Wednesday, August 10, 2005


'Evolution vs. Creationism' in the modern form is 'Evolution vs. Intelligent Design'. During high school I did a year long honors research study (yes, i had to put in "honors" to communicate that it wasn't for some detention hall assignment. i actually did this for fun:) on the theories of evolution and creation. To simplify, the conclusion I reached was that both were a matter of faith. While non-religious scientists love to claim that evolution is a fact, there has been no proof of new species being created from another, or species jumping. Creationism obviously involves faith because it assumes the existence of a great unseen, God.

Anyway, President Bush has recently put this issue to the forefront by stating that "intelligent design" should be taught in the classroom. I'm not sure what context, but I'm all for alternative theories being presented.

President George Bush has started a national debate in the US over the teaching of evolution in school.

The president has suggested that a theory known as "intelligent design" should be taught in the classroom.

It proposes that life is too complex to have developed through evolution, and an unseen power must have had a hand.

President Bush's championing of intelligent design will be interpreted as further evidence of the growing influence of the religious right.
(full article)

Tech Central Station's Frederick Turner has a series of good articles, such as "Divine Evolution."

Dr. Roy W. Spencer, from Tech Central Station, has a good overview of intelligent design:

Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as "fact," I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.

In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college.

You might wonder how scientists who are taught to apply disciplined observation and experimentation and to search for natural explanations for what is observed in nature can come to such a conclusion? For those of you who consider themselves open-minded, I will try to explain.
(full post)

No comments: