Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker

The New York Times ^ | December 4, 2005 | LAURIE GOODSTEIN

[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.

[narby]

Not only some narrow minded religion called 'evolution'.

It never ceases to amaze me when religious creationists seek to discredit science by calling it a "religion".

Do they seek to bring their faith up to the level of science? Or bring science down to the level of their religion?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Well, if we all arrived in our current naturally selected state by chance, and by definition only the fittest survived, can't the criminals shoot and steal on the basis that they are fit, and the others don't deserve to survive? Is that wrong, and why?

Why do you think that criminals are the fittest?

[He Rides A White Horse]

You have no proof evolution exists, or occurs. Tell me about it. I'm all ears.

[narby]

There is no difference today, and that is precisely the point.

Evolution has been accepted by sceince with no real competition for 150 years. What do you mean by "today"?

[RunningWolf]

How can anything in the physical world measure or quantitate that which lies beyond it??


Wolf

[narby]

Tell me about it. I'm all ears.

Look up "ERV insertions" in this thread. When you've studied up on the issue get back to me.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Evolution has been accepted by sceince with no real competition for 150 years.

Think Copernicus.

[narby]

Think Copernicus.

Think Galileo.

[He Rides A White Horse]

The problem with evolution is that is sees a similarity in two different things and proceeds to extrapolate that 'a' must be a precursor to 'b'.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Not to mention the Indians (American).

[narby]

The problem with evolution is that is sees a similarity in two different things and proceeds to extrapolate that 'a' must be a precursor to 'b'.

The smoking gun proving evolution true is the ERV virus DNA insertions common between primates and humans. These insertions demonstrate a common ancestor in both species. Not just a common ancestor "species", but common individual that begat both species.

You certainly haven't researched that evidence since my first post on the issue. Get back to me when you have.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Science always changes; one might look at it as one screw up after another.....

....but I still see science as a legitimate thing. In the hands of open-minded people.. Your statement Evolution has been accepted by sceince with no real competition for 150 years. merely underlines what I'm talking about. Science is not static, it is dynamic, always changing as new knowledge is infused.....science has been turned on its head countless times, and what is believed today will see paradigm shifts over the following centuries. If we last that long.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Agatha Christie
Erle Stanley Gardner
Louis Lamour
Manuel Cervantes
William Shakespeare

[narby]

Science is not static, it is dynamic, always changing as new knowledge is infused.....

You're absolutely right. "science" has entertained many different elements that might effect evolution. Things like "survival of the fittest", and "punctuated equilibrium", and many other hypothesis for how evolution might work. But what science has NOT done is question whether evolution occurs. That's because they're is WAY too much evidence for it, in many different parts of the scientific skill set.

Science does not question whether evolution occurs. Only *how* it occurs. And in that way you're entirely correct. Science is always dynamic and changing.

[RunningWolf]

The smoking gun proving evolution true is the ERV virus DNA insertions common between primates and humans.

Respectfully I suggest that is a great reach.

I know all of you believe everything you see in what you find and it leads to this conclusion, but perhaps it may not be so. What would happen if you think out of the box?

Wolf

[RunningWolf]

Good Point,

And the scientists always insist it is real as fact until the next breakthrough occurs.

Wolf

[He Rides A White Horse]

I'll leave you with this thought........what you and I know about science and the universe probably equates to nothing. We haven't even mapped the entire ocean floor. To think you have a complete understanding of the universe, its workings, is folly.

A wise man realizes what he doesn't know; a fool thinks he know everything.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Manuel Cervantes

Miguel, perhaps?

[RunningWolf]

Good Point PlaceMarker

[narby]

Respectfully I suggest that is a great reach.

Really? So your idea is that God inserted identical virus DNA sections, in idental locations, in the expected pattern that verifies the old morphological evolution assumptions? Just as predicted by evolution?

And your doubts on this evidence is based on what?