Friday, September 4, 2009

Intelligent design to take over all studies

While this, "Intelligent design to take over all studies" is tongue in cheek, there is a certain amount of validity to the concept. We have seen the many and varied attacks on the Theory of Evolution. But remember the attacks have branched out many times to other scientific disciplines. The study of Geology has supported Evolution in many ways, and when anti-evolutionists question it, they are in fact attacking Geology. How about how many times has radiological dating, a branch of Physics, been attack for its support of both Evolution and Geology. Astronomy and Cosmology are frequently under attack by people like Guillermo Gonzales and the 'Privileged Planet' crowd. Abiogenesis is frequently used to attack Evolution, even though it is a separate area of study under Chemistry, not Biology.

So read and enjoy, but keep in the back of your mind that we are supporting a quality science education and to allow folks at the Discovery Institute, AIG, ICR, ARN, and the Thomas More Law Center, to name a few, to succeed in replacing science with pseudo-science, how long will it be before other educational disciplines get replaced by pseudo-disciplines? It's a serious matter, but even the most serious deserve the occasional light treatment, and this article is one of them. I loved it!


  1. You say that Intelligent Design theory and belief in God is an attack on science but that is completely unjustifiable. Science progressed just as it does now prior to Darwins publication. For example, Newton made some valuable contribution despite the fact that he didn't believe in Evolution... If evolution were rejected, as it should be, science would progress just as efficiently. To say that religion and belief in God is anti-science is to make the premise that God doesn't exist. Then, to use science as proof in concluding that God doesn't exist is simply a logical fallacy. Your premise states your conclusion. Science can be performed with the premise that God does exist. In fact, considering that God is a God of order, it makes sense to believe that the universe can be made sense of in an orderly fashion. Science is not under attack, the premise that God doesn't exist is what is under attack.

  2. I have not said that belief in God is an attack on science. I have said, repeatedly, that many people of science are also believers in God. I have no issue with anyone who wishes to believe in God.

    What I have issue with are people who resort to underhanded tactics, lies, and misrepresentations to push their religious agenda.

    When someone says that the Earth is only 6000 years old . .I don't care. But when they insist that their religious view of 6000 years should be taught in science class because it's as valid as the overwhelmingly supported evidence of the science that places the age of the Earth at 4.5 billion years. I have issue with it. If one religious view is represented, why not ALL of them?

    When someone claims that Evolution is an assumption and uses junk science to try and explain away real science, I have an issue.

    When a group like the Discovery Institute LIES to a state school board about ID, I have an issue.

    When someone like ken ham cherry picks what he likes from the Bible and ignores some of the worse times in human history described there, I have an issue.

    I have never said God doesn't exist, so please stop putting words in my blog. I have said that belief in God is a belief -- it is not addressed, nor should it be addressed, by science.