Dear Sirs:
What Expelled tells us about Darwinists is not new. In the 1980’s, a Newsweek article quoted an evolutionist saying he wished he were in something “more intellectually honest –like used car sales.”
In Yonke’s article, Prof. Carroll displays the typical attitude of evolutionists, saying scientists who don’t agree with the establishment can’t be considered “literate.” He refers to great earth age and descent from primates as “facts.” Yet, so much said about origins of life is conjecture with “evidence” interpreted to prop up a theory that life has no designing hand. Yet, many of us marvel at the “irreducible complexity” of DNA –and were doing so even before ID theorists used the phrase.
Debate confusion: those who oppose ID in the classroom wrongly believe the goal is to teach religion. Even atheist Dawkins speculated that aliens could have designed earth-life. Some ID scientists believe in common descent from lower life forms. All acknowledge natural selection within species. All Creationists are ID theorists, believing in an intelligence behind the origin of life–but not all ID theorists are 6-day creationists, Religious Right, or Bible believers. Some believe Darwin describes the Creator’s plan.
Some of us believe that God “spoke” things into being from His “Mind” with knowledge and power that exceed our own–-the way Christ performed miracles-–the way we can activate knowledge with a computer.
The biblical writer John says Jesus is the Logos through whom all things were created. I didn’t find evidence to contradict that in my science studies. One scientist in the film suffered for saying medical doctors did not have to believe or use Darwin’s theory of common descent to practice medicine. Yet, this is true. It’s also true that the theory lends itself to justify atheism, abortion, euthanasia, and eugenics –as Stein points out.
Sincerely,
Jonathan E. Rohrs, M.D.
_______________________________________
To this, the infamous liberal blogger, expired Catholic, Mud-rake, commented:
Odd that, although I went to a Catholic university and took many biology, chemistry and physics classes, I never found evidence that John was wrong either, Of course, Religious Studies was not located in the Science Building.
Posted by mud_rake at 9:38 AM
To which I replied:
Exactly, Mud-rake. You don't find any EVIDENCE to contradict a designer in your science classes.
--and in fact, the point the medical doctor was making is that the irreducible complexity of the cell is a good reason to conclude there was some kind of designer. Some intelligence had to put that cell together --it couldn't evolve from non-living matter in all its complexity and engineering genius without some intelligent agent.
So we aren't talking about "god" per se, but the scientific evidence for intelligent design behind DNA, the universe, etc.
Now that they've unraveled DNA, objective observers see more SCIENTIFIC evidence to interpret as support for design theory than for pure unguided Darwinistic naturalism. That's why there is a controversy.
The atheistic Darwinists are the hostile ones, fueling the rest of society's anger at those who would dare to question Darwin. Most people have just unquestioningly accepted that science proves Darwin --when, in fact, it does not. They are digging their heels in to suppress dissent and deny that those who question any part of Darwin can be scientists and they call the opposition "know nothings"--in part because so many of the true Darwinian scientists are atheists defending their religion of atheism.
It's not the ID scientists who are hostile to science; they are using it and drawing the only sensible conclusion --that some intelligent agent initiated life. I'm told that many of these ID scientists DO accept common descent of humans from primates as Darwin speculated would be proven by fossils (which speculation has not been proven by the fossil record to date.) They just disagree with Darwin' theory that the process was unguided,unplanned happenstance.
All fossils show is that some extinct creatures shared common design features with creatures living today. Fossils can't really show parentage. And shared DNA of primates and humans cannot account for the vast differences between the two--the fact that primates still beget primates and humans still beget humans--and the fact that nothing seems to be transitioning today --not even slowly. A common designer, however, could explain the shared features of DNA. AFter all, just because you and your pets have eyes and lungs and hearts, etc. doesn't prove you are "related" genetically by intergenerational descent from a common ancestor.
The Bible says each creature was designed to procreate after its own kind. That's what the present-day, observed evidence supports, incidentally.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
