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