A Response to School Boards Considering introducing Intelligent Design into Biology Class
First of all, let me note that this does not go far enough, introduction of Intelligent Design should be extended into other sciences, notably Physics and Geology, rather than being restricted to Biology.
The evidence presented to support the concept of Evolution, or Darwinism, is also dependent on other sciences to support claims, including the layers of sediment set down over time, or, as proven by cdesign proponentists, laid down by The Great Flood. The use of co-existence of fossils in the same strata to prove their existence at the same time is also upset by the Flood, as is the existence of sea-based fossils in mountain ranges. The theory of Continental Drift makes the claim that over millions of years, rather than the correct six to ten thousand years, the Earth's continents have moved, as Darwinism insists that species evolve into other species. With the Flood, various claims of 'ancient' fossils, such as the Dinosaurs, is disproven because, as we know, the Grand Canyon was laid down in a matter of days, rather than eons.
As for the age of the Earth, Darwinists insist that the length of time for the creation is billions of years, yet in their physics classes, students learn that time is a relative thing, according to Einstein. Thus, what may be experienced as days by those in one 'referential frame' can be years, even millions or billions of years, to someone in another 'referential frame', bringing the claim of extremely long times into question according to their own 'science'. This also causes a failure of the claims that radioactive decay is consistent.
Furthermore, Darwinist Physics says that radioactive decay is a constant, which ID has disproven, with the rate of decay changing over time. Darwin Physics also makes other claims, such as that certain elements can be 'doped' (proof that the Darwinists are indeed all drug users) so that they can work like Vacuum Tubes.
The Darwinist theory makes the claim that humans are related to the Great Apes. Such would mean that we are a 'transitional species' between their 'pre-humans' and another, yet to come species, which would also be transitional. This would debunk the knowledge that humans were specially created.
In addition, Humans have self-awareness, with the ability to question the nature of Existence. No other animal has this ability, leading to the question as to how and where this self-awareness comes from, which Darwinism cannot answer.
Darwinism gained prominence in 1957, when the Communists in the Soviet Union launched Sputnick, causing fear among Americans that the Soviet Union was ahead of the United States in knowledge. As we have seen, from the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, during Ronald Reagan's presidency, Communism its related atheism have failed, yet scientists insist that their beliefs must continue.
In regards to claims that DNA has 'proven' that Darwinism is true, I bring to you the question: if you build, for instance, an 'airplane' out of building blocks, does that make it a functioning airplane? No, it remains a series of building blocks, with the shape of an airplane. It cannot fly, its 'engines' will not function, and it cannot transport dolls from one city to another.
From this structural fact, we can also note that the 'missing links' that have been found are NOT some 'previous kind of Man', but simply deformed humans, probably with some kind of deliberate deformity for actions they have taken that resulted in violating the rules of Design.
Yes, even Darwinism requires certain 'rules' as to the changes they posit. The question becomes, who or what set up these rules? Darwinists have not answered this question, implying they are part of the 'natural order'. Since Darwinists insist that 'evolution' is through mutation, and most mutations are acknowledged as harmful, how could 'evolution' create superior species or sub-species that are better adapted to their environment?
One famous atheist and scientist has titled a book The Selfish Gene, which shows once again the near-anarchy of the Scientific Establishment, yet they insist on THEIR rules as the only ones which may be taught.
Thank you.
Inspired by Why Evolution Is True by Jerry A. Coyne
ISBN: 978-0-670-02053-9