Let’s open minds, textbooks to intelligent design theories: Intricacies of Earth life-forms, microscopes challenge evolution ideas

From Gordon Rose and Indystar.com.

“In our school systems today, science, with its dramatic and continual advancement in knowledge, has to be one of the most interesting as well as important subjects being taught.

Strangely enough, it is here that we are teaching unchallenged, the biggest lie in education — the theory of evolution. Not that the theory shouldn’t be taught — it should, simply because it is believed to be true by so many scientists. But the latest research with modern tools such as the electron microscope, have ruled out any possibility of life on our planet occurring by accident. Modern, competent scientists can show that the unbelievable complexity of design of the human cell, for example, demands the acknowledgement of a designer, or an intelligence far higher than anything we can imagine.

Unfortunately for our students, those in control of the science curriculum have defined science in such a narrow way that only the theory of evolution is allowed to be considered as the explanation for all of the varied life forms on Earth. They do this by demanding a “natural” explanation for the evidence before us, rather than the most “logical” explanation of the evidence. That is the only way they can keep the pseudo-science of evolution going and being unchallenged in the classroom. Critical examination of the theory itself is not found in high school textbooks, and therefore not discussed as part of the course study. Why not?
The bacterial flagellum, for example, is so small that more than 1,000 could fit in the period at the end of this sentence. Its propulsion system consists of dozens of interactive components clearly designed and functioning together as a variable-speed, reversible, rotary motor capable of turning 100,000 revolutions per minute. That is 10 times faster than a NASCAR race engine! And, it can stop and reverse itself in one-quarter of a turn!
Common sense — good, logical reasoning — tells us that this did not come about by accident. But our kids in school are required to believe it did, simply because close-minded educators in control of curriculum are afraid to admit a higher intelligence had to be involved . . . and this lies outside their blind, self-imposed restriction which says they must only explain it by “natural” causes. So they teach a lie instead.
The “religious” smokescreen that die-hard evolutionists keep using is keeping our kids from developing their critical thinking skills and learning truth in science. Instead, they are force-fed a canned, preordained theory that sounded good back in 1859, but does not stand up to the rigorous research and testing of the 21st century.
Gordon Rose is a retired field engineer with NCR. He and his wife live in Fishers. They have five children and nine grandchildren.”
Advertisements

10 Responses to Let’s open minds, textbooks to intelligent design theories: Intricacies of Earth life-forms, microscopes challenge evolution ideas

  1. I’m looking at your line that says,”Common sense — good, logical reasoning — tells us that this did not come about by accident”

    I think what common sense and logic tells us is, “we don’t know” or “we aren’t advanced enough to know.”

    Common sense and good logical reason are only worthwhile if you have enough knowledge to make things evident. There are all sorts of things that are counter-intuitive and counter logical. I think for most people a lot of physics is like that.

    I think on both sides of the arugment that are a lot of people who simply don’t want to admit what they don’t know. They simply don’t want to admit that were are still basically very primative people.

    I’d bet that in a 1000 years a lot of people are going to find this argument rather silly.

  2. Chris says:

    The author of this article is absolutely correct – “Common sense — good, logical reasoning — tells us that this did not come about by accident. But our kids in school are required to believe it did, simply because close-minded educators in control of curriculum are afraid to admit a higher intelligence had to be involved . . . and this lies outside their blind, self-imposed restriction which says they must only explain it by “natural” causes.”

  3. I get your point. But what I think is fair to say is…”we don’t know”

    Here’s the reality. 95% of kids within a year or two won’t remember either explanation.

    Here’s a video that has the real truth. http://youtube.com/watch?v=kO8x8eoU3L4

  4. Everyone keeps refering to a single higher intelligence. Logic dictates that the multiverse is too large and vast for just one intelligent creator. It’s more likely an entire race of creators. Creators don’t need to be all powerful, just powerful enough to get the job done.

  5. Chris says:

    We don’t know anything with 100% certainty but we can know with a high degree of probability.

    I disagree that 95% will not remember. And that is a poor argument for allowing this to continue.

    Thanks for the youtube video – it was humorous.

  6. If you think education is so good they will remember, try this test. Ask the next 10 people to describe the Theory of Evolution. I would bet they would get most of it wrong. or Ask them to give you the 10 commandments, I’ll bet they can’t get 5.

    Both the multiverse articles are so poorly written that I have no idea what they’re talking about.

    Also both articles are very old and don’t reflect any of the recent discoveries. For example, string theory has no been reconciled with heavy gravity and it now mathematically works. We now have definitive proof that the universe is not curved but is perfectly flat in all directions. We now have definitive proof that things can be in two places at once. There are more, but as a result the idea of parallel universes has gone from science fantasy to main stream thought.

    But that wasn’t my point. My point is that if you buy into the logic of intelligent design, it doesn’t tell you anything about the designer(s). In fact, it opens it up to many different explanations.

    Also I don’t find the logic that because things are so complex that they had to be designed. The sign of real intelligence is to make things simple and elegant. What we have now is a Rube Goldberg type universe. So the designer might have been smart but not that smart.

  7. Chris says:

    I am not sure who you hang around but the people I know are very familiar with evolution and the 10 commandments. The multiverse articles were written by a scientist ant a world renowned philosopher so if you think they write poorly it is obvious you have an agenda or you read poorly. What are your academic credentials?

    Please provide evidence supporting the multiverse theory – everything I have read about it indicates it is pure fantasy. Another concoction by those who reject God. Are you an atheist?

    Intelligent causes exist. These causes can be empirically detected (by looking for specified complexity). ID makes much more sense with the latest findings in science than darwinian evolution.

  8. What I do know is good writing. That’s my profession. Scientist are notorious for poor writing. The understand what their saying but they can’t communicate it.

    I would suspect that the people you hand out would know those terms but that’s not the general public or the other 300 million.

    Here are just a few articles. I think a lot of the new stuff in the field of quantum physics point to at least 11 dimensions and the likelihood of m theory being correct. I know that they have definitely proven the things can be in two places at once.

    http://www.trustedlog.com/2007/11/26/parallel-universe-exists-we-have-evidence/
    http://www.qubit.org/people/david/Articles/Frontiers.html
    http://membranetheory.org/
    http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/727073.stm

  9. Chris says:

    These men are not only a scientist and philosopher but writers as well. They have written many, many articles in many, many publications and books as well. They have no problem with communication. Why did you not answer as to whether you are an atheist?

    I read these articles and they are typical in that they are filled with major “leaps of faith”. The same as with articles you read on evolution.

    I would like to recommend a book for you if you are open to reading it – I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Dr. Geisler – it covers multiverse theory and many other topics you would find interesting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: