Why Are Darwinists So Afraid of Intelligent Design?

Human Events ^ | Jan 17, 2006 | Barney Brenner

[oolatec]

If we were designed by God, he needs to go back to the drawing board ASAP.

[Torie]

Another capture the word exercise. In any event, Darwinism as I understand it, does not address the issue of how non life became life. So that bit was a bit of a low blow.

[Dog Gone]

Evolution doesn't address the origin of life, no matter how many times it's accused of that.

[Coyoteman]

How else to explain their 80-year need for court protection to ensure their survival?

While CS/ID can't get into the classroom even with "court protection to ensure their survival" and the Discovery Institute combined.

[GSlob]

Someone needs to write a song with a refrain: "Don't bible at me in public school".

[A message]

Can you do better?

[RegulatorCountry]

"If we were designed by God, he needs to go back to the drawing board ASAP."

You sound very unhappy with the body you inhabit. I'm sorry you feel this way. I'm fairly pleased with mine.

[claptrap]

This should furrow a few brows, I can see the lengthy papers
refuting these baseless un-scientific assertions.
So where are the transitional species?

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

If we were designed by God, he needs to go back to the drawing board ASAP.

What does that say about you?

[Oztrich Boy]

Why Are Darwinists So Afraid of Intelligent Design?

The advocates of "Intelligent Design" are ignorant, dshonest, or both.

[mnehring]

(many) Scientists of modern have reacted with a vengeance, proclaiming everything unseen and non-measurable to be fantasy and delusion. Many are becoming as dogmatic as Churchanity authorities - their own modern inquisition of thought, declaring with all self-rightous certainty that we're strictly little machines running around in a machine universe governed by immutable laws.

Its become taboo, even sacrilege for scientists to explore the divine as though any deviation of Newtonian physics as the ultimate answer, even though this 17th century thinking has been trumped by quantum physics and the belief or at least the possibility of the divine is becoming not just faith but scientific.

[King Prout]

och... another steamer from the same dungheap

[SteveMcKing]

Darwinists accept the fact that evolution and the bible can not be straightforwardly resolved. So do Creationists.

IDers insist on making the two fully compatible -- whatever nonsense it takes.

[nikola]

Scientists are not afraid of "intelligent design", they just realize that ID is nonsense and not a science.

Torie, origin of life is a domain of biogenesis and you can read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

[tgambill]

He did a perfect thing...but it's mans free will that you are referring to. It's like you get a new car, it's perfect (so to speak), but if you don't take care of it, run it through the proper maintenance, etc.....it will not work for you......

[King Prout]

So where are the transitional species?

put bluntly: everywhere you look among the living and the dead, there they are.

[mnehring]

Ders insist on making the two fully compatible -- whatever nonsense it takes.

Interesting adjective, I would look at it as that IDers look that there can be a reconciliation in the spiritual and the scientific and those items can be bridged by further understanding of science and religion, not stuck into 17th century thinking of both.

[r9etb]

Evolution doesn't address the origin of life, no matter how many times it's accused of that.

Of course it does -- no matter how many times "it" denies it.

[r9etb]

Scientists are not afraid of "intelligent design", they just realize that ID is nonsense and not a science.

So the Taiwanese glow-in-the-dark pigs are the product of nonsense, and not science?