• In total there are 3 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Dec. 2000 - Intelligent Design - the Modern Argument

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17008
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3504 times
Been thanked: 1308 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Dec. 2000 - Intelligent Design - the Modern Argument

Unread post

This thread is for discussing Massimo Pigliucci's Rationally Speaking article entitled Intelligent Design - the Modern Argument.Quote:N. 5, December 2000Intelligent Design - the Modern ArgumentLet's face it: creationists don't have an easy time claiming academic superiority over their opponents. As much as they call themselves "scientific" creationists (essentially an oxymoron), and despite the existence of the Institute for Creation Research (whatever that is), and even of creationist museums, anybody can see that the credentials of most creationists are as good as those of a car salesman. Yet, there is a group of creationists (who don't actually like being labeled as such) that is trying
User avatar
Mr. P

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
Posts: 3826
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
19
Location: NJ
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 137 times
Gender:
United States of America

Re: Dec. 2000 - Intelligent Design - the Modern Argument

Unread post

Moving up topMr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of PainHEY! Is that a ball in your court? - Mr. P
Doc Tiessen

Intelligent Design

Unread post

I am amazed by the amount of creationist people in the USA. People that take the bible literally, and believe in Archae Noah and such kind of things. I have been told that in some states the evolution is not at all teached in biology classrooms. I think this is really scandalous. In Europe (oldfashioned continent) we do not have this kind of problems. Whereas in the modern country of NASA, Coca Cola, you still have such dogmatic views on religious creationism.But there are also several versions of creationism, some which can get highly scientific. I have also tryied to learn some of the more sofisticated arguments. And believe me, it is not as easy to disproof them. Not even if you are a biologist.After some time I came to the conclusion, that the conflict between evolutionist and creationist is because both are very radical. And sometimes, I really have to say... the evolutionist do not really understand evolution.For example, when people say that Darwin was wrong, some evolutionist protest inmediately and say that Darwin is not wrong but his original theory is totally correct. But almost no modern biologist reads the original book of Darwin.Fact is that the original theory of Darwin is not fully correct. What biology students learn at university is the synthetic theory of evolution. Some call it Neodarwinism.Darwin was wrong as much as Newton was wrong. He was not fully accurate. This is not a sin in science. The problem is when you speak to a creationist that states that Darwin was wrong and you then try to defend Darwin... so they get suspicious and nobody really wants to accet the arguments of the other.To provide you with better arguments, I would like to say why Darwin was wrong. I could go on for pages but I want to make it extremely short.Take the title of his book... on the origins of species by means of natural selection...Already here you can see his mistake. The title suggest that new species are formed by natural selection. So natural selection is the reason for the different species?And this is wrong. Natural selection kills species, but it does not create new ones. There is no case of the emergence of various species by natural selection alone. New species emerge by mutation in the DNA. Natural selection decreases the number of species. It is the random mutations that create new species.Got it? Diversity is Good!
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”