Mike Lee wrote: ==========
At 11:02 AM 3/20/02 -0600, Paul Smith wrote: * I'd still like to see some support for that claim. Who are these "scientists"? What determines who gets that label? Obviously a religious university could grant credits and degrees in "biology" for studying teaching creationism and label the graduates "scientists" and then claim that constituted "increasing numbers of scientists accepting creationism". But if that's all that's going on, it's totally irrelevant to the scientific study of the origins of species. ============== Hopefully, the following two snippets will serve as partial answers to Paul and Paul. The links to the full articles follow. I should say that I have no vested interest in Intelligent Design theory, and that perhaps my original intent in separating the meanings of Creationism and Intelligent Design Creationism reflects an agnostic philosophical appreciation for the whole debate. "As opposed to the creation/evolution debate where critics of evolution often have little or no formal training in the field of biology, the advocates of intelligent design are for the most active and well-established professionals in their field. The challenges that they raise are based on careful observation and must be taken seriously by the scientific community. To fail to do so would put scientists in the uncomfortable position of being accused of being closed minded and dogmatic, rather than open to inquiry." http://www.uu.edu/centers/science/spring00/wofford.htm But, from the same site--the description of the institution states: "Union University is an academic community, affiliated with the Tennessee Baptist Convention, equipping persons to think Christianly and serve faithfully in ways consistent with its core values of being Christ-centered, people-focused, excellence-driven, and future-directed. These values shape its identity as an institution which prioritizes liberal arts based undergraduate education enhanced by professional and graduate programs. The academic community is composed of quality faculty, staff, and students working together in a caring, grace-filled environment conducive to the development of character, servant leadership, and cultural engagement. Our Mission: Union University provides Christ-centered education that promotes excellence and character development in service to Church and society." Sorry, Mike, but that's _exactly_ the kind of religiously biased source that many have a problem with. "So the question facing biologists is clear: Do irreducibly complex systems represent an unbridgeable evolutionary chasm? If so, Darwinism is in a bad way and Behe has made an astonishing discovery. If not, Behe's case collapses and he has succeeded only in misleading large numbers of people. Behe, never shy, has already cast his vote: the discovery of design, he assures us, is 'so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science,' rivaling 'those of Newton and Einstein, Lavoisier and Schrodinger, Pasteur, and Darwin." http://bostonreview.mit.edu/br21.6/orr.html And from their mission statement: "Boston Review combines commitments to public reason and literary imagination. Putting politics and poetry on the same page, we anticipate a world that is at once more democratic and imaginative than our own; treating each as an autonomous value, we explode conventional stereotypes about politicos and aesthetes. We are a magazine of political, cultural, and literary ideas, and we take that designation seriously." Again, hardly a reasonable source for sound scientific publication. When legitimate (and scientifically _researched_) articles appear in the scientific peer reviewed journals, some grounds may exist to debate the issue--but until then, these kinds of sources do little more than offer speculative opinions, not scientific inquiry. Ultimately "Intelligent Design Theory" is little more than a panacea for those who have too much scientific training to reject evolution out-of-hand, yet are committed to a set of religious beliefs in opposition to that principle. It has no bases in scientific fact, rather it provides justification for continuing to espouse a totally religious perspective with no supporting evidence at all (creationism) in a world where superstitious beliefs are rapidly being disproven by the advancement of science. Rick -- Rick Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Social Sciences Jackson Community College Jackson, Michigan ". . . and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the love you leave behind when you're gone." --Fred Small --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
