Who makes the greater error, he/she who wrongly believes that the world is only 6-10 thousand years old, or he/she who wrongly believes the world is just an accident of physics and chemistry?
This isn’t new, but I think it is pretty revealing of how the academic establishment deals with intelligent design. An Educator’s Guide to Dealing With Intelligent Design
Help me out here: are these simple but accurate descriptions of where each school of thought stands? (a) Naturalism (evolutionism) says that matter just happens to have the properties to sometimes spontaneously lead to life, life that can improve itself through evolution. (b) Theistic evolution says that God designed matter to have the properties to sometimes spontaneously lead to life, life that can improve itself through evolution. (c) Intelligent design says that matter does not have the properties to spontaneously lead to life, and that it is entirely unclear whether life can improve itself through evolution. It is more likely, perhaps even evident, that evolution can make, at most, only minor changes. Does this briefly describe each school of thought? Read More ›
I wanted to highlight a friend’s blog dedicated to “Mocking Scientism, Evolutionism, & the Arrogance of the Academy. Warning of the Dangers of Technological “Enhancement” of Human Beings. Exploring the Logic of Intelligent Design.” It covers a nice variety of topics from a new perspective.
As recently noted on this site, in his letter to the Boston Globe, Harvard University psychology Professor Steven Pinker began SHAME ON you for publishing two creationist op-eds in two years from the Discovery Institute, a well-funded propaganda factory that aims to sow confusion about evolution. Virtually no scientist takes “intelligent design’’ seriously, and in the famous Dover, Pa., trial in 2005, a federal court ruled that it is religion in disguise. (bold added) Virtually no scientist takes “intelligent design” seriously? There appear to be more than a few in the chemistry/chemical engineering community that do. Kudos to a chemist for alerting me to this. Two weeks before Professor Pinker’s letter, Chemical & Engineering News (July 6th issue, pp 5-6) Read More ›