Freedom from Religious Foundation vs. Intelligent Design

Monday, July 29, 2013 | Tag Cloud

By Joseph DeCaro, Worthy News Correspondent

creationWASHINGTON D.C. (Worthy News)-- The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has joined Darwinian scientists who objected to Ball State University's hiring of Guillermo Gonzalez, an astronomy professor who advocates Intelligent Design, according to TheBlaze.

Ball State currently has an issue with Creationism being taught as science, and now they’ve hired another Creationist, said FFRF attorney Andrew Seidel.

Seidel was referring to a course offered by Ball State's Professor Eric Hedin that might violate the so-called separation of church and state. The university purportedly began an investigation into this violation after the FFRF sent a letter of complaint against Hedin, who encouraged his students to read works by scientists and other authorities who advocate ID.

A description of his course said that students will "investigate physical reality and the boundaries of science for any hidden wisdom within this reality which may illuminate the central questions of the purpose of our existence and the meaning of life," according to World on Campus.

Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, said that if Ball State wants to keep any semblance of scientific credibility, it should hire scientists who teach real science, not religious apologetics.

Coyne wrote in his blog that Gonzalez should not bring Intelligent Design concepts into the classroom, according to TheBlaze.

In a release, Gonzalez replied that though he plans to continue his research on astrobiology and stellar astrophysics, he will not be discussing ID in class.

Copyright 1999-2017 Worthy News. All rights reserved.
Fair Use Notice:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

65 thoughts on “Freedom from Religious Foundation vs. Intelligent Design


    Intelligent Design is a contemporary version of the enduring teleological argument for the existence of God. Namely, the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause", rather than undirected chance events or unguided random processes. This conclusion is not the invention of Intelligent Design advocates, but the conclusion of the vast majority of people from the beginning of human history until now. Among whom are leading philosophers and the worlds foremost thinkers and scientists. An observed reality that was self-evident to Aristotle, Plato, Galileo and almost all the pioneers of modern science, and remains so today for many scientists. A characteristic of the natural world that no thinking person can deny: Among which is the "initial" cosmic state of minimum entropy (maximum order), precisely balanced particles, and finely tuned cosmic constants. Along with the origin of life, consciousness and the breathtaking complexity of DNA and genetic codes. Realities that have caused many atheists and skeptics to reluctantly feel unsettled with the inadequate and flawed solutions of neo-Darwinism and metaphysical naturalism. Leading to prominent former atheists such as Anthony Flew and C.S.Lewis abandoning their worldview in favour in theism or deism. This conclusion is affirmed by the reality that "methodological" naturalism and the scientific method are founded on this very proposition.

    The proposition that universe and life manifests intelligence and design is not just an option, but is integral to science itself. Intelligent Design is NOT a theory, but the FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE on which all of science operates. Every scientist in every field of research functions on the precept that scientists can apply vast amounts of reason and intelligence to understand and harness the natural world because the universe itself is both RATIONAL and INTELLIGIBLE. Without which it is IMPOSSIBLE to do science. Eisley says that historically science stemmed from "the sheer act of faith that the universe possessed order and could be interpreted by rational minds." To say that the order of creation can be grasped by human intelligence is to say that it is intelligible (Pearcy)

    No rational scientist works on the principle that they apply their considerable intelligence to investigate a NON-INTELLIGENT universe. Nor does any rational scientist operate on the principle that the design everywhere observed in living creatures only "appears" to be designed. Nor that the biological systems and designs scientists replicate in technology are merely "apparent". Concludes mathematician-philosopher Alfred John Whitehead, scientists today maintain a "scientific faith" in the order of nature while lacking
    any rational basis. It is open to question whether that "scientific faith" can long endure.

    That the universe manifests real design and intelligence is not the issue. The issue is whether the cosmic unity; the precise balance of sub-atomic particles;the fine tuning cosmological constants; the highly coordinated attributes of the natural world, and the breathtaking complexity and design in nature could ever be produced by "undirected" cosmic events, and "unguided" evolutionary processes. Purely the result of random chance mutations and "blind" natural selection. These are the issue ALL students MUST Be allowed to openly discuss.

    Methodological naturalism operates on the principle that everything in science is TENTATIVE and "not necessarily THE FINAL WORD". However, when mainstream science began asserting that SCIENCE ALONE could, and would, defined ALL REALITY. And that ALL REALITY must solely be defined within the restraints of NATURALISM, mainstream science moved from "methodological" to METAPHYSICAL naturalism and materialism. From physics, to metaphysics, from science to ideology, from science to scientism.
    from the real to the surreal, from science to atheistic dogma. Another name for this is SCIENTISM.

    The Intelligent Design issue is not "Is it science", but whether mainstream science itself now represents reality. As mainstream science now lives in a surreal "metaphysical" world of its own making, In the misguided belief that a godless "Theory of Everything" will soon be discovered. This grand vision has turned out to be more imagined than real. There a vast multitude of longstanding problems for which science had no verifiable scientific answer, including the origin of life, consciousness and multiple other factors. With science now facing an evidential and epistemological nightmare. As the elusive quest for the godless "Theory of Everything" has turned out to be a virtual quagmire of paradoxes, irregularities, contradictions, and ever more mysteries. Composed of subjective inferences, hypothetical theories, theoretical "mind experiments", fancy math, multiple speculations, unobservable dimensions. While being constructed of "invisible" things such as dark matter and energy, and invisible strings and M-Theory. According to Stephen Hawking this "The Elusive Theory of Everything" (Scientific American), is somewhere between "master", "magic" and "myth".

    The godless theory of everything is an illusion based on a delusion. The delusion is that FINITE humanity - with its LIMITED knowledge, understanding and insights - can define the ultimate nature of reality. Meaning, scientists will never be sure that they really know, that they really know. As best stated by the French existential philosopher, Jean Paul Sarte, "A finite point without an infinite reference point is meaningless and absurd." As such, the godless horseman of naturalism have charged into epistemological quicksand.

    Thus, it was not Intelligent Design that was judged at Dover, but Judge Jones and mainstream science itself. That godless METAPHYSICAL naturalism/materialism now dominates mainstream science is everywhere evident. This philosophical naturalism has nothing to do with verifiable science. What is being imposed on science students is nothing more that a surreal metaphysical worldview where absurdities are fully embraced in the name of naturalism. This imposition of the unsustainable "beliefs" of atheistic naturalism/materialism needs to be challenged and exposed for what it is.

    When science education asserts that science alone must define ALL REALITY, and that all reality must be defined solely within the "unproven" godless restraints of METAPHYSICAL naturalism, to the exclusion of all else something must be done. THIS INDOCTRINATION HAS TO BE STOPPED. A reality Ball State University is now seemingly intent on addressing. AS MUST ALL OTHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS.

    Its time to end the oppressive, suppressive and intolerant dominion of the vast godless INQUISITIONAL network, of atheists, humanist and other ideologues intent on imposing their godless education agenda. This activist network is now running rampant in the American culture and must be stopped, The time has come to reestablish balanced and quality education, open inquiry, academic freedom, and freedom of information, Which are essential elements in every true democracy.

    • John's first line is all we need: "Intelligent Design is a contemporary version of the enduring teleological argument for the existence of God."

      Thank you - this makes it obvious that intelligent design creationism nothing to do with science. End of discussion.

      • Intelligent Design is foundational to science based on "methodological" naturalism, not to your surreal "metaphysical" naturalism. Thanks for sharing subjective opinion - End of discussion.

      • @john_heininger:disqus Curious - does it trouble you at all that every respectable science organization in existence totally opposes your characterization of science?

      • I need to pointed out that the scientific community
        are largely atheists, who are a minority of a minority. Out of step with
        the vast majority of people on planet earth, and currently up to their
        ears in METAPHYSICAL NATURALISM and SCIENTISM, just like you. All of which demonstrates the truth of the findings of a world authority on
        deception, Dr Ray Hayman. A U.S. Defense Department consultant on Deception who found that "scientists" are the easiest of all
        people to deceive.

      • So, breaking down your arguments - the first objection is that most scientists are atheists and that because there are more religious people than atheists the scientists must be wrong about science. This makes no sense.

        You then go on to try to accuse scientists of "metaphysical naturalism" which is essentially a rejection of magic, fairy tales, baseless pseudoscientific and supernatural claims, and other forms of religious supernaturalism - to that I say guilty as charged.

        Scientists are persuaded by _evidence_ whereas the religious will ignore and disregard evidence which does not fit their worldview. I think Hayman's claim would be better stated that scientists (no quotes needed, we're talking about the real ones) are more easily moved away from a position of thinking than the faithful when presented with evidence demonstrating a particular position is wrong. Perhaps said another way - all you have to do to fool a scientist is fabricate evidence, whereas fooling the faithful requires fabricating a god.

      • The attempts to force a revision of terms and arguments by pontification by the so called: "respectable science organizations", all of whom are controlled and manipulated by powerful religious forces following the doctrine of philosophical naturalism, are NOT going to stop the ongoing discussion of the obvious and clear inferences of the data and science that LEADS to the undeniable conclusion of Intelligent design. How often in History has those in power tried to force everyone to agree to their position only to find that they were fools with egg in their face and liars who refused to move with the progress of science? The history of the scientific era is replete with countless examples from atomistic theory to bacteriology to geology to astronomy and physics. Time will reveal which argument has the force of evidence and argument, NOT the pathic rearguard actions of those vested in the status quo OR the beleaguered opinions of anti deists and fools.

      • We may agree on one point: "time will reveal which argument has the force of evidence and argument" as long as the inquiry is grounded in reality instead of faith, experiment and observation over superstition, and evidence over dogma - then I would agree we will reach the truth. The problem is we have a group of religious people who want to start with their own set of "ultimate answers" and work backwards from there. They believe, as their faith requires, that their religious creeds are unquestionable and therefore any observation or evidence which contradicts their deeply held dogma must be wrong. In other words, the buck doesn't stop with science for them - there is a "higher authority" against which all experimentation, observation, and legitimate scientific inquiry must be judged. That's not science, and it won't lead us to any "truth" beyond the "answers" the faithful have already decided upon.

      • There are no arguments for God, there is no need for them as His signature is clearly seen throughout all creation by all who do not hate Christ. There are only arguments against God, and the sheer number of them approaches empirical proof of His reality. "Methinks thou dost protest too much" - William Shakespeare

    • See my response to these pathetic mindless drones above lol. That was well written and stated. But i fear the cognitive dissonance of their minds will prevent them from grasping the deeply significant points you make therein. Kudos to you for your perceptive grasp of the situation!

      • No doubt living in a hypothetical non-intelligent universe that has no sign of order, design or would effect your perspective and discernment. Sorry about that. Lots of barking going on, but nothing of substance.

      • "Lots of barking going on, but nothing of substance." Yes, you seem to have the barking department pretty well wrapped up....

    • You should join us on paltalk .com in the christian section. we have a room open to discuss and argue just these issues. Its name changes but the topic does not. we have some very good people there with arguments for ID and for creationism.

  2. Yes, ID is Creationism dressed up in a lab coat. it isn't science, and it never has been.

    And if you think there is more validity to an idea because it has persisted for a long time, rather than because it has any actual truth value, or can be supported by evidence rather than a long, strange rant – that's your problem.

      • It is incontrovertible that ID is not science, and that it is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to sneak creationism into public schools.

        And there are lots of bad teachers in the world.

      • "And there are lots of bad teachers in the world" Yes! Those who confuse subjective evolutionary "historical theories" (as to what SUPPOSEDLY happened in the unobserved distant past) with verifiable empirical science, and teach evolutionary materialism and "metaphysical" naturalism as science, when in fact it is SCIENTISM. .

      • Your opinion that unless something is directly observed it cannot be said to have happened is not supported by science, nor are events that are directly observed necessarily better evidence than those that are not.

        As for the validity of evolutionary theory, it is supported by thousands of scientists working in multiple disciplines who have gathered and evaluated a great deal of good evidence.

        So, we can take *your* word about this, or we can take the word of people who actually are scientists who work in the applicable fields and have been gathering and evaluating evidence for over 150 years.

        Gonna go with the scientists on this one.

      • Evolutionary theory is a scientific "fact" as you believe, it should be a walk in the park for you to demonstrate that there is no difference between observed and unobserved events. Even though unobserved and unrepeatable past historical events can never ever be tested and verified by the empirical scientific method.

        For over 150 years the scientific community has failed to convince the vast majority of people that Darwinism is true "verifiable" science, and for good reason. There is no possible way of ever "verifying" that past events happened one way, and not another way, or even whether the evolutionary continuum happened at all. Particularly when a vast multitude of questions remain unanswered.

        For such reasons the Oxford dictionary relegates "all historical theories" to a Theory Sense 2 definition. Namely, "A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something;an individual view or notion." Similarly, the Nobel Prize Committee does not regard evolutionary "historical theories" as having the same value as verifiable empirical science. To quote New Scientist, "Evolutionary biology does not fall within the Nobel Committees definition of prizeworthy science." As was noted by Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould, the absence of evolutionary science from Nobel prizeworthy science 'is another example of the traditional view that historical science isn't the "real" thing.' (New Scientist, Dec 11, 1986, p48).

        Thus, thankfully, unlike you, the Nobel Committee DOES see the
        clear distinction, and no prizes are ever handed out for subjective evolutionary "historical insights" as to what supposedly happened in the unobserved distant past.

        However, if you are still foolish enough to assert that there is
        no decisive difference between verifiable empirical science and hypothetical "historical theories" about the unobserved distant past I will give you the opportunity to prove assertions.

        Here's all you have to do to provide real verifiable science for the below essential components of the evolutionary continuum.

        1. Provide a VERIFIABLE empirical scientific answer for the origin of life.
        2. Provide a VERIFIABLE empirical scientific answer for the origin of the DNA double helix from scratch.
        3. Provide a VERIFIABLE empirical scientific answer for the origin of complex genetic code from scratch.
        4. Provide a VERIFIABLE empirical scientific answer for the origin of the mind and consciousness.
        5. Provide a VERIFIABLE empirical scientific answer for the concurrent complementary origin sexual reproduction attributes.
        6. Provide a VERIFIABLE empirical scientific answer for the origin of reason from no reason.
        7. Provide a VERIFIABLE empirical scientific answer for the origin of intelligence from no intelligence.
        8. Provide a VERIFIABLE empirical scientific answer for the origin of human attributes such as altruism, morality, love, sense of right and wrong, good and evil, and justice and injustice.

        If you can't provide any verifiable experimental or observable scientific answers for any of this, we must all assume that there is no verifiable science for evolution. Only unverifiable subjective assumptions.

        So, off you go! We all wait with baited breath! !

      • If you have a problem understand the meaning of these words I would try the Oxford Dictionary, or any dictionary.

        Let me make it even easier than that. Go to Google and type the each word, and the dictionary link will likely come up first.. Do you think this would be too difficult for you.

      • So when I asked you what *YOUR UNDERSTANDING* of those words was, you believed I was asking you to define them. That's funny. Typical Creationist lack of reading comprehension that we've all come to expect.

        No, I wasn't, and it's clear that you just tacked them on because you believed it made your post sound more science-y.

  3. The guy said he wasn't going to teach ID in class. Even if I were a godless atheistic teacher I would want my students to be aware of the enemies positions by reading their material. You atheists are such wieners.

  4. Militant evolutionists are utter hypocrites who embody every irrational fear and fascist spirit they claim to be against. Given the freedom, I have no doubt at all that they would become the most bloody and perverted Inquisitors in history.

      • Wrong, you're just ignorant of what's really going on in the world today. Read up on Margaret Sanger and modern eugenics, learn all about your bloody heroes..

      • "Modern" eugenics? From the early 20th century? Try joining us in the 21st century; apart from not being about to turn people in to the Inquisition anymore, you might like it here.

      • I love how easily your type is so quickly reduced to name calling when presented with truth. Really, it never gets old.

      • Richard Dawkins says we should get over our "irrational" fear of eugenics, since Hitler is long dead. Yep, every rational fear of soulless elitism is "irrational" to Dawkins!

      • Richard Dawkins, the proselytizer for atheistic materialism,
        apparently supports human breeding programs. This is what Dawkins wrote
        in "Eugenics May Not Be Bad" from the 11/19/06 edition of Scotland's Sunday Herald

        "IN the 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the
        political left and right would not have found the idea of designer
        babies particularly dangerous--though of course they would not have used
        that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for
        comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is
        responsible for the change.

        "Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single
        particular. The specter of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from
        'ought' to 'is' and deny that breeding for human qualities is even
        possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running
        speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible
        to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?
        Objections such as 'these are not one-dimensional abilities' apply
        equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.

        "I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least
        venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for
        musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is
        acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them.
        I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would
        probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should
        stop being frightened even to put the question?"

      • You're right.

        sarc Who ever heard of Christians forcing anyone? Why, never in history have the Christians ever used violence to force, say, for example, Jews, to convert.

        The only reason Christians don't murder people wholesale any longer is that they've been dragged kicking and screaming into the modern, secular era.

        Still, I do frequently detect a touch of envy from Internet Christians like you when they trot out atrocities committed by some "Anti-Christians" around the world.

        Sucks for you to be living in a time when you can't just denounce non-Christians to the Church and watch them be tortured by the Inquisition, eh?

      • Catholicism isn't Christian. Christians obey the gospel of Jesus Christ. We don't kill people or force anything on anyone. From John the baptist to today, that is the truth of the matter. Even Protestants tortured and killed real Christians. People can call themselves whatever they want to, but it does not make it true. The Bible prophesied Catholicism, actually, the city on 7 hills, the Mother of Harlots soaked in the blood of prophets and saints. It was actually real Christians who were tortured and murdered by the Inquisition, around 65 million of us, and it will be again, with the help of people like you who hate God and obey Rome. You don't even know who you serve, why you believe what you believe, who planted all the lies and your hatred of the truth within you, or who the Christians are. Now, that same Harlot, the RCC, supports Darwinism and all that "science" that fools worship. Why? Because they are not, and never were, Christian, not by any stretch of the imagination. Sucks to be me? I am beyond blessed.

      • Well, find a Catholic Pope, Cardinal, Bishop, Priest, just one, preaching the gospel of salvation put forth in the Scriptures, if you can. You can't. Catholicism is Paganism, a Cult. Just because it's the biggest death cult of them all is meaningless. I kind of understand people who just want to be jerks because it's kind of fun when your soul is still lost, but I don't understand the ones like you who want to be ignorant jerks. Good luck with all that.

  5. Evolutionists suppose that the very same forces and circumstances that cannot produce a simple metal fork , a wine glass or a cotton T-shirt are able to produce complex life beyond their comprehension. If that isn't stupid, then stupid needs to be redefined.

      • Not biological systems, but simple forms. Before life, that pesky and impossible abiogenesis that magically "happened", evolutionary theory supposes that far more complex things than these not only came into existence magically, and in great number, but assembled themselves somehow, violating the second law of thermodynamics , awaiting that magical and mysterious "spark" that would give them life. And I'm totally not debating, I'm actually just laughing. When I was an Atheist it was obvious that Emperor Evolution had no clothes. Art is not science, and all anyone has ever seen are drawings of what some over educated dumb asses suppose. But, just like the crowd who didn't want to admit the Emperor was naked, many fearing looking stupid has led to massive support of a long ago debunked theory. That's really the truth, and that's why I laugh. I really don't care who calls me stupid. I'm not that easily manipulated and weak minded. The Emperor has no clothes.

      • "Simple forms" isn't the issue, you're talking about non-living things. You can't rationally compare the capabilities of living systems with anything non-living.

      • Correct! Yet, that's EXACTLY what the theory of evolution does! Go blow some dead things up, and tell me what life it "creates", M-kay?

      • The problem is that your out of your depth, and have nothing to contribute to this conversation. Any "system" has structure, behavior and interconnectivity. Which necessitates perspective, intelligibility and predictability. Natural selection has none of this.

      • No, the problem is that you're now reduced to non sequiturs. Natural selection is not a system, so your odd comment about the characteristics of systems is irrelevant.

  6. Btw, I.D. itself is New Age b.s,, not Christian at all. No real Christian has anything to do with I.D. This is the Christian perspective- Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Disprove it, O proud science, falsely so-called!

    • Actually Aaron, ID is as applicable to the Christian paradigm as anything "new age". it is clearly possible to grasp the deist relevance and that is why these reprobates are so resistant to it. Even though it COULD be related to directed panspermia on the biological level, it CANNOT be so on the level of the cosmological constants and the anthropic principles unless we assume an alien that is of the degree of being substantially indistinguishable from a Deity. They have ONE objection to it:... that it proves a designer and that is flatly contrary to their religious doctrine of metaphysical naturalism.

      • No, it isn't Christian at all. You are wrong. If you were a Christian, you would know that I.D. is rooted in an antichrist philosophy.

      • "No you are wrong" is NOT a proof of anything., and you offer no EVIDENCE of your assertions. Secondly i find your assertion to be fantasy and foolishness on its face. The idea that God is able to create the universe and that is discernible from the evidence of creation itself is rooted in CHRISTIAN thinking and the very words of Romans chapter 1 Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
        Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
        Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
        "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Psalm 19

        "Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown
        kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy." Acts 14:17
        and many other such verses.
        Please refrain from mindless babbling and meaningless assertions, without PROOF. Christian scientist from the beginning of the era of science have repeatedly claimed and asserted that they were : "thinking Gods thoughts after him". ( Johann Kepler 1571-1630 ) four HUNDRED + years ago , LONG before ID as a scientific concept today or the "new age" ever existed. Now give proof for your pontifications or stop wasting everyone's time with your unsubstantiated opinions.

      • Proof of what? That a philosophy that does not confess Jesus Christ and His words is not Christian? Isn't that proof? Take your demons to the park, or something. I think you need air.

      • "New Age" religion is traceable to ancient Babylon archeologically and to the lie Satan told to Eve in the Holy Bible. The religion/lie, that men can become gods is also "cutting edge" science today, but there is nothing new about any of it. In point of fact, were it not for Christianity, colleges would be teaching astrology and alchemy, not any real science at all. Watch though, because as God's truth is rejected, by and by, witchcraft will fill every void left by it's removal. It has always been so, and is just as inevitable. in this age as any other.

      • "New Age" is a blend of ancient mystery religions fused to the most absurd musings that science fiction has to offer. Intelligent Design is an antichrist philosophy. Christians who actually believe God's word do not sit about considering ancient aliens, panspermia, or any of the other Godless Christ denying garbage associated with I.D. Christians have faith in Scripture, ans all Christians who are not lost apostate fools believe that God created the heavens and the earth in six days, then ceased from His labor on the seventh day. We believe it because Jesus Christ always quoted Genesis as historical fact, So, for a Christian to even consider any other thing is to call Jesus Christ a liar. I.D. is not Christian at all.

  7. ZackRice says, "Every respectable science organization in existence totally opposes
    your characterization of science.",

    I cannot resist relating a few blunt facts about the "respectable science organizations" you refer to, of which the National Academy of Sciences is representative. Firstly, as disclosed
    by Wikipedia, "Scientists and in particular eminent scientists are mostly atheists". A reality affirmed by Nature. Which showed that the National Academy of Sciences is anti-God to the core. This is not only true of the "scientists of the academy", but also true of other science organizations. Whose members are predominately atheists. A survey of scientists showed that fully 72.2% were "overtly" atheistic, and only 7.0% believed in a personal God. This "overtly" atheistic domination of the scientific world has resulted mainstream science fully embracing philosophical naturalism and godless materialism, as we shall see. Godless materialism is the default worldview of atheism.

    Secondly, the atheism of the "scientists of the academy" and other "respectable organizations" represents the only "abnormal" demographic in the U.S. (and elsewhere), where about 90% of Americans believe in God. In 2010 the World Facebook revealed that fully 90% of the world's population are believers in theism or polytheism. While Atheists comprise an estimated 2.01%, and non-religious a further 9.66% of the world population. Thus, when you look to these organizations for support you are appealing to a minority within a minority.

    Thirdly, this minority of a minorities presents you with a far biggest problem. As it is now openly acknowledged that these "respectable organizations" have fully embraced the unproven "metaphysical beliefs" of godless naturalism and materialism. Naturalism
    is the "metaphysical" position that nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature." What separates methodological naturalism from philosophical or metaphysical naturalism is that the former is merely a "scientific tool" and makes "no truth claim". While the latter makes the unsustainable "metaphysical" or philosophical - essentially atheistic - claim that only natural causes exist. This godless ideology is based on the unproven, unsubstantiated "blind faith" belief that naturalism is true. When in fact science is a long way from ever producing the godless "Theory of Everything". With scientists faced with irregularities, paradoxes, and ever more mystery. Which is comparable to scientists defining the contents of the oceans of the world from a test tube sample of sea water.

    That mainstream science now fully subscribes to full philosophical naturalism and godless materialism is openly acknowledged, even by atheists..States RationalWiki, "Even in
    the United States, a majority of scientists embrace full philosophical naturalism - although a significant minority (40 - 45%) describe themselves as "theistic evolutionists" or
    hold other religious beliefs. It is likely that the percentage of scientists outside the US who subscribe to full philosophical naturalism is far higher." affirmed by the reality that mainstream science now operates on the premise that science can, and will, define

    As I have already demonstrated, methodological naturalism operates on the principle that
    everything in science is "tentative" and "not necessarily the final word" However, when mainstream science began to assert that science was the "final word" it turned methodological naturalism and the scientific method on its head. And moved from "methodological" to METAPHYSICAL naturalism, from science to scientism. SCIENTISM is "The precept that science is the foundation of ALL knowledge and that ALL truth can be arrived at by the empirical method." - The Encyclopedia of Philosophy,(Macmillan, p. 372-373).

    In short, your "respectable science organizations" represent a minority of a minority that up to their eyeballs in godless "metaphysical" ideology and scientism, rather than science. And this is atheistic worldview that is being imposed on science education.


    I need to emphasis that it is not only myself and RationalWiki who have highlighted the "metaphysical" beliefs on which mainstream science operates. Noted atheist
    philosopher Thomas Nagel has also openly expressed concern about the extent to which
    mainstream science, and your "respectable scientific institutions", have openly embraced full philosophical naturalism and materialism. His Oxford University published book "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False." (Oxford University Press, 2012) details the falsity of philosophical naturalism, and predicts that this current mainstream science commitment to the "metaphysical" beliefs of godless materialism will one day be laughable.

    Thomas Nagel is no lightweight. He is a University Professor; Professor of Law; and Professor of Philosophy (B.A. Cornell 1958;B.Phil. Oxford 1960; Ph.D. Harvard 1963), A Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy, and a Member of the American Philosophical Society, and has received Guggenheim, N.S.F., and N.E.H. Fellowships, a Mellon Distinguished Achievement Award in the Humanities, the Rolf Schock Prize in Logic and Philosophy, the Balzan Prize in Moral
    Philosophy, and honorary degrees from Oxford, Harvard, and the University of Bucharest University Professor, Professor of Philosophy, Professor of Law. He specializes in Political Philosophy, Ethics, Epistemology, and Philosophy of Mind. A well published academic with a considerable resume of articles and publications.

    Nagel's expose of the naturalism and materialism of mainstream science has created a storm among leading scientists and philosophers committed to materialism. A month after the publication of Mind and Cosmos, several of the world’s leading philosophers gathered with a group of cutting-edge scientists at the “interdisciplinary workshop” titled “Moving Naturalism Forward.” in the Berkshires. With the expressed purpose of ensuring that Darwinism and philosophical naturalism/materialism were secured in mainstream science, and science education. Among those attending were noted atheistic philosophers and scientists Richards Dawkins. Daniel Dennett. Jerry Coyne and like minded. At the workshop the philosophers and scientists each added his own gloss to neo-Darwinian
    reductive naturalism. Naturalism is materialism They were unanimous in their solid certainty that the unproven godless "ideological belief" of naturalism is the all-purpose explanation for existence and life as we know it. All were passionately intent on preserving this atheistic materialist worldview in science and science education, to the exclusion of all else.

    For every action there needs to be an equal and opposite reaction, said Newton. As Christians we need to expose and challenge this widespread atheistic deception that is being imposed on western culture and education.

  9. While a carefully crafted, well considered and seemingly valid argument, it is after all a religious argument from a naturalistic philosophic materialist position and dogmas. Science makes no claims to be able to find TRUTH, nor MORALITY, NOR anything outside of the natural world. This reveals that your argument is itself a biased one, and could be stood on it's head and said absolutely and in the same manner pedantically for the christian world view.
    The argument herein is that the evidence scientifically derived has so far, from what we CAN SEE and DO KNOW; supports a divine creation rather than a naturalistic argument. You are simply attempting to deny these evidences and reset the argument back to zero, making all that is now in evidence as meaningless and useless.This is obfuscation, not clarification.
    It's a weak position, and as i have always said; a rear guard action that is the only venue of the evolutionist because Darwinian naturalistic evolutionary gradualism is DEAD, kaput, meaningless drivel. And semi intellectually honest "scientists" have said so, (Gould and Eldridge, Hoyle and Wickramagsinge among many others) in making an attempt to create a NEW paradigm to replace the rotting corpse that is Darwinism. I speak of the once laughed at, and now becoming popular; "hopeful monster theory" (your evolutionary religion named it that) which is now called punctuated equilibrium or quantum speciation, in order to give it a quasi scientific sounding title. Unfortunately for these struggling rear guardsmans, they fight a battle that no evolutionist can all agree on. For its is well understood that the axiom is: "It cannot happen fast, and yet it did not happen slowly" as the Cambrian explosion proves! The unavoidable doctrinal schisms amongst the faithful of the evolutionary camp are starting to manifest heresies and fracturing of unity among themselves. Behe and Denton are but two of a very large number of scientists in their respective fields of recognized scientists who have, due to their own scientific research and study in their particular fields decided that Darwinian Gradualism is distinctly flawed. And with no other options the faithful resort to fanciful dreams, or tacit denial of the obvious to any but themselves: It CANNOT happen fast, but it DID NOT happen slowly! More the fool they be for their own game will find them out.

Leave a Comment