Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MrKrinkles · 12-06-2002, 10:12 PM

I just saw this <a href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/98810_idrebut06.shtml" target="_blank">editorial</a> in the local paper today. It was written by a guy named John West Jr. of the Discovery Institute, which I think is here in Seattle. In the editorial, the author mentions a statement made by "150 scientists" from such institutions as Princeton, Yale and the Smithsonian which expresses "their skepticism 'of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.'" Does anyone know who these "scientists" are and what they actually said? I get the impression that he is taking whatever they said out of context and misuing it. The quote is pretty nebulous.

Here are a few excerpts from the editorial:

Quote:

If one defines evolution broadly enough (say, as a belief that organisms change over time), then no one seriously denies that evolution has occurred. But the modern theory of neo-Darwinism goes much further. It claims that the evolution of life is driven by a blind process of natural selection acting on random variations, a process that is said to have "no specific direction or goal."

In other words, neo-Darwinism teaches as a matter of scientific truth that life as we know it, including all human life, has behind it no creative intelligence and before it no goal or purpose.

It is this more specific claim about evolution that is being challenged today by a growing number of scientists. During the past year, more than 150 scientists, including faculty and researchers at such institutions as Yale, Princeton, MIT and the Smithsonian, adopted a statement expressing their skepticism "of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life."

(snip)

Quote:

No wonder scientists supportive of intelligent design say the board got its facts wrong when describing design theory. Contrary to the association, the scientific theory of intelligent design is not religious (which is one reason why creationist groups have criticized it). Design theory proposes that much of the highly ordered complexity seen throughout the biological world is better explained by an intelligent cause than Darwin's mechanism of chance and necessity, but it doesn't claim that science can identify who or what the designer is.

Brooks

Bane · 12-06-2002, 10:37 PM

RufusAtticus posted this in an older thread of his:

Quote:

From "Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design" edited
by William A. Dembski and James M. Kushiner:

Jay Wesley Richards of the Discovery Institute (on page 59):

"For more than a century we have heard that scientific progress has made Christian belief obsolete. Given the cultural prestige of science, this claim has prevented many from considering the Christian faith. If intelligent design theory exposes the inadequacy of materialistic explanations in the natural sciences, it will deflate this assertion, and could contribute to a renewal of Christian belief in the twenty-first century. This would be its most significant apologetic contribution."

And William Dembski, who is also from the Discovery Institute {on page 192):

"The world is a mirror representing the divine life. The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design, on the other hand, readily embraces the sacramental nature of the physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."

Obviously ID(Or the Discovery Institute) isn't religious.

Gotta love how these Christians lie.

Albion · 12-06-2002, 11:09 PM

Quote:

In the editorial, the author mentions a statement made by "150 scientists" from such institutions as Princeton, Yale and the Smithsonian which expresses "their skepticism 'of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.'" Does anyone know who these "scientists" are and what they actually said?

Well, I read somewhere that NCSE had contacted some of the people concerned and asked them if they really were saying they didn't support evolution, and apparently many of them hadn't realised that the question had come from a creationist organisation and they were simply agreeing that the bald statement about random mutation and natural selection wasn't a correct presentation of evolutionary theory as we know it.

Free Thinkr · 12-06-2002, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Design theory proposes that much of the highly ordered complexity seen throughout the biological world is better explained by an intelligent cause than Darwin's mechanism of chance and necessity, but it doesn't claim that science can identify who or what the designer is.

Really? Propose away, ass. Any evidence to back up your theory? No? Crawl back to your hole.

tgamble · 12-07-2002, 04:03 AM

<a href="http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9763_doubting_darwinism_through_cre_4_8_2002.asp" target="_blank">http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9763_doubting_darwinism_through_cre_4_8_2002.asp</a>

MrKrinkles · 12-07-2002, 02:19 PM

tgamble,

Thanks for the link. That is pretty much what I thought.

Brooks

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-07-2002, 04:03 AM	#5
tgamble Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: St. John's, Nfld. Canada Posts: 1,652	<a href="http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9763_doubting_darwinism_through_cre_4_8_2002.asp" target="_blank">http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9763_doubting_darwinism_through_cre_4_8_2002.asp</a>

12-07-2002, 02:19 PM	#6
MrKrinkles Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: NW USA Posts: 93	tgamble, Thanks for the link. That is pretty much what I thought. Brooks

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.