Why Are Darwinists So Afraid of Intelligent Design?

Human Events ^ | Jan 17, 2006 | Barney Brenner

[gobucks]

WhY? Because sexual practices and religious practices are unyeildingly welded together.

And some practices are perceived as being more rewarding, within the context of that 'faith system', than other practices. Those other practices, though unsampled and unexperienced, are assumed to be unfulling a priori, and thus the associated 'faith system' must, by definition start out as being 'not worthy of reason'.

The key step is the leap of faith that the Missionary's Position is wrong. By looking over the shoulder during the act of falling, the Darwinist has a big problem: first, how to stop falling, and second, how to trust reports that the practices in the other faith system are actually MORE rewarding.

Some people would rather continue falling and make believe they are standing. I encountered this in real time on a plane flight across the Atlantic. I asked the pretty stewardess with the British accent why so many beautiful churches in Europe were so empty ... the religious wars?
No, she said ... it was that religious people were seen as nutty and worth only sarcastic laughter. She said it was sad, but that the fear of being laughed at was the number one motivator in her view. At the time I asked her this, I was in the process of fixing the falling issue ....

It's a tough nut to crack, and my heart goes out to those Darwinists out there.

[LibertarianInExile]

[moog]

Nope. It is a proper word derivation: bible(n.); to bible (v.); bibler(n.) - one who bibles; bibly(adv.); bibling and so on. Ditto for quran, torah, book of mormon, zoroastian texts and so on.

Umm..... can somebody recognize a dumb joke?????
Geez. I did it again.

[apackof2]

och... another steamer from the same dungheap

So is King Kong a relative of yours?

Or do you believe that ID is just bad science and there is a Creator (God)?

[moog]

The term "intelligent design" is a fancy term for creation.

I do believe that.

[Torie]

You are not into metaphorical miracles I take it?

[mnehring]

That's not entirely correct, at least in the current debate. There are those on both sides of the debate who treat ID as a purely religious topic.

That's where the problem comes in.. it has been hijacked from it's original realm of exploration by those who want to pose their Evolutionanity or Churchanity in the argument.

How about those who believe that science and religion are compatable. After all, if G_od created everything, then science in itself, should be a reflection of G_od.

If there is no G_od or spiritual reality, then there is a major question in science and biochemistry that we would do well to answer. How could a finite being, created purely from biochemical mutations, create in it's own image, spirituality that describes an essence outside the reality of human kind? Or to put bluntly, where do things like spirituality and imagination come from?

[r9etb]

"Intelligent Design" isn't science, it's religion.

So the folks who created the Taiwanese glow-in-the-dark pigs were fulfilling a religious duty?

[moog]

Well, about 2 million were in the elephant poop alone.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Proponents of Intelligent Design insist that ID is not religion, so the intelligence behind the design could not be God.

I'd like to have a head count of everyone who believes in ID, but does not believe in God.

[King Prout]

every unique life form you see, including what you see when you look in the mirror, is an individual genomic snapshot of the species it IS moving from the species it CAME FROM towards the species it SHALL GIVE RISE TO.

assuming that individual has progeny, and that the species as a whole doesn't die out before diverging, of course.

[apackof2]

Are you mocking God and the believe in Him?

[r9etb]

The term "intelligent design" is a fancy term for creation.

Hm. And why couldn't it be shorthand for genetic engineering?

[moog]

So the folks who created the Taiwanese glow-in-the-dark pigs were fulfilling a religious duty?

Well, if you "follow the light" things usually turn out ok.

[King Prout]

heh :)

[Torie]

origin of life is a domain of biogenesis and you can read about it here:

It may be that, but different domain subsets have meaning, and to claim the Darwinist/Evolutionist posit about how non life became life is to muddy the waters for tendentious purposes in my opinion, in order to flay an over-reach strawman that isn't there.

[moog]

Hm. And why couldn't it be shorthand for genetic engineering?

Uh-oh, I forget which team you're on. Um....you know, shorthand for the gene code would be something interesting to learn, pretty long though don't you think?

By the way, I was only agreeing with someone else's statement. I am an ID'er, but don't have a problem with evolution.

[apackof2]

Yawn

[peyton randolph]

Are you mocking God and the believe in Him?

I'm a deist. I believe in God. I'm mocking those who believe ID is a science rather than faith-based belief.

[r9etb]

Well, if you "follow the light" things usually turn out ok.

You do understand that the glow-in-the-dark pig (among a host of other things) proves that ID is a scientific concept?