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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-317 next last
For more information on Intelligent Design, visit www.arn.org.
1 posted on 12/09/2004 9:21:27 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

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


2 posted on 12/09/2004 9:23:30 AM PST by escapefromboston (manny ortez: mvp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: escapefromboston
Yeah whatever, loser.

Kidding. :)

3 posted on 12/09/2004 9:25:08 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo (The best theory is not ipso facto a good theory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
Yeah whatever, loser.

D'oh. Beat me to it. Can I still be the first one to bring up Jesus and Hitler?

4 posted on 12/09/2004 9:26:55 AM PST by anonymous_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

"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.”


I believe in Evolution and I believe in the Bible and God. "Intelligent Design" satisfies both my beliefs.


5 posted on 12/09/2004 9:29:37 AM PST by ZULU (Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

Here's my beef with "Intelligent Design." Science starts with the questions. "Intelligent Design" starts with the supposed answer.


6 posted on 12/09/2004 9:32:12 AM PST by Egregious Philbin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

Not 'again', but STILL!


7 posted on 12/09/2004 9:34:16 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Egregious Philbin
And assuming the "blind watchmaker" is not starting with an answer as well?

Feh.

8 posted on 12/09/2004 9:34:31 AM PST by thulldud (It's bad luck to be superstitious.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

Design is typically an iterative process.


9 posted on 12/09/2004 9:34:47 AM PST by MarkeyD (<a href="http://www.johnkerry.com">Loser</a>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Egregious Philbin
Science starts with the questions.

I believe the scientific method starts with observation.

10 posted on 12/09/2004 9:37:52 AM PST by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Egregious Philbin

Not quite.

After Evolution has been given it's chance to run with the ball of 'randomness', the 'time' has expired; so a FASTER way to get ALL of this diversity we see is explained by ID.

Certain things just have to be a certain way first, or 'The rest of the Story' (as Paul Harvey likes to say) is going to be missing.


11 posted on 12/09/2004 9:38:13 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: anonymous_user

Yes you can.

What time is the next train?

It IS on schedule; right?

;^)


12 posted on 12/09/2004 9:39:50 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Egregious Philbin

"Here's my beef with "Intelligent Design." Science starts with the questions. "Intelligent Design" starts with the supposed answer."

Not always so, go study the history of science. Scientists can be shockingly dogmatic about pet theories/concepts. One could say, some/many of them have almost a religious attitude towards evolution, amoung other things.


13 posted on 12/09/2004 9:40:01 AM PST by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
Ultimately, the issue comes down to two questions: do scientists decide what constitutes science? and do we give scientists the responsibility for deciding what is in the science curriculum?

The answer to the first question is easy: of course we do. Scientists control the scientific literature, and we decide whether to accept the credentials of those who wish to be included in our community. Attempts to force an extraneous agenda on the scientific community have always failed. When Stalin tried to suppress Darwinian ideas, he failed; all he managed to do was destroy Russian genetics research and kill another million people or so. When the Church tried to suppress heliocentrism, it failed; astronomical research merely migrated to countries where the Church held no sway. Ideologically based attempts to suppress genetic research on race and gender in the last 20 years fell prey to the rapid pace of genomics.

No school board or religiously run University can give scientific legitimacy to ID; the only legitimacy it could ever possess has to be earned, and ID is not earning it.

The second question - can people with an ideological agenda take control of the scientific curriculum out of the hands of scientists? - is harder. The answer is that probably in the short term they can. The results will be a weakening of already tottering science education in the US, and a brewing fight when scientists like myself decline to accept the credentials of students educated according to unscientific curricula. However, in my opinion, ID is destined to lose, because while it can be forced into schools; while it might even be forced into a couple of the more religiously oriented universities (like Baylor) it can't be forced into the hearts and minds of the scientific community. And those institutions which embrace creationism will simply be excluded from the body of the scientific community.

14 posted on 12/09/2004 9:40:29 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
I believe in Evolution and I believe in the Bible and God. "Intelligent Design" satisfies both my beliefs.

The problem is that those two things are mutually exclusive. As your post said, Evolution is a process of random mutation and natural selection rather than a specific design.

But I still share your belief that there is no conflict between Genesis and Evolution. It's just that I think God created the very concept of "randomness" and "natural selection" at the core of Evolution. No conflict.

The Discovery Institute lost their earlier attempt to make a living promoting "Creationism" which ignored scientific evidence entirely. Now they've modified their stance enough to appear "scientific", and are having better luck forcing schools to include ID which basicaly claims that they have scientificly "proven" the existence of God via the creation of the earth.

That's where they loose me, because science can't be used to prove any diety. That might be nice, but sorry, it just doesn't work that way.

15 posted on 12/09/2004 9:42:19 AM PST by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: PatrickHenry

Ping


17 posted on 12/09/2004 9:44:08 AM PST by AngloSaxon (successful)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

OK. If Darwin is a crackpot, and living things do not evolve, then please explain why we now have anti-biotic resistent bacteria.


18 posted on 12/09/2004 9:48:38 AM PST by pnome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas
Scientists can be shockingly dogmatic about pet theories/concepts.

What might be wrong with some science does not make "intelligent design" right. The theory of evolution has held up quite well. And, as a theory, it is not a final answer, it is an evolving (ba-du-bum) concept.

Even the name - "Intelligent design" - assumes a creator. That certainly can't be scientifically proven. ID relies on a religious text to attempt to make a scientific argument.
19 posted on 12/09/2004 9:50:03 AM PST by Egregious Philbin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: pnome
OK. If Darwin is a crackpot, and living things do not evolve, then please explain why we now have anti-biotic resistent bacteria.

heck, i was just wondering what the heck my canine teeth and fingernails are good for...
20 posted on 12/09/2004 10:04:39 AM PST by frankenMonkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 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