Another Opinion On Intelligent Design



It is not about whether you believe in God or not. It is about the conflict between science and a literal Genesis. It is about intolerant right-wing political extremism combined with a distorted third grade science devoted to the ideal that religious freedom is when you can force your ideas on others and that science is nothing more than an evil religion.

Intelligent design comprehends neither the implications of nature’s laws or the hundreds of years of history required for their step-by-step discovery. It is a matter of deception and intellectual fraud that one can freely pick and choose the portions of science that they believe in without consequences. In real science, all the pieces have to correspond and fit together in a comprehensive explanation. We must not confuse belief and independently measurable, verifiable fact.

Real science does not plagiarize and take out of context the work of scientists separated by a century, done for differing purposes, and having unrelated conclusions, for the purpose of tearing down science, while providing no alternative explanation.

Real science does not devise pseudo-scientific terms and equations embodying Newton’s laws for the purpose of denying Einstein’s relativity, astronomy and the age of the universe.

Real science ignores hoaxes about fossilized human and dinosaur tracks, and about finding dinosaur flesh and stomach contents. It is more than biology.

Left to intelligent design, we would have no electricity, electronics, television, radio and radar. Probability and statistics would be devoid of all rules, utility, and only be emotional.

Intelligent design contradicts legitimate science. Its history is religious though its teaching is not biblical. Americans need religion. They should fund their churches for released time religious study, separate from government. That is the way it was done in the past.

George Templeton


Pete Greer 3 years, 9 months ago

While I personally think the Intelligent Design Theory has some flaws, it does account for the obvious intelligence in the design of living things. I even read "Darwin's Black Box" by Behe to see first hand what was drawing some scientists away from Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I did not see in that book, or any other ID literature, any of the multitude of shortcomings you have put forth here. I cannot help but question if you have truly examined this theory by actually studying the basic foundations of the theory. If you knew about the concept of irreducible complexity that is a key component to the theory, many of your claims would have to be abandoned. Your next to last paragraph indicates that you are unaware that this is a theory that belongs in the life sciences and would therefore have no influence on the development of electricity, electronics and so forth as you have claimed. Mr. Lister and myself have both called into question Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Nowhere in his letter or my letters or posts do we question science and nowhere do I see where anyone has called science evil. This false claim can be easily seen by anyone willing to read the previous posts and letters. Because Mr. Lister has a different opinion than you, you have categorized him, called him intolerant and called into question his science education (even though he is a professional biologist), as well as assigning him motives that are not evident in his writing. Would you call yourself tolerant or intolerant? Questioning theories is a part of science and science cannot be science without the questioning process. Genesis 1 explains the origin of matter, energy, time and intelligence as well as the origin of the kinds of living things. It should only be discarded if it can be refuted by observational science, not categorically just because it is in bibliical scripture. The validity of the concept of kinds is established by observations of living things. That should establish some credibility for this ancient account of the beginning.


don evans 3 years, 9 months ago

Mr. Templeton, sounds like your a man who needs proof by Scientific facts only. Can you prove the emotion of love? Is the emotion of love only proven by social actions towards another. If I recall acurately, scientist of their time opined the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth! Explorers, based on Faith only, proved them wrong.


Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.