Theory of 'intelligent design' isn't ready for natural selection

The Seattle Times ^ | 6/3/2002 | Mindy Cameron

[Gumlegs]

Thank you. An interesting and challenging essay. But, alas, I find nothing in it that address the question of whether Darwin was on a government payroll.

And although it posits interesting questions regarding modern western materialism, it really says nothing about any form of government, communistic or otherwise. "The West," in my opinion, covers quite a range of government types, some more disgusting than others to be sure, but not all the same.

And "materialism" covers a lot of ground, too. A lot of people confuse "materialism" in science with "materialsim" in the sense of mindless consumerism, say, or hedonism. I expect that you're not doing that.

[f.Christian]

Positive science...

objectivity(reality) requires no value judgements---

how you think things should be is normative science(ideology)!

[Gumlegs]

Positive science...

objectivity(reality) requires no value judgements---

how you think things should be is normative science(ideology)!

An assigned value

Must interfere with

Real observation: Science.

Two can play at this game. Ten paces! Name your typeface!

[TailspinJim]

People....gotta read the books....like: "Genesis and The Big Bang", "The Science of God", "The Hidden Face of God", all by Dr. Gerald L. Schroeder; "Darwin's Black Box" by Prof. Michael Behe; "God The Evidence" by Dr. Patrick Glynn and others by Dr. Hugh Ross, astronomer.

The tide is turning, evolutionalists...jump on board, or sink!

[PatrickHenry]

Teaching faith

Teaching science

[Tribune7]

Ah, but Man is spiritually different than any other animal! We're the animals with the really big brains, and not much else of distinction.

But that's not spiritually different. That would be materially different since the brain is just organic matter.

[AndrewC]

You've been tippling the Pan-Galactic Gargle Blasters again haven't you. Not many of your neurons are left.

[AndrewC]

Another of your science teachers(a little more recent than your non science pix)

[AndrewC]

Equating God == good is a reification error

Are you seriously implying that good is not an abstraction? Or are you asserting that God is material?

[Tribune7]

Wolves allow the alpha male and female first dibs at a kill, respecting, in a sense, their rights to that "property

So why are these characteristics necessary for survival? Crocodiles and cockroaches do just fine without them.

[Tribune7]

Again, an assumption is an assumption, and therefore arbitrary. Assumptions can be reasonable, but not logical. If they were logical, they wouldn't be assumptions. They would be deductions.

To hold it necessary that "assumptions must be postulated" changes none of that. It only confirms what I said earlier. Any morality devoid of God as a reference is arbitrary at it's core.

Interesting that your premise hinges on the notion that "all men are created equal," isn't it?

I'm sure you'll want to rephrase it, but the inescapable reason it sounds reasonable is because it echoes a God-derived axiom we've all heard a thousand times.

Great points

[gore3000]

The only difference between Punk-Eek and traditional Darwinism is that Gould believed that most species tend to stay stable for long periods of time,

That's putting it kindly. Difference between Gould and Darwin was that Darwin thought that fossils could prove evolution true, Gould knew they did not and never would but wanted to stay on the evo gravy train nevertheless. Punk-eek is totally unverifiable and unfalsifiable.

[gore3000]

Keeping in mind that "I don't know" is a fundamentally different thing than "I can never know,"

If you do not know that evolution is true then your belief in it is no different than the belief of the anti-evolutionists in God. Therefore you should acknowledge that as far as is known evolution is a materialistic/atheistic faith system, not science.

[gore3000]

Interesting that your premise hinges on the notion that "all men are created equal," isn't it?

Of course, evolutionists cannot even say that all men are equal because materially speaking they are not. Men are only equal in the eyes of God. Darwin, and evolutionary theory, is based on the superiority of different men, races, species to others.

[medved]

Question, Reep: In your entire life, how many "never - send- to - know - for - whom - the - bell - tolls - it - tolls - for - thee" postcards have you ever sent people in order to convince them of the error of their ways?

[medved]

Don't forget Oolon Colluphid's "Where God Went Wrong," "Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes," "Who is this God Person Anyway?" and "Well That About Wraps It Up For God."

The guy could have just changed his name after he turned 21, rather than try to take it out on God, couldn't he?