Posted on 11/24/2009 6:50:51 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Pro-Darwin consensus doesn't rule out intelligent design
--snip--
(CNN) -- While we officially celebrate the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" on November 24, celebrations of Darwin's legacy have actually been building in intensity for several years. Darwin is not just an important 19th century scientific thinker. Increasingly, he is a cultural icon.
Darwin is the subject of adulation that teeters on the edge of hero worship, expressed in everything from scholarly seminars and lecture series to best-selling new atheist tracts like those by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. The atheists claim that Darwin disproved once and for all the argument for intelligent design from nature.
And that of course is why he remains hugely controversial. A Zogby poll commissioned by the Discovery Institute this year found that 52 percent of Americans agree "the development of life was guided by intelligent design." Those who are not scientists may wonder if they have a right to entertain skepticism about Darwinian theory.
Read a leading Darwin proponent's view that evolution leaves no room for intelligent design theory...
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Depends on what your definition is of religion. For the 2nd time, what is your definition of religion?
I was asking for your opinion. Why should I define your opinion?
Fail what?
“Well you have one thing right, since he is the director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture he is not an honest scientist.”
**********************************************************
It’s not like there are a lot of those anyway.
Scientists aren’t the paragons of integrity and virtue that evos like to portray them as.
Studies examine withholding of scientific data among researchers, trainees
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1565120/posts
It May Look Authentic; Here’s How to Tell It Isn’t
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563746/posts
Most scientific papers are probably wrong
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1473528/posts
Most Science Studies Appear to Be Tainted By Sloppy Analysis
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1896333/posts
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124&ct=1
One in seven scientists say colleagues fake data
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2264439/posts
You Can Trust a Scientist – Can’t You?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2262237/posts
See post number 29 and unless you fail a reading comprehension as badly as you do science you should be able to figure it out on your own.
“Scientists aren’t the paragons of integrity and virtue that evos like to portray them as.”
And preachers, reverends, and pastors are?
That doesn’t make my statement untrue.
You’re just trying to deflect the attention away from the truth.
Another diversionary tactic instead of addressing the comment.
Just like Ray Comfort who failed to do the proper research prior to find out that the banana was DOMESTICATED BY MAN hundreds of years ago.
The yellow banana we get in stores WAS intelligently designed, BY MAN!!!
Banana’s before then (and the other species of bananas) don’t exhibit those qualities he pretends prove their is a god.
Why does no one bring this up?
You are not defining my opinion, you are defining the argument.
You asked the question of GGG, "But, GGG, this is about ID, NOT about religion?" I need your definition before I can give you my opinion. For the 3rd time, what is your definition of religion? Please do not use the Evo tactic of avoiding the question. You set your parameters of the argument to include religion, you need to define it.
If you’re presenting the “truth” should not you include the fact that pastors, reverends, and preachers are not virtuous beings as well? Or do you consider the words of all pastors, preachers, and reverends to be virtuous and true?
And how is my question deflecting attention. If you’re going to make a bold statement like you did, then you must state a position on the virtuousness of pastors, preachers, and reverends since they are the ones who are teaching and preaching ID.
And let’s not forget about Global-Warming-Gate!
No. Why?
Ira's comment was about dishonest scientists. That's all I was responding to.
Or do you consider the words of all pastors, preachers, and reverends to be virtuous and true?
No, but that's irrelevant. Just because some people may be dishonest, doesn't excuse others for being dishonest.
Situational ethics may make someone feel good because they feel they are better than someone else, but a dishonest scientist is still a dishonest scientist.
The links demonstrate the lies, frauds, and misrepresentations engaged in by those who claim to be scientists. Just because someone else does it, doesn't make it acceptable.
And how is my question deflecting attention.
Because you brought something else in it to focus the attention on that instead of addressing the issue of fraud and deceit in science.
If you’re going to make a bold statement like you did, then you must state a position on the virtuousness of pastors, preachers, and reverends since they are the ones who are teaching and preaching ID.
No, I must not *must*.
Why should I? Why should I be obligated to address an issue that you think I should?
Your last statement makes absolutely no sense. The leap in logic (for lack of a better term) that you make is convoluted at best. There's no reason why I *must* and what pastors, preachers, and reverends are teaching and preaching ID anyway?
Why not repeat your 14 points? And you haven’t always done your research either, have you?
His post was from CNN, so obviously it is full of inaccuracies, and secular ignorance.
If you’ve heard it before, then for you its not news.
For others it is.
==Why not repeat your 14 points?
LOL!
Sure, not all scientists (like not all clergy or chef's or teachers, or doctors)are not paragons of virtue. If asked to name a dozen scientists you couldn't do it. This is because it is the science, not the scientist who is judged. The fact that you are banging out blather on a machine whose computing capacity exceeds the combined computing power that NASA and the Pentagon had 30 years ago, and the fact that your life expectancy is double that of your grandmother is because you CAN trust the work of scientists.
We’re going to have to renew our “nose tweaking, eye gouging” debate some day since the the quality of argumentation has definitely fallen around here.
Unless every blandly obvious comment is dismantled it’s taken as a triumph of lucid thinking and comprehension, “Variations exist with in all populations”.
Dear me...What can one say?
Thanks for the ping!
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.