Monday, December 26, 2005
ID vs. Darwin
Intelligent Design advocates took several hits these past couple of weeks, while I’ve noticed an almost a conspiratorial attack on ID in letters to the editor, editorials (some from friendly places like the WSJ) and judicial rulings.
The liberal intelligentsia derides ID because it undermines a major premise in their thinking. All things are explainable sans Dieu.
The ID debate has its roots in the debate about origins. You have dogmatic arguments on both sides of this topic. Those who are dogmatic about Darwin really don’t allow any oxygen for those with a good critique of the theory – this is not scientific. The Darwinist say that ID is based solely on faith, but this is not true. They also discount that many great men of science not only had Faith but applied faith to reasoning when considering the universe. Consider Einstein who continually sought after an elegant universe based upon the foundational idea that there had been an intelligent origin to the universe. Consider Pascal, Newton, Leibniz, and Fibonacci.
We’ll weigh on this topic from time to time.
The liberal intelligentsia derides ID because it undermines a major premise in their thinking. All things are explainable sans Dieu.
The ID debate has its roots in the debate about origins. You have dogmatic arguments on both sides of this topic. Those who are dogmatic about Darwin really don’t allow any oxygen for those with a good critique of the theory – this is not scientific. The Darwinist say that ID is based solely on faith, but this is not true. They also discount that many great men of science not only had Faith but applied faith to reasoning when considering the universe. Consider Einstein who continually sought after an elegant universe based upon the foundational idea that there had been an intelligent origin to the universe. Consider Pascal, Newton, Leibniz, and Fibonacci.
We’ll weigh on this topic from time to time.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]