An Intelligent Design perspective from 24 years ago (Isaac Asimov)

[IDemo]

ID was known as "scientific creationism" then, yet scientific it was not, and is not.

This was a hot topic a quarter-Century ago, and it remains so today. One of the 20th Century's great thinkers, and a promoter of science, Isaac Asimov, wrote of creationism in 1981:


"Scientists thought it was settled. The universe, they had decided, is about 20 billion years old, and Earth itself is 4.5 billion years old. Simple forms of life came into being more than three billion years ago, having formed spontaneously from nonliving matter. They grew more complex through slow evolutionary processes and the first hominid ancestors of humanity appeared more than four million years ago. Homo sapians itself—the present human species, people like you and me—has walked the earth for at least 50,000 years.

But apparently it isn't settled. There are Americans who believe that the earth is only about 6,000 years old; that human beings and all other species were brought into existence by a divine Creator as eternally separate variations of beings; and that there has been no evolutionary process.

They are creationists—they call themselves "scientific" creationists—and they are a growing power in the land, demanding that schools be forced to teach their views. State legislatures, mindful of the votes, are beginning to succumb to the pressure. In perhaps 15 states, bills have been introduced, putting forth the creationist point of view, and in others, strong movements are gaining momentum. In Arkansas, a law requiring that the teaching of creationism receive equal time was passed this spring and is scheduled to go into effect in September 1982, though the American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit on behalf of a group of clergymen, teachers, and parents to overturn it. And a California father named Kelly Segraves, the director of the Creation-Science Research Center, sued to have public-school science classes taught that there are other theories of creation besides evolution, and that one of them was the Biblical version. The suit came to trial in March, and the judge ruled that educators must distribute a policy statement to schools and textbook publishers explaining that the theory of evolution should not be seen as "the ultimate cause of origins." Even in New York, the Board of Education has delayed since January in making a final decision, expected this month , on whether schools will be required to include the teaching of creationism in their curriculums.

more --> http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/azimov_creationism.html

[madeline_con]

1. I have a question....

Is it me, or have these crazies begun to proliferate lately, since DUH-bya took over, or were they there all along in such huge numbers, and I just didn't notice?

Have they been emboldened, or were there always that many idiots in the U.S. awaiting their time in the spotlight? :shrug:

[JJackFlash]

4. They were there all along in huge numbers

and you didn't notice.

Have you seen the statistics on evolution?
Only about 15% of Americans believes in evolution.
Only about 36% of LIBERALS really believe in evolution.

The creationists have lately been putting perfume on their pig by calling their creationism "Intelligent Design" and proudly trotting it out and claiming "open-mindedness".

[madeline_con]

5. I have no qualm about teaching it in school....

but keep it in Social Studies in the "Comparative Religions" chapter, please.

I swear, it seems like there are more of them now than in the last few years. :shrug:

[opihimoimoi]

2. The Ignorance Level is Stratospheric....

[salvorhardin]

7. Oh, and the idiots cross-endorse each other

Richard Hoagland of the Enterprise Mission (this is the dude responsible for the whole face on Mars crapfest) says:

The Kansas School Board has taken a brave position, he said, in their declaration that the Darwinian system isn't the only view. Hoagland finds this hopeful since it may open up schools to presenting alternative evolutionary theories, such as the idea he espouses-- directed panspermia, which posits that life was spread throughout the galaxy by an intelligent species.
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2005/11/08.html#recap

And yes, that is a link to Art Bell's show. I think the rotational velocity of Charles Darwin and Francis Crick spinning in their graves is approaching the speed of light. We shall all be swallowed up by a massive black hole of stupidity.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Isaac Asimov was the Excecutive President of the American Humanist

Association for several years. I was lucky enough to hear him speak. He was intelligent and wise.

[IDemo]

6. I stumbled into a creation vs evolution debate today with a co-worker

Thus the post.

What was particulary frustrating was having non-sensical rhetoric against Darwin and evolution in general put forth as if it carried the same weight as a well reasoned, tested, empirically proven scientific theory.

Oops, there's that word, theory. In the minds of many, it means 'wild guess', and the phrase "it's only a theory" equates to - "what else did yer Oiuja Board tell ya 'bout it?"

Needless to say, I was entertained with the usual pro-ID "arguments": Carbon-14 dating is wildly wrong, the Grand Canyon is very young, etc. The best, however, was the idea that "woodpeckers could not possibly have evolved, because all of their ancestors would have literally bashed their little bird-brains out", banging away like that without the skull protection these birds enjoy today.

I began to explain that perhaps the wood-pecking behavior didn't commence simultaneously, much less with the ferocity and efficiency of today's Western Flicker or other species, but it was already painfully evident that his ancestors had been rhythmically head-bashing trees and other solid surfaces for far too long.

[PDJane]

8. Truthfully,

I think the apes in the family tree were only a couple of generations removed for some of these folks........

[opihimoimoi]

9. ROTFLMAO......Bwahahahaha

I support your thought...