Unborn Personhood And ID: Waiting For The Unhinged Blowback

Get the Prozac doses ready for the Left!

An amendment to the Colorado Constitution that defines a “person” as “any human being from the moment of fertilization” will go before state voters in the Nov. 4 general election.

Amendment 48, entitled “Definition of a Person,” was approved for a statewide vote on Thursday by Colorado Secretary of State Mike Coffman, whose office validated 103,000 signatures on petitions for the ballot initiative — 27,000 more than required.

The petition drive — which actually collected 130,050 signatures — originated with 20-year-old Kristi Burton, who said in a news release that she developed a deep passion for the pro-life movement at 13 years of age.

“All humans should be protected by love and by law, and this amendment is a historic effort to ensure equal rights for every person,” Burton noted in her statement.

How soon till groups like the ACLU and NARAL, among others, file lawsuits to stop the process, thwarting the Rights of the People of Colorado to vote on Amendment 48? Petitions will be created, Burton will personally be attacked – probably as some sort of fundie who believes that the world is flat – and liberals will become hysterical over their most important commandment for the Church of Liberalism.

Then we have

A documentary released earlier this year may be partly responsible for “academic freedom bills” now advancing at the state level. Those bills are intended to strengthen the free speech rights of those who seek to examine the full range of views on evolutionary theory.

The film “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” suggests that biologists, chemists, and astronomers have been censored, denied tenure, and even fired in some cases after raising questions about Charles Darwin’s 150-year-old theory that life results from random mutations and natural selection.

The film has prompted some states to consider legislation that would insulate teachers and students who believe there is evidence of “design” in nature, Walt Ruloff, a co-producer for the film, told Cybercast News Service. (snip)

So far this year, legislation has been introduced in Florida, Missouri, South Carolina, Alabama and Michigan as well as in Louisiana.

I’m not going to get in to the whole Darwinism vs. ID debate, but, don’t you think that, if we are talking about, as those on the left in education say, having an “open mind,” that ID could be taught if a teacher wants to without fearing retribution from unhinged Darwinists? Heck, as it stands, if they even mention it, they could be facing lawsuits? Generally, the Darwinists seem to be to scared to allow an opposing viewpoint. I wonder why?


Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

13 Responses to “Unborn Personhood And ID: Waiting For The Unhinged Blowback”

  1. Silke says:

    Intelligent design’s argument that evolution cannot explain the origin of astoundingly complex biological systems is indistinguishable from the assertion that science has not explained everything. Unexplained, however, is not the same as unexplainable. When ID advocates see something unexplained, they point to the supernatural. But science, by definition, looks only for natural explanations. That’s not a rejection of God but rather an acknowledgment of the limits of science.

    If teachers wish to suggest that the intricacies of nature, life, and the universe reveal a world of meaning and purpose consistent with a divine intelligence, their point is philosophical, not scientific. It is a philosophical point of view, incidentally, that I share. However, to support that view, one should not find it necessary to pretend that we know less than we really do about the evolution of living systems. In the final analysis, the biochemical hypothesis of intelligent design fails not because the scientific community is closed to it but rather for the most basic of reasons — because it is overwhelmingly contradicted by the scientific evidence.

  2. John Ryan says:

    In schools teachers must teach a specific curriculum, they never get to “teach what they want”
    Say a teacher decides that he/she wants to teach that 2+2=5 well sorry no can do !!

  3. Stacy says:

    It’s not a matter of “teaching what they want”; it’s placing all theories out there and allowing (and educating) students to come to their own conclusions.

    Regarding our Amendment 48, I doubt it will pass, but it hasn’t exactly been mocked by the state. We’ll see.

  4. Silke says:

    Stacy, if it were a scientifically valid theory I would agree, but ID is not scientific. It is primarily religious and philosophical.

    I would also argue that not only is ID bad science it is also bad theology. If a lack of scientific explanation is proof of God’s existence, the counterargument must also be true: A successful scientific explanation is an argument against God. That’s why this reasoning, ultimately, is much more dangerous to faith than it is to science.

  5. Actually, Silke, if you really understood ID, you would see that it is not religious, and is, in fact, a science that looks at the physical aspects of the universe and the life. As far as pretending goes, that is pretty much all Darwinism does, pretend to be facts about nothing.

    John, as Stacy says, they should be free to teach it, even if it is an elective. But, as soon as someone tries, the ACLU jumps in, lawsuits are filed, etc and so on. It’s like the Darwinists are afraid of exposing a different viewpoint. Why is that?

    Again, Silke, you prove either your ignorance about ID or your blind obedience to Darwinism by talking about God. That is NOT what ID is about. It is not a modern substitution for Creationism. It seeks to explain the universe and life as being designed by a higher being, which is not necessarily “God.” Consider water. The building block of life. It can be gaseous, liquid, or solid. And it is pretty much the only complex molecule that floats when it freezes. Water freezes from the top down. Why is this important? Because life can flourish under the ice. If water froze like most liquids, from the bottom up, life would not survive during ice ages, and especially not during Snowball Earth.

    Consider the Flaggelum. The eye. The nature of gravity in the universe. Change the physical properties of gravity just a little bit, and Sun’s would either collapse in on themselves or fail to form. Why are human eye’s where they are? What made that the perfect spot? Random chance? Why are there no fossils with eyes on the bottoms of our feet? What made the human body the way it is?

    Where are all the humorous examples of species, the birds with fur, humans with fins, cats with duck bills? Why does it seem that everything just came out the way it is and then the general design became fixed?

  6. Silke says:

    Teach said: It seeks to explain the universe and life as being designed by a higher being, which is not necessarily “God.”

    If this “higher being” is not supernatural then the only other explanation is that it is an alien life form so advanced it is virtually indistinguishable from what we would consider supernatural. Either way, it’s interesting that you criticize the theory of evolution for inferring common descent but when scientists infer the existence of a designer (unidentified and unknowable) you have no problem with that. At least the predictions common descent makes can be tested. What useful predictions does ID make? If highly complex organisms can only be the result of a higher being, who designed the higher being?

    Why are human eye’s where they are? What made that the perfect spot? Random chance?

    No, natural selection acting on random mutation.

    Why are there no fossils with eyes on the bottoms of our feet?

    Eye’s started as photosensitive cells connected to neural tissue (such as the brain – hence their position on the head in mammals). These photosensitive spots gradually turned into light-sensitive craters that could detect the rough direction from which light came, and then gradually acquired their lenses, improving their information-gathering capacities all the while.
    All it takes is a mutation that improves an animal’s vision over that of its siblings; if this helps it have more offspring than its rivals, this gives evolution an opportunity to raise the bar and ratchet up the design of the eye by one more step. And since these lucky improvements accumulate (this was Darwin’s insight) eyes can automatically get better and better, without any intelligent designer.

    Brilliant as the design of the eye is, though, it betrays its origin with a tell-tale flaw: the retina is inside out. The nerve fibers that carry the signals from the eye’s rods and cones (which sense light and color) lie on top of them, and have to plunge through a large hole in the retina to get to the brain, creating the blind spot. No intelligent designer would put such a clumsy arrangement in a camcorder, and this is just one of hundreds of accidents frozen in evolutionary history that contradict intelligent design.

    Where are all the humorous examples of species, the birds with fur, humans with fins, cats with duck bills?

    That would actually disprove evolution.

  7. darthcrUSAderworldtour2007 says:

    Frau Vader says in her black lingerie with glass of Fatherland spatlese in hand, ” Darth was made from dirt…woman from man’s rib… and left-wingbats were created from ASSteroid dust on Uranus!”
    – That’s my girl!!!

  8. drstrangeloveb52isok says:

    “… After watching the birth of our 9 children in our first 12 years of marriage, there is a Creator, a God, a Jesus Christ and a Holy Spirit!” Too bad the infidels are missing REALITY but it’s their right to do so!

  9. Silke says:

    Darth was made from dirt…woman from man’s rib…

    there is a Creator, a God, a Jesus Christ and a Holy Spirit! Too bad the infidels are missing REALITY but it’s their right to do so!

    Yup, ID is definitely not religious…right Teach?

  10. Silke says:

    Teach, have you ever heard of the Wedge Document?

    The Wedge Document is an internal memorandum for the Discovery Institute (the leading proponent of ID) that outlines a public relations campaign meant to sway the opinion of the public and popular media. It demonstrates the Institute’s and intelligent design’s political rather than scientific purpose.

    The document sets forth the short-term and long-term goals with milestones for the intelligent design movement, with its governing goals stated in the opening paragraph:
    • “To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies”
    • “To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God”


  11. Silke says:

    More proof that ID is not religious…

    [A]ny view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient…

    [T]he conceptual soundness of a scientific theory cannot be maintained apart from Christ.

    William A. Dembski
    Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology (1999)

  12. darthcrUSAderworldtour2007 says:

    GOD made the universe, the galxies, the BIG BANG… and even the cells, molecules and matter… GOD is ETERNAL and it’s that simple. You may have come from an ape, chimp, orangutan, gorilla, monkey or air dropped from a stork, and that’s your choice to believe that, but the Supreme Creator and Supreme ARCHITECT in life is GOD. WHY respond to this topic for in your own mind…GOD doesn’t EXIST anyway? Some of US 86-percenters that believe in GOD are the minority in today’s secular world of doom and gloom, eh? You 14-percenters rule…? 86 v. 14 ?? Do the math!
    Thank GOD it is His Day – Sunday!

  13. Silke says:

    Darth said: You may have come from an ape, chimp, orangutan, gorilla, monkey…

    The theory of evolution does not say humans evolved from apes, chimps, orangutans or gorillas. Animals living today have been evolving as long as humans have. We do however share a recent common ancestor.

    WHY respond to this topic for in your own mind…GOD doesn’t EXIST anyway?

    Who said I don’t believe in God? That’s the problem I have with this whole debate. It presents a false choice. If you accept the evidence for evolution you must be an atheist. If you accept ID you’re a faithful Christian. That’s simply not true. Why couldn’t God have created all life on Earth through evolution?

    Of course according to Teach, ID is not religious.

Pirate's Cove