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!"
YEC INTREP
You'll do your damnedest.
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.
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.
And, BTW, our homeschool has Darwin as required reading. We're not afraid of the debate.
Let the name-calling begin . . .
ID came about from research done in the EU and the US by atheists who, when they found out some formulas, were branded religionists. Check the work by D'Ambricour
Also called Evolution through Stochastic processes with strange attractor.
The weather, trees and everything in nature obtains its order from such differential equations...but also evolutive patterns seem to be preprogrammed
Good. That which kills ID will only make conservatism stronger.
Sounds like you can stick a fork in ID, because it's done.
It never even got into the oven among the scientific community. For once in my life the MSM may be an ally (it makes me sick, BTW). By painting ID for what it is, it may get the movers and shakers in the GOP to quitely walk away from it. At least that's what I hope.
The most disturbing aspect about this debate is the rabid desire of evolution proponents to ridicule and otherwise attempt to marginalize those who would dare to question them.
Dear "Right Wing Professor,"
Intelligent Design is a good as proven, and anyone with any common sense knows it. But "professors" are notorious for lacking common sense.
The simplest living cell is perhaps more complicated than all of man's technology, yet you believe that it fell together by random chance. And based on what evidence? People who don't have a clue about combinatorics tout "billions of years," not realizing that it is about 1000 orders of magnitude too little. If you wish to educate yourself on the matter, I recommend you start with Lee Spetner's book, Not By Chance.
I am amazed that someone who calls himself "Right Wing Professor" could fail to realize that he is doing the work of the Left Wing. The Left just loves to ridicule ID and its believers because it plays right into their grand strategy for world domination. If and when they take control, they will owe no small debt of gratitude to fools on the Right who are playing right into their game plan. Have a nice day.
This is a ridicules assumption.
True. ID doesn't belong in science class. Why? Because it doesn't adhere to scientific method.