A writer for The Atlantic hopes intelligent design is going out of fashion

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 9, 2014

Intelligent Design, News

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design
News}

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

How can people be so dense? It shows you why that type of legacy media is dying.

Just when a serious discussion is getting started, they hope it isn’t happening.

Why do you subscribe to such media? Please explain.

Comments

Evolution has had varying degrees of acceptance over the years since the days of Darwin. Now, of course, as the western world continues its path toward secularization, then it isn't surprising to see a corresponding rise in belief in materialist explanations of the origins of life.OldArmy94_{June 11, 2014
June
06
Jun
11
11
2014
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

That's another thing. Materialism should always be referred to, when the occasion arises, as a 'cult', since, in the perspective of the history of science, that is precisely what it is; and it comes at the tail-end of history, when all the great paradigms had already been established by Creationist scientists. Few, however, could have imagined that, as cult followers, with their ever more riotously-barmy conjectures, the materialists would have made the more extreme religious cults seem very conservative, timid - even adult.Axel_{June 10, 2014
June
06
Jun
10
10
2014
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

First iD is not against science. Nor YEC. It shows how important head counting is to the establishment. THEN creationisms great numbers is very important. Creationism should be on equal terms with evolution iN THE ESTABLISHMENT. they cheat and do us wrong! Mankind too. In such great numbers changes mean nothing. The people are not that involved. so it shows just general turns in uninterested people. Creationism is doing great and greater and articles like this exist because of a increasing threat. nOt a declining one. We live in times where everyone agrees ID/YEC is a powerful movement. it was not this way 40 or 20 years ago.Robert Byers_{June 9, 2014
June
06
Jun
9
09
2014
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT}

OT: Podcast - Reviewing Cosmos: The Materialistic Message http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-06-09T17_59_20-07_00 Casey Luskin examines the stated agenda of Cosmos and its apparent overarching intent to promote a materialist worldview, and also looks at some positives of the show.bornagain77_{June 9, 2014
June
06
Jun
9
09
2014
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

Looking at what appears to be the last three data points in each series: "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." 40% ... 45% ... 43% "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process," 37% ... 32% ... 38% "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process" 16% ... 15% ... 19% In other words 77% ... 77% ... 75% believe God did it, 16% ... 15% ... 19% believe God did not do it, 7% ... 8% ... 6% other (don't know, don't care, don't want to say, etc.) Compare to two years ago, 2% fewer believe God did it, 2% more believe God did not do it, and 2% now care enough to side with the God did not do it. But compared to four years ago, 2% fewer believe God did it, 1% more believe God did not do it, and 2% now care enough to side with the God did not do it camp. The questions reveal what the philosophy of Americans is toward God (namely: very little change) but not what it thinks about the theory of Intelligent Design. A more meaningful set of of questions would be: Do you believe science shows human beings are in their present form by design? Do you believe science show human beings are in their present form by shear dumb luck?awstar_{June 9, 2014
June
06
Jun
9
09
2014
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply