Intelligent redesign

Casey Luskin, Seattle, Washington — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:43:51 GMT

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

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

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

The Bacterial Flagellum:
http://www.designinference.com/documents/
2003.02.Miller_Response.htm

Intelligent redesign

me, nowhere, USA — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:04:22 GMT

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is watching.

Intelligent redesign

gregg cones houston tx — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:18:37 GMT

please, this is a desperate attempt to keep merging church and state. read your history books and have faith in god's message. trust your soul is safe but don't force the rest of us to hear this crap and call it scientific information. please!!! gregg in houston

Intelligent redesign

justin, slc, ut — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:21:14 GMT

i think they should teach about the flying spaghetti monster if they wanna teach id! lol but in all truth its crazy that people can't believe in both i mean, the bible is a book written by a man from 2000 years ago. you think god would tell him how he made man? or that the man would understand dna and molecular structures... of course not, god like a writer is gonna use metaphors so that simple man can understand like i made you from clay.. both theories can work together if you just think about it

Intelligent redesign

Neal Richardson, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:35:55 GMT

Just throwing this out there. I get a lot of the similarity in DNA and animal and plant structure as proof of evolution. Makes sense. However, I design web pages. Sure I'm no expert, but I do hand code ASP and I'm learning PHP. I copy and paste a lot of code from one page to another, even reuse code between sites. Someone comparing sites might think that they evolved from one another. Isn't it possible that all of the stuff of life is similar because God used the same stuff? Doesn't EVERY designer reuse parts that work? Makes sense to me!

Intelligent redesign

Chris, Denver — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:41:15 GMT

Religious conservatives throughout the ages have fought every advance that might cast doubt on their beliefs, whether it's that there's only one God and not a whole bunch, that the Earth is round, that it revolves around the Sun, or is billions of years old. Eventually, though it may take another hundred years, they will eventually catch up with people aren't afraid to face answers they might not like. Christ, it took the Catholic church 500 years to admit they were wrong in persecuting Galileo.

Intelligent redesign

Sharon Sylvestre, Colorado Springs, CO — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:56:16 GMT

Science and religion are one and the same. The split starts when someone refuses to believe that something does not exist. My grandfather did not believe dinasaurs really existed. Some people will not believe whether there is evidence or not.
There is an intelligent design. The proof is in the science.

Intelligent redesign

Midge Baker — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 01:03:38 GMT

The whole controversy regarding evolution is ridiculous and is being used by its ID proponents to blind God's people from the truth, to serve those proponents own ends.

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

"Evolution" is not a theory. It is simply the scientific explanation of the mechanical process by which the God-given and -created natural process works.

Intelligent redesign

Shawn, Seattle, WA — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 01:16:04 GMT

Saying something is possible doesn't mean it happened, and doesn't make it science. Anything is possible. The Spaghetti Monster is possible. The Matrix is possible. Science is about explaining phenomena, not speculating about possibilities.

There is no evidence for intelligent design. There is evidence for evolution. ID suffers from a common problem of bad science: it begins with a conclusion, and structures its findings to support that conclusion. Science works the other way. When Darwin developed the Theory (that's a capital T... it means something special in science) of Evolution, he began with observations and arrived at conclusions. The evolutionary explanation for the similarity of things is that changes are very small and on extraordinary time scales. Organisms aren't "coded" to have certain characteristics; they have no direction in their genetic development. They simply develop based on their genes, try to survive, and reproduce. There would never be a discontinuity where "the stuff of life" (I assume you mean DNA or the proteins it encodes) suddenly change. Speciation happens incredibly slowly. Changes happen over hundreds of generations. And when the changes are done, the new species will still have a lot of similarity to the species it evolved from. It's why some snakes have vestigal leg bones, lungfish have gills, and people share over 95% of DNA with chimps.

Intelligent redesign

Robert Reppy,Tampa,Fl. — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 01:25:24 GMT

In response to Neal's comment: "Isn't it possible that all of the stuff of life is similar because God used the same stuff?". - Actually, that sums up pretty well what Evolution says happens. Life comes from pre-existing life. Genes come from genes. Science can't address the "Why" or "Who" of creation - that is beyond its purview, by definition. However, it does a real good job of answering the "How". If it gives one comfort to believe that a god set the whole thing in motion, then fine. Evolution science merely says that "this is how God does it". These are the rules He set up.
I think so many fundamentalists act out of ignorance and oppose evolution because they think they are being asked to choose between a belief in God or in Science. That's a false dichotomy; there is no actual need to choose at all. One can have both; Faith, and Truth as revealed by Evidence.So lighten up out there, and quit trying to defend Stupidity.

Intelligent redesign

Shawn, Seattle, WA — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 01:45:34 GMT

Wow... didn't want to post twice, but there are a couple real doozies that came up while I was writing my earlier comment. Science and religion are unrelated. Science cannot make statements about religion, and vice versa. Never confuse them. If you want to believe a mystical being poofed everything into existence so he could make us feel bad (the Catholic mindset) or make us love him (Protestants) or wear special underpants (Mormons), go ahead. Knock yourself out [...] But keep it out of the schools. I don't want my kids being fed your bull. Let's say the courts decided you could teach ID, but only if you taught it from a Hindu perspective. Would you be happy with that? Your kids learning how Vishnu and Krishna and Shiva continually create and destroy the universe over the eons, with life expressing the divine balance of it all, and not a mention of the Christian god or Jesus... sound good to you? Or are you really just trying to wedge your Christian religion into my kids' school? Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church.

Intelligent redesign

Terry, Irving, TX — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 01:52:24 GMT

The ID people generally have some problems with their arguements when they try for a 6000 year old earth, etc., but evolution has some problems itself. It can't be a case of it was set in motion and went all by its lonesome and it couldn't be a random happening that just started by some obscure chance. For evolution to begin or continue without outside input violates the second law of thermodynamics. That is the one that doesn't allow perpetual motion machines and other fun stuff that people imagine.
The person that said "It is better to live life as if there is a God and die and find there isn't than to live as if there isn't a God and die and find there is." had a good point.

Intelligent redesign

Martin M — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 02:17:23 GMT

Also in response to Neal's comment: The reason human designers reuse the same design basis is because they are bound by time and the laws of physics (or ASP), and their own creativity. If we were all powerful or omniscient we would not be bound by such constraints and could solve each problem with a unique solution that perfectly fits the application.

Intelligent redesign

Justin, Washington DC — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 02:19:36 GMT

Neal, I understand what you are saying, but comparing a relatively small computer program code with something as massive as the entire human genome doesn't fit well.

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

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

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

Evolutionary biologists are not out to prove or disprove God or religion in a general sense. What they deal with is how life changes over time and why. How life began is for another field of science.

Intelligent redesign

Chuck D., Earth — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 02:41:42 GMT

Okay, if we're going to teach that someone or something created all of us, WHICH creation story is to be told? The Christian one, the Hindu, the Navajo, the Maori? Each group fervently believes that ITS story and ITS ALONE is correct, so how can one be chosen as true and all the others false? The only answer is not to launch religious wars, but to use our rationality to understand the objective science of life rather than resorting to myths.

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

Let's posit for a moment that there IS some creative force in the Universe who kick-started us at some point in the past, and gave us the intelligence and curiosity to explore the universe. If all of our resulting science is wrong, that creator hasn't really watched over and nurtured us; he/she/it has simply played a monstrous cosmic joke on humanity. I prefer the world of science to a world "created" by such an entity!

Intelligent redesign

reverend gisher — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 03:03:39 GMT

The heck with any theory. can we get learning, actual facts, back in the schools before we worry about dogma?

Intelligent redesign

Travis Eurbin Barton Vt — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 03:03:59 GMT

I find it hard to believe that a scientist would be opposed to an opposing view when their view hasn't been shown to be law..........so many "scientists" violate the scientific method that it seems to be an insane attempt to push the possibility of an higher being into obscurity....... what are you afraid of? /there is no reason that God and science cannot be compatible, and if you read the Bible, you will see that He wants us to know truth.......... that often means we have to wade through some untruth to get there....

Intelligent redesign

Bill Hensley — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 03:27:14 GMT

Shawn,

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

http://believersbrain.blogspot.com/2007/06/theology-of-science.html
http://believersbrain.blogspot.com/2007/06/theology-of-science-part-ii.html

Intelligent redesign

Jeff Doehring — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 03:28:09 GMT

Intelligent design is fiction. Evolution is fact, proven not only in nature but in our way of lives as well. Take the US Constitution for example. The reason it is still a document of rule today is because the constitution was designed to be changed as society evolves.

Intelligent redesign

Peter Bautista, USA — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 03:30:08 GMT

Neal: I copy and paste a lot of code from one page to another, even reuse code between sites. Someone comparing sites might think that they evolved from one another.

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

Web pages all share a common ancestor, namely the very first computer program actually created. And the code that makes it all work is proof of that common ancestor. In the case of computer code, it's actually a lot easier to see the progression, as the whole thing has been amply documented.

Intelligent redesign

WWL, NM — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 03:33:58 GMT

Shawn from Seattle raised a good point. However you believe, evolution or ID or something in between, once you dictate a stance you raise a whole can of worms. As a High School science teacher, I resist any push toward teaching any theory (a scientific hypothesis that is backed by evidence and has not to date be refuted) as gospel or law. Once we do that where do we stop. Every culture on the face of the planet has a theory about how the world started. All other issues aside, I DON'T HAVE TIME to teach them all. So I'm going to stick to my current plan. Here's the evidence children, make up your own minds. Now, let's get on to more pressing matters like finding a way to pass the idiotic No Child Left Behind Test we're saddled with.

Intelligent redesign

Meztli, Los Angeles, CA — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 03:37:22 GMT

Science is proven theory. Religion are stories held up by society to control and oppress it's people. Religion can take on many names, but the one true one it should take on is: Myth.

Intelligent redesign

Wayne Sircoulomb, Fall River, Kansas — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 03:44:38 GMT

I find it strange that religious fundamentalists are spending so much effort and resources attacking one of the best supported scientific concepts in history while we still have so many sick, hungry, and homeless in our world. All of this takes me back to the old Jethro Tull album Aqualung and the views expressed in the Ian Anderson songs "My God", "Hymn 43", and "Wind Up". The older I get the more sceptical I get about fundamentalist religions and the agenda of their leaders. I actually see more of God in evolution than in the quibbling and magic of todays fundamentalist religious leaders.

Intelligent redesign

Tim, Birmingham,Ala. — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 03:45:16 GMT

Chapter one of a book used in the engineering curriculum describes "design factors" as characteristics or considerations which influence the design of the element or perhaps the entire system.Engineering is a science which teaches students how to design.
My hypothesis is this..."Fine tuned design factor parameters are seen in the formation,structure, and function of the universe, earth, and living systems."
It is time detached groups of scientists,engineers,educators, etc test this or similar hypothesis to determine if it can become a theory.

Intelligent redesign

Erin D., Bozeman, MT — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 03:53:13 GMT

Dear Terry, the second law of thermodynamics only applies to CLOSED systems. The Sun dumps tremendous amounts of energy into the Earth allowing for life and powering changes.
And evolution isn't random chance, how silly. There are consequences and benefits to every change no matter how small. Nothing exists without influence, not the Earth, and not any living thing.
Can't creationists come up with GOOD arguments? These are too easy Terry.

Intelligent redesign

Reynolds Jones, Schenectady, NY — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 03:56:57 GMT

I understand that it is very necessary to those who need literalistic faith in order to find some morality for themselves, because they, for whatever reason, are incapable of understanding the idea of morality without having it forced on them, to find ways to defend whatever book or faith they are using to source their understanding of life.

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

Believe what you need to believe -- but leave the rest of us alone, and leave alone the separation of church and state -- which frankly, is why the fundamentalist denominations exist at all.

Intelligent redesign

Rod, Houston — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 04:08:10 GMT

Mostly the same old nonsense from the ID/Creationist. But I do want to mention that the first comment is from Casey Luskin...who is a fellow at the Discovery Institute, the chief scumbags behind the ID scam.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&isFellow=true&id=188

Intelligent redesign

Wakefield Tolbert — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 04:11:42 GMT

NO one in the Christian Church ever said the world was anything other than round. That piece of mythology is promoted by the Darwinian faithful and some hometown dumbunnies as some kind of "gotcha" moment, akin to saying "see what the fools USED to think but now FORCED to admit by science." As most historians know, this is myth in itself. The myth that the early church thought the world flat as a fritter was mostly brought to us by a few writers like Washington Irving and some other cranks, claiming that exploration righted this ignorance may very well be a passtime explanation of high school science teachers, but like much of public schooling today, is FLAT wrong. Two as far as we know, and five at the most of early prominent churchmen made claims to flatness based on Scripture, and of those two were known heretics. No one after the first century AD (or very few) thought the world was flat, and NO, it is NOT taught in the Bible. It might be found in pagan and Near East cosmology, but not among the Jews. The Scriptures often referenced like "four corners of the earth" and "foundations of the world" are widely recognized by most mainline scholars as inferences to God's power and the cardinal directions, etc. Even IF early Hebrews thought this, it is not apparent in either Old or New Testament canonical writings. Interpretations to the contrary can only be pure speculation, which regardless of what one thinks about ID and the like, is supposed to be free of tenditious inquiry. Likewise, the story on Galileo and Copernicus, though often dumbed down to simple simon explanations, are also somewhat more complicated than Darwinists and secularists promulgate to the masses. The Church, at the time, was actually in both cases not so much having issue with new theories but making a moral claim as do Darwinists today that their SECULAR take on these theories about motion (the Church used the Aristotelian models) were in danger, etc. Their case was more civic order than God's divinity at stake.

Intelligent redesign

Rabbi Aaron L. Rivkin, Rapid City, SD — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 04:12:12 GMT

In the forseeable future two robots will have a very heated discussion whether machines were created or just evolved.
We have a very "Privileged Planet"!

Intelligent redesign

Gordon, Guatemala City, Guatemala — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 04:30:18 GMT

Neal, Terry, Martin, Justin:

Thank you for actually trying to promote an intelligent conversation.

Intelligent redesign

Glenn, Iowa City, IA — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 04:34:43 GMT

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

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

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

On the other hand, we who are Christians must also remember that the Bible never was intended as a science textbook - nor does it stand up very well when scrutinized as such. Those of you who deny the existence of a Creator are welcome to your viewpoint. However, if you expect to be taken seriously as "scientists" or at least believers in scientific theory, then you must admit that science is no more a moral code and compass than the Bible is a biology textbook. On the contrary, the Bible is the Word of God, a history of His love for humanity - a love so great that He gave His Son for the sins we still commit today. Teach evolution if you must but remember this: The teachings of science are not nearly so important as the moral lessons we must learn before we put science into practice.

Intelligent redesign

Wakefield Tolbert — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 04:35:04 GMT

Then on the other hand, one does wonder when (as with the Globaloney Warming at hand) the time occured that lawyers and judges suddenly became adept at unweaving complex scientific ideas. All the evidence so far (just to judge from our junky lawsuit ridden liability maze society) is that, well, judges no more than politicians make good scientists. Hmmm.

Intelligent redesign

Chris Robertson, Little Rock, AR — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 04:35:07 GMT

I find it ironic that ID supporters do not back the teachings of Darwin. Religion itself is a victim of evolution. Two of the worlds largest religions- Islam and Christianity- EVOLVED. Neither one of those religions has remained the same thru their short life span. Now, they are battling each other for supremacy (the war on terror), which Darwin would describe as "survival of the fittest". Cults could be defined as mutations, hence the Protestant mutation from the Catholic church. But, the Protestants survived, because they had certain attributes.

Please people, read your science books and your religious books. They can co-exist. I get the feeling that most people are religious because of social 'norms'. We are born into a religion, so we accept it. Everything evolves. Brains, cars, planes, - EVERYTHING EVOLVES. TEACH EVOLUTION!

Intelligent redesign

Shawn, Seattle, WA — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 04:40:59 GMT

To Terry: While it is true that evolution makes no claims about the actual origin of life, that doesn't mean there aren't ideas. Those are other theories. And the second law of thermodynamics causes no problems with evolution. That law says "The entropy (disorder) in a closed system never decreases." Evolution increases order in specific individuals (humans have more order than jellyfish), but not on the planet as a whole. Evolution is not a perpetual motion machine, because the Earth and its ecosystems are not closed systems; we are constantly bombarded by light from the Sun, for one. There is outside input, but its not divine. The energy from the Sun fuels all life on Earth and is involved in all aspects of evolution. Evolution does not violate the second law; it in fact represents a beautiful example of the power of that law in nature. You should learn the science before trying to use it against a scientist. And the anecdote you mention is called Pascal's wager. It is not a very logically powerful argument. And besides... do you think when you die and see god, he'll give you credit for believing in him for such a selfish, faithless reason?

Intelligent redesign

Joe Blow, Los Angeles, CA — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 05:05:54 GMT

I have spent the last 20 years selling fossils and related merchandise to museums, universities, school systems, individuals, and groups in different parts of the world. The only people who have ever stiffed me were the Answers in Genesis creationists. They don't believe in science or ethics.

Intelligent redesign

Erich Spoor, Denton, TX — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 05:09:16 GMT

In response to Terry (a fellow Texan), and with all due respect - evolution most certainly does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will increase over time. This is often related to "disorder", and I assume that it is in this context to which you are referring.

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

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

How this in turn leads to a rationalization that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics is unclear to me - and thank God it doesn't, otherwise I wouldn't be hear to clear up this misconception.

Intelligent redesign

Josh Bullock, Louisville, Kentucky — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 05:14:13 GMT

thoughts..."Separation of Church and State" is not in the constitution! Jefferson actually coined the phrase when he wrote it, what he meant was that the government should not be dictating things to the churches.
...Athiestic evolution is a faith. Just like forms of creation. Read some Alvin Plantiga.(one of the best philosophers in the world. from Notre Dame)
...How can you attempt to totally separate religion from people? Thats not what separation of church and state meant. You cannot separate people from their religious beliefs. Therefore, you cant have a totally unreligious government.
...I see no problem teaching different theories of how we got here, evolution, creation, intelligent design, ...why oppose this? Evolution has not been proved. and for sure Athiestic Evolution has not been proven. Let the kids decide for themselves. Quit being intolerant. You gripe at us for not being tolerant. Let people be discerning...
By the way, there is not conclusive evidence for Darwinian/Athiestic Evolution. You cant name me anything. Anything that proves the earth is old is still within the bounds of biblical creation theories(such as the Gap Theory)
sorry about posting this twice, but I wanted to change a few words. I think i was a little upset. sorry. I just dont see why we cant teach all kinds of theories of how we got here and quit trying to indoctrinate kids at school. Lets just let them and their parents decide. There doesnt seem to be anything wrong with objectively protraying different theories...

Intelligent redesign

SRS, North Las Vegas, NV — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 05:32:04 GMT

More horse-pucky "science". Everyone is so intent on proven the non-existence of God, it's now come the shear foolishness. I don't think He cares about the courts, scientific "consensus", or any of the other nonsense thrown out. This folly just makes those that would otherwise be considered to be intelligent to look like fools.

Intelligent redesign

Keith Smith, Kennewick, WA — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 05:48:15 GMT

Well, I'm with those who say that evolution describes, scientifically and temporally, how God made things, especially life. Tamping His work down into a 6,000 year history is like trying to fit the entire universe into a silk purse made from a sows ear. It's "reverse theorizing" at its worst.

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

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

I can only imagine how amused He must be, by the pitiful clamor propagated by those who claim to be His people , in trying to explain Him from their poor, limited, opinionated and often bigotted perspectives.

Intelligent redesign

Steve, San Diego, CA — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 05:49:11 GMT

Evolution works because it does not exist in a vacuum. the non-vacuum in which it exists is called the 'universe.' In this 'universe,' there are billions of galaxies, which contain billions of stars, about which orbit multi-billions of planets. Statistically, there are hundreds of billions of life-capable planets in the universe; Earth's life experience is simply one that happened to succeed. there are, no doubt, billions of planets on which life never got past a single-cell organism. There are planets that never made it to dinosaurs. Monkeys. Etc.

The premise of evolution is that life explore numerous paths, most of them dead-ends, before finding one that works.

Intelligent redesign

Richard Porter — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:00:16 GMT

Its amazing how brainwashed and closed minded our current intelligentsia is as a result of the influence of the anti-science myth of evolution.

Intelligent redesign

Alex Dickerson, Clear Lake, Iowa — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:07:30 GMT

Listen, please, all of you. Science is not out there to explain the way anything is. Science is observing phenomonon again, and again, and again, and from these ovservations, not before enough is gathered, making a theory. Then test the theory, again and again, change as necessary, and repeat. Hmm.. sounds kind of like an evolution.

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

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

Leave science to the people with an IQ of more than 120.

Intelligent redesign

alex dickerson, clear lake, iowa — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:12:29 GMT

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

hmm... guess it was designed then.

Intelligent redesign

Mikeal, Baton Rouge, LA — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:13:02 GMT

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

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

--Touched by His Noodly Appendage

Intelligent redesign

Phil, Newark, California — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:48:27 GMT

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

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

Likewise, life on Earth in general sustains itself because we receive an average of about five hundred watts per square meter of energy from the Sun, which gives plants the energy to grow. Turn off the Sun, and nearly everything dies very quickly. Over the Sun's lifetime, it has "burned" 850,000 tons of hydrogen every second--this is what ultimately powers all life on Earth.

Intelligent redesign

cmo,phila,pa — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:50:22 GMT

Poor Shawn from Seattle! I am praying for you and your misguided family. If you think your ready for truth, try reading a book from a re-known physicist. The author's name:Frank J. Tipler.
The book's title:The Physics of Christianity
I refer you to this particular work as it is based on numbers. The one thing in this world that is incapable of lies. My children and grandchildren do not and have not attended your public education system, but that still does not mean that our future generations should be made to only know one side of this debate; which is based on the "me as center of the universe" ideology. This great country was founded on the belief in God, and actually was a better country, ie: we are killing our future with millions of abortions a year, rampant drug use among our youth, I could go on and on. I will leave you Shawn to ponder, in response to your comment on the Bible being a work of man only: If you believe in history, you have bought into a 'work' of man. If you believe that you are your parents' child, you have put your faith and trust in their words. What is so hard about accepting the words of God as told to man? And if you had ever read the Old Testament, you would know why they never questioned Him.

Intelligent redesign

Lywis — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:53:11 GMT

This bares repeating: Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church.

Given the vastness of the universe and its incomprehensiveness, an intelligent designer is certainly possible. But then we would probably not be anything more than slimy cellular overgrowth to this ID and worshipping it (Her?) would be a waste of time.

Intelligent redesign

James, Memphis, TN — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:00:00 GMT

Full disclosure Casey. Casey Luskin is an attorney for the Discovery Institute. Telling that he is first to comment. The PR firm in full effect. Where is the DI research you all have been promising for so long?

Intelligent redesign

Robert, Owosso, MI — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:24:15 GMT

I find the level of rhetoric delivered by those demanding compliance to Evolutionary Dogma to be strikingly similar to the people who supported slavery in the 1800’s. Acceptance of Slavery was declared to be essential, and anyone who questioned “the Institution” was met with extreme opposition, ridicule and attack. Many of the previous comments against Intelligent Design show this same type of invective. Supporters of Slavery had their “evidence” and wide spread support for the notion that people of African descent were less than human and even people of faith were slave holder. They even won a decisive court case: Dread Scott in which a majority of the judges on the Supreme Court decided that a man was some other person’s property…A few courageous people knew then what we all know now…I believe history will shine a similar light on the same type of bigotry being displayed today.

Intelligent redesign

Chris S. Bakersfield,Ca — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:39:32 GMT

You can side with independent scientific evidence,especially in ASTROLOGY, where simple mathmatics Prove the universe is much older than 6,000...12,000 or some ridiculous number, or you can deny your common sense and put your "faith " in a dusty ol error prone collection of ancient books whos authors arent even known for the most part. What is known is that there is ZERO evidence,and that the bible was written by a people who were to say the least,"extremley opressed".......add some real places and people to your tall tales and you got a new religion. Just one of a long list of myths

Intelligent redesign

Keith, Los Angeles — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:44:11 GMT

What misses the point is that creationism and ID are just the last gasp of religion trying to make itself relevant in an increasingly liberal, materialistic, technological world. And it's failing. Globally religion is in decline as peoples' needs are being met by economic prosperity and better social safety nets.

Religious geeks can fight all they want, their grandchildren will still be playing with genetically engineered pets, popping trait enhancing pills, driving cars powered by human invented organisms that synthesizes fuel with gene spliced proteins while speculating on the implications of organic and probably non-organic life that will have been detected throughout the cosmos, by big telescopes or robotic probes. Religion can't touch that, it provides no mechanism for progress, just bronze age mythology and antiquated moralizing.

Oh, and the simplistic notion that morality comes from religion will be considered trite nonsense in the face of neuro-anatomy and brain science that already shows that empathy, altruism and consequence evaluation are all evolved, upgradeable, transplantable brain functions.

Their grandchildren will live in a world where those who understand evolutionary biology and it's influence on human behavior will have a decisive advantage in a more manipulative, over-stimulating world.

Religion will be one of many refuges for spirituality but not a basis for educating children on cosmology or biology.

Intelligent redesign

Wade, El Paso TX — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:50:49 GMT

How about this angle? Over the years, what has brought us to this point in time and space (history)? You could say that religion has been with humans and humanoids since as far back as can be detected through archeologic finds. But through those same digs, you also find, over time, progression of the use of technology. To a certain extent, religion predates our current society-based laws and gave (and still does) gave a simple reason for people to have hope, fear wrongdoing, among other benefits, such as holding communities together. Religion over time evolved just as technology has become more sophisticated (what happened to ritual sacrifices?). But it seems the problem with certain religions out there have become stagnant, either for self-preservation (change, and we no longer are what we were) or because the religion forbids change due to self-imposed regulation (part of what is understood in evolution is what causes some creatures extinction).

Intelligent redesign

Michael Grassi, Harbin, China — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:13:59 GMT

How can the common man even begin to formulate theories of our origins when the bulk of true scientific data is deliberately withheld from us. The fact is that there are many intelligent and vastly superior civilizations existing throughout the Universe governments of this planet MUST enlighten their 'subjects' as to the true reality of our situation. Only then, will individuals be able to grasp a greater sensibility of their origins.

Intelligent redesign

Dr.W Orbis Scientificus — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:57:25 GMT

I agree with the judge's ruling and his sentiments: religious fanatics can't make a dogma into a theory just by putting "-ism" on the end of a word. "Creationism," in fact, is not a theory at all (as Shawn pointed out). And "intelligent design" boils down to a teleological non-explanation: things are the way they are because God made them that way doesn't explain a damned thing. The question-begging involved in any teleology rendered the so-called "science" of meta-physics irrelevant nearly two centuries ago, regardless of how much Kant tried to gloss over that conclusion. And without metaphysics, religion cannot be "scientific." The modern breach between faith and science is the result, as is the fact-value split. No matter what they say, these intelligent design bozos are not scientists, they are dogmatists, believers trying to pass off their values as if they're facts and their religious beliefs as if they are legitimate theories, Which they are not.

By the way, Terry, that bit of "sound advice" you like so much is called "Pascal's Wager," after Blaise Pascal, an Enlightenment French mathematician who turned his back on modernity and ran snivelling back into the arms of the Catholic Church. You can find the complete "argu-ment" in his Pensees, in which Pascal attempts to use reason to defeat reason and shore up faith. As Nietzsche and other philosophers have pointed out, though, Pascal's Wager is nothing but "bad faith"-in the same way that all these creationist idiots are engaging in "bad science."

Also: Shawn, you're wrong. Though religion cannot make any valid comments about science, science can defi-nitely make valid statements about religion, if by the term "valid" is meant a justi-fiable statement. Of course, according to a strictly logi-cal view, religion (as an illogical activity) doesn't makes any valid statements, nor, properly speaking, are any of its metaphysical state-ments either true or false. They're non-statements, or rather, nonsense. A scien-tific analysis of religious assertions would be a rhetor-ical analysis of metaphors and analogies, and a scien-tific analysis of religious practices would have to be either a psychoanalysis of individual neuroses and psychoses or a sociological study of the various ways in which groups tyrannize individuals and other groups, to ostracize them or to force them to conform.

A "religious" study of any science, however, would still be religious nonsense.

Intelligent redesign

Mac — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:01:00 GMT

Shawn of Seattle you said what I would wish to say and you said it well. I am in complete agreement. I live very well with myself accepting that I do not have all the answers as to how, what, or why about the Creation or big bang - but I am definately not happy when someone tells me they have all the answers because they read an old fairy tale (bible) based on bits and pieces of writings made by several people over many years and later badly translated. And those same people also seem to forget that there are others in the world who are also armed with their old bits of paper with different fairy stories about yet other gods. Perhaps students don't want to learn religion but are they given a choice? No, the religion of their country is pushed down their throats one way or another whether they like it or not. Call it ID if you like, but its still religion making claims that are mind bogglingly stupid - 6,000 year old planet? - Pearly Gates? Heaven, hell? A designer? He, she or it is a dreadful designer and definately not too intelligent...

Why can't people just say "I don't know" (the truth) rather than claiming "they know" (the lie) and sprouting all this nonsense about gods to justify themselves.

How can anyone claim (and expect to be believed) that they know all the answers pertaining to life the universe and creation and eveything just because they read some "not quite so old bits of paper" saying so?? Such people are either incredibly arrogant or incredibly stupid - and the proof is that their lives are no better than my life even though they are supposedly superior beings and have all the answers - and I know nothing. Yet if something is shown with reasonable supporting evidence I will think about it a while, and most probably agree with it. Science has done that time and time again - religion has not done that, not even once in its entire history. We should not be wasting our time debating such absurdities as ID and much less messing up our childrens education with fantasies. Teach the children what is, and what they can become and stop confusing them with bearded old designer men in the sky who will make their lives hell if they don't believe.

Put that silly book down on the table and then show me how that book contains the sum of human knowledge that goes way beyond our best scientific minds and you ID believers will fail - leaving me just one more answer - I'll tell you where to stick it.

Intelligent redesign

Sam, Maryland — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:27:15 GMT

Science becomes religion when one attributes a phenomenon they don't understand to the supernatural. Science is a way of asking questions to gain knowledge; religion suppresses thought.

Intelligent redesign

C.D., eNGLAND — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:26:05 GMT

Human beings are story tellers. God is a story, not a truth.

Intelligent redesign

Giselle Martínez, San Juan, Puerto Rico — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:48:31 GMT

If there is intelligent design the only thing one must see is a car.
How many man hours does it take to design a common car? How many different materials? And this is just a machine used to transport people. It cannot do anything else. And it will deteriorate until it is useless for the purpose it was created.

Lets look at one cell. It has many "parts" that work and it is alive as well. In addtion it can reproduce itself without outside intervention. Each organel within the cell performs a necessary function and each cell has its own fuction as well. This cell will be used in many animal and vegetable designs and will ultimately fit in a larger organ that will have a series of functions itself in a larger living being. And this larger being will have its own part to play in nature and nature provides itself all that is needed to mantain these subparts, parts and systems plus it recycles all the materials used.
Can you imagine how many design hours it takes to create this?
An this is only considering living things. How about the beautiful simphony that space and celestial bodies play in the vast universe?
If there is no ID how come everything in nature fits so well macroscopicaly and microscopicaly wise?
It takes more faith to believe in evolution than in intelligent design and to me the latter makes more sense.

Intelligent redesign

Darren — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:47:44 GMT

What would the response be if I tried to teach Evolution in Sunday School?

Intelligent redesign

Dan, St. Petersburg Florida — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:06:12 GMT

isn't it a fact that outside of a few sketchy bacterial studies scientist have not been able to view evolution in action?...isnt it a fact that fossil evidence only proves an animal existed..not its genetics?...if you cant observe it happening then concluding that things actually are evolving is just that a conclusion not a scientific fact...and given the rate at which the evolutionary theory changes its clearly not settled science...as a matter of fact no science is settled and all things that we know, we know because what was previously thought as settled science wasn't so settled after all...is it smart to tell children in school that science is settled and we know all that there is to know and no other theories or explanation can apply?...wouldnt they grow up thinking inside the box instead of outside the box...arnt all discoveries scientific or not because people think out side the box?...intelligent design is has some legitimate basis...though clearly limited...but to refuse even a mention of it in class seems illogical and oppressive to me and against the purpose of education..and that its to get kids to think about things...not to get them to take things for granted

Intelligent redesign

John B, Mississauga, Ontario — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:31:25 GMT

Something to think about! It is a well established idea that the dating methods that science uses today are scientific and relatively accurate. But, what if they are not? This is basically what is used to propagate the evolutionary theory. If the world was only thousands of years old and not millions or billions of years old then the evolutionary theory would be redundant or nothing but a joke along with those who support it. Before the debate over creation or evolution continues, maybe these dating methods should be investigated and scrutinized in the same way as these ideas of our existance are. Contrary to popular belief, there is a myriad of evidence to support the fact that the world is not anywhere near as old as science claims it to be. For an example, there are actual unfossilized dinosaur bones that are supposed to be millions of years old! Anyone with any form of intelligence and not having to be a scientist, would know that a hollow porous bone could not exist in that state for millions of years. There is evidence than man walked with the dinosaurs and actually made carvings, pottery and statues in their likeness and on and on it goes. It's amazing how much of the evidence that tells the real story is ignored. The world is not 6,000 years old as many creationists would like us to believe either because it is contrary to our science and our history. This foolish idea gives the evolutionists the ammunition they need to refute the idea of creation. Common sense and some very serious research will show you what the truth really is and let's not forget, many will not accept the truth because their pride will not allow them to. The day is coming when the debate over evolution and intelligent design will be settled once and for all and you had better hope you are not on the wrong side of the issue. A few thousand years ago a very wise person once wrote; MAKE SURE OF ALL THINGS AND HOLD ONTO WHAT IS TRUTH.

Intelligent redesign

RQBK, Sanford, NC — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:40:03 GMT

Oh, right. The old, tired second law of thermodynamics argument, which assumes the lack of outside input to keep the whole thing going. Unfortunately for them, there IS a source of outside energy, it's called THE SUN.

Intelligent redesign

James Ingrahm — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:40:56 GMT

The first question on my 3rd graders science test last week was "On what day did god create the sun?" I answered for her - "Which god?". Haven't heard back yet.
The religious nuts won't be happy till they force feed that crap down all our throats. And they want to start with your child. There is no god in this universe or any other and all the 'faithing' won't make it true.

Intelligent redesign

Chad, Knoxville TN — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:42:27 GMT

Here is an interesting thought (at least I think so). In the US we are required to attend schools. Most don't have the money to both pay enough taxes to fund the public schools and pay for a private school, so almost everyone attends a public school. So, we are required to attend a public school 5 days a week for 8 hours a day, and told we cannot pray, cannot discuss God (in most cases) cannot learn about intelligent design, etc. What happened to the separation of church and state? Since when does the state get to decide that church must be absent from such a large portion of our lives?
If public schools by definition prohibit the free exercise of religion, shouldn't we have the option of not funding them? Shouldn't we have the option of sending our money to schools that support our own religious beliefs? How does forcing people to pay for a system that blocks religious beliefs coincide with the first ammendment?

Intelligent redesign

Grog, Detroit, Mi. — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:43:45 GMT

Lets say you have a philosophy that you live your life by. And that philosophy is based on things unseen that you have no facts to back up. We could call that religion right. A faith in things unseen.
That describes Evolution. All the evidence used in the theory (small t) exists now not millions of years ago. We don't see evolution happening anywhere.
You can infer it from observation or imagine how something got the way it is but it's never been seen happening. And don't even try the moth story. My kids
get the religion of evolution shoved down their throat everyday but people like Shawn don't seem to have a problem with that. Can anyone give me one fact of evolution?

Intelligent redesign

Jack Straw. Wichita KS — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:46:21 GMT

I wonder what the Taliban and Al Kida think about ID...I bet they believe it also??? That's what 'blind' obedience to a dogma brings about.
It's religon boys...not science.

Anybody got any wine?

Intelligent redesign

Bobby Ensminger, Monroe, La — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:49:47 GMT

Do you really want to trust science on issues of such importance? Scientists taught us the world was flat, until one day they changed their mind and told us it was round. Scientists told us the solar system revolved around the Earth , until one day they changed their minds and told us it revolves around the Sun. Scietists told us ulcers are caused by stress until one day they changed their minds and told us it was caused by a bacteria. Despite an abundance of evidence to support their various THEORIES, further research often proves them to be wrong. They could be very wrong about this issue, and their dogmatic insistence that any differing opinion is based on ignorance, is arrogant at best and borders on dangerous. I too have children, and I want them taught the TRUTH. The truth is, scientists do not know how we got here. They should state this clearly and concisely and creationism should be presented as aviable possibility.

Intelligent redesign

John, Delaware OH — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:50:37 GMT

To: Terry from Irving Texas, who stated “For evolution to begin or continue without outside input violates the second law of thermodynamics…”

As any high school student who managed to stay awake in physics class knows, the second law (also known as the law of entropy) deals with the fact that the universe is “winding down”, or getting more disordered. Creationist and ID proponents such as yourself like to point to the fact that since evolution directs life to actually become more “ordered” or complex would seem to violate the law of entropy. The fallacy of your argument however, is that earth is not a closed system. If I clean my room, it certainly becomes more ordered, but I do so at the expense of energy that I extract from the food I eat, which in turn has gained energy from the sun, which IS “winding down”.

If your argument held true, then for a seed to grow into a giant oak tree would violate the second law of thermodynamics.

You may want to frame your arguments using religious dogma rather than scientific laws, something you obviously know little about.

Intelligent redesign

Chris, Birmingham, England — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:53:49 GMT

What's with you Americans ? Was the 17th Century really so nice you want to go back there, like back to the womb ? Why is the 'country of rugged individualism' in fact so desperately conformist (salute the flag or be branded a traitor, Joe McCarthy's finest hour), and so desperate to force everyone else to conform to a collection of 4000 year old folk tales and mythology and 2000 year old totally distorted versions of what a good man may have said ? It's true the US was founded in religious bigotry (the Puritans' first move was to persecute all none Puritans), but, 'for Heaven's Sake', grow up !

Intelligent redesign

Dan, St. Petersburg Florida — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:04:17 GMT

Shawn if you cannot observe evolution in action then you cannot prove it to be a scientific fact...you can draw conclusions but they cannot add up to the observations...much like what you accuse the ID people of doing...fossil evidence only proves animals existed not their genetics there is only a single sketchy bacterial study that might have the strongest evidence of evolution that I'm aware of...and thats still doesn't prove that ID is wrong...terry made the strongest point tho when it comes to god...if Shawn is right and dies and there is no god...nothing lost...if he is wrong then i would hate to be Shawn...and shawn has more to lose if he is wrong than if he is right...he can dance and sing all he wants about how there is no god...but at the end of the day hes at the losing end of the argument...because if I'm wrong i haven't lost a thing

Intelligent redesign

Theresa, Endicott, New York — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:05:47 GMT

The theory of evolution says we evolved eventually from apes which were evolved from another lower animal etc. The Bible says humans were created in God's image. Evolution means change over time. If you read Genesis and believe it to be true then evolution is true, not the theory but change over time. Once Adam and Eve sinned, everything changed from the original design of God. We, as well as plants, animals, have changed over time. The 'primative' human skulls that have been found may have been what man looked like 6,000 years ago, for example. ID should not be taught in public schools as written, creationism should as a theory. Is it scientific? Well, read Genesis, one of the most scientific books of the Bible. We don't have to put science in the Bible, it is there! Why are believers calling it ID which is causing division? Call it what it is!

Intelligent redesign

John Alexander, Edinboro, PA — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:06:33 GMT

I watched the show last night, I thought it was very good and not biased. In the end the ID pproponents were caught in a lie, they changed creationism to ID to hide the fact that it was religiouly based. They lost when they were found out, now like most fundamentalists they blame the judge when he did not rule in their favor, standard practice for people that wish to force their views on the larger populace.
There are many good people who belive in both god and the evolution process, they are called godless by the fundamentalists, basically saying we are true christians you are not. It is funny that these 'true christians' also sent death threats out to the people in Dover and to the judge, I quess breaking a commandment is OK if you are supporting your brand of christianity. Scientists like Newton and Darwin never were out to disprove religion, in fact they were trying to support further evidence of a higher authority. It is a small sect within the christian community that wants its interpretation of the bible to be supreme. They are the new 'flat earthers' and pretend that medieval society was so much better because there was more 'belief' back then. I quess they would ignore history also. Best solution for these people is to pull their kids from school and home school them, no one is stopping them from believing what they want, what this trial did was stop them from pushing their views of creation onto everyone else. I wonder if they hate democracy too.
It is funny that we are still fighting over this issue
and it is funny that this group is part of the reformation, they pulled away from a church that said it was the only one that can connect you with god, and now they act just like the group they protested against. This is the same mindset that brought us the inquisition, the childrens crusade and the witch trials. Heaven help us from closed minds, they would destroy modernity in support of the first book of the old testament.

Intelligent redesign

Andy W. Fraser, Colorado — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:10:43 GMT

Having watched this PBS Nova program, I am impressed by two behaviors of design/creationist proponents.

1. The ability to repeat the same false claims about natural history.

2. The willingness to physically threaten those they see as opponents to their cause.

As the Nova producers pointed out, there is an agenda beyond an opposition to Darwin's theory.

Intelligent redesign

Stacie, Manassas,Virginia — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:22:18 GMT

Why is there always someone from one group holding another accountable to standards they haven't met themselves? Even as a parent, do as I say not as I do,didn't work for very long for me. Since Darwin gave up his theory in the end, and embraced "The Theos," I an at least recommend you all do the same.

Intelligent redesign

chicago — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:29:04 GMT

I'm sorry Terry, but how does evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics? Perpetual motion, and evolution are two separate ideas.

Intelligent redesign

S.,Manassas, Virginia — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:31:15 GMT

Had to respond to Martin M. Please Read
Dr. Richard Eby's books. It seems you have a wonderful
view on God, just not up close and personal.
God Bless

Intelligent redesign

David Britz, New jersey — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:32:02 GMT

In the end its all about "eat or be eaten", evolution has no plan for living things but is simply an ongoing sorting and shifting of the primary genetic elements. Somtimes, but most often not, the slight changes in the organisms gene code give that organism an enhanced chance "not to be eaten" and to live on to convey its slightly modified genes to the next generation, this is simply what evolution is all about. Evolution (random the shifting of genes) and thus nature is simply a massive and ongoing experiment in change and sometimes sucessful adaption to enviromental changes. These changes can happen quickly due to the organisms multi-generational genetic responce to greater stress but mostly slowly over great periods of time and over hundreds - thousands of living (surviving) generations of an organisms family tree. The accumulated sequence of "sucessful" or even neutral genetic changes (which might become useful for the species survival later on) - what we call evolution is simply this ongoing experiment, with no need for a master plan nor planner.
Such overt planners "controllers" simply are not needed and would in my opinion get in the way of how this remarkable random process works and has worked for 4 billion years on this planet.

Intelligent redesign

FATBO SEUSS — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:34:05 GMT

ID DOES NOT BELONG IN OUR SCHOOLS. HOWEVER, JUST TO PLAY THE DEVILS ADVOCATE, CONSIDER THAT FOR THE HUMAN
BRAIN TO GATHER SOUND FROM THE OUTTER EAR AND PROCESS THE PROPER RESPONSE, MORE THAN 450 INTRICATE PROCESSES MUST OCCUR IN A FRACTION OF A SECOND.
DO SOME RESEARCH AND YOU WILL BE AMAZED AT JUST HOW INCREDIBLE OUR ABILITY TO HEAR IS. SO I ASK YOU, SOMETHING THAT COMPLEX HAPPEND ACCIDENTLY?
JUST SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHT.

Intelligent redesign

Jack, Brandon MS — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:39:52 GMT

There is no need for a conflict between science and religion so long as fuzzy-thinking nut-cases stop trying to use the tools of one to tinker with the other. Science can no more prove or disprove the existence of God with scientific methodology than theology can prove or disprove the existence or absence of the pi meson by means of faith. Why can't people quit trying to make AC motors run on DC current or vice versa? Won't happen in this lifetime.

Intelligent redesign

Ben Dog, The Bible Belt, Ok — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:40:26 GMT

Just think, if the bible, quran(sp), torrah or spiritual deities were never invented, then there wouldn't be any church, religion or intelligent design. However, I'm sure ID can be plausable if it doesn't have a religious overtone and it is PROVED by science. If science proves that Captain Crunch created the universe, then I will believe it. For now, keep all of this garbage in a church.

Intelligent redesign

Prhean, Lawton, Oklahoma — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:42:03 GMT

Let me get this straight. I’m supposed to believe that:

1)The universe, finely tuned for advanced life, exploded into existence out of nothing without direction or design.

2)Given enough time, chemicals randomly assembled into amino acids, proteins, and long, data-rich strands of DNA that give instructions for the cell’s vital functions and duplication.

3)As a result of only the force of survival of the fittest, the “fittest” mutate into millions of different kinds of creatures of extraordinary variety, uniqueness, and complexity.

4)Somehow, in the jungles of Africa, while chasing game, the most complex of these creatures developed the ability to think abstractly, to create and enjoy music and art, to discern right from wrong, and to consider the greatest questions of all: Where did I come from and where am I going? These extraordinary minds came about only through monkeys plus random mutations.

Only a religious fanatic (of the materialist variety) really believes that these things happened by blind chance. Make up your stories about multi-verses or flying spaghetti monsters and fire anyone who disagrees. I choose to think for myself, thank you.

Intelligent redesign

Benjamin — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:57:08 GMT

Most ID proponents say this, "We don't know how such and so came to be, THEREFORE, it MUST be a designer/god." This is a classic logical fallacy, and is most often referred to as the "god of the gaps." The logic doesn't follow. Just because you don't understand how A came to be, doesn't lead you to a logical conclusion of, "It must be because of B." B in this case is a hypothesis...not a theory. It's up to science to test that theory. So far, science has not been able to confirm the hypothesis of B (i.e., god) and categorize it as a Theory. The ID-ologues (did I just coined a phrase?) have no interest in following up on their hypothesis, and this is why ID/Creationism is not science.

By the way, the ID-ologues often misstate the position of atheists by saying that they KNOW their is no god. This is not quite right. A true atheist would not take this position. The true atheist position is that there in fact might be a god, but there is not a single shred of observable evidence for it. Additionally, the observations that we do have about the known universe suggests that a god is incredibly unlikely.

Intelligent redesign

Sarah MacDonald, Lansing, MI — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:00:01 GMT

Mainstream Christianity is not the anti-intellectual overly dogmatic religion these vociferous ID proponents seem to want everyone to believe. These people are hung up on THEIR specific interpretation of the first few chapters of genesis, which Christian scholars throughout the ages have rejected. Genesis was never intended to be a scientific explanation for the origin of the world, it's not about the HOW it's about the who and why. Evolution is a theory, which in science means it's on par with the THEORY of gravity.

As both a Christian and scientist I would not want my children taught intelligent design as science, since it is not science and explains nothing. It's simply a negative construct: "we don't know how therefore, god/something must have done it". I believe both evolutionary theory AND the Bible are true. How about these "fundamentalists" actually stick to the fundamentals, say the person and work of Christ . . . and stop trying to put THEIR specific interpretation of Christianity into public schools.

Intelligent redesign

Darrell Messbarger — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:06:12 GMT

Evolution is not a refuting of the presence of god. The fear of the theists, whenever faced with science, is far better evidence that god does not exist.

Intelligent redesign

Neal Richardson, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:10:06 GMT

Thanks for the response. Justin, you say evolutionary biologists aren't out to prove or disprove God. Fleming wasn't out to discover penecillin, but he did. Evolution contradicts the Bible. Plain and simple. We can't have it both ways. If evolution is true, sin and death come before the curse of Adam. If the Bible is true, there was no death until about 6,000 years ago. There is no way for there to be one or the other.Even if you try the day age theory thing, it contradicts Romans 5:12.
I know most evolutionists are not hardcore athiests, but the theory DOES contradict the Bible.
Again, most of the implications of the evolutionary theory in practical science agree with the theistic design. That is why the 'evolutionary' advances in medicine, genetics, etc.. are possible. It is the philosphical implications of evolution that CANNOT be swept under the rug that we are worried about. Scientists, either knowingly or unknowingly, are pushing a philosophy that does speak against the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Intelligent redesign

josh, memphis — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:13:06 GMT

evolution debates make me laugh. if you want to really have a debate, something materialistic science has no firm ground to stand on (and evolution in general IS on very firm ground by the way); take a look at BIOGENESIS.

neither side has the nerve to bring that topic to court.

Intelligent redesign

Marco Ceccarelli Charlotte NC — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:13:34 GMT

Question: Did God create man or did man create God. I think it's the latter that happened which is why Shawn from Seattle keeps talking about believing in the Big Spaghetti Monster. Who ever you want to believe go ahead and enjoy. The atoms that made DNA weren't even made on earth. The Oxygen we breath, the calcium in our bones, the iron in our blood, nitrogen..all the elements needed for life were actually created inside a star. If you don't or can't believe in evolution, then study something beyond that. The creation of everything, not just life. Open up a book of modern physics and you'll see. Life is certainly not just existing in our planet. Microbes have been found in Mars!

Intelligent redesign

Dave, Washington, DC — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:14:06 GMT

Terry, you said, " For evolution to begin or continue without outside input violates the second law of thermodynamics. That is the one that doesn't allow perpetual motion machines and other fun stuff that people imagine." As has been said so many times, but creationists keep ignoring, evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics are statements about the dynamics of energy, specifically heat (thermo), as all forms of energy ultimately covert to heat. The second law specifically states that there can be no net increase in available energy in an isolated system. Another way of stating it is that any process occurring in an isolated system will result in a reduction of available energy. That is why perpetual motion machines violate the second law. Order can increase in a system, even an isolated system, as long as there is energy available.

Intelligent redesign

Alan, Cunninhgham, KY — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:34:21 GMT

If there is no intelligent design; no creator, then where did matter come from? Everything that is created is dependent upon something else to be created. From where then did matter originate, if not from an independent creator?

Intelligent redesign

Lance D, Dallas, TX — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:35:37 GMT

It seems to me that the 2 questions beg different answers. The “could” or the “did”.

The unstudied answer of could a supreme being be behind evolution? Not a piece of evolution, but Darwinian evolution as it is understood in its scientific entirety… maybe. Empirical data cannot prove or disprove this question. I could subscribe to this line of thinking and I hold a BS in Molecular Biology from Southern Methodist University and a MS in Geoarchaeology from Eastern New Mexico. I have studied the science of the question in some depth and to this day can not rule out that some greater force was not behind it all.

As to the question of did a God create the earth 6000 years ago and populate it with 2 people? No, all of the empirical scientific data suggests other wise. The ID group seems to attack evolution on its fringes to try and disprove the theory that has held strong proof to the majority of the collected data. They also attack the very word “Theory” as to imply it is just an idea. There is a great article in the Nov. 2004 issue of National Geographic that helps explain in laymen’s terms the difference of theory, a scientific theory, and a scientific theory that holds proofs to observed data.

So the answer is clear… let science be taught in the public schools where Christmas is no longer even a holiday and ID in the church and if that does not satisfy you then there are plenty of religious private schools that shun evolution they would be happy to take any ID’r out there. Trust me I know… in looking for a private school for my daughter my first questions were “how old do you believe the earth is and how do you teach evolution?” ---- run!

Intelligent redesign

Chris, Temple, TX — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:41:30 GMT

All I can say is if the court approves intelligent design to be taught in schools as a science, I am leaving this country. You all can continue to be the laughing stocks of the world by yourself. This event will be so saddening to me that I will have lost all faith in humanity as intelligent beings.

Intelligent redesign

David, Illinois — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:49:06 GMT

Interestingly, the pro-Darwin "witness" Ken Miller is a Christian. He has written a book, Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. I found that an excerpt of it is available online.

Intelligent redesign

David Britz, New jersey — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:05:54 GMT

Strangely i get the feeling the creationist oops i mean the ID folks have the impression that evolution is a cognitive self-aware force directing the changes in life - a sort of anti-christ battling the ID folks view of the christian - oops i mean ID driven universe. How amazing that a word has such power to challenge! Evolution is simply a word used to recognise the vast and random process of genetic change over time - usually a great deal of time! The mechanisim of sucessful evolutional genetic change relates to an individual organisim surviving and conveying to its decendents thoes sucessful genetic changes over thousands of generations. Thus evolution can only be viewed and described in the light of great spans of time, not from the prespective of the individual organism and its life span. Conversley from bibical records it seems God driven miracles are fast changing events that are intentionally directed too and have great effect on individuals and or masses of individuals. On the other hand, in evolution fast changing events (like big floods) usually tend to kill off organisms and their local gene pool, thus reducing the individuals chance to survive and reproduce, and further limiting the diversity of the species gene pool - not a good thing! Thus the effect of evolutionary change can only be seen in the light of sucessful and sequencial increasing change to the surviving organisms who have managed to survive enviromental challenges, preditation and to sexually reproduced and transfer their inherited and changing genetic differences to sucessive generations of organism. Thus evolution is simply a word, a word describing an emense and ongoing biological mechanism effecting the long duration change to a specie, and simply cannot be compared to god induced (rapid) changes prescribed by miracles over the last 6000 years! But there again evolution is simply a fact of life.

Intelligent redesign

Charles Nieberding — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:09:37 GMT

The simple fact that the earth is merely a microscopic speck of space dust in an unfathomably immense universe is solid proof that humans know squat about it. So any arguments, pro or con, about origins, life or afterlife is a waste of time.

Intelligent redesign

Michael, Atlanta, GA — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:11:53 GMT

What the ID'ers are doing is trying to push their religion into the schools and say that theirs is the only faith that matters. They just don't want you to know that. If it were any other faith, they'd be saying that it's "anti-Christian" especially, IMHO, Judaism. However, they need to get over their cognitive dissonance and move on. You want to teach ID? Fine. Do it in the home or your house of worship. DO NOT do it in the school, where all you want is to foist your beliefs on others.

Intelligent redesign

Debbie, Cleveland Ohio — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:13:16 GMT

What came first the chicken or the egg? ID came first and set everything into motion. On the first day God created the heavens and the earth (everything above and below.) Man created science to understand all that God (ID) had created. Science is the evidence of ID. I believe in ID and I believe in evolution, but I don't believe that modern man evolved from apes.

Intelligent redesign

Scott, NJ — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:14:03 GMT

Robert Reppy and Shawn, Seattle... Well said. I couldn't agree more. Personally I am an atheist. However, I have no issues with those that believe in god, or homosexuality, or any other controversial topic. I do have issues with people trying to make me believe their perception of reality. Keep personal beliefs, such as religion out of schools. Let the children decide for themselves what they believe in. Teach them science, math, English and grammar, Social Studies, etc...

Just a side note, evolution doesn't always take a long time. There were several studies done in the Canary Islands, on canaries of course, where they demonstrated changes can occur in the span of a single generation. It's a matter of survival of the fittest. Those that are unfit die, and therefore don't propagate their genetics. Those that are strong, generally survive to reproduce and ensure the legacy of their genes.

Intelligent redesign

Paul Rannick — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:21:24 GMT

I believe God created the first beings and designed the process of possible changes over time. Evolution studies the process and trys to explain it. I see no basic disagreement other than when did it all start.

Intelligent redesign

Ron, Portland, Oregon — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:32:41 GMT

Many great comments supporting the science of evolution, and the rejection of religion in the classroom.

Two more points:

The scientific method that has lead to the advances in evolution theory is the same scientific method that has lead to advances in material science, biology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc. It seems hypocritical to reject the science of evolution out of convenience, while accepting the advances and resulting gains in every other branch of science. These gains are the driving force behind your car, microwave, medicines, and the computer you are reading this on. If you are going to reject the science of evolution, then I challenge you to reject these other branches of science, and give up the advantages that they provide you. You won’t have much left to work with.

Also, please consider why we practice separation of church and state in this country. This practice guarantees your freedom to practice your religion as you wish, while also protecting my freedom to practice my religion as I wish, even though they be a little, or a lot, different from each other. If you begin to teach even just a little religion in the schools, then you will be forced to determine exactly which religion(s) will be taught in the schools. It doesn’t take too much imagination to see that this will be a much bigger problem than not teaching any religion at all in our schools.

Intelligent redesign

Bob Dobes, Santa Rosa Beach, Fl. — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:35:30 GMT

Similar to the advocates of ID, the International Flat Earth Society,known as "Flat Earth Society", used both scripture and selective notions of logic to proclaim science a cult.

Do we not hear most every decade a religious proclamation of the apocalypse with given dates of the event. And thus so will the notion of ID rise and recede with the tides religious politics.

Bob Dobes

Intelligent redesign

Serge — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:45:42 GMT

The actual fact is that there is nothing as evolution. The maximum a living creature can evolve is possibly trying to adapt to a new environment is by changing its habitat.

There are generations of people who have been climbing coconut trees in order to pull out coconuts, did their decendants develop tails and claws?

For generations pearl divers came out with pearls, they should have developed gills or atleast a tail.

Absolutely Not.

The evidence that prehistoric creatures were found shows that the earth was abundant with these creatures. Once they were wiped out there was no one here except animals and vegetation.

Very soon visitors came from different galaxies who found that the earth was a safe and a quiet place to live with plenty of food and good air to breathe.

They came in and settled on various continents.

That is the main reason we have different kinds of people races and color.

However, it all narrows down to who made them. Nothing can come into existance unless there is a creator.

This is where God comes in. God is a creator and was always there. He is a Supreme being and of very high intelligence.

Serge

Intelligent redesign

Bob, Pittsburgh, PA — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:14:45 GMT

To quote the late, Carl Sagan: “Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Whether it be for the existence of God, or the existence of UFO’s.”

Intelligent redesign

Unknown — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:16:30 GMT

I think that in sum, those that believe in ID are really just scared, and I'm sure they believe they are right. That being said, I disagree vehemently with ID. If ID was something that God did, then explain why so many of his "intelligent designs" died out. If God is all seeing, and all powerful, then its highly unlikely he would have to "experiment" with different designs.
Unfortunately, this is not the case, as we have seen, thru the fossil record that many species developed, lived, and then became extinct, more than likely thru the inability to adapt to differing environmental situations. This can also be said of man, with so many conservative movements underway in our country today, ID is just another way of putting off adaptation to political and social situations. The inability to adapt always leads to one conclusion, the extinction of the idea, or species.

While I'm not a religious person myself, I do not tell others whom, when, or where to worship, however, I would like to have the same courtesy extended to me, and to those that have differing views in both politics, science and social issues. Once again, the christian church tries its hardest to put an end to ideas, and the natural selection process. When will Christians learn (I am one) that just because they believe something to be so..doesn't necessarily make it so..or them right. Sean, keep up the good work, as well as the rest who have kept their wits about them, and are not letting christianity once again have say in how we live.
Bloodiest religion ever..christianity..why? because we let some real fanatics run the religion, instead of smart people.

Intelligent redesign

Tom, Cleveland, Ohio — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:40:14 GMT

ID is a blatant attempt to inject Christianity into public schools. Bottom line. End of story. The whole thing is just plain silly.

Intelligent redesign

Rene, Winnipeg — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:44:29 GMT

For once the American courts have got it right by dismissing ID. The more I see and hear about the American Fundamentalists the more they seem like other religious zealots. With their staunch beliefs, uncompromising ideals and self-righteous use of violence to attain the goals they are looking more and more like all the other religious radicals in the world. And that's scary considering how much political influence they have in American politics.

Intelligent redesign

Bryan, Richmond, VA — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:55:26 GMT

Terry,

Before you go quoting the Second Law of Thermodynamics, please earn a Bachelor's Degree in Engineering first! In order for the Second Law to be applied, one must be using it to describe a thermodynamic model, not an evolutionary one. Heat or energy (which is what the Second Law is describing) is not what is used to fuel evolution or change. It is used to fuel beings for life, but not the change itself.

Quoting from wikipedia on the Second Law:
"Any theory claiming to describe how organisms originate and continue to exist by natural causes must be compatible with the first and second laws of thermodynamics."[8]

Read it carefully. This is talking about the ORIGIN of life and CONTINUATION of a single being. Yes, the second law applies here. It does not, however, apply to the evolutionary process where one life is created from another.

Therefore, it is illogical to use the Second Law as evidence against evolution.

Intelligent redesign

Walt, Edwards, CO — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:06:16 GMT

Robert Reppy - 'Life comes from pre-existing life...' Science has no idea how the FIRST living cell came to be. The idea that life could arise spontaneously from non-living matter was thoroughly debunked when the idea of 'Spontaneous Generation' came to an end following the invention of the microscope. To me, if a single living cell could not have arisen by chance from non-living matter, the entire edifice of Evolutionary Theory falls flat. Biologists seem to realize this may be the dirty little secret at the root of the T of E in the language used to describe this event. Read any college level Biology text; they haven't a clue - clay microspheres and hot ocean vents included. I'll believe when they can show how that first cell came about...
Good Luck!

Intelligent redesign

Dizzyliz — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:18:24 GMT

As a reformed Catholic I always get a kick out of the basic debate of whose right and whose wrong or my view is the right one so you are wrong.....yes religion stays out of school. To deal with quandry of evolution vs creationism I had to think on it a long time.....for me evolution is the process that was kicked into motion by something...to me God ....to others......what??? I dunno, does anyone know what first started us being here.......The science only takes you so far back and one can believe that science will explain all one day...and we will find heaven 3oo billion light years out there, or one can believe that the hand of God came down and made all....it is a personal belief.....I think God has a sense of humor and gave us free will so He/She can look down and ask, what are those wacky humans on earth arguing about now? The day will come when we are judged by how well we played with others or we might just fade away. Believe what you wish..but what it all comes down to is that we are just a big comedy stage for the big cheese in the sky.

So science and religion can exist together at least for me......evolution the science <taught in school> and my personal belief that God started it all <between me and my God>.

Peace Out and Feel the Love

P.S. The Flying Spagetti Monster rules!!

Intelligent redesign

OneVoice, Frederick, MD — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:37:34 GMT

Personally, I think this whole creation thing went out the window when it was discovered that we were made up of cells, not made out dust. ID isn't christianity. It's just another new religion and one that has no historical basis at that. To say that something is beyond human understanding is to mentally give up and not even try to understand reality...

Intelligent redesign

Michael Heaney, Los Angeles, CA — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:42:25 GMT

To Bobby Ensminger, Monroe, La:

Science didn’t teach us either of the claims you’re making. In fact, both were based on and promoted by religious institutions, often in the face of science. The Catholic church imprisoned Copernicus for presenting the actual scientific conclusion, that the earth moved. So what you’re actually doing is blaming science for religion’s failures, which is both ludicrous and dishonest.

To Dan, St. Petersburg Florida:

We see evolution at work. We see it every time we see a baceteria develop an immunity to an antibiotic. We see it every time we breed animals for specific qualities. More thinking and less decades old apologetics, please.

Intelligent redesign

Mark Kania, St. Paul, Minnesota — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:42:25 GMT

Whatever you believe, believe this; not one sentence, statement, phrase, or paper from the Intelligent Design theorists has ever been published for peer review. All valid science is and always has been peer reviewed. The Intelligent Design academics must have their material peer reviewed in order to be included taken seriously as scientists.

The entire basis of science since the Enlightenment has been empiricism and peer review. I think this is the most correct path to use to move this discussion forward within the existing framework.

This leaves a "to do" item for the Intelligent Design academics. You must "publish or perish". Please do this ASAP so that there wil be a legitimate debate on this subject. To do otherwise is to suggest the dismantling of the academic system in place since the Enlightenment.

Intelligent redesign

Chris, Birmingham, England. — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:01:08 GMT

Hey, no-one wants to publish my comment on the issue, so will someone please develop an intelligently designed dialogue on a subject of equal interest : The Flying Spaghetti Monster ? I'd love to know more.

Intelligent redesign

Chris, Birmingham, England — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:10:19 GMT

Oh what the hell.... ID and creationism are just one facet of the identity crisis being suffered by a US that feels threatened. GWB, Homeland Security and all the other BS are the other facets. Not a coincidence that 'ID' and 'ID cards' share initials :-))))))))) I spent 2 years on assignment in the NE US, and came home with the conclusion that : whilst the 19th & early 20th century migrants to the US may have been full of energy and optimism, they must also have rated as amongst the most superstitious and primitive of Europe's populations. ID debate being the proof of the pudding.

Intelligent redesign

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:35:25 GMT

There are pseudo-scientific rebuttals from ID advocates and other creationists.

Evolutionnews.org is a pretend science site. Behe embarrassed himself with his ignorance at the Dover trial.

A great resource is "Intelligent Thought: Science vs the Intelligent Design Movement." This is a compendium of articles written by scientists some of whom have actually contributed significantly to their fields, including an essay by a critic of pure Darwinism, Stuart Kauffman.

Intelligent redesign

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:39:01 GMT

Terry,
You're repeating nonsense about the 2nd law.

Check out these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o08r6PzxLHY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7ma_7XM4FU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93pbJXJOmCU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcQedFSUIMA

Summary: When IDers and other creationists talk about thermodynamics, almost every sentence they utter is nonsense.

Intelligent redesign

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:53:52 GMT

Theories in science don't graduate into laws. Evolution is a theory and a fact. These categories are not mutually exclusive. The opposition from scientists is in teaching non-science as science.

ID advocates and other creationists portray their view as equal to evolution as an explanation. This portrayal is incorrect and often downright dishonest. Evolution is science - not absolute certainty, but as sure as we can get at this point. ID writ large is not science at all. In the details we are able to surmise, it's wrong.

Here's an explanation of some of the most common methods that creationists (including ID advocates) use to misdirect their audience:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ogKBMr7p9g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGnfLGHBw6I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuHlwnF8zjo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcfT__pInrk

I haven't even gotten to the part about blatant fabrication and lying!

Of course they're stewing about Dover. They humiliated themselves mainly because the venue (a court room) is not conducive to their methodology - and their sound bites break down under careful analysis by actual experts.

Congratulations to all of America for the success in Dover and sincere thanks to the real scientists like Ken Miller!

Intelligent redesign

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:58:16 GMT

For those who are REALLY interested in the history of the Church involvement on cartography, read the relevant chapters in the book, "The Discoverers" by Daniel J. Boorstin, former librarian of congress. This book should be required reading for every high school student. It's a fat book with a lot of references, but it's an easy, enjoyable, and extremely insightful read.

Intelligent redesign

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:01:11 GMT

Evolution is not a faith, although it may appear that way to those who fail to understand it. ID and other forms of creationism require faith; evolution requires understanding.

That creationists typically don't do sufficient homework to be able to discern actual evidence from the phantasmal is not an argument against evolution.

Intelligent redesign

Dave Finn, Featherston, New Zealand — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:20:50 GMT

The basic problem with the competing views of evolution is that the most superficial of statistical analyses reveals that random progression is an incorrect/inadequate explanation of evolution and the only alternative being offered is a designer.

The actual requirements for active goal-oriented evolution are simple and easily, if infrequently met:

1) At the time it occurs there must be a perceptible local vector indicating a preferred local direction for evolution.

2) There must be a behaviour of the evolving organism that permits movement in the general direction of the vector.

3) The situation must occur sufficiently frequently that organisms adopting the appropriate behaviour in such situations will be preferentially selected.

A simple example meeting all these requirements arises following changes in the environment.

If species A is thriving and species B is on the route to extinction then there is a vector - if B were to evolve to the same genetic code as A it too would survive. More pertinately, in a high proportion of environmental changes a chemical factor is involved. If A is thriving it is very possibly because it has a gene or set of genes that is giving it access to a resource not available to B or is neutralising something hazardous to B. The direction B to A is a perceptible local evolutionary vector.

There is a simple behaviour that allows an organism to move in this direction - adopting any genetic material from A that happens to come its way. Lateral gene transfer is a documented procedure (and is documented to be more commen in the case of stressed species like B). Thriving species do issue various naked versions of part or all of their genetic code. Adopting genes from a successful species is a possible behaviour.

The situation occurs frequently.

Thus all the conditions for goal directed evolution are met.

In fact, if you assume this one single process represents the dominant source of novel genes in evolution most of the problems in evolutionary theory magically disappear. I have a more detailed paper at www.nsof.co.nz

Intelligent redesign

OneVoice, Frederick, MD — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:38:09 GMT

To Chris, Birmingham, England

Please don't count all of us Yanks in that same bucket. Some wheels are just a little warped and squeek more than the others.

Intelligent redesign

Wakefield Tolbert — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:16:38 GMT

The charge that Christianity has "evolved" is somewhat simplistic. The basic core tenants have not. Salvation via grace is still key and always has been. Perhaps what you meant to say is that Church policies and the liberalization of some denominational splits and trying to kowtow to modernist and secularist PC--ism is going on, and THAT would be true. But that is just droll, and in fact endangers the basic canon's meaning for salvation.

This absurdist interpretation, like so many others about the church, counts on modernist takes on things and has little to do with doctrinal conflicts. But the basic core tenants are the same as always. The APPLICATION of these and their inculcation next to, and functioning within, what is largely a secular society is another matter, but should not be confused with the term "evolve." Disagreements over protocol, use of alcohol, bowing to modernist demands about sexuality--all these are but issues that still don't detract from core teachings, though to be sure these examples need to be addressed and showed up by the church in a more honest search in Scripture rather than putting a finger in the wind to determine how society's secular types mock or not, etc.

As for Islam being at war with Christianity, that too is oversimplification in the extreme. True to a point, but Islam is also at war with the entire planet because in no small part SECULAR policies and ideologies they find abhorrent on many social levels, including policy in the middle east and secularization of their cultures and rampant promiscuity---and hatred of Israel. None of these things can be addressed merely by claiming that Christians likewise seek and battle for "supremacy", even if the case this too is hardly found in the teachings of Christ, who unlike the great prophet NEVER demanded blood for conversion or rode the political horse in triumph over the vanquished. That some might have violated this observation in the past or forced faith into political spheres is examples of mankind's many failures, not faith.

As to the other discussions here and the distortions about only idiots believing in God or saying He has something to do with the framework of the Cosmos?
Talk about simplistic thinking extraordinaire. I'll refer you to the writings of many great scientists and theologians alike who found that not only was science not inimical to faith, but in point of fact the underpinning of the scientific worldview was in no small part helped along by Christian foundations of order and complexity that unlike pagan and earlier faiths and spiritism understood the divine order from God as expected to be something rational and explicable and therefore forsook the protean view of things that plagued the ancients. I invite all to read The Soul of Science, by Nacy Pearcy, for mere starters.

Well now, what's next on the handy-dandy Contradiction Meter. Let's see here what the anti-ID warriors have for us next:

The Selfish Gene, Preface:

We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.

The Selfish Gene, final chapter:

We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth

Combined:

Survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes - have the power to defy the selfish genes of [their] birth. Well now......

Am I just a “deluded faith-head, incapable of rational argument”, or is their a contradiction here? Yeah--its a glaring contradiction. oopsy.

I had thought Dawkins was saying something akin to “computers can break free from their circuits”…
Truly, there are ways of being stupid only available to very intelligent people. The ones that one person said needed to be over 120 to spot such niceties as this. Oh well...

Dawkins also said:

“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference.”

Hmmm.

Indeed, and he is intent at spreading this “good news” to all with the utmost “design, purpose” and anything but “pointless indifference”.

Considering this and that he sees “infidel” creationists, IDists and anyone religious as “wicked” (no evil???), none of these actions of his make sense except in the light of schizophrenia.

If he really believed himself, and was not mentally ill, he would not be doing that without acute awareness of self-contradiction of the worse kind.

Go figure.

Summary so far: If you’re going to be a serious Darwinist, then you’ll simply have to get used to living with bad logic and stark contradiction, to wit:

-the universe is a great cosmic accident----but life itself SOMEHOW has meaning and purpose. So gene machines whose only function is replication of little copies of themselves that eat have moral insights to help others even where such help yields no direct benefit to said gene? Hmmm.

-morality is subjective, but eating meat or pumping surplus Co2 into the air is immoral as it might hurt people and polar bears

-ID is creationist pseudoscience, but the just-so stories of Darwinism are real science

-our genes are selfish---even when they create selflessness. Hmmm.

-an ordered universe can come about entirely on its own, though the principle underlying it is entropy

-blind, undirected forces can accidentally mimic purposeful intelligence

-ID isn’t scientific because it’s not falsifiable, and oh by the way, it is routinely falsified.

-the difference between science and religion is that science focuses on fact and religion focuses on faith, though all those gaps in the fossil record need NOT trouble us because surely there are transitional fossils out there that simply haven’t been found yet.

Intelligent redesign

Wakefield Tolbert — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:32:41 GMT

One does have to wonder about the ugly motivations of those sarcastic comments saying "don't pray in (say, schools) and we won't think in your church."

Charming--the implication being, of course, that along with the flat earth mythology now utterly in ruins about early Churchmen and the hype over Copernicus devoid of context in most discussions, we now even find Germany OUTLAWING homeschooling and other such mockery. Presumably on the premise that the public schools are paragons of moral virtue and smarts (har har) and that homeschoolers are mostly religious in their outlook (true, so far as that goes) and thus homeschoolers (per the European Union in general and Germany in particular) don't make good little Germans and religious types don't make good citizenry obedient to the Mother State.

So NO--secularists will NEVER simply "leave religion alone" even AFTER successfuly inculcating State and ideological values in most of the kiddies and confining faith to church and home. That's not good enough for them in Europe, and per Eugenie Scott and the NABT one can be sure that format is coming stateside soon enough. Too, the university attacks religion on all fronts with the noted exception of Islamic footbaths so as not to offend those who decapitate screaming victims in the name of Allah.
Never heard of Lord Jesus doing this in even the most fervent tent revival camp. Hmmm.

You claim this at your peril. The State being the supplanter of God is not an ideal situation, though tis true some groups on the Left have their own gods, goverment and Gaia the earth goddess being among their prime chieftans.

I've already mentioned the history of science as it relates to Christianity. So enough of that. The history on that is well known to certain persons outside the tight Skeptic dumbbunnie roundtable sites and their own amen choruses. But much of what you see is merely human failure. There are dumb atheists as well as dumb of the faithful. Each according to his own level of willingness to understand. I rarely find among the Skeptic crowd any real insights on even the most rudimentary moral issues. The above mentioned Dawkins from other post is a prime example of a good scientist and purple prose writer on the catbird seat who nontheless is expertly designed to fail his readers with his preschoolish and amateurish take on God, whom he anthropomorphosizes in ways that would not beguile a young child who believes in the Boogeyman.

Spare us. Speaking of that--still no answer on when politians and judges and lawyers became so adept at science.

Intelligent redesign

zach — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:37:43 GMT

It all comes down to this:
ID supporters are picking and choosing which science they choose to use.
No one complains that we can't see electrons and atoms, but the theory that they exist has driven everything from electricity to atom bombs.
Likewise, we can't really pick up the missing link fossil and say, "here it is!" But based on scientific theory, we can deduce and infer that creatures have evolved over millions of years.
The scary thing is this (something the judge alluded to) - do you really want someone who disregards science to be the same person injecting that needle into your IV when you are sick and helpless?

Intelligent redesign

Zach — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:42:24 GMT

Not every theory is perfect, but that doesn't mean it should be discounted. So, we don't exactly how the eye developed. But it is a fallacy of logic to jump to the conclusion that because we don't how, then GOd or some creator automatically had a hand in it.

I have no problem with ID as a religious belief or pseudoscience. Teach it as actual science, and our whole society suffers.

Just the fact that ID is being floated as science really attest to the downfall of American scientific output.

This goes beyond belief - it goes into medicine and other crucial staples of our society. If we raise a generation of kids who don't know where our genes came from and evolved, how can we create good medicine?
scary...very scary.

Intelligent redesign

zach — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:43:33 GMT

Robert, thats a great tact - compare evolution supporters to supporters of slavery.

With that logic, I can compare ID supporters to those who thought the world was flat.

Intelligent redesign

zach — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:47:09 GMT

ID supporters are focusing in the wrong direction. Look for god in the big questions - like, who designed our universe with such perfect laws of physics. Now that's something even science can't figure out.

While we argue and bog down our systems with this almost frivolous attack on science, other countries are pressing forward with gene and space research that will put them ahead of us technologically in the near future.

Intelligent redesign

zach — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:50:42 GMT

The fact that this conversation is really a bunch of invisible (to us) electrons floating across space should wake people up that science is real. You can't see the electrons, but you admit they exist because you gain so much use out of them.
However, Evolution is not as useful - it hinders your world view, thus, it must be squashed.

Intelligent redesign

Wakefield Tolbert — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:24:17 GMT

Grief--I was going to leave this one alone.

Someone mentioned The Second Law of Thermodynamics and open systems where supposedly anything can happen so long as you have the constant transfusion of fresh energy. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is not just energy per se that concerns molecular arrangments being merely allowed, but rather than specified complexity of organisms is not possible when energy must be transferred to more complex, and thus higher need levels, than the arrangement that came before. (see Granville Sewell on this one)

Intelligent redesign

Shawn, Seattle, WA — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 01:27:34 GMT

CMO:

Thank you for concerning yourself with my soul, but I'm not to worried (don't really believe in them anyway). I'll think about that book, but I want to read some stuff by L. Ron Hubbard first. From what I've read Hubbard is more reputable than Tipler anyway. Tipler, if anyone reading this doesn't know, is renowned for his belief that the dead can be resurrected and immortality acheived through a computer simulation. It is not necessarily complete bunk (I personally support the Singularity Institute, which researches along the same lines), but I am surprised you agree with his writing. The book you suggest contains discussions of how this computer simulation is God... I was unaware Christians wanted to think of such an omnipotent, omniscient being in such tractable terms. It's like Jesus really actually was Neo...

If I could refer you to just one book, it would be the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics http://www.hbcpnetbase.com/. Real science... it's truly amazing what people approaching problems without seeking a specific answer have accomplished. As to the stuff about my parents, I require evidence to accept something. They raised me; that makes them parents in my book. I have more evidence in the tooth fairy than I do in God (those quarters were always shiny-new). And if I were to accept a holy text as the word of a god, how would I choose? There are thousands of them to pick (Bible, Qu'aran, Rig Veda, who knows how many old polytheistic ones, and oh yeah, L. Ron Hubbard's books). Sell me on the Bible. Why is Christianity the true religion, without circular reasoning like "The Bible's right because it's Christian, and Christianity's right because it's in the Bible?" Cite historic examples from multiple sources (i.e., not just the Bible). Why should I reject the thousands of other religions and join your club?

And to the person spouting off about dark matter: it's not made up. Science doesn't work like religion, with a bunch of people sitting around saying "I think this would be cool..." making stuff up. Science progresses through rigorous thought and peer review. In the case of physics, a lot of math is involved. The effects of dark matter have been observed since 1933, and incorporated and explained by math since shortly after. That doesn't mean there isn't work to do in the area (there is a lot), but it's not just made up. It comes from science.

Intelligent redesign

Shawn, Seattle, WA — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 01:28:05 GMT

Now, Josh:
1) Separation of Church and State is in the Constitution, in the Bill of Rights. From the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" This right has been extended to the government as a whole, which includes the public school system, by legal precedent.

2) "Atheistic" Evolution is not a faith. Evolution does not require atheism; reference other Christians on this page who have managed to see that they can reconcile science and religion by thinking for themselves. It's not faith when you have evidence, and have no commitment to the theory. I don't care if evolution is true or not; I just want a rational scientific explaination. I don't believe I'll live forever in paradise if it's real, I just want explanations and predicitions. If god came down and had a chat with me about evolution, I'd listen. If his evidence was persuasive and rational enough, I might even believe him. Can you say the same if a biologist visited you? And besides, a philosopher from a Catholic university is not the most unbiased commentator.
3) Separation of church and state is not separation of church and people. It's OK to be a religious politician. It's not OK to put religious policies into law or government (that whole First Amendment thing)
4) I object to "theories" without evidence being taught in school. ID is scientifically unfounded. Evolution is the best (an only current) scientific explanation for the origin of species. You can't teach made up crap in science class; teach made up crap at your own house or church. If you think science is made up, stop ordering genetically-engineered Big-Macs, driving your car, getting health care, annoying me on the Internet, and doing pretty much everything else, because science is why we're not serfs on some duke's lands (or whatever old traditions your ethnicity hails from).
5) I can "name you" lots of evidence for evolution. Three are mentioned in this article. There's examples of microevolution, like the Peppered moths. There's the similarity in the hip structures of reptiles and birds. Carbon dating. Get a book by a scientist.

And also, don't call it "Atheistic Evolution." Evolution doesn't say anything about religion, even the super-reactionary Pope says the two can coexist. "Atheistic Evolution" is a term your pastor made up. There's only one real name for Evolution, and that's Evolution. Using (and misspelling) terms like that immediately identifies you as scientifically uninformed and heavily influenced by Fundamentalists. Not a good image to present to scientists if you want to argue with them.

Intelligent redesign

Shawn, Seattle, WA — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 01:42:56 GMT

Robert: How dare you. I can do it to you too.

Supporters of ID are just like slave owners. They refuse to listen to reason why what they are doing is wrong. Just like the South refused to read the great writings of Fredrick Douglass, which clearly demonstrate the humanity present in all people, so to ID proponents refuse to read the great writings of Charles Darwin, which clearly demonstrate the glory and ingenuity of life while never once forcing religion into or out of people. ID proponents even oppose courageous policies and decisions related to evolution, just like slave owners opposed the Emancipation Proclamation. And I could go on and on...

Statements like that are meaningless, meant to rally the ignorant around unrelated points. Save it for Bill O'Reilly. There are so many logical reasons why you can't say things like that (fallacy of association, questionable cause, red herring, correlation does not imply causation). Statements like that also tend to mark the end of useful discussion (Godwin's law). Too bad someone's about to call Evolutionists Nazis. I was enjoying this thread.

Intelligent redesign

Wakefield Tolbert — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 03:41:19 GMT

"What misses the point is that creationism and ID are just the last gasp of religion trying to make itself relevant in an increasingly liberal, materialistic, technological world........."

All hail Marx! All Hail Lenin! How many times have we heard that mess about modernity bringing home the goodies to the masses and yet we see just how miserable the world is, and in that in point of fact we see that secularist philosophers are the ones who can't agree any more than the religions about the True path. The Shining Path. The Soviet Man. The New Man. Whatever. Free of hunger and want and theft and greed and powermadeness. All due to the wonderous ways of scientific governance and control of the masses with linear logic input from brain scans. Knowing all the while full well the the most horrid things in history were done not only with the noblest intentions in trying to cull the human heard or make the new man against his own will or socialize and extort his wealth and creativity. But also that the larger numbers of murders were done in the name of scientific progress. Never out of style, it is an idea that spurs many to ride us hard for our own good. The most dangerous of all social engineerings. This notion that only science holds sway on moral decisions but then later steps in and claims the realm of "the hard facts" is ludicrous, to be nice. Facts in and of themselves demonstrate nothing, as does biology, about the moral suasion of mere "gene machines" that have already been described as evolving in an unforseen and uncaring Cosmos and thus have no more "meaning" or morals for the human mind (which also evolved, to hear the tale) than a pile of rocks getting knocked over. So what? Matter in motion which has cognition may be an amazing thing but hardly can be shown to produce morals just because we evolved to have impressions of such or delusions of higher meaning where there actually is none. The exact message of the Blind Watchmaker, to be blunt. The illusion of something nonextant. A consistent materialist can pop these notions like pimples on a pre-prom teen late for the limo. We have tried and failed to make the new man either via science or via coercion. Be the junta a jungle one or one that dictates from Washington or the UN, the idea of grooming the masses for higher goals is also illusory, if not more so, than this adolescent and historically refuted idea that the human brain's function indicates, qua brain, proper reasoning. We know this cannot be the case. Yet atheistic and materialist thought dictates that we slave under the notion that mere gene machines producing the mind have a breakaway will of their own when in fact normal brain function does not itself translate to clear reasoning, as CS Lewis devastatingly demonstrated by pointing out that normal brain function=morals and reasoning is laughably false. Yet materialist ideology depends on this notion for comfort. And yet we also know in our hearts that many normal minds out there are capable of great evil. Good people also.

Historian Paul Johnson said it best:

"The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false."

Intelligent redesign

Mace, New Orleans — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 04:14:51 GMT

All of this information is stimulating to the mind. We are a simple part of this manifestation of energy. We place names and definition on the results of this; rocks, living flesh to bacterial flagellum. All, from big to small, is energy finding it's place of interaction.

Intelligent redesign

Benjamin, Los Angeles — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 06:46:20 GMT

This debate is missing the larger picture. Why is the Discovery Institute so vehemently perusing a strategy to force a particular religious mythology on our children? The reason, I believe flies in the face of conventional wisdom but does stand up to inspection. Religion is becoming less and less significant in the world and is in a global decline. Even in the US religion's influence on everyday life is shrinking and within couple generations will be insignificant. So intelligent design represents a last gasp of religious (specifically US Christian proponents) to hold onto relevance in a world that is increasingly liberal, materialistic and technological and where people's needs are being met by economic prosperity and social safety nets.

The excerpt below is from a research paper by by Gregory Paul & Phil Zuckerman titled
WHY THE GODS ARE NOT WINNING

"Disbelief now rivals the great faiths in numbers and influence. Never before has religion faced such enormous levels of disbelief, or faced a hazard as powerful as that posed by modernity. How is organized religion going to regain the true, choice-based initiative when only one of them is growing, and organized religion is doing so with reproductive activity rather than by convincing the masses to join in, when no major faith is proving able to grow as they break out of their ancestral lands via mass conversion, and when securely prosperous democracies appear immune to mass devotion? The religious industry simply lacks a reliable stratagem for defeating disbelief in the 21st century. "

Pasted from <http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html>

If you really grasp this at the level that the strategists at the Discovery Institute fear then you'll see why they are fighting so hard. They are terrified of a future where their grandchildren will be playing with genetically engineered pets, popping trait enhancing pills, driving cars fueled by artificially designed bacteria while listening to news reports about the discoveries of a strange cacophony of organic and inorganic life that's been detected by new high tech telescopes and robotic probes. Where neuro-anatomy and brain science will show that traits like empathy, altruism and impulse control are all evolved, upgradable, transplantable brain functions. http://www.slate.com/id/2162998/pagenum/all/

In this future the authority of religion to assess morality is stripped away by science and technology and the people at DI are terrified of this future and are willing to wage a war of lies and deceit to save us all - but mostly to save their own tiny worldview.

Intelligent redesign

cmo — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:19:11 GMT

Shawn, L. RON HUBBARD!!! lololol. I knew him for good sci-fi tales. I'll pray harder for you now that I know you regard him as a scholar. I too read his thesis on human behavior, and came to the same conclusion of him that I came to after studying Freud........entertaining, but rediculous bunk just the same.

Intelligent redesign

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:40:38 GMT

"-ID isn’t scientific because it’s not falsifiable, and oh by the way, it is routinely falsified. "

This is a way of saying "I don't understand the concept of scientific falsifiability" AND "ID is not science." Falsifiability refers to general statements that would completely disprove the proposed theory and not just to particular nuances. ID doesn't generate any of those. Yes. To the extent that ID actually is testable it has been shown to be in error; however, none of those are capable of utterly disproving it, if it is in error. Therefore, ID is not a science.

Intelligent redesign

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:52:35 GMT

The 2nd law doesn't have anything to do with specified complexity. That is an add-on thing that creationists put there that is not part of the 2nd law. Granville Sewell is not an expert on thermodynamics.

It's not that "anything can happen" when you have fresh energy put into a system; it's that the criteria for the definition of 2nd law employed by creationists is no longer met.

In practice, ID advocates and other creationists use hand-waving to tie together a bunch of not-well-understood topics like chaos, complexity, order, etc. so that it sounds to the lay-person as if the second law is violated by abiogenesis or by evolution. In contrast, the real scientists actually understand thermodynamics and realize that neither abiogenesis or evolution would violate the 2nd law.

Intelligent redesign

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:08:47 GMT

"All hail Marx! All Hail Lenin!"
This is a dishonest attempt to equate evolution with communism. When you can't win on facts, resort to calling those who disagree a bunch of commies. Learn the facts of evolution. Understand the theory. Then you can pontificate on it without sounding like you're throwing a tantrum in the kindergarten.

"Speaking of that--still no answer on when politians and judges and lawyers became so adept at science. "

Or armchair historians? Judge Jones actually listened to the scientists instead of the lawyers and pseudoscientists at DI. Generally, if creationists tried reading WITH DILIGENCE an actual science book instead of regurgitating the stupidity they lap up like beer at a keg party from pseudo-experts like Behe, Dembski, Wells, Johnson, et. al., there would be no argument.

Creationists, including IDers, don't understand evolution. They're CONVINCED that they "have done their homework," but what the objective observer discovers is that not only have they not done their homework - they wouldn't even RECOGNIZE real homework. Their "criticisms" would have far better reception, if they were actually informed. However, if they were informed, the great mass of creationist objections would evaporate.

Intelligent redesign

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:13:27 GMT

Check out: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9128

to see Granville Sewell make an ass of himself trying to (incorrectly) explain the second law of thermodynamics.
Quote:
"It is a well-known prediction of the second law that, in a closed system, every type of order is unstable and must eventually decrease, as everything tends toward more probable states."

NOTHING of the sort is well-known and this single sentence demonstrates very clearly that Sewell has a comic-book understanding of the second law. It's no accident that the people who have the least understanding of thermodynamics are so convinced of his genius in the subject.

Intelligent redesign

Wakefield Tolbert — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:32:26 GMT

""Disbelief now rivals the great faiths in numbers and influence. Never before has religion faced such enormous levels of disbelief, or faced a hazard as powerful as that posed by modernity. How is organized religion going to regain the true, choice-based initiative when only one of them is growing, and organized religion is doing so with reproductive activity rather than by convincing the masses to join in, when no major faith is proving able to grow as they break out of their ancestral lands via mass conversion, and when securely prosperous democracies appear immune to mass devotion? The religious industry simply lacks a reliable stratagem for defeating disbelief in the 21st century. "

Pasted from <http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html>

If you really grasp this at the level that the strategists at the Discovery Institute fear then you'll see why they are fighting so hard. They are terrified of a future where their grandchildren will be playing with genetically engineered pets, popping trait enhancing pills, driving cars fueled by artificially designed bacteria while listening to news reports about the discoveries of a strange cacophony of organic and inorganic life that's been detected by new high tech telescopes and robotic probes. Where neuro-anatomy and brain science will show that traits like empathy, altruism and impulse control are all evolved, upgradable, transplantable brain functions. http://www.slate.com/id/2162998/pagenum/all/

In this future the authority of religion to assess morality is stripped away by science and technology and the people at DI are terrified of this future and are willing to wage a war of lies and deceit to save us all - but mostly to save their own tiny worldview."

Ahhhh-SLATE, of all places. The one place that admittedly the Darwinists might have a thin point to make---not a good one. But one nontheless. Slate Mag shows just how leftists can force the issue of training monkeys to actually type, the crown jewel of proving human/ape links.

But seriously. I thought this was all said before--now it turns out the above was put forth by ANOTHER poster under the guise of his own words. Do people have no shame anymore? Is this cutting and pasting of other's ideas the glorious New Superman future of secularist morals when trying to pen something to make a point? But no matter. We've all heard that all before. The fact remains that also among secularists these lofty goals of flying helicopters and free food and "free healthcare" and a world of psychoanalyzed happy, prosperous superhuman socialists and other grandiose Walter Mitty fantasies not only keeps missing the beat. It misses the point.
Secularists no less than religionists are troubled by events in the world and have lost faith in their own tiny dimestore kingdoms. The evidence is all around as evidenced by the fact that you can ask your local village atheist about some moral or social issue and your likely to get as many answers and puzzling conclusions as if you just asked a cocktail waitress to weigh in on the finer points of dialectic materialism or to do a quadratic function in her head.

I used to be in high pressue sales. I know a con when I see one. And as I said elsewhere, this kind of salespitch is never new. We don't need organically modified food to either make us happy nor feed the planet. We have that ability now. This is a failure of the human heart more than raw technological ability. Those things are nice, yes, and we should naturally look forward to a world of less hunger and many advances on the medical front and of course to strive for disease resistant yields that use less water and nutrients, of course. This is no doubt exciting. And how is it the human mind can do this things? HOW? By constraning our goals and experiments and actually DESIGNING and PLANNING the gene splicing and roboting fixtures and higher crop yields with ideas and technologies our forefathers never hears of back in Laura Engalls' day. Naturally this is good. But all this other flip frippary is of less use.

The human heart is the issue and mostly always has been. Not our abilities. Science is not salvation anymore than better sex or food is. Many times in history these and other issues are presented to us on a platter of earthly delights by secularist planners as some kind of higher goal, when in fact secularist thinkers (as with food and sex and fun and frivoloity) always pander to the basist among us, not to the mind itself. There they offer no insights at all. Just tripe about how better corn can feed Namibia when in fact we can do this now if that's a worthy goal. Or how advanced jibber jabber among shrinks can be found in brain scans to help mental patients when the real focus should be their own lousy desisions in life. We have issues now on the political and ideological level that can be solved only with courage and compassion. Perhaps medical science will evolve to help some people grow a damned SPINE. How's that for starters? Not super goals and gadgets and other wizbangery to fill the attics and garage sales years later. We have our niceties. We don't have common sense about a lot of things.

As Michael Crichton has said, we have had 400 years of modern science or so and very little improvement in many notions of what is actually good for us materially and morally. Better gadgetry does not yield better people. Medical advancements are certainly welcome but it seems the way things are promoted (like the phony ADHD, which actually means active boys that teachers need to calm down in class so she can drone on...), everything is now an alphabetized syndrome. Do you have ADD, EDS, ERT, RLS, EFG.....etc....?

Ask your doctor about Cramitall!

ALSO--What we're being shown in many of these posts is the same supposed litany of woes created by faith alone, yet no mention of the horror and blood and ruined lives by anonymous and famous do-gooders and technobrains alike who've at the worst found new ways to damage us and at the least have given us more fripparies to pawn off at the next yard sales.

Not a smart sales pitch, folks. AS far as the last repasted part from the poster above, I find it odd for the Darwinian warriors and their amen crowd to claim that brain function alone describes moral reasoning by some kind of evolutionary default when the Dawkins just got through pointing out that being a mere gene machine is prime directive no. 1 and all other goals subordinate. That he dares to get preachy on other topics does nothing to bolster this nonsense, since it is contradiction to how humans actually behave. Moral values cannot evolve based on mere matter in motion any more than rocks have feelings and goals and lumps of cytoplasm have spiritual needs just because they tumble down a steep hill and get affected one way or another. Welcome to non sequitor city.
AS far as moral suasion, the fact is that while certainly the politicization of religion has caused great harm to some. This is human failing, though, not God's. BUt the Church has also been in the front lines in defending human rights against other secular do-gooders of the past and now the present in nations as various as Red China, Cambodia, the old USSR(where the Eastern Church stood down all attempts to persecute its members and also stood up for human dignity) and old Europe. Kings and Kingdoms dared not do certain kinds of things to people. Today persecuation is at an all time high in some of the truly backward nations and yet the Church more than local and international organizations is there to try and give aid and comfort to the dispossed and tormented while politicians pretend to not notice in between delicious dinners of lobster at the UN.

Intelligent redesign

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:20:04 GMT

"I find it odd for the Darwinian warriors and their amen crowd to claim that brain function alone describes moral reasoning by some kind of evolutionary default when the Dawkins just got through pointing out that being a mere gene machine is prime directive no. 1 and all other goals subordinate."

First, Dawkins didn't write the definitive account of evolution. Not everyone agrees that genes are the fundamental unit of selection. Second, there is no mystery in the fact that the failure to do any serious homework on the subject of evolution makes one unaware of the research concerning the evolution of altruism.

"HA! I reject electrons! Of course I haven't read about them! But the very idea! Things NOBODY can see exhibiting this phantasmal property called ENERGY! HA! HOGWASH! Homework? I doan need to do no steenken HOMEWORK!"

Intelligent redesign

Wakefield Tolbert — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:29:32 GMT

If Christian belief were actually some kind of "barrier" to science or progress, it is hard to fathom WHY so many founders of modern science were true believers. Paracelsus, Boyle, and Newton wrote extensively on theology as well as science. Others, like Kepler and Helmont--filled their notebooks with prayers and praise and theological underpinnings. Of course there are dozens of others. The list of believing men and women who were (and are still) on the front lines of science will fill 50 blackboards in small type. Which speaking of underpinning soon brings us another point to make. Some historians in the overkills moonbat mode try and dismiss these theological insights as but irritating distractions from pure works. Yet we find that belief in the God of the Bible was the UNDERPINNING of many of these men's insights into a larger realm. Many of these early explorers of the heavens used just that word and studied Creation on the assumption that God would have made an orderly Universe, not a Protean one where anything happens, and thus studied to better know the Creator of such wonders. In many if not most cases this was Prime Motivator One in the quest for greater material knowledge. It is the Christian conception of God and order and nothing else that served as the foundation for other insights--and yet today we see that some of us here think you can by analogy build certain skyscrapers with the basement first and then rip that ideological basement from under the rest and hope it stands. Not so. In the few episodes often mentioned over and over to utter exhaustion, like Copernicus and Galileo, the truth is that on the whole the Church had little to say about the findings per se but the implications of such to the moral order. That might have been in the wrong, but the Church actually (in these cases) defaulted to the SECULAR authorities at the time who were used to a worldview of Aristotelians, and thus decided to fight along side THAT side of the coin.

Well now! Interesting, no doubt!

Galileo never repudiated his faith. Never. Not once. The positivist modernist approach to historical revisionism claims that his religious defense was mere expediency, but the behavior cannot be explained this way if see his determination to fit both realms side by side. Which he tried to do. The other implications is that Christianity mobilized against Copernicus to "resist" the shattering of a cozy cosmology. Also false.

Newsweek claims this in one of their issues on science and faith. But the reality is that contrary to popular thinking, the real problem the church had with Copernicus was not that he swept man from his moorings about earth and sun being "just so" but rather that the new position gave mankind TOO MUCH elevation. In early Christian cosmology, the problem was that the outer rings of heaven were the realms of angels and at the very center of things was the earth, inside was hell. The center of the universe was not all that special contrary to what you've read. IN this scheme of things humanity's repositioning was not a demotion, but a promotion of sorts. The Church worried about the predictable human hubris that might result. A point on which they are still correct in many ways. Many modern historians enjoy writing as if Copernicus resetting of the Cosmic picture of various orbital planes offered some grave threat to humanity's position of loftiness. Far from the case.

Curious that many of the posters above seem to be defaulting to the long discredit notion often elsewhere called the "Columbus Argument", also known as the Escalator Myth--of automatic upward human progress that equates material possessions as equal to moral preparedness to handle a changing world.
The errors here are many as any good historian will remind us. The most glaring is that history is always more complex than what we're taught in the public schools about Dark Hooded figures in the Church and elsewhere trying to stare down "progress."
It is not that simple. The argument also suffers from another set of problems even more serious; Columbus SLAMMED into the New World by accident---he didn't "discover" it, and in point of fact his many detractors were correct in that the real issue was not the shape of the planet but rather the distance to be traveled to Asia, about which Columbus was also in the wrong. One does not have to be a Politically Correct Multicultural buff to realize he was NOT universally admired for his exploitation of other peoples. Nor the fact that the subjugation came at a horrible price---still being paid today. The Admiral of the Mosquitoes, as his own crewmen often called him, had serendipity on his side, not his navigational skills. Those are just points in fact. But the other issue is that this notion suffers from the other inconvenient truth that for every noble striving that turns out to benefit one group not only curses another in the long run, but that for every good idea promoted as "progress" for humanity we have some really UGLY ones that accompany it and flow from it. This is largely ignored in all these discussions about material progress alone being the arbiter of human aspirations and morality as mere brain function based on experience. As Paul Johnson warns us, often our experiences teach us nothing about ourselves but rather only our inward desires as compared to other ages. The critics can be shamed in some rare instances, of course, but very often the detractors are in the right. In fact usually they are: Some ideas ARE lousy, even when sexed up in the language of progress. Stalin and Mao are only the two more notable examples, but not the only serous ones. Then we have this notion that Christianity ushered in the Dark Ages, which historian Rodney Stake demolished and is now being recanted after more info comes in about that age. Far from being primitive, the so-called Dark Ages was a time of great progress on all fronts, if by the very standards posted by some here we find favor in various advanced metallurgy techniques, windmills, fireplaces, advanced architecture (often first seen in vast cathedrals, by the way, but not surprisingly) and other tidbits just now coming to light. It's just that we have to push harder to uncover these things from a time when much was not written down. Good history is about detective work, not guesswork and assumptions about the angst of our own age coloring the interpretations of the distant past. Radical Capitalist Bad Girl, Ayn Rand, in her oddness also had a similar myth about religion in history "thwarting" the progress of man and (falsely) accusing the Church of persecuting every new gadget and their makers on the rack. Among other lies and distortions.

Curiously, for all this pro-Darwinist jibber jabber about progress being secular in origin and automatically equaling (from brain scans and psychotherapy), we find that most of this neo-Darwinist crowd leans to the Lefter side of the political spectrum and believes in the false ideology of social planning and economic coercion to make amend to mankind. Not only this oddity in the face of many hells and horrors in trying to purge other ideas, but we also find this crowd usually enamored with bungling notions about Political Correctness, radical environmentalism, and sexual licensciousness. Funny hese are the MOST PRIMITIVE states of basic human function/thinking ever imaginable. And the Darwinists in their never ending quest for human "progress" latch onto all three.

PCness and multicultural blah promotes the idea that the tiny enclave cultures that run naked in the woods and are covered in lice, and other aboriginal hooting, is on par with the nations that pop men and women into space in fantastically complex machinery and eat dinners from microwavable plastic plates premanufactured in a distance city. Environmentalism promotes the notion that a very PRIMITIVE state of nature--which is slaughter in the wholesale--BTW, is superior to homes and cars and cities and parks and recreation for human use and enjoyment and that mankind is either on par with but certainly not superior to crocodiles, cockroaches and canines in his rights or efforts to live a more comfortable existence than the misery of digging the earth with bare hands and tolerating the cold, heat, predation, and the bugs every present on the planet.

Not much "morality" evolving there, evidently. Eat or be eaten. Pay homage to the lizards. That's about it.

The Darwin crowd also very typically promotes sexual license in both public formats and the public schools as "progress", disregards the marriage union as anything but history anachronism and quaint, and declares that sex=love, or (that lovemaking equals love per se) and that love and honor and chastity are either outdated concepts or just evolutionary holdovers based on chemical combinations in the brain and thus any union of flesh is permissible. And yet societies all in history knew that both love and sex had to be banked and channeled to avoid problems and thus humanity engineered (if you will) the concept of family and home and childrearing in a stable and relatively safer environment than passing from one night stand to another. As Will and Ariel Durant have pointed out, all cultures do this. But the Darwinian sees into exchange of genes and offspring as the only dangers to violating this sacred pact. Again--nothing could be more primitive than the disruption of the family and sexual union within moral bounds. Interesting that these Darwinian paeans to wildness and primitive states of mind is what culminates in their funny noggins as "moral progress."

Stemming from .....brain function with cascades of chemicals, no doubt?

One might be tempted to be a Skeptic of the Skeptics.

Intelligent redesign

Wakefield Tolbert — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:44:35 GMT

"This is a dishonest attempt to equate evolution with communism. When you can't win on facts, resort to calling those who disagree a bunch of commies. Learn the facts of evolution."

No sir. This is the most frank and honest thing I can do.

The issue is not that all Darwinists piddlers are evil any more than all hairdresser are. The point was not actually the Red Scare per se, even. But rather that such an idea is SO EASILY expropriated for other uses when it is painfully obvious that the secular notions of progress often use the underpinning of rather suspect guidance. On the one hand we're told that Darwinist findings don't cross into the realm of morals or metaphysiscs. Yet here I am reading about brain scans and chemical cascades bumping around that from our human history do just that--make a claim for why we do what we do. I would say that is called "input on the topic." The point is that many in history have used or justified horror based on ulterior motives for the "good of mankind" by using a backdrop that makes morals into some kind of sappy sentimentalism or worse has the ABILITY (though not the necessity) of simply arguing that this is all human social convention and so therefore the topic need not concern our larger goals, etc, etc. In an unconstrained theory that makes false claims to know the origin everything and not just material arrangements, the field is wide open for, well, .....unconstrained behavior.

Cheers.

Intelligent redesign

Wakefield Tolbert — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:53:21 GMT

PS--Paul Johnson is hardly an "armchair" anything.

He's an historian in good standing but hated for his dissing of common angsts and psychoses and iedological assumptions that eminate from the modern mind's smugness about history. He's well noted for his insights into the hitherto failings of humanity's never ending quest for some cosmic state of perfection based on horrible ideas and rather suspect goals. Taking a peek won't damage you.

Intelligent redesign

Rick, Detroit — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:06:30 GMT

The basic arguments for Atheistic Evolution so far have been to insult or belittle the Creationists and IDer's.
Atheistic Evolution claims science for their own and Creationism or ID can't touch it. This is childish.
The same science that is used for backing the theory of evolution can be used to back the Creation and ID Theory.
A good example is the geologic table of layering.
Atheistic Evolution theorizes that it was deposited slowly over millions of years.
Creationists say it was done quickly through a global flood.
With the eruption of Mt. Saint Helen's we see how a relative small scale event can cause the lakes in that area to form
layering features that were thought could only happen over long periods of time.
Problems with the evolution theory are that the layer table is inconsistent, only occurring seldom throughout the
world in the order commonly seen in the text books.
Other problems are upright trees and fossils traversing multiple geologic layers supposedly millions of years apart.
Also recent discoveries of soft tissue in fossils supposedly 65-70 million years old.
Evolution has never been seen in action. Mutation in genes are always detrimental to the organism.
Both sides have a faith in things unseen. Making a faith in evolution as much a religion as creationism and ID.

Intelligent redesign

Ed I., Ft Laud, FL — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:50:52 GMT

The television program was very good. It’s a shame so few of the people making comments watched it. If they had watched it they would have seen just a small example of the plethora of evidence that supports the science of evolution. I have noticed a lot of the comments regurgitating phony science to invalidate evolution and referring to the Bible as the truth.
If the creationists want their “truth” to be presented as scientific fact then they need to prove the Bible to be fact. They would need to start with Genesis of course. The creationist could find Noah’s boat as proof of his existence but of course they don’t necessarily need to have the boat. According to the Bible, Noah built his huge boat at the age of 600 and he lived another 350 years after the flood. Surely in those 350 years after the flood Noah would have left some other tangible evidence to show he existed. The Bible also list the names of Noah’s children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren whose lives extended for centuries as that was common then. Surely there is some tangible evidence of their existence, after all his sons alone lived to be 600 years old. According to Genesis 9:19 we ALL came from one of Noah’s three sons. So one of them had to be the Asian and we could see if there is any mention of them in Asian history. But alas there is absolutely no proof of the existence of Noah, Lott, Abraham, or Moses for that matter. If the story of Noah in Genesis isn’t fact then what is fact in the Bible. If it’s not the truth then any other part of the Bible may or may not be the truth and it could mean anything depending on who’s reading it and that’s not science or fact.

For those that want the historical accuracy of the Bible may I suggest they read-
The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts by Neil Asher Silberman and Israel Finkelstein

Intelligent redesign

thefalliblefiend, lorton, va — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 04:58:56 GMT

Ed, creationists have not done the least remote thing that could be called honest homework on the subject and then stand up, stomp their feet, and shout indignantly that THEY have never seen any evidence of evolution. The fact is that they are too intellectually lazy even to watch the show. They don't care what the evidence is. The evidence is irrelevant. It's easier to pule about those evil, commie evolutionists than it is to do the work.

Intelligent redesign

John Doe, Seattle, Wash. — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:32:50 GMT

Maybe it's hard to believe that every living being on this planet is the result of an ongoing evolutionary proces or whatever you want to call it. I certainly do not have all the answers and I dont't think we will have those answers in the near future.

But, for me it's even harder to believe that a vastly superior and more complex being, called God has allways been 'there', and has designed and created everything on this planet and in the universe.

Intelligent redesign

Martha Simas — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:56:43 GMT

I watched the show and was horrified by the fact that the Religious Right in this country would try to teach ID in the public school system. Then they tried to terrorize its opponents, including the Judge. All Religious Fanatics are dangerous! Some of the people who have commented on this really need to study their Religious history; many people have died or been imprisoned because they disagreed with the Church. Pagans for example. More blood has been spilled in the name of religion than any other reason. You can believe in a higher power and still believe that true science be taught in public school. If you want your kids taught ID send them to Sunday school. I also think some people are using this to keep the races divided. We need to accept all Humans are the same inside and learn to get along, No Matter what religion we believe.

Intelligent redesign

Alan Boyle — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:59:07 GMT

For what it's worth, the entire show is now watchable online, as 12 separate video "chapters":

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

Intelligent redesign

Matthew Meckfessel — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:00:04 GMT

To Rick from Detroit: Your assertions are flawed. The one I'll address is your statement that mutations in genes are always detrimental. This is absolutely not true and shows your lack of understanding of not only evolution but of biology.

Take bacteria that develop anti-biotic resistance. These bacteria have mutations in their gene(s) that allow them to adapt, or evolve, to cope with anti-biotic pressure. Or extremophiles that live in toxic waste dumps and have genes and proteins that have mutated so much so that they can survive.

Most mutations in DNA will be silent. Yes, some will be lethal, but some will also be beneficial to the organism and get passed on. Lots and lots of these little beneficial mutations = evolution. You can deny it all you want, but the science, facts, and reality are not on your side.

Intelligent redesign

Freddy, Memphis, TN — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:40:50 GMT

My local PBS station in Memphis decided NOT to air this NOVA program. Claimed it was too "controversial". Will air in January, with a "roundtable discussion with local citizens" following after the viewing.

Intelligent redesign

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 02:55:49 GMT

I don't know how many actually saw the show, but I did...and quite by accident. The fact remains that the judge was absolutely correct in ruling ID in the present incarnation is NOT science. So, leave it out of science and put it into something analogous to philosophy. The zealots who tried to cover up their wonky creationist beliefs were exposed for the weasles they were.

I can't believe that Dr. Behe, a biochemistry professor, wasn't questioned on what his opinions were concerning genes and inheritance and the implications for change over time ie. mutations.

Darwin was a consummate scientist and adventurer who deduced the existence of some mechanism of inheritance without even knowing about genetics or genes. It was Pastor Gregor Mendel with his experiments on pea plants that pointed at a mechanism of inheritance of traits and it's laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

Intelligent redesign

Food For Thought, Michigan — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:37:36 GMT

I've said this on other forums, and I shall say it again. Those who say Biblical "theories" are outdated and have no place in today scientifically, enlightened society should really start to read their Bible, even just a little.

The Bible does not contradict and scientific LAWS which can be and have been proven, (ie a spherical earth-- in psalms, the author of the book himself talks about the "circle of the earth"--hello!??! this was thousands of years before Columbus!!) and the existence of other planets as God himself is quoted saying "other worlds which I HAVE created!".
Even micro-evolution is Biblical as species adapt to their environment--but they still produce after their own kind.

However, the problem arises when a proclaimer of macro-evolution declares his most precious THEORY as fact! Show me the missing link and I too, will become a believer.

I ask you to take this small thought into consideration: If evolution is true and we are evolved from apes and all human life started in Africa, then Hitler, Stalin, the KKK and all other white supremacy groups are justified... just a little food for thought!

Intelligent redesign

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 21:51:27 GMT

1. I have read the Bible.

2. Anyone who demands to see "the missing link" clearly doesn't have any idea what evolution is really about.

Here's a marvelous idea: Instead of talking about how science and the Bible agree, try picking up and ACTUAL science book. (Religious pamphlets created and promulgated by the Discovery Institute and the Institute for Creation 'Research' do not count.)

One can only conclude that evolution 'justifies' Hitler, etc. if one does not understand evolution.

Intelligent redesign

Food For Thought, Michigan — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:34:14 GMT

Alright FallibleFiend,

I need not justify how much I've studied and agonized over this topic throughout the years. God knows how much time I've spent on this topic over the years.

It seems that your enlightened quotes "one can only conclude...blah blah blah" don't have a factual/scientific basis behind them. I take it you know what I was referring to when speaking on the issue of "Hitler, Stalin etc." So please, I would love to hear your rebuttal to my arguement. That is, if you can come with actual science and facts, not just philosophy.

...Oh and don't insult the Christian community by saying you "read" the Bible. Looking up a few scriptural cross-references from some article written by an atheistic author trying to mock the Work of God does not constitute reading the Bible.

btw... I've never read anything promulgated (oh, I like that word) by the Discovery Institute/Institute for Creation Research... I prefer to go straight to the source, so a "bias" can't be claimed.

Intelligent redesign

hmmmm... — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:37:34 GMT

To anyone interested and not afraid that their "faith" might be shaken or even second-guessed, I suggest you google:

"50 Reasons to Leave Your Faith (evolution)"

It might open up your minds!!!

Intelligent redesign

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 06:46:42 GMT

Food, what is there to rebut in what you've said? What you've made is a bunch of unsubstantiated claims. I doubt you know what actual research is. Every creationist claims he's done mounds of research and then goes on to say something so absurd that no one who has done an honest day's ACTUAL research would make.

You cite the round Earth and the existence of planets as examples. Other than the fact that Laws are not "proven," The Earth's shape and the existence of other planets are not scientific laws. Also, LOTS Of people knew the Earth was round, including the ancient Greeks who computed its circumference more accurately than many later estimates. There is another passage in the Bible that indicate a square Earth, which you have neglected to mention, probably because it is inconvenient. Also the Earth is not a circle as ancient beliefs foretold, but a sphere (actually an oblate spheroid, but I'd accept sphere).

Anyone who demands to see "the missing link" has a comic book understanding of evolution. There are numerous "missing links," but there will probably never be so many as we would desire. But the term "missing link" itself is misleading - evolution is not a "chain" or a "ladder" which are anti-evolutionary views. It's not even a tree; it's much more like a bush. Evolution doesn't predict that we would find every intermediate. Darwin knew this. (Any time a creationists starts a sentence with "Even Darwin said..." you can bet your behind he hasn't actually read Darwin.) Darwin understood how rare fossils are and he explain why they are rare. "Intermediates" are necessarily directly in the lineage of X and Z. They may not be directly related to either. The chances are slim we would find such a thing. An intermediate is a taxon that exhibits properties of more than one other taxon. Archaeopteryx is such a transitional - it exhibits some characteristics that are unique to reptiles, others that are unique to birds, and some which are common to both - which is EXACTLY what you would expect from a transitional. Oddly there are creationists who ignore (or lie) and say "Oh, it's a reptile!" and others who say "It's obviously just a bird!" There are others who say it's a hoax, but there's no evidence of that.

Finally, science is not about proof. It's about disproof. No theories are "proven". Pick up a *real* science text.

Stalin and his Lysenkoists punished Darwinists. Hitler had numerous erroneous beliefs that had nothing to do with evolution and used anything he could to achieve his political ends. Nothing in evolution justifies either of these, except when one has a comic book understanding of them. Evolution doesn't "justify" anything - good or bad.

Intelligent redesign

thefalliblefiend, lorton, va — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 06:49:17 GMT

And by the way, Food, I used to be a believer AND a creationist, and while you might be offended by it, I have read the Bible. At one time, before I learned how to do actual research instead of pretend 'research', I actually believed it.

Intelligent redesign

Wakefield Tolbert — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 01:11:43 GMT

Way to go in your ..."research" in square earth quotes from the Bible, Mr. Fallable. Of course the Bible is often falsely accused of having bad cosmology. Hmmm. And yet there is no such passage, or perhaps you mean the metaphorical "foundations of the earth" one or the one about "four corners" which if you truly did "research", you'd see it means the common cardinal directions (that's north, south, east and west, for those in Reo Linda).

I've heard of liberal theology, but you need to do some follow up, not just blow the dust of the Scripture once in a while.

And then this? WOW:

To wit, or witless:

"Second, there is no mystery in the fact that the failure to do any serious homework on the subject of evolution makes one unaware of the research concerning the evolution of altruism."

Research or not, no materialist explanation to date can exacpe the parameters of the problem of Induction and free will--including altruistic "species oriented" (no doubt) behaviour if consciousness is mere illusion (as many materialists claim) AND/OR if such behaviour is merely but one of mechanisms geared to spread the species. Reproduction has no morals, just the appearance of morals. Reproduction and the accoutrements of such that serve this are physical entities only, and such behaviour has no real transcendence but merely pragmatism, which is the opposite of moral thinking.

Dig?

AS to evolution offering or allowing neither good nor bad, that is easily refutable. The actions taken against it by tyrants mean little except that it might have contained ideological parameters they didn't care for. Stalin also persecuted the Orthodox Church. So what? HE hated everyone. The point is that in a moral void caused by an ideology like Darwinism that purports to have all issues boiled down to material processes, this nothingness and vanity and purposelessness is soon filled in with justifications agsinst any moral order as against the canard of "older morals" now out of fashion,etc.

Intelligent redesign

Wakefield Tolbert — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:10:27 GMT

Fallable also sayeth:

"Not everyone agrees that genes are the fundamental unit of selection."

That's not even close to the point. Of course other selective pressures exist. No doubt. But the grand gene machine cannot change or even continue if it does not reproduce. That is fact insofar as anything could be.

And, to that end while selection takes many courses, the finding of "moral" reasoning from purely materialist explanations of whatever fancy(which you falsely label with the silly watered-down moniker of "altruism trait", as if this is merely akin to some kind of mere "tool-making instinct" being the answer to how to make a skyscaper or cyclotron), certainly will be alleged to have roots in a "species" orientation for survival mode against various environmental or social conditions.

But the problem of induction is thornier than this, Fallable. And we do appreciate your honesty speaking of monikers.

Speaking of the above, the putdowns just never end do they? Or do they?

http://www.townhall.com:80/Columnists/Column.aspx?ContentGuid=1996ef45-26ea-4495-a904-3c445cb24f7c

Oh--and if you want research that DOES disconfirm certain scientific notions when applied and sprinkled rather consistently as an ideology:

The ultimate secular experience in the age of Darwin? <b>Extinction</b>.

At least of certain "faith free" lifestyles.
Thought that was funny. Well, in a gallows humor way.... :)

No doubt you won't find it funny.

So perhaps that's a contraindication of the value of atheist values?

http://wakepedia.blogspot.com/2006/03/liberals-doomed-to-extinction-darwin.html

http://wakepedia.blogspot.com/2007/05/atheists-wont-save-europe.html

What else?

Now as with your take on the "just so stories" which you and TIME (below) regard apparently as "research", some are inclined to believe that science will show us the inner self as explained by the genes soon enough. True. They claim this.

See the latest excerpts from TIME on Dec 3rd, wherein the author smugly says that the above issue has been solved by declaring that we all have this evolutionary mix of ill and good from the distant past--

”Morality and empathy are writ deep in our genes. Alas, so are savagery and bloodlust. Science is now learning what makes us both noble and terrible.”
“The deeper that science drills into the substrata of behavior, the harder it becomes to preserve the vanity that we are unique among earth’s creatures.”

“Sociobiology has been criticized as one of the most reductive of sciences, ascribing the behavior of all living things — humans included — as nothing more than an effort to get as many genes as possible into the next generation. The idea makes sense . . .”

“The brain activity that most closely tracked the hypothetical crimes . . . occurred in the amygdala, a deep structure that helps us make the connection between bad acts and punishments.”

blah blah.....

---thus all human action can now be digested and explained via the genes. No doubt this is their (secularists) answer to the "moral" problem, explaining that (as you suggested, though for a different direction) from evolution we have an "emergent" property that explains the Induction quandary and answers it in that while our genes control everything, just as with hydrogen and oxygen combining to have an "emergent" property of water (which is unique in the Cosmos and cannot easily be predicted from the more volatile natures of the component atoms until joined in the weird hydric bond), so too the human mind may have evolved but the "emergent" property of "free will" can now be explained via evolution of purely material forces without the need for transcendent meaning. The goal is still survival, but encoded into the genes are mechanisms for dealing with trouble, etc. Now the problem of "induction" is thorny and difficult and some neuroscientists step around the issue by using the "emergent" argument but at the same time it is curious that all of this supposedly flows from "gene machine" replication.

Trouble is of course this cannot be the case. Proper physical function is not necessarily on par with Reason, per se. Dependent upon, but not equal to (there is a difference). It is like equating fuel with car per se. Same for moral reasoning, which needs transcendence beyond the material or it is merely pragmatism. You mentioned the possibility of evolution of the physical mind to a point at which decisions and morals could be better processed. In my estimated there is nothing wrong with that per se except for ONE tiny thing. Let me explain. In the classic Argument From Reason, henceforth called AFR, CS Lewis for example pointed out that we all know it is FALSE to claim, (as some materialists seem bound to do), that PROPER, AVERAGE BRAIN FUNCTION=PROPER REASONING.

I simply declared that, going one step further, PROPER BRAIN FUNCTION=MORAL REASONING, is likewise a FALSE statement.

No doubt truly troubled people and those with psychotic illnesses and manic disorders as well as even milder forms of personality disorders will have SOMETHING show up on brain scans. But I am willing to bet the store that just as with reason and clear thinking not necessarily flowing from normal brain function as some measurable moment (and we all make errors in judgment and get fooled, whether by social influences, slick salesmen, emotions, and others), we also cannot say that all ill behavior would show up on some brain scan. No doubt even the best minds are capable of great evil, and this would not be obvious from brain scans alone. In fact it has been suggested that venal slobs of the regular type are not nearly as dangerous to the commonweal as those whose brains can conjure justifications for certain kinds of actions on behalf of either self or allegedly for the betterment of mankind. Absolutely no doubt that in point of fact native intelligence might even increase the immoral liability to one so inclined and that no scan or analysis of the physical brain would show this ill trait. Since as with reasoning/decisions, the process of Induction, or going beyond biological inputs, is also the free will component of moral suasion.

--Best Regards.

Intelligent redesign

Wakefield Tolbert — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:39:30 GMT

"These bacteria have mutations in their gene(s) that allow them to adapt, or evolve, to cope with anti-biotic pressure. Or extremophiles that live in toxic waste dumps and have genes and proteins that have mutated so much so that they can survive."

Everyone agrees that in many cases you can have front end loaded abilities that reveal themselves in such manners. No doubt. But the genetic information was already extant. This is a far cry from the kind of radical change needed to form new structures in the first place. Vestigial organs, for example, still find function even in the new state(as recently shown of the appendix), yet the real changer, the nascent organ, is unknown.

Beyond the snide remarks, another hallmark I see here too often, the other issue is this unsupported claim that lots of micro=macro. Little changes equal big developments. But the history of all current things shows otherwise. Most of life is like that. Babies and caterpillars can gain weight at amazing rates, but they generally don't weight tons after 10 years. There are upper limits to change, growth, and other developments encoded into nature. This is typical. Fires have upper limits to consumption. Birds cannot fly much beyond 30,000 feet. Humans can't breate there. Kangaroos can't hop from Australia to New Dehli. The captain of the football team can only bed so many girls in one night. Trees don't grow into space. I can't email you in a reasonable time from Jupiter now matter how fast my DSL connection speed.

Likewise the already extant "front end" loaded information of bacteria and viral strains can certainly mutate to something ugly to battle us, but this does not imbue them with eternal abilities to do so.

Intelligent redesign

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, va — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 04:23:59 GMT

Wakefield, you started talking about altruism and then shifted to "induction and free will." The induction point is irrelevant and has been solved by falsificationism - I say "solved" because it's been thrown out the window and a new paradigm brought to fore. You're right that the issue of free will is as yet unsolved. It's more correct to say that it is unknown. We don't know whether free will exists. We can take the path of the religionist and just make stuff up or we can say we don't know. I go with "we don't know."

Your "moral arguments" of Darwinism are arguing against your perceived consequences of Darwinism. First, belief in the existence of higher powers doesn't prohibit bad morality - disagree? take it up with Osama bin Laden. Second, being a materialist doesn't inevitably lead to the things you say it does. what you're doing is making an assertion which you don't back up. There is no "ideology of Darwinism." This is a boogey man cooked up by the guys who haven't done their homework and can't come up with a good argument against evolution. As they are unable to refute Darwinism with actual science, they want to turn the argument into an emotional one - and to do that you need a boogey man.

You have confirmed a simple fact: Creationists can't refute the science with science, so they resort to sloppy philosophy and comparisons of Darwinism to communism and worse in an attempt make it an emotional argument.

Intelligent redesign

Wakefield Tolbert — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:14:44 GMT

Yep. I did. But they are linked in the sense (for some unfortunate people) in that some think that a bio input about altruism is some kind of Big Indicator about where we get morals. But the ideas are only tangentially related, so I pointed that out.

There is no sloppier philosophy to walk the planet than the ones the secularists toy with in their attempt to escape unavoidable issues. The "Don't Know" theorem is a frequent charge in the "god of the gaps" scenario but now we have the science of the gaps filled in with monkey dust.

The issue of Induction is not solved and in fact must be the same as free will. They are the same, in effect. In any case, you can't have the latter without the former, else all human thinking is set on automatic, like a DNS server registering its users. It looks neat, but there the emperor has no mind. It just does.

Or if it HAS been solved that would certainly come as grand news to Victor Reppert who deals with this issue over and over. I'll correspond with him when I have the time and get the lowdown on "falsification" of ....well......free will....

Throwing something out like the keystone to free will is due to frustration in this case. Not "findings" that contraindicate that it has no more importance. The that hand waving about throwing out something is just that and is in fact beside the point: In order to trust our own senses on ANY topic we must be able to reason. Every conclusion arrived at by brain research is not simply piled into the plate ready made but rather is dependent upon the soundness of judgments and human reasoning. The problem arises when we take the lazy road as materialists oft do and equate "reason" and "morals" and "how thinking works" with "the way the brain functions materially" at the mechanically organic level (or more properly, the electrochemical level, actually).

Thus the corresponding false statement, Sound Reasoning (or moral reasoning) = Recognized Normal Brain Function.

The difficulty is that we MUST know how to reason properly BEFORE we can determine HOW the brain works in the first place. But how can we ever discover how the brain does work if we must already, err, "know" how it SHOULD work before the discovery can be made? This is a logical incoherence that no amount of brain research can solve because it is akin to saying that a notion of how something works is the equivalent of consciousness, yet consciousness is experienced, not seen per se. It is one thing to say reason is dependent in some fashion on organic process. That is obvious, but that is not the same as saying that induction, free will, or other components required for true reason are the SAME as brain function per se---which materialist explanations are dedicated to saying.

Further, thank you for admission of what is not typically admitted, in that free will is doubtful from even the "emergent" strain of thinking if all can be reduced to bio-input. If that is in fact the case then naturally free will is a facile idea akin to Thor. If THAT is the case, then the component of the mind that allows us to perceive the truth of an idea, qua idea, is gone, and thus all materialist explanations contradict themselves. A proportion must be believable on the basis (and bases) of whether or not reason can be employed. It cannot be automatic.

It is like saying that everything is on automatic default, which throws into doubt the normal explanations of why people do what they do. We have not even gotten to the issue of criminal justice. Speaking of "you can't make a philosophy out of Darwinism" denials, Clarence Darrow and HL Mencken certainly had the gaul to give it the old college try. Darrow spoke fondly, as does William Provine today and hosts of others, on the powerful and disarming legal consequences of Darwin's ideas. For his part Oliver Wendell Holmes gave us this positivist notion of the law still in effect today and getting more powerful in that, like Dewey, he formulated the modernist notions from his understanding of Darwinian descent and what this means to human morals to take it that none of us is actually responsible for anything we do. Nothing. The law can merely restrain. There are no morals per se but social inputs and pragmatic outputs. Weinberg, Sagan, Wilson, Stephen Jay Gould, BF Skinner, Crick and Watson, Michael Ruse, Richard Rorty, John Dewey, Francis Fukuyama and of course our favorite piñata to hit, Richard Dawkins, have all made SOME kind of case from one degree or another about the "meaning" of evolution and the strange and even dire consequences for human morals and interaction. It is indeed bizarre that some would claim that so radical retelling of human descent would mean "nothing one way or the other". They sternly beg to differ, with William Dennett writing an entire book on the REAL meaning of such and that even some of Darwin's modern adherents are simply afraid to face the coarse music here and accept that all nonmaterial notions are just mush and gush and slush. This was the Hume position. The cat is already out of the bag on these guys. But still, the above quote is the more common feeling on this matter. And yes its true that William Provine now gets speaking fees touring college campuses with a projector highlighting things like "life therefore has no transcendent meaning." Others have had a more toned down approach to this, as with Sagan and Gould, who simply say that ethical input must come from "the human experience" and other encounters of pragmatism and compassion, etc.
Or perhaps these commentators also had that "sloppy philosophy", since by your take nothing of their input is to be "found" in Darwinian lingo. Period.

The issue with Bin Laden and the few radicals who by nature of percentage (a few thousand out of, say, over one billion Islamic adherents) is a non sequiter in the extreme. Some people with guns are killers. YEP. Thus all people who own guns are waiting for you at the next stop light. There has been the contraindicating evidence that is fact. Not theory, conjecture, or guesswork, but FACT, that from the French Revolution to the blood-drenched "isms" of the 20th century, more people were killed in the name of reason – liberty, equality and fraternity, or “scientific” socialism, or “scientific” theories of race – than in all of the religious wars spanning the course of history combined. We strain on the gnats of hubris to think we automatically Escalate in human progress just because the calendar has turned.

You are welcome to do your measure in liters of blood that hit the ground, emotional distress, or sheer biomass of bodies. Secular ideas are the bigger schoolyard bullies of human reason and health. In the lesser trauma range scientism has damaged traditional societies, like China, where the hubris of change and birth control radicalism has caused that society to take their male oriented paternalism to the extreme of now killing infant girls. No one expects to do things so stupid, but the consequences of ideas being brought out as "progressive" (as in the contraindicating example of Western Europe being extinct in about 50 years, for starts in recent times...) is no more predictable now than it was in the past. So far, the most damning evidence is that the world of the materialist certainly DOES lead inexorably to the kinds of behavior that hilariously necessitate a slide to extinction. With or without the obvious Islamic threat to Europe, we have pension plans to pay for and other liabilities both social and economic that will find Europe in a pinch. And I'm afraid there are some other "does not follow" insights to be gutted from you. Funny how a nation of knuckle-dragging bible worshippers is also the most technologically and economically advanced nation in the world. The mother of all non sequiturs is that progress in science and engineering is hampered by religious belief.
But I already spoke on that. Glad to see no one read it or any other fact about the historical developement of science by people who were primarily men of God and seeking God. I expected that. But worth a shot. But in any case, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting and the proof in this case is that a nation founded on the principle of inalienble God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the best thing going. I ain't tradin' with the cheese nibblers just because they don't go to Church and screw other men's wives. Judeo-Christian belief, whether true or not with regard to divine inspiration, is unquestionably a successful formula for the attainment of high living standards in a free society. I don’t know who said it but Never argue with success and if ain’t broke don’t fix it are apt here.

Intelligent redesign

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:17:09 GMT

Monkey dust? That's the assessment of someone who has not looked at the actual science with an iota of understanding.

Secularism is not logically related to evolution - what you erroneously term 'Darwinism'. You're doing great with the rhetoric, "When you hear 'evolution', think Darwin, Hitler, Stalin, secularism, and materialism."

Evolution isn't necessarily materialistic and probably most evolutionists have some sort of religious belief.

There is no issue with induction. It's not a logical belief. There is no logical basis and it could be wrong. This is why modern science has rejected verificationism and accepted falsificationism. (Some dense philosophers with reading comprehension problems have asserted that falsificationism merely moves the induction. They make this assertion for one reason - they fail to understand falsificationism and attribute reasoning to its adherents which they do not hold.)

With all of your bluster about brain research, we nevertheless have made amazing strides in that arena. I recently attended a talk by Jim Olds (from GMU's Krasnow Institute) at the Smithsonian Castle where he updated us on where he sees the technology going. We don't have all the answers, but we're getting there.

Free will is a separate issue from falsification and induction. At this point it is a mystery. But it has nothing whatever to do with evolution. If it makes you feel better, you can believe that a god imbued some sufficiently evolved forms with free will. That's got nothing to do with what science can tell us, but beliefs don't have to be scientific.

I didn't say free will was doubtful from the standpoint of emergence. I said it was a mystery - it's unknown.

My argument with Bin Laden is that claiming absolute knowledge about morality does not equate to being moral. I understand it's repugnant to think that personal ethics or cooperative agreement might be the highest form of morality. Unfortunately, I suspect that it's the only thing that happens anyway. Some people say they know what god wants and some other people agree with it. It's still human judgment - and for all of the whinging and hand-wringing, religionists can't avoid that what they call divine morality is really their fallible human estimation of that fact.

Evolutionists are hardly the "school yard" bullies. What we have is a group of people who adamantly REFUSE to do any actual homework on the subject of evolution - most of whom, in fact, have a comic book understanding of science in general and evolution in particular - attempting to criticize it based largely on their comic-book version of it and have kids taught that creationism is the intellectual equivalent.

Phlogiston is better science than Intelligent Design. It may be disproved science, but it has the virtue that it's ACTUAL SCIENCE.

You bring politics into it, God into it, history into it - much of it quesitonable - but you stay safely away from the science.

Intelligent redesign

Wakefield Tolbert — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:34:13 GMT

Last good word from moi. As now I see the thread is getting "threadbare" and I must now pretend to get back to work.

Speaking of sloppy: You err in this automatic assumption I'm a Creationist. Maybe that's the dirtiest mudball you could hurl at the moment. Or perhaps anyone who believes in God and finds no inherent contradictions in what science has to say about human development UNTIL (like Dawkins) they start waxing lyrical and philosophical, you paint with the broad brush of "Creationism." Also "sloppy" when applied to ID. Funny this is the same tack in labeling even merely conservative posters as "fundamentalists" EVEN IF they don't even mention God or have an outright LIBERAL theology and are not literalists in interpretation. Also very common, as has happened to posters at UD and Darek Barefoot and Beast Rabban's site.

I get this slam myself even where my own ideas don't necessarily mirror this Landover Baptist parody that is as crooked as the rear tit of an ugly sow.
I wish somem people would do more homework on Christian teachings on some matters.

THAT's "sloppy" (speaking of slop), but now I realize the Amen Chorus of your faithful contradicts itself on many turns in saying on the one hand that Darwinist piddling has no input about "God" issues or makes no moral claims--or they take the Stephen Jay Gould tack and declare science and faith to be "separate magesteria"--but that's just droll. And not taken to heart by most Darwinists except when making the sales pitch about "no inherent conflicts."

Yup. I find quite the opposite from Darwinists who CERTAINLY have negative ideas about "god" notions. So, people like me who merely say God has something to do with the Known Universe or human affairs still offends them. Guess that makes me "Creationist", even if I am more TRUE to my word (unlike some who claim this) in that science and faith don't necessarily conflict and in fact seek different ways of understand the human condition. I think that. Other merely claim to say this but then go on to label me with Creationism and then declare science can make its "just so" stories stick to all human aspiration. Most doubtful.

While I freely admit I am not a scientist by trade, my experience in high pressure sales and other endeavors including much reading under the belt on a variety of topics great and small has lent me the ability to sniff out the horsepucky rather quickly. I know the con jobs. I have no problems with facts of matter, but rather this latest round of interpretation (as facts don't organize their own relations to things about human goals) which is the latest fads. Today's fad is that morals are simply social or biological convention (the "facts" change based on whom you're reading at the time, as these things go in phases depending on the latest fad, or perhaps what fashionable or powerful people say about things like morals, etc).

I don't know what "creationists" have confirmed, since I would only be one in the broadest sense by these broad brushes some paint with, but for your part YOU'VE confirmed my long standing suspicion that actual animus is engaged in anyone who believes in God and thusly gets painted with some slam.

Best Regards, FF

Come visit some time.

Intelligent redesign

Wakefield Tolbert — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:39:51 GMT

"A proportion must be believable on the basis (and bases) of whether or not reason can be employed. It cannot be automatic."

I meant to say: "proposition"--not proportion.

.....grief

Intelligent redesign

Wakefield Tolbert — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:43:27 GMT

The billing on this issue is expired. So tune in for free baseball tonight:

"Phlogiston is better science than Intelligent Design. It may be disproved science, but it has the virtue that it's ACTUAL SCIENCE."

That's called..... "a distinction without a real difference"

From a pragmatic point of view false is false. Even if one idea exhausts you and taxes the "obvious" resources and turns out to be counterintuitive in the process. Economics is sorta like that as well. Now of course, I realize the "rule of the game here" in that the issue for some, like Michael Ruse, is that EVEN IF a proposition about origins turns out to have what HE terms a supernatural element, it is still not science. OK. I dig. He even goes on to say this may even be arbitrary but so be it, there has to be "demarcation lines" somewhere without invoking the supernatural, etc.

"You're doing great with the rhetoric, "When you hear 'evolution', think Darwin, Hitler, Stalin, secularism, and materialism."

No--think of the issue of a void needing to be filled in. And despite the denial, there ARE consequences to all ideas. I told you the names of but a few scribblers on this notion.

As to the science of ID itself, I freely admit to being neither a member of the hard sciences---nor do I play one on the web. But I AM familiar with the way words get manipulated to satiate one's agenda, and most of these attacks are amateurishly transparent and phony and key in on ideas that have been answered long before ID even came into being, eg. "it is just creationism in a black tie" or "why not just invoke the Thunder God, Thor, to explain lightning", or "why not use chicken's blood for healing" and so on it goes. But I think the problem is that "supernatural" as explanation is a phrase that gets in the way here. Strictly speaking I think the very word "supernatural" gets in the way and is only useful for a shortcut to those explanations we can't grasp yet. ID does not purport to see or find the "supernatural" and more than SETI finds such in another kind of "design parameter" search to hash out intelligent design encoding in messages (maybe) from some deep recess of space aliens. They have a key point even if nothing productive is found. Likewise I think ID can be a productive program even if ultimately no design parameters are found that satisfy everyone due to the mere fact that in the process of looking for such you'll No doubt I take a TV or this notebook back in time and might get condemned as a witch. Today no doubt both you and I turn on an instrument like a computer or log onto the editing version of our blogs and simply say (at the most) "oh, good, its back on." We don't rehash all the thousands of steps necessary for either wireless or wired transmission IP protocol nor DNS resolution nor electromagnetic properties requisite to display the form fields and "images." We simply say, "I now going to turn on the tube"---if we say anything.

You and I might have a thin point of agreement on some terminology. I think the word "supernatural" is the same way. It is simply a statement of the unknown or impractically complex that at the time (due to context) needed no explanatory power as that was not even the point of its demonstration. ID simply asserts that higher intelligence just might be shown in a "design parameter" of one type or another. I don't think that should be all that controversial or unscientific, and indeed the very notion of something in the cosmos beyond us seems very reasonable an idea, and in fact it used to be that philosophers figured that using the process of "trending" (concerning how matter is organized), it takes intelligence and mind of the non-matter realm to establish an alteration in matter. Strictly speaking there are no "rules of matter" or "rules of physics" and "rules of biology." There are only PATTERNS. The difference is that rules assume what materialist science cannot, in that rules pertain to some law above the process itself and beyond matter. Patterns are just repetitions that have no final or formative causation. They just are. Rules are what humans create in their heads.
Likewise either God has something to do with the Cosmos--or not. Those are the choices. If not, then not. If so, then while the mechanics of this are unknown by and large then it is not "supernatural" in the parody sense of Thor making the clouds rumble with his hammer. That has never been my conception, nor "magical properties," etc.

On patterns, this leads to the common teleological assumption for God that even Materialists can agree on, I think:

What we know can be summed up as follows--

1) Science by its nature entails observations of patterns, NOT rules (there is non such thing as "observing a rule"--that is nonsense). What are observed are material patterns.

2) Patterns are NOT rules without intelligent input behind them. We know this as patterns have no predictive value; only rules have such value and make predictions.

3) Rules in the proper definition are MENTAL constructs that can ONLY be EXPERIENCED, and INFERRED, not observed scientifically.

4) If nature IS predictable (and it seems to be, for the most part--i.e.--giving the appearance of being "rule bound") it MUST be dependent at some source upon a mental construct that lies OUTSIDE of human reasoning AND is scientifically UNOBSERVABLE. In this sense only do I think there is a "supernatural", in the sense that something frankly unobervable is at work. So in a sense this is "beyond nature." But this is not really a problem in my estimation for materialists either. They confront the same problem when it comes to "cosmic origins" notions. To our puzzlement (but now confirmed) we know that the Universe is all there is materially and yet it is NOT eternal and had a beginning. This being the case and no room for eternal material, it is no more (to use one quip) irrational, nor rational, to believe in an egg that came from no bird (common theism beginnings of creation) than to believe in a bird that existed for all eternity (materialism, no input).

Beyond even this, historically, Christianity has been in the forefront of advocating a philosophical stance that bolstered scientific progress. As for the relationship between science and religion, as one Brit writer as said: "Western science was the product of devoutly religious men and women honestly seeking the mind of God as expressed in His glorious creation: nature. In doing so, they utilized and perfected powerful philosophical and mathematical tools, the same tools that inform theology. Some of the most powerful and correct insights into the nature of the Cosmos came directly from their theological experience. For example, the great 13th century philosophers argued, AGAINST Aristotelian science, that it was possible for a vacuum to exist because this was what they believed occurred during transubstantiation in the mass. At the moment the bread and wine were transformed into Christ's body and blood, their inward natures were destroyed. However, their outward appearance remained, showing that space would still exist even if there were nothing there to fill it. Now the premises for this conclusion may be scientifically shaky and hardly convincing to Protestants, who reject transubstantiation, and today we certainly recognize the chain of logic as nonsensical. However, the conclusion drawn - that vacuums exists - is amply demonstrated. And in spite of the fallacy of how they arrived at the conclusion, this remains an example of how science came out of the idea that the universe was made by a God of order who gave man dominion over it.

The great Roman Catholic scientist and philosopher, Pierre Duhem, considered that science was a truly inclusive endeavour as everyone, regardless of their philosophical, religious or cultural background, could join together in examining the objective world of nature. He was absolutely right: the greatest achievements of the early Islamic scientists amply demonstrate this. (note: PC warriors: paying attention here?) Within the Abbasid scientific enterprise, Muslims worked alongside Christians, Jews, Sabians and very early Deists, avant le parole, such as Rhazes, to create a truly awesome and magnificent scientific achievement, which has informed and fructified science and philosophy."

It might also be instructive to peek at the writings of historian John Hedley Brook's taxonomic rehash on the numerous ways in which Christianity influence the development of science. Long story made short: Christian teachings have served as presuppositions for the whole scientific enterprise in the first place. Despite the mythology of Galileo and the Church (on the whole the Church was actually not so much upset with his scientific ideas but rather what it perceived as repudiation of Aristotelian philosophy, which in turn THEY got from secular writers and philosophers beforehand), the Church since the time of Aquinas has usually relegated the realm of science to scientists and philosophically mentioned that a Universe that ran according to rational laws was biblically one that actually made the most sense, from a deity that organized according to certain precepts. See historians Martin Rudwick and Rodney Stark on this and other common mythologies (like Copernicus) about how wildly modern revisionists with a chip on the shoulder have left out VAST swaths of context concerning those few incidents where religion and science got into a donnybrook. Thus for example, as Rudwick reminds us, modern types of religion bashers proudly boast that the Church fight with Copernicus was over mankind's place in the Cosmos---when nothing could be further from the truth. Thus types as diverse as Newsweek, PBS, Jacob Bronowski and Daniel Boorstien all take the swipe at the Church for "fighting" the "demotion of mankind's lofty place" in the scheme of things. Says Rudwick, would that these liars and naysayers read the philosophical issues the Church faced at the time and understand ALSO that in Christian theology that Earth was NEVER a particularly noble place to be its "fallen state". The OPPOSITE was thought by the Church, as the outer rings of space were the Heavenly Realm and at the center of things much closer to home was Hell itself---the exact opposite of what is commonly assumed about the alleged Copernican battle with the Church. The Church actually had little to say about most of this, and the quotes and asides assembled to foster evidence of an "attack on science" combed out by unscrupulous men like Boorstien and Andrew Dickson White are probably apocryphal at best. So much for what the public schools and even college level "profs" on religion drill into skulls. Not relaible, Chico.

Intelligent redesign

Wakefield Tolbert — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:55:25 GMT

"I didn't say free will was doubtful from the standpoint of emergence. I said it was a mystery - it's unknown"

You're right--but that was the impression I got at the time.

Thanks.

Intelligent redesign

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:22:51 GMT

ID is creationism in disguise. They use identical arguments to creationists, but dressed up in scientific-sounding jargon. The lawyer - not a scientist, but LAWYER - who started the discovery institute has made it clear that ID is just an excuse to put out religious rhetoric in the classroom as if it had some basis in science. We see it also in guys like the Moonie J. Wells who says to the world that he approached the subject with open-mind, but to his fellow parishioners admits that he undertook his studies with the express purpose of combating evolution. The handful of faux agnostics like Behe and Berlinski don't change the reality of what they're arguing.

Who says I'm liberal or that I reject conservativism? From my perspective anyone who resists the influence of religion in politics or science gets labeled a liberal or an anti-conservative.

Part of your confusion about the moral discussions of atheists is this:
1) assuming that there is a person who speaks for us all,
2) conflating different types of discussions,
3) equating Darwinism to liberalism and materialism.

Dawkins doesn't speak (or write) for me. If I think he's wrong, I'll say so. OTOH, I don't read or listen to a lot of Dawkins. What I have read and heard, I have mostly (but not entirely agreed with). OTOH, what Dawkins says and what various creationist accuse him of saying often tends to be very different.

On a very simple level, science can't give us values, it can't tell us right and wrong, BUT ... and this is a huge BUT ... there are different perspective from which science can inform our morality.
1) The sense in which C.P Snow ("the two cultures") and J. Bronowski ("science and human values") discuss; namely, that science itself embodies values that have proven effective and practical and these might be useful for the broader society to adopt.
2) We are quickly approaching the time when we can model human behavior (in computers) with sufficient detail that we can predict not specific outcomes of possessing values (as implemented in societal and individual policies), but ranges of possibilities for outcomes. There will come a time - in the not too distant future - when we won't have to rely on the heuristics (presented as Absolute Truth) of religion, but can instead develop a clear understanding of the consequences of our behaviors.

Science can inform ethics (or morality), but it can't dictate morality. It doesn't tell us right or wrong, but it can perhaps tell us the range of possible consequences of our actions.

There is no reason to believe at this point that our sense of right and wrong could not have evolved - no reason other than intellectual (though it's a stretch to call it that) prejudice.

People who say that God has something to do with the known universe do not offend me as an atheist. It may offend some atheists, but it would offend few atheists that I've ever met. However, there's a difference between saying "I think there's a God" and "We can scientifically demonstrate God." or "Science supports a belief in God." God, even if such a thing exists, is a perfectly useless concept to science.

Intelligent redesign

Wakefield Tolbert — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 02:29:53 GMT

"ID is creationism in disguise. They use identical arguments to creationists, but dressed up in scientific-sounding jargon. The lawyer - not a scientist, but LAWYER - who started the discovery institute has made it clear that ID is just an excuse to put out religious rhetoric in the classroom as if it had some basis in science. We see it also in guys like the Moonie J. Wells who says to the world that he approached the subject with open-mind, but to his fellow parishioners admits that he undertook his studies with the express purpose of combating evolution. The handful of faux agnostics like Behe and Berlinski don't change the reality of what they're arguing."

You'll have to take that dog fight up with the IDers, as I am not one of them. I've been around exotic animals long enough (I have a pet caiman who has all the nature of a man-eater, to her frustration) I know all too well the interrelation between species that are closely related.

I'll have to take your word on "moonie" Wells. I was wondering when more name calling was coming down the pike. Took less time than I thought, but it happened. I am certainly not a Moonie but that's his business. In another context you'd say so yourself. Behe used to list himself as Roman Catholic. Was not aware he pretended to be otherwise. I assumed that must have changed at some point then? Berlinski strikes me as one who above all might be listed under agnostic. But in this case the choices of faith is non-relevent. The issue is whether a productive program, regardless of lawyers and intentions with parishoners, is found in some kinds of research.

As to J. Bronowski his mythmaking about early Christianity and parodies that have long been refuted leave a question mark as to his veracity in other areas. He among a couple of others is primarily responsible in more recent times for the visage of religion is pure evil and only science brings enlightenment. Touble is history as he tells it (speaking of the comic book understanding) is fraught with vast swaths of missing context about issues ranging from Galileo and Copernicus to Christianity's involvement in science as one long donnybrook in the parking lot. Daniel Boorstein takes this trend to high art form also. Hmmm.

"There is no reason to believe at this point that our sense of right and wrong could not have evolved - no reason other than intellectual (though it's a stretch to call it that) prejudice."

Yeah--what PETA calls "specism"--the "flaw" of holding ourselves in higher regard than the Wild Kingdom. Actually...

I could not say it better than a net pal of mine:

"As for the origin of virtue all connected to Consequentialist actions, there’s a long discussion about this in Keith Ward’s Pascal’s Fire, as well as Ian Barbour’s Nature, Human Nature and God . These authors take the view that although evolution may have moulded certain human actions and morality, this is merely the way in which God has actualised the human potential for moral instincts. It does not explain away human morality, and by relating it all to the ’selfish gene’ certainly does not make it moral. To be moral, something has to be transcendentally ‘right’, not just advantageous."

Of course I'd add that propositions must be held as true because of their inherent veracity that can be discovered. An automatic default mechanism of even the most amazing range of abilities might search out differing sensations and points (like a large supercomputer that routes out the best parking spaces at the airport and tracks econimic indicators over time) but the problem is that one must be free to see this for what it is rather than being forced by the mind's multiplicity of inputs. Also, consciousness is experienced. Only.

Intelligent redesign

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 03:26:56 GMT

I just realized that I forgot to attribute item 2 I listed above to its author, Dr. David Davis whom I heard speak at the Smithsonian a few weekends ago. He is the originator (so far as I know) of the idea that simulations will one day be able to inform us of the consequences of implementing our values through policies.

Intelligent redesign

Wakefield Tolbert — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 03:42:31 GMT

You'll have to take up the ID issue with them. I am not one of them. I know the definitional issues about what is "real science" and doubt this is
creationism in black tie nonsense but I'm not the person to make that charge to....

As to Wells' Moonieness, I was in fact wondering how long it might take for another irrelevant slam to hit. Not as long as I thought.
As to Behe, I thought he last listed as a Roman Catholic, and was not aware of his change of heart. Oh well. So what. Berlinski impresses me
as none other than agnostic and I've never gotten the hint otherwise. The real issue is not lawyers, teams of lawyers, and personal rights to whatever religion or businesses these guys are into. The issue is whether ID can be a productive program of research. I've read some on the "demarcation" lines that supposedly delineate what constitutes ID findings.

As to the other, to wit:

"There is no reason to believe at this point that our sense of right and wrong could not have evolved - no reason other than intellectual (though it's a stretch to call it that) prejudice. "

Prejudice. Yeah--PETA has a term for this also--they call this feeling of specialness our "specism" A boy is a pig is a dog is frog is a kitty cat is a goat is a gnat. No one has said it better than an brit writer of my acquaintance:

"As for the origin of virtue all connected to Consequentialist actions, there’s a long discussion about this in Keith Ward’s Pascal’s Fire , as well as Ian Barbour’s Nature, Human Nature and God . These authors take the view that although evolution may have moulded certain human actions and morality, this is merely the way in which God has actualised the human potential for moral instincts. It does not explain away human morality, and by relating it all to the ’selfish gene’ certainly does not make it moral. To be moral, something has to be transcendentally ‘right’, not just advantageous."

Moreover, as I said, a proposition--scientific, moral, conjecture, observation, or otherwise--can only be shown as true if free will actually exists. These notions must be processed by free will to see them as they are and not some automatic default mechanism that evolved in the organic mind. Without this parameter we merely have merely a more advanced version of some super computer that seeks out multiplicities of events by default. Amazing, yes, we can now dictate traffic lanes for airways (and even the best parking spots), graph demographic voting trends, consumer preference for coffee, and crop yields, model the liver in real time as well as track animal migration. But this is automatic for machinery. The Emperor has no Mind. Computers of whatever power have no choice in the matter. DNS servers may err or bing out (MS crap is famous for this) but I've never had one say, "no--I'm tired of this or don't have the time, etc." Without this component the issue of mapping morals is unintelligible. If the brain evolved only in the material sense only and the emergent property is what gives the "moral" code then it is no more moral than the fact they my sweet Alexandra is a good croc mommie and guards her eggs better than some women guard their kids. It is but one path of survival due to evolutionary experience. Nothing more. Nothing less. As you said before, and Stephen Jay Gould wrote extensively about, evolution after all is supposedly not a "ladder" but a bush--actually a copiously branching network and our bud on the bush is no more important or "special" than that of the rat or the housefly when it comes to methods of making new offspring and munching out--thus the methodology of getting the deed done for the birds and bees--morals input--is no more special than the fact that my pet caiman hisses at people she doesn't like near her enclosure. I would not call her a moral being. I am a good shot with a 30.06. I am an effective shooter----who also has accuracy. I could kill my sister with one shot from 200 yards to the head.

That makes me a good shot only. This does not make me a good person.

"Facts of the matter" about action/reaction events---no matter how complex or intricate or trackable via computational models--- have no moral meaning in and of themselves, in other words, whether "effective" or not at getting something done. They are just events. Period. The fact that police might want to speak with me about such things should I ever take that road (most unlikely) is due to something more transcendent than my skill or excuse for doing so. Pragmatism, where most people lead to from psychobiological discussions-- is not morals--it DEPENDS on morals for context.

As to the political and ideological and socail tendencies of Darwinian spear carriers, I have in fact noticed some tendencies there that are oddball and quirky and usually to the Lefter side of the aisle socially on a wide ranger of issues.

Its the exception that demonstrates the general rule in place. This is doubly odd in the face of historical evidence against progressivisitc regimes and ideas causing the problems they lay claim to fix and the contraindicative evidence on everything from economics to social interaction of kids. Since we are supposedly dealing with "smart" and "sophisticated" people with panache and style and wisdom and demand "verification" along scientific lines and know all the hip trends and styles. Interesting.

Intelligent redesign

Wakefield Tolbert — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:45:52 GMT

Speaking of lawyers, I see in some recent cases of "dissing" ID, most of the Darwinian crowd things that judges ruling from the bench about what constitutes science are just fine and dandy in hashing out definitional issues to be taught. Dover comes to mind.

Judges are merely lawyers with years and power and robes under the belt. Though I agree in part that while any organization has the right to form in whatever way, it does raise a question about DI. I also agree that we have to be careful of the goals of any such organization or movement. It should not be doctrinaire but look for true design parameters. I don't personally think (so far) that this violates anything in science. SETI certainly has the notion that not all design parameter need be human or terrestrial and certainly points out that with signals from space one needs to be able to see some design inference to demonstrate intelligence behind any transmission. They point out one can get fooled in some cases. I am not part of all that and realize it may be a waste of time but the chorus is changing for SETI whereas they used to be MOCKED as part of the weird late night Art Bell moonbat crowd but lately have gained more respect as more findings about the nature of planetary formation is known (whereas before extrasolar planets it was guessed at).

Part of me says this situation with DI is OK so far as the program of research goes, the other of course understands that its hard to get traction and "peer review" if others don't allow this by the very nature of the rules. There are PR papers from IDists, but the question for later is--are they going to be allowed by the rest of the scientific community to even submit for review?

So its like damned if you do an damned if you don't.
Its like needing a car to get to work. How are you going to get to work without a car? Yet you typically need a job to pay for the car in the first place. ID's position is like this. It is complained they make no predictions and submit no papers for PR--would they be allowed to on some regular basis in this Christophobic climate of fear about supposed "stealth" theocracy creeping into science?

What must they prove to pass muster then and still be the same organization?

--Best,

swt

Intelligent redesign

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 01:50:45 GMT

Wells' moonieness is important in one way - he claims that he came to the issue of evolution with an open mind and then changed his mind after he studied the subject, but he has proven himself a LIAR, b/c he admitted to his congregation that he approached his studies with the intention of demolishing evolution after having been instructed to do so by 'father.'
This is one of the numerous examples that shows that ID is not a scientific discipline. It's a religious doctrine - and 'stealth creationism' is an apt way of looking at it.

"Moreover, as I said, a proposition--scientific, moral, conjecture, observation, or otherwise--can only be shown as true if free will actually exists."
What you say is not necessarily a fact. Conclusions based on poor reasoning aren't facts.

Scientists approve of the Dover judge's opinion, because he actually did what a good judge should do - he listened to people who know more than he does.

Guess what - it's hard for ALL scientists to get past peer review - and yet many do. Peer review is hard for a reason. Imagine this - there are people who know more about science than you do - I know this is incredible, but just imagine it for a moment - these guys eat, sleep, and breathe science - and they carefully read papers by guys like Behe, Wells, Dembski, etc. - and they shake their heads slowly and sadly.

Intelligent redesign

Paul A. Van Gent Leiden The Netherlands — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 23:38:12 GMT

ID is even worse for faith than it is for science. It degrades the Creator of Heaven and Earth to some sort of Divine Tinkerer who is really nothing but the gnostic Demiurge on a rerun. When did we become fully human? When Christ died for us on the cross. Without him we would still be just talking monkeys, only technically more advanced than our furry ancestors. The whole point about the parable of Creation and Eden is to show us the difference between the material and the spiritual man. What do these people think? Does God need to hack and cheat on his own program to get His will be done? Now that's what I call materialistic religion.

Intelligent redesign

beware of dogma — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:02:36 GMT

Chruch and state MUST REMAIN separated at all times. The problem with creationists is that they want their beliefs to be taught in schools. Creationsists here is a question for you. How would you react if Scientology and its belief on the origins of humans was taught in school? I would be that you will be kicking and screaming that it should not be allowed. Understand why church and state should be separated.

Intelligent redesign

Chuck M, Medina, OH — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:52:04 GMT

Someday the "scientists" may catch up with the Bible in their understanding of origins. The various proofs of macro-evolutionary theory are continually being knocked down as we make more discoveries. It turns out that features that some credit to blind evolution are actually designed-in features that we, because of our ignorance, fail to recognize. By the way the Bible was written over a period of about 1500 years by about 40 different authors. No conspiracy possible here.

Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. (Read more in this chapter and you may be shocked at the candid nature of Bible info even 2000 years ago!)

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from Compton's Interactive Bible NIV
Copyright (c) 1994, 1995, 1996 SoftKey Multimedia Inc. All Rights Reserved

Intelligent redesign

Rachel, Tx — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:58:21 GMT

Poor Darwin, he gets such a bad rap. He wasn't even the first to study evolution (these people included Jean Lamarck and Erasmus Darwin) and he certainly didn't use "survival of the fittest" (that was Herbert Spencer). Darwin didn't even want to publish his work for fear of the controversy that would be cause by it; he didn't publish until he found out that Alfred Wallace was going to publish a very similar theory. Still, Darwin is consistently attacked by those who misunderstand his ideas. Darwin knew that more organisms were born than survived to adulthood to reproduce. He also observed that no two individuals of any species was exactly the same and that those small variations made a difference in the competition for resources, shelter, and mates. The variations of those who were able to successfully compete were passed down to their offspring who were then also successful. Since individuals who were not as successful would have fewer or no kids survive to adulthood to pass on their traits, the species as a whole would eventually evolve in a way that the adaptive traits would accumulate while the non-helpful traits would disappear. That's another thing that's often overlooked; Darwin's theory of natural selection had nothing to do with the species as a whole evolving except in respect to the individual members; natural selection works on the individuals and as the individual members change, the species evolves. So, like I said, Darwin gets a bad rap; the theory of evolution has changed alot since he published his ideas.
As for teaching intelligent design (which I've always seen as another name for creationism) in schools, I have no problem with that as long as we also teach the creation stories from Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Native American religions, Scientology, the list goes on. Another thing that also needs to be made clear is that the Bible is made up of translations of translations of translations of script that a human (and therefore fallible) wrote down describing what God said to him. Now, I don't know about the rest of you but I believe that God is all-powerful and eternal. As a human, that means that God is impossible for me to comprehend; I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to do so, just that it's impossible to do so until we're dead and, hopefully, in whatever heaven we happen to believe in. All this boils down to the fact that we cannot, or at least should not, interpret the Bible literally. Yes, it is the Word of God; yes, it is a guide to how we should live; no, it cannot be used as scientific proof.

Intelligent redesign

Beckwolf, Houston, TX — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:58:51 GMT

NO one in the Christian Church ever said the world was anything other than round. That piece of mythology is promoted by the Darwinian faithful..."

Are you being serious? It was commonly accepted, not just among the Christians, that the world was flat. For years, there was no reason found to think otherwise. It says nothing about the character or religion of the individual who felt that, as it was the most commonly accepted belief. It wasn't a religious belief, just what was easiest to accept during a time when physical science was not yet understood. That piece of "mythology" as you put it was from a time long before Darwinism, and those that refuse to accept that the earth has been proven to be round fall under everything from Catholic to atheist. Your accusation is just a random, completely unfounded attack on a group wholly unrelated to what you're accusing them of.

Intelligent redesign

Beckwolf, Houston, TX — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:02:30 GMT

"I find the level of rhetoric delivered by those demanding compliance to Evolutionary Dogma to be strikingly similar to the people who supported slavery in the 1800’s."

Funny, I've always felt the same thing about those demanding compliance to Creationist Dogma. I think I might have used the same comparison once even. There are extremists on both sides, but unfortunately the extremists on the Creationist side seem to be, at least in my opinion, the ones who have taken the strongest and most violent offensive.

Intelligent redesign

Jay Witherspoon, River Edge, NJ — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:22:51 GMT

I have a problem understanding the controversy.
Religion depends on faith, a belief in something that can not be proved. If I could prove my religious beliefs were true, faith would not be required.
Science depends on experiments and observations of the natural world. From these observations certain theories are derived. These theories are tested with further experiments and observations. Only when a large body of results agree with a theory does it become established as sound science. Even then, it is still the target of further testing and experiments, for no theory is the be all and end all.
Many a favorite theory has been debunked or modified because of the rigorous testing that all theories undergo.
Evolution is one of those theories that has been rigorously tested again and again and is accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists. It forms the framework for all biological research, which includes all of the medical breakthroughs that have improved all our lives.
Intelligent Design is a belief system, a religion, and not a Christian one at that. It rejects the scientific method. It rejects independent testing. It rejects Gods revelation displayed in the natural world.
Science says that if the repeated results of experiments disagree with a theory, then the theory must either be discarded or modified.
Intelligent Design says that if repeated results of experiments disagree with Intelligent Design then we must discard the results of those experiments.
Everyone is entitled to believe what they want, but don’t call it science and don’t force others to pay for your beliefs to be taught in school.

Intelligent redesign

John, Boulder, CO — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:33:31 GMT

I think the claims often leveled at evolution by Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents are a load of you know what. Every time I hear some ranting religious demagogue claim that "I didn't come from an ape," I want to tear my hair out. Every time some pretentious sophist claims that a few anomalies are enough to falsify the Theory, that some unexplained phenomenon is sufficient against the mountain of accumulated scientific evidence, I wince in disbelief. These and other distortions and misinterpretations suggest to me that ID-ers are out to promote an ideology that has no place in the school system.

We hold teachers to an ethical standard that already precludes them from promoting or endorsing a specific political viewpoint to the captive audience of their students. This standard applies to all normative ideological stances, Intelligent Design included. Further, challenging the epistemic commitments of science is not something that belongs in a high school classroom, where students have neither the tools nor the experience to evaluate the claims and counter-claims of each side of the debate. Such a debate belongs within the purview of the fields concerned.

Ultimately, teachers are funnels of the knowledge that has been discovered by a few, compiled by many, and finally distributed to all. Teachers have little business critiquing the merits of the knowledge they distribute unless they are in active, critical pursuit of it themselves.

You want a class on Intelligent Design? Fine, then put it in the context of its epistemic tradition; teach ID all you want in Sunday school. But don't for a second think such an ad-hoc (small "t") theory should be presented as a contending (capital "T") Theory alongside evolution.

One particular digression, I think, proves my point. The Mormons have a book that tells them that America was populated by a bunch of Middle Easterners who built rudderless, windowless clamshells for boats, and drifted across the Atlantic Ocean to the American continent. How does this stack up against scientific claims that the Americas were populated by migration across the Bering Land Bridge? How does this stack up against the more closely related claim that sea-faring Polynesian types made it to South America?

It doesn't merit comparison to either model because it offers no evidence in support of itself. It was a theory generated, based on unfalsifiable, normative assumptions, to support Mormon ideology and dogma. And rightly so, it is taught in Sunday School, not public classroom.

Intelligent redesign

John, Boulder, CO — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:51:02 GMT

Someone asked for evidence of evolution, so I present this: mitochondrial DNA. Geneticists can track the divergent evolution of humans as easily as the divergence of dogs and wolves from a common ancestry. Any takers?

Intelligent redesign

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:05:41 GMT

"The various proofs of macro-evolutionary theory are continually being knocked down as we make more discoveries. "
This is pure fantasy. Rhetoric is fact.

"Darwin is consistently attacked by those who misunderstand his ideas."
In a nutshell.

"Darwin knew ..."
Very clear synopsis omitted. You should put up a web page with those few sentences on it along with some appropriate title.

Evolution is a central, unifying theory of biology. It is actual science supported by actual evidence. Claims that it has been debunked or soundly refuted are just that - "claims." Moreover, they are claims made by people who without exception and despite their protestations to the contrary demonstrate a comic book understanding of science in general and evolution in particular.

"Oh, but I *LOVE* *REAL* science," they say, "but real science works like X and evolution works like Y." In so doing, they demonstrate unequivocally their comic book understanding. Of course, being told that is very irritating to them, offensive even. How do you politely tell a person who believes himself to have done immense homework on a subject, that his research is not only weak, but effete? That he in fact is railing against an imaginary evil conspiracy of scientists when he himself doesn't even understand what's involved with actual scientific research?

Intelligent redesign

Adrian S. Philadelphia, PA — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:23:22 GMT

The problem i've always had with evolutionary theory is twofold: 1) that it is so often supported by scentific communities as a fact though it remains to be proven 2) that belief in it seems to preclude judging the creator insignificant. if you get a box, fill it up with computer parts, shake it for a million years, strike it with lightning, will the parts combine into a working computer? I don't think so. there is a disturbing trend these days to demote religion to the category of 'myth'. i think that is an erroneous veiwpoint when it comes to true christianity. the problem is that when you have so many false religions abounding, how can one know the truth when they see it? how do you know an apple tree among other trees? by its fruit. people need to start thinking more about the true God and how to find him and live in a manner that pleases him before its too late. He will not suffer this disrespect for much longer. Wake up, people.

Intelligent redesign

Shaun H Liberal Mars LOL — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:15:37 GMT

If you look at all the religions of the world they all have a common them for the most part. Call it an educated guess or just dumb luck but we have had a childrens tail of how the universe was created for a long time. So lets not argue and let science give us the details. If you belive in a god that is omniperesent then she/it/he is responsible for all including science and the fact is he/she/it does not need you to argue against it/she/he how ever you belive. The simple fact is you should not question your faith if you believe in a god then you believe in science. This question is for those who believe in a god (pice one) how would you explane were babies came from to your three year old. If you have really read your religiuse text (pick one) the theam is more social than science. Alot of you need you just pick up a book and really read it not let anyone do it for you. You have to trust god by what ever name you call Him/her/it O ya Them and sorry my spelling aint so good LOL

Intelligent redesign

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:38:28 GMT

"1) that it is so often supported by scentific communities as a fact though it remains to be proven"
Evolution is a fact and a theory a theory for explaining that fact. In general, scientific theories are not proven - they are disproven, or they fail to be disproved by experiments that might prove them false if they are indeed false.

"2) that belief in it seems to preclude judging the creator insignificant."
Theories are not wrong, because their perceived consequences are distasteful. Many, probably most, evolutionists believe in a creator. Evolution doesn't say anything about the existence or non-existence of God. Neither does any other branch of science. Science is incapable of addressing the subject of god (at least not directly).

"will the parts combine into a working computer? "
This is a common creationist argument. Computers are not organisms. They do not evolve. Biological evolution describes the process by which speciation occurs, given that organisms already exist. If you are referring to chemical evolution, the process of abiogenesis, then biological evolution (Darwinism) does not depend on it. But abiogenesis doesn't violate any known laws of science either.

Intelligent redesign

Mike - Scottsdale, AZ — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:34:56 GMT

The argument of Evolution vs Intelligent Design is an interesting one. Both have valid points and also some holes.

What I don't understand is why the believers in Intelligent Design can't accept Evolution. Maybe Intelligent Design is the "why" and Evolution is the "how". Just a thought, and I suppose that goes for Creationists too.

And for all the hard-core Creationists: How exactly was everything created in 6 days? Is that 6 God days, and if so, how long is God's day? Was he pulling all-nighters? Remember, the length of a day is determined by the planet's rotation. With no planet to rotate, there is no day.

Intelligent redesign

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:12:47 GMT

There is this common feeling that when two ideas clash that each side must have some merit. This is not always the case. Sometimes an idea has no merit at all.

Creationism comes in two main varieties: YEC or Young Earth Creationism and ID or Intelligent Design. IDers actually accept evolution, but insist it has limitations that prevent it from explaining the origin of species.

Neither of them relies on any positive evidence. Both of them set up a false dichotomy: either evolution is true or there is a designer/ creator. Now there are different ID promoters. Guys like J. Wells simply rehash the same stupidity that the older style creationists have done, completely ignoring the fact that those factoids had already been refuted. Behe, OTOH, while his general thesis is based on an argument from ignorance, is at least able to produce a testable statement. Now he probably did this by accident and all evidence is that he doesn't care that there are answers, but I'm trying to be as generous as possible given the facts.

YEC is utterly and completely ridiculous. It has no redeeming features.

ID at it's very best relies on assertion that X cannot possibly be explained by natural mechanisms. I say 'assertion', because that's what Behe's argument, for example, amounts to.

Evolution doesn't say anything at all about the existence or non-existence of God(s). Certain religious people, OTOH, want to assert there is a scientific basis for their personal beliefs. That's really what this is all about. They know that psychologically, people are coming to have a lot more confidence in science than they do in the obscurantist ravings of the religionists - and they want to dissuade potential acolytes from delving too deeply by firstly denigrating science at every opportunity, and secondly by misrepresenting science as supporting their own religion.

It's not enough for them that science not say anything about religion. They want to be able to say, "Science proves my religion."

Not all ideas are equal. ID is not science. It isn't science now and it will never be science. Same with YEC.

Intelligent redesign

Jim, Washington Boro,PA — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 01:06:10 GMT

The real tragedy is that the press has people believing that ID was going to be taught and that the Judge had any original thoughts in his 139 cut and paste job.

Intelligent redesign

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:59:38 GMT

The tragedy about Dover is that the ID-iots have already got an army of the faithful spreading false rumors about the trial.

From the Dover curriculum:
"Students will be made aware of the gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of life is not taught."

As for the "cut-n-paste", it is very common for Judges to include testimony from expert witness amicus curiae briefs in the findings of fact. ID creationists need something to whine about, though, and they desperately want to make it appear as if the judge did something unethical or at least unusual, and that he's very stupid.

ID creationism lost in Dover for one reason - it's not science. People reject evolution for one reason - they have a comic book understanding of science in general and evolution in particular.

Intelligent redesign

Jeff, Philadelphia — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 07:22:04 GMT

Intelligent design postulates that complex life forms/organs i.e. the human eye, bacterial flagellum etc are so complex that they could only have been designed by an intelligence.

However, this intelligence must be orders of magnitude more complex than the things he/she/it designed to have the powers to do what they say it does. According to ID that means this intelligence (god?) must have been created by an even GREATER intelligence, which must have been created by . . .(you see where i'm going with this).

This is the fatal (and obvious) flaw of ID. Who designed the designer? And don't say "well god exists outside of space and time and our dimension" because that is not science. Setting up a situation that is impossible to test (i.e. god exists outside of this universe so it's impossible to find any evidence of his existance) is not science at all.

Intelligent redesign

john real phoenix, az — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:51:44 GMT

no one has ever been burned at the stake for not accepting evolution. please keep your superstitions to yourself.

Intelligent redesign

Barbara Kline Pope, Washington, DC — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:35:54 GMT

Some people who are commenting on this blog may be doing so without having had the opportunity to read our book, "Science, Evolution, and Creationism." This conversation might be enhanced and clarified by reading the book online or downloading it in pdf for free at http://www.nap.edu/sec.

Intelligent redesign

Ryan F, Bellevue, NE — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:08:54 GMT

Personally, the whole debate of evolution vs. creationism irritates me to no end. Why are people so concerned with where we come from; does it make any difference in the fact that we are here? Personally, I am a bit more concerned with where we are going. We have a media that emphasizes sex, money, greed, and power, we have our countries leaders getting caught up in one criminal scandal after another, and we have thousands in our country who lack, due to poverty, access to basic health care services. This is only in our country, where wealth and decadence are praised and coddled as though greed were a virtue. There are so many throughout the world who can't even feed themselves, let alone their children, and we have people getting caught up in the frivolity of human origins as though it were a more morally important issue than hunger, gross violence, and the AIDS epidemic. Truly, I could believe that man suddenly appeared in a burst of flame and confetti, and it would still be unimportant compared to the issues that face the world today.

Intelligent redesign

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:08:33 GMT

Ryan, Things can always be worse.

The problem with creationism is that it tries to redefine the meaning of science.

Why is Evolution important?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0n0OWUu1vDc

To solve our myriad problems, we must first recognize that the problems exist and we must then understand them. Science itself can offer some assistance in solving these problems. While science is not a sufficient solution, it is a necessary component of any workable solution. Science cannot do this, if it is being corrupted. For example, we cannot understand ecology without understanding evolution. Evolution is binding thread of biology. Moreover, the threat of creationism is not just about evolution - it's about how science works. IDers and other creationists are determined to redefine what science is and how it works by essentially making "it's magic" a legitimate scientific answer.

This mistake would put humanity back in the dark ages. If you believe the world sucks now, just let the fanatics get in charge in the US or Britain the way they have in Iran, Saudi Arabia, et. al.

Intelligent redesign

William B — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:53:36 GMT

Evolutionist want god out of our lives.Well what does it teach about rule of law,goodnes,or compasion,love or helping one another?What does religeon teach about these things?Without religeon we are doomed to destroy one another.If I came from a monkey I am a monkey still.If I came from god I am a god still.

Intelligent redesign

Happy Atheist — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:41:11 GMT

If "god" is so powerful, why couldn't "it" write a book? or broadcast in VHF? or build its own buildings? Please. The very concept of "god" is an insult to the Universe. "God" and "Religion" are man-made concepts!

If "god" loves human beings so much, why is there so much murder, hatred, segregation, sexism, ridicule, incest and other terrible things in the bible? Have you ever read that abomination?! There are entire cities, women and children - wiped out - by "god"'s "love". No thanks.

"Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church" is my new motto.

Hopefully one day science can prove that "god" simply doesn't exist, and I'll bet we'll have a lot less conflict between people.

Intelligent redesign

K.C. — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 03:27:30 GMT

"Thou Shalt not kill" is a commandment some christians forget, powerful christians (President Bush) My point is that no matter what, evolution, creationism, or both- humans don't always treat each other with respect. I think that's what jesus was trying to get at... (hint-I don't think God cares what you teach, as long as it's not hate and intolerance)

Intelligent redesign

K.C. — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 03:42:38 GMT

actually, I don't think god cares at all. god is not capable of emotion or thought, because god is everything together. The force, the resistance, the good and the evil- the universe. One verse. But my brain is not a match for that, and the same goes for any human or non-human brain we know of. So what do I know anyway? And what do you know? Can you trust the source your knowledge comes from? And how can you have faith when you're all alone?

Intelligent redesign

reason based mike, NC — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:33:17 GMT

It seems so bizarre to me that in our "modern" times so many of us can simply delude ourselves into believing something just because it's a nice idea and try to force everyone else to do the same. Then, ironically if anyone questions their complete faith without any evidence at all they're looked at like they're crazy! It's like a nightmare! I believe that kermit the frog will take his revenge on you all if you don't stop wearing green on thursdays and I think we should start teaching it to everyone's children immediately.

Intelligent redesign

PVG, Leiden, Netherlands — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:48:34 GMT

According to Saint Paul (I Cor. 1:22) the Jews want miracles and the Greeks want science, but all we Christians have to offer is the cross on which Jesus died. That is what ought to concern us, not whether the Universe is 6000 or 13.7 billion years old or whatever. What does it matter whether our ancestors were fish, lizards or apes? When God descended from the heavens to become human He, in the same movement, lifted us up from the animal realm to become truly human beings as well.

Intelligent redesign

Paul — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:36:27 GMT

if the universe and life popped into existence by accident and from nowhere, then that is a blatant assertion agains the existence of God. Philosophically speaking, there is no harmonizing religion with darwinian evolutionary theory.

microevolution does occur, but genetically there seems to be built in limitations to just how far a species can change. once the species reaches that boundary, equilibrium takes over. the designer could have built this feature in in order to help his creation survive different environments. macroevolution has never been proven to be true. it is macroevolution that stands diametrically opposed to intelligent design and religion.

Intelligent redesign

Its, All, Good — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 04:59:20 GMT

For those of us who have actually watched the movie (ahem).... Its amazing how Darwinist will deny the existence of God or Intelligent Design, but will absolutely believe (without evidence) that aliens "seeded" the earth....ridiculous... before you comment to that, watch the freaking movie..... Darwinist = Nazi Germany.... yep, that sounds about right.....

Intelligent redesign

Hubbard, the midwest — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 15:56:40 GMT

"For evolution to begin or continue without outside input violates the second law of thermodynamics. That is the one that doesn't allow perpetual motion machines and other fun stuff that people imagine."

Sorry dude but you forgot about the sun. It provides the energy to "keep the machine going".

Intelligent redesign

Bonnie Marie, Austin, TX — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:58:15 GMT

Josh, you ask why it is not possible to teach multiple theories of evolution, including ID. The answer is that, technically, ID is not a scientific theory. One of the stipulations of any scientific hypothesis is that it can be disproven by a single incidence showing that the hypothesis is incorrect. ID rests primarily on something that is neither provable nor (and this is the important one) UNprovable. If you can't test it or find evidence to either support or disprove then it's not science. You don't teach English in Spanish class, do you?

Intelligent redesign

Bartlett — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:17:50 GMT

you'll know the truth, right after you all die. Has even 1 person ever come back from the dead? If so, Listen To Him!

Intelligent redesign

Russell Williams, Hagerstown, Maryland — Thu, 22 May 2008 11:28:16 GMT

Comparison and contrast. The argument is made that since evolution has not yet explained every little detail it must not be true. Compare and contrast.

There are those who argue that Robert E. Lee commanded something called the Army of Northern Virginia and that the Army of Northern Virginia fought battles against the United States Army. However, there is much evidence suggesting that this could not possibly have been true. If Robert E. Lee commanded the so-called Army of Northern Virginia then how does one explain that, in about 1854, Robert E. Lee had been the commandant of West Point. Does it make any sense to say that Robert E. Lee was teaching young men to be loyal officers in the United States Army and six years later was engaged in attempts to kill these young men whom he trained. John Brown led a group of men who captured Harpers Ferry. John Brown was hung. There were those who argue that Robert E. Lee told some men under him to capture Harpers Ferry and that these men did capture Harpers Ferry yet Robert E. Lee died a college president not at the end of a rope. How then could Robert E. Lee have possibly lead the so-called Army of Northern Virginia in attacks against the United States Army. I could go on with a lot more unexplained facts.

Since creationists are not unwilling to bend facts I will point out that Robert E. Lee was so loyal to the United States Army that he allowed his plantation at Arlington to be used to bury United States soldiers. If he had commanded the Army of Northern Virginia would he not have insisted that instead of United States soldiers being buried at Arlington members of the Army of Northern Virginia be buried at Arlington.

Those who argue that, since the evolutionists have not been able to explain everything, the theory of evolution is questionable should also be arguing that since those who believe that Robert E. Lee commanded the Army of Northern Virginia cannot explain everything than the theory that Robert E. Lee commanded the a so-called Army of Northern Virginia is also questionable.

Intelligent redesign

Wendell McCallie, Dunlap, TN. — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:34:20 GMT

It's true, science does not have all the answers. That doesn't mean we can make something up and call it the truth. If a person on either side of this debate is truly intelligent, think about this one concept and do some research. "Evidence"

Intelligent redesign

Pat — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:54:27 GMT

There's a lot to be said for "capturing the public spirit," rather than "designing the public spirit."

One is genuine; the other is self serving; and most Americans tend to think they know the difference. It's what makes the common man continue to be popular in the American conscience, and perhaps what keeps the American spirit, and its dreams, alive.