[Right Wing Professor]

Lest there be any doubt ID is the enemy not just of science, but of scientific medicine.

[Right Wing Professor]

Ping for the AMA finally starting to wake up.

[ECM]

You know, I don't have a horse in this race (I don't really believe in either) but the vigor with which opponents of ID are fighting this seems to be a bit extreme and over-the-top of late.

[JudgemAll]

Since when ID professed destruction of Darwinism? Since when a questioned theory meant its death? Since when a theory was entitled? That's no theory then, it's buffonery.

Darwinists have only themselves to blame for the scientific establisment's entitlement mentality buffonery. Sellers of products have a conflict of interest with the product, and, yes, science at any level is not perfect, it's something to be sold as is and is bought or not, period.

The abuse of the word science by scientists in order to justify its public funding is ridiculous. This is not about Darwinism, these are metaphores about public schools and pet public funding of subjects deemed "scientific" by a closed circuit of beneficiaries from working in those programs.

[JudgemAll]

Are we trapped in a new period of history when science, once again, is in for the fight of its life?

---

An absolute ridiculous statement of the "entitled" scientists to tell us.

I'd like to see these people at the AMA worrying about school teachers who cannot read nor do math and teach fisting and gay love.

Where was the AMA when such "high science" was throated down little kids....knowing it would confuse their roles and identities in life as whether they ought to build on life or be little sex slaves of partners.

[JudgemAll]

evolution versus creationism “flare-ups”

---

Since when witnesses could not testify? Since when is this not scientific?

I am reminded here of the moron entitled teachers who thought they themselves were the entitled infused science, destroying all competing testimony, dumbing down so as to keep the power.

[JudgemAll]

to challenge accepted scientific theory that collides with religious beliefs.

---

Accepted scientific theory vs. religious belief.

A belief is a lead one follows and attempts to prove true by living by it. What is wrong with such spiritual intuition?

As for challenging accepted theories, it always happens, and, it often based on intuitions of one kind or the other, pushing the whole thing with one's own life at stake.

I never see a scientist putting his own life by the "accepted theory", because, guess what, they all cheated and sinned in their lives and should not be alive if they were not subsidized by their own cheating.

Science cannot be cheated, but when scientists try to make people believe they live by it and do not cheat, it's a big lie. Proof is that if they lived by Darwin they probably would never make it where they're at. Einstein was not nurtured in a jungle.

[JCEccles]

Evolution has grave weaknesses that its proponents have struggled mightily to paper over or ignore from the time of Darwin forward by employing the Kiplingesque approach of "just so" myths. "Some chemicals bubbled happily in a rock crevice in on a paleolithic earthscape. An aimless bolt of lightning struck and the chemicals said, 'I got it! let's become DNA!""

Being blinded by their materialist worldview, evolutionists cannot explain the genesis of information or intelligence let alone acknowledge the all-important role that these immaterial factors play in the development of life. Wholly bereft of any argument based in science evolutionists are forced to resort to personally attacking the people who raise such important questions.

You and your fellow evolutionists are in trouble, RWP, because your theory sucks. The more honest among you (Crick, Denton, Kauffman et al) have admitted it. It has an enormous and embarrassing gap that you can only fill by pleading 1) it came from somewhere else (which merely begs the question), or that something magical happened (the Santa Fe group), or by completely ignoring it as if ignorance were a sufficient explanation.

And if you can't answer it, you'll be damned if you'll allow anyone else to try, hence these feeble screechings from your allies in the AMA and related bodies that are quite obviously attempting not to join the debate but to intimidate others into silence.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[shuckmaster]

Great post! I'll ping my short list until PH gets here.

[cynicom]

"Heal thy nation"

Somehow it seems that the people with agendas at AMA have taken on "saving" the world. Rather a large task for so few, that are qualified only in their own mind for such a chore.

Perhaps it is best they concern themselves on more fitting exertions such as treating their patients, and somehow I suspect the world will keep on revolving if not evolving.

[Oztrich Boy]

Can anyone reasonably convince me that these pronouncements were not just cynical political punditry but, rather, were expressions of sincere beliefs?

Question: Would you rather be ruled by knaves, or fools?

[SampleMan]

AMA is once again deciding to leave behind medicine and enter into the world of "Lofty Know Betters vs. Peasant Idiots".

The AMA regular publishes some of the most unscientific studies available, simple because the editorial staff like the outcome.

I know a dozen or so doctors and none of them think much of the AMA. Of course, I don't live in the North East.

[JCEccles]

Again: ID theory does NOT stand in opposition to most of evolutionary theory. ID theory addresses critical flaws in evolutionary theory that its materialist priesthood lacks the tools and intellectual desire to tackle.

Evolutionary theory is necessarily founded on the assumption that the universe has always existed (not in the Einsteinian sense, but the Newtonian sense). Evolutionary theory needs a forever universe in which to have sufficient time for random chance to do its magic.

It was the work of Einstein and modern physicists that destroyed the forever universe piffle and conceit of the evolutionists. The spectacular COBE results have since confirmed the existence of a cooling universe that was infinitely hot and dense less than 20 billion years ago. The forever universe is no more. That's a development that evolutionists desperately wish had never come along.

Geologists and geophysicists (Ward, Brownlee et al) have since pointed out the astonishing confluence of precise balances of physical forces that must exist to allow advanced life to flourish on earth. How did this happen in such an incredibly short span of time (less than 20 billion years)? Evolutionists have no answer. Their theory is too small and worldview too cramped to allow them to even address the question.

However, if we merely look around us (and isn't observation the prime imperative of the scientific method?) we see that human beings are able to plan and implement analogously intricate and precise balances in short time spans in laboratory and industrial settings. Is this a random and aimless process? Does a space shuttle appear by mankind waiting for one to appear organically from the soil through the action of survival of the fittest? No. Rather, human beings design a plant in which the conditions can be precisely controlled for materials to be brought together to form a completed vehicle. And they do this how? By employing organizing intelligence.

The influence of an organizing intelligence is the only force we know of in the material world that can balance the forces and create initial conditions necessary to allow something as complex as human life and derivative products ranging from arrowheads to space shuttles to form.

ID theory honestly and straightforwardly proffers by way of analogy that the best inference we can make about the existence of life is that an organizing intelligence set the initial conditions and devised the plans necessary for life to arise and evolve to the levels of present day complexity. It is the most logical and rational way, based on our observations, to explain how we got to where we are in less than 20 billion years.

ID theory makes no attempt to name or identify this organizing intelligence, although some ID adherents privately and personally might choose to identify the intelligence as Logos.

Evolutionists, on the other hand, quite clearly name and identify their organizing deity. It is none other than Chaos. Sadly for them, Chaos is only adequate to the task in a universe other than the universe that modern physics has disclosed to us.

[Vaquero]

Although I agree with the AMA on this one particular case....there treatment of the Constitution and most specifically the 2nd amendment, makes them the enemy in my eyes.

[Coyoteman]

It is truly amazing how knowledgeable some of these fundamentalists are concerning the intricacies of the theory of evolution.

Theories that take scientists years of hard work to learn, and which have taken centuries to test and refine, they are able to see through in seconds; all it takes is a quick trip to one of the creationist websites.

And the rapier-like wit of some the debaters! Stunning. Some examples:

• Post #14: your theory sucks

• Post #15: No, what this is about is Marxist theory: matter precedes thought with "Darwinism" used as a trojanhorse code word for instituting slavery by the flesh and materials.

• Post #25: Scientists should focus on developing critical methods and curriculae. But since this would mean a threat to their current stature as their own theories get ammended by smarter and younger ones, they don't want to...they violate Darwin's theory itself and sin.

• Post #30: A theory is not scientific if it is entitled

• Post #33: If scientists lived by evolution they'd die

• Post #38: ID theory addresses critical flaws in evolutionary theory that its materialist priesthood lacks the tools and intellectual desire to tackle.

• Post #38: Evolutionists, on the other hand, quite clearly name and identify their organizing deity. It is none other than Chaos.

[VOA]

Where Is the Medical Community?

Well, they mostly went silent when they let folks like Deepak Chopra and
other purveyors of "traditional" or "alternative" treatments into the door.

There may be active pharmaceuticals in some of the old remedies...
but when a lot of claptrap is accepted and gets wide-spread dissemination
on "Oprah" and the like...
well, it's a bit late to get try to close the barn door on what
is not hard-core, reductionist approaches to medicine/science.

[ValenB4]

Scientific organizations from various fields are beginning to enter the debate against ID. ID is living on borrowed time as an academic alternative to evolutionary theory. Those trained in scientific matters will inevitable win debates involving science. The inmates cannot be allowed to run the asylum.

[montag813]

re we trapped in a new period of history when science, once again, is in for the fight of its life?

It seems so. This absurd "battle" recalls the Trial of Galileo. When the Church endorsed Ptolemaic nonsense over the truth, the great decline of the Catholic world began, and the subsequent rise of the Protestant Northern Europe. If we let people who reject science win again, it will be the United States which suffers this time.

[LiteKeeper]

YEC INTREP

[muir_redwoods]

Go ahead and teach ID. Just don't teach it in a science class. Teach it in a philosophy class or a history class.

Ancient history.

[AndrewC]

believes that the sophisticated questions of biology that will confront each and every American in the 21st Century will require that they know the difference between a cell and a cell phone and are able to differentiate DNA from MTV.

What questions? They are asserted to be answerable in a science class. After all, biology is science.