Intelligent Design is a bunch of hooey supported...
Thursday, January 19th, 2006 08:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
basildestinyonly by the Christian conservatives and the Protestant political figures in the US.
Or so the papers want you to believe. There's not a single nobel Laureate or any other intelligent person who has actually researched this to find it to be true. No, indeed! ID is souly based on the fact that life is too complex for it to have simply evolved and the fact that God created the universe in literally 7 days.
Yeah.
Except no. There are Nobel Laureates that believe in Intelligent Design. The one who springs to mind is Richard Smalley who developped nanotechnology and discovered buckyballs. He died last October. There are people who research intelligent design. There are professors, rocket scientists (employees of NASA), astrophysicists, and all sorts who believe in Intelligent Design.
Also there are two groups of thought on the creation time line. There are some ID supporters who believe in the literal translation of 7 days. There's another branch of ID supporters who believe that the literal translation leaves something lost in that translation. That the Hebrew translation of day has several meanings, including a 24 hour time frame, or an indefinite period of time. The difference being sunset to sunrise, sunset to sunset. That's a little more vague than a definitive 24 hours time period.
And there's a lot of conclusions which are leapt to by the evolutionists. You find air sacs in dinosaurs and see that they have foot structure like birds and they are suddenly ancestors of birds. Forget that whole business about lizards. But then, why is the foot structure different. The toes which dinosaurs have pointed foward or back are different toes than that of birds.
Which maybe that doesn't point you in the direction of ID, but it definitely questions evolution. It requires more research than to just make that decision. And as I've written, there are evolutionists who have said that the fossil record 150 years later still does not support Darwin and probably never will. There's doubt. It's not as conclusive as the world has been taught it is.
So yes, maybe Intelligent Design advocates harp on the statistical improbability of the thing, but that's just something concrete to point at initially when making an argument against evolution. It's more succinct than to point out all of the flaws of evolutionary theory.
And there will always be people who will twist things to use for their benefit. That doesn't make a thing less true just because some politicians have used something for their own agenda. I don't even want to talk about Hilary and the Senate "plantation" word mince. Some people just aren't very responsible.
The more I research evolution, the more I question it.
~Bas
Or so the papers want you to believe. There's not a single nobel Laureate or any other intelligent person who has actually researched this to find it to be true. No, indeed! ID is souly based on the fact that life is too complex for it to have simply evolved and the fact that God created the universe in literally 7 days.
Yeah.
Except no. There are Nobel Laureates that believe in Intelligent Design. The one who springs to mind is Richard Smalley who developped nanotechnology and discovered buckyballs. He died last October. There are people who research intelligent design. There are professors, rocket scientists (employees of NASA), astrophysicists, and all sorts who believe in Intelligent Design.
Also there are two groups of thought on the creation time line. There are some ID supporters who believe in the literal translation of 7 days. There's another branch of ID supporters who believe that the literal translation leaves something lost in that translation. That the Hebrew translation of day has several meanings, including a 24 hour time frame, or an indefinite period of time. The difference being sunset to sunrise, sunset to sunset. That's a little more vague than a definitive 24 hours time period.
And there's a lot of conclusions which are leapt to by the evolutionists. You find air sacs in dinosaurs and see that they have foot structure like birds and they are suddenly ancestors of birds. Forget that whole business about lizards. But then, why is the foot structure different. The toes which dinosaurs have pointed foward or back are different toes than that of birds.
Which maybe that doesn't point you in the direction of ID, but it definitely questions evolution. It requires more research than to just make that decision. And as I've written, there are evolutionists who have said that the fossil record 150 years later still does not support Darwin and probably never will. There's doubt. It's not as conclusive as the world has been taught it is.
So yes, maybe Intelligent Design advocates harp on the statistical improbability of the thing, but that's just something concrete to point at initially when making an argument against evolution. It's more succinct than to point out all of the flaws of evolutionary theory.
And there will always be people who will twist things to use for their benefit. That doesn't make a thing less true just because some politicians have used something for their own agenda. I don't even want to talk about Hilary and the Senate "plantation" word mince. Some people just aren't very responsible.
The more I research evolution, the more I question it.
~Bas
