This link has been bookmarked by 11 people . It was first bookmarked on 02 Mar 2006, by daleelama.
-
07 Jan 12
-
s the bankruptcy of creation "science" becomes increasingly recognized, a new catch phrase, intelligent design, has been adopted by those who persist in their attempts to inject creationism into the science curriculum
-
ust as we must continue to educate parents and teachers on the facts of evolution, we must also inform them that science has by no means confirmed the traditional belief in a created universe with humanity at its center.
-
we are beginning to understand the possible physical mechanisms for the appearance of matter from nothing, and for organization without design.
-
r, the processes of biological evolution on earth still depended on the pre-existence, billions of years ago, of the particles and "laws" of physics.
-
or example, consider the calculation by astronomer Fred Hoyle, often referred to by creationists, that the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 1040,000 to one (Hoyle, 1981). This is true, but highly misleading. DNA did not assemble purely by chance. It assembled by a combination of chance and the laws of physics.
-
gnoring this absent link in their chain of logic, promoters of intelligent design put forward the so-called anthropic coincidences as evidence for a universe that was created with humans in mind. I have heard Christian philosopher William Lane Craig make this claim in a debate on the existence of God. In the same debate, Craig contended that the great age of the universe, which dwarfs human history, is in fact a sign of God's plan for humanity because billions of years were needed to allow life to evolve. (Craig evidently accepts evolution). You would have thought God could be a lot more efficient. And Craig did not rationalize why humanity rather than cockroaches was the goal God had in mind.
-
Perhaps the universe was created for the sole purpose of producing you and me. I have no objection to discussing the possibility, as long as the discussion is critical, rational, and objective. The most common argument that is still given by believers when they are asked to present scientific evidence for a creator is: "How can all of this (gesturing to the world around us) have happened by chance?" As we have seen, the most brilliant exposition of the case for evolution will not answer this question, because it still presumes the pre-existence of laws of physics and values of physical constants that had to be delicately balanced for human (and cockroach) life to evolve.
-
-
17 Apr 10
Rachel SchultzCosmology is now being exploited by creationists who argue that the fundamental constants of nature are so precisely tuned that an intelligent designer was required to create the universe.
-
25 Oct 06
-
23 Aug 04
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.