Search results

Intelligent design is often equated with creationism. They are not the same, not even close. ID has no connection to the Genesis account of creation, it doesn't invoke the supernatural, and it isn't anti-evolution. ID is not an interventionist theory. ID has no doctrine of creation. It's only...

Victory in Louisiana: Governor Jindal Signs Historic Science Education Act On Evolution and Education Robert Crowther Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has signed into law the Louisiana Science Education Act, ensuring the state’s teachers their right to teach the scientific evidence both...

Scientists Should Keep “Quiet” about Support for Intelligent Design (Part 2) Posted by Casey Luskin on May 28, 2008 In Part 1, I explained how Alan Boyle and Sean B. Carroll unashamedly agree that scientists should keep “quiet” about their support for intelligent design (ID). In...

Scientists Should Keep “Quiet” about Support for Intelligent Design (Part 1) Posted by Casey Luskin on May 27, 2008 MSNBC’s Alan Boyle and Sean B. Carroll Argue Scientists Should Keep "Quiet" about Support for Intelligent Design. We’ve known for a long time that MSNBC’s "Cosmic...

Attack on Academic Freedom in Louisiana part 2 4. The religious beliefs of Louisiana’s citizens shouldn’t be on trial. Unfortunately, opponents of academic freedom in Louisiana have spent much of their time trying to smear those they disagree with as “creationists” or...

Attack on Academic freedom in Louisiana http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/05/barbara_forrests_shameful_misi.html Opponents of academic freedom in Louisiana have been putting out a smokescreen of misinformation in their effort to kill legislation to protect the rights of Louisiana’s...

It's unclear to me why infinite regress is a problem. There are some respected theorists who posit multiple universes - even an infinite number. Therefore, the intelligence that designed life on earth may itself have been designed earlier by an intelligence that came from one of those "multiple...

Stu said: Non-teleological causes have the same regress "problem" as teleological causes. Both require appealing to eternity or a brute fact.

Yip1997 said: Well, there is no scientific proof for a non-teleological origin of life either but that doesn't stop scientists from investigating it. Some scientists have a strong suspicion that the origin of life involved advanced bioengineering. Maybe an investigation from that...

yip1997 said: Who is trying to prove ID? ID is an inference. The best a design proponent can do is find data that strengthens the design inference and use it to guide scientific research. The only thing that would prove design to the critics is seeing the designer designing.

Smilingsynic said: I have a different perspective. We know that intelligence can intervene in evolution. Even beings as modestly intelligent as we can shape and alter evolution through artificial selection (where selection is guided) and genetic engineering (where mutations are planned). For...

Quote from Teleologist: Stu responds: But I'm not just saying NS can be incorporated into a design objective. We have many examples of NS being incorporated into a design objective. Stu said: But your non-design hypothesis has the same "problem". To explain the origin of something...

Stu said: No. Just do a google search on "natural selection culls" and you will see hundreds of quotes from the scientific community that backs up what I said.

Stu said: I suggest you do a google search on the terms "natural selection" and "cull". You will find a ton of articles that describe natural selection as a culling process. Here's one that came right up when I done a google search. The website is: "An Introduction to Genetic Analysis". Here's...

Thunderdog said: Nonsense! A principle critique of intelligent design is that it is simply Creationism repackaged or Creationism renamed. Somehow, ID advocates are equated with people who take a literal interpretation of the first chapters of the book of Genesis, then proceed to the lab and...

smilingsynic said: ID doesn't dispute common ancestry or human evolution. Evolution is a fact, random mutation is a fact, natural selection is a fact. But to say, "That's all there is," well, that's not a fact. You obviously don't understand ID. I am an evolutionist. An intelligent design...

It is commonly reported that it was the Democrats in Florida that were behind moving up the primary but I recently heard on CNN that it was the Florida legislature that is mostly republican and Florida's republican governor that pushed the bill to move up the primary and the democrats couldn't...

While ID critics continually conflate Intelligent Design with Creationism for rhetorical and political reasons, the creationists themselves do not consider ID proponents to be fellow creationists. No less than John Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, comments as follows: Of course...

The critics, who find it important to label Behe a creationist, are in the awkward position of looking for ways to explain why it is that someone who accepts human evolution is a creationist. And it is at this point that we should consult the wisdom of George Orwell: To make their political...

Stu wrote: You are confusing the origin of life with the evolution of species. Molecular machines were part of the first cells. They pre-date plant and animal species by a couple of billion years. Crick and Orgel's hypothesis of Directed Panspermia claims that the first cells on earth were the...