/. ID Debate

/. posts about creation:

Many news sources reported on President Bush's recent semi-endorsement of 'intelligent design', the politically correct version of creationism that is currently in vogue among groups of conservative Christians in the U.S.. While Mr. Bush was reportedly reluctant to make news on this topic, he apparently felt it was an issue he could not duck. Most of those same news sources, however, missed the recent condemnation of Darwinian evolution by the Catholic cardinal archbishop of Vienna. This NY Times op-ed appears to mark a deliberate attempt to reverse the late Pope John Paul II's acceptance of evolution as 'more than just a hypothesis'.

(sigh)

From the comments:

Intelligent Design is, by definition, not scientific, because it places no limits on the capabilities of the Designer, and therefore cannot be proven false. Don't believe me? Then give me an example of evidence that would disprove ID.

Evolution, on the other hand, is falsifiable because, unlike ID, it is restricted by physical laws.

Evolution is restricted by physical laws? Yeah, right - the foundational laws of physical science must be ignored to believe evolution.

Which is why all religions are inherently dangerous. If a person accepts something on faith, he has narrowed his view such that he becomes blind to reality, sometimes to painfully obvious things like the fossil record...
And I'll bet the open minded individual who crafted these brilliantly potent words has spent proper time investigating both sides of the issue.

To bad we Christians are so extreme:

What is extremist is insisting that a religious doctrine with no basis in scientific method (i.e., not based on direct observation, not testable, not predictive, and neither provable nor disprovable) should be held as valid science.
No, I'll tell you what extreme is, extreme is somehow making evolution science.

Tim Lytle [08/04/05 23:18:16] | 2 Comments | Stream

Comments