Posted on 03/13/2007 12:35:30 PM PDT by truthfinder9
Intelligent Design Scientists Will Showcase Evidence Challenging Evolution at Knoxville Conference
KNOXVILLE – What is intelligent design and what scientific evidence supports it? Why is it so controversial? How does it differ from Darwin’s theory of evolution? Is there a purpose to the universe? What new scientific facts are turning evolutionary theories upside down? This one-day conference will answer these and other intriguing questions.
The emerging scientific theory of intelligent design is a hot topic at universities and research institutions around the world, and is now the focus of a day-long conference called Darwin vs. Design, coming to the Knoxville Convention Center on March 24th.
Join The New York Times bestselling author Lee Strobel and a panel of scientists and experts at the Darwin vs. Design Conference as they explain the evidence for Darwin’s theory of evolution and the emerging scientific theory of intelligent design Saturday, March 24th.
Featured speakers include:
-Lee Strobel, journalist and bestselling author of The Case for a Creator.
-Dr. Stephen Meyer, Director, Center for Science and Culture (CSC) at Discovery Institute, and co-editor of Darwinism, Design, and Public Education
-Dr. Michael Behe, Lehigh University biochemist and author of the bestselling book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, and CSC senior fellow
-Dr. Jay Richards, co-author of The Privileged Planet, and CSC senior fellow
Attendees will interact with intelligent design scientists and philosophers whose discoveries in cosmology, biology, physics, and DNA present astonishing scientific evidence that is overturning the evolutionary thinking of the past. Conference goers will hear firsthand the astounding implications these discoveries are having on our society, our politics and our culture.
The conference is $55 for General Admission and $5 for Students and teachers (with valid school ID at time of admission). Advance purchase group rates are also available by contacting conferences@discovery.org. Purchase tickets online at www.ticketweb.com (use key word Darwin). For more information visit our website at www.darwinvsdesign.com.
How many creationists have gone to jail? How much did Ken Ham and Kent Hovint gross last year?
The typo? Your one-line idiocy contains a heck of a lot more than one typo. If you want a substantive response, you might want to think about posting something of substance.
Was Attila the Hun a Darwinist too? You people are as hilarious as you are predictable.
I realize that you Evolutionists will never change your mind with or without actual proof one way or another. I do enjoy pulling your chain and go on most all these threads about Evolution more for fun than anything else. Sure enough, on every thread, there is someone who just has to respond. You are the one on this thread.
So, pointing out documented harassment is a "persecution fetish" ?
That's funny.
I guess you don't need to read the report I cited since it doesn't help your cause.
It is remarkable how much this debate mimics the debate on global warming. With both theories, the defenders are apoplectic, and perhaps even religious. The doubters are called names, marginalized, and ‘put in their place’.
You High Priests of Evolution should start a union with the High Priests of Global Warming. You could share dogma, saints, martyrs, and feed off each other’s fervor.
At least you cop to being a troll.
> It is only a matter of time before the entire Darwinian
> fraud comes crashing down.
http://locator.apahelpcenter.org/index.cfm
Good luck!
I don't get it ?
Trolls hit and run. I am always here to pull the chains of people like you who just have to say something. Just can't let it go. LOL Besides look at how long I've been a Freeper. I've got you beat.
Neither the theory of evolution, nor its progeny (common descent, punctuated equilibrium, etc) are "frauds" in any sense.
They may have some details wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. In fact, there are parts of the germ theory of disease (and every other scientific theory) that aren't altogether complete or true.
There may be implications that some have taken or interpolated from the theory (like abiogenesis) that prove ultimately wrongheaded, perhaps.
But there was no fraud.
If you are firmly convinced there is, then you may find the link I posted useful.
LOLOLOLL! That is good. Only the Darwinists nedds there monkey-god.
Historical scientists are just as captivated by falsificationism as experimental scientists; as three eminent geologists (Kump et al., 1999, p. 201) counsel in a recent textbook discussion of the extinction of the dinosaurs, ‘‘a central tenet of the scientific method is that hypotheses cannot be proved, only disproved.’’ Nevertheless, there is little in the evaluation of historical hypotheses that resembles what is prescribed by falsificationism. The big bang theory of the origin of the universe provides an excellent example. It postulates a particular occurrence (a primordial explosion) for something we can observe today, i.e., the three-degree background radiation, first detected by satellite antennas in the 1960s. Traces, such as the three-degree background radiation, provide evidence for historical hypotheses, just as successful predictions provide evidence for the generalizations tested in experimental science. There is little or no possibility of controlled experiments, however, because the time frame required is too long and/or the relevant test conditions too complex and dependent upon unknown or poorly understood extraneous conditions to be artificially realized.A theory with "smoking gun" evidence is much closer to the path that ID takes than some would like to admit. I think this is why the falsification process of experimental science is played up in evolution threads.
This doesn’t mean, however, that hypotheses about past events can’t be tested. As geologist T.C. Chamberlin (1897) noted, good historical researchers focus on formulating multiple competing (versus single) hypotheses. Chamberlin’s attitude toward the testing of these hypotheses was falsificationist in spirit; each hypothesis was to be independently subjected to severe tests, with the hope that some would survive. A look at the actual practices of historical researchers, however, reveals that the main emphasis is on finding positive evidence— a smoking gun. A smoking gun is a trace that picks out one of the competing hypotheses as providing a better causal explanation for the currently available traces than the others.
It is?
What about it?
If humans are descendants from monkeys, how come monkeys are still around?
Something to ponder about.
> Something to ponder about.
Only if you're really stoned, really bored and have absolutely no understanding of any of the hypothesized or observed methods of speciation...
If Americans are descendants from Europeans, how come Europeans are still around?
From Dr. Sternberg's site...not that facts will bother you.
http://www.rsternberg.net/
Summary of key points regarding publication of the Meyer paper
Returning to the original dispute (and the reason for which I first created this web site): Many distortions and inaccuracies have circulated in the press and on the web regarding the publication of the Meyer paper. The key facts are:
I hold two PhDs in the area of evolutionary biology, one in molecular (DNA) evolution and the other in systems theory and theoretical biology. I have published more than 30 articles in peer-reviewed scientific books and publications. My current areas of research and writing are primarily in the areas of evolutionary theory and systematics.
In the case of the Meyer paper I followed all the standard procedures for publication in the Proceedings. As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself, something I had done before in other appropriate cases. In order to avoid making a unilateral decision on a potentially controversial paper, however, I discussed the paper on at least three occasions with another member of the Council of the Biological Society of Washington (BSW), a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History. Each time, this colleague encouraged me to publish the paper despite possible controversy.
The Meyer paper underwent a standard peer review process by three qualified scientists, all of whom are evolutionary and molecular biologists teaching at well-known institutions. The reviewers provided substantial criticism and feedback to Dr. Meyer, who then made significant changes to the paper in response. Subsequently, after the controversy arose, Dr. Roy McDiarmid, President of the Council of the BSW, reviewed the peer-review file and concluded that all was in order. As Dr. McDiarmid informed me in an email message on August 25th, 2004, "Finally, I got the [peer] reviews and agree that they are in support of your decision [to publish the article]."
Following my resignation in October 2003, a new managing editor for the Proceedings was selected in May of 2004, and the transition from my editorship to the new editor has taken place over the past few months. By the time that the controversy emerged I was finishing up my last editorial responsibilities. Thus, my stepping down had nothing to do with the publication of the Meyer paper.
A full discussion of the publication issues is available here.
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.