 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

I think the ox of evolution is dead :-)


25 posted on 03/28/2005 1:57:25 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

"Au contraire, mon frere... that is exactly what is driving famous and not so famous evolution supporters into the other camp. At least the honest ones, who can allow that both extremes require a measure of faith."

That would be "ma soeur," and please note that I was specifically referencing the Weekly Standard article cited by Lawnguy.


26 posted on 03/28/2005 2:05:31 PM PST by Chiapet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: gdani
How does Intelligent Design explain male nipples?

The same way it explains the Department of Education.

ML/NJ

27 posted on 03/28/2005 2:05:34 PM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mike85

Your post is unclear. Since many of the major players in all those scientific advances leaned toward intelligent design, it is hard to decide which rigid dogmatism you are referring to as causing a new Dark Age...


28 posted on 03/28/2005 2:13:39 PM PST by Publius6961 (The most abundant things in the universe are ignorance, stupidity and hydrogen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Chiapet
My deepest a-po-logies, bien sur.
29 posted on 03/28/2005 2:16:06 PM PST by Publius6961 (The most abundant things in the universe are ignorance, stupidity and hydrogen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mike85

With all due respect, I fail to see what scientific/technological advances have to do with one's belief and faith in a Creator.


30 posted on 03/28/2005 2:28:27 PM PST by MagnumRancid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Zender500

"intelligent design", Mr.Colson,can be disproved by a one-word argument:


























"testicles"














31 posted on 03/28/2005 2:30:19 PM PST by procrustes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gdani
Google Is Our Friend

But even they can't settle on one answer, LOL!

32 posted on 03/28/2005 2:31:16 PM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Zender500
"Behe argued 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."

To play devil's advocate, proteins are not complex but rather simple structures composed of hydrocarbons, subject to the laws of natural permutation. Like a tumbler in a lock, life could have begun when the right combination of proteins occured. Although interesting, I don't believe Behe's thesis either proves or disproves Darwin, Creationism, or Intelligent Design.

That is precisely why belief in a higher power is called "faith", sometimes in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

33 posted on 03/28/2005 2:32:35 PM PST by infocats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zender500
[In The New York Times, Garry Wills credited White House political adviser Karl Rove for getting millions of religious conservatives (whom he compared to Muslim jihadists) to the polls and sneered, "Can a nation which believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an enlightened nation?"]



As a thoroughly nonreligious, pro evolutionist, and "broken glass" Bush voter I reject the entire premise of this statement. I voted for President Bush's reelection for the same reason that most of his supporters did (even the creationist Christian ones); He was a far better candidate than his opponents.

He was, and is, serious about protecting our national security and making intelligent decisions on domestic social and economic policy. He demonstrated greater competence than the Democratic challenger and kicked John Kerry's butt because of it.

I don't know how this Garry Wills character thinks he can get away with trying to foist off on the uninformed among the public that Bush was reelected by some Bible thumping zealots who want to bring back the Dark Ages, but it didn't work in the weeks after the election, and it's going to flop just as badly now.
34 posted on 03/28/2005 2:35:13 PM PST by spinestein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GreenFreeper; Junior; VadeRetro; longshadow
Thanks for the double ping, but this thread is scientifically worthless. It's for flame wars only, so I won't deploy the ping list.

Oh, in the title: "Verdict that Demands Evidence," I suggest that a verdict should be based on the evidence, not be running around demanding evidence.

35 posted on 03/28/2005 2:37:12 PM PST by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mike85

>>It's really astonishing...<<

The more narrow ones mind, the greater the "astonishment" at such things.


36 posted on 03/28/2005 2:40:54 PM PST by RobRoy (Child support and maintenence (alimony) are what we used to call indentured slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mike85
It's really astonishing that after sending men to the moon and back, sending robots to Mars, curing Polio, and creating the internet a large segment of our country still clings to primitive Bronze Age superstitions regarding our origins. . . . It is utterly pathetic, and I can assure you that unless things change our country is going to sink into a new Dark Age of sorts as the Chinese, Indians etc. pass us in the race to the stars.

Your statement is pure hogwash, if by "primitive Bronze Age superstitions" you mean Jewish or Christian religious beliefs. There is nothing about any of the accomplishments you list that requires or even invites an abandonment of religious belief.

I see no conflict between evolution (or any scientific theory) and the gospel of Jesus Christ. None whatsoever. Those who insist that evolution somehow "disproves" religion are guilty of scientific malpractice.

37 posted on 03/28/2005 2:41:45 PM PST by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: gdani

Or the fact that humans have toes?


38 posted on 03/28/2005 2:42:46 PM PST by Zeroisanumber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Zender500; GummyIII; lodity

ping for input.


39 posted on 03/28/2005 2:46:20 PM PST by IllumiNaughtyByNature (If Islam is a religion of peace, they should fire their P.R. guy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gdani

The fact that both genders have nipples has nothing to do with speciation. A better question would be how does intelligent design explain molars and appendixes, though they are probably explainable in terms of natural selection: if a trait ceases to be a factor in the survival of the species, it will probably be retained as a vestigial trait.


40 posted on 03/28/2005 2:50:02 PM PST by SteamshipTime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mike85

Hey, even if we just tread water, while the Indians and Chinese zoom ahead--I don't think that is what is happening, but I will grant you it for the sake of argument--how does that have us entering a dark age? Seems like some scaremongering on the part of the pro-evolution folk.


41 posted on 03/28/2005 2:52:09 PM PST by guitarist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

Thanks for the ping!


42 posted on 03/28/2005 8:51:03 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: gdani
How does Evolution explain male nipples???
43 posted on 03/28/2005 9:05:55 PM PST by fish hawk (I am only one, but I am not the only one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mother22wife21

Sorry I asked the same question before reading down the posts.


44 posted on 03/28/2005 9:07:12 PM PST by fish hawk (I am only one, but I am not the only one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: gdani

"I Am" gave them to us.


45 posted on 03/28/2005 9:08:17 PM PST by fish hawk (I am only one, but I am not the only one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fish hawk
Don't worry 'bout it. I'm on I AM's team.

;)

46 posted on 03/28/2005 9:26:17 PM PST by mother22wife21 ( I believe that Rough Beast Yeats was talking about just got the keys to the city.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7; Alamo-Girl; marron; Right Wing Professor; b_sharp; xzins; cornelis; PatrickHenry; ...
I think the ox of evolution is dead :-)

Could be, Trib. It all seems to hang on the problem of whether people are willing to concede that evolution seems to be something that happens within species; and that grander claims -- to the effect that macroevolution actually occurs -- may not be as well founded as the general public imagines today.

That is, the doctrine that holds the production of a novel species from an already existent other in response to changing physical environmental conditions/constraints, while generally held to be true "among us advanced, enlightened moderns" -- seems to have been found somewhat lacking in explanatory power in more recent times.

I don't think the ox of evolution is dead; he just needs to be placed into the proper overall perspective, which at the end of the day may be the one that abandons the idea of macroevolution altogether.

For certainly we must say that macroevolution depends for its truth on a congeries of developments that have never been directly observed acting together by a single human being, dead or alive.

And so the entire theory of macroevolution seems to rest on observations which are -- rather paradoxically -- "unobservable" in principle.

But I guess we'll have to wait on further research in order to further qualify these issues....

Stay tuned! Thank you so very much for writing!

47 posted on 03/28/2005 10:06:47 PM PST by betty boop (If everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking. -- Gen. George S. Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Do you believe that "species" is a property of an individual?


48 posted on 03/28/2005 10:35:58 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Why do you continue to impugn the motives of those actually doing science?


49 posted on 03/28/2005 10:43:27 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: procrustes
"intelligent design", Mr.Colson,can be disproved by a one-word argument: ..."testicles"

Maybe you'd be better off without testicals, but I think they are brilliant.

50 posted on 03/29/2005 12:59:12 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson