god said "and let us create man in our own image" i don't know how that happened or what his process was for Adam and Eve. But how can anyone look at this earth the mountains a stream a flower a family and think that it just happened and deny that a master, a loving father, created it???

Darwin is a bit overrated. Malthus, Lamarck, Wallace, and even Darwins' own grandfather Erasmus did far more to advance evolution as a theory. In fact, Darwin was a sloppy if not downright dishonest scientist, as is evident in his writing and dismissal of evidence at Glen Roy, Scotland.

That being said, the problems with Darwin (including his insistence that mutilations are inherited (when he writes about a cows udders)) by no mean implies that evolution is not correct. In fact, evolution is not even a theory, it is a fact.

Shame on those religious fanactics who claim otherwise. Any person who denies evolution as fact is, intellectually, no better than the Taliban. The Kirk Camerons of the world need to stay in their caves, while those who desire a true understanding of the NATURAL world continue to investigate with disinterested inquiry.

Why does your list of recent books only include books that support Darwin and his views?

Robert, who was god speaking to when he said "let us create man in our own image, according to our likeness"?

I was under the impression that Judeo-Christian religion was monotheistic? And keep in mind, when god says this, he is not speaking to subordinates, he is speaking to equals. Thus, the "Our likiness...or image." The religious need to stop their attempts to halt intellectual progress.

EM, because this is a science column and Darwin's views are science. Views that do not support Darwin have never been demonstrated to be science; at best they are unsupported hypotheses.

Robert Hardy "god said "and let us create man in our own image" i don't know how that happened or what his process was.."

Reminds me of a looney tunes cartoon character Rocky of Rocky and Mugsy when he says "I dunno how ya's done it, BUT I KNOW YA'S DONE IIIT!!!!!!!!”

It's that exact attitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rocky_and_Mugsy.jpg

Education and the persuit of knowledge though science is the only true way to enrich yourself and the world around you. Facts not fiction is what needs to be believed in.

I believe Darwin was origianlly commissioned to be a naturalist on the Beagle voyage. His ideas came to life on that voyage through pure insight and reason. His original purpose for the trip was not to prove speciation by natural selection. The whole story grew on that trip and I would bet he left his bible behind or in his duffle bag under the bed.

I'll never understand why any rational person can continue to insist that his/her ancestors were hairy, grunting, stinky, slobbering, knuckle-dragging, cootie-picking primates. But if they insist, who am I to second-guess their miserable self-image?

By the way, most evolutionists are ignorant of the fact that Darwin did not have a science degree. The only earned academic degree he had was (gasp!) a degree in religious studies. Look it up and don't be so gullible to accept the myth of evolution.

this is awful! why can't people just get along and accept each others beliefs? I think Darwin's theory is just fine, but that doesn't mean that I will criticize anyone who thinks differently. Just something to think about...

"But how can anyone look at this earth the mountains a stream a flower a family and think that it just happened and deny that a master, a loving father, created it?"

Why does something have to be designed in order to be complex and beautiful? Snowflakes (or any crystal, for that matter) have complex and elegant structures, and some are quite beautiful. But no hand is required to create them - water molecules combine together in simple patterns, somewhat like magnets. When you put lots of them together, however, pure mathematics dictates their final structure.

As I believe that people should be made aware of the  critiques and problems with Darwinian evolution, you can check out these books:

Signature in the Cell by Dr. Steven Meyer
Icons of Evolution by Dr. Jonathan Wells
The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel

For some films of the same:

The Privileged Planet
Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record
The Case for a Creator DVD

There are many more but these are the ones that I've read and seen so far and they were extremely helpful.

"Our" must be the "royal our" similar to the "royal we" ("We are not amused!" etc.).  Thus, God was speaking to himself in the "royal" venacular (how weird is that!) shortly before creating man (and of course women) to look just like him.  I'm not a believer, but what other explanation could there be for such an oddly worded statement?

Of course, another explanation is that God has a heretofore undisclosed partner in crime, so to speak, a hottie on the side, perhaps?

Darwin was a racist and so were most of the people who promoted his theory around that time. Darwinism grew into a time in American history of racial cleansing called Eugenics. You will find all the eugenicists find a foundation in Darwin. Look up Edwin Black's War on the Weak. A small group of elitist eugenicists lobbied for sterilization laws that resulted in the sterilization of over 60,000 Americans. Hitler read about this while in jail and was influenced by it.

Ernst Haekel LIED, he was a developmental biologist around Darwin's time, and he altered embryonic drawings to make them all look the same. (When they don't) to "prove" evolution. He was taken before his university before the end of the 19th century and proven a fraud. And his drawings are still in college textbooks today.
Now, if evolution is true, why do they have to lie about it?

We spend hours in a chemistry lab heating things, weighing things, mixing things and oxidizing things to show us certain principles that occur inside a cell hundreds of times per second. If evolution is true, then we are the result of millions of years of mistakes. Darwin called the single cell a simple cell, yet we now know the cell to be more complicated than the space shuttle. How was this an accident?

Anyone with an open mind is invited to check out a video with presenter Perry Marshall who will clearly show that there is an "Intelligent Designer" behind this glorious Cosmos of ours. Go to {cosmicfingerprints.com} for this video and additional thought provoking scientific material. You are gonna love this information.

Charles Darwin became a born again christian right before died.

[ALAN ADDS: That claim has been pretty much debunked, even by Answers in Genesis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/31/darwins-deathbed-conversion-legend] 

Shame on those religious fanactics who claim otherwise. Any person who denies evolution as fact is, intellectually, no better than the Taliban. The Kirk Camerons of the world need to stay in their caves, while those who desire a true understanding of the NATURAL world continue to investigate with disinterested inquiry.

*This is offensive on so many different levels, reguardless of religious preference or views. This Dave aparently has no intelligence of which he speaks. Way to go loser; accuse over ninety-five percent of the world population of being "religious fanatics" and "no better than the Taliban" because they believe in a god, or I suppose just Judeo-christian monotheists are the only people on the globe who don't accept evolution at face value because some other mindless goon taught it to them in a classroom. But whatever I can't expect that you would entertain reason and logic, "that's for my teacher to figure out."
But man doesn't he sound cool..."Darwin wasn't even the best at evolution and scientific stuff, duuur. Now I'm going to my backyard to catch butterflies and play science lab in my mommies kitchen. I have real chemicals and everything."
Don't mix the bleach and ammonia by accident douchebag. You sound totally disinterested! Get a grip pal! It makes me sick that MSN would even post this garbage!

The simple fact is that we do not know the complete answer to the question at hand. So let's continue the voyage and pass on to the ones that follow us the findings we have discovered.  Oh yes, a short poem.
If you can build a tree for me
And make a leaf just so
Then I might believe what you believe
But, until then no

Thomas Ashby (10/6, 2200)  “The whole story grew on that trip and I would bet he left his bible behind or in his duffle bag under the bed.”
He was almost assuredly reading it as he had not yet given it up.  His intent was to produce supporting evidence for it.  He simply found something he wasn’t looking for while he was looking.  It is perhaps the hardest thing in science.  He had to divorce himself from preconceived ideas and look at what was actually there.  And the story certainly started on that voyage but didn’t come to fruition until 20 some odd years had passed, along with much further investigation.  It is too bad that he rushed to publication at the end, but you don’t get nearly the recognition for being the second guy.

We could also assume that the scant references to the origin of life in the Bible refer not to miracles, but rather highly advanced technology at a level we are unable to come close to duplicating.

It would be a true miracle if life, so complex, accidentally created itself, then programmed itself to adapt to changing conditions. Darwin should have called his book, "The Miracle of Evolution".

That life created itself is a belief based on conjecture and assumptions, not fact. It's less difficult to believe that our world was colonized with life by powerful extraterrestrials, aka God and company, who then moved on to other worlds.

Blah blah blah. No reasonable person takes Darwin's theories seriously anymore. He's ideas are rather like Freud's.  A significant influence on his field of study, but how many people are diagnosed with an Oedipus complex these days?  Please! It's time to bring evolution into the 21st century.

the ultimate question is why, why does anything go at all. This is and always will be a religious or at minimum a philsophical question.
Furthermore no one can imagine how something can come from nothing and one can get no closer by attempting to explain how something could turn into something else.

Van...Darwin was a man of divine inspiration and perspiration. Only God could have created such a person.

Arnold S. Evers...It's incredible the flat earth mindset still exists..when will nature ever select against it?

I don't know who is more weird - the atheist who takes every word in the Bible at face value, and uses that "interpretation" to debunk all religion, or the fundamentalist who takes every word in the Bible at face value, and uses that "interpretation" to embrace a specific sect.

When God says "Let us make Man in our own image" he is obviously not suggesting that Man should become pure spirit only (as God is) since his corporeal existence is already a part of physical creation. If you're going to argue the point, at least get the "facts" of the story straight.  Reminds me of the uneducated actor who has Juliet wondering "where" Romeo is, instead of "why" he is her family's born enemy.

BTW, "Evolution" is still just a "theory" because we haven't quite figured out all the physical rules that govern and drive the process of "change over time."  But we will, eventually, and then it will become a law.

I was not aware that Charles Darwin held a religious degree and not a degree in the sciences. This in no way, however, detracts from his accomplishments. In fact it is even more impressive that he was able to overcome his early religious indoctrination and awaken his powers to observe and reason for himself.
One does not need a piece of paper (degree) to be a scientist. Once you begin to observe, take notes and experiment to find answers about the world around you, you are a scientist.

There is none who is as blind as the one who's made up his mind. It goes both ways when it comes to science and religion... and the sad irony is that there is actually no fundamental difficulty between the two as long as they focus on their own respective stuff. They actually can help one another remarkably, if only people will stop using them as a means of proving how smart they are.

@Van - "By the way, most evolutionists are ignorant of the fact that Darwin did not have a science degree. The only earned academic degree he had was (gasp!) a degree in religious studies. Look it up and don't be so gullible to accept the myth of evolution."

So if Albert Einstein became convinced of existence of God and tried to preach it, should we discount him since he didnt have a degree in religion? Don't be so quick to dismiss the power of logical thinking.

Evolution happens. This has been proven over and over again. However, even with millions of years the specialization required to make a complex multicellular organism is incredible. While evolution makes sense, it is not a fact, as stated by many. At a certain point, the unremembered past cannot be rendered as fact, but merely theory. Though evolution occurs, it is indefinite that it is the single impetus for species diversity.

On a second logical note: God said, "Let us create man in our own image" because God exists in a trinitarian relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is not scientific fact, but instead is truth. This truth is love, which is the mystery of existence (aka God). Fact is only an element in the entire scope of truth. However, in science we don't like what we can't understand. That's why science does not like God.

I don't think everyone really thinks about it but the bible and other "holy" books were written. They didn't carve themselves on rock or anything like that. If they were written then how can you be sure that the people who wrote them/inspired them to be written, were not crazy? As far as I know there is no proof at all that any magical "god" figure exists. At least with evolution there is some proof. Also there are so many different religions that you can't be sure which, if any are true.

It is my understanding that the Bible was written by "Divinely Inspired Individuals".  When they wrote it, no one was inspired to include the Maxwell equations under God's quote of " Let there be light!", though Maxwell would have a profound influence on Einstein.  Why?  Maxwell didn't live in the age of Divinely Inspired Individuals, any more than modern cell biology ideas were available during those times.  But, in this day and age, one can have a physical theory of how a photon of light can interact with a molecule of photopigment, creating a molecular change in that molecule.  By arranging the photopigment molecules with the common math of geometry, one can have an explaination of the various light sensitive organs which exist in the natural world, and don't have to carry the burden of divine inspiration to cloud one's thinking, on the topic, ( for instance).  Face it, there are a bunch of self defined divinely inspired, who when God goes on vacation, plan on filling in for him.  Evolution does not need biblical interpretation to function, nor does it need the divinely inspired, past or present.  I don't know who God's secretary was, that was taking notes when he said what he supposedly said, but if they were anything like Nixon's secretary, probably large quantities of transcripts were deleted for political purposes.  Religeon is not science.  Darwin is one fine man for accomplishing what he did, in the age in which he lived.  

The lack of understanding of evolutionary theory on display here is appalling. It demonstrates that "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge". I have been both a believer and a recovered believer, and I can tell you that among Christians it's a sin to doubt. And when you never doubt, you never learn. Just to clear up a few things: 1) Man didn't descend from apes- both species descended from a common ancestor (what is this- 1920?); 2) There is no doubt among scientists as to the fact of evolution- the only questions that remain concern the mechanisms by which evolution takes place. And have none of you been watching the news lately? A fossil was just made public that's one million years older than the fossil known as Lucy. It has features common to both tree-dwellers and upright-walkers. You asked for a missing link? How many do you need?; 3) The inability to explain the complexities of nature doesn't automatically mean "God!"- it just means we still have things to learn. Our ancestors' inability to explain solar eclipses didn't mean "God!"- our ancestors just didn't know any better. If you still assume that the explanation for the universe must be God, then please proceed to the next step where you provide us with the explanation for God Himself. Believers and non-believers share the same challenge; to find answers to difficult questions. And the only way to find answers is to be open to being proven wrong. If you suffer from "the illusion of knowledge", like most religious people do, the wall you've put up will prevent daylight from ever reaching you.

I had an experience in the Smithsonian Natural Sciences Museum.  I was with another contractor standing in front of the evolution of the horse exhibit when he said "you know there is not one complete example of evolution in the fossils.  Because God made everything at the same time".  I told him turn around and look at the exhibit behind him.  I then said, "They have as good a one (exhibit) about the evolution of whales too!"  he turned white and never said a word.   Evolution is fact, God is more wonderful and interesting than dogma.  

*sigh*  Why do things always have to be black or white, one way or another, my way or the highway?  You know, sometimes things can be made of blended ideas!  So much energy wasted on arguing.

There's an excellent series of video lectures by Oxford biology professor Richard Dawkins, "Growing Up in the Universe" at http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=ED4BA3683D0273ED. In it, he reveals the almost obvious simplicity of evolution by natural selection and how/why it's able to produce the beautiful complexity we see in nature today.

Of course, I'm sure no creationist will dare watch it. They're too afraid they might learn something.

I believe Evolution and Creation theory's run hand in hand. Both start from the emptyness and BANG, let there be light, then the stars, earth, plants & animals and ends with man. Our thoughts of God and time can not be comprended by man. Maybe one day we will understand if we can last that long as a species.

FOSSILS!!!!people!! Don't be blinded by religion.

To:whisperingsage, Herlong CA
Darwin was not a racist. Perhaps you need to read about Darwin and his thoughts about the evolutionary processes. Eugenticists used Darwin's theory to justify their racists ideology. I will even go as far as to say that Darwin would be considered an abolitonist. Name dropping and the mention of Hitler is only going to shock those who like you, know nothing about science and would rather deny what is considered today the basic foundation of modern science. To hurtle such an injustice upon a man of scientific progress is a crime. From your language, I realize that you are attacking Darwin because of a personal belief.

"I'll never understand why any rational person can continue to insist that his/her ancestors were hairy, grunting, stinky, slobbering, knuckle-dragging, cootie-picking primates. But if they insist, who am I to second-guess their miserable self-image?"


Um, because what's rational, and what's pretty and appealing, are sometimes two different things?

One could just as well argue it's the height of ego and hubris to believe that we were created "...a little less than the angels." (Psalm 8:6)

It may feel good and self-esteem boosting, but that alone doesn't make it true.

And last I heard, it's truth, that sets you free...


"By the way, most evolutionists are ignorant of the fact that Darwin did not have a science degree."

Nevertheless, evidence has continued to support his assertions, and *that's* what counts in the end. Credentials do matter, but science is a game that anyone using the scientific method can play, and doesn't require an officially ordained 'priesthood' to be done.

And Whisperingsage, it's possible to abuse and read the wrong things into any concept, as the number of wars in the name one allegedly merciful god or another (would that all their followers were merciful, too), tends to prove...

God is a very very old man with a long white beard and he is watching everything you do.

As a person of science I shudder every time I hear the Evolutionary Theory called FACT or a LAW. The Theory of Gravitation is still a theory as we do not fully understand it to the level of calling it a Fact or Law. There are also inconsistencies in the evolutionary theory, which have yet to be clarified. Can we scientifically prove that things evolve yes, most definitely! Can we prove that all of existence came about through such evolution? No. It is also, without further explanation, as a theory of all creation contrary to scientific laws, such as the second law of thermodynamics. Both extremes, as always, need to stop the rhetoric and seek out proof of the truth.

*yawn*
That evolution has taken place is so well established that such a detailed presentation of the evidence is no longer needed. In any case, it would not convince those who do not want to be persuaded.
- Ernst Mayr

"Let us make man in our image". In modern English translation it was put as one person.  But the Romans or the Ancient times, it was God(s).  There was one than one God that created the earth.  The master plan did came from God the Father himself.  Jesus, Abraham, Moses, and all the prophets were also Gods themselves.  But they all had to come to earth to learn, grow, develop, and gain experiences.  In order to do that they would need a body.  So they came to earth to do all that.  After all that, they were tested, as we are all tested.  To believe or not to believe.  If we believe in religion, we would be picked on by people that believe in "biology: the theory of evolution", and people that be believed in evolution are picked on by religious people.
I believe in religion and I believe that God gave us agency to choose for ourselves which path to take.  If we do not have agency, we would just be robots. We would not grow, we would not learn, and would not choose right or wrong.  We would not make mistakes. We would just do.  The bible was written by man, would you care to read every little detail on the fine print of a contract?  Most lawyers would not read the fine line before they do things, would you?

The First Law of Thermodynamics is essentially a death knell for the Darwinians!

Elijah, the attacks over Darwinism may get way too nasty & personal, but there is no 'just getting along' and 'accepting each other's beliefs' when it comes to origins. The reality is simple. As a famous mathematician said to Napoleon when the latter commented upon the former's lack of mention of God in his latest book, "I have no need for that hypothesis." Likewise Darwin. It doesn't take a brainiac to realize that, if transmutation of species is true, then there is no need for a Creator to exist. So-called 'theistic evolutionists' may try to have it both ways, but their belief in God is a fifth wheel, like a useless appendage that's merely there to satisfy an emotional longing. This is why they reject the possibility of miracles --- at least in the present. God may be 'real', yet not real enough to intervene in His creation. Most Darwinists don't waste time with such fantasies. And a man like Richard Dawkins simply states the obvious: given that modern cosmologists & macroevolutionists are correct, then God is a myth. Indeed, not just a myth, but a dangerous idea that retards knowledge and causes human beings lots of trouble. Morality is whatever we choose to make it, and Heaven & Hell are imaginary. End of story. On the other hand, if ID proponents or creationists are correct, then God is an omnipresent factor in our calculations. Right & wrong must have something to do with what we're placed here to accomplish, and those who disregard this divinely ordained purpose are fighting against the Creator Himself. So which is it? As long as none of us are personal eyewitnesses to our own beginnings, then, left to ourselves, the reconstruction of pre-historical events is limited to induction & conjecture. That is to say, it's all based on circumstantial evidence. One person will interpret it one way, while another person will interpret the same evidence in a completely different way. For the last 150 years most clever & influential people have thrown their weight behind some sort of Darwinism. Which in turn means that our institutions --- dominated by those who have been taught the transmutation of species --- cater to the conclusions that logically follow from Darwinist dogma. After all, if God is only a comforting fiction, then why should His demands hold sway over the thinking & behavior of an entire nation? Persons of a creationist bent recognize this situation but don't quite know how to respond. They don't have the power to get what they might want, yet their consciences won't let them kowtow to the Darwinian party line. And so we have contention. This fight will never go away unless either one side or the other eventually wins. It may not have to be a physically violent struggle, but it does involve mental strife... it is a war of ideas. And mockery is usually the stupidest form that this battle takes. Nevertheless, until enough clever & influential persons get serious about the fight, then the struggle will often remain at this insipid level. Or, should I say, until enough of them stop being afraid to challenge contemporary dogma, then the war will never get hot enough to shake up people's minds in a massive way.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270

@Van - Why does it bother you that your ancestor is an ape? We don't "choose" to not believe in something because it bothers us. The truth just is and you need to accept that. If anything that comment of yours indicates that you are not making a rational decision based on fact but rather on what makes you feel comfortable. Often what makes us feel comfortable is those things we have been conditioned to believe, i.e. religion & faith, and for which you get support, i.e. church gatherings etc. You people are living with group-think, self-denial.

As for all this about proof against evolution, well that is the only little bit you guys have. There is no other body of evidence to support another system. Evolution is the only one and therefore we should accept it until (if ever) something else with a better explanation comes along. Religious explanation are not acceptable as there is no proof other than vague psuedo-philosophical thought-experiments that have no physical backup.

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