[PatrickHenry]

Very long article. But very good. Footnotes omitted.

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution Ping The List-O-Links

A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 370 names. See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped. To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit, and How to argue against a scientific theory.

[BibChr]

LOL.

Have you thought of boiling oil?

Dan

[ROTB]

Obviously, you have never tasted how sweet the Lord can be.

[From many - one.]

Good read but wordy and not likely to get as much attention from practicing scientists as it should.

In addition there's not nearly as much money in recognizing evolution as in opposing it. Makes it hard to fund a strong defense.

Anyone know who, if anyone, is doing what to fix the Kansas science definition?

[silverleaf]

Defending? Why the call to battle? What is really "under assault"? Why the fear over children hearing all theories? (Because now and probably forevermore, the origin of life as we know it is all theory)

When (at least since the Enlightenment) has religion seriously threatened or impeded science? In fact, it has provided a great impetus to the urgency of scientific exploration. Believers seek scientific explanations to affirm...disbelievers seek science to disavow the Believers.

So disbelievers, without religion, think of how much interest and funding would dry up..... so many skeptics lost to the fervor of proving what no body knows or can prove via science either way.

Besides, another thing history has shown is that...denying access to all theories (even at penalty of death such as faced by Galileo)) ...has not quashed human curiousity, skepticism, doubt, fear, wonder, and the search and the ultimate individual decision by every seeker as to what he believes.

[trashcanbred]

For example, political appointees have ordered scientists at NASA to eliminate references to the Big Bang Theory and to cease to mention the eventual death of the sun billions of years from now in their comments and publications.

I am curious exactly why THIS is happening. It seems outside of the ID realm, does it not? Now... I can speculate but I am curious what others think. Are the politicians we appointed trying to slowly tear down science?

[ToryHeartland]

From the article: Jones stated that the Dover school statement forces a "false duality" on students by making them choose between God/ID and atheism/science and "singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere."

'Nuff said, really

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Discussing the created world without crediting the Creator is plagiarism. You've assumed there is no author -- somthing you cannot know.

To demand no consideration of God when studying His creation is to insist that everything be taken out of context. If He is the author of all that exists, it is absurd to leave Him out of the discussion.

[Liberal Classic]

As Judge Jones indicated, the creationists have fostered a false duality between science and religion. A majority of people do not hold a literal young-earth interpretation of the Bible. The clerical community has a shared interest in keeping science and religion apart. They do not want religion to be presented as science and, like a large block of religious scientists, do not see any conflict between religious belief and evolutionary theory.

BUMP!

[JmyBryan]

Religionists primarily believe science is evil. Faith in a unquestionable text is what is important. Anything that questions that faith is of Satan.

[MEGoody]

LOL Sorry, but this headline gave me a wonderfully amusing visual.

Nerd with broken, black plastic-framed glasses, short-sleeved, cotton plaid shirt, pocket protector in place, running around in a panic saying 'the IDers are coming!', papers flying off the stack stashed under his arm, laces on tennis shoes flapping in the breeze. . .

[Zionist Conspirator]

"Intelligent Design" is a form of Theistic evolutionism. It doesn't interpret the Genesis account literally or accept traditonal Biblical/Jewish chronology. It merely asserts it is possible to state with scientific accuracy that some sort of "intelligent designer" is behind it all.

The reason other evolutionists are opposed to this particular form of Theistic evolution is that in it G-d slips out of the world of human philosophical speculation into the world of fact, and most even "Theistic" evolutionists believe G-d should remain safely behind the Magical Door that also conceals Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

Until fairly recently all conventional religion believed in its facticity. But now "truth" and "fact" have become two separate things: the latter being actual reality and the former referring either to subjective philosophical speculation or else to highly abstract moral/ethical facts. It is amazing how radically new this view of religion is and yet how universally it is now held.

I am not an IDer myself (being a Biblical literalist), but and for a while I was puzzled by this family feud amongst Theistic evolutionists. Some of the anti-ID Thevos said that it was because science does not in fact indicate an intelligent designer even though there may "ultimately" be one who works in a way that never "interferes" with "nature." I now understand this argument as a rejection of a factual G-d and an adherence to a theoretical philosophical construct that never crosses the border from the individual mind into objective reality. Would that more Thevos understood this.

[hawkaw]

Thanks for this article. As always, I appreciate the PING

[Publius6961]

Science which even thinks about "defending itself" from intelligent design can't be much of a science to begin with.

Fortunately, I know only the bottom 5% of so-called scientists have so little to do as to consider this a "pressing issue"...

[RadioAstronomer]

EXCELLENT!

[connectthedots]

In a parallel universe, a majority of Americans, 54%, do not believe human beings evolved, according to one poll (2). Only 38% agree with the statement, "human beings evolved from an earlier species"

Apparently most Americans have enough intelligence to see the ToE for what it really is; a lie.

Doesn't take a degree in science to understand the arguments for and against.

[usastandsunited]

I think people need to understand the difference between Theology and Biology. I'm no expert in either one, but they both are science and both are very different. A theologist has no more authority on matters of biology than a biologist has on theology.
Personally, I would be much more interested in the question "Did we begin from something or nothing?" than how genes may mutate.

[wallcrawlr]

^{Revelation 4:11}Intelligent Design
Constantly searching for objectivity in the evolution debate...
See my profile for info

[<1/1,000,000th%]

About time.

[JCEccles]

Good science has no need to call for demonstrations and political activism to defend and protect it.

Darwinism is not good science. Hence, it needs a bodyguard of ACLU thugs to keep the critics away.