The intelligent design (ID) movement has been accused of a lot of things over the years. Among the mildest of those accusations is that ID is just religion masquerading as science.
Anyone who could seriously think that, cannot be paying attention. Intelligent design, as defined by the Discovery Institute, teaches simply “that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected [random] process such as natural selection.” That’s it. It does not attempt to define or describe that cause. Most scientists who subscribe to intelligent design do believe in some form of evolution. And some of them are not even believers in the Bible—they are secularists. They simply believe that Darwinism does not have all the answers, especially about how life originated. (Darwin himself never pretended certainty on that.)
Now, with the publication of Michael Behe’s second book, there is little excuse left for anyone to remain ignorant of what intelligent design actually is. Behe, you may remember, is the professor of biological science from Lehigh University who shook up the scientific world when he published Darwin’s Black Box over a decade ago. Now he has written The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism. Behe leaves no doubt of his belief in natural selection. He even goes much further than many of us, including myself, by declaring his belief in a common ancestor.
In short, he is more than willing to acknowledge common ground with the evolutionists. All he is trying to show here is that there are certain things that Darwinism cannot answer. But even for that, he gets pilloried. The New York Times showed Behe’s book the ultimate disrespect by assigning someone who had publicly disagreed with and denounced him to review it: the vehement “anti-theist” Richard Dawkins, of all people. So much for the objectivity of the New York Times. That would be roughly the equivalent of the New York Times asking me to review one of Dawkins’s books. Fat chance.
Naturally, Dawkins accuses Behe of doing exactly what he does not do: Namely, he suggests that Behe states that where evolution reaches its limits, “God must step in to help.”
Behe does no such thing. What he does is provide a series of case studies, such as the malaria virus, the AIDS virus, and the human immune system, and shows what evolution did or did not do for them. For example, he shows that although human cells have evolved in many ways to combat malaria, many humans are still vulnerable to it—and in some cases, those human cells are even worse off than they were before. This means that evolution is not always as progressive as Darwinists would have us believe. As Behe puts it, what Dawkins and others have called an “arms race” is really much more like “trench warfare,” unleashing forces that can damage organisms as easily as it can help them. So evolution has its limits.
I suggest you ignore the forces that would stifle all dissent, and take a look at Behe’s book The Edge of Evolution. Even if you do not agree with everything in it, as I do not, you do not need to follow the Darwinist line that everything you disagree with must be squashed. Dare to think for yourself. You just might learn what the Darwinists and the anti-theists do not want you to know.
_________________________________________________
From BreakPoint®, October 19, 2007, Copyright 2007, Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with the permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. “BreakPoint®” and “Prison Fellowship Ministries®” are registered trademarks of Prison Fellowship
RSS
Comments
A creator you must mean the alien race known as the Asgard.
The small body big head large almonds shaped eyesgray skin. There are pic's and video of there space ships many people around the world have seen them most give the same description
of what they look like. The whole GOD story is a cover up so we don't find out about them.
The Asgard don't want to change our natural development. We are like mice in a maze to them.
There studing of us will help them make better life else were..
At least there is some evidence
that aliens exist..
Where or what made this god you are talking about. Like responses below all you got is faith. Just like the men who strap bombs to there self and blow people away.
Or kill abortion doctors because god told them to.....
HOw did all animals fit on the ark?
IT would take 6 inches of rain a minit 40 feet per hour to flood the earth.
Where did all the water go.
How did all the animals get from a montain in Turkey to where they live today? with out leaving bone behind. why no kangroos in turkey today?
Scientists do not want to "stifle dissent" when it comes to ID; indeed, the problem is that the questions and examples Behe uses have all been thoroughly debunked and/or answered. At the Dover trial Behe got pwned by saying he hadn't read the stacks of papers and books that solved his "problem" or irreducible complexity in the bacteria flagellum, and then admitted that astrology could be considered science.
As for concerns that science will be decided by courts and not evidence--ironic much? If ID'ers want their precious science taken seriously perhaps they should take all that money they devote to PR and do some research, experiments, go on a couple fossil digs, predict where the next bit of irreducible complexity will be found, etc., etc. Proponents of the big bang nor indeed of evolution never had to go to court to get their ideas taught; no, they slogged it out in papers and universities and laboratories throughout the world. They did the hard work and it paid off.
Go ahead: disprove evolution. Dismantle Darwin. The scientists would love it. Nothing is sacred in science, nothing is taboo--except utter BS.
I think the righteous and religious among us should start attacking other sciences that ignore god as well. How about challenging the godless theories outside of biology. It's time to widen the front. Granted, the whole of modern biology depends on the theory of evolution, which says that all life forms evolved from a single common ancestor billions of years ago, without god's help. But what do other branches of science say about god?
What about cosmology? The science of cosmology says that the whole universe began 13.5 billion years ago in the Big Bang, that the stars, galaxies and planets formed through natural processes, that every element in everything we are made of was formed in stars, without any help at all from god. This is an outrage. It's time to put god back in the equations.
Don't you think it's about time to scale up the attack on Science? Rally the troops, it's time to go after that godless science of cosmology. For too long professors have brainwashed our kids with this atheism-based belief system. It should be easy to discredit! After all, did you know that there is much less evidence for the Big Bang theory than there is for the theory of evolution?
HAW549: By the way, helping the sick and poor is not socialism - its Christianity. If you want to legislate Christianity and make a real difference, don't make gay marriage illegal or force the teaching of ID, start by helping the poor or providing universal healthcare. Jesus was as liberal and as progressive as they come. If there is one common thread in the Bible, its help the poor and the least amonst us. I don't believe that the Discovery Institute counts as the least amonst us, nor do Bush's friends who get huge tax cuts.
HAWK49: It seems as though there are a lot of folks whose gifted ministries are preaching about ID and the abomination of homosexuality - its too bad more folks gifts didn't revolve around helping the poor and sick. I know lots of Christians (like myself) who see evolution (no one of any educational standing - at least credible educational standing - calls it Darwinism) and can't help but see the beauty of God in all of it. I think evolution happened exactly the way scientists are finding it happened and yet I know that God's hand was in all of it. I would urge you to stop wasting time on something as ridiculous as this and appreciate God's creation for what it is.
Personally, to me, it's starting to look like the Christian Post is really the Christian Right Wing Post - and if you don't have right wing, conservative political leanings then you can't be a true Christian and that is a shame because Jesus' ideas were as radical and progressive as you can possibly get.
ifeelfine72:
I do believe God has commanded us to both help the least among us (that does not mean government socialism) and to defend the faith against false philosophies and false teachings that are alluring the elect and causing many to turn against God. George Barna has demonstrated very well how nominal Christians have bought the lies of secular humanism and how many children of Christian homes, when they leave the home also leave the church. Also reflect upon the body and we all are gifted for different ministries. Some may be to study and teach about God's general revelations. Take a look at the powerpoint presentation on www.nehemiahinstitute.com and see how effective Christian kids (90% of them) have bought into the secualr humanist lies. Their Christian worldview is nonexistent. I am leaving in a few minutes on a trip so I will not be around to respond. I urge you to refect on God's word regarding what I mentioned and seek out The Truth Project in your area to learn more of God's total design for His creation.
HidingBehingNickname: I've never read his book nor do I care to. But I didnt make that claim, nor did I offer an opinion on the review. My point was on the whole idea of even talking about this in the first place. Why as Christians should we care about this? If you spent as much time helping the least amongst us (the poor, sick, imprisoned, maligned, etc) as you do wasting time talking about this stuff then the world would be a much better place. Cleary the entire point of the Bible is wasted on you.
Thanks HBN for your feedback. I've gone back and read my original comment, I can't find any mention of the book in it or any claim to have read it, so I'm not certain where you get the idea from that I claimed to have read it? Can you let me know why you think this, thanks.
For the IDers, realize the devious games the devil's religion of humanism (ye shall be as gods) plays. The court ruling evolutionists use to say irreducible complexity and Intelligent Design was refuted is a hoax. The court case is real, the decision was based on misrepresentation by an ACLU evolutionist.
In Dover Trial, ACLU’s Expert Witness Mischaracterizes Intelligent Design
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
September 27, 2005
Harrisburg, PA -- The case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District opened in federal court yesterday with the ACLU calling its first expert witness in an effort to tell the court how it should define science. The ACLU is suing the school board of Dover, Pennsylvania for adopting a policy that requires students to listen to a three-paragraph statement about the theory of intelligent design.
The ACLU’s first expert witness, Dr. Kenneth Miller, testified that the scientific theory of intelligent design is untestable and therefore unscientific. Later he contradicted himself by proceeding to discuss how he has made various arguments in scientific forums testing design theory.
“Most of Dr. Miller’s testimony today against intelligent design was simply based upon a misrepresentation of the scientific theory of intelligent design,” said scientist Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture.
“Dr. Miller’s testimony is disturbing because it demands that the Court rule on the nature of science and the validity of scientific theories—matters which should be left to scientific experts and not be decided by courts,” added Luskin.
Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Decision
Traipsing into Evolution is a critique of federal Judge John E. Jones's decision in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. In this concise yet comprehensive response, Discovery Institute scholars and attorneys show how Judge Jones's Kitzmiller decision was based upon faulty reasoning, non-existent evidence, and a serious misrepresentation of the scientific theory of intelligent design.
For the IDers. If you come across evolutionists that refute irreducible complexity you can give them this exercise:
Present the evolution of a woodpecker and learn something about irreducible complexity.
From whom did the woodpecker evolve?
Explain how mindless, random natural selection (chance) developed its very long tongue with a glue sack to glue the tongue going out and an anti-glue sack to neutralize the glued tongue coming back in. How do you suppose the tongue reel system was created by the darwinist mindless, random force? Before or after the tongue development? How did drive system get developed by chance and at what part of the iterative process. After the bird figured out he couldn’t operate his new tongue? How do you suppose the proper glue and anti-glue got developed? How many iterative steps and years did that take? What if the anti-glue system didn’t come about or get perfected until after the glue system. The bird would have just a single chance to use his tongue then that would be it.
Where did the cushion for his brain come from and how do you suppose just mindless blind force ever specified the material and designed it so the brain can survive the beatings? How did this force get the proper size of this protective system?
How do you suppose the woodpecker ended up with two claws forward and two claws backwards to allow him to hang on the trunks of trees? The other birds have three forward and one behind to sit on tree branches or webbed feet for the water. Interesting how mindless, random natural selection just happened to get all their feet to work for the proper environment.
How was the birds brain reprogrammed for his new tasks. How was it reprogrammed so he knew to search for bugs behind tree bark? How was it programmed so he knew how to operate the glue and anti-glue systems along with the reel so their actions were always syncretized? How was the DNA reprogrammed to build all these new systems?
How is it that at least one he woodpecker and one she woodpecker were mindlessly evolved by chance at the same time so they could procreate?
Dr Jobe Martin has the answers for you. You could go to the evolutionists gurus and come up empty handed. Or do what Carl Sagan preached………just use you imagination. With a little free-thinking you can develop your very own evolutionary tale such as Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Lucy, etc.
For the IDers, ask your evolutionist friends why lies and myths have to be used to indoctrinate their belief onto the captives of our government schools:
From Jonathan Wells Icons of Evolution,
When asked to list the evidence for Darwinian evolution, most people--including most biologists--give the same set of examples, because all of them learned biology from the same few textbooks. The most common examples are:
a laboratory flask containing a simulation of the earth's primitive atmosphere, in which electric sparks produce the chemical building-blocks of living cells;
the evolutionary tree of life, reconstructed from a large and growing body of fossil and molecular evidence;
similar bone structures in a bat's wing, a porpoise's flipper, a horse's leg, and a human hand that indicate their evolutionary origin in a common ancestor;
pictures of similarities in early embryos showing that amphibians, reptiles, birds and human beings are all descended from a fish-like animal;
Archaeopteryx, a fossil bird with teeth in its jaws and claws on its wings, the missing link between ancient reptiles and modern birds;
peppered moths on tree trunks, showing how camouflage and predatory birds produced the most famous example of evolution by natural selection;
Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands, thirteen separate species that diverged from one when natural selection produced differences in their beaks, and that inspired Darwin to formulate his theory of evolution;
fruit flies with an extra pair of wings, showing that genetic mutations can provide the raw materials for evolution;
a branching-tree pattern of horse fossils that refutes the old-fashioned idea that evolution was directed; and
drawings of ape-like creatures evolving into humans, showing that we are just animals and that our existence is merely a by-product of purposeless natural causes.
These examples are so frequently used as evidence for Darwin's theory that most of them have been called "icons" of evolution. Yet all of them, in one way or another, misrepresent the truth.
Science or Myth?
Some of these icons of evolution present assumptions or hypotheses as though they were observed facts; in Stephen Jay Gould's words, they are "incarnations of concepts masquerading as neutral descriptions of nature." Others conceal raging controversies among biologists that have far-reaching implications for evolutionary theory. Worst of all, some are directly contrary to well-established scientific evidence.
For you Christians that question why the fuss over darwinism Vs ID:
This is a raging battle of religious worldviews; the Christian worldview Vs the humanist worldview. The religion of humanism is founded on "there is no God" so they have to rely on darwinsim. ID has rightfully shaken the darwinists' religious worldview as it was built on falsehoods. If a humanist insists that his worldview is not a religion then ask him why his American Humanist Association files for religious exemption with the IRS. This is based on the functional model of religion, not the substantive model.
American Humanist Association
Also Known As: AHA
1777 T St NW
Washington, DC 20009
Who We Are
The American Humanist Association is the oldest and largest Humanist association in the United States and serves as a primary voice of Humanism nationally.
• This organization is a 501(c)(3) Public Charity .
• This organization is not required to file an annual return with the IRS because it is a religious organization.
• Additional narrative information in this report was last supplied by the organization on July 24, 2007.
• Contributions are deductible, as provided by law.
For those knuckleheads who claim ID is not peer reviewed and published.
PEER-REVIEWED & PEER-EDITED SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS SUPPORTING THE THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN (ANNOTATED)
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
July 1, 2007
Editors's Note: Critics of intelligent design often claim that design advocates don’t publish their work in appropriate scientific literature. For example, Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University, was quoted in USA Today (March 25, 2005) that design theorists “aren’t published because they don’t have scientific data.”
Other critics have made the more specific claim that design advocates do not publish their works in peer-reviewed scientific journals—as if such journals represented the only avenue of legitimate scientific publication. In fact, scientists routinely publish their work in peer-reviewed scientific journals, in peer-reviewed scientific books, in scientific anthologies and conference proceedings (edited by their scientific peers), and in trade presses. Some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science was first published not in scientific journal articles but in scientific books—including Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus, Newton’s Principia, and Darwin’s Origin of Species (the latter of which was published in a prominent British trade press and was not peer-reviewed in the modern sense of the term). In any case, the scientists who advocate the theory of intelligent design have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some in mainstream university presses), trade presses, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books.
We provide below an annotated bibliography of technical publications of various kinds that support, develop or apply the theory of intelligent design....[go to the website to read the list]
Citizen: Silly me for thinking your post was somehow related to Mr. Colson's article on Dr. Behe's book and its review by Dr. Dawkins. My mistake.