hysterical Darwinites panic

crosswalk ^ | 2004 | creationist

[G Larry]

>has caught evolutionary scientists with their intellectual pants down.<

This would allow them a chance to breath.

Agree with your recommendation to maintain a "truth of science" debate.

The theory of evolution will then collapse under it's own weight.

[LauraleeBraswell]

Well, actually...

Some Scientists don't believe in Darwinism. They also find it is oversimplified.

That doesn't mean the other alternative is creationism.

[general_re]

Unlike you, the perfect picture of objectivity.

Whatever.

[tallhappy]

Unlike you, the perfect picture of objectivity.

Not perfect, but yes. I am objective.

[timberlandko]

"What is it about Dr. Stephen Meyer's paper that has caused such an uproar?"

Science doesn't panic, it explores, observes, records, assesses, deliberates, evaluates, and concludes. Pseudoscienists sieze on anything, however improbable, which might serve to bolster their pathetic cause. In this case, the pseudoscience crowd are delighted by an article published in a scholarly journal, an article that journal emphatically repudiates as not only unfounded but published contrary to the accepted rules of practice for that journalor any other credible, responsible publication. If not for the danger posed to the education system by their agendsa-driven prosyletizing, the creationists/intelligent design kooks would be as thoroughly laughable as are the folks who actually buy the snake-oil nostrums that make spam economically viable. I suspect there's plenty of cross-representation between the two crowds; reason, logic, evidence, and critical thought certainly play little part in the philosophies of either.

[tallhappy]

Your comment is much to straightforward, non-hysterical, simple, knowledgeable, objectve and wise for this forum.

Evos are incredibly emotional and chihuahua-like.

[Zeroisanumber]

I'm a firm believer in Intelligent Design but I understand the that Darwin's theory is currently the only way that scientists have to explain how life came about...

I'm not into the whole Internet 'gotcha!' game, but that's a pretty inexact statement for a graduate student in Neuroscience to make.

[Abulafia]

Darwin's theory is currently the only way that scientists have to explain how life came about

I honestly don't know of anyone who uses Darwin's theory to explain how life came about except creationists. Have you honestly ever read Origin of Species?

[WildTurkey]

Meyer's proposes that the proof of ID lies in the fact that we have no other way to explain the processes.

Very scientific.

[general_re]

No. Objectivity would demand that you subject both sides to the same scrutiny, and your analysis betrays your effective double standard. Not to mention your posting history - your "objectivity" has the curious result of causing you to level accusations exclusively at one side, but never - that I've seen, anyway - at the other.

Try again, and please try to keep in mind that you're not some mysterious X-factor with which nobody is familiar.

[Calusa]

I believe..

Charles Darwin was a deeply religious and conservative man ,in fact, didn't he hold some kind of religious office in the Anglican church, a degree in divinity?

I believe..

His faith drove this humble even simple man to search out the truth wherever the quest would lead..His competitor Owens even published research on the subject first because Darwin was so reluctant to challenge the ruling paradigm.

That even those who prattle about Creationism vs Evolution don't even begin to fathom the implication of a Universe without God.

That the chaos of of History i.e. 'evolution', validates the power and splendour of my religious tradition. Give unto Caesar....

[narby]

I see no way that Darwin's theory could explain all of the complexity that is life.

Trillions of simultaneous processes over an entire planet for billions of years can do some impressive things.

Parallel processing is always faster.

[tallhappy]

Objectivity would demand that you subject both sides to the same scrutiny

So you feel you do not do a good enough job doing that and want me to do it?

Understandable.

Still, generally your comment is accurate but not always.

[colorado tanker]

I agree with the first part of the article, that natural selection or its refinements don't explain the Cambrian explosion, random mutation just doesn't get it done based on what I've read.

On the other hand, I don't think it necessarily follows that the only other explanation is design by a creator, I'm open to that but it strikes me as an unproven hypothesis. The creation of new species could also be the result of a biological process we don't yet understand, it seems to me.

[narby]

They are not able to separate their religious visceral reactions from objective discussion or analysis. I'm talking mainly of the pro-evolutionists.

Kind of like judywillow.

[general_re]

So you feel you do not do a good enough job doing that and want me to do it?

Shall I take that to mean that you currently find the efforts of the creationists to be substandard, requiring you to prop them up? How nice - I'm sure they'll be thrilled to learn what you think of them.

In any case, you don't see me casting myself as an objective observer, do you?

[wolfpat]

I've surfed around the web for some evidence of "Intelligent Design." I can't find it. All I've been able to find is a lot of denial of Darwinism, and statement that problems with the theory of evolution mean that God really did everything. Could someone provide a link to some evidence other than argument and thought experiments?