Recently, I found an interesting article from last year's National Geographic issues (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0427_050427_intelligent_design.html). Usually, NatGeo takes a strong stance against ID and its backers. But this news article was much more fair and contained almost no bias. What?!? Whether it's just because the article was written for NG News and not for the magazine, we'll never know. But here are some examples of what I'm talking about:
But the answer is hardly satisfying to many Americans. A recent CBS News poll found that 55 percent of respondents did not believe in the theory of evolution at all—and even most scientists agree that the theory leaves some questions about biological origins unanswered.
"It matches what a lot of people see. It matches peoples' intuitions about biology," said Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
Behe is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a Seattle, Washington-based organization that rallies much of the intellectual muscle behind the intelligent-design movement.
Woah! A quote from Behe in an NG article - even the mention of his existence - indicates that this isn't your typical NG propaganda piece.
According to Scott, anybody who surveys the peer-reviewed scientific literature will uncover articles documenting disagreements over the pattern and process of evolution, "but they won't find arguments over whether living things have common ancestors," she said.
Eugenie, Eugenie. Don't you know that anyone who did make such an argument would face certain career death?
However, the article starts off with a rather unintelligent statement:
"Ever since the birth of science as we know it, a cardinal rule for theists [believers in the existence of a god or gods] and nontheists alike has been to limit scientific explanations to natural causes," said Ronald Numbers, a science historian at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Huh? But what if the evidence points to what most scientists don't consider a "natural" cause? Thoughts?
Hey,
Recently, I found an interesting article from last year's National Geographic issues (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0427_050427_intelligent_design.html). Usually, NatGeo takes a strong stance against ID and its backers. But this news article was much more fair and contained almost no bias. What?!? Whether it's just because the article was written for NG News and not for the magazine, we'll never know. But here are some examples of what I'm talking about:
But the answer is hardly satisfying to many Americans. A recent CBS News poll found that 55 percent of respondents did not believe in the theory of evolution at all—and even most scientists agree that the theory leaves some questions about biological origins unanswered.
"It matches what a lot of people see. It matches peoples' intuitions about biology," said Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
Behe is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a Seattle, Washington-based organization that rallies much of the intellectual muscle behind the intelligent-design movement.
Woah! A quote from Behe in an NG article - even the mention of his existence - indicates that this isn't your typical NG propaganda piece.
According to Scott, anybody who surveys the peer-reviewed scientific literature will uncover articles documenting disagreements over the pattern and process of evolution, "but they won't find arguments over whether living things have common ancestors," she said.
Eugenie, Eugenie. Don't you know that anyone who did make such an argument would face certain career death?
However, the article starts off with a rather unintelligent statement:
"Ever since the birth of science as we know it, a cardinal rule for theists [believers in the existence of a god or gods] and nontheists alike has been to limit scientific explanations to natural causes," said Ronald Numbers, a science historian at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Huh? But what if the evidence points to what most scientists don't consider a "natural" cause? Thoughts?
The Dex View
login or register to post comments | 1 point