Sentences with phrase «intelligent design which»

You are in fact arguing for intelligent design which has been outlawed as if it were some crime.

P. 199) he writes: «In the beginning the creative Word - this Word that created all things, that created this intelligent design which is the cosmos - is also love.»

Not exact matches

During his tenure, Coppedge developed a «sincere interest in the scientific evidence behind life's origin,» which led to his conviction about «intelligent design.»

Anyone who believes in «intelligent design» couldn't possibly be a good scientist... which is perfectly acceptable ground for termination.

But if you are looking for consilience, in which multiple lines of independent evidence converge on the same target, then Schwartz's argument is a good one to have in your arsenal, for it fits nicely with biological arguments for intelligent design (cf. Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box), recent philosophical work on mental causation (cf. Robert Koons» Realism Regained), cosmological fine - tuning (cf. John Barrow and Frank Tipler's The Anthropic Cosmological Principle), and consciousness studies (cf. Dean Radin's The Conscious Universe).

@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.

You're going to cringe when I tell you that it's about «intelligent design», which has gotten a lot of bad press.

British chemist Leslie Orgel once said, «Evolution is smarter than you are,» to which atheist Christopher Hitchens responded, «But this complement to the «intelligence» of natural selection is not by any means a concession to the stupid notion of «intelligent design.

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.

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.

To train one's children in the infantilism of creationism / I.D., (so called «intelligent design», which... if true... DOES N'T say much about the alleged «intelligence» of the alleged «Designer»!)

Accept for the sake of argument the logic of intelligent design, based upon the premise that things which are complicated must result from design.

Do the folks who write intelligent design school textbooks ever ask students to work out which of the creator gods / beings might be the most likely candidate?

To get a gauge of just how inane the belief in creationism / intelligent design is in the 21st Century, here are some areas they must ignore, any one of which proves beyond rational argument that, not surprisingly, the World did not start about 6,000 years ago at the behest of the Judeo - Christian god, with one man, one woman and a talking snake.

Assume for the sake of argument that the designer must be intelligent (ignoring of course many designs / results which from our own experience are flawed or counterproductive) 3.

The whole idea of a creator or intelligent design is that the creator exists OUTSIDE of that which was created.

Would you have creationism taught instead or intelligent design (which in public schools breaks separation of church and state) or none taught?

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?

derp, I'm wondering if you have read the book by Dr. Stephen Myers called «Signature in the Cell» which argues that specifically encoded DNA strands store information in a precise and logical manner which provides some evidence that an argument for intelligent design is present?

Proponents of «intelligent design theory» refuse to answer such questions, because it is rhetorically advantageous for them to take a purely negative position in which they criticize Darwinian theory without defending a positive theory of their own.

It is unfortunately true that, contrary to his intention, that newspaper article has been understood by many in the US to be directly supportive of the so - called «intelligent design» hypothesis, which invokes divine design through the detection of instances of supposedly irreducible complexity (i.e. un-evolvable organisms).

The central problem with «intelligent design» — and one which Fr Stephen Dingley pointed out when he reviewed Behe et al.'s book in the March / April 2001 edition of the Faith magazine — is that it posits, justas happily as would neo-Darwinians, that the evolutionary process is a «random» and unguided one, alongside which they then place «intelligent causes,» as if they were competitors.

I mean nothing can prove that religion is godly made: maybe needed, but if a God creates all this which even in science terms called intelligent design why only so called religios people have to fight evoulation or defend a God?!

'' «there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred»» Michael Behe.

And in which «camp» do you tend to fall — the young earth creationism camp, the intelligent design camp, the evolutionary creationism camp, or the where - are - the - smores - because - this - is - over-my-head camp?

One obvious flaw is just where you began which was in linking intelligent design with a 6000 year old earth.

Again, the «designs» are neither intelligent nor do they stand out as truly unique in the context of those which came before and those that have come since, rather they all fall along a continuum predicted by evolution.

We do not hold to an «intelligent design» theory in which God designs each entity separately and extrinsically.

Benedict favours intelligent design, which says God directs the process of evolution, over Charles Darwin's original theory which holds that species evolve through the random, unplanned processes of genetic mutation and the survival of the fittest.

He has removed Father George Coyne from his position as director of the Vatican Observatory afterthe American Jesuit priest repeatedly contradicted the Holy See's endorsement of «intelligent design'theory, which essentially backs the «Adam and Eve» theory of creation.

A study designed to make believers look less intelligent than hethens — a study which does not prove anything either way.

Provide any credible, reproducible, verifiable evidence for creationism or so - called intelligent design (which is nothing but warmed over creationism to feed to the ignorant).

The only reason I'm asking is, I watched the Ben Stein docu.mentary called «No Intelligence Allowed», which explored why intelligent design was not allowed to be taught at the collegiate level.

As for advocates of «intelligent design» — the media - savvy group that has brought its ideas to school boards and courtrooms — they aren't even worth a mention by AiG, which makes abundant references to Darwin himself at the museum in the course of doling out ammunition with which to attack him.

-- Pat Robertson, after the city of Dover, Pennsylvania voted to boot the current school board, which inst.i.tuted an intelligent design policy that led to a federal trial

However, what Naturepedic is known for is their innovative natural design and intelligent mattress construction, which allows for Naturepedic to pass all Federal and State flammability standards without the use of flame retardant chemicals or barriers.

The posters were a mock - up of Michelangelo's famous «Creation of Adam» fresco from the Sistine Chapel but with the character of God replaced with the satirical deity the «Flying Spaghetti Monster», which is typically used to parody intelligent design theory.

Do not take my word for it; read the opinion issued in the 2005 Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover School Board case, which held that «intelligent design is not science and «can not uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.»»

Instead, the institute advocates «teaching the controversy» — a legally safer approach, in which schools present Darwinism as controversial without endorsing intelligent design.

A new movie, Expelled, claims that intelligent design is good science that is being censored by adherents to evolution, which is nothing but Darwinian dogma.

Creationism ranges from biblical literalism to «intelligent design,» which disputes natural selection theory.

We'll also have information on intelligent design and why the science communities does not consider it to be a legitimate science and also information on the social Darwinist and evolution claims, which are also grossly overstated and erroneous.

In the recently concluded Scopes - like trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover School District, one of the defendants claimed not to know the source of the funds for 60 copies of an intelligent - design book, which he admitted to only having glanced through, for the school library.

Eight of the nine members of Pennsylvania's Dover Area School Board, which is being sued by parents for promoting intelligent design, were voted out of office by local residents last week.

The modern definition of artificial intelligence (or AI) is «the study and design of intelligent agents» where an intelligent agent is a system that perceives its environment and takes actions which maximizes its chances of success.

In most cases, this appeal is invoked to give false equivalence to a concept like intelligent design, which lacks evidence.

In the discussions of intelligent design, one hears a yearning for an old - fashioned creation story, in which some singular, inchoate entity stepped in to give rise to complex life - forms — humans in particular.

One such alternative is «intelligent design,» which posits that a powerful force, not natural selection, created the mechanisms of life.

What I would like to suggest, however, is that mature theology is also very far from intelligent design, which I consider to be a particularly unfortunate, maladroit, and problematic notion, at least as it is commonly presented and understood.

Nonetheless, events like the famous Scopes trial in Tennessee in 1925 did not put an end to the furor in evangelical religious circles, which continues unabated and debated today regarding «intelligent design» in school teaching.