Bookmark and Share
My Photo

FROM the EDITORS:

  • IMPORTANT INFORMATION:
    Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.

NEW & UPCOMING, available from IGNATIUS PRESS







































































« On Reading the Pope (part one) | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | Main | Reason #1,630,266 to reconsider sending your kids to a public school... »

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Comments

Brian Moore

Too bad members of the intelligentsia within the Vatican keep making public statements which denigrate the legitimacy of intelligent design. Certainly, one rarely, if ever, seems to find a prominent weblink proclaiming significant Catholic support for ID.

Myself, I am not convinced it is technically "science", per se. I am not persuaded that methodical science can ever, by its nature, explicate origins. Yet ID certainly does offer cogent critiques of Darwinism. It is only the scientism of propagandists that keeps the growing voices declaring the nakedness of the emperor from receiving fair treatment. As it is, reasonable objections are habitually given the scorn reserved for flat-earthers. The secular media is inclined to be hostile. Hard to see why so many in the Vatican remain obtuse in this important area of inquiry. One cannot escape the suspicion that for some, there is a complementary inclination to accomodate and discover the approval of the regnant intellectual powers. At worst, one might suspect cowardice and too much subservience to a paradigm that is likely as mortal and flawed as Ptolemaic astronomy.

At least, one would like the same voices who for the masses represent "official Catholic thinking" to emphasize the non-scientific presuppositions that really drive Darwinian orthodoxy. Don't want ID in the science classroom? Fine, keep it out, but keep Darwinian dogma out as well, because it isn't "science" either . . .

Redvers Llewellyn

DARWIN: THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIOUS

If you want to keep Intelligent Design out of Science class and put it in Theology, fine. But you must then be intellectually honest and take Evolution out of Science class and stick it in Creative Writing 101 where it belongs. In theory, one should have no problem with God creating Adam “all at once and fully formed” or, if He chose, through evolution. It's God's world. He can do whatever He wants. What is totally problematic is the notion that this universe, and the incredibly complex human beings who inhabit it, could evolve on their own without God! Believing that requires a hundred-fold more blind faith than believing in Creation does. To accept the premise that the first protein molecules could transmute to the point where they would give rise to something as profoundly sophisticated as the human sexual reproductive system is an exercise in common sense-defying wish fulfillment.
So why do all these Darwinists come to believe this? Simple--they must believe it. It's the only way out. The alternative (creation by God) is to them a noxious medieval superstition. Christianity? Humbug! Voltaire and Rousseau and the other demi-gods of the "Enlightenment" (perhaps the worst misnomer in history) tossed Christianity on the trash heap over two hundred years ago. If you want to understand Europeans and their sycophantic American scions, the liberals, look no further than the French Revolution. That was the birth of modern atheism.

Which brings us to a guy named Don Lindsay, a computer scientist, who has ventured into the murky primordial waters of Darwinian missionary work via his website. With an astonishing lack of critical faculty he proceeds to "demolish" every objection ever raised about evolution with what he believes is good scientific proof. Never mind the fact that, for life to have evolved from a single cell to the present animal world (not to mention all the extinct species) there would have to be the fossilized remains of every transitional phase for every animal (or plant) that ever existed. And those intermediate fossils have never been found. Read what uber evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard wrote:

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” [S.J. Gould); Natural History 86:14)]

Make no mistake. For evolution to be more than a hypothesis, those transitional fossils must be found. Millions of them. But you see, the Darwinist believes they will be found, or if not, he will concoct a theory that one species of animal miraculously leaps forward to a new one in an instant, a quantum leap of evolution. That's why there are no transitional fossils—get it? A little too convenient? Not for the Darwinist. Remember, he must believe at all costs or his world crumbles.

Going back to the human reproductive system, here is what Lindsay writes:

"In the last billion years, the bodily specializations have become increasingly intricate… Reptiles WORKED OUT (emphasis mine) a way to lay fertilized eggs on dry land, by surrounding the eggs with food and a leathery membrane. (Birds then added a hard outer shell.) Mammals WORKED OUT (emphasis mine) a way to keep the fertilized eggs safe inside the mother without her "rejecting" the partly foreign tissue."

"Worked out?" What did they do, have a strategy session? Think about it. Which lower life form came up with the human reproductive system?

LOWER LIFE FORM # 1
I’ve been thinking.

LOWER LIFE FORM #2
How can you think? You don’t have a brain.

LOWER LIFE FORM #1
Don’t be a smart ass. Now look, I WORKED OUT a way for us to become guys!

LOWER LIFE FORM #2
“Guys?” What’s that?

LOWER LIFE FORM #1
A higher life form I imagined. Very sophisticated. This single cell reproduction that we’re into is gettin’ a little old, don’t you think?

LOWER LIFE FORM #2
Not that old. We don’t live that long.

LOWER LIFE FORM #1
Shut up. Now we’re gonna concentrate real, real hard till we start to become guys--and girls!

LOWER LIFE FORM #2
What’s “girls”?

LOWER LIFE FORM #1
That’s the beautiful part. They’ll be almost like us guys, but different. And instead of reproducing as simple cells--we’ll reproduce with them.

LOWER LIFE FORM #2
Oh. So will rub up against them and exchange cellular matter?

LOWER LIFE FORM #1
No, no! You’re stuck on single cell. I WORKED OUT a plan where we’ll come up with a thing I like to call, “sex drive.” It’ll make the reproducing thing so ecstatically, gloriously pleasurable, that the guy will do almost anything to mate, thereby insuring the propagation of the species.

LOWER LIFE FORM #2
But how do you get the guy’s cellular matter into the girl?

LOWER LIFE FORM #1
We’re gonna give the guy a rod. The girl will have an opening. He’ll stick the rod in and bam. Here comes baby!

LOWER LIFE FORM #2
The guy’s gonna have a rod stickin’ out of him? That sounds pretty goofy lookin’.

LOWER LIFE FORM #1
Yeah, yeah...good point. Let me see if I can WORK THIS OUT...

(Pause)


LOWER LIFE FORM #1 (CONT.)
I got it! We’ll make his rod collapsible! When it’s time to mate, it’ll grow into the rod thing. And when he’s done? Flop! You won’t even know it’s there.

LOWER LIFE FORM #2
How are we gonna make that happen?

LOWER LIFE FORM #1
I told you. If we concentrate really, really hard, we can make ourselves turn into whatever we want. Anyway, we’ll make it so that the rod and the girl’s opening are like, super sensitive. And when they mate, they’ll have this super, super explosion of pleasure at the end, and that’ll make the cell stuff shoot right out of the rod and into the girl and it’ll grow for nine months inside her till a brand new person pops out. What do you think?

(Pause)

LOWER LIFE FORM #2
Sounds like too much work. I’m gonna stick with the old single cell split-in-two boogie.

Patrick Coulton

I don't know about the rest of you, but I think I need to go take a cold shower.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ignatius Insight

Twitter


Ignatius Press


Catholic World Report


WORTHY OF ATTENTION:




















Blogs & Sites We Like

June 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Blog powered by Typepad