Skip to comments.
'Intelligent design' supporters gather (700 Scientists agree ID is "step beyond Darwin")
Seattle PI ^
| 24 Oct 2005
| ONDREJ HEJMA (AP)
Posted on 10/24/2005 5:27:52 PM PDT by gobucks
PRAGUE, Czech Republic -- Hundreds of supporters of "intelligent design" theory gathered in Prague in the first such conference in eastern Europe, but Czech scholars boycotted the event insisting it had no scientific credence.
About 700 scientists from Africa, Europe and the United States attended Saturday's "Darwin and Design" conference to press their contention that evolution cannot fully explain the origins of life or the emergence of highly complex species.
"It is a step beyond Darwin," said Carole Thaxton of Atlanta, a biologist who lived with her husband, Charles, in Prague in the 1990s and was one of the organizers of the event.
"The point is to show that there in fact is intelligence in the universe," she said. The participants, who included experts in mathematics, molecular biology and biochemistry, "are all people who independently came to the same conclusion," she said.
Among the panelists was Stephen C. Meyer, a fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that represents many scholars who support intelligent design.
He said intelligent design was "based upon scientific evidence and discoveries in fields such as biochemistry, molecular biology, paleontology and astrophysics."
Many leading Czech thinkers, however, boycotted the conference, insisting the theory - which is being debated in the United States - is scientifically groundless.
Intelligent design holds that life is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying a higher power must have had a hand. Critics contend it is repackaged creationism and improper to include in modern scientific education.
Vaclav Paces, chairman of the Czech Academy of Sciences, called the conference "useless."
"The fact that we cannot yet explain the origin of life on Earth does not mean that there is (a) God who created it," Paces was quoted as telling the Czech news agency CTK.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: crevolist; darwin; intelligentdesign; loadofcrap
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-192 next last
"Vaclav Paces, chairman of the Czech Academy of Sciences, called the conference "useless." Hey hey hey there Bub ... think about the impact to the local ecomony at the least. Remember, the Red Tanks used to be the ones holding a 'conference' in Czech - how 'useful' was that?
1
posted on
10/24/2005 5:27:55 PM PDT
by
gobucks
This AP story was not fully extracted from the wires in Seattle. They missed this section which I found
elsewhere:
Pavel Kabrt, a Czech who served on the committee that organized the event, said the capital of the ex-communist country _ now a highly secular republic _ was a fitting backdrop for the debate.
"Communism is gone, but its main pillar, Darwin's theory, is still here ... the evolution theory is taught as dogma here starting in nursery school," said Kabrt, an electrician who lectures on intelligent design at Czech high schools.
2
posted on
10/24/2005 5:31:32 PM PDT
by
gobucks
(Blissful Marriage: A result of a worldly husband's transformation into the Word's wife.)
To: Coyoteman
Here we go again ===> Placemarker <===
3
posted on
10/24/2005 5:36:25 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: gobucks
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
There aren't 700 scientists anywhere in the world
who believe in ID. I know. I've read it on the Free
Republic. This is obviously made up out of whole
cloth.
4
posted on
10/24/2005 5:39:48 PM PDT
by
aMorePerfectUnion
(outside a good dog, a book is your best friend. inside a dog it's too dark to read)
To: gobucks
With the way even the president of Cornell University has decided to get involved in this by making a major speech decrying it, I have to say that the way I'm seeing this now is fully explained by -
(Scientific Community):(ID) :: (Catholic Church):(Copernicus)
The scientific community really has to get down and dirty involved in this discussion, with facts and figures instead of obstruction and name calling, or their battle is lost.
5
posted on
10/24/2005 5:42:37 PM PDT
by
AFPhys
((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
To: gobucks
Unless the designer appears at the meeting how are they going to prove it
6
posted on
10/24/2005 5:46:02 PM PDT
by
uncbob
To: aMorePerfectUnion
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
I keep reading the same thing, and gee, I just want to shake these hapless reporters and direct them here, the safe place for the evos!!
7
posted on
10/24/2005 5:47:22 PM PDT
by
gobucks
(Blissful Marriage: A result of a worldly husband's transformation into the Word's wife.)
To: uncbob
"Unless the designer appears at the meeting how are they going to prove it"
Well, I suppose they are trying to figure out how to prove it as we speak. After all, ID is just theory for now ... not a fact.
8
posted on
10/24/2005 5:48:50 PM PDT
by
gobucks
(Blissful Marriage: A result of a worldly husband's transformation into the Word's wife.)
To: gobucks
Some things are observable, and observation does not support the theory that everything degenerates into chaos.
Consider a cloud of Hydrogen; instead of homogeniously spreading throughout the galaxy, it forms a cloud. The colective gravity of this cloud attracts other Hydrogen atoms; eventually the gravity causes this could to condense into a STAR (dis-order into order). The Star burns with nuclear Fission, until the star consumes the fissionable material, then turns into a Neutron Star (more order), this star then explodes, spewing more sophisticated molecules (ie. atomic weight greater than Hydrogen), which then form planets (again more order).
Or, biologically speaking, Dinosaurs were primitive comared to early mammals. Early mammals became more sophisticated (compare primitive hearts found in reptiles to the hearts in mammals).
Simply stated, Intelligent Design is a quantifiable, verifiable, observable fact.
9
posted on
10/24/2005 5:51:23 PM PDT
by
Hodar
(With Rights, come Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
To: gobucks
Among the panelists was Stephen C. Meyer, director of Cambridge University's Center for Science and Culture, who said intelligent design was "based upon scientific evidence and discoveries in fields such as biochemistry, molecular biology, paleontology and astrophysics."How could he be appointed a professor in Cambridge? Interesting... some universities seem to have a little bit more open mind than others... Science is not dogma. If we don't allow a tiny possibility that what we believe may be wrong, it's not science. It's called faith.
10
posted on
10/24/2005 5:51:37 PM PDT
by
paudio
(Four More Years..... Let's Use Them Wisely...)
To: aMorePerfectUnion
How many are named
Steve, I wonder.
11
posted on
10/24/2005 5:53:12 PM PDT
by
Wormwood
(Iä! Iä! Cthulhu fhtagn!)
To: Coyoteman
For the local perspective from the Prague Post...
Faith requires no rewriting of science
Postview
October 19, 2005
To Europeans, and to a predominantly agnostic nation like the Czech Republic, the American fascination with religious conservatism might seem a bit of a mystery and the truth is, it's a bit of a mystery to many Americans as well. But what is generally not a mystery is the underlying difference between science and religion, between questions of fact and questions of faith.
But that distinction has grown alarmingly ambiguous to some, to the point that a few public school districts in the United States are already considering incorporating theological pseudoscience into their educational curricula.
The latest sheep's clothing for this movement has taken the name Intelligent Design, a phrase that would seem more comfortable on an Ikea catalog than a course catalog. In what appears to be an effort at a kinder, gentler counterpoint to the Scopes monkey trial, followers of this doctrine speculate that since Darwin's theory of natural selection lacks the ease of proof of, say, mathematics or basic chemistry, any other notion on evolution must be treated as equally legitimate science such as the belief that the ascent of man has been traced through time by the finger of God.
Advocates of this belief have even sought to export it to Europe and elsewhere, and Intelligent Design acolytes will hold a conference here in Prague Oct. 22 to spread faith in their new word.
Many respected scientists have no quarrel with the notion that superior intelligence created the universe as a religious doctrine, nor can there be any objection to a conference that scrutinizes the merits of the concept as a science. After all, it's through open academic debate that bad ideas are dismantled and good ideas reinforced.
And, at the end of the day, most people have no serious expectation that Intelligent Design will seize the imagination of the scientific world and force Darwinism to share shoulder-space with it. More likely, in a few years, Intelligent Design will be little more than a curious historical detour on the road to knowledge, like a giant ball of twine on a long highway's roadside, interesting only for its oddity.
But it is surprising in this day and age that some religious theorists continue to feel compelled to impose theological concepts on the scientific world a practice just as preposterous as if physics tried to explain the difference between good and evil or the meaning of life. And in a way, needing to cloak a religious doctrine with the veneer of science is almost an admission of its defect true faith doesn't require scientific proof, since the definition of faith is to have belief in the absence of proof.
Ultimately, then, perhaps it's appropriate for the Intelligent Design conference to take place in Prague, the final resting place of astronomer Tycho Brahe, eternally ensconced in the Ty´n Church on Old Town Square. Brahe spent years trying to force a mathematical model of the universe into harmony with the theological teachings of the Catholic Church, to no avail. Galileo and Copernicus found their scientific discoveries equally at odds with religious teachings which at times put them in peril. Perhaps, as Intelligent Design advocates visit Europe to spread their teachings, they can look to religion's own history and learn something as well.
To: gobucks
What do you call a janitor in a room full of creationists?
The smart one.
13
posted on
10/24/2005 5:54:58 PM PDT
by
WestVirginiaRebel
(The Democratic Party-Jackass symbol, jackass leaders, jackass supporters.)
To: uncbob
Unless the designer appears at the meeting how are they going to prove it They can't "prove it" anymore than a Darwinist can prove his theory. What they say is the evidence points to a higher intelligence having designed what we see.
Now one can argue that it's not necessary, that spontaneous generation actually is real, but they can't prove that either.
14
posted on
10/24/2005 5:55:04 PM PDT
by
ThirstyMan
(hysteria: the elixir of the Left that trumps all reason)
To: uncbob
"Unless the designer appears at the meeting how are they going to prove it"
I suppose the "missing link" shows up at all the evolutionists' meetings.
15
posted on
10/24/2005 5:55:17 PM PDT
by
almcbean
To: almcbean
Neither side can PROVE ANYTHING at this point in time
16
posted on
10/24/2005 6:00:31 PM PDT
by
uncbob
To: gobucks
How many Intelligent designers can dance on the head of a Czechoslovakian pin ping
17
posted on
10/24/2005 6:07:41 PM PDT
by
shuckmaster
(Bring back SeaLion and ModernMan!)
To: WestVirginiaRebel
18
posted on
10/24/2005 6:08:47 PM PDT
by
shuckmaster
(Bring back SeaLion and ModernMan!)
To: PatrickHenry; <1/1,000,000th%; balrog666; BMCDA; Condorman; Dimensio; Doctor Stochastic; ...
How many Intelligent designers can dance on the head of a Czechoslovakian pin ping
19
posted on
10/24/2005 6:11:38 PM PDT
by
shuckmaster
(Bring back SeaLion and ModernMan!)
To: Hodar
Stars don't use nuclear fission, they use fusion. Solar systems don't form in any way that resmbles your assertion about exploding neutron stars, so forgive me if I ignore whatever point you were trying to make in the first 2 paragraphs
In what way were dinosaurs more "primitive" than contemporaneous mammals? The only fossilized dinosaur heart known is four-chambered, as bird and mammal hearts are (you could find this in 2 seconds with google).
Please post the quantifiable (meaning measurement, math and numbers) facts of intelligent design as an explanation for biology, how they were verified, and how they were observed.
AFAIK NO elements of the intelligent design "theory" have ever been applied to any real biological system, observation, or measurement.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-192 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson