Posted on 12/03/2005 5:28:45 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
TO read the headlines, intelligent design as a challenge to evolution seems to be building momentum.
...
Behind the headlines, however, intelligent design as a field of inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for. It has gained little support among the academics who should have been its natural allies. And if the intelligent design proponents lose the case in Dover, there could be serious consequences for the movement's credibility.
On college campuses, the movement's theorists are academic pariahs, publicly denounced by their own colleagues. Design proponents have published few papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Sounds like you can stick a fork in ID, because it's done.
More a death knell than a ping.
I'm glad to see you consider the New York Times to be a reputable source on this or any other topic.
Like you, they are desperate not to lose Darwin's exclusive monopoly on our school children.
Funny that those who are interested in ID are perfectly happy to have Darwin taught in the schools, but Darwinists simply can't brook any competition.
An obituary from the NYT - and just wishful thinking.
Darwin converted few scientists of his generation. It will be the same with ID. The Darwinian fundamentalist profs won't convert - but the next generation already has.
Darwinian fundamentalism - you can stick a fork in it.
ID is as phony as the ID I had as a college frosh.
Wow. From the NYT. I'm impressed.
Well, of course not. You would have to be intelligent to understand intelligent design and liberal leaning academies require all inductees to check their brains at the door.
"Shut up und drink ze koolade!"
What's next? Are we going to teach young earth creationism in schools as well?
YEC INTREP
You'll do your damnedest.
Yeah, but it's the weekend, and news is slow. Also, the NYT is MSM, and if they're onto the subject, we need to know it. You know they'll spin it as an anti-conservitive issue. I'm cranking up the ping machine ...
|
Never fear, it'll morph into something with a new name, a few more bells and whistles, a little better window dressing and camouflage, and they'll trot her out again like she's a debutante at the coming out ball, instead of the tired old tarted-up hag she really is.
That's because evolution is based upon actual science and belongs in science classrooms.
Funny that those who are interested in ID are perfectly happy to have Darwin taught in the schools, but Darwinists simply can't brook any competition.
No, the ID crowd and other anti-science groups have been working hard to eliminate evolution and by extension, any other science facet that might threaten their narrow minded fanatic version of the Bible from science classrooms - hence the court battles against science in Kansas and Ohio.
BTW - there is no such thing as a Darwinist. That's more inaccurate than calling someone who recognizes that jets fly a "Bernoulli-ist" or that a multistage rocket was capable of reaching the moon a "von-Braunist."
There are those who are educated in science and those whose ignorant fear propels them against it.
hat's next? Are we going to teach young earth creationism in schools as well?
to tell you the truth, I'm partial to all out creationism myself. Call it like it is "God created the world"
I've never heard any other explanation that makes sense.
If you're interested in learning about evolution, visit The List-O-Links.
If you're serious about debating this issue, see How to argue against a scientific theory.
If you're permanently stuck on stupid, but determined to post anyway, use the Evolution Troll's Toolkit.
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.