Darwinist Ideologues Are on the Run

Human Events Online ^ | Jan 31, 2006 | Allan H. Ryskind

[Sweetjustusnow]

The two scariest words in the English language? Intelligent Design! That phrase tends to produce a nasty rash and night sweats among our elitist class.

Should some impressionable teenager ever hear those words from a public school teacher, we are led to believe, that student may embrace a secular heresy: that some intelligent force or energy, maybe even a god, rather than Darwinian blind chance, has been responsible for the gazillions of magnificently designed life forms that populate our privileged planet.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Are these threads evolving in any discernible way? :-)

[Ichneumon]

Unless you have INCREDIBLE FAITH!!! Me, I just don't have the INCREDIBLE FAITH it takes to BELIEVE in EVOLUTION....

It doesn't take "FAITH" at all, it takes knowledge, understanding of the relevant processes, and familiarity with the evidence. For any part of evolutionary biology, the tenets can be personally verified and double-checked. No "FAITH" necessary in the least. "FAITH" is for things which *can't* be checked for validation. Evolutionary biology can.

[blowfish]

There is no mention of God, because the TOE assumes His non-existance.

There's no mention of God in the theory of gravitational attraction either. I guess Newton was assuming the nonexistance of God as well...

[whattajoke]

Are you actually trying to tell me that the TOE assumes there is a God?

RWP will answer you better than I, but I must interject... the TOE and ALL of science does not assume there is or isn't a God. God operates in the realm of the supernatural which, by definition, is outside the realm of science. When dopes like Deepak Chopra, faith healers, homeopaths, touch therapists, chiropractors, shamans, witch doctors, and creationists/IDers try to marry the two, people like me get mad.

It's one or the other.

Again, no it's not. I'm quite certain the bulk of scientists and those who accept evolution believe in a deity. Heck, the majority of the "evo" Freepers certainly believe in God. The two realms are wholly separate.

Since the whole point of the TOE is to try to explain our history and, by extension, our origins, I'd say it's trying to discredit the whole idea of God.

No, that's not what the TOE is "trying" to explain. The theory "just is." It's the creationists who attach all sorts of bizarre and unfair anthropomorphisms on the theory who have built up this strange fear of it.

[furball4paws]

Does the hypothesis of Abiogenesis say only one thing wriggled up out of the ooze?

Why don't you explain Abiogenesis to me so that I can understand it?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Should some impressionable teenager ever hear those words from a public school teacher, we are led to believe, that student may embrace a secular heresy: that some intelligent force or energy, maybe even a god, rather than Darwinian blind chance, has been responsible for the gazillions of magnificently designed life forms that populate our privileged planet."

It's amazing to see supposedly religious people denying the existence of God via this Intelligent Design crap.

"A god"?

Lower case?

An intelligent force or energy?

Evolution does not deny the existence of the God of The Bible, and while some "evolutionists" may be atheists, most are not. ID however, denies God by suggesting that something (or someone) other than the God of Abraham may be the Creator.

It even open up the possibility that we are the creation of an alien intelligence...a creation of the created rather than a creation of the Creation.

Intelligent Design is a false God being promoted by Christians for political reasons.

If you are a Christian, you believe that the God of Abraham is the Creator, and you sure as hell don't promote some other unknown force as being behind Creation.

[RightWhale]

Won't be much discussion when the article leads off by calling one side ideologues.

[frgoff]

You should send your links to this guy since he obviously hasn't gotten the word that transitional fossils are everywhere. Oh, and follow up with the cellular researchers that say his theory has merit because they obviously are ignorant, too.

[frgoff]

For pete's sake, that was debunked over half a century ago. And it hasn't been taught since then either.

True enough. How long will it take for the fabricated Peppered Moth experiments to get expunged?

[Ichneumon]

[Darwin himself wrote that unless and until the missing linking fossils and transitional forms are uncovered his theory is dead in the water?]

Oh how inconvenient is that...

How inconvenient is it that TheCrusader is lying about what Darwin actually said? Well...

[Dick Bachert]

I seem to recall that toward the end of his life, perhaps trying to cover his ass with God JUST IN THE LIKELY EVENT HE -- DARWIN -- GOT IT WRONG!) even Darwin himself had serious doubts about his earlier theories.

And I really LOVE those periodic TV shows which wind back the imaginary "Big Bang" clock to the event. And (with apologies to Andy Rooney) j'ever notice how they ALWAYS stop that clock at 1 second BEFORE midnight. The reason: These double-domed doubters can't explain what -- or, horrors -- WHO LIT THE FUSE!!!

But we know, don't we?

And someday THEY will, too as they catch a glimpse of HIM waving them buh-bye as they head for the express down car..

[frgoff]

One day Man stood before God and said:

I can do anything you can, I don't need you anymore, so get out of my life and leave me alone.

To which God replied:

Fine, create life.

Man grinned and reached down to grab a handful of dirt.

God raised his finger and said:

Use your own dirt.

[PatrickHenry]

Help for new visitors to the evolution debate
Another service of Darwin Central, the conspiracy that cares.

If you're interested in learning about evolution, visit The List-O-Links.
If you'd like to understand the concept of speciation, visit Micro-evolution, Macro-evolution, and Speciation.
If you're serious about debating this issue, see How to argue against a scientific theory.
If you're permanently stuck on stupid, but determined to post anyway, use the Evolution Troll's Toolkit.

[ShadowAce]

God operates in the realm of the supernatural which, by definition, is outside the realm of science.

In some cases, yes. In other cases, not necessarily. I agree that He is outside the realm of science.

When dopes like Deepak Chopra, faith healers, homeopaths, touch therapists, chiropractors, shamans, witch doctors, and creationists/IDers try to marry the two, people like me get mad.

I do as well. However, I also get mad when people start denigrating others based on beliefs and different interpretations of the evidence. I have no problem identifying the TOE as a theory. I do have a problem identifying it as fact. It has not been proven, though many here see the evidence as proof. Evidence is not proof. Evidence points to proof.

I happen to be a creationist (surprise, surprise!). I also believe in the Bible. The original Hebrew that was used for the word "day" in Genesis indicates a normal, 24-hour day. Given this, and the evidence I see around me, and the evidence others present, I reject the TOE.

I may be wrong in some of the arguments I present. For all I know it is possible for the very beginning asexually-reproducing creatures to produce a sexually-reproducing creature. I wouldn't bet on it, though.

At the very least, given the possible consequences of a wrong choice, wouldn't you rather err on the positive side? This is not a plea for spiritual matters, but a plea to recognize that science is not the only begetter of truth in this universe. There are quite a few things that science does not attempt to explain, nor can explain.

[Ichneumon]

[Quick, why do you get goosebumps when you're cold or scared? Hint: It was functional back when our distant ancesters had fur.]

Oh boy... That is just down right laughable!

If you find the truth laughable, well, there are medications for that kind of thing.

These same idiots who claim that is why we get goosebumbs,

Okay, I'll bite -- *you* tell me why we get goosebumps. What functional purpose do they serve? Why did an alleged "designer" give us the exact same mechanism that furred animals use to erect their fur for heat-retention and threat displays, despite the fact that due to our sparse body hair, it serves neither of those functions for us? For what "design purpose" do we get goosebumps? Now's your chance to add more to the discussion than simply braying like a mule. Anyone can ridicule, especially if they don't even bother to explain their giggling as is the case with your post. So come on, put your own analysis into the ring and let us see if you have any clue what you're talking about. We'll wait.

are also the ones that said things like "the appendix is useless, serves no function, leftover from our earlier days", and other equally PROFOUNDLY, IGNORANT MUTTERINGS.

Here, learn something before you get hysterical again: The vestigiality of the human vermiform appendix.

[BMCDA]

True enough. How long will it take for the fabricated Peppered Moth experiments to get expunged?

What the heck are you talking about?
That most certainly wasn't an experiment and the moths were glued to a tree for illustrative purposes only.

[webstersII]

"If one gets as far as a "pre-Med" curriculum in college, you'll realize what elegant thinking this was for the late 19th century."

I guess you've never heard of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweiss.

Doctors are the most closed-minded people on the planet.

[Ichneumon]

We CAN however, so you science that proves creation, a young earth, how gravity works in space.

Okay, I'm calling your bluff. Go for it.

All these probes we send into space come back with dissapointing results for evolutionists, but great news for ID'ers. sucks huh?

Yes, it *does* suck that you can make such goofy claims. Conservatives are supposed to be smarter than that. Clue for the clueless: Evolution deals with life -- "space probes" are out studying areas where there isn't any, and thus obviously isn't going to produce any results releavnt to evolutionary biology for or against. Your comment is as goofy as saying, "studies of deserts come back with disappointing results for oceanographers."

[whattajoke]

I seem to recall that toward the end of his life, perhaps trying to cover his ass with God JUST IN THE LIKELY EVENT HE -- DARWIN -- GOT IT WRONG!) even Darwin himself had serious doubts about his earlier theories.

You seem to recall incorrectly. In fact, your recall is so poor, even the leading creationist group (Answers in Genesis) have an article explaining why your recall is very most likely wrong.

They also have a cute list of arguments creationists shouldn't use because even liars like creationists have a limit. Your little Darwin recanting fabrication shows up on this list of arguments NOT to use as well.

Of course, you were simply misled by the pamphlets or websites you visit. However, now that you know better, I won't expect you to use this lie again to further your agenda.

[ShadowAce]

...despite the fact that due to our sparse body hair,...

as an aside--can you explain why our body hair grows thickest in the warmest parts of our body? (Exception being the head, but that's not body hair).

Why do we acquire pubic hair only at sexual maturity? Why does our hear grow thickest between the legs and under the arms--the two warmest places on the human body?

Obviously our body hair has nothing to do with protection from the elements, and it never did.