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 ...
And, BTW, our homeschool has Darwin as required reading. We're not afraid of the debate.
Let the name-calling begin . . .
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!
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.
Good screen name selection.
You mischaracterize the Kansas (and probably Ohio also)debate. Because you are misinformed or misleading?
Landover Baptist is an anti-Christian satire site. It is the equivalent of citing a report on "Christian Hate Crimes" from the ACLU.
Differential equations are not a myth.
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.
We just wish they'd shut up.
Like Madonna?
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.
1) understands biological evolution, descent with modification, is a scientific explanation for the history of the diversification of organisms from common ancestors.
2) understands populations of organisms may adapt to environmental challenges and changes as a result of natural selection, genetic drift, and various mechanisms of genetic change.
3) understands biological evolution is used to explain the earth’s present day biodiversity: the number, variety and variability of organisms.
4) understands organisms vary widely within and between populations. Variation allows for natural selection to occur.
5) understands that the primary mechanism of evolutionary change (acting on variation) is natural selection.
6) understands biological evolution is used as a broad, unifying theoretical framework for biology.
7) explains proposed scientific explanations of the origin of life as well as scientific criticisms of those explanations.
This is what you're having a cow over?
Nope. Satire is ridicule to make a point. A report by the ACLU would be written without intentional satire.
And lest you think that satire is necessary, feel free to look at God's Ark, a Christian website that should be satire...but isn't.
Poor Al Franken...there are a few tacos missing from his Mexican combo platter.
This is a ridicules assumption.
"? 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."
People who have NO clue about probability spout wildly improbable figures about the probabilities of processes they know nothing about.
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.