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

Skip to comments.

Darwin under fire (again): Intelligent design vs. evolution
First Amendment Center ^ | 12/5/04 | Charles C. Haynes

Posted on 12/09/2004 9:21:27 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo

Is Darwin winning the battle, but losing the war?

As soon as one challenge to the teaching of evolution is beaten in the courts, another emerges to take its place.

The current contender is “intelligent design,” a theory that according to advocates at the Discovery Institute “makes no religious claims, but says that the best natural evidence for life’s origins points to design rather than a process of random mutation and natural selection.”

(Excerpt) Read more at firstamendmentcenter.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: crevolist; darwin; discoveryinstitute; evolution; firstamendment; intelligentdesign; ssdd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-317 next last
To: bondserv
Another good site:

Design Watch

41 posted on 12/09/2004 10:26:38 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo (The best theory is not ipso facto a good theory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: crail
If we all agree that in a short time small changes can occur, then we must agree that in a long time, big changes can occur unless something stops them.

No we don't. You can posit that if you like, but it's not proof, nor scientific method.

We need to know what that something is and how it works.

Let me know when you do. I'm all for looking into things.

42 posted on 12/09/2004 10:27:11 AM PST by Protagoras (Christmas is not a secular holiday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
As soon as one challenge to the teaching of evolution is beaten in the courts, another emerges to take its place.

I notice that here. The "bad pennies keep coming back" problem. Beat all the lies and fallacies to pulp on one thread and the same people or new ones are back with them somewhere else.

The actual history of life on Earth does not depend upon whether certain militantly ignorant people ever give up their attacks on it.

43 posted on 12/09/2004 10:27:47 AM PST by VadeRetro (Nothing means anything when you go to Hell for knowing what things mean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
If we all agree that in a short time small changes can occur, then we must agree that in a long time, big changes can occur unless something stops them.

No we don't.


Well small changes are observable. How could many small changes over a long time not add up to a large change?
44 posted on 12/09/2004 10:29:35 AM PST by crail (Better lives have been lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in the halls of palaces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
Nobody denies variation. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are still bacteria.

Of course. There is a world of difference between development and interspeciation. A better example is a virus, which will do more reproduction and genetic recombination is a decade than human beings could accomplish in a millenium. Yet it will remain a virus. It will change itself and adapt to its circumstances, but it will remain a virus.

I think one reason so many people are hell-bent on supporting "evolution" is that we haven't got a universal definition of what "evolution" actually is! Is it a horse getting taller, or antibiotic resistance, or is it a fish becoming a frog? For me, any decent theory about evolution must include something about interspeciation.

45 posted on 12/09/2004 10:30:33 AM PST by ironmike4242
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: BillT

"The God of the Bible would not use senseless violence to breed human beings."

You are viewing this through human eyes. Many human eyes would Christ's death as senseless violence.


46 posted on 12/09/2004 10:32:04 AM PST by ZULU (Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
Thank you for the link.

I also enjoy www.arn.org. Some brilliant people post there.

47 posted on 12/09/2004 10:33:05 AM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical! † [Check out my profile page])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
How the evolution censors fool the masses with the crevo issue :
- pretending that it's about allowing the "teaching of creation" in schools, to cover-up that's it's about exposing the scientific proof of the fraud called "evolution theory"
48 posted on 12/09/2004 10:33:31 AM PST by Truth666 (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Proof+that+at+least+one+of+two%22)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Truth666
ammonite fossils in Mount Everest and crocodiles NOW in the Sahara - evolution censors fooled , December 6, 2004

Proof that at least one of two (evolution, ice age) key theories is false , May 2004

cheap trick behind the most devasting lie in the history of mankind - how fools were mislead to believe in human evolution, October 15, 2003

49 posted on 12/09/2004 10:33:56 AM PST by Truth666 (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Proof+that+at+least+one+of+two%22)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: crail
How could many small changes over a long time not add up to a large change?

One can change incrementally and greatly without changing fundamentally.

50 posted on 12/09/2004 10:39:18 AM PST by Protagoras (Christmas is not a secular holiday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: crail
How could many small changes over a long time not add up to a large change?

One could take the Creationist method and change the meaning of large. When speciation is demonstration, one could claim, "It's still the same genus."

51 posted on 12/09/2004 10:39:24 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

1. You are correct and we are ignorant. or

2. You are correct but are not very good communicator. or

3. You are correct and we lie to ourselves. or

4. You are ignorant and we are correct. or

5. You are lieing to yourself and we are correct. or

6. You are being blinded by a supernatural desception and we are not.


52 posted on 12/09/2004 10:39:30 AM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical! † [Check out my profile page])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Antibiotic resistant bacteria are mutating and improving themselves, but are not becoming new species. So this phenomenon cannot be used to buttress evolution.

Evolution is simply the change in the frequencies of alleles from one generation to the next. The term evolution does not necessarily mean becoming a new species.

53 posted on 12/09/2004 10:45:13 AM PST by GreenFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

Submitting this idea just for the sake of muddying up the water and instigating thought: Why couldn't a creator intelligently design an evolutionary process?


54 posted on 12/09/2004 10:46:05 AM PST by contemplator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras

"I assume you know the difference between an animal developing a new characteristic and become an entirely new animal?"

Ok, but how many new characteristics before we call it a new animal?


55 posted on 12/09/2004 10:46:32 AM PST by pnome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Beat all the lies and fallacies to pulp on one thread and the same people or new ones are back with them somewhere else.

Nobody said being a over-worked and under-paid atheist would be easy, Vade.

56 posted on 12/09/2004 10:48:22 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo (The best theory is not ipso facto a good theory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: escapefromboston
As someone who can tell the future, I predict this topic will contain childish name calling!!

Whatever... Ignorant pinhead.

57 posted on 12/09/2004 10:50:01 AM PST by TChris (You keep using that word. I don't think it means what yHello, I'm a TAGLINE vir)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pnome
Ok, but how many new characteristics before we call it a new animal?

That depends on which species concept you accept. The fact that no species concept has been universally accepted makes your challenge difficult, if not impossible, to defend.

58 posted on 12/09/2004 10:50:37 AM PST by GreenFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: contemplator

"Why couldn't a creator intelligently design an evolutionary process?"

My thoughts exactly. How amazing is the DNA molecule? Doesn't it make more sense that this molecule, with it's endless verity and ability to adapt to even the harshest of conditions, has been designed, not the cell, or the organism that is a result of it's adaptations.

Still no proof of that though, so it would only be a guess.


59 posted on 12/09/2004 10:51:27 AM PST by pnome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
So many lies, so little time.


Lying for the Lord is Doing God's Work!
Hellfire is for thee, not me!

60 posted on 12/09/2004 10:51:33 AM PST by balrog666 (The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-317 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