The semi-popular radical atheist version of neo-Darwimism (advocated mainly by "professional atheists", but also by some reputable scientist) is on the shakiest ground of all. For example, they have pushed the idea of "junk DNA"--that most of the DNA in the human and animal and plant genomes is a random collection of "selfish genes" and random sequences with no benefit to the organism. Howerver, as shown in the latest analysis of the human genome in several leading scientific journals earlier this month, at least the vast majority of the "junk" is functional, but we don't yet understand most of the functions. The idea that humans or other creatures exist mainly to propagate a collection of meaningless DNA is BOGUS!!!!
With a humble view of the relationship between God and the material world as Mystery--as promugated by orthodox catholic churches for 2000 years--there is no conflict between science (especially 21st century evolutionary biology) and orthodox catholic faith. (The center of that relationship is the Incarnation, Resurrection, and Ascension of the God-Man Jesus Christ, and the Eucharist.) It is only scientific theories that claim to know more than we do, and religion-based theories that claim that we can "prove" God via science--that get in the way.
This article duplicates the refutations of ID made on many FR threads. In the final analysis, the most cogent statement made is that there is no reasoning with zealots.
No kidding. Maybe he was browsing FR's evolution/ID threads.
Evolution is more solid than gravity.
The Pioneer anomaly is still unresolved. So are dark matter and dark energy.
Without trying to take either side in this debate, I still have to point out that this argument is invalid. To say, in effect, "I can't accept your theory because if I did, I'd have to change what I'm doing," isn't an argument at all. It's an evasion. The issue should be the truth of each of the two or more theories in contention. A scientist should accept a theory because he considers it to be true (i.e., in accord with reality), not because it does or does not lead to a dead end.
Then there's the issue of whether you "believe" in evolution. This is another red herring. If evolution is a scientific fact, then I don't "believe" in evolution, I "know" it. If evolution is a scientific fact, then the question of belief is irrelevant. It's logically impossible to "believe" a thing and "know" it at the same time.
He didn't believe in Darwin's evolution either so kind of stupid to call on him for your point
It's not just journalists that do that. Frankly, it's that kind of behavior that has done more harm to the effort to convince people that evolution is true than anything. (Which is fine by me, by the way.)
When a person can only support their views on something with what amounts to 'your momma', they show they don't have all that much confidence in the position themselves.