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
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 321-334 next last
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)
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
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.)
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.
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)
To: mc6809e
Right. Specific examples: the knee and the lower back.
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
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.
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.)
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)
To: Spiff
Disturbing, but predictable.
31
posted on
01/31/2005 12:59:30 PM PST
by
ColoCdn
(Neco eos omnes, Deus suos agnoset)
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.
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)
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."
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.)
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
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)
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! :-)
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)
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
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 321-334 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson