Response to "Nature's Design" article - National Geographic April 2008?

[shadsluiter]

National Geographic wrote an article in their usual, professional, award winning way in April 2008 regarding inventions and scientific research based on the design of creatures and plants. However, the conclusions were that eveolution processes lead to such stunning designs that engineers have learned a great deal from studying both the physics and chemistry of these incredible machines. There was not a quote or reference to anyone who subscribes to the theory of Intelligent Design (ID).

Do you believe National Geographic was baised in excluding the viewpoint that "a great design must have a great designer"?

Shad Sluiter
http://www.gospelhall.org

[nomad]

ID has yet to go throught the scientific method, it is not a theory, its at most a hypothesis.

1. Novel Scientific Claim- ill be nice and say check
2. Research- no
3. peer reivew- no
4. scientific consensus-no

ID proponents want to skip 3 steps

[mental1018]

No, because they were basing the article on Science, not religious nut job theories.

[Don]

They have an agenda. It is their agenda. We all have our own bias.

[tony.mammano]

No more so than the rest of the world. NatGeo has a responsibility (they believe) to report without bias. However, I would consider not including at least a sidebar on Intelligent Design bias, wouldn't you? Perhaps someone should say something? Be well.

[MVD34]

ID is not a theory. Nor is it science.

It was ignored because it is silly nonsense.

[BarrelBottom]

No because no great designer is indicated. Scientists learn from natural occurring phenomena because they are efficient. The method that they became so efficient has nothing to do with and intelligent designer working behind the scenes.

[The Un-Cola]

Because there is no field of intelligent design in science. It is theology and doesn't explain anything about the workings of nature.

[nerdlinger]

Not unless there's any proof of a designer.

[PetRescuer]

Interesting question. As a scientist, I think National Geographic did the right thing in leaving religion out of discussion. Should they want to include religion, they should include ID and several other popular religious theories (Remember, Christianity is only the largest religion in this country; not the world).

Since the magazine is science based, they did the right thing by supporting what they said with scientific theories and evidence. You wouldn't expect a pamphlet that the local church put out to include in its discussion theories like the Big Bang theory etc unless the topic was theories of "creation."