It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of [Of Pandas and People], three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of Intelligent Design; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase Intelligent Design; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes…”
“-To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
-To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"
"Alongside a focus on the influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture.
"Five Year Objective: Spiritual & cultural renewal: Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism; Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s); Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions; Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God"
Originally posted by Buck Division
Very well written essay. But I am going to disagree with you.
I happen to think that not enough time has passed in order to evolve a single strand of working DNA, let alone a complex entity such as a human. It is not statistically possible to justify our existence purely as a product of random chance.
I also wonder if the Science of Evolution is not actually a type of religion, and this is just a philosophical discussion between two competing religious viewpoints?
Also, I think your suggestion that Fundamentalist religion wants to stop ALL SCIENCE is an overreach. Although you can find some fanatics (religious or otherwise) who oppose technology, you will find very few people who will reject something that is working -- such as a telephone or a vaccine.
Please take a look at this link below:
The concept of panspermia / exogenesis, as an alternative to evolution, was proposed by no less a scientist than the Nobel prize winner Professor Francis Crick, who discovered DNA.
Tools need to "teach the controversy", as you say -- and the fact that most scientists don't want that simply means they are too heavily vested in Evolution to have it any other way.