Jason Rennie makes his second appearance on Podiobooks.com with Darwin or Design:
Darwin or Design is a collection of interviews with 25 people on both sides of the intelligent design question. There are interviews on what evolutionary theory currently thinks, what is intelligent design, the philosophy of science, ID and The Law and many others. If you want to learn about about Intelligent Design and get an overview of what is going on and have 9 1/2 hours to spend on the question, then this is the book for you!
Darwin or Design promo [0:55m]:
Play Now |
Play in Popup |
Download
This entry was posted by NJ
on Tuesday, August 14th, 2007 at 6:04 pm and is filed under New Books.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 14th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Ever heard of Dr Gerald Shroeder? He had an interesting take on this topic. Try Googling him and the book “Genesis and the Big Bang.”
Zev Siegel
August 15th, 2007 at 2:04 am
Sides… Have you also talked to people who believe both views can be equally true? Why can’t god have created evolution…
August 20th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
The problem with this debate is that neither Evolution or intelligent design can be proven or disproven. The statement that Evolution has stood the test of time is invalid, because its defined in nebulous terms to the point where current evolutionary theory no longer represents Darwin evolution. Darwin expected that future research would clearly show a gradual change in the fossil record over long periods of time. Instead, the fossil record shows complex life developing suddenly over and over again. In fact, evolutionsists revised the ideads of evolution with names like punctuated equilibrium, thereby changing their theories of evolution but pretending that nothing has changed.
Scientists still can not show how positive mutations can develop in one species to create a new species. Evolutionists unscientifically just assume that it happens. (I must happen, since we have no other scientific explanation is the evolutionsists creed).
Intelligent design is just a way of saying Creation without naming any specific religion and pretending to be scientific. I.D. Fans site arguments that since complex machines like the space shuttle can not self assemble, just like complex life can not spontaenous generate. Another argument is even if you had a million monkeys typing randomly that eventually they might create something readable, but it would not matter because the monkeys can’t read and therefore it would not mean anything. Likewise, even if chemicals combined to form the basic building blocks of life, without an intelligent designer to guide it into something viable all you have is garbage. But all these arguments are aimed at discrediting evolution and don’t prove Intelligent design.
Both sides of the fence on the issue try to shoot holes in each other, since they can’t prove their own theory scientifically. In fact both sides look at the same evidence and try to manipulate it to support their own views.
But the God used evolution theory does not work, because Evolution is a purely naturalistic theory with no room for any supernatural explanations. Where Intelligent Design theory does not need evolution. This is just an attempt to compromise on the issue without having to put any real thought into the arguments.
Personally, I think they both should be taught in school because they are the two most popular beliefs for our existence and neither one is any more valid then the other. I. D. allows for a creator without mentioning any specific religion.
November 4th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
My contribution to the conversation is to divide the debate on origins into two equal conjectures: Spontaneous Synthesis (SS) and Instigated Synthesis (IS). Spontaneous Synthesis implies the coming together of things with no need for outside assistance. It would be most identifyable as natural Darwinism. Instigated Synthesis would then be the opposite: that some agency was necessary to cause the coming together of things. Based on my humble observations, I find Instigated Synthesis more appealing simply because it matches our observation of the universe: we might see a Ford and a Chevy lined up in a parking lot, but we would not naturally believe that the Ford plant spontaneously started genertating Chevys (or the contrary) despite the fact that millions of operations take place inside the factory and despite an abundant supply of energy. it would be more intiutive to believe that the factory was altered by someone with intelligence (unless you’re a Ford fan) which caused the assembly line to start producing something new, despite the common taxonomy of both lines of trucks. Somehow, this argument is lost on most evolutionary biologists and they think that organic mechanisms don’t need to abide by the same rules as inorganic mechanisms (and therefore, this belies their own biases. There is a prevailing ‘life force’ argument that somehow life MUST evolve, but I have yet to hear the WHY let alone the HOW.) I applaud your book at the outset and i plan on listening to the remaining chapters this week on my way to and fro from work. Hopefully, they’ll be as captivating as the first chapter!
Cheers,
Fred van West
A humble Engineer
June 13th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Oh boy! Here we go again. It’s always fun to watch, read and listen to.
Ever since our ancestors first “created” gods to explain the things around them they could not understand …
When one or two scientists out of hundereds of thousands turn religious it’s hailed as validation of ID….
When religious leaders of the West lost the authority to persecute “heretics,” they’ve been back peddling ever since with each scientific discovery …
Entire organizations created to preserve the perpetuation of gods created by ingnorant stone age peasants …
Lack of evidence cited as proof that god “must” exist …
In all respects, who really cares? Faith trancends reason. A God could appear today and say he really had nothing to do with our evolution and it would still be interpreted to suit those whose opinions differ.
Ad nauseum …