Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-design article
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | January 29, 2005

Posted on 01/31/2005 12:15:48 PM PST by Grey Rabbit

WND EVOLUTION WATCH Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-design article Museum researcher's career threatened after he published favorable piece Posted: January 29, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

The career of a prominent researcher at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington is in jeopardy after he published a peer-reviewed article by a leading proponent of intelligent design, an alternative to evolutionary theory dismissed by the science and education establishment as a tool of religious conservatives.

Stephen Meyer's article advocates the theory of intelligent design. (Photo courtesy Discovery Institute)

Richard Sternberg says that although he continues to work in the museum's Department of Zoology, he has been kicked out of his office and shunned by colleagues, prompting him to file a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel.

Sternberg charges he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of perceived religious beliefs.

"I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific career," Sternberg told David Klinghoffer, a columnist for the Jewish Forward, who reported the story in the Wall Street Journal.

Sternberg is managing editor of a nominally independent journal published at the museum, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. His trouble started when he included in the August issue a review-essay by Stephen Meyer, who holds a Cambridge University doctorate in the philosophy of biology.

Hans Sues, the museum's No. 2 senior scientist, denounced Meyer's article in a widely forwarded e-mail as "unscientific garbage."

According to Sternberg's complaint, which is being investigated, one museum specialist chided him by saying: "I think you are a religiously motivated person and you have dragged down the Proceedings because of your religiously motivated agenda."

Sternberg strongly denies that.

While acknowledging he is a Catholic who attends Mass, he says, "I would call myself a believer with a lot of questions, about everything. I'm in the postmodern predicament."

The complaint says the chairman of the Zoology Department, Jonathan Coddington, called Sternberg's supervisor to look into the matter.

"First, he asked whether Sternberg was a religious fundamentalist. She told him no. Coddington then asked if Sternberg was affiliated with or belonged to any religious organization. ... He then asked where Sternberg stood politically; ... he asked, 'Is he a right-winger? What is his political affiliation?'

The supervisor recounted the conversation to Sternberg, who also quotes her observing: "There are Christians here, but they keep their heads down."

The complaint, according to the Journal column, says Coddington took away Sternberg's office, which prevents access to the specimen collections he needs. Sternberg also was assigned to the close oversight of a curator with whom he had professional disagreements unrelated to evolution.

"I'm going to be straightforward with you," said Coddington, according to the complaint. "Yes, you are being singled out."

Meyer's article, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories," cites mainstream biologists and paleontologists from schools such as the University of Chicago, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford who are critical of certain aspects of Darwinism.

Meyer – a fellow at Seattle's Discovery Institute, a leading advocate of intelligent design – contends supporters of Darwin's theory cannot explain how so many different animal types sprang into existence during the relatively short period of Earth history known as the Cambrian explosion.

He argues the Darwinian mechanism would require more time for the necessary genetic "information" to be generated, and intelligent design offers a better explanation.

The Journal notes Meyer's piece is the first peer-reviewed article to appear in a technical biology journal laying out the evidential case for intelligent design.

The theory holds that the complex features of living organisms, such as an eye, are better explained by an unspecified designing intelligence than by random mutation and natural selection.

Klinghoffer notes the Biological Society of Washington released a statement regretting its association with Meyer's article but did not address its arguments.

Klinghoffer points out the circularity of the arguments of critics who insisted intelligent design was unscientific because if had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

"Now that it has," he wrote, "they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News
KEYWORDS: alreadyposted; crevolist; duplicate; intelligentdesign; repeat; richardsternberg; smithsonian; stephenmeyer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-334 next last

1 posted on 01/31/2005 12:15:49 PM PST by Grey Rabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Grey Rabbit
A genius among fools!
2 posted on 01/31/2005 12:18:02 PM PST by odoso (Millions for charity, but not one penny for tribute!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grey Rabbit
US Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph 3 includes:

[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

3 posted on 01/31/2005 12:21:43 PM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grey Rabbit
Nothing like ivory tower authoritarian lefties persecuting others for their religious beliefs or perceived political leanings to really tick you off. But hey, that is nothing new. The language of the left may change but its MO never does.
4 posted on 01/31/2005 12:24:22 PM PST by Texas_Jarhead (I believe in American Exceptionalism! Do you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grey Rabbit
"According to Sternberg's complaint, which is being investigated, one museum specialist chided him by saying: "I think you are a religiously motivated person and you have dragged down the Proceedings because of your religiously motivated agenda."

...and obviousely we can't have anyone working here who has an agenda!

5 posted on 01/31/2005 12:25:09 PM PST by patriot_wes (When I see two guys kissin..argh! Is puking a hate crime yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grey Rabbit
Given all our vulnerabilities to disease and malfunction, I'd say the creator was a poor engineer. The evidence therefore points to

SD or Stupid Design


6 posted on 01/31/2005 12:26:46 PM PST by mc6809e
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grey Rabbit; PatrickHenry

evo-ping


7 posted on 01/31/2005 12:27:20 PM PST by GreenFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grey Rabbit
You think there's no intelligent design???

http://www.wordworx.co.nz/panin.html

8 posted on 01/31/2005 12:27:30 PM PST by patriot_wes (When I see two guys kissin..argh! Is puking a hate crime yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grey Rabbit

Real scientists don't confuse theory with fact. It's too bad there are so many scientists who no longer keep an open mind.


9 posted on 01/31/2005 12:28:00 PM PST by skr (May God bless those in harm's way and confound those who would do the harming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grey Rabbit

bttt


10 posted on 01/31/2005 12:29:24 PM PST by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GreenFreeper

Any editor that publishes unscientific grey literature ought to be criticized and questioned. Since It incorporates NO testable hypothesis, ID will remain philosophical in nature and should not be published in scientific journals.


11 posted on 01/31/2005 12:30:52 PM PST by GreenFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e

The origional design may not have been vunerable to disease and malfuntion.Those came from environmental effects.(after the fall of man)


12 posted on 01/31/2005 12:34:57 PM PST by Blessed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Grey Rabbit
Those that truly believe in naturalism do not have a scientific leg to stand on. In fact, historically, the scientific community has has changed their position on the beginning (up to and during the 19th century scientists believed that the earth didn't have a beginning--they called themselves materialists. When the study of the atom began, they found that the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics indicated a beginning-thus to keep away from a transcendent god, they created "the Big Bang Theory" and other evolutionist theories). My only point is that Christianity has not changed for centuries while naturalists continue to change their beliefs when science points against their theories. We now know that the earth had a definite beginning. Ask yourself, does it take more faith to believe in a god that created all of this for a purpose, or is all of this random. My contention is that our earth (the perfect distance from the sun--any closer and we would burn, any farther away and we would freeze) and our system is anything but random.
Charles Colson uses the analogy of Mt. Rushmore. Do we believe that the contours of the faces made in the rock were made randomly from erosion, or was there an intelligent design.
13 posted on 01/31/2005 12:35:36 PM PST by NVD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: odoso
The theory holds that the complex features of living organisms, such as an eye, are better explained by an unspecified designing intelligence than by random mutation and natural selection.

Explanation: the eye was created---end of inquiry. In fact, ID would have us abandon all scientific inquiry.

If ignorance isn't bliss, then I don't know what is.

14 posted on 01/31/2005 12:36:07 PM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GreenFreeper
"Since It incorporates NO testable hypothesis..."

If that's the test of scientific publishing, the global warming crowd won't have another word of theirs in print.
15 posted on 01/31/2005 12:40:54 PM PST by RicocheT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: patriot_wes
...and obviousely we can't have anyone working here who has an agenda!

If it has an agenda, it's not science.

What part of science don't you understand?

16 posted on 01/31/2005 12:42:23 PM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GreenFreeper

Since It incorporates NO testable hypothesis..."

Michael Behe writes "intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable." This is a disputable point, but it is a valid scientific claim. Behe claims that design is observable. If design is not observed then the proposition is refuted. Unfortunately, observing design is not like observing a rhinoceros or an elephant. You can't just point at something and say "there! that's design." Design must be measured in a subtle way. For any given biological system you must determine if completely random events could have brought it about. If you can show that no number or combination of random events could produce that system, then you can infer that the system was designed. The problem is that the potential combination of random events approaches infinity, so the design inference only approaches certainty but never attains it. Fortunately for those who support the intelligent design hypothesis, no scientific claim can be proved beyond all doubt. The nature of a scientific hypothesis is that it attains a high degree of probability for being true, but never certainty.


17 posted on 01/31/2005 12:43:28 PM PST by throwthebumsout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RicocheT
If that's the test of scientific publishing, the global warming crowd won't have another word of theirs in print.

Well the global warming alarmists do have somewhat testable hypotheses, they just are not conclusively tested. Just because research follows the scientific method does not make it true.

18 posted on 01/31/2005 12:49:52 PM PST by GreenFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Grey Rabbit
the theory of intelligent design

ID is a theory?

19 posted on 01/31/2005 12:51:08 PM PST by laredo44 (Liberty is not the problem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: throwthebumsout
For any given biological system you must determine if completely random events could have brought it about...

Is this a straw man? "Completely random events"--where does this come from?---not evolution.

20 posted on 01/31/2005 12:53:05 PM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Grey Rabbit

"First, he asked whether Sternberg was a religious fundamentalist. She told him no. Coddington then asked if Sternberg was affiliated with or belonged to any religious organization. ... He then asked where Sternberg stood politically; ... he asked, 'Is he a right-winger? What is his political affiliation?'"

Yep. Can't have one of those Republican, conservative, religious types moving into our neighborhood! You know what THOSE people will do to the property values.

How biased, stereotypical, and insufferable these holier-than-thou types are!

And then they have the gall to label Christians "know-nothing, bigots."

Pathetic.


21 posted on 01/31/2005 12:53:53 PM PST by ColoCdn (Neco eos omnes, Deus suos agnoset)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
Not at all. Science would just keep on doing what science does, trying to figure out the operating rules governing the material world.

This wouldn't even be a problem if there were facts to support natural selection. Problem is that while natural selection clearly operates to bring out traits that are already there, evidence showing that it creates truly new things is thin when you throw out the known hoaxes.

Science progresses by having people put forth descriptions about how the world works so that knowledgeable peers can kick the tires and look for flaws. This case isn't about science. It is about people trying to squash the examination of a new theory because they consider it religious and they hate all things religious. Intelligent design isn't religious. Maybe space aliens really did seed the planet as one famous scientist jokingly suggested a couple of decades ago.
22 posted on 01/31/2005 12:54:43 PM PST by cosine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Grey Rabbit

Boy, these people hate Christians...


23 posted on 01/31/2005 12:56:14 PM PST by RobRoy (I like you. You remind me of myself when I was young and stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e

You must be incredibly brilliant to judge the universe, how it works, and how it was created so succintly. I'm quite impressed.

Someday I'm afraid this cute little post of yours is going to burn in your mind.


24 posted on 01/31/2005 12:56:25 PM PST by 3dognight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Grey Rabbit
I'm just amazed that there are so many people that want to trash the most amazing of Gods creations, Evolution.

Evolution is merely the scientific THEORY that describes the FACT that life has changed over the millenia. I.E. life "Evolved" and it is a very confirmed fact, and the "theory" merely describes the "fact".

By using the device of Evolution, life has continually operated and adapted itself for 2+ billion years.

I must put fuel in my car, but life finds it's own fuel. I must repair my car, but life repairs itself during a lifetime by immune systems, and it repairs itself over the ages via Evolution.

If I want a new car, I must purchase another one built from the ground up by an Intelligent human, and it will "die" within a generation or so. But life reproduces itself, with no direct hands on required by its original creator.

Looking at life and how it functions via Evolution, is like a vehicle that will adapt itself for changing conditions from submarine, tank, sports car, SUV, motorcycle, and airplane. Said vehicle will find it's own energy, and is virtually immortal because it will reproduce on it's own.

That's not just an Intelligent Design. That's a Brilliant Design, and it's a shame that some Christians have such a simpleton view of the world that they believe that God was incapable of creating it.

25 posted on 01/31/2005 12:57:03 PM PST by narby (Every time you have to take a flu shot proves Evolution all over again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e

Right. Specific examples: the knee and the lower back.


26 posted on 01/31/2005 12:57:37 PM PST by Coyoteman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cosine

What new theory? There's not a new scientific theory that challenges evolution. If there is I haven't read about it.


27 posted on 01/31/2005 12:58:00 PM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GreenFreeper

Indirect Darwinian paths as postulated by anti-IDers are, more often than not, open-ended. Thus we see that the lack of falsifiability and testability is not limited to IDers alone.


28 posted on 01/31/2005 12:58:35 PM PST by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Grey Rabbit

Questioning the faith-based religious dogma which is the theory of evolution can be hazardous to your scientific career. You must march in lock step with the scientific establishment or you will be outcast or destroyed. Disturbing...


29 posted on 01/31/2005 12:58:39 PM PST by Spiff (Don't believe everything you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

"What part of science don't you understand?"

The part where the Zoology chairman is so concerned about science that he asks about Sternberg's RELIGIOUS PREFERENCES, and then his POLITICAL LEANINGS!!

Sounds like the makings of 'good' (sarcasm) science to me.


30 posted on 01/31/2005 12:58:52 PM PST by ColoCdn (Neco eos omnes, Deus suos agnoset)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

Disturbing, but predictable.


31 posted on 01/31/2005 12:59:30 PM PST by ColoCdn (Neco eos omnes, Deus suos agnoset)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: throwthebumsout
"For any given biological system you must determine if completely random events could have brought it about. If you can show that no number or combination of random events could produce that system, then you can infer that the system was designed."

This is the kind of reverse logic that gets intelligent design nowhere. Proving one theory invalid, does not prove another to be true. Instead of spending all the time and effort finding flaws in evolution, IDers would be wise to present logical and rational evidence that all we se was created by a designer. Despite my readings I have yet to see any

The nature of a scientific hypothesis is that it attains a high degree of probability for being true, but never certainty.

Universal facts and truths are few and far between. A fact is only that which can be directly observed. Facts are confined to particular spatial and temporal scales. Microevolution is a fact, in that we have seen changes in the allele frequencies of organisms from one generation to the next. There is much evidence for macroevolution, but we cannot say it is fact until we can observe it directly taking place. This is much more difficult than it sounds as the concept of species is still in debate with recent genetic information. You will not convince many unless someone unearth Gods design blueprints or uncover some kind of actual evidence.

32 posted on 01/31/2005 1:00:02 PM PST by GreenFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: cosine
evidence showing that it creates truly new things is thin when you throw out the known hoaxes.

Your ignorance is showing. The "known hoaxes" number about 2. And the other factoids of evidence for Evolution number in the many thousands.

Christians bringing up 100 year old evolution hoaxes is equivalent to trashing Christians by talking about Jim Jones and the murders at Jones Town.

We can trade examples of evolution hoaxes and false prophets all day, but I don't think you want to start that fight.

33 posted on 01/31/2005 1:01:07 PM PST by narby (Every time you have to take a flu shot proves Evolution all over again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GreenFreeper; Grey Rabbit

Its a very strange story. Wasn't on-topic for that journal and if what I hear is true, journal's customary peer review process was not followed.




From Chronicles of Higher Education: Sept 10, 2004

Biology Journal Says It Mistakenly Published Paper That Attacks Darwinian Evolution

By RICHARD MONASTERSKY

A small scientific society has publicly distanced itself from a paper,
published last month by its journal, that challenges Darwinian evolution.
The Biological Society of Washington issued a statement on Wednesday
saying that the paper, which supports so-called intelligent-design
theory, should not have appeared in the journal.

The controversial article is by Stephen C. Meyer, who directs the Center
for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, in Seattle, and is a
professor at Palm Beach Atlantic University, which describes itself as a
Christian institution. The paper appeared in the Proceedings of the
Biological Society of Washington.

According to the society's governing council, the paper "was published
without the prior knowledge of the council, which includes officers,
elected councilors, and past presidents, or associate editors."

"We have met," the statement said, "and determined that all of us would
have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings."
The statement said nothing about retracting the article.

The paper was accepted for publication by the journal's previous editor,
Richard Sternberg, a fellow at the National Center for Biotechnology
Information, part of the National Institutes of Health. Mr. Sternberg is
also a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information,
and Design, which promotes the idea that nature has a purpose. He did not
respond to repeated telephone calls from The Chronicle.

The Proceedings, a quarterly journal, normally publishes papers
describing species of plants and animals. The other papers in the current
issue describe four new species of crustaceans and three new species of
sponges.

Mr. Meyer's paper -- on the much broader issue of the origin of animal
phyla -- represents a significant departure, said the society's
president, Roy W. McDiarmid, a scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey.
He received several complaints from society members, prompting the
council to issue its statement.

The paper had been reviewed by three scientists and had been recommended
for publication pending revisions, said Mr. McDiarmid. He did not learn
about the paper until after its publication. "My conclusion on this," he
said, "was that it was a really bad judgment call on the editor's part."

Mr. Meyer's paper contends that current evolutionary theory cannot
explain how new animal forms developed in the distant past. It goes on to
advocate the theory of intelligent design, which holds that biological
systems are so complex that they could have arisen only through the
action of an intelligent force and not through purely random evolutionary
processes.

Critics of intelligent design have described it as a more sophisticated
version of creationism -- one that doesn't necessarily stick to biblical
explanations of nature but still invokes an unspecified creator.

The Discovery Institute supports many leaders in the intelligent-design
movement and has been working to promote the teaching of the theory in
secondary schools and colleges.

According to Mr. Meyer, this is the first time that proponents of
intelligent design have published an argument for the theory in a
peer-reviewed scientific publication. He said he had chosen the journal
because Mr. Sternberg attended a conference where Mr. Meyer gave an oral
presentation advancing the same arguments. The two discussed the
possibility of publishing the work, he said.

But opponents of intelligent design and creationism say that Mr. Meyer
should have submitted his paper to one of the several journals that
normally deal with the origin of animal forms.

"People who would be appropriate to review the paper would be
evolutionary biologists, and I doubt that any evolutionary biologists
reviewed the paper," said Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the
National Center for Science Education."


34 posted on 01/31/2005 1:02:09 PM PST by freespirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
EvolutionPing
A pro-evolution science list with over 230 names. See list's description at my homepage. FReepmail to be added/dropped.

35 posted on 01/31/2005 1:03:29 PM PST by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ColoCdn

I think the article is biased in that the whole context is not being reported. The adminsistrator was concerned that Sternberg was inserting religious doctrine (an agenda) into a scientific enterprise---sounds reasonable to me.


36 posted on 01/31/2005 1:03:43 PM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GreenFreeper
IDers would be wise to present logical and rational evidence that all we se was created by a designer. Despite my readings I have yet to see any

This is exactly why ID is not "scientific". They have nothing, except to poke holes (most are invalid) in Evolution.

This is the same technique that french author used to "prove" that the US was responsible for 9/11. By poking "holes" in the known facts of what happened that day.

Such hole poking sells books, and sways minds. The french guy is a best seller, and ID has swayed lots of minds that don't have the imagination to believe that God was smart enough to have created Evolution.

37 posted on 01/31/2005 1:05:18 PM PST by narby (Every time you have to take a flu shot proves Evolution all over again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e

Are you an engineer who can design something that lasts as long, reproduces itself with out skilled labor (old joke), builds fantastic machines, creates art, reaches for the stars and continues to question it's own very existence??? And don't go starting arguments between engineers and scientists! :-)


38 posted on 01/31/2005 1:05:26 PM PST by pepperdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e

Could be that MAN brought this all on himself. Matter of fact I believe the Bible, at the very least, hints of that. God gave you volition and if you want to make love to another man, don't bitch when you get AIDS. (not you personally)


39 posted on 01/31/2005 1:07:03 PM PST by fish hawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
The article has to be biased since only one person would be quoted for attribution.

And if what he says is true, I can understand why. If Coddington did this:

"First, he asked whether Sternberg was a religious fundamentalist. She told him no. Coddington then asked if Sternberg was affiliated with or belonged to any religious organization. ... He then asked where Sternberg stood politically; ... he asked, 'Is he a right-winger? What is his political affiliation?'

then Coddington's attorney's have rightfully told him to keep his mouth shut because Coddington is in violation of the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act.

I don't know if he said those things but if he did it is a case of technofascism gone wild.

40 posted on 01/31/2005 1:09:23 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
Mr. Meyer's paper contends that current evolutionary theory cannot explain how new animal forms developed in the distant past.

Thus, Meyer has proved the existence of God.

Was'nt this the same Smithsonian that didn't believe the Wright Brothers had flown at Kitty Hawk?

As late as the 18th century, it was common knowledge that human flight was impossible. Now Meyer thinks Evolution is impossible, simply because he can't figure it out.

Meyer is a flightless bird called a "Dodo".

41 posted on 01/31/2005 1:10:33 PM PST by narby (Every time you have to take a flu shot proves Evolution all over again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: narby

Narby, intelligent design is a fact of life. You guys are gonna have to accept that and modify your arguments. Allele frequencies are changed by bioengineers rather often these days.


42 posted on 01/31/2005 1:11:46 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Instead of asking those specific questions, it should have been: "Is there any agenda here other than good science?"


43 posted on 01/31/2005 1:14:05 PM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e
Given all our vulnerabilities to disease and malfunction, I'd say the creator was a poor engineer. The evidence therefore points to SD or Stupid Design

You're assuming the Creator intended your physical body to live forever. Seeing how arrogant some people can become in just one little short life span (not directed at you), which is nothing more than the blink of an eye, I'm not surprised that the Creator didn't intend that.

44 posted on 01/31/2005 1:14:07 PM PST by badbass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: fish hawk
don't bitch when you get AIDS. (not you personally)

I suppose these IDers think that the CIA created the HIV virus (back in the day before gene splicing technology existed).

After all, it's impossible for HIV to have just EVOLVED from another virus. [/sarcasm]

45 posted on 01/31/2005 1:15:17 PM PST by narby (Evolution isn't an Intelligent design, its a Brilliant Design)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

Your argument is with the Constitution. Coddington has no right to inquire about a public employees religion or political leanings and if you think he does you are on the wrong website.


46 posted on 01/31/2005 1:17:41 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

I found it highly interesting that he would use a man's religion and his politics as a weathervane as to whether this man should be disregarded and destroyed at the very outset.

To deny that there is Political Correctness (read: bigotry) in the 'scientific' community is to deny the obvious.


47 posted on 01/31/2005 1:18:12 PM PST by ColoCdn (Neco eos omnes, Deus suos agnoset)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Much as I expected, thanks for the article. I imainge now the Michael Behe's of the world will be referencing this article ad nausea despite its questionable admittance. Its amazing how selective the memories are of the IDers.


48 posted on 01/31/2005 1:18:25 PM PST by GreenFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: narby

"After all, it's impossible for HIV to have just EVOLVED from another virus. [/sarcasm]"


It's when the little bugger evolves into something with wings, gills, or little padded feet that I'm interested in. Until then, I'm not worried about it's adaptation. (thanks orionblamblam)


49 posted on 01/31/2005 1:20:08 PM PST by ColoCdn (Neco eos omnes, Deus suos agnoset)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Grey Rabbit
Would it be possible to obtain the Emails of the Smithsonian in General, and this interesting fellow Coddington, so as to make them aware of alternative viewpoints to their left wing dogma?

Like by sending them several thousand emails a week?
50 posted on 01/31/2005 1:20:15 PM PST by Bushforlife (I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-334 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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