Saturday, January 26, 2008

the deception and lies of ID

Although I wrote in a previous post: "The whole problem with intelligent design as 'science' is that the concept has a predefined result - that the origins of the natural world must literally match the Genesis Creation account," the slippery snakes of the ID movement do not tell you their intention outright. The original (young earth) creationists did/do not hide this intention, but ID creationists do. Instead, ID proponents say they are looking for "signs of a designer" which may be an alien culture, a purple playdough man, or God (OK I added the purple playdough man idea myself). Why don't we add the Flying Spaghetti Monster to the list, too?

So my point is that they've deviously veiled their intent by claiming they are looking for signs of intelligence using probability theory and signs of "irreducible complexity" which fools their followers but not most scientists. And fortunately, not Judge Jones in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case who ruled ID is religious-based "creationism in disguise" and not science. Hence, teaching it in schools AS SCIENCE violates the constitutional separation of church and state. Make no bones about it, the proponents of ID want to break down that wall between church and state. The Kitzmiller vs. Dover court case was a resounding victory for science, but ID proponents certainly won't stop there.

As a Christian myself, I always wonder why the IDers don't think for a moment that maybe God *isn't* on their side when he keeps giving victory after victory to the supposedly "other side"? Although God's ways are mysterious and no one can claim to fully know God's ways, God is certainly on the side of Truth (and I do believe that there is Truth), especially since in the Bible the devil is described as the "father of lies."

The extent of ID proponents' lying, hypocrisy, and deception is truly frightening. Of course, isn't it always the case that those who are most guilty of propaganda and lying will cast this stone out to the other side. Have you ever had a cheating spouse or significant other accuse you of cheating? Or lying? It's a very common psychological tool used by the lying, deceiving person or group to sidetrack attention away from themselves. ID and other creationists frequently accuse evolution advocates of propaganda. Of course discerning the truth is not all that difficult, but it requires critical thinking, deeper research and understanding the issues, motives, and truths to all these situations. Unfortunately, most people do not have time for that, so they just tend to accept whatever the group/crowd thinks that they most closely align themselves with. To our country's peril! And to that individual's detriment as well.

I plan to start working on a course, seminar and workshop series that will help people decipher the real story from propaganda, and to discern lies versus truth. Are you being duped? Find out how to find out for yourself! Details coming soon.

I'd support having the "controversy" taught in schools, BUT it should be done in a social studies, religion, or cultural studies course and absolutely NOT in a science classroom!


Dan said...

So, why doesn't God show us a gradual transition in the fossil record? Why would we even find two of the same exact skeletal structure in the record? Why did God show the sudden appearance of at least 80% of all known phyla groups in the span of a couple million years, 540 million years ago? Why does God make the most basic cell appear way, way more complex than anything invented by intelligent man? Why is the idea of 1000s of necessarry steps for one organ or body function to even work at its lowest level, lacking in common sense?

Well, guess god forgot to show us these things. However, God has shown several possible instances of repeat evolution, homologous creatures with very different DNA (I think if we were able to check much of the so called evolutionairy tree for DNA and other internal organs not shown in the record, many of the species would fall off of it). My favorite is this little rodent like creature they say is more closely related to an elephant than a mouse. Doesn't the Tazmanian Devil look like a wolf? Well, it's a marcupial and is on a different branch with no wolf like ancester. Sorry, I'm not convinced of the "overwhelming" evidence for macro-evolution.


Hi Dan - thanks for your comment. Much as I'd like to discuss this more fully with you I am under atight deadline for my book and some other projects and I hope to have more time for discussion in a couple months. However one quick thing - have you heard of Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium? It explains an alternative manner of evolution (though still Darwinian of course) than gradualism. You have to remember that not everything gets fossilized because it takes very specific conditions to create a fossil. Most things just rot or get eaten. And also the "sudden" appearance in the fossil strata is not so "sudden" in human terms. It may be hundreds of thousands to millions of years between fossil layers. That's all I have time for right now. Good luck on your truth journey and searching!

Dan said...

Yes, I know about P. E. I've heard two versions. Perhaps they're the same. One has creatures evolving quickly in smaller groups away from the populace. I think the hypo is that there would be so much incest that mutations would be way more abundant. Of course, the group would die out before anything substantial could take place. So that hypo should be scrapped. The other simply says that evolution happens in quick spirts over thousands of years (such as certain dinosaurs evolve feathers from scales). Then this process stops for a few million years and then restarts in a particular population.

What I understand is that the scientific community does not accept this hypothesis much anymore. And why was it necessarry if the fossil beds showed actual transition?