I discovered another pummelling essay destroying Intelligent Design. This one is good because it not only lays out the “evolution” of the Intelligent Design camp, but also explains the science behind evolution in a way that any astute reader would be able to understand.
It’s nice and thorough with about six long but fascinating pages – so set aside some time if you’re going to read it.
3 replies on “Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design Redux”
Hi Jeff,
I'm not a genius – but I don't think it'll take one to figure out that that article you cited was completely biased.
This whole argument is starting to irritate me. Everyone is taking such a black and white stance on the issue.
I'm going to express my thoughts on this topic on my blog, hopefully within the next week, and I want to invite you to have a look and tell me what you think.
Franz
Franz,
Please do. I'd be glad to read what you have to say about the article.
I hope you address what exactly makes the article biased. It is true that the article indicates scientific proof for evolution and little or no evidence for "intelligent design" but that in itself doesn't constitute a bias if there just isn't data available to back up the creationist viewpoint.
If anything, I would say the article illustrates how biased the "intelligent design" people have been, in the States anyway – for example, with their stickers on text-books that single out "the theory of evolution" as "a theory, not a fact" while ignoring "atomic theory", "gravitation theory", and a myriad of other scientific theories. As the author of the article points out, "By singling out evolution as uniquely controversial among scientific theories, the stickers catered to religious biases and thus violated the First Amendment."
Anti-intelligent design (ID) articles are typically biased. The sad part is that most people don't bother to take the time to research ID for what it is: a counter-theory that propses that amongst other reasons, irreducibly complex organisms, such as the cilium, bacterial flagellum, blood clotting system, bombardier beetle and so forth, were intelligently designed. ID makes no claim as to who the 'designer' is. It's evolutionists that inject religion into ID by suggesting ID is just another form of Creationism when it truely isn't. If people do the research they learn that is absolutely the case. I'm not proposing that ID is a "fact" – I won't make the same mistake evolutionists make in that regard. Rather, I'm proposing that a valid and scientifically supported theory such as ID makes really good claims against macroevolutionary theory. I looked that evidence and made my mind that macroevolution doesn't make sense as it doesn't have valid answers. Do the research, stop drinking the Kool-aid and make up your minds for yourself. Stop hopping on this evolution-ignorance-band-wagon.
Don't let the phrase "scientific proof". "scientific proof" is surely subjective in this article as the article makes conceptual observations about this "proof", not physical ones. The article doesn't propose any scientifically valid statements that convince me otherwise.
For more info visit: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org
My blog: http://evolutionnomore.blogspot.com