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

Skip to comments.

Evolution is just as religious as Intelligent Design
The Arbiter Online ^ | February 1, 2007 | Aaron Vandenbos

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 won’t 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 can’t help myself, it’s 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 Darwin’s 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 can’t get any higher. Does that count for anything? Apparently not, considering my origin’s 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, isn’t 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 don’t advocate the position of “I’m 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 I’d 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; everyone’s conclusions are influenced by his bias.


TOPICS: Editorial; Philosophy; US: Idaho
KEYWORDS: crevolist; evoligion; evolution; fsmdidit; idaffirmativeaction; idjunkscience; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 421-440 next last
I started reading this and thought it was written by a science professor. Sometimes I'm surprised the writing that comes out of college newspapers.
1 posted on 02/01/2007 7:38:01 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gobucks; mikeus_maximus; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; Elsie; LiteKeeper; AndrewC; Havoc; ...


You have been pinged because of your interest regarding news, debate and editorials pertaining to the Creation vs. Evolution debate - from the young-earth creationist perspective.
To to get on or off this list (currently the premier list for creation/evolution news!), freep-mail me:
Add me / Remove me



A very interesting article that made me want to cheer the guy on. He frames the debate very well.

By the way, I did a class presentation today on the philosophical assumptions of the three views in origins science (evolution, creation and intelligent design)...

And, oh yeah, everyone be nice...
2 posted on 02/01/2007 7:41:05 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Wellllllll! Guess it's not about the economy anymore, is it? Stupid?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Is ID the same as Theistic Evolution?


3 posted on 02/01/2007 7:41:12 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

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.


4 posted on 02/01/2007 7:47:02 PM PST by shoebooty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

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.


5 posted on 02/01/2007 7:47:28 PM PST by Tribune7 (A bleeding heart does nothing but ruin the carpet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone; Heartlander
Hm, not quite. You might check out Heartlander's list of the different forms of evolution/creation.

In brief, theistic evolution believes God used evolution. Intelligent design states that design can be inferred from nature. Anyone or anything could be the designer.
6 posted on 02/01/2007 7:51:04 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Wellllllll! Guess it's not about the economy anymore, is it? Stupid?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
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.

7 posted on 02/01/2007 7:51:10 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: shoebooty
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.

I'm afraid some people here will miss your sarcasm. Better tag it next time.
8 posted on 02/01/2007 7:51:49 PM PST by LanaTurnerOverdrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: shoebooty

A great video called "incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution 1" can be found at http://www.explorationfilms.com/exploration-films-incredible-creatures-1.html


9 posted on 02/01/2007 7:53:16 PM PST by Arcy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: shoebooty
"Take the polar bear. How did evolution decide to make it white to blend in with its habitat?"

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.

10 posted on 02/01/2007 7:59:36 PM PST by editor-surveyor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: shoebooty
How did evolution decide to make it white to blend in with its habitat?

Enough Grizzlies moved far enough North and stayed long enough.

Next question?

11 posted on 02/01/2007 7:59:50 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LanaTurnerOverdrive

Or the Chameleon, for example. Only ID would take a lizard and turn him into a United States Senator.


12 posted on 02/01/2007 8:00:16 PM PST by Hoosier-Daddy (It's a fight to the death with Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

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.


13 posted on 02/01/2007 8:02:15 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

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.


14 posted on 02/01/2007 8:03:51 PM PST by Quix (LET GOD ARISE & HIS ENEMIES BE 100% DONE-IN; & ISLAM & TRAITORS FLUSHED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shoebooty
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.

Polar bear hairs are not white, they're translucent. Try again

15 posted on 02/01/2007 8:08:39 PM PST by AtomicBuffaloWings (Still not hot enough, A few of my taste buds are still alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

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.


16 posted on 02/01/2007 8:10:40 PM PST by OmegaMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
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.”

Seems we've heard that song before.

17 posted on 02/01/2007 8:11:21 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LanaTurnerOverdrive; shoebooty
I'm afraid some people here will miss your sarcasm. Better tag it next time. ahh, I should've read ahead. SmileyCentral.com
18 posted on 02/01/2007 8:12:23 PM PST by AtomicBuffaloWings (Still not hot enough, A few of my taste buds are still alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
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.

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.

19 posted on 02/01/2007 8:14:30 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shoebooty

I'm pretty sure there was no way primitive man could have built the Grand Canyon without the help of an alien, advanced race.


20 posted on 02/01/2007 8:14:54 PM PST by HitmanLV (Rock, Rock, Rock and Rollergames! Rockin' & Rolling, Rockin' with Rollergames!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 421-440 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