|Reviews for Intelligent Design and Creationism|
| huimei chapter 1 . 5/30/2010
Dress Casual Shoes Sandal Man's Woman's Bags Wholesale
New style of shoes ,jersey .handbag,free shipping
Cheap shoes ,jersey ,handbag ,accept paypal,free shipping
Low price for high quality shoes ,accept paypal ,free shipping
CHEAPEST NIKE SHOX TUROB SPORT SHOES
new style of shoes ,handbag ,t-shirt,jean
welcome to check ourw website :
| The Intelligent Designer chapter 1 . 4/11/2007
In response, I am going to make a few statements.
Many scientists have stated that the point of science is not to prove anything, but in fact to disprove it. Thus, Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science, they cannot be disproven.
The term Creationism has long been used to refer to the Biblical story of creation. Saying that it was coined recently is interesting as the term was used during the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925, with the above definition.
Many scientists have stated that a theory is an explanation based upon continued observation and strong, scientific support of the statement.
Most people that do not favor Intelligent Design being taught in schools do not favor it because they say that ID is just Creationism in disguise.
On a last note Creationsim, according to the 2001 edition Oxford American Dictionary, is "The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."
| RuathaWehrling chapter 1 . 12/5/2006
Well, this was an interesting article, even if I didn't agree with all of your logic. Before getting into that, though, I should mention that from a technical literary perspective, your grammar was excellent. I found two small typos you might want to correct, though:
1.) "but they are also involve knowledge that would lead to a better understanding of the human body" - typo: 'are'
2.) "they assume that is has a creator" - typo: 'it'
On to the heart of the essay. First off, I should mention that I'm an engineer with two sisters who are biologists, so I agree that physics is more of a 'real' science than most of what's taught in biology. On the other hand, calling Darwin 'barely a scientist' is a bit of an extreme, since from a historical perspective, most of the old physicists (certainly the pre-Newton ones) were what we would consider 'observers' rather than 'experimenters', as is Darwin. Until Kepler, for example, the old astronomers (including men like Copernicus, whose name is taught in history classes worldwide) cared nothing for what made the planets go around the sun (or Earth, depending on the time period) - they just wanted accurate observations of them. The fact that it took biology longer than physics (which was strongly based on astronomy in the old days, remember) to get out of the 'observer' phase and into the 'experimenter' phase doesn't make Darwin any worse than Copernicus or any other old physicist.
And in fact, Darwin was like Copernicus in that sense: he observed and he hypothesized. And, similar to the physics/astronomy example, modern biology took his ideas and ran with them, refining them into something that we really WOULD consider 'science' today. Yes, it is incomplete science - but then, most of the modern sciences are. I don't understand how a black hole works - in fact, I can't even guarrantee that they exist! - but that doesn't mean I belittle the physists who study and theorize about them. Nor do I do so to evolutionists.
I think there is truth to the THEORY of evolution, but that not everything scientist believe is "fact" truly is. Then again, I think that about most extra-solar astronomy, too. Taking guesses and being wrong is part of science - the most important part of science, in my opinion. And that's what I think the biggest mistake in our highschool and college science classrooms is: not teaching that science is a process, rather than a collection of facts. You mentioned this as well, but I think you're reacting in an overly-strong manner. Biology IS taught wrong - but I think evolution is one of the few sections which is (or was, at least in my high school) taught RIGHT. My biology teacher took the time to explain that evolution was a theory that we didn't know everything about yet. He even presented a brief history of the subject to make his point. Yes, I still had to do some memorizing, but it was no worse than having to memorize the moments of inertia of various spinning objects in physics. The important thing was that I understand the THEORY; the ideas. I don't think it was that different from learning physics, in that sense.
As for the first half of the article, I've already got my opinion posted on Fictionpress, and you're welcome to check it out. If you'd like to start up a discussion, just throw a review up on that - I love to argue! :)
Thanks for the read, and take care!
| Le Creature chapter 1 . 10/22/2006
Congratulations! Your essay, "Intelligent Design and Creationism" has been ranked high enough to be included in the Elite Essays C2 "The Pinnacles of Excellence". If you're interested in seeing the discussion for your piece, feel free to visit "The Land of Flames" forum.
| tlink chapter 1 . 3/9/2006
Y'know, I thought marcoevolution and microevolution wever kind of the same thing? Like, you give microevolution a few million years, you get macroevolution. It /is/ testable by scientific means; that's the fossil record.
And, make people take physics to graduate, and half of them won't graduate. Which is more sucky teaching than anything else, imo, but works out the same.
| Typewriter Koinonia chapter 1 . 3/8/2006
“I thought your ideas were very interesting, and I really like your work. Keep writing!”
| No Trust chapter 1 . 3/8/2006
First, I would like to point out something that I’ve never seen anyone else point out: evolution proponents who deny that evolution is a theory on the grounds that it is ‘true’ do not understand what a theory is! Evolution is not a fact; rather it is a theory that seems to explain certain facts pretty satisfactorily. This doesn’t mean evolution is ‘not true’ or ‘unscientific’ at all.
Also, I find it strange that you issue the term ‘rational macroevolution’ to orthodox evolutionary theory. Actually it would seem that intelligent design is the theory that posits that macroevolution is rational (in that it’s the process of a being consciously acting to reach an end) in any way.