Skip to comments.Evolution is just as religious as Intelligent Design
Posted on 02/01/2007 7:37:58 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger
Whenever there arises a discussion on the origins issue (as in intelligent design versus evolution), Darwinian materialists invariably go to great lengths to frame the discussion as science versus religion, despite the scientific validity of opposing arguments and scientific credentials of those who propone them.
Any doubts raised about Darwinian evolution are automatically attributed to religious motivations that cannot possibly be rooted in fact. What is worse is that these doubts are dismissed without consideration and the scientist/teacher who raised them is blacklisted. You wont see this on the nightly news, and the ACLU surely will turn a blind eye, but high school science teachers have been fired for assigning students material from mainline scientific journals that questioned aspects mere aspects, not even the overarching theory of evolution.
Why this academic intolerance? Why this I cant help myself, its the hot buzzword hate of an opposing theory? If evolutionary theory was so patently established in true science and intelligent design theory was so patently established in pure religion, then why is it that treatment of this issue in the popular press betrays the deeply religious commitment that most evolutionists have to Darwins theory?
In my experience, IDists, knowing that they are the underdog, are careful to be objective and factual. On the other hand, I have noticed that evolutionists tend to spend most of their time questioning their opponents credibility, belittling their opponents intelligence, demolishing straw men and then doing victory laps.
For instance, after writing an opinion piece about intelligent design pointing out common misconceptions I was rebuked in a subsequent response that I had a poor understanding of what science is. Now, I certainly do not claim to be an expert by any means, but as far as science is concerned, my GPA cant get any higher. Does that count for anything? Apparently not, considering my origins views. Unfortunately this is the typical treatment for all dissenters from Darwinism. I am viewed as a poor scientist because I do not adhere to evolution and I do not adhere to evolution because I am a poor scientist. Interesting, isnt it?
Evolutionists have won a great battle in the culture wars by defining science as it suits their purpose. Many people know that a literal interpretation of science is knowledge, yet the vast majority of evolutionists hold to a definition of science that presupposes purely naturalistic mechanisms, deliberately excluding non-naturalistic explanations.
In other words, the war is won by default before it has even begun.
Yet what if some supreme intelligence is the cause behind everything we see? What if God is the creator? If this were the case, the truth is a supernatural event, not a natural mechanism.
Thus, not only would the supposed conclusions of science be false, but they would be false by default because the assumptions that they are based on would be false also. I certainly dont advocate the position of Im right no matter what science says! but science says is not as black and white as it is made out to be.
We all live on the same earth; we all have the same raw data. The conclusions drawn from this data can be varied depending on the assumptions with which the data is viewed. We have all seen the detailed paintings of early man in National Geographic based on only the most rigorous science a few bone fragments, actually. Hopefully no one seriously believes that arriving at fully-formed missing links from some small fossils is actually predicated on sound science. To be sure, the end result is influenced by ideology despite being published in a prestigious periodical.
In conclusion, all Id like to see is a level playing field. It is slanderously misleading for materialistic evolutionists to claim that intelligent design is motivated purely by religion, but they themselves are unsullied by contemptuous philosophical leanings. Everyone is biased; everyones conclusions are influenced by his bias.
Is ID the same as Theistic Evolution?
Take the polar bear. How did evolution decide to make it white to blend in with its habitat? Only God through ID can make that kind of choice.
As far a s I can see theistic evolution is ID but many who describe themselves as theistic evolutionist get upset at the ID label, probably because one can also be a YEC creationist and IDist.
That makes no sense to me, because you can't be a Theistic Evolutionist and a YEC at the same time.
A great video called "incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution 1" can be found at http://www.explorationfilms.com/exploration-films-incredible-creatures-1.html
You may have accidentally asked one of those sticky questions that evos normally try to avoid. The close cousin of the polar bear, the grizzly, has overlapping territory, and yet it remains quite brown.
Enough Grizzlies moved far enough North and stayed long enough.
Or the Chameleon, for example. Only ID would take a lizard and turn him into a United States Senator.
I don't think I agree. ID ascribes that design to God, or at least some version of God. It's not just "anything" such as scientific laws or facts.
It's a Designer. It can't just be anything.
In a lot of respects, it is MORE rigidly religious, hostile to heresy; pontifical; exclusionist; etc. than the starchiest RC, Lutheran, Baptist or Mennonite congregation.
Polar bear hairs are not white, they're translucent. Try again
If God is responsible for creating all the species on the planet, then your suggesting that they all existed as they are now from the beginning (which means we lived with dinosaurs), or youre saying that he added some at different times throughout the history of the planet.
Id be curious to know how IDers think this occurred. Did they just appear *poof* out of thin air? Was it just two of a species (for reproduction), or did a... herd all appear at the same time? How old were they? etc.... Thats if youre not a YEC.
Seems we've heard that song before.
Thus, not only would the supposed conclusions of science be false, but they would be false by default because the assumptions that they are based on would be false also.
If the supposed conclusions of science are false, and truth is a supernatural event then airplanes can fly today only because God wants them to, and there is no rational reason to assume that they will still fly tomorrow.
I'm pretty sure there was no way primitive man could have built the Grand Canyon without the help of an alien, advanced race.
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.