Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Darwinism Under Attack ( Intelligent Design Theory)
Chronicle of Higher Education ^ | 21December 2001 | BETH MCMURTRIE

Posted on 12/18/2001 7:05:45 AM PST by shrinkermd

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141 next last
FYI
1 posted on 12/18/2001 7:05:45 AM PST by shrinkermd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
bump
2 posted on 12/18/2001 7:12:39 AM PST by dubyagee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
(Romans 1:20-22 NKJV) For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

{21} because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

{22} Professing to be wise, they became fools,

3 posted on 12/18/2001 7:14:18 AM PST by Delta-Boudreaux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
The universe is too complex, the conditions for life too exacting, to conclude that it could have developed in such a sophisticated way without help from some "external agent."

So who guided the development of this "external" agent. Geeze, you think a professor would see the problem is one of "first causes." He just adds a layer. A turtle on a turtle -- and calls the problem solved. Don't they have any deep thinkers in the religious advocacy field???

4 posted on 12/18/2001 7:14:43 AM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
bump.
5 posted on 12/18/2001 7:15:40 AM PST by zoso82t
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
Many intelligent-design proponents believe there is a conspiracy to keep their ideas out of scientific circles.

Yeah, there really is a conspiracy -- to keep junk science out. Good on them. When ID can do better than quote scripture from the Bible, when it can present some sort of affirmative evidence, it'll make the grade.

Right now ID is just a retreat-in-force from pure reliance on Biblical revelation -- which has been laughed out of court for being so naively wrong. "I guess we better look for some evidence, ehy boys?"

6 posted on 12/18/2001 7:18:21 AM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *crevo_list
Not again bump
7 posted on 12/18/2001 7:19:07 AM PST by Gladwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Try to think of the universe as infinite in magnitude. There exist universes infinitely smaller and larger than ours. There is no end in either direction. We were created by one life form which was created by another, etc...
8 posted on 12/18/2001 7:20:41 AM PST by zoso82t
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
"I don't think intelligent design is a science," says Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences. "It's a way of restating creationism in a different formulation."

And guesswork into how blobs of cells evolved over billions of years to become humans is science? If there are scientists out there who wish to use scientific means to explore the "theory" of creationism, why is their work not as "legitimate" as that of those who wish to prove evolution. If evolutionists weren't afraid of the outcome of this work, they would not give "intelligent design" theorists the time of day. I smell an agenda....

9 posted on 12/18/2001 7:21:14 AM PST by dubyagee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
The treatment of Dembski at Baylor was shameful and reflects the intolerance of the evolutionist establishment to any competing ideas. The editor of the French encyclopaedia has called evolution "a fairy tale for adults." As taught, it is indeed full of gaping flaws, but it is held to by academia as tightly as any religion.
10 posted on 12/18/2001 7:23:19 AM PST by Malesherbes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
The universe is too complex, the conditions for life too exacting, to conclude that it could have developed in such a sophisticated way without help from some "external agent."

If the universe is so complex as to have required an "external agent" for its development, I'm afraid to ask who helped the developer get to the position where he could develop a universe.

It seems like the developer would, in some respect, be more complex than the thing he developed. How did that come to be?
11 posted on 12/18/2001 7:25:31 AM PST by abandon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Geeze, you think a professor would see the problem is one of "first causes."

ummm, that's why God is uniquely called the "first cause." I sincerely doubt the professor hasn't pondered that--by definition God is unique and eternal...never having been caused in the first place...

Since physics nearly universally accepts the compelling evidence of the "big bang" theory were essentially everything came out of nothing (a singular point)-- ie. the Universe has a finite beginning...Who caused that?

Is the Universe "self creating?" What else do you know which has ever been self creating?

12 posted on 12/18/2001 7:26:17 AM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dubyagee
And guesswork into how blobs of cells evolved over billions of years to become humans is science?

Yes. Because it is the cataloging of vast fossil evidence. The layering is always consistent with increased complexity over time. This is well beyond "guessing." The number of fossils are in the billions -- I have several right here on my desk. They aren't made up like biblical scripture was made up by goat herders 2000 years ago.

13 posted on 12/18/2001 7:26:23 AM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
When ID can do better than quote scripture from the Bible, when it can present some sort of affirmative evidence, it'll make the grade.

You might wish to read, say, Michael Behe's book for starters.

I have degrees in chemistry and chemical engineering, and though I'm a conservative evangelical Christian, I see no evidence in the Bible for anything more than "God created the Heavens and the Earth." If he chose to do it via evolution, I have no problem with that. However, the theory of evolution as currently taught is fraught with huge difficulties. Those who don't recognize those difficulties either don't understand the implications of the theory or refuse to face the facts. I don't believe that the earth was created 6,000 years ago (the Bible certainly doesn't teach this notion nor does evidence suggest it), but I'm more likely to believe that proposition than I would the idea that "chance" brought the universe into existence, as if "chance" were some kind of mystical force.

14 posted on 12/18/2001 7:27:20 AM PST by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Yeah, there really is a conspiracy -- to keep junk science out.

The evolutionary theory has craters throughout it. It was my understanding that science works to discover and can only do this by not knowing. The problem is so many are working to prove evolution, that any other answers out there are "bogus". That is not science, that is an agenda. Science LOOKS for answers, it does not attempt to make all fit into the box it has created. I would say those worshipping the evolutionary theory are the ones practicing "junk science".

15 posted on 12/18/2001 7:27:22 AM PST by dubyagee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
Is the Universe "self creating?" What else do you know which has ever been self creating?

We know the universe exists (well, I do, you may be confused about that issue.) We don't know God exists. Asserting God as creator doesn't solve the question of how nothing created something (God.)

If God can always exist, then the same logic applies to the much simpler dumb matter that makes up the universe.

16 posted on 12/18/2001 7:29:47 AM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Being a native of New Mexico, and all too familiar with UNM and it's left-wing agenda, it amazes me that this professor hasn't been lynched in front of the UNM Bookstore. (Where the anti-war protesters like to hang out.) In defense of our slightly loony state, the New Mexico Creation Science Fellowship does have a really good program going out here.
17 posted on 12/18/2001 7:30:10 AM PST by NMVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dubyagee
If there are scientists out there who wish to use scientific means to explore the "theory" of creationism, why is their work not as "legitimate" as that of those who wish to prove evolution.

Because they offer no evidence for their theory other than the Big Book. Proponents of evolution have offered a significant body of evidence backing up their theory; fossils, geological samples, astro-physical evidence showing the universe to be ~20B years old, etc. Other than quoting scripture, the only contributions the Creation ``Science'' types can make is to find small inconsistencies in the theory of evolution.

18 posted on 12/18/2001 7:30:52 AM PST by Cu Roi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: abandon
It seems like the developer would, in some respect, be more complex than the thing he developed. How did that come to be?

This world would have to get to the point where it acknowledges a "developer" before any questions about the complexity could even be addressed.....

19 posted on 12/18/2001 7:32:19 AM PST by dubyagee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
What else do you know which has ever been self creating?

Virtual particles? They randomly come into existence everywhere all the time and then go back out of existence. That's how black holes evaporate, no?
20 posted on 12/18/2001 7:33:07 AM PST by abandon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson