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.