I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Friday, May 15, 2009

Islamic creationist condemns Intelligent Design

That stupid ignoramus Judge "Jackass" Jones said in Kitzmiller v. Dover, "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Darwinists use the oxymoronic term "intelligent design creationism." Darwinists, who cherry-pick their evidence instead of looking at all the evidence, harp on the typo "cdesignproponentists" -- an error in substituting the term "design proponent" for "creationist" in the book "Of Pandas and People." Ironically, many religious creationists reject intelligent design. One of the reasons why they reject ID is that they feel that god's word does not need scientific evidence to support it. Some creationists feel that it is blasphemous to even imply or suggest that god's word needs scientific evidence to support it. One of the main reasons why Darwinists insist that ID is creationism is to have a basis for using the establishment clause to attack ID.

Adrian Oktar, who writes under the pen name Harun Yahya, is a very prominent Turkish creationist.[1] [2] [3] [4] He wrote,

INTELLIGENT DESIGN: A NEW AGE THEORY

In order to alienate people from true religions, Masons have devised many false religions of complex description assembling them all under the heading New Age.

Their purpose in this is to inculcate in that large segment of people who are abandoning materialist ideas, a new way of living and thinking. They want to establish a new system ornamented with metaphysical language and totally divergent from the true religion and faith in Allah (God) as revealed in the Qur’an. It is an irresponsible system with nothing to offer.

. . . . .In order to alienate people in Islamic countries from true religion, Masons are intent on offering the idea of intelligent design as the most appropriate alternative in these countries.

Of course, they do not pretend that what they are doing is against Islam; on the contrary, they claim that their activities are innocent and even serve to strengthen the foundations of faith in Allah.

However, Western supporters of this movement confess that this is a non-religious system of thought. For example, the American biologist, Michael Behe, one of the noted theoreticians of intelligent design, explains that intelligent design is not an idea based in religion but religious people can make good use of it in their arguments.

Those who accept the theory of intelligent design insist that religion and science should be separate and that science should not support creation and revealed religions.

Yahya (Adrian Oktar) contradicts himself here -- first he said that ID guru Michael Behe holds that "religious people can make good use of [ID] in their arguments," and then says, "those who accept ID insist that religion and science should be separate and that science should not support creation and revealed religions."

Yahya/Oktar then attacks the Discovery Institute:
.
They see themselves as outside revealed religions; they think that religion is a matter of faith and outside the parameters of science. Their view is that it would be wrong for science to rely on religion.

The official internet site of the Discovery Institute that represents this movement asks the question. ‘Is the theory of intelligent design the same as the theory of creation?’ The answer:

Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. (http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign)

However, in a post last year, the very popular blog "Little Green Footballs" accused the Discovery Institute of being in league with Turkish creationists, including Yahya/Oktar! [link] LOL

Yahya writes,

The Theory of Intelligent Design: Another Kind of Deism.

The theory of intelligent design accepts neither revealed religions nor the existence of Allah. It has an abstract and abstruse concept of a designer.

It is misleading to say that ID accepts neither revealed religions nor the existence of Allah -- or some other god(s) or goddess(es). It is more correct to say that ID does not reject revealed religions or the existence of Allah. There is a big difference.

It is interesting that Masons use the same logic in their writings when they say that the universe is like the intelligent designer -- total conscious energy. They say this energy is conscious and that it is the Great Architect of the Universe.

But Masons insist that that this conscious energy is not Allah. (Surely Allah is beyond that)

We can see that advocates of intelligent design share the same logic as Masons when it comes to explaining their position. Their ideas are very much in tune with Deism which accepts the existence of a Creator while rejecting the validity of revealed religions.

ID may be "in tune" with Deism, but that doesn't mean that ID is the same as Deism or is a kind of Deism. ID is a "big tent" with room for those who believe in Deism, young-earth creationism, old-earth creationism, common descent, front-loaded (pre-programmed) evolution, theism, agnosticism, atheism (yes), etc..

In contrast to Yahya/Oktar, the young-earth creationist organization Answers-in-Genesis appears to support ID -- the AiG website praises Ben Stein's pro-ID movie "Expelled -- No Intelligence Allowed" and sells a DVD of the movie. [link].

More discussion is on Panda's Thumb and Uncommon Descent.
.

Labels: , ,

4 Comments:

Anonymous Michael said...

In contrast to Yahya/Oktar, the young-earth creationist organization Answers-in-Genesis appears to support ID -- the AiG website praises Ben Stein's pro-ID movie "Expelled -- No Intelligence Allowed" and sells a DVD of the movie.AIG praised the movie because it exposed the communistic practice and leadership in the scientific community which tries to force people to comply or they will be "expelled."

AIG may agree with ID on some things, but they certainly are not ID supporters.

Saturday, May 16, 2009 2:24:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> AIG praised the movie because it exposed the communistic practice and leadership in the scientific community which tries to force people to comply or they will be "expelled."<<<<<<

The AIG website's "Expelled" ad says that the anti-ID policies of academia "mock God": "You will be astounded at what they [i.e., "atheistic evolutionists"] have already done to squash educational freedom and mock God."

>>>>>> AIG may agree with ID on some things, but they certainly are not ID supporters. <<<<<<

Compared to Yahya/Oktar, AIG is an ID supporter. Yahya Oktar said of ID, "It is an irresponsible system with nothing to offer." The AIG website says,

The ID movement does have several positives. The movement has produced many resources, including books and multimedia, which support the biblical creationist viewpoint. It makes clear that Darwinism/naturalism is based on the presupposition that the supernatural does not exist, thus affecting the way one interprets the scientific evidence. ID is based on the presupposition that the supernatural does exist.

ID may serve as a useful tool in preliminary discussions about God and creation to gain an audience that might be turned off at the mention of the Bible. However, in further discussions, the Bible as the biblical creationists’ foundation should be primary.
BTW, I disagree with the statement, "ID is based on the presupposition that the supernatural does exist." To me, ID is just the study of the idea that the Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms of natural genetic variation and natural selection do not adequately explain the complexity and diversity of living things.

Saturday, May 16, 2009 9:42:00 AM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

Denyse O'Leary recently posted an interview with Oktar on Uncommon Descent. He dodged a question about intelligent design, but also made some interesting points.

Oktar said he was led to anti-Darwinism by noticing the vicious influence of belief in Darwinism, in helping to provoke wars and massacres in the 20th century. One can't hold that Darwinism is the cause of all conflict, but it certainly did play a strong role in 20th century history, helping to spawn Nazism, fascism, Communist dictatorships, etc. Without Darwinism, niether Nazi nor Communist dictatorships would have been possible.

Saturday, May 16, 2009 3:58:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Jim Sherwood said...
>>>>>> Denyse O'Leary recently posted an interview with Oktar on Uncommon Descent. <<<<<<

Yes, the bottom of my original post has a link to that interview.

>>>>> Without Darwinism, niether Nazi nor Communist dictatorships would have been possible. <<<<<<

IMO that's hard to say, but I think that Darwinism did have some influence, particularly in regard to the race-purity ideas of Nazism.

Saturday, May 16, 2009 4:47:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home