Comments on: Why Is Evolution Suppressed by Scientific Community?

By: harpo

harpo — Sun, 19 Feb 2006 09:37:26 +0000

So it would seem that the majority of those who believe that we were created as we are now, find the idea of God-guided evolution a respectable one. They are thus open in principle to the idea of theistic evolution. Interesting.

The question is really too poorly worded to conclude much except 66% believe it possible to simultaneously believe in God and evolution. I'm surprised it's not closer to 100% because I think just about everyone knows there ARE people who believe both. Thus it is proven possible to believe both. The question should have been worded "Is it possible that God and evolution are both true?" I think that's what they meant to ask. -ds

By: harpo

harpo — Sun, 19 Feb 2006 01:16:41 +0000

There is something decidedly odd about the poll which is quoted.
2/3 of those polled believe either that evolution occured without the guidance of God, or that humans were created as they are now; and at the same time 2/3 of those polled say that it is possible to believe in evolution and God. Weird.

They said it was possible to believe both, not that they personally believed both. Poorly worded question. -ds

By: John Davison

John Davison — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 15:57:19 +0000

ID has gained opposition because it was presented as a question subject to debate and, even worse, somethimg that could only be inferred. It is as plain as the nose on ones face and to have offered it up for debate was a strategic error for which its exponents are still paying a price.

By: tb

tb — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 01:56:49 +0000

MattDean,
I don’t think we are born atheists. Aren’t all Darwinists atheists, and does not Darwinism lay the “foundation” for any true atheist, e.g. Dawkins? Thus all atheists are Darwinists and vice versa. Thus if we are all born atheists I conclude that we are all born Darwimpians like Dr. Davison calls them. This is of course, if my logical reasoning upholds, wrong. I must disagree.

By: EJ Klone

EJ Klone — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 23:59:48 +0000

I don’t find Intelligent Design to be a challenge to naturalism at all. (Methodological or philosophical) If we can put together testable theories of design, then we are using the scientific method, aka methodological naturalism. Intelligent Design will never get off the ground so long as it makes itself an enemy of the scientific method.

I think that ID has gathered some dogmatic opposition because of the philosophical implications. Mostly, they see ID as christian religion dressed up, but I think a few of them realize (those that make argument about poor design) that it couldn’t really be about the christian religion at all. (Ken Miller) Those who argue in favor of intelligent design by the argument of “common design” are also not talking about a being of infinite capeability. Similarity of design via a “common palette” are marks of design by finite beings. No one wants to conclude that, and so we even have religious people opposed to ID.

But we must follow the evidence where it leads…

DaveScot, you should probably put your name on the Comment Moderation Policy page, because as it is written, it looks like Bill Dembski wrote it.

By: John Davison

John Davison — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 23:29:50 +0000

IF you ID cats are willing to regard yourselves as being persecuted you have already lost the battle. He who regards himself as being persecuted is either a masochist or a damn fool. Attack the swine. Butcher them with undeniable facts. Destroy them wherever you find them and stop whining. It pleases them and makes me irritable.

“Don’t give your life for your country. Make that other poor bastard give his life for his country.”
General George S. Patton, with Albert Einstein and myself a convinced predestinationist. One of these decades we will be joined by others.

“Carry the battle to them. Don’t ever let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and never apologize for anything.”
Harry S. Truman

“I never did give them hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.”
ibid

As for all the Darwimpian noise:

“The saying is true ‘The empty vessel makes the greatest sound’.”
Shakespeare, Henry V

By: tb

tb — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:37:37 +0000

Here is a related Article I found, enjoy!

http://www.nationalreview.com/.....030811.asp

By: Fross

Fross — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 02:22:00 +0000

If you think the I.D. scientists have it bad, look at the poor scientists/doctors who try to challenge germ theory. If you're a parent who doesn't buy germ theory, and you resist vaccination shots from your Dr. then your kid can be denied access to public schools. I've heard of doctors (ones who deny germ theory) being tried and fined lots and lots of money.
If your religious beliefs happen to conflict with germ theory, and your child get sick and you deny them germ theory treatment, you can be charged with child abuse.

Schools won't even hear of the bioterrain theories or compare pleomorphic germ theory with monomorphic germ theory.

After all, germ theory is a theory and I don't see why competing germ theories can't be allowed to have their equal time.

The beauty of living in a democracy is competing germ theories CAN be allowed equal time. If you can convince your local school board to include alternatives to germ theory in the curriculum, more power to you! Ain't democracy great that way? Good luck! -ds

By: avocationist

avocationist — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 01:49:51 +0000

Tina Brewer you are profound. Check out David Hawkins, The Eye of the I. I think you might like it.

By: ftrp11

ftrp11 — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:38:46 +0000

Sure but I don’t see how you can prove something is not a product of natural forces. I don’t put any stock in IC and CSI is intriguing but as of yet not entirely convincing (to me anyways). At any rate neither can prove naturalistic evolution isn’t true they can only produce an amount of doubt that makes holding onto Darwin an untennable proposition.