Only these guys...
...would think we come from these guys!
|
As a faith based theory, Darwinism has no place in the classroom. If they're going to sue to ban prayer, somebody ought to sue to ban evolution.
INTREP
And all the kids raised on Harry Potter will love it...
Natural processes could not have created certain structures in the Universe and in living beings because these structures are too complex.
This is the very thing that cannot be proven or verified. You can't prove that something didn't happen. You can only verify that something did happen. Intelligent Design reveals its weakness by the rundundancy of Intelligent Design. As opposed to what unintelligent design or dumb design? The fact that it needs this qualifier demonstrates its failure as a scientific theory.
This is an Assertion Without Proof where the premise, that certain structures are "best explained" by the very "intelligence" they are supposed to prove is a text book case in circular thinking.
Did the intelligent agency evolve or did it abruptly appear with it's distinctive features already intact? How can people be gullible enough to fall for such a crock?
Man alive, the left is going to beat us to death with this issue. They clearly are grabbing a hold of it and playing it up now, as you predicted.
Something must be afoot. The story must have legs. Now is the time for evolutionism to make a mighty case for itself and explain why it should be substituted for the standard practice of science to make direct observations and test them in the real world. Now is the time for evolutionism to explain to the world why its model is better than the one of intelligent design under which science has taken place ever since it began.
Eventually the bigots will lose. They are already starting to panic.
Only these guys...
...would think we come from these guys!
Begging the question of whether intelligent design is "anti-evolutionary," What it does is to show that the synthesis of Darwinian evolution, physical anthrologogy, palenontology, and genetics is as explanatory as it claims.
From the beginning, evolutionists have tried to minimize the differences between humans and other primates. At the same they cannot agree about the the extent of the differences between the human "races." An immediate "spin-off" of Darwinism was eugenics, which fed the virulent nationalism of the Germans, and which is encorporated in Hitler's "Main Kampf."
I was interested until I got until the part where it called an American Prospect article "politically astute". Blech. I wonder if the author read John Derbyshire's article in National Review way back in February; it's by far the best denunciation of ID I've read outside of the scientific press.
Of course it was on Kerry's side too.
Let me inject a note of common sense here. Evolution and Creation, Intelligent Design and whatever, are not necessarily conflicting concepts. The problem for both science and theology has always been the pursuit of truth--how to find truth; how to build on the truth we have found, to learn more of truth, etc..
One can recognize evolution--the dynamic of evolution. Anyone familiar with the history of animal husbandry is well aware of evolution within the historic period. But nothing in that answers the question of whether evolution is chance or planned; or a combination of chance and planning. They found definite evidence in the Kruger National Park, about 20 years ago, give or take a couple, that mutations among some of the species appeared to have been programmed in advance. That would certainly support the idea of Intelligent Design.
For scientists to appear threatened by being forced to acknowledge the probablility of a Creator, is a result purely of the attack on religious beliefs, that has been mounted since the French Revolution, primarily by Leftist forces, seeking to undermine the social infra-structure of Western peoples. Does Time understand that? Perhaps. As mentioned above, they have always been to the Left. It was no accident that Whitaker Chambers wrote for Time while he was a Communist, before he saw the Light.
Personally, I have often quoted the wisdom of Dr. J.C. Nott:
Man can invent nothing in science or religion but falsehood; and all the truths which he discovers are but facts or laws which have emanated from the Creator. All science, therefore, may be regarded as a revelation from Him; and although newly-discovered laws, or facts, in nature, may conflict with religious errors, which have been written and preached for centuries, they never can conflict with religious truth.
I would imprint that statement in every science text book, and then invite the freest possible inquiry into every aspect of the controversy.
William Flax
I'm no way expert or involved in the "evo/creationism' debate - it's counterproductive and makes rational people act like idiots.
I'm not religious and I'm not anti-religious - this debate looks to be entirely based on opposing religious beliefs (pro/anti) and has vacated science despite all the learned terms and quotations.
If I remember this round of debate (ID) correctly, it started when a group of scientists made a statement along the lines of 'life and its components (eyes etc) seem to be too complex to have simply arisen, it appears to reflect an intelligent design'.
Bang!
Crash!
Religious war!
I can see absolutely no religious taint in the belief that Darwin's theories do not explain the entire process. Nor is there any sin in believing that those processes might eventually be discovered. Nor should it require combat to accept that there are theories about the origins of life that don't agree - isn't it sort of a requirement for science that hypotheses AND theories be questioned?
Alchemists were the scientists of their day and short range navigation worked quite well on the theory that the earth was flat - people are still trying to turn iron into gold (or poopies into usable fuel) and the earth was, in fact, proved to be not flat.
That seems to be the issue. I would expect devoutly faithful Christians (or any other religious group) to hold and defend their beliefs. What changes this thing is the equally religious fervor that (not all) scientists seem to possess regarding 'evolution' that is no longer Darwin but - faith.
Simply by demanding that ID NOT be discussed anywhere outside a church (known to be home to red-necks and papists who have read only one book in their entire lives, with third grade educations and few, if any, teeth) the 'scientific' side of the debate mirrors the absolutism of the 'bible is fact & the only fact' Garden of Eden proponents.
Either side might be right, neither side is likely to be entirely right, and there are certainly things that neither has guessed at as yet which would change either orthodoxy (more likely - both). But no one is going to find out so long as 'we' are debating over which God can kick the other guy's god's butt!
As an outsider I see no real problem in accepting that both ID and evolution exist. My understanding of Darwin's observations (limited) does not extend into how life began - only how it varies between different populations and may change within them. Since (I believe) the current spat arose when a group of scientists made a similar observation - that evolution itself does not apparently explain how and where the ability to evolve arose.
The resulting name calling and verbal mud wrestling is pointless.
'Science' should not be interested in proving the current theory but in addressing the gaps and (pre) assumptions of that theory in order to strengthen it or to find a better one.