Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
William Dembski tells us that there was a time when evolution's theory went almost unchallanged. But now not only is there a organized opposition, but students also are becoming more educated and aware of the theory and how to argue against it.
I think it is clear that Dembski feels that evolution is losing ground and is not as unrestricted as it once was.
In the foreword to my book The Design Revolution, Chuck Colson writes: “For years—
far too many years—Darwinian evolution, the prevailing orthodoxy in the academy,
faced no meaningful challenges. Those who believed in any other theory of biological
origins were dismissed as religious cranks or fools. This is now beginning to change.”
Indeed, it is changing. With the rise of the intelligent design movement, the image of a
defensive, beleaguered, overwhelmed student desperately trying to shore up religious
faith against the onslaughts of an invincible Darwinian establishment is finally giving
way. Instead, we now have the image of a confident, clued-in, empowered student
shaking up the very professors, like Will Provine, who used to teach atheism for fun and
profit. The profit may still be there, but the fun is now gone.
The reason the fun is gone is that more and more students are informing themselves about
intelligent design and learning to ask the right questions that deflate Darwinism and its
atheistic pretensions. According to arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins, Darwin made it
possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Not any more. Intelligent design is
showing that system after biological system is beyond the reach of blind purposeless
material processes like the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection.
Evolution is a scientific theory, a TOOL, and it is USED AS A TOOL. Hammers arent supposed to be FUN. They are supposed to hammer nails into stuff. A vacuum cleaner is not supposed to be FUN, its supposed to clean carpets and... other stuff. Like car seats I guess.
Your argument is that people supported evolution because it provided them the chance to attack creationism. I agree that there will definitely be people who support evolution for this reason. But a GREAT MAJORITY of people support evolution for the same reason they support hammers and vacuum cleaners. They have a job to do, so they use the tools neccesary.
EDITED TO ADD:
Oh, and what exactly is your point anyway?
__________________ A lady holds her torch aloft,
she thinks she controls fire.
But fire can turn metal soft,
a molten pool her pyre.
William Dembski tells us… I think it is clear that Dembski feels…
How about you come up with a discussion or argument of your own so that we can discuss or debate it here instead of hiding behind someone that isn’t here to refute? Just a thought.
__________________
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -- Stephen Roberts
"There once was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time was called the Dark Ages." -- Richard Lederer
First, why are you using Dembski to make claims on Evolution? You know people are going to consider him biased, being one of the main proponents of "Intelligent Design".
Second, I would deny his claim. Evolution has been attacked from the first moment of it's conception and this attack has almost never ceased.
Don't forget about events like the Scopes Trial:
__________________
"There is but one cause of human failure and that is man's lack of faith in his true self."
==============
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
=================
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
William Dembski tells us that there was a time when evolution's theory went almost unchallanged.
Apparently he can't even get that right. When has the theory of evolution not been challenged? Anything which hasn't been challenged can't even properly be called "theory". Any scientific construct which conflicts with popular religious dogma will always be challenged by religious societies, just as with geocentrism.
So when is it that Dembski suggests the theory of evolution went without a challenge?
__________________ When expressing a view becomes illegal, those with something to say and questions to ponder will be made criminals. But ask; who has really committed the harmful act, those who speak an opinion, or those who oppress them?
I think it is clear that Dembski feels that evolution is losing ground and is not as unrestricted as it once was.
And in the light of Beastt's last post, I can just copy paste his questions for the next part:
When has the theory of evolution been been more or less restrictive?
And:
So when is it that Dembski suggests the theory of evolution was losing ground?
Fact is, that with the thorough beating of ID in the court the last months, the only serious political (never scientific, as ID and creationism have never been scientific movements) evolution goes pretty much more unchallenged than ever.
__________________
Tom
'What luck for rulers, that men do not think.'
-Ascribed to Adolf Hitler-
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glas by Lewis Caroll-
Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
I am really glad you asked that. ID people feel that the theory of evolution is losing ground and support and momentium. So the question would be: does evolutionary theory have less acceptance than what it did even 10 years ago IN OUR UNIVERSITIES? Or amoung the general population.
I would think that evolutionists if they can provide the "mechanism" or not, would try to claim that evolution theory and the natural sciences are gaining ground and becoming more popular and accepted.
I am really glad you asked that. ID people feel that the theory of evolution is losing ground and support and momentium.
This claim has been made again and again since the Theory was proposed. I wish I could find it, but there's actually an atricle detailing this claim being made numerous times from it's introduction right up to the 1990s...
It's a tired claim.
__________________
"There is but one cause of human failure and that is man's lack of faith in his true self."
==============
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
=================
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Linear Mode
