Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

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 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 1,041-1,060 next last
To: RussP
By explaining human origins without the *need* for "God" or any other Intelligent Being, Darwin's theory paved the way for a godless government in which a particular man, Adolf Hitler, took on the role of God.

How did Hitler take on the role of God? Be specific.

I'll repeat it yet again: your views share interesting company. How does it feel to be on the side of Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler on the trivial little question of where the human race came from?

I'll answer that as soon as you explain how it feels to be on the side of Osama bin Laden, Jim Jones and David Koresh.
381 posted on 12/03/2005 11:00:12 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

ID is vastly different from the nonsense currently taught in schools. It’s not a junk topic. A junk topic could not inspire sophisticated discussions like this one.

Here’s the wish of the atheist: “I wish I were able to overcome my fear of being a fool.”

And the reasoning of the atheist? Equivalent to the mental process of the one year old infant (God bless him) who believes the rattle that has slipped from his hand does not exist because he can’t see it.


382 posted on 12/03/2005 11:03:43 PM PST by reasonisfaith (Zarquawi’s death will be quite a blow—I advise the Democrats to be ready with a comeback strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

LOLOLOL!!!

However, 1050 > 1 to the 1051st power! for all values of 1 > 0

;)


383 posted on 12/03/2005 11:06:42 PM PST by phantomworker (We don't see things as they are, we see things as WE are.<==> Perception is everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
ID is vastly different from the nonsense currently taught in schools. It’s not a junk topic. A junk topic could not inspire sophisticated discussions like this one.

Sophisticated? Someone trying to smear evolution by linking it to Karl Marx and Adolf Hitelr is sophisticated? People like Liberty Wins dishonestly claiming that those who accept evolution are atheists is sophisticated?



Here’s the wish of the atheist: “I wish I were able to overcome my fear of being a fool.”

How did you deduce this wish?

Equivalent to the mental process of the one year old infant (God bless him) who believes the rattle that has slipped from his hand does not exist because he can’t see it.

I know that this was a popular belief amongst infant psychologists (starting with Piaget), but are you aware that recent research suggests that infants may not have a view of the world wherein things cease to exist once out of view?

Not that I find your analogy convincing either way. You might want to offer up evidence for your claims rather than assertions.
384 posted on 12/03/2005 11:07:39 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: phantomworker
Of course, your entire life is based on how your mother treated you as a kid. LOL!!! Oedipus complex. LOL!

DOH!! LOL!!

Wolf
385 posted on 12/03/2005 11:09:29 PM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow

Would these intelligent agents be self-updating and be able to adapt based on context aware sensitivity with an inference capability based on algorithms?


386 posted on 12/03/2005 11:14:52 PM PST by phantomworker (We don't see things as they are, we see things as WE are.<==> Perception is everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods; Liberty Wins
Topic to heated, get back to you both later on this one.

Wolf
387 posted on 12/03/2005 11:15:06 PM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; RussP
When is demented going to offer something to the table?

NOT

Wolf
388 posted on 12/03/2005 11:15:54 PM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

"I'll answer that as soon as you explain how it feels to be on the side of Osama bin Laden, Jim Jones and David Koresh."

That's funny, I don't remember ever hearing any of them espousing anything about Intelligent Design. So how is it again that I am on their side?

On the other hand, I do know for fact that the Nazis and the communists believed strongly in Darwinian evolution -- and did not keep it a secret. In fact, it was the intellectual lynchpin in their strategy for world domination -- still is for the commies.

Who do you think you are fooling? Do you think it is not obvious that you are just evading the question? Well, you can run, but you can't hide.


389 posted on 12/03/2005 11:17:15 PM PST by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

"I hope you enjoy sharing company with Osama bin Laden."

Yes, the bin laden/Taliban contingent are bad and in fact evil. But it is not their desire, in and of itself, to teach topics dealing with religion that makes them evil. It is their desire to actively kill innocent people. So if anyone here shares the latter desire, I would agree they have problems. Otherwise the argument falls apart quite easily.


390 posted on 12/03/2005 11:21:29 PM PST by reasonisfaith (Zarquawi’s death will be quite a blow—I advise the Democrats to be ready with a comeback strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; RussP
I'll answer that as soon as you explain how it feels to be on the side of Osama bin Laden, Jim Jones and David Koresh.

Actually Demented., your thought processes, and perhaps your ideology, gets you much closer to those than you will ever know.

Wolf
391 posted on 12/03/2005 11:22:26 PM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

I guess in this case, my son the genius tells me, these would be genetic algorithms using fitness functions to determine which genome would be most likely to be the correct answer or the one fittest to survive. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree...


392 posted on 12/03/2005 11:26:26 PM PST by phantomworker (We don't see things as they are, we see things as WE are.<==> Perception is everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: RussP
That's funny, I don't remember ever hearing any of them espousing anything about Intelligent Design.

Literal six-day creationism is a part of fundamentalist Islamic belief. And Osama bin Laden is most decidedly motivated by his religious beliefs.

On the other hand, I do know for fact that the Nazis and the communists believed strongly in Darwinian evolution -- and did not keep it a secret. In fact, it was the intellectual lynchpin in their strategy for world domination -- still is for the commies.

And yet you still have not demonstrated the logical connection between biological evolution and these disastarous social and economic systems. Why not? Why can't you explain how mutation and natural selection through environmental pressures logically implies that humans should set up communistic governments? How does the fossil record support gassing Jews?

For all of the ranting and raving that creationists/ID pushers do to link the theory of evolution with communism and fascism, they don't offer a single point of fact to their claims. Just assertions that the founders of the respective political movements appealed to the theory of evolution, but even on that they can't explain what in the theory of evolution allegedly justified their actions.
393 posted on 12/03/2005 11:36:17 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
Yes, the bin laden/Taliban contingent are bad and in fact evil. But it is not their desire, in and of itself, to teach topics dealing with religion that makes them evil. It is their desire to actively kill innocent people. So if anyone here shares the latter desire, I would agree they have problems. Otherwise the argument falls apart quite easily.

Thanks. It does, in fact, fall apart for the same reason that RussP's argument falls apart. I only brought it up to demonstrate the intellectual bankruptcy of RussP's claim.
394 posted on 12/03/2005 11:37:39 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

“Sophisticated? Someone trying to smear evolution by linking it to Karl Marx and Adolf Hitelr is sophisticated? People like Liberty Wins dishonestly claiming that those who accept evolution are atheists is sophisticated?”

A detailed discussion about biology, genetics, physics, calculus, metaphysical philosophy, epistemology and religion is sophisticated. Those are some of the topics covered in this post.

“How did you deduce this wish?”

From the speech and the behavior of the atheist.

(Has Piaget been a topic of this thread? Don’t worry I’ll let you slide on that one—victory breeds generosity)

Atheists don’t believe in God because they think they can’t see God. The content of their argument extends no further.


395 posted on 12/03/2005 11:42:33 PM PST by reasonisfaith (Zarquawi’s death will be quite a blow—I advise the Democrats to be ready with a comeback strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
Atheists don’t believe in God because they think they can’t see God.

To which God, out of the thousands of deities worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history, do you refer here and why is it foolish to lack belief in that particular deity over all others?
396 posted on 12/03/2005 11:46:47 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
And yet you still have not demonstrated the logical connection between biological evolution and these disastarous social and economic systems. Why not? Why can't you explain how mutation and natural selection through environmental pressures logically implies that humans should set up communistic governments? How does the fossil record support gassing Jews?

And that's exactly why debating people like you is close to a complete waste of time. I answered your question clearly in post 380, but you prefer to dishonestly claim otherwise than to reply honestly. I should have expected as much from an intellectual soulmate of Karl Marx.

397 posted on 12/03/2005 11:49:13 PM PST by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: Senator Pardek
ID is as phony as the ID I had as a college frosh.

LOL!

398 posted on 12/03/2005 11:50:18 PM PST by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: Art of Unix Programming by Raymond)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RussP
I answered your question clearly in post 380, but you prefer to dishonestly claim otherwise than to reply honestly.

No, you didn't, you liar. You claimed that Darwin provided an explanation for human origins without God. That, however, is a dishonest misrepresentation of the theory of evolution. Darwin provided a scientific explanation for the origin of species diversity. Whether or not a god was involved is irrelevant, because evolution is a field of science and as such cannot comment in any way about the existence or involvements of any deities.

I should have expected as much from an intellectual soulmate of Karl Marx.

You're nothing but a fraud and a liar, like so many creationists. Without an actual argument for your side, you claim that anyone who accepts the theory of evolution shares philosophical ideals with Karl Marx. What can I expect from the intellectual soulmate of Osama bin Laden, though?
399 posted on 12/03/2005 11:52:29 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

"...why is it foolish to lack belief..."

I didn’t say it was foolish.


400 posted on 12/03/2005 11:59:50 PM PST by reasonisfaith (Zarquawi’s death will be quite a blow—I advise the Democrats to be ready with a comeback strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson