Skip to comments.
Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker
The New York Times ^
| December 4, 2005
| LAURIE GOODSTEIN
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 ...
TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: crevolist; evochat; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300 ... 1,041-1,060 next last
To: phantomworker
My point is to only testify to what I know: Darwinism is a cult and has nothing to do with science.
261
posted on
12/03/2005 8:50:07 PM PST
by
JudgemAll
(Condemn me, make me naked and kill me, or be silent for ever on my gun ownership and law enforcement)
To: JudgemAll
That makes no sense at all.
262
posted on
12/03/2005 8:51:21 PM PST
by
phantomworker
(We don't see things as they are, we see things as WE are.<==> Perception is everything.)
To: shuckmaster
Take a look at the phrase depriving prospective career scientists of their education. Can you detect the exaggeration?
The curriculum of contemporary public schools is loaded with junk and nonsense. To displace some of that baggage with ID would in fact be an enormous improvement. Those interested in becoming scientists would simply have spent less hours studying social topics or things like gluing scraps of paper to scraps of cardboard. Their prospective careers would be intact.
263
posted on
12/03/2005 8:52:34 PM PST
by
reasonisfaith
(Zarquawi’s death will be quite a blow—I advise the Democrats to be ready with a comeback strategy.)
To: phantomworker
They make sense to other people, so don't judge for others...let them decide, they do not need your authority in this.
264
posted on
12/03/2005 8:55:23 PM PST
by
JudgemAll
(Condemn me, make me naked and kill me, or be silent for ever on my gun ownership and law enforcement)
To: Amos the Prophet
Exactly. Rationality has no meaning unless there is some ultimate source of rationality in the universe, which Christians refer to as the Logos (John 1:1).
Thomas Nagel argues this case, against his will, in "The Last Word" (Oxford, 1997). Nagel is a brilliant philosopher, considered one of the dozen most prominent philosophers living in the world today. He is by inclination an atheist, but the problem he frankly confronts in this book is that if you want to have anything like a "strong" version of rationality--something that is really there, not just an illusion, something that allows us to have a common language when talking about the nature of things--then it is very, very difficult to account for it without turning to religion, which he refuses to do.
Thus, if we are all incidental products of a purely materialistic evolution, then we are incapable of true rational thought. Rationality is merely a delusion.
A study of the history of science reveals very clearly that science and technology rose in the West as a byproduct of the rise of Christendom. Lynn Thorndyke has done some excellent work on science in the middle ages, which are far from the dark, superstitious times that people since the Renaissance have depicted. Alfred North Whitehead makes the persuasive argument that science in the Renaissance also is only explicable as a product of Christian assumptions--in particular the assumption that the universe is real and that it is rational.
Modern agnostic scientists are, in a very real sense, still parasitic on these earlier Christian assumptions, of a rational universe and of human free will that can understand things by means of rational thinking and investigation.
265
posted on
12/03/2005 8:56:03 PM PST
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: JudgemAll
My point is to only testify to what I know: Darwinism is a cult and has nothing to do with science.
Yet you don't actually attempt to demonstrate that your bizarre assertion has any basis in fact.
266
posted on
12/03/2005 8:56:06 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: shuckmaster
I've never met a scientist who couldn't read. I have met science teachers who could not think.
To: JudgemAll
268
posted on
12/03/2005 8:56:52 PM PST
by
phantomworker
(We don't see things as they are, we see things as WE are.<==> Perception is everything.)
To: phantomworker
Your sense of self entitlement in this is disturbing.
269
posted on
12/03/2005 8:57:17 PM PST
by
JudgemAll
(Condemn me, make me naked and kill me, or be silent for ever on my gun ownership and law enforcement)
To: muir_redwoods
Describe for me, with clinical precision, an experiment in ID. Describe an experiment wherein the outcome of "G-d did it" is not known before the results are in.Any mathematical formula is an experiment in ID.
To: CarolinaGuitarman
The irony is that "Timmy" deserves the Darwin Award for homeschooling his own children. What do you think being locked in a room all day with him and his crackpot ideas will do to their reproductive fitness?
271
posted on
12/03/2005 8:58:28 PM PST
by
rootkidslim
(... got the Sony rootkit on your Wintel box? You can thank Orrin Hatch!)
To: RussP
"evolution isn't science, it is a wish." (in this case, that God *doesn't* exist)
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you tell such brazen lies?
272
posted on
12/03/2005 8:58:33 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: JudgemAll
Anne Dambricourt is a crackpot, pretty much like de Chardin, whose crackpot footsteps she is following in.
That is all.
To: Cicero
So your point is that we can't be rational unless we assume, without evidence, that there is a source of rationality in the universe. I don't quite see the logic that goes behind it. Maybe if you supported your claim with evidence rather than just asserted it you might make more sense.
274
posted on
12/03/2005 9:01:19 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: JudgemAll
Sorry, didn't want to disturb you. ;)
275
posted on
12/03/2005 9:01:56 PM PST
by
phantomworker
(We don't see things as they are, we see things as WE are.<==> Perception is everything.)
To: Dimensio; JudgemAll
I agree with JudgemAll, Darwinism is a cult and it has corrupted science.
Just what demented assertions are you making Dimensio?
Don't claim any fact BTW, you gave that up a long time ago. Even your theories are never proven.
Wolf
276
posted on
12/03/2005 9:02:23 PM PST
by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
To: muir_redwoods
In fact, atheism is a wish. I truly feel sorry saying this to atheists because it makes visible their greatest weakness. But the pain is potentially short lived.
277
posted on
12/03/2005 9:02:43 PM PST
by
reasonisfaith
(Zarquawi’s death will be quite a blow—I advise the Democrats to be ready with a comeback strategy.)
To: reasonisfaith
In fact, atheism is a wish.
What has this false statemented to do with a discussion on evolution vs. Intelligent Design?
278
posted on
12/03/2005 9:04:43 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: RussP
"Describe for me, with clinical precision, an experiment in evolution. Describe an experiment wherein the outcome of "G-d didn't do it" is not known before the results are in."
Evolution doesn't argue that god didn't do it. It limits itself to the observable facts. If ID did the same, there would be no ID.
279
posted on
12/03/2005 9:08:49 PM PST
by
ARCADIA
(Abuse of power comes as no surprise)
To: Senator Bedfellow
Anne Dambricourt is a crackpot....As a great man once said, "There he goes again."
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300 ... 1,041-1,060 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson