Saturday, October 01, 2005

The theology of intelligent design

Professor John Haught distinctively drew the line between science and theology yesterday with his testimony.

York Daily Record
"'Why?' versus 'How?'"

And once again, Mike Argento delivers some biting commentary:
"The Buckingham school: no civil liberties allowed"

Meanwhile, the Discovery Institute claims that what is being discussed in Harrisburg isn't intelligent design. What's next? Maybe they'll claim that intelligent design is science. Oh, wait....

We're glad you're enjoying the blog. Our staff is relaxing this weekend in the various ways that evolved human beings do. We'll chat in the coming days....

3 Comments:

Anonymous SH said...

Thank you for keeping us updated on the progress of the trial. I hope you have a great weekend. And I hope that reason will prevail. :-)

9:37 PM  
Anonymous emmapeel said...


Meanwhile, the Discovery Institute claims that
href="http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-28-2005/0004133680&EDATE=">what
is being discussed in Harrisburg isn't intelligent design
. What's next? Maybe they'll claim that intelligent design is science. Oh, wait....


Hmmm... They've certainly found a creative way to move the goalposts, you have to give them that.

Wm. Dembski has actually proposed that they rename Intelligent Design as "Intelligent Evolution" if ID gets slapped down by the courts. Was that a tounge in cheek suggestion? One never knows with Dembski's blog. However, other ID supporters chimed in with "Intentional Evolution" & "Directed Evolution".

Of course, one of the central revelations in the Dover case was how the authors of Pandas & People simply cut & pasted "creation" into "intelligent design" at the last minute.

4:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First off, I'm a grad student, working toward a PhD in Microbiology. I'm also a teaching assistant at a public university (coincidentally, the most conservative student body at a public university in the nation). I am a firm believer in modern evolutionary theory, modern synthesis, etc, as my undergrad degree dealt with molecular biology as the main course of study! How therefore, could I get a degree if I didn't believe in what I was learning?

I would like to point out, though, that what ID advocates are classing as 'Darwinism', lumping all of modern evolutionary theory together with one man's publication and discounting the influence of countless others, is pure and unadulterated nonsense. (To say nothing of what I think of the so-called 'theory' itself. That is a rant of far greater proportion.)

Moreover, in the last paragraph of On the Origin of Species, he expressly states that a 'Creator' may be responsible, which is either an expression of his religious background, or a concession to a predominantly Christian scientific community. But how many people who damn his work as contrary to the correct origin of life have actually even read the texts to find out what Darwin, Mendel and Cuvier even said?

To understand your position fully, you must be able to defend it with fact, and provide a counter-argument to your detractors. I wonder how many people who espouse ID even made an attempt to understand the contrary position?

2:43 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home