“Intelligent Evolution” by E. O. Wilson

_{William Dembski

November 7, 2005

Evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

[Excerpt:] Religions continue both to render their special services and to exact their heavy costs. Can scientific humanism do as well or better, at a lower cost? Surely that ranks as one of the great unanswered questions of philosophy. It is the noble yet troubling legacy that Charles Darwin left us.

[For complete article, go here.]

Comments

TIME also has this nonsense in their current article: science has the answer for what makes people go-getters! (gosh, science has the answer for EVERYTHING it seems)
Ambition: Why Some People Are Most Likely To Succeed A fire in the belly doesn't light itself. Does the spark of ambition lie in genes, family, culture--or even in your own hands? Science has answers
im so tired of people trying to reduce every human behavior, thought, emotion, goal, dream, fear, desire to genes. your genes dont make you smart, they dont make you angry, they dont make you more likely to start companies or more likely to start murdering people. if they did- why should ANY of us even go to college, try to get promotions, etc? well just study our genes, well get a printout of our future lives and go with it...because, surely we cant defeat our own genes right? we surely cant be more powerful than our dna. violent crime? its not my fault- my genes make me more likely to murder! laziness? i cant help it...my genes made me this way, im just not very ambitious- its my dna! start a multi-billion dollar company? well, i cant really take credit for it...you can just thank my genes. if this were true- NS would surely select for all smart people, all ambitious people, and quicly weed out the drug users, lazy bums, murderers, victim wannabes, etc. but, gosh- all sorts of people exhibit all sorts of behavior. sometimes CEO's of big companies have children who become artists that never make much money...alcoholic bums have kids who grow up to start their own companies or run for public office or start organizations that give aid efforts to millions of starving and sick people around the world. some militant atheists give birth to devout christians (Madalyn Murray O'Hair- one of the most famous atheists in US history has a son who is a devout christian and an evangelist.) these facts seem to contradict the notions that genes make you who you are.jboze3131_{November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT}

these people continue to lie about what ID is and what it isnt. what a shock. this quickly gets old and tiresome. and yet again, another person who has to explain away men like anthony flew as figments of our imagination.jboze3131_{November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT}

Has anyone seen the last issue of Time magazine? They have trotted out another nobel prize winner, Eric Cornell, on the topic of ID, and he sounds so reasonable! The only really, truly awful sentence in his essay was the one where he defines what ID is. You won't believe it. He says that ID is the proposition that things are the way they are because God wanted it that way.avocationist_{November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

what does this tell you? if magazines cant even be honest...if groups like the NCSE and many others like it cant be honest. if hundreds of scientists wave their hands at ID without even looking at it before doing so- how would anyone think its likely that these same scientists will even look at papers put up for peer review? which makes the attacks that there arent tons of ID papers in peer reviewed journals an absurd argument. its these same scientists, who are willing to wilfully distort what ID even is, often times unwilling to even see what its about before they denounce it as nonsense who run the journals and accept the papers for peer review to begin with. i dont see the same kind of lies about darwinian evolution from the ID side. which says a lot. when one side has to lie about the very concept the other side is espousing, you know that side has problems. if you cant even be honest about something, how can anyone expect you to be honest period? when you purposely misinform with pieces like this- how do you ever expected to be taken seriously on ANY issue? as long as so many scientists continue to narrowly define science within their own philosophical limits (materialism), and when so many cant be honest about what ID and other ideas are all about- science will get nowhere in general. science has somehow become a field that has for some reason been put up on a pedestal- a pedestal it doesnt deserve. its no greater than any other branch of knowledge gathering.jboze3131_{November 7, 2005
November
11
Nov
7
07
2005
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

Does Harvard Magazine publish crap like that on a regular basis?crandaddy_{November 7, 2005
November
11
Nov
7
07
2005
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

Oh the irony! LMAO!crandaddy_{November 7, 2005
November
11
Nov
7
07
2005
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

btw. can you get more arrogant than this? "creation myths were in a sense the beginning of science itself. fabricating them was the best the early scribes could do to explain the universe and human existence." that is, in no way, a statement science can make. he accuses the writers of the bible of being dishonest liars who made up fanciful stories to fool others. the divide isnt between religion and science, its between idiots like the author of this piece and those of us with common sense.jboze3131_{November 7, 2005
November
11
Nov
7
07
2005
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

what a pathetic article. he first claims that ID proponents claim ID merely out of religious ideas. but again, he's yet ANOTHER person who has to imagine away the many IDers who don't believe the designer is god. how does the writer here explain men like anthony flew, a life-long atheist who seemed to despise religion, who made his life debating against religion, who now believes in god due to the science, the science that backs ID? does the author posit that flew and others like him are figments of the imagination? he goes on to basically proclaim christianity a myth, as well as judaism. but, if creation by god occurred, would it not be outside the realm of science to study it?!?! i hear everyday that science only deals with naturalistic events, and if creation from the source of nature took place, one might call that supernatural. so, he's claiming a myth of something he's trying to say cannot even be studied! then, he makes the bogus claim that religion inherently causes societal problems...something deep in people that causes conflict and divide. funny- who created the first hospitals in the world? religious christians. who started science to study gods creation? religious christians. when the hurricane hit N.O, and MS and other areas- who came rolling in with trucks full of supplies, food, blankets, donations, shelter, etc? religious christians and the organizations they built (franklin graham comes to mind and his group samaritans purse). i have to wonder how and why the darwin worshippers (this guy is one in the purest sense!) totally throw out all logical thinking.jboze3131_{November 7, 2005
November
11
Nov
7
07
2005
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply