Saturday, August 20, 2005


Editor attacked over �intelligent design� article

Editor attacked over ‘intelligent design’ article - Highlights -

Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg made a fateful decision a year ago.
As editor of the hitherto obscure Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Sternberg decided to publish a paper making the case for "intelligent design," a controversial theory that holds that the machinery of life is so complex as to require the hand — subtle or not — of an intelligent creator.
Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution — which has helped fund and run the journal — lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper.

The thing that bugs me about "Intelligent Design" is that it's a fancy way of saying "Genesis". The supporters of this idea are clearly motivated by religion and typically are completely closed minded to the fact that maybe the "intelligent force" that created humans was an alien life form from another galaxy.

If you want to claim objectivity, then it has to be practiced. The idea that "God" created mankind is as remote a possibility as E.T.

And that's not a shot at religion. I think everyone should be entitled (and encouraged!) to believe what they want. But if you're going to teach things that have no factual basis, you have to at least consider other ideas as looney as they may seem.
And what if they are.... does that make the theory any less valid. Because origons cannot be tested by scientific method the best we can do is guess. However you look at it, all guesses will be philosophically driven wether it be from a isolated system standpoint or an interventionist position. Your parallel using aliens is hardly a sound argument, where did the aliens come from? No, the alien theory is more consistent with the closed system position.

I think that the point is that evolutionists are so closed minded that anybody suggesting that some sort of inteligent design is involved recieves a knee jerk reaction of name calling regardless of the soundness of the argument.

And yes I am a christian and yse I do consider creaion a rational position but my beliefs do not hang by that position, I just reserve the right for every argument to be given a fair hearing.
I am often confused by this debate - it has always seemed to me that evolution and creationism (or whatever you want to call it) are orthogonal. Evolution, and only evolution, is taught in science class. Creationism (or whatever) is taught in religion classes or similar. Their history and their development is totally different. Evolution is based on science, and creationism in faith. There are many scientists who are deeply faithful and they have managed to go through all of their life with out their brains imploding from holding both of these ideas at the same time.
To John Hancock:

Aliens are hardly a sound argument? Because I can't explain where the aliens come from? You can't explain where God comes from! That's what bugs me about intelligent design. It's ok to say "God has always existed" but it's not ok to say that life has always existed.

For the record, I don't necessarily believe we were inserted here by aliens. But I think it's just as likely, if not more so, than Genesis.
The Court’s Ignorance January, 09 2005

In banning Intelligent Design the courts show their ignorance in law and science.
The U.S. Constitution is misquoted claiming "Separation of Church and State." The 1987 Supreme Court ruling banning the balance between creationism and evolution usurped the court's authority by evoking the nonexistent phrase.
Science began with the premise that all was created by God and that man had only to discover the principles God set in motion. Isaac Newton held the premise of God's providential role in nature. Science is built upon belief in God. Modern Science has built an agenda, attempting to dispel God as a consideration. Science without God has more questions requiring a far greater stretch of one's imagination.
Evolution as a theory is not a fact. If Intelligent Design cannot be taught in our schools because it is not "scientific fact" then the schools also cannot teach evolution, for evolution is not "scientific fact." Were evolution a fact there would be no discussion. Evolutionists hold to their religious beliefs of atheistic evolutionary theory. The court has upheld one religious belief to suppress another.

- Roger W Hancock (c) January 09, 2006
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Powered by Blogger