Intelligent Design

ID goes global: But why should that be a surprise?

Spread the love

The intelligent design controversy has certainly spilled out of its original home among non-materialist Americans.

Here are some useful leads: For Britain, “Infighting among the Darwinists”, Media and Darwinists still ID’s best friends, and the manipulations around what UK PM Tony Blair supposedly said (scroll down). Then there is Quebec (Canada), the Muslim world, and the Catholic Church’s distancing itself from Darwinism. National Center for Science Education also notes the following, no doubt with some overlap with the above.

A recent article in Time made clear that American pundits actually believed that “I.D. lost some of its journalistic heat last December when a federal judge dismissed it as pseudoscience …” (a legal decision in Pennsylvania in 2005).

Just how they could possibly have believed that remains a mystery to me. But I must stop and remind myself that these people probably also believe in, for example, “evolutionary psychology.”  (Whatever rot the sturdy Pleistocene cave man shouted into the stalactites of his cave somehow got lodged in his genes, which explains the beer belly, and music, and also world religions, and oh yes, why the United States does not go to war against Canada, and just about anything else anyone wants to make up as well.)

Now, as to why ID is busting out everywhere, keep in mind that the Darwinists, in attacking ID (and the top down universe generally), ask us to believe not only harmless cave tales of evolutionary psychology but also things that are clearly at odds with reality.

For example, Darwinists claim to worry about science in the United States because so many Americans disbelieve Darwinism - when the United States has led in science for many decades. Darwinists don’t notice those discrepancies but, as it happens, others do.

Or they tell us that a famous Darwinist was a Christian when he clearly was not, or that the Catholic Church “supports evolution” when it specifically fails to support the only type that is meaningful to the Darwinist.

Oh, and I could go on, but every day brings new instances of this sort of thing and you will definitely have more fun with the ones you discover for yourself.

Darwinists also ask us to believe things that are incomprehensible. For example, they insist that intelligent design is unfalsifiable – and already falsified. And if you don’t believe that, Darwinists may try to wreck your career.

Now, I want to be quite clear about this: The mere fact that a teaching is incomprehensible does not mean that it must be rejected.

I have heard a respected physicist explain that the universe may well have eleven dimensions. He is exponentially smarter than me but I doubt that even he comprehends eleven dimensions. The Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity is likewise incomprehensible.

It would be interesting to compile a list of incomprehensible ideas. One might start with certain propositions in quantum mechanics- for example, that electrons are non-local.

People accept incomprehensible ideas when (1) no comprehensible alternative sounds correct and (2) no alternative incomprehensible idea sounds more correct.

But in the case of Darwinism, there is a key difference: There is no purely intellectual penalty for doubting it. Hundreds of scientists have gone on record as doubting it.

There is the, ah, difficulty that Darwinists will, as noted earlier, attempt to wreck your career, enforce their beliefs in your local school system by court orders, compel you to pay for the indoctrination of your children in their beliefs through your taxes, and possibly organize a campaign against you in supine local media.

If you are not a person who enjoys living on your knees, you will probably want to solve the problem by some means other than capitulation.

Perhaps you might begin by tactfully giving the Darwinist to understand that you hold him and his belief system in deficient esteem. More and more people are choosing this route, and that is one reason why there is an intelligent design controversy.

This is not a cave tale. This is happening today. Stay tuned.

27 Replies to “ID goes global: But why should that be a surprise?

  1. 1
    Mats says:

    Yeah, Denyse, it is in deed strange (or suspect) that militant Darwinists are “concerned” with science education in a nation that has been leading the scientific world for decades.

  2. 2
    jwrennie says:

    It is a bit ironic that Europe, the place with the most advanced movements towards secularism and socialism, the things the militant darwinists seem so in favour of, is the place in the world that is in the worst trouble on so many fronts.

  3. 3
    mike1962 says:

    O’Leary: “For example, Darwinists claim to worry about science in the United States because so many Americans disbelieve Darwinism.”

    It’s funny that they are worrying about “science.” As far as I can tell, nobody is complaining about General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, thermodynamic theories, information science, and any and all empirical and applied science, etc. (The one exception is stem cell research, which is a contraversy of application, not theory.)

    It’s not “science” that many Americans reject, it’s Darwinian pseudo-science. It’s atheistic materialism pretending to be science. And we’re not all Bible thumping fundamentalists either. The Darwinists simply haven’t made a good case. “But it’s the best theory we’ve got” whine rings hollow to a guy like me who isn’t committed to materialism.

    Long live real science.

  4. 4
    mike1962 says:

    O’Leary: “…which explains the beer belly.”

    I’ve been looking for a convenient excuse to blame for my beer belly. I would say that is the most positive thing Darwinism has going for it. 🙂

    But I’m still not convinced.

    Drat.

  5. 5
    mike1962 says:

    O’leary: “The mere fact that a teaching is incomprehensible does not mean that it must be rejected.”

    True. But when the comprehensible parts have not been demonstrated to be true, either by making precisions, or having some applicable benefit, there’s no reason to accept it.

    “I have heard a respected physicist explain that the universe may well have eleven dimensions. He is exponentially smarter than me but I doubt that even he comprehends eleven dimensions.”

    That would depend on what you mean by “understand.” If you mean “visualize” then I would agree. But physicists deal with mathematical models and equations. There is nothing particularly incomprehensible about the equations themselves.

    “The Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity is likewise comprehensible. It would be interesting to compile a list of incomprehensible ideas. One might start with certain propositions in quantum mechanics- for example, that electrons are non-local.”

    The trinitarian formula basically asserts that three “persons” are totally and completely one “being” without each of the persons being the other persons, and without making the persons “parts” of the one being. I think it’s nonsense. (No offense to any trinitarian.) But one big difference that such a view has with something such as Quantum Mechanics is that the trinitarian view is untestable. Quantum Mechanics, as far as it goes, makes extremely precise predictions. We may not know why the predictions work, but we know they do with a high degree of precision.

    I don’t think anything in nature could ever demonstrate the reality of a trinity, but it can demonstrate the reality of subatomic effects, and perhaps the reality of a designer of life for this planet.

  6. 6
    Rude says:

    Mike1962: “The trinitarian formula . . . I think it’s nonsense. (No offense to any trinitarian.)” I agree, but here the point is that today the Trinitarians are not enforcing this on the rest of us, and that we can respect. Christendom has pretty much learned tolerance—and wasn’t this in their Scriptures all along?—if only the same were enshrined in the legal briefs of the militant materialists.

  7. 7
    jwrennie says:

    “The trinitarian formula basically asserts that three “persons” are totally and completely one “being” without each of the persons being the other persons, and without making the persons “parts” of the one being. I think it’s nonsense. (No offense to any trinitarian.)”

    Mike my guess is you simply don’t understand it properly. I find the doctrine of the trinity to be a sublime mystery, but also one of those strange things in Christianity that although perfectly logically consistent and rational, something that seems strange to have been dreamt up if not true.

  8. 8
    mike1962 says:

    jwrennie,

    I’m quite sure I understand the trinity as well as any human can, having studied theology for years. I’m sure our views of its origin are quite different, but this is not the place to discuss that.

  9. 9
    lucID says:

    [[Moving back on topic]]

    i.e ID going global

    I live in South Africa and last night a BBC show called ‘War on Science’ was aired (has anyone else seen it??) I think it’s part of a miniseries and this episode dealt with ID.

    Dr. D, Mike Behe and Stephen Meyer were present giving a spirited defense of what ID truly is – (way to go Dr D, you were great!)

    Of course the usual suspect also appeared Richard ‘strawman’ Dawkins , the deceptively smooth perjurer Kenneth ‘lair-lair pants on fire’ Miller, Barbra ‘conspiracy’ Forrest, some upset Darwinian Dover ‘pitchfork mob by torchlight’ school parents and a first for me, David ‘ID explains nothing’ Attenborough.

    The program started out fairly balanced but toward the end only started viewing the latter ‘Defenders of science’ scare-mongering views on how ID would speed up global warming, enact another Jewish holocaust, and of course stop science in it’s tracks and send us back in time to the dark ages after it’s forced a coup d’etat US theocracy.

    But I got to see ID on South African television care of BBC for the first time, and loudly exclaim to my wife “Dembski’s on TV!!! ‘”
    …Dr D you’re my hero 😉

  10. 10
    Emkay says:

    “The Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity is likewise incomprehensible.”

    A good many Bible scholars say it is not. The Holy Trinity is readily comprehensible and evident in everything in creation. God has left his “trinity” logo on the universe, as well as in every child, woman and man. Genesis 1:26-27 says God made man and woman “in his own image.”

    IOW, every human being reflects God’s three-is-one/three-in-one/three-as-one trinity “image.” We are Spirit, have a Soul, live in a Body, and function through Thought, Emotion, Action.

    God is moral (his holiness), ethical (his intrinsic integrity and faithfulness), and he is rational (he established the laws that govern the universe). Humankind reflects the moral, ethical and rational image of God in our in-born sense of right and wrong, our desire for justice, and our quest to discover and know our surroundings – local and universal. Human legal, moral and ethical concerns thus have their root in God’s invisible qualities as nature’s lawmaker and upholder.

    “All that distinguishes the personal life of a human being from the life of an animal is part of the natural image of God,” says W.T. Purkiser (Ed.) in ‘Exploring Our Christian Faith,’ (pp. 191; Beacon Hill, 1978). “Intellect, conscience, the capacity for moral self-direction, the intimation of immortality, the rational powers of abstract intelligence are all part of the likeness of God, the finite reflection of what in the Creator is infinite truth, beauty, and goodness.”

    The New Testament book to the Romans (Chapter 1 verse 20) makes the often-quoted declaration: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse,” should they claim there is no God.

    Bible teachers such as Dr. D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries/Truths That Transform, have used this text to point to “God’s invisible qualities” being evident at the universal level.

    The universe is observable as a trinity of Time, Space, Matter. And “Time” – streaming as it does as a trinity of Future, Present, Past – easily fits as a composite representation of “God.”

    Future represents invisible God-the-Father before Whom we will all one day stand, and from Whom comes the Present (the gift Who leads to eternal life, the visible God-the-Son, Immanuel, “God with us,” Jesus Christ). Past represents the invisible God-the-Holy Spirit Who came to earth only after the Son returned to the Father, and now lives in born-again believers as a reminder of the Eternal Truth (Christ) Who was and is, and is to come.

    Space exists as a trinity of Length, Width, Depth.

    Matter is a “trinity” of Energy in Motion producing Phenomena, atomically structured as a trinity of Protons, Neutrons, Electrons.

    Our Solar System is structured in totality as a composite trinity of Sun, Planets, Moons.

    Human relationships are no random accident either, made necessary, as Darwinian psychologists would have us believe, by evolutionary pressures. From a biblical perspective, a God who is relational, as evidenced by the three-fold nature of the Godhead, created humankind purposely for relationship, first with Himself, and secondly with one another. His “trinity” design is evident in our relationships:

    Family is a trinity of Husband, Wife, Children. And Society, Tribe, or Nation is a composite trinity of Families governed by Moral Laws (Religion) and obligated to meet civic responsibilities (enforced by Government).

    While secular or Darwinian psychology may posit any number of speculations as a reason for every person’s search for affirmation and contentment, the general biblical view is that the Creator has placed “a God-shaped void” at the center of every person’s soul that He and only He can fill. Without God filling that void, we remain forever empty, seeking unattainable fulfillment through power, money and sex. More “stuff” and “fun” are not the answer. A relational connection to the Godhead is.

  11. 11
    Emkay says:

    Correction. That should read:

    “The Holy Trinity is readily comprehensible and evident BY everything in creation.”

  12. 12
    WinglesS says:

    Wow that’s quite enlightning Emkay… I didn’t understand the trinity myself… although I heard that it was the origin of “3 in 1” instant coffee concept. (not sure if that’s true, so pardon me if I’m wrong)

  13. 13
    mentok says:

    Puh-leeze! Darwinists are “worried about science”? Does anyone really believe that? How stupid do people who claim that ID is an “attack on science” think everyone is? Who doesn’t see that type of orwellian sophistry for what it is? You would think that they are worried that ID is out to stop people from learning. The actual truth is they want to stop people from learning ID because they are worried about people believing in religion. Their claim that ID is an attack on science, or that they are worried about the future of science, is just orwellian newspeak or doublespeak. They are so arrogant that they think that their child like ruse is going to fool everyone. They like to accuse people who believe in ID or question evolution or believe in god to be delusional. In reality the certifiably delusional are those displaying delusional confidence in their “superior intellect” and ability to fool everyone that “science is under attack” or that they are “worried about science”. Richard Dawkins is upfront about the cause of his attack on ID. It is clear that it is his fear and loathing of religion which inspires his antipathy to ID. That is in fact the casus belli, the true inspiration for all evangelical evolutionists in their rabid attack on ID. Their lackeys amongst the religious communities are simply fearful of being anathemized as medieval troglodytes by the secular establishment. The anti-ID crowd thinks that everybody is so stupid that they can be easily conned by orwellian sophistry. That is why they oftentimes distance themselves from Dawkins. He gives away the game.

  14. 14
    Borne says:

    “I don’t think anything in nature could ever demonstrate the reality of a trinity”

    Oh come on now Mike, you don’t really believe that do you? You believe in the supposedly “anti-intuitive”, paradoxical quantum stuff but have trouble believing in a trinity?

    Well, just look at any composite thing like say water? H2O what is it? A trinity of course yet still one thing, but yet 3 things, yet…

    Or how’s about time? Or space? Or….

    Whatever, this isn’t a debate on the trinity so may Father, Son and Holy Spirit bless! 😉

    Suggest you read John W. Fletcher’s treatise on the subject. It’s well structured.

  15. 15
    mentok says:

    Vaishnava hindus (2/3 of all hindus) also have a trinity belief which is cognate with the christian trinity. Brahman which is cognate with God the Father, Paramatma which is cognate with the Holy Spirit, and Bhagavan which is cognate with God the son. My understanding of the trinity (in catholicism) is that they are all one and the same substance expressed in 3 functions or ways i.e the son is one with the father and the holy spirit, the father is one with the son and holy spirit, and the holy spirit is one with the father and the son. That concept is identical to the vaishnava hindu concept of Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan.

    Those who have knowledge of the truth call that non dual truth Brahman, Paramatma or Bhagavan.

    (Bhagavat Purana 1.2.11)

    Is it incomprehensible? It depends on your definition of comprehension and on your experience and understanding of reality. I don’t believe it is completely 100% comprehensible because of our limited ability to comprehend that which is beyond our conceptual framework. Since god exists in more dimensions then we can comprehend it is impossilbe for to fully understand the nature of god. But I believe we can comprehend the basic and essential nature of god and the trinity from a scientific viewpoint.

    The understanding of a god who is an all pervading unified field of energy/consciousness throughout the universe (god the holy spirit), while also being the source of this material universe and all beings in it from a substratum dimension of our universe (god the father), while also having the ability to incarnate in any life form it desires, such as a human in order to interact with the souls it created (god the son)

  16. 16
    StephenA says:

    Shows like that are a good thing. Now even more people are aware of the ‘controvesy that doesn’t exist’. If it didn’t exist, why are they fighting so hard?

    “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”
    Genesis 2:23-25

    If god describes marrige as two becoming one, then why should we balk at the idea of a God that is three that are one?

  17. 17
    mike1962 says:

    Mike: “I don’t think anything in nature could ever demonstrate the reality of a trinity”

    Borne: “Oh come on now Mike, you don’t really believe that do you? You believe in the supposedly “anti-intuitive”, paradoxical quantum stuff but have trouble believing in a trinity?”

    What I mean to say is that, the trinitarian formula (a la Athanasius) is a statement that cannot be verified by anything in nature. It predicts nothing and has no practical application.

    QM is a set of equations that describe and make predictions about subatomic events that are empirically verifiable. While it is impossible to visualize the subatomic world, QM predicts outcomes with extreme accuracy. I don’t have to believe in any particular interpretation of QM to accept (because of the empirical evidence) what the equations actually do. In short, QM has predictive and practical value.

    Surely you don’t put theories about the Godhead in that sort of category do you?

  18. 18
    mike1962 says:

    Borne: “Well, just look at any composite thing like say water? H2O what is it? A trinity of course yet still one thing, but yet 3 things, yet…”

    That is an invalid analogy of the trinity. That analogy is fitting for the modalist (Sabellian) view, however.

    Borne: “Suggest you read John W. Fletcher’s treatise on the subject. It’s well structured.”

    No matter how it is “explained”, it boils down to an anti-Aristotelian statement, that in effect means nothing, IMO. But whatever.

    Why are the moderators allowing this little subtopic? Because Denyse mentioned the trinity in her post, maybe? 🙂

  19. 19
    mike1962 says:

    StephenA: “If god describes marrige as two becoming one, then why should we balk at the idea of a God that is three that are one?”

    Trinitarians would reject that analogy since the persons of the Godhead are not a compound unity in the sense that a married man and woman are. The persons of the Godhead are not “parts” of God.

  20. 20
    Atom says:

    Mike1962,

    If I remember correctly (forgive my rusty Hebrew) the word used for one in the Sh’ma (“Hear O Israel, the L-rd your G-d, the L-rd is one”) is the Hebrew word meaning “compound unity” rather than numerical 1. (If memory serves, it is the word echad) Any Hebrew exegetes in here that can validate that?

  21. 21
    Emkay says:

    WinglesS: “… I didn’t understand the trinity myself… although I heard that it was the origin of “3 in 1″ instant coffee concept. (not sure if that’s true, so pardon me if I’m wrong)”

    No sweat. Don’t know about the coffee, either. And can’t take credit for the information shared. Learnt some of it from others who pondered these mysteries long before I showed up.

  22. 22
    mike1962 says:

    Atom: “if I remember correctly (forgive my rusty Hebrew) the word used for one in the Sh’ma (”Hear O Israel, the L-rd your G-d, the L-rd is one”) is the Hebrew word meaning “compound unity” rather than numerical 1. (If memory serves, it is the word echad) Any Hebrew exegetes in here that can validate that?”

    “Echad” can be used with reference to both compound unities and singularities. It is completely equivalent to the English “one”. “Yachid”, on the other hand, was not used for compound unities. Some point to that as leaving the door open for a multipersonal Yahweh. And they are correct.

  23. 23
    mike1962 says:

    Atom,

    I failed to say that “echad” is the one used in the Shema.

  24. 24
    Atom says:

    Ok, thanks. My point with the use of Echad was that is the same word used for “one” in Genesis 2:24, where a man leaves his father and mother to become “one” with his wife.

    Contrary to your assertion that:

    Trinitarians would reject that analogy since the persons of the Godhead are not a compound unity in the sense that a married man and woman are.

    It would appear that Torah teaches G-d is a compound unity in that exact same sense, since the same phrase is used in both cases. So I think Trinitarians could (and do) embrace such an analogy.

  25. 25
    Atom says:

    PS Thank you for the info on ‘Yachid’ too. I appreciate learning bits and pieces where I can.

  26. 26
    mike1962 says:

    Atom,

    Wait a minute. I personally agree with *you*. I’m talking about what the Trintiarian doctrine asserts. I suppose it’s possible that trinitarians might agree that the “echad” refers to the plurality of persons regardless of the substance.

  27. 27
    Atom says:

    Oh ok, sorry if I misunderstood you then.

Leave a Reply