Skip to comments.Darwinist Ideologues Are on the Run
Posted on 01/30/2006 10:27:35 PM PST by 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.
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.
There's no mention of God in the theory of gravitational attraction either. I guess Newton was assuming the nonexistance of God as well...
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?
It's amazing to see supposedly religious people denying the existence of God via this Intelligent Design crap.
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.
Won't be much discussion when the article leads off by calling one side ideologues.
True enough. How long will it take for the fabricated Peppered Moth experiments to get expunged?
Oh how inconvenient is that...
How inconvenient is it that TheCrusader is lying about what Darwin actually said? Well...
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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."
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.