The gods must be crazy if they call this intelligence [Review of "Unintelligent Design: Why God isn't as smart as she thinks she is," by Robyn Williams, Allen & Unwin: Sydney, 2006], Sydney Morning Herald, August 5, 2006 ... Deborah Smith ... Continued from part #2.
[Graphic: Robyn Williams, The Science Show, Australian Broadcasting Corporation]
Until recently Williams had thought it unwise to give any more publicity to intelligent design This is another example of the Darwinists employing "the dishonorable methods of power politics" to make it as difficult as possible "for critics to get a fair hearing":
"In the final analysis, it is not any specific scientific evidence that convinces me that Darwinism is a pseudoscience that will collapse once it becomes possible for critics to get a fair hearing. It is the way the Darwinists argue their case that makes it apparent that they are afraid to encounter the best arguments against their theory. A real science does not employ propaganda and legal barriers to prevent relevant questions from being asked, nor does it rely on enforcing rules of reasoning that allow no alternative to the official story. If the Darwinists had a good case to make, they would welcome the critics to an academic forum for open debate, and they would want to confront the best critical arguments rather than to caricature them as straw men. Instead they have chosen to rely on the dishonorable methods of power politics." (Johnson, P.E., "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism," Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 2000, p.141)
As Phillip E. Johnson pointed out above, "If the Darwinists had a good case to make, they would welcome the critics to an academic forum for open debate, and they would want to confront the best critical arguments rather than to caricature them as straw men" (my emphasis).
But it won't work in the long run. The public are used to assuming that evasiveness from politicians, bureaucrats and corporate executives means that they must have something to hide, and no doubt they will increasingly draw the same conclusions from the Darwinists' evasive behaviour.
- the notion that life is too complex to have evolved without some assistance from an intelligent designer, whom many adherents believe to be God. This is one of the better definitions of ID that I have seen in the media, by Deborah Smith, science editor at The Sydney Morning Herald.
ID does not claim, and indeed cannot prove, from the evidence of nature alone, that the "intelligent designer" was "God", i.e. the Christian God of the Bible. But those IDists who are Christians (like me) assume that the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God. Interestingly, atheists like Williams do also assume the designer is the Christian God, which explains their extreme hostility to ID.
But in doing so they inadvertently prove the Bible to be true in its claim in Romans 1:18-20 of all "men" that "what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 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" (my emphasis). That is, it is intuitively obvious to all humans from the evidence of design in nature that there is a Creator:
"Because in our universal experience unintelligent material processes do not create life, Christian theists know that Romans 1:20 is also true: `Ever since the creation of the world [God's] eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made.' In other words, there is absolutely no mystery about why living organisms appear to be the products of intelligent creation, and why scientific naturalists have to work so hard to keep themselves from perceiving the obvious. The reason living things give that appearance is that they actually are what they appear to be, and this fact is evident to all who do not cloud their minds with naturalistic philosophy or some comparable drug. The rest of that passage (Romans 1:20-23) is also true: So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. What these words plainly mean is that those who turn away from God and toward naturalistic philosophy give up their minds in the process and end up endorsing sophisticated nonsense and nature worship." (Johnson, P.E., "Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 1995, p.108)
But its well-resourced backing in the US, from the President, George Bush, down, All that President Bush said, in answer to a question from a journalist of what his personal views were on "...what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design" and "do you think both should be taught in public schools?":
"Q I wanted to ask you about the -- what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design. What are your personal views on that, and do you think both should be taught in public schools? THE PRESIDENT: I think -- as I said, harking back to my days as my governor -- both you and Herman are doing a fine job of dragging me back to the past. (Laughter.) Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught. Q Both sides should be properly taught? THE PRESIDENT: Yes, people -- so people can understand what the debate is about. Q So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution? THE PRESIDENT: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I'm not suggesting -- you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.'" (Bush, G.W., President, "Transcript of Roundtable Interview, August 1, 2005," Washington Post, August 2, 2005)
was, as can be seen in the actual transcript above: 1) His position was unchanged from his "days as ... governor" of Texas (1995 to 2000); 2) "that decision should be made" by "local school districts"; 3) He personally "felt ... both sides ought to be properly taught"; 4) "so people can understand what the debate is about"; 5) "that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought ... to different ideas." (See also BBC; Boston Globe; MSNBC; New York Times; San Francisco Chronicle and Washington Post).
and its spread here - it is taught in science classes in about 100 schools, he estimates - has finally forced him into print.Indeed, it is estimated that "More than 100 schools already teach intelligent design as science, alongside the curriculum requirement to study evolution." That is because, although "The Australian constitution is almost exactly the same words as the US constitution" in Section 116" which "expressly prohibits the Commonwealth from establishing a religion ... Australian judges interpret it very differently" (i.e. fairly literally), so there is "no constitutional impediment to teaching intelligent design in religious classrooms" or even in "school science" classes:
"THERE is no constitutional impediment to teaching intelligent design in religious classrooms or school science laboratories, some Australian legal experts say. Educational curriculum content is the domain of the state, says John Williams, a reader in law at the Australian National University. However, there was nothing to stop the Commonwealth from linking school grants with curriculum standards that could consider alternatives to evolution, provided it did not mandate a state religion. "It would be a leap of faith to think the Australian constitution would stand in the way of a curriculum that included such things as intelligent design," Dr Williams said. "The wall between state and church in Australia is more of a bush or a low hedge. "The Commonwealth can fund religious schools, and does, and, by inference, allows religious teachings in all schools, private or public." The Minister for Education, Carmel Tebbutt, has ruled out the teaching of intelligent design in NSW public schools because it is not scientific or evidence-based. More than 100 schools already teach intelligent design as science, alongside the curriculum requirement to study evolution. These schools include Christian community, Seventh Day Adventist, and a small number of Anglican schools. The Greens say that the Commonwealth funded about 80 Christian community schools in NSW to the tune of $140 million during a one-year period. Section 116 of the constitution expressly prohibits the Commonwealth from establishing a religion, requiring or prohibiting religious practice, or imposing any religious test for public office. Carolyn Evans, deputy director of the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies at the University of Melbourne, said the US case had no legal implications here. "The High Court in Australia has been extremely reluctant to follow the lead of the United States Supreme Court in cases of religious freedom," Dr Evans said. "In the United States and Australia the constitutions prohibit the establishment of a religion. The Australian constitution is almost exactly the same words as the US constitution but Australian judges interpret it very differently. In the United States the funding of religious schools is considered establishment of a religion, in Australia it is not." (Morris, L., "No barriers to local intelligent design lessons," The Sydney Morning Herald, December 22, 2005)
But as for ID being "well-resourced," it is a mere pauper compared with the billions of dollars of government funding that Darwinists get. Let alone their private funding, e.g. by Microsoft atheist billionaires Paul Allen (who paid for the PBS "Evolution"series and largely funds the SETI Institute) and Charles Simonyi (who paid for Dawkins' Oxford University Chair of the Public Understanding of Science.
Continued in part #4.
Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
Genesis 1:28. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
Posts
