[metacognative]

NOTE: This is a 'truth of science' debate. Leave God out of it, and keep minds open!

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

ping.

[marty60]

Boy is this going to po some people here.

[general_re]

In simpler terms, the mechanism of natural selection, central to evolutionary theory, cannot possibly account for the development of so many varied and complex life forms simply by mutations in DNA.

So says the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in his expert biological opinion. Does he do astrophysics and analytical chemistry too, or does he limit himself to the life sciences?

[ghost of nixon]

it's a facinating debate - I hope it continues

[shield]

bttt

[Oberon]

NOTE: This is a 'truth of science' debate. Leave God out of it, and keep minds open!

Um...is it just me, or is critique of existing theories the process by which theory is refined?

Is Darwin's model even considered beyond that process?

[tallhappy]

Leave God out of it, and keep minds open!

The above comment is non-sequitar. If one is bigotted then it would erroneously not see it as non-sequitar.

[oldbrowser]

God created evolution and Darwin and everything else.

[WildTurkey]

"Meyer, who holds a Ph.D. [in HISTORY and PHILOSOPHY] from Cambridge University,

[NRA Patriot 1976]

I'm a graduate student studying Neuroscience and I have been studying Biology for over 6 years in state universities under some of the biggest names in Science (nobel prize winning laureates, etc.) and I see no way that Darwin's theory could explain all of the complexity that is life. Even the most seasoned scientists I've dealt with when confronted with the immense numbers of protein-protein interactions that much occur in exact fashion, for example, hint at the impossibility that life could evolve to it's present form over millions of years by chance. I'm a firm believer in Intelligent Design but I understand the that Darwin's theory is currently the only way that scientists have to explain how life came about and I keep my personal religious beliefs out of my workplace because I know that Creationism cannot be proven absolutely either because that would deprive us of our having to rely on faith in God.

[narby]

NOTE: This is a 'truth of science' debate. Leave God out of it, and keep minds open!

Yeah. Right. And I've got a bridge to sell you.

The Discovery Institute proposed exactly this tactic in their "wedge" document, so they can first establish that science can study the supernatural, then they will inject God into the mix.

This is PR and religious emotion, not science.

[G Larry]

>has caught evolutionary scientists with their intellectual pants down.<

This would allow them a chance to breath.

Agree with your recommendation to maintain a "truth of science" debate.

The theory of evolution will then collapse under it's own weight.

[timberlandko]

"What is it about Dr. Stephen Meyer's paper that has caused such an uproar?"

Science doesn't panic, it explores, observes, records, assesses, deliberates, evaluates, and concludes. Pseudoscienists sieze on anything, however improbable, which might serve to bolster their pathetic cause. In this case, the pseudoscience crowd are delighted by an article published in a scholarly journal, an article that journal emphatically repudiates as not only unfounded but published contrary to the accepted rules of practice for that journalor any other credible, responsible publication. If not for the danger posed to the education system by their agendsa-driven prosyletizing, the creationists/intelligent design kooks would be as thoroughly laughable as are the folks who actually buy the snake-oil nostrums that make spam economically viable. I suspect there's plenty of cross-representation between the two crowds; reason, logic, evidence, and critical thought certainly play little part in the philosophies of either.

[colorado tanker]

I agree with the first part of the article, that natural selection or its refinements don't explain the Cambrian explosion, random mutation just doesn't get it done based on what I've read.

On the other hand, I don't think it necessarily follows that the only other explanation is design by a creator, I'm open to that but it strikes me as an unproven hypothesis. The creation of new species could also be the result of a biological process we don't yet understand, it seems to me.

[wolfpat]

I've surfed around the web for some evidence of "Intelligent Design." I can't find it. All I've been able to find is a lot of denial of Darwinism, and statement that problems with the theory of evolution mean that God really did everything. Could someone provide a link to some evidence other than argument and thought experiments?

[Mr Ramsbotham]

I'm a religious person who has absolutely no problems with the theory of evolution, and I can assure you that I'm in no particular state of panic.

[Waco]

Z. Stichin is more credible than the dinko darwinites.

[Kevin OMalley]

ping for later reading

[Tribune7]

bump

[norton]

Fact of the matter is that we may finally be a point at which some slight progress might come from this debate:
Both sides have overstated their 'proof' and both sides should [if rational argument is still available] stop and consider what they are debating.

It has long been stated that 'creation' or design were not antithetical to Darwin's observations on diversity in species or within species.
The debate,as such, now centers on the most dearly held and least supported tenants of both:
Can Darwin show how "Life" came to be on earth? (no)
and
Can "not darwin" show otherwise? (no)

Problem is that one side (evolutionists) are overstating their license and the other (other) are lumping an entire concept into one pivotal element of their argument against the (neo-darwinist?) position.

No one is going to make progress until both figure out what it is that they are discussing.

My problem is that I sincerely believe that the Darwinist side has more of an agenda than does the 'other'.
The Darwinists believe, deep in their hearts, that any loss is a defeat in the larger issue - and in that they are far more the arrogant, ignorant, 'sheeple' of the issue.

I may well have descended from a monkey - I do not believe I an descended from a 'primordal soup' or a chance melding of atoms, or a happily random mix of planet, ooze, and lightening strikes.