Posted on 11/15/2007 5:26:11 AM PST by js1138
A few short years ago, nobody had ever heard of Intelligent Design (ID). Today it is alleged to be one of the hot button issues of our times, the latest front in the culture wars. The sudden prominence of ID is traceable, in my opinion, to two factors.
One is that, even ten years ago, ID had enough confidence and honesty to go by its birth name, Creationism. Whereas today, it has been dressed up in a lab coat and a mail order Ph.D. and is trying to pass itself off as a scientific theory, thus the sudden re-branding as Intelligent Design.
The other reason is that the mainstream media (and other spokesmen for the liberal establishment) love the idea of associating the conservative movement with ID, so ID has gotten much more than its fair share of press time.
The Left believes, correctly, that Intelligent Design is a political loser, and so they gleefully attempt to hang it around the neck of every right-of-center movement from libertarian neo-conservatism to isolationist populism -- shouting all the while See, the American Taliban has come for your children! Elect a Democrat before its too late!
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
PING FYI
Why, Al Gore, of course.
Seriously, how is that not a stupid question?
Be back later, gotta go do a fill now.
You are the one drawing out such a tautology. Theories change, get refined or are discarded. That is part of the scientific process. Theories and evidence are intimately linked. Thus far, there is no evidence that yields to a concept other than evolution. And evolution, like all scientific theories, is purely tentative. Evidence is not prescreened for acceptance or rejection based on a theory. Evidence is accepted or rejected based on it's reliablity. When you look at a preponderance of all the pyscial sciences, they all point, within varying degrees of accuracy the same thing: a billions years old Earth, and even older universe and that life changes via evolution. It's not one piece of evidence that supports evolution, its all of it. ID only criticizes evolution where something is not known. But that is insufficient to switch back to a pre-enlightenment, magical invisble dude did it superstitious thinking.
One simply has to look at the laws of the universe, their (relative) simplicity and elegance, the balance of the known forces, to see that “accident” would not be possible.
Given the number of stars in our galaxy times the factors necessary for technological life to exist, there should be (liberally) .01 Earths in our galaxy. There ia considerably more than that.
It’s either ID or magic.
OK, that's one person who assumes that if he didn't see it personally, it's in doubt. The ghost of Johnny Cochran can chalk up "one down, eleven to go".
“Evolution doesn’t care if there is a creator or not.”
On the contrary - evolutionISTS insist that they have disproven a creator. This is the point behind the current religion of Evolution.
the author is a lost man
Bullsh!t. SO because ID cannot produce scientifically sound research resutls, you have to scream discrimination. How pathetic. If ID had any substance, it would be eagarly published. But for people coming from the religious right, who are used to style over substance and who value an appeal to authority over preponderance of evidence, this is to be expected. Also, private companies engage in research work. There is likely more scientific knowledge there than in the academic community. And, from experience, I know many companies are actually ahead of academic research, even if it is from an applied perspective. Private companies exploit evolutionary theory because it helps them commercialize products that makes money. If ID was valid, the private sector would exploit it more than a bunch of charlatans trying to sell ID literature to the uninformed.
Really? were does it say it's forbidden to read horoscopes?
Please provide the stats that show "most Americans read horoscopes".
Almost the entire Dover PA school board, except one non-creationist, were dumped because of pushing ID into the schools. And that was a predominantly conservative Christian community. Only the wing nuts on the lunatic fringe of Christianity believe ID is science, and they believe so because they feel real science threatens their literalist religious doctrine.
Most excellent analogy!
:::rolls eyes:::: I won't even bother reading the rest of your post. Have a nice day.
Two seats in the last Kansas School Board election in 2006.
Liar. It wasn't disclosed whether those "creationists" were Conservatives or Democrats. You're just spouting B.S. to support your own beliefs(religion)
Aside from the fact that evolution is testable in the hear and now, the past can also be tested. Evolution has left physical evidence in very distinct patterns. If you find evidence that blatantly disrupts those patterns, then you have found something that would refute evolution. On your logic, forensic science is just philosophical arguments and should not be used in a court of law because we cannot go back in time to see the actual criminal events, even though those events left physical evidence. Or we must say God did it by making thinkgs look like a crime scene, but we shouldn't study it because then we are questioning God.
Uh. . .what does that have to do with whether or not ID is a 'political loser'? Not a thing.
I suspect that many people who say they agree with ID would be horrified to learn that ID proponents accept common descent and a 4.5 billion year old earth.
Some do, some don't. There are always varying views under the umbrella of a theory. (I doubt anyone would be horrified.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am "familiar with the process".
Learn to read.
I specified that they must do and publish valid scientific work in peer-reviewed journals. Then I said, "ALSO, publish in favor of "intelligent design".
Your accusation that reputable journals reject valid scientific work -- just because the authors have (in other venues) expressed their religions beliefs-- is slanderous, paranoid, ignorant, un-Christian, and, simply, a damnable lie.
Do you have any examples of this alleged phenomenon? CR/ID papers that were submitted to normal science journals along with the rejection letters would do.
You need to read the literature. There is enough unique material to fill this server. And look at the original article. Mac Johnson even outlined experiments in the present, doen in a lab, whose results can be best explained by evolution. If you want to look at the fossil record, not one type of fossil, but the convergence of the whole record, you see patterns. Those patterns can be tested by looking for things that don't fit. It's so easy even a cave man could do it. SO where does that put you?
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.