A new theory says the world had a "designer"
Posted on 03/11/2002 6:14:13 AM PST by areafiftyone
A new theory says the world had a "designer"
Religious campaigners in the United States are to challenge the way evolution is taught in American schools in a debate likely to reignite arguments over the origins of life.
Supporters of a theory called Intelligent Design want the concept added to the school science curriculum in the state of Ohio, alongside Darwin's theory of evolution.
The discussion is being seen as the biggest public test yet of the new theory.
Even the president has cast his opinion on the matter of science versus religion.
During his election campaign, George W Bush made the following assertion.
"On the issue of evolution," he said, "the verdict is still out on how God created the Earth."
To secular listeners familiar with Mr Bush, this may have sounded like a gaffe.
It probably wasn't.
More likely, it reflected a deeply held belief among many fundamentalist Christians in the United States that unquestioning adherence to the theory of evolution has too often been used as an argument against the existence of God.
Divine plan
Religionists doubt Darwin's theory of evolution
In the past, those same Christians have tried to get the Biblical explanation of creation taught as scientific fact.
What is being discussed in Ohio isn't a simple return to Creationism - as a literal belief in the Bible story is called.
Intelligent Design accepts that the universe is indeed very old.
But it argues that the diversity and complexity of life suggests that an "intelligent designer" has been at work.
What its supporters want, they say, is the right to challenge Darwin's theory scientifically.
Their critics argue that what it is really about is finding a backdoor way of getting Creationism into America's schools.
Even before the dust settles on the discussion, it has already shown just how deeply-ingrained the religious sentiment is in the world's most powerful and technologically advanced nation.
For many Americans, religion is still a keenly felt reality.
Wouldn't that be an unfair punishment?
"There I was, just walking down the street,
minding my own business, while Jesus was
waiting around the corner with a crowbar."
God strikes everybody dead, dewd.
01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.
03: Creationi sm and Pseudo Science. Familiar cartoon then lots of links.
04: The SKEPTIC annotated bibliography. Amazingly great meta-site!
05: The Evidence for Human Evolution. For the "no evidence" crowd.
06: Massive mega-site with thousands of links on evolution, creationism, young earth, etc..
07: Another amazing site full of links debunking creationism.
08: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Great cartoon!
09: Glenn R. Morton's site about creationism's fallacies. Another jennyp contribution.
11: Is Evolution Science?. Successful PREDICTIONS of evolution (Moonman62).
12: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. On point and well-written.
13: Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions. A creationist nightmare!
14: DARWIN, FULL TEXT OF HIS WRITINGS. The original ee-voe-lou-shunist.
The foregoing was just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 16].
Thank you Vade, for your quick captioning. Very cool.
Uh, it is only with respect to (alleged) instances of "irreducible complexity" and/or "specified complexity" (and on the questionable assumption that such states cannot originate by an evolutionary process) that ID'ers claim ID can be inferred. Even if ID were validated as a fruitful scientific approach, how would that not still leave plenty of room for evolution? For example, given an ape, no new structures of "irreducible" or "specified" complexity are needed to generate a human being. Humans is basically made of ape parts.
Suppose maybe you are just an old fashioned fiat creationist "apeing" the latest fancy terminology?
Excellent points. Howard Van Till, an evangelical evolutionary theist from Calvin College, hammered this repeatedly on the college's Evolution Echo. He claims that the theory is misnamed, as it studiously avoids saying anything AT ALL about the subject of "design," whether we ask, how, who, when, why, or where. I can't remember what he suggested it be called instead, but it was something like "non-natural origination".
Chapter 1: Darwin was a fink.
Chapter 2: Hitler was a "Darwinist."
Chapter 3: There is no evidence for evolution.
Chapter 4: Evolution is stupid.
Chapter 5: Evolution requires faith (which is really stupid)
Chapter 6: ID doesn't conflict with scripture.
I can't see this going down well with the fundamentalists. Or is this battle going to left for another day?
Geology, watch out! You're next! Especially that evil Wegener fellow!
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.