Verdict that Demands Evidence: Darwinists, not Christians, are stonewalling the facts

Christianity Today ^ | 3/28/05 | Charles Colson

[Zender500]

It was one of the first—and angriest—post-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 parts—catch, spring, hammer, and so forth—must 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 article—and found that the study proved just the opposite: It supported his theory. Behe confronted Doolittle, who privately acknowledged that he was wrong—but declined to make a public retraction.

So who's really rolling back the Enlightenment? Those who invite us to follow the evidence wherever it leads—or those demanding that we ignore it? The folks who want both evolution and Intelligent Design taught in school, with all their strengths and weaknesses—or 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.

[annalex]

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.

[betty boop]

As Johnson puts it, "It is not now the men of faith; it is the skeptics who have reason to fear the course of discovery."

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!

[betty boop]

p.s.: Nobody likes it when "their [pet] ox is gored...." :^)

[DannyTN]

"Or cockroaches?"

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.

"Mosquitos?"

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.

Liberals?

ID - Design failure.

Creationist - SIN! Rebellion!

Now how does evolution explain Liberals?

[Tribune7]

I think the ox of evolution is dead :-)

[Chiapet]

"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.

[ml/nj]

How does Intelligent Design explain male nipples?

The same way it explains the Department of Education.

ML/NJ

[Publius6961]

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...

[Publius6961]

My deepest a-po-logies, bien sur.

[MagnumRancid]

With all due respect, I fail to see what scientific/technological advances have to do with one's belief and faith in a Creator.

[procrustes]

"intelligent design", Mr.Colson,can be disproved by a one-word argument:


























"testicles"

[ravingnutter]

Google Is Our Friend

But even they can't settle on one answer, LOL!

[infocats]

"Behe argued that complex structures like proteins cannot be assembled piecemeal, with gradual improvement of function. Instead, like a mousetrap, all the parts—catch, spring, hammer, and so forth—must be assembled simultaneously, or the protein doesn't work."

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.

[spinestein]

[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?"]



As a thoroughly nonreligious, pro evolutionist, and "broken glass" Bush voter I reject the entire premise of this statement. I voted for President Bush's reelection for the same reason that most of his supporters did (even the creationist Christian ones); He was a far better candidate than his opponents.

He was, and is, serious about protecting our national security and making intelligent decisions on domestic social and economic policy. He demonstrated greater competence than the Democratic challenger and kicked John Kerry's butt because of it.

I don't know how this Garry Wills character thinks he can get away with trying to foist off on the uninformed among the public that Bush was reelected by some Bible thumping zealots who want to bring back the Dark Ages, but it didn't work in the weeks after the election, and it's going to flop just as badly now.

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks for the double ping, but this thread is scientifically worthless. It's for flame wars only, so I won't deploy the ping list.

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.

[RobRoy]

>>It's really astonishing...<<

The more narrow ones mind, the greater the "astonishment" at such things.

[Logophile]

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.

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.

[Zeroisanumber]

Or the fact that humans have toes?

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

ping for input.

[SteamshipTime]

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.