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

Skip to comments.

Intelligent design becomes 'universal debate'
http://www.wnd.com/ ^ | August 31, 2005 | REID FORGRAVE

Posted on 09/01/2005 8:52:24 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45

...he co-authored with theologian Jay W. Richards called "The Privileged Planet."

The book claims that Earth is so unique, it must have been created by an "intelligent designer."

One Iowa State professor, Hector Avalos, accused Gonzalez of having a hidden religious agenda...Gonzalez's academic archenemy at Iowa State is Hector Avalos, an associate professor of religious studies at Iowa State who is also the faculty adviser for the ISU Atheist and Agnostic Society.

"I didn't expect this level of vitriol," he says after hanging up. "This level of intense hostility, just knee-jerk emotional response from people...."


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: academicbias; anothercrevothread; boooring; crevolist; crevorepublic; enoughalready; gettingold; id; persecution; wankeronboard
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-89 next last
Vitriol knee jerkers ? Sounds like alot of "freepers" who cling to their athiestict darwinsim at all costs.
1 posted on 09/01/2005 8:52:24 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
The book claims that Earth is so unique, it must have been created by an "intelligent designer."

Suppose we found a planet around another star, with living creatures on it?

We wouldn't be unique anymore.

By this logic, that means that ID would be proven false, I guess.

2 posted on 09/01/2005 8:58:04 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

It must be a common minor neurological disorder - transposition of adjacent letters in the same word. I've seen it a lot - no other typos but this kind. Like "athiestic" [with "s" added at the end for a good measure], and "darwinsim".


3 posted on 09/01/2005 8:58:14 AM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
Sounds like alot [sic] of "freepers" who cling to their athiestict [sic] darwinsim [sic] at all costs.

Some of us prefer to keep science and religion separate.

By the way, the spell checker is our friend. That's three boo-boos in just one sentence.

4 posted on 09/01/2005 8:58:45 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Is this a good tagline?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

So where is that planet with others living on it???? I must have missed that in Astronomy 101.


5 posted on 09/01/2005 9:02:28 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

Yup, i post quickly,don`t give a rats A** about typos and laff in the face of dogmatic darwinists WHO HAVE YET TO DEMONSTRATE THE SPONTANEOUS ORGANIZATION OF A PROTEIN and who fall back on the "you made typos so your whole arguement is void an moot" debate tactic.


6 posted on 09/01/2005 9:03:09 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman


I agree.Darwinism allows athiests to be intellectually fulfilled.Teaching darwinism is claiming we evolved from nothing unaided,thereby implying athiesm.Athiesm is a religion according to the 7th Circuit Court.

The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being.Torcaso v. Watkins.

I agree,seperation of church and state NOW.


7 posted on 09/01/2005 9:07:58 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

Everyone against the evolution - raise your tails and throw a coconut at the vote counter.


8 posted on 09/01/2005 9:10:53 AM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

'Pew Research Center poll, 64 percent, say they believe "creationism" should be taught alongside "evolution" - a finding likely to spark more controversy about what is taught in the schools. '

Next we`ll find "freepers" disagreeing with majority rule.


9 posted on 09/01/2005 9:14:29 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
I still can't figure out what's wrong with teaching both. they're theories. Neither has been proven. I don't see a problem with talking about theories, as long as it is explained as such that they are theories, and are yet to be proven.

Why do evolutionists find this prospect so threatening?
10 posted on 09/01/2005 9:16:59 AM PDT by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

"WHO HAVE YET TO DEMONSTRATE THE SPONTANEOUS ORGANIZATION OF A PROTEIN"

You have yet to explain how the designer came to exist, the structure of the designer, the thought processes of the designer, the way the designer interacts with the universe and exactly which things the designer designed.


11 posted on 09/01/2005 9:20:23 AM PDT by Moral Hazard ("Now therefore kill every male among the little ones" - Numbers 31:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Moral Hazard

Yup,both are theories.One commands a monopoly and jealously guards it.Wonder why.


12 posted on 09/01/2005 9:21:47 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81
" Why do evolutionists find this prospect so threatening?"

"Intelligent Design" is not a theory. It a cop-out. If it were a theory it would actually require an explanation of the designer and the design process, rather than just referencing "irreducible complexity" or whatever.
13 posted on 09/01/2005 9:22:13 AM PDT by Moral Hazard ("Now therefore kill every male among the little ones" - Numbers 31:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Do you think we're being overrun by Designed Universe retreads?


14 posted on 09/01/2005 9:23:06 AM PDT by Junior (Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moral Hazard

"WHO HAVE YET TO DEMONSTRATE THE SPONTANEOUS ORGANIZATION OF A PROTEIN"

"You have yet to explain how the designer came to exist, the structure of the designer, the thought processes of the designer, the way the designer interacts with the universe and exactly which things the designer designed. "

Both require a leap of faith.Darwinism is predicated on the first protein cell spontaneously inventing itself.A third rail they dare not touch.


15 posted on 09/01/2005 9:23:41 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

Jealously? Ha. Maybe it has a monopoly for a damn good reason.


16 posted on 09/01/2005 9:24:28 AM PDT by Vive ut Vivas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

Darwin doesn't rule out God.


17 posted on 09/01/2005 9:25:18 AM PDT by SolarisRocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Junior

Junior,you`re a coward calling for help from PH.

Even PH cannot demonstrate how the first protein cell invented itself.

Sorry sport.


18 posted on 09/01/2005 9:25:25 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81
I don't see a problem with talking about theories, as long as it is explained as such that they are theories, and are yet to be proven.

Do you really want to see ID treated as a scientific theory, and taught in science classes?

It would have to be taught about as follows: ID is a "theory" being pushed by creationists, via political means, in order to have their religion taught in science classes. It is faith-based and has absolutely no scientific content.

Is this what you really want? Or do you have suggested guidelines you can share with us?

19 posted on 09/01/2005 9:25:50 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Is this a good tagline?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Do you think we're being overrun by Designed Universe retreads?

Yeah. Let's skip this thread. We've got enough going on already.

20 posted on 09/01/2005 9:25:56 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-89 next last

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.

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