Spring Break
Weighing in on Design (vs. Darwinism)
Roger Parks, Contributing Writer
Issue date: 4/20/07 Section: Opinion
"Unlike any other force in our world, science has the power to save or destroy humanity," says Ben Wells. Give me a major break, Ben. Science is a wonderful, exciting, powerful tool. Yes, it is now abundantly clear that technology has the power to destroy humanity. I see absolutely no evidence that it has the power to save us. While I recognize your concerns about injecting one's religious beliefs into science, this is precisely what scientific materialism has done and is doing! By deciding a priori, in the face of much evidence, that God is irrelevant, you have already made a religious, or if you prefer, metaphysical, determination. Enough already! Let's hear the other side of the story for a change. No, Intelligent Design may not yet be a mature theory. Darwinism has a 150-year head start! But at least it's a promising alternative (in the view of many). And although the Discovery Institute has a clear Christian agenda, no one has forbidden Jews, Muslims, Buddhists or Jains from weighing in on the issue.
Roger Parks is a Spanish lecturer at SMU. He can be reached at rlparks@smu.edu.
Roger Parks is a Spanish lecturer at SMU. He can be reached at rlparks@smu.edu.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 28
Scott Rewak
posted 4/20/07 @ 2:37 AM EST
Back to the same tired "let's hear both sides debate." Once more, nobody is objecting to a debate on whether or not there is a God. The objection is as to the SCIENTIFIC LEGITIMACY of ID, of the which there is NONE. (Continued…)
Ben Wells
posted 4/20/07 @ 3:54 AM EST
Professor Parks,
I would like to clarify a few points you made in your article. I did not write my op-ed piece out of a belief that "the trampled rights and freedoms of materialists, agnostics and atheists everywhere" was an issue in the Discovery Institute's lecturing on campus. (Continued…)
kmac
posted 4/20/07 @ 9:15 AM EST
"Scientific materialists have been force-feeding me their one-sided perspective on reality for way too long."
You mean reality? Is that the one sided perspective you are arguing so poorly against?
"Darwinism has a 150-year head start!"
Intelligent design proponants have existed for as long as religious creation myths have existed, and there has been plenty of time to analyze these stories, in great detail. (Continued…)
Boo
posted 4/20/07 @ 12:15 PM EST
Newsflash: Asserting something is not the same thing as providing evidence. If ID advocates actually have evidence, they're doing an extraordinary job of keeping it under wraps. (Continued…)
Russell Allsup
posted 4/21/07 @ 3:41 PM EST
Ha-ha. I love reading Park's writings. They have so much energy to them. Keep standing against nonsensical, obloquial tirades.
Boo
posted 4/22/07 @ 4:20 PM EST
"ID has no "religious underpinnings." It is dishonest to say that it does. ID has (for some) religious implications, that come after the evidence. This is what naturalists get wrong every time, and why many of them refuse to take a look at the evidence. (Continued…)
MPW
posted 4/22/07 @ 11:25 PM EST
Mr. Parks: "One of its nefarious goals is to 'drive a wedge' into 'scientific materialism'? ... It's about time. Bring it on. Scientific materialists have been force-feeding me their one-sided perspective on reality for way too long. (Continued…)
Boo
posted 4/25/07 @ 12:11 AM EST
"Fine, you're a Christian. So am I. I cannot accept Darwinism, not because I am a Christian, but because of the evidence that exists. Darwinism's days are numbered. (Continued…)
Boo
posted 4/25/07 @ 12:59 AM EST
"Dembski is merely aknowledging that mind comes before complex organisms can exist."
If he wants to claim there is scientific evidence of this, the burden is on him to provide it. (Continued…)
MPW
posted 4/26/07 @ 11:33 PM EST
Re: Mark Bersch, posted on 6/25/07 @ 6:30 a.m. (Man, the comment reply function on this board leaves a lot to be desired.)
Mark sez: "It appears you don't understand the term "materialism" which is a philosophy, not science. (Continued…)
Post a Comment