Chronicle of Higher Ed on ID

In response to the comment by sabre, I would have to concur, when you voice your doubts about the number of clergy who researched the document, the thing that frightens me most is the purported number of thoughtless, careless religious leaders, these are the people we sometimes go to for spiritual and sometimes emotional counceling and help? carbon14atom

There ain't nothing like a good old fashioned tent meeting! Jon Jackson

From the letter at the bottom of the article: "We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator." It's a wonder none of the supposed 10,000+ clery who signed this were able to see the irony of this sentance in a document meant to support dogma. Of course, I doubt more than a fraction of them bothered to research what it is they were supporting -- and rejecting -- by signing this. Perhaps they just don't feel the need to do any critical thinking themselves. sabre

When it is said in the article that the majority of neuroscientists agree that there is no metaphysical component to the mind, it is very similar to the breezy dismissal of dissent which is constantly reprinted in the popular press about ID 'an overwhelming amount of evidence shows the fact of evolution which is the basis of all biology as we know it and about which there can be no serious doubt'. I love Noam Chomsky for some things (ardently disagree with him on others) but I remember reading him in an interesting interview one time where he said, in reference to the question of consciousness and current scientific knowledge "we don't even have bad ideas". This from an arch-materialist. These generalizations are just hot air to prop up a disintegrating orthodoxy. tinabrewer

I was kind of bothered by the neuroscientists. A priori precluding any metaphysical components to the brain doesn't seem wise since you can't reduce the concepts of green, etc. merely to chemical reactions. And that doesn't mean anyone is advocated there is not a major physical component to the mind. geoffrobinson

The Discovery Institute, he [Mr Wainer] says, "has been extremely effective, and that's very frightening." Mr. Wainer did what academics normally do when faced with a challenge: What is that?!! Research? Investigation? Experiments? Providing evidence for molecules to man evolution? No; this is what Mr Wainer did: organize a conference to talk about it. ... Mats

It is good to know that ID is being supported by such flimsy thinkers as neuroscientists and medical doctors.

the wonderer

Take a look into this "The sky is fallin!g" kind of article - http://www.defendscience.org./statement.html Notice closely what is the only "scientific" subject worthy of CAPS. lol Mats

I would generally agree with Qualiatative, but, I think in this instance, or at least on this issue, that it just ain't gonna be so. My reason for thinking that is that this is not a battle between science and religion as has been stated before in various places and manners, but a fight between philosophies and religious systems. Such is my statement for today and I stand by it even if I can't defend it. (ok come on that last sentence deserved at least an annoyed grimace if nothing else, I know this is serious, but in some ways its pretty funny sometimes) carbon14atom

Intelligent minds are changed by well reasoned arguments, not appeals to authority. My prediction is that the ubiquitous condescension by Darwinists will interfere with their recruitment of "new troops". Qualiatative