Evolution sparking latest textbook firestorm

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-07-11 02:57am

Why present something as a scientific theory, when it isn't, and is in fact, the antithesis of one?

It will be shot down.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-07-11 05:28am

closet sci-fi fan wrote:

"Often new scientific ideas are not welcomed in the scientific literature," said Bohlin, who holds a doctorate in biology and is director of communications at Probe Ministries in Richardson.

Thing is, that "intelligent design" is in fact older than Evolution Theory - creation myths predate Darwin's birth by millennia.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-07-11 05:34am

While intelligent design, which claims that a higher power directed human development, is more scientific, critics said it couldn't be included because it had not been peer reviewed by reputable scientists.

WTF? "is more scientific"? What the hell is that supposed to mean. Has the writer of the article appointed himself as the judge of what is more or less scientific?

Darth Gojira · Post by **Darth Gojira** » 2003-07-11 07:26am

Slartibartfast wrote:
While intelligent design, which claims that a higher power directed human development, is more scientific, critics said it couldn't be included because it had not been peer reviewed by reputable scientists.
WTF? "is more scientific"? What the hell is that supposed to mean. Has the writer of the article appointed himself as the judge of what is more or less scientific?

Maybe he ment "more scientific than creationism"?

Grand Moff Yenchin · Post by **Grand Moff Yenchin** » 2003-07-11 07:46am

Darth Gojira wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
While intelligent design, which claims that a higher power directed human development, is more scientific, critics said it couldn't be included because it had not been peer reviewed by reputable scientists.
WTF? "is more scientific"? What the hell is that supposed to mean. Has the writer of the article appointed himself as the judge of what is more or less scientific?
Maybe he ment "more scientific than creationism"?

Maybe he accidently put the comma between the "development" and "is".

Edit: Ah...forget it....damn me...

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-07-11 10:54am

And yet I'm not suprised at all. It is Texas after all.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-07-11 11:01am

Why present something as a scientific theory, when it isn't, and is in fact, the antithesis of one?

It will be shot down.

This is Texas, not New York. Sorry.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-07-11 12:04pm

HemlockGrey wrote:
Why present something as a scientific theory, when it isn't, and is in fact, the antithesis of one?

It will be shot down.
This is Texas, not New York. Sorry.

I'd love to see intelligent design try to survive the federal courts.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-07-11 12:09pm

RedImperator wrote:I'd love to see intelligent design try to survive the federal courts.

It wouldn't, that's why no one is willing to take it so far. After all, a court in Boondocks, Alabama might be willing to rule in the Creationists favor, but a Federal court would slap them down in a heartbeat, even if some of the jurers privately agreed with them.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-07-13 02:30am

Why would someone think that "intelligent design" is more scientific than creationism, since it's really just a vague form of the latter?

Are wacko conspiracy theories "scientific" if they don't bother to name the conspiracists?

Darth Gojira · Post by **Darth Gojira** » 2003-07-13 07:58am

Darth Wong wrote:Why would someone think that "intelligent design" is more scientific than creationism, since it's really just a vague form of the latter?

Are wacko conspiracy theories "scientific" if they don't bother to name the conspiracists?

Because ill-defined targets are harder to hit. They just want to avoid getting crushed like the Young-Earth cretinists.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Evolution sparking latest textbook firestorm

Re: Evolution sparking latest textbook firestorm