|
Signup for Updates | Donate | Unsubscribe
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Bryan Fischer, Executive Director
INTELLIGENT DESIGN DEBATE TAKES PLACE BEFORE FULL HOUSE
Interested citizens packed out the Rose Room in downtown Boise last night for the debate between ACLU attorney Vic Walczak and me over the subject  of intelligent design, and whether it should be presented in high school science classes as an alternative to the unproven theory of evolution.
(Your financial support is critical to our ability to continue to promote and defend our shared values in the public arena. If you would like to help make it possible for us to continue in this role, please click here.)
Intelligent design theory, very simply, posits that the irreducible complexity of many, many systems in nature argue powerfully for the existence of both intelligence and design in their formation, and simply cannot be explained by the random, undirected variations evolution proposes.
Irreducible complexity: fatal for evolution
Darwin himself said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would break down.”
Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University, provided not just one but four such systems in his 1996 book, Darwin’s Black Box. DNA itself, for instance, is incredibly and irreducibly complex. Even Bill Gates acknowledged that “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”
And yet no one would be foolish enough to entertain even for a moment the thought that software programs could be formed through the random, undirected collision of atoms.
Behe directs our attention to other manifestations of intricate design. Cilium  (an intricate molecular machine which moves cells much as an oar moves a boat), our intricate immune system, the bacterial flagellum (a mechanical motor of incredible complexity that propels bacteria much like an outboard motor), the clotting cascade in the human body (sophisticated enough to know when and where to clot blood, and when to stop so that our entire blood supply is not solidified), and the mechanism of eyesight (which requires an incredibly complex number of cellular reactions in a precise sequence).
Behe’s book was published in 1996, giving evolutionists a full decade to come up with evolutionary explanations for these complex systems. Yet no scientist has been able to propose even one, despite repeated attempts. As Behe points out, “There are assertions that evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations.”
Even evolutionary microbiologist James Shapiro of the University of Chicago was forced to admit, “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular systems, only a variety of wishful speculations.”
Problems with the theory of evolution
Further, there are massive problems with the theory of evolution. For one, there are no transitional fossil forms to record the progress of evolution, not one. This despite the fact Darwin confessed that the number of such links “must have been inconceivably great.”
Stephen Jay Gould, the world’s most prominent paleontologist before his death in 2002, freely admitted the complete absence in the fossil record of transitional forms, calling it the “trade secret” of his discipline. (In other words, they know there are no transitional fossils, but they don’t want you and me to know that.)
This led him to the bizarre theory that evolution must have taken place so rapidly that it left no trace in the fossil record. Think about that for a moment – one of the world’s leading scientists basing a supposedly scientific theory on the complete and utter absence of any evidence whatsoever.
Further, evolutionists have never been able to point to a single, solitary example in which speciation has occurred – that is, the development of a new species from an existing one. University of Bristol scientist Alan Linton is honest enough to admit, “None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another.”
Supporters of this bankrupt theory will point to adaptations in bacteria and in insects in response to antibiotics and insecticides respectively, as evidence. But after all the minor changes have taken place, bacteria is still bacteria and insects are still insects.
They will trot out the peppered moth and Darwin’s finches, which showed  slight variations over time. But what did they have in the end? They had nothing but peppered moths and finches – none was on its way to becoming something else.
Our students deserve better
I spent a good percentage of my time talking about such scientific matters. Mr. Walczak’s response was to keep insisting that intelligent design is just dressed-up religion, and he refused to offer any rebuttal to the scientific arguments against evolution and for intelligent design.
He simply dismissed them as “old chestnuts,” which of course is irrelevant. The issue is not how old they are, but how valid they are. He gave the audience no reason to question the validity of any of the scientific arguments that were presented last night.
Perhaps the most telling moment came when I read this quote from evolutionary biologist Paul Myers of the University of Minnesota, telling us what he thinks should be done with intelligent design advocates:
“The only appropriate response should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy, far-right politicians…I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It’s time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.”
The pro-ACLU crowd actually clapped in approval in response. I suggested that evolutionists are now the new McCarthyites, conducting a new inquisition, with the intimidating question this time being, “Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the intelligent design community?”
Our students deserve better than this. They deserve an honest, open debate on the matter of origins, and it’s time for our science teachers to give it to them.
BONUS BYTES
Ø A bill before the Idaho legislature, which would reserve taxpayer benefits for legal residents of the state, is still alive, but will go to the senate floor for possible amendments. The bill would require anyone applying for health benefits, occupational licenses, or other state- or local government-supported programs to prove they are legal residents of the United States. This is in line with the Judeo-Christian tradition, which says, “The community is to have the same rules for you and for the alien living among you. The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the alien living among you.” (Numbers 15:15,16) (The Idaho Statesman - Bill to stop illegal immigrants from getting benefits bugs some lawmakers)
Ø Gov. Mitt Romney’s candidacy for the presidency has been hampered by his record of judicial appointments. While governor of Massachusetts, he appointed 36 judges, 23 of whom were either registered Democrats or who had a record of giving to Democrat candidates for public office. Now it appears that former New York  Mayor Rudy Giuliani will have some questions of his own to answer. According to the website Politico, Giuliani appointed 75 judges during his tenure, and among his appointees, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than 8 to 1. One of his appointments was an officer of the International Association of Lesbian and Gay Judges, and another was an ardent abortion-rights supporter who now sits on the federal bench because liberal New York Sen. Chuck Schumer liked her ideology. The state’s leading abortion-right’s group, NARAL Pro-Choice New York, applauded Giuliani’s appointments, saying, “They were decent, moderate people.” Giuliani himself has pointed to his judicial appointments as “one of the most important things I did” while mayor, and “I think I did a pretty darn good job of that.” (Townhall.com::Giuliani’s Judges: The MSM Gets Out Its Carving Knife::By Hugh Hewitt)
Ø The decision by the president of the College of William & Mary to remove a brass cross from the campus’s historic Wren Chapel has already cost the school a $12 million donation. Despite receiving a petition with 17,000 signatures, the president has refused to return  the cross to the chapel. A former longtime donor to the school wrote, “This has been so disturbing to me that I have decided to withhold any future contributions to the College.” Meanwhile, just recently the school hosted an explicit pornography show on campus, featuring performers in G-strings and pasties, a show which the school president defended in the name of free expression. (WorldNetDaily: Cross ban could cost $12 million)
Ø A naval officer may be dismissed from the military by midnight tonight. His crime: praying publicly in the name of Jesus while in uniform. His dismissal from the military caused the Conservative Political Action Conference, the largest annual gathering of political conservatives, to rescind its offer to have this officer deliver tonight’s invocation. (WorldNetDaily: Navy chaplain being booted from service)
Ø A 13-year-old Italian girl is now in a psychiatric ward after her parents, with judicial approval, ordered her to have an abortion. She subsequently became suicidal and suffered a mental breakdown. “You have made me kill, and now I kill myself,” the girl reportedly cried. “I am not crazy, I am only evil like a dog.” This case gives us another reason to support Idaho legislation which would ban coercion in abortion decisions. (WorldNetDaily: Italian abortion mafia)
Ø The Los Angeles Times reports today that investigations are under way as to whether a Kaiser Permanente transplant surgeon attempted to hasten the death of a 26-year-old patient in order to be able to harvest his organs more quickly. The doctor is suspected of ordering excessive doses of powerful pain medication to speed the patient’s death. (He is reported to have said to the nurses, when the patient lingered, “Let’s just give him some more candy.”) His attorney acknowledged that his client may have made some mistakes, but added ominously, “He certainly wasn’t the only one.” Said the chief of transplant surgery at the University of Virginia, “We have to guarantee to the public that we’re not going to go out and kill people to get their organs.” (Police probe death in organ donation case - Los Angeles Times)
|
