ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Evolution debate revived

Posted: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 7:24 PM by Alan Boyle

In the beginning, there was the report about the Creation Museum going up in Kentucky, where diorama dinosaurs will walk the earth alongside Adam and Eve. Then came Tuesday's primary election in Kansas, where Darwin's defenders gained the upper hand over intelligent-design backers on the state's Board of Education.

Those stories revived the discussion over the interplay of science and religion in modern society. It's not really a scientific debate in the classical sense, but rather a cultural dialogue that we repeatedly revisit. Read on for a selection of the latest e-mail I've received on both sides of the debate, and feel free to add your own comments:

Let's start with some observations from Kansans about the rhetorical back-and-forth over educational standards in that state:

Caren Rugg, community services coordinator, East Central Kansas Area Agency on Aging, Ottawa, Kan.:  "What do I think of the battle?  I think it’s one more unbalanced representation that this state is no longer a progressive beacon of hope to its citizens, but rather a backward-looking and backward-leaning environment.  It’s not enough that we go more that one state away, and whomever we speak with has to make a 'Wizard of Oz' statement, as though we haven’t heard that before.  Now the entire nation thinks we are a wheat straw-chewing, horse and wagon-driving, thinking-limited, turn-of-the-century, technologically challenged state. 

"The votes we are casting today in our primary for our state Board of Education will hopefully ensure that we are no longer the educational joke of the rest of the country. Businesses are safe here, families are welcomed, and we do have out-of-the-box thinkers who resent the maligned representation we have been given."

Chris: "I'm proud to be a citizen of the only state that stands together in their belief that man was created by God. Being ridiculed for your beliefs is part of being a Christian. The majority of Kansans see much of the country as 'backward and ignorant' because they haven't an ounce of faith. Much of the country has been so concerned with being 'politically correct' that they have lost touch with the basic values and social standards that this country was founded on. I do believe in separation of church and state, but keeping God out of the history of Man is forcing Atheism into classrooms."

Angela: "I'm a microbiologist who was born, raised, and works in Kansas.  I've been watching the 'Science Standards' circus off and on for several years, and I have to tell you, I'm enraged.

"Firstly, the Kansas Board of Education needs to recognize that religions other than Christian exist in the world.  We don't need to be violating kids' civil rights by shoving the mainstream Christian view down their throats.

"Secondly, a 'theory' is what scientists call something which is overwhelmingly supported by scientific evidence. A 'hypothesis' is what we call something which is still in the early investigative stages. The idea that the moon's gravity influences the ocean's tides is a theory, even though it's pretty well proven and not especially controversial.  Evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis.

"Thirdly, there is fossil evidence of species which are in the transition state between the parent species and the new species which will be.

"Fourthly, evolution has been demonstrated to occur very rapidly, in spurts.  This means that the transitional forms of the species won't exist for millions of years like the parent species, which in turn makes the transitional forms less likely to be fossilized.

"Fifthly, the earth is not a closed system.  The sun is constantly providing energy, which means that entropy is not the inevitable, irresistible force some creationists claim it to be.

"Sixthly, those people who claim that 'even if early conditions on Earth did lead to the formation of amino acids and nucleic acids, those molecules would be just as likely to break apart as to form chains' need to take Biochemistry 101.  Chains of amino acids and nucleic acids are actually much more chemically stable than their individual components. Additionally, ribonucleic acids in a specific order in a chain are able to grab free ribonucleic acids and add them on to the end of the chain.

"Finally, an experiment performed more than 60 years ago demonstrated that, by adding the inorganic (mineral) compounds present on the early Earth into a flask, and bombarding the flask with electrical charges to simulate lightning, amino acids and nucleic acids were formed.  Further experiments showed that the amino and nucleic acids eventually attached to clays of a type which would have been and still are present on Earth, formed into chains, and were able to extend and maintain themselves.  This is particularly interesting when you consider God's statement, 'I formed you from the clay of the Earth,' which is found in Genesis.

"I believe in an omnipotent God, and if he/she/it wanted to use evolution to create life, he/she/it sure could have. If creationists believe God isn't omnipotent, or planted millions of fossils for giggles, they're welcome to go tell him that. As for me, I feel privileged to be a member of the only species capable of scientific inquiry."

Ann Snell, Kansas City: "Both should be presented and let the student make up his own mind. That's how I learned it in the 1960's.  We should not only have freedom of speech, but freedom of thought, as well. That's the American way.  One party cannot force-feed  their version to the other party.

Mike: "It's easy to ridicule anytime some party or other takes an extremist viewpoint - right, left, middle, whatever. The bottom line is that intelligent design mirrors religious views. That isn't science and therefore should not taught alongside the theory of evolution in science classes. That's what Sunday School is for, yes? And as a 'theory,' evolution does not require 'believers' to rely strictly on faith, as does creationism. At least there's a fossil record, and a rather formidable one when it comes to the development of Homo sapiens."

"Personally, I'm embarassed to be from Kansas. It was hard enough getting over the ridicule of Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz. Is this all we're known for? Oh, the shame!

"(Well, except for KU basketball in a good year!!!)"

You don't have to be from Kansas to weigh in:

Billy A. Silva, senior archaeologist, B.A. Silva Sensing Systems, Lodi, Calif.: "As a Christian and archaeologist I was forced to deal with this issue early in my career. The evidence and the logic of Darwinian Theory is overwhelming.  That is not to say we have it all figured out or that all the dots connect.  I mean let's face it we are dealing with an incredible amount of time depth and an incomplete fossil record.  Not to mention the minute changes that occur within a species over time that lead to newer species.

"Consequently, as a Christian, the evidence and logic of a Creator makes perfect sense as well.  That we have various versions on who the Creator is is also not surprising; considering the stories are told by different people in different cultures. What was my solution to this seeming disparite lines of evidence?  Theism: If God seeded life as a single cell billions of years ago, knowing that they would differentiate into multiple species; then I'm OK with that.  What a wonderful, marvelous and powerful creator. If, on the other hand, God introduced man at some point in time by creating him out of mud and then cloning woman from man's rib, that's just as miraculous. 
 
"This is not a cop-out (i.e., playing both ends against the middle).  The fact is, the creation story is not the 'theme' of the Bible.  It is a beginning.  It introduces the characters and part of the 'theme' to a people that for the most part were goat herders.

"The 'theme' fully developed throughout the Old and New Testaments is the connection between man and God, what broke the connection, man's attempt to correct the connection, God's solution to the connection problem (Christ) and God and man reunited in space and time.
 
"What I have felt interesting about this battle between creationism and evolution is that it has absolutely nothing to do with personal salvation.  The real story. Albeit an interesting incidental discussion that involves some fun intellectualism, but which results in no definitive solution.  My message to those spending their time on this is to get involved with the real problems facing the world (e.g., poverty, hunger, etc.).  This is where Christ has called us."

Ray LaFehr, author, "Breaking the Female Code": "The Bible itself is a testimony, of God and His revelation of Himself to man.  Man couldn’t imagine or create such an account of God and His creation of humankind (both man and woman) and all other species; existence of evil; redemption of man; the incarnation, etc. The Bible claims to be inspired by God Himself, and Jesus puts His stamp of approval on it (the Old Testament).

"The best man can come up with, who refuses special creation, is that 'humans evolved' from nothing - into a species so complex that they themselves can not even decipher their own being or what really is the fact or fable.  So his best answer is to introduce evolution and tack on a few billions years for whatever they can not explain.  The truth is, if you are not going to believe in God’s revelation of Himself to man – you have to believe in some alternative.

“Evolution is really man’s attempt to make a monkey out of himself.”

David and Sue: "The only question my wife and I have is, if the scientific community considers them both 'theories' then how is one better than the other.  Why not teach both?  We personally believe that it would have been very hard to just pop into existence and then evolve from monkeys.  The monkeys are still here, aren’t they?  Why are we allowing this to happen in our schools? They should be cutting-edge, investigating for the truths behind everything.  Again, why is everyone so scared of teaching another theory?"

John Myers, Kirkland, Wash.: "Creationism, including Intelligent Design, is not science and has absolutely no place in a science classroom.  Period. Case closed.
 
"If people want alternate ideas to evolution presented, then let them discuss these in a non-scientific setting - such as church, philosophy, or religion studies class.  But presenting these ideas as alternate scientific theories is a sham, and is a grave injustice to our school system and to our children.
 
"Evolution is considered by the vast majority of scientists today to be one of the most concrete and solid theories of modern science.  It is not an idea that was produced out of thin air, as creationism seems to be.  On the contrary, there is an immense volume of empirical evidence that supports evolutionary theory, from the fossil record and plate tectonics to genetics and molecular biology.
 
"There is very little controversy in the scientific community toward evolution.  Any controversy is drummed up by religious fundamentalists, most of whom seem to have little understanding of how science works.  There are a few scientists, such as Michael Behe and William Dembski, who attack evolutionary theory.  But they do so because of their religious fervor.  They do not, and have not, presented a viable scientific argument against evolution itself."

Carlos Darweeny: Please, stop all this talk about evolution.  We know, just as we knew in the Middle Ages that the heliocentric theory was the way to go then, that evolution and its explanations for all those dinosaurs clogging up our museums is not the way to go today.   Let's just burn all evolutionists at the stake and be done with them once and for all. 

"P.S.: Have any of you seen that Galileo chap around lately.  He's also a real pain in the cerebral cortex!  Oh, how I wish they would never have believed him when he said he was recanting all those screwy theories he had concocted."

Gayle Coleman: "The National Center for Science Education says a 'theory' is 'a logical, tested, well-supported explanation for a great variety of facts.'

"Your definition of theory was correct.  I used to teach biology and it is spot-on the book definition.  My question is how evolution fits into the definition.  Evolution has never been observed and never tested.  And there are so many conflicting evolutionary theories to choose from.  Each group says their theory is correct.  So, I doubt that the 'well supported' part of the definition applies either.

"You are going to say that evolution is just a general term referring to all the theories.  How many theories of gravity are there? Gravity can be easily observed.  The Law (not theory) of Gravity can be easily tested.  The Law of Gravity is logical. Evolution is not mathematically logical.  There is not enough time for the random mutations to occur.  It cannot be tested.  Biology texts have one possible example of observed evolution:  the moth whose wings change color. This example has recently been shown to happen not as the result of evolution but because of genetic switches that are turned on and off by environmental factors.  Yet this example still turns up in biology texts. 

My point is this: be truthful about the problems with evolution.  Stop sweeping things under the carpet.  The public is being told evolution is 'scientific gospel'.  It is far from that.  Evolution is closer to being 'scientific guessing' than anything else. Call it something else besides 'a theory.'"

Actually, gravity is an observable phenomenon that is the focus of Newton's theory of universal gravitation as well as Einstein's general theory of relativity. Similarly, evolution is an observable phenomenon that is the subject of Darwin's theory as well as follow-on theoretical work. For more in this vein, check out this discussion of Einstein vs. Darwin.

The saga of the peppered moth is dissected in depth on the Talk.Origins Web site, which I've recommended in the past as a good resource for discussions of evolutionary evidence.

Some folks raised a red flag over our unscientific Live Vote, focusing on the suggestion that there are "alternatives" to evolutionary theory:

David Bible: "The questions being used in the live vote about evolution in science classes are misusing a word - 'alternative.' There are no alternatives to evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life.

"Evolution is a fact and the theory is the explanation of the processes of evolution.  Stating that there must have been or is a tinkering intelligent designer or creator involved in biological processes explains nothing.  A stated belief that is not even a testable hypothesis can hardly be considered an alternative to anything, evolution or otherwise."

A Maryland biology teacher: "In regards to the Live Vote choices presented on the MSNBC Web site, I feel there is a major problem with the wording of the choices.  Two of the choices indicate that 'alternatives to evolution theory should/should not be be given equal weight in science textbooks.' The choices should have read 'scientific alternatives to evolution theory should/should not be be given equal weight in science textbooks.' Intelligent-design theory is not a scientific theory and therefore has no place in a science textbook.  The scientific community welcomes other possible scientific explanations."

I realize the Live Vote's wording is a bit ambiguous and provocative, but I suppose that's part of the intent. It's a way of phrasing the issue that's a bit different from the "Darwinism vs. intelligent design" split. I do appreciate your messages pointing out the gaps in the phrasing. That's part of the debate as well.

One of the questions we threw out was whether creationism should be considered science, in light of the "science" being presented at the Creation Museum. Here are some of your comments on that score, starting with the legal view:

Donald: "No, creationism is not science in any way shape or form. Legally this was decided principally in three different legal cases.

"First in the case of McLean vs. Arkansas Board of Education, 1982. A federal court found that an Arkansas statute requiring equal treatment of creation-science and evolution-science in public schools violated the Constitution's Establishment Clause. They went on to provide a detailed definition of science and found that creation-science was in fact not a science.

The second case of Edwards vs. Aguillard (1987) was similar. The U.S. Supreme Court found that a Louisiana law banning evolution from schools unless it was accompanied by creation science was unconstitutional. The court stated that by advocating the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind, the fundamental of creation science, creation science was endorsing religion and therefore could not be taught in public schools.

"Finally, the last major case was in 1994: Peloza vs. Capistrano Unified School District. Here the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the schools did not violate a biology teacher's First Amendment rights by requiring her to teach evolution. The court found that the school was in fact only requiring a science teacher to teach a scientific theory, therefore declaring evolution to be a scientific theory.

"Between these cases we see that evolution is a scientific theory while creationsim is not any form of science at all. It is also very true that creationsim does not follow the simple precepts of science and the scientific method. It begins with the conclusion and gathers evidence to support it later; this is completely backwards from the definition of all sciences.

"After these and many other court developments the creationism movement died out because it had clearly lost. Since then intelligent design theory has arisen, but it has been shown to be only creationism in a new package."

Here's a nice wrapup of legal precedents on the issue of creationism in public schools, including the most recent case from Pennsylvania. But the debate goes beyond legal or even strictly scientific considerations:

Wan Chi Lau, managing editor, Rainy Day magazine: "With the U.S. falling behind in science and math, calling a bedtime story 'science' is just plain dangerous.  Science does not care if you believe it or not ... sooner or later, what is 'true' will rise to the surface. Creationism requires a belief in 'God,' and it is just building a house of cards."

Sandy Blanchard, Mondovi, Wis.: "Yes, creationism (intelligent design) is science.  Do your homework.  Better question: Do editorial comments belong in a news article? No. Statements like, 'That, of course, is contradicted by science' have no business appearing in anything except an editorial - and should be clearly labeled as such. (Journalism 101)"

Rick DeYoung: Creationism is science in the same way ghost hunting is science, or looking for the Loch Ness monster is science, or the way spontaneous human combustion is studied is science - it starts with a conclusion and tries to make the data fit the conclusion.
 
"The same as when Ptolemy got stuck in his proofs for a earth-centered universe - he just couldn’t see that the model was flawed.  Creationism today is very similar. Zealots with some ax to grind seem to feel this is important. It's not.
 
"Incidentally, using creationist methodology one can also prove the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Great Pumpkin, and that flies can spontaneously generate from a pile of old rags.
 
"There's nothing wrong with creationism or any of the above - so long as they're left on the back burner.  When they are moved to the pressure cooker and force fed to the education system then it becomes religious zealotry - something the world is too full of these days for my taste."

David A. Tucker Sr., engineering manager: "Creationism is science.  All true science starts with the observed data - in this case, the universe and (especially) our planet.  All observation of the data is necessarily understood (i.e., interpreted) in accordance with already-obtained and understood information.  In other words, the previous knowledge of the scientist is always involved in his/her interpretation of any observed data, whether admitted or not.  Therefore, creationist scientists use their previous knowledge of the Bible to interpret the observed data.  The method is still scientific; the predisposition of the scientist is the key difference.
 
"Beyond that, any researcher will also attempt to make his/her interpretation of the data either construct some logical framework or fit some predetermined framswork.  It has been my experience that both creationists and evolutionists typically try to fit the same observed data into their own predetermined framework.  At this point, the outside observer must make a value decision, determining which framework best fits and explains the observed data.
 
"From my current vantage point (and having earlier in life espoused the evolutionary framework), I've come to the conclusion that the creationist framework fits the data far better than the evolutionary framework."

Tom V., Somerville, N.J.: "Yes, I believe that the Earth is relatively 'young' and that people did not evolve over billions or millions of years as current evolutionary theory goes. The problem with all the radioactive dating and archaeological dating is that they are not taking into consideration the global catastrophe of the biblical flood which throws off all the calculations.  This is what Ken Ham is demonstrating.

"Many other evidences exist which fit the creation theory much better than evolution theory.  An almost complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, the rapid decay of the Earth's magnetic field, and other indications are that the Earth is not millions of years old. 

"The book of Genesis does give us much more historical fact than most scientists currently are able to accept."

So what's the bottom line? Will the debate ever end? Should I end it?

Garrick Sitongia, Corvallis, Ore.: "This whole debate would collapse if students were taught just what science is. Science is the observation of physical phenomena, followed by a theory about why the phenomena, followed by the testing of the theory by devising experiments and observing if the physical result of the experiment confirms the theory.

"Intelligent design and creationism are based on 'life is too complicated to figure out so there must be a god who created it.' What's the conclusion of accepting this statement? 'God must exist.'

"Using the credibility of science as a vehicle is the whole reason for the creationist movement, to use science to prove that God exists. (And therefore you better join our church, etc.)

"But how do you use physical phenomena to prove that life is too complicated to figure out? How do you devise an experiment that can confirm or deny, based on physical evidence, that God exists? You can't. Therefore Creationism cannot be tested, and it therefore is not a theory, and it is not science, even in the most liberal sense. Sooner or later, they will have to get over it.

"In the meantime, I wish that science teachers all over America would do a better job of teaching what science is, and what it is not. Then maybe kids can educate their parents about it."

Brian Ampere Smith, Ph.D.: "I am appalled at the fact that your e-publication chooses to provide oxygen to the 'debate' surrounding creationism. By choosing to publicize such idiotic perspectives, however well-intentioned, you legitimize them and further scientific illiteracy. Biological evolution, as described by Darwin, is nothing more than an explanation of one aspect of change occurring in a constantly changing universe.

"To deny that organisms change over time is equivalent to denying that inorganic changes (i.e., seasons changing during the year, the birth and death of stars, etc.) occur. This denial requires the denial of hard, cold empirical evidence in a broad range of sciences ranging from geology to chemistry to physics and, of course, biology.

"Observations of changes occurring in non-living systems led to the realization that organisms also change over time. It's pathetic that Darwin's and Wallace's discovery, which stands as a shining example of science in action and one of the greatest intellectual achievements in all of human history, is summarily made impotent by such articles. Airing this superstitious, nonsensical moronic denial, based on the rambling, self-contradictive, multi-translated, 2,000-year-old text is irresponsible.

"What's next in the Cosmic Log? Perhaps an article about how the Bible clearly states that the number pi is equal to 3, or that Earth is flat? A belief in the biblical story of creation has no more merit than these.

"By airing this 'debate,' you pander to illiterate morons whose beliefs endanger us all."

We've been chewing over this subject since the very beginnings of Cosmic Log, and I have a feeling we'll continue chewing over it till Kingdom Come. We might retread some old ground along the way, but somehow I don't see anything wrong with that. Feel free to add your comments below, but any observations that use inappropriate language or attack the comments of others will not be approved.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Mr. Boyle:  Why do you keep allowing this debate to be mischaracterized?  I don't think anyone is advocating the "theory" of Intelligent Design be taught. There really isn't a "theory" to my understanding.  The whole argument simply brings into question whether the spectacular ability for species to adapt to environmental pressures—precisely observed by Darwin and many others since—can be extrapolated to account for the full range of biodiversity.  Consider that, for instance, the eye transmits data to the brain at 10mbps. Was that sort of Ethernet connectivity engineered, or simply the result of a long series of undirected changes in climate and such starting with (it is presumed) a patch of light sensitive skin.  To the committed materialist/neo-Dawinist the answer is...details aside..."of course, the latter".  There simply is no alternative.  I think that is why the debate cannot be settled with a statement like "can't we just agree the 'God created Darwin'". The materialist is committed to explaining everything...well...materially. Those of us with wider world-views see obvious information gaps...and wonder where this information came from. Time and chance is woefully inadequate in this light...especially when the best supporting evidence consists of finch beaks changing size (and then back again). Here's a thought experiment: do whatever you want to a rock...for as long as you want.  How long before it "becomes" a dinosaur? How about a tree? A human brain?  You either have to take a very hopeful "anything's possible" view, or allow that information has been...somehow...added to the mix.  Neo-Darwinism disallows any such “addition” by definition, even if it offers a superior explanation.  That limits—vice expands—the ability to gain scientific insight and knowledge, and that is the core of what the ID “movement” is…and will keep…fighting for.

Michael Angove (Sent Wednesday, August 02, 2006 9:52 PM)

Following are facts extreme evolutionists don't want the public to know.

1.  I am a recently retired public middle school mathematics teacher in West Virginia with over 30 years experience as an educator including administration.

For the last five years of my full-time career, with the full knowledge of State, County, and ACLU officials, I demonstrated to my students that mathematics proves beyond the shadow of doubt that evolutionism is nonsense.  The students saw that the evidence clearly shows that every item associated with humans, animals and plants are Intelligent Designs and Intelligent Design is science because it is observable by billions of people trillions of times, always has been, always will be. I always let them figure it out for themselves and allowed them to believe what they chose, but at least they were exposed to the scientific facts that extremists want to censor from the minds of public school students.   After the lesson a student from an atheist family said, "Evolution is silly."

2.  Currently, as a substitute teacher, I have contact with more public school students than ever and take advantage of every opportunity to provide them with the facts described above.

3.   Evolutionists are bluffing when they say their beliefs are scientific.  Be sure to look at the list of evolutionists who refuse the debate challenge from my friend Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo.  See the list at  http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/.  Click on the Life Science Prize at the bottom.


Karl priest (Sent Wednesday, August 02, 2006 9:59 PM)

Mankind will admit that a watch is a manmade instrument and that it is precision made and not just parts thrown in space and voila! a watch is made.  But there are people who are willing to believe that man, a precision-made being with so many parts was just wham, blam thank you cosmos made.

Man was lovingly, and tenderly made with care.  Doesn't even nature tell you there is a God.

Just as inner space has all its parts - Man and beasts, mountains and seas - outer space has its parts too; planets and stars and meteors and more, not just accidental but with precision doing their part till God says stop. Then he has other places that we will learn of and be a part of.

Pepsi, Sapulpa and OK (Sent Wednesday, August 02, 2006 10:20 PM)

Why in the name of mental retardation are we even having this discussion. It's like if you can't handle where you came from get some help, when all the top scientist in the world agree on something to be fact, it's your duty as a human to keep out of their way and not the clog the pores of intelligence with brainwashed diatribe

carl myers pueblo co (Sent Wednesday, August 02, 2006 10:56 PM)

A theory must be testable.  Otherwise, its pretty useless.  No one could tell if it was right or wrong.  

Evolution can (and has) been tested.  Organisms adapt in response to changes in their environment.  Makes sense on the micro level.  Darwin just extrapolated it onto the macro level.  And the data supported his conclusions.

Evolution can also be proved wrong.  It hasn't been done yet, but that doesn't mean it can't.  That's another big part of being a theory.

Intelligent Design can be tested thousands of times.  And it will be proven wrong everytime except for once.  Since that is the proverbial "end of the world" that makes it pretty useless.

Intelligent Design also lacks supporting data.  Pointing at holes in other theories doesn't NOT prove your own.  

I should clarify.  Supporting data is not the same as saying that something is "too complex to have evolved."  That's called surrender.  But that is just my view.

John Doe, Seattle, Washington (Sent Wednesday, August 02, 2006 11:42 PM)

I don't know where to start.  Strict evolutionism has been modified into a thing ccaleed "punctuated equilibrium."  There are some changes in life gradually, but every once in awhile there is a worlwide "reset button" pushed.  Such as an overwelling of volcaniv activity that wipes out lots of species.  Or things such as the K-T eveent that wiped out any non-egg laying dinosaurs smaller than todays turkeys.  Look up the Permian extinction yourself.  It made the one with the demise of the dinosaurs look like nothing.

But life is sturdy and ubiquitis.  It hiked up it's boot straps and grew to fill the gaps left by the life that was extinguished.  After the K-T event there was opportunities for mammals to start expanding into every niche of livable area.  Including some almost ignorable little lemur types that were the first primates.

And, what would you prefer?  That God made perfect beings that dessended into what we are today, or having been primates who ascended into what we are today?

And, of course, God may have just started out with one-celled life that he knew wouls eventually evolve into humans?  What is 4.6 billion years to God?

B. Crupe (Sent Wednesday, August 02, 2006 11:42 PM)

In two different Bible passages about how to construct a large bowl for religous functions, instructions are given in  mathematical terms. In both cases it states the diameter should be ten cubits and circumference thirty cubits.

Sorry, that is physically impossible. The fundamental relationship of all circles and their diameters is that the circumference divided by diameter is always 3.1415926 ... The Bible is off by more than one tenth of a cubit, which would have been readily observable.

So, the Bible got one of the most fundamental physical relationships in the known universe wrong not once but twice.

Using the Bible's version of this relationship, humans could NOT make any mechanical device involving circular motion, we would have few of our modern inventions, would not have electric generators and even if we could launch a space mission, would miss any long-distance target by thousands if not millions of miles.

While American religious extremist try to restrict public schools to undermining science and teaching their religious explanations, Chinese, Japanese and European students are learning to advance their economies through accumulated scientific disciplines. But Americans have been lulled into letting religious fanatics use this erronous nomad's almanac to justify foisting the creation myth on American school children to replace science their parents were too lazy to learn. Wow.

David Columbia, South Carolina (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 12:23 AM)

Science: "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."  And if we will teach the history of biology, we shall investigate historical observations, timelines known thus far, theories of all phenomena. If they want to keep religion out of the classroom, then teach evolution without teaching atheism. It is possible to teach about evolution without mentioning the word God.  

Not just "God created it, the Bible does not mention evolution so it must not exist" or "It's evolution only, disproving there is a God".  Can't there be some middle ground here?  I certainly believe in God and evolution.  But maybe that's just the moderate I am.  

One more thing... If the Bible does not mention dinosaurs (and I'm pretty sure that they existed!) what does that tell us about aliens?  Maybe alien's came to Earth and changed the species by zapping them with big fat laser beams- therefore now making it seem like life evolved according to what we dig up.  Hmmmm.  But that's just another theory to add to the plate.  

Unknown, Andromeda Galaxy, 2.2 MLY from Earth (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 12:30 AM)

I come from outside the U.S. (New Zealand) and I can tell you the rest of the world can't believe there is even a I.D/evolution debate in the U.S. Of course evolution happened! Anyone who could produce a solitary irreducibly complex biological structure would win a Nobel prize and prove the existence of God.
Many Christians throughout the world believe in God AND evolution and don't find them incompatible. When religion over-rides rationality and inspires intelligent people to hold perposterous perspectives like I.D / creationism, we endanger the very faculties which do seperate us from other other species ie: abstract thought, reflection and critical analysis.

Simon Grady, New Zealand (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 1:16 AM)

Everyone always says "let the kids decide."  Well here I am a 15 year old Christian male telling my side of this story.  However I am not like my extremist Christian counterparts because I choose to believe in science.  I don't understand why everyone has to be on only one side of the fence.  There is overwhelming evidence to support evolution.  In addition there is also overwhelming evidence supporting an "inteligent designer."  However, only a few people have realized that it is this devine ruler's choice on how the world works.  If "God" wanted a world created out of nothing but his all powerful word then fine, so be it.  Then why I must ask, would such a creator leave so much evidence as to support evolution.  Haha, because maybe said creator decided to use such a method.  Also, why can't "God" decide to improve on his/her/its creations as is observable in today's world.  An easy example is that if you take a species and split it up into two completely different environments one group will adapt so much until it becomes a new species.  In short my point is to open your eyes and see that the world can't be explained JUST by science OR religion.  However, combine the two and things make more sense.  Hey maybe I'm wrong, maybe the Bible is wrong.  It may have been INSPIRED by God, but it was WRITTEN by HUMANS!

(If you haven't noticed, humans aren't perfect.)
P.S. I challenge any of you to a debate. Just email me at chicsdigdrummers@yahoo.com

Stephen Ingham, Fleetwood Pennsylvania (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 1:23 AM)

It is not enough for believers of creationism/intelligent design to state that there are flaws in evolution theory, and therefore this implies that a creator or intelligent designer must have been at work. They must show, unequivocally, that evolution theory cannot EVER account for the phenomenon, that it is physically, logically and mathematically impossible. Moreover, they must also show that ONLY their creator can account for the phenomenon, that there is incontrovertible evidence that this actually happened. It is insufficient in science to believe without evidence that such a creator has any part in this process at all, without credible evidence that such a creator even exists (just believing it does not make it so), and that an repeatable experiment or observation is in principle possible to show that existence. If creationism can do this, then it might be called a science.

The scientist takes an "atheist" position because he/she must deal with the possbility that God, as envisioned by Bible-believers does not exist, or at least was not involved to the degree believers want to claim. For example, what if reality is Brahman cycles, and one has based a theory on the existence of the Judeo-Christian God? The theory falls apart. The theory MUST work independent of any particular Faith.

This brings up another question as to why the Christian faith should be given priority in the classroom over others. Why not, for example Hinduism, Jainism, Wicca? Why must these views be necessarily excluded?

Another problem with an assumption of God in science is that of the apparent capriciousness of that deity, as shown in the  Old Testament. One might have to change his hard-won theory to fit the miracle-du-jour, if such an assumption were to be made. A chemistry student whose lab experiment has gone wrong might reasonably claim that "God did it." A physics professor might resort to blaming Satan if his demonstration of the principle of acceleration has gone awry.

Faith and science need not clash. It is when particular faiths claim to be science by abusing lacunae in scientific explanations, by way of a HUGE logical fallacy, that problems arise. This fallacy is that, because one explanation does not "aqequately" explain something, this failure necessarily implies that another favored explantion MUST be the case. A simple example shows the absurdity of this fallacy. Newtonian mechanics was unable to account for the precession of the aphelion of the planet Mercury. Had I lived before 1900 and Einstein's views on gravitation, I might have believed that this was a flaw that was explainable only by my belief in ghosts-- ghosts were causing that observation in Mercury's orbit. Replace the word "ghosts" with "God," and you get the gist of what I mean. We need only ask, what happens to the creation/ID claim when science comes along and fills in that hole?

The examples given for irreducible complexity by Michael Behe and William Dembski have already been shown to not be irreducibly complex, even according to their own definition. For example, the proteins that provide the motility of bacterial flagella have been found  to have other uses in other places that have nothing to do with the bacteria, and similarly with the cascading blood-clotting factors often cited in ID literature. At least one of Behe's examples was shown to be wrong even before he'd even published his work. That's just sloppy research.

Moreover, a model for “irreducible complexity” using only Darwinism was suggested in 1918 by H. J. Muller (Nobel Prize, 1946) and refined by 1939. Thus, the gradual evolution of irreducible complexity is not only possible, but expected.

As to “proving” evolution, no scientific theory is ever provable, in the sense that any further investigation is pointless. One cannot “prove” the theories of high energy physics (e,g, Quantum chromodynamics), but the observations and experiments that have been carried out in the past (most notably, the atomic bomb) strongly indicate that they are probably true -- they work!. Nonetheless, vigorous research continues in that field. Evolution has at least as long a period of investigation as high energy physics, and more recently, many unrelated fields have come to bear on evolution theory, indicating the theory is probably true. The likelihood that the theory of evolution as a whole is wrong is thus becoming vanishingly small.

A scientific theory is also strengthened by its ability to make predictions on what will be observed. Evolutionary theory has succeeded in this by predicting what will be found in the fossil records and in DNA. Moreover, evolution makes predictions in other fields, such as medicine. It is much more likely that evolutionary theory is incomplete than wrong, in the sense that any scientific theory is incomplete (Newton’s theory of gravity was incomplete, Einstein’s more complete). This incompleteness only indicates that some aspects have not yet been filled in, not that the theory is necessarily wrong in all other aspects, as many ID proponents want to claim. ID must be able to make predictions and explain anomalies (i.e., why the design is so bad in many instances) without resorting to invocations of the intentions of the designer.

Science is about the continuing search for knowledge, not a claim to have all the answers. Science itself is Darwinian — it goes by fits and starts, trial and error, even with misconceptions, hoaxes and outright lies. But in the end what emerges is nearer to truth than what went before. Science advances by questioning what has gone before. Questioners may be scorned by colleagues. The principle behind the Big Bang theory was derived nearly 80 years ago by a priest, Abbe Georges Lemaitre, who was accused at the time of trying to inject religion into science. Today, the Big Bang theory is pretty much standard cosmology.

Let ID demonstrate its truth through an ability to predict and account for what is actually found in ALL of nature, not just in a few cherry-picked examples and not by speculation, belief or opinion. Let it compete in the tough arena of peer review and let its proponents not scream that they are being victimized by the Science Establishment. Until ID can do that, it can have no equal footing with evolution in the classroom, particularly when presented to students who have not yet developed the strong critical thinking skills to decide rationally among very complex “competing” ideas.

Wayne McCoy (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 1:23 AM)

Trace back on the origin of mankind.
If ape-man has IQ. What does living human kind has?
Did'nt anyone read that all things in life comes from mastering our creator's gifts of life from IQ, education,health,sexual and social living for the survival of living human kind on planet earth.
If man evovle from apeman. Try and ask the zoo-keeper
how long the ape-man has been with the zoos on planet earth.
Did'nt anyone notice little ET footprints coming out of the water growing up to like salt on planet earth?

wild-man of Borneo Island. (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:35 AM)

Wow what an infinite string.  All you who consider someone dangerous or stupid should consider it may be you.  

The problem with Creationism--to even start to go there, you must admit personal accountability to GOD, and many have no desire to consider this possibility.

The problem with Evolution--It is fundamentally illogical and unproven that all order we see can come from chaos in a random fashion.  Most people will always look at a simple organisms and deep down cannot conceive how mammals could possibly be derived.  

Mike Vander Wel (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:54 AM)

  For the people who bring up the specter of China, Japan, Europe and their alleged scientific literacy, I can tell you that the amount of superstitious nonsense  (in China at least) is orders of magnitude beyond what the US population believes.  I can't speak about Europe and Japan, but from my experience  scientific illiteracy is universal.  

  Not that this is an excuse teaching ID in science.  
ID should be taught in "American folklore" class.
I know, I know, in the 60's you were all taught the pros and the cons of the Pythagorean theorem in geometry, so you could make up your own minds...but we have moved on from the 60's you know....  Actually, I shouldn't poke fun, for here in Taiwan, in Astronomy class they teach students that a great dragon swallows the sun during a solar eclipse, right alongside the standard solar system model...then let the schoolkids decide....really they do  :)

Anyway, GO KANSAS, future biotech powerhouse!!!

Eric Taipei Taiwan (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 3:55 AM)

God created the heveans and the earth. We as a society, as humankind, MUST find a common ground. I believe that religous texts(the old and new testaments, the gita, the koran, etc..,)are guidelines to being, becoming decent human beings. If god created us in his/her own image than he/she/it must be very disapointed in us all. This creator gave us the intelligence to think, ponder, creat, dicover, and improve our exsistance. From scientific evidence found around the globe the earth is relatively young(billions and bilions of years). This is but a blink of an eye to God. We are spending to much energy debating wether creationism and/or evolution is right or wrong,and spending less time trying how to figure out how to get along and be tolerable of our fellow human beings. How in the world are we going to rid this planet of wars, poverty, racism, genocide and a whole slue of inhumane injustices when we are too caught up in who's religion is the right one, and who's right or wrong in this debate. God is pure energy. Alot of energy was dispursed by "The Big Bang," for all we know, that was God sneezing. We are the only species on this planet that have the capacity to show epathy, mercy, love,  

sodelba santana-jackson, Phila., PA (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 4:17 AM)

I continue to be impressed at how bad science education is; reading these comments is like a primer on how not to learn about science. Does *anyone* here actually read what science is about, what evolution is about? [...] If only our schools could educate as well as the creationist can uneducate.

Rod (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 5:32 AM)

it usually boils down to those who want to be answerable to no one, not even a God. to postulate evolution as a proven fact, even when there's no conclusive evidence in the case of the human being, is a clear indication that minds are not clear in their thinking. When one does not answer to a higher authority than himself, do you really understand the social consequences of this concept? evolution allows us the freedom to use moral relativism. if God is not the Creator of the human race, then there's no such thing as divine revelation and absolute truth. absolute truths or universal truths are what keep us from molesting little children and murdering babies because it makes clear the idea that morality is not relative and that right is right and wrong is wrong. Most people use the " scientific explanation " to prove a point in issues. but there's always something deeper and more sinister lurking behind this. i concede that science used in perspective has given us immense strides in improving the lives of people, no doubt. however, it is often misused for selfish and egoistic ends. when we are not a created people, we answer to no one because make our own rules. when we do this and denounce God as non existent, or non important,  we arrogate to ourselves the authority to chose who lives and who dies for some reason or the other. Ask Adolf Hitler, he thought he was authorised to replace God's authority and chose who dies. now, we still reel from those times. our modern day murderers are not necessarily thugs with guns lurking in the shadows killing the unsuspecting, but those who teach them that there is no Creation and no one to exact punishment for your wrongdoings in the next life. if you do not have to pay for your wrongdoings and deviations, then you can go ahead and do it in the first place. that's what it boils down to. Not science and evolution versus the Creation of man. but a sick, yes, use the right word, ingrown desire to to postulate relativism as a viable living standard. Evolution is only a route to that end.

Ricardo Rambally (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 6:24 AM)

This thread has covered this entire issue pretty well, but I think there are a couple of things I can't resist responding to.

One of the recent postings says that the problem with evolution is that it is illogical that all the order we see can come from chaos and that most people will never be able to conceive how complex animals such as mammals could ever be derived from the most simple organisms. This is argument from personal incredulity, and is not very useful in science. To see this just try and apply it to the last century or so of developments in physics (Relativity?, Quantum mechanics?, Quarks?).

Another thing that is hard to see without responding to it is the repeated assertion that evolution has never been observed. Evolution is observed in entomology, microbiology and virology all of the time. Examples include SIV to HIV, Avian to human influenza, nylon eating bacteria, antibiotic and pesticide resistance and many more. The fact is that evolution through natural selection is very much an applied science in both agriculture and medicine (and many other places in the biological sciences) these days, and that alone would justify giving it pride of place in science classes.

When you come down to it, what you are talking about is 2 fundamentally different ways of understanding the world. One way says that the best way to understand the material universe is by studying the material universe itself with observation and experimentation. The other says that the best way to understand the world is by understanding eternal truths through the study of devinely inspired sacred texts. Only one of these ways should be called science and taught as such. The other should be called theology and only taught as such. If you want to teach them both in the same class and contrast and compare them, the name of that class should be philosophy, not science.    

Rusty Cashman, Vista, California (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 6:27 AM)

The problem here is not that Science is hijacking Faith- it is that Faith is hijacking Science.  Why is this?  Let's not forget the whole purpose of all Faiths- for humans to live their lives virtuously and morally.  We've all heard the line, "Be good in life or else God is going to punish you in the end."  The problem, particularly with Western religions, is that they try to be/explain all things, i.e. where does life being, how does life being, how have we come to be, etc.  Those are questions better left to Science, and really have no place in any Faith.  Ever wonder why Asian countries are now flourishing in the sciences and mathematics, and their economies are doing great?  It is because their Faiths do not try to behave like Science, thus Faith and Science are kept separate, thus there are no petty issues for them to become bogged down with.  Science does what it does best- science.  It has no interest in delving into Faith-based issues.  For whatever reason, and Christians especially, always tout and make the claim that Science is intruding into their territory.  But in reality, it is their Faith/religion that is trying to behave like Science, and so wacky "theories" like Creationism are conjured up

Glen (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 7:22 AM)

First, and importantly: the argument that men evolved from fish/monkeys/whatever other currently-existing animal you want to choose... it's completely fallacious. Those animals have evolved, too - humans are not, and never have been, the sole focus of the theory. (For a simple example, mastiffs and Chihuahuas both evolved [or were bred - forced evolution is still evolution] from early proto-dogs. This is not the same as saying that Chihuahuas evolved from mastiffs.)

Then again, I firmly believe that science and religion have fundamentally different approaches to the same questions, and that you can accept both answers at the same time. Do I believe in the divine? Yes. Does my belief in the divine mean that I cannot accept the conclusions of science? No, of course not. Religion is an attempt to explain why; science is an attempt to explain how. Conflating the two will only lead to sloppy education on both sides.

Katie, Manheim, PA (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 8:41 AM)

Evolution is not worthy to be called a theory. It was invented to replace real science in order to justify atheism. The evidence for Evolution is made-up, while the evidence for Creation/world-wide flood is everywhere!
Evolution has given rise to racism, abortion, and the foolish belief that we are just animals (just go to a public school to see the results of this way of thinking).
Why did Evolution replace Real Science? That is the question that we need to answer.
Many, many valid scientists are not evolutionists.

Dee Alison (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 8:45 AM)

A fundamental question for all those in favour of evolution: show me one example of a bacteria that has become an amoeba under testable conditions?

Bacteria enjoy millions of generations in the time we take to enjoy a small vacation. If the little critters were truly evolving in a macroevolutionary sense we'd see them becoming something other than bacteria.

But we never do. They remain germs, just as peppered moths remain peppered moths and horses remain horses.

I think we can all agree that species adapt within themselves, in response to environmental pressures generally thanks to flexibility in the genome, but none of these creatures have ever made the species jump that science can establish, and certainly not under testable empirical conditions.

Evolution accounts for adaptability, but it does not account for the Cambrian explosion and the diversity of species.

We share DNA because it is the bricks and mortar God used to create lifeforms. In a truly randomised natural world, why would all lifeforms be DNA based?

Intelligent Design offers, ironically, a more intellectually satisfying answer to all of the above than the huge leaps of faith and "maybe it happened like this" scenarios required of believers in evolution.

Darwin's theory is dying, and all we're currently seeing is a latterday flat earth society who don't want to acknowledge the weaknesses of their naturalistic faith (because that's ultimately what evolution is).

Ian Wishart (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 9:05 AM)

I never understood why it was such a hard concept to understand that maybe God used evolution as a means of creation. The universe follows the rules of physics, but someone had to write those rules. Designing a universe that will produce life on its own is much more impressive than just going "POOF, Humans!" don't you think?

Kraven, Canada (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 9:13 AM)

In the grand scheme of things I believe we are of less significance than a proton is to a planet.
God is not a micro-manager. Are you aware of the activities of the third bacterium from the left in the second looping of my small intestine? (His name is Frankie and he is a troublemaker)
Evolution, intelligent design. Two views; one structured on tests, the other on faith. If you are smart, you make a decision based on facts, not on what other people assure you must be true. Buyer beware!
I believe in God, I also believe he gave us the tools to understand the universe. Why limit ourselves to just this muddy ball we live on? Trying to create a world view to match unproven beliefs is a fools errand. Taking things on faith is contrary to the abilities we have been given. Even so,
religion is necessary, it is a social tool used to keep us from full-blown anarchy. Unfortunately, humankind has the propensity for using tools in an improper manner. (Have you ever used a butter knife to drive a screw?) So, on both sides of the debate you can guess there are some improper assumptions or just plain old fabrications. I, for one, side with scientific method. Intelligent design is a valid thought, but just mis-applied to a micro level, the Pro ID people need to reconcile their beliefs to a grander scale. God won't mind if we use the tools he gave us. Just use them properly: Love, respect for others, a helping hand, be fruitful and multiply and all that. Stop killing each other for we are all brothers. While you are at it, eliminate greed, pride, envy, sloth and all the rest of those annoying habits and the world will be what God intended; a creation that exists to learn, grow and thrive.  
The truth is out there, all mankind needs to do is survive their own fumbling attempts to understand the universe and make peace with their place in it.

God is in you (and Frankie's behavior is the least of his concerns)
 

Carl Vogel (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 9:26 AM)

Here's the headline:'Creation Museum' Seeks to Disprove Evolution, Paleontology, Geology We're going to show you that we can make sense of the different people groups, we can make sense of fossils, we can make sense of what you see in

Moonage Spacedream (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 9:40 AM)

Conservative Republicans who pushed anti-evolution standards back into Kansas schools last year have lost control of the state Board of Education once again.The board had a 6-4 conservative majority that pushed the school systems to de-emphasize evolution

Moonage Political Webdream (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 9:43 AM)

Really brought the superstitious out of the woodwork, didn't you?  I suspect you enjoy the instigation.

Let's see.  First we take the myths a bunch of nomadic goatherders borrowed from the Mesopotamians and try to make that the basis of a rational explanation for the Universe.  Right!  Got it!  (Try to send a space probe based on the Bible!)  Then we pull the old selective misinterpretation of rock-hard data to prop up our myth.  OK, so far?

Nah, I can't buy it either.  I don't think any more of the judeo-christian mythos than I do of the Mesopotamian, Greek, Aztec or Inuit.  All of a kind with equal validity in light of the facts.  I propose that we establish viable self-supporting colonies all over the solar system and leave the superstitious to kill each other off (They are already working on it, so let's get out of the line of fire!).  Then the rational can return to re-claim the Earth.

Wade Whitlock, Aberdeen, MD (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 9:43 AM)

Our current science culture, including perhaps most of the trained scientists, has chosen to exclude God and miracles from the realm of science and a large number of the same culture have therefore more or less excluded the miracles or both from reality as well. If science conflicts with something, in this culture's thinking science will win and the other will lose. Is that what we want? Is that correct thinking?

But suppose we postulate that God exists. Then let's agree to postulate that He has the attributes one would usually expect God to have- that is, He is far greater than man in power, knowledge, etc. He is unbound by time, and so on. So if this God created all the earth and its contents at one point in history, then He is the author of the science we all study. And we might be found using the science set up by God to counter who He is or what He has done.

By the way, if miracles really happened, are they science or just religion? For instance, if God really caused a world-wide flood today, would that be a topic only for religion to study, or is it a scientific event? If you admit it is also scientific, why wouldn't a real flood in Noah's day be the same? But of course, if a fundamental axiom of the science we practice today is that miracles are not allowed, we will certainly never account for their possibility in our scientific thinking. They are excluded by decree, because scientists haven't found evidence for them.

If God is the author of science, including the laws of the universe, then perhaps many scientists err in their insistence that the Bible and science are mutually exclusive. In fact, if you want to be logical in your thinking, how would you ever reach the conclusion, if you are one who allows that God exists, that science and God are mutually exclusive? You might be able to say that you don't know how the two affect each other,or that you don't know how to measure the affects on each other, but to say that one has nothing to do with the other is pretty arrogant, unless you simply don't accept that there is a God. Now perhaps some scientists would complain that many scientists don't take such a position about God, but I am speaking mostly about the practical effects and conclusions that we see and hear repeatedly.

As an aside, but germane to my topic in some ways, I often see this idea repeated. One committed to evolution will say that God can still be the creator (how gracious of them!), but perhaps he just chose to create over huge time periods via evolution. This wouldn't seem to make any sense either on the surface or below. Why would an all powerful God make creation look like evolution? To disguise His work?

Joseph Saba, Newnan, Georgia (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 10:00 AM)

I'm in between on this whole issue. But I lean more towards evolution. I am searching for signs of God because, if the Creator is real, I don't want to be left on the wrong side of the road when I die.

Just because human evolution states that man came from ape doesn't mean that ape ceased to exist after humans arrived. It was simply a split where one ape wanted to be different than the others. I am no where near as educated on the theory as the "evolutionists" but I think they would agree with my statement. All the time scientists are finding skeletons in Africa and elsewhere that proove to me more and more that evolution is true.

Christians believe that the Earth is only five or six thousand years old, but even carbon and nuclear dating, and stars that are billions of light years away that are just now showing their light to us prove that the Earth is older than that.

One other thing that makes Christianity and all of the other Abramaic religions hard to believe is that there are other religions that are older than those. Christianity states that so long as you accept Christ as your saviour and follow Him, you shall be granted eternal life with Him in Heaven. But, what about the civilizations that existed in North and South America before they were discovered by the Europeans? Did they all go to Hell? They didn't know about Jesus or God, but multiple gods.  

It just seems to me that there are more gaps and holes in religion than there are in science. The gaps and holes that do exist in science are being filled every day. But all that we have to rely on with religion is the Bible, a book written by MAN a long, long time ago. Just because MAN says it is inspired by God, does not make it so. We have not been to the past. All we have to rely on is a book written by man. We can not go back and prove it. Nor, can we go to the afterlife and come back to prove that it exists.

Nothing has been found to COMPLETELY prove that religion is right. No one can find the tomb where Jesus lay after being crucified, only speculate where it could be. The Ark and Holy Grail cannot be found. Again we can only speculate that this cup is the Holy Grail and that this chest is the Ark. And if Noah's Ark were resting on the top of Mt. Ararat like the recent (past 100 or so years) story of the man that said he found it, science would be completely blown out of the water, because more and more people would have seen it and there would be pictures. But there isn't.

With science, we can touch and see the things that are in front of us. We can derive answers from what we can touch and see, and they usually tend to be right.

I am not trying to discredit religion here. I'm looking for signs myself. But it's hard to have FAITH when something a little more concrete exists. Granted, science has it's gaps, but it is being proven more and more each day.

I could go on and on forever with this. But I don't have time right now. I welcome criticism and guidance, point and counterpoint with my message here. I'm not trying to provoke and argument with anyone.

To make this short, I lean more toward evolution until proven otherwise.

Scott, TN (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 10:07 AM)

And to quote Mr Vander Wel above

    "Most people will always look at a simple organisms               and deep down cannot conceive how mammals could possibly be derived."

When a human life is conceived in the womb, are you not a "simple organism" of only two cells?  

Scott, TN (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 10:09 AM)

I am a Kansan, born and bred.  I love my state.  I was raised a fundamental Bible Baptist.  Having said all that, I must say the following as well:

I was raised to the creationist form of belief.  I believed in God and Adam and Eve, and took the Bible very literally, just as all my family did.  Then I made one crucial mistake:  I went to college and learned to think and question.  As a direct result of my intensive studies in history, not only do I question the authenticity of the Bible and the messages somehow derived from it, but I now question the faith itself.  Extensive research has shown me that there is a very strong possibility that the person known as Jesus never existed, at least, not in the way described in the New Testament.

As a direct result of my own research and studies, I can not condone the teaching of creationism, whether it's called "intelligent design" or anything else, when the historical facts so clearly call into question the authenticity and accuracy of the book it comes from.

My family still thinks I can be reconverted back to the faith, but my own ability to think precludes my acceptance of such an old-fashioned and clearly erroneous belief system.  While the message taught by the person called Jesus is still very valid (be nice to people, help out those who need it, follow your government's laws), the mockery that the system has become over the last 2000 years has lost its veracity to me and many others like me.

It seems to me that people are determined to limit their god's power by denying that he may have used evolution to accomplish his goals.  They would rather take the word of some priest working in a bronze-age society rather than admit that perhaps they don't understand their god at all, or that their sacred writings might not be accurate.  

Leave science to be science, and keep the religion in the churches.  In a culturally diverse society such as we have built in this country, Christianity might be the dominant religion, but it is by no means the ONLY religion, and the culture of tolerance and diversity that we live with SHOULD dictate that they don't force their religious worldview on the rest of us.

Anony Mous (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 10:35 AM)

This debate is unending, because it pits two opposites against each other--those who "believe" vs those who "doubt". The Christian religion ridicules doubters and praises those with "faith"--true believers. It engenders belief systems. Science, though often triggered by wonder and awe, has more of a doubt system--investigators, testers, analysts. To paraphrase Betrand Russell: Will James used to preach the 'will to believe', but I wish to teach the 'will to doubt', for it is not the will to believe that is important, but the wish to find out.  As a geologist I have seen the evidence for evolution first hand. There are overwhelming facts in support of evolution for those with eyes to see. Creationists spend a lot of time and energy attacking the facts of evolution--trying to cloud the eyes of potential "see-ers". They attack the overwhelming evidences for the vast length of time--the "deep time". They attack the fossil record, which is very extensive and compelling. They even attack basic proven physics. Creationists "believe" in their answers and the ends justify the means in their diatribes. They are basically presenting a dishonest non-scientific program of beliefs. This has no place in the classroom of science, but may be discussed in religion or philosophy classes, I suppose. Creationism serves best to display how reasoning should not be done--a type example of non-science (and nonsense).

Michael Roberts, Shreveport, LA (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 10:46 AM)

I think it is ridiculous to say we have to separate God from Science.  After all, didn't he provide humans with the reasoning necessary to come up with scientific theories?  Isn't that what separates us from the animals?  The two practices can co-exist.  Personally, I think the whole debate should boil down to this: TWO THEORIES!! Not one reality and one falsehood... Will we ever be able to prove either theory?  I don't know.  I believe in survival of the fittest (outside of science, it is a logical conclusion), but I also believe that something - a divine hand perhaps - started off this thing we call Earth.  Then again, I wasn't there.  Neither were the writers of the Bible...or Darwin... What a conundrum.  I'm so glad that we've found yet another thing to divide us!!

Zephyr Luckenbach, Austin, TX (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 10:50 AM)

If I understand Intelligent Design, the idea is that life is too complex to have happened by chance.  So let's teach something "believable": it was all created in six days by a guy who is invisible and lives in heaven.  If we want to teach about God's hand in creation, please put where it belongs - in literature class, art class, even in history.  NOT science.  If we consider Intelligent Design as science, then we must consider the next logical scientific question - who made God?  Sorry, but I.D. doesn't offer answers - just more questions.

Steve Hoover, Plymouth, IN (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 11:11 AM)

I want our schools to give equal time to the demonic-possession theory of disease. After all, the germ theory is just that -- a theory! Why should students have the germ theory shoved down their throats without consideration of alternatives? Let students hear BOTH sides, and then decide for themselves. Wouldn't you feel more comfortable if you knew your doctor had trained at a medical school that taught her or him that demonic possession is a reasonable alternative to viruses and bacteria? (I hope it's apparent that I'm being facetious...)

Bill B., Columbia, Mo. (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 11:18 AM)

Things I think of everytime someone tries to say evolution is wrong:

-Do creationists or ID proponents (are they the same, because I don't think I've ever heard them say that) get flu shots every year? Why? According to their hypothesis, one shot and you should be ok for the rest of your life...since the virus can't evolve into new strains.

-Anyone who uses the phrase 'The theory of evolution cannot be proven' needs to look up the literal definition of the word theory in a scientific context. Do they mean 'hypothesis'?

-Someone explain to me the proof of ID. In other words, show me some peer reviwed article that has been published by a science journal.

-If I say the world is flat and you say it's round, can we both get 50-50 airtime, possibly more to me since I like to yell. Since that is the current state of reporting when it comes to ID and evolution.

-How do people disregard carbon dating of fossils? When they say that some great flood made the specimens unsuitable, do they have the slightest idea how radiocarbon dating works? I don't profess to be an expert in this field but I do know enough from my physics class to say that that is factually incorrect. I guess facts don't matter if they disagree with a foregone conclusion.

-Since ID is derived from creationism which iteself is derived from the Bible, can I petition to have other ideas taught about the origin of life in science class. Specifically Judaism, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Tao, Mayan, Spaghetti Noodle Monster, Confucionist, Baha'i, Jain, Canadian, Shinto, Zoroastrian, Pagan, Unitarian, Raelian, Tenrikyo, Anasazi, etc. I know there are many more but I don't know of them. Please add to this list.

Jack Lester, Columbia, MD (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 11:38 AM)

For all of you who think of God as an Idiot, I have news for you, he is not. The answers of his existance and works will soon appear and will be brought forth through the ideas of Intelligent Design. This will not be in terms of science, but does constitute a Theory and is very much provable, testable and observable.  

David, Houston, Texas (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 11:50 AM)

As a well-educated, committed Christian, I am troubled by this debate's continuing to focus upon the definition of "theory," as if that were the most salient issue in the controversy. It is not. While the well-meaning folks behind the new Creation Museum
are entitled to their views, these views are the self-imposed choices of people who prefer to  skim the surface of serious faith without doing the difficult work of exploring the history of the development of scripture. They wish to project back upon the authors of Genesis the same sort of literal-mindedness which they prefer for themselves, taking comfort in an imaginary kinship with ancient writers and thinkers who were far more sophisticated than today's fundamentalists appreciate. The problem with permitting the Creation Museum folks to stand at the podium as spokespersons for "Christianity" is that, simply, they lack the basic credentials to engage the conversation. In their choice to disengage from serious study of the faith they claim to profess and defend, they disqualify themselves from any forum where important ideas are discussed. They are, of course, free to promulgate their opinions from their own pulpits and in their own theme parks; but they ought not be taken seriously in any setting where thoughtful perons of good will wrestle honestly with the vexing, difficult questions posed at the
intersection of faith and reason.

Edgar Moore, Gaithersburg, MD (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 12:19 PM)

A fundamental fact that seems to get lost in this debate is that Darwin did not theorize evolution, he theorized natural selection.  The two are indeed different, though somewhat related, theories.  If you're not sure how they're different, or think they're not, you should find out for yourself the truth as you'll probably learn more about it that I can teach in one post.

Concerning evolution, the easiest way to observe evolution is to examine simple organisms such as viruses.  The timespan of their lives is much shorter and changes can easily be seen within a human lifetime.  For example, consider AIDS.  Why was AIDS not around until the latter part of the 20th century.  And how was it able to transfer from animal to man?  Perhaps it is an example of divine intervention in which God seeks to punish sinners.  Perhaps it is just another evolutionary step in which nature seeks to balance the ballooning human population with the rest of the species on Earth.  Or consider diseases and viruses that have been around for years that are no longer being stopped by vaccines or antibiotics, such as Staphylococcus Aureus (SA).  This is NATURAL SELECTION at work.  At some point, some strain of the SA bacteria had a trait that rendered it resistive to antibiotics.  Nature had selected that particular bacteria to survive.  And it began to multiply until its influence was so great that it is now emerging as a modern version of the bacteria.

For a larger example of natural selection, look into the introduction of Tilapia into the Colorado River, which was supposed to die off in the cold water, but now thrives.  When I was in high school, we were taught Darwin's Natural Selection.  It was clearly distinguished from evolution and any religious implications and not a single student had a problem.  Perhaps each one of us needs to really look into the facts and make sure we understand the basic terminology being used before we decide what is right for our children.  Its a simple garbage in, garbage out philosophy.

Jacob, Tempe Arizona (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 12:19 PM)

The debate is all about being right. It is a deep seated need for all humans to be "right" and for all problems to have black and white solutions. Alas, this is not a rational response to the world. But, humans don't seem to be built as rational creatures. We are driven by our self-interests.

Evolution is a theory. It is supported or torn down by real world observations. Intelligent Design is a philosophy. It is an artifact of man's mind, and it is not based on observable and repeatable experiments. There is no way we, as humans, can go back in time to determine who is right. But, we can observe evolution at work.

Some might state that we can observe God at work. But, it has been my observation that actions attributed to God are self-serving such as the athlete that thanks God for the win or people pointing out the AIDS is the wrath of God against immoral people. When a tragedy occurs, few, if any, people attribute the destruction to God's will.

God is a fantasy created to make ourselves feel better about he actions that we have no control over. Since humans seem to need the illusion of control over the world, God helps us "make sense" of the random events of life.

Part of the problem is that we have evolved to maintain groups. If your group is different than my group, then I attack your group with words or violence. Few people, myself included, can let others hold onto their beliefs and go their own way. Personally, I wish this debate was not an issue that I have to worry about because of the consequences of choosing incorrectly. The problem is that well meaning people on the other side feel their beliefs, which are opposite of mine, are correct. Hence, until all disbelievers or either God or Evolution or whatever disagreement are convinced or dead, this debate will continue with no resolution.

Steve, Las Cruces, NM (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 12:37 PM)

Reading above, I had a few things to comment on.  One reader doubted evolution because "monkeys are still around".  Science isn't saying that we evolved from any species of monkey that now exists.  It was a COMMON ancestor.  Slowly but surely, we are getting closer to filling those gaps between ourselves and that common ancestor.  Science takes time and people want instant gratification, which ID/Creationism provides.  

ID/Creationism has been around for thousands of years because science has been advanced enough to dispute it until the last century and a half.  Humans have always wondered why we are here and what purpose we have.  We are also scared of our own mortality and of the posibility that once we die that we just cease to exist on ANY level.  ID/Creationism is a comforting thought to ease our minds on all those matters, but it is only a bedtime story.

When discussing ID/Creationism, why does it seem as though it is always faith based?  Ask anyone religious if they believe that an advanced alien race came to earth and genetically created all living things here on Earth.  They would probably laugh and say how silly it sounded.  What is the difference between ID/Creationism and that very scenario?  Nothing.  In each, a powerful being/beings created all life and therefore evolution didn't happen.  If you ask me, they are all equally silly.

Another reader brought up the "Biblical Flood" as an answer to why radiocarbon dating and geology are inaccurate for evidence of the fossil record.  Where is the geological evidence of this flood?  We have geological evidence of the last ice age, which ended approximately 11,000 years ago.  The great flood, by biblical accounts happened only between 5-7,000 years ago.  Shouldn't there be evidence of this?  By the way, flooding does NOTHING to speed up/slow down the rate at which particles decay on the molecular level.  Let me guess....science is bogus to ID/Creationists until it confirms something to their tastes.  Atleast science admits when it is wrong and will seek the proper answer.  ...
Love,
Jory

Jory (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 12:48 PM)

Is it not possible that Evolution is Intelligent Design? I don't accept the premise that Evolution and Intelligent Design are mutually exclusive propositions. We should not presume that our Creator used some means other than evolution to create life. Why wouldn't our Creator use evolution to create life? To me it seems perfectly logical, and intelligent, to use a system like evolution to create life. Because it is a self compensating system that ensures maximum survivability and expansion of life under all sorts of variable and hostile environments. I couldn't imagine a smarter or better way to create life!  

David Lampman, Eastlake, Ohio (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 1:01 PM)

So, if all life evolved from single one-celled organisms, where did they come from?  Evolutionists can't say.  From a collision of particles ages ago?  OK.  Where did they come from?

The truth, as has not been mentioned here, is that many leading scientists are conceding that Evolution is mathematically impossible and is not "good science."  For this reason, they are turning to what they have labeled "Intelligent Design."  The name "Intelligent Design" was not created by members of any religion.  It is a name that scientists created.  In their use of "Intelligent Design,' it is not automatically associating their conclusions with Christianity or any other religion.  It is scientists simply stating that we and our universe are two complex to have evolved over billions of years to what we have today.  Science continually proves that entities left to their own, move toward disorder.  The theory of Evolution, on the other hand, states that entities left to they own, will move toward order.

M. Cartwright, Lancaster, PA (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 1:08 PM)

I WOULD LOVE TO BE AROUND WHEN THE FIRST ALIENS START TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE WORLD AND EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. EITHER WAY YOUR GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF VERY DISAPPOINTED PEOPLE OUT THERE.

OH (DID I SAY ALIEN) GEE, I WONDER IF GOD CREATED THEM TOO.

ED ORLANDO FLORIDA (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 1:08 PM)

I BELEIVE IN A HIGHER BEING,I ALSO BELEIVE EVOLUTION IS HOW WE GOT HERE.MAYBE THAT HIGHER BEING CREATED ORIGINAL LIFE ON THIS PLANET,AND NEVER EXPECTED THAT SUCH AN INTELLIGENT LIFE FORM CAN EVOLVE.THAT HIGHER BEING,IF IT EXISTS,PROBABLY DOESN'T KNOW WE EXISTS.SCIENCE SHOULD BE TAUGHT BY TEACHERS,RELIGION SHOULD BE TAUGHT BY PREACHERS.

DERRICK RINGGOLD,QUEENS, NEW YORK (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 1:19 PM)

I am a Christian who believes in evolution. In my opinion the debate between Evolution and Creation is a waste of time because it distracts us from what God really wants us to do...i.e love and help one another. Promoting controversy and dissension is a disservice to God, especially when it comes to an issue that has zero relevance to the problems that people need help with. Arguing about Evolution vs Creation will not help solve the personal problems of a single person on the planet. So it is a waste of time to discuss it becuase God wants us to spend our time bearing good fruit....helping each other. Creating conflict and arguing about irrelevant issues and dogmatic beliefs does not serve God. Christians should leave the study of Evolution to the scientists and focus their attention on truly important things, like how can we help people who are suffering, hungry and in need of our love?

David Lampman, Eastlake, Ohio (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 1:20 PM)

All I can say is that I fear for my country!

A "teacher" who can prove disprove evolution with math and just shows the children and lets them decide

People who make comments without knowing facts, definitions, principals or obviously even a little bit about science - just because they can; as if this forum can change something.

I fear for my country!

Dan M, Florida (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 1:27 PM)

A wise man once told me that the only difference between sin and virtue was the intent or motive of the actor.  The intent of the scientists who developed the theory of evolution was to explain natural phenomonon.  What is the real intent or motive of the advocates of Creationism, etc? Why do they really care?  If there was no money, influence  or political power to be gained by them would we even be having this debate?  There was more reason to challenge evolution theory fifty years ago then today (before DNA).  Where were these Creationist advocates then?  Is it possible that at the time such people saw no PROFIT potential?

Greg, Minneapolis, MN (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 1:29 PM)

Bottom line:

Evolution is an observable fact. Perhaps those of you who do not believe in it should not partake of new vaccines for diseases that have evolved since man discovered the original versions. The theory of evolution is based on an observable fact. This makes it a topic that legitimately belongs in the science classroom.

Intelligent(misnomer if I have ever heard one) Design is based upon faith and the absense of observable facts. The circular logic used to portray this dogma as a scientific theory is laughable. I respect that belief has a place for some people, but disguising it as science only makes you look like a zealot. If this "theory" could actually stand up to scientific standards, I would say teach both, but it doesn't. As a result, ID does not belong in the public classroom. There are private schools where you can indoctrinate your children into your respective cults/religions if that's what you want. The government has a responsibility to shield the remaining students from your brainwashing. Church and home are enough for most people. School is not the place for religion. That said, there is nothing wrong with a school teaching about religion in a literature or world cultures class. Just not science. Also keep in mind that government sponsered schools must constitutionally weigh all religions equally. This isn't just a PC measure. This is one of the core values of the nation. Religious freedom(1st Amendment) is also freedom from religion. You don't get to pick and choose who gets to have what rights. All people get all of them. Remember that not allowing the practice of your religion to dictate school curriculum or policy in no way violates your constitutional rights. Your ability to worship is not affected and all religions are treated equally as they should be. Just because I think your beliefs are stupid doesn't mean I don't think you should have them.

Offended that this is even an issue. (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 1:36 PM)

This is worth stating succinctly:  

evolution is science because it can be disproven.
intelligent design isn't science because it cannot be disproven.

Science, religion, and common sense are the three sources from which humans can answer any question, but rarely can two of the three answer the same question.  All three have a wonderful place in human existence, but need to be properly understood.

[Now, as an opinionated Christian with a scientific rationale]

I believe creationists to devalue and insult the word of God because they lack the effort, initiative, creativity, or drive to interpret what has been given to them.  They are lazy and simple.  The Bible is not a literal text, it was written with messages given by God, but translated, if you will, by man.  If the Bible had been written today, evolution would probably be the story of creation for that is what present man would relate to the 'idea' of origins provided by God.

Who knows if Adam and Eve were true individuals, if Noah built the ark, or if the 10 Commandments were delivered on stone tablets?  It doesn't matter because it is what isn't plainly stated in the Bible that should be considered most important.

Jon Chizacky, Philadelphia, PA (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 1:37 PM)



SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.): 

 Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private)

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1611

More Cosmic Log

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google

Links

MSNBC Weblogs