discovery.orgは安全ですか？

First of all, the question is "Is discovery.org SAFE", **NOT** "Do you agree with the positions stated on this site." A high percentage of negative reviews clearly express the latter, doubtless in an effort to drive traffic away from the site, which WOT now rates "suspicious" as a result. (Nonsense!) Such actions clearly represent serious abuses of WOT! The site is perfectly *safe* with regard to *malware/exploits*. And even the opinions and content are carefully thought out and defended. Some of the contrary ratings simply express ignorance and hostility — *accompanied by no detail whatever substantiating those ratings.* WOT employees — you are substantially to blame! You first ask if the site is safe, then you say "Let everyone know why you love this site." That's entirely different from "Is this site safe". You are ENCOURAGING abuse! Shame on you!!!! Hereafter I'll simply ignore any WOT ratings in my browser as meaningless.

The Discovery Institute offers real, fact-based evidence against evolution. Some may claim that this is not scientifically proven, but may I remind you that The Big Bang Theory is nothing more than a theory, which Darwin himself recognized as far-fetched. I find it absurd that people would rate this site untrustworthy and unsafe simply because they disagree with its belief. It's one thing to have a polite disagreement, it's completely another to claim that this site is unsuitable for viewing and call its content propaganda. You may disagree with the Discovery Institute's beliefs, but as far as safety, trustworthiness, and suitability, this site is excellent. I would also like to point out that people visiting this site who rate it with poor reviews are coming from a standpoint of evolution preliminarily, they are not open to being persuaded by fact-based points. If you are here for the purpose of considering intelligent design or creationism, I hope you find what you're looking for here but most importantly I believe you will find the truth.

Site presents reasoning about experiments and philosophy that lead away from popular philosophies of nihilism. It could influence people to think that human life is special on a scientific basis. But even if the interpretation of the experiments is wrong, you will learn more about evolution–it will increase you and your child's critical thinking.

If any of you naysayers will give an honest unbiased reading of the books, you will find many valid objections to evolution. Nobody has yet explained where the information in the DNA came from. One of the biggest things we know is random chance did not make it.

Stephen Meyer has a Phd from Oxford University in the Philosophy of Science. He is author of two books that question the validity of the Darwinian theory of Evolution. he is not saying evolution has not occurred but that certain aspects of that evolution are highly unlikely to have occurred by blind chance. He provides a detailed and closely argued account to back his position. Of course he is going against a very powerful orthodoxy. It is for this reason his site is criticised. In fact to do so is to stultify scientific research - especially into the cell - that is absolutely essential for the questions he raises to be answered. He (like Behe) is a brave man. His site should be studied by all who are open minded.

It is another religious site attempting to spread lies and attempt to pass them off as science- perhaps even by using a similar name to more respected science sites. We are living in a high-tech era and our students are falling badly behind. Religion needs to go.

This site tries to pass Abrahamic mythology off as science under the name "intelligent design." It is not science, it is pseudoscience or junk science. 99% of biologists accept evolution as the best explanation for the variety of life; they don't agree on all the details, but they accept the overarching theory and its mechanisms. They do not accept that all the variety of life was intelligently designed (i.e., created by God). Not only is the site's content highly questionable, but their method of pretending to present science, when it's really religion, is unethical.