Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Design by
Danny Carlton





Made with NoteTab

December 21, 2005

ID proponents blast judge

From WorldNetDaily...

The think tank regarded as the leading proponent of "intelligent design" theory reacted strongly to U.S. District Judge John E. Jones' ruling yesterday against the Dover, Pa., school board, calling him "an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur."

"The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work," said John West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute in Seattle.

Jones ruled against an October 2004 school board policy that required students of a ninth-grade biology class in the Dover Area School District to hear a one-minute statement that says evolution is a theory, and intelligent design "is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view."...

West asserted Jones "conflated Discovery Institute's position with that of the Dover School Board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it."

The judge reached "well beyond the immediate legal questions before him," West contended, offering "wide-ranging and sometimes angry comments denouncing intelligent design and praising Darwinian evolution."

"Judge Jones found that the Dover board violated the Establishment Clause because it acted from religious motives. That should have been the end to the case," said West. "Instead, Judge Jones got on his soapbox to offer his own views of science, religion, and evolution. He makes it clear that he wants his place in history as the judge who issued a definitive decision about intelligent design. This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur."

The zealots of the religion of Evolution can be vicious when their religion is attacked, even to the point of perverting the law.

Posted by Danny Carlton at December 21, 2005 05:44 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.jacklewis.net/cgi-bin/mt/jl-tb.cgi/2324

Comments

"The zealots of the religion of Evolution can be vicious when their religion is attacked, even to the point of perverting the law."

Whoa. You are being disengenious, and you should stop it.

Religions require a god and faith based belief system, Science has neither, it is just concerened with teh facts, wherever they may lead.

YOu are trying to 'spin' teh religion angle because of the seperation clause. That's shamefull.

Could I say - you are using teh religion of the internet to preach to people? I could..but I'd be as wrong as you are now - and you know it.

Here are some facts:

Evolution does not preclude the possibility of a diety
Evolution could be teh [very clever] tool of a diety
If a diety wanted a self regulating and adaptive ecosystem to endure through time without contiuned acys of supernatural instant creation - evolution would be a good choice.

Plenty of christians subscribe to evolution.

Oh, and watch less Fox...

Posted by: Rich at December 21, 2005 10:02 AM

"The zealots of the religion of Evolution can be vicious when their religion is attacked, even to the point of perverting the law."

Whoa. You are being disengenious [sic], and you should stop it.

Religions require a god and faith based belief system, Science has neither, it is just concerened [sic] with teh [sic] facts, wherever they may lead.

It seems you have your own personal definition of "religion" that conveniently allows you to rationalize that yours is something else. A religion is the view of origins and meaning that a person builds their personal world view upon. It doesn't require a god. But the religion of Evolution does require faith since it's such a flawed concept and lacks any logical coherence with reality.

YOu [sic] are trying to 'spin' teh [sic] religion angle because of the seperation [sic] clause. That's shamefull. [sic]

No, I'm simply stating a fact. Evolution is a religion.

Could I say - you are using teh [sic] religion of the internet to preach to people? I could..but [sic] I'd be as wrong as you are now -and you know it.

The internet would hardly be a view of origins, therefore it wouldn't be a religion.

Here are some facts:

Evolution does not preclude the possibility of a diety [sic]

Of course it does. The religion of Evolution teaches that life happened by accident, therefore precluding any involvement of a deity.

Evolution could be teh [sic] [very clever] tool of a diety [sic]

A very weak rationalization. One could claim all sorts of idiotic beliefs are the clever tool of a deity, from flying saucers to Elvis sightings but it would still be nothing but silliness.

If a diety [sic] wanted a self regulating and adaptive ecosystem to endure through time without contiuned [sic] acys [sic] of supernatural instant creation - evolution would be a good choice.

Except that the zealots of the religion of Evolution preach that it happened by accident without any intelligent cause. You are proposing an alternate religion to the religion of Evolution—not describing the religion of Evolution itself.

Plenty of christians [sic] subscribe to evolution.

Yes, there are plenty of people lacking in intelligence as well as faith, who call themselves Christians while claiming to believe the universe happened by accident. It is a logical incompatibility to believe in a God who created a universe which came into existence by accidence. A logical inconsistency that only an Evolutionist could maintain.

Oh, and watch less Fox...

And you should drink less Kool-Aid.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at December 21, 2005 10:51 AM

Hi Danny - point by point.

>>>It seems you have your own personal definition of "religion" that conveniently allows you to rationalize that yours is something else. A religion is the view of origins and meaning that a person builds their personal world view upon. It doesn't require a god. But the religion of Evolution does require faith since it's such a flawed concept and lacks any logical coherence with reality.

“.A religion is the view of origins” – that is the worst most arbitrary definition I’ve ever heard. No moral code? No addressing the afterlife? No mandate to “spread the good word” - you say ‘It seems you have your own personal definition of "religion”’ – oh, the hypocrisy!

>>No, I'm simply stating a fact. Evolution is a religion.

You seem to have a trouble with the word “fact” it is your opinion based on your own arbitrary and somewhat unique definition that evolution is a religion. I’d love to hear:

Who the God(s) is
Where the places of worship are
The moral code
The view on the afterlife.
it.

>>The internet would hardly be a view of origins, therefore it wouldn't be a religion.

If you think religion is only a view of origins, I thin most of Christianity is misaligned with you.

Evolution does not preclude the possibility of a diety [sic]

>>Of course it does. The religion of Evolution teaches that life happened by accident, therefore precluding any involvement of a deity.

Oh dear. Life from non life is ABIOGENISIS. Different science all together. You might want to read some books or something. God could have created life, then let evolution do its thing.

Evolution could be the [sic] [very clever] tool of a diety [sic]

>>A very weak rationalization. One could claim all sorts of idiotic beliefs are the clever tool of a deity, from flying saucers to Elvis sightings but it would still be nothing but silliness.

Where as created in 6 days , only 6000 years old and flat are all perfectly rational? Double standard.

>>Except that the zealots of the religion of Evolution preach that it happened by accident without any intelligent cause. You are proposing an alternate religion to the religion of Evolution—not describing the religion of Evolution itself.

Again. ABIOGENISIS .Very narrow / arbitrary/ unique definition of religion. By your ‘logic’ Big bag is also a religion. Is it at odds with “evolution’ or are scientists ‘big bang evolutionists?’

Plenty of christians [sic] subscribe to evolution.

>>Yes, there are plenty of people lacking in intelligence as well as faith, who call themselves Christians while claiming to believe the universe happened by accident. It is a logical incompatibility to believe in a God who created a universe which came into existence by accidence. A logical inconsistency that only an Evolutionist could maintain.

Okay, Danny. “Created a universe which came into existence by accidence” that’s BIG BANG. Not evolution. You are either not thinking or woefully misinformed. Big Bang is another fact, BTW. That's not to sat God didn't do it..

Oh, and watch less Fox...

>>And you should drink less Kool-Aid.

I go where the facts take me, not Bill O’Rielly tells me.

Posted by: Rich at December 21, 2005 11:41 AM

Hi Danny - point by point.

>>>It seems you have your own personal definition of "religion" that conveniently allows you to rationalize that yours is something else. A religion is the view of origins and meaning that a person builds their personal world view upon. It doesn't require a god. But the religion of Evolution does require faith since it's such a flawed concept and lacks any logical coherence with reality.

“.A religion is the view of origins” – that is the worst most arbitrary definition I’ve ever heard. No moral code? No addressing the afterlife? No mandate to “spread the good word” - you say ‘It seems you have your own personal definition of "religion”’ – oh, the hypocrisy!

You presume attribute that are not required. Is morality absolute? If you believe it is not, then why require it for a religion? Is there an afterlife? Why would belief in one be required for a religion? Few religions recruit as fervently as the religion of Evolution does.

>>No, I'm simply stating a fact. Evolution is a religion.

You seem to have a trouble with the word “fact” it is your opinion based on your own arbitrary and somewhat unique definition that evolution is a religion. I’d love to hear:

Who the God(s) is
Where the places of worship are
The moral code
The view on the afterlife.
it.

As I said none are needed. You are doing the same as someone who claims a whale is not a mammal because it has no fur, arms or legs. You've invented requirements that have little to do with what a religion truly is.

>>The internet would hardly be a view of origins, therefore it wouldn't be a religion.

If you think religion is only a view of origins, I thin most of Christianity is misaligned with you.

No, most agree.

Evolution does not preclude the possibility of a diety [sic]

>>Of course it does. The religion of Evolution teaches that life happened by accident, therefore precluding any involvement of a deity.

Oh dear. Life from non life is ABIOGENISIS. Different science all together. You might want to read some books or something. God could have created life, then let evolution do its thing.

It's all the same religion.

Evolution could be the [sic] [very clever] tool of a diety [sic]

>>A very weak rationalization. One could claim all sorts of idiotic beliefs are the clever tool of a deity, from flying saucers to Elvis sightings but it would still be nothing but silliness.

Where as created in 6 days , only 6000 years old and flat are all perfectly rational? Double standard.

So who is posing that as scientific fact?

>>Except that the zealots of the religion of Evolution preach that it happened by accident without any intelligent cause. You are proposing an alternate religion to the religion of Evolution—not describing the religion of Evolution itself.

Again. ABIOGENISIS .Very narrow / arbitrary/ unique definition of religion. By your ‘logic’ Big bag is also a religion. Is it at odds with “evolution’ or are scientists ‘big bang evolutionists?’

You seem to understand Evolution very little.

Plenty of christians [sic] subscribe to evolution.

>>Yes, there are plenty of people lacking in intelligence as well as faith, who call themselves Christians while claiming to believe the universe happened by accident. It is a logical incompatibility to believe in a God who created a universe which came into existence by accidence. A logical inconsistency that only an Evolutionist could maintain.

Okay, Danny. “Created a universe which came into existence by accidence” that’s BIG BANG. Not evolution. You are either not thinking or woefully misinformed. Big Bang is another fact, BTW. That's not to sat God didn't do it..

It's still all part of the same argument and religion. If it happened by accident, it couldn't have been created.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at December 21, 2005 12:02 PM

>>You presume attribute that are not required. Is morality absolute? If you believe it is not, then why require it for a religion? Is there an afterlife? Why would belief in one be required for a religion? Few religions recruit as fervently as the religion of Evolution does.

You seem to use the word “religion” for “concept”, Danny. The scientific method promotes facts and observation. I’m sorry if they’re are compelling. There are no churches or gods or prayers…

>>As I said none are needed. You are doing the same as someone who claims a whale is not a mammal because it has no fur, arms or legs. You've invented requirements that have little to do with what a religion truly is.

So please list the requirements for religion, Danny. So far you’ve stated ‘origins’, which Evolution talks about part of (the development of the complexity of life) but hardly encompasses the whole shebang..

>>No, most agree.

The Catholic Church accepts evolution as fact…

Evolution does not preclude the possibility of a diety [sic]

>>Of course it does. The religion of Evolution teaches that life happened by accident, therefore precluding any involvement of a deity.
>>It's all the same religion.

Again, you arbitrarily define things to your own end. It needs another name if evolution is only a subset of it. Care to help me out?

Evolution could be the [sic] [very clever] tool of a diety [sic]

>>So who is posing that as scientific fact?

No, these have all been/ are Christian positions. So rationality and religion aren’t best bedmates.

>>Except that the zealots of the religion of Evolution preach that it happened by accident without any intelligent cause. You are proposing an alternate religion to the religion of Evolution—not describing the religion of Evolution itself.

Again. ABIOGENISIS .Very narrow / arbitrary/ unique definition of religion. By your ‘logic’ Big bag is also a religion. Is it at odds with “evolution’ or are scientists ‘big bang evolutionists?’

>>You seem to understand Evolution very little.

Please expand. I know what it is, the mechanisms it uses and what it in not (abiogenists / religion). Could you please offer more facts and examples and less opinions?

>>It's still all part of the same argument and religion. If it happened by accident, it couldn't have been created.

Let’s say evolution is a tool, God’s tool. If you use a hammer to knock a nail in, you did it, but you used the hammer, and the evidence shows hammer blows on the bail. Get it? If god created the universe, then evolution can be his tool. No?

Posted by: Rich at December 21, 2005 12:17 PM

The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work," said John West...

West is lying. The judge merely ruled that teaching ID in a public school science class is unconstitutional and hence prohibited. Everyone is still free to read about, talk about, and even do experiments in regards to ID. Of course, the last one is pretty funny considering ID proponents never do any science based on ID anyways.

It seems you have your own personal definition of "religion" that conveniently allows you to rationalize that yours is something else.

No Danny, he is using the same definition we find in the dictionaries.

1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

I know you like to pretend the quaternary definition is in actuality the primary definition, but it simply isn't. So please spare the lecture on perverting things.


Of course it does. The religion of Evolution teaches that life happened by accident, therefore precluding any involvement of a deity.

No, this is false (and...not very Christian). Evolution says nothing about abiogenesis. Evolutionary theory assumes the existence of life. Thus, your objection based on the grounds of origins of life is not valid. Not that I expect you to acknowledge this fact. However, I do want it out there so that your readers will see this and know that you have decided to define things in your own way to make them easier for you to refute.

Yes, there are plenty of people lacking in intelligence as well as faith, who call themselves Christians while claiming to believe the universe happened by accident.

I always find it amusing that those who desperately need to see the "fingerprint" of God accuse those who don't of lacking faith.

Posted by: Steve at December 21, 2005 02:13 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Security verification

Type the characters you see in the image above.