The expelled evolutionist

steve smyth — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:38:16 GMT

Alan...to the left, beneath your pic, you list the categories covered by CosmicLog.
Is this Anthropology?
I'm confused.

The expelled evolutionist

Michael Moore, Miami, Florida — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:57:06 GMT

The import of this issue should not be underestimated. Stay informed at talkorigins.org and pandasthumb.org

The expelled evolutionist

Howard J. Flint P. E. — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:11:53 GMT

In the beginning God
Yes, I believe that.
Then you must ask yourself the questions, like any good journalist trying to get the whole story, who, what, where, when, why, and how, about God.

Okay let’s get started. Almost thirty years ago I was talking to my friend Rev. Bill Vaughn about religion and science. And Bill, who was very well read and a very thoughtful person said, “Someday the church may find itself on the outside watching the scientists discover the mysteries of God. The scientists seem to be getting closer and closer to how it all started.”
In 2008 at CERN they will start the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in search of the so-called, God particle. It seems that all the small subatomic particles have no mass and it is only in combination with the God particle that they do have mass.
Science has string theory that they didn’t have thirty years ago. These strings existed everywhere in the universe even in the, so-called, emptiness of space. At the speed of light these strings collide and start forming all the subatomic particles and the atoms of which all matter is made. Also antimatter is formed but it combines instantly with matter giving off huge amount of energy, know as The Big Bang. What is left after that is the know universe. The Large Hadron Collider will have enough energy to produce these God particles, along with very small amounts of matter and antimatter, and very small Big Bangs.

What is the nature of God?
How can God be in all places at once?
Omnipresent
God must be some kind of energy.
A spirit
A spirit, energy that is intelligent and knows everything
What’s the word?
Omniscient
God must be intelligent energy.
How can that be?
The theory of relativity and string theory now includes eleven dimensions and parallel universes.
Yes, you are right it does!
Everything is made of strings and having different forms depending upon the frequency they vibrate.
Yes! Depending upon the frequency the strings vibrate God along with the universe exist in all eleven dimensions at once. We are just not aware of it. We can’t see it, but it’s there, like the wind, we can see its’ effects. The gravitational effects of dark matter in the universe are measurable and tell scientists that dark matter exists; something we can’t see, comprises about eighty percent of the universe.
Where is this eighty percent we can’t see?
Right here with us slightly out of phase with strings vibrating a slightly different frequency. In fact we too probably exist in all eleven dimensions at once with it.
Everything in the universe is composed of strings even so called emptiness of space is filled with strings. There is a cosmic speed limit for light, 186,000 miles per second, because strings are the medium through which light travels in space.
Strings store the intelligent energy of the universe, which is God.

God is omnipresent
What do you think it means?
What I think it means, God is everywhere at once, universal. If God can be here and at the edge of the universe at the same time, and if being everywhere at once at the same time is possible, then it would mean that God is already part of everything everywhere in the universe, that would include all eleven dimensions and also any parallel universes, and that God does not have to travel to get anywhere because God is already there. If God does not have to take time to travel to get anywhere because God is already there, then time is irrelevant to God. Time is a human problem.
Time is relative?
We human beings take time to travel from one place to another.
But we learned as children that God is everywhere at once.
Omnipresent
Yes and God can be here and at the edge of the universe at once.
God does not have to travel because God is already there.
Therefore time does not pass for God.
God lives in the eternal moment that is forever.
Simple logic.
I follow your logic,
It’s intense
Time is a human problem. God that lives in the eternal moment would have a tough time explaining seven days of creation because time is relative.

God is Omniscient.
I was taught that, as a child in Sunday school God knows everything. I still believe that by faith.
We were also taught God created everything in seven days.
Ah, where are you going with this?
Well if God is omniscient and created everything in the universe. It means God created and knows all the science that goes along with it. Doesn’t it?
Yeah I suppose so.
We were also taught that God created human beings in his image.
Yes we were. Again where are you going with this?
God created very curious human beings to find out how God did things, all the science of Gods creation.
Oh, I see where you are going.
This would mean when we human beings discover the science of something all we are doing is discovering how God did it.
Exactly, it means when we discover something all we were doing is discovering how God did and/or does it. Would mean that evolution is not a contradiction of Gods work but the scientific discovery of how God did it.
Interesting

Have you heard of Pokeman?
The card game kids play.
It’s also a cartoon.
The grandsons like them. They have energy cards in them.
Yes I’ve heard of Pokeman but don't know anything about it.
Energy cards?
Interesting
Energy cards that give kids the power to do things.
I don’t really understand it. Never played it. But I've listened to them a little.
And saw the cards
Some people say they are Satan's work. Several preachers are against them
Say it’s teaching the kids magic.
Okay, maybe we need to figure out how to tap into this magic, Gods' intelligent energy.
Yeah. The only way I know how to do that is to pray for God’s will to be done in our lives.

Oh, here’s another idea
There is only one God right?
Yes
Do you think it is possible that all the various religions are just a different ways viewing of the same God?
I think so.
People interpret things differently.
They can all see the something but describe the same thing or
experience differently.
Like the blind men that feel the elephant
One blind man feels a hose, it's trunk
Another a tree, it's leg
Another a wall, its’ side
Another it's tail, a whip
But they are all feeling the same animal an elephant.
Yeah
So no one religion has the big picture just different parts of it
But it's all the same one God.
No one fully understands everything either
I don’t think we as humans see the whole picture
Right
When I was a kid I went to different churches
Christian, Methodist and Presbyterian.
So I’ve seen different religious people
There are some that are very learned in the Bible... they have studied it for years
Yes
And others that seem to be led by the spirit. And seem to be closer to God.
Yes
I think to understand the Bible best. It has to be revealed to you
I agree.
God spoke to the prophets through revelation. Is that how we human beings tap into Gods' intelligent energy?
I think so, that and praying for God’s will to be done in our lives.

The expelled evolutionist

Fred, La Crosse, WI — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:20:10 GMT

If a religion tells you that the earth is fixed with the sun traveling around it, you, as a sane and rational person, would reject that religion as false. Creationism and so-called 'intelligent design' are as invalid as the notion of an earth-centered universe, and one ought to reject out-of-hand the theology of anyone who advocates such nonsense. Evolution is as solid as any engineering fact--if world religion wants to be taken seriously by intellectually honest people, it had better come to grips with that. See www.talkorigins.org for more!

The expelled evolutionist

abb3w, Hooville, VA — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:44:03 GMT

While not a blog, I'll make a few quick observations, followed by a reading recommendation.

Science assumes Propositional Logic; formally, this may be based on Wolfram's Axiom alone, but I find a NOR-based modification of the Robbin's Axiom (with definitions of NOT and OR relative to NOR, and Commutivity and Associativity for OR) more comprehensible.

Science assumes Mathematics, based these days on the self-consistency that the Zermelo-Frankel axioms.

Science assumes Reality relates to Evidence; this translates to the Strong Church-Turing Universe Thesis via mathematical equivalence of Recursively Enumerable Grammars with Turing Computable Formulae.

From these underlying philosophical assumptions, one may prove that of comprehensive descriptions of the evidence, the "simplest" is the one most likely to be true; for formal expression and proof, see paper by Paul M. B. Vitányi and Ming Li: "Minimum Description Length Induction, Bayesianism and Kolmogorov Complexity", available on-line in postscript form with a little searching. WARNING: written at post-collegiate level.

The expelled evolutionist

Rik Rambo, Harbor Springs, Michigan — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 01:06:04 GMT

I guess the fact that the creationist you argued with "for two hours straight" got "so mad" at you proves that they are indeed wrong in their understanding of how we came to be, and it makes you correct. It amazes me how truth is truth without fact backing it up in regards to the Evolutionists "theory". And yet, every time a person seeks to disprove the Bible account of creation they end up failing and yet somehow find a way to believe they were successful. I like the argument that one person makes how evolutionists believe what they believe not because it is provable, but because to think otherwise (believe in supernatural creation) would be unthinkable. For your sake, I hope you are correct in your belief... But, as for me and my house, we choose to serve the Lord.

The expelled evolutionist

Eric, St. Peters MO — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 01:22:45 GMT

Mr. Meyer’s views are as arrogant as the creationist he so gleefully teases. I will take it one step further and put him in the shoes of the one who disregards science, respected theories, and mathematics/physics itself. String/M theory, along with advances in quantum physics have advocated other possible existence/dimensions within Einstein’s 4 dimensions. Although these theories are extremely difficult to prove within a controlled experiment, right now, and understandably so, they are still highly regarded and have the same positive mathematical conclusions as Einstein’s theory of relativity.

It’s not out of possibility the existence of spiritual realms being one or more of these dimensions.

Crazy?
Radical?

Ironically, history may eventually find people like Mr. Meyer as rigid in his thoughts as the Catholic Church’s persecution of Galileo.

Now, this is not to defend religion’s twisting of evolution. That is an insult to ones intelligence - on many levels. Their audience is for the ignorant, and in Mr. Meyer’s defense it’s correct to bring this to light.

My point is not to condemn the possibility of a spiritual/dimension that is as real as the photons rolling across our physical world.

Only a few centuries ago the world was suppose to be flat….

The expelled evolutionist

Jim Anspach, Tacoma, Washington — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 01:46:20 GMT

The debate over Scientology vs. Evolution is not a debate, it is a political argument. One is based on evidence and methodology and the other on emotion and opinion.

The expelled evolutionist

tman — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 02:30:49 GMT

in response to the string theory relationship to god by howard flint. strings are vibrating pieces of matter. twelve strings theoretically that took trillions of years to develop via the perpetual reformation of the universe. how can these strings be god if they were not around for infinity? these twelve strings developed over time. their likely less of these vibrating pieces of matter going back billions of years ago. at least according to string theory. many permutations of the universe generated the current strings to be in existance. somewhat similar to an evolutionary process, but not exactly. therefore you need to look somewhere else for god. or god just does not exist, which is the more likely explanation.

The expelled evolutionist

Steven Albee-Scott, Ph.D., Logan, UT — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 02:30:57 GMT

I am an evolutionary biologist and I teach in a public school. I find these debates interesting, and I respond mentally just as I tell my students, "Belief has nothing to do with the natural laws of the universe. In other words, if you like apples rather than oranges, then I say great, but your belief does not make that apple any more or less than what it is, an apple." I include evolution within those conversations with my students, and as I say to them, we may debate the validity of our reasoning, but our reasoning does not make evolution any more or any less than what it is, a natural law (now people can argue semantics).

The expelled evolutionist

Ryan Forkel, Tallahassee, FL — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 02:47:27 GMT

"If a religion tells you that the earth is fixed with the sun traveling around it, you, as a sane and rational person, would reject that religion as false. Creationism and so-called 'intelligent design' are as invalid as the notion of an earth-centered universe, and one ought to reject out-of-hand the theology of anyone who advocates such nonsense."

Funny, not too many centuries ago science told us the very same thing and people were expected to believe it without question. Seems like the same argument to me only the other way around. Look at some of the articles here at MSNBC and you find that scientists discovered that the Milky Way Galaxy has two arms instead of four like originally thought. WAIT! scientists can't be wrong! They are, after all, scientists.

And what about scientists in the 70's who said that the earth was facing another Ice Age. Here we are 30 years later scientists say "Wait, no my mistake. Just kidding!! We are really facing Global Warming and the Ice is not really forming, it's melting and we will face worldwide flooding in a few decades." Bull Crap!!! Science is good but is limited by man's feeble wisdom. Although it boggles atheist and liberal scientists minds there are some things we were not meant to understand. Sorry guys.

The expelled evolutionist

Buck — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 02:55:31 GMT

Well, on one hand I think we all hope there is a God. Mankind is a sordid lot especially in the most religious societies on this planet. It is comforting to know however that we may eventually get even with those that sin and have a good time while we are at home watching the non-premium channels.

As individuals a belief in God can give us a “hope”, almost like a lottery ticket that never expires. The proof of the existence of God however will be up to God, not man.

Sometimes I'm amazed that people fly in airplanes and gas their vehicles with "oil and gas" and otherwise take advantage of all the benefits of science but don't believe what geologist, anthropologist, astrophysicists and other scientist say about the age of the earth. That hypocrisy dooms us and our children to perpetual decline.

As a whole, mankind should be also be worried about other concerns.

Broadcasting our location to the universe is like the wounded sheep on the hillside crying for it’s mother. Eventually someone will hear us. As I think Woody Allen once said, ”It’s one big restaurant out there”.

Do I believe in God, Sure I do. I also believe he punishes those that choose to be ignorant.

villagearchitect

The expelled evolutionist

Don, Onaway MI — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 03:17:29 GMT

Simple point that is missed by ALL creationistist's.
Hypothothis (whay they call a therory), an idea which may explain part or all of a question, but lacking evidence. Therory: an idea which is mostly proven by experimental evidance, but still leaves room for modification as new evidence shows need to adjust the factors. Why the point? A therory is not just "a therory" (texas), it is a well reasoned opinion which has stood the test of time is is a good means of explaining what is going on with room to grow (eg gravity which went from law to therory after it was shown to break down at the ultra nano levels(99.9999 percent correct, just can not explain both worlds of physics)). The antis' use the word therory interchageablely with hypothisisus (sp), which shows a lack of understanding and a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters

The expelled evolutionist

Christian, Memphis TN — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 03:46:55 GMT

Rik, get a grip and do a little reading in the sciences. When it comes to the universe, religious dogma must take a back seat to science. While science hasn't answered all questions, and doesn't pretend to answer moral questions, it is the best method that we have for understanding the world/universe that we live in. You can still serve your god without believing that the world was created in six 24 hours days. The biblical account of creation really isn't very detailed, and open to a lot of interpretation. The wonderful thing about science is that it is self correcting, the data doesn't lie, and someone's pet hypothesis can be overthrown by well conducted experiments. Think plate tectonics.

Eric, my question to you is how do you know that the "spiritual realms" that you refer to will be the one that you envision?

The expelled evolutionist

Bill Dauphin — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 04:33:48 GMT

That's *Dr.* M[no "e"]yers to you, bucko! ;^)

The expelled evolutionist

SHAHID IQBAL, Islamabad, Pakistan — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 05:42:37 GMT

Why is it that only humans evolved into intelligent species? Other species have been arround for much longer time. If evolution brings intelligence then atleast some of the other species should be more intelligent and creative than humans.

The expelled evolutionist

StephenS, Orem, Utah — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 06:02:29 GMT

Wise: To know. Wissenschaftlicher: scientist. Wissen: to know.
Those lights in the night sky are not holes as religion would teach for millennia.
The earth is not the middle of all space as superstition would tell.
We are related to all living beings on this planet the scientists tell us.
Before us there was an us. Humans do adapt to the environment just like the rest of us.
We are not separate from each other in spite of our beliefs, stature, education, or wealth.
Religionists are purveyors of darkness.
These are the ignorant and emotional mental minions who can not stand the light of truth. They argue the weight of shadows while promoting death in this life and in the next.
Binding codices 1,500 or so pages of copies of ancient folklore and calling them "sacred" will never make it so. Alexandria burnt does not erase the truth.
Killing because it makes you superior is final proof that all of your beliefs are superstition.
It is evident that Religions are simply fairy tales told with zeal.
Your Passionate pleas do not justify your beliefs or your black hearts.
And yet Science justifies its self with every breath.
Observation, measurement, and notation are THE True Religion.
And Education is the lamp in the darkness.
There is so much darkness and so few lamps.
Every new day reveals a Holy Grail.
Except for those who memorize faded memories of half forgotten tales.

Dinosaurs are real Religion is Swamp gas

The expelled evolutionist

Matt, Ventura, California — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 06:06:52 GMT

God and Science are really the same thing. They are the reflections of the egos of humans that can not accept the reality that there are things they will and can not ever understand. One of the biggest of these is Death and the other is the creation of the universe and our place in it. Religion uses mystisim and fantasy to explain the unknown while science uses its own man made laws and equations to make sense of the unknown. Those who live their daily lives within the boundries of the reality of this world; the ones living, eating, breathing, loving, hunting, observing and overall respecting the natural beauty and wonderfulness of the whole universe, are the most wise and spiritual people of our world. They are the humble people who are the true observers of our place within the fabric of life. They know the "truth". Do they have vast material wealth-no. Do they want for more technology - not usually unless it is "forced" upon them. Do they wish for more and bigger churches and universities - no - they live in the best ones already - the desert, the jungle, ect. The Kogi Indians of south america train their new spiritual leader from birth (Called a Mama). He is taught the complete history of his people, all the animals, and lives in "darkness" of the realities of the world around him. He is only told, and learns to beleive, that the world is perfect in all its splendor. That spiritual wisdom is the ultimate thing to behold. After 18 years of eating bland food, not seeing a young and beautiful woman, and not seeing the sun rise or set over the beautiful jungle, he is allowed all this and more. When the old Mama asks him, "Is the world as beautiful and full of wonder as I told you" The young Mama always says, "It is that and much more."

The world is our Eden, we don't need define it with our limited laws, intuition, eyesight, or intellect. We just need to see it as it is - beautiful, wonderful and full of wisdom. God did not hide the Tree of life from us. We have just forgotton how to look for it. It is there in front of us - not in a church but in a cloud; not on a computer screen but in a lovers letter of poetry. We don't need a dogma or a machine to make "Contact" with the ONE - we live and breath it each day - it is called life! We just need to really start living it.

The expelled evolutionist

The great one, Newport News Virginia — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 07:17:17 GMT

we all no theres no such thing as religion.... and schools are used for brainwash anyway so whats the big deal?

The expelled evolutionist

Soren Turvedsen — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 08:08:03 GMT

There are two types of people with whom it is impossible to constructively argue without making a fool of one's self: Bigots, and lunatics. Not all Creationists are bigots or lunatics - it is indeed possible to become deluded by one's social environment - but those terms cover easily the bulk of their activist constituency. The bigots are the ones willing to simply lie on behalf of their agenda - like spiders weaving webs, they just make things up and post them on cheap websites to delude and deceive naive people who've never had the benefit of a real biology education. As for the loons, they are the ones who don't have to lie because they can believe essentially anything, and none of it is connected with any form of logic or even intuitive reasoning: "How do you know that God isn't simply testing you by tricking you with all these fossils?" I feel a sort of amused paternal kindness to people who can believe anything - they're basically adult children - but for the liars I have nothing but contempt. Unfortunately, Creationism and all its flimsy disguises (especially I.D.) are pushed primarily by the latter - people with a political agenda motivated by fanaticism and mendacity. Rather than arguing in perpetuity with these liars and giving them a perpetual platform to spread disinformation, the best thing is simply to properly educate people in the first place about biology. These maniacs don't have anywhere near the standing in other developed nations that they do here, because science is taught properly elsewhere.

The expelled evolutionist

Matthew, Melbourne the land of Oz — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 08:20:40 GMT

Who's the bigger fool? The fool spouting gibberish nonsense, or the person arguing with the fool?

Like a horse with blinders on, many of us only see a small portion of all that is. A simple change in perception can reveal a world previously unseen. All you have to do is look around and all is revealed.

The expelled evolutionist

Phillip Marshall — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:13:33 GMT

Didn't "GOD" set up the principles of science give all living things free will and just step back?

The expelled evolutionist

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:27:57 GMT

Try this on for size:

The universe is a closed system of E=MC2. A closed system cannot create itself. Therefore something created it. Whatever created it is the creator - what we refer to as God.

That says nothing about the characteristics of God.

Another point:

Religion has nothing to do with God. It's just a human invention to control humans. Sometimes its used to justify actions that would otherwise not be condoned - like tearing the heart out of a virgin, burning people at the stake, stoning people to death, hanging people thought to be witches.

Another point:

You could expect a God law to be physically impossible for a human to circumvent. Hold a pencil in the air and let it go. It drops. You have just demonstrated a God law.

The expelled evolutionist

Renee, Los Angeles, CA — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:21:28 GMT

I do believe that Eric is right and both sides are rigid almost to the same degree. Personally I'd like more care given to learning and to the research and less to the un ending war between evolutionist and creationist .

The expelled evolutionist

Rod, Houston — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 11:39:01 GMT

The one thing that some posters here miss, like Rik Rambo, is that the evidence supports Dr. Meyers point of view. Pretty much all of the religious/creationist/ID arguments are false. No account of revelation has ever been dependable. The scientific method is used because it works.

Claims that ID/Creationism is science are bogus and easily exposed. They are repeated because too many people are too lazy to actually check up on what the evidence supports.

The expelled evolutionist

Tom — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:03:41 GMT

And a few thousand years it was round before it was flat.

So much knowledge was lost in the name of one philosophy, religion or political view being more important or rightous than another.

In the end, all possibilities should be discussed openly. It's for the individual to make a choice.

It's so strange looking from the outside in, that America is advanced in so many ways, yet held back in so many others.

Maybe it's the contradiction which breeds progression.

The expelled evolutionist

John Doe — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:13:08 GMT

I don't think Creationism is an explanation of how the universe began. It always is an intermediate. It always starts out with a god who is already here. We scientists want to know the beginning---not a middle step. So these stupid religious nuts should admit they have no theory on the beginnig. They claim the universe (their God) has no beginning. Certainly genesis is wrong since it has two versions which conflict (and so can't be right). But again, Genesis assumes that God floated in the dark for all infinity and then one day (with his eyes open I guess0 he decided to make light and dark---wait there already was always dark. Anyway, then he made the Earth and the Sun and then after that the stars. Not that the sun and stars had any bearing on light and dark. Remember, those "little" stars are all going to fall to Earth someday when we beging the end of times. How could a beachball fall onto a BB? That would maybe be the equivalent. Oh well. God does such amazing things. I guess before he kills everyone (again) he will make the stars smaller and get rid of their heat and gravity before they fall on the Earth.....

The expelled evolutionist

KVG, Golden Valley, MN — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:24:16 GMT

I have asked the same question everytime I confront creationism & I have NEVER received a coherent answer. If the universe is so complex that it required an "intelligent designer" what created the MORE complex "intelligent designer"? The only types of answers I ever get are "We're not meant to know", "That's the mystery" or "We'll only know that when our time on Earth is over". Intelligent design is strictly a religious belief & should be left in Sunday school. If intelligent designers/creationist want their religion taught in public schools (and & am NOT promoting that idea in any way) then they should allow evolution to be taught as an equally valid alternate to creation in their churches, schools & during their services. That'll be the day!! I had 12 years of Catholic education and I never received an adequate answer to my question. I don't believe there is an intellectually honest answer to be found. No matter how fervent their belief they can't answer the question & they don't try to find the answer. What are they afraid of? That all they will find is a little man pulling levers behind the curtain? I honestly feel sorry for those who can't see the truth for all the smoke & mirrors that they have come to believe in.

The expelled evolutionist

George Turley, Loganville, Georgia — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:35:23 GMT

I find it sad that such a fine mind as Dr. Meyers seems to grasp the intricacies of biology and many other sciences alone. He appears to hold the details of the natural world as some 'Holy Grail",to be discovered, catalogued and understood. Such veneration and "worship" is common to those who are truly blind, for they see well creation and fail to adequately desire an understanding of the Creator,an understanding which can only be gained through a personal relationship with Him. How can one ask "What?", "Where?", "When?", and "Why?" and not want to know "Who?"?

The expelled evolutionist

EDavey — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:35:48 GMT

The religious should remember that Zeus and Diana and Odin and Thor and that crowd were revered quite as long as Jehovah and Jesus.. with equal fervor and devotion. The religious impluse seems to be old and hard-wired in the brain, but not essentially valid just because of that.

The expelled evolutionist

pfowler — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:41:05 GMT

this article is so biased, it is easy to see the author is not an "anti-evolutionist" as he/she would say. Please learn how to write a fair article, or take a class on journalism.

The expelled evolutionist

Clark Jones, Blakeslee PA — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:43:58 GMT

Essentially I agree with Dr. Meyers. For too long the views of religionists,particularly Judeo-Christian, have been accepted without question and given prestige which is not deserved.The time is long past when irrelevant unsubstantiated superstition, perpetuated by centuries of systyematic propaganda is allowed to influence our investigation and understanding of our relationship with the cosmos in all it's vastness.
Science and evolution certainly does not possess all the answers, but the framework in which science operates is not rigid, it is flexible and open to further investigation, integration of new information and has proven it's capacity to increase our understanding of life and the universe. If you need a spiritual dimension in your life, the concept of a creator god is is relevant and obsolete. Simply look into the vastness of the cosmos or in the eyes of every creature and the depths of your own mind to discover it.

The expelled evolutionist

Buddy Knight Fort Worth, TX — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:44:30 GMT

It seems to me that the battle is fought, in the press at least, between the two extremes: Atheistic evolutionist and religious "Young Earth Creationists". There are others in the battle.

I'm an "Old Earth Creationist". I do not believe that humans appeared ~6,000 years ago, shortly after the Universe popped into being. Evidence seems to suggest an older age for humanity, possibly 75,000 - 100,000 years, but not 6,000. Nor do I believe that the Universe is also only 6,000 years ago.

First, I believe that the nature of the Universe, it's structure, composition, and laws, cry out for a Design and, hence, a Designer. To me, that is Jehovah, the God of the Bible.

Second, as a degreed engineer from a very reputable school, I find that the "evidence" within science to be compelling that Creation is quite old, and quite complex. What theologians call "General Revelation", what we learn about God from His Creation, indicates that He has been at His work for billions of years. Basic cosmology and geology indicate that, plus archeology has found evidence of human cultures from before 4,000BC. So, I'm an Old Earth Creationist.

Third, for those with a truly open mind (in both directions) faith and science do not conflict. I would recommend the works of Dr. Hugh Ross and his associates at reasonstobelieve.com as a good step to seeing how the Bible and Science harmonize. Neither is fully understood, but they do not conflict.

Scientists are not all atheists, just as all atheists are not scientists. However, scientists can have passion, drive, and agendas. Their atheism and it's subsequent belief systems can look a lot like a form of faith.

Not to be insulting . . .

The expelled evolutionist

Patrick, Fayetteville, AR — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:46:16 GMT

This is an endless debate. Those who follow the "word of God" will never back down because their cause is devine and just and right. Those who put stock in evolution will "stick to the proven facts" and dismiss the possibility of an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-involved higher power. Those who make concessions and acknowledge the possibility of a higher being while simultaneously holding to the belief that man has evolved and was not created are branded as "wishy-washy."

The only major difference here is that those in the "religious" camp will continue to expand the scope and reach of God in order to undermine evolution (i.e. "intelligent design"), whereas evolutionists seek to find concrete explanations for why the world is as it is.

The expelled evolutionist

Jason Fontaine - Houston, Texas — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:02:35 GMT

Remember - too many people forget this. We are given FREE WILL. We can take our underutilized brain and actually use it. We find many interesting things in the world around us. However, as is common with man, give an inch and he'll take a mile! When you begin thinking to "have the answers" - you really don't have a clue. The first fundamental flaw in any argument is denying the yes has a no - a stop a go. It's all relative. But, once essential function is abundantly clear - we have free will....this is evidenced by the article....let's just not get ahead of ourselves - o.k.?
One other point - SCIENTISTS ARE NOT ADVOCATES for ANYTHING. SCIENTISTS are SEARCHERS...When you become an advocate for ANYTHING - you pervert and distort the other equally objectionable side. That's the first thing ANY scientist should know....every stop has a go. Every yes - a no. Simple, really.

The expelled evolutionist

Ron, Pittsburgh, Pa. — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:05:58 GMT

RationalWiki.com is dedicated to combating the anti-science movement.

The expelled evolutionist

SD, Worcester, MA — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:06:49 GMT

Isn’t it quite ironic that the instinct for organized religion most likely developed from evolutionary forces arising from the reproductive advantage of existing in stable societies? It seams that evolution has created its own doubters!

The expelled evolutionist

Jason, Washington PA — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:07:58 GMT

Honestly people, if instead of "God created the world in seven days (as human perception times them)" it was "God took billions of years to get things just right for man to walk the earth" how would it really make a difference in things like "Thou shall not lie," or "Love thy neighbor," or any of the teachings of Christ? When did the EXACT timing in proportion of human perception of how things got rolling in the physical universe matter more than anything else? Why can't we have science AND religion?

The expelled evolutionist

Jerry, Natrona Heights, Pa — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:09:36 GMT

Oh my, the theists are at the whipping post once again so the atheists can feel smug and assure themselves that they're right in their own little way. Frankly, they seem to be two sides that are so afraid that the other might be right that they need to fight tooth and nail to prove the other wrong.

Not to say I don't have an opinion but I'm pretty open minded about future evidence. Instead what I'm getting from both sides is the same re-hashed, illogical squabble.

Maybe if you were as right as you think you are you'd find it pointless to debate with others? Have a blast guys. I have better things to do.

The expelled evolutionist

Rob Vallee, Jacksonville, Fl — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:10:21 GMT

To this day no one can prove that god ever or does exist. Yet sceince can prove evolution. Sometimes the truth is harder to believe than fiction.

The expelled evolutionist

Shelley, Asher, OK — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:12:50 GMT

Living here in the bible-belt, the issue of teaching evolution vs. intelligent design is a pretty frequent topic. My take on it is that most industrialized countries teach evolution, so if we're not teaching it in primary schools, when they go off college, out into the working world etc., we'd be handicapping them at the start. Come on folks, we need all the smart people we can get. It's a big scary world out there, whose most pressing problems require scientists, not preachers. I'm sure some will disagree, I realize proselytizing is church doctrine. What I find for the most part here, the same people who can quote you any passage from the bible, can't tell you who is running for their state senate seat for example, or what the top environmental issue of the day is etc. Many seem never to look past their church pulpits. Many great civilizations have fallen when they cling so tightly to religion, that they refuse to acknowledge the obvious right in front of their noses. Maybe we'd be an Aztec dominated world now, had they not perceived the Conquestadors as God's manifested.

The expelled evolutionist

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:14:08 GMT

Science does not disprove the supernatural. Science does not address the supernatural at all. If the supernatural is interfering with the natural world (changing water to wine, or levitating elephants), the scientist cannot discern it. Why? Because she cannot distinguish "it's a miracle" from "we just don't know the answer yet." Anyone who says, "Well, we don't know and therefore God must have done it" is not behaving as a good scientist - and probably not a very good theologian (although I am admittedly not a very capable judge of the latter).

Because atheists like Meyers and Dawkins (and myself) are usually also evolutionists, people - particularly creationists - often conflate the two things. Evolution is a fact (with an brilliant collection of explanatory theory) regardless of whether god(s) exist.

This is important. Science matters. Comparing creationists to Galileo is ridiculous. Nobody laughed at Galileo. Galileo demonstrated a thorough understanding of the theory he supplanted. The same cannot be said of creationists.

The expelled evolutionist

Allen, Milwaukee, WI — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:17:36 GMT

The reason there is so much controversey is that neither side knows for sure. Neither side can prove their position. There are unknowable elements. One side dismisses the unknown with faith in a creator and the other side with the belief that man's intellect will eventually uncover the missing links in evolution that are expalined by faith that given enough time all things are possible in some accidental way.

Some people reject faith in creation and rely only on what their five sense can reveal and their mind comprehend; they call that science which is their god based on for faith in man's understanding of nature. Yet if God is out there, his power and intellect makes man's seem puny; will we ever discover his secrets with what we have to work with?

Is what we call evolution the answerer to all questions of our origins or is it just evidence of God's work in process. Is what we call evolution really just mutations within species or do new species really appear form old species as an accident of adaption and huge amounts of time? Or did God create a progression of species which developed variations within its species?

To me, it is all about understanding infinity. I can get my mind around the idea of something that is never ending once it gets started. What I can't comprehend is how something can always be there without a starting point. Both sides of the argument ponder how it started "in the beginning". What was there before the beginning? Nothing? If God created the beginning, where did God come from? If there is no God and we came form some colassal amount of mass & energy that came together and exploded, where did that mass and energy come from- did it just appear at some point on its own? The answer both sides give is - "it was always there". And that is where my mind shuts down. I can not conceive of something that was always there without a beginning. I wonder how that can be.

So argue away; but there is no way to know for sure with what we know.

The expelled evolutionist

Robert Conner, Olympia, Washington — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:19:48 GMT

The truly religious can never accept that the facts about their religion (contradictions in scripture, a history of murder in the name of God, for example)have any bearing on the truth of their religion. The disconnect between facts and truth make discussions with religious people pointless.

The expelled evolutionist

Donovan, Brownstown, MI — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:20:04 GMT

I LOVE how creationists come up with ideas that THEY KNOW can't be proven by science then thumb their nose at evolutionists and tell them they're wrong. C'mon people ... back your arguements up with FACTS. ID or crationism have NO FACTS to fall back on. FSM or Pastafarianism, however, has plenty! Look it up. R-Amen!

The expelled evolutionist

James Freeman — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:22:10 GMT

this article makes me laugh....

The expelled evolutionist

Ed B., Chicago, IL — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:23:05 GMT

I take offense to the "wishy-washy" comment. Evolution doesn't disprove the existence of God, it only contradicts certain religious texts. Isn't it quite possible that the bible is wholly, or in part, incorrect, and that evolution was God's plan for creating life? Evolution merely explains the process -- it cannot prove or disprove whether a supreme being was behind it all. Essentially, I believe evolution IS the intelligent design.

The expelled evolutionist

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:24:41 GMT

I really am at odds with the term "evolutionist" vs. "creationist". The guy is a SCIENTIST. The other guy is NOT! The term implies that anyone who is confident with evolution must be apart of some dogmatic belief system or philiosophy. Evolution is science and to be opposed to it is simply being anti-science.

It's ok to be anti-religion however.

The expelled evolutionist

Melvin — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:31:16 GMT

In the Beganing God was created in the image of man

that after we stop making god in the image of animals, the sun , the moon, mountains and rivers and clouds and birds.
some one along the way decide to start combining humanoid features with the imagery.
So to all you regiliuos folks lets began again

IN the beganing God was created in the image of any thing we humans beleive or perceived as all powerfull,
then later we bagan to revise the concept and made God in the image of man.

Want proof?

okay lets take alook at Jesus Christ , ah he white, and buddha ah he chinese , and all those million and one gods in hinduism , then sub -continent of India, Indians, Oh by the way some of them are blue, and in Ancient African Believe 9 egyptians and all the others in that continent black skin

ANY objections ?

The expelled evolutionist

Jon — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:38:10 GMT

[...] Everyone with an education in the 15th century knew the earth was round - the argument was over how large the sphere was.

Smarter commenters please, these "flat-earthers' are laughable.

The expelled evolutionist

Ayah Kambing, San Diego — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:38:43 GMT

One thing that the I-D crowd never deal with is the possibility that the Designing Intelligence need not be the God of the Bible. There are all the other creation legends from every culture and religion on Earth. It isn't just a choice between bible-God and evolution. Do these proponents of I-D realize they are opening up the possibility that all life on our planet is the result of genetic engineering experiments by advanced beings from other planets? Somehow i doubt they would want that theory taught in science class as an alternative to evolution.

The expelled evolutionist

perspective — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:40:46 GMT

Creationists just need to realize that if their arguments had any basis in fact, science would embrace their testable theories and hypotheses wholeheartedly - but metaphysics and associated beliefs cannot by definition be tested under empirical conditions with known (or even unknown) variables.

As examples of this situation as it pertains to science and cosmology, even Brian Greene admits that we're not likely to prove string theory or brane theory any time in the foreseeable future because experimental conditions for testing can't be met. In the same fashion, David Bohm's idea of the Implicate order and the 'hidden or unknown variables' that cause the physical universe to manifest in the Explicate Order cannot be tested....and this theorem arises out of hard physics, just as string theory does. And of course, the Big Bang itself is untestable as a theory, although the discovery of background radiation seems to prove out the basic ideas - with inflation theory filling in most of the details.

Creationism and intelligent design are so far off the scale of reasonableness, common sense, and contemporary rational thought that it's disturbing to see one out of six highschool science teachers actually embracing this concept - demonstrating for the millionth time that an emotional investment in the beliefs of the religious realm far supercedes the clear logic and rational thought processes found in the scientific secular realm.

While there's nothing wrong with teaching reigious cosmology in Comparative Religion classes, there will never be a place for it side by side with the cosmology based on scientific research. This bright dividing line should never be breached in a formal educational environment, and particularly if the environment in question is the public realm of primary and secondary education.

The expelled evolutionist

Tom Joe, USA — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:42:23 GMT

From the article: "No," Myers answered wryly, "I think Ken Miller is a wishy-washy Catholic."

My reply: Dr. Myers is ignorant of Catholic teaching. Catholicism accepts evolution as a possible explanation for the development of life, just that one cannot claim that the soul evolved as well. One can easily hold a view of evolution, and hold religious belief. Dr. Myers gets so much flak, and deservedly so, because he constantly raises these false dichotomies. When will he learned? Probably never.

I've argued against his wrongheaded beliefs on my own blog (http://bioenergyrus.blogspot.com).

The expelled evolutionist

Scott, Vancouver, WA — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:43:03 GMT

The time spent arguing over these still fledgling worlds of science and religion (in the grand scheme of things sidereal) is an enormous waste of time while innocents go hungry and die, healthcare is not available for all, and simple acts of human kindness are forgotten in the rush to be right. Please! Give it a rest and do something loving, human, caring, and kind.

The expelled evolutionist

Paul Lurquin — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:48:17 GMT

You mention that PZ Myers is a well known evolutionary biologist. This is incorrect. In fact, Myers has not published any peer-reviewed work in over 10 years. He teaches at the very small branch campus of the University of Minnesota-Morris, which offers no graduate degrees in biology.

However, Myers is well known for his constant ravings against religion. This is what his so-called science blog "Pharyngula" is mostly about. While I share Myers' views about science and religion, I have nothing but contempt for his ruthless self-promotion and the vulgarity of some of his comments (and even more so, those of his storm troopers).

Let us not forget that Myers was paid to appear in "Excell." In my view, Myers is not an active scientist and he does not represent science in any way shape or form.

The expelled evolutionist

Rebecca Shepard, Kernersville, NC — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:51:39 GMT

Evolutionists believe in intelligent design. If they would "listen" to what they say. Just one generic example:

"This" developed over time because the being "needed this" to counteract "that".

Something intelligent had to know this was needed long-term or why would it develop it? How would it "know" a change was needed?

In the Bible Genesis says God created our natural world by speaking. "God said" is repeated over and over. One of the smallest particles known to exist is basically a sound wave.

And think of this. The sun, that mega hot ball in the sky is perfectly aligned to warm us during the day but at night we are cool and not scalding due the exact placement of sun from earth. And this exact placement wasn't "intelligent"?

And why aren't we seeing evolution take place in the last 100 years? Real evolution where a permanent change is made to an organism? Why do monkeys still exist if they are our ancestors? They should all be evolved to us by now.

And evil, we know evil has existed since man existed. Peaceloving tribes extinguished. Where was evolution in all this? Are we evolving to where we are suppose to be evil? Then if so, let's celebrate 9/11 and Hitler and throw a big party that we are evolving to a higher state because the smarter stronger clever folks are eliminating the weaker, meeker ones. Why have laws? It's evolution baby!

The Bible says God made us in His Image with free wills. He made us stewards over His Creation. And He will hold us accountable for the responsibility He gave us. Evolution is just a 'cop out' to think we won't be held accountable because if we think our Creator doesn't exist, we have no one that can smack our butts for screwing up.

The expelled evolutionist

Jon Elmendorf, Houston, TX — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:55:50 GMT

I could not agree more with Myers. Keep up the good fight. There is a concern in Texas that the school boards are trying to do just what he said with the science curriculum. We must not let religious ignorance prevail. More on this in my blog at www.thescientifichumanist.blogspot.com.

The expelled evolutionist

John Umana, Washington, D.C. — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:57:18 GMT

The emergence of life from prebiotic nature is an exciting and relatively new area of scientific research. No scientist has been able to synthesize a nucleotide (components of RNA and DNA) from inanimate nature. Astrobiology is a new field that is just getting underway, and I fully endorse these efforts. Intelligent design theory is not in opposition to the scientific study of the emergence of life or of origin of species. The more we learn from scientific exploration, the better. To be sure, there is a distinction between (A) the emergence of life and (B) the origin of species. It is logically possible that Darwinian theory might work for A and B, or A only or B only, or neither. The argument is advanced that, because scientists cannot synthesize a nucleotide, does not mean that Darwinian theory of origin of species is wrong. But the problem remains the same for the Darwinists: they have made as much progress at speciation as they have at emerging life from inanimate nature. Unless Darwinists can evolve a chihuahua from gray wolves or another species from a common ancestor (say a polar bear from black bears), their theory remains completely unsubstantiated as a theory of origin of species or emergence of life. Something else is going on to explain this planet’s biodiversity other than chance mutations and natural selection. Common descent and biological evolution are givens, and are proved by the convergence of the sciences. The real debate is over the causative mechanism for biological evolution. What we need is more and better science to answer these questions.

Exciting tests of conflicting theories of origins will be conducted by Mars robotic explorers. The Phoenix Mars Lander landed a telerobot in the polar region of Mars on May 25, 2008. This mission will look for a 'habitable zone' in the martian soil where microbial life could exist, and also will study the geological history of water on Mars. All life contains proteins made up from chains of amino acids. The Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), planned for launch by NASA in late 2009, is set to collect martian soil samples and rock cores and analyze them for organic compounds and environmental conditions that could have supported microbial life. The European Space Agency is planning the launch of the ExoMars rover set for launch in 2013. The rover is to grind Martian soil to a powder and test it in a suite of instruments including the Urey Organic Oxidant Detector. (Dr. Urey is known for the famous 1953 experiment with Dr. Stanley Miller in which an electrical discharge in a test tube containing methane, hydrogen, ammonia and water was shown to produce amino acids.) Amino acids are found in inanimate nature including on meteorites. Non-biological processes create a 50/50 mix of left- and right-handed versions of the molecules. Living things, however, use left-handed amino acids (almost) exclusively. The Urey Detector will therefore be looking for the ratio between left- and right-handed amino acid molecules in the search for life on Mars. This is to be followed by NASA’s Mars Astrobiology Field Laboratory planned for 2016, that will also search for life. We know from the Spirit and Opportunity Rovers and other spacecraft orbiting Mars that liquid water covered large portions of the martian surface billions of years ago. Is there or was there once life on Mars? My theory predicts that we will discover a non-biological amino acid mix of left-and right-handed amino acids on Mars -- meaning that there is no life and never has been life on that planet. I predict the same results for the other planets and moons (e.g., Europa, Titan, etc.) in our solar system. The emergence of life takes more than water. But, as I argue in my book, Creation: Towards a Theory of All Things (amazon.com), the Universe is teeming with life and with intelligent life. Legal Times has called me "a leading proponent of intelligent design," but in fact I am both an adherent of biological evolution (theory of common descent) and intelligent design or creationism.

The expelled evolutionist

bubba — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:58:51 GMT

The statement that because the Creationist got mad proved the Evolutionists right could also be viewed as the Evolutionists was too bull headed to listen to a different prospective.

Another thought. It is commonly held that the "universe" was started witht he Big Bang 13.2 billion years ago. In order to have a Big Bang, there had to be some form of matter with which to fuel it. Where did it come from, and how long did it exist prior to the Big Bang?

Both arguments are based on guesses, abit educated, but still guesses. There is not enough emperical evidence on ether side to prove or disprove the points.

Lastly, when we look at these to theories, Creation vs. Evolution, and the Big Bang, are we not being a little short sighted to think that a God who created everything, could not have designed these processes to work exactly as we are discovering?
Think about it..

The expelled evolutionist

Floyd L., Topeka, KS — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:01:09 GMT

Actually, evolutionists like PZ Myers are feeling far more stress and worries in 2008 than they did back at the 2005 Dover trial.

Critics of evolution have recently opened a new museum that has drawn hundreds of thousands of visitors and tons of media attention.
The new movie "Expelled", (which drove evolutionist blood pressures so high that NASA space satellites began tracking them), has been viewed by perhaps a million people by now across the country.

And to top it off, an "Academic Freedom" bill continues its slow advance through the Louisiana legislature, calling attention to the right of science teachers to present ALL sides of the scientific story, including both strengths AND weaknesses of evolution.

Major problems plague evolutionary claims such as prebiotic evolution and human evolution. Despite potential reprisals, some scientists are at least voicing public doubts about Darwinism.

Most of all, evolution's RELIGIOUS underpinnings and presuppositions are being exposed, (the religion being atheism/materialism of course.)

It's an exciting time for pro-science people, and a scary time for professional atheists like Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers.

The expelled evolutionist

Tom P. Arlington, TX — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:03:53 GMT

O.k. A couple of things:
1) Howard J. Flint P. E. - No one is going to read that whole thing. This is the worst place for diatribes.
2) Rik Rambo - You are belittling others for using assumptions to prove themselves right but you begin your argument with an ASSUMPTION. How about you simply understand that this particular person truly believes what he says and will not give up regardless of how much he is belittled. The act of arguing with someone doesn't make you right.

I'd like to simply thank this man for proving that you can stand up to the enormous preasure of religion in the U.S. It scares me to raise my children in such a closed minded society where religion is so pervasive. Now, don't misunderstand. I'm not the one that wants "In God We Trust" taken off our money. But it needs to be recognised that religion is so pervasive it's even on our money.

There's a simple solution when you meet someone who's beliefs make you cringe - walk away and have a Coke and a smile. Stop forcing others to do what you want them to do.

The expelled evolutionist

Ted Herrlich, Dayton, Ohio — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:04:14 GMT

It's not just scientists that should blog on this topic. We all should! Right now legislatures in several states are being fed the Discovery Institute's 'Academic Freedom' pap because of the failure of their other tactics. Too many states might pass laws giving free rein to all sorts of non-scientific ideas, not just Intelligent Design. A leading candidate to be John McCain's running mate is a Louisiana senator doing exactly that.

Let your senators' know what you stand for and let them know that Creationism and it's little brother Intelligent Design, do not belong in the science classroom.

tedhohio@gmail.com
http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com

The expelled evolutionist

Larry Kat — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:05:23 GMT

It seems like more creationists and "believers" are reading this column than evolutionists. They are very defensive about their beliefs, as well one should be when arguing a clearly indefensible position.

The expelled evolutionist

Madison Grange — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:08:30 GMT

My stepson who is home schooled due to his biological mother's religious beliefs saw this movie. We happened to be standing in line at the movie theatre this past week to see Harrison Ford's new film and I commented on the new Ice Age movie which shows Dinosaurs with animals from the ice ages and remarked that the writers had made a serious error. Oops, my bad. My stepson then launched into a diatribe of Expeled and how his Biology book (which I would like to point out is not peer reviewed nor cites any references) says Macro Evolution is not true and that Dinosaurs did live along side man a few 1000 years ago and there was scientific evidence. Furthermore that scientist don't believe in Macroevolution.

Needless to say, I managed not to strangle my stepson. I politely smiled at him, since we've been down this road many times before, and told him once we goes to college and uses a real biology book we'll discuss it. You see the bit of fiction his mother is using for biology misrepresents evolution. It states that we, as in us proponents that actually teach science for a living, say that an eagle will evolve from a sparrow or cows, sheep and pigs will evolve from a dog. I don't ever remember seeing that anywhere when I took my graduate level evolution class. Except perhaps in the common misconceptions pages. The problem is, the creationists, ID people don't understand evolution or if they do, they only take snippets and work it to their advantage through half truths.

Do I believe in God? Yes. I teach Sunday school too. But I don't believe in the creation myth. Its nice, but this is an ancient oral tradition that finally was written down and let me add this, go read the original text. I spoke with a Rabbi and he interpretted the original Genesis text for me. There is no 6 days, there is no time specified anywhere. So, lets stop living the lie.

The expelled evolutionist

Harvey Kane Boca Raton Florida — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:08:42 GMT

those whw want to believe that some guy who lives in the sky created all that is can do so. Just don't try to foist that idea on me. In short, believe what you want in your own head. I choose to believe that science and technology is correct because every day when I turn on the lights it proves itself. As for evolution it is no longer a theory but rather a fact. I challenge anyone out there to devise an experiment that is repeatable that proves the guy in the sky exists.....

The expelled evolutionist

Toni Bourlon, Warr Acres, OK — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:09:21 GMT

So, according to Mr. Myers you CAN'T accept evolution and believe in GOD at the same time. If you do, you're wishy-washy. This makes the creationists case for them, and THAT is the real problem. If your choice is to either accept evolution OR believe in your religion, then evolution will LOSE!

The expelled evolutionist

Jeremy, Homer NY — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:13:17 GMT

Fred in Wisconsin - What religion today teaches that the earth is the center of the universe? Seems like the Catholic Church was into that about 500 years ago. I don't know any, any Christian, creationist or other, who would try to say the earth revolves around the sun.

Is there a Bible verse that you know of that references the sun revolving around the earth? Perhaps you are thinking of when the "sun stood still" in the book of Joshua? That verse simply references a perspective. If the earth's revolution were slowed, wouldn't our perspective say the sun is standing still? After all we still point "up" to the sun, which is "in the sky" even though it really isn't "up" or "in the sky" at all. Just from our perspective. Should I point out everyone's ignorance every time they point "up" at the sun to their children? That would be silly.

This argument is as outdated as claiming that creationists/christians believe in a flat earth - another untruth. NO ONE believes in a flat earth except perhaps a few cult crazies. Yes the bible references the "four corners" of the earth, but don't we refer to North, South, East and West which are CONCEPTS relative to our position in comparison to the magnetic poles. Just because someone like me believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible, doesn't mean we don't understand that people literally write and speak in metaphors and similes. What if I accused you of being a flat earth-er because you utilized a compass? The four corners of the earth as mentioned in the Bible are just that - concepts of the North South East and West regions of the earth in the perspective of the writer.

As for the idea that the earth could be at the center of the universe, some (BIG-BANG-BELIEVING) astrophysicists have theorized that in a "bounded" model of the universe, the earth could actually be very near to the center (location, not center of orientation) of the known universe. Imagine that! Will you detract them as imbecilic because their interpretation of the visible facts do not meet up with your own "knowledge" of how things work?

The expelled evolutionist

Ben Cook, Memphis, TN — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:14:45 GMT

Genesis 1:14-19

This passage is where God created the difference between night and day which was the 4th day, so if it was not completed until the 4th day, then what were the "3 days" before that period of time?

I am not "wishy-washy" by any means at all. I know in my heart that God created this universe and everything within it, but I feel that this creation -the science behind it and the word we use as humans is EVOLUTION.

Whether it was God's preverbial waving of a wand or the clapping of His hands that started the Big Bang, I feel that the science behind the creation is evolution and that creation is of His intelligent design.

The expelled evolutionist

Craig Prether Haslett MI — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:16:56 GMT

It should all be about truth. Evolutionist are scared to death to have competing ideas in the classroom. So what if truth involves religion. The concept that thou shall not lie is religious based. Should we exclude that from the classroom too? Its all pretty basic for me. In Romans is states that all men know there is a God as the very world around us reveals God's work. Mr Myers is no exception to this he will one day face truth. Craig

The expelled evolutionist

Jerry Martin Tn — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:26:03 GMT

I'm not quite sure,what all of the fuss, is about.
You can worship in any religion, in our country today(well, unless, you're an FLDS member) and no one will chastise you for it.
You can worship on the street corners, with your soap box and people will wlk around you.
You can rent large halls, put your religion on tevision, the only thing you have to worry about, is paying for it.
So, why is organized religion, so focused on religion in schools?
And of course, whe those same folks talk about they mean Christianity, not Mormonism, the Jewish or Bhuddist faith.
It seems only logical, that if prayer is allowed in schools, that
teachers should also be christians.
Then it follows, that the administrators, should be, also.
Then, it would seem to be apt, that our politicians, also be christians.
No, I don't think, so.
There has been one period in our country when the Chrisian faith has had absolute authority, their practices were probably, the second leading reason for the article in our constitution, regarding the separation of church and state.
The wriers of the Constitution were know to be horrified, by the practice, of putting people in open air stocks, for the crime, of swearing or not attending church

The expelled evolutionist

Ron Goss — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:28:50 GMT

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The easiest way to understand the Bible is to understand that it is ALL true. I suppose even a great scientist would have to agree that you can't pick and choose which scientific "theory" to believe any more than a person can pick and choose which of the ten commandments should apply. Jesus said you are either with me or against me.
The part I don't understand about all of the people that try and try to disprove the Bible have never been able to do so, and yet they go to great lengths to come up with answers about the creation of man. Science will explain that chaos will not become organization, yet organization will become chaos. I don't argue with people like that. The answers are very simple. Go to Genesis all the way to Revelation and read it and understand it. Your answers are in there somewhere. I choose to believe EVERY word of the Bible.

The expelled evolutionist

Scott, Springfield, IL. — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:33:04 GMT

One day in the future, we will be able show step by step how life evolved on earth. One day we will have a telescope powerful enought to peer back in time to see when the universe formed. Currently, we have seen back as far back as 13 billion years, only another 1 billion or so left to go. No matter how good the data, people will choose to believe what they want because their religon makes them feel safe and they feel threatened that scientists, like me, want to take away their "comfort blanket." That is not the case. Many, many scientist believe in God, but many christians seem to think that unless everyone has their exact beliefs you are not worthy. It's all about social grouping and how those that are most similar want to fight against those that are different due feeling that their cohesion is threatened.

The expelled evolutionist

Roger G. — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:33:05 GMT

Just like Howard J. Flint, I am conviced that the whole discussion of evolution Vs. creationism is pointless. Evolution is God's way of creating. It is a Simphony-ever-continuing of creation, the way that God "plays the strings" of the Universe (and paralell ones also).

I also believe that creation is never over. It is always EVOLVING. There is no sense in arguing if everything was created in 7 days or 7 eons, if we have been here for 10,000 years or millions of years. We are here now and everithing around us is here now and creation is being done now and will always continue.

I believe in God and also believe in evolution and don't consider myself wishy-washy for one nanosecond. On the contrary, if evolution is thought of as God's way of creating living organisms, then there is no contradiction.

I wish everyone who gets mad or even "hopping mad" about one or another view would give these (our) ideas a bit of thought. We are the Evolutive Creationists or Creative Evolutionists however you might prefer.

THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION. GOD EXISTS AND EVOLUTION IS HIS DOING.

The expelled evolutionist

John Q Public — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:34:03 GMT

Creationists and evolutionists are unlikely to change each other's minds. There re many religions out there, and it's up to individual households to teach their children the parent's belief.

We have a concept called seperation of church and state in this country. No state-sponsered religion. Keep religion and "intelligent design" out of government sponsered schools.

The expelled evolutionist

Alex, Miami, FL — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:40:34 GMT

I love this guy already. Hang in there, P.Z. Eventually the rest of the country will evolve.

The expelled evolutionist

Barry U. Headinsand — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:42:32 GMT

Ok, Creationists, let's try this ONE MORE TIME...
Evolutionists aren't saying there is no God. That's not something that can be deduced from any of the sciences any more than an appreciation for Mozart can be deduced from geology. They are separate, unrelated fields of study.
What evolutionists ARE saying is that there is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to support the idea of biblical creationism. There is a HUGE amount of evidence to support the Theory of Evolution.
Intelligent Design, Creationism, whatever you may call it is based upon nothing but a HUNCH that there must be a God & that, of all the religious writings that have ever existed, the Bible JUST HAPPENS to be the correct writing.
Biology, chemistry, physics, geology, & all the other hard sciences are based upon principles of deduction, cause & effect, & reproduceable research. Religion is based upon internal personal revelation. You might FEEL & BELIEVE that your spiritual revelation is true, but that doesn't let you out of the fact that you have NO WAY TO PROVE IT.
This is not atheistic arrogance, it's simple fact. THERE . IS . NO . SCIENTIFIC . PROOF . FOR . CREATIONISM.
Go on believing in Genesis if it makes you happy, but those unproveable beliefs have no place in a science classroom. I'm sorry if you feel threatened by the idea that maybe you're wrong & there's no God after all, but science is about facing FACTS, no matter how unpleasant you personally may find them.

The expelled evolutionist

Kevin Roden, Denton, TX — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:44:05 GMT

There are so-called "religious underpinnings" on both sides of the debate - the fervent claim of atheism by Myers, Dawkins, et. al. ought to demonstrate that.

It should also be noted that both sides struggle with the problem of reductionism - the more each side seeks to deny any sort of truth (or at least the asking of good questions) in the other position, the more we ought to be suspect of their projects.

The expelled evolutionist

Tim, Schaumburg, IL — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:45:12 GMT

It frustrates me that so many seemingly reasonable and intelligent people feel that science and religion must be mutually exclusive. That is why I subscribe to intelligent design. Regardless of a secular or religious basis for that theory it makes a lot of sense in unifying scientific fact (i.e. God didn't create the world in seven days) and religous teachings (hey maybe the Bible didnt mean literally 7 days). Being that evolution is still only a theory and there are gaps in the evolutionary chain is it not possible that God had a hand in guiding humaity/nature down its path from the Big Bang (or however the univers began) to its present state? I am not arrogant enough to suppose I have it figured out, and state that intelligent design is realilty, but as religion has shortcomings, so does science and evolution. It bothers me greatly to see scientists like Myers profess that religion is a lie and speak out against people who try to reconcile religion with science. It seems in their rejection of faith/religion, these evolutionist assume all people who follow God take the Bible (or other texts) literally at face value. I.e. "these zealots think God created the world in 7 days and I can prove that to be false so they are fools and their faith is founded in lies". Of course since I don't walk around killing homosexuals, or abortion doctors, as one would be prompted to by reading the Old Testament, I probably don't follow a literal interpretation of the Bible. And perhaps I apply that discretion to other areas too, and view things as metaphor, or simplifications of reality in order to render the stories more accessible to millions of regular folks.

The expelled evolutionist

Jack Waldrop — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:45:46 GMT

All I will say is that it still amazes me that so many advanced degree scientists decide "I'm going to disprove the existance of a personal God once and for all" and, in the process end up becoming Chriatians themselves.

The expelled evolutionist

TheTruthISOutThere — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:49:12 GMT

"Vanity. Definitely my favorite sin."

I love how behind the guise of defending God and religion, man continues to commit the most unforgivable sin. Vanity in one's self and in one's assumptions about life and creation.

Everyone is so caught up in the question of if we evolved or were spontaneously created, that they forget the most important aspects and lessons of any religion, that still adheres to the "Temple stories and myths" in a lame attempt to somehow increase their individual self worth. That lesson should be what Jesus taught and lived or Buddha or even for heaven's sake the original Osama Bin Laden or any other "god" and his messenger. Religion has mostly been about lifting up and answering those questions that could not be answered and explained. Science is answering things that should be outside the realm of any religion. Is the world still flat? Is the Earth the center of the solar system? Are other peoples less than each other?

Religion and science have been used to propagate hate and lack of intelligence, but religion takes the dubious honor of the most blood on its hands. Yet, the excuse of "they were not following the right religion or that is not what the bible really means" do not absolve Christianity or any other religion for the acts committed in its name or those who still bare the cross in that manner. Wrong is still wrong, no matter if you dress it up in the vestiages of myths and legends.

We have all lived in hell already in this life. War, disease, starvation, anger, hate, racism, stupidity, selfishness. Yet, we continue to wage these things against each other in the name of "God" and "Science". How stupid and childish.

"When man thinks, God laughs." Sums up the whole "argument" in terms of creation vs evolution. Which is more like two old men fighting with noodles, than an actual discussion about anything that matters. Since, everyone still can not seem to get out of the first book of any religious text to the real meat of the matter, because apparently if you don't believe in "literalism" you apparently are already doomed to hell. I laugh at that statement every day. You funny Calvinists you.

Secular science, at least those who keep above the fray, understand that their are many issues and questions of "faith" and of "the unexplainable" that its friend "religion" needs to answer. Yet, people have giving a "Gold Calf" status to intelligent design and creation theory. Vanity. I think one of these was destroyed down by a fella named Moses. If you believe such things. Either way, I think God made his points, but we continue to cast "Gold Calfs" to this day.

But, at the same time, those who advance an idea that the human experience is not touched by a collective consciousness or have wholly accepted as rigid a framework, as the new "Pharisees", are as sadly diluted as their counterparts and they should just all drink the magic cool-aid together.

So, remember, somethings can not be explained by science or Genesis. If you have taken your pet or your child to the doctor lately for a vaccination, then their is evolution for you.

If you take any modern medicines or have life saving surgery, their is scientific method for you. If you eat beef, chicken or any vegetable, their is modern chemistry and science, which all have help and basis from evolutionary theory. You could not kill bugs in your garden or your home or body, without principles of evolution and scientific method.

Last time I checked those answers were not in Genesis.

Yet, "Why are we here?" and "Why should we be good and just?" are not in a science book or in a laboratory, either. Or if you have ever had the feeling that you are really not alone at any time, then that is not an answer for science. Or if you feel loved and protected, when you should not be, then that is something that only the head and heart can explain.

We have different methods and reasoning for answering all difficult questions. But, surrendering to fear and an assumption that your beliefs and faith are being destroyed, should not push one to challenge progress or an attempt to understand our world and universe. You will lose the essence of your faith and sight of the real goal, which is improving all of our lives and experience, by whatever means we can. Yet, we have lost sight of that.

Because, as much as progress hurts and sucks, it always wins for good or ill. So, if you think your faith is being destroyed by science, then maybe you should reevaluate your faith, because science and religion will be here long after the Pastor and Scientist are gone. So, why not just agree to disagree?

"Vanity. Yep, Definitely my favorite sin."

The expelled evolutionist

Mike, Leesburg, VA — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:51:43 GMT

Science has NOTHING to do with BELIEF. While science may not always find the COMPLETE answer, which sometimes requires a "leap of faith", it is more of a calculated risk then a testament to faith. Science finds repeatable patterns that determine what is considered fact. BELIEF stands before fact and dismisses anything that runs contrary to it.

Creationism et al is fundamentally based on FAITH and not on SCIENCE and having a different BELIEF does not change the SCIENCE. SCIENCE class should NOT be about teaching what one BELIEVES it should be about teaching what one KNOWS according to the scientific method that provides information that allows us to predict the outcomes of experiments and engineering so we can land robots on planets millions of miles away.

I cannot simply jump into space because I don't BELIEVE the THEORY of gravity is complete and correct. If a teacher wants to teach what they BELIEVE as opposed to what they KNOW then they should teach comparitive religion or philosophy, but definitely NOT SCIENCE.

The expelled evolutionist

Phil Cota — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:54:39 GMT

I have a Ph.D. in biophysical sciences (theoretical biology), and I have been following the creationist challenge to evolution since I retired several years ago. I recommend several books on the subject: "Evolution and the Myth of Creationism: A Basic Guide to the Facts in the Evolution Debate" by Tim Berra; "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design" by Richard Dawkins; "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design" by Forrest & Gross; Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution" by Douglas Futuyma; "Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism" by Philip Kitcher; " Unintelligent Design" by Mark Perakh; Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction" by Eugenie Scott; "God, the Devil, and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory" by Niall Shanks; "Science and Earth History - The Evolution/Creation Controversy" by Arthur Strahler; and "Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism."

The expelled evolutionist

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:55:51 GMT

so here's the problem myers. you're talking science. they're all talking metaphysics. this is the illustration of what happens when the two of you talk. hold out your hands and point the fingers at eachother. now, ram your hands at eachother so that you risk jamming your fingers on the other hand's fingers, tip for tip. you know that person who answers all your questions and thoughts with something about themself? that is what both of you are because you are talking about two completely different things. no, it is not the same ballpark. it is not even the same sport. they don't translate. problem is, all your logic has a foundation of faith. faith in a general sense. so you lose that edge. that puts the two of you on equal footing. so, on equal footing, with equally inequitable ideas, i can only assume that he has a low argue tolerence, or that you have some glaring communication defect. or maybe he does. point is you might as well argue about your personal perception of the color green for all the truth or right that may be unearthed.

The expelled evolutionist

not American — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:56:11 GMT

No wonder why so many Americans are so low educated...

The expelled evolutionist

Mike, Green Bay, WI — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:04:54 GMT

The debate of evolution should be centered around the fact that religion and science come from two different types of thinking. I am a teacher of science at a catholic high school, and have forever been a devout christian believer in God, and fervent supporter of evolution through natural selection. For me there is no conflict, because the empirical evidence supporting Darwin's hypothesis has become overwhelming and through scientific reasoning, the best explanation for what we observe in nature and the lab. However, that doesn't preclude the existence of God in our universe. This isn't being wishy-washy as Mr. Meyer describes it. It is thinking about natural phenomena through two differnt philosophical mindsets. For the extremes (both creationists and evolutionists), you are as President Bush said, (though for a different reason than evolution) "either with us or against us." This position is ridiculous, and comes from individuals with closed minds who are unwilling to study the differences between religion and science. I highly doubt that anyone who adheres to creationist views has truly studied biological science, and certainly doesn't understand the advances made in agriculture, biology, and medicine using evolutionary principles. This also appears to be true of evolutionists, who feel that you can't support evolution and go to church as well. Ridiculous! The two are NOT mutually exclusive.

The expelled evolutionist

Dawkins, Seattle, Washington — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:06:29 GMT

Two websites that destroy the fairy tale idea that we are evolved monkeys -
www.icr.org
www.answersingenesis.org
Read the Truth!

The expelled evolutionist

Mike Epstein, Emmitsburg, Md — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:07:16 GMT

"Only a few centuries ago the world was suppose to be flat"
Uh ... not really ... the Ancient Greeks knew the world was round. There was plenty of observational evidence to that effect. What they didn't know, except for a few dissenters, was that the solar system was heliocentric and not geocentric.

The expelled evolutionist

CH, Billings, MT — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:09:23 GMT

"Evolution is as solid as any engineering fact" - Fred from La Crosse...
The theory of evolution rests on the idea that every mutation in any species happened for the overall betterment of that species. However, when considering the "relationship" between dinosaurs and birds it seems rather strange that a perfectly good limb should begin to change and mutate into a wing. It seems that it would be a very, very poor limb and wing long before it would be able to perform adequately for it's true purpose. In addition to this, these mutations supposedly happen to fufill the species ultimate survival. If we take the evolutionist's view point and say that these thousands of small mutations happened over a period of thousands of years, it seems very odd to me that we have a single bird still alive today. In general, if an animal is born with a malformed or malfunctioning limb it will not last long enough to bare any offspring. Why should we think any differently about the supposed "missing links?"

Mutations that one can call "micro-evolution" can still be seen today, but these mutations happen within a single species and are generally for the betterment of that species. This, in my opinion, is what Darwin observed on his voyage to the Galapagos.

To say, with any conviction, that one species EVOLVED from another, in my summation, takes just as much faith as it does for me to say that I was created by an intelligent designer. Even atheists need a God to say they don't believe in.

The expelled evolutionist

Gadfly22, Morristown NJ — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:10:11 GMT

There really doesn't have to be a controversy. Religious folks just have to try to stop telling God what He can or can't do. If He's really omnipotent and wants to invent evolution, He should be able to do so. Then religious folks can believe in Him and still do science, and the not-religious folks can go along without Him as they're wont to do.

The problem of course is that some (maybe most) religious folks LIKE telling God what He can or can't do, because then they (as His chosen messengers and vehicles for His Word) get to tell other people what He says they can or can't do. That's why creationism or intelligent design or any other stalking horse the religious folks use is just a political tool -- neither good science nor good religion.

The expelled evolutionist

Fred Gwynn — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:10:22 GMT

Creation vs evolution should not really be a religious argument. This is really scientific argument. Science is the measuring and understanding of our environment and reality.
However, like Darwin, Mr. Myers has made this a religious debate. He is arguing from the side of "NO GOD" against the side of "GOD". Charles Darwin was a minister who just lost his wife. He goes on a trip upset with God and of the mind frame to prove there is no God. Mr. Myers is trying to show the world how smart he is because he is so much more intelligent than the "GOD" people for he alone protects the "NO GOD" bastion that is evolution.
Is evolution correct? On the micro side--yes. On the macro side--no. Be a scientist not a priest. Priests show no proof and asks for faith. Scientists are supposed to show proof; faith never enters into the equation.
Mr. Myers, please quit being a wishy-washy priest and be a strong scientist. Address these: "chinks are still unfilled or out of place". Don't attack the teachers and others of your profession because they don't hold the same "religious" beliefs you do.
As a scientist, you should be a searcher, not a soldier.

The expelled evolutionist

Jared, Harrisonburg, Va — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:15:49 GMT

It was once a scientific fact that the earth was the center of the universe, it was once a scientific fact that the earth was flat. Seems to me that science can be wrong sometimes once you have had enough time to examin it. My high school science teacher once said' "It only takes one example for a theory to be proved wrong, and you can never prove one correct." We have only had 50 years to test Darwin's theories, lets give it some more time.

The expelled evolutionist

Flash, NJ — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:16:28 GMT

I would like to clarify for both Alan Boyle, P.Z. Myers, and the readers of this article that Myers' statement that that Ken Miller is a "wishy-washy catholic" is either a playful jab at a fellow evolutionist or an uninformed jab at a person of religion.

It is still the official stance of the Roman Catholic Church that evolution and Catholic faith do not come into conflict and that "Truth cannot contradict Truth". This isn't prosetylizing and I'm not debating whether or not the codes of Catholic faith are true or false, simply that the Church of Rome officially recognizes evolution as a valid and true aspect of science.

I don't mind atheists and religious people debating with each other, but we should try to avoid spreading inaccuracies on either side.

This article also makes me sad because it reminds me that until this "documentary" was released I still thought of Ben Stein as a smart guy. Now... not so much.

The expelled evolutionist

Heather, Mississippi — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:16:57 GMT

Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists.
-Blaise Pascal

The expelled evolutionist

Andrew, Phoenix AZ — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:20:01 GMT

Rik Rambo... you actually have it backwards. Evolution theory actually has observable, testable evidence backing it up. Which, you creationists, attempt to disprove constantly, to no avail. At no point in time have the creationists ever provided any "evidence" other than the Bible. Can you observe and test any of the "evidence" in the Bible? No, you can't, they're just stories. However, you can observe and test fossil evidence.

Scientists don't attempt to disprove the Bible. They attempt to prove an alternate theory. The only way science can disprove something (you cannot prove a negative), is to prove an alternate theory. That is what science is trying to accomplish.

You have it absolutely bass ackwards Rik.

The expelled evolutionist

chales d — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:25:22 GMT

so will somebody in this room please explain intelligence

The expelled evolutionist

Dawn, Durango, CO — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:32:35 GMT

If every human being suddenly disappeared from Earth, so would God.

In other words, God (and, for that matter, "gods") is merely a creation of humans as an attempt to answer life's questions and the questions of children ("Where do we come from? God made us.", "Why is the sky blue? God made it blue.").

Religion is merely a creation of humans giving a specific group an organized set of rituals and rules by which to live.

Humans have evolved (YES, EVOLVED!) to a point where it is no longer necessary to believe in a created god. Most humans no longer need religion. Science, concsience and man-made laws are neither, but replace both.

The expelled evolutionist

Ken Hoibierre, Tecumseh, MI — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:33:30 GMT

Science, by it's very nature, is constrained by a body of observable phenomenon and relationships to even begin to hypothesize anything, if experimentation or continued obsevation don't produce consistent results then the hypothesis is proven wrong. Religion/intelligent design are not bound by these constraints, if a religous text says something then apparently that's all the proof that a believer needs. This makes no more sense than absolutely believing something because you saw it on TV or read it in a newspaper! To consider a biblical account of anything as being sufficient evidence for inclusion in any true science curriculum would be akin to including the "science" of bigfoot, aliens, Loch Ness monster, etc. I still find myself confounded that this topic has even reached this level of discussion.

The expelled evolutionist

Fred Ficarra, Seabeck Wash — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:34:43 GMT

As a child I was expected to go to Catholic school and be a believer. But that child had something religion avoids. A brain. The rationality was never there. Thank God Carl Sagan explained it all.<G> Now I rejoice every moment in the FREEDOM of logical thought and Atheism. Joy!

The expelled evolutionist

Art Carter, Orlando, FL. — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:37:00 GMT

I really could care less if Mr. P.Z. Myers believes in God or not, or that he designed & created life, and if God is the "Intelligent Designer."

There is plenty of evidence that "Jesus Christ" did live, was crucified, and was raised from the dead whether mr. P.Z. Myers believes that or not either too.

The Bible say God Created the Universe. There were many scientists like Mr. P.Z. Myers who did believe that either, and thought the Universe was always here in a "Steady State" until Scientific Observation has confirmed the BIG BANG.

Going back in time there was something that set the BIG BANG off, and science can't answer that. Hmmmmmmmm? Sounds a little like the Bible from nothing God Created the Universe?

God is real, believe. He designed life and put it in motion. Whether evolution is his way of a species adapting to their environment and in that sense evolving, I will accept. But evolving into a New Species, I don't buy.

The one thing that Mr. P.Z. Myers and those like him never seem to speak much about is "Just how did the first life start from non-life?" They assume that Under the right conditions it just happened.

Really? PROVE IT... They can not. They have FAITH that is supposedly happened, but no proof of. That sounds very much like a religion to me.

I would rather believe in a Superior God, that has put order in this universe, and designed and created it, and everything in it, thank you :) I suppose next time I go to look at a Rolex, it happened by shaking parts in a can and a Rolex came out?

Think people, think...

Art Carter

The expelled evolutionist

Ctenotrish, Sioux Falls, SD — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:39:01 GMT

Long time reader of Pharyngula - came for the science, stayed for the science, and enjoy the heck out of everything else on the blog (especially the squid). What do I enjoy so much? Rational thought, mostly. Even in his rants (which I often find laugh-out-loud funny), what comes across blazingly clear is that this is a man who can certainly *think*. And in this day and age, I appreciate that very much.

The expelled evolutionist

Tony, Milwaukee, WI — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:39:44 GMT

How does one argue with someone that says 'just have faith that some intelligent being is responsible for things that science has yet to explain'? I'm beside myself. Hey wait, I must be God! I'm in two places at once. Just believe me.

It really scares me that I.D., aka Creationism, is being crammed down the throats of a number of PUBLIC school districts. How much time and money is that taking away from legitimate learning?

The expelled evolutionist

phil, Mcallen, Tx. — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:44:16 GMT

Mr. Flint's opinion is very interesting. Here's my opinion.
In the so called beginning there was nothing, just emptiness, nothing, nothing at all, no universe, just nothing. So, if there was nothing and then there was "the big bang" where the the "something" and "god" come from to cause the "big bang"?? What made god. Nothing is nothing or is nothing really something??
Know one knows how the universe was created - only speculations and opinions. No one knows how long all of this has been around, only opinions.
We have never been to the edge of nor to the end of the universe and we cannot see to the end of the universe which many call it "the edge of the universe". How can an intelligent scientist per say, with years of schooling tell anyone that he or she knows where the edge of all this actually is and how it was created. Big bang - bull. We are born, we live and we die - that's that...
Who know's maybe if someone took off in a spaceship and just went straight, straight, straight for a couple of billion/trillion years they would run into a glass wall and someone from the outside peering in at us would say "look Joe they're trying to get out".
Although, I do think the bible is a good book, a book of rules that the ancient one's put together to try to keep everyone from being super bad. Imagine if there had been no bible, no religion at all, we would be living in a world of hurt.
I am 52 years old. Traveled and well versed in many different countries. Been in and out of many different churchs and religions in my life looking for "the something". So, I have come to the conclusion that a church is a good place where one can go to help them stay in check with the rule book "the bible", that is if you can over look the extremely confussed people that claim to be christians or believers but are actually not according to the rule book. Really funny...
No one knows how all of this came to be. Only opinions.

The expelled evolutionist

Mike, Ofallon Mo — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:44:41 GMT

I personally think that since the basic roots of science are based on theories (or beliefs) not proof, and the basic roots of religions are based on beliefs (or theories), it makes sense that both science and religion are the same just different viewpoints. How can even science be taught in schools if it is just based on theory? Even the proofs of science only touch the surface of what is truly going on. Isn't it ironic that science has yet to prove reality? We can't even explain mass (no Higgs Boson) or volume (all things are made of vibrational strings). Unfortunately, the world as we know it, is totally based on paradoxes. Arguments simply cannot exist without them...

The expelled evolutionist

Vernworm, Neutral Zone — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:55:01 GMT

Worship the Picard

'Who Watches the Watchers' Third season episode of Star Trek

The expelled evolutionist

Shaliba, Payson, AZ. — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:59:16 GMT

I've never understood the religious mind, since I've concluded that it's just our naturally superstitious disposition taken to the fanatical extreme. It's even remotely possible that religion might spark a great idea in a scientific mind sometime by proposing a new twist.)
I would love to know to what degree other species on this planet are also superstitious---wonderful thought isn't it? No human will be able to answer that question until we can communicate directly with others, no matter how much we discuss it among ourselves.....

The expelled evolutionist

OShaughnessy, Redmond Wa — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:06:58 GMT

I have been accused of lack of belief because I don't believe in "Creationism" As a valid scientific arguements.

To which I respond. "God may have created the earth, and man. Evolution was how he did it"

Not a perfect arguement, to be sure. However, it sure seems to put a damper on the discussion.

The expelled evolutionist

Jason Fontaine Houston, Texas — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:15:21 GMT

In essence, science PROVE nothing but THEORY. God is based on FAITH. Faith/theory. We have free-will. What is there to "prove"?

Any "intelligent" human being understands life has no definite answers. Stop Go. High Low. North South. Any theory you bring to conclusion - somewhere in the universe, believe it or not, has an equally oppostie attribute that would otherwise prove you incorrect.

Think about relativity. We are all finite beings.

The expelled evolutionist

R.L. Graves, Port Washington, NY 11050 — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:25:37 GMT

Anyone who has spent time on a battlefield as I did as a World War 2 teenager knows that if a God exists he is a sadist. But that's an ad hominem attack on a "person" who does not exist. In fact the concept of a single God ( I follow the convention by capitalizing the "G") was a rather bizarre invention of the Egyptian Pharoah Akhenatun that was picked up by other cultures. The Egyptians generally preferred God committes. So did the Romans, Greeks, and scores of other cultures. The committee system seems more rational of the choices. Committees rarely resolve anything and that seems to be the way things work.
In the real world I have always maintained that physics trumps metaphysics at every juncture. For instance, true believing alchemists could not turn junk into gold but their careful procedures and notes led on ultimately to chemistry, i.e., alchemy without God. Chemistry and physics, of course, now can indeed, manufacture gold. (Bombard mercury in a neutron flux. It produces radioactive gold.)

The expelled evolutionist

Sarah, Orlando, FL — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:26:08 GMT

For all you creationists, I just wanted to point out that MAN created the Bible, not God.

The expelled evolutionist

Dave, OK — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:26:28 GMT

Steve Smyth . . . I believe this one fall into the category "other cosmic fields" listed above Alan's pic on the left. It is really an interesting debate of cosmic proportions, at least for humanity. It is nice to know that people care about how the hell we got to be who we are. Uncovering the truth is important to some, but they are genrally not heavily involved in this debate. The rest just care about which side wins.

The expelled evolutionist

Tom, Cincinnati OH — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:32:17 GMT

Thank GOD for evolution!

The expelled evolutionist

Jim Doe, Home, US — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:32:26 GMT

(Soooo... we've apparently evolved too much?) From someone who is not fond of churches, nor taken to the bible ... God will not be proven; God will not be unproven. God is not in mathmatical formula, extrapolated data, opinion polls, nor editorial forums. Look elsewhere. Look hard. God is undeniable to me. God is more true than anything else I've seen, heard, learned, or will ever have someone try to convince me of.

The expelled evolutionist

Eric, Madison WI — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:37:06 GMT

Such a potentially intersting debate. And yet it always devolves (ha!) into such madness.

There're always a number of things that come up - first and foremost that most people arguing against the Theory of Evolution don't fully understand it. For example, as one poster asked above, how come we don't see more intelligent animals if evolution leads to intelligence? Well, there's the crux of it - evolution is often presented as this sort of one-way ticket to enlightenment, and it's not. It's simple - life adapts and selects that which fits its environment the best. Intelligence worked best for humans in their environment, but a smarter crocodile wouldn't have much advantage. There's no pretense that things ascend an evolutionary ladder...they just change as needed. Apes didn't turn into men - something a long time ago slowly begat apes and men. There's all sorts of fundamental misunderstandings about the theory (and about many other theories, come to think of it) that casues people to think it just HAS to be wrong.

Tempers always flare. Honestly, if the religious types out there want to not beleive in evolution, then it's within their rights to not do so. They can not beleive in gravity or quantum theory too, for all I care. That doesn't make any of those theories any less useful, and I'm afraid you'll just have to excuse us for getting a little frothed up when you start telling us that we're all evil people for not agreeing with you.

ID really likes to pose the academic freedom question. And I agree, that on the surface, academic freedom is a great thing. But it's getting ridiculous - ID has been found wanting in so many areas as a theory, so now we're stuck fighting it out in the courts. It's like those guys who say they've discovered perpetual motion, and when it's pointed out that they forgot to carry the two, insist that there's a conspiracy against them. There's a difference between "freedom of expression" and "being plain wrong." You wouldn't want your astronomy teacher telling students that the planets are on the backs of turtles in the name of "freedom", would you?

Yes, evolution has some holes in it. So does gravity. Theories change and improve and refine over time. That's what they do. Science is actively trying to fill in the holes. Just because we can't explain it 100% now doesn't mean we throw it out.

The expelled evolutionist

markpowell south river nj — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:39:20 GMT

Here we go again,the ultra smart evolutionist are tell us poor,foolish people of faith how dumb we are.Tell me,how did life start-where are the missing links-where is your evidence.I also think it would build your argument if you read the Bible and tryed to understand it before you make comments against it.Unfortunatly you have been caught up in the fake religion of darwinism but you will never admit it as that.you are the closed minded fools you make us out to be.Show me some evidence and I will then make a balanced evaluation,but you have none.All you have is a fear of a loving,merciful God.Go figure.

The expelled evolutionist

Michael Wawra, Glendale, CA — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:40:35 GMT

A friend of mine has a website called Machines Like Us (machineslikeus.com). It’s my favorite science site. For years I never even knew he had the site or that he was an atheist (and still is of course). God, or the absence of god, never entered the conversation. He’s a very gentle, humble person with a deep love of nature. In fact if you visit his site you will look long and hard before there is any mention of his name (Norm Nason). In addition to cutting edge science news, there are fascinating interviews with some of the more relevant minds of our day. And even though he personally interviewed these scientists, you won’t see his name anywhere. I am mentioning this because first of all it’s an outstanding science site. Second, Norm is someone who years ago did just what Alan Boyle is suggesting. He made a personal effort to make a difference. And third, I know he would never tout his own site. If you like science, I think you’re in for a treat.

The expelled evolutionist

Timthy Paul Narron — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:41:18 GMT

Mt question is why does intelligent design prove or disprove the existence of God? Couldn't it just as easily point to the the idea that in some unknown way individual entities "communicate" and cooperate on intentional evolution? I don't think science rules out that evolution could have an intentional element.

The expelled evolutionist

S D Ellingson Yelm, Wa — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:42:52 GMT

Several posters make the argument that the ID/Creationists are laughable; well sure, they are, EXCEPT that they organize and promote their agenda better than us non-dogmatic secular humanists, and they do it ruthlessly and many times under the radar.

My belief is that the world is currently in it's last major religious war, with science as the prime foe of ALL the Old Testament-based beliefs. The very possible loss of power by the various factions has been recognized, and they're doing their best to stop it.

And make no mistake; if they succeed, we'll be living in a rigid theocracy as they'll turn on each other until there's only ONE official belief.

The expelled evolutionist

Richard, East Northport, NY — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:54:50 GMT

I keep seeing the same "arguments" for creationism again and again, and all are based on false assumptions:

1. "Neither side can prove they're right." Wrong. Evolution has been proven by the weight of scientific evidence.

2. "The goal of evolution is intelligence, and only man developed intelligence." Wrong. There is no "goal" of evolution per se. Animals with advantageous traits survive and reproduce; those with less advantageous traits die out. It was advantageous for man's survival to be more intelligent, so more intelligent humans survived and reproduced. If some prehistoric humans had sprouted tentacles, and these conveyed enhanced survival, we'd all have tentacles now. Animals who are perfectly adapted to their environments have no need to "develop" intelligence.

3. "If science is always right, how come they keep changing what they say?" Science admits it doesn't have all the answers, but it's constantly revising its views based on new evidence. Religion, on the other hand, claims "absolute truth" and tries to suppress evidence that proves it wrong.

4. "What I was taught as a child I accept on faith." This is not an argument. This merely states that you were indoctrinated when you were too young to know any better, and you have not seen fit to question your early indoctrination.

5. "Some things we are not meant to know." Meant? By whom? God? It's easy to forget that half of everything we know in science was discovered in the last 20 years. So, 25 years ago, you might have proudly proclaimed that "we're not meant to know" any of the new discoveries, and today you'd look like an idiot.

The expelled evolutionist

Jim S. Orange County, CA — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:01:15 GMT

It is disingenuous to say that religion and belief in God are the philosophical underpinning of a belief in creationism as if discrediting facts when anti-religion and disbelief in God are the philosophical underpinnings of evolution and not treated as discrediting facts. Intellectual honesty not necessarily smarts or belief in God is the prerequisite to getting it right objectively.

The expelled evolutionist

Cal, Chico CA — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:02:29 GMT

There is a scene in the film Jesus Camp which pretty well sums up how utterly confused the creationist folks are. A home-school mom calls out to her son "...science never proved anything did it honey?"...WHILE SHES LOADING THE DISHWASHER! Later they actually watch TV, drive a car, its not shown but I suspect they go to the doctor occasionally. If science "never proved anything" then where the heck did this stuff come from? I guess they just prayed it into existence and it appeared in their driveway. Neat trick!...Idiots!

The expelled evolutionist

justin smith, boston, ma — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:07:23 GMT

the wonderfull part of science is that it is always self correcting always moving forward to prove EVERYTHING. The wonderfull part of religion is that it died around the same time as columbus proved the world was not flat. After that religion has lost its purpose it can no longer answer any questions posed by the populace, science does and will continue to for as ong as we are here to ask the wonderfull question WHY?

The expelled evolutionist

Paul, Winston-Salem, NC — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:09:22 GMT

"In the beginning God created...
In the beginning was the Word and...and the Word dwelt among us and became flesh." Genesis and the Gospel of John reveal the origins of man and the plan for his salvation.

All the astrophysicists I know believe in a beginning.
If a "Cause" for the beginning is found, other than God Almighty, then I will start worshipping the "Cause".... What is the atheist view of the beginning?

The expelled evolutionist

clifford g smith watertown wi — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:10:33 GMT

Scientists still never answer the question, where did all the information come from? How did gravity and hydrogen know to be gravity and hydrogen? Did the endless amounts of information come from absolute nothing? To me that is just as silly as all the information scientists think they know.

The expelled evolutionist

paul, winston-salem, NC — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:15:13 GMT

The heavens declare the glory of the LORD

QED

The expelled evolutionist

David Doe, The Northeast Corridor — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:17:11 GMT

Wow, Howard, you must be very devoted to your imaginary friend, to spend that much time writing about it.

It bogles the mind.

-David

The expelled evolutionist

Joshua Zev Levin, Ph.D. — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:19:00 GMT

It is a tribute to the great Wisdom and Intelligence of God that He established the initial conditions of the universe such that, by following random chance, intelligent life emerged, without any further Divine Intervention.

This is something that no finite man could do, nor can any finite being fully understand this to the last detail.

The expelled evolutionist

Steve, Westminster, CO — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:20:07 GMT

"The problem comes when folks want to teach in science class that the entire edifice of evolutionary biology should be torn down because some chinks are still unfilled or out of place"

This has always been the way creationists work, because they have nothing else to offer. Their methodology has always been to nitpick at evolution and claim that because this or that can't be explained to their satisfaction, then Genesis must be literally true - there is no other alternative. This is complete nonsense; whatever problems may exist in evolution, they do not show the Biblical account is true. For that, you need positive evidence that Genesis is true - and there is none of that.

Keep in mind that society started out with the view that the Bible was 100% true, because it supposedly came from God. This view has abandoned by scientists because it does not fit with the evidence - not because scientists are nasty atheists trying to destroy the pet beliefs of religious fundamentalists. If evolution did not have the facts and logic on its side, it would never have become so widely accepted.

The same process has taken place in archeology. Many archaeologists started out trying to prove the Bible is a true and correct version of events that took place during the times described. That view has been also been abandoned as the Bible has been repeatedly shown to be inaccurate, often wildly so.

The Bible is simply a book of legends that does not hold up to critical examination. That there are people who refuse to believe this really doesn't matter. Five minutes of listening to such people will tell you that they start from the assumption that everything in the Bible is true, and it is their job to explain away and ignore all evidence to the contrary. The fact is, if the Bible was true, all the scientific evidence would support it, and we wouldn't need "faith" to believe in it. Science would have verified the truth of the Bible if it had any truth to it, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. The actions of the Bible believers prove they don't have the evidence on their side, and they can do nothing more than repeat the same stale arguments that have been losing for over 100 years now.

The expelled evolutionist

Eric, NJ — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:20:39 GMT

What's so funny is that the religious, on one side of their mouths, claim "There are things we just cannot understand," and then with the other side, claim to know exactly what that "thing" did, when, and exactly how it wants us to behave.

The expelled evolutionist

Matt, Stow, Ohio — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:43:10 GMT

People have been talking a lot about fact. Evolution is a theory. They also say that we can not prove there is a God. I would like them to prove there isn't. I absolutely love science and have all of my life. I believe that the further we get into the complexities in the universe only proves that there is a God. We, as humans, like to think of ourselves as gods. It is in this selfish nature that we try to get rid of the need for God. We think of ourselves as superior. While I do not agree with the atheists, I love them with the same enthusiasm as I love my own family. If this love is a bad thing, I would rather be wrong and love all, than be right and worship myself. God, in my opinion, put us here to serve Him. To serve Him we serve others. There is not a person on this Earth who is unworthy of God's love, only the unwilling to recieve. I say a prayer for all, that you may have a prosperous life and come to know our Creator who loves you even though you bash and try and disprove Him.

The expelled evolutionist

Ruby, Bristol, Virginia — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:52:39 GMT

When I was 7 years old, it occured to me that the stuff I learned in Sunday school just wasn't possible.
But, there was no one I could talk to about it then. Living here in the bible belt, I find that there still isn't anyone I can talk to about it. I'm just glad to know that there are others like me who know in their hearts and rational minds that religion can be a very evil thing.

The expelled evolutionist

Matthew, Chicago — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:56:55 GMT

After reading many of these comments, I have observed that that definition of “theory” is being misinterpreted and misused by the many of the people who have posted here. The Random House dictionary lists seven entries for the word “Theory.” The two that pertain to this discussion are as follows:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

The “theory” in the theory of evolution is the first definition. As surely as the atomic bomb and countless other observations have confirmed Einstein’s theory of relativity, the theory of evolution has been confirmed by every known observation of fossils, organisms, and genetic research. It has never been contraverted by any scientific observation (anyone who tells you otherwise is manipulating data to fool you.) Like Einstein’s theory of relativity, the theory of evolution’s status is not open to conjecture; it is a well-established proposition that can simply be regarded and reported as a matter of fact. I am sorry if this matter of “fact” disagrees with your political or religious beliefs.

That being said, I would like to add on a personal note that I have no objection to the creationist theory being mentioned in science classes discussing evolution. I feel strongly that students should be exposed to every idea possible. It is the responsibility of the teacher to convey to the students the importance of the scientific method of observation, as it is the basis of all science and true knowledge. It is the responsibility of the student to evaluate the observations and decide what he or she wishes to believe.

The expelled evolutionist

perspective — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:01:04 GMT

Science is hard and religion is easy - all you have to do is believe. We see the truth of this observation and overwhelming evidence to back it up, both here and everywhere we may find an internet discussion on science and evolution vs religion.

Religious believers are never in short supply.
But non-scientific folks that are driven purely by curiosity exclusive of religious overtones and that are truly and objectively familiar with scientific thinking - are ever and always in short supply.

For example, we we review the current state of cosmological thinking (we could use Stephen Hawking here) we know the earth is not flat, but the universe apparently is. We also know that there is in all likelihood no 'center' to the known universe and that the universe replicates itself rather exactly and homogenously in any direction and toward any cosmic 'horizon' we care to gaze with our telescopes -of course this is the Hawking 'unbounded' universe version of cosmology. Still, we need something like inflation theory to help understand what we're actually seeing - and something the creationists should familiarize themselves with.

On the other hand, the known universe does not necessarily need an 'absolute' beginning, and could indeed be merely one of an infinite succession of universes that emerge from countless singularies - or try out the 'many' universes idea, where we have an infinity of 'parallel' universes overlapping one another at every instant - but with subtle differences.

The creationists need to grapple with the ideas of quantum physics to really get a sense of where science and physics is coming from, before they impose their multitude of religious rationalizations on the present limitations of science.

Science and scientific thinking will evolve and change - whereas religion typically will not. The only religion that has a chance of keeping up with science is Buddhism, and this is a far cry from the kind of faith that we see exhibited here by the descendents of Abraham....

The expelled evolutionist

Ernie Genss — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:04:54 GMT

In the 'beginning' it seems all was a void. It seems that inteligent design implies awareness. Any being aware only of itself is a contradiction in terms as there is no point of reference, hence no posibility of 'god'.

The expelled evolutionist

Michael Clouse, Ottumwa,Iowa — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:16:37 GMT

Because psychology directs most human behavior any discussion of creationism must first include a profile of those who believe in such a theory.
Those of us who lean more towards scientific theory are both objective and subjective. We are facinated by the possibilities around us and search for tangible facts. We are willing to admit when we fail in our search as well as elated when we are successful. In other words, we are comfortable with ourselves.
The creationists are a bit more conservative and are only comfortable when told by others what is possible and what is not. And creationism neatly bundles how we got here into a simple package that needs no futher discussion.
Unfortunately or not, this discussion will continue as long as humans inhabit the earth. The twain shall never meet.

The expelled evolutionist

Apologist, Wake Forest, NC — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:18:05 GMT

Darwin's theory is just that, a theory. It is not a scientific law such as gravity or the laws of thermodynamics. Cases of microevolution (environmental adaptations by a species) are common and not part of the debate. Macroevolution, evolution from one type to another (reptiles to mammals for example) is a key point in the debate and contrary to what the National Center for Science Education (Eugenie Scott and her ilk) would have us believe, has never been conclusively proven in the field or laboratory.

Also note that Creation Science and Intelligent Design are not the same thing. Creation Science seeks to show scientific evidence for the biblical account of creation. Intellegent Design argues that life and the universe are too complex to be the result of random chance or accident but is the result of influence by an intelligence be it God or E.T.

The expelled evolutionist

R. Krenke, Ann Arbor, MI — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:19:30 GMT

Creationism is one of the better arguments for separation of church and state.

People who don't understand the difference between science and faith should not be teaching or instructing American students at any level.

How is this even debatable? We need to stop placating people because of their religious beliefs.

The expelled evolutionist

Greg, Portland OR — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:20:28 GMT

Science implies/demands use of the scientific method and when done correctly (if done incorrectly it is not science) is not affected by philosophy and religion. Only scientifically based principles of biology should be taught in public schools. All other avenues of evolutionary speculation belong somewhere else.

The expelled evolutionist

Alexis, Canada — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:21:16 GMT

Why do people argue about this? No one here is going to change their minds after reading a comment. Save your breath and let the less educated people in society believe that "god" created everything

The expelled evolutionist

Dennis Ridgley, Aurora, Colorado — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:23:15 GMT

I don't have time to read all the excellent postings, but I'll add this comment if it hasn't already been made: The Bible addresses the question "Why?". Science answers the question "How?" When one field tries to address the central question of the other, it will fail and have to resort to either dogmatism or radicalism to support what it should not be addressing anyway.

The expelled evolutionist

Joan Broomfield, CO — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:26:49 GMT

My question is IF MAN evolved from Monkeys/Apes, why are there STILL monkeys and apes? Why didn't they evolve? I'll believe in God and the 6 day creation which has MORE answers than an IDEA.

The expelled evolutionist

Joan Broomfield, CO — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:35:25 GMT

What created that little particle of dust? What caused that little particle of dust to evolve? Something had to start that? What? God!! Nothing comes from Nothing. Your idea is as flawed as you desire ours to be...and ours is not, God does have the answers. And like previous stated, DON'T force your misguided views upon ME. Which are forced by teaching only one view in the school system.

The expelled evolutionist

Just asking, from Earth — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:42:31 GMT

Part of the problem is that each religion wants to be right and others have to be wrong. So many human conflicts all started with radical thoughts concerning religion. I recall at age 8 or so, 40 now, asking my church's religious leader why the Greeks, Egyptians, Norse, Mayans, etc. were all so wrong. I mean why was this cloud being that my parents subscribed to better and more right than any of the others? This came from being a Protestant going to a Catholic school at the time and seeing that I was supposedly wrong on what I had been taught about god. It was at that time I realized that it was all to keep mankind down per se. I'd say I'm a spiritual person that realizes that there are no answers for what we seek. I mean why did Moses or Mohammed have an exclusive? Doesn't make sense does it? Neither does material just exploding and keep expanding forever or looking for ever smaller particles that make up everything. I mean what is the particle that makes you who you are? That one spot you see when you close your eyes and look inward? The more we look outward and inward the more we realize we really don't know much...

The expelled evolutionist

JasonA, Salem OR — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:50:35 GMT

Humans didn't evolve from monkeys and apes; Humans evolved from common ancestors to monkeys and apes. It is a common misconception that evolution always works towards a recognizable end, which is not the case. At this very moment in time, we are simply in the midst of a long progression of life that stretches back to the beginning of our planet, and will continue to the end of life on Earth. We are constantly subject to the the mechanics of evolution.

As for the arguments that state there is a lot of evidence that Jesus lived and was crucified, and was raised from the dead--there may be arguments and evidence for a historical man named Jesus, that did many of the things that Jesus did as proclaimed in the Bible. But this does not validate all of the information in the Bible as fact any more than we can believe the Superman television show from the 50's was factual. George Reeves existed, but it doesn't mean he could fly faster than a speeding bullet while wearing a unitard and red cape.

The expelled evolutionist

Fred J — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:55:42 GMT

WHat I find really funny is that both atheists and creationists totally dismiss each other's point of view. For example, all of the atheists on here who dismiss that the world was created in 7 days, and the creationists who dismiss that the world evolved over several billions of years. Both sides of the argument could be correct. It depends on time and location (where God is and where the earth is), and yes based upon that, you cannot totally dismiss either argument...

The expelled evolutionist

Jamie, Houston, TX — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:57:27 GMT

Theists, or any proponent of I.D., are simply trying to assimilate scientific discoveries into their antiquated and obsolete belief systems. The scientific community does not set out to intentionally debunk religious scriptures--it is only the reality of the end result. The scientific method's foundation is in a search for truth--not to defend a position. Therein lies the problem with organized religion: Their explanation of the universe, though open to interpretation, is a matter of record, and any contradictory information must be explained away or assimilated somehow. This is becoming increasingly more difficult to do, as evidenced by the new attempts at cloaking creationism with the moniker "intelligent design."

The expelled evolutionist

Lee, Baltimore, MD — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:58:40 GMT

Okay, to the Scientists out there:

Yes we live in a world with certain immuteable laws. We don't know all the laws, and sometimes we find that someone has found a loophole. But we can't exactly explain how it all started or why it is the way it is. This is where the faithful find God.

To the Creationists:

Mankind has forever tried to explain and understand where we are and where we come from. Just because we want to know why things happen as they do doesn't make us godless. And stop calling all scientists atheists and liberals - a good deal of us are neither. The human mind was designed to order chaos. Read the creation story in the bible... God directs everything past Adam and he names it... we we're meant to organize what we see and experience. Science and Faith are not in conflict. Science is God's work... learning how the world was put together and coming to understand how it is all connected. How do you know it wasn't His plan that things grow and change. "Be fruitful and multiply" - maybe He meant in kind as well as numbers.

Put simply, all this "I'm right, you're wrong" sounds like so much childish, play-yard nonsense. Hubris really. Believe all you want, if there is a train on the tracks coming at you, it will hit you if you stand there, no matter how much you choose to deny it is there.

The expelled evolutionist

Daniel — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:01:21 GMT

I think what people forget is we, as sinful and imperfect humans, always put ourselves first, creating ourselves into our own gods. This has been so since the fall of man into sin in the Garden of Eden. We naturally want to force ourselves away from God. In this void we create, we want to prove to ourselves we are better than the Creator. We want to explain how things work; tearing it down, rebuilding in hopes our creation is better than His. Science is used to explain the things around us, and should not be used as a tool to bludgeon religions. In the end we have One Faith that the God of Creation crafted everything we see in the universe in 7 days. People need to stop putting science in the know-all spot light; worshipping everything it has to offer. Science is fallible, created by sinful, imperfect humans, by some to fill a void they created by pushing away God, and by others who simply wanted to let people know how things work in this world. The problem with intelligent design is people try to remove God from the equation, you do that you have nothing but a worthless theory based off of sinful desires. To those who go to church and believe in Almighty Triune God know that Creation happened, they witness it every day, so to them Evolution is just another chapter in a book created by sinful humans and is required by state law so they can get a science credit. Creation is based upon a Holy, Omnipotent, and Loving God, evolution is based on an incomplete idea from a sinful man who observed how animals look similar to other animals, which has been tweaked, rewritten, retested, and still falls in short, because ALL have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.

The expelled evolutionist

S.B. Stein E.B. NJ — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:04:43 GMT

Honestly, think about G-d trying to explain evolution to people who don't understand cells or thing 40 years is a long time. Genesis was not meant to be taken literally. I respect those that have come to the understanding that G-d doesn't exist or aren't sure. I have come to the understanding that G-d had trouble explaining to people (whenever that was done) that there are atoms and cell that exist and make up your parts despite the fact you can't see them. So, I believe that there can be a scientist who is religious; they study G-d since G-d is everything here, there and everywhere.

I would think that most religions have some similar ethical guide lines. For the most part they include things like: don't lie, cheat or steal; give charity and help those that need help. Taking things too literally causes problems like this...

The expelled evolutionist

Dan Asti, NYC, NY — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:05:45 GMT

Mr. Meyers is an instigator. He chosen to be someone who instead of working intelligently, he "bites" on the ID peoples "bait".

First fact is that most evolutionary biologists in the USA are practising Christians. They just don't believe in an exact, literal interpretation of the Bible. They believe many Bible passages have a deeper and more profound meaning and spiritual lesson.

Second fact is that The Theory of Evolution NEVER attempts to explain to us how life began. This is probably the most blatant LIE that Creationists propagate. That's not part of the theory.

I'm so sick of Athiests like Mr. Meyers pretending to speak for all evolutionary biologists. You don't speak for the majority of us. Why don't you and Dawkins separate your religion from your science?

Evolution is VALID science. A scientific theory is based on PROVEN facts and tested outcomes. Scientific Theories and the common definition of "theory" are different. I shows you don't know what you're talking about scientifically.

Because there are things we don't understand about Gravity I suggest that every creationist and ID'er go jump off a building! Now! That's the same logic you use to "debunk" evolution. There are aspects of Gravity we don't understand but it's still VERY real! Go ahead JUMP!!!

Finally, you can worship and love God 100% and work as an Evolutionary biologist who uses the Evolutionary theory. They are not mutually exclusive! Wake up! You don't have to take "6" days literally. The Bible is full of symbolism. That's how people were in the past when they descibed the world. Taking it literally loses so much of the deeper meaning.

The expelled evolutionist

Steve Sallis, San Diego, CA — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:08:44 GMT

I believe that each species is, in it's own way, the genius of it's environment. Whales are much better at being whales than humans could be. I believe that he "spark", so to speak, that started life (not just humanity) on Earth comes from a source external to our planet. That source could be strings, influence from a different dimension, from other sentient species, etc. God, and the human need for a God of some kind, could date back to the oldest of our species, and the time we might have been uplifted from our simian ancestors.

The expelled evolutionist

OutWest, Canyon Country, CA — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:10:35 GMT

First I do believe in God but not religion, that said Genesis is an excellent execitive summary of the "Big Bang" theory and evolution.
My issue with the "creationists" and "young-earther" is their insistance on telling God what time it is.
We will most likely "Find God" when someone proves the Unitified Theory that Einstien was looking for when he died.

The expelled evolutionist

Kristine, Minnesota — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:11:37 GMT

Creationists invoke "God" because they are incurious about science, about how things actually work. They don't want to learn or think - they just say "Goddidit" as if that solves anything. What is that supposed to tell us about how to deal with "superbugs," like TB that has evolved a resistance to antibiotics, for example? How does this help us deal with HIV?

What if the next time someone jabbers away at me about some sports event, how this sports star made this play, etc. (I don't like sports), I came back at that person with a, "Well, God did it, didn't He? The players, the equipment, and the rules are not sufficient to explain how the game happened! Do you honestly think that the man in the end zone caught the football through his own skill, or that the pitcher threw a bum pitch by chance? You tell me how this team won, and I'll just say that's how Jesus plays with Himself!" Now, that would take the fun out of it, wouldn't it?

That's how I feel when people don't want to learn the details, but just act like they know more than everyone else by saying, "Well, however life came about, God did it!"

The expelled evolutionist

Jim, Pittsburgh, PA — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:11:39 GMT

It seems that much of the disagreement comes from the fact that people are confusing two separate and distinct topics; evolution and the origin of life. ANd the media does little to clarify this.

Evolution is a proven fact and beyond argument; It can be observed by anybody with no need for a fossil history. Do farmers change the characteristics of livestock via artificial selection? Yep, it's called animal husbandry or breeding. Do new strains of bacteria evolve within the course of a couple of years? Yes, of course. Otherwise there would be no such thing as emergent strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria. So please folks, case closed on the whole evolution thing.

But the origin of life (and the universe) is a separate issue. I am a technically educated guy. But I must admit I cut creationists slack on origin of the universe issues because advanced particle physics seems like it requires just as much faith and supposition. But maybe that's just my ignorance at work. Maybe we can first worry about getting folks to agree on the FACT FACT FACT of evolution, and leave the more esoteric argument of origins for a later time?

The expelled evolutionist

John West Orange, NJ — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:12:03 GMT

I've got one question to ask the creationists. What is your Appendix for?

The expelled evolutionist

Valerie Rich — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:15:02 GMT

I have seen so many lost souls, hopelessly sunken into the depths of untold misery and depravation. And then I have seen those same people come to accept Christ as their savior, and completely turn themselves around into happy, productive, inspiring individuals. I am a first hand witness in watching God working in peoples' lives and what He can do for them, and for me too. So nobody can tell me that there is no God, or that Jesus Christ is not still saving lives today.

The expelled evolutionist

David Bible — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:17:30 GMT

"It should all be about truth. Evolutionist are scared to death to have competing ideas in the classroom."

Craig,

I am a science teacher and am not in the least scared of an idea than competes with evolution.

Simply put, there is no other idea that competes with evolution. This is the truth.

In Texas teachers are to teach evolution its strengths and weaknesses. Its strength is that evolution explains every fact that we know about biochemistry, genetics, paleontology, population biology, and embryology, just to name a few, derived from observation and experimentation. Additionally, as new technology is brought to the study of evolution, more confirming evidence is acquired. I really can't think of any weaknesses seriously impacts the explanation of evolution.

Think of evolution as the grand unified theory of biology.

Now, let us look at the teaching of ID/creationism in a science class. If I were required to teach these subjects, I would simply have to list the evidence supporting them as I did for evolution. Oops, there isn't any supporting evidence. The only thing that I could possibly do is repeat the mantra that things are too complex to have evolved. So much for ID/creationism being a competing explanation to evolution.

The expelled evolutionist

OLR3, Chicago, Illinois — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:17:56 GMT

I'd love to believe more in evolution but I still can't get an answer to the foundational question, "Where did the matter came from (unless, of course, you'd rather provide a mathematical forumla that explains the concept of eternity which will render the first question meaningless) from which everything else, me included, evolved?" Any takers? Please!

The expelled evolutionist

Anne Barnes — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:19:41 GMT

The sooner everyone understands that there is no god, we can come together and solve world issues intelligently. We should be accountable for our own behavior rather than seek absolution from some ridiculous, imaginary super-thing. Our planet needs to be nurtured, including all the creatures who inhabit it. The arrogance and stupidity of humankind is astounding.

The expelled evolutionist

B.Garrett, KC, MO — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:23:45 GMT

Those of you that claim that evolution "evolves" intelligence really need to read a book. There isn't an evolutionary biologist on this planet that would ever claim that the end result of evolution is intelligent beings/species.

Human intelligence is a product of evolution yes...but it is not the end of that "journey", nor is it the ultimate "goal". Evolution has no "goals" other than to continue the cycle of life. To say that it has wishes is nothing but giving god/God a new name.

Anything else I have to add has already been posted.

Creationism, Creatonism...same thing but missing an "i".

The expelled evolutionist

Marty, St. Louis, Mo — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:25:24 GMT

Again,
a theory is not less fact than a law. Gravity is a theory not a law, we just happen to have a fixed value for it here on earth. Theories don't "grow up" in to laws as evidence proves them. This is a misconception and is an old and tired argument.

I've never heard an answer to the question:

What active, objective research is Creation Science doing to provide future technologies for us?
Are they researching cancer? Alzheimer's disease? New computer technology?

The answer is none.

What viable application does it have? All they do is search through other's research looking for arguments to support their belief?

The expelled evolutionist

Joe G., Central Ohio — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:35:14 GMT

This grows tiresome. Clueless people with dogmatic belief stand on either side and say "we're right, you're wrong, and anyone who doesn't agree with us is EVIL."

I say all of you folks can burn.

What is the energy you are wasting in this debate doing to better humanity? Folks are dying in Myanmar, China, and Ethiopia. People are starting to go hungry here in the States. Our economy is crap. What you care about is who gets more microphone time at the clueless local school board debate.

I'd lock you all in a great big room with a few weapons. When the survivors emerge, we'd declare a victory and go on to settle important issues.

I don't care if Earth was built by little green men, Tinkerbell, or the Lord's Mighty Digit. We need to spend more time figuring out how to better the human condition, and less time trying to confuse it with endless, pointless, unprovable debates that produce nothing but ignorance.

Creationists, belief in the principles of science does not negate your belief. Those who eschew science as an exclusive god are *wrong*. Without the principles of science the modern world would not exist. Scientists, faith can include principles beyond those of science. Anyone who tells you different is *wrong*. Without the principles of religion modern society would not exist.

Now go to your friggin' corners, and don't come out until you can speak to one another in a civil tone.

Sheesh.

The expelled evolutionist

Jim Pettit, Naples, FL — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:37:22 GMT

Creationists so often--as they have here--claim that the two sides of the debate are deathly afraid that the other side is right that they feel the need to fight tooth and nail to prove the other wrong. Bust such a supposition is laughable, I think; it's been my experience that religious types argue their side so vociferously because they can't tolerate even the very thought that the flimsy threads supporting their belief structure are just mirages, while scientists argue just as vociferously because they see the spread of ignorance as perhaps mankind's biggest sin.

Pity.

Anyway, from my own perspective, a universe born of time and science is infinitely more beautiful and spectacular than one manufactured by some unseen, unknown fellow man pulling strings behind a curtain.

The expelled evolutionist

jdb — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:41:32 GMT

It is no accident that individuals like Myers and Dawkins find themselves in dialogue with fundamentalist Christians rather than more thoughtful critics or proponents of religion, as the most strident and obnoxious enemies of any single belief always attract the most strident and obnoxious defenders. That Myers would call Dr. Miller "wishy-washy" because he isn't an irritable ideologue is a badge of honor for a good man, a great teacher, and a reasonable Christian.

While bitterness, ad hominem, and outright misrepresentation are par for the course for all ideologues, including the atheist and creationist species, they do nothing to further communication or dialogue between the two sides. Unfortunately, Dr. Myers is content to throw bombs rather than approaching Christianity (which is apparently the only belief system he views as worthy of being called a religion) with anything resembling understanding or reason.

The expelled evolutionist

Jim — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:41:56 GMT

My favorite historical anecdote regarding science and religion: At the same time as Galileo was being tried for heresy by the Catholic Church for his theories in gravity and a heliocentric solar system, the Pope's artillery commanders used Galileo's books and mathematic on how to aim cannons better.

The expelled evolutionist

mike — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:42:16 GMT

There is no proof of creationism nor evolution as it is now taught. I am amazed by the people who speak with such authority and assuredness about how the universe came about. There exists only theories about this issue. I cannot believe that simple molecules combined accidentally and eventually created life; life that continued to become more complex.The number of things that must go right, with only one error scuttling the whole works, in order to create an indescribably complex system such as human physiology,is, I believe, nearly mathematically impossible. So the current evolutionists have to have as much "faith" in their theories as the creationists employ in theirs. And why the hubris over the issue of intelligent design (not a God, but maybe another life force? Are we the top of the food chain throughout the universe? Oh, and Jon, just about no one had an education in the 15th century. And, you're off by a 2 millennia at least as to when Man first believed the earth was spherical. But I do agree with your comment about needing smarter posters. Too bad you had to provide the example as to why.

The expelled evolutionist

Jay, Deerfield, IL — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:49:24 GMT

I think it's possible for both evolution and creation to co-exist. I believe God created all but I don't believe in the Biblical re-telling of how God created it. Basically, I find the Bible to be a fallable account, in my estimation it was written by the most educated men of its time but they were not very educated so they were trying to explain the things they could not know or understand so they had to put it down in terms they could understand.

The expelled evolutionist

AbdulHakim, NY — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:55:18 GMT

This highly complex and balanced universe with all of its fixed laws and wonderous beauty is:

a)the product of purposeful intent by a Creator

b)the product of particles of matter coming together to its present form without any outside intervention or purpose, just a result of random events and an evolutionary process independent of any outside power.

ironically, it would take a great leap of faith to believe in option b.

The expelled evolutionist

Kyle, Wauwatosa, WI — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:56:24 GMT

"Have a blast guys. I have better things to do."

Apparently not.

The expelled evolutionist

Mike, Long Island, NY — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:00:02 GMT

Wow! This article really brought out the quacks. What are you guys talking about? Make some sense. Your arguments sound like playground taunts and brimstone sermons mixed with philosophical pyschobabel.

As for me, I've always found the most arrogant to be the creationists. They just can't be confronted with facts without putting their fingers in their ears and screaming No...No...No until their blue in the face. Then comes some cryptic bible passages that they interpret to support their views - since when are words proof of anything. Do engineers just rely on words to prove that a building will stand? No they have real world tests to do that. That's what evolution has - real world molecular and cellular biological evidence, much more than words. Creationists - just words (mostly written by superstitious men who couldn't explain the cause of the cycles of the moon, let alone the origin of species).

The expelled evolutionist

Nicole Birmingham, AL — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:04:37 GMT

Part of the reason that this debate (creationism vs. evolution) has hung around so long is that the spokespersons for science are typically not very well chosen. Most, in fact, are self-appointed, and media attention typically focuses on those whose views are controversial and/or abrasive, since controversy sells. Myers is a good example of this - as a scientist, I'm sure he is exemplary, but his universal disdain for religion makes him unlikely to win anyone over to his way of thinking.

As a scientist myself, I know that the evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming.
However, evolution - or science in general - can only describe how things happen, not why. Science can never disprove God, and so atheism is as much of a belief system as Christianity. Atheism is also not a universal belief system among scientists - I believe in God, and so do the majority of scientists that I know. We do not all believe in the same God or in the same manner, but most of us do believe, and there is nothing "wishy-washy" about either our beliefs or our science.

My knowledge of evolution has actually enhanced my faith in God, which may surprise some. But I believe that evolution is just one more tool through which God can work His will on the universe, and the subtlety and power of a mind that could work through such a complex system over such a long period of time amazes me. This is also, I hasten to add, a belief, not a scientific theory, and it has no evidence to back it up (in reality, it would be impossible to attain such evidence with the scientific tools we have available today), and so it has no place in a science classroom. I only mention it to illustrate that evolution and faith are not mutually exclusive.

Admittedly, this view will never win over fundamentalists of any faith, but I doubt any argument could. In my opinion, fundamentalists have lost track of one of the most important tenets of faith: we, as humans, can never understand the mind of God. If we attempt to rigidly define Him and the universe that He has created for us, we gain comfort at the cost of a deeper understanding of the nature of God, a deeper understanding that can only be gained by continually questioning our beliefs. The notion of a “right” and a “wrong” way to believe is tempting, but ultimately a fallacy. Interestingly enough, this is also true about science – only by continual re-inspection of what we believe to be truth do we come to a better understanding of our universe. So I do not mock those scientists who choose to research intelligent design, but I do believe that those who would teach our children this theory without supporting scientific evidence – and, just to be clear, there is no scientific evidence supporting intelligent design at this time – are misguided.

I would also like to clarify one final point: evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of the universe. So one does not necessarily have to believe in the Big Bang to believe in evolution. And, just as with evolution, I do not feel that the Big Bang Theory and faith are mutually exclusive. If we can accept that an infinitely dense locus of mass pre-existed before a massive explosion led to the universe as we know it, can we not also accept a pre-existing energy, an energy that could very well be God?

The expelled evolutionist

Patrick Mertz — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:11:43 GMT

Creationism - the belief that an intelligent designer, God, created all things from nothing. Once there was nothing (but God), then there was something(s). Earth, sun, water, etc.
Evolution - the belief that all things came into being somehow (unexplained) and then evolved or changed over time into the life forms currently inhabiting this planet.
Similarity - all things came into being, somehow. First there was nothing, then there was something(s).
Difference - Creationism accounts for the cause of something from nothing. Evolution only accounts for the changes of those something(s). Evolution does not account for the original appearance of that or those something(s).
Conclusion - Creationism accounts for the origin of matter, elements, substances and life. Evolution does not. Further, creationists and evolutionists are really on the same page when it somes to origins. They both "know" or believe that all thing(s) have and had a beginning. They also both "know" or believe that out of some unknown "nothing" came something, life as we now know it. Therein lies the challenge; what is/was this "nothing" and how did "something" (myriad elements, substances and life forms) come into being, or originate?
Rather than namecalling or oneupsmanship, I'd appreciate your thoughts.

The expelled evolutionist

Delmar Fairchild, Barron, WI — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:13:21 GMT

Wow! This subject brings everyone's juices to A Boyle.

My 2 cents:

If our bodies, minds and souls are parts of the Universe since its beginning, (let's say the big bang), then we are made in the image of God, if God so created the Universe. He must have thought that we would turn out to be like we are since He knows everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen. He would have designed it that way or at least known it would happen this way.
Knowing everything, He couldn't have said, "Let's see what will happen if I do this.". He is, after all, the "All knowing" God. It would be impossible for Him to not know something.

Now: The other side of the coin.

If God was created with the Creation of the Universe, then we are the same as God as we are finding that everything in the Universe is made of the same materials and follows the same laws. Hydrogen, Helium, water, carbon, iron, so on and on. Laws of Thermodynamics, Gravity, etc.
God would be no more or less than we or any other creature in the Universe.
What would be the purpose of having a God in this type of Universe? Why would He have come about?

So now we need to determine WHEN it was that God, if there is one, was created. Then we will know if we have designed creation or evolution.

Was it Before this Universe began or After? If it was Before, then there is more to the story than just our Universe and therefore more than what we as a part of this Universe can relate to or comprehend.
We probably can not relate to God, so we shouldn't be looking for Him as it is probably impossible to do.

We probably should be looking at what we can get out of this Universe as He made it for only us creatures in this Universe and He already knows the outcome.

If After, then the question has been answered.

If this is what people are really fighting about, then this conflict will never end due to the immensity of time and not knowing what is beyond our Universe -- and it is the ultimate Yin and Yang.

Why can't we discuss this in our schools? It would enliven many people's lives and would bring out a lot of new thoughts and endeavors. There really is nothing wrong with Religion or non religion. The wrong is that people can't see through their own thoughts.

The expelled evolutionist

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:15:19 GMT

Apologist, It's not just NCSE that disagrees with you. It's the national academies of science; the national institutes of health; all of the organizations of professional biologists; all of the nobel winners in science or physiology. Many evolution-deniers claims to be scientists when they are actually engineers or vets or technicians, but the vast majority of practicing scientists who are speaking within their own fields of expertise reject creationism and ID and accept evolution. The higher the tier of the scientist (national academy member, nobel laureate), the higher the probability she will consider creationism as completely stupid. The U.S. president's own science advisor has said that neither ID nor any other form of creationism has any place in scientific discussion. The more a person knows, the more she realizes the essential dumbness that characterizes creationism.

The expelled evolutionist

Charles, Farmington, MI — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:18:15 GMT

some evolutionists dismiss creationism without bothering to look at the scientific side of creation discussion.

Consider the following:

"In 1977 Prof. Hubert Yockey, a specialist in applying information theory to biological problems, studied the data for cytochrome a in great detail.1 His calculated value for the probability in a single trial construction of a chain of 100 amino acid molecules of obtaining by chance a working copy of the enzyme molecule is 1/1065 , or the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 65 zeros. This is a probability 100,000 times smaller than my very rough estimate published two years earlier. Prof. Harold Morowitz estimated that the simplest theoretically conceivable living organism would have to possess a minimum of 124 different protein molecules. A rough estimate of the probability of all of these protein molecules to be formed by chance in a single chance happening would be P124P = (1/1065)124 = 1/108060, the fraction 1 divided by the number 1 followed by 8060 zeros. Truly these are extremely small probabilities calculated through a statistical approach. They tell us that the probabilities for the chance formation of a single working protein molecule or of a living cell are effectively zero.Prof. Morowitz made a careful study of the energy content of living cells and of the building block molecules of which the cells are constructed. From this thermodynamic information he was able to calculate the probability that an ocean full of chemical "soup" containing the necessary amino acids and other building block molecules would react in a year to produce by chance just one copy of a simple living cell.2 He arrived at the astronomically small probability of Pcell = 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros! Yet he still believed in abiogenesis. Back in the 1970s Prof. Morowitz admitted in a public debate at a teachers' convention in Honolulu that in order to explain abiogenesis, it would be necessary to discover some new law of physics. At that time he still believed in abiogenesis, the spontaneous formation of the original living cells on the primeval earth. However, some ten years later he finally stated that in his opinion some intelligent creative power was necessary to explain the origin of life."

It would seem that such an opinion would merit discussion rather than dismissal. I would welcome seeing the, hopefully polite and reasoned, responses to this.

The expelled evolutionist

Greg, Cleveland, Ohio — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:19:38 GMT

In the beginning, god created the universe.
Several billion years later, the universe created man.
Several million years later, man created God.
Several thousand years, later God created idiots.

The expelled evolutionist

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:19:43 GMT

OLR3, your question is irrelevant to the topic of biological evolution. It's as if someone said they won't accept Newton's laws until someone tells him how the planets originated. It's interesting, but it's logically irrelevant. If your tentative acceptance of evolution is contingent on the explanation of a logically unrelated fact, then it is your personal requirement - not a requirement of science or the scientific community.

The expelled evolutionist

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:22:41 GMT

To emphasize Marty in STL's message:
"Law and Theory"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTaiP04UlxE

"Evolution, Theories as Models..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un-I0mRq8Dw

Summary: Theories do not graduate into laws. Theories are not necessarily less certain than laws.

The expelled evolutionist

Davis, Harrisburg, PA — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:23:21 GMT

Evolution is a theory which is put to the test using scientific methodolgy, continuosly, to test the validity of the theory. Intelligent design/creationism is not a theory. It is a belief to which scientific methodologies do not apply nor can they be applied. If 16 percent of the science teachers in public schools believe in teaching creationism because they believe it to be true, then other belief systems must be include, such as the flying spaghetti monster theory. A belief is a belief, untestable. A theory is a theory which when tested can proved or disproved through scientific methodologies. A simple observation about the mutations of virus' and germs' go a long way toward discrediting the creationists' "theories".

The expelled evolutionist

Michele, Phoenix, AZ — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:26:03 GMT

This pagan child believes in many gods. I believe that the energy of life is a living thing. I do NOT believe that humans were created in a single moment; I do believe that we evolved from primates. When God stands on someone's lawn and tells us that he created us in a single day, then I'll believe it; otherwise, there's too much physical evidence to the contrary.

Not everyone who is spiritual believes in Creation, and not everyone who believes in evolution is an atheist.

Let's step outside the Abrahamic tribal arguments and realize that there are other points of view in the world.

The expelled evolutionist

Enrique Boudraeux — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:27:04 GMT

For intelligent design to be taken seriously, it needs to answer questions and gather evidence.
1. How many designers?
2. How can you determine what was designed and what evolved?
3. Is designing still going on, if now when did it stop.
4. Who or what stopped it.
5. Are there different kinds of design by different designers?
6. Are designs changed after initial design?
7. Is there some sort of version control?
8. Why is so much design bad compromises.

The expelled evolutionist

Dewayne H. Olathe, Kansas — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:41:44 GMT

Some day mankind will develop so far scientifically that we will reach across the countless stars, and find another planet with some species not so different from our own, and give it a little nudge.

Maybe will induce a state of unconsciousness in one, extract some (DNA, and develop a clone that will advance the species.

Maybe will hang out a bit and help them. We could even leave some info behind that will explain what we have done, in the very simplest of terms.

We can not of course explain how we did what we did in scientific terms, after all, they are just savages. We instead take what they already have, which is a belief system in a higher being, and we modify it to explain some of the science so that years later...oh say 6000 years later, they will be sitting around trying to explain creation...a God...and well, I think you get the point.

I noticed a few people throwing out the whole; "Religion killed so many people" insult. I have to say that one shouldn't throw stones when one lives in a glass house. Pretty sure it took some pretty smart scientist to come up with all the cool technology that we so readily kill each other with. Lets go spend 2.6 billion Swiss francs on a particle accelerator and ignore the fact that people are starving. Yep, that gonna feed a lot of people and solve world issues. I did however see a local church feeding the poor the other day.

I don't know if there is a God or not, but sometimes I think that those who are burdned with a need to explain all things, may only find that after opening all the doors on their mission to understand will only find that it leads back to a Creator.

My only thought is that God may not be as all powerful as the religious folks would have us believe, but still exist despite the denial of an atheist.

Look in your mirror...if God is in all things, then you must be looking on one of the many faces of God.

The expelled evolutionist

SM-G, Chicago, IL — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:46:11 GMT

"Why is it that only humans evolved into intelligent species? Other species have been arround for much longer time. If evolution brings intelligence then atleast some of the other species should be more intelligent and creative than humans.
SHAHID IQBAL, Islamabad, Pakistan"

Simply because *something* has to be at the top of the hill. Think of it like a deck of cards where 52 people are drawing cards; somone is going to end up with the ace of spades, and some people are going to end up with deuces. When you have a single ecological niche, the organism that is able to fill that niche most efficiently tends to remove competition.

If it helps, think of the monkey metaphor; 10K monkeys typing randomly for eternity will eventually reproduce all of the works of Wm. Shakespeare. (Somewhere in this infinite universe, there is almost certainly at least one analogous debate going on...)

Is/are there a god/s? I don't know; I'll find out for sure when I'm dead. Until then, I am not aware of any evidence (by this, I mean something that can be measured, quantified and recorded, with results that can be repeated through experimentation) that suggests to me that there is. OTOH, I am aware of evidence that evolution is a reality, that the world is significantly older than 10K years, etc.

Then again, it's very hard for people to conceive that they aren't really 'people' per se, but a collection of extremely complex biochemical reactions; people tend to want to believe that there is something more to their existence. To paraphrase Marx, religion is the comfort of people that can't accept the cold, stark reality of science.

For truth, I will look to science. For Truth, I have Nietzsche and Sartre.

The expelled evolutionist

Cheeba, The Mountains — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:56:50 GMT

It never ceases to amaze me how many people must think that scientists are simply in the business of disproving religion. The purpose is to further human knowledge and understanding of the natural world, not miracles or magic.

The expelled evolutionist

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:58:34 GMT

I'm going to wax creatively on this topic, and I'm sure religious fundamentalists or those with an intolerant political agenda will either pity me, criticize me, or be quick to judgementally condemn me for my simply imagining this bit of philosophical or metaphysical possibility:

"It's possible that a god created us, knowing its sentient creations can one day play down its existence, because its services are no longer needed after it created this universe, and because we as a species can rise up to become empowered because we have a flexible brain employing communication skills along with the physical ability to create tools. When we collectively succeed in becoming greater than what we are individually, we can take god's original place in this universe as the new creators. Perhaps not in the other universes in this multiverse of different dimensions, parallels and other universes, but at least we can become the masters of our destiny in this plane of existence. And what is god, other than the collection of all natural laws that describe one or all of its measurable properties that are part of everything that originates and governs our existence, our dynamic interactions, and the existence and interrelation of everything else. One day we will become the god(s) that our ancestors, in their ignorance, revered, worshipped and feared."

The expelled evolutionist

Jorge Fernandez, Hialeah, Florida — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:07:39 GMT

I am very disappointed that a film producer decided to throw Myers out. This goes against the kind of open debate intelligent designers have been striving for. I can only hope this does not reflect the views of the rest of the makers of the movie.

The expelled evolutionist

Noreen Lemery, Albuquerque, New Mexico — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:22:30 GMT

The only thing I know from all this blab blab blab is that none of you have read the Bible (Basic Instruction Before Leaving Earth I thought that was catchy}. The Bible has not been proven wrong at even the smallest point. We humans have made wrong. The Bible says the earth is round. Scientist said "The earth is flat". Who was right? The Bible said to clean you house ridding it of mold and all it's strans even to the knocking down of the walls and putting in totally new walls; sounds a alot like "toxic mold" to me. Bible = water supply upstream from bathroom. Our scientist figured this out in what the 1800's. Bible = wash your face and hands before eatting; our scientist/doctors didn't start washing before surgery untill the 1900's. I would have thought that if putting food in your mouth with dirty a hands was bad, putting dirty hands in a body would have been a definate no no. Now they say "we the great and all knowing Scientist say there is on God; We have discovered the beginning of the universe The Big Bang.{Sounds a lot like "Let there be light" to me.} Oh and we discovered "dark matter" ( I believe the Bible mentions "the visble and invisble " matter a couple of times. Seams to me that the "scientist" are about 4000 years behind the times.
I may not understand everything in the Bible but it has steard me wrong yet.
One last thing, the "recommended diet" to be healthy is also in the Bible.

Please read: "Wrinkles in Time" by George Smoot & Keay Davidson, "The Makers Diet" by Jordan Rubin, and the "Bible" by well you know who

The expelled evolutionist

Theron, Nevada — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:31:57 GMT

I see society's progress in the comments. There are actually people out there who feel that religion and science can coexist. If you remove mankind's ego from both arguments there is a middle ground. There is an interesting commonality between trying to prove the existence of God (no currently known way of scientifically measuring) and proving the existence of Strings (mathematically supported, but still no currently known way of measuring). Both may be beyond our ability to ever fully measure. But if both were true how do they conflict? There would be a god, and the universe would be made of vibrating strings of energy. Why can't scientists accept that God could have created everything the way they are understanding and learning using scientific measure? Similarly why can't religion admit that evolution/the big bang/physics (i.e. scientific discovery) is part of God's plan?

I am spiritual, but not religious. I have to say I feel organized religion bears the majority of the blame for this conflict. Faith requires absolute (unwavering, unchanging) belief in an idea. Unfortunately religion has dogma that must be followed to be faithful. The dogma is the problem, as it was entirely created by man (see all the different branches of Christianity, one book fifty different sets of dogma, all created after the death of Christ but based on what a particular group believes was the message). To accept science usually goes against faith (not in god, but faith in your particular brand of dogma/religion). Religions can't even agree with each other, so their conflict with science is no surprise. Faith means I'm right and your not, unless you believe exactly what I do.

I think in the end it will be far easier for a scientist to accept that God could have created everything they measure and learn, than it will be for a very religious person to accept that the world is not 6000 years old, and that particular part of the book they have so much faith in is wrong. Why? Accepting that god created everything does not make any part of science wrong, but accepting science means that every religion has to deal with the fact that some parts of what they believe are incorrect. If some parts of the book are incorrect then how do you know what is and is not right? A very terrifying idea to those whose strength comes mainly from faith and not from knowledge. Imagine how strong humanity would be if we could all have faith in our knowledge, and in our beliefs.

The expelled evolutionist

Camel joe — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:38:34 GMT

Darwin's last words
All my work is reversable
Man can ascend to a great ape
proof
space-time physics where "Paper Physicists" deny the existence of space and beleieve and proud of an imaginary make-beleieve space-time and they drilled a hole in time and went to a 1956 live Elvis show and madame rue gave them physics poison # 4 instead love potion # 9 due to fluctuations in the flux capacitor and it gave Physics the magic sock and Physicists four dimensional psychic powers to say anything publish anything based on nothing and get a noble prize

The expelled evolutionist

Phil, La Habra Heights, CA — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:39:17 GMT

Can a theory trump a law? Evolution is a theory, Newton's Laws of Biogenesis and Entropy are facts. Evolution says you can make something out of nothing and it improves over time. Newton's Laws state that you can't make something out of nothing and it will decay over time. I guess it takes a lot of "faith" to believe in Evolution. But which one is right, both cannot be.

Bring this up in a scientific research model and your funding will be pulled. Sounds to me like you can get your Nobel Prize and a pitchfork to boot. Exclude all dissent so that you can say after a generation that Creationists are the minority and they must be wrong.

The expelled evolutionist

Quietman — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:43:18 GMT

Yes steve smyth, this IS anthropology - a study of the customs and mores of a primitive culture.
Alan, good article, well writen.

The expelled evolutionist

Nicholas. Las Vegas, NV — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:02:32 GMT

The only appropriate responses [to Intelligent Design proponents] should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians." ~ Comment #35130, PZ Myers, June 14, 2005
Cited from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=61134

Dr. Myers, Dr. Myers...your interest is not scientific truth; it's spreading your atheistic worldview at the cost of striking down any dissenters from your beliefs. Please stop playing games with the public.

The expelled evolutionist

richard askew — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:05:23 GMT

I don't know if religon or science has it right. Think logically. scenario: earth is dying, we want the human race to survive, We have learned through science if we set up the right conditions in the right enviorment, add a few cells, and boom life begins. it evolves, grows, learns, and if all the conditions are right in afew thousand or million years multicellular life emerges, as the eons go one and the new enviorment is not destroyed would evolution again create an intelligent species to ask these same questions. if so when this culture argues about evolution or intelligent design who's right

The expelled evolutionist

john h marsh — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:40:53 GMT

Evilotion is still a theory (which I believe in),it has not been demonstrated to be a fact. String theory is just that, a theory. String theory and E=MC2 are not complementary. Neither theory provides all the answers and neither can be proved at this time.String theory proposes multiple dimentions, in fact the dimensions are necessary for the theory to work. They are all theories and none have yet proven as fact!

Religions are also unproven theories. They propose a model to explain the universe and how it works. Those who believe in a God is eternal, omnipresent, omnicient, and all powerful believe in a theory that is unprovable. None of these atributes are able to be tested at present. HOWEVER that is also true of the of many sientific treories offered as alternatives.

Neither side of this debate can prove themselves right nor that the other side is wrong. Many physicists believe that neither proposal is ultimately provable.

To deride and reject a theory with an equally unvalidated theory is surely not sientific. I believe that it is vital to openly debate our various beliefs uith vigor, but also with civility. God is truth and so cannot be hurt by truth! So approach these questions as searching for the truth for both sides require believers to make very large leaps of faith at this point in our knowlege. I know of no one who has seen god and I know of no one who has seen the other dimensions required by string theory.

By the way GOD gave me most of my creativity in spelling ability.

John

The expelled evolutionist

Delmar Fairchild, Barron, WI — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:49:23 GMT

Some people are confusing Evolution with "The Island of Dr. Moreau". Creatures don't evolve sometime today or are made by inbreeding with other animals. Creatures change over many thousands of years due to the conditions of their environment, food, and competition. Every animal needs food, water, shelter and space.

A Giraffe got it's long neck competing with other creatures for leaves. Those that could reach the higher branches survived. It doesn't mean that tomorrow a short necked Giraffe gave birth to a longer necked baby to compensate. It means that the Giraffes that were gangly and had a somewhat longer neck survived and their offspring that were born with these longer necks, then, also survived and kept breeding. The neck became the dominate factor.
Evolution is just having sex and having changes in what the off spring look like, occurring over a long period of time.
If you remember recessive and dominate genes - there would be some babies born with the shorter necks that wouldn't survive. So Evolution is also about Death to those not having the right conditions to survive.

So too with Humans. Now here is where some people freak out. They don't like to hear that in the past, Humans looked more hairy then today and weren't as intelligent. They may even have slept in trees to avoid getting eaten by a sabre tooth lion at night.

Evolution just means Humans sort of got better looking over time. They may have stumbled across a tree burning naturally from a lightning stike and an animal got caught in the flames. Being scavengers, they ate the flesh and found it tasted better cooked, than raw. They kept looking for fire and then putting their kills on it. Eventually one of them thought of keeping the fire and using it all the time. Maybe they didn't have to sleep in the trees anymore if they could find some other type of shelter like a cave or overhang. There they could put the fire. Once there they found it fended off the predators that liked raw human meat. They adapted to their new found ways.
They didn't need to have all that hair they had in the past, so those that started losing their hair after finding fire or for what ever reason, bred more than those that kept their hair. They had more inclination for social gatherings because they wanted to be warmer and could snuggle up to the fire more, "under the covers" for those faint of heart. That resulted in more offspring which were less hairy.
After awhile the larger the tribe, the more fire they needed or those that were less liked got pushed away from the fire and now had to start putting on artifical hair (animal hides) to keep warm.
Some gained recognition by finding a way to kill animals with stones or sticks which was better than trying to steal it away from a predator.
Such is Evolution and adaptation.
Somewhere back then, a creature that may not have even looked like a human may be the creature that started us on the path to look like who we are; only because it had to adapt as a species.

The expelled evolutionist

Gordon, Charleston, SC — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 23:16:22 GMT

The Bible says that God created Heavan and Earth in a single day. Let me ask you, at that moment in time, just exactly how long was a "single day"? We don't even know who, or what God is. They say that "God created man, in his own image."

Wow. Does he look like Obama, McCain, or Clinton. Osama, George W. Queen Elizabeth or even M.L.King.

Go to Mars, a year is equal to 2 Earth years. If to God, a "day" in his world, was 10,000 earth years, and it took him 7 days to create this wonder, then 70,000 Earth years, is the number to believe.

God gave us the intelligence to "seek Him". That is what science does. As scientist, we are "seeking Him".

The expelled evolutionist

Jenn, Indiana — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:18:23 GMT

We try to understand where we come from. Some seek enlightenment with the 'mind', others with the 'heart'. Those who so confidently reject the theories of others seem ironically LESS enlightened, no matter which 'belief' they have foolishly and wholeheartedly embraced, whether it be 'ID' or 'evolution'.
Dr. Myers is a fool for Evolution, his 'pro-creation' antagonist a fool for God.
If men are anything consistently, it's fools--fools who smugly think they have it all figured out.
Science and Religion both have their place and purpose on Earth, no matter what either faction thinks of the other.
As for me and my house, i will serve Humanity, just as God commands in the Bible, and just as Evolution commands in our Society.

The expelled evolutionist

Michael Moore,Miami, Florida — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 01:31:41 GMT

This debate is really disheartening.
The same people asking things like "if you believe in evolution, then who kick-started the whole thing?" and one of my personal favs from above, "How does gravity know to be gravity?" !!! These people want to teach MY children in SCIENCE class that babies are born evil, that life is something to endure until you're rewarded (or punished) at death, that the "end of the world" is something to strive and pray for...etc, etc. Teach MY children SCIENCE in science class. But do not mention that sick, pornographic filth to MY children.
'nuffsaid.

The expelled evolutionist

The skepTick, Gaithersburg, MD — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 03:24:29 GMT

Fundamentalist creationists should ask themselves why God would have imprinted all living things with the undeniable evidence of evolution, e.g. endogenous retroviruses, transitional fossils and ring species. That makes no sense for a creationist or intelligent design point of view.

The expelled evolutionist

Frank Lee — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 04:15:15 GMT

A more accurate analogy would be over people who thought the sun orbited around the Earth -- that was revolutionary, that got Galileo threatened with torture; that's the kind of argument that just doesn't come up in faiths like Buddhism or Hinduism, and systems like Deism and Pandeism, because they are willing to accept the usefulness of scientific explanations of how things actually work!

The expelled evolutionist

Adam Korbitz, Madison, Wisconsin — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 04:21:35 GMT

Here's an interesting blog on the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence and related issues:

Estimate of the Situation 2008:

http://www.estimateofthesituation.blogspot.com/

News And Observations on Science, Law, Culture, Politics . . . and the Scientific Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence.

OK, I admit it, it's my own. But check it out.

The expelled evolutionist

JC, Fairbanks, AK — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 05:35:18 GMT

Kind of wish you'd return your blog to Science Stuff, Alan. There're dozens of places for science-types and superstitionists to sound off. For my part I'd rather see more about things like the 'seismic' controversy over that Utah mine collapse, or Mars, or even why toothbrushes no longer have that little hole at the end of the handle....

The expelled evolutionist

Paul, Tucson, AZ — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 05:54:09 GMT

I am always amazed at all the anti-creationists seem to have never actually read the bible. There have been several references to a 6-day creation, and even to 6 24-hr days. In actuality, the correct translation, as easily checked from numerous references, is period of time, not day. This becomes more obvious as you read, since the 24-hr day can be assumed to relate to the sun, but the sun is not created until the third period of time. If the sun has not been around for the first two periods of time , why would you assume thye were 24-hr periods. Another thing tha keeps getting referenced is the flat earth and the sun revolving around the earth, but you will not find those in the bible. In fact, at around 900 B.C., a biblical author, either David or Solomon, stated that the earth is a circle or sphere suspended in the heavens. You probably haven't seen that reference if you haven't been through the bible a time or two and read all the side references on the literal translations and done some studying. If you haven't read it, don't mock it. Sir Isaac Newton was clearly a believer and I would think he would rank in your top ten of scientific minds in the last 300 years.

The expelled evolutionist

bob Massey Littleton CO — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 08:11:24 GMT

It's popular to think men and women are INFERIOR to their creator.
BUT that clearly describes an INFERIOR creator!
AND super-natural miracles which ignore the nature Moses wrote God said was VERY GOOD, confound natural understanding, negate natural reason - the greatest natural skill of mankind.

Scientists have seen and photographed thousands of fossils, sometimes their genes and ordered most of them by finding tiny atomic clocks in the same or nearby rock layers.
Natural clocks start this order at a billion years ago with buried hills of single cells like some being built today; then sponges of more ordered cells; then many varieties of multicellular life; some in protective shells; some with legs or fins to move them from danger. Many must have been eating others. But the mobility also aided the possibility of reaching mates. The genes could at first be simply passed randomly between touching neighbors, as done by some single cell life today; creating new varieties of life.
But those varieties that reduced this randomness to a re-coupling of pairs of dominant or recessive genes of the parents, would have greater chance of success and sometimes GREATER skill.
Thus scientists have discovered that each state of nature creates the next state with a GREATER chance for GREATER variety.
Thus nature today creates GREATER nature tomorrow.

Evolution creates greater evolution.

Now seems a good time to repeat a generality in the idea of evolution:
One can often see reflections of the evolutionary history of a species in the current development of its individuals:[Herbert Spencer] all earthly life began with a single cell and all individuals begin with a single cell.
The earliest cells reproduced by cell division, by cloning just as is done in an individual. Sex being more complex, evolved later.
An individual's sexual capacity develops in late childhood. The large brain evolved last; Mental skill starts in middle childhood but is maximally increased in high school or college. In my case, many of my biggest creative ideas started after 2 visible areas of my brain were killed by strokes after I was 60 years old.

It seems unlikely that some previously evolved skill must be removed BEFORE a new skill can be of ANY benefit. Consider the whale's small remnant leg bones, hidden in its body. The very distant whale ancestors were hippo like; and depended on successful movement over land. Then some varieties found more to eat under water but could add a tail and make the front 2 legs closer to fins without completely removing land skills. Depending on the environment, smaller rear legs could still be of some use when land food was available, and so there was no need to COMPLETELY remove land skills when food was better under water. The rear legs would only need to be completely hidden when one had to use maximum efficiency to survive under water.
Apparently young whales don't need to walk on land and rear legs are no longer needed.
Thus purely random mutations might completely remove rear legs from the genome without reducing success of species.
There will be a very small advantage to no longer waste biological energy or values on developing only a 'reflection' of past glory.

Evolution is not just true for biology:

1. Consider ice melting in warm water. The variety of uses of energy increases.
Atoms can give off individual photons of energy.
Almost Biblically, they share their photons with their neighbors as with themselves.
The cold water atoms have fewer to share in a given period and so give and recall photons out less often.
Also their photons are usually less energetic. And I must recognize the complexities of resonance; some atoms will be in too low or high energy states to absorb what a neighbor offers and the photon is practically lost in outer space unless the vessel walls are very reflective.
Anyway, the higher the water temperature, the greater the chance that the ice melts.
And the greater the chance for greater variety of motion; the ice molecules have a greater variety of existence when the have enough energy to break away from their frozen neighbors.
There is a tiny chance that tiny crystals of ice are temporarily created in boiling eater.

2. The Big Bang explains the most simple discovery that 'dimmer galaxies are redder'.
The next step in accuracy of this idea is to measure redness as red shift of the hydrogen light by its easily recognized prism given spectra pattern.
The next step in accuracy is to define 'brightness' as that for exploding stars of type 2 in the galaxy.
They seem to explode to SAME brightness; no matter where they are.
We can directly triangulate the distance to exploding type 2's in most of our own galaxy, by measuring the angles between them and distant stars at 6 months apart, the radius of our earth orbit around the sun.
These refinements show the start of our universe about 12 billion years ago by graphing distance versus red shift.
The Big Bang also explains the percentage of hydrogen and helium atoms in the universe: H 80% He 10%.
It also explains the low temperature of the omni-direction background radiation from outer space.
Dr. Gamov predicted it within 2 degrees of what it is measured TODAY.
Finally, the Big Bang represents the least variety of the universe: all the energy at one place and at one time. It had to explode into the billions of galaxies the biggest telescopes show us TODAY.

3. Ideas grow best in schools that use books that start with most of the significant details that motivated pioneers in the subject and stimulated the first solutions they found.
The student must prepare his own ideas for their self integration needed for new similar problems.
He can do this by following all the similarities his brain suggests from each new idea.
Thus study reflects the evolution of the idea and its best description and best solution; and how each part relates to ALL other ideas. This is also why many new ideas occur to old scientists, like me.
Survival of the fittest ideas.

The expelled evolutionist

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:35:30 GMT

Charles, you have misrepresented both Yockey and Morowitz. Yockey rejected creationism. Morowitz was saying that these sorts of calculations are inappropriate. I also suspect you've misconstrued his opinion about an intelligent designer.

The expelled evolutionist

Andrew, New London, CT — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:08:18 GMT

ok this is for all of the people that say that no one can prove the theory of evolution. theories are never proven or disproven, they are either supported or not supported by evidence. Also i dont know why people keep saying that evolution tells us how everything started, that isnt the theory of evolution that is the big bang theory, if youre going to try to argue something you should at least get all your facts together.

The expelled evolutionist

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:23:30 GMT

Joan Broomfield, CO:

Evolution is the only explaination that makes sense of anything. Your one dimensional view of the world is a pity but you are a victim so it is understandable.

Humans, monkeys and apes all came from a COMMON ANCESTOR. We are all branches or futuristic versions of this common ancestor. That is what all evolution is based upon..common ancestors..moving from simple to complex (or different) over immense time and an array of changing environments.

How this simplified idea can't be understoof by you and people like you is very problematic. Like one poster said earlier, religion is easy (due to the simple fact of just believing) and science is hard and requires all the intelligence and reason that that God o yours "gave us"!

I sure don't claim to know all about how we got here but I do recognize the truth when I see it and also lies and delusion too.

The expelled evolutionist

Howard Johnson, Mill Valley, CA — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:46:30 GMT

Well after reading so many arguments pro and con on intelligent design, I just have to wonder just how intellgent we really are. How about starting off by spelling correctly. Some of you guys out there should really get a dictionary.

The expelled evolutionist

Eric, Madison WI — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:58:21 GMT

To the guy who was going on about Newton's Laws of Biogenisis and Entropy...um...you're kinda getting it wrong.

You're confusing it with the laws of thermodynamics, and even then you've got it wrong.

First, evolution doesn't say that something comes from nothing. It just says that species change over time, due to the pressures of natural selection.

Second, the law of entropy doesn't say that everything decays. It says that the state of entropy (disorder, or more specifically the even distribution of energy) in a closed system increases over time. However, the biosphere of the earth isn't a closed system (we get continuous influx of new energy from the big yellow thing in the sky). Right now we're walking proof that entropy can locally decrease in a system even if the overall entropy increases - the fact that we can grow and turn food into, well, us is demonstration of that.

The expelled evolutionist

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:47:45 GMT

Howart Jonson, Mil vallee, CA

In my case they are typos. Probably many others too.

The expelled evolutionist

steve evans clarksville tn — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:44:44 GMT

remember it is the theory of evolution it is just a theory there is no real proof. Animals and other living things don't turn into higher forms of life. dogs have dogs cats have cats. You must have faith to believe in evolution therefore it is not science it is and always has been a religon. and yes God created the world in 6 literal days. He spoke the worlds into existence, except for you and me. He bent down to the ground and fashioned adam from the dust of the ground then breathed into adam's nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul. This was a very personal creation God got his hands and knees dirty you might say then bent over and did what only God can do he created man by giving of his own life force. I can't tell you who is really behind evolution because you would'nt believe me. But I will tell you this God is doing everything He can to get you to believe in him and have a personal relationship with Him. He is literally dieing to meet you. Remember the law of thermodynamics that things left to themselves tend toward disorder an disrepair (your house or car for example) a so called universe left to itself would not improve. people always seem to forget there was a world wide flood sin caused God to destroy the world about 4000 years ago. did you know the oldest tree in the world is just under 4000 years old. That the sahara desert is just under 4000 years old. That is observable science. Things do not not happen by themselves. Take the very best parts you can find to make a watch and put them is a box leave them there for as long as you want and come back and they will still be pieces in a box, until someone puts those pieces together. And to the wonderfully intelligent person that says evolution is fact give me one good example, anyone. You see evolution was created by the enemy of God to destroy mankind. That's us guys, please don't fall for this insidous deception. your creator has something so wonderful for you, eye has not seen nor ear heard neither has it entered into the heart of man what God has prepared for those who love Him. You'll be missed if you aren't there.

The expelled evolutionist

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 10:51:33 GMT

Well, I started to read the whole blog before commenting, but first it didn't seem worth it, next it seemed not worth it. I do have a favorite entry, it's 6/4/08 1033. Scott's a scientist. There is a physical limit to how far back in time we can see. It has to do with distance. Big Bang light has long ago passed by any place Earth will ever be. Can't see it.

A lot of (real) scientists are so smart that all they can see is how stupid a lot of Christians are.

Lengthy explanation at http://timrommes.blogspot.com/ June 7, 2008 entry.

The expelled evolutionist

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 11:41:16 GMT

For Steve Evans:

I'm a wonderfully inelligent person. Following the industrial revolution and a sudden drastic increase in factories that burned coal, and emitted soot, the trees surrounding industrial areas changed color. Now, this wasn't the evolution of the trees, this was soot. Previously there was a moth with a mottled brown coloring that created just a wonderful camoflauge against the bark of these trees. As the trees got blacker and blacker the light colored moths stood out and became easy prey for birds. This was because they no longer fit in their environment. This effectively weeded out the light color from the gene pool and and the moths got darker until they blended right in with the darker, soot covered bark. Then, with further industrial development, a lot of that soot stopped being spewed into the air and the trees started getting lighter (cleaner). Now the dark colored moths stood out and were eaten and the color of the species drifted back to a light tan that blended in with the environment again. This all happened during a single human lifespan. People were able to see it. Now, this adaptation to the environment may not be strong enough to break through, well, strong enough for you.

So Example #2.
There are butterflies in Hawaii. There are flowers there, too. For thousands of years this particular species of butterfly lived in the islands and fed on the flowers there. Then man brought in a new flower. This flower was grown in abundance and provided a plentiful food for all the butterflies that could drink it. But heres the twist. Not all of them could. There was a degree of genetic diversity that gave a range of shapes to the butterflies' probiscus. This is essentially like being double jointed or not. For thousands of years it didn't make any difference on their ability to feed. This new flower had a different shape than the native flowers. Most butterflies couldn't fit into the deep part of the flower where the food was. Now being double jointed made a difference. For the few that could get to it, there was essentially an endless supply of food. These fields provided geographical isolation so the feeders bred with the feeders and produced a next generation that were feeders, etc. Once the population was up to a level where competition became important again, those that were on the end of the genetic spectrum that allowed them feed easier did better, bred more and over a short time the probiscus was so finely tuned to this introduced flower that they could no longer feed from the indigenous flora. This, also, happened over years, not millenia, and was observable in single lifetimes.

These are both examples of evolution responding to abrupt changes in the environment and using the genetic diversity already available to better survive in it. Most of what you see discussed is evolution that is caused by spurious genetic mutation. It takes a great deal of time before one occurs. Most will not create an advantage in the existing environment. The few that do will incorporate into the gene pool over some number of generations. Fewer generations for changes that create a vast advantage and more generations for those that only give a slight edge. Then, once the change is made, fossilization has to take place, and there are long odds on that. Then we have to find the fossils, long odds on that as well. And the fossil has to be useable, many aren't that well preserved or aren't useable. A fossil of dung may not show a change in eysight. In fact, I haven't heard of a single eye fossil that would show a new iris or new retna. It's not exactly a Jewish geneology. The gaps aren't indicative of incorrectness, they're indicative of how slight the odds are that we'll find one of the few good fossils available.

You're also quick to take up the science that shows things to be 4000 y.o. but drop the same science when it shows the earth to be considerably older. Hopefully my other post on stupid Christians made it, otherwise http://timrommes.blogspot.com/ 6/7/8 entry.

The expelled evolutionist

Michael Moore, Miami, Florida — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 17:50:05 GMT

Steve, a dog giving birth to a cat would be a miracle, not evolution. Evolution is the adaptation of life to novel situations, not magic. The theory of evolution is backed by more "proof" (evidence) than most death-row murder convictions. Horses, whales, hominins, reptiles-to-mammals, birds are all "good examples". There are many, many more.
I can tell from your letter that you are sincere, but you are also misinformed...so stop using your Bible as a science text and read some biology, geology, paleontology, etc...REAL science.
BTW, science is not a body of beliefs or even knowledge... it is a way of looking critically at the world around (and yes, even within) us.

The expelled evolutionist

Heber Rizzo, Montevideo, Uruguay — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 00:30:58 GMT

Spanish is my mother language, and for the last few years my private and no-profit goal has been to divulgate scientific knowledge among Spanish talking people, translating from English or producing my own articles.

As that, it would be daring to recommend a blog in English. But for Spanish, probably the best one is, by far, El Paleofreak (http://paleofreak.blogalia.com), about "evolución y temas afines" (evolution and related topics).

The expelled evolutionist

Carlton, Kamuela, Hawaii — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 22:32:56 GMT

HOWARD FLINT, ALLEN, and OTHERS
Howard, the photon might be considered the "God particle". (Personally I think the photon is only a small part of the full story.)
PHOTONS are everywhere in our physical universe at once, there is no passage of time for them, etc.. TIME AND distance have no meaning for them. One could interpret the Biblical "let there be light" as "let there be me" ("I who AM"). Fundamentalists probably would find trouble with this idea and atheists have trouble positing God in any form, shape, or manner; therefore, the idea being SUGGESTED is not likely to be liked by many at the extremes, but it might help you. Strings etc. don't "do it all" because they are part of the physical universe and, along with Science, do not address things outside the physical world. Bona fide scientists know this truth and realize that they should not allow their Science to blind them to anything not physical, especially when Science limits iself to the physical.
Allen, your trouble with beginnings (and ends?), probably, comes from the tremendous human bias toward finite thinking (because most,if not ALL, human experience is with finite things and very little, if any at all, exerience with infinite things and infinite thinking, common sense).
For example, the infinitude of the integers ....-3,-2,-1, 0, 1, 2, 3,...., where the first .... is used to show going on forever (infinite) to the left with NO BEGINNING integer possible and the second .... to show going on forever to the right with NO ENDING integer possible. Here is something where beginning and end are meaningless. Infinite thinking readily sees this fact, but finite thinking can't see (understand, even rejects) it.
In this infinite realm beginning and end do not apply, are meaningless. Finite thinking (that has only experienced finite things with all such things having a beginning and end) continues to search "for the black cat in the dark cellar when the cat isn't even there.
Therefore, Allen, the answer to your query can't be done with finite logic. Infinite logic shows why. Finite things just can't do some things that infinite things can. Infinite common sense can expose the meaninglessness, including nonexistence, of certain things in the infinite realm that finite common sense can't, even denies from the finite (biased) point of view. There is more than one prior atheist that saw the error of his atheism, due to its finite grounding, and became a believer or, at least changed the basis of his atheism. There is more than one believer who has had his belief strengthened by becoming familiar with infinity and its logic. (common sense). These facts are known to me, a professor of mathematics for over 50 years, because I saw them arise in many of my students when we studied the famous Georg Cantor's mathematics of infinity. There are many college students, even some Ph.D's, who have never even heard of Cantor's work with infinity (Cantor, also, showed that there are an infinity of infinities, the infinitude of the integers, mentioned above, is Cantor's and mathematic's smallest of the infinities) and some who don't even know of the facts, given above, about the infinitude of the integers. Cantor's work, also, provides his definition of THE ABSOLUTE to stop any infinite regress (like who created the creator) from having meaning. Studens of such mathematics see that many questions arising from finite common sense (thinking) can be seen as acually meaningless when infinite common sense is properly applied. The Science of our physical world eschews claims for what happens when infinity arises in its equations. Science much of mathematics only look at things as one gets ever closer to the infinity, on the horizon, and files strong disclaimers for what happens when actually at infinity. No wonder, bona fide scientists leave such actual infinity situations to other human areas of study. Cantor's mathematics of infinity has no place in the physcal world which is in sharp contrast to The Calculus of mathematics, which uses clever ways to avoid actual infinities.
Yes, Howard and Allen, there IS a lot of our understanding and possible experience of things in our universe that are NOT physical (able to be explained by pysical science).
Like our finite bias may keep us from the wonders of infinite things, our physical world bias may keep us from the wonders of non-physical things, even stand in the way of our joy of their discovery.

The expelled evolutionist

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:39:59 GMT

Steve Evans,
Thank you for demonstrating my oft-repeated assertion that creationists have an understanding of evolution that is informed by urban legend and barber-shop gossip.

Tree ring data alone supports an Earth at least 11K years old.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLFKM886l4Q

Creationists are fond of repeating that they are looking at the same data as evolutionist, except that they are looking at it through Biblical eyes. This is false. The fact is that creationists just ignore the vast amount of evidence that disagrees with their religious preconception.

The expelled evolutionist

steve evans clarksville Tn — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:23:19 GMT

Mike & Tim adaptation is not evolution it is adaptation. However its called microevolution, changes within kinds. Microevolution nobody has a problem with.
The butterfies were still butterfies. if you are saying small changes within an insect or mammal is evolution then I'm okay with that of course. I'm talking about a monkey or whatever changing into a man over time, is ridiculous or changing into anything other than a monkey. fish don't become mammals etc, it takes new genetic information for that to happen. That's -macro-evolution and that is what the stir is all about. I didn't say science was religion I said the theory of (maro)evolution was a religion because it is based on a belief that it is true and not on real provable or observable evidence. biology books will set there and let you write whatever you want into them that does't make it true, most of it of course is. Let me suggest a book for you written by a eyewitness to creation, the bible, or patriarchs & prophets By E.G. White.The flood was about 4000 years ago. The earth is, about 6000 Y.O. example, space dust, because science believed the solar system to be some 6 to whatever billion y.o. they expected the dust on the moon to be 100's of feet thick what was it really, about 1/2" just what it should have been for a planet about 6000 y. o. It is an observeable fact that the moon is slowly moveing away from the earth if you figured the earth to be billions of years old that would put the moon so close to the earth the tides would drown everyone twice a day, an you can only drown comfortably once a day(just joking)but i'm trying to show you evidence of a young earth. And I know what you're thinking what about fossils, fossils can form very quickly. there are in fact(living fossils) trilabites for example were believed to be extinct for millions of years yet there they are alive an well. horses whales mammals birds are good examples....... good examples of horses, whales, mammals and birds, not evolution...do they have the God given ability to adapt of course just as your skin will adapt to sunshine by tanning, thats not evolution. Excuse me not Macroevolution. The Bible says, a fool hath said in his heart, that there is no God. God is not a man that he should lie. Please believe me i'm not trying to insult anyone. perhaps we just misunderstand each other. if macroevolution is true I have 3? 1 who am. 2 where am I going. 3 what am I worth. 1. I am monkeys uncle I Guess. 2.to the grave life is over. 3 what am I worth, well not much, perhaps the cost of the minerals in by body. But if you believe God created you than that puts a whole diffrent set of answers to those 3?s 1. I am a created child of God and a member his family. 2. eternal life forever with God in the new earth recreated By God at the end of this earths history(which is going to be very soon) 3. God emptied heaven to save his fallen Creation, His own Son became just a man to save us from sin and from ourselves you dear reader are very very valuable. If you really want to Know the truth just, sincerly ask God to show you and He will move heaven and earth to give you a answer. honestly you are that important to Him and to me.

The expelled evolutionist

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:16:08 GMT

Steve,
Your post is about religion and not science. Everything gives birth to the same kind - but the relation "Is-the -same-species" is not transitive.
If A is the same species as B and B is the same species as C, A may or may not be the same species as C. There are living species that exhibit this property - they're called ring species. There is no reason to believe that macro-evolution is anything but an accretion of micro-evolutionary changes. None. Moreover, there is a vast amount of evidence of which you are either unaware, or more likely have been misled which points to macro-evolution. Evolution is a fact - both micro-evolution and macro-evolution. All the propaganda sites on the planet won't change that fact - and the vast majority of qualified scientists consider it obvious. Moreover, the more qualified the scientist, the more likely he is to accept evolution and consider creationism as utter stupidity.

The expelled evolutionist

steve evans clarksville tn — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:13:03 GMT

The falliablefiend #1 that's an approppiate name it seems, no offence. #2 your 11,000 year tree ring and old wood match theory is intresting if convoluted and subjective but is certainly a vast improvement over the billions of years theory. if you keep investigateing i believe you will continue to get closer to the actual time line #3 I look through biblical truth yes, perhaps you look through error and try to make the evidence fit. and the belliefs of evolutionists are constantly changing, can't you make up your mind, I don't necessarly mean you but evolutionist in general they also ignore evidence that does'nt fit their preconcetion. God's word never changes. #4 why are you so angry I hope its not a spirit of anger controlling you, I wish you the best. Don't believe God's word, ask Him for help you might be pleasingly surprized. at the very least you want be sure you have checked out all of the possibilities. #5 What is your vast amount of evidence? #6 Please tell me what it is that you really believe so we don't have a misunderstanding.

The expelled evolutionist

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:36:00 GMT

1. Thanks. I like the name I've used the same handle on the net for about 27 years.

2. The 11K number is not convoluted - and what that establishes is an absolute minimum for the Earth. It doesn't date the Earth; it only establishes a minimum. There are other techniques using very simple science that demonstrate older and older ages.

3. Yes. Scientists change their ideas based on the evidence. That is not a weakness. Admitting error beats calling your opinion Truth and never questioning it.

4. Why do you say I am angry? You are misled. You think you have done your homework. You have not. You have mistaken urban legend for fact. You don't have to. You could really learn what science is and what evolution theory is.

5. If you had the slightest genuine interest in knowing what the evidence was, you could easily find it. Instead, you just recite the mantra you learned on answers in genesis or creation ministries or some other pseudoscience site: "Uh ... there are not transitionals, the oldest trees are only x thousand years" and so forth.
6. What I believe is irrelevant. What the science says is what's important. You don't want to know what real science says. Instead, you repeat urban legend as if it were fact.

The expelled evolutionist

Steve Evans Clarksville Tn — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:31:34 GMT

to the falliblefiend: I know nothing of the urban legends of which you speak, nor of the websites you speak of but I look forward to checking them out.
I fear it is you who have not done your homework you give the same answer I usally get when I ask for evidence, no answer, no evidence. (but I know why)
even the studied proponents of evolution say it is impossible but they believe it anyway because they say there is no other answer.
when people speak of the bible they always say that's just religion but the bible is a book of history proven over and over again. It is a book of poerty and It is a book of prophecy that is 100% accurate in its predictions. Jesus birthdate was pedicted some 1500 years in advance (Isaiah) He was born right on time, his death was predicted 100's of years in advance it happened right on time ( daniel)
it predicted he would be betrayed by a friend for 30 pcs of silver that happened and many other predictions about His life they all came true just as predicted 100's of years in advance,
In daniel the bible predicted 4 great world empires 3 of which were 100's of years away from happening. this prediction was given during the babylonean empire it predicts the medo-persian empire to take the place of babylon even naming their leader by name(Cyrus) decades in advance of his birth. Then the greek empire to over throw the medes, then the roman empire to take over from the greeks all of this happened just as the bible predicted 100,s of years in advance. this is not urban legend this is historical fact.
we learn from Daniel that there is a God who sets up kings and brings down kings. A God who knows all things, this is the Creator God who deserves our praise and thanks for every breath we take.
there is something I hope you can understand the Creator God dosen't give a hoot about religion He cares about a relationship with His children that's what He wants with me and with you. If the almighty is real and I know He is, then satan is real too he is the one behind evolution he is a fallen angel that seeks to blind men's minds to the truth therefore securing their destruction. satan is at war with God over our planet, we are the casualties in this war. he seeks worship and control over men's minds. the last thing I want to say to you and to anyone who is reading this and does not know satan's plans it is this. he has a 3 part plan for the desruction of mankind. This may be hard for some of you I don't know but it's the truth.
#1 make people believe that he (satan) doesn't exist (that makes it easier to do his work of deception)and he's done a good job of that. he is not in charge of hell by the way. there is no hell right now but that's another subject.
#2 hypnotism,this makes it easier to take control of someone. it's defintion is a somnambulistic state effected artificially in which the mind becomes passive and responsive to suggestions causing the subject to obey the will of another. this is 1 method satan uses. Don't ever let anyone hypnotize you.
#3 evolution, this destroys creation, no creation, no creator, no creator, no sin, no sin, no need of a savior, satan wins we lose.
read the book called A trip into the supernatural.
by Roger Moreau He discovered this info firsthand, awesome eye opening book. EvoLution is not man's idea it is satan's Idea. So I'm talking about life and truth not about reilgion. Only the best to you all.

The expelled evolutionist

*Pixie* in Utah — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:58:58 GMT

Joan, you said: "...IF MAN evolved from Monkeys/Apes, why are there STILL monkeys and apes? Why didn't they evolve?"

You obviously don't understand how evolution works.

MAN and CHIMPANZEES (and BONOBO's too --look 'em up!) evolved from the _same_common_ancestor_. We didn't evolve *from* chimps, but they are our closest cousins.

Oh, and we're classified as primates, along with other (tail-less) great apes. Monkeys have tails, and are a more distant cousin (especially the new world monkeys).

And those of you who think Man is the only "intelligent" animal on this planet; you need to take a minute and talk to a dolphin -- they'll correct your misunderstanding right away. :o)

*Pixie*

The expelled evolutionist

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:41:23 GMT

Steve Evans..here is a good place for you to start.

This article from the May edition of SA gives wonderful insight into the genetics of evolution. (not creation)

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=regulating-evolution

The expelled evolutionist

steve evans clarksville tn — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:07:25 GMT

Thomas; Thank you for the web site I did look it over, but again they are trying to find some incomprehenseable way to explain something that never happened in the first place. Its like trying to find a crimminal for a crime that's never been committed.I don't want to sound facesious but whenever you hear someone say millions of years get ready because there's a fairy tale coming next, It never fails. life's processes are very complicated and a created being can never completely understand creation, that's the intraicies of it I mean, but the interesting part is how did life that is so terribly, I mean terribly, complex happen by chance. The odds would 10 to the hunredth power of longer. That just dosen't happen, something that complex takes a maker.
It takes superior thought, superior intellect. something far away greater than blind chance.

The expelled evolutionist

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 02:12:47 GMT

"...but whenever you hear someone say millions of years get ready because there's a fairy tale coming next,..."
Whenever you hear a creationist talk about science, you can be sure he doesn't know the first thing about it and it not inclined to learn. Thanks for confirming that.

The expelled evolutionist

al, LA,CA — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:34:38 GMT

Good grief, how did the lessons about who we are become so reduced as to be mere theory arguments? Both Darwin theory and theology are from the 1800's, why are they still debated? Both have been superseded by growth in experience and development.
The fact is, we find we need to learn more as we, well, learn more. Pilgrim Church and scientific advancement have a connection, growth based on what we don't know.
This is just a big red herring. Fact is, neither side really has a complete answer. Science cannot explain the jump from non-living to living. And only a liar would claim to have all the answers from the creator.

The expelled evolutionist

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:54:43 GMT

al, LA..."Science cannot explain the jump from non-living to living" neither can creation other than laying back and saying..God did it.

Also, Evolution isn't about how life came to be.

The expelled evolutionist

steve evans clarksville tn — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:44:16 GMT

mr. fiend why do you confuse evolution with science evolution has nothing to do with science it never has. science is wonderful evolution is nonsense. the defintion of science is a systematized knowledge of any one department of mind or matter; acknowledged truths and laws , especially demonstrated by induction experiment or observation. Evolution is an unproveable theory it is not science.

The expelled evolutionist

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 09:09:14 GMT

steve evans....Evolution is a theory..not a law.
You can add to theories to eventually arrive at some law. (laws were meant to be broken)

Evolution has the ability to evolve.

The expelled evolutionist

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:32:37 GMT

Steve Evans..it's simply ludicrous to think that all of life (and the universe)as we see it and know it just magically appeared due to the waving of a creators hand. THAT is a total fantasy and I can't believe people expose their kids to that whole biblical scheme.

The expelled evolutionist

Shelton Lucas — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 02:27:59 GMT

Gentlemen & Ladies surely we must agree that without religion there would be chao and a vacuum of moral authority to control the masses. However I too, believe that man is not made in GOD's image but does fit into the scheme of intelligent creation. Common sense should prevail that Earth is only a minute part of the universe, and being so, I think that Earth creatures, such human being are only part of the equation. God has no gender and the all powerful force is beyond our mindset of understanding. We are a primitve species that lack the wisdom, knowledge and preception to determine where we fit in to the scheme of things within the universe. Why, because we are human with limited ability and knowledge that can only be forthcoming after generations of space travel in and beyond our solar system. I am in the dawn of my life at 69 years old and would like to believe that there is a man in the sky with a place for me. Its a throw of the dices. Wisdom is, its better to believe, than not, because at the end you might find that there is a heaven or paradise. Call it wishy, washy if you must, its better to be safe for your salvation in the end of your life. You have nothing to lose with this precept, its a win, win.

The expelled evolutionist

steve evans clarksville tn — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:24:23 GMT

Thomas, I know it's difficult sometimes to believe and understand the supernatural. We see that life must come from life, God is the beginning of life on earth and the whole universe. Creation is a very personal thing to God. He allows us to share in creation by having children. We dearly love our children. God also loves us dearly. I don't think life is created by magic but it is a miracle. just as birth and life is a miracle. Miracles take a miracle worker. God is also a law giver, the law of gravity, the law of inertia, there are health laws, and moral laws such as the ten commandments. Did you know if the whole world would have kept the 4th commanment we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Read it carefully for yourself, Exodus chapter 20.
You know the earth rotates one time and we have a day, the moon travels through a full phase and we have a month, we travel around the sun once and we have a year. but where does a week come from ? It comes from God, from creation week. 7-24 hour days.

The expelled evolutionist

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 16:32:15 GMT

Steve Evans.. "I know it's difficult sometimes to believe and understand the supernatural."

That's usually the lame explanation put forth by fundamentalists' Here is a much better description of the truth about your beliefs. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

The expelled evolutionist

steve evans clarksville tn — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:47:32 GMT

Thomas 'tsk' 'tsk' what about the rest of my blog. Is this all you've got left, just stand up comedy. what happen to all the science you called evolution all the proof that you apparently don't have. The theories that magically turn into laws that are then broken. Are you really listening to what you are saying.
Thomas truth never changes, never "evolves". It takes a lot of faith to believe in evolution its just a religion and a very sorry one at that, good luck to you, because luck is all you've got.

The expelled evolutionist

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:58:20 GMT

Steve Evans..a real fine example of 55 million years evolution is the horse. Equus. And its all written down in the fossil record.

http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/equid2t.gif

The expelled evolutionist

steve evans ,clarksville tn — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:38:58 GMT

THOMAS, man has denied the lords 7th day sabbath which is a memorial to creation therefore they have denied creation, so they come up with their own (creation) millions of years of evolution.
Just because they can draw a picture of a horse and date the fossil record to suit their "creation" doesn't make it true, fossils "dates" are certainly still in question amongst are so called learnered men, also there are living fossils the trillabite and the ceacaneth what about them, they were supposed to be millions of years old yet here they are alive and well an unchanged. By the way did you notice that the horse they drew is still a horse that it had not "evoled" into something else in their millions of years.
We have to decide, if we going to listen to falliable man and his ever changing theories and speculations or are we going to believe in the truth coming from an eyewitness to creation, A perfect, merciful, and loving creator who is trying to win his children back from their own foolish ways and beliefs, man, unfortunatly has joined lucifer in rebellion againist his creator.
I know you don't believe the bible but have you ever tried to just sit down a carefully study it for yourself, you'll be surprized at what you find.
I can guarantee you one thing, this world is going to be restored to its original condtion of absolute prefection, the struggle between good and evil is coming to an end. Which side will we be on is the ultimate question for mankind. Not us arguing over the details. The evoultion debate is just a sideshow albeit an important one for us.

The expelled evolutionist

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:58:39 GMT

Steve Evans..I rest my case, there is no way to
discuss this with you. Which means we are right back to this again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

Go ahead, live your life in delusion. Don't save yourself. It's your right.

The expelled evolutionist

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:18:51 GMT

THIS JUST IN !

You think America has it's share of detractors of evolution. Look what the cat dragged in from Canada, in the true north strong and free !

http://angusreidstrategies.com/uploads/pages/pdfs/2008.08.05_Origin.pdf

The expelled evolutionist

Tony — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 02:19:28 GMT

If God wanted us to know all the answers he would have given them to us so as it is inspired by the Holy Ghost in the bible it inspires us that God chose the preaching of foolishness over intellect.
There must be millions of credible people with millions of spiritual view's that can agree there is overwhelming evidence to support creationism, that's easy, and that creationism can be proved to be eligible to compete with all those evolutionary scientific assumption's.
Above all things, stay true to yourself.
It is of goodness that people of the moral capacity like Mr.P.Z. Myers still exist.

The expelled evolutionist

Chris — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:54:51 GMT

Internal Evidence
Many critics of the Word of God will no doubt come up with statements such as "the Bible is full of contradictions", and "the Bible is so inconsistent". Most of the time I would try to show them that this is simply not true, yet I have begun to take a different approach. A man last year said "The Bible is full of contradictions", so I asked him give me one. His answer was well it isn't full of contradictions yet there is a couple, again he could not give me one. Many have tried to discount the Bible, have tried to write it off as the product of man, many attacks have come against the Bible, yet what you do not hear is that not one and I shout not one has ever stood. The unbeliever rages against the Word of God because it speaks right against our lives!! They hate it because they know they will have to answer to the God of the Bible and for that they are enraged because they love their sin and the Bible says the wages of sin is death.
What is so sad to me is that the very truth that they rage against is the same very truth that could set them free! They could be free from their sin, free from the wrath of God, free from eternal death, and yet they disobey God and choose death rather than life. So is the Bible full of contradictions, is the Bible worthy of our trust?? Let's not look at many Scriptures to prove this point although we certainly could, lets look at just one. Job 26:10 says He has inscribed a circle on the face of the horizon. This word for circle is khug, in the Hebrew it literally means to draw a circle. So Job is saying that the earth is round, the horizon is circular. Now Job was written around 2000-1400 B.C. All of us are familiar with what happened in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
Now the masses told Columbus do not sail because the earth was flat. I have hear unbelievers say that only a few people told Columbus not to sail. This is simply not true. The masses told him not to sail, in fact it was very hard for him to get funding because they thought the earth was flat. This is in 1492 A.D.!!! So how in the world would Job thousands of years earlier know the world was flat?? Job did not know the Holy Spirit who inspired the Word of God knew!! Hold on I have also heard unbelievers say oh there are old pagan myths that says the earth is round. While this is true have they really looked at what these pagan myths taught? Some taught that it was on the back of a turtle, another taught it was on the back of a god. Hardly scientific. Yet the Word of God says in Job 26:7 He hangs the earth on nothing!! How in the world did Job know?? Again he didn't the Spirit of the Living God who created the world knew! Also we did not find this out really until we sent men to the moon.

Full of contradictions? Untrustable when it comes to scientific material? The Word of God was getting it right all along when everyone and I mean everyone was getting it wrong. Oh the wisdom of God, how great and awesome is He! Who alone is the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe, which is filled with His glory. Oh to Him be all praise and glory now and throughout eternity. AMEN

The expelled evolutionist

Mark, Houston, TX — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:26:24 GMT

Are Evolutionists arrogant? Would an astronomer be arrogant debating an astrologer? Would a chemist be arrogant debating an alchemist? Just remember that you cannot use reason, logic and facts to argue with another persons beliefs that did not use reason, logic or facts to arrive at those beliefs. As for me, I believe in the magical Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) that created all life and magic crystals. It is up to YOU TO DISPROVE it, see if you can. Since you are not an expert on the IPU faith, I will only debate other IPU theologians. Just like believers say that the average person doesn't have the street credit to talk about religion, only other theologians can talk about it. That is like saying only foxes can talk about the security of the henhouse. Nonsense, get out there and speak out you 16% of non-religious Americans, before the Christian version of the Taliban take over our country.

[ALAN ADDS: I fear a holy war between the IPU's Pink Unicornites and the FSM's Pastafarians.]

The expelled evolutionist

Andrew Roth, Ottawa — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 03:45:09 GMT

Correct me if I am wrong but science is based on the foundation that your experiments be reproducible. If that can’t be reproduced than they can’t be proven. Now Creationism is clearly a faith based religion but by the very definition of science so is evolution. None of it can be reproduce or proven. It is mere speculation and deductive logic that is being applied saying highly ordered self replicating matter spontaneously emerged from chaos. That takes faith same as believing in creationism.

The expelled evolutionist

Todd, Dothan, AL — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 02:01:49 GMT

So, if evolution is true, please explain monkeys to me? Did they miss the evolutionary boat? What you must realize is that with the exception of God, no one on earth knows for sure how creation occurred exactly, the timeline, what there was before earth, etc... All of it is open to interpretation and can mean different things at different times to different people, depending on how God decides he wants to deliver the answer. For humans to think that they understand all that is around us is nothing but arrogance, just like this ridiculous global warming caused by humans fiasco. If you all are so disconcerted by ignorant Christians, then you must be equally disgusted by the global warming crowd and the reasons they ascribe for it occurring. Seriously, at least be consistent in your disdain. At least we Christians understand that we don't know everything, the atheistic scientists seem to revel in thinking they do know everything, especially about a God they don't believe in.

The expelled evolutionist

Ernie, Halden, Norway. — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 21:40:00 GMT

Arguing with people who think they will be condemned to hell if they revert an inch from their beliefs, is... in a weird way kind of... morbid?

Anyway, these arguments sure can be exhausting for people who are committed to human reason and logic, morally bound by instinct to keep insisting on reason and logic.

The creationist-posters obviously have a very superficial knowledge of how science works.

My guess is they are afraid of putting any effort into really understanding science, since this probably also is percieived mortally sinful.

Well, no one should go to hell for reading this. (No evidence for it anyway)

Scientists apply the scientific method in their work.

The scientific method can be seen as an algorithm, very clearly described. Always within strict, universal logic and indesputed ethical guidelines, that ensures that its output is objectively true.
Getting familiar with this method is key to understanding science.

This is sadly also where I think the barrier is for most theists in denial. Understanding the scientific method is kind of also accepting it, because it conflicts with humans' innate logic sense to discard it. I think they sense this and stay away.

But it is true, though. Science has not yet disproved god (neither is it trying to), so in a nutshell, your beliefs are is still sound.

Not belief in the biblical god, though.

----------
I like this phrase

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. -Without it we have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things it takes religion."

This is what our experience tells us.

The expelled evolutionist

Paul R Wilson Bergenfield NJ USA — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 01:42:54 GMT

I am a committed evolutionist. I find the concept of so-called "intelligent design" just as repugnant as the idea of a literal 7-day creation in 4004 b.c., along with the idea of an unbegun eternal 3-in-1 God, or a hellfire for all (one common aspect of any "one true church" is to keep as many OUT of heaven as they can.

Over half of all animal species are parasitic on others, causing sickness & suffering. They have NO purpose save to mindlessly reproduce and infect. (tapeworms, flukes, etc.). Intelligent design ? My foot !

The expelled evolutionist

Prefabrik — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:05:11 GMT

The bigots are the ones willing to simply lie on behalf of their agenda - like spiders weaving webs, they just make things up and post them on cheap websites to delude and deceive naive people who've never had the benefit of a real biology education. As for the loons, they are the ones who don't have to lie because they can believe essentially anything, and none of it is connected with any form of logic or even intuitive reasoning: "How do you know that God isn't simply testing you by tricking you with all these fossils?" I feel a sort of amused paternal kindness to people who can believe anything - they're basically adult children - but for the liars I have nothing but contempt. Unfortunately, Creationism and all its flimsy disguises (especially I.D.) are pushed primarily by the latter - people with a political agenda motivated by fanaticism and mendacity.