News Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design in Florida

  • Thread starter Thread starter vincentm
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Design Evolution
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the persistence of intelligent design (ID) proponents despite legal setbacks, such as the Dover, PA case, which ruled ID as non-scientific. Critics argue that ID is a cultural and political movement rather than a legitimate scientific theory, with figures like Philip Johnson claiming evolution is responsible for societal issues. The conversation highlights the fear among ID advocates that a solid science curriculum will expose their beliefs as pseudoscience, potentially leading to a loss of followers. There is also debate on the implications of school vouchers, with concerns that they could promote the teaching of creationism in private schools. Ultimately, the consensus emphasizes the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between science and religious beliefs in education.
  • #31
If they can be proven wrong then it can't be religious. Maybe ID is just really bad science.

Intelligent design creationism is not science because it appeals to supernatural causal agents, which makes their explanatory models, by definition, not testable, falsifiable or repeatable.

The IDC attacks on evolution (no transitional features; non-functional intermediates; evolution violates thermodynamical laws) are provably wrong.

So their own explanatory models are unscientific and their attacks against evolution are provably wrong.

(There are plenty of evidence of this, such as the Wedge Strategy mentioned above, to textbook evidence, statements by the IDC proponents themselves in lectures at religious institutes, interviews and their own books.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Pelt said:
In one jurisdiction for the time being. Let's not count our eggs before the chickens are hatched.

All major science organizations has taken the position that intelligent design creationism is not science.

http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=NEWS_statement_president_09182002_BA_georgia
APS
http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?year=&id=4298
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml
http://www.nsta.org/about/pressroom.aspx?id=50794
http://www.aip.org/gov/gov/policy7.html

and the list goes on...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
Pelt said:
That Kansas state board of education isn't a federal district court. My point is that the Dover ruling applies only in Dover's jurisdiction, and of the Court that ultimately sat on Edwards v. Aguillard only Scalia and Stevens remain.
I'm not really sure what you are getting at either, but let's cut through some of this crap: The Kansas action never went to court. The idiots were kicked-out of office and the curriculum fixed before it could be challenged. The Dover case was decided in federal district court. The school board isn't going to appeal the verdict because most of the board members are out, but the point of the matter is that since the 1st amendment is in the Bill of Rights, and this is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause, this is the jurisdiction of federal courts, despite the fact that school systems are run by the states.

This issue could not be any simpler, which is why every time it does make it to court, ID goes down hard. This particular case was so clear-cut and the decision so strongly-worded, it sets an iron-clad precedent for the future - and does not apply only to Dover, PA. The precedent will be used in every future court cases and is so strong it will probably prevent them from even happening. There just plain isn't any legal ground for ID to stand on to step into schools anywhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/

I'm also not sure what your point is with E v. A: it was a USSC decision on Creation Science - just another name for ID (the re-naming in the so-called creationist textbook is noted in the wik link) - and the Dover decision is consistent with it. Both were decided on the basis of the Establishment Clause. You seem to be suggesting that with the court being more conservative, if a similar case went up there again, it might go the other way. But it was a 7-2 decision and the court isn't that conservative today that they would overturn such a hard precedent on such a clear-cut 1st Amendment issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard
 
Last edited:
  • #34
mike luckovich had a great cartoon in the atlanta journal of a cobb county school kid carrying a book with a sticker that said "warning: this book teaches that the the Earth is ROUND".

But there are people here in georgia who write in every day and complain that luckovich is a disgusting sicko.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
There is about to be some major pruning to get this back to some semblance of real discussion.

Ok, let's start from where the thread derailed, my apologies for helping it derail.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
vincentm said:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/evolution-battl.html

Why? :confused: They had their butts kicked in Dover, PA. And have been proven wrong, that ID is not a science. So why do they persist?

Because the Dover ruling applies only in Middle Pennsylvania, and because ID's proponents disagree with you and figure they can win.
 
  • #37
Pelt said:
Because the Dover ruling applies only in Middle Pennsylvania, and because ID's proponents disagree with you and figure they can win.
But doesn't the Dover decision set a precedent for other similar cases that are brought before the Federal Courts, and that sense, the Dover decision applies throughout the US?
 
  • #38
Astronuc said:
But doesn't the Dover decision set a precedent for other similar cases that are brought before the Federal Courts, and that sense, the Dover decision applies throughout the US?

Other federal courts are certainly free to cite Dover in their own decisions, but they are not bound to do so. The Kitzmiller decision, for example, cites Selman as authority.
 
  • #39
Except inso far as the courts always have the option to overturn previous decisions, so what, Pelt? The fact of the matter is that that it is very rare. Precedent is important. In fact, can you cite any issue in the history of the USSC that was decided 7-2 and was later reversed on the same point of law? Heck, we could always repeal the 1st Amendment if we wanted to too. Theoretically possible? Yes. Likely? No.

You're arguing weasel words, Pelt. What you are saying is technically true, but completely pointless.

The bottom line is this: the combination of stupidity and tenacity means that these Discovery Institute types will always be around, looking for a way in. But after being slapped as hard as they have been, their self-preservation instincts will give them pause - the risks of a direct challenge of these rulings are just too high. And even if they do take a shot, their odds of the issue even staying alive long enough to make it to the classroom are exceedingly slim. The odds of the issue actually succeeding in court are virtually nonexistent.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
russ_watters said:
Except inso far as the courts always have the option to overturn previous decisions, so what, Pelt?

It matters because a decision isn't considered stare decisis simply because it was issued before another one on a substantially similar matter, especially if the decision is only binding in a certain jurisdiction.

The fact of the matter is that that it is very rare.

That's http://law.shu.edu/journals/circuitreview/issues/01_2005/005_to_026_Emery_Lee.pdf .

Precedent is important.

Indeed it is, depending on the place in the judicial hierarchy of the court that originated it, the quality of the decision, and ideological makeup of subsequent courts, and a variety of other factors.

In fact, can you cite any issue in the history of the USSC that was decided 7-2 and was later reversed on the same point of law?

Uh, yeah. Plessy v. Ferguson?

Heck, we could always repeal the 1st Amendment if we wanted to too. Theoretically possible? Yes. Likely? No.

Except, as I've shown here, we're talking Vegas odds (4-6) for professional gamblers, in a game where the return is 20 years of good luck.

You're arguing weasel words, Pelt. What you are saying is technically true, but completely pointless.

Weasel words? You're just making stuff up and drawing silly analogies. While it might feel good to insult the intelligence of the opposition, it might help if you grounded some of that hubris in a small measure of fact. After Dover, I sincerely doubt the ID proponents intend to be caught off guard like that again.

And even if they do take a shot, their odds of the issue even staying alive long enough to make it to the classroom are exceedingly slim. The odds of the issue actually succeeding in court are virtually nonexistent.

I'd agree with you on the odds of Aguillard being overturned, it's negative case history is only 4 percent of the total turned up by a quick KeyCite. On the other hand, Discovery and Thomas More aren't trying to overturn Aguillard. They're trying to present ID as an Aguillard-acceptable alternative to creationism. With two mixed decisions on record on this particular issue, it is too early to determine which way the courts will swing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #41
According to the Declaration of Independence it would seem the writers believe that it is the "Creator" that endows the unalienable rights. It continues with "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

It seems, then, "good science" or "bad science" is not relevate, but the will of the people is what matters here. Both theories are part of the overall "body of knowledge" of man and that both are useful when presented in there intended purposes.

Personally, It's a joke to think that anyone person or group of people can intellectually absorb the millions of associated variables, not to mention the random phenomenon over the eon's of time that affect the possible outcomes and call it either science or philosophy. At best, evolution is nothing more than an extrapolated guess given only a few of the variables. At worst ID is just a simple story.

The best work of greatest minds that have ever lived resulted in simply E=mc^2. Most people can barely handle the wave equation with 2 spatial variables let alone the development of the universe with millions of variables... Come on...

Education does not embody science only but philosophy as well... There is room for both in education.
 
Last edited:
  • #42
vector3 said:
Education does not embody science only but philosophy as well... There is room for both in education.
Are you familiar with the stated goals of The Discovery Institute, the people that invented Intelligent Design? This isn't an innocent case of "oh it's just another viewpoint".
 
  • #43
vector3 said:
According to the Declaration of Independence it would seem the writers believe that it is the "Creator" that endows the unalienable rights. It continues with "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

That was before the constitution. The constitution is a secular document.

http://ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php

It seems, then, "good science" or "bad science" is not relevate, but the will of the people is what matters here. Both theories are part of the overall "body of knowledge" of man and that both are useful when presented in there intended purposes.

Intelligent design creationism does not constitute valid knowledge at all. It is an issue of what is science and demonstrably accurate and what is not science and demonstrably false. Relativists need not apply.

Personally, It's a joke to think that anyone person or group of people can intellectually absorb the millions of associated variables, not to mention the random phenomenon over the eon's of time that affect the possible outcomes and call it either science or philosophy. At best, evolution is nothing more than an extrapolated guess given only a few of the variables. At worst ID is just a simple story.

Your ignorance is showing. Evolution has a massive convergence of evidence from diverse areas such as biochemistry, paleontology, molecular biology and comparative anatomy.

http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-ev.html

We've known for a long time that we humans share common ancestry with the other great apes—gorillas, orangs, chimps, and bonobos. But there's an interesting problem here. We humans have 46 chromosomes; all the other great apes have 48. In a sense, we're missing a pair of chromosomes, two chromosomes. How did that happen?

Well, is it possible that in the line that led to us, a pair of chromosomes was simply lost, dropping us from 24 pairs to 23? Well, the answer to that is no. The loss of both members of a pair would actually be fatal in any primate. There is only one possibility, and that is that two chromosomes that were separate became fused to form a single chromosome. If that happened, it would drop us from 24 pairs to 23, and it would explain the data.

Here's the interesting point, and this is why evolution is a science. That possibility is testable. If we indeed were formed that way, then somewhere in our genome there has to be a chromosome that was formed by the fusion of two other chromosomes. Now, how would we find that? It's easier than you might think.

Every chromosome has a special DNA sequence at both ends called the telomere sequence. Near the middle it has another special sequence called the centromere. If one of our chromosomes was formed by the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes, what we should be able to see is that we possesses a chromosome in which telomere DNA is found in the center where it actually doesn't belong, and that the chromosome has two centromeres. So all we have to do is to look at our own genome, look at our own DNA, and see, do we have a chromosome that fits these features?

We do. It's human chromosome number 2, and the evidence is unmistakable. We have two centromeres, we have telomere DNA near the center, and the genes even line up corresponding to primate chromosome numbers 12 and 13.

If not evolution, how would you explain this?

The best work of greatest minds that have ever lived resulted in simply E=mc^2. Most people can barely handle the wave equation with 2 spatial variables let alone the development of the universe with millions of variables... Come on...

Unfortunately, that is on an entire different level. The equivalence of matter and energy and wave equations is irrelevant. Also note that Einstein made much, much more than simply state E = mc2
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #44
vector3 said:
Both theories are part of the overall "body of knowledge" of man and that both are useful when presented in there intended purposes.

On the contrary, one of the "theories" (ie, evolution) is a fact, and is backed by enormous amount of empirical evidence while the other is wishful speculation, whose premise is inherently unverifiable, and also a load of nonsense.

Personally, It's a joke to think that anyone person or group of people can intellectually absorb the millions of associated variables, not to mention the random phenomenon over the eon's of time that affect the possible outcomes and call it either science or philosophy. The best work of greatest minds that have ever lived resulted in simply E=mc^2. Most people can barely handle the wave equation with 2 spatial variables let alone the development of the universe with millions of variables... Come on...

I don't know if you've read about evolution, but there isn't any single "equation" with millions of variables which describes evolution. Evolution is the theory/fact that http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html" as you seem to imply. For example, natural selection is a non-random process.

Education does not embody science only but philosophy as well... There is room for both in education.

No. Teaching religious creationist propaganda as a science is certainly not education.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #45
Evo said:
Are you familiar with the stated goals of The Discovery Institute, the people that invented Intelligent Design? This isn't an innocent case of "oh it's just another viewpoint".

These goals? Looks like their key tangible objective is to compete with the mainstream on their own turf. The rest seems like boastful and probably unjustified optimism in their chances for success. If there's anything certain about DI's aims, it's that they've learned that after Aguillard there's no going back to 1925.

siddharth said:
On the contrary, one of the "theories" (ie, evolution) is a fact, and is backed by enormous amount of empirical evidence while the other is wishful speculation, whose premise is inherently unverifiable, and also a load of nonsense.

Theistic claims about origins by particular people--whether they buy into creationism or evolution or whatever--are unverifiable. But specific predictions and even observations generated by creationist and ID proponents have been tested and falsified. Personally, I think coming up with a reasonable, testable design hypothesis is at minimum a useful exercise; it's been knocked down in so many ways by so many people that it helps improve understanding of what evolution is and isn't, how it works, what predictions it makes, as well how successful it is in and of itself and in a constellation of related areas of research. I wish my field generated this much public attention. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #46
siddharth said:
On the contrary, one of the "theories" (ie, evolution) is a fact, <snip>

The use of words is a problem. Theory as used by scientists mean something with A LOT of testing and evaluation behind it. The guy you are quoting thinks
Code: 
theory = some hare-brained idea I just came up with

because that is the meaning of theory out there in the popular-speak-English world.

You have to be careful with words like theory, model and so on.

See:
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-60/iss-1/8_1.html and thanks to ZapperZ for puttting this url up to start with.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #47
vector3 said:
According to the Declaration of Independence it would seem the writers believe that it is the "Creator" that endows the unalienable rights. It continues with "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

It seems, then, "good science" or "bad science" is not relevate, but the will of the people is what matters here.
Okay.
Both theories are part of the overall "body of knowledge" of man and that both are useful when presented in there intended purposes.
Absolutely not okay as soon as you used the words "both theories". There are no two theories here. IDC is not a theory; it is not even science. Science belongs in science classes and non-science can look for a place in non-science classes. There's really nothing more to say about that.

Personally, It's a joke to think that anyone person or group of people can intellectually absorb the millions of associated variables, not to mention the random phenomenon over the eon's of time that affect the possible outcomes and call it either science or philosophy.
Personally, it's a joke to think it's the number of variables or the length of time involved that determines whether something is science.

At best, evolution is nothing more than an extrapolated guess given only a few of the variables. At worst ID is just a simple story.

The best work of greatest minds that have ever lived resulted in simply E=mc^2.
You just don't recognize how much of an insult that is, do you? Besides, it's making absolutely no sense whatsoever. The statement of Darwinian natural selection is also extremely simple in form. So what?

Most people can barely handle the wave equation with 2 spatial variables let alone the development of the universe with millions of variables... Come on...
What does the mathematical capability of the average person have to do with the ability of professional scientists. In any case, the whole point of saying "there are so many variables" is completely moot, as far as science is concerned.

Education does not embody science only but philosophy as well... There is room for both in education.
But there is no room for non-science in science.
 
Last edited:
  • #48
siddharth said:
...On the contrary, one of the "theories" (ie, evolution) is a fact, and is backed by enormous amount of empirical evidence ...
In the context of this discussion, evolution is a scientific theory, not a fact. Evolution theory is drawn from a large fact base: the fossil record - fossils found at location X (fact), dated to period Y (fact), and have features similar to other fossils found at X1 and earlier period Y1 (fact). Species A shares genes with species B (fact). Evolution is a scientific theory drawn on this (large) fact base.
jim mcnamara said:
... Theory as used by scientists mean something with A LOT of testing and evaluation behind it. ...
Thanks for the Quinn article.
 
  • #49
mheslep said:
In the context of this discussion, evolution is a scientific theory, not a fact. Evolution theory is drawn from a large fact base: the fossil record - fossils found at location X (fact), dated to period Y (fact), and have features similar to other fossils found at X1 and earlier period Y1 (fact). Species A shares genes with species B (fact). Evolution is a scientific theory drawn on this (large) fact base.

My point is that, evolution is both a fact and a theory. While the existence of evolution is a fact, like gravity, there are several theories which explain the mechanism by which it takes place.

As jim mcnamara pointed out, the way the words theory and fact are used in common language and by biologists is disparate. So, I wanted to point out that evolution is much more than "only a theory"
 
Last edited:
  • #50
In the context of this discussion, evolution is a scientific theory, not a fact.

Technically, evolution is an observed fact. Evolution by means of natural selection is the scientific theory, in which

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=2
 
  • #51
Moridin said:
Technically, evolution is an observed fact. Evolution by means of natural selection is the scientific theory...

Presently, evolution is shorthand for both the class of accepted theories that forms the modern synthesis or evolutionary synthesis (terms used most frequently in evolutionary biology literature ). It is also an observed fact in all its particulars. Universal common descent, on the other hand, marries evolutionary synthesis with cladistics, paleontology, geology and some other stuff to come up with a set of unobserved facts. As I understand it, this is where what passes for serious debate between pro and anti-"evolution" partisans.

A word on "theory." It's accurate or useful to argue that the term has a special meaning in science that it lacks elsewhere. The term in law, philosophy, mathematics and even colloquial use refers to an set of inferences that merits confidence based on how well it fits the evidence both in hand and subsequently uncovered (prediction). The only difference is the standard of proof thought to verify or defeat an idea.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #52
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
I've only seen "post-synthetic" refer to novel developments that add to established body called the synthesis. Evolutionary synthesis itself is essentially original Darwinism with soft inheritance replaced by population genetics and a minimum of three canonical mechanisms.
 
  • #54
Original Darwinism? Darwin basically added natural selection without knowing anything about heritability or the origin of variation. In moder evolutionary biology, Darwin is a nobody.
 
  • #55
Evo said:
Are you familiar with the stated goals of The Discovery Institute, the people that invented Intelligent Design? This isn't an innocent case of "oh it's just another viewpoint".

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with DI... I suspect it is organization against ID...

Regardless, Intelligent Design, Great Mother Earth, Ancient Greek Philosophy... Theoretically, it is the will of the people that should ultimately determine what is taught. What's scary is the government telling the people what truth to believe.

Moridin said:
That was before the constitution. The constitution is a secular document.

The same guys that wrote the Declaration wrote the Constitution.

Moridin said:
Intelligent design creationism does not constitute valid knowledge at all. It is an issue of what is science and demonstrably accurate and what is not science and demonstrably false. Relativists need not apply.
So we should not study Ancient Greek Philosophy? Studying the belief structure of the American Indian is not valid knowledge? Please... Who's ignorance is showing now?

Moridin said:
Your ignorance is showing. Evolution has a massive convergence of evidence from diverse areas such as biochemistry, paleontology, molecular biology and comparative anatomy.

Moridin said:
We've known for a long time that we humans share common ancestry with the other great apes—gorillas, orangs, chimps, and bonobos. But there's an interesting problem here. We humans have 46 chromosomes; all the other great apes have 48. In a sense, we're missing a pair of chromosomes, two chromosomes. How did that happen?
If not evolution, how would you explain this?
I would say you’re probably a gorilla?

Moridin said:
Unfortunately, that is on an entire different level. The equivalence of matter and energy and wave equations is irrelevant. Also note that Einstein made much, much more than simply state E = mc2

Obviously, It was not my intent to put down Einstein or to minimize any of his contributions.

siddharth said:
On the contrary, one of the "theories" (ie, evolution) is a fact, and is backed by enormous amount of empirical evidence while the other is wishful speculation, whose premise is inherently unverifiable, and also a load of nonsense.
Never implied that ID was fact. Again, is the study of the Greek Gods nonsense as well? The teachings of Budha? Gandhi? I’m surprised that in a forum that is supposed to be purely science related that their wells up such great emotion. It is the greatness of emotion that clouds objective thinking.

siddharth said:
I don't know if you've read about evolution, but there isn't any single "equation" with millions of variables which describes evolution. Evolution is the theory/fact that http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html" as you seem to imply. For example, natural selection is a non-random process. .

Don’t put words “in my post” so to say. Did not say evolution was a purely random process. And perhaps equation with variables is the wrong analogy. I was trying to say the universe is one single system (equation) with millions of processes (variables). And to think oneself capable of assimilating and reducing that amount of data… well… please… come on…

siddharth said:
No. Teaching religious creationist propaganda as a science is certainly not education.
Teaching is, in part, conveying knowledge. Knowledge comes in may forms, not just the physical sciences.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
Moridin said:
Technically, evolution is an observed fact. Evolution by means of natural selection is the scientific theory, in which
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=2
If you mean it has been repeatedly observed that, say, colonies of one cells evolve over generations then yes, that is a fact. If you refer to the past then no, as the past can not be directly observed, one must look to observations of current proxies (facts) to construct a theory.
 
Last edited:
  • #57
The same guys that wrote the Declaration wrote the Constitution.

Lets' see..

Benjamin Franklin - deist / atheist
Tomas Jefferson - deist / atheist
Thomas Paine - deist / atheist
John Adams - deist / atheist

The reference to the "creator" does not appear in the constitution.

So we should not study Ancient Greek Philosophy? Studying the belief structure of the American Indian is not valid knowledge? Please... Who's ignorance is showing now?

We should not teach ID creationism for the same reason that we should not teach that the Earth is flat. Both are factually incorrect.

Never implied that ID was fact. Again, is the study of the Greek Gods nonsense as well? The teachings of Budha? Gandhi? I’m surprised that in a forum that is supposed to be purely science related that their wells up such great emotion. It is the greatness of emotion that clouds objective thinking.

To teach the Greek Gods as facts are indeed nonsense. As mythology?

Don’t put words “in my post” so to say. Did not say evolution was a purely random process. And perhaps equation with variables is the wrong analogy. I was trying to say the universe is one single system (equation) with millions of processes (variables). And to think oneself capable of assimilating and reducing that amount of data… well… please… come on…

The vast majority of those "variables" does not apply in this case. It is an argument from incredulity.
 
  • #58
mheslep said:
If you mean it has been repeatedly observed that, say, colonies of one cells evolve over generations then yes, that is a fact. If you refer to the past then no, as the past can not be directly observed, one must look to observations of current proxies (facts) to construct a theory.

You seem to be confused about the term "observe". We can observe things without actually seeing them.
 
  • #59
vector3 said:
I would say you’re probably a gorilla?
I would say you're working on a ban.

Never implied that ID was fact. Again, is the study of the Greek Gods nonsense as well? The teachings of Budha? Gandhi?
Red herring. We don't study the Greek gods or the teachings of Budha in science classes. The first is the domain of mythology, the second, philosophy and comparative religions. ID is not even close to science, and it should not be treated as such.
 
  • #60

Similar threads

News Florida law lets anyone challenge what’s taught in science
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
NOVA's Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
14K
News Who is Nils Bildt? Could Fox News be *that* irresponsible?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
News Is the University of Kansas Taking a Stand Against Intelligent Design?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Is Intelligent Design Validating Scientific Panic in Evolutionary Theory?
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
11K
Why Do Evolutionary Scientists Dismiss Behe's Ideas on Intelligent Design?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
News Creationists Try to Edge Around Ban
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
What Caused the Domestication of Dogs and Cats?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Evonomics: Evolution and Economics Explained
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
The jury is still out on evolution
  • · Replies 101 ·
4
Replies
101
Views
14K