Join the Discussion

Reply
Report this post

Mr Bardeen: Did you even read Chuck's article, or just react? "Evolution does not cover "the origins of life". All it covers is the change that has been brought since the origin of life, which is exactly what Intelligent Design is supposed to counter." Incorrect. If it cannot explain the origin of life as ID does, then it has no basis being taught as a scientific theory. "The whole idea of Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" really is not that strong. It amounts to "If I can't imagine how it could have evolved, it must have been designed."" Incorrect. Irreducible complexity means that science cannot explain how it works when it is broken down to its component parts. That's one of the core problems with evolution. "We have witnessed (and affected) the evolution of countless species of life on this planet." Incorrect. You are confusing macroevolution (change from one species into another) with microevolution (slight changes within a species). Moths may change color and viruses may mutate, but they are still moths and viruses - they don't become iguanas or antelopes. Macroevolution is not presently observable either in the living world or in the fossil record, and there are no transitory forms to document its ever having taken place - just the opposite in fact. "There are documented cases of new breeds of dogs being created by Human breeders through selective breeding. How is that different than what happens in nature?" That was done at the behest of intelligent human beings who artificially produced breeding conditions which resulted in these new breeds - much more akin to an Intelligent Design than to an Evolution- and furthermore, the end result in each case was still a dog. What intelligent humans have NOT been able to accomplish, furthermore, is the creation of life from nonliving matter. Curious, no? "Computer studies as well have backed up the major theories of evolution and shown light on how specific characteristics of life could have evolved, but.. most importantly, they show that evolution works." Incorrect; there are no transitory forms in the fossil record, and much like climate change models, computers only spit out what is fed into them. "Intelligent Design is not a science. It does not propose any testable hypotheses or give a process that can be replicated." The same can be said of Darwinian macro-evolution - not observable, not testable, not reproducable....and quite frankly, not a science. ID simply looks at the evidence and arrives at an inescapable conclusion - that life cannot arise from nonliving matter w/o help from some source of supernatural assistance. Until that issue is addressed, Darwin's theory has no business being taught even in universities.

Reply
Report this post

Mr Bardeen: Did you even read Chuck's article, or just react? "Evolution does not cover "the origins of life". All it covers is the change that has been brought since the origin of life, which is exactly what Intelligent Design is supposed to counter." Incorrect. If it cannot explain the origin of life as ID does, then it has no basis being taught as a scientific theory. "The whole idea of Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" really is not that strong. It amounts to "If I can't imagine how it could have evolved, it must have been designed."" Incorrect. Irreducible complexity means that science cannot explain how it works when it is broken down to its component parts. That's one of the core problems with evolution. "We have witnessed (and affected) the evolution of countless species of life on this planet." Incorrect. You are confusing macroevolution (change from one species into another) with microevolution (slight changes within a species). Moths may change color and viruses may mutate, but they are still moths and viruses - they don't become iguanas or antelopes. Macroevolution is not presently observable either in the living world or in the fossil record, and there are no transitory forms to document its ever having taken place - just the opposite in fact. "There are documented cases of new breeds of dogs being created by Human breeders through selective breeding. How is that different than what happens in nature?" That was done at the behest of intelligent human beings who artificially produced breeding conditions which resulted in these new breeds - much more akin to an Intelligent Design than to an Evolution- and furthermore, the end result in each case was still a dog. What intelligent humans have NOT been able to accomplish, furthermore, is the creation of life from nonliving matter. Curious, no? "Computer studies as well have backed up the major theories of evolution and shown light on how specific characteristics of life could have evolved, but.. most importantly, they show that evolution works." Incorrect; there are no transitory forms in the fossil record, and much like climate change models, computers only spit out what is fed into them. "Intelligent Design is not a science. It does not propose any testable hypotheses or give a process that can be replicated." The same can be said of Darwinian macro-evolution - not observable, not testable, not reproducable....and quite frankly, not a science. ID simply looks at the evidence and arrives at an inescapable conclusion - that life cannot arise from nonliving matter w/o help from some source of supernatural assistance. Until that issue is addressed, Darwin's theory has no business being taught even in universities.

Reply
Report this post

What's especially unfortunate is that most of the reviews of Stein's movie don't even address his core complaint: That free and open scientific inquiry is being effectively banished from most of this country's institutions of higher learning. That is the real tragedy.

Reply
Report this post

Thanks for this timely article, Chuck. As always, I appreciate your definite stand on plentifully declaring the thing as it is, Job 26:2. It appears that one of the criticisms of the film by pro-evolutionists is that creationists wrongly maintain that belief in evolution was responsible for the mass extermination of Jews and other so-called 'sub species' before and during WW2. In fact, this is exactly what belief in evolution did. The Evolution Handbook by Vance Ferrell is a near-exhaustive resource on evolution (available from Chick Publications). Ferrell states, p 44, that Hitler carefully studied the writings of Darwin and Nietzsche and his book Mein Kampf was based on evolutionary theory. Even the title, 'My Struggle,' is a Darwinian expression and according to Ferrell, Hitler believed he was fulfilling evolutionary objectives by eliminating "undesirable individuals and inferior races" in order to produce Germany's "Master Race" i.e. his crowd in charge. Ferrell also shows that another prominent mass-murderer of the 20th century, Josef Stalin, was a committed evolution, along with Karl Marx. Both Communism and Nazism derive from the followers of evolution. As the Lord Jesus Christ warned in Matthew 7:17, "a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit." Keep pushing the right buttons, Chuck. You have a vital ministry.

Reply
Report this post

I really enjoy not only this article but all you articles. I want to thank you for standing up for the Lord in these days. We need people like you to keep us informed. I'm looking forward to seeing this movie. There seems to be those among us who think they know what is best for this Nation and really don't care what "We the People" think. If God before us who can be against us though. Mind the Lord! I was so happy to hear Lou Dobbs on CNN talk about the UNAN. Lou said it is very secretive so no one knows what is being agreed to behind closed doors not even the Congress. I guess the Bush administration won't tell Congress, even when asked, what is or has been agreed to either. I read about this on the internet but you don't know what is true on there and couldn't understand why the News Media wasn't saying anything about it. The people need to know what our forefathers believed and said in order to really understand what their intent was in all areas of this Great Nation. There are those who believe that info is out dated the same way they think the Bible is out dated and no more than a history book. May God help us and open their eyes. God bless you! Keep the faith! Your sister in Christ!

Reply
Report this post

Yes, I agree the teaching of Intelligent Design should be allowed in school. We should also teach the creation theories of the various Native American tribes, Hinduism, Buddhism, and every other religion out there. They should be taught in religious studies classes, and that would be a fair presentation and would not, in any sense, cause undue furor among the "evolutionists". What I do not agree with is that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools along side the theory of evolution. Evolution does not cover "the origins of life". All it covers is the change that has been brought since the origin of life, which is exactly what Intelligent Design is supposed to counter. The whole idea of Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" really is not that strong. It amounts to "If I can't imagine how it could have evolved, it must have been designed." That's hardly a sound basis for a scientific theory. Where is the proof that it was designed? Can it be reproduced? Yes. The same arguments could be made for evolution - but there's a slight problem. We have witnessed (and affected) the evolution of countless species of life on this planet. There are documented cases of new breeds of dogs being created by Human breeders through selective breeding. How is that different than what happens in nature? Computer studies as well have backed up the major theories of evolution and shown light on how specific characteristics of life could have evolved, but.. most importantly, they show that evolution works. Is there an instance of a computer study (or a study of any sort) showing how Intelligent Design operates? That is science. Intelligent Design is not a science. It does not propose any testable hypotheses or give a process that can be replicated.