Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker
The New York Times ^ | December 4, 2005 | LAURIE GOODSTEIN

Posted on 12/03/2005 5:28:45 PM PST by Right Wing Professor

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,041-1,060 next last
To: RightWingAtheist
Like Madonna?

I'll go a step further and say that Madonna is will make a falsifiable prediction before ID or its retooled replacement ever does.

41 posted on 12/03/2005 6:08:04 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph

Don't post from that site again. Thanks.


42 posted on 12/03/2005 6:08:57 PM PST by Lead Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

True. ID doesn't belong in science class. Why? Because it doesn't adhere to scientific method.


43 posted on 12/03/2005 6:09:38 PM PST by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon Girl
The most disturbing aspect about this debate is the rabid desire of evolution proponents to ridicule and otherwise attempt to marginalize those who would dare to question them.

When the proponents of ID produce a testable hypothesis I promise that we'll start calling it science instead of philosophy. Until then...

44 posted on 12/03/2005 6:10:13 PM PST by Zeroisanumber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

This article is bogus. It is wishful thinking for the g-d haters. Intelligent Design is sweeping the country and has already been implemented into many of the curriculum of the public school system.


45 posted on 12/03/2005 6:11:36 PM PST by Agdistis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lead Moderator
Don't post from that site again.

Okay. I assume you meant Landover Baptist...not God's Ark.

46 posted on 12/03/2005 6:12:05 PM PST by peyton randolph (Warning! It is illegal to fatwah a camel in all 50 states)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ThreePuttinDude

LOL! That cartoon is hysterically funny!


47 posted on 12/03/2005 6:12:10 PM PST by jocon307
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Agdistis
Intelligent Design is sweeping the country and has already been implemented into many of the curriculum of the public school system.

To the detriment of children everywhere.

48 posted on 12/03/2005 6:12:37 PM PST by Zeroisanumber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph
Satire is ridicule to make a point.

Whoopee! Riduiculing Christians to make a point is still ridiculing Christians...

49 posted on 12/03/2005 6:12:51 PM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: JudgemAll

Evolution through Stochastic processes? Sounds intriguing. Do you have a reference link for that?


51 posted on 12/03/2005 6:14:06 PM PST by phantomworker (We don't see things as they are, we see things as WE are.<==> Perception is everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

Teaching evolution is "teaching Darwin" as much as genetics is "teaching Mendel" or the theory of relativity is "teaching Einstein."

Now, I would agree that the HISTORY of the modern evolutionary principles start with Charles Darwin, but that doesn't mean evolution is studying darwinism. Darwin didn't claim to be a prophet or a leader or anything for SCIENCE to study. He was just a man who happened to have a rational idea in a superstitous time... and now his principles are the basis of modern biology.


52 posted on 12/03/2005 6:14:14 PM PST by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon

There are several academics in my field (speech communication) who have been prominent supporters of ID, and they also happen to be left-wing, po-mo types who view science as it is currently practiced as also being an expression of Western imperialism and male domination, making natural allies of both the IDers and the "Science for the People" crowd. I wrote a paper critiquing some of their arguments for a history of biology class, and I'm thinking of revising it for publication.


53 posted on 12/03/2005 6:15:10 PM PST by RightWingAtheist (Free the Crevo Three!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ARCADIA
I think all we (non-evos) really want is for you Darwinists to admit the following, which is indisputably true:

1. Life from non-life is a major hurdle for evolution, and it has not even begun to be overcome. In fact, you guys have pretty much quit on this issue and tend to ignore it as though it's not relevant.

2. The fossil record is an embarrassment for Darwin's theory. Because the fossil record fails to confirm the theory (as Darwin recognized it did not but hoped in the future it would, but hasn't), evolutionists have "cheated" on the falsifiable-ness (so to speak) of common descent and instead developed alternate theories such as "punctuated equilibrium" to explain the problem. There is absolutely no evidence for punctuated equilibrium because, of course, it was developed to explain away lack of evidence.

3. Modern evolutionary theory pre-supposes there is no God. In fact, it is really cowardly of the Darwinists who claim that religion and science are mutually exclusive in this regard. Many of you don't even have the guts to state the obvious. This is a choice between God and no God.

However, I won't hold my breath for a burst of honesty from that quarter.

54 posted on 12/03/2005 6:15:25 PM PST by Timmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph
And lest you think that satire is necessary, feel free to look at God's Ark, a Christian website that should be satire...but isn't.

Next time you link to that use a barf alert!

55 posted on 12/03/2005 6:16:02 PM PST by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon Girl
The most disturbing aspect about this debate is the rabid desire of evolution proponents to ridicule and otherwise attempt to marginalize those who would dare to question them.

Sound familiar? These self-appointed intellectuals can not stop whining and name-calling.

ID is the only reasonable approach to doing science. They know it and they can not tolerate the truth. Let them squirm and whine. Appealing to the NYT sounds the death knell of their extremist pseudo science.

56 posted on 12/03/2005 6:16:37 PM PST by Louis Foxwell (amen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Ophiucus
"That's because evolution is based upon actual science and belongs in science classrooms."

If Evolution is based upon actual science then why is it still considered just a theory? Because it CAN'T be proven in factual science. Theories should not be taught as facts in school, it's called propaganda.
57 posted on 12/03/2005 6:18:33 PM PST by Free2BeMe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
People who have NO clue about probability spout wildly improbable figures about the probabilities of processes they know nothing about

When man is able to produce life in the lab, {shouldn't be a problem since it happened by accident} I figure the probability is high we'll hear all about it.

58 posted on 12/03/2005 6:20:27 PM PST by labette (Opinions and Christian criticisms welcomed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Timmy
" 1. Life from non-life is a major hurdle for evolution, "

Nothing to do with evolution. Next!

"2. The fossil record is an embarrassment for Darwin's theory. Because the fossil record fails to confirm the theory (as Darwin recognized it did not but hoped in the future it would, but hasn't), evolutionists have "cheated" on the falsifiable-ness (so to speak) of common descent and instead developed alternate theories such as "punctuated equilibrium" to explain the problem."

Nope. There has been no fossil find that has gone against common descent. And Darwin did not say that the fossil record failed to uphold his theory. The DNA evidence is conclusive (ERV's, and so on); common descent is a fact.

" 3. Modern evolutionary theory pre-supposes there is no God."

Horse manure. Science cannot say that there is or there isn't a God; evolution makes no claims at all about God. This is a very common creationist lie.
59 posted on 12/03/2005 6:20:36 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: labette

"When man is able to produce life in the lab, {shouldn't be a problem since it happened by accident} I figure the probability is high we'll hear all about it."

Nice show of ignorance. :) Bravo!


60 posted on 12/03/2005 6:21:36 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,041-1,060 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
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson