Posted on 12/27/2005 2:13:35 PM PST by tbird5
Intelligent Design is once again making headlines in the United States. But what is the attraction? Daniel Dennett spoke with SPIEGEL about the attraction of creationism, how religion itself succumbs to Darwinian ideas, and the social irresponsibility of the religious right in America
SPIEGEL: Professor Dennett, more than 120 million Americans believe that God created Adam our of mud some 10,000 years ago and made Eve from his rib. Do you personally know any of these 120 million?
Dennett: Yes. But people who are creationists are usually not interested in talking about it. Those who are actually enthusiastic about Intelligent Design, though, would talk endlessly. And what I learned about them is that they are filled with misinformation. But they've encountered this misinformation in very plausible sources. It's not just their pastor that tells them this. They go out and they buy books that are published by main line publishers. Or they go on Web sites and they see very clever propaganda that is put out by the Discovery Institute in Seattle, which is financed by the religious right.
SPIEGEL: In the center of the debate is the theory of evolution. Why is it that evolution seems to produce much more opposition than any other scientific theory such as the Big Bang or quantum mechanics?
Dennett: I think it is because evolution goes right to the heart of the most troubling discovery in science of the last few hundred years. It counters one of the oldest ideas we have, maybe older even than our species.
(Excerpt) Read more at service.spiegel.de ...
bttt for later read.
More evidence that the Darwinists are mainly interested in doing away with the notion of God.
"Religion must be incomprehensible to be successful, says Dennett."
Not sure what he means by this since it isn't in the text of the article, but under a photo of the Vatican.(I think it's the Vatican)
Bull. The 120 million figure is derived from a conflation of various loaded survey questions.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
No. Only evidence that people with agendas will seize on any old subject that promises to generate emotion.
The creationists seize on the ID philosophy to disguise their agenda, and atheists seize on evolution to promote theirs.
The only good thing that's come out of this fight is an added emphasis on evolution studies in the last year, which has seriously added to our understanding of how it works via new microbiological evidence. While the IDers are crowing about their latest work of fiction sold on the 700 club, real scientists are decoding the human and primate genomes and discovering how they work, and how the genome itself evolves.
both are theory only though! so, there should be both theories put forth as a possibility.
"While the IDers are crowing about their latest work of fiction sold on the 700 club, real scientists are decoding the human and primate genomes and discovering how they work, and how the genome itself evolves."
Very self righteous statement.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
I don't know, because it seems to me that the very best evidence we have for the truth of Darwin's theory is the evidence that arrives every day from bioinformatics, from understanding the DNA-coding. The critics of Darwinism just don't want to confront the fact that molecules, enzymes and proteins lead to thought. Yes, we have a soul, but it's made up of lots of tiny robots.
How to make a whole lot of money:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/
Words fail me...
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
"If you can explain the processes of life in terms of empirical data, what do you need the supernatural for? "
But that could only be accomplished to a certain extent, wouldn't it.
Even if scientists could prove, without a doubt, that all life evolved from a chemical reaction, wouldn't that still leave the question of how the chemicals came to be in the first place?
I don't see any incompatiblity with evolution and natural selection, and religion. But the 'big bang' question still remains because it leaves the question of what happened before that occurred and what made it occur to begin with.
JMHO
There will always be people who will profit from either side of the arguement. Even if they have to be deceptive to do it.
We usually call them 'con' men. (or women)
Sure is.
"real scientists are decoding the human and primate genomes and discovering how they work, and how the genome itself evolves."
Excellent, I can't wait for these "real scientists" to create life themselves and duplicate evolution. The imposter scientists who refute evolution are so obviously wrong.
Right! And as soon as we find the failed species with three eyes and one ear and the deer with that extra set of eyes in the back of it's head we will show how stupid they are. /sarcasm >
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.