intelligent

Does the notion of intelligent design make sense from a scientific standpoint? Does intelligent design makes sense from an observational standpoint? One thinker in an online think tank forum stated so. And so the other thinkers responded and considered some of what the other fellow think tanker had commented on. In one response a man posted this comment:

“The intelligent design; that is to say the DNA, reciprocating forces of nature, food chain sustainability and all the balancing forces we rely on for life, do appear to be purposeful. Indeed they are mandatory for our particular life form in the way we are currently set up to live within it. Although that does not automatically assume that there is a God or set of Gods, which is explained in religious doctrines that made it so. Order cannot exist without chaos and chaos would not be definable without order. And without choice, freedom and liberty, life would be unworthy of it all. God, Gods or no God.”

Indeed there are some pretty good observations that could suggest intelligent design, but it seems we are still without the ultimate proof in where is the murder weapon and who would do such a thing? And of course what motive would they have in designing such a system and why would they include these animals and god-forsaken humans and ruin what could have been a very nice almost perfect system? Consider this in 2006.

Lance Winslow

Tags: Abstractly Considered, Intelligent Design, moment in timeAbstractly Considered, Intelligent Design, moment in time

Share This

No Comments »

Dear Editor,

Evolutionists claim that the genetic and biological similarities between species is evidence of common ancestry. However, that is only one interpretation of the evidence. Another possibility is that the comparative similarities are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of life. Neither position can be scientifically proved.

Although Darwin was partially correct by showing that natural selection occurs in nature, the problem is that natural selection itself is not a creative force. Natural selection can only work with those biological variations that are possible. The evidence from genetics supports only the possibility for horizontal evolution (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) but not vertical evolution (i.e. from fish to human). Unless nature has the ability to perform genetic engineering vertical evolution will not be possible.

The early grooves in the human embryo that appear to look like gills are really the early stages in the formation of the face, throat, and neck regions. The so-called “tailbone” is the early formation of the coccyx and spinal column which, because of the rate of growth being faster than the rest of the body at this stage, appears to look like a tail. The coccyx has already been proven to be useful in providing support for the pelvic muscles.

The fossil record appears to contain fossils of only complete and fully-formed species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry.

The fact is, there is no solid scientific evidence that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors anymore than there is solid scientific evidence that apes evolved from four-legged (dog-like) mammals.

Of course, how animal and plant species would have been able to survive at all while their vital organs (i.e. brain, reproductive organs, immune system, etc.) were still in the process of evolving over supposedly millions of years is still a major problem for evolutionists. Even a partially-evolved eye would be a significant biological hindrance rather than asset for survival!

Natural laws are sufficient for explaining how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates but that doesn’t mean mere undirected natural laws are sufficient for fully explaining the origin of such order.

We also know from the law of entropy in science that the universe does not have the ability to have sustained itself from eternity. The existence and complexity of the universe point to a Supreme Designer and Creator!

No human being observed, either directly or indirectly, the origin of life and the universe, by either chance or design. Thus, neither position can be scientifically proved. The issue is which position has better scientific support.

These are just some brief examples of the varying assumptions, arguments, and interpretations on both sides of the issue. And both sides should be presented to students. That is all that is being asked by the advocates of intelligent design.

There are many questions that cannot be fully addressed in the space of this letter. For a more in-depth analysis of the evolution/intelligent design debate addressing various issues (i.e. the origin of life, mutations, comparative anatomy and physiology, vestigial structures, the fossil record, the age of the earth, etc.) please read my essay on the subject at www.religionscience.com.

Sincerely,
Babu G. Ranganathan*
(B.A. Theology/Biology)

*As a religion and science author, I have had the privilege of being recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who’s Who In The East.

Resources from scientists who support intelligent design:

www.creationscience.com

www.icr.org
www.ChristianAnswers.Net

Scientific Evidence for a Young World:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1842

The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, is an experienced Christian writer. He has his B.A. with academic concentrations in Bible and Biology. As a religion and science writer he has been recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who’s Who In The East. The author has a website at: http://www.religionscience.com

Tags: creation, Evolution, Intelligent Design, natural selectioncreation, Evolution, Intelligent Design, natural selection

Share This

No Comments »

HARRISBURG, Pa.-In what is sure to be the biggest courtroom clash since the last one, a class action suit had been filed in federal court against the Dover Area School Board for not allowing the teaching of Intelligent Design in school science classes. The twist? This time, it’s the monkeys themselves bringing the suit.

In a startling and unprecedented move, several Bornean Orangutans from the Pittsburgh zoo have sued the school district, insisting that Intelligent Design not only be taught in science classes but the theory of evolution be stricken from textbooks

These Orangutans, or Pongo pygmaeus, are offended by the idea that they are related to people, and think Intelligent Design is the best alternative out there.

One of the plaintiffs, Cuddles, explained her position through a sign language interpreter: “That apes and humans descended from a common ancestor is just a disgusting thought. I’m appalled, frankly. I mean, look at you. Massive poverty, genocide, suffering, violence. Look how you treat your kind. People are horrible, horrible creatures.”

She continued, “Have you seen some of the porn on your internet? I can’t believe humans pee on each other. And don’t get me started on the Tuesday night lineup on ABC. Only true barbarians would keep According to Jim on the air. That I’m related to people in any way should be rejected on face value, let alone be taught in science classes.”

The details of the apes’ replacement theory are still ambiguous. One version of Intelligent Design posits elements of nature are so complex that they must have been created by a higher force. Among some of the more controversial elements of the ape theory include the idea that this “intelligent designer” of the entire universe is actually a 50 foot tall super smart ape similar to King Kong.

Attorneys representing the school board have questioned the true motives of the apes. In a written statement, school board lawyers claimed the suit was just a cheap parlor trick to manipulate the public and avoid the fact that humans and apes are related through evolution.

But the primates remain undeterred. Bubba, another plaintiff in the suit, has similar thoughts- “Man did not come from apes. Gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees, gibbons, we’re all united. I mean, have you seen the contestants on American Idol? Ugh. You humans are just awful. Unlike evolution, Intelligent Design makes the case we’re not associated with you at all!”

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1987 decried schools could not require creationism to balance the teaching of evolution. This new lawsuit brought on by the apes may eventually make it up to the conservative justices recently appointed by president George W. Bush. As a result the ruling may be different.

Bush even weighed in on the teaching of the possibility that a super intelligent, furry orangutan created the universe. “I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,” Bush said. “You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”

Fwips News Service

http://www.fwips.com

Fwips News Service is America’s source for fake news, commentary and humor from the heart of the Rocky Mountains. Award-winning, hard-hitting and fiercely original comedy from the Mile High City. Visit us if you prefer to receive knowledge and enlightenment without the normal work involved!

We view the world from a slightly off-kilter cosmic prism glass, and that suits us just fine. We’re Newsweek on crack, USA Today on Prozac, The New York Times as written by Larry David’s slightly medicated cousin.

Fwips offers weekly updates, breaking stories, astute commentary, cogent analysis, and cold, hard booty. We’re committed to bringing you the latest in local and national news, entertainment, sports, business, current events, non-current events and non-event-events. And other stuff, too.

Tags: comedy, commentary, current eve, funny, humor, Intelligent Design, news, opinion, parody, satire, spoofcomedy, commentary, current eve, funny, humor, Intelligent Design, news, opinion, parody, satire, spoof

Share This

No Comments »