|
Liberal colleges and school boards across America harshly discriminate against curricula that show scientific evidence against evolution. They say that Intelligent Design is not scientific, that it is just Christianity disguised. Of course, they are either ignorant or, more likely, are lying.
Intelligent Design has nothing to do with the Bible. On our Faith Facts website we have an article listing some three dozens scientific (and philosophical) arguments why evolution is not true. But let me just highlight one--"irreducible complexity."
Biochemist Michael Behe wrote a book in 1996 entitled Darwin's Black Box, The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. The book is a landmark work on the issue of evolution.
In the book, Behe explains that the theory of evolution was formulated on an assumption that life was built on levels from simple to complex. That is, the earliest forms of life were simple, and more and more complexity was added as the evolutionary process continued. Further, this assumption said that modern cellular life is simple, and that complex beings were merely combinations of simple cells. But since the invention of electron microscopes in the 1950s, we have been able to look into the cell and see that this assumption, which is fundamental to evolution, is incorrect.
Behe further explains that life at the cellular level is not merely complex, but "irreducibly complex." He explains the idea this way. Take a mousetrap. The trap is actually made up of several parts that must function together--a platform, a bait catch, a spring, a hammer, and a holding bar. Each component is necessary for the trap to work. But all of these parts must be present in the correct way, at the correct strength, at the same time, etc., for the trap to function. A partially complete mousetrap is not partially workable; it is not workable at all, and would not survive to continue the process.
All parts of a complex system would have to have developed simultaneously. The problem for evolution is this, the theory is based on minute independent mutations which do not have a designed plan. But the very existence of complex systems, with dependent parts, severely challenges the theory. Could independent, random activity produce irreducibly complex systems?
In his book, Behe details the chemistry of several complex organic systems, including blood clotting, cilia, flagella, and immune systems. Each system is delicately interrelated and complex. So complex, in fact, that given our modern knowledge of biochemistry, evolution becomes intellectually untenable, if not absolutely impossible.
A flagellum, for example, consists of numerous specialized and interrelated parts, working together as a tiny machine. Such molecular machines defy a Darwinian explanation.
An illustration given by Behe is an animal trap found in the woods. The trap consists of a small tree bent down to form a spring mechanism. At the top end of the tree is a rope to catch the prey. And there is a release mechanism allowing the trap to spring when an animal sets foot in it. If you see such a trap in the woods, you could only conclude that it was intelligently designed, not a result of accidental processes.
Back to school boards. We must ask ourselves: Why wouldn't a school board want its students to logically examine scientific evidence of any sort? Why is ANY THEORY, no matter how entrenched, off limits for investigation. Isn't the pursuit of truth worth the effort to develop the minds of students?
Answer: Liberals are not interested in truth. They are interested in CONTROL.
Be sure to read our entire article. Actually, don't just read it--study it and think about it. And share it with your kids. An eighth grader can grasp this material:
Evolution: Science or Creation Story?
Also, check out this exciting new movie:
Ray Comfort
Sincerely and hopefully,
Charles Meek
Off Grid Blogger
*********************
The utopian perfectibility that liberals crave is detrimental to society--indeed, not even possible by government edict or by any human effort. Liberals are deceived in thinking they are working for good. The welfare state, while well-intentioned, institutionalizes indolence and poverty--and is thereby immoral. The result of the welfare state is not true charity; rather it is theft from one group to benefit another group in order to keep the latter on the dole for political votes.
While a just society will seek equality of opportunity and appropriate assistance for the truly needy, liberal redistribution schemes ultimately hurt both the recipients and the contributors. Wealth redistribution forced by the heavy hand of the state distorts the moral arrangement between parties when charity is freely given. There is a difference between a hand-up and a hand-out.
Biblically ordered liberty is moral. But liberalism in any of its forms, properly understood, is tyrannical. All forms of utopian statism have as their root the need to control other people by edict rather than by conscience. Statism is inherently inefficient, produces little, takes resources from the productive economy, and is therefore detrimental to growth and the welfare of a society.
Liberalism has everything turned on it head. It punishes achievement but rewards failure. Liberal thought is often opposed to objective moral values and is opposed to a moral authority above itself. Thus liberal thought says that rights come from government, rather the American ideal of unalienable rights from God. It is demonstrably true that little is sacred with liberalism outside of one's personal subjective feelings or political power--not the Bible, not the Constitution, not the Rule of Law, not natural law, nor even life itself.
Thus liberalism is the least likely system to honor the inherent worth of the individual, and the most likely to harm the most vulnerable in society such as the expendable elderly and the innocent unborn. Liberals' profession of tolerance is hypocritical as liberals certainly do not tolerate opposition to their errant views. Liberals are tolerant until you disagree; then you become a racist hillbilly. Indeed, the further left a society progresses the more it is intolerant and destructive--a fact proven time and again by history.
While liberals may be moral and well-intentioned in their own lives, their views are not consistent with what is good. In actuality liberals are working to tear down or distort everything that is good and elevate what is evil--including in art, music, culture, business, politics, science, sexuality, education, truth, beauty, justice, morality, and logic. So ironically liberalism is neither moral, compassionate, tolerant, nor effective. Christian capitalism is the most moral, leads to the most freedom, and produces the most economic benefits for society.
"One of the greatest mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results." --Milton Friedman
|
