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

Skip to comments.

Introducing The College Student’s Back to School Guide to Intelligent Design
Evolution News & Views ^ | September 25, 2009 | Casey Luskin

Posted on 09/26/2009 8:51:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

There are a lot of false urban legends promoted in academia about intelligent design (ID). They often start with myths promoted by misinformed critiques in scientific journals, court rulings, or even talks by activists at scientific conferences. Unfortunately, it’s not uncommon for this misinformation to then be passed down to college students, who may know very little about ID and lack the resources to correct their professors’ misinformed and misplaced attacks on ID. Not anymore.

If you’re a college student, recently gone back to school and expecting to hear a lot of anti-ID views from your professors, we’re pleased to present this “Back to School Guide” for students...

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: belongsinreligion; catholic; christian; college; creation; education; evagelical; evolution; garbage; godsgravesglyphs; intelligentdesign; notasciencetopic; propellerbeanie; protestant; science; university
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181 next last
To: count-your-change

your experiment has nothing to do with biology. It is a non=sequiteur.


81 posted on 09/27/2009 8:24:09 PM PDT by donmeaker (Invicto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
It had everything to do biology as how design is detected or recognized applies to a wide range of subjects.
And it dealt with what YOU asked for, remember?

“So someone tell me, how would you do an experiment to test for intelligent design?”

You may not like where it would lead but so what?

82 posted on 09/27/2009 8:47:24 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
It had everything to do biology as how design is detected or recognized applies to a wide range of subjects.

Kind of a lot like evolutionary principles are supposed to be able to be applied to other areas outside biology.

83 posted on 09/27/2009 9:03:56 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation ... His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”

Albert Einstein

Hey, thanks for the quote. I’ll add it to my collection of quotes on ID by great scientists. Of course the evolutionists will deny that it has anything to do with ID. Why? Beats me. All I can figure is that they have their heads in their butts.


84 posted on 09/27/2009 9:08:36 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: RussP
Albert Einstein Hey, thanks for the quote. I’ll add it to my collection of quotes on ID by great scientists.

You can add this one too.

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism." (Albert Einstein)

85 posted on 09/27/2009 9:18:47 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

Naw, I think I’ll skip that one. It reminds me of why I am not a great admirer of Einstein. Yes, he was a great scientist, but he’s not the god some think he is. He did apparently “believe in” ID, however, and that is significant to me. It puts him in the ID camp with Newton, Pascal, Henry, Faraday, Kelvin, and Pasteur. Gosh, that sounds like the SI (metric) system of units! Do you think maybe they knew something?


86 posted on 09/27/2009 9:26:08 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

But your test didn’t test for design. It tested for prejudice.

I knew you had that already.

“G-d, send us the cure. The sickness we have already.”


87 posted on 09/27/2009 9:31:49 PM PDT by donmeaker (Invicto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: metmom

I rather thought the fellow who could chip out arrow heads and turn it into a weapon or hunting tool had a good bit of intelligence in what he designed but I was intent on the process of determining what is or is not design.

It’s like beauty, everyone thinks they can recognize it but few really can explain what they are describing.


88 posted on 09/27/2009 9:32:17 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: RussP
It puts him in the ID camp with Newton,

Newton didn't believe in Salvation or that Jesus was the Son of God.

89 posted on 09/27/2009 9:38:38 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: metmom
So, Newton and Einstein were wrong when they concluded that the universe must have had a designer based on their observations?

Is God the 'designer' you refer to?

90 posted on 09/27/2009 9:42:15 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

Let’s pray he is forgiven for that.


91 posted on 09/27/2009 9:43:27 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: RussP
He did apparently “believe in” ID, however, and that is significant to me.

ID? Intelligent Designer? Is that God?

92 posted on 09/27/2009 9:43:30 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: RussP
Let’s pray he is forgiven for that.

I don't think Newton believed in prayer either. Besides it is too late for prayer to help him.

93 posted on 09/27/2009 9:51:28 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
Then you simply don't understand what was being done. If you have some experiment, do it yourself, but don't presume to explain what someone else might have done or what was in their mind.

That's not to say nothing came of it, look at your reaction to the possibility of being asked to explain how you might determine what is artifice and what is accident.

Like so many Darwinists posting here when you have to explain you quickly refrain.

94 posted on 09/27/2009 10:04:39 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: RussP
what experiment do you propose to support the theory that life originated by purely naturalistic mechanisms, with no ID?

I thought God did it?

95 posted on 09/27/2009 10:19:58 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Like so many Darwinists posting here when you have to explain you quickly refrain.

Please explain why you are latching onto the Intelligent Designer and not God?

96 posted on 09/27/2009 10:41:31 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
So someone tell me, how would you do an experiment to test for intelligent design?

It would help to have the original plans.

97 posted on 09/27/2009 10:45:16 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Where's this tagline thing everyone keeps talking about?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

I said nothing about the Intelligent Designer so there was no “latching”. Pay attention. please.


98 posted on 09/27/2009 10:50:02 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: RussP
Why are so many so-called “scientists” today so hostile to the idea of ID?

To get grants.

99 posted on 09/27/2009 10:51:32 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Where's this tagline thing everyone keeps talking about?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

Wow. Quite the archery contest tonight.

Why is it faith vs. science threads end up with the most vitriol of attacks between disciplines?


100 posted on 09/27/2009 10:58:01 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Where's this tagline thing everyone keeps talking about?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181 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