[Oztrich Boy]

It's Groundhog Day again!

[JFK_Lib]

Inteligent design is a challenge to the most basic assumptions of deterministic materialism.

They cannot defend or maintain their assumptions in the face of new evidence that the Universe is obviously designed, so, in a sort of reverse-Gallileo scenario, are resorting to simple dogma and ostracism to maintain the status quo.

They have become the New Inquisition trying to rein-in new scientific inquiry that does not share their paradigm lest it go where they wish it not to.

[Taggart_D]

Thanks for posting. I need to bookmark for my daughter. She is taking a senior-level high school science class called "Opposing Viewpoints", in which they (supposedly) debate evol. vs. intelligent design.

The teacher set up the class to teach his own liberal views, so naturally my daughter who does not take so easily to his dribble is sometimes hammered, or spoken to in a condescending way by the teacher. Its good college prep for what she will unavoidably face there. Many of us were taught evolution as fact, so much so that many now believe it, but they don't realize that after years and years of fossil research and all the many thousands of fossils examined, there is no evidence of ONE species turning into another. Yes, they have changed, but there is no common trunk to the many branches. The closer science is able to get to examine the universe, it does not look like a random event....which is what evolution is based.

[John Locke]

The problem with the Meyer paper is that it was not peer reviewed in the manner established by the Biological Society of Washington (the governing body for the periodical). This is confirmed in a statement they issued on September 7 last.

In other words, the ID proponents cheated. Is anyone surprised?

A fairly long demolition of the paper can be found here.