Name me one person who has suggested that it came about by sheer accident.
Now to voting. All those against the evolution raise your tails and throw a coconut at the vote counter.
Reasonable article. But expect to get flamed when the evo's catch up!
1. For the millionth time, there's nothing atheistic about evolution, nor is there anything necessarily evolutionary about atheism. I believe in God, I am a religious man, and creationism is still bunk. This guy's claim that 10% of National Academy of Science members are creationists is lunacy.
2. Two readers called my attention to a discovery last week on an Arctic island of something which may be the fossil remains of the mysteriously missing "transitional species." Or then maybe it isn't transitional. Maybe it's a hitherto undetected species on its own.
All species are by definition transitional. What would a transitional species that isn't a species look like?
If Darwin was right, and the change from one species to another through natural selection occurred constantly in millions of instances over millions of years, then the fossil record should be teaming with transitional species. It isn't.
Incorrect.
The single cell shows such extraordinary complexity that to suggest it came about by sheer accident taxes credulity.
Correct. Fortunately, evolution doesn't suggest it came about by sheer accident.
. The Boston Globe reports that Harvard has begun an expensive project to discover how life emerged from the chemical soup of early earth. In the 150 years since Darwin, says the Globe, "scientists cannot explain how the process began."
Abiogenesis isn't evolution.
LOL!
That sounds like Robert Shapiro
Obviously, the author doesn't know what a "transitional species" is, much less how to identify it.
All species are transitional. There is nothing here that "bolsters" the ID case and the number of scientists that believe in God is irrelevant to the number who understand TToE.
Astounding leap of logic.
Ping.
Accepting evolution and believing in God are not mutually exclusive.
Then gradually, the new theories start to attract new proponents, who have less at stake in the old theories and are willing to consider new ones.
Younger scientists come into the pool, and they are more open to new ideas as the brain-dead old geezers--scientists, administrators, foundations grants directors--retire or die off.
Thomas Kuhn made a persuasive argument for this process, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
An honest poll of scientists would be limited to those who qualified in areas of biology and biochemistry and have actually studied evolution, or have at least had graduate level classes in population genetics.
An honest poll would limit choices to those being examined by science. That would include the conjectures of Behe, Dembski and Shapiro. I would actually be interested in the results of such a poll. Too bad no one else is.
Survey shows 2/3 of Scientists Believe in Global Warming
"Where, one reader demanded, did I get the information that 10 percent of scientists accept intelligent design? I got it from a National Post (newspaper) article published two years ago, which said that 90 percent of the members of the National Academy of Science "consider themselves atheists." Since if you're not an atheist, you allow for the possibility of a Mind or Intelligence behind nature, this puts 10 percent in the I.D. camp."
Not being an atheist doesn't mean you buy into the ID drivel.
To me the mistake that most people make is assuming God is a seperate deity, a man/being who sits in the clouds and makes all these decisions. What I believe is true is that everything is God, there is no seperation. When you wonder if God is intellegent it depends who you talk to. You talk to Ann Coulter you are talking to God as intellegent, you talk to Ted Kennedy you are talking to God as a moron. To deny there is no God is ridiculous. If there were no God there would not be anything. That there is something instead of nothing proves that God exists, but again all of "this" could all be a dream. It`s the Matrix!! AAAHHHHH!!!!!!! It must be! How else could there exist such illogical things such as liberals and Hillary? OMG it`s TRUE!!! AHHHH!
Looks like the FR evolutionists need to have a talk with the Harvard evolutionists and get them straightened out since "the origin of life was never a part of evolution." Those ignorant Harvardites.
Huh?