SCOPES TRIAL ISSUE IN REVERSE --defending atheistic orthodoxy regarding origins

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/12982 Read about:

Guillermo Gonzalez-- an astronomer with 69 peer-reviewed articles published in prestigious, secular science journals. He is known for the development of the concept of a Galactic Habitable Zone. He was recently denied tenure at Iowa State U. because he has a side interest that he pursues on his own time: Intelligent Design. He is therefore the enemy of the established scientific orthodoxy that states there is no designer for the process of evolution--or for origins by any other method.

http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2007/05/national-school-board-group-will-have.html

Liberals are also up in arms because "the next president of the National Association of State Boards of Education will be Kenneth R. Willard from Kansas. In 2005, as a member of the state school board in Kansas, Willard voted in favor of changing the state's science standards to include several challenges to the theory of evolution. (See prior posting.) Because Willard's only opponent for the NASBE presidency withdrew for personal reasons after the nomination period was closed, Willard's election seems assured. Some scientists opposed to teaching intelligent design are pressing for states to write in the name of Ohio businessman Sam Schloemer, now on Ohio's State Board of Education, for NASBE president-- but the organization's bylaws do not provide for write-ins. Meanwhile, Willard says the teaching of evolution is an issue that should be left to each state. He says NASBE focuses on "issues like advising state boards on how to deal with governance concerns or influxes of immigrant students or ways to raise academic achievement among members of disadvantaged groups."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Most people only know what the pro-establishment media says about intelligent design.

They assume evolution to be proven true by evidence like the theory of gravity is proven by evidence.

They are woefully mis-led about this --along with most of the rest of the world.

The evidence of transition from one life category to another --(like ape to human via some common ancestor) --is not there --it's Darwin's theory to explain how we got here without a designer. Even a fossil with features of two creatures does not prove descent over the possibility of common design. Just because two dress-makers make a red dress with pockets and a 2 inch hem --doesn't mean the dresses came from the same source --just because they shared features. So it is that a fossil of an extinct creature that resembles 2 modern creatures just proves there was once a creature with the same features as others in its bio-family --say mammal. Most likely, any-so called primitive ambiguously human or ape fossils --are just one of many variants of homo-sapiens --or apes --not a transition. YOU CANNOT PROVE TRANSITION --without seeing some parent give birth to a transitional creature --which we never see. Even the rapidly evolving bacteria --are STILL bacteria. So far, even shared DNA --such as that of chimps and humans--can only prove design --not descent. We believers, however, do believe that God created the animals first --and that humans are the highest level of a design process --so the Designer can use similar features in the DNA codes for mammals without having them descend gradually upward over eons of time through "natural" processes without a designer. All mammals share DNA features --and the differences between us are still immense and not likely to have occured randomly, naturally by mating and natural selection without a designer/controller. Our DNA was more likely finagled in a celestial lab than by happenstance on the earth. And it is said we are made in the Image of God --so maybe that is why the atonement for our sins had to be by the blood of the Son of God --something to do with our DNA --which is written in the Lamb's Book of Life when we believe in Christ.

There is so much interdependence, design and complexity --and diverstiy and beauty in nature --One example is the bombadier beetle --which, if he evolved, would've exploded himself into non-existance in the process. He was carefully designed to ignite a small explosion to protect himself from his enemies. Imagine God's design team working that one out. It required a designer for sure. In fact, there's no other reason for him to have such a unique capability for his defense --except that the Divine Mind thought it was cool.

We who are such inventive creatures --were surely designed by a creative being --the way male and female complete one another --the way our hearts beat for a life time --and our brains function with such complexity and control over the rest of our being --the way our skin heals by itself --NO accident of natural selection.

Believing classical darwinism is true is as preposterous as looking at a cadillac in a junkyard and saying all the metal gradually formed the car --given enough years. In fact, the junkyard and the universe and a person's home prove the law of entropy --that things go from order to disorder without controlling forces.

Also, my husband's med school specialty was genetics --he says the DNA could not possibly have evolved from simple to more complex --as D's theory assumes. Darwin assumed, given enough time, all the diverse life forms would naturally evolve, by survival of the fittest and natural selection (which do occur within bio-families but not enough to transition from one category to another) --by mutations which are nearly always bad, not good --all of the life we see is supposed to have evolved from simple, one celled, self-replicating cells --without any guide or designer. Go look at a flower and tell me how this is possible --given eons of time --which is why the evolutionists are so committed to their theoretical "billions of years ago an accidentally formed live amoeba slithered out of the primordial pond and the right conditions were there to start replication into more diverse and complicated higher forms of nature"

Hubby says the millions of chemical reactions in cells necessary to make life --make Darwin's idea impossible.

ID theorists aren't saying Darwin should not be taught --he was right to observe natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc. --it just can't account for all the design complexity that exists no matter how much time is given for the process to naturally evolve all the life forms. So ID theorists observe the impossibility of Darwin's idea --and document evidence of design --and the impossibilities in nature for his theory to be true.

They do not teach Genesis, as ignoramuses assume. They are still committed to the scientific method of hypothesis, experimentation, observation and recording evidence for science theories --or against them.

Michael behe, a molecular microbiologist, researcher and prof at Lehigh U. --wrote Darwin's Black Box --to discuss the DNA complexity that must have been designed by/with some intelligence.

Yes, we still have the mystery of how can there be a God without beginning?? who made God? Well, how can there be a universe without a designer? Who made the universe? These are the two mysteries --and evolution's defenders do the world a grave disservice to rule out the one mystery and believe the other when they can't prove that God didn't design everything that is and speak it into being the way we speak results from the stored knowledge in a computer. if we can do things instantly because of computers; a Creator of this marvelous universe (look out your window!) can do anything in whatever time frame He chooses. Furthermore, those Christians who believe in both evolution and Christ's miracles and resurrections are inconsistant --because such a God doesn't need Darwin's time frame to accomplish Creation --and Darwin is NOT proven no matter what mumbo jumbo scientists utter.



"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible


Cross-posted at Js Cafenette

The Vitriol of the Local Left --Mudslinging in Mudville

My family and friends know I've been posting for a couple of months, comments to Liberal Democrat at Politics in Mudville. He says outrageous, scornful, untrue things about Bush and Bible-believing Christians who make up most of the Religious Right. He daily demonstrates bigotry and tries to foment fear about "social conservatives" who oppose homosexual and abortion wrongs. He even posted a lot of my comments with pictures of horse manure strewn throughout.

Therefore, it is understandable that it is rare that a conservative goes to his blog to shed some light in the darkness. I found it because someone told me he had written about me when I wrote the Blade last November. After a while, he started to censor me out of his blog. Yesterday, I thought he had relented and opened up his blog again, as I was able to post, but alas, he deleted me today. These deleted posts were not LONG comments (as mine often are), nor did they go off topic--which he and all his commenters do at times.

So here is my response to his censorship. My concern is for the vitriol (acidic, corrosive tone) when liberals DO discuss with conservatives and the censorship when they are bankrupt in ideas for rebuttal. They do it at every liberal site I have visited --scorn first and then censorship--but never dealing with the issues effectively at all. Because they can't. Yet, I don't use foul language and avoid name calling,scorn and vulgarity --which deserve censorship. I admit --I am sometimes tempted to out-clever them in insults, as I know how, but I usually refrain.

My latest post to LD:

Ah, you disppoint, LD --I thought you had grown more tolerant in a few days time. (I did say; "grown up to be more tolerant" but realized I was stooping to your level of scornful discourse. See the difference? I would be as scornful as you, when you said to a fellow scorner, "'thinking fundamentalists'? --surely, you jest!"

It would be interesting if you could focus on WHAT conservatives say --instead of on the persons--whom you've probably never met. Ad hominem attack or censorship is your only defense. Where is the debate of WHAT is said --the competition of ideas?

You don't seem to care if your blog continues to say that all right wing conservative Christians oppose stem cell research when this is not true--because you won't print me saying it is not true (we support adult stem cell and umbilical cord stem cell research, but none on aborted fetuses and murdered "excess" embryos in labs.)

You don't care if your blog calls "the right" uniformly liars and bigots --when THAT is not the case.

You don't care that there REALLY IS no known genetic or bio cause for homosexual orientation and that it could possibly be prevented by parenting, protecting, teaching, self-control, and "right" thinking as in rejecting all sexual ideation outside hetero marriage. Also helpful to hetero orientation is cultural support for morality and normalcy, etc. instead of always celebrating the immoral and depicting it in media as good--including the pre-marital hetero-sex promoted on tv--as in "Friends," etc.

You don't seem to care if your blog generates no discussion --just a bunch of like-minded back slapping.

I'll continue to visit and see what you're up to in defamation of Bible-believing Christians and I'll continue to disagree with you on my blog --though I'm sure you and your readership won't go there because I doubt you read any conservative blogs that refute you on topic. Which is a shame --as you say of ME, you are really the ones who won't let any light in. I'm willing to hear from the dark side in order to TRY to shed light; you are not open to your opponents because, it seems, you are bankrupt in rebuttal. I understand; it IS hard to refute the Bible.

But you might consider why opposition makes you so red-faced mad! I suspect it is because of spiritual reality. If I'm right about the truth of the Bible as God's Word to mankind, with your refusal to believe Jesus was divine -and your refusal to believe the Word directs us to God's standards for right living, defining sin so we may repent, you are in trouble. In Romans 1, The Book says we are sinning if we APPROVE sin --as in homosexuality and abortion.

If you libs can't all swarm like wasps with scorn on one lonely pro-lifer like James Love here, free speech has no value to you except for yourselves. Free speech cannot be allowed if the arguments from the Right are better than yours --which they are. You say you just want to prevent any insulting speech against homosexuals --but you delete my remarks that are not even about them. And what I say about them, SHOULD be considered. If there is any way to prevent homosexual orientation in children and adolescents, and to help them be normal, we should do it.

I dare you to prove me wrong about your closed-mindedness or anything else about which we disagree--but you cannot even muster up a good rationale!!!! except for evolution; you can say, "but scientists say thus and so..." But you can't do that with homosexuality --except that the political APA has said it is not a mental illness. Maybe not, but sexual choices are still moral choices to make in one's life -- The APA ALSO can't honestly say homosexual orientation is bio-caused and inevitable --nor that homosexual acts and lifestyle are typically moral,normal or healthy with any authority or evidence.

I do encourage folks to your blog so they may see where the radical element is going in vitriol toward believers--which is the most dangerous thing about your viewpoint--the vitriol and the suppression of dissent from your view.

Liberal Democrat can be read at WWW.politicsinmudville.blogspot.com.