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.



Intelligent redesign

Posted: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 5:38 PM by Alan Boyle


NOVA / PBS
U.S. District Judge John Jones III is portrayed by Jay Benedict in this courtroom
re-enactment from the documentary "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial."

Two years after a trial over the teaching of intelligent design, a public-TV documentary retells the courtroom drama in a style that the judge in the case says is "almost like a whodunit, with a science angle and a sprinkling of the law besides." But unlike "Law and Order," the story didn't end when U.S. District Judge John Jones III issued his withering 139-page ruling equating intelligent design with religion. Instead, Darwinism’s detractors are back with a vengeance.

"Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial," premiering tonight, isn't your typical "Nova" science documentary: The two-hour show combines archived video, up-to-date interviews and courtroom re-enactments to flesh out the story behind Kitzmiller v. Dover. Along the way, "Judgment Day" examines the decades-old cultural roots of the conflict as well as the contemporary findings behind modern-day evolutionary theory.

The way "Nova" tells it, the tale began at Pennsylvania's Dover Area High School with the mysterious disappearance and burning of a student-painted mural tracing human origins. Soon afterward, school board members started asking questions about how evolution was being taught.

Eventually, the board required school staffers to tell their biology students about intelligent design - the claim that some characteristics of living organisms are so complex that they're best explained as the handiwork of an intelligent agent (God? aliens?). Some of the teachers bristled at this, so much so that they filed suit against the district.

"Judgment Day" traces the courtroom arguments for each side, with biologist Ken Miller as a star witness for the pro-Darwin plaintiffs and biologist Michael Behe leading the anti-Darwin witness list. (The judge and the witnesses are generally played by actors in the re-enactment.) Because scientific findings were so central to the case, we learn about some key lines of evidence such as the fusion that resulted in human chromosome 2, the transitional fossil fish known as Tiktaalik, the rise of the bacterial flagellum and other phenomena

The show also reveals how the trial divided the Dover community outside the courtroom. For example, husband-and-wife biology teachers were labeled as "godless" even though they were leaders at their local church. Another rift, between local newspaper reporter Lauri Lebo and her fundamentalist Christian father, never had a chance to heal.

After the six-week trial ended, Judge Jones (a Bush II appointee) surprised observers by issuing a strong rebuke to intelligent design's supporters. Jones wrote that the concept was "a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." Because the pro-ID school board members were voted out en masse in an election the previous month, there was no appeal.


TODAY
 CLICK FOR VIDEO
 Judge John Jones III
 looks back at "Judgment
 Day" on NBC's TODAY
 show. Click on the image
 to watch the video.

"It was a case for our times," Jones told NBC's TODAY show today. But as "Judgment Day" makes clear, the case did not end the controversy. Intelligent design's backers - led by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute - are continuing the fight using fresh strategies.

One strategy is to look back in anger, branding Jones' decision as an outrageous case of distortion and "judicial activism." That's the tack taken in "Traipsing Into Evolution," a Discovery-published tract that runs to almost as many pages as the decision itself.

Another strategy is to go back to basics and focus on Darwinian theory as the root of evils such as eugenics, lobotomies, sterilizations and sexual excess. That comes through loud and clear in the advance notices for "Darwin Day in America," written by Discovery senior fellow John West. In this, West appears to hark back to the "Wedge Document," which saw attacks on scientific materialism as the first step in a cultural rollback to a more God-fearing society.

And yet another strategy is simply to keep up the pro-ID drumbeat through a proliferating succession of blogs and podcasts. As "Judgment Day" makes its premiere, intelligent design's proponents are taking aim at the show - and even at its teaching guide.

Ironically, the Discovery Institute's Robert Crowther accuses PBS of encouraging public-school teachers to violate the Constitution by telling their students that evolutionary theory isn't necessarily inconsistent with religious belief. Crowther argues that merely making such an observation would itself be a religious statement.

It all goes to show that the Jones' judgment didn't put an end to the intelligent-design debate - but of course, we all knew that two years ago.

To get the updated picture from Darwin's defenders, you can click on over to the National Center for Science Education, as well as the Pharyngula blog and Panda's Thumb. For a status report on the creationist battle for the "hearts and minds of America's teachers," check out this article from Discover magazine.   Consult our Dover trial archive to take a walk down memory lane - and feel free to add your comments below.

P.S.: The best thing about "Judgment Day" is that the entire two-hour documentary will be freely available for watching online later this week.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

The only scientific arguments made on this page are to pro-Darwin sites.  However, there are scientific rebuttals to these arguments from ID proponents. Here are some examples:

Chromosomal Fusion:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1392

Tiktaalik:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/04/
one_step_forward_two_steps_bac.html


The Bacterial Flagellum:
http://www.designinference.com/documents/
2003.02.Miller_Response.htm
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is watching.
please, this is a desperate attempt to keep merging church and state. read your history books and have faith in god's message. trust your soul is safe but don't force the rest of us to hear this crap and call it scientific information. please!!! gregg in houston  
i think they should teach about the flying spaghetti monster if they wanna teach id! lol  but in all truth its crazy that people can't believe in both i mean, the bible is a book written by a man from 2000 years ago. you think god would tell him how he made man? or that the man would understand dna and molecular structures... of course not, god like a writer is gonna use metaphors so that simple man can understand like i made you from clay.. both theories can work together if you just think about it
Just throwing this out there.  I get a lot of the similarity in DNA and animal and plant structure as proof of evolution. Makes sense.  However, I design web pages.  Sure I'm no expert, but I do hand code ASP and I'm learning PHP.  I copy and paste a lot of code from one page to another, even reuse code between sites.  Someone comparing sites might think that they evolved from one another.  Isn't it possible that all of the stuff of life is similar because God used the same stuff?  Doesn't EVERY designer reuse parts that work?  Makes sense to me!
Religious conservatives throughout the ages have fought every advance that might cast doubt on their beliefs, whether it's that there's only one God and not a whole bunch, that the Earth is round, that it revolves around the Sun, or is billions of years old.   Eventually, though it may take another hundred years, they will eventually catch up with people aren't afraid to face answers they might not like.  Christ, it took the Catholic church 500 years to admit they were wrong in persecuting Galileo.  
Science and religion are one and the same.  The split starts when someone refuses to believe that something does not exist.  My grandfather did not believe dinasaurs really existed.  Some people will not believe whether there is evidence or not.  
There is an intelligent design.  The proof is in the science.
The whole controversy regarding evolution is ridiculous and is being used by its ID proponents to blind God's people from the truth, to serve those proponents own ends.

The Biblical proof that "evolution" is indeed an active force in the "created" universe appears in Genesis 30:25-54, when Jacob separates (i.e., "culls") the colored sheep and goats and keeps then separate.  He making a practical use of what we call "animal husbandry".  Why does it work?  Because God so decreed it so in the Creation.

"Evolution" is not a theory.  It is simply the scientific explanation of the mechanical process by which the God-given and -created natural process works.
Saying something is possible doesn't mean it happened, and doesn't make it science. Anything is possible. The Spaghetti Monster is possible. The Matrix is possible. Science is about explaining phenomena, not speculating about possibilities.

There is no evidence for intelligent design. There is evidence for evolution. ID suffers from a common problem of bad science: it begins with a conclusion, and structures its findings to support that conclusion. Science works the other way. When Darwin developed the Theory (that's a capital T... it means something special in science) of Evolution, he began with observations and arrived at conclusions. The evolutionary explanation for the similarity of things is that changes are very small and on extraordinary time scales. Organisms aren't "coded" to have certain characteristics; they have no direction in their genetic development. They simply develop based on their genes, try to survive, and reproduce. There would never be a discontinuity where "the stuff of life" (I assume you mean DNA or the proteins it encodes) suddenly change. Speciation happens incredibly slowly. Changes happen over hundreds of generations. And when the changes are done, the new species will still have a lot of similarity to the species it evolved from. It's why some snakes have vestigal leg bones, lungfish have gills, and people share over 95% of DNA with chimps.
In response to Neal's comment: "Isn't it possible that all of the stuff of life is similar because God used the same stuff?". - Actually, that sums up pretty well what Evolution says happens. Life comes from pre-existing life. Genes come from genes. Science can't address the "Why" or "Who" of creation - that is beyond its purview, by definition. However, it does a real good job of answering the "How". If it gives one comfort to believe that a god set the whole thing in motion, then fine. Evolution science merely says that "this is how God does it". These are the rules He set up.
  I think so many fundamentalists act out of ignorance and oppose evolution because they think they are being asked to choose between a belief in God or in Science. That's a false dichotomy; there is no actual need to choose at all. One can have both; Faith, and Truth as revealed by Evidence.So lighten up out there, and quit trying to defend Stupidity.
Wow... didn't want to post twice, but there are a couple real doozies that came up while I was writing my earlier comment. Science and religion are unrelated. Science cannot make statements about religion, and vice versa. Never confuse them. If you want to believe a mystical being poofed everything into existence so he could make us feel bad (the Catholic mindset) or make us love him (Protestants) or wear special underpants (Mormons), go ahead. Knock yourself out [...] But keep it out of the schools. I don't want my kids being fed your bull. Let's say the courts decided you could teach ID, but only if you taught it from a Hindu perspective. Would you be happy with that? Your kids learning how Vishnu and Krishna and Shiva continually create and destroy the universe over the eons, with life expressing the divine balance of it all, and not a mention of the Christian god or Jesus... sound good to you? Or are you really just trying to wedge your Christian religion into my kids' school? Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church.
The ID people generally have some problems with their arguements when they try for a 6000 year old earth, etc., but evolution has some problems itself.  It can't be a case of it was set in motion and went all by its lonesome and it couldn't be a random happening that just started by some obscure chance.  For evolution to begin or continue without outside input violates the second law of thermodynamics.  That is the one that doesn't allow perpetual motion machines and other fun stuff that people imagine.
 The person that said "It is better to live life as if there is a God and die and find there isn't than to live as if there isn't a God and die and find there is." had a good point.
Also in response to Neal's comment: The reason human designers reuse the same design basis is because they are bound by time and the laws of physics (or ASP), and their own creativity. If we were all powerful or omniscient we would not be bound by such constraints and could solve each problem with a unique solution that perfectly fits the application.
Neal, I understand what you are saying, but comparing a relatively small computer program code with something as massive as the entire human genome doesn't fit well.

There are many documented cases of animals developing similar features independent of each other. However if you look at the details or DNA you see major differences. Both birds and bats can fly, but they didn't develop this attribute at the same time when they shared a common ancestor.

That said the very nature of DNA means certain sequences for certain functions are superior in many cases so in some situations you see exact sequences forming independent of each other. (not long sequences but small ones)

Another thing to keep in mind, just because something doesn't seem to make sense from a layman's point of view doesn't make it false. Quantum mechanics can seem quite counter-intuitive, but it's still correct. I have problems comprehending how long a billion years really is, yet I still believe the earth is billions of years old.

Evolutionary biologists are not out to prove or disprove God or religion in a general sense. What they deal with is how life changes over time and why. How life began is for another field of science.
Okay, if we're going to teach that someone or something created all of us, WHICH creation story is to be told?  The Christian one, the Hindu, the Navajo, the Maori?  Each group fervently believes that ITS story and ITS ALONE is correct, so how can one be chosen as true and all the others false?  The only answer is not to launch religious wars, but to use our rationality to understand the objective science of life rather than resorting to myths.

Nor can one try to sugar-coat religious views by selectively choosing or rejecting specific scientific findings.  Science is not a smörgåsbord, where you pick what you want.  If for example you hold to the peculiar idea that the Earth magically came into existence 6000 years (or 6000 days or seconds) ago, you have to reject carbon dating.  If you reject carbon dating, you have to reject a big chunk of what we know about basic physics.  If you reject that, you have to conclude that either all the stars in the sky are lights on some giant celestial bowl, or that our physics is so inaccurate that every measurement of the speed of light since Galileo's time is inaccurate by a factor of billions, so all of our astronomy is wrong, too.  Sorry, gang, but it's all interconnected.

Let's posit for a moment that there IS some creative force in the Universe who kick-started us at some point in the past, and gave us the intelligence and curiosity to explore the universe. If all of our resulting science is wrong, that creator hasn't really watched over and nurtured us; he/she/it has simply played a monstrous cosmic joke on humanity.  I prefer the world of science to a world "created" by such an entity!
The heck with any theory. can we get learning, actual facts, back in the schools before we worry about dogma?
I find it hard to believe that a scientist would be opposed to an opposing view when their view hasn't been shown to be law..........so many "scientists" violate the scientific method that it seems to be an insane attempt to push the possibility of an higher being into obscurity....... what are you afraid of? /there is no reason that God and science cannot be compatible, and if you read the Bible, you will see that He wants us to know truth.......... that often means we have to wade through some untruth to get there....
Shawn,

You said, "Science and religion are unrelated." On the contrary, science and religion are inseparable. You simply must take some position (implicit or explicit) on basic philosophical and religious questions in order to establish an epistemological basis for conducting science. In fact, science arose from a Christian worldview, although it has since filed for divorce, so to speak. I've commented on this issue at greater length elsewhere:

http://believersbrain.blogspot.com/2007/06/theology-of-science.html
http://believersbrain.blogspot.com/2007/06/theology-of-science-part-ii.html
Intelligent design is fiction. Evolution is fact, proven not only in nature but in our way of lives as well. Take the US Constitution for example. The reason it is still a document of rule today is because the constitution was designed to be changed as society evolves.
Neal:  I copy and paste a lot of code from one page to another, even reuse code between sites.  Someone comparing sites might think that they evolved from one another.

Actually, the reuse of code does show that these sites have a common ancestor.  XHTML evolved from HTML 4, which evolved from earlier versions of HTML, which itself evolved from SGML...

Web pages all share a common ancestor, namely the very first computer program actually created.  And the code that makes it all work is proof of that common ancestor.  In the case of computer code, it's actually a lot easier to see the progression, as the whole thing has been amply documented.
Shawn from Seattle raised a good point.  However you believe, evolution or ID or something in between, once you dictate a stance you raise a whole can of worms.  As a High School science teacher, I resist any push toward teaching any theory (a scientific hypothesis that is backed by evidence and has not to date be refuted) as gospel or law.  Once we do that where do we stop.  Every culture on the face of the planet has a theory about how the world started.  All other issues aside, I DON'T HAVE TIME to teach them all.  So I'm going to stick to my current plan.  Here's the evidence children, make up your own minds.  Now, let's get on to more pressing matters like finding a way to pass the idiotic No Child Left Behind Test we're saddled with.
Science is proven theory.  Religion are stories held up by society to control and oppress it's people.  Religion can take on many names, but the one true one it should take on is: Myth.
I find it strange that religious fundamentalists are spending so much effort and resources attacking one of the best supported scientific concepts in history while we still have so many sick, hungry, and homeless in our world.  All of this takes me back to the old Jethro Tull album Aqualung and the views expressed in the Ian Anderson songs "My God", "Hymn 43", and "Wind Up".  The older I get the more sceptical I get about fundamentalist religions and the agenda of their leaders.  I actually see more of God in evolution than in the quibbling and magic of todays fundamentalist religious leaders.
Chapter one of a book used in the engineering curriculum  describes "design factors" as characteristics or considerations which influence the design of the element or perhaps the entire system.Engineering is a science which teaches students how to design.
My hypothesis is this..."Fine tuned design factor parameters are seen in the formation,structure, and function of the universe, earth, and living systems."
It is time detached groups of scientists,engineers,educators, etc test this or similar hypothesis to determine if it can become a theory.  
Dear Terry, the second law of thermodynamics only applies to CLOSED systems.  The Sun dumps tremendous amounts of energy into the Earth allowing for life and powering changes.  
And evolution isn't random chance, how silly. There are consequences and benefits to every change no matter how small.  Nothing exists without influence, not the Earth, and not any living thing.  
Can't creationists come up with GOOD arguments?  These are too easy Terry.  
I understand that it is very necessary to those who need literalistic faith in order to find some morality for themselves, because they, for whatever reason, are incapable of understanding the idea of morality without having it forced on them, to find ways to defend whatever book or faith they are using to source their understanding of life.

That should not require shading the truth. I assure you, not all, or even most churches, synagogues or other religious organizations believe in any form of Creationism, however renamed.  My parish certainly does not, and I can name literally hundreds within 50 miles of here that absolutely accept evolution and do NOT IN ANY FORM accept Creationism.  

Believe what you need to believe -- but leave the rest of us alone, and leave alone the separation of church and state -- which frankly, is why the fundamentalist denominations exist at all.
Mostly the same old nonsense from the ID/Creationist. But I do want to mention that the first comment is from Casey Luskin...who is a fellow at the Discovery Institute, the chief scumbags behind the ID scam.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&isFellow=true&id=188
NO one in the Christian Church ever said the world was anything other than round. That piece of mythology is promoted by the Darwinian faithful and some hometown dumbunnies as some kind of "gotcha" moment, akin to saying "see what the fools USED to think but now FORCED to admit by science."   As most historians know, this is myth in itself. The myth that the early church thought the world flat as a fritter was mostly brought to us by a few writers like Washington Irving and some other cranks, claiming that exploration righted this ignorance may very well be a passtime explanation of high school science teachers, but like much of public schooling today, is FLAT wrong. Two as far as we know, and five at the most of early prominent churchmen made claims to flatness based on Scripture, and of those two were known heretics. No one after the first century AD (or very few) thought the world was flat, and NO, it is NOT taught in the Bible. It might be found in pagan and Near East cosmology, but not among the Jews. The Scriptures often referenced like "four corners of the earth" and "foundations of the world" are widely recognized by most mainline scholars as inferences to God's power and the cardinal directions, etc. Even IF early Hebrews thought this, it is not apparent in either Old or New Testament canonical writings. Interpretations to the contrary can only be pure speculation, which regardless of what one thinks about ID and the like, is supposed to be free of tenditious inquiry. Likewise, the story on Galileo and Copernicus, though often dumbed down to simple simon explanations, are also somewhat more complicated than Darwinists and secularists promulgate to the masses. The Church, at the time, was actually in both cases not so much having issue with new theories but making a moral claim as do Darwinists today that their SECULAR take on these theories about motion (the Church used the Aristotelian models) were in danger, etc. Their case was more civic order than God's divinity at stake.
In the forseeable future two robots will have a very heated discussion whether machines were created or just evolved.    
                                                   We have a very "Privileged Planet"!
Neal, Terry, Martin, Justin:

Thank you for actually trying to promote an intelligent conversation.


I admire Judge Jones' ruling. I read it through (boring as it was), and I think he was spot-on when he wrote (p.136-7):

"To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."

Science is merely science. The theory of evolution, like so many other scientific theories, still has a long way to go to explain even a tiny bit of what it purports to explain: the origins of life and the universe. The idea of evolution has bled over into social sciences and historical thinking, enabling us to view our societies in new ways - but "evolution" does not explain throwbacks and anomalies any better in social sciences than Darwin's theory does in biology. Darwin's book was called "Origin of Species", not "Life, the Universe, and Everything." (That one was by Douglas Adams, and it was far more entertaining.)

On the other hand, we who are Christians must also remember that the Bible never was intended as a science textbook - nor does it stand up very well when scrutinized as such. Those of you who deny the existence of a Creator are welcome to your viewpoint. However, if you expect to be taken seriously as "scientists" or at least believers in scientific theory, then you must admit that science is no more a moral code and compass than the Bible is a biology textbook. On the contrary, the Bible is the Word of God, a history of His love for humanity - a love so great that He gave His Son for the sins we still commit today. Teach evolution if you must but remember this: The teachings of science are not nearly so important as the moral lessons we must learn before we put science into practice.
Then on the other hand, one does wonder when (as with the Globaloney Warming at hand) the time occured that lawyers and judges suddenly became adept at unweaving complex scientific ideas. All the evidence so far (just to judge from our junky lawsuit ridden liability maze society) is that, well, judges no more than politicians make good scientists. Hmmm.
I find it ironic that ID supporters do not back the teachings of Darwin.  Religion itself is a victim of evolution.  Two of the worlds largest religions- Islam and Christianity- EVOLVED.  Neither one of those religions has remained the same thru their short life span.  Now, they are battling each other for supremacy (the war on terror), which Darwin would describe as "survival of the fittest".  Cults could be defined as mutations, hence the Protestant mutation from the Catholic church. But, the Protestants survived, because they had certain attributes.  

Please people, read your science books and your religious books.  They can co-exist.  I get the feeling that most people are religious because of social 'norms'.  We are born into a religion, so we accept it.  Everything evolves.  Brains, cars, planes, - EVERYTHING EVOLVES.  TEACH EVOLUTION!
To Terry: While it is true that evolution makes no claims about the actual origin of life, that doesn't mean there aren't ideas. Those are other theories. And the second law of thermodynamics causes no problems with evolution. That law says "The entropy (disorder) in a closed system never decreases." Evolution increases order in specific individuals (humans have more order than jellyfish), but not on the planet as a whole. Evolution is not a perpetual motion machine, because the Earth and its ecosystems are not closed systems; we are constantly bombarded by light from the Sun, for one. There is outside input, but its not divine. The energy from the Sun fuels all life on Earth and is involved in all aspects of evolution. Evolution does not violate the second law; it in fact represents a beautiful example of the power of that law in nature. You should learn the science before trying to use it against a scientist. And the anecdote you mention is called Pascal's wager. It is not a very logically powerful argument. And besides... do you think when you die and see god, he'll give you credit for believing in him for such a selfish, faithless reason?
I have spent the last 20 years selling fossils and related merchandise to museums, universities, school systems, individuals, and groups in different parts of the world.  The only people who have ever stiffed me were the Answers in Genesis creationists. They don't believe in science or ethics.
In response to Terry (a fellow Texan), and with all due respect - evolution most certainly does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will increase over time. This is often related to "disorder", and I assume that it is in this context to which you are referring.

There are several things incorrect about that. First of all, the Earth is not an isolated system. It receives energy input in the form of solar energy from the sun, for example. Secondly, the second law of thermodynamics does not mean that no order can exist. If this were the case, then no ordered structures - including life - would exist. Instead, it demonstrates that a process which opposes an increase in entropy, such as maintaining biological structures - requires an input of energy.

Ultimately, through the food chains, energy from the sun (and to a much lesser extent from chemical energy on Earth) is used by organisms to grow and reproduce by creating proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, carbohydrates, etc. Metabolic processes within cells decrease the entropy of the cells, but there is a much larger increase of entropy in the surroundings associated with these processes. Life opposes the increase in entropy until death, at which point thermodynamic equilibrium with the environment is finally reached.

How this in turn leads to a rationalization that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics is unclear to me - and thank God it doesn't, otherwise I wouldn't be hear to clear up this misconception.
thoughts..."Separation of Church and State" is not in the constitution! Jefferson actually coined the phrase when he wrote it, what he meant was that the government should not be dictating things to the churches.
...Athiestic evolution is a faith. Just like forms of creation. Read some Alvin Plantiga.(one of the best philosophers in the world. from Notre Dame)
...How can you attempt to totally separate religion from people? Thats not what separation of church and state meant. You cannot separate people from their religious beliefs. Therefore, you cant have a totally unreligious government.
...I see no problem teaching different theories of how we got here, evolution, creation, intelligent design, ...why oppose this? Evolution has not been proved. and for sure Athiestic Evolution has not been proven. Let the kids decide for themselves. Quit being intolerant. You gripe at us for not being tolerant. Let people be discerning...
By the way, there is not conclusive evidence for Darwinian/Athiestic Evolution. You cant name me anything. Anything that proves the earth is old is still within the bounds of biblical creation theories(such as the Gap Theory)
sorry about posting this twice, but I wanted to change a few words. I think i was a little upset. sorry. I just dont see why we cant teach all kinds of theories of how we got here and quit trying to indoctrinate kids at school. Lets just let them and their parents decide. There doesnt seem to be anything wrong with objectively protraying different theories...
More horse-pucky "science".  Everyone is so intent on proven the non-existence of God, it's now come the shear foolishness.  I don't think He cares about the courts, scientific "consensus", or any of the other nonsense thrown out.  This folly just makes those that would otherwise be considered to be intelligent to look like fools.
Well, I'm with those who say that evolution describes, scientifically and temporally, how God made things, especially life. Tamping His work down into a 6,000 year history is like trying to fit the entire universe into a silk purse made from a sows ear. It's "reverse theorizing" at its worst.

I am a Christian who believes faithfully in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I believe I was born again because I can recall the point in my life when i cried out to Him as a sinner and obtained instant relief from my fears and self despite. I have seen the efficacy of prayer demonstrated over and over again in  my life and the lives of those I love. However, I don't believe that God, an eternal being, was limited by a time-space continuum when He created all things. As he made matter, time was also constructed.  How long it took doesn't matter because time is relative,  only exists for our benefit and because the matter on which we live and which exists around us causes time to exist. Time depends on the mass of matter and how much it warps the fabric of space.

The same principal should be applied to the days of creation. To say "the morning and the night, were one day" doesn't mean the "day" was any specific length of time. After all, some planets have days that are much longer than their years.  Considering that alone tells us that time means nothing to the Creator and never will, except how it affects His creation.

I can only imagine how amused He must be, by the pitiful clamor propagated by those who claim to be His people , in trying to explain Him from their poor, limited, opinionated and often bigotted perspectives.  
Evolution works because it does not exist in a vacuum.  the non-vacuum in which it exists is called the 'universe.'  In this 'universe,' there are billions of galaxies, which contain billions of stars, about which orbit multi-billions of planets.  Statistically, there are hundreds of billions of life-capable planets in the universe; Earth's life experience is simply one that happened to succeed.  there are, no doubt, billions of planets on which life never got past a single-cell organism.  There are planets that never made it to dinosaurs.  Monkeys.  Etc.  

The premise of evolution is that life explore numerous paths, most of them dead-ends, before finding one that works.  
Its amazing how brainwashed and closed minded our current intelligentsia is as a result of the influence of the anti-science myth of evolution.
Listen, please, all of you. Science is not out there to explain the way anything is.  Science is observing phenomonon again, and again, and again, and from these ovservations, not before enough is gathered, making a theory.  Then test the theory, again and again, change as necessary, and repeat.  Hmm.. sounds kind of like an evolution.

Problems come around when people observe one thing for a few seconds, days, months, years, even decades against the billions and billions and billions of years that have culminated so far to this, and thinking it's enough to make an educated guess.  Humans are not as smart as they thing.  They're arrogent and blind.  When we try to explain a phenomonon instead of letting the phenomonon eventually reveal its nature, we make mistakes.  We invent dark matter because we understand neither gravity nor mass well enough to exzplain the intricit interations of the cosmos.  We invent a god to explain how we got here because we don't know what a brane is, how their interaction in outside universes can affect, let alone create, this one. And we attempt to trump 'godless' facts with intellegent design, because the average person doesn't understand how huge even the smallest of things are, or how even a tiny change every hundred years would result in more than enough genetic changes to completely change every living organism to something else many many many times over throughout earth's biological history.

And we avert scientific progression because it brings rise to change, which the primitive human brain fears.


Leave science to the people with an IQ of more than 120.
and there is only one type of science, which encompasses everything we call science, and things which we have yet to even know.  you know it as the m theory.  its just to complicated for our primitive minds to comprehend at this point.

hmm... guess it was designed then.
Another big problem with CIntelligent Designeationists is their constant confusion between the scientific use of "Theory" which means roughly "This *is* how it happened." and "Hypothesis" which means "This is how I *think* it happened."  

Let's also stop confusing Darwin with "MODERN Theory of Evolution" which includes things Darwin never thought of.  C'mon, there's 150 years of science that's taken place since then!  

--Touched by His Noodly Appendage
Somebody mentioned that life and evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics. The thing is, that only works in an isolated system--that is, one that does not exchange materials and energy with the outside. While the  universe as a whole is an isolated system (barring instances of divine intervention), the Earth is not.

On a personal scale, your body organizes itself, making up your organs and tissues and growing from conception to maturity. However, your 50-100 kilogram body has consumed more than a dozen tons of food over your lifespan. The entropy in your body decreased, but the total entropy added to the food (and its waste--your exhaled CO2 and urine and feces, etc.) is much greater.

Likewise, life on Earth in general sustains itself because we receive an average of about five hundred watts per square meter of energy from the Sun, which gives plants the energy to grow. Turn off the Sun, and  nearly everything dies very quickly. Over the Sun's lifetime, it has "burned" 850,000 tons of hydrogen every second--this is what ultimately powers all life on Earth.
Poor Shawn from Seattle!  I am praying for you and your misguided family.  If you think your ready for truth, try reading a book from a re-known physicist. The author's name:Frank J. Tipler.
The book's title:The Physics of Christianity
I refer you to this particular work as it is based on numbers.  The one thing in this world that is incapable of lies. My children and grandchildren do not and have not attended your public education system, but that still does not mean that our future generations should be made to only know one side of this debate; which is based on the "me as center of the universe" ideology.  This great country was founded on the belief in God, and actually was a better country, ie: we are killing our future with millions of abortions a year, rampant drug use among our youth, I could go on and on.  I will leave you Shawn to ponder, in response to your comment on the Bible being a work of man only: If you believe in history, you have bought into a 'work' of man.  If you believe that you are your parents' child, you have put your faith and trust in their words.  What is so hard about accepting the words of God as told to man?  And if you had ever read the Old Testament, you would know why they never questioned Him.
This bares repeating: Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church.

Given the vastness of the universe and its incomprehensiveness, an intelligent designer is certainly possible. But then we would probably not be anything more than slimy cellular overgrowth to this ID and worshipping it (Her?) would be a waste of time.
Full disclosure Casey.  Casey Luskin is an attorney for the Discovery Institute.  Telling that he is first to comment.  The PR firm in full effect.  Where is the DI research you all have been promising for so long?
I find the level of rhetoric delivered by those demanding compliance to Evolutionary Dogma to be strikingly similar to the people who supported slavery  in the 1800’s.  Acceptance of Slavery was declared to be essential, and anyone who questioned “the Institution” was met with extreme opposition, ridicule and attack.  Many of the previous comments against Intelligent Design show this same type of invective.  Supporters of Slavery had their “evidence” and wide spread support for the notion that people of African descent were less than human and even people of faith were slave holder.  They even won a decisive court case: Dread Scott  in which a majority of the judges on the Supreme Court decided that a man was some other person’s property…A few courageous people knew then what we all know now…I believe history will shine a similar light on the same type of bigotry being displayed today.
You can side with independent scientific evidence,especially in ASTROLOGY, where simple mathmatics Prove the universe is much older than 6,000...12,000 or some ridiculous number, or you can deny your common sense and put your "faith " in a dusty ol  error prone collection of  ancient books whos authors arent even known for the most part. What is known is that there is ZERO evidence,and that the bible was written by a people who were to say the least,"extremley opressed".......add some real places and people to your tall tales and you got a new religion. Just one of a long list of myths


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):

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=465175

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

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