Skip to comments.
AAAS Board Resolution Urges Opposition
to "Intelligent Design" Theory in U.S. Science Classes
AAAS ^
| November 6, 2002
| Ginger Pinholster
Posted on 11/07/2002 7:07:47 PM PST by Nebullis
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 1,521-1,538 next last
1
posted on
11/07/2002 7:07:47 PM PST
by
Nebullis
To: *crevo_list; jennyp; Stultis; VadeRetro; Junior; general_re; BMCDA; js1138; RadioAstronomer; All
Bump.
(Ginger Pinholster... what a name!)
2
posted on
11/07/2002 7:14:00 PM PST
by
Nebullis
To: Nebullis
... [S]cience-based information and conceptual belief systems should not be presented together. Nice way of putting it!
3
posted on
11/07/2002 7:21:56 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
To: Nebullis
I know a number of scientists who are ID proponents and their scientific credentials are impeccable, as is their work. This complete resistance to ID by the Darwinists stifles, rather than promotes, scientific inquiry.
The design paradigm is both powerful and compelling to the point that leading evolutionists have felt it necessary to assert that the "appearance" of design does not necessarily imply design. Yet it is hard to ignore the incredible design element of many living organisms, even down to the gene level.
I think it is important to note that scientists who are in the ID camp are not the fringe element or religious crackpots that Darwinists make them out to be. As a matter of fact, many of the attacks I have seen on ID I have seen by Darwinists tend to be personal attacks that attempt to disparage the person's credibility rather than their position, in an attempt to marginalize the person and thus their work. Some of these attacks tend to be quite vicious at times to the point where being an ID proponent can be a career limiting move. Just ask William Dembski or Stephen Meyer.
To: CalConservative
Trying to orbit science around darwin...
is like trying to put the sun in orbit around the moon/sand---DUST
HACK/whack-WARDS!
Darwin isn't relevant to anything in the universe---reality!
To: CalConservative
I know a number of scientists who are ID proponents And I know a number of scientists who are Christians, but that doesn't make Christianity a science, either.
All I've seen from ID'ers is the broad claim that "designyness" can be quantified. I've never seen them quantify it or test it.
6
posted on
11/07/2002 7:35:33 PM PST
by
Physicist
To: Nebullis
For those freepers who don't want to bother visiting the link, AAAS stands for the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
7
posted on
11/07/2002 7:36:57 PM PST
by
Cicero
To: AnnaZ; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; gore3000; AndrewC; Phaedrus; Heartlander
To: Dimensio
As I see it, evolution is an ideological(RELIGION)* doctrine(DOGMA)*.
If it were only a "scientific theory", it would have died a natural death 50 - 70 years ago; the evidence against it is too overwhelming and has been all along. The people defending it are doing so because they do not like the alternatives to an atheistic basis for science and do not like the logical implications of abandoning their atheistic paradigm and, in conducting themselves that way, they have achieved a degree of immunity to what most people call logic.
488 posted on 7/29/02 5:18 AM Pacific by medved
Great quote. Thanks for posting it.
294 posted on 10/18/02 11:59 AM Pacific by AnnaZ
*...my additions!
To: Physicist
Evolution really can't be "quantified" either. It's basically a circular argument. "Survival of the fittest" is simply a tautology, which defines "fittest" as that which survives. Nor, after a century of trying, has anyone ever demonstrated that evolution ever occurs, other than intraspecies evolution, which no one questions.
ID and general evolution are both hypotheses, but if you actually look at the literature, the former is much likelier than the latter.
9
posted on
11/07/2002 7:40:03 PM PST
by
Cicero
To: Physicist
Creation/God...REFORMATION(Judeo-Christianity)---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!
Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc/liberal/govt-religion/rhetoric)...
Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin/ACLU America---the post-modern age
To: Nebullis
the "dictatorship of the proletariat"
To: Nebullis
We cant have any children thinking for themselves!!
To: Nebullis
Running joke is 'evo-science'...
biggest cult of oxy-moonie-morons---art bells!
Latest evo gem---ARTISTRY!
Like FR 'patrickhenry'...
"search for the creator via evolution"---
"total--only evolution" too---"No Competition"!
The papal encyclical rightwingprofessor-whack thinks/interprets---"professes evolution"...
could abortion be next???
Nebullis..."preschool evolution---INTENSIVELY"---
donh...
"if the sun can create crystals-snowflakes...human life "could have---most likely"(not certainly) follow"---
(Why, if the sun can create crystals and snowflakes, can't it create life?)
(How much different is my paraphase of your rhetorical question---statement!)
also by donh...
"Nor have I even suggested that 'most' nazi germans were christians, though I think it's likely so."
"christian values and sentiments were the majority religeous view in Germany between 1938 and 1946"
BIG WHOPPER!
Hitler and nazi germany were mostly Judeo-Christians---creationists!
(With this statement we can safely say bankrobbers/murderers are auditors/morticians!)
dominick harr..."just like a ball bouncing down the stairs----evolution created everything"---
jennyp..."anarchist evolutionary(natural) capitalism---Christianity(manmade) is communism"---
and patrickhenry doesn't know..."if prior to darwin---if science existed"...
SkyRat...Divine hammer-retribution from above via evolution!
exdemmom...evolution is the "lug wrench" that fixes science--biology/life!
Running sores of evo schlock!
Evolution is Truth/science/history ABORTION--freaks!
To: RaceBannon
To: Marathon
Missionaries have said for years that American educational/media institutions are far more closed than in places like Russia. This underscores their point. What was it someone said, to find real communists these days you have to visit an American university?
2 Posted on 03/27/2000 10:56:24 PST by Marathon
To: Cicero
Evolution really can't be "quantified" either.Evolution is defined as change in allele frequency over time. That's quantified and measurable.
ID and general evolution are both hypotheses, but if you actually look at the literature, the former is much likelier than the latter.
LOL, I'd love to see how you quantify that likelihood.
To: f.Christian
Thanks for the heads up!
To: Nebullis
To: f.Christian
Now I follow, thank you. Actually, I don't disagree with this at all since I see the left as abandoning the uncertianty of democracy and majority rule for the assurance technocracy and expert rule.
152 posted on 9/10/02 12:17 PM Pacific by Liberal Classic
and...
To: f.Christian
Dakmar...
I took a few minutes to decipher that post, and I must say I agree with a lot of what you said.
fC...
These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!
Dakmar...
Where you and I diverge is on the Evolution/Communism thing. You seem to view Darwin and evolution as the beginning of the end for enlighted, moral civilization, while I think Marx, class struggle, and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" are the true dangers.
God bless you, I think we both have a common enemy in the BRAVE-NWO.
452 posted on 9/7/02 8:54 PM Pacific by Dakmar
To: f.Christian
Please add this to your list:
Physicist..."I still don't rate a pull-quote!"
To: Physicist
To: f.Christian
The fact that the nomenclature of the political spectrum is
is reversed in the USA indicates the radical nature of our republic. The radical idea of the 18th century was reducing the power of central authority in favor of individual liberties. American liberals of today seem more interested
in returning those hard won individual freedoms to the central government. (I deliberatly use the term central rather than federal because I am a Southerner who recoqnizes the difference.)
American conservatives today are Classical Liberals.
7 posted on 10/25/2002 9:34 PM PDT by limitedgov
To: Physicist
All I've seen from ID'ers is the broad claim that "designyness" can be quantified. I've never seen them quantify it or test it. Maybe you aren't talking to the right people. I just had dinner last month with a research microbiologist from a relatively large university and he was telling me how he uses design concepts in a predictive capacity for his research work on bacteria. Now I'm a geologist, not a biologist, so some of the in-depth discussion was hard for me to follow, but the gist of it was that he is able to use reverse engineering as you would with any machine that is designed or like software for that matter, and making discoveries that he is able to publish on. Furthermore, he also discussed the design parameters of various bacteria functions and why many of these functions cannot operate without the presence of many (and in the case of some components, up to 50) specialized genes. If any of these genes are missing, that component cannot exist or function. His work has led him to believe that it is impossible to simulaneously evolve 50 specialized genes to give the bacteria this component and there are no intermediate functionalities that could use only some of the genes while the others "evolve' to produce the final function. What is left? Weak arguments for "puncuated equilibrium?"
There is more fascinating stuff (it was a long evening), but I have to admit that I was certainly swayed by the evidence. I would stress that this is not just making claims about design, but actually using an ID approach to making research discoveries.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 1,521-1,538 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson