Intelligent Design: Streng Verboten (Part 1)
Guten tag. It's time for the other side of the story. When it comes to evolutionism, we've heard your side over and over ad nauseum.
I've gone through Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed twice, and I'm glad I bought the DVD. The first time through, I had to walk away because the logical conclusion of what the movie presented is very upsetting. Not much of a fan of documentaries, but this one sings a song that I've been doing for many years. It shows the flaws of the philosophies of Darwinism, and the discrimination of the scientific establishment against anyone that dares run against their orthodoxy and say that maybe, just perhaps, Intelligent Design (I.D.) should be considered an alternative explanation of the facts.
Some of what I'm writing now is a repeat of previous postings. Get over it, because it's important, capice?
Important point: Defining the term “evolution” is the gradual development of life over vast periods of time, with transitional forms leading to completely new species of life. I am not talking about microevolution, which leads to small changes and adaptations. Also, there is some disagreement about Creation Science. Many Creationists will use science to explain things in the Bible, but are fully able to present a strictly scientific framework for their views without invoking anything religious. In this way, there is not much difference between a Creationist and a proponent of Intelligent Design.
Having a disagreement with the formatting, this is not supposed to be in bold type.
I have to take a slight detour here. Proponents of Creation Science, Intelligent Design and me, personally, have been subjugated to the absurd attack that we are trying to deceive people so that they will believe in God. First, such an insult is cowardly and ungentlemanly, and I will lose my gentlemanly cool at punch hard when I am attacked. A man has his limits. Second, the absurdity is obvious when people bother to take a few moments and think about it: I am going to lie to trick people into believing in God, who is holy and hates sin. Grow a brain, Skippy. Stick to the facts.
Nobody is quibbling about facts. A fact is a fact. It's the interpretations of facts that have the problems. You show me a fossil. Great. It's a fossil. You tell me that it was formed over millions of years and is evidence for evolution, and I'll say that there are other possible explanations. You show me a drawing of archeopteryx. Then you say that archeopteryx is a transitional form, and I'll give you a scientific slapdown because you're being ideological and out of touch, because "Archie" has been reclassified as a true bird. Your starting point (your world view) influences your interpretations of evidence. It should be the other way around, but let’s be honest here: Scientists are human, even though many want you to believe that they’re somehow superior to us mere mortals.
Evolution is not science. It is a philosophy of the interpretation of facts. In the same way, Intelligent Design is not science, either. Now, hear me out! Both approaches have to take existing facts and interpret them. It annoys me when evolutionists get all uppity and say that “Creationists are not scientists” or “Proponents of Intelligent Design are not scientists”, because that’s where philosophy comes in for either system of interpretation. Scientists that disagree with evolutionism are not automatically disqualified from being scientists. They have their credentials from accredited schools, just like their Darwin-loving counterparts. F’rinstance, Creationist astronomer Don DeYoung did not get his Ph.D. from “Billy Bob’s Backwater Bible Barn”, he went to “real” schools.
Intelligent Design and Creationism are ridiculed, misunderstood and flat-out maligned. I do not come across many believers in evolutionism that have examined the evidence for I.D. and the abundant evidence against evolution. Evolutionists are arrogantly biased in their assertions that they are right, and anybody has a grain of sense cannot argue with them. But true science will pursue any line of questioning and follow the evidence to wherever it leads.
Evolutionists jealously guard their philosophies and make excuses. They do not examine the flaws in their own theories except to make excuses. Listen to some of their nonsense, and you’ll hear a great deal of “maybe”, “could have”, “perhaps”, “nobody really knows”, and yet they insist that evolution is true and is to believed without question. Guesswork, speculation — but Intelligent Design is still wrong in their minds. (Addendum: This was given to me on March 3, 2009. Look at the guesswork and speculation in this article.) Daring to suggest that evolution has flaws is strictly forbidden. If any scientists dare to question the religious orthodoxy of Darwinism, they risk losing their jobs and are blacklisted.
Ironically, many of the greatest scientists were believers, and many were Creationists.
Let me leave you with a question: What is it called when one side of the story is presented, and contrary evidence is suppressed?
Tune in again for the exciting conclusion of this fascinating missive!
Add a Comment
-
Comment by Will on November 8, 2009 at 9:56pm -
If you mean Expelled, yes. Telling.
Not sure what "second part of this ID bit" refers to.
-
Comment by Yankee Cowboy Bob on November 8, 2009 at 9:43pm -
Unfortunately, Creationism has taken various definitions. I believe in Scientific Creationism, which I perceive to be a forerunner of Intelligent Design. ID can be legitimately taught in public schools along with evolutionism on strictly scientific grounds and without bringing in anything Biblical. I believe in Biblical Creationism and the literal creation week, but I do not want that taught in public schools.
Have you read the second part of this ID bit? Also, have you seen the video that brought this discussion into being?
-
Comment by Will on November 8, 2009 at 9:01pm
-
Creationism as I understand the term (Earth created in 6 24-hour periods; or at least all life created in this time frame) isn't compatible with Intelligent Design (Earth and its life changing over hundreds of millions of years, caused to change by an intelligence rather than by random mutation). So, Bob, I think you must be defining at least one of these differently. What do you mean by them?
--
My views on intelligent design are here: http://youwillknow.blogspot.com/2006/11/intelligent-design.html I won't get into an argument, because I don't think that's useful, but I do thereby recommend the book by Behe.
-
Comment by Yankee Cowboy Bob on November 8, 2009 at 8:43am
- for the believer no proof is necessary, for the non-believer none will suffice I agree to some extent with the first part, but I have seen people lose their faith because it was not deeply rooted. It's nice to have validation and affirmation. For the second part of the quote, yes, I have seen people with all the evidence they need, but they still squirm their way out of it with "yes but" and changing the rules of engagement on you.
-
Comment by thislilpiggy on November 8, 2009 at 8:25am -
I respect your effort Cowbow Bill and appreciate your opinion of wich I happen to share.
However cliche I must point to the old adage of " for the believer no proof is necessary, for the non-believer none will suffice."
-
Comment by Topher White on November 8, 2009 at 12:44am -
Do things change? Yes.
Do things change and become dominant because of randome mutations? Wow, I have a hard time with the math on that. Haldanes Dilemma remains unresolved.
-
Comment by Liam S. on November 7, 2009 at 11:46pm - Topher - I agree, it's a bit absurd. As long as people are clear thats a failure of knowledge, not of the principles involved.
-
Comment by Topher White on November 7, 2009 at 11:06pm
-
Ummmm, because you're only incredibly handsome and intelligent, not devistatingly handsome and intelligent like me.
And oh, did I mention humble?
-
Comment by Herb Munson on November 7, 2009 at 11:01pm - Gee, Topher, why didn't I think of that?
-
Comment by Topher White on November 7, 2009 at 10:52pm
-
Okay, two points (and Oh God, I'm a liberal even).
1) How come something in quantum physics can be predictive out to 13 decimal places and still be a "theory", but Evolution can't get to within a million years of predictive and its a FACT???
2) How come "intelligent design" is a valid technique for geology, archaeology, and a dozen other sciences, but for some reason it's not good enough for biology?
My neighbor is a PhD chemist, and she can't stand biologists. They think error bars of 25% are perfectly acceptable.
Subscribe to the Art of Manliness Blog
AoM T-shirts
© 2009 Created by Brett McKay
You need to be a member of Art of Manliness to add comments!
Join this Ning Network