Do the supporters of the Intelligent Design theory realize that not only are they promoting the possibility of their Religious Superpower, but also promoting the possibility of an Arch Enemy- Satan and his Demons – and their anti-Jehovah theology being widely introduced as an Intelligent Design centered religion?
Satanism, as laid out by a prophet Sheik Adi in the 12th century, and Satanism, as laid out by Anton Lavey in 1966, is like comparing apples to oranges. Where as the Church of Satan is anti- Jehovah values and Satan is an icon not a being, the prophet Sheik Adi professed that Satan was a real being; and he is the rightful God.
This form of Satanism is Devil worshipping although followers of this belief contends the Bible is not truthfully portraying Satan and the demons. Followers profess that Satan is the true creator of the human race. Satan and the demons are powerful, intelligent alien beings that fight against a false God, a God that is allegedly another alien race that deceives humanity in order to enslave.
In order to fully understand theï¿½issue of Intelligent Design, one must understand exactly what the Intelligent Design theory is. The following concise explanation of Intelligent Design is given by Roddy Bullock, Executive Director of IDnet Ohio:
I. The theory of Intelligent Design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
II. Intelligent Design is simply the scientific hypothesis, in full accordance with the scientific method, that the observed design is true design, not “apparent” design as Darwinism holds.
III. Intelligent Design is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
Mr. Bullock comments, “Notice the definition above does not speak of the implications of Intelligent Design. The implications lead to religious/philosophical considerations which are beyond the disciplines of science. This is the main difference between Intelligent Designand creationism, for example. While they are not exclusive in their implications, one (creationism) goes a step further to specify the designer and the method of design in great detail.”
Both Intelligent Design supporters Pope Benedict and Cardinal Schoenborn has expressed concern about the subject of materialism, which is the view that matter is the only reality, and religion or spirituality is an illusion.
It is surprising then that the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, Rev. George Coyne, was quoted by the ANSA as saying “Intelligent design isn’t science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.” However, evolution is a theory that is taught in science, both in public and private schools.
Despite division among Catholic officials, Christianity has been the most popular faith to be in favor of the Intelligent Design theory. However, Satanic sects like the Joy of Satan is not only in favor of the Intelligent Design theory, but of all sciences since they expect their faith will be proven fact by science.
For example, DNA. The science of cloning has brought up many questions, but lets focus not on ethics or morals. Instead, lets follow the facts. DNA is complex. There is no denying this statement. With use of our intelligence, DNA can be altered or replicated. A female strand is different from a male strand in the way that the female has two ends and the male has only one. Scientists can make a male clone by removing one end of the female strand.
The implication of this knowledge seems to validate the claims of the Satanic sect. Specifically, a) the belief that mankind was created, by extremely intelligent aliens, as a new species by combining alien DNA with that of a creature already living on Earth, and b) that the female was created first, not the male.
Mr. Bullock warns against placing assumptions on evidence. “Evidence is neutral, but what you do with the evidence, how you think about it, and what theories are derived from it are not neutral. So it is easy to take a very different meaning away from a piece of evidence, based on a whole range of reasons, from practical to personal. So when someone says that evidence suggests X, it is important to see how that person got there. Often the support from the evidence to the conclusion is very weak.”
To prove my point, using the DNA and cloning example, one must consider the fact that it is difficult to breed cloned animals. The reproduction process is damaged, although the ‘why’ remains a mystery. Therefore, the chances of two genetically engineered homo-sapiens being positively fruitful would be slim. Although, this in itself is an assumption.
“In any event, DNA certainly has all the hallmarks of design.” said Mr. Bullock.
The line between science and religion is clear cut. The claims from Intelligent Design opponents that teaching Intelligent Design is really Christian creationism under a thin veil, should be discounted. After all, teaching Intelligent Design is not in favor of, nor disagreement of, Christianity or Satanism. The theory of evolution and the theory of Intelligent Design is scientific theories that can be studied and researched within scientific boundaries.
“In the end one can only weigh the various theories in the balance of reason and use good logic to try to find truth. I do believe there is truth, by the way – objective, unchanging truth. The trick is to use whatever forms of evidence we have to find it. Nature is place we find evidence. The Bible is another, in my opinion.”
The Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn has recently spoken to the world-wide news agency Reuters about the Intelligent Design Theory. He was quoted as saying, “The next step is to ask – which intelligence? As a believer, of course I think it is the intelligence of the Creator.”
Mr. Bullock is straight forward in admitting his faith and the boundaries of science. “This is, I think, the essence of Cardinal Schoenborn’s statement. That is, science can go so far as to say there is a designer. Indeed, Romans 1:18-20 makes this clear as well – nature alone shows the existence of God. But science cannot (at least at this time) go so far as to identify the actual designer. At that point one needs to look to other sources of knowledge. To the extent other forms of knowledge are reliable, they can be used as credible informers of reality. In my opinion, the Bible has proven reliable for this source of information, but others may disagree.”
It has been said that this sect of Satanism should be asking, “Who created their assumed creator?” This question is of course, not scientific. But it is one that logically follows Cardinal Schoenborn’s question of which creator. Thankfully, it is a question that science is not prepared or willing to answer.