Um Himmels Willen,
wie kam es nur dazu,
dass es heutzutage so
intelligente und sensible
Wesen, wie den
Gemeinen etuxx-Redakteur
gibt? Eine Erklärung:



Die Evolution des
Gemeinen etuxx-Redakteurs
ist bis heute nicht in allen
Phasen aufgeklärt...









Die religiöse
Agenda von ID

"Das Ziel ist es, die Leute davon zu überzeugen, dass der Darwinismus von seinem Wesen her atheistisch ist, und damit die Debatte wegzulenken vom Thema Schöpfungslehre gegen Evolution, und hinzulenken zum Thema Existenz oder Nichtexistenz Gottes. Von dort aus werden wir die Leute an die ‚Wahrheit' der Bibel heranführen, dann an die ‚Frage der Sünde', und dann an Jesus."

Philip Johnson, im Magazin Church & State (1999) über die Keil-Strategie















...weshalb gerade der
Gemeine etuxx-Redakteur
ein leuchtendes Beispiel
dafür ist, dass ein
intelligentes Wesen
an seiner Schöpfung
beteiligt gewesen sein muss...






"ID eröffnet die Möglichkeit, daß wir als eines gütigen Gottes Ebenbilder geschaffen worden sind... Es ist die Aufgabe von Apologetikern, den Weg zu ebnen, die Hindernisse aus dem Weg zu räumen, die Leute von der Erkenntnis Christo abhalten... Und wenn es irgendetwas gibt, was das Wachstum Christo wie die freie Herrschaft des Hl. Geistes blockiert hat, und die Leute davor zurückhielt, die Hl. Schrift und Jesus Christus zu akzeptieren, dann ist es die naturalistische Theorie Darwins."

William Dembski, Nationaler Kongreß der religiösen Rundfunksprecher, 6.2.2000















So ist beispielsweise
völlig ungeklärt,
wie es dazu kam, dass der
Gemeine etuxx-Redakteur
eines Tages seine groben
Werkzeuge ablegte...








"Die Worte des Vaters (gemeint ist der Reverend Sun Myung Moon), meine Studien und meine Gebete haben mich davon überzeugt, mein Leben der Zerstörung des Darwinismus zu weihen, so wie viele meiner Mitvereinigungs-kirchler schon ihr Leben der Zerstörung des Marxismus geweiht haben. Als mich der Vater auswählte, 1978 eine Ph.D. - Ausbildung zu machen, habe ich diese Gelegenheit wahrgenommen, um mich auf den Kampf vorzubereiten."

Jonathan Wells,
Autor des Anti-Eevolutionsbuches
The Icons of Evolution















... um auf diesem Weg
eine hochintelligente Kreatur,
eine gelungene Verknüpfung
aus Natur und Technik zu werden...











"Meine Knochen erzählen
die Story von
unfähigem Design,
mein Rücken schmerzt,
Stirnhöhl' verstopft,
die Zähne nicht vereint.
Wär' der Entwurf von mir,
ich träte
sicherlich zurück.
Blödsinniges Design!...










In einem us-amerikanischen
Standardwerk, das sich
schon früh mit der Frage
der Entstehung des
Gemeinen etuxx-Redakteurs
befasste,...









...Evo-Evo-Evo-lution! Design ist doch bloß 'ne Illusion, Darwin begann die Revolution, und Wissenschaft setzt sich durch!"

(Maggie Wittlin, Evolution & Ecology, 15.11.2005

(Kann jetzt auch auf Deutsch gesungen werden, zu "Glory Glory Hallelujah!" Der Übersetzer.)












... wird dafür
in seinem Biohaushalt
die vermehrte Anlagerung
von Wasserstoff-Atomen
an das Molekül Propenal
verantwortlich gemacht,
woraus das hochintelligente
Molekül Propanal
entstand, ...




... das allerdings erheblich
instabiler und auf Grund
dieser Instabilität
hochexplosiv ist.
(Popangas oder etuxx.com)

Diese Erklärung ist aber nicht
hinreichend und notwendig...





















Naheliegend dagegen ist der
göttlich homoerotische
Eingriff, wie ihn
Michelangelo einst auf
Leinwand dokumentierte,
und wofür der
Gemeine etuxx-Redakteur
bis heute ein lebendiger,
schöner Beweis ist.

Darwin und Gott sei Dank!




















Die hier abgebildete etuxx- Kachel können Sie auch käuflich erwerben: im Tapeten-Format 11x11 cm zum Stückpreis von 259 Euro (Mindestabnahme:
1.000 Stück)



oder im Großformat
18x18 cm als Bodenkachel zum Stückpreis von 398 Euro (Mindestabnahme:
100 Stück)



Material: Terrakotta, heiß gebeamt und titanlasiert, dadurch besonders farbecht und beständig.

Alle Preise zzgl. MWSt
und Transportkosten.

LeserInnen, die glaubhaft
versichern können, dass sie den Artikel ganz gelesen haben, erhalten Nachlass.

Numerous examples of natural selection could be cited. A century ago, for instance, the African village weaverbird was introduced on the island of Mauritius, and on Hispaniola the bird has existed for more than two centuries. Neither island has the parasitic diederik cuckoos that plague the weaverbird elsewhere by laying similar-looking eggs in their nests. The cuckoo eggs hatch first and the other eggs are removed from the nest. In response, the weaverbirds have changed the color or spotting patterns on their eggs, making it easier to detect an alien egg. But on the two islands, there is a reduced variation in the eggs of individual birds and within clutches, with a greater reduction on the island where the birds have existed longer without the cuckoo threat ('Birds Adjust for Unwanted Guests,' New York Times, November 29, 2005, D3). Another example of how species can evolve when they become geographically isolated is that of the monarch flycatcher. Scientists have identified thirteen species of this bird that shared a common ancestor in Australia or New Guinea 2-5.6 million years ago. These descendants spread thousands of miles to other islands, as far away as Hawaii, undergoing changes at a rapid rate. Dr. Christopher E. Filardi, a biologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, determined that one lineage tripled its body size in less than a million years. Poetically, this 'evolutionary wave' came full circle when flycatchers from the Solomon Islands colonized Australia and New Guinea ('In Give and Take of Evolution, a Surprising Contribution from Islands,' New York Times, November 22, 2005, D2).
The modern understanding of how new species evolve was laid in the mid-twentieth century by the ornithologist Ernst Mayr (1904-2005), who based his theory on the study of birds in the Pacific islands.
Many similar examples could be given involving insect wings, lizards, and other animals, both extinct and living.
People who haven't given much thought to the subject sometimes point to the human eye as an example of a complex organ that couldn't possibly have evolved, but had to be designed by a presumably 'intelligent designer.' But the eyes of insects and mammals, Kirschner and Gerhart noted, according to the Globe, 'each of which appear to be singularly complex, share important biochemical building blocks and connections among their components.' Moreover, there are apparent oddities in the structure of the human eye (such as inverted images, or the receptor cells being located behind a membrane curtain) that at the least raise questions about how intelligently designed the eye is after all.
Don Wise, professor emeritus of geosciences at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, advocates a different phrase: 'incompetent design.' He points to a lack of intelligent design in the way the human animal has evolved. 'The thing that is closest to all of us is our own skeleton, and there are certainly all kinds of stupidity in our design…. All of our pelvises slope forward for convenient knuckle-dragging, like all the other great apes…. Look at the teeth in your mouth. Basically, most of us have too many teeth for the size of our mouth.' Wise says that if he were to redesign things, he would 'put fewer teeth in our mouths,' rearrange bones in the face 'so that it could drain properly, ' straighten the pelvis 'so we wouldn't have to have that bend' (which results in primates getting ruptured disks and lower back pain from walking on two feet), get rid of the appendix and the tonsils, redo the eye. He says that 'evolutionarily all of these things make sense,' but in terms of intelligent design 'they're idiocy.' Wise has written lyrics to be sung to the tune of 'The Battle Hymn of the Republic':

My bones proclaim a story of incompetent design.
My back still hurts, my sinus clogs, my teeth just won't align.
If I had drawn the blueprint, I would cer-tain-ly resign.

Incompetent Design!

Evo-Evo-Evo-lution! Design is but a mere illusion.
Darwin sparked our revolution. Science SHALL prevail!
(Interviewed by Maggie Wittlin, Evolution & Ecology, November 15, 2005)

'The best argument against 'intelligent design,'' writes columnist Nicholas D. Kristof ('The Hubris of the Humanities,' New York Times, December 6, 2005), 'has always been humanity itself. At a time when only 40 percent of Americans believe in evolution, and only 13 percent know what a molecule is, we're an argument at best for 'mediocre design.'' One-fifth of Americans still believe that the Sun goes around the Earth. This is almost five hundred years since Galileo was put on trial by the Roman Catholic Church in 1633 for embracing the Copernican view and 505 years since the church burned Giordano Bruno at the stake for concluding that stars are suns. It took the church nearly five hundred years to admit that it was wrong and Galileo was right, but this news hasn't filtered down yet to millions of Americans. Only about half of them, Kristof observes, 'know that humans did not live at the same time as dinosaurs.' Public acceptance of evolution has gone down from 45 percent to 40 percent over the past two decades. Jon Miller, a professor at Northwestern University medical school who has studied attitudes toward evolution in thirty-four countries, found that only Turkey's population has a lower level of support for evolution than Americans. All this, as well as widespread belief in a personal devil, heaven and hell, Purgatory, and other bizarre or superstitious concepts, demonstrates an abysmal lack of scientific knowledge among a population that barely knows DNA from the Trinity.

A 2001 Gallup poll found that 45 percent of Americans believe that 'God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so'; 37 percent believe that 'Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process'; only 12 percent believe that 'Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process' (Michael Shermer, 'Design, Inc.' Skeptic 12.1 [2005]: 77; see www.skeptic.com for informative and often entertaining exposés of superstitious beliefs, fraudulent scams like 'faith healing' and magic tricks, UFO 'abductions,' Internet conspiracy 'theories,' and the like).

According to a recent report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, nearly half of U.S. states have low academic standards in science. The authors gave twenty-two states a D or an F for the way they are teaching evolution. Kansas got a special distinction, an F minus, for the decision in November of its State Board of Education to redefine science to remove the words 'natural explanations' from the definition of science, which used to read: 'Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.' The new definition calls science 'a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.' The only purpose behind this legalistic sleight of hand is to open the door to 'supernatural explanations' instead of natural ones for natural phenomena.
Following the Kansas decision, Bobby Henderson, who, according to a report in the New York Times (December 27, 2005, D3), 'variously describes himself as a concerned citizen, amateur pirate and a person of negligible education' created an online Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which holds that 'an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe.' The FSM movement argues (on Henderson's Web site, www.venganza.org) that his belief is no less worthy of inclusion in science classes than intelligent design.
The Fordham Institute study, the New York Times states (December 8, 2005), 'appears to support concerns raised by a growing number of university officials and corporate executives, who say that the failure to produce students well-prepared in science is undermining the country's production of scientists and engineers and putting the nation's economic future in jeopardy.' Some of the U.S. ruling class recognize the danger in such pervasive ignorance and that if U.S. corporations are to be able to compete with the rapid advances in technology among their competitors abroad, the education system cannot neglect scientific instruction and progress. The New York Times and other major newspapers, for instance, have come out against the teaching of 'intelligent design.' The Wall Street Journal, in contrast, published an editorial earlier in the year that supported it. Creationists and Christian fundamentalists, however, don't care about such considerations because their heart beats only for the day-which they believe could arrive at any moment-when Jesus will come again and sweep them up into heaven in the Rapture.

What Next?

Even though the Dover ruling is not legally binding on school districts throughout the country, the opinion is so well researched, and so thoroughly covers all possible bases in terms of the legal arguments ID advocates make, that it might deter other school boards and state boards of education from trying to adopt an ID policy. The legal fees the advocates now face could be an even stronger deterrent. Those fees, which the Dover school district is now obliged to pay, could exceed $1 million for court costs and legal fees to lawyers from the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and lawyers with a private firm. It is possible that these lawyers will go after individual board members who voted for the ID policy to pay these costs.
Challenges to evolution in school curriculums are under way in two dozen states, and some resemble the Kansas approach of changing science standards to teach about perceived flaws in evolutionary theory.
'Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be,' said the Vatican's chief astronomer, the Rev. George Coyne, Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, in November. 'If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.' That's exactly what some ID advocates will now try to implement. The day of the Dover ruling, a Texas school district decided that high school students in Odessa would study the Bible in history and literature, using a course published by the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, a religious advocacy group in Greensboro, North Carolina, that is backed by two right-wing organizations, the Eagle Forum and Focus on the Family. The program promotes fundamentalist Protestant Christianity and uses the King James Version of the Christian holy book. Other similar programs exist, and advocates have rushed to publish Op-Ed columns calling for teaching the Bible as literature or history. A case might be reasonably be made to include teaching the Bible, along with holy books and teachings of other religions, as part of a comparative religion or literature course, but Christian fanatics are not suggesting that Native American religions, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Taoism, Buddhism, or any other 'heathen' faiths be included in such courses. Merely being a Christian hardly would seem adequate qualification for someone to teach such a course in any case; a better job might be done by a comparative literature expert, an agnostic, or an atheist, who might be more neutral or objective. (Believers could be brought in as exhibits.) But the proposal seems foolish at a time when U.S. schools are failing to adequately teach reading, spelling, writing, mathematics, science, music, art, critical thinking, or even physical education. Religionists have screwy priorities that can only prove divisive, contentious, and, in the end, do students and the country a disservice.
The ACLU's president, Nadine Strossen, wrote in the group's newsletter, Civil Liberties (fall 2005), that the issue ultimately has to be won in the court of public opinion: 'Public opinion polls consistently show that a majority of Americans believe that both creationism (more extreme than 'intelligent design') and evolution should be taught in public schools. Some of this support comes no doubt from the fact that many people simply believe in creationism. Another group of supporters presumably takes the understandable-and normally admirable-position that 'both sides should be taught.' The ACLU is, in short, promoting a position that is not immediately accepted by a majority of our fellow citizens.

'That, of course, is not news. The ACLU is frequently, and admirably, in this position…. The problem in Dover is not science versus religion; rather, it is that one form of religious belief, which is not accepted by other religious believers, was wrongly promoted as if it were a science.'
That is true, but behind it lies a more fundamental conflict: between a materialist, scientific approach to understanding reality and an idealist, antiscientific, frequently superstitious attempt to promote religion in the secular domain. ID efforts represent a dangerous blurring of the line between the two that smacks of theocracy. This is occurring in the context of many other steps, including by government, to expand the influence of Christianity in public life, even at taxpayers' expense, and at a time when the United States has a ruling gang that acts like it is playing out a role from the book of Revelation, determining both domestic and foreign policy in ways that not only fill their pockets with cash, but that might help to hurry up the second coming of Christ, the Rapture, and the much-anticipated triumphal thousand-year reign of Christ on Earth.
Clearly, the efforts of ID advocates to impose religious and pseudoscientific beliefs on the secular educational system seem destined to continue to heat up the 'culture wars' in the United States.

One letter writer to the New York Times had a novel suggestion: 'If the intelligent design crowd is going to sell literal reading of the Bible as science, I recommend teaching people to turn water into wine. I would support that change in the education system.'
The ID effort shows the need not merely to separate the church from the state, but to separate the schools from the church.
Of course life looks designed, because it was-from the bottom up, by evolution.

Statement

the Dover School Board decided to have teachers read to students:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.

Excerpt

from the ruling on intelligent design by Judge John E. Jones III:

In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether I.D. is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that I.D. cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.
Both defendants and many of the leading proponents of I.D. make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the board who voted for the I.D. policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the I.D. policy.
With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of I.D. have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that I.D. should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach I.D. as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on I.D., who in combination drove the board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

Quotes translated and layouted as sidebars to the left of the article

'The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.''
-Philip Johnson, Church & State magazine (1999) on the 'wedge' strategy

'Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God…. The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ…. And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ as the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.'
-William Dembski, National Religious Broadcasters convention, February 6, 2000

'Father's [the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.'
-Jonathan Wells, author of the antievolution book The Icons of Evolution