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


1 posted on 05/24/2007 4:45:30 PM PDT by Zender500
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Zender500

Good, they need to be running scared.


2 posted on 05/24/2007 4:54:09 PM PDT by DesScorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Zender500

“...concerned that students aren’t rejecting Intelligent Design for the right reasons, but “merely because the religious and conservative stripes of ID can sometimes look a little uncool.”

ha ha :)


3 posted on 05/24/2007 5:00:23 PM PDT by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Zender500
Despite the promise of the subtitle, much of Intelligent Thought is devoted not to scientific but to philosophical and especially dysteleological arguments against Intelligent Design. A dysteleological argument makes certain extra-scientific, theological assumptions about the moral purposes of the designer, then asserts that life or the universe could not be the result of intelligence because nature is (allegedly) not the nature those assumptions require.

For example, Stanford physicist Leonard Susskind, who discovered string theory, writes that most of the universe is “hopelessly hostile to life and uninhabitable. But here and there some small pockets happen, by chance, to be more conducive to life, and that’s where life forms.”

For Susskind, this rules out any possibility of intelligent design, because he assumes that the designer would have chosen to create a universe full of life everywhere, rather than one as hostile to life as the one we observe. Because the universe he perceives does not match the universe he thinks a designer would make, he rejects design.

Interesting. So why aren't the evolutionists calumniated by their scientific brethren for making the kind of pronouncements they're always attributing only to the intelligent-design proponents?

4 posted on 05/24/2007 5:01:00 PM PDT by rhema ("Break the conventions; keep the commandments." -- G. K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Zender500

How many other sciences are devoted to the legacy of an early 19th-century founder, with no changes or deviations?

Physics? Chemistry? Math?


8 posted on 05/24/2007 5:17:31 PM PDT by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Zender500
Well as has been the case since the Middle Ages we all will get the opportunity to face our Maker. Some of these anti-Maker high priests continue to heap up their baggage.... and NO I have NOT declared that anybody is going to .elllll.
9 posted on 05/24/2007 5:21:55 PM PDT by Just mythoughts (Finally, global warming, the sun has come out after weeks of rain, maybe I won't be planting rice...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Zender500

For the longest time, science advocates have held that science isn’t deliberately launching targeted attacks against religion, but rather simply calling the evidence as it sees it. However, it is beginning to appear that there is a growing scientific mindset preparing to mount a direct assault in response to the increasing tempo of attacks being brought by their religious adversaries.

I honestly don’t know how well religion will fare in a holy war against science in this day and age. I do wonder if the fundamentalist supporters of such ideas as geocentricism and intelligent design fully realize that they have been hard pressed just to hold their own in this struggle so far, despite the fact that until now their scientific opponents have mainly restrained themselves to defense. Some of them may find themselves a bit overwhelmed if ever they do end up facing a determined, concerted large scale offensive against their beliefs.

I continue to hold that science has neither any business nor inclination to meddle in religion. What I do see, though, is a growing encroachment upon scientific positions by people motivated solely by fundamentalist religious beliefs. So far, there really isn’t a full blown war going on between science and God, despite its imagined existence among zealots on both sides. I shudder to think of the end result should one really occur - both religion and science make essential contributions to life as we know it and it would be devastating should one destroy the other.


10 posted on 05/24/2007 5:38:11 PM PDT by Antonello (Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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