Posted on Sep 7, 2021
Why You Only Hear One Side Of The Debate Over Life's Origin
7.54K
36
12
6
6
0
Speaks for itself. What's hard to understand about intelligent design?
Why You Only Hear One Side Of The Debate Over Life's Origin
Posted from thefederalist.com
Science
Religion
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 7
8
8
0
Important note:
Pseudoscience (noun)
"a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific" - Merriam-Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pseudoscience
"A collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method." -OED
https://www.lexico.com/definition/pseudoscience
Pseudoscience (noun)
"a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific" - Merriam-Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pseudoscience
"A collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method." -OED
https://www.lexico.com/definition/pseudoscience
a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific… See the full definition
(8)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
"[C]reationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science." National Academy of Science, 1999.
"Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom." National Science Teachers Assoc., 2005.
"[F]or most members of the mainstream scientific community, [Intelligent Design] is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Harvard Science Review, 2005.
"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that [Intelligent Design] is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707, 726 (M.D. Pa. 2005).
"Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom." National Science Teachers Assoc., 2005.
"[F]or most members of the mainstream scientific community, [Intelligent Design] is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Harvard Science Review, 2005.
"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that [Intelligent Design] is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707, 726 (M.D. Pa. 2005).
(5)
(0)
3
3
0
Luskin may be highly educated in rocks and the law, but he doesn't have a clue about the beginning of life if his argument is based on evolution. Evolution has nothing at all to do with the beginning of life and never has. The origin of life, or abiogenesis is a field of study that does not involve evolution at all. Only creationists ever try to link evolution with abiogenesis, either because they don't understand the science or because they are lying about it to make their point.
Other points, on his list of 1000 scientists who doubt evolution? So what? Project Steve has a list of scientists named Steve who support evolution, and they have almost 1500 names. Moreover, about 59% of the Steves are biologists, who actually work in the field, compared to 30% of the creationists. https://ncse.ngo/project-steve-frequently-asked-questions
Finally, if we are going to teach "both" sides of the issue, why not do that in all areas? Instead of teaching abstinence only in sex ed or health classes, why not teach about birth control and disease prevention, condoms, and so on? Why not teach, besides that life begins at conception, that a woman has a right to control her own body?
Why not teach that morality evolves as society does, and that it is not based on ancient religions?
Other points, on his list of 1000 scientists who doubt evolution? So what? Project Steve has a list of scientists named Steve who support evolution, and they have almost 1500 names. Moreover, about 59% of the Steves are biologists, who actually work in the field, compared to 30% of the creationists. https://ncse.ngo/project-steve-frequently-asked-questions
Finally, if we are going to teach "both" sides of the issue, why not do that in all areas? Instead of teaching abstinence only in sex ed or health classes, why not teach about birth control and disease prevention, condoms, and so on? Why not teach, besides that life begins at conception, that a woman has a right to control her own body?
Why not teach that morality evolves as society does, and that it is not based on ancient religions?
Project Steve Frequently Asked Questions | National Center for Science Education
Is this for real?Yes.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
I don't get involved in any of the hooey Cloud Dweller stuff. Everything has sex to make more of whatever they are and eventually that insanity lead to us. And keep your free will junk. I've never heard of a child having enough free will to go find somebody to murder or rape them. Unless you maybe live in Texas that is. LOL!!
Say, isn't the editor of this conservative rag on like his 3rd wife??? That's a real Christian.
Say, isn't the editor of this conservative rag on like his 3rd wife??? That's a real Christian.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google