Posted on 04/28/2005 7:08:50 AM PDT by Pyro7480
In the ongoing exploration of what DNA reveals about the origin of life, some anti-establishment scientists are abandoning naturalistic explanations for the origin of genetic information and looking to theories of design for answers. In almost every scientific discipline there is newly found evidence that supports the theory of intelligent design. A growing number of scientists around the world no longer believe that natural selection or chemistry, alone, can explain the origins of life. Instead, they think that the microscopic world of the cell provides evidence of purpose and design in nature – a theory based upon compelling biochemical evidence. Join us as Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, a key design theorist and philosopher of science, explains this powerful and controversial concept on the mysteries of life.
STEPHEN C. MEYER earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin of life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences. Previously he worked as a geophysicist with the Atlantic Richfield Company after earning his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Geology. He has recently co-written or edited two books – Darwinism, Design, and Public Education (Michigan State University Press) and Science and Evidence of Design in the Universe (Ignatius 2002). He has also authored numerous technical articles as well as editorials in magazines and newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Houston Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, First Things and National Review.
Ping!
I don't agree with pushing ID on public schools, but I don't find it any worse than the gay agenda being pushed on kids. One's government forced religion and the other is government forced atheism.
mark
3. Is intelligent design based on the Bible?
No. The intellectual roots of intelligent design theory are varied. Plato and Aristotle both articulated early versions of design theory, as did virtually all of the founders of modern science. Indeed, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. During the past decade, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity in the natural world.
4. Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?
No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. 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. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
I believe scientists have not been able to accept intellegent design because it would make them have to admit they are not the all seeing and all knowing. In other words, God. Man's ego....
If you can, watch his presentation. It is pretty compelling.
No, scientists reject ID because it is not a scientific theory. A perponderance of current evidence points to naturalistic origins without the need to invoke, unscientifically, a creator. Moreover, it does not explain the spontaneous generation of a creator. If we are 'designed' then the 'designer's' origins are our own. Therefore, ID must explain how a creator came into existence without invoking mythology or the supernatural.
Watch the presentation!
bumpy ping
What part of the theory of evolution explains the origins of the essential building blocks for the spontaneous generation of life?
Whoa now, doncha know that ID/Creationists are giving conservatism a bad name. How dare Town Hall associate with these vermin.</sarcasm>
I was more thinking "creationist ping"
Its an arguement that the ID movement is in fact NOT soley based in Christian ideas.
I understand your sentiment, but I believe this works well.
If you won't endorse it, freepmail me the ping list. I'll do it.
Actually the scientific community largely rejected design in the early 17th century when they rejected Aristotle's model of the solar system. At least given the assumption that this article makes, that Aristotle was an ID'er.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.