Intelligent design - coming to a school near you

The New Zealand Herald ^ | August 27, 2005 | Chris Barton

[snarks_when_bored]

Et tu, New Zealand?

As Shakespeare wrote, "one may smile, and smile, and be a villain." The observation holds true of the purblind, too.

[snarks_when_bored]

Ping

[PatrickHenry]

Well, we've covered similar material in earlier threads, but this article has an international angle to it, which is interesting. And it gives both sides, so it's not a creationist puff piece. Besides, things are slow on weekends. So I'm cranking up the ping machine ...

[snarks_when_bored]

I agree with your reasoning, Sir.

[PatrickHenry]

Sunday edition

EvolutionPing

A pro-evolution science list with over 300 names. See the list's explanation at my freeper homepage. Then FReepmail to be added or dropped.

[cambridge]

QUOTE

For Jensen such an idea [evolution] doesn't fit with Genesis, where it says, "God created and it was good." And with the description of the Garden of Eden - "an amazing place where animals were not ripping each other apart and devouring each other".

END QUOTE

[dynoman]

Looking for Life

The discussion about the $1,000,000 “The Origin of Life Prize” is especially interesting. I think it's been offered for at least five years now with no winners.

The contest admits " genetic code manifests" the following;

"prespecification of extremely unlikely and complex future events (see Dembski in suggested readings below) suggesting "apparent intent," "apparent planning," or "apparent purpose." (as Richard Dawkins describes it, "apparent design"),"

and

"the seemingly "irreducible complexity" argued by Michael Behe (see suggested readings below)"

Well, just read the article.

[snarks_when_bored]

...the Garden of Eden - "an amazing place where animals were not ripping each other apart and devouring each other".

Dang, we had it good back then. That Eve...what a bitch, huh? She messed it up for all of us!

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Well, we've covered similar material in earlier threads, ...

My exprience with earlier threads has been that each side of this debate is similar to the sides in the conservative vs liberal debates, each can hardly imagine how the other can be so blind.

[liliesgrandpa]

While evolution doesn't have a clear explanation for the development of the eye or the flagellum, biologists say they can show that both are not irreducibly complex.

Who are they kidding? Did the little blob of accidental randomness just decide "hey, I would like an eye, I think I'll just grow one"
Or why would a bird evolve wings, not knowing that flight was even possible, which wing stubs would be useless for millions of years until fully developed.

[PatrickHenry]

As part of Darwin Central's weekend special, I herewith present, from The List-O-Links, our collection of "The Best of Ichneumon," which I presumptuously call "best" because these are the only posts I've captured for my list. If you go to his homepage, you'll find links to many more of his superb posts:

Ichneumon on the Scientific Method. It's post 401 and it's excellent.
Ichneumon's legendary post 52. More evidence than you can handle.
Post 661: Ichneumon's stunning post on transitionals.
Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument is fatally flawed. Ichneumon's post 35.
Ichneumon's Discussion of Haeckel's embryo drawings. A FreeRepublic post (#62).
Cladograms: what they are, how to read them. Ichneumon's post 230.
Ichneumon's excellent presentation of the Galileo controversy. FreeRepublic post #31.

[snarks_when_bored]

The science of evolution is in statu nascendi (as are almost all other sciences). We don't ask babies to explain how Pentium chips are designed, made and operate, right? We're still babies as far as understanding the origins and development of life on our planet is concerned.

The desire to have final answers NOW! is strong, but must be resisted by those who seek true understanding rather than palliative beliefs.

[shuckmaster]

a religion-based conservative think-tank in Seattle.

You've got to be extremely naive to believe there's any such thing as a conservative think-tank in Seattle.

[snarks_when_bored]

A fish-out-of-water story, seemingly.

[cannonball]

"David Jensen says the evolutionists' perspective relies on unproven scientific facts and theories."

I didn't get very far past this caption. Unproven scientific facts---???

[snarks_when_bored]

Yes, and the guy looks so...normal. Hard to understand, huh?

[PatrickHenry]

In the interest of being fair and balanced, I also present a collection of links to some Jack Chick comics:
Big Daddy?
In The Beginning.
It's Coming!

That one (It's Coming!) has everyone's favorite Jack Chick line: "GASP ... My professors lied to me!"

If you thirst for more: Chick Bible Tracts.

[Non-Sequitur]

"...an amazing place where animals were not ripping each other apart and devouring each other".

So...what were they eating? Purina Dinosaur Chow?

[shuckmaster]

For your amusement, here's one that was posted on FR much earlier this Sunday morning:

Adam, Eve and T. Rex

[Timmy]

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

Says it all about why evolution is a "fact."