The Miami Herald “Weighs” In

I’m wondering how many of the Miami Herald‘s editors have scientific degrees. Whatever, they’re sure they know the facts on evolution and Intelligent Design. They say

Intelligent design, a belief about the beginning of life on Earth, is based on religious teachings that can be taught in a course about religion. Evolution, which intelligent-design supporters refute, is a well-tested scientific theory. It is based on empirical evidence that can be tested, measured or observed. Intelligent design which relies on faith [sic].

First, Intelligent Design is not “based on” religious teachings, although clearly the MH has bought that idea from ID’s naysayers. Second, I’m not sure we should trust newspaper editors who make sentences out of fragments. “Intelligent Design which relies on faith”…what? Third, ID is far broader than is usually recognized. It is not some monolith criticizing evolutionary theory. However, the one thing that the proponents of ID do have in common is that evolution cannot explain how certain things/organisms came to be. Not only can it not explain them now (i.e., some sort of God-of-the-gaps), it is absolutely inadequate to explain them ever.

I realize “theistic evolutionists” have bowed all the way to the ground in the areas where scientists claim authority, but evolution is an essentially materialistic system. It has no need of any god, and those who attempt to find some place to fit a god in are (rightly) ridiculed by the materialists. But if it makes you feel better to have a god running your inherently a-theistic system, go right ahead. I prefer a less deistic God; one who is intimately involved with His creation, rather than putting all the pieces there and watching them unfold as He “intended.”

Timotheos

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “The Miami Herald “Weighs” In

  1. One way to back these people into a corner is to keep asking the question “And where did that come from?” Before long, they have to say something like “Well, it was just always there.” And you can say, “Just like God was always there?”

  2. In the most recent issue of World Magazine, Jamie B. Cheaney quotes Socrates as follows: “Opinions divorced from knowledge are ugly things.” This fits precisely the Miami Herald’s editorial.

  3. Ask evolutionists whether they concede that human beings are intelligent. Obviously, intelligence exists in the universe. Thus, according to evolutionary theory itself, “intelligence” must be able to _evolve._ So what’s to say that some form of intelligence didn’t _evolve_ in the millions of years before earth existed? And what if that _evolved intelligence_ is responsible for life on earth? It’s entirely consistent with evolutionary theory. We could be planted by an intelligent race elsewhere. Or we could be planted by an intelligent “life force” that evolved in the outer-space ether as a consequence of the interaction of molecules. Either way, evolutionary theory leaves open the possibility that “intelligence” existed before life began on earth, and that “intelligence” was responsible for life on earth. So what’s to keep “intelligent design” out of science class now? Seriously, I’m asking for someone to tell me why the elimination of “intelligence” from scientific consideration is warranted logically. I’ve never heard it explained — except for the tried-and-true standard, “You don’t understand evolution or intelligent design.”

  4. One might also add that evolution is not based on empirical evidence, nor is it well-tested. Even if I were to concede that it is true, I would never claim that it could be tested empirically, any more than the history of the Civil War could be tested empirically.

  5. I’m going to debunk evolution in 3 short paragraphs, using the science of DNA and genome mapping:

    1. Physical characteristics must be present in the old DNA for them to propagate into new DNA. This is clear evidence that new characteristics can not be created, only propagate from existing life. So, the only way for a new species to start is for the characteristics of that species to already be in the previous DNA. If this where the case then all life forms on earth would share the same DNA. But we don’t.

    2. The question is, where did the first DNA come from? It canít come from nothing, and it canít evolve from nothing. Something had to start the cycle and breath life into the first DNA. Furthermore, we canít reanimate dead DNA or combine live DNA with dead DNA to propagate new DNA. And like stated above, we can’t create new species characteristics that are not already present in the DNA.

    3. Consider also, that it takes both female and male DNA to create new DNA and propagate a new life entity. So, in the interest of evolution, not only do we need to believe that DNA accidentally became alive we have to believe that two different yet compatible forms of DNA became accidentally alive. And in the case of different DNAs we need to believe that life happend by accident thousands of times, in order to account for the vast variations in species and their DNA.

    This scientific theory of evolution places a lot of “faith” on the “belief” that live started by accident. Faith and belief are key terms here, because as reflected above, the facts for evolution are just not there.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s