Dr.GH
Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002
|
| Quote | Even Buell doesn’t recommend the book.
“If they would have contacted me, I would not have encouraged the people in Dover to use it because of other tools that are more up-to-date,” he said. “The idea of intelligent design and the evidence that supports it has gotten extraordinarily more strong than when it was originally printed.”
As for the criticisms that the book misrepresents the theory of evolution, Buell disagreed. He said the main point is valid — that the theory of evolution’s basic principal of life evolving through natural selection and genetic mutation isn’t possible.
“The authors and we feel those are the most powerful arguments,” he said.
John West of the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which is now at the forefront of the intelligent-design movement, said his organization didn’t have anything to do with “Pandas” and had little to say about it.from Furor breathes new life into aging ‘Pandas’ |
I think we can see the DI response in general here to the probable pending loss in Dover: ~~The Dover result only related to using "Of Pandas and People" and can not be generalized beyond that to the teaching of ID. "Of Pandas and People" was a very dated book, even the publisher acknowledged is no longer representitive of the vibrant research sucksesses of Intellignent Design.~~ Or words to that effect.
Edited by Dr.GH on Mar. 20 2005,14:42
--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."
L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"
|
