Skip to comments.Verdict that Demands Evidence: Darwinists, not Christians, are stonewalling the facts
Posted on 03/28/2005 1:29:18 PM PST by Zender500
It was one of the firstand angriestpost-election hissy fits: In The New York Times, Garry Wills credited White House political adviser Karl Rove for getting millions of religious conservatives (whom he compared to Muslim jihadists) to the polls and sneered, "Can a nation which believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an enlightened nation?"
< snip >
Committed Darwinists continue this strategy today. For example, nine years ago biochemist Michael Behe published Darwin's Black Box (Free Press, 1996). Behe argued that complex structures like proteins cannot be assembled piecemeal, with gradual improvement of function. Instead, like a mousetrap, all the partscatch, spring, hammer, and so forthmust be assembled simultaneously, or the protein doesn't work.
Behe's thesis faced a challenge from the nation's leading expert on cell structure, Dr. Russell Doolittle at the University of California-San Diego. Doolittle cited a study on bloodletting in the journal Cell that supposedly disproved Behe's argument. Behe immediately read the articleand found that the study proved just the opposite: It supported his theory. Behe confronted Doolittle, who privately acknowledged that he was wrongbut declined to make a public retraction.
So who's really rolling back the Enlightenment? Those who invite us to follow the evidence wherever it leadsor those demanding that we ignore it? The folks who want both evolution and Intelligent Design taught in school, with all their strengths and weaknessesor those who attempt to silence any opposition?
The evidence for Intelligent Design has become so persuasive that the 81-year old British philosopher Anthony Flew, a lifelong atheist who once debated C. S. Lewis over the existence of God, recently admitted that a creator-God must exist.
In the final analysis, any objective observer must conclude that belief in either the biblical or the naturalistic worldview demands faith.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
How does Intelligent Design explain male nipples?
Check out the latest Weekly Standard for a well written piece on this issue. Quite interesting.
vestigal organs from when we were asexual primordial slime or something.....
"I've got nipples, Fokker, can you milk me?"
How does evolution explain male nipples?
I did. Thanks for the tip on Teaching Darwin
I thank my Designer for my nipples, every time my wife kisses them.
I asked first.
Lol, too good!
Lol, too good!
Ping but the debate just about over except for the screaming
and I asked second.
The more they find out about the universe the faster they flock to Intelligent Design...scientists with humility that is.
The others will never allow themselves to work within the Lord's framework.
"Check out the latest Weekly Standard for a well written piece on this issue. Quite interesting."
Agreed. What was especially interesting was that the author's critique of evolution seemed to begin and end with Darwin himself, and didn't bother to address the 149 years of advances in evolutionary biology that have occurred since then.
-"Can a nation which believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an enlightened nation?"-
It was good enough for our founding fathers, wasn't it?
Au contraire, mon frere... that is exactly what is driving famous and not so famous evolution supporters into the other camp. At least the honest ones, who can allow that both extremes require a measure of faith.
It's really astonishing that after sending men to the moon and back, sending robots to Mars, curing Polio, and creating the internet a large segment of our country still clings to primitive Bronze Age superstitions regarding our origins.
It is utterly pathetic, and I can assure you that unless things change our country is going to sink into a new Dark Age of sorts as the Chinese, Indians etc. pass us in the race to the stars.
My understanding is, in the same way evolution does: a rudimentary organ useful at one point along the evolutionary path, then disused.
Intelligent design's claim is not that nothing occurs through evolution, but rather that at pivotal points in the evolitionary process things happen by design and not randomly. For example, differentiation of sexes and development of diverse sexual organs might involve steps by design, as well as random evolutionary steps.
The designer left the male nipples in place for the same reason a gardener might leave a tree stub in place: it does not hinder the new landscape, and may have some positive use (male nipples are erogenous), future will tell if the marginal value of the rudimentary organ is sufficient to prevent its atrophy and disappearance.
Sure, there's evidence that evolution takes place within a species but the fossil record has not yielded evidence of one species becoming another, as Darwin confidently predicted. This lack of evidence has not gone unnoticed by sociologist Rodney Stark. Stark calls himself neither an evolutionist nor an advocate of Intelligent Design; instead, he says, he is merely a scholar pursuing the evidence where it leads. In For the Glory of God (Princeton University Press, 2003), Stark offers startling evidence that Darwinists have covered up mounting flaws in their theory. He concludes that the battle over evolution is hardly a case of "heroic" scientists fighting off the persecution of religious fanatics. Instead, from the start, evolution "has primarily been an attack on religion by militant atheists who wrap themselves in the mantle of science in an effort to refute all religious claims concerning a creator an effort that has also often attempted to suppress all scientific criticisms of Darwin's work."
Only the "guilty" have reason to scream, Tribune!!! Thanks for the ping!
p.s.: Nobody likes it when "their [pet] ox is gored...." :^)
If you've ever had a large dog, you begin to appreciate the role of cockroaches, everytime you walk in your back yard and there's no more than a week's worth of poop back there.
1) Mosquitos are here to select for sickle cell anemia, so evolutionists can point to the blood defect and say, "see a positive mutation".
2) I don't know if ID has an answer for mosquitos, but creationists can tell you that Mosquitos might be part of the curse on the earth after Adam and Eve sinned.
ID - Design failure.
Creationist - SIN! Rebellion!
Now how does evolution explain Liberals?
I think the ox of evolution is dead :-)
"Au contraire, mon frere... that is exactly what is driving famous and not so famous evolution supporters into the other camp. At least the honest ones, who can allow that both extremes require a measure of faith."
That would be "ma soeur," and please note that I was specifically referencing the Weekly Standard article cited by Lawnguy.
The same way it explains the Department of Education.
Your post is unclear. Since many of the major players in all those scientific advances leaned toward intelligent design, it is hard to decide which rigid dogmatism you are referring to as causing a new Dark Age...
With all due respect, I fail to see what scientific/technological advances have to do with one's belief and faith in a Creator.
"intelligent design", Mr.Colson,can be disproved by a one-word argument:
But even they can't settle on one answer, LOL!
To play devil's advocate, proteins are not complex but rather simple structures composed of hydrocarbons, subject to the laws of natural permutation. Like a tumbler in a lock, life could have begun when the right combination of proteins occured. Although interesting, I don't believe Behe's thesis either proves or disproves Darwin, Creationism, or Intelligent Design.
That is precisely why belief in a higher power is called "faith", sometimes in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Oh, in the title: "Verdict that Demands Evidence," I suggest that a verdict should be based on the evidence, not be running around demanding evidence.
>>It's really astonishing...<<
The more narrow ones mind, the greater the "astonishment" at such things.
Your statement is pure hogwash, if by "primitive Bronze Age superstitions" you mean Jewish or Christian religious beliefs. There is nothing about any of the accomplishments you list that requires or even invites an abandonment of religious belief.
I see no conflict between evolution (or any scientific theory) and the gospel of Jesus Christ. None whatsoever. Those who insist that evolution somehow "disproves" religion are guilty of scientific malpractice.
Or the fact that humans have toes?
ping for input.
The fact that both genders have nipples has nothing to do with speciation. A better question would be how does intelligent design explain molars and appendixes, though they are probably explainable in terms of natural selection: if a trait ceases to be a factor in the survival of the species, it will probably be retained as a vestigial trait.
Hey, even if we just tread water, while the Indians and Chinese zoom ahead--I don't think that is what is happening, but I will grant you it for the sake of argument--how does that have us entering a dark age? Seems like some scaremongering on the part of the pro-evolution folk.
Thanks for the ping!
Sorry I asked the same question before reading down the posts.
"I Am" gave them to us.
Could be, Trib. It all seems to hang on the problem of whether people are willing to concede that evolution seems to be something that happens within species; and that grander claims -- to the effect that macroevolution actually occurs -- may not be as well founded as the general public imagines today.
That is, the doctrine that holds the production of a novel species from an already existent other in response to changing physical environmental conditions/constraints, while generally held to be true "among us advanced, enlightened moderns" -- seems to have been found somewhat lacking in explanatory power in more recent times.
I don't think the ox of evolution is dead; he just needs to be placed into the proper overall perspective, which at the end of the day may be the one that abandons the idea of macroevolution altogether.
For certainly we must say that macroevolution depends for its truth on a congeries of developments that have never been directly observed acting together by a single human being, dead or alive.
And so the entire theory of macroevolution seems to rest on observations which are -- rather paradoxically -- "unobservable" in principle.
But I guess we'll have to wait on further research in order to further qualify these issues....
Stay tuned! Thank you so very much for writing!
Do you believe that "species" is a property of an individual?
Why do you continue to impugn the motives of those actually doing science?
Maybe you'd be better off without testicals, but I think they are brilliant.