Intelligent Design offers biblical alternative to Darwinian evolution, Dembski says
Seems that the Judge agreed with Dembsk after all: Intelligent Design offers a biblical alternative to Darwinism
Intelligent Design offers biblical alternative to Darwinian evolution, Dembski says at SBTS forum 2005 By David Roach, May 07:
The Intelligent Design movement has generated controversy because it deals with issues at the core of the current debate between secularists and those who hold a Christian worldview, said scientist and author William Dembski at a forum held at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary March 23.
The forum, entitled “Darwinism and the Church: a Conversation on Intelligent Design and Cultural Engagement,” was moderated by Russell D. Moore, Southern’s senior vice president for academic administration, dean of the school of theology and director of the event’s sponsor, the Carl F.H. Henry Institute for Evangelical Engagement.
Intelligent Design’s first goal is to demonstrate the inadequacy of Darwinian evolution as an explanation of the origin of the universe, Dembski said. One of the chief methods of accomplishing this is to demonstrate the weakness of the scientific evidence that is presented in support of Darwinian evolution in many school classrooms, he said.
“Evolutionary theory is in such a weak position that it shouldn’t be taught at all � in this grand global sense,” Dembski said. “If you want to say natural selection operates in accounting for antibiotic resistance in bacteria you can make a case there. But if you are going to try to say that’s how you get bacteria, insects, all this in the first place, that’s a huge extrapolation. The theory doesn’t support that.”
For those who argue that (disingenuous) ‘teach the controversy” has nothing to do with Intelligent Design, think again
Intelligent Design’s first goal is to demonstrate the inadequacy of Darwinian evolution as an explanation of the origin of the universe, Dembski said. One of the chief methods of accomplishing this is to demonstrate the weakness of the scientific evidence that is presented in support of Darwinian evolution in many school classrooms, he said.
Remember Judge Jones’ ruling?
Judge Jones wrote:
Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.
And then this ‘funny’ assertion, disproven by the facts and ruled upon by the Judge
After offering a critique of Darwinian evolution, Intelligent Design proposes alternative theories about the origin of the universe, according to Dembski. These alternative theories argue that a designer must have fashioned the complex biological and physical mechanisms humans observe in the world, he said.
But ID does not propose any alternative theories. Smoke and mirrors my dear Dembski…