Sentences with phrase «intelligent design as»

For example, biology professors are not allowed teach creationism or intelligent design as an alternative to evolution because only evolution conforms to what we know about reality.

The whole game subsists on this logic: intelligent design as gameplay design.

When asked by a Christian radio station, Bennett said that their science curriculum presents evolution, creationism, and intelligent design as equally tenable explanations for the existence of life,» adding «We're centered in the Judeo - Christian tradition, we do not ignore faith and religion, we do not ignore the arguments against evolution, because there are some...»

When a federal court in 2005 rejected an attempt by the Dover, Pa., school board to introduce intelligent design as an alternative to evolution to explain the development of life on Earth, it sparked a renaissance in involvement among scientists in K - 12 science instruction.

Why do you think anyone listens to the people pushing intelligent design as an alternative to evolutionary theory?

===== @End Religion «I'm curious why you're so upset you can't prove evolution is either chance or intelligent design as you've asserted» @Chad «a designer can't be «proved», but it can be demonstrated to be a reasonable induction.

@chad: I'm curious why you're so upset you can't prove evolution is either chance or intelligent design as you've asserted.

The discussion of the organized political and social action plan to have intelligent design as a required subject in public schools is appropriate to this thread as christians want ID taught to all children in the USA in spite of the separation of church and state.

'' is it not also possible to study creationism or intelligent design as a part of the overall study on religion?»

DC — I agree with your position that religious studies is an acceptable academic study... but if you're going to be (pardon my phrasing) faithful to a complete study, is it not also possible to study creationism or intelligent design as a part of the overall study on religion?

Stein focuses on scientists and professors who have been fired, denied tenure, and passed over for grants for suggesting intelligent design as a plausible theory.

If there was any proof to even prop up intelligent design as a legitamite scientific theory, then it would be out there for the public to see.

intelligent design as one of possibly many undiscovered possibilities perhaps, but again — to leap to the God of Abraham based on any of your points is just that — an incredibly huge leap.

Scientists who do not dismiss intelligent design as a possibility or who blatantly advocate it through their research are silenced, fired, and ostracized from the academy.

Not exact matches

OfferUp's intelligent algorithms were designed to look for signals that might indicate a listing is fraudulent or a scam, such as asking for a phone number or a money gram as payment.

You're free to use the intelligent design idea as your personal explanation of how the world came to be.

As for his theories about intelligent design.

The only reason this is news is that the intelligent design people see it as a chance to create some frenzy among their pathetic whack - job adherents.

My proof of intelligent design is the same as your proof for the lack thereof.

As an Atheist I think intelligent design could very well be «possible».

Where those who push «intelligent design» go wrong is they distort or deny real physical evidence to promote the notion that the earth is only 5000 years old and the world we see is as it was initially created.

So it rightly criticises creationism and «intelligent design», yet it rarely challenges the mystifications of deep environmentalist thinking, such as Gaia theory, or the numerous varieties of Eastern mysticism that are so fashionable in Hollywood.

Your «PROVEN» holds about as much water as the screwy intelligent design arguments.

We too are of intelligent design and as such most likely have a creator.

@CaptainObvious «The vast majority of the scientific community as a whole subscribes to intelligent design» Dr. Greg Graffin's PHD Thesis, which found that the overwhelming majority of scientists are atheists.

As in intelligent design, intelligent designer?

the design and slim chances for the universe to yield life are so impossibly small that it must be counted as evidence for an intelligent designer.

The vast majority of the scientific community as a whole subscribes to intelligent design.

We do not need to prove a designer to prove intelligent design just as we don't need to disprove a designer to prove evolution.

Darrel Falk, former president of the BioLogos Foundation and a biology professor at Point Loma Nazarene University, reviewed the book and used it as an example of why he does not support the intelligent design movement.

I did not say, as I think the intelligent design school seems to affirm, that through scientific methodology, through natural sciences, it is possible to prove design in nature.

DNA as a part of intelligent design.

The film is bound to have the intelligent design community buzzing, as it criticizes what Stein sees as Darwinism's monopoly on academia.

Should intelligent design be presented as a plausible theory in secular classrooms?

After all, their argument for intelligent design does not identify the intelligent designer as the God of any particular religion.

If the marks of God's intelligent design are ubiquitous and if human beings know intuitively that God exists, why are they so unresponsive to the world as the theater of God's glory?

Eventually all of the circumstantial pieces of evidence (each of which could possibly have a natural cause) cross into the world of statistical impossibility when taken together... unless intelligent design is accepted as a solution.

I think life forming as the result of intelligent design is a perfectly rational scientific theory.

You, on the other hand, have already assumed that intelligent design, which is a term coined and invented by man (as is god), is how we and the universe evolved.

Thus far, intelligent design theory has eliminated (falsified) all extraterrestrial examples of radio waves monitored as being the product of intelligent design

If something is more complicated, it flows from our experience and logic that the design requires more than one designer (if logically so, this aspect od «intelligent design» must be ignored as it suggests more than one designer / «god» 4.

But in fact, intelligent design is mainly advocated in America by conservative Christians, who regard the account of creation in the opening chapters of Genesis as a scientific description of the origin of the world.

I want to learn as much as possible if I'm in school and that means I want to know the origin and basis for creationism as well as evolution and intelligent design for that matter.

As I have contemplated a response, I came to realize that your question about hell is really no different than the question of how things began: Which is right, creationism, evolution, or intelligent design?

RELIGION 06.01.14 The Crazy Way Creationists Try To Explain Human Tails Without Evolution Human tails are a genetic accident — and a big problem for the faux - scientific creationism known as «intelligent design.»

I only ask that this counsel apply just as much to contemporary advocates of Darwinian theory as it does to proponents of intelligent design.

Sauer also raises the specter of «bad design» as a defeater for intelligent design in nature.

As philosophy, intelligent design can safely occupy the same space as «flying spaghetti monsterism», but as science, it remains a complete failurAs philosophy, intelligent design can safely occupy the same space as «flying spaghetti monsterism», but as science, it remains a complete failuras «flying spaghetti monsterism», but as science, it remains a complete failuras science, it remains a complete failure.

Richard Dawkins has developed an international reputation of spreading the word that evolution happened and that there is no «intelligent design» or higher being, as you might gather from the title of his book «The God Delusion.»

As Johnson has clearly stated, biology informed by the recognition of intelligent design is «theism «friendly» in a way that doctrinaire naturalism is not.