Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The challenge to Darwin’s theory of evolution – Part 2
World Peace Herald ^ | October 13, 2006 | Sekai Nippo

Posted on 10/14/2006 9:22:19 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger

TOKYO -- Why has the Intelligent Design (ID) movement grown so rapidly and with such increasing impact? Considering the relatively short history of the ID movement, such rapid growth is rather remarkable.

The origin of the ID movement was a small meeting of scientists at the California seaside resort of Pajaro Dunes. The meeting, convened by Phillip Johnson, professor of constitutional law at the University of California Berkeley, began as an informal discussion the fundamental issues of the origin and evolution of life. Johnson is the author of “Darwin on Trial,” published in 1991.

Twelve scientists including Johnson gathered there. Participants included Dr. Michael Behe, biochemist, Dr. William Dembski, mathematician, Dr. Stephen Meyer, scientific and philosophical historian and geophysicist, Dr. Dean Kenyon, chemist, Dr. Jonathan Wells, biologist, and Dr. Paul Nelson, biologist—all of whom are leading scientists in the ID movement today.

This serious, face-to-face exchange of opinions about origin and evolution of life became a major turning point for all the participants. Says Dr. Nelson, “as each participant shared his doubts about Darwinism, a new way of thinking gradually emerged.”

This meeting generated a stream of scientists seriously searching for answers to the origin and evolution of life. The main thrust of the ID movement emerged in November 1996, when about 200 scientists gathered at the “Mere Creation” conference at Biola University in Los Angeles. Dr. Henry Schaefer, Director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, who signed “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism,” participated in the conference.

Dr. Behe published “Darwin’s Black Box – The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution” in autumn 1996, and Dr. William Dembski published “The Design Inference” in 1998. These two books are recognized as the basic pillars of ID theory. National Review and World Magazine voted “Darwin’s Black Box” as one of the100 most important books of the 20th century.

Numerous relevant books and articles, as well as DVDs understandable to high school students, have been subsequently published, expanding the movement further. This led to “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism,” a statement signed by 600 doctoral scientists from around the world publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.

One reason the movement has developed so rapidly in such a short time was the accumulated frustration felt by scientists bound by the limits of materialistic and Darwinian frames of thought. With the dramatic advances in astrophysics, biology and biochemistry in the past half century, many scientists have come to entertain doubts and voice frustration about the idea that the universe and life originated and evolved through a purely materialistic process. This suppressed frustration has erupted in a wake of emerging ID theoreticians.

The history and background of the ID movement shows that ID theory cannot simply be brushed aside as a version of creationism, which seeks to interpret the natural world through Biblical scripture.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: crevo; crevolist; evolution; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last
One of these days, Johnson, Behe, Dembski, Meyer and the rest will keel over dead, and then who will the cornerstones of ID be?

Glad to see it made the distinction between ID and creationism though.

1 posted on 10/14/2006 9:22:20 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gobucks; mikeus_maximus; MeanWestTexan; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; Elsie; LiteKeeper; ...


You have been pinged because of your interest regarding news, debates and editorials pertaining to the Creation vs. Evolution - from the young-earth Creationist perspective.
Freep-mail me if you want on/off this list:
Add me / Remove me



Reminder, be nice or I'll hold magnets to your credit card(s).
2 posted on 10/14/2006 9:23:41 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Why has the Intelligent Design (ID) movement grown so rapidly and with such increasing impact?

Because "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."

3 posted on 10/14/2006 9:48:53 PM PDT by My2Cents (A pirate's life for me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

bump.


4 posted on 10/14/2006 10:19:07 PM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( Microevolution is real; Macroevolution is not real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

> One of these days, Johnson, Behe, Dembski, Meyer and the rest will keel over dead, and then who will the cornerstones of ID be?

so ... Darwin is still alive?


5 posted on 10/14/2006 10:27:35 PM PDT by old-ager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

For later read.


6 posted on 10/14/2006 10:29:52 PM PDT by stultorum (dont hire illegal aliens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
a statement signed by 600 doctoral scientists from around the world publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.

a statement signed by 600 doctoral scientists from around the world publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.

had to repeat it - it sounds so good

7 posted on 10/14/2006 11:10:35 PM PDT by maine-iac7 ("...but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
One of these days, Johnson, Behe, Dembski, Meyer and the rest will keel over dead, and then who will the cornerstones of ID be?

Maybe someone who will find a particle of supporting evidence, since none of the gentlemen has managed it...but I doubt it.

Glad to see it made the distinction between ID and creationism though.

The distinction is purely in the minds of the proponents: IDers put on lab coats and pretend to be scientists. Creationists don't bother.

8 posted on 10/14/2006 11:52:08 PM PDT by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7
There is also a list of 700 + Phd's named Steve who think ID is a load of baloney. Science is not an election or opinion poll.

When is someone going to show evidence that ID is correct? All I read is how Evolution is wrong. I've never seen anything other than, "Evolution is wrong so ID wins!!"

If the earth is only 6,000 years old where are the human fossils mixed with the dinosaur fossils? How could the thousands of different species that are extinct co-exist and share the living space with the thousands of animals that exist now?

I heard some guy named Gish claim the Grand Canyon was carved out of solid granite in three or four days from Noah's flood. If that was true then wouldn't the Grand Canyon be close to perfectly straight?
9 posted on 10/15/2006 12:13:40 AM PDT by GreenOgre (mohammed is the false prophet of a false god.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
One of these days, Johnson, Behe, Dembski, Meyer and the rest will keel over dead, and then who will the cornerstones of ID be?

The rest of us who value real science.

10 posted on 10/15/2006 1:05:49 AM PDT by RaceBannon (Innocent until proven guilty: The Pendleton 8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Obviously there will never be supporting evidence for the evolution part of ID. But at least in my mind there is a major hole in the big bang theory. The big bang theory is said to be the "creation of the universe theory" when it only explains the expansion of the universe. It does not explain the creation of matter or energy. The reason they can't explain it is because no event, no matter how large could create or destroy matter. Which means that all the matter and energy in the universe was created along with it.


11 posted on 10/15/2006 1:44:57 AM PDT by ryan125
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ryan125

These Evolution vs. Creation debates come up all the time it seems. Why is it so difficult to come to a compromise and say that God created the mechanism's which spawned the Big Bang and all that sprung from it, including the evolution of life and yes even Science .... give it a rest already and just accept what is here and now


12 posted on 10/15/2006 1:57:28 AM PDT by Mr_Moonlight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mr_Moonlight
I do accept it, my point was that most people don't understand that the big bang theory does not explain the creation of the universe. For the most part i agree totally with current science. I disagree with the people who don't understand the theory and say it is proof that there was no ID.
13 posted on 10/15/2006 2:04:16 AM PDT by ryan125
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ryan125
the big bang theory does not explain the creation of the universe

And it never will. Thats the beauty of God's creation, He created such a magnificent riddle for us to figure out that we're all still barking over what is science and what is theology. My take on it is to go with the science end of it, because theology is the interpretation of so-called "Words of God" from mere mortal human beings, passed down thru the eons by word of voice and perhaps somewhat distorted as they were passed along from one to the next.

We can never know what existed before the Big Bang, until we get up there and have a chat with God, then we'll understand it all ... but in the meantime we can play with the magnificent creation that He has given to us and be fascinated with it .....

flame away if ya like, but thats my take on it

14 posted on 10/15/2006 2:20:35 AM PDT by Mr_Moonlight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GreenOgre
As far as I can tell, claims that the earth is only 6k yers old are NOT the stuff of ID.

I suspect that Creationists have taken to themselves the Intelligent Design label, with the result of confusing the conversation. I think the proper target of your arguments, such as they are, is Creationism and a certain approach to interpretatin of the Bible, not ID.

This is a taxonomic comment, not a comment about merits.

15 posted on 10/15/2006 2:55:41 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Now we are all Massoud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: blowfish
The distinction is purely in the minds of the proponents: IDers put on lab coats and pretend to be scientists. Creationists don't bother.

Can you share your evidence for this characterization?

16 posted on 10/15/2006 2:57:51 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Now we are all Massoud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: blowfish

There is no more evidence that life evolved here on the earth than there is for it to have been delivered or engineered by extraterrestrials...

How do evolutionists feel about teaching that life came from outer space? They already teach the Big Bang theory...

17 posted on 10/15/2006 5:33:48 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GreenOgre

There is no more evidence that life evolved here on the earth than there is for it to have been delivered or engineered by extraterrestrials...

How do evolutionists feel about teaching that life came from outer space? They already teach the Big Bang theory...

18 posted on 10/15/2006 5:34:21 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GreenOgre
"If the earth is only 6,000 years old......."

You don't believe that, do you?

19 posted on 10/15/2006 6:31:38 AM PDT by Buffalo Head (Illigitimi non carborundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ryan125
The reason they can't explain it is because no event, no matter how large could create or destroy matter. Which means that all the matter and energy in the universe was created along with it.

Well, not quite. It could be that the Mother of All Quantum fluctuations also "created" a bunch of "negative matter", or "negative energy" at the same time. There is *some* evidence for that IIRC, and some theory to support the notion.

20 posted on 10/15/2006 7:15:18 AM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-66 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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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