Intelligent Design Research
As I continue to dig into the controversy involving evolution vs. intelligent design, I'll include references to articles regarding the discussion. Here are the articles I've found (newest on top):
New Scientist - Is string theory in trouble? - Interview
EVOLUTION: Darwin's Place on Campus is Secure--But Not Supreme -- Holden 311 (5762): 769 -- Sci
Skepticism's Prospects for Unseating Intelligent Design
Confirmation of Rapid Metamorphism of Rocks
Second Law of Thermodynamics: Answers To Critics
Peer-Reviewed, Peer-Edited, and other Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
posted by Radio Free JoJo @ 12:11 PM
1 comments
1 Comments:
NO NO NO! You did NOT just post an article referencing Michael Behe's "research"! Do you remember the trial in the PA court? Do you remember when it was found that Michael Behe's "peer reviewed" study was actually found to be a phone conversation with Mr. Behe talking to the guy about his book?
Also, from the Wikipedia article on Michael Behe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
"In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts to an attempt to mandate the teaching of intelligent design on First Amendment grounds, Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense, and asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges that they say further undermine his claims about Irreducible Complexity and intelligent design. Under cross examination, Behe conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred". [4] Under oath, Behe admitted that his simulation modelling of evolution with Snoke had in fact shown that complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible. [5] Behe's testimony was cited several times in the final ruling."
So Michael Behe HIMSELF showed that Intelligent Design was not science, and in fact, his research worked against the ID theory (ID 'theory' is not the same as the Darwin theory, mind you!)
William Dembski is about the biggest creationist crackpot you can find (do you really believe that dinosaur bones were faked? Come on!). He's a mathematician and philosopher, hardly someone who's qualified to tell us that evolution is a sham.
Even the current Pope believes in evolution; How much proof do you need?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church - Look under "Papacy of Benedict XVI"
About that "metamorphisism of rocks": Since there's dinosaur fossils found over several continents (Look up Pangea), especially large dinosaurs, I doubt that Noah was able to take two of every species of dinosaur, let alone feed them. The Flood theory is another way to prove the stories of the myths and legends in the Bible. Instead of doing this, why can't Christians just try this: Look at the teachings of the Bible (not the ones that tell you to have slaves and that your wife should be your servant, etc) and just be kind to your fellow man, do not steal, etc.
Religion is mostly a way to control the masses. But it's also a way to teach values. Going too far with teachings of a certain religion, or intepreting things that are not there in the book, can lead you down the wrong path. Look at extremist Islam, for example.
To me, Christianity is not the end all, be all of religions. It's one of many that started since Man was able to communicate with his fellow early humans. Mayans, Incans, Aztecs, Romans, Egyptians, Greeks...they all had their own form of religion. And they all, just like Christianity, believed that their religion and God(s) was/were the true God(s) and religion. Did you know that Christianity takes many traditions from the Pagan religion?
When you think of religion from the start of early man, it's not very hard to see that humans just want something to believe in. They want to believe that there is an afterlife (which is in almost every form of early religion), they want to believe that prayers for material things or good outcomes can happen, they want to believe that they are special and were created by their God(s).
As before, I don't expect you to believe any of this, as it's hard to convince someone so caught up in their religion that their religion isn't 100% true.
Post a Comment
<< Home