Posted on 04/25/2006 11:13:59 PM PDT by balch3
When the controversy over Darwinism and intelligent design is debated on university campuses, the deck is usually stacked heavily against proponents of intelligent design. North Carolina State University has shown, however, that the topic can be debated with the fairness and civility that ought to characterize academic discussions. On Thursday, April 20, before a crowd of some 200 people, a biologist and philosopher defended intelligent design, and a biologist and philosopher defended Darwinism.
That debate continued Thursday night at N.C. State University before a crowd of almost 200 people. Sponsored by the NCSU and Wake chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union, the debate featured four speakers -- one scientist and one philosopher from both sides of the issue. The North Carolina State University debate showed that it is possible to proceed on this toipic in a manner that accords with traditional academic freedom and mutual respect. The same goes for the way Tim Simmons reported it for the News Observer.
Forty years ago, the New Left political philosopher Herbert Marcuse argued that old fashioned liberal education and public discourse was wrong, that tolerance for varying views should be extended only to people on the Left. That stance seems to have won many advocates; author Chris Mooney is one example, and the editorial page editors of The Washington Post are another (on this issue, at least). Fortunately, saner heads prevailed in North Carolina."
It's hard to understand how this can be true, since ID has nothing to do with religion.
Easy. The Darwinist absolutists think ID points in the direction of religion, which it does. The fact that it isn't religious per se isn't relevant. To many Darwinists, anything that makes it easier to believe in God is anathema. Frankly, you are splitting hairs here.
If you don't think secularists (well, many of them) aren't motivated by "a real dislike of religion," you need to wake up and smell the coffee.
oops ... I mean the secularists ARE motivated by dislike of religion ...
But lots of people have testified under oath (and here on FR) that ID is completely unrelated to religion.
Not only that, but many Real Christians think ID is an unacceptable concept.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/117/22.0.html
I concur. ID is a valid hypothesis which explores the notion that the universe was not created by a random act & the hypothesis is not affiliated with religion.
I concur. ID is a valid hypothesis which explores the notion that the universe was not created by a random act & the hypothesis is not affiliated with religion.
"testified inconsistently" - Judge James Jones III: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
I could have sworn this thread was in in News/Activism
What can I say? They're confused. It's not religion or religious, but makes religion easier and is therefore related.
I'm sure they do. The hatred of ID, therefore, shows how radical many of the secularists are. Many "real Christians" won't accept just a crumb, and many secularists won't give 'em a crumb.
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.