[Tumbleweed_Connection]

I have always believed in both

[Strategerist]

The New Republic recently published a survey of conservative journalists on the question of “Intelligent Design” (ID), the controversial critique of Darwinian evolution which argues that living creatures did not arise by an unaided, purely material process of evolution through random genetic variation but rather through the design of an intelligence transcending the material universe. To my surprise, it turned out that almost all those surveyed, including several NR editors and contributors, were doubters not of Darwinism but of Intelligent Design.

Actually doesn't surprise me at all really.

[PastorJimCM]

The first and second laws of Thermodynamics (basically life comes only from life and everything winds down like a clock - going from order to disorder) blow the theory of evolution out of the water. All scientists that I have heard of or read about fully endorse both laws.
Can they not see the hypocrisy??? You cannot believe either Law of Thermodynamics (1st or 2nd) and embrace the Theory of Evolution.

[Always Right]

Science should be taught on what we know. Teach about the what evidence supports evolution, and teach that most scientist think evolution happened like this. And also teach that there is much we don't know and many scientist believe in intelligent design. The way evolution is taught today is to deny that there is any skepticism despite huge gaps of knowledge. So much is assumed about evolution but we teach it as fact.

[DoctorMichael]

The purpose of Creationism is to destroy and discredit the Conservative Movement.

[MEGoody]

Some say that, for non-experts, the smartest thing would be to accede to the viewpoint of the majority of scientists.

If we did this, no one would think hand-washing was an important part of impeding the spread of disease.

[Just mythoughts]

Ignorance is bliss, although some who promote their conjured up theory of evolution are not ignorant, they know darn well what they are preaching. I know, I know, evolutionists have the highest IQ's.

But hey we are told things would be just the way they are and these that deny the Creator do not control time.

[stuartcr]

Since they are both theories, how does it really matter?

[ArGee]

I have always believed in G-d creating man in His own image. I have also always believed that most people in this debate don't really want to debate anything, but establish dominance as this article suggested.

But that doesn't apply only to the Darwinists. That applies to both sides, IMHO.

Shalom.

[cvq3842]

Oh my. Two topocs i try not to get into here are Evolution and the Civil War. But here goes, on #1:

From what I remember of high-school science, the scientific method starts with observing and investigating known facts and working to find a model that explains those facts. Constant new observation, testing, and adjustment of the model (or hypothesis) are required. And the inquiry should start out with no preconceived notions.

Religious faith ("that which passes all understanding") is a different matter. One cannot "disprove" the existence of God, although some have tried. It explains what science cannot - and there is a lot it can't explain.

Science without a spiritual sense is very dangerous and destructive.

Just my two cents.

[js1138]

From this perspective, a main evolutionary-psychological impulse that drives males in particular is the drive to fight off rivals. For rivals threaten to reduce our access to reproductive assets — namely, women — by lowering our status in a social hierarchy.

Anyone who starts an essay with a demonstrably false statement is going nowhere.

[Junior]

Ping.

[fish hawk]

SCIENTIFIC FACTS THAT PROVE EVOLUTION

Listed on this page are all the known scientific facts
that can be used to prove evolution is an established 
fact of science, as commonly taught: 
































Did you take notes?             

[<1/1,000,000th%]

When you consider that ID theoreticians have published their findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals, in formidable academic presses such as those of Cambridge University and the University of Chicago,...

Wishful thinking again.

[Das Outsider]

When you consider that ID theoreticians have published their findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals, in formidable academic presses such as those of Cambridge University and the University of Chicago...

Both the Cambridge and U.C. citations refer to one man: Dembski. Guillermo Gonzalez is the only one that comes to mind as having done any big peer-reviewed stuff, like in the Royal Astronomical Society and all the rest.

[Kevin OMalley]

BFLR = bump for later reading

[newsgatherer]

We have picked up on this and put it in todays update of Christian-news-in-maine.com. if the comments get to far out to the flaming left, please let me know:

While I want my readers to see this and read Freeper comments, there are those on FR that will cause us to remove the link.

Click on the "thursday update" link

[cartoonistx]

"How" life came into being has not so fascinated me as "why"! Regardless of your belief on this subject, I find it hard to believe that non-life begat life without purpose. If nonliving things can be said to have purpose then what, praytell, IS life anyway? It's easier to believe in God.

[balrog666]

Later.

[sauropod]

mark