It's the nature of bureaucracy, I think, to issue statements like this. |
Many systems in the cell show signs of purposeful intelligent design. What science has discovered in the cell in the past 50 years is poorly explained by a gradual theory such as Darwin's. |
scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system. |
seeing into the future. |
That was a real drag. I think he really went way over what he as a judge is entitled to say. |
The Big Bang theory was controversial because many scientists thought it had philosophical and even religious overtones they didn't like. |
The fact that most biology texts act more as cheerleaders for Darwin's theory rather than trying to develop the critical faculties of their students shows the need, I think, for such statements. |
the hand of God. |
The National Academy of Sciences treats intelligent design in a way what I consider utterly misleading. Talk about scholarly malfeasance! |
The National Academy of Sciences treats intelligent design in a way what I consider utterly misleading. Talk about scholarly malfeasance! |
This continues the venerable Darwinian tradition of making grandiose claims based on piddling results. There is nothing in the paper that an ID proponent would think was beyond random mutation and natural selection. In other words, it is a straw man. |
When you start putting constraints on science, science suffers. |