Would Darwin Censor Intelligent Design?

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/07/11/would-darwin-censor-intelligent-design/

The person who wrote that must believe that he has heard all the arguments. He hasn’t.

If you leave any “intelligent design” argument on the fire long enough, it distills down to its essence: “It say so in the Bible”.

So… if Jerry Pournelle doesn’t worship at the feet of Dick Dawkins, that makes him a bible-thumping creationist? Well, there’s an easy way to avoid any actual thinking. Nice.

If we are to maintain the liberty to pursue questions and topics critical to the psychological and spiritual well-being of a society, we must, at the least, chain our government to the Constitution.

Science ceases to become science when fundamental definitions, such as the definition of what a species is, are revised to support the biases of the scientists.

The definition that used to be universally accepted was, a population that is gentically incompatible with any other specied. The resultant offspring (if any) of a cross breeding is sterile. The classic example is horse + donkey = mule.

Modern “scientists” (more aptly described as “advocates”) have arbitrarily changed that definition to a population which will not preferentially breed with another population. Any crosses, if they occur, remain viable and fertile. This redefining is abhorent to any real scientist, and is used as a ruse to promote their agenda of strict probability based random evolution.

They like to call themselves “Darwinians,” but Darwin, himself, invoked repeatedly the “Devine plan of a Creator,” in his treatise. Which makes Darwin a believer in ID, not an advocate of purely random chance based evolution.

Darwin was not a Dawkinsian.

Those on the Left have a vested interest in keeping any vestige of Judeo-Christian religion out of our schools, a prejudice they don’t seem to hold against Islamists, or for that matter, other religions such as AGW and “Dawkinsian” evolution.