Evolution debate revived

Michael Angove — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 01:52:37 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Karl priest — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 01:59:36 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Pepsi, Sapulpa and OK — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 02:20:31 GMT

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

carl myers pueblo co — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 02:56:04 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

John Doe, Seattle, Washington — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 03:42:27 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

B. Crupe — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 03:42:31 GMT

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

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

David Columbia, South Carolina — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 04:23:12 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Unknown, Andromeda Galaxy, 2.2 MLY from Earth — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 04:30:39 GMT

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Simon Grady, New Zealand — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 05:16:16 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Stephen Ingham, Fleetwood Pennsylvania — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 05:23:02 GMT

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Wayne McCoy — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 05:23:20 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

wild-man of Borneo Island. — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 06:35:31 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Mike Vander Wel — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 06:54:47 GMT

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Eric Taipei Taiwan — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 07:55:44 GMT

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

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

Anyway, GO KANSAS, future biotech powerhouse!!!

Evolution debate revived

sodelba santana-jackson, Phila., PA — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 08:17:29 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Rod — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 09:32:44 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Ricardo Rambally — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 10:24:25 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Rusty Cashman, Vista, California — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 10:27:19 GMT

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

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Glen — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 11:22:34 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Katie, Manheim, PA — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 12:41:25 GMT

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Dee Alison — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 12:45:34 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Ian Wishart — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 13:05:24 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Kraven, Canada — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 13:13:46 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Carl Vogel — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 13:26:46 GMT

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Anonymous — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 13:40:08 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Anonymous — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 13:43:34 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Wade Whitlock, Aberdeen, MD — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 13:43:59 GMT

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Joseph Saba, Newnan, Georgia — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 14:00:30 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Scott, TN — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 14:07:23 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Scott, TN — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 14:09:25 GMT

And to quote Mr Vander Wel above

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Anony Mous — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 14:35:09 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Michael Roberts, Shreveport, LA — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 14:46:00 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Zephyr Luckenbach, Austin, TX — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 14:50:32 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Steve Hoover, Plymouth, IN — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:11:39 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Bill B., Columbia, Mo. — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:18:12 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Jack Lester, Columbia, MD — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:38:06 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

David, Houston, Texas — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:50:41 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Edgar Moore, Gaithersburg, MD — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:19:27 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Jacob, Tempe Arizona — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:19:32 GMT

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Steve, Las Cruces, NM — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:37:01 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Jory — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:48:54 GMT

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

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

David Lampman, Eastlake, Ohio — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:01:32 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

M. Cartwright, Lancaster, PA — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:08:09 GMT

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

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

Evolution debate revived

ED ORLANDO FLORIDA — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:08:52 GMT

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

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

Evolution debate revived

DERRICK RINGGOLD,QUEENS, NEW YORK — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:19:03 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

David Lampman, Eastlake, Ohio — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:20:24 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Dan M, Florida — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:27:47 GMT

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

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

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

I fear for my country!

Evolution debate revived

Greg, Minneapolis, MN — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:29:38 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Offended that this is even an issue. — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:36:47 GMT

Bottom line:

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Jon Chizacky, Philadelphia, PA — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:37:33 GMT

This is worth stating succinctly:

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

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

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Long Beach CA 90803 — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:18:55 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Scott Goldman — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:22:16 GMT

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Bill, St. Louis, Mo — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:22:25 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Andrew, Frederick, MD — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:55:00 GMT

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

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

Evolution debate revived

The Fallible Fiend — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 19:11:21 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Eamonn, Albany, New York — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 19:22:14 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Joshua D. Telles — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 19:23:29 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Byron Raum, Beverly Hills, CA — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 19:34:01 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Canus Major — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 19:52:46 GMT

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Tina Worley, Mesa, AZ — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:05:38 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Ted Gehrke, Los Gatos, CA — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:31:45 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Madison WI — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:42:46 GMT

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

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

s. zeilenga — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:44:13 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

z.

Evolution debate revived

Red Pill Junkie, Mexico City, Mex — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:46:45 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I leave that question open.

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

Evolution debate revived

Man — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:56:13 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

Idiots.

Evolution debate revived

Man — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:57:08 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

Idiots.

Evolution debate revived

sherri hanger, seymour, missouri — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 21:00:22 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

John Charles Webb, Jr. — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 21:09:13 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Gerald! — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 21:17:30 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Mike Hoos, Stony Brook, NY — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 22:03:58 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Mike Hoos, Stony Brook, NY — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 22:16:24 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 22:20:38 GMT

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Mike Hoos, Stony Brook, NY — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 22:38:18 GMT

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

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Greg Throop — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 22:58:49 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

A scientist who is a Christian — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 23:32:58 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

rob egenolf — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 23:35:30 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Russ Pataky — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 00:04:31 GMT

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Will Pitt — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 00:33:43 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Rich Young, Spokane, WA — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 01:14:47 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Eric Strickland — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 01:37:27 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

“our modern day murderers are not necessarily thugs with guns lurking in the shadows killing the unsuspecting, but those who teach them that there is no Creation and no one to exact punishment for your wrongdoings in the next life. if you do not have to pay for your wrongdoings and deviations, then you can go ahead and do it in the first place. that's what it boils down to. Not science and evolution versus the Creation of man. but a sick, yes, use the right word, ingrown desire to to postulate relativism as a viable living standard. Evolution is only a route to that end.”

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

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend Lorton, VA — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 01:44:10 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Milt from St.Lucia — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 01:45:01 GMT

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

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

Evolution debate revived

John HIggins Genoa Colorado — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 01:46:26 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

not stupid Seattle — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 02:04:42 GMT

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

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Patrick Callioni, Canberra, Australia — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 02:21:14 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 02:33:09 GMT

1. There are no petroglyphs of dinosaurs.

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Dennis,Hemet,california — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 02:42:17 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Stewart Williams, Valdosta, Georgia — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 04:06:17 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

A. Ross , Staten Island , NY — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 04:27:04 GMT

ah,what about the drug resistant bacteria?

Evolution debate revived

John Doe, Seattle, Wash. — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 05:42:34 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

anton eagle, Denver, Colorado — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 06:48:43 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

A.J. Ross — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:02:17 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:56:04 GMT

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Brian Schaffer, Fayetteville, Arkansas — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:57:58 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Scott, TN — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:14:06 GMT

Let me go back and say something here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Alan Boyle — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:34:49 GMT

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:03:59 GMT

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evolution debate revived

Leon Brooks, Perth, Western Australia — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:55:22 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Mike, Alb. NM — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 03:12:58 GMT

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

Evolution debate revived

Scott, TN — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 19:03:43 GMT

Quoting Gayle Coleman above -

"the moth whose wings change color. This example has recently been shown to happen not as the result of evolution but because of genetic switches that are turned on and off by environmental factors."

Is that not evolution?

Evolution debate revived

Scott, TN — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 19:05:22 GMT

People are just trying to turn this country into a "Radical religious state"

Evolution debate revived

Why Not, Key West, Fl — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 02:43:38 GMT

I am a struggling Catholic and a technologist and I believe in Evolution. The facts are clear and indisputable. To deny it is to be ignorant of the complexities upon which science is built. It is bedrock and solid! If our science were so wrong, the great advances we enjoy and marvel at in this day and age -- Flight, robotic missions to the outer reaches of our solar system, medicine and surgical techniques, electronics and computers -- WOULD NOT EXIST!!

Most Catholics I know feel that the bible is mere story and fabulous allegory - with some truths and very likely with hyperbole.

But I would love nothing more to believe! I ask of God every day to appear before the world and end the conflicts and horrors in life! We are his children! He is our father! Why can't he do this?! I am with my children every day, helping them, being with them and answering their questions ... why can't God do the same for all of us?? I am tired of hearing the message from priests as I have had for years and years. I don't want a "proxy" anymore than my family would want a "proxy" for me -- I want to see and hear from the Father! The last visit was over 2000 years ago -- I think it is time for another appearance!

Evolution debate revived

Jane, Southern Mississippi — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 04:44:52 GMT

Who are we to attempt to know God's ways? I believe he created everything, but he did it in his own time. And to God, a thousand years is but a day to us. Some people just want to create a problem where there is not one.

Evolution debate revived

Jeremiah Graves, Deer Lodge, TN — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 05:03:41 GMT

To all those that say something along the lines of:

"I don't know where X organism came from, so there must've been some creator."

Or

"I can't explain how abiogenisis could happen, so there must have been a creator."

Or

"Science says: inanimate matter came together to form life, I don't see how that is possible, so there must've been a creator."

I say:
What created the creator?

If one is going to use the first cause fallacy, don't do it seriously.

If one says that everything must've had an external cause of some sort, and then allude that the creator is either:

1. uncaused

or

2. that it caused itself

One must realize that these two things lead to logical problems for religions.

To idea 1, that the "cause" of everything is, itself, uncaused; violates the whole premise that everything needs a cause. There is no logical/objective reason to not apply this property to humanity itself and skip the whole deity thing. Argument 1 does in no way make deities needed.

To idea 2, that the "cause" of everything caused itself; there is no reason why one could not apply this property to humans as well. There is no reason why one could not say that humans came from the future and started everything, so thus, we created ourselves according tho this argument.

The argument to a "first cause", as it is typically called, is retarded.

E_E

Evolution debate revived

BR, Lafayette, IN — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 10:23:54 GMT

I don't know, maybe things have changed since I was in school but when I was it seems to me that a theory once proven was no longer called a theory. It was then called a fact. I am not a proponent of creationism, but I am disturbed by the number of people that want to declare evolution as a fact. To do that, is just as blinding to forward advancement as is it's opposite. Once you make something a fact you close off ALL other avenues of research. I am not speaking of creationism nor am I proposing another avenue to follow. Scientifically it just doesn't make any sense to declare something inviolate when it has NOT been proven to be so. Evolution is a THEORY. It me be a very good theory. It may even have some evidence to support it, BUT it is NOT a proven FACT. There is a difference. To teach evolution in such a way that it cannot be questioned (as a fact) is to make SCIENCE into religion because you are now making a FACT be accepted on FAITH. I know that there are a number of examples that people extrapolate to PROVE evolution. BUT unless something has happened that I'm not aware of and based on the FACT that EVEN the staunches supporters of evolution in the scientific community still name evolution a THEORY it must not have actually been PROVEN to be a fact. Yes someone above stated that it had more evidence than a hypothesis. whoopdie doo.. they compared it to other theories from physics as if that gives it more credence since they are all THEORIES. Throughout time there have been many theories. Some have been proven to be correct and became facts. Others were proven to be either incorrect or partially incorrect and were either disregarded or adapted to the new THEORY that was in vogue afterwards. In the end, that is the weak point in the way evolution is being taught today. Too many people are now saying it's GOSPEL.

Evolution debate revived

James,Wichita,Kansas — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 10:34:12 GMT

I may not know a whole lot about science, history, etc. etc.But what I do know is this.The bible clearly states as a Christian we walk by faith and not by sight. What I hear from the other side is that have to have physical proof before they believe in God. Evolution has never been proven and it never will. As a matter of fact the man that started that theory (Darwin) later became a Christian. Darwin later repented that he wished he'd never did what he did by starting this whole thing. The bible tells without faith it's impossible to please God and that worldly wisdom is foolishness to Him. John 3:16 tells us that "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish,but have everlasting life". God did not send His Son to condemn the world, but though Him you might be saved. Romans3:23 Tells us. "all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God". Romans 5:8 says, "But God demonstrates His love toward us,in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us". Romans 6:23 says, "For the wages of sin is death ,but the gift of God is eternal life though Christ Jesus our Lord". Romans10:9 says, "If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in you heart that God has raised Him from the dead you will be saved". and finally Romans 10:13 says, For whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Wouldn't you like to call up on the one and only true God? Think about what all this is saying here.Jesus was God in the flesh and He dethroned Himself to come to earth to die for you so that you can come to know Him. He loved you that much. And he wants you to be able to spend eternity with Him. Jesus said: "I am The Way,The Truth,and The Life no man goes to the Father except though me". God Bless! and I hope and pray you make that choice today. Amen!

Evolution debate revived

Stephen Young, Calgary, Alberta, Canada — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 17:15:25 GMT

Universal Law
Of
The Universe

As a student of Engineering, Calculus is an integral, no pun intended, foundation of science. I believe that mathematics is a way for beings to put into order things we could comprehend, but did not know how to put them in terms that others could share. As Einstein’s Theory of Relativity stated, all things that happen are relative to some reference point. It is the distinguishing of these reference points that leave the subject open for debate. I am going to try to meld the two most controversial subjects known to man into one simple statement. These topics would be Religion and Science.

We now know that many things taken from religious writings are having a hard time holding up under the analytical microscope. One basic fundamental of Mathematics is its Universal acceptance as being the prime driving force behind superior intelligence. Prime and binary numbers, are only a couple of higher order math sets that are supposedly indicative of higher order thinking. But there is one basic flaw in its very existence. This a little word that while being simple to accept is impossible to understand. That word is INFINITE. How beautiful a concept but which can never be proven. Show me how to prove that there is no end. I always liked to say “if you or I should die today there will be a tomorrow, whether we are here to see it or not”. If we ask a child to begin counting from one, then ask them what would be the last number, more than likely they would give the highest number that they could imagine. But more than likely they would return a FINITE number. Simply because they have either not been exposed to a higher order of math or it is beyond even their imagination. Ask an adult and they should be able to give a reasonable explanation as to why there is no end to the number. Since the number never ends time never ends. If time never ends, where did it truly begin? For INFINITY travels both ways. Using Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and the fact that space and time are infinite in all directions, one can say that anything, be it an object on the planet, the planet in our solar system, the solar system in the galaxy or the galaxy in the…. Well, you get the idea, is at the middle or center of the Universe. So the next time someone says “do you think the world revolves around you, you can say with confidence; No, the universe does”.
Here it is the all encompassing statement which I believe will have a profound effect on many people, and will cause many others to,I hope; think about what they are doing. There is a grander scheme to all of this I am sure. All of this was somehow put here by some being and to this extent that being has been labeled God. Even if we don’t recognize God as the Supreme Being, it must leave a seed of doubt in our mind, where did it all begin, if it did begin at all? I hope that those who read this are left in awe as I am just thinking about the ramifications of this carefully thought out statement. Let your imaginations soar; it is what we do best.

To understand or comprehend Infinity, it must be taken on blind faith that it exists. To know Infinity is to know God. Therefore-

“Mathematics is simply Man’s feeble attempt to understand that which requires only Faith”

How the stars are held in the heavens is nowhere as fascinating as Why they are there in the first place.

Evolution debate revived

Alan Boyle — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 17:48:09 GMT

In reference to James' message, I believe that Darwin was a Christian before, during and after his work on evolutionary theory. Also, the story about Darwin's deathbed recantation has pretty much been shown to be made up, as this page from Answers in Genesis indicates:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/
creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp

Evolution debate revived

BR, Lafayette, IN — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 18:43:13 GMT

The problem using archeology to prove evolution is a basic problem in principles. Archeology is the only science that I'm aware of that uses a negative to prove a positive. Because something hasn't been found to be somewhere or somewhen based on the strata that fossils are found in means that whatever wasn't found wasn't there. Logically, you cannot use a negative to prove a positive. As an example, if someone hypothesizes that birds do not exist. They go outside and see no birds. Thus theorize that birds do not exist. Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean that they are not there. Simply because we haven't found something thru extensive looking at fossils over the last however many years doesn't mean that what we haven't found wasn't there. All that has been proven is that whatever wasn't found has been proven to have not been found. Anyone that tries to use that lack of evidence to PROVE something is using a negative to prove a positive which is logically a fallacy. Many state that Man has only been around for so many thousand years. The evidence used to prove this statement is that we have found no fossil evidence that they were there then. Again... a negative is being used to prove a positive. It has been proven that we have not found evidence that humans existed beyond so many thousand years.. It has NOT been proven that man WAS NOT there. That is impossible to do. Logically, this cannot be done because you cannot use illogical reasoning to prove something logically.

Evolution debate revived

Ralph S, Houston, TX — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 19:58:54 GMT

I don't think one can separate the sciences behind Evolution and other sciences that we so willingly use and accept.

Evolution has been around for quite a while. It has been disparaged, critized, ridiculed, scorned, burned, trashed. Yet it is still here and it is widely accepted.

Why? Evolution has been studied to such a high degree, from empirical analysis of real diverging species in the field, to fossil evidence, to carbon dating of bones, to genomic sequencing of species, to mitochondrial analysis - the list goes on. So many techniques that lend enormous credence to the theory of Evolution and genetic variation from environmental stimulus and pressures.

Evolution like some other sciences runs up hard against religion. There is no doubt about it -- there is a conflict. But can you simply pick and choose your science for convenience, comfort or religion?

Maybe schools shouldn't teach Newtonian Physics or Chemistry, theories of Electro-magnetism, Time Dialation and the Theory of Relativity, and Quantum Physics!

If you can't accept Evolution and the patch-work of sciences and math upon which it and so many other theories and monumental advancements rest we should give up our cell phones, computers, cars, plane trips to vacation get-aways, air conditioned homes, satelite TV! Better yet, we should go back to living in mud huts, covering our bodies with animal skins and er, not bothering to brush or floss. Live the good life knowing we are free from science and "controversial" advancements!

Evolution debate revived

James,Wichita,Kansas — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 20:36:31 GMT

In reference to Alan Boyle No Darwin was not a christian until afterward.I do not to websites.To many people distort or fabicate these stories to their own likings.No christian in his own right mind would of tried to disprove God.Most scientist that have tried to prove God did not exist,guess what ended up giving their lifes to Jesus Christ because no matter how hard they tried it all pointed to God.Thanks Anyway!

Evolution debate revived

Carey Allen, Pinole, CA — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 20:50:54 GMT

Several comments mentioned the illogic of evolution from a mathematical viewpoint. I am a mathematician, and I must point out that evolutionary mechanisms have been analylzed mathematically and modelled on computers. Literally thousands of scholarly articles and hundreds of books have been written on these topics. And the net result is that evolution occurs very simply and naturally - in fact, Darwinian selection is so simple that it would take a miracle for evolution NOT to occur. I understand people wanting to cling to comforting beliefs, but evolution is not some evil plot concocted by godless scientists. I recommend books by Chaisson, Kauffman, and Gavrilets for those who want to take an unbiased look - they can also find a lot of interesting articles on arXiv. But remember that the language of nature is mathematics - you will need some basic math, physics, and biology if you want to do any serious reading.

Evolution debate revived

Alan Boyle — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 20:51:15 GMT

I stand corrected. There's no question that Darwin had a Christian phase of his life (and had considered the ministry) but this material (from ChristianAnswers.net) indicates that he eventually fell away from that faith:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html

Here's a somewhat more hopeful account of Darwin's faith journey:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF6-00Roberts.html

Darwin and Einstein may have reached the same place on the spirituality spectrum ... an agnostic sense that something could be going on, but not the theistic view that we normally associate with religion.

Evolution debate revived

BR, Lafayette, IN — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 21:51:25 GMT

To state that evolution must be accepted because the sciences used are the same sciences that prove other things that we use everyday like TV's or cellphones or whatever is paramount to saying that someone can't USE something without UNDERSTANDING what they are using. This is not true. I don't have to know how a car works in order to drive one anymore than I have to understand why a fire is hot in order to use the heat it produces.
Saying evolution has been around a long time and is widely accepted also does not make any difference what so ever. Regardless of how long something has been accepted or how many have accepted it, the issue still can be wrong or partially wrong.
Many leading scientist support evolution is another favorite statement by some and another fallacy. Who believes it or doesn't believe it again doesn't prove it or disprove it.
Evolution is a theory. It is VERY likely to remain a theory for the simple reason that NO ONE has been around long enough to have actually seen it happen. There is a fairly large amount of evidence which suggests that evolution is probable. But jumping from probable to definite is not possible at this time and may never be possible. We don't have to fully understand HOW something works in order to use parts of it to do something. Observable phenomena can be used as long as the phenomena can be repeated. Understanding that the cause and effect occurs in this particular case in this particular way may extrapolate over a larger set of circumstances, but it may not also. either way, we can still use the fact that for those circumstances it works.
Ultimately science is not about a collection of absolutes. Science is about the use and understanding of probabilities. Such and such event is more likely than some other event under these circumstances. Science is not about jumping to conclusions when evidence or lack of evidence isn't enough to actually PROVE something. One does not have to prove Evolution to be true to believe it, nor does one have to disprove evolution to disagree with it; but stating that evolution is FACT or FICTION has not been proven in either direction. That is why Evolution is still a theory. We can not even prove that man hasn't been here for as long as the conditions were such that he could have been here. The only way to prove that man was not around is by the fact that man has not been found in the strata past a cerian time frame. Again as stated above: a negative cannot be used to prove a positive. Is there another way other than a lack of fossils in the record to prove that man wasn't around one billion years ago? For someone to prove that evolution is only a theory not fact is relatively easy. Although proving evolution incorrect has not been accomplished, to prove that Evolution is fact is, as far as science is concerned, impossible at this time unless and until some way is found to determine how long man has existed without using negatives to do it and even that is only a first step in proving the theory.

Evolution debate revived

James,Wichita,Kansas — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 23:28:42 GMT

One does not have a true conversion into Christianity and then decide it's not true or fall away.When one comes to know Christ His faith in Christ comes from Christ. Therefore this person knows beyond the shadow of doubt that Christ is the way to God. And their faith can not be moved.

Evolution debate revived

James,Wichita,Kansas — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 00:01:55 GMT

You say you stand corrected is a fault statement. For I have found other bios stating that his family denies his conversion. But when someone dies you are not there 24/7 this person that wrote the book in 1915 claims he did repent. It's easy for someone or even his whole family to deny it because they didn't want to be disgraced or because they wanted him to remain famous so that they also could boast about being the famous Darwin family. So please you're gonna have to do better than that. For as I have said I know there were 100's of scientists have turned to Jesus because everything pointed to God. My prayer is that this will happen to you as well. God Speed. P.S. Are you also the one who decides whether to make these post as well.Cause I've noticed the last two I put in hasn't been posted.

Evolution debate revived

Alan Boyle — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 00:07:42 GMT

Yes, I do have to approve the comments before they appear, so there may be a lag between posting and appearance of the comment. Not every comment gets posted (see above), and I can't monitor the message traffic 24/7 (for example, when I'm going to church). ;-)

Evolution debate revived

Lia, San Francisco, CA — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 00:47:10 GMT

Angela and Billy A. Silva have my vote. Excess talk is frivolous; what's really the problem is that masses of people fail to be on the same page. We need unilateral understanding of all availale information. Some people are growing up in church communities and experiencing the world in one way, others are growing up in intellectual secular communities and experiencing the world in another way, and both sides have experienced the world one way in another. If we all formed a summarizing world experience that would allow both sides to congregate appropriately, action would come.

Evolution debate revived

Adam, Brisbane, Australia — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 02:03:41 GMT

Hi Alan

Some one posted this line above...

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

...none of which is true.

But it's a common misconception that 'evolution' has anything to do with either geology, astronomy or plain old scientific historiography. Evolution, as understood by scientists, is about the change of living things with time, in response to environmental changes. Nothing more.

Young Earthers seem to think 'evolution' is all the same thing - "if it's old it's non-Biblical so it's wrong and it must be evolution" - but most of the newer ID Creationists are quite happy with an old world and universe, and there's a spectrum of opinions in between.

The poster seems convinced by those tired old arguments, but they're wrong and they were known to be wrong before Young Earthers first used them as debating point-scorers. In order of appearance...

the Earth-Moon system has evolved tidally, but the present rate of energy loss is much higher than the historical average due to a resonance between the tides and the continental arrangement. A closer Earth-Moon distance means the dissipation constant is lower. Thus no time problem.

Salt is removed chemically and physically from the oceans as fast as it enters. Thus it is in steady state.

The earth's magnetic field declined in dipole strength from about 1830 to today. Thus Thomas Barnes, Creationist, extrapolated it back. However since he did that we've found actual evidence for the dipole field's strength before 1830, back another couple of hundred years and it shows an actual increase. So the field is variable and increases and declines in a random way. Occasionally it drops to zero and revives in a new direction. Barnes couldn't believe that, but he was wrong.

Finally recorded history has nothing to do with Earth's ages, and most cultures have no written culture. Timekeeping, as evidenced by scratches on old bones, big calendars made of wood and stone, and old stories about seasonal changes, goes back to about 70,000 years ago, but writing appears a mere 5,000 years ago. And History didn't get invented until kings needed scribes to make them look good. The first datable history is arguably the core document of the Deuteronomistic source in the Bible, c. 900 BC.

So as usual the Young Earther has missed the facts and the point of the whole debate.

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 03:13:42 GMT

Darwin NEVER repudiated evolution. His daughter was present when the alleged incident took place and denies it ever happened. This is a perfect example of how fundamentalists are spreading urban legend as fact. Apparently they believe their God doesn't have any commandments against spreading false rumors.

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 03:33:54 GMT

Repeating rumors and comic-book science is a lot easier than doing the hard work of actually trying to figure things out.

Evolution is a fact to the same degree that the existence of hyrdrogen atoms is a fact. There is so much information available - one doesn't have to be ignorant. One doesn't have to resort to spreading urban legends.

Evolution debate revived

Scott, TN — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:49:24 GMT

To quote Mr. James from Wichita above;

"One does not have a true conversion into Christianity and then decide it's not true or fall away.When one comes to know Christ His faith in Christ comes from Christ. Therefore this person knows beyond the shadow of doubt that Christ is the way to God. And their faith can not be moved."

To answer you, I did. To tell you my story, I was born and raised Baptist. I believed. I "felt" something. I "knew" something was there. Then, I delved into science. It fascinated me so much, learning how things worked, why they worked, what made things grow, seeing what was beyond the stars. Then, I decided to do something unspeakable in the Christian faith. I decided to apply the why's, what's, how's to the concept of God. Remember now, I "believed". I "believed" that photosynthesis happened because that was the way God chose to do it. I "believed" that for a life to form the way it does by combining egg with sperm was because that was the way God chose to do it. But as I learned more and more, one question began ringing louder and louder; "Is there a God?" I backed up for a moment and looked from outside the box. I looked at why people reacted the way they did when it came to God. Almost all Christians, when you ask them about God, will, at some point, refer to scripture as proof. But, the scripture was written by MAN. Then they will refute, saying that it was inspired by God. My question is this, how can you be so sure? You rely on word of mouth and a book written by men. You rely on faith alone. There is no physical evidence to prove that God exists. Tomorrow, I could go and say that this Mt. Dew bottle was given to me by God and I could convince everyone I came across that it was and tell them to convince everyone they saw that it was and so on and so on and two thousand years from now, this Mt. Dew bottle would be the "Holy Grail". How are you so sure that some guy didn't just sit down, write a wonderful story and tell everyone that it was inspired by God? There are conflicting points within the bible itself. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are similar overall, but the finer details are as different as you and I. If it was true, wouldn't the details be the same? Two different scientists could go on two different sides of the Earth. Put the same experiment to a test with the same materials under very similar conditions and get the same result. Yet, two people at the same place could not produce the same details. Either that, or THEY relied on word of mouth which could have been false to begin with.

Evolution may be a theory, but there is STRONG physical evidence to help it hold water. It still has it's holes and unanswered questions, but religion has more to me. To everything that you don't have an answer, you say, "It's the will of God". When scientists find something that they do not have an answer, it is either that, unanswered, or they keep trying until they find an answer. And to those out there who say there is no evidence to support evolution, are you blind and ignorant to what has been found? All of the human remains that have been found? Similar bone structures and molecular make-up? There were different species of human, like the "hobbit" they found in Indonesia. From the skeletons of Homo Habillis to Homo Sapien, is there not proof there? All you have is faith and a book. I find it hard to have faith in what I can't see or touch.

Evolution debate revived

Scott, TN — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:52:55 GMT

And I emphasize again my comment above;

"People are just trying to turn this country into a "Radical religious state"

Some day down the road, we will be this "Radical religious state" that the world will be after.

Evolution debate revived

Canus Major, Santa Barbara, CA — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 15:10:31 GMT

So many folks are latching onto the "Evolution is only a theory" argument... it needs to be pointed out that we're talking about two different definitions of theory.

The laymans definition, everyday usage of the word 'theory' refers to basically a guess. "I have a theory about that..." This, however, differs greatly from the scientific use of the word 'theory'. In science, a theory is as good as it gets. Theories are explanations of facts. For something to reach the status of "theory", it has to go through rigorous scrutiny and peer-review. Please note that the scientific community can be vicious with new ideas that contradict long established thought and will go through great lengths to prove the upstarts wrong. When all these attempts to discredit a proposed theory fail, however, then the scientific community accepts that what's newly proposed must indeed be correct (as knowable at that point) and will accept it as theory.

Evolution is fact. It is observed in the world around us. The after effects are observed in our genes. The fossil record is a tremendous history book of evolution.

The theories of evolution help us understand how things happen, not whether or not they did.

Evolution debate revived

Mark, Wichita, Kansas — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 15:52:25 GMT

I feel the need to stand up for the reputation of Kansas, and Wichita. I love the largest city in Kansas, and it is not populated entirely by intellectually and gramatically challeged fundamentalists. We may be a little slow to react when morons seek to undermine the education and futures of our children(shame is felt all around, believe me), but at least we come back strong.

What I find most interesting about this general topic is the simple fact that so many people just do not grasp the nature of the discussion. The discussion really does not involve science vs religion or Darwin vs creation. Those questions were answered decades and centuries ago as both scientific and philosophical points of view. Dredging them up periodically in new forms will never change the fact that they are dead issues.

What most people simply do not grasp is that the discussion/argument/battle(whatever you prefer) is entirely about point of view rather than fact. Proof, convincing, and evidence are actually irrelevant. It is entierly a personal and purely internal arrangement.

If you believe that the Bible/Quran/Talmud(whatever you choose) to be literal truth, then there is no science or evidence that can be shown to you that will undermine that. Yes, without any shadow of a doubt, such a point of view is intellectually bankrupt and void of any benefit to the society around you(with the possible exception of helping to keep clinically depreseed or psychotic individuals from going postal more often than they do), but such a point of view has a powerful potential benefit to the individual who accepts it. The same goes for a person whether they accept science, religion, or a combination. The point is to make a decision and live with it.

The problem is not the existence of the anti-scientific fundamentalist point of view, nor does the problem lie with scientific methodology or evidence. The other issue is simply that some people can not grasp the fact that religion and science have nothing and will never have anything to do with one another in the real world. Any attempt to meld them in some fashion to shape the perception of either, no matter how contrived or subtle fails by definition.

If the general populace could simply grasp that the problem is actually between their individual ears, then we could move beyond this sort of foolishness and continue to achieve.

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend Lorton, VA — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 17:32:27 GMT

Canis Major gives a very lucid explanation / refutation of the "evolution is just a theory" argument. To the lay person, "theory" is simply an "hypothesis" or a "speculation." But in science, a theory is actually quite a profound idea. To say that evolution is "merely a theory" is to completely misunderstand how science works.

Mark in wichita also echos an important point: the problem is between people's ears. So many people have such strong opinions on this subject, but so few of them want to actually do any real homework on the subject. They're content to recite the caricature of science they learnt in 6th grade or what their parents or preachers told them. But they won't lift a finger to find out what evolutionists actually say - because that would take some effort and passing on urban legends is so much easier.

Evolution debate revived

Kevin Galligan, New York, NY — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 17:54:39 GMT

"Both should be presented and let the student make up his own mind". Sounds good. I think we should do the same with sex ed. "Well, you could try waiting till marriage, or use condoms."

Evolution debate revived

PJB, Archbald, Pennsylvania — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 18:49:38 GMT

As a citizen of the fine state of Pennsylvania, and proud of the fact that our state rejected the idea of teaching intelligent design as a scientific alternative to evolution in classrooms, I have only a few things to say on the age-old creationism/Darwinism debate:

We're never going to reach a compromise, plain and simple. Evolution is a natural fact. It can be proved through ingenious experimentation and can be seen in the fossil record, as well as in the news. For example, where do you think all these "superbugs," those bacteria that no longer succumb to antibiotics, are coming from? Evolution, my dear Dr. Watson. We can partake in evolution anytime with selective breeding in our agricultural crops and household flowers. So there is no denying evolution exists.

Creationism, on the other hand, does not have the luxury of testability. It is a matter of faith. God is a matter of faith. You cannot test a concept like God, anymore than you can test a concept like consciousness. It simply cannot be done. But it doesn't take years of experimentation to realize that faith is a very powerful thing. Wars are fought all the time because of faith, i.e. al-Qaeda, suicide bombers, Hezbullah...take your pick. Scientific methods and all the experimentation and empirical evidence in the world cannot stand up to a strong faith.

So my point is this: let it go. I have my belief, you have yours. There is no need to force another to see it my or your way, at least not in this case. The creationists will believe in God, and the Darwinists will believe Darwin. All that I would ask would be to grant our children and their children to have the opportunity to decide for themselves, which is the only real freedom we have.

Evolution debate revived

Eric Strickland VT — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:16:13 GMT

BR in Indiana does not understand the way the terms “theory” and “fact” are used in science. He uses the everyday meaning of theory when referring to evolution and ignores the scientific usage of the word. This is the same fallacy that Creationists use all the time to undermine the legitimacy of evolutionary theory in the minds of the people they hope to confuse. It is part of their “Wedge” strategy.

Theory in the scientific use of the word, as has been pointed out many times, is as good as fact. No one doubts the theory of gravity because “it’s just a theory.” And with the exception of faith healers, there are very few who doubt ‘germ theory’ just because it’s theory. To members of the scientific community, the evidence that evolution occurred and is occurring is overwhelming to the point that this phenomenon is considered a “FACT.”

Theory can be and is modified as science advances. Some of Newton’s theories were modified by Einstein’s theory of relativity, and some aspects of Einstein’s theory have been or are being modified in turn. Likewise, Darwin did not have the last word in evolutionary theory; he merely got the ball rolling. Paleontology and cell biology were in their infancy when Darwin conceived of evolution. The field of genetics was unknown. Today we have a good, though not complete, understanding of how heredity works, and everything we’ve learned about how mutations occur and how genes are copied confirms evolutionary theory (prove is not a word that scientists normally use).

Darwin observed that species adapt to their environment and proposed a mechanism for how adaptation that leads to new species could occur. Again, he did not have the last word on this. Tens of thousands of scientists have been advancing our knowledge for 147 years since The Origin of Species first came out. Ongoing discoveries of new fossils continually fill in gaps in the fossil record; the sequencing of the human genome was recently completed. In 2005 Kirschner and Gerhart published "The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma," which proposes another mechanism that complements the pillars of heredity and natural selection in the theory of evolution. They argue that natural selection, combined with the heritability of favorable genetic mutations, while necessary, are not sufficient to fully explain how evolution occurs. Thanks to increasing understanding of cell biology, they show how subtle changes in cell behaviors can lead to apparently large changes in the physical appearance of organisms.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:44:13 GMT

Well, as I now have two children in KY "Public" schools, I can give comfort to the Humanists/Athiests out there that Kentucky is still very much teaching whatever conflicting nonsense trickles down from the social engineers in Washington.

The Encyclopedia Mythica is still on the teachers resource list on Ky's virtual library, with one featured passage reading ",,,see kid's, witchcraft does work,,," and just this last year my 3rd grader brought me his homework about the occult and reading from a book of magic backwards to control demons. The last part of the assignement instructed him to 'tell his friends about Demons, and what he would have the Demons do for him if he were the one controlling him.

Nevermind they are instructed how to craft prayers to a supernatural imp who knows the actions of all boys & girls and rewards them for their actions in his honor, every year. And, of course the much-anticipated fertility rites of Astarte (Easter) they engage in every spring. We all know these are completely secular activities based on hard science and fact, not a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.

So dont worry, your entirely xenophobic brave new mono-culture dystopia is just around the corner.

Hypocrites.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 22:00:13 GMT

By the way, the homework assignment mentioned was entitled "The Book of Magic" published by Science Research Associates Inc. 1990 (which has also published papers on 'Arithmetical Thought' that people into Dianetics are fond of) and the last section reads, verbatim;

"Have Fun With It: What other tasks can you think of to give the demons? Think of the hardest tasks you can. make a list of them. Read the list to a friend."

Sorry for any confusion, I don't want to falsely characterize anything by way of a misquote.

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 00:04:53 GMT

"The Book of Magic" sounds inappropriate the way you describe it. Are they teaching this in a science class? If so, I doubt you will find many evolutionists or any other kind of scientist who supports it. What you're doing is taking everybody you don't agree with and lumping them all together inappropriately. This is a logical fallacy as well as a factual error.

I could see the usage of such a book in, say, a high school course in comparative religion. It might also be appropriate in some sort of literary setting, although it seems like a stretch to me.

Clearly it doesn't belong in a science class. If it is, you should complain and I'd wager you will find many evolutionists who would support your complaint. If it's not being taught in a science class, then it may be a good topic for discussion or debate, but it's irrelevant to the current discussion.

Evolution debate revived

Ralph S, Houston, TX — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 01:06:03 GMT

I like what Mark from Wichita, Kansas had to say. He is right on target.

An important point that I would add is the following:

The differences he speaks of is exactly why our founding fathers had the genius and courage to codify the separation of Church and State.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 02:33:21 GMT

Actually, that particular assignment was under the auspices of "reading", but having visited the Evolution/Creation/Science debate in many forms, I have already seen the opposition to having Evolution taught in a science class, and at the same time creation taught in another.

Actually, the point I was making was that the schools, and our public institutions are already rife with such nonsense, but many of the same people who attack and struggle against anything "Christian", will back-pedal or ignore completely the rest of it. And, to be fair, I have encountered more than a few 'Christians' who will do the same.

Try going into an Elementary School and replacing a supernatural figure like Santa Claus, which no sane adult believes exists, with a humble carpenter and minister who did, and see what you get. Of course, by the same token, try and take a modern and well known Christian minister who taught equality and moral obligation completely out of public schools and institutions, and again, see what you get.

I am all for a completely secular education, I believe in evolution, and,,, I am also Christian. I have no axe to grind with people who teach the facts, as they are known. I do, however, take great issue with those who use Evolution, or any other pretense, to push their own social/philisophical/political agenda to the publicly-funded captive audience of a classroom. Science is a method, not a be-all-end-all answer to anything. That which is not repeatable is not science, and last I had heard, no one has re-created the first formation of life in a lab. Not to mention that if and when its ever done, a great many of today's 'impossibles' held in argument go right out the window with the event.

The Establishment Clause guarantees we won't live in a Theocracy, thankfully. But, it guarantees we won't be forced to live in an Atheocracy either. Go read the definition of Secular again folks, its fiarly straightforward. If you want something else or are doing something else,,, then you obviously need to call it something else too.

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 03:33:12 GMT

The first formation of life is known as abiogenesis. That's related to evolution, but is not the same as evolution. That is a lot more speculative at this point. Being an atheist, of course I accept it at this point. But it's not on par with evolution. I wouldn't call it a fact or a theory, though. It's more like a speculation at this point (even though I believe it).

Our education system is a hodge podge of stuff. I try not to get too upset by what happens and I spend a lot of time unlearning my kids - talking to them about what they learned in school, augmenting their knowledge, giving them alternate opinions, outright rejecting some of it. I don't doubt that there are atheists who want to teach kids that there is no god and might use the school system to try to circumvent their parents' wishes. This is a sleazy practice and where I see it, I will oppose it vehemently.

I think there's even a place for talking about your carpenter. I've raised my kids atheists, but I've tried to talk my eldest into taking a course in comparative religion. No luck, so far, but I give them summer readings in the bible.

I'm not saying that I agree with you or disagree with you on these other things. It would have to be a on a case by case basis. But I can say that my only interest in evolution is that kids be taught actual science. I believe that evolution is more subtle than what many of its advocates imply. I think it's easy to learn some of the fundamentals, but hard to grasp some of the implications. People need time. It's not going to happen overnight. But it's imperative that we know what science is, how it works, and to the extent possible how to distinguish good science from bad. It's not just the here and now I'm concerned with. Our economic status in the world is at stake.

We have to start out by telling the truth as far as we know it.

Evolution debate revived

Ryan B, Waukesha, Wi — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 05:05:51 GMT

PLain and simple: anyone who believes that creationism should be tought under a science curriculum in schools has LOST HIS/HER MIND. The conclusion is so simple, and I am completely baffled as to how this topic can be debated, aside from the fact that the problem seems to be (and always has been), certain people that cannot cope with the fact that their religious beliefs differ from observable facts.

Evolution debate revived

a science teacher, TN — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 13:34:50 GMT

Ever wonder why there are many, many variations on religion with conflicting information, but only one world-wide science? Keep science and religion separate, please. They do not follow the same rules or have the same methodology.

Evolution debate revived

Scott, TN — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 13:54:43 GMT

For those of you out there that ask where life came from to begin with, scientists seem to have found an explanation. Here's the link:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/
060808_st_life_molecules.html

For those who are too lazy to read it, it simply says that certain molecules that are vital for life to form have been discovered in some of the most inhospitable regions of interstellar space. It furthers their belief that meteors and comets picked up these molecules and crashed into earth, depositing them here. Conditions were right to sustain life, so life began. Now if you take into account the billions and billions of other planets out there in other galaxies and here within our own (hundreds have been discovered in our region in the past ten years, and the reason more have not been discovered is because Earth size planets do not emit a large enough signature on said star to override the signature of the larger planets in that system), odds are very high that some of those planets will harbor some form of life, whether it be micro-organisms, life similar to our own, or advanced life forms. All of that said, if comet and asteroid impacts deposited life giving molecules here on Earth, and we are what we are today, then evolution did have to play a key role did it not? This evidence seems pretty overwhelming to me.

Evolution debate revived

BR, Lafayette, IN — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 16:15:43 GMT

"According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state, "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single repeatable observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."
Wikpedia also states the following about scientific use of the term theory:
"The term theory is occasionally stretched to refer to theoretical speculation that is currently unverifiable. Examples are string theory and various theories of everything. In common speech, theory has a far wider and less defined meaning than its use in the sciences"
No, I don't think I misused the word theory from a scientific viewpoint. When theory is verified it is no longer called a theory it's called a law. Whether you call it a law or a fact... heh.. symantics. Which use of the term theory is evolution using? Hawkings' version or scientific speculation? Either way, it is not proven to be a law. Here's a little tidbit about Gravity "The theory of gravity is today normally referred to as the "law of gravity", reflecting the fact that it is taken as granted." So... you think comparing a law to a theory is equivalent?

Evolution debate revived

James,Wichita,Kansas — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 17:05:07 GMT

Ps.14:1 The fool has said in his heart."There is no God".

Evolution debate revived

Joseph Saba, Newnan, Georgia — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 17:07:32 GMT

I notice that many defenders of evolution theory in these comments use very generalized statements to assert the certainty of their position, such as statements to the effect of these: evolution has been demonstrated repeatedly by overwhelming evidences, or the fossil record has certainly affirmed evolution, or all the truly scientific world affirms evolution, etc. And many have detracted from the other side by asserting that their position is the result of muddled thinking, or simplistic and unscientific notions. Theses approaches don't hold any substance to convince anyone one way or another about the soundness of their position.

I think it is true that some creation supporters here have misunderstood differences between scientific theory, facts, and proof. But just as many evo supporters have slammed creationists for not having evidence or credibilty as their mind demands it, I would ask for the real, substantive credibility and evidence for the evolutionist's position. I purposely challenge the volumes of material and numerous evo scientists positions to live up to their own demands for critical thinking and reliable data and reasoning.

Evolution is very much unlike other scientific theories, contrary to the postion some have presented in this column. The law of gravity, or atomic theory, or relativity, all have quite solid repeatable experiments and tests that we can all observe and reason through. Evolution is very unlike any of these, but stands by itself as a sort of step-child in our collection of modern scientific theories. How can anyone observe millions of years to form a new organism type? How do you scientifically check historical events? Especially with sparse on non-existent arti-facts? And no one can with any sense of reliability bring us an example of evolution today. Finch beaks get longer or shorter, and will probably continue to do so, but where is the new organism that sprang from the Finch? All are still Finches. We selectively breed, or force antibiotic resistant bacteria to abound, but where is the new organism? Natural selection also is obvious, but we don't find the change from one species type to another. There is no evolution of the type demanded by the theory. No reptiles to birds,(the famous fossil example is far from a closed case), no real new genetic information being created within a given organism type.

The fossil record holds no smoking gun for the evolutionist, but numerous problems instead. We have artist renderings in high school and college texts where artists have tried to depict evolutionary history (e.g., the horse), based largely on evo scientists best guesses from the limited data. I think that touches on a major problem with almost all of evolutionary theory- there is far too much that has been deduced from speculation and best guesses, starting from hypothesis and scraps of real data. Various sub-theories of evolutionary progress have been revised and re-revised as new thinking has emerged. One could point to the emergence of theories like punctuated equilibrium and sudden appearance as evidence that perhaps some evolutionists had begun to doubt their own ideas of millions of years being required for evolution. The fossil record does not show the evidence that Darwin and others expected to find, so these and similar modified theories have been proposed in the latter 20th century. From these theories one might say that a sudden explosion of new life forms might explain the lack of a fossil record, since it supposedly happened so quickly. (Dinosaurs are obviously real and extinct, but have not been demonstrated as part of a chain of evolution.)

I do not believe either the evolution or creation position can be demonstrated by rigorous scientific treatment, but I do believe that a reasoned approach, where we individually consider and confirm reliable support for our positions, can lead one to a conclusion that a Creator made the universe and all that is in it, and not some mindless chance events.

Evolution debate revived

James,Wichita,Kansas — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 17:55:48 GMT

A scientist who is a Chrisian
I couldn't agree with you more.However thats were the real debate is.Science is Science and I have no problem with Science.But Evolution is Evolution and says just what it says.Man did not evolve from anything.And let me remind everyone here.Please to don't call christianity a religion.Christianity is a relationship with the True Creator and God of all.Religion is dead.But I know unless your are a christian you do not understand the differents.When you address something in the form of religion call it for what it is.Don't make quotes about something you know nothing about is all I'm asking.Thank You And God Bless!

Evolution debate revived

BR, Lafayette, IN — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 18:21:06 GMT

It is inaccurate and misleading to use the strength and acceptability of one theory to prove the strength and/or acceptability of another theory. Comparing Evolution to Gravity isn't even comparing theories, but if you pick another STRONG theory to compare evolution to, it doesn't matter. Theories stand on their own merits. They can't be compared to prove each other. I'm not trying to drive a "wedge" into evolution as a theory. I'm simply stating that it isn't a law. It's not a strong enough theory to justify it being a law. Parts of what is generally termed the theory of evolution are stronger than others. But, now we're getting into what is meant precisely by the "theory of evolution". I was approaching evolution as the way it's generally taught in schools at lower grades up through highschool not the evolution that's taught at higher levels of education where the subject is generally handled somewhat differently and is being taught to a much more prepared audience.
When my, at the time 9 year old daughter, came home from school one day stating that men evolved from fish as a fact taught as evolution, I tend to think perhaps they should state that as a probability rather than a certianty. Schools should teach people to question their basic assumptions rather than teaching them to accept something as a fact and thereby creating more assumptions; most especially when that something is not a fact. It's a theory. And, in that particular case, not at all verifiable. Is it taught as not being verifiable or is it taught as fact? We are not talking about the Law of Gravity here or Germ Theory. We are talking about students throughout school from about the 4th through the 12th grade being taught that evolution tells us where we came from as a fact. Should this be taught? Sure it should. Should it be something that we are taught to assume? NO. Gravity should be assumed. Germs should be assumed. Evolution in the short term makes a pretty strong case for being assumed. Evolutionary speculation on the origin of anything is just that - speculation based on evidence. NOT a law. Not a fact. It could be wrong, and it should be taught that way.

As far as creationism goes, it should be relegated to religious studies, literature, if handled properly potentially as part of history, or churches. It is not science and should not be taught as science. Whether creationism could be accurate or not really does not matter. Either way, it is not science.

Evolution debate revived

Alan Boyle — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 18:27:47 GMT

Here's a message from Babu G. Ranganathan, passed along without comment:

Dear Mr. Boyle,

Greetings. I have had my article "Creationists Right On Entropy, Evolution" published in the Russian newspaper Pravda (link is below).

Please let your readers know of the link or even reproduce the entire article in print or on your website. I offer it freely.

The article addresses misconceptions about entropy. The first paragraph of the article reads:

Evolutionists argue that the scientific law of entropy (the tendency of matter to go towards greater disorder instead of greater order or complexity) does not contradict evolutionary theory because they claim the law of entropy does not apply in open systems such as our Earth, and evolutionists use examples such as a seed evolving into a tree as a contradiction and refutation to any contrary argument using entropy. Evolutionists are wrong on both counts for reasons which will be fully explained in this article ...

Science cannot prove life and the universe came about by chance or by design, but very few in our society are exposed to concrete scientific arguments and evidence supporting the position for intelligent design or creation behind the origin of life and the universe.

For example, are genetic and biological similarities between species due to common (evolutionary) ancestry or are they due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes.

How much evolution is naturally possible? Are there genetic limits to biological change? Can mutations (random changes) in the genetic code caused by the environment overcome these genetic barriers?

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such order. My article provides strong scientific evidence supporting this thesis.

This is not a side issue or seasonal issue for me. As a Christian, I seek to glorify God first and foremost by the scientific and biblical truth of creation regardless of people's reactions.

Furthermore, the subject of origins, more than any other subject or topic, affects people's world view and philosophy.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Babu G. Ranganathan
(B.A. Theology/Biology)
http://www.religionscience.com

LINK:

http://english.pravda.ru/science/
earth/07-07-2006/83043-evolution-0

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 19:13:20 GMT

Scientific Laws:

http://atheism.about.com/library/
FAQs/evo/blfaq_sci_law.htm

Calling something a SCIENTIFIC LAW DOES NOT IMPLY UNQUESTIONABILITY.

In fact, calling it a FACT doesn't mean it's unquestionable. Scientists are all the time going back and questioning their fundamental assumptions. What is it that Einstein did other than question basic assumptions?

There is such a thing as "the theory of gravity." [...] Here's an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory+of+gravity

It is EXACTLY appropriate to say that the theory of evolution is comparable to the theory of gravity, because 1) the exact same definition is used in both instances, and 2) both of them explain the VAST preponderance of available evidence.

Neither theory explains every observation ever made, because we know already that the underlying phenomena described by them does not operate in a vacuum, but instead operates in conjunction with other phenomena.

Evolution debate revived

Canus Major, Santa Barbara, CA — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 19:42:15 GMT

BR, now you're confusing terms again. The usage of "Law" is different in that it tends to equate to something with definitive mathematical calculations. You have the Law of Gravity, for example, with it's inverse square law and all that... you have the Fact or Observation that Gravity exists and you have the Theory of Gravity that tries to explain how gravity does what it does. There's no "Law" of evolution... it's not the type of thing that can be quantified into an equation.

Now, you claim your daughter told you she was taught that "men evolved from fish". Something certainly smells fishy here no doubt. You will not find anywhere in biology the claim that we evolved from fish. You get to buy yourself a cookie if you can tell us why. ;-)
---------------------------

Interesting article by Babu you've linked to there Alan. Right up front he claims "The spontaneous (the unaided or undirected) tendency of matter is always towards greater disorder -- not towards greater order and complexity as evolution would teach. Just having enough energy from the Sun is not sufficient to overcome entropy. This tendency towards disorder which exists in all matter can be temporarily overcome only if there exists some energy converting and directing mechanism to direct, develop, and maintain order."

... and already he's wrong. Entropy and thermodynamics refers to the flow of energy, not of matter. The obsurd claim that the tendency of matter is to go to disorder already has falsified the entire article simply because he has no idea what he's talking about.

Let's take one more of his claims... "The theory of evolution teaches that matter has an innate tendency to evolve towards greater and greater complexity or order."

Nonsence. Evolution states nothing about complexity. Evolution simply states that life changes over time. We see, for example, cave creatures that have evolved to lose their eyes. Increase or decrease in complexity, or simply evolving to be better adapted for their environment?

Sadly, the remainder of the article is no better on facts, and space here does not allow for the through debunking it so richly deserves.

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:02:21 GMT

Neither Germ Theory of Disease nor the Theory of Gravitation nor the modern theory of atomic chemistry has been used in this blog to support evolution. The entire purpose for bringing them up was to refute the claim that "Evolution is just a theory" or "a mere theory."

There is nothing "mere" about a theory.

Evolution is a fact and a theory. Check out:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

I quote from Laurence Moran, Professor of Molecular Evolution, who wrote the above article:
'Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."'

Creationists walk around with their blinders on, refusing to do any real homework on the subject, and then rant on about how there's not sufficient evidence. They can be given all kinds of information, but it doesn't help at all, if they won't read it carefully.

Evolution debate revived

BR, Lafayette, IN — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:24:50 GMT

Again with the arguing of semantics. Fish and men would be on seperate evolutionary chains that could at some point have had a common anscestor if you go back far enough I suppose, but there is not a fish that would be in the direct line of descent to men. Men are much closer to the likes of Dolphins and Whales which are mammals that live in water. Again, probably not in the same line of descent but possibly sharing a common anscestor if you go back for enough though not nearly as far as a fish. Though why I would need that to buy myself a cookie I have no clue. LOL

Evolution debate revived

BR, Lafayette, IN — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:38:56 GMT

Oh.. and as for my daugther telling me men from fish.. she was nine. She evidenlty was not real precise on the difference between a mammal and a fish and that was not the point.

Evolution debate revived

Canus Major, Santa Barbara, CA — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 21:05:31 GMT

What would be more accurate would be to say that mammals, reptiles, dinosaurs, amphibians and birds can trace their ancestry back to the first fish to leave the water and venture onto land. IIRC, Ichthyostega is an excellent example of a transitional creature along this line. Modern fish and land creatures do indeed share common ancestry even further back in time.

And true, modern man is much more closely related to dolphins and whales than to fish... the split to the mammal line came well after the split from fish to terrestrial critters.

But it's really not arguing semantics... it's important that the right terminology be used so as to erase the charicature of evolution the creationists often paint, which often varies greatly from what is understood. What this actually boils down to is the emotional aspect. Think of these two arguments:

1. They say we came from monkeys! My grandfather was no monkey!

2. They say we and monkeys share a distant common ancestor which split off into different groups and evolved along different paths leading to what we see as modern monkey and modern humans today!

It's fairly obvious which argument tugs at the emotion and will draw a much stronger negative response from a target audience if the intent is to get the target audience to agree with your perspective.

Sadly, this tactic is what creationism relies upon for it's strength. Someone can stand in a church and rattle off dozens of "arguments" that superficially appear to make sense, but in fact are twisted half truths and distortions of reality. The whole "entropy" argument is like that. Someone screams "order disorder" and people will tend to accept it not realizing that they've created a fallacious argument that realistically requires a college course to understand properly.

Creationists, basically, prey upon a lack of education. This does indeed explain the attempts to limit science taught to our children. The less we know, the more we'll accept only on faith.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, VT — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 21:05:42 GMT

Joseph in Georgia complains "that many defenders of evolution theory in these comments use very generalized statements to assert the certainty of their position, such as statements to the effect of these: evolution has been demonstrated repeatedly by overwhelming evidences, or the fossil record has certainly affirmed evolution, or all the truly scientific world affirms evolution, etc."

Let me be a bit more specific. The National Academy of Sciences states:

"Evolution pervades all biological phenomena. To ignore that it occurred or to classify it as a form of dogma is to deprive the student of the most fundamental organizational concept in the biological sciences. No other biological concept has been more extensively tested and more thoroughly corroborated than the evolutionary history of organisms."

A collection of statements about the teaching of science and evolution by many prominent edcuational organizations can be found at this site:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/
3120_statements_from_educational_or_1_30_2001.asp#iowapub

to quote just one, the Iowa Department of Public Instruction:

"The theory of evolution meets the criteria of a scientific theory. It can explain much of the past and help predict many future scientific phenomena. Basically, the theory states that modern biologic organisms descended, with modification, from pre-existing forms, which in turn had ancestors. Those organisms best adapted, through anatomical and physiological modification to their environment, left more offspring than did non-adapted organisms. The increased diversity of organisms enhanced their ability to survive in various environments and enabled them to leave more progeny.

The theory of evolution is designed to answer the "how" questions of science and biological development; it cannot deal effectively with the "who" or "why" of man's origin and development. It is, however, an effective means of integrating and clarifying many otherwise isolated scientific facts, principles and concepts.

There have been alternatives proposed to the theory of evolution (i.e., creationism, exo-biology, spontaneous generation); however, none are supported by the amount of scientific evidence that presently supports the theory of evolution.

It is evident that the process of evolution occurs. Successful species of living organisms change with time when exposed to environmental pressures. Such changes in species have been documented in the past, and it can be confidently predicted that they will continue to change in the future. Evolution helps explain many other scientific phenomena: variations in disease, drug resistance in microbes, anatomical anomalies which appear in surgery, and successful methods for breeding better crops and farm animals. Modern biological science and its applications on the farm, in medicine, and elsewhere are not completely understandable without many of the basic concepts of evolution.

There are many things that evolution is not. It is not dogma. Although there is intense dispute among scientists concerning the details of evolution, most scientists accept its validity on the ground of its strong supporting evidence."

Evolution debate revived

Eric, VT — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 21:44:10 GMT

[...] Creationism is a religious belief, it is not science in any way shape or form. Alas, 50% or more of the American public has been hoodwinked into believing that it is.

“Why not teach both?” Give equal time and let the students decide, right? Again, this is the principle strategy of Creationists –“to teach the controversy.”

An interesting thing happened last year when a local school board tried to force their HS science faculty to teach both sides of the issue. They refused. The York Daily Record reported on January 7, 2005:

“Eight science teachers at Dover Senior High School have refused to implement the "intelligent design" and "gaps/problems" policy mandated by the Dover Area School Board. On January 6, 2005, the teachers sent a letter to the district superintendent, Dr. Richard Nilsen, indicating their refusal to read a verbal disclaimer, which over four paragraphs states that evolution is a "Theory...not a fact," that "Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence," and that "intelligent design" is a valid scientific alternative. The disclaimer refers students to the supplementary intelligent design textbook Of Pandas and People). The administration is allowing students to "opt-out" of the lesson, therefore the science teachers stated that they also wished to "opt-out."

The teacher request is based entirely on professional grounds as laid out in Pennsylvania's Code of Professional Practice and Conduct for Educators. The teachers state that "intelligent design" and Of Pandas and People are not good science and conclude that teaching intelligent design would violate their professional standards.”

Hurray for that group of teachers and their courage to stand up for their convictions. [...] Nowhere in evolutionary theory does it say that precursor species must disappear as new ones evolve – another misconception spread by Creationists. It’s not a matter of everyone being “scared of teaching another theory.” Rather, it’s a matter of standing up for truth, as it is perceived by the scientific method of inquiry.

Evolution debate revived

Alan Boyle — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 00:36:04 GMT

Many thanks for your continued debate. This has certainly set a record for Cosmic Log comment. I'd like to remind you to avoid attacking specific comments of others. You can certainly refer in general terms to others' comments, such as "evolution's defenders typically claim ... a typical creationist tactic is to..." but try to refrain from naming names or running down specific people who have posted comments on the other side of the debate.

Evolution debate revived

Alan Boyle — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 01:50:35 GMT

Passed along without comment from Mike Angove:

This article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14232398/) is a great example of the fallacy of extrapolating the very real process of gene mutation to "explain everything" as neo-Darwinian philosophy would hold. In 530 million years a single gene has split into two, and arguably helps a mouse better control its face. I think. wasn't clear to me that the current version provided much advantage at all...not that that was even the point. Problem is that grand Darwinian philosophy dictates that although "Most mutations are harmful and disappear", they somehow add up to the incredibly diverse array of life we observe because "every once in a while one proves beneficial to the organism and is passed on to future generations". Again...530 million years to separate one gene into two. NO new function. NO new body plan. Where does the *hard* work of creating eyes, lungs, intelligence, etc., come from? And contrary to the popular view that you seem to support that says there is all kinds of evidence of this hard work in the fossil record...there is NO evidence that I am aware of--particularly experimental, despite the untold millions of bacteria generations that have been observed in labs--of random mutations somehow "adding up" to truly new functions, body plans, etc. The new plans "appear" (in the fossil record)...and since materialists stipulate that the only mechanism possibly responsible is a slow accumulation of mutations...a "story" is concocted that explains the transition (however implausible) and is deemed "evidence" of the macro neo-Darwinian process. Please tell me that you at least acknowledge the circular logic here! And no need to adopt a non-materialist, or even--heaven forbid--Christian world view here. Strong naturalism may well hold a solid explanation for the how real complexity in life has emerged. But wouldn't you agree that the story so far is seriously inadequate? And don't say "science doesn't know yet". It "knows". It's RM+NS. Period. No more questions. Case closed. No "actual" evidence needed (laboratory algae "evolving" into Douglas Fir would shut me up forever). It is up to thoughtful popular science columnists like you to keep the case "open"...so I do thank you for that. Best regards...

Mike Angove
Falls Church, VA

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 01:59:29 GMT

http://evonet.sdsc.edu/
evoscisociety/accomplim_of_eb.htm

Humans are mammals.
All mammals are related.
Mammals originated from mammal-like reptiles:
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/
subjects/mammals/Evolution.shtml

Reptiles evolved from amphibians:
http://www.biopark.org/histrep.html

Amphibians from fishes:
http://www.uky.edu/KGS/
education/Devonian.htm

We cannot say for certain that any two species in the fossil record share a direct lineage. We can speculate, but I can't imagine a circumstance (barring other evidence) in which we can make such a determination. When we talk about a transitional species, or what is called a "missing link", we're not saying that B comes "between" A and C. We're saying that B exhibits qualities of A and of C.

I don't think we can point to any particular fish and say, "We came from that fish" or "that fish was in our lineage." I think, instead, what we can say is that "currently, we believe that this particular (fossil) fish was probably close to our lineage; it was at least a cousin to something that was in our lineage.

Our lack of certainty here is not an indication of any reasonable doubt that evolution occurred - only on the particular path it took.

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 02:34:28 GMT

Okay, I looked at the article on the mouse experiment:

1) The scientists did not say it took 530 My to evolve that gene. Nor did it say that it took so long for the two successor genes to develop.

2) There's nothing in the theory of evolution that says that some mutations can't take 10's years and others 100's of millions.

3) The purpose of the experiment wasn't to "prove evolution." Rather, the experimentors assumes evolution (a very reasonable assumption) and attempts to figure out the details - on a genetic level - of how that might have occurred.

4) What creationists demand of evolution is not what science requires of it. Physics doesn't demand that humans be able to produce temperatures as hot as the sun. Regardless of whether we could produce it, the underlying physics would still be taught as fact.

What any individual creationist requires to convince him is simply not a requirement of science.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, Ky — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 07:28:10 GMT

How odd it must seem to a child that we alone, of all the life forms on the planet, have called a de facto moratorium on our own natural speciation, choosing rather to artificially circumvent isolation and adaptation to locally sustainable ecologies, force-placing artificial environments into their stead. To reject natural evolution & selection of even our immune systems and genetic structures, and those of the plants and animals we in turn consume and utilize. Obviously nature would have bred a goat with a spider, or a fish with a strawberry sooner or later,,,

To a casual observer, it would likely seem that the main goal of our interest in Evolution is its eventual break-down and destruction at our hands.

The idea that we can actively re-formulate a world better suited to us than the one that spawned us, is this the desired out-come? Sure, Science can be a way of understanding, but applied science can, and does, also provide us the means for making things happen that otherwise would not. Science alone cannot give us the right or wrong of that. However, when you teach a theory as an absolute, or rather to an audience that accepts it as an [revealed] absolute, such questions of propriety inevitably arise. After all, the central goal of our education system is not simply to fill minds with knowledge, but to form minds that can use that knowledge for their own benefit, that of society at large, and the world we live in.

And, btw, I recall reading that Behaviorism, Phrenetics, Eugenics, and a long list of other since-debunked quackery were based on ‘Science”, not religion. Not to mention every single grand utopian experiment that rooted out religious world views, such as those of; Pol Pot, Stalin, Castro, Hitler and Mao. My, what glowing successes those were.

I guess we are to assume that today's 'Science-based' ideologies alone have the right of it all now, and just forsake all else, like revealed knowledge from another plane. Like Neitszche's cow's. Science can't even tell us with certainty if its going to rain a week from Tuesday, much less whether hands-on Evolution will be a success, or a dismal failure.

As much as people like to believe it, our Science doesnt exist in a vacuum.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 07:32:43 GMT

As the saying goes;

'Some things must be seen to be believed, while other things must be believed to be seen.'

I dont remember the author's name at the moment.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 08:40:18 GMT

RM+NS, Random Mutation + Natural Selection. The Chicken and Egg dilema remains.

When and how did Nature Select the first lifeless 'substance' to Randomly Mutate into a living organism? Or, has RM+NS broken new ground into de jure geochemistry recently?

Of course a virus is not 'alive', in a classic sense. Knowing that doesnt tell you whether, much less explain how, something that isnt alive can 'evolve' genetic information. Or, if/how a living organism with a genetic structure somehow devolved into a non-living thing at some point.

Evolution debate revived

John Q. Public, Any City, USA — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 12:36:42 GMT

I've read many opinions on which is correct, ID, or Evolution. As with many of the posters in this debate, I've an opinion. (And that is what these all are, why? because they both concern THEORIES)

First and foremost, Evolution, contrary to popular belief by many, is or has in fact been investigated, and proof does exist in my opinion that support the theory. The only thing lacking to make it a proof instead of a theory is time. The human race obviously developed over time, looking back to the times of moses or abraham, or even Adam prove this theory. If evolution is not true, then how do we explain the differences in human heights, weights, and brain size in just a 5000 year period of time?
Quite simply put, the bible helps to prove evolution, it gives relative sizes of humans, it explains many things that happened, and at this point are well accepted facts based on scientific observation. For instance, the great flood that propelled Noah to fame, while its not the world wide flood as the bible tells it, there was indeed a flood in the mideast basin, and this could account for what was written in the bible. Embellished later by the creative writings of the bibles authors. Above, in the comments, are those of a 15 year old, that quite obviously has gotten it right, the bible was not written by God, but was inspired by him. (or rather, the belief he exists) You can square evolution with biblical reference, ID is a cop out, thats a given. Based on more theories, and whimsical evidence. ID is subjective, and for it to be even considered, the "scientist" considering it has to have one thing before the "theory" goes anywhere, and that is the total belief in God. While I do believe in God myself, I choose, what seems to me, the more believable path, that God created the universe, and then stood back to see what would happen. Its only Man's arrogance that believes that God would give a nit about what happens on our lonely, small, and insignificant planet.

Evolution is correct, it has been proven time and again, that when species need to adapt to changing environments to survive, they either do..or they don't. Using the ID theory, this wouldn't happen this way, Animals would not evolve at all to fit the environment, because if God created the "perfect" world, that was so complex, then there would be no need for changing the environment, and thus no need for evolution. This is not the case, obviously. We see virus's that adapt to the anti-biotics that we make to stop them, and they do it very quickly, sometimes within hours. If this is not proof of evolution, I don't konw what is. Does ID take into account that type of change in life? I don't think so Tim. Its silly to think that ID is the end all of anything. Its thoery is woefully ill-thought out. In other words, its creationism wrapped up in a new dress. It doesn't work, and anyone with just a touch of creativity (sorry, bad pun, I know) and a little logical thought, can see that.

Also, Carbon dating being debated to support ID theorists, yikes! Lets just change the facts to fit what we want. If we were to do that, then we might as well shelve science, because the accepted methods of deducement are no longer relevant.

It really is a shame that religion is once again rearing its ugly head to try and confuse, confound, and once again create trauma and discontent in our world, all for the sake of some "Humans" saying its so, just because they don't understand it.

I for one look forward to the time when religion is relagated to the past, and our species looks forward with one view (that of the free thinker, unencumbered by the vestiges of ancient religions, that were provided by man, for man, for the purpose of controlling the less learned. whats really scary, is that the less learned are now finding voice in our gov't, schools, and society itself. This is why we have wars, and other atrocities. Because man does not seem to want to evolve, he fights tooth and nail to NOT learn from history. Conservative is fine, NEO conservatism, is just plain insane.)

Evolution debate revived

Scott, TN — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 13:37:05 GMT

To quote Mr Angove in the post Mr Boyle made above

"laboratory algae "evolving" into Douglas Fir would shut me up forever"

I believe evolution whole heartedly, but even I can't see algae evolving into a douglas fir. Creationists throw up some silly ideas such as man evolving into a horse or a cat evolving into an elephant. Even evolutionists would agree that they couldn't see that it would happen. But, man evolving to have a larger body frame, larger feet to support that bigger frame, or skin that is more resistant to UV rays because we're destroying the ozone layer, that is more reasonable.

Does anyone know the history of hogs? Before hogs were domesticated, they were of a smaller frame, coarser hair, longer snouts, and had two sets of large tusks. When man started to domesticate the animal, over the course of time, they became larger, thinner hair, short snouts, and no tusks to become the hog that we see today. And it is possible for a hog to de-evolve quickly. Should a domestic hog be set free, over a course of a few years, their hair will become thick, snout will be longer, and tusks will have formed, esentially, de-evolving back to their farrow hog cousin.

Evolution occurs, whether it be over the course of just a few years to thousands or even millions of years. And evolution does not have to produce a new species. It can simply change the current species to be better suited for it's environment.

Evolution debate revived

Juda, Columbus Ohio — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 15:13:31 GMT

I was flabbergasted once when a peer of mine, after learning about evolution, had to "check" with the Catholic priest if he could believe it or not. Thankfully, he was allowed to believe in it. The problem is, so many children out there don't want to disappoint their parents, so when they bring home actual science, science that wasn't around when their parents were in school, their parents don't like it. If mommy doesn't like it, I can't either.

I had the opportunity to grow up with a creationist mother and a Catholic father who "believes" in evolution. Neither "theory" was pushed on me until I started to ask about how things happened. Evolution seemed silly to me then- how did a giraffe get such a long neck? and why? But creationism seemed silly too. Why should I believe in Adam and Eve just because I was born in America? Who did Adam and Eve's sons marry? If they married their sisters, why is there a world-wide, culture-wide incest taboo? When Caan was banished, where did he go? Who were those other banished people, if they weren't there before?

But as I became more educated, evolution made more sense. Not just evolution, but the mechanisms by which it acts as well. Natural selection, sexual selection, bottlenecks, and genetic drift are all rational explanations, with evidence supporting them. Those who do not believe the evidence obviously do not know it.

As a professional anthropologist, I have had to make a decision. I am glad that my biology teacher would not discuss creationism with us in 9th grade. I am glad that I was able to research it myself, because I can see the evidence that they use is flawed. Intelligent Design is no more scientifically accurate than the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, which states that since Man is hairless, he must have evolved in water like the other hairless aquatic mammals. I have only to point to my boyfriend, with excessive body hair, to disprove this hypothesis. (But since we're on it, peer scientists did conduct research and found that the fat cells in underwater mammals are different from our own, among other things, disproving the hypothesis! THAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AT WORK!!!) Since there was no religious sentiment involved, that hypothesis backed down and we haven't heard much from those people since.

Homo sapiens are truly amazing, and my amazement at what we have accomplished in our short time on this earth grows every day. Our genetic code is 98% identical to that of a bonobo chimp, yet we are so drastically different. Our brain size has increased dramatically since we split with our common ancestor. We developed habitual bipedalism, with it's many advantages and disadvantages. (Because we were "created in God's perfect image" or whatever, we now suffer death from choking, problems with our spines and knees, and varicose veins, which our quadrupedal cousins to not). Evolution has no direction, and to think that we are the pentultimate life design is incredibly ignorant and misguided. Each species fits into its niche until that niche changes. When it does, species adapt and evolution takes place.

The difference between macro and micro evolution is insignificant, as the mechanisms are the same. Macroevolution is the result of long periods of microevolution.

As for the lack of "transitional" fossils, what about Archaeopteryx? What about Homo floresiensis? In my opinion, there is no such thing as a "transitional" form, since evolution cannot take place at the individual level. Evolution takes a long time (something that those who do not understand Geologic Time cannot begin to grasp), and each species is a transitional form until the end of time. There is no end result.

And as for the Theory of Abiogenesis, that is different from Evolution, Natrual Selection, and everthing else. Many people who believe in evolution reject abiogenesis.

What is most convincing to me is to look at the evolution of culture. We were no different from any other primate until we developed culture. Homo neandertalensis burried his dead, often with flowers and other earthly treasures, and this is the first time that this happens in the Earth's history. Then we get Polytheistic cultures. Their Gods served the purpose of explaining the natural world around them. Only later do we get Monotheism. I can see the steps we took to come to our monotheistic conclusion, and that is why I believe it is a man-made conclusion.

The probem that most people have with Natural Selection, and the issue that most troubled Darwin, is that the driving force of life is death. If an organism is poorly adapted to its environment, it will die before it procreates and its genes will never be passed on.

I value the Christian creation myth just as much as I value the Buddhist creation myth and the Egyptian creation myth. Creation myths provide answers to those who lack the ability to find them scientifically. For years they were comfort and thought of as true. But, as their societies evolved, they realized that the Earth is not resting on a Turtle's back. To believe so would be ignorant.

Too many Christians equate Evolutionism with Atheism, and it is not. On a related note, you don't have to believe in God to be a good person. The messages in the Bible are important, but so are the messages in Slaughterhouse Five.

Evolution debate revived

Alan Boyle — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 16:18:52 GMT

Here's a relevant press release that was issued today:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

From: American Association for the Advancement of Science

AAAS Book Explores Evolution
and Christianity's Response

-- Scientists and Theologians Provided Input --

In an unusual undertaking for a science society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science has produced a new book that discusses evolution and the rich diversity of Christian responses to the theory along with the quest for common ground on what has become a contentious issue in many school districts across the nation.

The book, The Evolution Dialogues, was written with the input of both scientists and theologians. Meant specifically for use in Christian adult education programs, it offers a concise description of the natural world, as explained by evolution, and the Christian response, both in Charles Darwin's time and in contemporary America. It has a glossary of terms from both science and religion, with "bacteria" and "Biblical infallibility" defined on the same page.

As an introduction to each chapter, the book features a narrative about the personal dilemma of a fictional college student, Angela Rawlett, as she struggles to reconcile her traditionalist Christian upbringing with her keen interest in biology.

Her story is rooted in reality, according to Connie Bertka, director of the AAAS's Dialogue on Science, Ethics and Religion program, which produced the book. Students from traditional Christian backgrounds sometimes approach biology professors with concerns that the study of evolution will conflict with their religious beliefs. "Biology 101 teachers can cite cases like this," Bertka said.

At a time when several leading scientists have written personal accounts of their own faith in both God and the scientific method, the new AAAS book offers a thoughtful look at science and Christianity. It mentions their shared values, including a commitment to truthfulness.

While concerns about evolution are not limited to Christian denominations or to the United States, the debate has been the most intense within segments of the American Christian community.

Bertka said the book grew out of discussions at AAAS starting in 2000 as the Intelligent Design movement began to make some headway. The movement, championed by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, maintains there is empirical evidence in nature for the existence of an intelligent agent beyond nature.

Scientists and some representatives of mainline religious denominations were concerned that Intelligent Design would be sold as an integration of science and religion, enticing even some members of mainstream religious communities to question evolution. Previously, school curriculum battles over evolution had been driven largely by young-Earth creationists whose literal interpretation of the Bible holds that our world is no more than 10,000 years old.

At the time, mainline denominations such as the Lutheran World Federation, the Episcopal Church USA, and the United Methodist Church had been somewhat disengaged from the earlier battles over creationism and evolution. But the debate over Intelligent Design raised the stakes, posing threats to the quality of instruction in public school science classrooms and to the constitutional division between church and state.

After consultations with representatives of scientific and Christian religious communities, AAAS decided to produce a book that could be used by religious educators and others seeking a concise description of the science of evolution and a respectful discussion of the cultural and religious responses to it.

As the book's prologue notes, "there are deep misunderstandings about what biological evolution is, what science itself is, and what views people of faith, especially Christians, have applied to their interpretations of the science. With this volume, AAAS seeks to correct some of those misunderstandings."

In addition to its potential use in religious adult education programs, the new book also should have value in other educational settings such as history of science classes, seminaries and community libraries.

The book, written by Catherine Baker and edited by James B. Miller, tells why evolution is not a hypothetical idea but rather is the essential framework for modern biology. It discusses new observations that have led to revisions in the theory since the time of Charles Darwin, including new views on why the giraffe's neck is long. But it emphasizes the underlying principles of evolution that continue to stand the test of time: all species, living and extinct, are related to each other and the forms of life that populate the Earth have changed over time and continue to change.

An array of distinguished reviewers, contacted by AAAS, found the book to be a useful, balanced treatment of the issues. Randy Isaac, a physicist and executive director of the American Scientific Affiliation, said Baker "has done an excellent job in writing at a level such that a broad audience would benefit from the book. Her research is well done and I felt she went to great lengths to be fair in every detail. I think the book will contribute significantly to the ongoing discussions."
The American Scientific Affiliation describes itself is an organization of Christians in science who "share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science."

Jack Haught, a Georgetown University theologian, said the book "will prove to be very helpful to teachers and students of biology, especially where questions might arise about the scientific status of Darwin's theory and the religious implications of evolution." Haught said the book "exhibits not only prudence and judiciousness, but also an erudite understanding of the distinct modes of understanding characteristic of science and religion. A major benefit of this project is that it demonstrates how a religious understanding of the world need not be looked upon as an alternative to evolutionary science and vice-versa."

Rodger Bybee, executive director of the nonprofit Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, said the book "will be an excellent, positive contribution to a contemporary understanding of evolution and religion."

Copies of The Evolution Dialogues may be obtained from the AAAS Distribution Center, P.O. Box 521, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.

Telephone orders (VISA and MasterCard only) may be made at 800-222-7809 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The price is $9.95 ($7.95 for AAAS
members) plus postage and handling ($2 domestic, $4 international). For shipments to the District of Columbia, add 5.75 % sales tax; for California, add applicable sales tax; for Canada, add the GST. Ten or more copies: $5.00 each.

A study guide for the book is being prepared and will be available online at:

http://www.aaas.org/spp/doser.

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, va — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 18:12:24 GMT

Science has been so staggeringly successful that a lot of pseudoscientists have glommed onto it for support. Views aren't scientific just because some people claim they are. The perpetrators know that if they just put a guy on TV with a labcoast or use a lot of scientific jargon, the lay person will be convinced.

Maoism and NAZIism may have been godless, but it seems a stretch to say that these cults of personality were not themselves religions.

Also, you don't seem to distinguish bad science from refuted science. Behaviorism was and is legitimate science. It's not the whole picture and it was probably wrong about some things. But even if it were utterly refuted, that doesn't mean it was quackery. Intelligent Design *IS* quackery. Behaviorism at worst is just refuted. That's because real science can be refuted when it's wrong.

I've heard it said that one measure of a society is the number of complicated things that one can do without thinking about them. A bank transaction, for example, is remarkably complicated, but the complexities are typically transparent to users. But to make decisions about what is science and what is not science, one has to do a fair amount of studying, if one wants to do a good job of it.

Unfortunately, most people want to express their very firm convictions, before they have done the leg work to determine what the facts are. That's the problem that evolutionists have - trying to get people who have already made up their minds to at least have a look at the facts. But they spend so much time objecting to phantoms that they never get to the meat of it.

Evolution debate revived

Joseph Saba, Newnan Georgia — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 18:26:46 GMT

Beneficial gene mutations acted upon by natural selection are the key methods used to explain how evolution occurs. But when you examine these ideas for validity, natural selection does appear to be occurring in the real world, but beneficial gene mutations are hard or impossible to come by. (See "What Evolution IS" chapter 5, by Ernst Mayr.)

There seem to be only a few examples of concrete evidences used repeatedly by those favoring evolution. I'm referring to examples such as the development of a resistant strain of bacteria to antibiotics, or the artificial breeding of desired traits in animals or plants, or the human gene mutation that resists malaria infection, or perhaps the reptile to bird fossil Archaeopteryx. (Some call this fossil a missing link, some say it is only an extinct species.) These examples do not make a strong case for the type of organism structure changes demanded in order for evolution of new species to occur.

Much of the rest of the case for evolution comes as educated conjecture to explain observations found in the biology of life, or in the fossils, or genetics, including things like the great diversity in life forms, the common structures in various life forms, and so on.

Ernst Mayr, a biologist and famous spokesman for evolution in the twentieth century, has recently (2001) published a book called "What Evolution IS" to explain and promote evolutionary ideas. A few interesting selections from this work follow for consideration:

"Evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same arguments and methods by which purely physical or functional phenomena can be documented. Evolution as a whole,and the explanation of particular evolutionary events, must be inferred from observation." (Mayr-chapter 2)

So according to Mayr evolution is in a separate category from other testable sciences. And its ideas must be inferred, so what makes either of two inferred explanations that both adequately account for the observations better than the other?

"Indeed the fossil record is one of discontinuities, seemingly documenting jumps(saltations) from one type of organism to a different type. This raises a puzzling question : Why does the fossil record fail to reflect the gradual change one would expect from evolution?" (Mayr-chapter 2)

Mayr goes on to say that Darwin's observation of great similarities in various organisms led to what we now call the "theory of common descent". I would comment that perhaps we should see this as confirmation of a common designer.

Mayr says that certain characteristics in two species (say an organ) are said to be "homologous if they were derived by evolution from an equivalent characteristic in the nearest common ancestor of the two species" But a few sentences later he goes on to point out this: "Homology cannot be proven; it is always inferred." The author seems to be clearly saying that tenets of evolution cannot be proven in the sense we prove or demonstrate other scientific theories in say chemistry or physics.

"Life as it now exists on Earth, including the simplest bacteria, was obviously derived from a single origin. This is indicated by the genetic code, which is the same for all organisms..." (Mayr, chapter 3) So, again, does this point to a common designer? Why wouldn't life originate more than once if we say it came about by fortunate circumstances over a long time period?

Does the case for evolution really deserve the credit given to it by so many today? Observations such as those quoted above should be cause for quite a bit of hesitation to adopt these ideas.

Perhaps we should not be so quick to parade about in Emperor Darwin's New Clothes (evolutionary theory), or, as that old fairy tale points out, we might discover someday that we are going around naked.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 20:48:43 GMT

Well, in the 'beginning' there was a singularity, and out of that singularity came everything, but it was without form, and in darkness, then the first light appeared, and an order was set in the celestial plane in which the Earth came to be. There, life began from the dust, and the plant and animal orders were established. Into this realm 'Man' first arose, also from the dust that made up the animals, but was psychologically different than them. he lived in a Land that was watered by springs, but where no rain fell. His ‘family’ divided into those who maintained the sustainable hunter-gatherer lifestyle, tending flocks and living in harmony with the Land, and those who developed the technology of agriculture, permanent settlements, and specialized social hierarchy, along with the requisite and mind-set and implements of warfare to defend and expand it. He prospered for some time, until the Land was finally broken up, and the rains began and caused a great catastrophe from which only a few of his direct kindred survived. They spread out to the ends of the Earth, carrying their beliefs and understandings with them, to develop their own cultures.

Amazing that people many thousands of years ago, 'simple sheep herders', were able to piece all of that together. Amazing to what extent the latest research and evidence supports it. The Big Bang theory, the models that show the early Universe was basically dark plasma of sorts where photons did not exist for some time afterwards. That the same laws of physics that took over and allowed for the first light to appear, also caused the chaotic ‘plasma’ to coalesce into the fundamental building blocks of stars, planets and galaxies.

Ostensibly, it was the development of higher order cognition and abstract thought that marked Man's 'Creation' with the Breath of Life. That such a being was selected from among the best candidates of the 'Dust' walking around at the time is not an earth-shattering revelation. Not to mention that some ancient traditions hold the 'Adam' was a race of men (perhaps the self-same ‘Men of Gold’ in another tradition) and another that tells the tale of God removing Adam's tail ",,, to honor him,,,". The fact that we have no exact date for when man first began to make art, music or adopt a permanent agricultural lifestyle is a more or less neutral factor. The speculative dates for these events keep getting pushed back thousands of years at a time on a fairly regular basis.

We now have evidence that there was no rain on the super-continents. We have scientific suggestion that not only can our life-spans be doubled, or tripled, but that there is no real reason to believe that a Human body can't be [re-] made to repair and renew itself indefinitely. We [now] only use a small percentage of the brains we have developed, and the full capabilities of only a fraction of that is understood. Scientists have recently observed that the Human body does indeed emit photons, and the ‘Aura’ of a person very likely can be used as a diagnostic resource. Genetic evidence supports the observation that all existing and recently existing populations can trace their lineage back maternally to only a handful of women. Every major civilization we know of has some shared traits that suggest a common, but much earlier origin. The most accurate artistic depictions of biblical 'angels' as described in Ezekiel (multiple faces, multiple arms/wings) can be found in the Hindu tradition; i.e. Vishnu, Shiva, Kali Ma, which also closely mirror the various powers ascribed to such creatures in the Judeo-Christian belief system.

Statistical probability suggests that we are not alone in the Universe, and that are we not likely to be the most technically or mentally advanced creatures loose in it. String Theory opens a wide range of possibilities for parallel existences and perhaps even active manipulation of time-space distances to travel between them. It is theoretically possible to traval at, and even beyond the speed of light if encapsulated in a strong enough magnetic field. It is not beyond the realm of legitimate speculation that we have not only been visited, but moreover that if we have been, purposeful manipulation of earthly life by a higher intelligence would not be unlikely. Its not like we are not now developing plans to terra-form other worlds and manipulate the development of life there for own purposes. Really, some of our ‘healthy skepticism’ borders on plain and simple hubris.

These are just a few brief examples and points to ponder.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, kentucky — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 20:54:46 GMT

Perhaps too many Atheists equate Evolution with Atheism as well.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, VT — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 00:46:57 GMT

In the most recent courtroom trial pitting evolution against creationism and its offshoot Intelligent Design, a life long Republican, appointed to be a judge at the Federal District level by President George W. Bush, listened patiently to the testimony of both sides for six long weeks. The proponents of ID had every opportunity to make their case and to expose the supposed weaknesses of evolution. Some of the court’s conclusions:

“. . . we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator. To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.”

“. . . we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true “scientific” alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science.”

To recap:
1) The court found that evolution represents good science
2) Intelligent Design is religion, not science
3) Science does not conflict with belief in God

It is true that some scientists, perhaps many, are atheists and avowed enemies of religion. But science, biology, and evolution, as methods of inquiry, are not antithetical to belief in God, as the Creationists claim.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 04:43:49 GMT

I do not disagree with you, for the most part, Fallible. Perhaps I should have been more specific in that the 'applied' science of behaviorism has indeed lead to a great deal of quackery. Without a doubt many of the examples I gave as in Maoism and Nazism could be characterized as more-or-less originally 'cults of personality'. After all, a cult is nothing but a religion with no political power.

However, a shared underpinning of all those, and the ones that will inevitably follow still, is the Humanist conclusion that Man is the ultimate. That leads directly to the assumption that there is or will be, an ultimate Man, or set of Men, an ubermensch(en). Obviously, all that is is the ever-present desire of hyper Type A's to rule over everyone else, whether by virtue of religious contrivance (examples abound of this as well) or some delusion of arbitrarily-defined natural superiority makes little difference. The master-slave relationship ends up being essentially the same, and the society collapses in on itself.

Perhaps that is simply the way of life. No doubt many of the greatest advances in Human history weren't very pleasant to watch at the time. To think that we as a species are now past all that, or even nearly so, is probably wishful thinking of the most cataclysm-enabling sort.

In view of that, having an ultimate model of power and virtue that no Human can eclipse makes a lot of sense to me, personally and socialy. It allows me to call BS on any of my ever-fallible Human kin when they transgress, no matter how much better than everyone else they claim to be. And, I can do so not only openly, but as a necessary function of my own thoughts and best interests, lest I become dumbfounded and spellbound by the luster of their artifice.

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:12:06 GMT

It's important to understand the purpose of that book, "What Evolution Is." The purpose of the book is not to prove evolution or to given exhaustive evidence for it. There is some evidence, but that's not the purpose. Nor is the purpose to refute creationism. Although there is some refutation of creationism, that's not the intent of the book.

The purpose of the book is to explain what evolution is and how it works. It fulfills that purpose better than any other book I've ever read.

A "common designer" could explain anything. This is an explanation that doesn't explain anything in particular, because it explains everything equally well. Why is X true? Because God made it that way. Why is X false? Because God made it that way. Saying "god did it" is a useless to science - worse than useless; it's counter-productive.

We don't know why life didn't arise more than once. Perhaps it did and the life present today nudged it out of existence. We don't know that though. We don't know what the probability of life's formation really is. We do know that the raw materials are found throughout the universe.

Yes, evolution is an historical process and as such it is inferred from evidences we find in the fossil record and in the genetic code. But *all* scientific theories are generalized inferences from observation.
BTW, Ernst Mayr died very recently. This is unfortunate, because I would love to have asked for a few of his own comments.
You left out the very next part of that quote:
"Evolution is a historical process ... Such inferences subsequently must be tested again and again against new observations, and the original inference is either falsified or or considerably strengthened. when confirmed by all of these tests."

That added part is a pretty important thing to leave off, imo.

Homology is inferred and not inferred. This is no different at all than the case of hydrogen atoms in physics, whose existence is inferred.

I think there are two widely different ways of reading a text. You can read the text and make a very strong attempt to understand what is being said and THEN come to conclusions; or you can read the text carelessly attempting to look for quotes out of context that superficially support what you already want to believe.

Evolution debate revived

Dennis, Richmond Virginia — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 18:57:31 GMT

As soon as the ID folks gain the upper hand in biology, they should turn their focus on Geology. Geologists claim events happened on Earth millions of years ago, when it is clearly stated in the Bible that the Earth was created less than 6,000 years ago.

After Geology, Astrophysics. Having a Universe be many billions of years old with countless billions of Galaxies is also very much against what the Bible says. The speed of light must be a myth. Nothing existed more than 6,000 years ago, so anyone that claims there are objects more than six thousand light years is just plain wrong, right?

Of course, the Bible also says that if two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

The ID folks might also want to take a closer look at the clothing industry.. After all, the Bible says that a woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.

Not to mention the part that tells us to not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.

Another area the ID floks might want to work on are marriage laws and the death penalty for fornication. Here's what I mean:

If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

That one clearly implies that once a woman is engaged to be married, she is considered a wife, and that if she fornicates, the pair of lovers must be killed. It's right there in the Bible... all of it. That and loads more.

Personally I think it should be a mandated requirement that all children should be made to actually READ the Bible. Cover to cover, at least twice, in their early to late teens. I think that would end all this pretty darned quick.

Evolution debate revived

Canus Major, Santa Barbara, CA — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 19:15:27 GMT

It's amazing how Ernst Mayr is being misquoted to give the false illusion that he's questioning evolution. The reality is, he, with Dr. Stephen J Gould, are building their case for Punctuated Equilibria.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/
library/mayr_punctuated.html

Unfortunately, this is a common creationist tactic... quote mining. Fortunately, minimal research demonstrates how blatantly they will lie to push their religious viewpoints on us all.

Evolution debate revived

Canus Major, Santa Barbara CA — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 19:25:37 GMT

A little gift for anyone wanting to see some examples of transitional fossils...

http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htm

Evolution debate revived

John Hargrove, Pearland, Texas — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 21:06:43 GMT

God tried to do it all Himself, but, being an Intelligent Being, got fed up, invented "evolution", and rested.

Evolution debate revived

Ed Kirk, Sherrill, NY — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:35:22 GMT

Just about every scientist in the world
accepts the Big Bang theory as the explanation
of how the universe came into existence.
This theory states the universe mysteriously
came about in an instant from nothing.
When something comes from nothing that is
creationism.
So no one can say that creationism is soley
a faith based belief. It is also part of
scientific belief.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, kentucky — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 04:44:18 GMT

Hmmm,
Sort of like inferring from studies that it is actually scientists who cause cancer in laboratory animals. Which would stem from the same basic observational process as an inferrence that it is actually people who kill people, not guns (or bullets rather). Sort of a catch-22 there perhaps.

I do like what Dennis points out, in relation to 'Biblical' law, though I'm not sure what the intended connection was. Today we believe (well, most people anyway) in the actual existence of the great figment of mass imagination called 'government'. We believe that 'creatures of law' such as corporations and trusts are 'persons'. We believe our paper currency has intrinsic value. We call actions that result in no victims 'crimes', but actions that result in thousands of victims 'business'. We accept that a CEO does more in one year (including vacations, delegation of responsibilities, and self-indulgence/promotion), than a worker toiling away for 60+ hours a week can do in 450 to 700 years. And, that a University football coach is worth more than a math proffessor. We believe an effigy of Christ in a jar of urine is not only 'art', but that it is also secular enough for it's display to recieve public funding. we believe burning 60,000 gallons of jet fuel to go see a whale makes one an environmentalist.

The ancients certainly believed in a lot of stuff we would call nonsense today, but really, we havent come that far.

Evolution debate revived

Dovid — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 11:55:03 GMT

Evolution is a perfectly valid THEORY,(i.e., makes some sense, has some evidence, but cannot be exactly duplicated to prove the THEORY,) once you have an existing world (biosphere). Animals with long necks could access more food in times of drought because they could reach bark higher on trees. Taller animals survived in greater quantities and mated, and a ultimately a horse became a giraffe. That is survival of the fittest. But we are skipping a step.

Suppose I grind up a rib steak; irradiate it to kill germs; seal it in a sterile flask with an atmospere of your choice; keep it at the temperature or cycle of temperatures of your choice; expose it to sunlight, infrared, ultra violet, gamma rays, etc. of your choice; How long do I have to wait before the first bacteria will grow in my flask.

The answer is: Science says it will never happen. The notion of abiogenesis (a non living thing giving out a living organism) was laid to rest in 1859 by Louis Pasteur. His many experiments clearly showed that airborne bacteria, mold, maggots laying eggs, etc, were ths source of living organisms in meat, milk, bread, etc. This is not a theory, because it has been duplicated and proven in the lab. It is accepted scientific fact.

We now have a problem. Science says that life can never grow in my flask, even though it contains all the building blocks of life: RNA; DNA; protein; lipoids; amino acids; etc; and in fact my roast beef was walking under its own power a week ago. Pray tell, (pun intended to piss off atheists) If 100 million billion gazillion years ago, after a mass of swirling gases condensed to form the earth, where did the first cell come from if non of the building blocks of life existed? There was no RNA; DNA; protein; lipoids; amino acids; etc; and science says abiogenesis and spontaneous generation do not happen. If you tell me that we have to believe it because we are here, than you have a religion that you call science. Real science does not require you to "Believe" in that which contradicts other proven scientific principles. God bless you.

Evolution debate revived

Canus Major, Santa Barbara, CA — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 15:19:19 GMT

"Just about every scientist in the world
accepts the Big Bang theory as the explanation
of how the universe came into existence.
This theory states the universe mysteriously
came about in an instant from nothing. "

Actually, "Big Bang" theory states nothing about the universe coming from "nothing". The latest thoughts, IIRC, actually have something to do with the intersecting of planes of other dimensions resulting in the singularity that formed our universe...

... but the details make my head spin

Regardless, it's not something from nothing, it's something from something we can't yet measure.

Evolution debate revived

a science teacher in TN — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:01:22 GMT

.."We believe an effigy of Christ in a jar of urine is not only 'art'..."

That used to bother me too, until I was told by professional artists and art instructors that the art community does not recognize it as art. The literary world does not recognize the National Enquirer magazine as "journalism" or rock and rap lyrics as "literature" but freedom of expression allows them to be communicated nevertheless. We can call anything by any name we want. The responsibility we all have is to check out any claim before believing it, and the first place to go is professional organizations. Ask the AMA before drinking vinegar to cure high blood pressure; just because someone says it works doesn't mean that it does. Ask the scientific community whether ID is science; their own system of peer review will determine whether claims are backed by evidence. Ask historians whether George Washington chopped down a cherry tree. Ask climate scientists whether our greenhouse gases are changing global temperatures. These professional groups are the best at assessing the evidence for or against any claim, but they can't prevent claims from being made. Of course, if you are determined to believe something in the face of expert opinion to the contrary, you can always fall back on conspiracy theories...

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Sat, 12 Aug 2006 03:08:45 GMT

Pasteur did not "lay abiogenesis to rest" except in the comic book version of science history. Science does not disprove abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is not evolution. ID advocates and other creationists have a tendency to put "information" onto the public consciousness and these morsels of disinformation grow into urban legends.

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Sat, 12 Aug 2006 04:02:58 GMT

The theory of evolution doesn't depend on anything that humanists believe or strive for. Evolution theory doesn't depend on atheists. Evolution theory is outstanding science that explains the vast majority of evidence.

Intelligent Design advocates and other creationists essentially spread urban legends - complete misrepresentations of what science is and how it works. They have plenty of religious arguments and political arguments, but every time they say anything on science, they misrepresent the work that's done.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Sat, 12 Aug 2006 07:51:27 GMT

Well, not to stray too far afield on that, but the 'jar of urine' was displayed in a publicly funded art exhibition, if memory serves, not a free speach exhibition. And, it was a major topic of discussion on another forum not long after the event, where many people defended it as 'art'. I guess the art community you speak of wasnt consulted as it should have been, beforehand. In any case, I apologize for the retaliatory 'we' generalizations, for the most part :)

Still, I made the point(s) in connection to a prior post on certain aspects of [Old testament] Law. (Not to say the Code of Hammurabi, or those of many other non-biblical cultures were any less distasteful than what the early Hebrews had going.) I doubt everyone around at that time considered those to be legitimate either.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Sat, 12 Aug 2006 08:21:44 GMT

Yes, I read an article on some recent models purporting to reach 'behind' (for lack of a better term) the Big Bang. Very interesting stuff there indeed. A cyclic phenomena like tracing a pendulum under the effects of chaos theory? Or, more like zooming in through a Mandelbrot set? Maybe something else entirely. They say with the current observations of an increasingly expanding Universe, everything out there will eventualy hit the speed of light and wink out of this existence. Perhaps an almost infinite number of 'Big Bangs' waiting to happen, each emerging whole cloth into a new Universe, on a different scale.

Evolution debate revived

Scott, TN — Sat, 12 Aug 2006 14:57:59 GMT

Mr. Dovid, please refer to my post above:

For those of you out there that ask where life came from to begin with, scientists seem to have found an explanation. Here's the link:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/
060808_st_life_molecules.html

For those who are too lazy to read it, it simply says that certain molecules that are vital for life to form have been discovered in some of the most inhospitable regions of interstellar space. It furthers their belief that meteors and comets picked up these molecules and crashed into earth, depositing them here. Conditions were right to sustain life, so life began. Now if you take into account the billions and billions of other planets out there in other galaxies and here within our own (hundreds have been discovered in our region in the past ten years, and the reason more have not been discovered is because Earth size planets do not emit a large enough signature on said star to override the signature of the larger planets in that system), odds are very high that some of those planets will harbor some form of life, whether it be micro-organisms, life similar to our own, or advanced life forms. All of that said, if comet and asteroid impacts deposited life giving molecules here on Earth, and we are what we are today, then evolution did have to play a key role did it not? This evidence seems pretty overwhelming to me.

That is were the first molecules to sustain life came from. Have a good day.

Evolution debate revived

a science teacher in TN — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 15:07:47 GMT

"I guess the art community you speak of wasnt consulted as it should have been, beforehand. In any case, I apologize for the retaliatory 'we' generalizations, for the most part :) "

No offence taken; I guess my point is that there is a lot of BS in the world, and everyone has an obligation to learn as much as they can before following any particular pied piper. I am not an artist, and have very little knowledge of art, and it was refreshing to find out that, contrary to what I believed, legitimate art has standards, too. But people can be fooled into supporting anything in the name of free speech, including those that control funding. Certainly people can be fooled into supporting pseudoscience-take the Disco Institute's budget for example. People buy snake oil cures and phoney diets all the time. In a way, we educators have a HUGE job: teaching kids to THINK for themselves so that they are not victimized by scams or made to believe things that simply are not true.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 16:37:29 GMT

The question is one of either purpose or happenstance? Whether we're talking about a cosmic inevitability or not, doesn't the fact that we are here provide the direct observation that the Universe has a consciousness, a sentience? Every time a life form endeavors to perpetuate its existance, we have direct evidence that the Universe exhibits self-determinism. Even as we try to prove or disprove our isolation, we are very much probing outwards, like a neuron, trying to find and communicate directly with our neighbors.

The mind-set that we are somehow casual observers, unconnected and objective to it all does seem overly prevalent, and fundamentally flawed.

We, and the Universe that spawned us and is us, can only be described in the most limited way, certainly not arbitrarily 'defined'. We can't even observe, much less state with authority, what it all is at this very moment, as what we see and comprehend beyond our little neighborhood are incomplete images of what things were thousands, millions and billions of light-years in the past.

The whole thing is still a work in progress. When everything we ever do or influence, regardless of intention, ripples through time and space to its ultimate conclusion, when the Universe itself reaches its final action, then something else can conclude 'It was this, not that.' What is most compelling is the idea that we have a potential capcity to influence what that final evolution will be.

Evolution debate revived

eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 16:54:27 GMT

Correction;

We have already influenced that final Evolution, and will continue to do so for as long as we and our descendents exist.

Evolution debate revived

Joseph Saba Newnan, Georgia — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 02:45:22 GMT

Uniformitarianism holds that the geologic strata of sedimentary rock bearing various fossils has been slowly deposited over millions of years at a more or less steady but slow rate, thus allowing geologists and others to examine the layers of rock for fossil evidence, supposing that very early life forms appear in the lowest layer and the most recent in upper layers.

There are numerous problems with this approach, not least of which is that we know that there is no such ongoing process in the floors of lakes and seas. So why do we suppose there ever could have been such a process? Dead life forms, plants or animals, quickly decay or are eaten, and no fossil record is being formed. The only known ways to leave fossil records are through sudden burial with volcanic ash or catastrophic flooding with rapid deposits of sediment.

Even Ernst Mayr, a whole-hearted advocate of evolution, recognized this in his book "What Evolution Is", stating in chapter 2 that dead animals "become fossilized only when, immediately after death,they are buried by sediment or volcanic ash."

But if uniform deposition of fossils over the ages is invalid, (and all indications including present evidence of fossilization do point in that direction), then why do we continue to use "evidence" from a geologic column as a major validation of evolutionary ideas?

Also in almost every instance what the fossil record does show is the sudden appearance of complex life forms, all essentially very distinct from each other, and many are the same organisms we have living in present times. The trilobite appears suddenly in what is deemed the oldest fossil bearing layers, and is far from a very simple organism of the type that would not be expected when life first appeared.

Another problem not explained by those using the geologic column idea is the lack of evidence of meteors in any rock layers other than surface rocks.

Perhaps catastrophic events best explain the deep layers of fossilized rock after all.

On another note, I posted an earlier comment where I quoted Ernst Mayr's book "What Evolution Is" and a couple of others complained I had falsely represented Mr. Mayr's positions. But the quotes do not mis-represent Mr. Mayr's meaning at all-- he is stating real problems or limitations to the evolutionist's position in the quotes, as is apparent if you read the book. Obviously, and I believe it goes without saying, that Mr. Mayr believes there is far more evidence in favor of evolution, as he also points out in his book.

The quotes were presented because the statements coming from a well-known evolutionist cannot be as easily dismissed. It perhaps should also be noted that a more effective method of disputing a position one disagrees with would be to present sound ideas for consideration by others. To attempt to discredit the messenger rather than the message might end up giving more credence to the position you disagree with.

Evolution debate revived

Daniel Rothenberg, Louisville, Kentucky — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 14:30:58 GMT

Why is it that Creationists never dare mention how the theory of Evolution has been applied to other fields of science? My favorite example is in Computer Science, where John R. Koza was able to simulate evolution and from there, an amazing new subset of computer science has opened up.

The results of simulating evolution on a computer are absolutely breathtaking. Take, for instance, the classic N-Queens problem (How can one arrange n number of queens on an nxn chess board such that none of the queens can attack each other?). I have personally written code for this situation, using both the old-school iterative approach, and a new approach based on Evolutionary Algorithms. I was amazed when the evolutionary approach solved the problem much more efficiently (big-O wise) and quicker than the iterative approach.

But this is just the beginning! I strongly recommend any skeptic of evolution to research Koza's work and what has sprung forth from it. Evolutionary Algorithms and Genetic Programming are the future of Computer Science. If Evolution were so fundamentally flawed, then why could the EXACT SAME PROCESS prove so amazingly suited towards solving problems in computer science?

Evolution debate revived

Eric Strickland — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:58:04 GMT

People of faith believe in ultimate causes and purposes. ‘Everything, good and bad, happens for a reason. There is a purpose for everything that exists.’

One of my favorite passages in the Bible appears to contradict this notion.
Ecclesiastes 9:
“2 All things come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous, and to the wicked; to the good and to the clean, and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not: as is the good, so is the sinner; and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath.
3 This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.

9 Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labor which thou takest under the sun.
10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.
11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
12 For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them.”

There may be a god who has an ultimate purpose for everything under the sun. But we cannot know what that is. The teleology of creation is merely faith-based speculation. I am deeply suspicious of anyone who says that God talks to him/her. And I am dubious of anyone who claims to know, or otherwise implies that they know, the mind of God and what God’s purpose for creating life in all its diversity is. The fact of our existence does not require a teleological explanation.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:37:55 GMT

One of my favorites; Jeremiah 33:3, which refutes that 'everything' the Faithful can or need to know is contained in scripture alone.

I do like your quote from Ecclesiastes. Like a good many of Paul's famous afterthoughts he sent while having to flee from city to city, it contains some remarkable insights into the human condition. Though not that much unlike many other Books.

Interesting in that particular observation is that it also contradicts the idea that 'God doesn't play dice,,,' as Einstein once put it. Too many people, on both sides of the debate, discount the chaotic element not only in their own philosophy, but in each other's as well. Life itsef IS a type of controlled chaos, for lack of a better description, it couldn't exist without it. Biblicly, God is always portrayed as a chaotic manifestation i.e. the Voice in the Garden, from the burning bush, a creature if Light, an energy, etc. Even the idea of the Trinity underscores this. Never a physical form. (forget the paintings on the Sistene Chapel look to Zeus for an explanation of that) The "Image" we are cast in could probably be best described in terms of a three-part internal split. Myriad variations of ;Good-Evil-Choice, Ignorance-Knowledge-Wisdom and Positive-Negative-Neutral. Not unconnected to the forces on which the Universe itself in predicated.

The story of the Fall from Innocence illustrates a situation where becoming subject to Nature itself was the consequence (or perceiving that subjection perhaps). On examination of the Commandments, in some more readily obvious than others, the underlying theme is conscious refusal to let one's self be governed by base instinct, by Nature. It can hardly be said that any Civilization could develop or be maintained if governed by such tenets. Thats certainly not to say that Civilizations havent been or won't again become parasitized, demoralized and destroyed from within by exactly that. It bears remembering that the dogma of Evil is; "Do what thou wilt", which in itself is a warning, and explains much of the resistance to the 'Do what makes you feel good' psycho-philosophy being mixed in with legitimate basic Education.

(All that aside, the very idea that social behavior is itself an evolved trait should give one pause before leaping back to the Law of the Jungle. Which is very much the impression being left by the vacuous teaching of Evolutionary mores, and how thats being applied by regular people in real-world situations, intentional or not.)

In several ways, the ancient teachings not only account for what we now call chaos theory. Though presented metaphorically more often than not, they present a quite sophisticated understanding of how it translates into real-world situations. In many ways, the fundamental aspects of the teachings show that actually 'God does play dice' Our ability to make choices based on abstract concepts is part-and-parcel of it.

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend LORTON, VA — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:38:48 GMT

Your quotes actually did misrepresent Mayr. You quoted him out of context. I gave one example and followed up with the statements immediately following.
Mayr is setting up hypothetical questions which he then addresses. You post just the question part.

The evidence of the fossil record doesn't depend on a continuum of fossils. It is enough to see that there is an ordering in the fossil record. We don't see, for example, any representations of humans or even hominids prior to the existence of or even concurrent with the existence of dinosaurs, as one of innumerable examples. There is an obvious ordering of the fossil record that was observed by many scientists before evolutionists. Creationists have no intelligible explanation for this other than "hydrographic sorting" which is so absurd an idea that it's difficult to believe anyone would say it with a straight face. Evolution explains the fossil record very well. Evolution says that there is a continuum of lifeforms - not a continuum of fossils. The evidence of evolution is not in the continuum of fossils, but in the ordering of the fossils that we do have - and the partial continuum that we observe in certain lines, such as human, bird, and horse.

Daniel, interesting that you bring up evolutionary programs. I wrote one to solve TSP using a 4 step algorithm written by David Fogel and published in IEEE Spectrum a few years ago. I was already an evolutionist, but I was frankly startled at how quickly the algorithm can converge on a solution. Of course, these algorithms do not prove evolution - but I think they do demonstrate the power of random mutations in accordance with the laws of physics which are then acted on with very mild selection pressure.

p.s. i was originally from louisville. if you program much, you might consider implementing the GP algorithm for a sample problem. It's very informative.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:44:45 GMT

One is left to wonder sometimes how much of [the non-science of] modern psychology's dismissal of thousands of years of human social observation expressed in religious texts, is based on a wrong-headed presumption based on Evolutionary Theory. philosophically 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater', so to speak.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 01:47:24 GMT

Well, while the debate over we 'evolved from monkeys' can go on ad nauseum with the information available.

One thing is certain though, we aren't descended from Touring Machines. Sure, you can plug in a bunch of predetermined computer code, then sit back and watch the show. It may even give you some valuable insight into things. Your characters and the process in which they exist, are still created ab initio. Even if you set up a million monkeys at a million computer terminals to develop the code, whatever you get is still going to be the product of a million monkeys. There is still a force of Will behind it.

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 11:48:27 GMT

I don't know if we are Turing machines. Superficially this is unrelated to the creation / evolution controversy, but in reality there is a deep connection. Both evolution and the prospect of strong AI cause to re-evaluate what we think we know about our place in the cosmos.

Much of the resistance is due to fallacies:
1) the assumption that these views (I. putative existence of strong AI, and II. evolution) can only be held by atheists, and
2) the attribution to atheists of beliefs they are not logically bound to hold. (The problem is compounded by the fact that some atheists actually DO hold these beliefs, having incorrectly surmised that they logical consequences of the atheist assumption.)

But neither I nor II are necessarily atheistic. In fact, there are plenty of religious types who accept I and belief in the possibility of II. (I deleted my refutation of point 2, because it was long-winded and digressed.)

If you're not familiar with Searle's chinese room argument, please check out the first few paragraphs of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

In any case, you're right. We aren't descended from Turing machines. I'm glad you put the 'evolved from monkeys' in quotes, because I don't know that any scientist claims that humans evolved from monkeys, per se.

Finally, I actually agree with you about throwing the baby out with the bath water, regarding modern psychology and religion. There are probably very few of us who would, but there's more than one of us. I don't think this is necessarily due to the acceptance of evolution - either right-headed or wrong-headed. I won't go into that in any depth, though, because it will take us far afield. I'll leave it at that - agreed, but I doubt acceptance of evolution is the culprit.

BTW, did you know that there is no Nobel prize for either computer science or mathematics? There are, however, awards that are considered equivalent. In math, the equivalent award is called the Fields Medal and in computer science it's the Turing Prize (named after the same Alan Turing who lent his name to the Turing Machine and the Turing Test). Of course, these prizes aren't as well known to the general public as the Nobel.

Evolution debate revived

Joseph Saba, Newnan Georgia — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:38:32 GMT

Thanks to a comment from yesterday I realized that some may have misunderstood or overlooked the implications of my Sunday comments on the fossil record. The gist was that since the only known ways to have fossils is by sudden burial from something like volcanic ash or heavy sediment from vast flooding, (otherwise they quickly decay or are eaten), then this should pose a major problem for thinking we have a geologic record that would provide any realistic basis for determining a sequence of development of life. If we only have fossils laid down during totally unpredictable and localized catastrophic events, how does one make a case for interpreting the geologic columns, or the ordering of life forms, as if the record has highly (or even not so highly) predictable patterns?

To try to assert that in our present time the case for evolution is totally unchallengeable, and that in itself shows that the geologic and fossil record is what evolutionists say, would be quite a bold assertion, as well as somewhat circular reasoning.

Some may say that many other observations and reasonings have confirmed the evolutionists' interpretation of the fossil record, so that makes it so. But that deliberately overlooks this conflicting evidence of how fossils have been formed.
If we go down that road, haven't we abandoned the rigors of science and been left with educated assumptions? If we go down that road, is it science or is it blind faith in what we have become convinced of?

Meanwhile, the question remains, in light of the above, how do we justify our present interpretation of the fossil record?

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, Va — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 19:22:03 GMT

I understood your point. We don't have all the fossils we would like. That doesn't mean that we can't make very clear and very strong inferences from the stuff that we DO have.

First, we DO have many transitionals. We have very clear lineage for birds, for example, and for horses.

Second, we have ways of dating these strata. It's true that young earth creationists dispute those dates, whereas I think that Intelligent Design Advocates accept an ancient age of the Earth, and often accept the evolutionist's interpretation of the fossil record. There are several independent dating techniques that are used for dating fossils that return comparable results. Creationists point to some specific cases of bad dates and these can be ascribed to several causes, none of them flattering to creationist habits of scholarship. They can calibrate different radiodating techniques by comparison with varves, e.g., which then be used to calibrate other, independent, radiodating techniques.

Third, we don't have to see the entire picture to see patterns.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/geo_timeline.html

3 bya single cell life exists and algae ... with no nucleus. There are no fossil fish at this age, no fossil crustacean, dinos, mammals, birds, etc. No multicell life.

1.6 bya single cell life with a nucleus. Again, no fossil crustaceans, dinos, mammals, etc.

1.5 multicell organisms, but no etc.

and so on. These are clear patterns and all of the creationist mischaracterizations won't change this.

Further, this "ordering" of the fossil record was recognized by creationists (back when there were still some creationists involved in the highest tiers of science).

Say we look at a movie of some simple process (a ball falling) in regular time. It looks smooth, but in reality it's a sequence of still frames. Say we remove some random number of frames in random order. When we try to interpret what's happening on the other end, we don't have every frame, but we have a very clear picture that a) the ball is moving an and b) it's going in one direction.

There isn't anything unrigorous about any of this. And fossil evidence is only one piece, although I consider that alone sufficient.

We justify our present interpretation of the fossil record because we don't need every frame of the movie to get a sense for how the ball is falling. We are making inferences just like they do in any other science. Moreover, evolution could EASILY be refuted if, for example, we found a human fossil in the same strata as dinos, or dinos in strata 1by old - or any of numerous other examples.

And fossils are only one piece of the puzzle - a sufficient piece in itself, imo, but not the only piece.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, VT — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:30:00 GMT

It seems that quite a few people confuse ‘Social Darwinism’ and other ill-advised extrapolations with evolutionary biology. Evolutionary theory should be restricted to biology, and not applied to the social sciences, except as a loose analogy. But many people seem to be blaming a theory that explains a tremendous amount of what can be observed in the world of nature for its misuse and abuse in the social world.

When we say that society or anything else outside the realm of nature is “evolving,” all we’re really saying is that it is changing and/or developing (presumably for the better). This use of the word evolve should not be understood as having the same meaning as it does in biology, where it refers to a specific process or set of processes that result in new species arising over time.

Unfortunately, things got muddled up when one of Darwin’s contemporaries, Herbert Spencer began applying the idea of evolution to societies. It was Spencer and not Darwin who coined the phrase “survival of the fittest.” Spencer was referring to human societies and not to organisms. He believed that the more advanced societies of Western Europe were destined to rule over the rest of the world, and that the less developed societies were destined to go extinct. From this line of thinking arose numerous ideologies which went a step further by saying that it was not only natural that the less fit societies should die out, it was the duty of the more fit ones to eliminate the weaker ones. Voila, a pseudo-intellectual justification for genocide. Social scientists moved beyond the ‘organic analogy’ and Social Darwinism in the second half of the 20th century. Tragically, some of the ideologies persist.

Social Darwinism is a misapplication and a corruption of evolutionary theory in biology. (Too bad it’s called Social Darwinism and not “Social Spencerism.”) There are no social mores in evolutionary biology. Biological theories have nothing to say about human ethics. It is not fair to blame biology if the twisted ideology of a master race misuses science in order to give itself credibility by wrapping itself in the aura of an intellectual underpinning.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 04:12:02 GMT

Yes Fallible, thank you, thats Turing, not 'Touring' as I had hastily typed it. You are wise to point out as well some notable demarcations between the usual groups in a debate such as this. Not all evolutionists are athiest, nor are athiest necessarily more unified in ideology than are creationists. These two banners are stereotypical and not limited to self-description alone. Many so-called modern 'fundamentalists' are much more aligned with the fire-and-brimstone antics of the 19th Century than anything remotely resembling fundamental pre-Nicean Christianity, but their mis-deeds have pretty much stuck to everyone else regardless. However, it is extremely difficult to carry on a discussion without resorting to the exoteric assignments. There are certainly many different, and even incompatible, schools of thought within both Capitalism and Communism as well, even as they are incompatible with one another.

I do cede reaching somewhat far afield as well, in some respects. Just as none but a tiny fraction of those who are learning the basics of Evolutionary Theory are going to end up in the highly-specialized fields of biology or otherwise apply any of that knowledge in their future endeavors, the debate itself must involve some of the layman's perspective, in my humble opinion.

For the vast majority, the Evolutionary Orthodoxy will ever remain as ethereal as the 'Revealed Knowledge' from other sources, and will be mixed in with the rest to form a layman's world-view, in a layman's life-long struggle to make sense of it all, and their place in it. That it has and will affect society-at-large is a given, regardless of whether or not anything in the Theory can be legitimately extrapolated as such. The social fabric is not indestructable, and it abhors a vacuum as much as Nature itself.

In a completly interconnected Universe, all distinctions are essentially arbitrary.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 04:16:45 GMT

As you would probably expect, I found this keenly interesting;

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/
08/14/science/20060815_SCILL_GRAPHIC.html

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 05:23:16 GMT

Absolutely 'Eric,VT', and Spencer's treatise(s) are a prime examples of how easily a narrowly defined theory as Evolution becomes transmutated into popular thought, with broad social reprocussions, which spiral outwards from there. (Not unlike how the enabling interpretation of; The Selfish Gene by Dawkins found its way into the corporate culture at Enron, et al.)

The 'mentality' that drives our public schools, and so many of our Institutions is positively infested with such ideological rubbish. The socio-pathetic utopian dogma of Huxley, Dewey, Wells, Toynbee and their Fellow Travelers reverberates in Acedemia today like the town herald shouting the arrival of the Stultifera Navis.

To my mind, this is a major factor in the [oftimes over-zealous] 'backlash' from those who hold religious world-views against Evolutionary Theory itself. A seige mentality forms very quickly, and threats are taken seriously. Whereas science seems to foster a more 'test-tube like' approach to problems and possibilities, to the point of detached indifference. Religion has always dealt more with holistic concerns, bringing the tangential and esoteric connections between things into a human perspective. They must of ideological necessity deal with the 'forseeable' consequences, social & personal, and choose their position. Does it always lead to the correct, or best, course of action? Obviously not always, but neither does an extrapolation from a scientific theory.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 06:51:48 GMT

Radio-carbon dating and other modern methods aside, relative dating thru layers, be that from rock, ice, tree rings or whatever, are many times predicated on known events, especially those of the large-scale cataclysmic variety. If you find a deposit layer of a particuar composition over a large area, and that layer is of known origin, a super-eruption or an asteroid/comet impact for instance, its safe to assume that everything under that layer predates the event, and everything above can be postdated. The rest is more-or-less algebraic deduction from juxtaposition to other event traces.

The biblical Great Flood can itself have many interpretations, in many cultures (Gilgamesh in one shining example), and perhaps the hard evidence of it has escaped some people because of their subjective search criteria. I personally do not see how the story directly accounts for the global geological fossil record at all. It would seem more likely we would be dealing with theories about how things that sank more often than not gradually gave way to things that floated more often than not. Thats not to say an extinction-level flood never occured, at some time within the distant memory of humanity. The time lines in the Genesis account, as well as the story itself generally, invoke a wide latitude for speculation, even from a 'literalist' perspective. Such as when Adam eats the fruit, and it was ordained that on that day he should die, yet God laments that he meant for a day to be as a thousand years. Were Adam's days even counted before the event? Were his 930 years all counted within that thousand year day? Or, was each day of the 930 actually a thousand years? Arbitrary calender assumpton of 365 X 1000 X 930 = 339,450,000 years. Carry that through the Generations to Noah, and you get an astronomical figure. (Though hardly more of a stretch than the 5000 some-odd yr old Earth theory) With some model-tweaking, that hypothesis could at least come close to squareing with the Cambrian Explosion of 500 million years ago. Admittedly we would probably have to scrap the white European Adam ideal altogether, though many have foregone that already. A different course of number crunching can probably put you in the ballpark with the hominid, or homo sapien, fossil record just as easily.

Anyway, I'm not so much postulating there as pointing some things out. Its not as easy, or as wise, to pigeon-hole God as some like to think. :)

Evolution debate revived

Frank Cavalli, Melbourne , Fl. — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 01:28:52 GMT

The Evolutionary Conspiracy

Dear reader of faith,

I hope you realize that we are at war with the media. The question is, are we fighting the right battle?
I believe the reason we are losing ground in the confusing fact verses faith debate is because our opponent is the craftiest of all enemies. Even though the media elite are in the minority, they have the unlimited resources of the power of communication to influence public opinion. We are being led to believe that we are defending ”intelligent design” and disproving evolution. If this is what we think the primary issue is, we have already lost.
For here is their real strategy.
Our adversaries know that a direct attack on the existence of God would be rejected by the world’s majority and in a futile effort would fail. So they become impostors as “defenders of the Constitution” and what is politically and socially correct. Gradually we agree to stop school prayer, take Christ out of Christmas, stop displaying the Ten Commandments, or use the name of God on money or any public edifice. But this is only the erosion of our religious freedoms, our national heritage and a deceitful distraction. This injurious enough!
What they are really trying to accomplish by disproving God as the Creator of all is to portray our God as less sovereign, less Almighty. If this can be done, our God is less of a God in the culture’s eyes and therefore not God. As a result, God becomes a character in a storybook, like some fairytale. Is this the legacy we wish to leave our children?
We must stop merely focusing on the evolution issue and positively affirm and communicate our Almighty God’s unlimited power to create from nothing, all that exists. If God is God, then the issue is settled.
Here is what we can do
Pray for those who would reject the Father’s love. 2) We must turn the tide by pronouncing that the motive to disprove creationism is, in fact, an attack on the existence of God and so put the evolutionists on defense. 3) By clearly understanding our enemy’s motive, we refocus from a “defeat evolution strategy” to the proclamation and communication of our faith in the absolute supremacy of God Almighty. 4) Plant the seed of a poetic vision of God’s love as early as possible in the hearts of our young children. Then, with unwavering faith, they will pursue that vision throughout their lives as great defenders of their faith, understanding their gracious status as children of a loving and all powerful Father. The message of this poetic vision is revealed in the story, “Before the Beginning Began”, of which I am the author.

Sincerely,

Frank Cavalli

www.FrankCavalli.com

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 03:34:34 GMT

Well Frank C., I won't question your sincerity in the least, and I am not at all unfamiliar or hostile to your expressed viewpoints, even though I disagree with some of them. Thats just one of the wonderful things about the [intended] American Experiment. Government power is not ever supposed to support or detract from any particular religious viewpoint, it may not [legitimately] step to either side of neutrality on the subject. The same secular tenets of free government that kept us from falling under any sectarian leash, Christian or otherwise, should also protect us from being yoked by any other system of belief, or non-belief.

Much is made of this being expressly formed as a 'Christian' Nation, and while many contemporary writings appear to support this, others contradict it. One reason for this is that the Framers could not, and wisely would not, agree on what Christianity was or was not. While we speak of taking christ 'out of Christmas' in the schools, in the early to mid years of our central government, Congress was in session on Christmas day, because the Christmas 'Holiday' wasnt even recognized, by a majority of American Christians. While you can find instances that the earliest Congress began its business with prayer, dig a little deeper and you will find that allowances were made for different factions to come into and leave the room, because they could not even abide to be in the presence of each other's 'Christian' incantations.

Our Constitution is founded on the Idea of a Nation of Republics full of Individual People, bound together only by the most basic aspects of their shared likenessess and needs, with not only recognition but explicit protection of their many differences. That included differences both subtle and utterly incompatible.

we can disagree, and we can live differently, we can even choose to ignore each other completely. What we can't do is use governement to impose beliefs upon or strip them from from one another whether by overt action, or cowardly stealth.

Those who advocate an American, or even worse a world-wide mono-culture, a de jure or de facto Orthodoxy of any ideological origin, are being completely disingenuous to the very principles of Liberty. And, they are all most assuredly trying to march us down dead-end roads.

Beating at the branches may give give us some temporary respite from slavery, may boost our morale in the never-ending struggle against tyranny in all its varied manifestations, but discerning the true nature of the evil and striking at its root is another proposition entirely.

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 05:20:54 GMT

Evolution is supported by and explains the vast preponderance of physical evidence. That is the reason educated people accept it as a fact, as a legitimate scientific theory. That is also why it it is celebrated as one of the greatest accomplishments of the human mind.

Evolution is science. Creationism is what people resort to when they are too intellectually lazy to examine the evidence carefully; that is, it is not science.

Religious fanatics were opposed to Galileo and tried to keep people ignorant. Religious fanatics were opposed to modern geography and tried to keep people ignorant (read about it in Daniel Boorstin's "The Discoverers"). Religious fanatics were opposed to modern medicine and tried to keep people ignorant (ibid). These aren't all the cases. Accept the consensus of nobel laureates and professional and scientific societies or accept the wilfully ignorant opinion of religious fanatics. That's the choice. If one does one's homework and is intellectually honest, one doesn't have that choice. Evolution is the only viable scientific conclusion to the informed.

Evolution debate revived

A, Columbus Ohio — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:29:54 GMT

I think this statement is rather eloquent:
188 WISCONSIN CLERGY

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible — the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark — convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rest. To reject this truth or to treat it as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God's loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

Text of letter signed by 188 pastors from Baptist, Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist and other churches sent to school officials in Grantsburg, Wisconsin criticizing a policy containing the expectation that students be able to explain "the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory."

These religious leaders are obviously reational human beings. Why can't their followers act similarly? Sadly, those who oppose biological Darwinism will serve as great examples of social Darwinism, as their beliefs will eventually turn us into a third-world country while the rational world makes advancements that we refuse to "believe in."

Evolution debate revived

Eric Strickland VT — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:49:11 GMT

"The 188 pastors from Baptist, Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist and other churches . . . are obviously reational human beings. Why can't their followers act similarly?"

The majority of members of these churches do by and large accept evolution. These are what are often called "mainline denominations." You won't find many Fundamentalists in these churches. The creationists can be found in Pentecostal, 'Full Gospel' and other 'non-denominational churches. Membership in the Fundamentalist churches has grown dramatically over the past forty years or so, while membership in the mainline denominations has shrunk steadily.

Please don't paint all Christians with the same broad brush.

Evolution debate revived

E.Courville Iowa, LA 70647 — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 18:05:03 GMT

It's truly amazing to hear one cite Galileo and insist that the religious dogma of evolution (which cannot be proven and must be BELIEVED by faith) be accepted because all of the "great minds" of the day are promoting it such as "peer reviewed" "science" magazines and "Nobel laureates". Is this not simply those who already agree with each other, agreeing with each other? Then they say "You see? We are so very smart." It was the intelligencia with all of the best schooling that Galileo had to contend with in his day.
Be careful that you do not become that which you despise! This is exactly what the establishment clause in the constitution was meant to protect us from, a belief system that is federally mandated and forced upon the populace.
How can one consider Galileo a hero for challenging the "facts" of his day, yet apprise these to be intellectually inept who do so today? Does not the word science mean knowledge? Can anything be truly KNOWN by interpreting the facts according to one's particular bias? If one can not repeat it, and did not witness it, can it be truly KNOWN? The answer is "only by faith."
One may choose to BELIEVE the evolutionist interpretation of the facts or some other interpretation but that only makes it science (known) to them who will receive it by faith. It is not empirical (demonstrable and repeatable) science.
Is it not hypocritical to be appalled at the thought of Creation being taught as science, yet smugly insist that everyone should BELIEVE in evolution? Teach only proven facts as science. Why violate the conscience and the constitution?
Offer interpretations of facts (both creation and evolution) as electives and let the free market decide which is best. It is true that evolutionists through research have contributed to advances in medicine and technology, but so have creationist. While their faith may or may not have contributed to their discoveries, it is the facts only that can be utilized.
Be honest about religion in the schools! Is it lawful to mandate the teaching of evolutionist's religious dogma in public schools?

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 18:42:44 GMT

That's quite a revisionist sense of history. Galileo offended churchmen. It's that simple. They're the ones who threatened to torture him. It was a gang of intellectuals who did it.

One doesn't have to actually see something for it be considered a fact. This is a misrepresentation of science typical of those who have a comic-book understanding of same. Nobody has ever seen a hydrogen atom, but we don't require teachers to convey to students that their existence is anything less than a fact.

Everyone should be taught to understand evolution. Universally when creationists offer arguments against evolution, they belie a gross misunderstanding of what the theory actually says.

Galileo wasn't just a rebel - he was a rebel who had already made great contributions to science - same with Einstein, same with Wegener, same with Planck. Challenging orthodoxy doesn't make one an automatic genious. Any idiot can do that. The problem is that none of them conveys any great understanding of the subject of evolution when they present their imaginary shortcomings of the theory.

Do we let the "free market" decide what version of geometry and physics we teach? Of course students will pick the path of intellectual laziness - for the same reason they'll pick video games over discovery channel.

Evolution debate revived

eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:05:36 GMT

Try as I might, I just can’t make the connection between acceptance, rejection or compromise on the teaching of Evolutionary Theory in biology, to a loss of American economic well-being. Neither can I identify Evolutionary Theory as a driving force, or even a major factor, in any country’s economy or the standard of living of its Citizens. For that matter, I can’t see it ever becoming that either.

When I look for the causes and effects of economic decline & social decay, I must note what has been correspondingly removed from the system(s), and what has been added, among many other factors.

Look to the political establishment, the symbiotic relationships between our two Party downward spiral, and their abject subservience to the moneyed Interests. Look to the wholesale abandonment of social mores and work ethics. Look to the fact that we have mortgaged the largest part of our prosperity and opportunity. Look to the fact that the life-enabling tenets of Common Law have been eclipsed by despotic Civil Law limitation. Look to the utterly nefarious doctrine of parens patria taking root in our educational and legal systems, and the subversion of long-standing cultural and family values with reckless implementation [modern] Humanist ideological gibberish.

When any utopian vision rests its viability on the exclusion of all else, on reaching a point where those who don’t subscribe willingly are forced to go along with no choice, in order for it to become practical, it is fundamentally flawed. It is doomed from inception. It is automatically incompatible with free society; with free markets; with free exchange of ideas; with free anything except that of its controllers to impose their [very human] will. Christian doctrine, contrary to the perception of many of its adherents and detractors, doesn’t espouse this. The choice to accept or reject it is fundamental; there is no express or implied mandate to force everyone to hop aboard, in fact there is a direct admission that in the end most won’t. Communism, Socialism, Corporatism, Fascism and yes even [modern] Humanism, simply cannot attain that high ground, they do not even allow for it to exist.

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:33:15 GMT

There is a great book called "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations" by David Landes. This book gives a very lucid, coherent, and compelling account of the relationship betwen technological innovation and economic success. While economic success is affected by geography, it is not solely determined by it.

We are experiencing a decline in science and engineering in the US (and in Britain, too, btw). There are new and burgeoning fields in the sciences - genomics and proteomics that show great promise. The rejection of evolution is much more than just a rejection of a theory:
1) it is an attempt to take science back to far worse times by redefinining it;
2) it is side-effect of a gross misunderstanding of what science is and how it works - this is reiterated nearly every time a creationist or evolution critics makes a comment relevant to science on this thread;
3) it is a victory of intellectual laziness over intellectual rigor.

If we are going to teach science, we ought to do it right. Creationism is not science. Evolution is not only science, it is a central fact of biology. Understanding how the world works is critical to our survival. The one thing that got pounded into our heads in engineering school was the importance of defining a problem correctly before attempting to solve it. In nearly every core class one learns some variation of "the problem solving method." With problems in the world today - deforestation, the death of species, etc., we need to understand reality to have any hope at all of a solution.

Evolution is not about humanism. People don't have to hop on board and believe evolution, but our students ought to at least understand what the theory says - not what their preachers, or religious philosophers, or Rush Limbaugh, or what any of those guys think it says - they need to learn what the theory ACTUALLY is and what it means. They don't have to believe - we can't force belief.

True story - when I was growing up, no one could touch me in the speed of basic math computations. I could multiply 3 by 2 digit numbers in my head. I can't do it any longer, because I've gotten lazy and started using a calculator some 25 years ago. But at one time, I was really very quick. Here's the thing - I didn't actually believe the rules of multiplication. I just didn't understand them. I could do it - I just didn't understand it. But I kept my mind open to possibilities and I eventually learned about fields and groups and gradually I began to get it. "Ah," I thought, "I think I get it." That was in college. Nowadays, I actually believe in arithmetic, but I can't do it any quicker than anyone else.

The point is that I didn't close my mind. What creationists want to do is to misinform people about evolution in an effort to keep them ignorant.

For my part, I think there are certain cases where kids should be able to opt out of evolution education in HS; that is, allow their idiot parents to keep them ignorant.

There are a lot of people who consider themselves practicing christians who would say that they DO have the right and the responsibility to impose their will on others.

The fact that we can force kids into school at all is a little repulsive to me. I think they should be allowed to stay ignorant, particularly if their idiot parents haven't taught them how to behave in school. We always need ditch diggers, burger flippers, and assorted office doorstops.

Interesting quote:
--
I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way. Theodosius Dobzhansky, in "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" (1973)
--

Evolution debate revived

E Strickland VT — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 02:28:41 GMT

Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution in 1968 (Epperson v. Arkansas), Creationists have been trying to get ‘equal time’ in the classroom. Post Epperson, they decided to try the tactic of claiming that creationism is a scientific theory. This is pure dishonesty. But they forged ahead. They had their next big day in court to test this proposition in 1982 (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education). The court ruled unequivocally that "creation science" is not in fact a science. The court also found that the statute did not have a secular purpose, noting that the statute used language peculiar to creationist literature in emphasizing origins of life as an aspect of the theory of evolution.

In 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional Louisiana's "Creationism Act" (Edwards v. Aguillard). This statute prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools, except when it was accompanied by instruction in "creation science". The Court found that, by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind, which is embraced by the term creation science, the act impermissibly endorses religion. In addition, the Court found that the provision of a comprehensive science education is undermined when it is forbidden to teach evolution except when creation science is also taught.

Undeterred, a group of creationists branched off to start the “Intelligent Design” movement. They had their day in court last year (Kitzmiller v. Dover). Intelligent design was exposed as a variant of creationism. The court ruled that it was not science and could not be taught in public schools.

All attempts to dress creationism up as science in order to get it into the classroom have failed when put under the close scrutiny of a court of law. So now we’ve got folks claiming that a valid, scientific theory is religion! Another dishonest tactic. Scientists have gone to extraordinary lengths to clearly define what they do and how they do it –the scientific method. The courts have understood this.

Science could only appear to be a religious practice to those who refuse to learn what it is and refuse to take an honest look at the evidence. Creationists’ blind faith in the literal truth of a few lines in an ancient text, do not permit them to accept the accumulated findings of thousands upon thousands of trained researchers who are continuously making new discoveries that confirm evolution. Their belief in the inerrancy of Holy Scripture gives them the comfort of something that they can hold onto, a certitude of black and white, with no shades of gray, and no nuanced ambiguities.

A link to summaries of additional court rulings against creationism can be found here:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/
articles/3747_8_major_court_
decisions_agains_2_15_2001.asp

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:51:32 GMT

I say again, there is nothing wrong with teaching Evolutionary Theory, I happen to hold that it is a biological certainty, though it does not reach the ultimate Origin of life, or exclude all possibility of intervention. I don't believe it is a be-all-end-all Theory of Life, nor do I believe that the actual Theory itself even claims to be.

Where I take exceptions are mostly on the issues I have addressed. The things that are and are not being taught in tangent to the Theory; its misuse to justify 'latest fad' social tinkering especially through the bully pulpit of the classroom, to denigrate and exclude the cultural and religious values of a functioning society.

I take as delusional nonsense statements to the effect that; economic development & well-being, personal talent & initiative, intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, the scientific method, ethics, shrewd business sense, the proper role of government and so on, all somehow hinge on the teaching of Evolutionary Theory, as if answers to all our modern problems can be found therein. Those are precisely the absurd quantum leaps-of-faith that cause us many, many more problems than they fix.

Yes we need ditch-diggers and burger flippers, we need, used-car-salesmen/politicians, straight Party-ticket state-worshiping voters, and full prisons. We need, and will always have the dregs of society. The prophets of 'do what makes you feel good' will see that we have a limitless supply of those, a great many of whom will completely accept Evolutionary Theory.

Want to give our kids a practical knowledge set that they all need a working knowledge of to understand and function in society, to take advantage of opportunity and protect themselves personally & economically, to use critical/rational thought and the recognize the importance of evidence? Then teach them the Law. There is the legitimate 'vehicle'.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:31:43 GMT

The Sciences provide many examples of its rigorous disciplines, of critical thinking in methodology and observation, of fundamental cause-and-effect, of dynamic interaction, of demonstrable results. These aspects are shown over and over in the fields of mathematics, chemistry, physics, astronomy, geology and biology, independent of Evolutionary Theory.

To suggest that the teaching of proper Science is somehow contingent on a fixation with drilling this one theory of biology into the brains of students year, after year, after year is utterly unsupportable. Certainly, it should be covered, like anything else, but not out of proportion.

The evidence in circumstance probably sheds the best light on some people's obsessive compulsion to make this one theory the benchmark for education in the sciences. They seek personal validation, acceptance of their chosen beliefs and disbeliefs, positive re-inforcement from society-at-large, and eventual re-structuring of society around their beliefs.

It is not out of sheer happenstance that out of all the scientific theorems and principles out there, just as strong and stronger than this one and that better provide the same lessons of discipline and review, they focus inordinately on this one that on its face appears to underpin their particular world-views and undermine the world-views of others. In doing so, they go way beyond the boundaries of the theory itself.

This appearance of contradiction with traditional beliefs on Origin, and the controversy it has caused is precisely why it has become a benchmark, a 'Grail', of our educational system. Without that, it would receive little more attention in te classrooms than the subnotes in K-12 textbooks about Relativity and Unification Theory.

Religious teachings have been exiled from the Public classrooms for quite some time. I don't think anyone here is ignorant to argue that some now-and-then controversy over children having seen the Ten Commandments somehow magically made them unable to learn basic science.

If you are looking to lay blame someone for the education system falling behind so many other Nations in the last 30-40 years or so; for turning out students who can't even read & write at a basic level; for having to place metal detectors and police officers on site, and write draconian obedience policies to deal with violent animal behavior, you are sooner-or-later going to have to rightly assign the blame to those who have had control. You can't even blame the parents, as by-and-large, they are today the by-products of the same failed system. To blame the religious for this bungle is not only patently absurd, its offensive. It is beyond mere intelluctual laziness, it is overtly unethical, and certainly isn't helping our children.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:12:02 GMT

"Of course students will pick the path of intellectual laziness - for the same reason they'll pick video games over discovery channel."-Fallible

Have you even seen the [primary] Discovery Channel lately? Monster Garage, Biker Build-off, Monster House, etc. We now refer to it as the "Discovery Troglodyte Channel", and other than when its producers exhibit a rare glimmer of lucidity by putting something actually intelligent and informative on between male enhancement commercials, we find something else to watch. Its not even a faint glimmer of what it once was, sadly, and TLC is no better.

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:46:06 GMT

No one says that the teaching of evolution is a panacea. It's that failing to teach evolution is a disservice to children, to ourselves, and to our society. Students require more than a comic-book understanding of science to participate in it fully or to make informed decisions. In my mind's eye, I clearly see that good education is a national security issue, perhaps the most important one of our day. If most other people think that's kooky, that's okay with me. Most of the people in prison are not atheists or evolutionists. Neither atheism nor evolution translates to hedonism any more than religion or christianity translate into paradise on Earth. From my angle, there's a lot of christians who appear to be pretty hedonistic. Certainly I know many who are far more materialistic than most of the atheists I know.

To teach well, we must be intellectually honest. Evolution is not just good science, it is great science. Creationism is not science. Intelligent Design is not science. I'm not sure that lawyers have significantly more regard for evidence than do scientists. Moreover, scientists have a legitimate requirement for understanding evidence.

Evolution doesn't say anything about religion. Evolution is science. Evolution should be taught in science classes - and it should be taught well. It should not be watered down, because some people want to keep children ignorant.

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:40:44 GMT

Failure of our education system is not the fault of evolutionists, if that is what you're getting at. There have been a lot of people in charge and there's a lot of blame to go around.

I put a huge blame on
1) politicians for being more concerned about votes and being too cowardly to tell people the truth - every single parent has some responsibility in her child's education,

2) religionists for distracting people from actual issues and consuming resources in trying to foist nonsense into the classroom,

3) parents a. for spending more time in reading self-indulgent pop sci self-help books than in paying attention to their kids, and b. for absolving themselves for any responsibility in their children's education,

4) teacher's unions whose members have worked diligently to remove objective standards from the classroom,

5) pseudointellectuals like MM O'Hair for distracting us from real issues,

6) a legal system that offers no significant punishment to lawyers and parents who harass and milk the school system.

What isn't going to improve the situation is making it harder for students to get the facts concerning evolution, by forcing teachers to present ID or creationism as actual science.

Religion has a long and venerable history of impeding the growth and spread of knowledge as I've said in my previous post. They have impeded evolution education for far too long. Already we have generations of people who don't know the first thing about it, but nevertheless are willing to testify that it can't possibly be true. Ironically these same ignoramouses are the ones who are trying to dumb down the state science standards.

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:46:12 GMT

I only watch it for Myth-busters, Beyond Tomorrow sometimes. But even the other stuff I think could be informative and promote "discovery." I don't know what Monster Garage is about.

Regardless, the argument stands: students will do what is easy rather than what's hard. Most people will.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 19:29:45 GMT

The theory of Evolution is good science, it has a place in responsible education, but it should have only that place which it deserves, and it nothing beyond that. Its not Gospel, or the benchmark by which the education system, or our economy, and definitely not our security can be judged. There is simply no rational justification for demanding that the Theory should be taught every year from 4th grade, or earlier, through graduation. I can't think of any other single element of a particular field of Science that gets such favorable and complete treatment, including actual proven Laws of Nature and Physics. And, as I shouldn't have needed to intimate earlier, there is absolutely nothing in the Scientific Method that is dependent on Evolutinary Theory as a teaching tool. The answer to whether it is useful or not as such, would by necessity put it in its place relative to the effectiveness of many other such tools. I agree the Theory should not be watered down, but it shouldn't be spiked and passed out as the proverbial Kool Aid either.

I would add a caveat to your observation; Free, unbiased, open-minded, honest basic Education, unfettered by central ideological and military/political/industrial control, is indeed vital to our security. Cross those lines, and you obliterate a fundamental precept of the very thing you espouse protecting. There is no freedom, prosperity or tolerance, intellectual or otherwise, to be found through the Ministries of Truth, Plenty, or Love. Worship of State is worship of the most obscenely false god of all, in every possible sense. We will lose not only everything we have, but everything we ever hoped to gain once we start down that road. And, ironically, the 'free-thinking intellectual' crowd is always among the first victim of such choices.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 20:00:40 GMT

As you get more centralized control through federal Grants-in-Aid and guidelines that the federal government was neither given the power over, nor was designed to oversee, you will get more and more of all that. It will stifle creativity, and quash any motivation to leap ahead. Education policy will be formed and pursued to benefit special interests, and the schools will be even more of a propaganda battering ram of group-think and double-think than they are now.

Washington D.C. public schools, which are the model for all federal programs, are still about the most niolent,lowest performing and highest cost-per-student schools you will find anywhere. Moreover, they aren't even under the same form of government as those in the several states. The federal education programs are fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution, Hence the need to entice the states into compliance through subsidies and threats of cinching the purse-strings, rather than being able to impose federal education guidelines and other legislative excrement carte blanche.

Evolution debate revived

E Strickland VT — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 22:36:56 GMT

I believe it is the creationists and not biology teachers who are causing an undue emphasis to be placed on the teaching of evolution in high schools in America. It is the creationists who demand that students be taught “alternative theories” alongside evolution. It is creationists who demand that students be able to discuss all of the supposed “weaknesses” of evolutionary theory. There is a long list of states across the country where representatives and senators at the state level have introduced legislation to mandate this kind of instruction. In order for any of these demands to be met, it would require many more hours of classroom instruction than is currently being devoted to the subject to cover all of the ins and outs of evolution. In my view, it would require a college student majoring in biology to be able to meet these standards.

I had three semesters of Biology when I was in HS back in the 70’s, and for the life of me, I am unable to recall a single day when evolution was taught. I can’t remember whether my textbooks even contained any chapters on the theory. Back in the 30’s, 40’s 50’s, 60’s, and possibly on through the 70’s, and even most of the 80’s school boards in many locations were wary of adopting science textbooks that might cause an uproar. They certainly wanted to avoid lawsuits. Publishers, who naturally want to sell their product, tended to exclude chapters and references to evolution, lest those cautious school boards not choose their textbooks.

The reason I opted not to take the 4th semester of Biology that was offered at my school was because I was disappointed with the quality of instruction. Perhaps a little more discussion of this theory that is so central to the entire field of biology might have livened things up for me, and I might have chosen to pursue a career as a biologist.

During the past quarter century, states have added more detail and rigor to their educational standards. With consistent decisions being handed down from the courts, beginning with Epperson v. Arkansas in 1968, and especially after Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987, state standards have also come to include evolution as something H.S. graduates should know about. Consequently, publishers now include chapters on evolution in the textbooks they market in order to comply with state standards.

Both of my teenage kids have had biology classes in the past couple of years and neither one ever said anything about how evolution was or was not taught to them. Evidently not a big deal. On the other hand, they had quite a bit to say about how religion was discussed in their Social Studies classes.

“Every religion claims that it’s right and everyone else’s is wrong. They can’t all be right. Therefore, they must all be wrong.”

It saddens me that this is what they seem to have been taught. If I were more fervent in my faith, I might have even been outraged by it. But they were getting this from one of the few teachers they admired, and I wasn’t about to make their school experience more negative than it already was for them by raising a ruckus and embarrassing them.

No, I don’t think that evolution is being drilled into the heads of our children on a daily basis. I suspect that it occupies very little space on the syllabus of most biology teachers. Biology is a wide, wide field, and there’s a lot to cover. It’s too bad that creationists continue to make such a fuss about it.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 20:04:07 GMT

“Every religion claims that it’s right and everyone else’s is wrong. They can’t all be right. Therefore, they must all be wrong.” E. Strickland

Precisely the same reason so many, including myself, have left and want to leave the Republican/Democrat death-spiral herd in the dust. Of course, in political terms, the logic actually holds.

Very good points on the reast of that, thank you, and I think we all have felt the need to pick our battles, and not make unnecessary waves.

I don't think Evolutionary Theory per se is being drilled on a daily basis, though I think many of the personal interpretations/beliefs based on it as to origin are being reinforced in a variety of ways. These other considerations are mostly where I take exception, not so much with the theory itself, as far as it legitimately goes.

My point was that all-in-all, compared to other aspects, it receives an inordinate amount of attention. In the elementary and high school its really about as necessary to understanding basic here-and-now biology on that level, as quantum physics, chemistry and thermodynamics are to understanding how to make meatloaf in home-economics.

In the competition of information for classroom time, there are many more practical items to deal with. Simply no justifiable reason to cover this one theory over and over for 9 or more years of the K-12 experience. That is a bona fide waste of time and resources.

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 22:28:44 GMT

When I was in school, evolution was maybe remotely mentioned once or twice - never covered in detail. Currently my daughters attend public MS and HS in Fairfax, VA, one of the best school districts in the country. I'm grateful that evolution is in the state standard here, but even this is far too little. In the entire time from K-12 they get less than 10 days of education in the subject. I'm not sure how you think kids are being bombarded with evolution from the 4th grade. They don't need bombardment, they need education. I doubt seriously that anyone in K-12 is getting an adequate education in the subject who is not going to a magnate school, a catholic school, or a private academy. Science advocates aren't insisting that evolution be taught every year from 4th grade up. What they're advocating is that it should be taught well - it is my further opinion that it should be completely integrated into the life science or biology curricula.

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:52:48 GMT

It's not clear to me the extent to which the federal government has control of DC schools. Their money is from the city and the DC BoE consists of DC residents, I think. They've had problems with corruption and in getting good teachers.

Like most big cities with poor residents, the parents often have little or no real involvement in the education of their kids.

I'm not sure what this has to do with evolution. It seems like you're arguing that these problems stem from evolution - or at the very least the mandating of evolution stems from the same people who are causing all these problems. That's a legitimate belief, but I'm not sure there's any evidence for it. The logical case is a post hoc argument.

Of course, scientific method can be taught without teaching evolution. It can also be taught without resorting to the theory of gravity or the germ theory of disease. I don't see the relevance.

You feel that evolution is not important. I say it very well could be. Here's a good story I told my girls:
"There's an interesting anecdote, as told by Charles M. Vest, President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, during commencement on June 4th, 1999. "In the early years of this century, Steinmetz was brought to General Electric's facilities in Schenectady, New York. GE had encountered a performance problem with one of their huge electrical generators and had been absolutely unable to correct it. Steinmetz, a genius in his understanding of electromagnetic phenomena, was brought in as a consultant - not a very common occurrence in those days, as it would be now. Steinmetz also found the problem difficult to diagnose, but for some days he closeted himself with the generator, its engineering drawings, paper and pencil. At the end of this period, he emerged, confident that he knew how to correct the problem. After he departed, GE's engineers found a large "X" marked with chalk on the side of the generator casing. There also was a note instructing them to cut the casing open at that location and remove so many turns of wire from the stator. The generator would then function properly. And indeed it did. Steinmetz was asked what his fee would be. Having no idea in the world what was appropriate, he replied with the absolutely unheard of answer that his fee was $1000. Stunned, the GE bureaucracy then required him to submit a formally itemized invoice. They soon received it. It included two items: 1. Marking chalk "X" on side of generator: $1. 2. Knowing where to mark chalk "X": $999."
that's from http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/~eugeniik/history/steinmetz.html

Now I tell my girls this story, as well as the kids I tutor every year, and then I say to them something like this:
When you grow up, you will inherit some problems from us; there will also be problems that will be unique to your generation - some of which we might be able to anticipate and others of which we cannot currently fathom. The reason you should want to go to school, and particularly why should care about learning all you can in the sciences is so that when your time comes, you know where to put the X.

Evolution is important because it's the best science we have - and contrary to what you believe, it's not discussed very much even in classes where it *IS* taught.

The current crop of creationists is trying to undermine education, by 1) redefining science, and 2) promulgating false information and bad science.

If atheists and communists and a whole crop of others are evolutionists, that's no more reason to shirk our responsibilities than the fact that many members of those same groups also like violin concerti.

Evolution debate revived

Dennis, Richmond Virginia — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:54:56 GMT

This discussion is still going... I'm not surprised. My previous remarks were simply to try to make a point. Santa Claus does not really exist, neither does the boogeyman, the tooth fairy, the monster under the bed, the sandman, Zues, Hera, Thor, Ra, Yaweh, Mercury, Apollo, Jehovah, or any other mythical god or creature. We invented them all, and a few just seem to have gotten away from us. One too many a parent forgot to tell their kids that they just made it up and Santa Claus (who for some reason stopped bringing gifts) is still being worshipped.

This entire debate has been sparked by a bunch of people who honestly truely believe that there is a man living in the sky, watching everything they do, and when they die, will judge them on how well they did. The winners get to live with him and his son and the losers get tossed into an eternal fire called hell where they will spend the rest of eternity. Because he loves them.

Oh, and according to the Old Testament, God likes a fair amount of salt on his burnt offerings.

Evolution debate revived

Brian Ampere Smith, PhD San Francisco, CA — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 20:39:42 GMT

As a science content editor for a large, standardized testing company I have observed first hand how religious fundamentalists can hijack science curriculum even if "intelligent design" or "scientific creationsism" is not legally mandated.

During a content and bias meeting consisting of teachers and administrators in Tennessee fundamantalists complained that a test question regarding the Permian extinction event 250 mya was "religiously biased" because of the date referred to in the question. The phrase "most scientists believe..." was added to qualify the question.
The hard efforts of christian fundamentalists has forced biology standards to be profoundly lacking in any content referring to evolution in many states.

Instead, standards contain vague, disconnected referrences to "relatedness" and "change over time".
The truly sad aspect of these efforts is that students miss out on the profound nature of evolution, its predictive power and how it underpins all of science, not just biology.

The efforts of Darwin provide a shining example of science in action. Because of religious fascism text books do not even begin to do justice to evolution on any level. Even if states don't legally mandate teaching of "intelligent design" or any other pseudo scientific nonsense the power of these folks is still felt.

The head of curriculum in Tennessee has personally asked that I not come back because of my defense of evolution.

One wonders what the ACLU would say about this.

This event has forced me to reexamine my career choice and led me away from science education back into research where I can avoid "harming" anyone with my fancy ideas.

Brian Ampere Smith, PhD

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 22:17:44 GMT

Well, there is nothing more amusing to watch than an Athiest who hates God.

For the sake of argument though, lets say that people did invent "God", and that is a fundamental underpinning of,,, what? People definitely invented Humanism, Communism, Fascism and whole lot of other nonsense over the millennia. I would have to conclude that, based on a fair unbiased assessment of the evidence, humans can't be trusted.

Oh, wait, that cuts directly against the grain of the Humanist Religion though. Oh well, so be it. Trading one belief structure that humans presumably 'made up' for another thing we know full-and-well they concocted,,, I mean, really. given our track-record, we don't actually deserve to get the benefit of the obvious doubt, now do we?

What about tomorrow, when say the Union of Social Metaphysicists meets, and decides some part of Humanist dogma is actually too small, too far away and on too odd an orbit to actually be called a Tenet anymore?

I suppose we can just send all the textbooks back to be re-edited by the Ministry of Truth, and society will just shift smoothly and effortlessly on its axis to balance with the new 'think'. Four legs good, two legs bad!.

Society doesn't know how to run science, and science will never know how best to run society, because thats not what good science is about. You surely want the truth itself, and not the democratic version of it, and society doesn't want to stand in line for its daily ration of Soylent Green.

Evolution debate revived

Dr Brian Ampere Smith — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:52:03 GMT

The degree to which fundmentalists employ every known rhetorical fallacy in existence continually boggles the mind.

One is reminded of the tactics of McCarthy who would make one false accusation, wait for the other side to defend itself only to drop another outlandish accusation as the poor wretch defended against the first.

One would truly need to write an entire volume to sytematically disentagle the barrage of half-truths, falsehoods and misrepresentations regarding "Humanism" and "evolutionary dogma".

I do find the level of ignorance regarding history and science fascinating.

For instance, IDers frequently lump us non-believers in with fascists and communists just to make sure everyone realizes which "side" is the right one. In fact,the historical record clearly shows that *** and others defended eugenics and genocide under the guise of "survival of the fittest" and biblical prophecy. (Please read Hitler if you have any doubts regarding his Christian beliefs)

As a scientist who has worked to cure cancer and other horrible diseases I have never met anyone who would promoted such blather. In fact, traditionally, it has been conservatives and Christians who have promoted the idea of a "chosen group" while seeking to harm or subjugate us infidels.

What's more the historical record also shows that the communists under Stalin's leadership regarded evolution as a capitalist idea and thus set scinece back many decades within the Soviet bloc. Communists and Christian conservatives actually share much in common. The ease in which Christians today (and communists in the past) employ(ed) punditry and sophistic arguements unsupported by historical or scientific facts has undermined any possibility of thouhgtful, rational discussion.

The truth is that most Americans do believe in God and would choose to believe in a supreme creator whose existence is neceessary to explain the existence of life rather than accept the reality that the formation of life, while fascinating, does not require the insertion of a Santa Claus like force to be understood.

Fortunately,in science the hegemony of an idea is not based on popularity. (Please review Gallileo and Louis Pateur's work if you miss this point)
If the success of a scientific theory were predicated on popular support science would not work because ideas that conflicted with superstition (like the flat earth mentioned in the bible or the biblical calculation of pi) owuld still be prevalent.

Scientific ideas are conserved within the scientific community so long as they work to explain what is observed and what allows us to make predictions, model patterns etc.. (Do I really need to explain this).

It's funny why anyone would seek to use history to support ID. Is the historical record regarding the role of Islam and Christianity really in doubt? How many bloodbaths does one need to bring up? Non-believers are histories victims. Whether they chose not to believe in the deified almighty Stalin or Jesus H Christ we have always been at the bottom of the pile of corpses left over after the night's rapture.

Finally (on a curious note), isn't it interesting how we have IDers invoking fictionalized tales of "mad science" in a maaner similar to liberal luddites who use terms like "Frankenfood" to impart fear of science and the evil doings of us who work in a world so far removed from the knee-jerk, convenient truths that remove the responsibility of having to actually think and analyze the universe around us.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 05:30:58 GMT

Well, when Christians confuse human politics with religion, it is usually a recipe for disaster, and the same is true when people get science and politics confused. History is littered with examples of people using both religion and science to justify and enable their own agenda's. If you must delve into the chicken and egg end of it, you must at least be able determine which one to scramble and which one to fry. Either religion is a thing in-and-of-itself with the power to act and react for its own purposes, or its a purely human construct. Place the blame accordingly.

As for 'non-believers' being history's victims, I don't see anything in the historical record with respect to people who believed nothing. Winners and losers have for the most part been carved out between those who believed differently than one another. Wanting to learn, to understand, to guage one's place in the Universe is a human characteristic. Its a desire that drives both religion, and science. The one's who were incapable of holding abstract belief were probably wiped out by RM+NS before homo sapiens came along, if not at the same time.

Perhaps it can be rationally theorized that no external force is needed for the formation of life, but that doesn't equate to being able to designate that as the reality. It's a theory, based on another theory, and as I said before, once life is purposely re-created by an organism no more advanced than we humans in a laboratory, a good deal of the 'impossibilities' thrust against religious teachings go right out the window with the event. The results will be pretty much the same if and when extra-terrestral life is found. What neither occurance can do is prove that life on Earth, in fact, came to be and subsequently developed by sheer chance alone. That notion is, and will seemingly always remain, wholly in the realm of conjecture, and belief.

As far as what is taught in schools is concerned, in order to keep Science sacrosanct, its going to have to both guard its territory jealously, and self-police the belief/non-belief systems out, and, its going to have to keep itself within its own confines at the same time. The rest of waht children learn in school, in order to be functioning members of Society-at-Large, is not a question of science, but of politics and the the wants of the people who inhabit that society.

If we want to go on a campaign of stamping out ALL of society's inconsistencies and outright misunderstandings, we will have to go way beyond religion in doing so. In fact, in critically weighing the threats and benefits, deciding to tackle religion first and most forcefully is more than a bit disingenuous. That we should trade one set of delusions for another is a tough argument to sell.

Evolution debate revived

Dr Brian Ampere Smith — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:06:05 GMT

I am happy to see their is some common ground here! An innate human quality is a desire to understand our own humanity and place in the universe.

Where we deviate is what criteria we use to say certain things about reality.

Over and over again I read phrases like "scientific agenda" and evolution as "conjecture" surrounding this issue.

What citeria does one use to decide which creation story is the correct one?

Despite the fervent claims of most folks in the US and Middle East regarding the truhtfulness of evolution it remains, truly, the only mechanism that accounts for what we see.

The US is part of a minority in the western world when it comes to educating our children about cosmology and evolution (please read the polls).

In contrast to "not believing in anything" I believe that the failure to teach the power and beauty of science has harmful consequences that threaten our very survival.

Please do not take my word for it discover for yourself that there is no conspiracy to deny religion by promoting evoluiton. That's a false dichotemy made by creationists. You will learn that what makes scientists confident (to the extent that its assumed and taken for granted in educated circles)is that multiple lines of evidence and theory ranging from thermodynamics to geology to astrophysics to genetics-all these-establish the criteria for saying Darwin got it right (basically).

If you reject this you are rejecting not only evoluiton as fact but also rejecting all modern science.

The ability to treat and cure genetic diseases is a direct consequence of our understanding of biological evolution, as is our ability to develop cures for infectious diseases.

I am aware of all the pseudoscientific and fallacoius claims to the contrary. These arguements may sound good on Larry King Live but a cursory examination reveals their falsehood. What they amount to are furious attempts to "prove" evoluiton wrong using silver bullet arguements such as the claim years ago of dinosaur and human footprints existing within the same geologic strata.

Such arguements do harm to science and rational inquiry because they misrepresent the very essence of science.

In science you win prizes for disproving things. As a researcher I can tell you much of the scientific literature concerns itself with disproving the other guys model (i.e. Einstein vs Newton). Newton wasn't wrong in the sense creationists would say Darwin was wrong. His theory only acconted for local conditions normally encountered on Earth. It took Einstein to rule some of Newton's basic assumtions nad come up with a better model that applied to the entire universe. It's tension that gives science its power.

The point is that scientific arguments are over details. That's why science works. You take the set of details and try to come up with a model to explain the brodest range of observations and experimental results. If the you find that the old model can't explain a big part of what you see you try and come up with one that expalins this discrepancy and as a result of these efforts maybe win a big prize or at least create a knew line of inquiry.

Creationists would have us believe that the evolution is mere "conjecture" and that millions of brilliant people all over the world are using slipshod science to support a political agenda. I can tell you this is not so. This is contrary to the essence of science and scientific personalities. In science you make a name for yourself by showing understanding and keen insight into both the strength and weaknesses of your own ideas and those of others.

The reason you don't open up "Nature" of "Science" and discover articles refuting the very foundation of evolution is because there are simply no reasonable arguements refuting it. If there were I would be the first ot publish one and win my prize!

Finally, I must point out that other modes of human inquiry do not rely on this natural tension. In religion for instance, it's often the case that preconceived myths based on ignorance of the natural world take prority and ideas that conflict with these myths are not tolerated. Hence this debate.

Finally, I must point out that we do live in a world that is completely and utterly dependent on science. Every ocnceivable activity from turning on a light switch to driving a car to applying an antiseptic is the result of scientific thought and research.

Today science reveals many problems and consequences with heedless industrialization and explosive population growth.

I believe that we threaten the future of our existence by ignoring scientific insight at best and misrepresenting it at worst as seen in some of the above passages. The truth is the evolution debate is a non-issue from a scientific perspective. The reality is that the debate is over good thinking vs bad thinking and what criteria one uses to say whether a particular idea fits what we see.

I for one promote scientific debate but discourage debate over non-issues because by debating issues when "truth" is not in doubt promotes bad reasoning-a phenonema all too common and one we can ill-afford.

Evolution debate revived

Valdemar W. Setzer, São Paulo, Brazil — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 02:40:21 GMT

Submitted to http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/
archive/2006/08/02/1611.aspx on Sept. 5, 2006

I obviously did not read every post to this list; I hope someone else has not yet expressed my ideas.

Firstly, some general considerations. Biblical creation is an image, a parable, and not a theory, which should be based upon concepts. Obviously, the seven days of creation are not 24-hour days; they are images to very long time extensions. For those that have the tendency of taking the Bible at its literal wording, please give a look at the parable of the sowman, e.g. Mat 13:3-23. There, Jesus-Christ, on verse 16, tells his disciples that they are able to understand concepts and proceeds to explain what was the meaning of the images (19-23). If the Jesus-Christ himself says that he in general speaks through images – to the common people, who did not have the development he produced in his disciples –, why should be any doubt that many parts of the bible are also parables? It is obvious that the creation of Adam (Gen 2:7) and of Eve (Gen 2:22) are also images. By the way, it is interesting to observe an apparent incoherence: humans were "created" – appeared – much earlier, in Gen 1:26-27, with both or undifferentiated sexes – probably, humans were in an earlier stage hermaphrodites, that is, with a quite different physical constitution than ours.

On the other hand, neo-Darwinian evolution is a scientific theory, but not a scientific fact. It seems to me that one has to be too simple-minded to think that random mutations followed by natural selection could be enough to produce the marvels of living beings that we see, and the biggest physical marvel of all, our body. The wisdom we encounter in nature does not conform to something that was not intelligently designed. I don't mean designed by one single mind (called God by many); if one admits that there is an individual intelligence behind every animal species, as there is an individual intelligence behind every human being (which is not normally grasped by our conscious reasoning), then these types of intelligence could have taken part in evolution. For this, there are two ways of extending Darwinian evolution: just suppose that not every mutation was random, and that natural selection is not entirely "natural", that is, both were sometimes directed by those "intelligences".

Secondly, some educational considerations. The discussion is absolutely misplaced, because one very important point is not taken into consideration: the maturity of students. Thus, biblical creationism is absolutely adequate in the first grades – small children do not master intellectual abstractions as adults do. At those and earlier ages, children should not be taught intellectually, but through life examples and images; this is one of the fundamental principles of Waldorf Education – please visit a Waldorf School to see the good results of such an educational approach. On the other hand, biblical creationism is absolutely misplaced at high school, where the students have already developed a reasonable capacity for abstract thinking (it's at that stage that proving theorems in Math and Geometry makes educational sense). At that age, students want to understand, and not believe. They look for coherent thoughts concerning the world, and not images. Thus, Darwinian evolution should be taught at that age, but showing all the problems involved in that theory – not just the missing links. (I strongly recommend using the wonderful paper by Craig Holdrege "The giraffe's short neck", at http://natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic10/giraffe.htm where he shows that there are many flaws in the evolutionary thinking that the giraffe's neck got longer so that it could reach higher leaves in the trees.) One of the most important points that should be emphasized is that we cannot descend from apes – that's why evolutionists always refer to a mysterious "common ancestor" (not being an ape, it could be something in between or something closer to our human form!). In the philosophy class at high school it would be extremely important to mention the importance Darwinian evolution had to modern materialistic thinking ("humans are mere animals with some few additional characteristics, e.g. reasoning").

Thirdly, from a philosophical point of view, there is absolutely nothing strange in making the hypothesis that some kinds of non-physical intelligence directed evolution: the origin of matter and energy in the universe does not make physical sense. Neither does the universe's boundaries. On the other hand, if someone recognizes that, with some mental effort, s/he is free to choose her/his next thought, that person should admit that there is something non-physical involved in thinking, because matter inexorably follows physical laws. From matter alone freedom cannot arise. Please note that when we concentrate our thinking, it does not appear to be random. So it's not non-deterministic, it's self-deterministic. Some non-physical constituent within ourselves could direct, without spending energy, the choosing of one of a number of possible non-deterministic transitions, e.g. in our neurons. Why, then, do we have a brain? It works as a mirror: without it, we would not be conscious of our thinking, feelling, will impulses, etc. It's not by chance that "reflecting" is a synonym of "thinking"! If a mirror is broken, a person may not be conscious of the form of her face anymore, but the face continues to exist. If there is damage to a part of the brain, one may lose some mental function. But one cannot scientifically conclude that the function is generated by that part of the brain; at most, one should be modest and scientifically say that some area of the brain takes part in the mental process.

From another point of view, given a cell in a living body, this cell may (a) stay as it is; (b) start subdividing in two (mitosis); (c) start dying (apoptosis). The choice of anyone of these non-deterministic transitions does not require energy. This is a way for a non-physical "intelligence" influencing growth and regeneration. This could explain the forms of living beings, which clearly follow a model – but models are non-physical entities, they are concepts! Obviously, there is a dependency on physical matter, e.g. on genes and the environment. But I am admitting here a third factor, considered by some materialists to be randomness (also called "developmental noise"). Maybe a long time ago living beings were not so materialized as they are now, and those types of non-physical intelligence could thus influence the form and therefore provide for evolution.

These concepts did not originate from any religion.

Valdemar W. Setzer, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of São Paulo, Brazil – www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 19:28:02 GMT

In the US, the authors of our Bill of Rights (BoR) made it clear that our first amendment was a wall of separation between church and state. It is therefore illegal to promote religion in our schools.

The problems with evolution are grossly exaggerated by creationists and other cranks. Issues raised concerning the causes and effects of selection in a particuar case don't refute evolution. Waldorf education is based on pseudoscience - the irrational assumption of belief in a mystical soul.

Surely it is "natural" to believe in design in nature. It's "natural" for primitives to worship the sun and the moon. That doesn't mean that sun worship is scientific.

Under no circumstances should creationism be taught in public schools as anything but myth. In some advanced classes, one could teach it and then do research into its numerous flaws and why it is not science.

Evolution should be taught, preferably by people actually understand it.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 03:02:05 GMT

For one, the people who wrote our Constitution, weren't privy to the Theory of Evolution.

Secondly, the Establishment Clause. Interpretation must be based on a strict determination of what the words meant when they were used. As Frank J. Hogan noted in 1939;"If the Constitution is to be construed to mean what the majority at any given period in history wish the Constitution to mean, why a written Constitution?" and as another so eloquently put it; "...[a] word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used."-Oliver Wendell Holmes.

So, what is the Establishment Clause? Or, more precisely, what does the term 'establishmnet' mean in the Constitutional context? Running contrary to how its been abused in modern times, one may assume the position that the framers used it as a verb. That they contemplated that a single religion would be created or adopted (i.e. 'established') by the federal government.

On the other hand is a position that they were referring to religion itself, in whatever form, as a protected Social Institution, an 'Establishment'. There can be little doubt that the founders did view religion as an Institution, and that they made it very clear that Religion and Conscience were kept wholly within the realm of Rights reserved by the People themselves.

What we cannot do, is allow the word 'establishment' to be used as a noun in one argument, and interchangeably as a verb in another, or worse, as both in one argument. Still, in any case, Congress was specifically forbidden any Power to regulate it, or legislate with respect to it, and that means for, or against.

Since Congress was also given no power to regulate the several states, or schools within the several states, on the subject, and history shows that religious teachings were used in schools at the time the Constitution was written, and long afterwards, with no apparent conflict in the perception of 'seperation', it is impossible to defend the position that Congress was or is the ultimate authority on the subject.

You can add in that many States did in fact have official religions of their own early on, such as Pennsylvania being 'the Quaker State', again with no perceived conflict in or to the federal sphere. The fact that all have since decided to adopt similar language to the federal Constitution in their own Constitutions, is not evidence of the Supremacy Clause at work, nor did it in any wise extend to Congress the power to weigh in on the issue where the Constitution had already specifically barred it from doing so. It was rather a free choice made by each State to erect its own Wall of Seperation on the subject, and so, especially where schools are concerned, one must delve into the issue on a state-by-state basis in determinng the language used, and then inperpretng the Intent(s).

We can get into the most nefariously and subversively interpreted Constitutional Amendment in our Nations's history, the 14th. But, then you are actually talking about a whole other animal, as the 'rights' protected by it are not in any wise the same Rights expressed and reserved in the Bill of Rights, and you simply cannot import the same language or the same interpretations from one into the other, as they are distinct entities crafted for different people, in different circumstances, and for entirely different purposes. Similar is not the same.

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:34:11 GMT

Of course the framers of Constitution weren't privy to the Theory of Evolution. That doesn't change the law they wrote, the reasons they wrote it, or how they might interpret it.

Schools at the time were not state-sponsored, so what they taught is no more relevant to public school than what religious schools teach today.

Furthermore, the 14th amendment guarantees that NO STATE shall abridge the priveleges or immunities of the citizens of the United States, meaning that the State of Kentucky, for example, can't decide to eliminate the free press or establish a State Religion.

Public schools should teach actual science and not religion in science class. Evolution is science - brilliant science, practical science. Creationism is not science. Intelligent Design is not science.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 04:28:51 GMT

An excerpt from the CRS Annotated Constitution, widely held as the authority where rulings of the Supreme Court are concerned. You can find it all here; http://www4.law.cornell.edu/anncon/index.html

"Unique among constitutional provisions, the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment enjoys the distinction of having been rendered a “practical nullity” by a single decision of the Supreme Court issued within five years after its ratification. In the Slaughter–House Cases, a bare majority of the Court frustrated the aims of the most aggressive sponsors of this clause, to whom was attributed an intention to centralize “in the hands of the Federal Government large powers hitherto exercised by the States” with a view to enabling business to develop unimpeded by state interference..."

You don't understand how the 14th Amendment actually does and does not function, which is nothing to be ashamed of as most people do not really have a clue. The majority believe that the 14th Amendment made the Bill of Rights applicable and enforceable upon the states, even though both the Supreme Court and Congress have flatly and repeatedly rejected that contention outright.

The part of the 14th you are actually looking for aid & comfort in on this subject, is under the Due Process/Equal Protection Clause. Again, this is a totally different animal, subject to an entirely different Power and interpretation than the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and even further removed from the [True] Bill of Rights.

Nearly all of the major cases that have admitted in tiny 'substantive' slivers of certain parts of certain 'rights' under the 14th, have been under the Due Process Clause. Lawrence v. Texas and the 'right to privacy' comes to mind as one of the most recent in that vein. Under the penumbra of that Clause, the 'right' so upheld had nothing specifically to do with even the civil rights of U.S. citizens, much less the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens of the several states, but rather spoke to basic protections of law offered to even aliens and foreign businesses while within the State's jurisdiction.

Not the same thing, not to be interpreted the same way. There is a huge difference between what the federal government says can or cannot be done by the states to those who are within their borders, and what the Citizens retained the Rights to do for and with themselves, personally and through the workings of state government, whenever they choose. A huge difference indeed, though too few understand even the barest portion of it.

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 03:48:46 GMT

I'm not sure what to say other than this is the kind of thing that has always kept me from pursuing a legal career. I can't dispute what you've said. I don't know anything about it.

I have read the consitution. I reread the constitution every time before I vote. I cherish the words. If our legal system chooses to ignore parts of it, I don't what to say. I'm not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar.

In any event, though, for whatever reason, the supreme courts has consistently ruled that state-sponsored religion violates the first amendment.

Neither creationism nor intelligent design is science. Evolution is science.

Evolution debate revived

Eric, Symsonia, Kentucky — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 14:56:58 GMT

I caught a good portion of E.O. Wilson's interview on NPR's Talk of the Nation, Science Friday. He touched on this subject several times, and I took his expressed views on it as being very enlightened. I would recommend everyone at least consider his advice.

Evolution debate revived

Gene Des Moines, WA — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 03:11:24 GMT

In the beginning there was darkness and God created the heavens, the stars and the lights. Could it possibly be, in his own wisdom He used what we call the "Big Bag" to do all of that?
He filled the seas with all sorts of fish and sea monsters, forerunners to what we call sea monsters?
Is there any chance He grew lonely with all of that creation and so made man and woman in his own image? The image would have to be spiritual of course.
A million years to us is but an eyeblink to Himpossibly then what we dig up as fossils from eons ago would've given God a need, a few eyeblinks to creat something in His image.
I do think He has the wisdom to update models of each species of animal, in some part because of the way we change the world.
The religionists/evolutionists are no different than the arguments that took the sacrifice of Christ (I believe) and has contorted it into how many different churches, especially Protestants? If you want to take something good, or God-given, and screw it up completely, then hand it to mankind.
No contest, God did it all, but in a way we will be forever fighting about.

Evolution debate revived

Sue State College, PA — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:07:46 GMT

I believe our constitution and the laws are based on the Ten Commandments which were the laws that God gave us to live by. I also believe, evolution is science, but science has made many mistakes. I also believe that if you know the history of the universe you would have infinite wisdom and I don't believe that there is anyone here who would begin to claim that they had infinite wisdom. So it all comes down to your personal belief. I am putting my money on GOD.

Evolution debate revived

Ed, Dallas, TX — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:54:05 GMT

I think just about everyone here is missing the point. Religious beliefs are being taught, or are wanting to be taught as science. This is very disturbing because science is intellectually inquiry that is allowed to make mistakes in order to find answers. With religion, you have all the answers depending upon which religion you are in, but basically..god did it, end of inquiry. That is not science plain and simple. Whether god did create everything, or whether we came by natural means with no interference is a moot question with no answer. I do not have a problem with having an optional history of religion, or bible class, or Christianity 101, etc. But religion, whether it be the bible, or the Koran, or Book of Mormon, does not belong in SCIENCE classrooms. I do not care if you cannot reconcile your own personal beliefs with what science has found. It's funny, in the 1800's when the first scientifically described dinosaur bones were found, the Christian community went into an uproar back then too. Just look it up and see how similar those times were to now. Churches and leaders condemned the findings, claiming the bones to be hoaxes and basically saying that these bones of dinosaurs can't exist cause they are not in the bible. Now we have creationist museums with dinosaurs walking along side Adam and Eve... Evolution is a scientific theory with loads of evidence. If you don't believe it, well then I'm sorry you can't see past a 2000 year old book. But for the rest of the world that wants to remain progressive, do us a favor, stay out of the way and just go to your church and wait for Jesus to come back.

Evolution debate revived

Barbara LeMaster, Pompano Beach, Florida — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:14:57 GMT

I just wanted to respond to the commenter who stated this: "when all the top scientist in the world agree on something to be fact, it's your duty as a human to keep out of their way and not the clog the pores of intelligence with brainwashed diatribe." This is a logical fallacy. "Because the scientists say evolution is true, it must be true!" Appeals to authority don't win the debate; they just prove that you lack basic debating skills. The only people who are brainwashed are those who refuse to look at both sides of the issue and decide for themselves what they will believe, based on the evidence at hand. For me, I have always questioned the fraud associated with evolution. First Piltdown man, then Archaeoraptor. If scientists are both logical and rational, then why would any scientist, male or female, place his/her career and integrity on the line by resorting to outright fraud to convince people a theory is true? Especially, as Richard Dawkins has stated, there is already overwhelming evidence for the truthfulness of evolution. Why resort to lying when you have the truth?

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:17:49 GMT

"Appeals to authority don't win the debate; they just prove that you lack basic debating skills."

Appeal to authority is not always a logical fallacy.

"The only people who are brainwashed are those who refuse to look at both sides of the issue and decide for themselves what they will believe, based on the evidence at hand."

Or the people who say they've done their homework and haven't.

"For me, I have always questioned the fraud associated with evolution."

I also question the fraud associated with evolution - and with every other scientific inquiry. But evolution itself is not a fraud.

"First Piltdown man, then Archaeoraptor."

Piltdown was proved a hoax by evolutionists, not creationists. Piltdown was ALWAYS questioned by many scientists.

"If scientists are both logical and rational, then why would any scientist, male or female, place his/her career and integrity on the line by resorting to outright fraud to convince people a theory is true? "

Not every person calling himself a scientist or even every person who really IS a scientist is logical and rational. There are cheats and incompetents in every field. The existence of a very small amount of fraud does not discredit the ENORMOUS quantity and quality of evidence, the VAST PREPONDERANCE of which both is explained by and supports evolution - particularly since none of the frauds like Piltdown are actually part of any theory of evolution.

Evolution debate revived

Barbara LeMaster, Pompano Beach, Florida — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 21:44:15 GMT

I'd like to respond to TheFalliableFiend.

"Appeal to authority is not always a logical fallacy."
It most certainly can be, as attested to by several books on logic. Assuming that something is true simply because an expert or panel of experts says so and ignoring evidence to the contrary would fall under the category of logical fallacy.

The books I referred to were by Marilyn vos Savant and Jamie Whyte, respectively.

"Or the people who say they've done their homework and haven't."

I'm in the latter category, thanks. I own "Origin of Species" and "Voyage of the Beagle" by Darwin as well as "The Science of God" by Gerald Schroeder and "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe.

"I also question the fraud associated with evolution -and with every other scientific inquiry. But evolution itself is not a fraud."

I never said it was. I'm questioning why logical, esteemed scientists would resort to fraud when they already have evidence that they are right. That doesn't seem logical or rational to me.

"Piltdown was proved a hoax by evolutionists, not creationists. Piltdown was ALWAYS questioned by many scientists."

I agree completely. Yet, it prevailed as an authoritative view on human origins for nearly 40 years. I'm beginning to wonder if it's not the evolutionary evidence itself that is questionable, but rather the interpretation of that evidence.

"Not every person calling himself a scientist or even every person who really IS a scientist is logical and rational. There are cheats and incompetents in every field. The existence of a very small amount of fraud does not discredit the ENORMOUS quantity and quality of evidence, the VAST PREPONDERANCE of which both is explained by and supports evolution - particularly since none of the frauds like Piltdown are actually part of any theory of evolution."

The fact that you capitalized enormouos and vast preponderance makes me wonder why you resort to hyperbole. The existence of fraud discredits the scientists who were involved with it. It also calls into question the credibility of the other evidence for evolution.

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:23:35 GMT

tff: "Appeal to authority is not always a logical fallacy."

BL said: It most certainly can be, as attested to by several books on logic.

tff: Of course it CAN be. That's why I said, "It isn't always." The irony here is that creationists are always resorting to appeals to authority from people who aren't authorities. Depending on a psychic's interpretation of physics is not very logical.

BL wrote: "The books I referred to were by Marilyn vos Savant and Jamie Whyte, respectively."

tff: I don't understand the reference. In what way did you refer to those books?

TFF: As to what books you own, I don't see the relevance. I own dozens of books that I have not read. OTOH, I have read OOS and have just last week started my second reading of it. But just "reading" isn't the point - it's reading for comprehension. One reads a science book a completely different way than one reads a novel.

BL said: I'm questioning why logical, esteemed scientists would resort to fraud when they already have evidence that they are right.

tff: Maybe those particular scientists are not logical or esteemed? That's not a very logical argument. That's okay, most people are a lot better at talking about being logical than actually employing it. Scientists would lie for the same reasons that other people would lie - for attention, for fame, for money.

"Yet, it prevailed as an authoritative view on human origins for nearly 40 years. "

tff: Saying it was "authoritative" is an exaggeration. It was always contested by MANY scientists, but it took decades before an authoritative disproof put a complete end to it. It plays no current role in evolutionary theory - and I doubt it ever did. My guess is it had much wider acceptance in the general public than it did among practicing scientists.

BL: The fact that you capitalized enormouos and vast preponderance makes me wonder why you resort to hyperbole.

tff: That's not hyperbole. It's fact. Evolution is supported by and explains the vast preponderance of evidence. There are many details we don't know about, but the big picture is very clear.

BL: The existence of fraud discredits the scientists who were involved with it.

tff: It discredits the people who were responsible for it.

It also calls into question the credibility of the other evidence for evolution.

Is that an opinion you consider logical? Every single field has its charlatans. Because every field has charlatans, we can use this "logic" to infer that all evidence for all science is "called into question."

Evolution debate revived

Ben Ward Knoxville, TN — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:03:50 GMT

Christians cannot just write the subject off as some say "God created darwin" or "God created the first molecule." God had a reason to reveal the literal account of Adam and Eve for Moses to write down. The Bible teaches that God created us to know Him and we messed that up with sin aka "the Fall". If we claim that God misrepresented Himself in His Word than how can we claim Jesus as savior in the gospels. I am not calling for blind faith because there is a great deal of evidence for the infallible, inerrant Bible (such as a central theme revealed to 40 different authors over the span of 1500 years does not sound exactly coincidental). But I ask that if you believe God, to believe all of Him.

Evolution debate revived

Chuck, Alabama — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:49:39 GMT

I, too, am a microbiologist and the evolution hypothesis is just that. By scientific defintion a hypothesis only becomes a theory after much data collection and scrutiny and that scrutiny and data collection must be the result of tests. Since you can't test things that no longer exist, there can be no data. No tests, no data, no theory. And as Angela so exhaustively stated about proteins forming on clay, yada, yada, yada, if this is how proteins formed, then why does the cell carry out transcription/translation in order to make proteins? This process is itself a machine within a machine(the cell). All designs have a desginger--GOD.

Evolution debate revived

Chuck, Alabama — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:55:07 GMT

God is science!!!! Science= knowledge of. We have a (con)science: (with) knowledge that tells us right from wrong; this comes from God. God is (omni)science: (all)knowing. Therefore God and science are one in the same because God has all knowledge. Evolution, requires two things 1. incredible faith and 2. one to ignore common sense. Both of these attributes are more than enough to allow one to receive salvation from God through Jesus.

Evolution debate revived

Mr. Stangl, St. Joseph, Michigan — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:23:10 GMT

I have a simple question. In all this debate about science and religion, evolution and creationism, how do scientists get away with ignoring the absolute beginning of everything? For example, I have never heard a scientific explanation for where the "matter" for the big bang came from. Assuming that everything has to have a beginning, how did that matter come into existence? It is (as far as I know) impossible to bring something into existence from nothing (which is the definition of creating). If science can't tell us where the materials came from for the big bang (or whatever else they think started it all), then why do they waste so much time and money 'studying' what they think happened afterwards? OTOH, Christians have a very strong position in that our Almighty God, who has always been and will always be in existence, chose to create, from his almighty power, the universe and all that is in it in only six days (he rested on the seventh). By the faith he gives us, we can accept that just as easily as we accept anything else he tells us in his word, the Bible. And the beauty of it is, that's all we need! As someone said on this website in an earlier submission, the creation account is simply the beginning of the Bible. While it isn't a point that can be disregarded, the real point of the Bible is Jesus and what he did for us, so worrying about how or why God did it doesn't really bother me.

One person stated that if creationists want to believe that God put fossils into the earth when he created it just 'for giggles'. I think that belittles God. We're not some kind of cosmic joke; humans were the crown of God's creation. He created an aged world for them to live in so that it would be the ideal place for them in which to live.

Ultimately, what does it matter if there are fossils or not? Coming back to my original point, if science can't explain where the big bang came from, then why on earth should I listen to them tell me that I'm related to apes? Without the first step, EVERYTHING else they say about evolution is only speculation. It can never be proven because it's not true or even rational; it's simply not NATURAL for things to pop into existence out of nothing. That's called SUPERNATURAL, and at that point it's very easy to say that God did it himself. And if there's a God who can do such things, why couldn't he have created the universe in six days? If scientists could take this on faith, then they could spend their time and money studying things that are more valuable to us, like cures for diseases, etc.

I can say how everything began in that the Almighty God did it. Why did he do it? To give the crown of his creation a magnificent home in which to live. What does that tell me? That God loves his children. Does this belief make me an ignorant, thoughtless human being? No. I appreciate looking at the stars and the oceans and the beautiful landforms of our world and the complex living creatures all around us just as much as the scientists who spend their lives studying them. And I look forward to meeting my Creator one day and thanking him for giving all these things to me. It seems that evolutionists are afraid that they are going to be thought of as brainless if they confess that there is a God who is smarter than them. I would never say that about them. But it does seem silly to get so worked up about a 'theory' when they don't even know the answer to the basic question of where the materials came from to support how they think all things began.

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 23:28:55 GMT

Chuck,

Cleaning test tubes doesn't make you a microbiologist. I don't believe you're any kind of scientist. In what lab do you work? In what field is your PhD? What papers have you published?

Hypotheses do not become theories. Theories generate hypotheses which are then tested. That's a pretty fundamental mistake for you to make. Come on. Fess up. You're trying to make it look like you have qualifications that you don't actually have so that people will accept your opinion as being more important than it is. Right?

Secondly, there is no doubt that evolution actually does occur, and not even creationists argue about this any more. What they doubt is that macro-evolution occurs, not micro-evolution.

Thirdly, you *can* test things that no longer exist, because theory implies that those things had effects.

Three strikes. You're out. [...]

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 23:35:04 GMT

Mr. Stangl,

Science does attempt to understand how the universe came into being. But it may be something that we can't answer. God is not analyzable by science. The God of the Gaps is not promoted by actual scientists, but by fake scientists and people who pretend to do research and people who are proud of how ignorant they are of science. Science is important and we should try to teach it well. Evolution is real science. Creationism is fake science. ID is fake science.

The only reason people reject evolution is because they have a comic-book understanding of science in general and evolution in particular. Creationism is the victory of urban legend over careful reason and actual evidence.

"It has often and confidently been asserted, that man's origin can never be known: but ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin

Evolution debate revived

Vidyardhi Nanduri — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:44:52 GMT

Inadequacy of the subject on evolution must be self evident. Then scientific approach must direct the search for Links to develop the subject to Philosophy and Nature. Yoga is a link. Cosmos Yoga means vision development.The introductory book helps Unity of Consciousness in Science,religion and Philosophy, with Short Notes for Workshop participants and general readers and Cosmology Review articles,About Universe (Sree Tatva Darsana). The Questions: Cosmos interlinks, Introduction to interlinks help direct perception Total Pages:100,Figures:17

http://www.buymyebook.com/
buy/authorinfo.asp?EbookId=239

There are several aspects that open your mind to think further.
Readers are most welcome to contact me after reading the book.
Vidyardhi Nandui
Cosmology interlinks

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:25:01 GMT

Thinking is thoughtful. Perambulatory pondering produces platitudinous profundity. Genuflection evidences introspection and insightfulness.

Energy fields permeate the cosmic fiber. Whorls and vortices of distal reality convey the INHERENT wisdom of The Grand Scheme. Voluptuaries gather remittances from gullible ethereal sojourners in exchange for the linkage of Perfect Insight to neural processes.

Can I get an amen?

Evolution debate revived

JESUS Rocks,Norman,Oklahoma — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:35:49 GMT

If Scientist believes that Evolution Occured they need to go back to school because where is the proof i mean come on i can just say "hey we're evolving into birds and here are some bones i randomly found dont they look like us." does that convince you at all.Thats all Evolution is saying "hey look we we're all just accidents that evolved from monkeys." I'm not saying that the scientists are dumb its just i have a strong faith in God and so if im not convincing you then maybe this will How about the wooly mamoth scientist found fully preserved in ice.The head came back and was about 100,000 years old,then they tested the thigh bone and it was 200,000 years old. I guess the Wooly Mammoth just decided to get a hip replacement from his great great grandmother hip.Thats like me saying im 95 but i have a 10 year old legs.thank you for letting me post a message and sharing my faith with others. Jesus Died For You And Me.

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:16:02 GMT

Science doesn't say anything about God. It doesn't say there is a god. It doesn't say there isn't. Science might offer us some insights into Faith, because faith is a process that takes place in a physical object, the human brain. But God is supernatural and science only deals with nature.

Lots of people see no conflict between their belief in a supreme being and their confidence in science.

If your understanding of evolution and the science supporting it were correct, then your conclusions might be warranted, but the fact is that your understanding of what evolutionary theory actually says is wrong.

Evolution doesn't say we evolved from monkeys. Evolution doesn't say that all things are possible or that anything can evolve into anything else.

I'm sure there have been and will be anomalous readings using carbon dating, but your example is off. I don't believe carbon dating is used for anything older than maybe 50-70 thousand years old. Your story is unsubstantiated. But even if it were correct (which I'm sure it isn't), consider this: Let's say you bought a watch and it seemed to do okay and then you took it diving with you and thereafter the time was always screwed up. Would you conclude that wrist-watches were not accurate or would you conclude that there was a certain well-recognized condition under which the watch returned spurious results?

Evolution debate revived

James Cunningham,B.A.,J.D., Maitland, Florida — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:57:35 GMT

Ad where exactly in the "fossil record" is evolution? where can it be measured, tested and duplicated? NEITHER creation nor evolution belong in a science class rather in philosophy as equal theories. Just theories.and if man evolved from apes.........why are there still apes?

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend@hotmail.com, LORTON, VA — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:37:01 GMT

If I came from Frenchmen and Englishmen, why are there still Frenchmen and Englishmen? There is nothing in evolution that predicts that ancestral species have to die off. Darwin was aware of this.

A theory is not a mere speculation. Gravitation is a theory. The Germ Theory of Disease is a theory.

Evolution IS science. Creationism IS NOT. Please learn about science before asserting otherwise.

Evolution debate revived

Sidney Williams, Granite City, Illinois — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:50:24 GMT

Evolution is from the German Atheists. That being documented, Evolution is unrelated to the Bible. The Bible has a "Parable of Creation" and a "Literal Creation." All forums ban the "Parable of Creation." Until they face the music they will never learn anything.
God is performing miracles (1992, 2004, 2006) to promote faith. Only censorship is in the way.

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend LORTON, VA — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 23:04:58 GMT

No such thing has been documented. Evolution is not "from" the Germans at all and it was not discovered by atheists. I agree, however, that evolution is not related to the Bible - for the same reason that quantum mechanics is not related to the Bible. It is not true that all forums "ban" the "parable of creation."

What is "in the way," is not censorship, but unwillingness of creationists to do an honest day's research.

There is no reliable evidence of miracles.

Evolution debate revived

Wes, B.C — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 05:36:34 GMT

After reading this thread, I see a never ending argument that no side can win, simply because both sides must start from presumeing that either God Created the world, or It evolved over time, when I see how dependent we are on the circle of life, how one change in the enviroment, can damage or kill the whole circle. I find that logic requires me to believe in a Creator. I.E. there is a specialized worm that feeds off the oil found only in whales bones. after they have died. and it depends on a specialized bacteria that will process the oil, and feed it to the worm. To think that these two evolved, so dependent on each other, is beyond my ability for faith, and I admire the faith it takes to believe this evolved, displayed by the evolutionist believers.
That people would believe in evolution though was prophised almost 2000 years ago.
2 peter 3 3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men

Evolution debate revived

Adam, St. Louis, Mo — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:51:15 GMT

I love it when people use the bible as "historical fact" considering the bible was written seven centuries after the death of "Christ" by men who had never met him, never heard him speak, and had no proof what-so-ever that he existed. Now, I am not saying, creationists are incorrect. Ok, yes I am, but I will also say that for me, there are a few to many holes in the evolution "theory", however, it does add up a little better for me that this self proclaimed "science" of intelligent design!

Evolution debate revived

Paul Jeffries, Mobile, Alabama — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:29:20 GMT

Evolution is a "theory" (nothing more). It has
never been proven and never will. Yes, we are
going to stand before God at the judgment day.
No amount of "theorizing" is going to change it.
Life does not "evolve" from non-life.

The Bible has been proven true over and over for
many, many centuries. It's time to wake up, people.

Evolution debate revived

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:17:25 GMT

Anyone is says "X is just a theory and nothing more" might just as well say, "I don't know the first thing about science."

The Bible has never been proven true. What has been proven is that many of the stories appear to be made up - plagiarized from much earlier cultures. There are NO contemporaneous sources for the life of Jesus outside the cult. The ones outside the cult came later. The ones inside the cult may also have been written long afterward. Legend has it that some of the disciples died for their beliefs. In the realm of Christian legend is considered proof so long as it supports the prejudiced notions, though.

The Bible reads like a Just-So story.

Btw, biological evolution is distinct from abiogenesis - how life came about from non-life.

Evolution debate revived

Yafit Tel_aviv, Israel — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:04:38 GMT

It is so strange that still today there are people that doubt evolution.
As for what is stated in the Bible this collection of stories interpreted in the way of the New-Age are more symbolic then anything else.

Evolution debate revived

anonymous, Pearl City, HI — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 02:49:59 GMT

The Bible is not an acceptable source for evidence. The Bible was modified by a council, a king and God knows who else? Who knows what they have changed? They could've rewritten the entire Bible! Even the Other Gospels that were thrown out can't be believed. What if they were written by people to add on to the original Book? Who can't say that the Bible was just meant as a novel, purely for entertainment?

Fossils -- now THOSE are tangible evidence pieces.

I believe that God created the right conditions for the primordial soup to form, that he manipulated the amount of lightning and UV rays to the ocean, creating amino acids, that he painstakingly and with detail evolved specimens one by one and caused the Five Mass Extinctions of species to erase the mistakes. Hey, even our Creator must've not got it right the first time. Who knows what those mistakes could've evolved into?

Nevertheless, the evolutionary theory MUST contribute to our existence.

Evolution debate revived

Jenni Lou TX — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:43 GMT

Why in the world should we as christians fight over something like this when we can see their eyes are shut to the truth? The Bible has stated that God will shut the ears of the unbeliever in the end times. They will not believe, because their hearts are not open to truth. I fear we will have to wait until the pouring out of God's spirit for people to finally see that all christians have said is the simple truth. I also believe we should not try to force someone to believe the way we do even if it is the truth. Jesus did not push his beliefs on others. He merely lived them with simple sincerity, and if that is too uncomfortable for nonChristians than they admit more than they realize.

Evolution debate revived

Gene Ballou, Texas — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:37:57 GMT

I am a reasonable, intelligent Christian (yes, there are such creatures!) who chooses to believe Intelligent Design OVER Evolution. Why? Because there are gaping holes in the theory of Evolution that nobody wants to talk about. Because the mathematical odds against life coming to exist "by accident" are staggering. And finally, because I find it comforting to believe there is a loving God who made everything and is watching over it with just as much care.

The bottom line for me is that it takes just as much faith (belief without actual proof) to believe in Evolution as it does to believe in Creationism. I personally think it's more reasonable to believe in God, than to believe that this wonderful, beautiful, incredible universe happened through random chance.

Like Jenni Lou said, I'm not here to try and convince. I've never seen anybody won over by an argument. On the other hand if you'd like to talk to me personally, feel free to contact me.

Evolution debate revived

Jenni Lou TX — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:51:45 GMT

I would like to mention that my comment was supposed to be printed Jesus did NOT push his beliefs on others. So it should actually read:
Jesus did not push his beliefs on others. He merely lived them simply and sincerely. If that is too uncomfortable for nonChristians than they admit more than they realize.

[ALAN ADDS: I've fixed the typo ... I quickly approved that original comment without parsing every sentence.]