Home About Resources Search Uncommon Descent Contributors at a Glance William Dembski Denyse O'Leary Barry Arrington Lee Bowman Salvador Cordova Crandaddy DaveScot Gil Dodgen Red Scott
Uncommon Descent holds that...Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution -- an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project. read more... 8:36 AM
Meanwhile the folks at Uncommon Descent and the "discovery" Institute have very close links with all the right wing think tanks that champion capitalism. Capitalism being an "advanced" form of social Darwinism or the war of all against all and everything.
ReplyDeletePlus the ID/UD crowd arent really interested in free "discovery". There agenda is to bring back, by force if necessary, via their claims to possess "total truth", the big-daddy patriarchal "god" of entirely this worldly exoteric religiosity.
Another disturbing aspect of their "total truth" claim is that ALL other ways of understanding and being in the world are false and hence their adherents need to be re-"educated".
This fits in with the "only one truth" claims made by a certain right wing christian journal with the initials FT which, surprise surprise, is very much part of the ID "discovery" insitute network.
"At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative..."
ReplyDeleteThe problem is, of course, that their alternative is not scientific at all. They see "design" in nature, but cannot distinguish "apparent design" from "intelligent design". They see complexity in nature and argue that "evolution cannot explain this". But that is simply a false anti-evolution assertion.