Home > Opinion > Darwin, Intelligent Design, and Freedom of Discovery on Evolutionists' Holy Day

Darwin, Intelligent Design, and Freedom of Discovery on Evolutionists' Holy Day

Reader Comments
Back to article

Seriously what is the problem here. Why are there a whole group of people (ID proponents) who seek to destroy their own idea... after all insisting that evolution isn't happening...is also insisting that its not governed by god!
You can't insist a phenomena is guided by a deity..and at the same time insist its not happening at all...thats just stupid... and shows the whole dishonesty thing around a group of well funded people who have released fewer papers on their own subject as a group in the last 10-15 years than any one of my post grad students did over the past 1 years!`
Its laughable...simply laughable...

mick 11:54AM September 22, 2010

Creation and Evolution are both wrong. We came from worse than incest because Adam had sex with his own flesh. Eve was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. It wasn't God who gave Adam and Eve the power to have sex and create. It was one of God's angels named Lucifer. All God wanted was Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and the animals on the earth. That would have gone on for eternity. Jesus came from Mary committing worse than incest with a Roman soldier. Jesus was a 33 year old virgin who found out the truth from the Priests who didn't get married and have sex. Jesus came out at 33 and found 12 single virgins and told them the truth. Then he tried to tell all the Christians, Jews and Romans that they were committing incest by getting married. They all got upset and crucified him. Jesus went back to the dust like everyone before him and after him. Long before Jesus was born a large group of men and boys left and ended up in Africa. Some men took female Orangutans to South America and had sex with them and created the American Indian. The men and boys who stayed in Africa caught female Gorillas and had sex with them and created the Black man. When scientists found the bones in Africa they thought we evolved from a female Chimpanzee. But it wasn't a natural evolution it was a man made evolution. So we are worse than incest and worse than beastiality. The earth will either be destroyed by nuclear war or over population. Either way is going to be bad. BS

Billy Simons of VA 7:17PM April 15, 2009

Suggesting that pro-evolutionists are stifling freedom because they will not let the half-baked tautological "reasoning" of ID/creationist supporters into respectable journals of scientific debate and discussion is at best ludicrous. When ID has had the opportunity to defend itself in a public forum--as in the judicial case in Dover, PA--the best they could muster was "God created this because God must have". That's not the sort of evidence that's going to get a pass anywhere but in an already biased mind. Not surprisingly it was soundly rejected in that court case as it has been in others.
Darwinists have repeatedly admitted they don't have all the answers. And, yes, Darwin's original theory has been revised and revised and revised...which is what science does. It replaces theory that doesn't match observation with theory that does. It does not reach down into some dubious belief system and say "I don't know how this works so I'm going to give all the credit to an invisible superbeing." That puts you right back at the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory of the universe.

Frostokovich of PA 8:36AM April 09, 2009

If the point of this article was to point out Darwin's original and evolving theory has flaws and unanswered questions - no problem. If the point was that ID is actually scientific and offers anything beyond desire, hope, and faith - it fell way short.

Brad of TX 1:29PM March 27, 2009

Casey,
Thank you for having the courage to speak the truth regarding neo-spontaneous generation, er darwinism. I thought this debate was settled hundreds of years ago, but I guess some people's minds just don't evolve like they want us to think they do.

William F. "Billsey" Maddock of MO 8:20PM March 20, 2009

I don't get it, how exactly is Darwin subverting the freedom to study mythology?

Quazi Washboard 8:14AM March 08, 2009

"There's nothing wrong with celebrating Darwin's birthday—if that's what you really want to do. But in recent years the advocacy of evolution has become increasingly associated with attempts to subvert freedom. To reclaim February 12 for those who love freedom, Discovery Institute and others in the intelligent design (ID) movement are calling February 12, 2009, "Academic Freedom Day"."
I don't get it, how exactly is Darwin subverting the freedom to study mythology?

Quazi Washboard 8:11AM March 08, 2009

You are wrong; it's called cognitive dissonance. Both sides (ID or YEC versus Evolution) suffer from it because we are confronted with eachothers' opposing views.
You are either not intelligent enough to understand evolution or you simply choose to ignore the evidence. Either way, you lose.
Evolution does not need defending, it's the weak (young/religious) minds that are beeing corrupted with ID/YEC that need defending. A solid scientific education without religious indoctrination should do the trick ... but that last part is going to be very hard in a country were 85% of the population still believes in fairy tales.
B.t.w.; you are not beeing persecuted when people tell you that you are wrong.

causality 12:02PM February 25, 2009

Russ Williams:
The next time you're bitten by a rattlesnake, let's hope for your sake that the antivenom is contains that from a North American rattlesnake, not an African cobra. Why? Evolution predicts that the most effective antivenom would come from a closely related species - in this case a North American rattlesnake - not from the distantly related cobra. Or when you get a flu shot, that the flu vaccine comes from a strain closely related to the current strain, or else your shot won't be worth a dime. These are two practical reasons as to how and why knowing evolution is of potential importance to you daily.
Neither Intelligent Design creationism nor any other form of "scientific creationism" can make such testable predictions which are conferred daily by thousands of scientists across the globe. Accepting evolution as valid science does not mean that you must reject your devout religious faith. Ask such devout Christians like my friend, noted cell biologist Ken Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University, or Francisco Ayala, Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine. Or a devout Jew like Michael Rosenzweig, Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona.
I strongly advise you to bear in mind Dave Luckett's excellent comments, since they are well worth remembering.

John Kwok of NY 12:25PM February 22, 2009

The theory of evolution explains symbiottic relationships well. It explains cellular specialisation very well. There is no barrier to to the evolution of any structure or relationship of living things, including DNA. (True, not everything is known about precisely how it happened, but to use that as an argument is to depend on ignorance.) Any "mathematics" that says otherwise is wrong, usually because of the false assumption that evolution says that living structures arise through undirected chance. On the contrary, evolution says they arise by repeated selection directed by the need to better fit their environment. The idea that Earth was made for life is exactly backwards. Life fits Earth, not the other way around, and it fits Earth because it has been selected to that end for billions of years.
I am not an elitist, nor a pig, nor a dissenter. On the contrary, I am a democrat, (small "d") a reasoning human being, and a mainstreamer. It is creationists who dissent from practically the whole of mainstream western society and from Christianity itself.
Therefore, despite your gracious invitation, I shall not be joining you. I want to have the benefits of modern biological science, and you wish to reject its very basis. But while I would not wish on you the actual consequences of that rejection, for they would be horrible, I will not allow you to foist it on me and mine.

Dave Luckett 4:52AM February 22, 2009