Posted on 10/20/2005 8:00:33 PM PDT by Rudder
I ignored the threat for a long time. I groaned at the letters to the editor in our local paper that dismissed evolution as "just a theory" and proclaimed the superiority of "Intelligent Design" (ID) to explain the world around us. When a particular emeritus professor pestered me with e-mails asking how I explained this or that aspect of the fossil record (How could a flying bird evolve from a non-flying species? Did I think feathered dinosaurs were real?), I answered him time and again—until I realized that he was reading neither my answers nor the references I suggested. When this same man stood up, yet again, after a lecture to read a "question" that was actually a prepared statement about ID, I rolled my eyes.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanscientist.org ...
There isn't anything political about this at all. Is there?
Scientists couldn't be wrong about evolution. We all know Hillary evolved from the Pig....
I think his point is that scientists are most likely to be concerned about the risk to science education much like businessmen would be most like to be concerned about a risk to the banking system
He's claiming that evolution is not a theory?
Right. One of those leftest professors got up today and said it would be a terrific idea to teach the school children that God the Intelligent Designer may be dead. I think his name was Behe. Anyway, he is one of those that believe in evolution.
How could scientists be wrong. After all, they've convinced all us non-scientists that, contrary to logic, oil is the leftover residue of hundreds of billions of dinosaurs who all conveniently died in just a few locations on earth, one on top of the next, so we could easily siphon off their remains in lots of 100+ million barrels per graveyard....
Hopefully those folks who read this article- don't stop at that point, and continue to question Our origins.
Second post and already the ID gauntlet has been thrown down. You folks must stay up late at night worried to death that some lurker might come to the conclusion that science is science, faith is faith, and never the twain shall meet.
From the article:"If my neighbors and their children wish to believe in Intelligent Design as a matter of faith that is fine with me. What I object to most strenuously is the presentation of a religious belief as a scientific theory in a science class."
When you put it like that...
Anyone who studies nature and is not overwhelmed with the sense that there is a designer behind it all is tragically and perhaps terminally blind.
So, in other words, most scientists are opposed to intelligent design because they fear for their careers.
Yes, apparently, evolution is the "gospel truth," pardon the expression.
Darwin himself acknowledged the many flaws in his own theory. Specifically, he theorized that as the fossil record became more complete by continued discoveries, we would find fossils that would demonstrate a slow and gradual change from one species to another. That hasn't been the case. Instead, the fossil record indicates that new species were much more likely to pop up at a specific time in history in very significant numbers seemingly from nowhere. As the complete fossil record becomes more complete, we are finding that there is a conspicuous absence of the in between fossils that we would expect to find in the evolutionary model. To state anything to the contrary in light of the discoveries we have made thus far would seem to me to be scientifically dishonest.
It is easier for them to deny it. To accept it for many means they will never be able to 'define' and 'control' the universe since it cannot be put in a box with provable fixed and immutable 'laws' of science. Epistemology vs Ontology and never the twain shall meet for most scientists.
This will explain everything.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#creation_vs_evolution
Of course, scientists have also brought us that greatest of all scientific discoveries-- Cold fusion in a bucket....
Well, sad to say the Left has used this issue to paint all conservatives as adherents to a superstitious-founded destruction of science. Check out this for what I mean.
Well, yeah, but not too far from the original.
Bingo!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.