Evolution’s Feet of Clay
Once again, I would like to present another informative article from OverwhelmingEvidence.com, the world’s leading web-site dedicated to the important scientific FACT of intelligent design.
The religious doctrine of Evolution has held sway over much of science for almost 200 years, but could this flawed empire be on the verge of collapsing? I personally think so, and suggest that if we choose our targets well we may see the empire of evolution self-destruct within our own lifetimes.
Will ID destroy the junk-science of evolution? That’s like asking if David will slay Goliath. After a great deal of prayer and contemplation, Christian scientists have determined that ID is the TRUTH. God would not have revealed this science to us if he did not intend us to be victorious.
Have you noticed any time you debate the Evolution controversy with one of it?s fundamentalists, they quickly change the subject? They might try to divert you with some new finding that apparently confirms one of Darwin?s theories? Or perhaps it?s because they have been having nightmares that sooner or later, a brave young scientist may have already found the source of those nightmares which foretell of the end of the empire of Evolution.
Despite this and some very minor setbacks we are certainly winning. The ACLU and friends may like to boast about their stolen victory in Dover, but the simple fact is we are already winning in the only court that counts: The American People.
But is that enough? I personally do not think so. There will always be a fundamentalist group who have blinded themselves to the myriad of holes in the argument for Evolution. Intelligent Design may be the only alternative, but these fundamentalists cannot accept ID because their entire belief system makes them biased against it.
To achieve ultimate victory I believe we need to challenge the core beliefs of the neo-Darwinists. Once the foundations of their belief-system is shattered down will come the rest of their crumbling empire. Of course, I am talking about Materialism.
When we say “Feet of Clay” we mean that it looks great, but it has unstable foundations. Just like Evolution.
Materialist philosophy states that all that exists is ?matter?. They allow for nothing else. Any explanation that suggests the existence of an Intelligent Agent who designed all the life on earth must be dismissed out of hand because their framework cannot account for a creator which cannot be measured by the crude intellectual tools of reductionism and the contrivances of a science lab.
Materialism is a nihilistic argument: It simply asserts what cannot happen but without offering any proof of this assertion. For any observable phenomena a materialist will only posit an explanation that consists exclusively of interactions of mundane stuff.
Why is this so wrong? An intelligent designer might not be made of the same ?material? as you and me, and may not be detectable through conventional scientific techniques: A materialist would therefore assume that this designer does not exist without even stopping to think.
And that is the core of the problem. The reason for rejecting non-materialistic explanations of observed phenomena is just a lack of consideration. And since they have assumed the non-existence of anything other than the strictly material then can they truly say they have ruled out the existence of the Intelligent Designer? Of course not.
So when is it appropriate to consider a non-materialistic explanation for observable phenomena? The obvious answer is the case when the orthodox scientific explanation cannot provide a common-sense explanation: For example if the generally accepted theory contains a number of obvious gaps. If a purely materialistic theory fails the common-sense test, then perhaps it is smart to consider a non-materialistic alternative? Dare I even suggest a miraculous alternative? And why shouldn’t we - no science has disproved the existence of miracles.
Who is the intelligent designer? We cannot say, however nothing in ID theory contradicts the true story of the creation of the Earth in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 - therefore it is a better quality of science than orthodox theories..
I think it?s time to strike at this materialist assumption: There is growing evidence to show that materialism is the ?Feet of Clay? upon which the junk-science of Evolution has been built. All we have to do is highlight the hundreds of experiments that show that a big-picture, common-sense approach to science demands a rejection of materialism.
If we can show that materialism leads to closed-minded science, then we can also show that any theory is built on these feet of clay must also be unsound.
13 Comments so far
Leave a reply
shelley honey, think…
for thousands of years man has believed in gods.
no god ever showed a sign but everything was INTERPRETED as a sign.
and of all religions you choose to gospel ID from the point of view of a Christian. a rightwing fundementalist. be sensible please. you’re against abortion, even the extraction and scientific use of blastomeres but are pro-death in punishment?
honey, you’ll see, you will live and die without ever getting to see your god or his son.
and i think that’s all the empirical data that will ever convince you if you would be aware after that (which isn’t so)
Uhh…Evolution is not a religious belief, in biology evolution is the observed process of change in allele frequency over the course of generations, and the theory of evolution is the theory that uses this observed process to explain the wide range of biodiversity seen on Earth. The religious belief, ID, is not based on testable evidence. Even in the article assertions are made that the designer may not be detectable (therefore not testable and therefore outside the realm of science.) In science in order to formulate a theory that a being designed life one must search for evidence that such a being exists. If such evidence does not exist then we have only an untestable hypothesis. In the case of the theory of evolution we can test it multiple ways by testing the assertions made by the theory. One assertion is that multiple, if not all, species share a common ancestry. Genetic evidence, of varying types, can be used to test, and confirm this hypothesis. When examining the genome of species such genetic markers as ERVs and mtDNA can be easily taken into account and used to test common ancestory. If 2 species share no ERVs (endogenous retroviruses which are basically unique genetic scars caused by retroviral infection of that organism or of an ancestor of that organism) then they did not share a recent common ancestor. If 2 species have extremely different mtDNA then we know that they must not have shared a much more ancient common ancestor (or shared no common ancestor at all). Amazingly all eukaryotic life has mtDNA that is so similiar that it fits perfectly to what evolution would suggest as all those species sharing a common ancestor very very long ago. Upon examination of ERVs in the genomes of humans, chimps, and bonobos we see that many are shared. Since the only way for 2 organisms to have the same ERV marker in the same place is for them to share a common ancestory (since the genetic scar is unique from infected host to infected host. So using something called EVIDENCE and science and following through with the most simple explaination, not relying on faith based beings, we come to evolution being the best answer. If genetic evidence isn’t good enough for you to accept conclusions drawn on it in terms of evolution then I assume you are writing the president and your governor requesting they pardon all persons convicted based on genetic evidence…since by your opinion it is such a flawed science.
BLASPHEMY! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!
wakim your comments require too much intelligence for “shelley” and the other satirical writers here to appear to understand.
Once again, I would like to present another informative article from OverwhelmingEvidence.com, the world?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ¥s leading web-site dedicated to the important scientific FACT of intelligent design.
1. How do you know that it?Ǭ¨?Ǭ•s the world?Ǭ¨?Ǭ•s leading site. (Perhaps it?Ǭ¨?Ǭ•s the only one. :))
2. It?Ǭ¨?Ǭ•s still a theory.
The religious doctrine of Evolution has held sway over much of science for almost 200 years, but could this flawed empire be on the verge of collapsing? I personally think so, and suggest that if we choose our targets well we may see the empire of evolution self-destruct within our own lifetimes.
You confuse something here:
Evolution is science. ID is religion. End of debate.
Will ID destroy the junk-science of evolution? That?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ¥s like asking if David will slay Goliath. After a great deal of prayer and contemplatio, Christian scientists have determined that ID is the TRUTH. God would not have revealed this science to us if he did not intend us to be victorious.
Prying and contemplatio do NOT make you a scientist. Otherwise almost every single human on this planet would be a scientist.
Have you noticed any time you debate the Evolution controversy with one of it?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ¥s fundamentalists, they quickly change the subject? They might try to divert you with some new finding that apparently confirms one of Darwin?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ¥s theories? Or perhaps it?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ¥s because they have been having nightmares that sooner or later, a brave young scientist may have already found the source of those nightmares which foretell of the end of the empire of Evolution.
Well, I?Ǭ¨?Ǭ•m not quite a specialist, but still I won?Ǭ¨?Ǭ•t change the subject. Yes, evolution is not 100% proven, but there are waymore proofs for it than for ID. Which can basically be called a fair tale regarding the lack of evidence it brings on.
But is that enough? I personally do not think so. There will always be a fundamentalist group who have blinded themselves to the myriad of holes in the argument for Evolution. Intelligent Design may be the only alternative, but these fundamentalists cannot accept ID because their entire belief system makes them biased against it.
Well, there will be always some sane people left….
no science has disproved the existence of miracles.
Neither have they been proven….
I think it?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ¥s time to strike at this materialist assumption: There is growing evidence to show that materialism is the ?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ?Feet of Clay?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ? upon which the junk-science of Evolution has been built. All we have to do is highlight the hundreds of experiments that show that a big-picture, common-sense approach to science demands a rejection of materialism.
Funny. There are no such experiments.
Well, for the rest:
1. He takes the bible as a proof. Big no-no if you want to prove something scientifically. The bible is no proof whatsoever.
2. His overview over materialism has some blatant mistakes, especially in the examples.
@Wakim:
AMEN!
The German Guy
IMPEACH BUSH!
A quick note on materialism:
In astronomy, a lot of things are unknown, and the existence of black holes, dark matters and lot of other things are only theoric, with no solid proof or direct observation. Hence, it is not materialist. But even if astronomers aren’t materialists, they won’t believe that the sun revolves around the Earth, like said in the Bible.
Is it possible that I’m the only person on Earth that can find the middle ground on this issue?
Evolution is not religion (there are no evolution churches or preachers), nor is Intelligent Design science (facts don’t come from millenia-old books with no observable proof [I am not calling the bible necessarily false, I'm simply saying that faith is not science], and many proponents of Intelligent Design cite failings in evolution as proof of Intelligent Design, but it is not science to claim lack of proof for one thing to be proof for the opposite).
That is not to say, however, that the two are incompatible. Intelligent Design can explain the origins of life but it cannot explain observed biological facts such as genetic mutation and DNA replication. Evolution, in turn, can explain those biological things but cannot explain the origins of life as we know it.
Can the two be combined without conflict? I think so:
I believe that life on Earth was created by some extraterrestrial and/or supernatural force (it could just as easily be God as it could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Vulcans) several billion years ago (yes, archaeological evidence proves that the world is not just a few thousand thousand years old, and no, fossils were not created, to test your faith, by God or Satan), but that evolution has since changed that original life into the myriad forms we see today.
You may want to read End Time Prophecy publications from
http://www.twelvetribes.com
they analyze King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the civilization statue in book of Daniel.
These folks started out as 60’s hippies in California, went to Chattanooga (got in trouble there) fled to VT. Other branches are throughout the world. For a few years, 00 through 02, they set up shop on National Mall in DC to counter Smithsonian’s Folk Life festivals during 4th of July celebrations.
Of course evolutions real shelly u nazi.
If not, where did the dinosaurs come from? and dun give me bullshit that the skelotens are fake, cuz i tested em, and they’re real, how did i test em? easy, i chewed on a bone for a while. lol…
there is no way in hell did us humans evolve from primates. it says in the bible that god created man in his own image that’s what i believe. we did not evolve from monkeys.