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

From my point if view: it just baffles me that people is falling for the ruse the ID people is setting them up. It is very clear they are not interested in science. They are just using/abusing science to destroy science. You can see their intention very clear more of less from the start when they INTENTIONALLY misgguide people with that phrase "theory of evolution is just that a theory". And then they INTENTIONALLY play a game of words by taking 'Theory' in the generic, everyday sense and not in the acepted scientific definition (some else wrote). If that doesn't tell you what is going on, then I have same beach property in kansas wisconsin  I would like to sell you...It is very clear for me, and looks for other people too that proving their belief is their goal and nothing else mathers. They have lost every other way to prove their beliefs, except blind faith, but that is shinkring in western world. So they have to resort to masquerade their attitudes as scientific. What moves them is not to search the truth, but to make truth what the believe (Truthiness???). I know that science stands for open debate and bla bla. But I am not sure if it apply on this case. This people are trying to destroy science , not to enhance it. Very clever on using science itself as weapon of choice. But I do not buy it. Personally I believe that it is time to say 'line in the sand' and refuse to engage into further discussion. If they want scientific threatment, then first withdraw that 'evolution is just a theory' game of words. Second do science as it is meant to be done. Third...(well I could write for eons). So until they do that I stand to defend my line on the sand about that ID does not stand for INTELLIGENT DESIGN but for INTENTIONAL DECEPTION.  Hopes some other people see true the masquerade and star exposing this for what it truly is!!!

Long Beach CA 90803 (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:18 PM)

The fact that some people honestly believe Intelligent Design is a scientific theory and some people dismiss evolution as "just a theory" speaks to how bad of a job we do in our public school science classes. Theory is a very basic scientific concept and high-school students should be able to understand and explain why some ideas are considered strong scientific theories and why others are not.

This is basic stuff and yet over half of our population doesn't "get it." If we would get serious about good science education, this debate would run out of steam.

Scott Goldman (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:22 PM)

Well, if I were God and my children were arguing over how I made them, it would make me so sad to think that they would so easily be willing to miss the point and fight for reasons of their own.  Perhaps some evil force may revel in the conflict, but it would pain me.  Whether they comprehend my methods or not would mean nothing to me, and since my will is beyond their meager comprehension, then surely this rift serves only the purposes of the shadows, even as I have given them both eyes to see the light.

Bill, St. Louis, Mo (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:22 PM)

If Kansas (or any other jurisdiction) allows the teaching of faith based Intelligent Design, than they by extention will be forced to present the Theory of the Flying Spagetti Monster.  I'll let your readers google that one if they are unfamiliar with how that semi-facetious movement seeks to demonstrate how silly the idea of teaching ID as science is.  Once you start down the path of teaching anything faith based, you can't stop.  We must limit the teaching of science to those theories that are backed by observation and not just literature and belief.

When confronted with the argument that evolution doesn't have all the answers, I frequently compare ID (or indeed Creationism) to the way the Greeks used Gods.  When they didn't understand why the sun moved across the sky, they created a diety to do it for them.  That helped them comprehend their world.  Later, we (mankind) figured that out.  Similarly, just because we don't know some piece of the complex jigsaw that is our existance, does not give us the excuse to create a diety to explain it.  We should just be content with the understanding that we will, hopefully, someday understand.  And if we can't...not assume that it is supernatural.  Mankind doesn't need that kind of crutch.  We are smart enough to know that we don't, and maybe can't, know everything.  We don't need a God to create us any more than we need one to drive a chariot across the sky.


Andrew, Frederick, MD (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:55 PM)

Neither Intelligent Design nor any other form of creationism is a theory in a scientific sense.  Evolution is explains and is supported by the VAST majority of available physical evidence.

People reject evolution because what they "know" about it amounts to barbershop gossip.  This is largely because of the misinformation that is put out by various pseudoscientific websites like Answers In Genesis, among others.

The creationist intelligentsia, such as it is, is not attempting to win the argument.  They are attempting to confuse the issue so that unwary students will throw up their hands and say, "Well, who knows!  They're both just as good!"

The fact is that people like Ken Ham, Jonathan Wells, and their ilk rely on the fact that most people are too intellectually lazy to actually investigate the claims made by creationist promoters.  The creationist leadership presents a comic book version of science and of evolution and their acolytes read it and pass it on, like urban legend, without doing the slightest bit of actual homework on the subject.

Nearly every creationist shill believes and asserts that he is different than other creationists - that HE has done his homework, and has determined in all fairness that evolution is, if not utterly ridiculous, at least a very weak theory.  And yet these very same creationist authorities, when given the opportunity to explain their opinions, reveal they possess a nearly complete lack of any understand of even the most elementary parts of the theory.  So much for their claims to have "studied enough."

More than 150 years ago Charles Robert Darwin lit a candle in the darkness and fearful, blathering fanatics have spent the time since trying to stamp it out.



The Fallible Fiend (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 3:11 PM)

Leaving aside any arguments as to logic and rational intellectual inquiry, which would all favor science over religion, there is another issue in this debate. Creationists see the theory of evolution as an encroachment onto their territory. When was the last time you heard a creationist opine on the theory of relativity? I haven’t heard them say anything in the public arena. The reason for this is because the Bible says nothing on the theory of relativity.  Self appointed holy men nothing very little physics 2000 years ago.  Creationists are being challenged by evolutionary science because Genesis talks about the same area of concern.  Note that both evolution and relativity are theories, accorded the same status in science.  In my opinion relativity is more mind boggling than evolution and yet our scientifically challenged creationists are not attacking it. It’s a power struggle to the creationists because they see a potential erosion of their power base and hence their finances. Do not underestimate the power these people enjoy over others. The  debate is not about how to lead a moral life or about whether science has the most reliable analysis of the natural world (which it does in my opinion) but about status, prestige and business from the creationist viewpoint. Holy smoke!

Eamonn, Albany, New York (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 3:22 PM)

Almost two years ago I registered for my first advanced genetics course in college. I will be honest that for a short few weeks I started to question my own trust in evolution. I didn't doubt sepciation, of the development of the eye, or the hubris that is required to claim that human beings and primates had similar ancestry, it was the mechanisms required for replication in a single cell that had me unsure of myself. For cellular replication to occur, a mandatory function for life to continue, it is dependent on the positioning of electrons. Particles so insignificant that even the smallest atom has (for general purposes) no weight change due to them. One error in the atoms and thier positioning can be detrimental enough to lead to death. As we began work on transposons I felt lost and almost betrayed by my past educators for gliding over such a huge problem. However, as I said it was a few weeks before I realised that I was missing an incredible amount of information. I think it is the nature of knowledge that we don't know what we are missing until it is placed before us like a Las Vegas light show. At the same time i was taking Genetics I was lucky to be taking Organic Chemistry which late in the semester openned my eyes and shed light on my doubt. I've heard both evolutionists and creationists chide each other on false grounds. The truth is when we teach evolution to highschoolers it's like teaching American history to second graders. We tell them about the Boston Tea Party, but don't mention that the Tea Act brought cheaper tea to the colonies. We talk about colonial anger at the crown, but we don't say that really a fifth of americans were loyalitst(mostly aritocrates) and a fifth were patriots (mostly merchants) and the other three fifths  couldn't care either way all they wanted was to feed thier kids. Evolution much like our nations history is a complex menagerie that is so interdisciplenary that we must expect gaps in our own knowledge. There are thousands of scientists working in multiple fields that can shed light on the subjects of evolution's many facets. In my opinion evolution as a whole is like a grand mural of all the life that has, does, and may exist on earth, but it is hidden by a giant wall. Every discovery is like a nail through the wall and right now we have enough little holes to see pieces and not the whole. As such the diffence between Creationists and evolutionists comes down to how they interpret that wall. To the creationist, since the hole mural and all of its mysteries are hidden from us, it points to a fault in man's ability to understand a greater plan set forth by an unknown deity. To the evolutionist the wall represnts the humility to realize that we are falliable and can never be omnipotent, however that does not mean we can't try to learn, to develop, to strenghten the human spirit. I am proud to believe the latter.

Joshua D. Telles (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 3:23 PM)

There is an important difference between the Theory of Evolution and Creationism that often gets passed over, even by real scientists. Every theory, including Evolution and Creationism rests on certain premises and then builds up conclusions from those premises. Over time, the number of premises, the assumptions, which Evolution asks us to accept have gotten fewer. On the other hand, Creationism makes one whopping big assumption: it asks us to believe that there exists a being sufficiently powerful to create the world, and perhaps the entire Universe. And then, there's a deafening silence. There's nothing more. No explanation as to how that being came into question. Lots of arguments as to how THIS universe could be created by a supreme being. Where did that being come from? Who or what created it? What were the mechanisms involved? No answer. Meanwhile, evolutionists keep discovering new fossil records and keep generating new ideas to match the body of evidence they already have. I regret the bottom line is, evolutionists think. Creationists explain, but do not think. In reality, until Creationists come up with some viable explanation of how the supreme being came into being itself, they really don't have any ideas worth considering. To be honest, I am not holding my breath. Creationists have had thousands of years, and in that time, they have not even been able to prove that God exists, let alone provide an explanation for His existence.

Byron Raum, Beverly Hills, CA (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 3:34 PM)

It's amazing how little those that attack scientific theories actually know about the methodologies and theories they're attacking. There was a time when pretty much everyone believed similar to creationistic ideas today... Noah's flood, 6000 year old earth, etc. What people forget is that the very people that went out to prove the flood and the age of the earth are the ones that came back and realized that the evidence indicated a much older planet than biblically indicated. Yes folks, creationists first gathered the data that helped teach us how old the earth is.

There there's the arguments you see here. Someone claims they can mathematically prove evolution can't happen? Absurd. I can use the same twist of logic to prove that no one reading this was ever born because the odds are against it. Cannot get order from chaos? This is the old perversion of the second law of thermodynamics, which has nothing to do with evolutionary biology. Plant a seed, grow a tree. Order from chaos. Stellar birth from clouds of gas and dust in space. Order from chaos.

Simple facts, folks... evolution is an observation, a fact. The theories that attempt to explain it may change or be refined with time, but they're still theories explaining an observation.

Canus Major (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 3:52 PM)

This whole discussion sickens me! Our country has an appaling educational system. I feel lucky that my science teachers didn't try to push religion down my throat in school. Isn't bad enough that our young people don't know who the first President of the United States was, let alone understand the basics of modern science?  Kids today hate learning and teaching creationism is going to make them hate it even more. If I were taught that nonsense, I would have dropped out. Instead I'm a productive member of society persuing a degree in forensic SCIENCE, not forensic RELIGION. If there is a god, they've got a sick sense of humor. Hopefully, this backward moving country won't become a theocracy. I'll be moving to Canada if that happens. Christians need to grasp that they aren't the only religion in the world. The only reason they are such a large group is that they forcibly spread their beliefs, like a plague. Ignorance is NOT bliss, it's terrifying.

Tina Worley, Mesa, AZ (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 4:05 PM)

Organized religion is such a curse on mankind.  It was conceived in the dark ages as a salve to explain such things as death, sickness, suffering and pain that made no logical sense to the earths' humans alive then.  I believe that Jesus was a great man and philosopher.  I believe that he was born to Mary , nine months after being impreginated by Joseph.  I believe that he would have been incredulous, and even repulsed if he were able to see what an idol of worship he had become.  I believe that the Bible is a great novel, written by many self-serving "priests" with everything to gain by perpetuating the legend of "virgin birth", "rising from the dead", and other such voodoo bull.  If there is a "god", he/she is inside all of us, each and every one, and we call it "having a conscience" nowadays.  There is simply no way that 1) there is a guy with long hair and a beard up on a cloud starting wars and diseases just to keep us hopping, 2) Jesus may have been a lot of things, but he definately was not white or caucasian, 3) Evolution is as close to a proven fact as we are ever going to see from any theory, 4) the world would have had a lot less wars and mindless prejudice and cruelty without organized religion, and 5) people seem to "need" all this mindless stuff as much as ever.  It makes getting old seem like a pretty cool thing, escaping these religious weaklings before they come up with some other "intelligent design" hooey.

Ted Gehrke, Los Gatos, CA (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 4:31 PM)

What I think is interesting is that, as of yet, nobody has brought up what is fundamental to the Kitzmiller decision - that Evolution/ID is a false dichotomy.  

That is to say, even if evolution is wrong, that doesn't mean ID is right.  They could both be wrong.  

And frankly, ID is as a whole a terrible, terrible theory.  It explains little, requires razor-thin semantic arguments to distance itself from already observable phenomena, and similar jargon to define its own concepts.  The designer in question becomes a hack incapable of designing something that isn't messy and inefficient in many ways.

Want to teach alternatives to evolution?  Sure, I'm all for it.  But find me a credible, well-formulated one first.  

Eric, Madison WI (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 4:42 PM)

Well, unfortunately I don't have the time (nor the space) to write out the scientific proofs for a young earth or for the facts behind a Bible-centric view of origins.  So, I am forced, like many of the evolutionists who responded to just make blanket statements and hope someone takes the time to research them.

~ Biological Evolution has never been proven. No species has ever evolved from another species.  The fossil record shows nothing of the sort (and this undocumented idea of puctuated equilibrium is just an attempt to fill in for our lack of "missing links") and the theory of evolution has never been observed. Never.

~ There are a multitude of ways that the earth shows itself to be young. It is observable in the distance of the moon, the amount of salt in the seas, the decay of the earth's magnetic field, and recorded history is too short among many others.

Many of you are just feeding back the information you recieved through the years about evolution. But in a country where church/state separation is so highly valued any mention of God in the science He created is avoided like the plague. The public school systems wouldn't tell you the truth if it means letting you believe there might be a God. So, anti-God evolution is the perfect solution.

Well, that's my contribution to this discussion. Please, research this out before making all kinds of silly claims regurgitated from psudoscience.

That's all I have time for but there is so much more to say...

z.

s. zeilenga (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 4:44 PM)

I know there are a lot of intelligent comments already posted, but allow me to throw my 2 cents here.

From my understanding, evolution is NOT at the center of this controversial debate. Evolution is an observable aspect of nature, just as Gravity. Organisms evolve through time, and the fossil record proves it.

So the debate really is concerning the METHOD which is tried to use to EXPLAIN the observable natural phenomenon of evolution.

So, on one side there are the darwinists, who say the method is Natural Selection.

On the other side, first there were the creationists and more recently the intelligent designers, who say the method is the direct tinkering of an intelligent outside source (call it God, Aliens, whatever).

So my question is this, and I know it may be very stupid, but still I dare to ask it:

Does Natural Selection NECESSARILY rule out the involvement of an intelligent designer?

I leave that question open.

Naturally this debate will continue for a very long time, because also at the center of it run deep emotional feelings concerning the dignity of man, and our role in the universe. Natural selection "might" imply that the universe has no ultimate purpose, and that may give some people a sense of despair, whereas to believe in an intelligent designer "might" imply that the universe and our existence serve a purpose, and that may give some people a sense of hope. In the end I belive it is a matter of faith and it should stay that way.

Red Pill Junkie, Mexico City, Mex (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 4:46 PM)

This debate is so stupid.  People who believe in fairy tales vs the know it all scientific intellects. Bottom line, scientists and religious people are both close minded opinionated idiots and the world would be a better place without either.

Fact is God could show up on our door steps tomorrow and the scientific community will work to prove it's fraud.  On the other hand, scientists could find cave men and dinasaurs on another planet tomorrow and religeous people will close their minds and say it's fraud.  

It's a lose/lose debate because people believe what they want to believe and close their minds to anything else.

If God made us think that way or we evolved that way, we will never really know. And who really cares?

What I say, combine your time and efforts into something that contributes to humanity like curing aids and the common cold.

Idiots.

Man (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 4:56 PM)

This debate is so stupid.  People who believe in fairy tales vs the know-it-all scientific intellects. Bottom line, scientists and religious people are both closed-minded opinionated idiots, and the world would be a better place without either.

Fact is, God could show up on our doorsteps tomorrow and the scientific community will work to prove it's fraud.  On the other hand, scientists could find cavemen and dinosaurs on another planet tomorrow and religious people will close their minds and say it's fraud.  

It's a lose/lose debate because people believe what they want to believe and close their minds to anything else.

If God made us think that way or we evolved that way, we will never really know. And who really cares?

What I say, combine your time and efforts into something that contributes to humanity like curing AIDS and the common cold.

Idiots.

Man (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 4:57 PM)

im a christian and i believe that all this stuff doesnt matter a bit.  i plan to teach my children about God regardless of what they are learning in school.  i take comfort in the fact that one day Christ will come again and there will be no more debates on the subject. God Bless

sherri hanger, seymour, missouri (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 5:00 PM)

Looking down at my feet, I notice that they are covered with dead animal skins; they are called 'Oxford Wingtips'.  
Every year my family of 4 creates a virtual mountain of trash and there are enough chemicals in my garage to destroy a small ecosystem.
Every day I shave the hair off of my face and affix a fabric rope around my neck before I go out to hunt and gather.
I return, as the sun goes down, and find my wife standing by the fire pit preparing animal flesh and some shrubs for dinner.
My children were taught today that I am an ancestor of an ape.
I live on the planet where we crucified the Christ.
Over 40% of the people I know are permanently taking chemical medication.
The air is gray and chlorinated water is hardening my arteries.
I bare my teeth when I am pleased, knowing that I am a child of God. A human 'stable' desperately trying to give birth to Christ.
I am living proof of an 'intelligent design' that seems to be permanently 'crucified' in the concept phase, awaiting execution.

John Charles Webb, Jr. (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 5:09 PM)

I think the key to evolution that everyone overlooks is that, no two people are exactly the same, and that through selective breeding you can change and mix and match personality and physical features to come up with your desired offspring. If after control breeding you can change height weight or such in such a relatively short period of time, why is it unfeasible that changing over a long period of time could be extremely more diverse. The fact that no two people are the same should be enough to totally support evolution. If a Divine creator designed us, don't you think there would be a heck of a lot less difference from person to person? With no room for variables? After all why would he go through all the trouble to create so many different sub species of humans, if we all came from 2 common ancestors (Adam and Eve) we should all look relatively the same, right? I am not 100% up to snuff on my Bible lore, did the Tower of Babel supposedly just break the communication barrier? Or when he punished humans for making a tower to worship him and reach up to him (why was he mad again?) did he change and alter everyone's appearence? Or when they were sent to there Different Geological Regions did they just evolve to better cope with the new enviroments they were moved to?

Gerald! (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 5:17 PM)

There is no way that every person who cares about this debate can possibly be forced to understand things that they just won't accept.  Lay people believe that since they are adults that they are fully capable of thinking with scientific logic.  But, alas it takes many years of study to get one's mind able to understand and work with scientific principles.  Just like it takes many years to understand and work with principles of engineering.  

I am not an engineer.  I would never think to walk into a construction site and tell people that they are building a bridge the wrong way.  Regardless of how I might feel that I'm right I must concede to the fact that the engineers know more than me about engineering.

Why then do so many people think they know so much more about scientific endevors to understand the natural world than the scientists do?  They certainly aren't scientists.  So why so much mistrust?  Why do the same lame ideas and suppossed holes in the theory keep being brought up by lay people with such indignation?  And then when an answer is given to them which they struggle to understand because they aren't trained in the business they assume it to be wrong or even a lie?!  If the engineer told me some stuff about load to weight ratios I would be confused, but satisfied that he knows more about engineering than I do.  I certainly wouldn't call him a liar!

I have never heard an argument against evolution that couldn't be countered by evidence.  Often people are ignorant of the facts at hand and simply say "that doesn't make sense!"  Why are so many people so stubborn and ignorant at the same time.  That is no way to live.

Also it doesn't matter how many people believe something.  Facts are not democratic and neither is science.  Follow me here - If everyone in the world but you said the sky was red (not just in name but the actual wavelength of light) and you said it was blue, what color would the sky be?

As for why we should care what is and is not taught in science classrooms and why can't scientists allow creationism alongside evolution as an alternate theory for children to chew on - What if there was a theory of mathmatics that taught 2+2=5?  And what if that is what we were taught since the dawn of history?  But, then some guy came along and proved that 2+2=4. Would civilization get very far if we told our children that both theories were just as accurate?  Or should we embrace this new insight and teach it to our children so that they will have an even better chance than we did?  

Ignorance is a habit, knowledge is a passion.  Unfortunately most of us are creatures of habit.

Mike Hoos, Stony Brook, NY (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 6:03 PM)

One more thing: It doesn't really matter if people believe in evolution or not.  The information gathered by the tireless unrewarded efforts of the world's most curious people will always continue to lead to new understandings and ways of doing.  It is a slow process, almost unnoticed, but our civilization and our view of our place in the world will change based on this information.  It has been happenning all along no matter what people believe.

Mike Hoos, Stony Brook, NY (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 6:16 PM)

Look under a microscope at a colony of many generations of bacteria..they all look the same. Look at a pride of lions, they all pretty much look the same. Look at a family or few of apes. They all look the same.  Look at a family of coyotes. They all look the same.  Look at a family of crows. They all look the same. Look at a pod of killer whales. They all look the same.

Look at your family and the next. They all DON'T look the same. Not sure what I'm trying to get at here but how come humanity seems to operate on different terms?

Thomas Ashby, Calgary (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 6:20 PM)

Last thing I swear:  There are so many comments here both for and against religion and for and against science.  I'll leave it with this -

Religion makes people think they are better than those who don't believe what they do (infidel, hethen, pagan, etc.).  Whether or not that is the goal of religion is not the point.  That is the outcome.  There is a black/white, us/them, good/evil mentallity.  This way of thinking has proven utterly destructive to human life no matter how long you think we've been around.  

Science, biology, biochemistry, evolution contain ideas that teach us there is no black/white, us/them,  that we are indeed all connected.  Not just to each other, but to every thing that grows, that shows a spark of life, from the big to the small...we are of this Earth.  That fighting between ourselves is in fact fighting with ourselves.  And science offers proof not demands of faith!  

Which is more often associated with peace activism and which with war hawking, the biologists or the faithful?  
What kind of world do you want to live in?

Mike Hoos, Stony Brook, NY (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 6:38 PM)

I am sure that I am a little late to all of this but I feel compelled to comment. First, let's make some room here to clearly define what is happening. Intelligent Design as I understand it is, by itself, a religiously rather nuetral doctrine. It is being hijacked by creationists because it genrally fulfills their expectations or needs. Witness the Kansas folks who just changed the word "creation" to "ID" in textbooks. The problem is It is not that simple. ID does not in any way precluide any scientific notion.It postulates that life is not in charge of it's own direction, like we lack the ability to fly with our own despite our wishes. So many steps in our development (and the development of many other animals) are actually counter survival!!!that the moving force said to be behind evolution, better survival, adaptation to stress, is put to the test. The latest Nationa Geo has an article on the "evolution" of man and what was necessary to change ape to man. Every complication forced on the basic monkey structure complicates and reduces the chances for survival of the offspring(at least until they grow up)and makes childbirth many times more dangerous. And on that note, if evolution was a process to greater life force or whatewver, why are we so much weaker, pound for pound, than any monkey? We are bigger than monkeys why aren't we stronger?
So it;s not so easy because:
Natural selection is a fact, but it only goes so far. All the postsmake the case that microbes et al make the case for evolution. But no matter how they evolve they are still microbes, finchs et al. That is micro evolution or natural selection.
Change from one life form to an other is the huge problem here for Darwinists as there is no observable case of occurance.
But, this is not to say that life forms do Not change from one to another. DNA proves what we all suspect, we are all made from the same parts, differently oriented.
Again tho' the issue is how and why the change occurs. Creationist say God did it, Darwinists say the thing itself did it. ID says it is not an accident and that is is impossible for the thing to change itself as it could not possibly know what to change into or how to do it.
Last thought for now: Order from Chaos. The very existance of the quantum reality should make us all ponder. We in a rational cause and effect universe, sitting on top of disorder, 0occupiing the 4 out of tens of different dimensions, the only 4 we could exist in..wow

Greg Throop (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 6:58 PM)

This argument is amazing to me.  It absolutely cracks me up when I read a long chain of comments like this and hear certain people put together well thought-out arguments and other people say that if you don't agree with them, you are an idiot.  In this entire chain I don't see the weak argument from ID advocates calling evolutionists idiots, but I saw several evolutionists say ID advocates are idiots and brainwashed.  The bottomline was well said by the student that said there's a balance.  

I have studied evolution fairly extensively, and the mechanism for it is ALWAYS glossed over.  In the watch example listed in this blog, we all recognize that there is no way that we are going to throw all of the watch parts up in the air and get a functioning watch.  Of course there is another part that evolutionists miss with this type of argument as well is that someone had to make the parts.  This part is always ignored in discussions like this.  Another example is if you have a test tube full of bacteria.  If you set it aside and came back later, you would not have a multi-celled organism, there would just be more of the bacteria you started with.

I realize evolution has ONLY been studied for 100+ years, but Darwinists don't explain the mechanism, because they don't know what it is.  I disagree that ID is not science.  The basis of it is not necessarily science, but it is used to explain a scientific question.  For example, most people do not think of growing a flower garden as scientific, but certainly there is science behind developing different varieties of plants, the best conditions for growth, etc.

Scientists who are promoting evolution are not following good scientific technique.  As a scientist, I recognize that I have to consider ALL possibilities.  To do otherwise is to deny the purpose of science for no good reason.  A good scientist should weigh all of the possibilities and rule out the ones that do not work.  I have not seen from ANY scientist that there was not an ID.  Instead, they say it is ridiculous idea and that it was proposed by small-minded far-right-wing Christians.  All I see is a theory that many scientists are clinging to because they don't want to admit to the alternative, which is that there is a God.

In the meantime, supporters of ID have provided quite a bit of evidence on why Darwin's approach to evolution could not happen.  Statistically, there is a better chance of a blindfolded person having one chance to find one specific grain of sand off a beach and getting the right one than for the coming together of molecules in primordial soup eventually leading to life on this planet.

The evolutionists also have the argument wrong.  I haven't heard anyone in court say they want to stop teaching evolution.  They just want the ID theory to be presented as well so the students can make up their own mind.  There is a way to teach ID without promoting a specific religion, but I guess to liberals, they can't stand up to the facts of an argument.  If evolution is truly a fact as so many have maintained, then it should have no problem standing up to ID or other theories.  

The reason everyone on the evolution side is upset is that their theory won't stand up against ID and they want to keep their strangle hold on educating our kids and making them believe what they believe.  By hiding behind the separation of church and state is the most cowardly stand you can have in this debate.  Show all of the data from both sides and let people make up their own minds.  Who knows, maybe you can see the light too.

I mentioned that I am a scientist.  I too was a strong believer in evolution.  Once I allowed myself to review ALL of the evidence, I came to my own conclusion.  It was that life did not begin with evolution.  It may evolve a bit over time, but it was not the starting factor.  It helped lead me to become a Christian.

For those that would like to read more on the subject I recommend a book called "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel.  It is full of interviews with scientists who are experts and have determined that there is an intelligent designer.

A scientist who is a Christian (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 7:32 PM)

If you creationists agree not to pray in my science class, we evolutionists will agree not to think in your church.

rob egenolf (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 7:35 PM)

Either all of life was created by God, or none of it was.  The unfortunate fact is that we humans are the true vermin of the planet.  While some people think we should reproduce without limit, many of these same people allow the corporations to turn the world into a toilet more fit for insects than for mammals.  This thinking belies the true motives of creationinsts and all the baggage they bring with them.  They think every sperm is sacred, but once born, that life is off their radar.  

People should be free to believe whatever they want, but they should not foist these beliefs on the rest of us as science.  The Bible has been abused since time immemorial for some to gain authority over others.  This is wrong, religious teachings belong in church.  Not in the mainstream and not in schools that educate kids of many diverse beliefs.

Russ Pataky (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 8:04 PM)

I take issue with the comment that evolution has never been observed.  Antibiotics were first developed in the late 1940s.  Today, doctors are finding that bacteria are becoming resistant to antibiotics.  Some bacteria survive exposure to antibiotics.  Those bacteria are the ones that reproduce and cause resistant infections.  This is natural selection at work.  Evolution is occurring right before our eyes.  The same thing is true with the aids virus and the flu virus.  Now, is this natural selection at work or is God creating resistant forms of bacteria and other pathogens?

Will Pitt (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 8:33 PM)

All tribes have tales of creation. The Adam & Eve tale comes from a book that has some historical fact amid many folk tales. If every word is true, breeding Black Angus cattle on a striped floor would birth Holsteins. Evolution is as real as the world around you. Creation is what you tell children when they ask "where did I come from" and you don't know.

Rich Young, Spokane, WA (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 9:14 PM)

Several have commented here that this is a stupid/idiotic debate and that we are all wasting our time when we should be doing more important things.  So, why does it matter?  

It matters to the scientific community because the Creationists, who have evolved into the “ID Movement” have been spectacularly successful in sowing the seeds of doubt in the minds of 50% or more of the American public that evolution isn’t true, that it’s “just a theory”, and that scientists are not in agreement about it.  

It’s similar to the way the oil companies have created the impression in the mass media that global warming isn’t happening, or if it is it’s not due to greenhouse gasses.  The oil companies have made good use of the small minority of scientists who still have doubts about it, and have funded “think tanks” to get their propaganda out so that we’ll keep driving gas-guzzlers, and not demand R and D for alternative sources of energy.  It’s similar to the way the tobacco companies denied for decades the link between smoking and cancer.  

It matters because these seeds of doubt discourage many young people from pursuing careers in science because they are confused by the false controversy that the Creationists have created.  It matters because it is the stated goal of the ‘Discovery Institute,’ the leading light of the ID Movement, to “defeat scientific materialism” and “To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.”  

It matters to the Creationists because they view scientific findings such as evolution as godless, amoral, and a root cause of the social and moral decay they see all about us in modern society.  Ricardo Rambally’s post at 6:24 a.m. is a good example of this kind of thinking.  In the Creationist’s mind, acceptance of evolutionary theory necessarily leads to atheism, ‘moral relativism’ and depravity.  They want absolute truth.  Rambally writes:

“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.”

This debate is, unfortunately, part of a cultural war.  I’ve spent a fair amount of time attending a wide variety of churches including worship services, Sunday school classes, fellowship meals, retreats, and revival meetings.  I’ve attended Protestant and Catholic services, liberal and conservative.  One of the things they often talk about in the fundamentalist churches is “spiritual warfare.”  For them, Darwin is an arch angel of Satan.  Millions of fundamentalist believers across the country see the science classroom as a battleground where the souls of our nation’s youth may be won or lost.  And they are energized to fight the battle as their god calls them to do so.    

Eric Strickland (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 9:37 PM)

1.  There are documented cases of the evolution in recorded history of new species, which is by definition 'macroevolution.'  I would post a link or two, but this prohibited on this forum.  No human has witnessed the transition between higher taxa, but that is irrelevant.  No human has seen a hydrogen atom, but we do not teach their existence as anything less than fact.

2.  Nothing in evolution says that predecessor species must go extinct.   Nor is that a correct logical inference of any part of the theory.  If people would educate themselves about what the evolution actually said, there wouldn't be any debate on the subject.

3.  Evolution doesn't violate any known scientific law or principle.  It does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.  It doesn't violate any known statistical law.   Claims to the contrary are made only by people who have a comic book understanding of science.

4.  Evolution is a theory, but not a 'mere' theory.  Evolution is also a fact.   Gravity is a law, expressed as a formula, but gravitation is also a theory that attempts to explain that law.   Theories are not lesser than laws or facts.  Theories are explanations that generate hypotheses which can disprove a theory, if it is false.  Evolution is a theory, because it could easily be disproved, if it were in fact false.  ID is not a scientific theory, because it could never be disproved.

5.  Evolution is supported by and explains the VAST preponderance of available evidence.

6.  No theory has to explain everything.  The germ theory of disease  - which is also a fact - does not explain genetic disorders.   The theory of gravity by itself doesn't explain how planes can fly.  No theory has to explain everything.

7.  Evolution absolutely does account for the cambrian explosion and the formation of species.

8.  It is incorrect to assume that because evolution is not directed and is random that therefore anything goes.  
a) Evolution does not address the formation of life.  That's a separate field of inquiry known as abiogenesis.
b) Evolution is an explanation, GIVEN THAT LIFE EXISTS, of how life came to be diversified.  It's in the replication of  DNA that the randomness occurs.  

9.  When we say that evolution is not goal directed, we are really addressing a previously disproven theory called Lamarckism.  Lamarckism said that evolution worked towards some goal.  In mathematical terms, the way evolution really works is to seek local optima rather than global ones.  It doesn't try to get out of a rut, because it's not aware there is a lower one past the hump.

10.  Asking to see a bacteria evolve into an amoeba is either silly or disingenuous.  Nothing in evolution says that we should be able to witness such a thing.  However, we have seen evolution among higher taxa in the fossil record.  

11.  Evolution does not address the subject of god at all.  No part of science addresses anything at all about god.  It doesn't prove god.  It doesn't disprove god.  It doesn't say anything at all about god.  Is it possible that god set everything in motion and that god manipulates the laws of statistics, or at least was aware of them to the extent that he could understand where things would end up after he set the ball rolling?  I don't know.  That sort of question is outside the purview of science.

12.  Creationists and IDers take refuge in the the dark.  Among their most cherished techniques is to look for some branch of science in which they percieve their are few people who actually have an in-depth understanding and then to make some outrageous and usually false claim about how evolution couldn't possibly explain X.

Examples:
a)  Dembski claims that the NFL theorems of Information Theory proves ID.  Google "NFL Jell-o" and find out what David Wolpert (the discoverer of the NFL theorems) thinks of Dembski's claims.

b) Some people claim that String Theory proves intelligent design.   But Leonard Susskind, one of the guys who pioneered this idea, recently wrote a book titled, "The Cosmic Landscape:  String Theory and the ILLUSION of Intelligent Design."

c)  There are claims made that woodpecker tongues or necks couldn't not possible have evolved, or that bombadier beetles could not possibly have evolved - all nonsense.

d)  There are claims that certain physical features are irreducibly complex, by which the claimant asserts the fact that he personally can't explain it means that it couldn't possibly be explained without an intelligent creator.

"Luminaries" such as Wells, Dembski, Behe, Gish are refered to as "distinguished scientists" by IDers and other creationists.  The only thing that distinguishes them is their mediocrity and lack of any significant contribution to science.  Meanwhile, they ignore the fact that 72 nobel laureates signed a statement that evolution was good science and creationism wasn't science at all.  

13.  If evolutionists ignore IDers and other creationists, the creationists crow that evolutionists "can't respond" or "have no answer" or "can't answer" them.  If evolutionists DO respond by pointing out the utter stupidity of almost every sentence they utter, then they crow, "See there!  We must be hittin a nerve to have riled them so much!"

14.  IDers and other creationists thrive on one basic fact - the people who swallow their nonsense aren't going to actually try to understand the subject.  They're going to read the creationist "literature" and delude themselves that they have actually done their homework.

15.  K12 students can't decide this issue for themselves.  This is not because they are stupid, but because many of the objections of the creationists take considerable time to understand correctly.  Creationists say everything in soundbites.  Kids would love this kind of stuff.  But actual science takes more effort.

16.  There are some cranks, people with very few (or no) credentials or substantial experience in the subject who create slick websites that offer lots of blathering commentary on the subject and claim to have refuted evolution.   Any krank can create a web site and pretend to be knowledgeable about anything.  School teachers with no experimental background and a comic-book understanding of science can pontificate about how evolutionists are terrified of them.

Evolution is among the greatest accomplishments of the human mind.  It belongs with gravitation and atomic theory.  Creationism and ID are pretend science.

TheFallibleFiend Lorton, VA (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 9:44 PM)

Interesting debate. While I am an Evangelical Christian I rightly recognise the polarising effect of religion in general. Everyone believes their religion and way of viewing the world is right. We all pay greater attention to information supporting our beliefs and tend to ignore that which does not.

Having said that I acknowledge the fact that I cannot dismiss natural selection and evolution to an extent; it would be foolhardy to do so. In a world of black and white, my views versus yours I propose the middle way advocated by Horace; can there not be a mutual ground shared by both camps? I wrestle with science and my religious belief constantly but have realised through my battles that they are not mutually exclusive. Neither one is entirely capable of explaining the artistry of this universe.

Milt from St.Lucia (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 9:45 PM)

What if we just taught science. The laws of Thermodynamics, and the like. Then maybe we could present the ideas of evolution and see how it stands up to the laws of science we know and can prove to exist. Since evolution contradicts some of the provable laws of science maybe we can see that there is some other answers out there. I have served on a school board in Colo for eight years and the overt effort to take God out of our society is appalling. In the book of Genesis, Job and other books in the Old Testament there are more stated facts that were unknown to the "scientific sommunity" of the time, facts which were found out to be true over a thousand years later. It seems to me that any effort to challenge science and find out the true facts is troubling to the elites. Another problem for the evolutionary types is, how did people draw dinosaurs in ancient times. There are cave drawings of dinosaurs in Colorado, the Middle East and there is pottery showing the image of an triceratops that came from South America from the time of the Incas. This pottery showed skin and scales which was first thought to be false until a very good triceratops fossil was found which showed the scales and how the skin was just as the pottery had it. How was that drawn if people were not around to see it with their own eyes. Change is not disputed by most people but any sort of DNA change is not been found. A tiger may change its coat color to blend into the surroundings but it is still a tiger.When the established scientific community quits being so threatened by questions which they do not know the answers to then people like myself will probably find more common ground with them.

John HIggins Genoa Colorado (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 9:46 PM)

OK, first off, I'm about as athiest as I can be - that having been said... the "creationists" take the classical "ostrich head in the sand" approach to anything that doesn't support their position.  "Fossil record"? - Must have been created that way.  "Man evolved from apes?" (classical misconception by the way) - I am not a monkey's uncle.  (And right they are - perhaps a 10 to the 10000000 COUSIN, maybe but not an uncle).  They CAN'T view evolution on a "short term scale" because it IS a short term scale - not long enough time frame.  Give them a long enough time frame (yes, the fossil record is indeed full of "holes" but the vague outline can be seen - sort of like a 640x480 pixel 9X12 picture print) and they discount it - WHY? Because it doesn't fit their "pattern", their "belief", their "expectation".

As to "order from chaos" - a paraphrased thermodynamics says that man neither creates nor destroys - man only increases ENTROPY.  Entropy is "disorder" (on a "universal scale" - think about it - stars are born of aggregation of gases and dust.  They "light" because of gravitational effects and "die because of using up their fuel source.  Usually they blow apart and scatter their remaining contents as gas and dust out into space where it will being to aggregate again and repeat the process.  The process happens on a "cosmic" scale of BILLIONS of years (and appeares to be "continuous" but we don't know that for sure - in any event it will be continuing LONG AFTER I am not around to consciously think about it)  

Thermodynamics - "you can't lose" - "you can't win" - "you can't break even either" (the break even is the effect of ENTROPY)

Some time ago Marx propounded that "Religion is the opiate of the masses".  Today it is true even more so

not stupid Seattle (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 10:04 PM)

What is it with the USofA?  The richest, most successful, (perhaps) the most innovative country in the history of the world - and yet so prone to infantile debates such as "should intelligent design be taught in schools?" Why not teach voodoo or astrology (I am Pisces, by the way)?  Religion belongs in churches or at home, not at school. Get over it, people, please, because when your country stumbles, the rest of suffer!

Patrick Callioni, Canberra, Australia (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 10:21 PM)


1. There are no petroglyphs of dinosaurs.

2. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not disprove evolution.  Evolution does not violate ANY known law of science.  This is a case of urban legend getting ahead of the facts.

3. When the creationists decide to do a little honest homework, they won't get laughed at by those who actual DO do their homework.



TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 10:33 PM)

I cant believe in the 21st century anyone above the age of 5 could take this subject serious. The classroom is to educate people, the place of worship for the diety of your choice is for faith doctrine. Of course evolution theory should be the subject matter in a science class and faith based stories taught in the place of worship. Tell you what, why dont the state of Kansas do this. If they are so set on using religious based myths in the classroom and having it discussed as a serious subject fine, also then evolution and science should be mandatory subjects (taught seriously) in the places of worship. The kids will get an education and the nuts will get their religious indoctrination they want in the school system.Sounds fair to me (even if its as fruity an idea as what is going on in the state of Kansas now). I think the biggest shock to me was when the Pope made his statement, I was amazed and he earned my respect as no religious figure ever had before, He said something along the lines that evolution cant be refuted, the evidence was there, and it should be taight. But only as long as you bear in mind that the ultimate beginning was god. Probably the most common sense approach possible to those who absolutely positively cant deal with life without a mythical omnipotent supernatural being.

Dennis,Hemet,california (Sent Thursday, August 03, 2006 10:42 PM)

I've read many of these responses and many of them are simply way off base in both directions.  The evolutionists are narrowly guarding their opinions, and anything that threatens is immediatetly branded a fundamentalist viewpoint which varies from the FACT of Evolution.  The creationist is trying to squeeze the literal Genesis account of creation into a scientific framework.  These are incompatible.
The confusion arises around the term "faith."  Evolutionists argue that their science has no basis in faith, when in fact, it does.  The faith required for an evolutionary point of view is the supposition that every thing we see today can be explained by forces currently at work and observable in the natural world, without the intervention of a "God" which can't be proven.  What if there were a "God", an outside force, working on the creation with laws
not currently observable today.  Then the very premise of Evolution theory would be wrong, and everything that follows from that theory is wrong.  The Theist would believe that God created the world and life using natural forces observable today.  The problem with that is the gaps in the theory, most notably the old "chicken and egg" problem between the natural production of a few amino acids into a protein structure that actually has some sort of function AND (AND AND AND) can replicate itself with an RNA code (i.e. DESIGN!). The creationist are trying to squeeze a literal interpretation of scripture into a scientific mold to support itself.  None of these approaches is satisfiable to me.  Why can't we separate the issues of faith from the issues of science, which should ba an UNBIASED search for truth.  Evolutionists should understand that there are many serious issues that have to be addressed, like the "chicken and egg" scenario, along with the basic laws of thermodynamics and the statistical liklihood of this multiplicity of complex systems developing without design. Creationists have to deal with the concept that black is black and white is white, and if scripture suggests otherwise, it might be best to go back to scripture and make sure you're reading it right. If your scripture suggests black is white, you're reading it wrong, or it is wrong. Paul states that Faith is the evidence of things not seen. If you see black, assume you're seeing black, don't take it by faith that you're really seeing white. So what is the answer? What is right? I don't fully know yet, but let's get our biases out of both sides and approach this from a truly scientific standpoint, and allow true scrutiny without threat of ostrication to those willing to suggest something worthy of investigation. Hopefully someone a lot smarter than me will figure it out, I just haven't seen it fully elucidated yet.  I do know one thing we should all keep in mind.  That is, "The wisdom of Man is but foolishness before God."

Stewart Williams, Valdosta, Georgia (Sent Friday, August 04, 2006 12:06 AM)

ah,what about the drug resistant bacteria?

A. Ross , Staten Island , NY (Sent Friday, August 04, 2006 12:27 AM)

As I understand 'creationism', it is the hypothesis/theory/guess that God is the answer to the question of where did man come from. That can be taught to anyone in a matter of seconds. Then you have to define God, and 'define' is the correct word. There must be as many definitions of God as there are nations/countries/states/cities.... and none of those definitions are science, merely statements of faith, and as such should not be taught in a science class but in the 'sabbath day' class selected by the parents. By all means, teach the 'theory' for a minute or two then get on with life.

John Doe, Seattle, Wash. (Sent Friday, August 04, 2006 1:42 AM)

Athiest to Believer. genome research sceientist
Francis Collins wrote a book about the DNA helix.
called;" The Language of God". Just as a automobile
has a blueprint,an engineer and inteligent design
to make each little part come together as a whole
functioning vehicle-the human body has a blueprint
an engineer and intellegent design. Each small
genome has its own purpose and they all come together
as a functioning human body.

anton eagle, Denver, Colorado (Sent Friday, August 04, 2006 2:48 AM)

all i said was "what about drug resistant bacteria".i guess it wasn't approved. us dummies like to see our  stuff online. i didn't write a thesis. Someone mentioned the evolution of bacteria anyhow.
i ain't high tech enuff for youall anyhow, i guess. look at the world you created for your children with your high tech and religions.

A.J. Ross (Sent Friday, August 04, 2006 9:02 AM)

1) Thermodynamics is a false issue raised by people who do not understand it very well.  Evolution acts within the laws of thermodynamics.  Nothing in thermodynamics precludes evolution.

2) The 'statistical' work that supposedly refutes evolution amounts to back-of-the-envelope calculations by people who did not understand fully what they were modeling.  These calculations have been copiously refuted by people who are more knowledgeable in that subject.  There is no known statistical law that evolution violates.

People may ardently and honestly 'believe' that evolution violates 2nd law and statistics.  That may be their honest impression.  But there is no such violation.  THAT is a fact.

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA (Sent Friday, August 04, 2006 9:56 AM)

I tend to agree with the belief that the principles of christianity and evolution are not mutually exclusive. The intolerance of many fundamental mainstream sects today is another example of this debate over I.D.\Creationism and Evolution. I would like to address the earlier posting that only GOD could inspire the old testament writings. Any student of literature could point to various examples of earlier writings not considered to be inspired by GOD that say essentially the same things. These include the Law of Hammurabi, and the epic of Gilgamesh. These like the earliest Old Testament writings are merely a written record of the oldest human beliefs about their existance on earth, based on earlier stories passed on orally. The theory of evolution is a "modern" belief based on scientific observations and the fossil record. We as educated modern adults can either choose to cling to the millenia old fables about our origins, or allow God to be more than what the imaginations of our ancient forefathers could imagine.

Brian Schaffer, Fayetteville, Arkansas (Sent Friday, August 04, 2006 9:57 AM)

Let me go back and say something here.

Someone stated above that Darwin created the idea of "Survival of the Fittest" and that it is related to the Theory of Evolution.

Religion, the way I see it, was created when humans brain cavity was smaller and the brain was not able to comprehend the vast intelligence that comes from science. Modern records show that humans are evolving. I may be mistaken on the time frame, but a few hundred years ago, weren't humans shorter and lived shorter lives? Between that time to this, we have evlolved to a taller, longer living species.

Religion to me was created when we would not have been able to comprehend science. Religion was around long enough that it became comforting (and remember, Christianity, Judaism, Islam; the primary religions in the world, are not the oldest) and when science came along, we couldn't bare to let go of our comfort. Some people consider smoking a comfort. Is it not hard to let go of that?

Are creationists blind to the fossil record? Are they blind to the skeletons being dug up that science is proving link us to apes? If humans and dinosaurs existed together, why are there no human skeletons laying next to skeletons of T-Rex?

Creationists ask where the first molecules of life came from. Can they not look at the stars and see that the same elements that cause life exist there? The only reason life does not exist where those elements do is because conditions were not right for it to exist. They ask why life has not been found elsewhere. Try it like this. Say our solar system is the nucleus of an atom of carbon in Times Square in NYC and the Earth is the universe. We as humans have just barely begun to communicate outside of our solar system (the Voyager probes that are on the verge of leaving the solar system). If that is the case, we have a long, LONG way to go.

Evolution is proven in the past as well. Dinosaurs with similar DNA "codes"; one with feathers, the other without. I'm not saying that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but maybe dinosaurs evolved to contain feathers.

Lastly, religion EVOLVED from trying to figure out where we came from to also trying to figure out where we are going. The first religions (during the first millenium were called "The Old Religion" today they are linked to Wicca) tried to figure out where we came from, Mother Nature. When the Abramaic religions came along, so came the idea of trying to figure out where we are going. The idea of ceasing to exist is frightening, especially to a species that can comprehend so much. When you look at a dog, does it wonder where is it going? No, because it lacks the brain capacity to comprehend that thought. Does it go to a dog church? No, because it's simple mind finds comfort in simple things.

When we evolved to what we are today, we began to fear death. We didn't want to just die, we wanted to live forever. So along came the idea of eternal life.

I've lost track of the point I was trying to make. Simply, science can be proven by looking at past physical records, where religion is a comfort and cannot find physical proof, only verbal acknowledgement.      

Scott, TN (Sent Friday, August 04, 2006 11:14 AM)

I wanted to reference A. Ross' message above just to point out that there's sometimes (often?) a lag between messages being left and messages being approved, simply because the message flow is not being monitored 24/7. It's noticeable when there's a high-interest subject like this one.

The types of messages that tend not to be approved are messages that go after other posters' comments a bit too vigorously, that talk a lot about how moronic everyone else is, that tend to go on too long about a particular subject ... particularly when the poster is beating his or her own drum (I'm not opposed to long comments per se, as you can see above). Under some circumstances, I might not have approved A. Ross' first message because it was so short and cryptic. Also, it is possible to include links in your post (as you can see above), but you can't really put HTML markup in the message.

Thanks so much for your patience in reading down this far. I realize there's a lot to plow through, but I am trying to give folks their say without butting in too much.

Alan Boyle (Sent Friday, August 04, 2006 11:34 AM)


Both “ideas” are not equally science and non-science.  The truth is not “somewhere in between.”  One can only say this when one hasn’t done the slightest bit of real homework on the subject.  Creationism and ID are based on complete misrepresentations of science.
To accept either as science is to reject the advice and explanation of the very cream of the scientific community who have made significant contributions in their fields in favor of 10th tier nobodies who have made, collectively, almost no discernable contribution to science.

References:

1a.  Nobel Laureates OVERWHELMINGLY assert that creationism is not science and that “The evolutionary history of organisms has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept.”

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html

1b.  The national academies of science and many other professional organizations researching this area have issued statements supporting evolution and refuting creationism and its doppelganger, Intelligent Design:
http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?
pagename=NEWS_statement_president_
02142001_BA_science_education
 (National Academy of Sciences statement)

http://www.nabt.org/sub/position_statements/evolution.asp
http://www.agiweb.org/gapac/evolution_statement.html
http://www.aapt.org/Policy/evolutandcosmo.cfm
http://www.aip.org/gov/gov/policy7.html
http://www.aibs.org/position-statements/980602_aibs_endorsed_st.html
http://www.botany.org/newsite/announcements/evolution.php
http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=10
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/evolution.htm
http://www.vertpaleo.org/policy/policy_statement_evolution.html
http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/Teaching%20Evolution.htm
http://depts.washington.edu/hssexec/hss_evolnstate.html


2..  Evolution does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  Claims to the contrary are based on a gross misrepresentation of thermodynamics.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/
articles/2280_issue_04_volume_2_number_2__2_27_2003.asp
#Biological%20Evolution%20And%20The%20Second%20Law

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/
2280_issue_04_volume_
2_number_2__2_27_2003.asp#
Creationist%20Misunderstanding,

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CF000
http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html


3.  Evolution is not statistically impossible.  Claims to the contrary are based on bad math and bad modeling.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Intro
http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/probability-one.html


4.  Evolution can produce new species, i.e. macroevolution.  Even the “intelligentsia” among creationists admit that evolution accounts for speciation.  What they deny is that it can produce higher taxa.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html


5.  The NFL theories of Information Theory DO NOT support Intelligent Design as asserted by William Dembski.  This assertion is based on incompetent science and is repeated by people who are too lazy to look into it.  David Wolpert, one of the codiscoverers of the NFL theorems explains what he thinks of Dembski’s bogus claims:

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/jello.cfm

6.  String Theory (ST) does not support Intelligent design.  In fact, Leonard Susskind, one of the pioneers of ST insists that the idea that ST supports Intelligent Design to be a complete Illusion:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?z=y&pwb=1&ean=9780316155793


7.  Irreducible Complexity promoted by Dembski and Behe is bad science.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2006/07/
what_real_science_looks_like.php#more
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html


8.  There are no dinosaur footprints next to human footprints in the same strata.  Those are dino prints next to OTHER dino prints.  The pseudoscientists at ICR got confused.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html


9.  There are claims that ancient petroglyphs depict dinosaurs.  So far, nobody’s actually produced any data that real scientists can examine.  I can easily surmise that the people who originated this urban legend are as careful as those who claimed that dinosaur footprints were found next to human footprints in the same strata.

There are NUMEROUS problems IN evolution – just as there are numerous problems in every other scientific endeavor, but none of those problems casts any doubt on the fundamental validity of evolution.

All of the supposed problems that evolution doesn’t address are in the imagination of those making the claim.  They can make this sort of claim ONLY because they haven’t engaged in anything remotely resembling actual homework in the subject.

Several people have already gotten on here and said that X refutes evolution or Y refutes evolution.  In every case, they’ve demonstrated they don’t know what they’re talking about.  In most cases, they’re just repeating urban legends.

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA (Sent Friday, August 04, 2006 2:03 PM)

If Kansas or Kentucky are thought primitive or unadvanced -- as Caren Rugg asserts here -- it will be because they turned and rigorously shut out alternatives to the single formal, official, "canonical" viewpoint, leaving exactly the kind monopoly of opinions which the USA was founded to avoid. Hear all possibilities, and eventually the correct will survive -- that's evolution, isn't it?

Leon Brooks, Perth, Western Australia (Sent Friday, August 04, 2006 7:55 PM)

What angers me is that people equate Christianity with Creationism. Have gone to a Catholic school, we were taught that it is official Catholic Church Doctrine that evolution is completely compatable with the bible.

Mike, Alb. NM (Sent Friday, August 04, 2006 11:12 PM)

Quoting Gayle Coleman above -

    "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."

Is that not evolution?

Scott, TN (Sent Saturday, August 05, 2006 3:03 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