[gobucks]

The article goes on to say the same thing about specified complexity. This article is an MSM example of something I been arguing for a long time: bio-scientists are mostly willing agents of the leftist-owned communistic atheistic MSM machine.

But if this article is an example of how the MSM is going to fight against I.D., then it is NO WONDER I.D. has been making the inroads it has.

[Tax-chick]

The hysteria about "the death of science" and "ruin the schools" (what's this we've got now?) ... as if no one will ever do a chemistry experiment or a physics experiment again ... makes it clear that the basis of the controversy is religion.

[posey2004]

I.D. is not science, as it can't be tested.

It's a 'faith' that something created this process.

It shouldn't be taught in school alongside science.

[GSlob]

Actually, most life forms are breathtakingly simple:
mix 2 parts booze, one part of hot air, one part of old money, one cup of ambition, a cup of connections, and a cup of leftism - and you get a kennedy. You do not even need to shake and bake. And the design of this recipe is surely not particularly intelligent, either.

[cripplecreek]

Bring on the inquistors and expose the heretics, dark ages here we come.

[Critical Bill]

"Irreducible Complexity "

Like finding a Rolex in an area of the earth that has never been visited by humans. Or found on Mars?

[SengirV]

The reason they say this is because of the "Earth is 6K Years Old" types out there who see scientific facts in front of their eyes(the light we see today from the Andromeda Galaxy has taken 2.3 million years to get here) and just poo-poo this fact as meaningless. THAT is the concern. When scientific facts become meaningless then science IS irrelavant. Talk to some of the 6K'ers and you would realize that this is a legit concern.

[Williams]

Read the article and found it silly. Some bacteria can digest nylon, which is synthetic so there are 3 possible explanations for this and scientists "prefer" the third one (that a nylon eating gene recently evolved) for some very unconvincing reasons. The other argument against intelligent design was (I kid you not) that it is "boring" because it would answer everything.

The above is not science. It is the religion of science.

Even if bacteria can evolve a gene to digest nylon, that does not disprove intelligent design. Such a capability is an intelligent design, but scientists have no idea that such a gene evolved. They admit they just "prefer" that explanation. It seems to me that ID is the "why" behind everything that scientists usually say is none of their business.

[RoadTest]

Well, science is only mentioned twice by the Creator of everything the "scientists" are studying. In the Old Testament it's scientists in Nebudchanezzar's court.

But a few centuries later we find scientists being called false: "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called": - 1Tim. 6:20

That's all that God bothers to say about scientists. Was Darwin a profane and vain babbler? Where is he now? I heard he repented on his deathbed.

[jihadjim]

Evolution is a religion just as any others. Applying mathematical probability of natural selection to EVERY species on the planet, including plants, animals, sea creatures, and insects for each have evolved from a single cell has a probability of zero taking even the most extreme estimate of the earths age into consideration. Then having to start nearly from scratch after the demise of the dinosaurs. Now THAT is taking something on faith. Indoctrinating young minds on such nonsense is not science -- its a cult. The fact of the matter is we don't know and until we do all THEORIES should be taught. Hell when I was a kid in early 70's we were being told of the coming Ice Age by the parents of these same psuedo-intellectual 'scientists'. Now its global warming - hey I got an idea maybe its the fricken Sun. By the way what caused all the global warming the eliminated the first Ice Age? Caveman cooking Bronto burgers?

Of course then there is that sticky problem of when time began and where did all that matter come from that was involved in the big bang.

As bug bunny says 'what a bunch of moroooons'

[doc30]

it is NO WONDER I.D. has been making the inroads it has

ID has made inroads only with the uneducated. Science education in the U.S. is degenerating into intellectual affermative action by letting IS in the door. The title of the articel is correct. Implementing and [un]education in ID means science has to be destroyed. Every branch of science must be gutted, rewritten and warped to fit ID. The U.S. will ot be a leader in science any more. The only thing that will stop it is by importing scientists from other countries where religion isn't taught as science.

[Sam Cree]

I'm starting to get the idea, after reading this article, that the whole question of ID vs evolution is more an argument of philosophies than an argument of science. Of course in the past, I believe naturalists did also refer to themselves as philosophers.

[orionblamblam]

[little jeremiah]

later read/ping.

[bubman]

bump

[wallcrawlr]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1492696/posts http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1492906/posts http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1492705/posts http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1492785/posts http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1492647/posts

Here is a bunch of threads referencing ID

ping

Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info

[Clemenza]

I.D. is based entirely in the metaphysical, positing that nature works through an unprovable supernatural being. It is NOT science, nor does it belong in any science curriculum.

What makes you think, btw, that ALL nonreligious folks are leftists?

[wallcrawlr]

"The most basic problem [with ID] is that it's utterly boring," said William Provine, a science historian at Cornell University in New York. "Everything that's complicated or interesting about biology has a very simple explanation: ID did it."

< snip>

It begins with complexity — a Supreme Being — and also ends there.

He doesnt realize how close to the truth he is.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>This article is an MSM example of something I been arguing for a long time: bio-scientists are mostly willing agents of the leftist-owned communistic atheistic MSM machine.<<<

No doubt. If they were honest, with no political agenda, they would at least allow for the fact that Sir Isaac Newton was a devout Christian, as were many other famous scientists.

[little jeremiah]

Moral Absolutes Ping.

Unfortunately I've run out of my alloted time on FR this AM... so I can't read the comments on the thread or the rest of the article. But the few comments I did manage to read look very interesing.

It's obvious to a simpleton like me the belief in evolution is a substitute for belief in God, and that is why evo-fundies get outraged and vicious at the mere suggestion that there may a flaw or two in neo-Darwinism, and why any scientist of any kind who brings up any criticism is immediately labeled as a crank, whacko, stupid or even as Richard Dawkins pronounced, "wicked".

Evolution believers will brook no hint of apostacy from the populace.

Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.

[zoddent]

I have no problem with Intelligent Design being taught in a school

I do have a problem with it being taught as science though. Evolution can be tested and has been over and over again in the lab.

If you can not test ID in the lab then it's not science in my view. How can you test a theory that adds a supernatural layer to it? Just by saying that there are complex systems in nature that could not have formed on their own does not mean you can test that in the lab. To be able to do that you would need the designer to be a part of the test.

If they want to teach ID though in school in some non-science capacity I have not a problem with that at all. In fact it would anger me if they would try to supress its teaching.