Sentences with phrase «with intelligent design»

«Climate sceptics flirt with intelligent design and Islamophobic group,» The Guardian, June 10, 2011.

As with the intelligent design controversy, agenda - driven opposition has often managed to cloak its contrarianism with the mantle of scepticism.

Encounters don't feel like they were crafted with intelligent design choices because they weren't.

Synonymous with all there is to love about Switzerland, the brand remains true to its roots, successfully combining genuine Swiss hospitality with intelligent design and local flair.

DTEK50, BlackBerry's thinnest device ever, represents the best of BlackBerry with Android to make users more productive and responsive, pairing security with intelligent design.

The gorgeous hues coupled with the intelligent design make them definite must - haves for women with a passion for sports and workouts.

You can't help but wonder, What's the matter with those intelligent design people?

The universe we know aligns with intelligent design «out of nothing came something» ie the Big Bang; to refute intelligent design we must bring to life an infinite number of universe and infinite number of possibilities.

One good thing about this article is that it does nt conflate creationism with intelligent design.

You CAN NOT eliminate any of them even with intelligent design.

Fundamentalist Chrsitians made a big mistake with this intelligent design nonsense — it's the wrong argument.

The main problem i see with intelligent design is that It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

My problem with intelligent design is that they don't accept offshoots.

Not exact matches

Miniso's pitch to customers of «aesthetics and intelligent design» that will «enrich» their lives taps into that, with the added promise of rock - bottom prices, making it something of a stylish Dollarama — the storefront window has a large sign proclaiming «$ 2.99, High Quality Life» and items in the store retail for anywhere from $ 1.50 to $ 25.

Equipped with an array of state - of - the - art ICT facilities and a cutting - edge broadband network, the Cyberport community is home to four grade - A intelligent office buildings, a five - star design hotel, and a retail entertainment complex.

With all the imperfections in the world intelligent design may make «perfect sense».

When Romulan warbirds fire disruptors and humans can only defend themselves with wooden shield with holy cross markings, you can tell me Romulan conquest of Earth is by intelligent design.

The truth project was blatantly intelligent design and loaded with quote mines, arguments from ignorance, god of the gaps, strawmen, etc...

So, I have no problem with the term «intelligent design»..

The problem with the «intelligent design» people is that they can't seem to merge the ideas that science and religion don't have to be at odds.

However, the common intelligent design promoter actually believes that it was a supernatural force or godlike being outside of natural processes that did the «designing» and that view is not compatible with science.

The intelligent design idea has nothing to do with intelligence; it is a belief based on faith.

Leonard Susskind in his interview with New Scientist concerning his book, The Cosmic Landscape: String theory and the illusion of intelligent design.

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).

There was a time when I was, independently, reading Behe and all about intelligent design and was thoroughly involved in debating «evolutionists» and arguing with people accusing them of thinking only within the «trance» of science.

You can slow it down, with ignorance and «intelligent design» courses, but you will not win.

Christians have voted to put their God's name on everyones money, add «Under God» to the flag salute, force schools to teach intelligent design with absolutely no scientific basis along side the sciences, voted to write their moral laws on the fronts of public courthouses and tax funded buildings, voted to ban certain people from living together, being intimate or raising children because their orientation didn't fit with their bible beliefs.

And by the way, for the intelligent design crowd, how, exactly, do you DARE to disbelieve tbe evidence that was «obviously» «crafted» with such care to make the universe look like it's 13 billion years old?

Whether or not God tinkered with creation in the manner envisioned by creationism or some versions of intelligent design, such tinkering is neither necessary to the doctrine of creation nor is it the source of the beauty seen by the believer.

He is also firmly convinced that intelligent design should not be confused with natural science.

He has some theories against intelligent design that I don't agree with.

On the one hand, Thomas offers an approach to intelligent design that leaves an opening for intellectuals like the columnist Charles Krauthammer, who admits he believes in some kind of intelligent design, but finds himself unable to identify the intelligent designer with any of the gods currently on offer.

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.

With all the evidence, religious people ought to be intelligent design (I mean god - guided evolution by this) supporters at worst, though I would hope that after some serious thoughts on the moral paradoxes induced by belief in the «divine» people would come to their senses.

Now consider the following quotation from the Idea Center website (an ID site), contrasting intelligent design with the randomness of Darwinian natural selection.

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?

Russ, I also don't have any issue with an evangelical that comports evolution with their beliefs, its the many that want to deny evolution and insert intelligent design into science classes.

Anyway no reference to a creator or intelligent design was made as scientists are not allowed to be associated with anyone who believes in an agent of causation that exhibits properties that can not be fully explained by known natural laws.

This position can not place the Cardinal in league with the proponents of «intelligent design» such as Michael Behe, much as the latter and his supporters might wish it.

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'll bet he prays that the US will become a theocracy, execute or oust all unbelievers, murder every gay person, force all women to give up contraceptives and become chattel, and insti t ute the teaching of creationism and intelligent design along with forced prayer in the public schools.

[3] The leading proponents of intelligent design are a.ssociated with the Discovery Inst.itute [n 1][4] and believe the designer to be the Christian deity.

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

And in the same breath, you claim that there were no intelligent design, no fundamental laws, order, logic or purpose in the life with «purpose» that you all live.

Haught frequently criticizes the intelligent - design movement championed by Michael Behe and Philip Johnson, but does not engage with the movement through extended argument.

And when such a one does, we have found with certainty that it requires the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to frustrate successfully his designs.

The problem with what you're saying, is that 95 % of the data fits BOTH a macro-evolutionary or an intelligent design view.

Sanity, how many of these nobel prize winners would side with Michele Bachmann on intelligent design?

The mountain loads of evidence you cite for evolution are not at odds with the idea of intelligent design.

However, I don't have a problem with a professor, discussing the origins of the universe, explaining that many religious beliefs have a belief in intelligent design, but that it is not within the scope of a science class.