Happy Darwin Day

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:33:11 GMT

Bizarre!! The only thing I see that the religious and the scientific have in common on this subject is that the mystery of life is very profound and unanswered. And may never be answered completely.

Happy Darwin Day

Crudely Wrott, Dayton, OH — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 01:07:12 GMT

Are those godless secularists trying to take on the trappings of religion? Not at all, says Robert Stephens, one of the organizers behind Darwin Day. "We're not trying to make a saint out of Darwin," he said. "We're just using him as a symbol." Stephens and his colleagues say this long weekend is as good a time as any to turn science into a cause for celebration.

Thus spake "an organizer of Darwin Day". I cringe at this. Please tell me the basic difference between a "saint" and a "symbol" in terms of their use and misuse in social and political squabbles. It is clear that Stephens' statement is the same as the priest who would promote reverence of a relic or a politician who relies chiefly on party affiliation to justify his actions in governance.

We don' need no stinkin' symbols and furthermore no historical figure is properly a symbol. They are flesh and blood like the rest of us. What is symbolic are their achievements and the resultant legacy (i.e. Plato, Christ, Einstein), societies' evolving reaction to their contributions, and the evidence, manifested in later generations, that said legacy is intact.

Saints and symbols are identical in how they are used by special interests to convince and convert potential contributors of the financial type. A huge percentage of these contributions are fed directly back into some huge PR monster to purchase more . . . air time. Not the kind of thing that contributors might be thinking of when the cut that check.

I think that Mr. Stephens could have better served the spirit of Darwin Day had he spoke thusly: "We aren't trying to beatify Darwin but rather to show how his interpretation of evidence gathered over a monumental voyage followed by years of continuing study opened secrets of life to human inspection that has inspired a phenomenal increase in our understanding of how all things living actually go about that business. If the current state of biology and the related life sciences are any indication of what is to come, then the symbolic strength of Darwin's leap of comprehension will not be lost on students, scientists or even the average consumer."

Such a gentle trap to fix upon one face and one name accolades and praise that he would deflect from himself towards the science and logic that he followed. And science is something we all can do.

Things are symbols, symbols are an ersatz place keeper that is easy to remember. People appeal to symbols, and sometimes wave them wildly about. Symbols are mute unless the story behind it is understood. Symbols are important to societal cohesiveness yet their use is hugely overdone because of the economy of symbols (logos, sound bites, slogans, jingles) to the media folks. A tiny bit of type, a few seconds of video, some flashy graphics and presto! a nudge to popular conception. And so easily dismissed.

Would it not be more seductive to entice the average person not with a name or visage, but by a succinct distillation of the fortunate confluence of real world truth with human apprehension, and comprehension?

Happy Darwin Day

Dave Chad — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 01:39:53 GMT

Hooray for Charles Darwin! Remove the veil of religion and see the real world. Should we allow Creationists to go to the doctor? Now that we know bacteria and viruses EVOLVE and develop resistance to medications? Perhaps they should stay home when they get sick...and pray a lot.

Happy Darwin Day

Darnell Clayton, SC — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 02:34:55 GMT

Despite my doubts of evolution (used to fervently believe in it, but that is another story) I do not see how Christianity and Darwinism can mix.

One only has to look at Genesis to see how much Darwin's theory of evolution and the Creationism contradict.

- Creationism: Earth before stars, oceans before land, plant life before moon
- Evolution: Stars long before Earth, land before oceans, moon before plant life

How someone can claim to believe both in the origin of species as well as the Bible (at the same time) is either very ignorant of either or is IMHO a fence sitter unwilling to settle on a belief system.

Some may choose to believe in God, or that he used evolution, but to simply imply it from the Bible (let alone in Church based on the book) is not only laughable, but a living example of what an oxymoron is all about.

Happy Darwin Day

mike angove — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:35:11 GMT

"we know bacteria and viruses EVOLVE and develop resistance to medications"

Yes...but neo-Darwinism is extrapolated WAY beyond "adapting" to environmental changes. If anything, drug resistence shows the limited creative power of the supposed Dawrinian mechanism. After literally billions of generations of lab bacteria...all sorts of adaptations have been observed. But at the end of the day you still have the same old bacteria. Only "story telling" gets you truly novel functions and form.

"Darwinism is a trivial idea that has been elevated to the status of the scientific theory that governs modern biology," [Dr. Michael Egnor, professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook]

Happy Darwin Day

Shelley Ackerman New York, NY — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:50:26 GMT

Darwin Day should also be Lincoln Day.

(Dar-Lincoln Day?)

Abe and Charles were both born on February 12 in 1809.

Happy Darwin Day

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 07:15:45 GMT

There is only one reason why people reject evolution. They have a comic book understanding of the subject.

Happy Darwin Day

Mike Maddox, Looneytown, DC — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:02:47 GMT

After observing the conduct of the scientific community regarding climate change, any snarky comments implying a stark difference between religious faith and the "scientific process" can only be seen as risible. Demands to decertify climatologists whose research and conclusions disagree with accepted dogma, calls to forbid and punish the funding of research done from a questioning angle, comparison by respected journalists of non compliant climatologists with Holocaust deniers without a squeak of protest from science community leaders. The scientific community has inflicted a severe and lasting beating on its credibility as objective finders of scientific truth.

Happy Darwin Day

S. C. Wolf Norman, Oklahoma — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:04:22 GMT

Religious traditions which allow for critical thinking and examination can reconcile the mystery of creation with proven scientific theories such as evolution. To accept the creation story of the Bible or any other creation story(of which there are many), as literal fact when scientific fact demonstrates that such creation stories are not factual, diminishes rather than strengthens such beliefs. To acknowledge Darwin, Wallace or other scientists important in the theory to explain the complexity of life on earth does not diminish a thinking religion or the symbolism of creation stories, or the"why" of life as opposed to the "how" of life.

Happy Darwin Day

Mark Gillis, Conway, SC — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:15:12 GMT

Interesting. This project is purported to be some sort of great reapproachment between the pulpit and the lab. It isn't. It is actually nothing more than a capitulation on the part of the theologians, an admission that their faith in their doctrines is not sufficiently strong to resist scientific inquiry. On a grand scale, the priests are saying, if you cannot beat them, join them, at least a little bit.

This is Natural Selection at work! The worldview which holds that the Bible is "god-breathed", that the Creation is literal, is participating in one aspect of natural selection -- extinction.

It's also interesting that this union will not result in a hybrid species, seomething different than both dam and sire. This crossbreeding of Mother Church and Father Science will not result in a creature with the features of both -- it will be a true son of the father.

Why does mankind so stubbornly refuse to admit that the selection process applies not only to our biology, but to our thought processes as well?

Happy Darwin Day

Peter Hegeman, Orlando, Fl — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:33:58 GMT

Hooray for Darwin and Scientific Method. And yes, gravity is a theory as well just like evolution. I wonder how the Pope would interpret the importance of Darwin Day as it relates to the progression of human thinking and civilization in general. Just another gosh darn scientist trying to make sense of this whole mess. But look how far we have come!

Happy Darwin Day

Siren's Wish, Austin, TX — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:06:27 GMT

Pardon me -- I did not think the celebration of Darwin and the scientific method, nor recognition of science and its contributions to society were to be debated as heretical?? I thought, I believe it is a very good idea, that we have some recognition of science discovery, method, and the scientific mind. It just might encourage children to seek the truth and to pursue careers in a sound, logical, and honorable endeavor -- science, for instance, contributes to medicine, to health, to nutrition -- and where would neo-Darwinism be if Darwin and his scientific method had not existed???!!!!!

Sure, any one who studies Darwin learns that his ideas were extrapolated by Spencer and mis-applied -- but these were stages in scientific growth, testing of methodology, erring and adjustment.

Let's think beyond the little black box. Research and science need to be recognized as a strong component of society and the general public needs to be educated as to how science is integral to their life.

Happy Darwin Day

Bud Thilly — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:10:33 GMT

For all those out there who do not know why Darwin started the Theory of Eveloution here is the straight poop,, Darwin was very angry at his father and to get even with God for having given him a bad father. It was Darwin's vendetta against God , a revenge, check it out, it is very public, Bud Thilly in GA

Happy Darwin Day

Gerhard Franck — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:46:02 GMT

Why is it so important to "bridge the gap between religion and science?" Our beliefs, behaviors and existence itself are fraught with contradictions. To me, it is an exercise in futility to force alignments of these things into nice congruent connections. We seek an elusvie peace of mind by doing so. Better to to investigate the physical world for the sake of utility and leave the rest to work itself in our spirits, as we (hopefully) strive to better ourselves as human beings - which necessarily means treating others and ourselves with greater compassion.

Happy Darwin Day

B D-L — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:46:11 GMT

This editorial cartoon just came through our anthropologists' news-list. How timely!

http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/
store/add.php?iid=11168

Happy Darwin Day

Tim Cooper — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 18:38:59 GMT

you left out 6:02 AM or PM on October 23rd

Mole Day!
(ask someone who knows chemistry)

Happy Darwin Day

Thomas Burchfield, Emeryville, CA — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 18:51:30 GMT

Well, it's all very nice and everything, but I'm of the "Good fences make good neighbors" side of the argument. Science is great; science is indispensable, but one thing it cannot do is give meaning to life, something that is indispensable to human life, civilization and morality. God cannot be (and should not be) scientifically proven. While science and religion may occasionally echo or reflect each other, science is about observing and measuring. The consequences of science--technology-- are often immoral (nuclear weapons, WMD, anybody?)

Faith is transcendent and intuitive. If science shows anything, it's how little of reality we actually see. The Creator is something our poor measuring sticks will likely never be able to comprehend. To try to turn science-whose knowledge is always termporary--into religion--something eternal--is foolish. And trying to turn religion onto science--like the Creationosts are trying--is also not only foolish, but *dangerous* to the very faith they're trying to protect. If you really did get God under a microscope, would S/He be God anymore?

Happy Darwin Day

Ed McClendon — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:03:20 GMT

Darwin put forth the novel idea of evolution. Countless numbers of scientists, teachers, and philosphers completed the concept, and all of this has been based on scientific approaches and thinking. Those who deny its total reality can not also say they are scientists. To even say that a person of faith can also be a scientist is a contradiction of terms. An oxymoron of serious relevance to the progression of understanding about who and what we are.

Happy Darwin Day

Dale Lanz, Lakewood CA — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:16:22 GMT

The pope and Catholic Church acknowledge the validity of evolution. They understand that the Bible is a moral book, not a scientific treatise. It was written by and for people who where shepards and carpenters and thought the world was flat and the sun went around the earth. Some of us are more advanced in our understanding of God's universe.

Happy Darwin Day

Mohamed Najafali, Arkansas — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:24:40 GMT

Evolution

He it is Who created the skies (universes) and the earth in six days - and His Throne was on the water - that He might try you, which of you is best in conduct. But if you were to say to them, “You shall indeed be raised up after death”, the deniers of the truth would be sure to say, “This is nothing but obvious sorcery!” (7) chapter 11

Do not the hiders of the truth see that the skies (universes) and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (30) chapter 21

And God has created every animal from water: of them there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four. God creates what He wills for verily God has power over all things (45) chapter 24

It is He Who has created human from water: then has He established relationships of lineage and marriage: for Rabbkum (your Nurturer) has power (over all things) (54) chapter 25.

We created the skies (universes) and the earth and all between them in six days, nor did any sense of weariness touch Us! (38) chapter 50

What is the matter with you, that you place not your hope for kindness and long-suffering in God (13), - Seeing that it is He that has created you in diverse stages? (14) Don’t you see how God has created the seven skies (universes) one above another (15), - And made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a (glorious) lamp? (16) And God has produced you from the earth growing (gradually) (17), and in the end He will return you into the (earth), and raise you forth? (18) chapter 71

Do not the denier of the truth see that the skies (universes) and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (30) chapter 21

- Qur'an

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

- Albert Einstein

Happy Darwin Day

John Charles Webb, Jr. — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:37:19 GMT

Happy Birthday to Charles Darwin who noticed that 'there are no handicapped ramps in nature'!

Yes, according to Charles Darwin, nature is designed to strengthen us to the extent that we co-operate with her (Nature).

As (if) an individual moves along his (or her) evolutionary path they will gradually discover that there is a distinction between 'container' (the body) and 'contents' (the consciousness).

Lower life forms make no such distinction and see and experience consciousness and form as an inseparable unity.

More 'evolved' life forms begin to discern that pure consciousness is 'dumbed down' according to whatever form it is occupying. Therein rests the dichotomy that has established the debate between "Darwin's physical-based Natural Selection" and "Intelligent Design". It is a debate from two entirely different perspectives: 1) the physical body and 2) the indwelling consciousness of a physical body.

From a Darwinian perspective, 'consciousness' is shaped by its physical container (i.e. the human form) and from the 'Intelligent Design' perspective the physical form is shaped (re-formed) by the commanding and indwelling consciousness.

All 'true religions' (less their ridiculous machinations) are designed to accelerate the realization that our consciousness is, in fact, an 'entity' that can be distilled from 'matter' and has an eternal shelf-life. Whereas, the scientific perspective sees consciousness as an inherent component of the body and, as such, dies along with the physical form.

So (therefore?) if the test is "survival of the fittest" than I would argue that attaining the remembrance of 'eternal life' is the ultimate act of 'survival' (endurance).
In other words, the end result of "Natural Selection" is the realization of an "Intelligent Design".

Happy Darwin Day

andy, canada — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 20:04:48 GMT

there is no dog - science rules - churchifying is for fools

Happy Darwin Day

Greg K, Chicago, Il — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 20:22:33 GMT

Cool! Now I can wear my Santa Beard on Darwin Day. Now if we can just do away with that evil theory of gravity we can all float to heaven.

Happy Darwin Day

John Anderson, Nashville TN — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 20:38:37 GMT

To Darnell Clayton: You're also forgetting that in the 2nd chapter of Genesis it says that God created animals after man, to be his companion. Although, in the 1st chapter of Genesis it says God created the animals before man. So, not only does Science not agree with the Bible, the Bible doesn't agree with the Bible. Obviously, Genesis was meant to be metaphorical and not to be taken literally.

Happy Darwin Day

Wayne, Denver, CO — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 21:24:49 GMT

Quoting a neurosurgeon in defence of creationism is pretty weak, in my opinion. I have a thorough respect for surgeons, but in working with physicians for a few years now (I'm an immunologist, doing basic research at a large medical center) and they tend to be quite dogmatic and a pretty religious lot, in general.

The fact of the matter is, in order to think about science properly, you must come at it with an atheist perspective. I'm not advocating that anyone give up their belief in God, but in asking and answering scientific questions, there is NEVER a supernatural explanation for anything. The ideas about the mechanisms of speciation and their ecological and molecular biological bases are as sound as the germ theory of disease or the theory of plate tectonics.

And BTW, I grew up in a very conservative southern Baptist congegation, and I have lots of respect for religious people. But on this issue of biological origins, I think the "biblical literalist" view is just backward, boneheaded, and wrong. Especially so when public policy is based on a literal reading of the mythology of a bunch of nomadic Hebrew sheep herders.

Happy Darwin Day

yamio noh — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 23:00:11 GMT

religion or cult is an human evolution!
any religion comes with violence is a cult!

Darwinism is the best answer so far!

yamio
san francisco

Happy Darwin Day

Richard — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 23:00:18 GMT

Darwin was only being truthful. pity for those millions of poor souls who died because of really idiotic religeous beliefs. Science should be the main staple of our educational system with religion simply an elective....

Happy Darwin Day

James — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 23:03:38 GMT

At least there aren't any cases of Darwinites molesting liitle boys (I survived catholic school - yeah)

Happy Darwin Day

frank thomas, fresno, california — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 23:12:31 GMT

in most fundamentalist mega churches with their own education system from preschool to college, creationism is undoubtedly taught and students are taught not to question, as it is written in the Holy Book,and is god's word. if the parents of these students so highly value education and success, how will these students ever compete in the real world scientific or ortherwise?? Will the students who are being indoctrinated with creationism be able to put these believes behind them, and their faith ,which is based on this dogma?? They will be so totally uniformed how will they become futuer scientists and educated individuals??and be able to make real contributions to a society? this type of thinking is in full evidence in the white house today, being led by someone who actually believes everything is god's will and he can do no wrong.

Happy Darwin Day

Dana Knox, Sugar Land, TX — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 23:20:50 GMT

speaking about great science holidays, what about Mole Day? Both my kids celebrated this in school. From the Mole Day website: Celebrated annually on October 23 from 6:02 a.m. to 6:02 p.m., Mole Day commemorates Avogadro's Number (6.02 x 10^23), which is a basic measuring unit in chemistry. Mole Day was created as a way to foster interest in chemistry. Schools throughout the United States and around the world celebrate Mole Day with various activities related to chemistry and/or moles.

Happy Darwin Day

Chuck D. — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 01:08:49 GMT

A lot of my co-religionists are loath to admit it, but Christianity is only one of dozens of faiths around the world. If we're going to treat the Bible as a science textbook, then what about the "factual truth" of those other religions' creation stories? The Navajo have their Coyote who brought forth the world, the Hindus' earth is held up by four elephants that stand on the back of a turtle, and on and on. Which one is right - and why?? (Note - NOT just "because the Bible says it's so")

If in fact some great being went "POOF!" and put everything in place 6000 years ago, he/she/it left a lot of contradictions hanging around! Scientific research is not a smörgåsbord - you can't selectively scrap the pieces that you don't care for. If the age calculations returned by carbon dating and DNA modifications are wrong, then our understanding of everything from particle physics to chemistry to genetics is wrong!

Oh, and then there's the troublesome problem of the speed of light, measured to within millimeters of accuracy: if all those stars aren't more than 6000 light years away, then everything we know about celestial mechanics, all the way down to basic geometry, has to go in the tank as well.

Sorry gang, but if you're gonna accept creationism then you can't accept the idea of a God who gave us the intelligence to try to understand the universe as it really is, rather than as a fairy tale. The creationist alternative is a God who's one day going to tell us that everything we humans ever managed to figure out is wrong, and it's all been a cosmic joke.

I'm not laughing.

Happy Darwin Day

Dennis Stone, Houston, TX — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 02:17:02 GMT

As listed in the calendar, World Space Week is October 4-10. All you space fans are encouraged to celebrate the first 50 years of space that week and imagine the next 50 years. Whether you hold a small event, write about space in your blog, or attend an event, your participation will be an important part of an historic, global event. For more info, please visit our web site or email me. Ad astra!

Happy Darwin Day

Richard, Ferndale MI — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 02:56:02 GMT

It should be noted, at one point Darwin studied for ordination in the Church of England, and maintained communicant status the rest of his life: you CAN have your brain and religion, in spite of American evangelicals & fundamentalists

Happy Darwin Day

Rick Borrell — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 03:19:41 GMT

When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When a group of people suffer from a delusion it is called religion.

Happy Darwin Day

fred — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 04:09:15 GMT

For anything to be science it must be observable, repeatable and testable.

Religion and evolution IS NOT science!

Happy Darwin Day

Bubba, Tampa, Florida — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 07:07:08 GMT

Oh my, the creationists are out in force. Please, please, please, try and remember that the TOE has nothing to do with steller evolution or the origin of the earth. Those are entirely different topics. Trying to confuse your fellow christians by lumping 30 different disciplines into a single mass called, "evolution" is really, really dishonest (not to mention nutty but thats another matter).

Happy Darwin Day

karenina suan, outside United States — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 07:41:19 GMT

Those who praise Darwin's Theory maybe ready to explore and believe the possibility that after they die, they have the same kind of "soul" as monkeys...and the "bacteria". After all, according to their views, human and monkeys have the same origin.LoL. Or, perhaps, they even do not want to think how they will go after their period in this world expired. With say 80-90 years living on earth, they feel satisfied already...and do not want to explore beyond that. Maybe they think that they do not have something eternal in them. Well, it is up to them..I do not want to be the judge.
Darwin's theory is brillliant....but it is still in lack of something..it is too naive for those who reject religion just because of this theory. They are celebrating "the victorious trend" nowadays & mocking the Creationist people...insulting etc.....if they think they are much better than those of the creationists who live today or in the past...they are completely WRONG...they are NO BETTER and their cynical pride overshadow their ability to think further make them paralized. In fact, they are FANATIC people,fanatic with the theory itself...then, fanatic with science and logical thinking...IQ, and other Inteligence aspects. The same as those of the fanatic in any religious group, ie : blaming, mocking/insulting others, too proud of them selves, always remember other's fault for their ammunition, etc. Any science which is going to be too proud will fail...only resulting chaos,ie : medicine developes as fast as desease developes....and round-round round...never ending disaster accross the globe. Or maybe some scientists are happy to see the phenomena as it provides soil to develop their research ??? Hey...don't get the wrong idea. I am not against science...but something which is too much...very imbalance...make me sick. Thus, my point of view is that Religion and Science have to be in balance. Balance creates harmony in life.

Happy Darwin Day

Chuck Concord, CA — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 08:03:26 GMT

Science = reason
Religion = imagination.

Happy Darwin Day

Karenina Suan, outside United States — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 08:32:40 GMT

Instead of attacking religion with their recorded accumulated faults in the past and today (while rejecting to acknowledge the religious contribution to society) to prove science superiority and build up theories over theories, why don't they (the scientist society & the fans) make larger efforts to find solution on todays world's mega problems: energy alternatives, AIDS, Avian Flu, how to stop natural disasters, etc.

For those who have experience suffer in catholic school, you have to know that not all people experience the same thing as you do. Many people especially those who have been raised in catholic foster home feel grateful with what the catholic have provided for them (as Nobody cares). Do all of the priests molest small boys ? It is very very unlikely. As a matter of facts, I have seen none at all. Why do you people like to generalize things ? It sounds like stereotype or prejudice. It is no good at all. Later, a crowd may feel a right to attack just because of this stereotype or prejudice.

As for education, I believe a human needs education not only in science and others which stimulate intelligence, a human also needs some education which is beyond material things...this could be satisfied with religion. Religion education is still needed...can not be dismissed at all. Maybe needs some altenative progressive method so that individual is able to catch and articulate the religion's essence and feel in their spiritual being to be wise person...hence they can contribute well to society (Not fanatic...as fanatic is off the correct way...it is imbalance). The world can not simply managed by science or so called "logical thinking" only (ie.: human's ability to think logic often can not understand natural acts) Again...Balance is important. Balance between Science and Religion...why not ?

Happy Darwin Day

Jeff Bromley, Albany OR — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 09:53:20 GMT

I'm a creationist, yes I know, you think I've had a lobotomy for saying that and now you can dismiss my opinion. Not so fast. Irregardless of your disdain for me I am still a creationist. I have given this subject a great deal of thought and have considered my position very carefully. I have arrived at my conclusion based on the scientific facts and my underlying assumptions. This is how scientific theories are developed. Since I believe in God and the Bible my theories about the scientific facts will include God in my interpretation and conclusions.

In my studies I have found no reason to reject science, but i do reject the naturalistic interpretation of science. I have to, because I believe in the supernatural ie God. Does that mean I then have to throw out science? No it doesn't, because science is neutral. Scientific facts are independent of interpretation. I interpret scientific facts based on my assumptions and naturalists interpret science according to their assumptions. Scientific Theories, like evolution, are interpretations of the facts based on assumptions or bias. You may disagree with this but you will not be honest or logical in doing so. All scientists know that assumptions have to be made when developing a theory about scientific facts. This is why there are creationists and evolutionists. Both start with the facts and base their theories on their assumptions. We arrive at different conclusions based on the assumptions we start with. Creationists include God and evolutionists do not. Both theories are valid but both sets of assumptions are not. Based on the laws of logic (non-contradiction), only one set of assumptions can be true. I choose God.

Happy Darwin Day

John, Syracuse NY — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 10:01:34 GMT

It is really curious how we are all so different. I come from a large family and within that family there are persons steadfastly on both sides of this issue. I have been educated in the sciences and have pursued a highly technical career while others have not.

It is striking to me that those who have little or no training in science, even in high school, are more inclined to question even the most fundamental aspects of things such as the age of our planet. Some suggest (vehemently) that somehow scientists have gotten it wrong when they say the earth is X billions of years old and prefer the idea of a few thousand years.

In the sense of family we have all been raised within a religious community and as the second oldest I was exposed to more stringent religious beliefs that my younger siblings. Interestingly enough, the catholic school I attended was very big on the sciences and math and without that foundation I am quite sure I would be doing something very different. I have never felt conflicted by this. I was taught religion and science side by side so I am fairly convinced that people are best served by an understanding of both. And short of that I am quite sure that people will suffer the invevitable negative consequences that are a product of bias. And particularly as this applies to our national and global leaders it is all too evident that such a bias serves us all very poorly.

Happy Darwin Day

Joe Weismantel, San Diego, Ca — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 11:19:23 GMT

Science keeps my two little feet on the ground; religion raises my arms. God is stretching us.

Happy Darwin Day

J Grant - Lakeland, FL — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:25:07 GMT

If he was right, why bother?

Happy Darwin Day

Stan Moody, Manchester, Maine — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:34:10 GMT

As McChurch, the drive-through, fast-food temple of the Christian Right, has merged with the Republican Party, so does it now hasten to merge with the scientific community - on some issues, that is.

Is there not room for mystery in the passions of both? Is it not permissible to retain a "missing link" without descending into spasms of unbelief?

The biblical creation account was recorded from oral tradition and is mythological in genre. Faith requires simply that God created and that there was a beginning to all creation.

While the evidence of intraspecies evolution is scientific fact, the fossil evidence of interspecies evolution is zero.

How about the common ground of "We don't really know, exactly."

Stan Moody, Christian Policy Institute, author of "McChurched: 300 Million Served and Still Hungry."

Happy Darwin Day

Marcia J, Sugar Land, TX — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:39:32 GMT

Well, I was going to do a different post but I think Chuck Concord in CA said it the best.

We teach our kids that Santa Claus exists, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. How much of Reality is that? These may be simple, fun things we do with kids, but we are also teaching them to be what I call, gullible.

Happy Darwin Day

Rob, Chicago, IL — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:12:48 GMT

Ummmmm, let's see here. Darwinism teaches that survival of the fittest is our lot in life and that our most primitive urges are to dominate so that we won't be dominated. Some win, most lose.

Contrast that with this ridiculous statement quoted from the article: "To me, science is an international language, and it's a language that transcends tribalism, sectarianism, denominationalism and even nationalism. ... I'd like to think that it could play a role in building a world without war," he said.

Natural selection IS war. If Darwinists want to establish a tradition of believing in natural selection, then they need to accept the "natural" consequences that will arise.

Religion, with all of the flaws that human beings of faith exhibit, at least _tries_ to elevate itself above the natural and material world of war and competition. The fact that we haven't always achieved this transcendence shouldn't mean that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Happy Darwin Day

Nunyabiz — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:20:15 GMT

I shudder when I see delusional fundamentalist responses regarding Evolutionary Theory.

You can actually feel the stupidity flowing through their words.

Evolutionary Theory is FACT that is irrefutable, it is testable, observable, repeatable and one can make predictions based on it. All of Biological Science has been based on it for over 100 years.

Creationism is pure fantasy, fairy tales of millennia gone by and the Christian version can be traced right back to "The Sumerian Tablets".

People that have "faith" in the insane babblings of bronze age Bedouins and believe these scribblings to be 100% infallible truth have the mind set of pre dark age savages.

These people need help, they need psychotherapy & medication.

Religion is a disease, its a mind plague that utterly destroys the host rational thinking processes.

In the case of Evolution/Darwin Vs Religion/Creationism the infected person must completely deny factual reality that is supported by overwhelming empirical evidence in favor of mythology, magic & fairy tales of which Archeology has proven comes the active imaginations of bronze age humans.

People that are so weak minded as to believe religious dogma should not be allowed to walk the streets freely, let alone allowed to vote & take positions of authority over others such as we have today in the US Gov.

Happy Darwin Day

Deborah Shepherd, Minneapolis, MN — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:44:23 GMT

I think this article helps to confuse the issue of what "holidays" in today's society. Perhaps we should remove the "holi-" and call the secular ones commemoration days. I'm referring to such uncontested "holidays" as Presidents' Day and Fourth of July which surely have to basis in any sacred text. On another note, as an anthropology instructor, I think this is a great idea for raising awareness, but we must always remind people that Darwin neither invented evolution (in fact, he co-presented his findings in 1859 with Alfred Russel Wallace who had independently come to the same conclusions but didn't have so much data), nor did Darwin have anything approaching a clear understanding of the process (he didn't know about genetics, and he dealt only with change that was steady and gradual). Still, all we can do is keep the conversation going so that people can realize that it is not such a big deal after all. This ideological crisis is very similar to the one touched off by Copernicus when he pointed out that the earth wasn't the center of the solar system (nor the universe, as many would have imagined it).

Happy Darwin Day

Chuck D. — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:44:39 GMT

Evolution IS testable and repeatable at both the micro and macro level. We can observe its microeffects in real time through adaptation and speciation of everything from bacteria to finches. At the macro level over the much longer time span of the earth's history (yes, billions of years, not a few millennia) we can observe the fossil record of gradual morphologic changes (e.g. dinosaurs to birds) and repeated development of similar characteristics (e.g. at least 4 different types of sabre-toothed cat having developed and gone extinct at different times).

Where will we end up if the creationists have their way and we replace scientific exploration with a simplistic "God did it!" explanation for every question and conundrum?

The Catholic Church was perfectly willing to imprison Galileo because he dared to go beyond the Church's doctrine of a God-directed universe with the Earth at its center. Should we still insist that the geocentric hypothesis (NOT a theory; see below..) be taught as a matter of fairness?

Or suppose that Galvani had observed that frog's leg would twitch when an electrical current was applied and concluded that it was God's will animating the limb? Edison might have ended up as a monk somewhere and we'd still be reading by candlelight.

Please look at what has happened in the Arab world. In the first millennium the West was a feudal society that made few advances beyond castle-building. At the same time Arab thinkers and scientists developed algebra, codified the base-10 number system, invented the battery, and made dozens of other advances that are part of our modern world's foundations. But after that period, religion in many parts of the Arab world turned from advancing knowledge along with faith, to simply protecting faith. Just read the headlines to see where "faith at all costs" has left us today.

>>> To the creationists who keep chanting that evolution is "only a theory": Please grit your teeth long enough to take just one basic science class and understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.

Happy Darwin Day

Sean, Torrington CT — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:26:37 GMT

Religion, at the very core, is devisive and evil. 'Our people' will have eternal happiness, but the non-believers will have eternal torment. Sounds like highschool to me.

Happy Darwin Day!

Happy Darwin Day

Chris, Col. Spgs., CO — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 19:26:33 GMT

I've always contended that if religious folks insist creationism be taught in public schools, it would only be fair to also teach modern cosmology and biology in churches. So 'Darwin Day' and 'Evolution Sunday' are a start. Survival of the fittest idea...

Happy Darwin Day

john scott summerville sc — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 19:37:28 GMT

why waste so much precious time disputing trivial and short term theories, when eternity awaits you. If evolutionists want to know if there is a life after death let them find the answer by swimming in shark infested waters.

Happy Darwin Day

B Freeman Regina Canada — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 19:58:57 GMT

I get it. We have a day to celebrate Christ's birthday. And we have a mythological jolly old fella with a white beard to help us celebrate that day. So why not celebrate Darwin's birthday too. And, I know... lets have an image of a jolly old man with a white beard help us celebrate that day too. What day did Darwin die? Maybe we could have a giant monkey go around and deliver chocolate monkey eggs to all the little children of the world. This is all just another scheme from the greeting card companies.

Happy Darwin Day

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:28:19 GMT

The tenet that God created "man" in His image is kind of senseless. Think of it: God came up with a universe and life..Man only creates from what he learns from nature. We mimic nature to suit our needs. We are not sole creators. Hence, we aren't an image of God. It is not possible to be sole creators.

Happy Darwin Day

Phil, B, NY — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:33:55 GMT

I think the focus is definitely misdirected toward "us" humans. This thinking is usually as a result of religious thinking. Instead of answering: What is the meaning of life? Surely its equally perplexing NOT to ask: What is the meaning of non-sentience?

There is simply no "why". But here is a familiar question: "Why are we here?" Why not an equally relevant question: "Why arent they here?" Why arent unicorns here? Why arent fairies, ogres, cylcops, or Zeus here? Maybe they do exist. Maybe a "God" or "Gods" do exist. But not the JudeoChristian Islamic God. A God has plenty of time on "his/her hands" to meddle with us "playthings". As an atheist, however, believing in a God is totally irrelevant to how one behaves morally. A Hindu is just as moral as an Agnostic, or a Christian, or a Buddhist. "Love thy neigbor" is not specific to any religion. Its a universal trait.

Animals display altruistic behavior. Its an economic concept. You have what I want, and I have what you want, so lets share. Altruism is often reciprocal.

The Bible is simply inconsistent. If God was omnipotent, God simply has no free will, if you believe in miracles and divine intervention. The very act of a miracle, or divine intervention, suggests Her design is perhaps flawed, that it needs fixing, or that Her "act" of intervention was written in the stars, which suggests the lack of free will on God's part.

Why do we need to a "meaning" in our lives? This behaviour is quite arrogant. Your very existence is meaningful enough. Yet a rock who has yet to think, does not know the difference between life and death; and here we are thinking about what happens to us after death.

Science might never understand the meaning of life. But supposing that you do know the meaning of life. Does that not take away "faith"? There is logical faith, and illogical faith. Illogical faith is religion. Logical faith is reason. Oh, and spiritual needs not be religious.

We should celebrate Darwin's day. Darwin himself was an Agnostic. By the way, evolution is happening right now. Reports on lizards suggests adaptation is happening as close to as a decade.

The belief in a JudeoChristian Islamic God is delusional.

Happy Darwin Day

Steve Kokomo, In — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:36:38 GMT

Kokomo Indiana's first Darwin Day celebration (as far as I know) was held last Friday at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Kokomo. There were people from different faith traditions there, and they didn't seem to have a problem with evolution. Even special guest Clarence Darrow was enjoyed by all present.

Happy Darwin Day

JT, TN — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:38:43 GMT

Those that insist an Anglo holy text holds all wisdom fail to see the political machinations that have been made through the centuries that have made such a text significant. Consider that the council of Niceum was organized specifically to enforce the adoption of Christianity in the new empire of Rome established by Constantine. Consider that the King James version was written to give divine right to Anglo kings after the schism with the Church of Rome. The Spanish Inquisition was a convenient witch hunt to purge Jews and other undesirables from Spanish culture. Religion is politics. Belief is hope, but organized religion is designed so that one consign rights and individuality to an man ruler not a god. The history is indisputable. Jesus was a great philosopher, but man has perverted his works for man's benefit as Jesus' teachings are far to idealistic for all men to accept especially for those in power.

Happy Darwin Day

Jaycubed (J.J.Jackson), Santa Rosa, CA — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 21:26:29 GMT

No fundamentalist church would be able to hold a "pi day" as they must believe that the value of pi is 3. It says so in the bible which is the literal and perfect word of god.

1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. (KJV)

I wonder if there are any fundamentalist christian builders, carpenters, masons, draftsmen, mathematicians, salesmen, etc. who believe that the actual value of pi is 3 because the bible clearly says so and god's word cannot be in error.

Happy Darwin Day

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 01:49:59 GMT

fred said: "For anything to be science it must be observable, repeatable and testable."

Are hydrogen atoms observable? Are electrons?

If the evolution-deniers would just do a modicum of honest homework, there wouldn't be any public "debate."

"Religion and evolution IS NOT science!"
GIGO.

Jeff wrote: "I have arrived at my conclusion based on the scientific facts and my underlying assumptions."

No, you haven't. You have arrived at your conclusion based on a comic book understanding of what science is and how it works. Science addresses nature. Period. If there is a supernatural, science can't deal with it.

Rob wrote: "Darwinism teaches that survival of the fittest is our lot in life and that our most primitive urges are to dominate so that we won't be dominated."

No. It doesn't. That's the comic book version of evolution you learned in sunday school.

Happy Darwin Day

Peter Canuck — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 02:12:54 GMT

Do not despair, my friends. The United States is no different from any other country. Fifty percent of the population is at or below average in intelligence.

The other half understands and accepts evolution as the only rational explanation for our biological history. The best we can do is try to keep the dummies' hands off the controls. In the United States there is, at least, a legal basis in your constitution for doing so: the seperation of church and state. Many nations are not so fortunate. Witness the tragi-comedy unfolding in Kenya.

Happy Darwin Day

Christian — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 02:20:40 GMT

Regarding Jaycubed and PI: Please read

http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties/pi.htm:

...the wisdom of God is greater than the wisdom of man:

In this case the word for circumference="line", But in this verse "line" is written with an extra letter.

Since Hebrew has no digits, all letters are also numbers, we can take the ratio of (the gematriacal value of) the unusual word form to the regular word form. Given that the gematrial letter values are =100, =6, and =5 we find that:

5 + 6 + 100=111 6 + 100=106 111/106=1.0471698

False number for PI Ratio TOTAL
3 multiplied by 1.0471698 =3.14150943...

The real value: PI=3.1415926...

The difference between 3 x 111/106 and PI is 0.0000832 which is only an error of 0.00026%!

Happy Darwin Day

Brad Harris — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 02:41:32 GMT

Hooray! We have finally evolved to the point of celebrating the evolution of humanity.

Happy Darwin Day

Neil Moody, Olympia, WA — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 03:43:12 GMT

I preface this by saying that I am a scientist, an evolutionist and an atheist. Having said all that, I don't necessarily support the idea of gathering to celebrate the birth of a scientist any more than I celebrate the birth of a religious figure. I feel that Darwin's great legacy is in the tremendous steps we've made in discovering the mysteries of life's development, and in the work of thousands who have followed his research.

We err when we elevate any man to godhood, however minor; this is how religions start. Be rational, and celebrate by doing your part to advance science and push back the boundaries of ignorance and superstition.

Happy Darwin Day

Joe McVoy, Boulder, Colorado — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 04:55:14 GMT

How creationists can think the universe is only 6,000 years old is incredibly uneducated.

Yes, evolution is a theory, but to believe the universe is 6,000 years old you also have to believe the speed of light is millions of times faster than it really is. The speed of light is a measurable fact, not a theory!

I don't believe in God for one simple reason. I find it a lot easier to believe all life evolved from chemicals than I do to believe that an all powerful God has always existed.

Who or what created God? It may be difficult to create life from chemicals, but that's a lot easier to believe than creating an all powerful God.

Happy Darwin Day

T. J. — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 04:58:56 GMT

No, I will not celebrate Darwin's Day. I don't believe in the theory of evolution.

Happy Darwin Day

Jeff Bromley — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:02:54 GMT

I rest my case.

In every debate on Creation VS Evolution the evolution side invariably starts name calling. They call us stupid and unintelligent and so forth. You prove our point when you do that.

Just so it's clear.

Everyone has the same evidence and the same observational science. We interpret it from our presuppositions and Evolutionist interpret it from theirs. The science is neutral. The interpretation is a matter of faith.

Evolutionists have no special claim to science. Evolution is an interpretation of the facts. It is a faith, because no human was there to observe the beginning. My faith includes God and Evolutionist faith excludes God. Plain and simple.

Only one interpretation can be true.

I choose God's testimony, God was there, no one else was. I think God is trustworthy. Yes, that is my faith.

Happy Darwin Day

Jeff Bromley — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:11:46 GMT

Joe McVoy

Actually the existence of God is very logical. Read Norman Geislers Systematic Theology: Volume 2 on God and Creation. There has to be an Uncaused Cause of all there is we see the principle in Nature all around us, cause and effect. It has to originate somewhere. Everything originates with the Eternal One the Uncaused cause of everything.

It's really not that difficult. But it is still a matter of faith. What are you going to believe? It's your choice. Just ask God. Really, ask God. I'm serious. He is there.

Happy Darwin Day

E. Courville, Iowa, LA — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:42:29 GMT

Wow, I'm like totally amazed at just how much the "educated" community hate people of faith. I knew these times would have to come, but I had no idea that the days were so quickly approaching. I'm sure my life will soon be snuffed out for the "good of humanity." Even so come quickly LORD Jesus!

Happy Darwin Day

W. Davis, Sunnyvale, CA — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:58:19 GMT

About 20 years ago, creationists were preaching to you and I that the universe was around 4000 years old. Then about 10 years ago I was hearing from them that it was around 5000 years old. And now it's 6000 years old? Wow, according to the preaching from these creationists, the universe becomes 1000 years older about every 10 years! God must have some really fancy tricks up his sleeves to pull that one off! I suppose that is why all those dinosaur bones seem so old when they're actually not. But wait... Wouldn't this also mean that the universe was actually created only 60 years ago at the rate of 1000 years per each 10 years of change? I think God created Darwin to save us from ourselves, but being that Darwin was one of us, we were saved only to be doomed by our own ways in nature!

Happy Darwin Day

Sean — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:58:36 GMT

Sure, some points of TOE/natural selection are quite obvious. For example, a child born with a heart irregularity due to genetic mutation that dies at age two will certainly not pass this trait on to offspring. But there are several scientific facts that have already disproven the bulk of TOE. One example is 'irreducible complexity'. The primordial bird feather would have actually been a hindrance to an animals survival for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years.

I don't understand why Darwin's TOE is still recognized as standing theory since the scientific community has already disproven it themselves.

A better theory needs to be established. Maybe an organism's "need" to change may begin a chain of subtle mutations in the direction of the needed change.

This subject isn't about science vs. religion. It's about theory vs. theory.

Happy Darwin Day

matt, hamilton, ohio — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:50:29 GMT

too bad...

Happy Darwin Day

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:45:51 GMT

Christian, the argument you present seems extremely contrived. Why add the extra digit? Why not use it as a positional reference. I'm not asserting it's wrong, only that it seems contrived.

When one doesn't set up the rules to be used before-hand it's easy to come up with post-facto ones that will conform to new situations. We used to play a game called 4 4's. You try to make as many numbers as you can using exactly 4 fours.

Example:
0 = 44 - 44
1 = 44 / 44
2 = 4/4 + 4/4
3 = 4 - 4/4
4 = (4 + 4 + 4) / 4
5 = (4*4 + 4) / 4
and so on.

Either way this isn't evidence that God is wiser than man.

Happy Darwin Day

Michael, Chariton, IA — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:16:31 GMT

Joe from Boulder, CO said "I find it a lot easier to believe all life evolved from chemicals than I do to believe that an all powerful God has always existed." My friend, you have much more faith than I could ever muster.

Has anybody here ever heard of the scientific theory? I seem to recall that the steps were something like postulate, develop a theory, (based on present evidence) test the theory, and revise or discard the theory. How much scientific investigation has the evolutionary theory ever stood? Has anybody ever, ONCE, generated life from non-living matter, even in the perfect conditions of a laboratory? Yet Darwinists continue to "find it a lot easier to believe all life evolved from chemicals?!?!?!?!"

I present 4 things for your consideration. Darwinism, science, logic, and creationism, Where are the similarities and contradictions?

Happy Darwin Day

C.W. — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:29:28 GMT

I like the idea of Science Days. I think we need more days off from work. Maybe we can celebrate them all on Mondays because I hate Mondays.

To the people who stated Evolution is FACT and that people who don't believe it are ignorant, perhaps they should understand what the word "THEORY" means, 'Abstract thought, hypothesis, guess' just to name a few accepted definitions of the word. Using those definitions, both creationism and evolution are theories. If you believe in creationism, then you also have to believe in scientific fundamentals which are basically just our current understanding of how we relate to our physical surroundings. If you believe in evolution, then you have to base your hypothesis (guess) not on fact but the assumption that billions, if not trillions, of sequential events had to happen. Plus those events had to happen in a synergetic sequence. Science has shown that nothing in our known environment works that way. Everything around us is slowing down or decaying. It takes much more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in creationism. My hat is off to anyone who has that kind of faith.

Happy Darwin Day

Travis, Des Moines, IA — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:41:39 GMT

It makes sense... Evolution should be taught in churches because evolution is a belief system too. None of us were there in the beginning to observe evolution, as pure science requires, so it must be taken by faith. Churches can teach what they want, though believing in evolution does contradict Genesis 1. Bible based Christianity does not conflict with observable facts (i.e. science), but it does conflict with the theory of evolution. Neither theories of Creation or Evolution should be passed off as science... both should have their roots in churches.

Happy Darwin Day

Alan Sheets, Loveland CO — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:23:41 GMT

1) any good Christian will admit that God can do anything He chooses with his creation. If His chosen tool is "evolution", I'm not qualified to argue with Him.

2) Anything that can be demonstrated in a high school biology classroom can't really be called a "theory". Therefore, the Darwin Hypothesis (as Darwin's writings really ought to be called) is a demonstrable fact in limited circumstances; the only thing theoretical about it is whether or not it completely applies to humans and upper-class mammals.

Happy Darwin Day

Christy — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:25:12 GMT

Language is the element of our demise.

Happy Darwin Day

Scott — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:04:19 GMT

C.W.:

You need to learn the scientific definition of the word “theory”. It is not a synonym for “hypothesis” or “guess”. A scientific theory is an hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested and verified by experimentation, such as the theory of gravity. Evolution or natural selection has been shown to be true in the work of thousands of scientists doing work in completely different fields. The overwhelming evidence for natural selection removes all need for faith. You simply have to open your eyes and be willing to accept facts.

Happy Darwin Day

Rozenfeld, Timur — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:16:08 GMT

A theory is not a guess, it is a whole process based on a hypothesis, experimentation and evidence. There is no evidence for creationism whatsoever. It is not a theory. It is completely arbitrary. I could just as well believe in the creation of the world from Lord of the Rings.

Happy Darwin Day

T. Brown — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:21:27 GMT

When it comes time, when we discover a way to live forever, what would be the purpose of religion? Or of science? Give a baby a ball and he'll play with it. Teach the baby how to play with the ball and he'll never know the difference.

Happy Darwin Day

Michael, Simi, Ca. — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:55:55 GMT

Ah,,lets see. There was an "Adam" and "Eve" in a "garden" and it was all so perfect and beautiful. We find animal fossils, and cave-man type remains, that have shown a progression to todays humans and animals. Took a long time. Cant make that stuff up in a week.

Happy Darwin Day

Travis, IA — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 22:05:15 GMT

Alan,

You are mostly correct here. God could have used macro-evolution if He wanted to do so, but Genesis 1 (as well as other passages of the Bible) says that He created the world, and everything in it, out of nothing. He did not use evolution unless He is a liar.

As I understand it, micro-evolution is observable today but that is a far cry from one species evolving into another (the macro-evolution that most people think of). There are many different breeds of dogs, and God probably only created one breed, but they are all still dogs and you can't observing any spouting wings, etc. Therefore, my point still stands - both Creation and Evolution require faith.

Happy Darwin Day

Kim Scott, Bloomington, CA — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 22:29:39 GMT

It amazes me how the Evolution vs. Creation argument is still raging. No wonder so much of the developed world sees us as idiots. Yes I said developed world because these are the countries that have moved past the days of agrarianism and mythology to tap the well of science.

Look around. Gravity, supernovas, the vaporization point of water, and the extent of time and space. What we know of these things has allowed us to move beyond feudalism and into a world that we can significantly alter in a matter of years (building a skyscraper) or a matter of seconds (an atomic blast).

Science is based on observable and repeatable measurements. Religious texts have been told as verbal stories then transcribed, translated, revised and edited by man over thousands of years. How can you say that they are still “the word of God” when man has rewritten these texts so many times? Yes they are wonderful guides to life and they can be a place for inspiration, but this is all. They should not be taken as literal fact. Just play “Telephone” and you’ll see what I mean.

For all of the people out there who don’t understand what scientists mean when they say the word “Theory” – It all begins with observable and repeatable measurements, or Facts. These facts merge into a Hypothesis, an idea. As more and more facts and ideas merge they become a Law (Newtonian physics is built around laws). Laws allow us to predict things like the amount of force transmitted through a baseball traveling at 30 miles an hour and caught in a catcher’s mitt. But Theories allow us to explain why things happen in the natural world the way they do. And yes, scientists get things wrong, we’re human. But as time goes by, new evidence allows us to modify our hypotheses, laws, and theories to better explain the universe we live in.

What most of the religious right fails to see is that science is not something to believe or disbelieve in (that’s what religion is for), but science is based on observable and repeatable measurements = facts.

My take home message is that if you don’t “believe” that evolution is real, then you can’t “believe” anything in the world around you, from skyscrapers, to bumblebees, to supermarket scanners, to mountains and atomic bombs. The rules of the natural world make all of these possible and science studies these rules. Get over yourselves and your book!

Oh, and global warming is real too! [...]

Happy Darwin Day

Alan Boyle — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 22:46:27 GMT

Folks, I'm starting to see a few messages where people are trying to take apart other people's messages line by line. In this case, I'm not sure that's going to be helpful. I think most people who are posting here are probably aware that a "theory" - as in Darwin's theory of evolution, Newton's theory of gravitation or Einstein's theories of relativity (special and general) - connotes more than just a guess about how something might work.

Also, the idea that evolution says "one species changes into another" really isn't correct. Rather, the view is that one species can give rise to multiple species over time. Of course, one of the problems is that we're trying to categorize "species" as particular types of pigeonholes. I suppose a better way of saying it would be that populations of organisms, over many generations, can give rise (under the right conditions) to separate populations of organisms that can no longer interbreed.

The way I see it, the power of a scientific claim lies in its ability to explain a variety of phenomena and help us anticipate new ones. For example, claims about evolutionary development are strengthened by evidence from mitochondrial DNA ... as well as fossil findings as fresh as today's study about the tool-using ancestors of modern-day chimps. (We're still working up that story and it should be available via http://science.msnbc.com in just a bit).

Anyway ... what I meant to say before I got off on a tangent is that some messages that go into a detailed critique of other messages may not be approved (see the "Please Read" section).

Happy Darwin Day

jaycubed (J.J.Jackson), Santa Rosa, CA — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 03:42:09 GMT

"In this case the word for circumference="line", But in this verse "line" is written with an extra letter.

Since Hebrew has no digits, all letters are also numbers, we can take the ratio of (the gematriacal value of) the unusual word form to the regular word form. "
"christian"

Had to look in the OED for "gematriacal" as it doesn't appear in Webster's, M-W or Cambridge dictionaries. There it is listed as "gematria", "a cabalistic method of interpreting Hebrew Scriptures by interchanging words whose letters have the same numerical value when added." As Hebrew has no written vowels, a person can change the spelling of the word to create their own "hidden meaning" for the word. Apparently Eliyahu ben Shlomo Zalman, an 18th century Lithuanian Rabbi, came up with this tortured interpretation. As cabbalistic interpretations are flexible rather than certain, other interpretations of the meaning of this passage are equally possible.

But none of this matters to those who claim that the bible, particularly the King James Version, is the direct, infallable & inerrant word of god. This includes most of those who call themselves "Evangelical Christians" in the U.S. and other English speaking countries. For them, the simple & clear meaning of the bible is that pi must be 3. Attempts have been made to legislate that the value of pi is 3 by State legislatures in the U.S. due to the inerrant message of the bible.

Happy Darwin Day

Eli Laughing Horse, Jonesborough Tn. — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:42:56 GMT

I believe this is par for the course, since evolution is nothing more than another religion, and Charles Darwin is their god!

Happy Darwin Day

Phil, B, NY — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:31:08 GMT

Why is God a He? Why could it not be a She? Anthropomorpism is the key idea here.

Here are my reasons for asking this question.

1) Human embryos are defaulty FEMALE. It starts of neutral, but the X chromosome is to play here. Both human sexes have the X chromosome in common. Females: XX and males: XY. Males have something of the females, NOT the other way round.

2) The X chromosome is larger than the Y. It has far more genetic material also.

3) Females give birth. Females can conceive WITHOUT a male, but this results in asexual conception: the more primitive form of conception - it is quicker, and this takes less energy. Logic suggests that females came first, since males do not have the ability to conceive with each other.

4) Males tend to be far more violent and agressive.

5) If God could create Adam in less than a nano-second, why does God "choose" to create Eve by using Adam's rib? The fact that God is all-knowing and all-powerful is only suggestive that God had no choice BUT to create Adam and Eve. God has no free will. Remember, at the point of creation (Adam and Eve), God knew about Jesus, who was sent from God to save everyone from Sin. Why bother creating Adam and Eve (who sinned), when Jesus was planned already?

Is it possible that God did not see this coming? This whole JudeoChristian Islamic doctrine is simply illogical and full of holes and inconsistencies.

Intelligent Design for example is ridiculous! The whole idea that everything is so complicated that it could only imply a creator is nonsense! The designer is not only UNINTELLIGENT, but inefficient. Of course things would be "perfect" or complicated. A structure that does not hold will be discarded. Our human bodies are inefficient. We suffer from many crippling illnesses, diseases and so forth. Why bother creating the other planets? Why bother creating wasps? Surely, wasps have no "function". Perhaps we attribute these "evils" to Satan.

Then God is simply out of his depth. Was it not God who created light, darkness, good and evil?

Evolution may not explain everything, but it is based on reason and logic. The evidence is there. Faith/religion is dangerous. Being God must be boring and fun, if God can do what he likes.

After all, God is the Father, NOT the mother.

Happy Darwin Day

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:49:07 GMT

Evolution does explain a LOT of different phenomena.

The evolution deniers are not aware of the diversity of the evidence for evolution - either the scope, nor the depth of it.

Problem:
People who know almost nothing of consequence about either science or evolution make assertions about its impossibility. They are not generally ignorant people. In fact, they are often intelligent about many things. But nearly every sentence they produce demonstrates a profound and utter lack of understanding on the subject of evolution.

These people are guided by their comic-book understanding of science and evolution to conclusions that are laughably nonsensical. This is not name-calling. It's not name-calling to state a fact.

Evolution doesn't just "explain the fossil record." It explains the distribution of the fossil record - why fossil animals found in Australia, for example, are closer to the living animals found in the same place than they are to the living animals found elsewhere. It explains the distribution of living animals we find today. Read chapter 11 of the Origin of Species - carefully, and not like a 10 year old reads his history assignment so he can get on to playing video games.

Evolution deniers - despite all their claims to the contrary - don't know what they're talking about. That fact is abundantly obvious to anyone who has done an honest day's research on the subject.

Happy Darwin Day

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:04:37 GMT

What I want to see is:
Charles Robert Darwin High School
or
Alfred Russel Wallace Elementary.

We shouldn't worship Charles Darwin, but we should reverence him and his Great Accomplishment. The vast majority of actual scientists agree that Natural Selection is on a solid scientific footing. It is brilliant science and it is supported by the vast preponderance of evidence.

Evolution deniers bleat about the lack of evidence for evolution because they can't find any in the pamphlets their preachers gave them or the websites their preachers directed them to and so they erroneously conclude there is no evidence for evolution.

The Theory of Evolution is among the greatest accomplishments of the human intellect. We should reverence the actual accomplishments of actual people in proportion to their contribution to our collective understanding.

Happy Darwin Day

anti-bigots — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:07:32 GMT

Darwin based his findings on accurate and tangible informations, Creationism is as religion in itself ( a great story based on nothing but hearsay and a whole lot of non event ? funny how religion need no proof to exist, but in turn demand irrefutable arguments from Darwin supporters !!!!!!!! .

Happy Darwin Day

Stan reseda ca — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:56:06 GMT

Ask yourself one thing in this debate, what is the level of education of people on each side. End of debate

Happy Darwin Day

cj - south carolina — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:58:35 GMT

all of this discussion is really interesting....lots to think about, to try and digest - once you think you have a personal philosophy, someone else brings something up that makes you go "hmmm"....but did anyone else catch the mistake posted by TheFallibleFiend in Lorton, VA about the 4 4s game???? (4 + 4 + 4) / 4 doesn't equal 4......the point i'm trying to make is everyone can make mistakes or errors but only you can decide what you personally believe........i believe in God, always have - but i also believe in evolution because without it, life is static and unchanging....peace....

Happy Darwin Day

Randy Temecula CA — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:59:44 GMT

OH MY GOD Well I am a creationist but I have thought a lot about this subject over time. In the classroom I think both view points should be taught. I attended christian and public school while growing up. The thought is how can anyone compare and come to a conclusion for themselves without unbiased teaching of the facts for both. The task is simple but the bend from both sides makes the goal unobtainable. I am not the most educated person in the world but I have always had a huge interest in the sciences. After my education and life experiences have transpired I have made MY conclusion that there is only intelligent design. I have that right and so do the people on the other side of the fence. I believe Darwin conducted his study and theory based on what he believed. The Bible was written and passed on based on what the authors of the Bible believed. We should teach both. This country was founded by people of faith and based everything on Biblical priciples. Over time Darwin came along and presented his view of evolution which a large portion of this country embraced. Teach science in the science classroom and add a religion class to let the individual decide. On this thought, I think it would only be fair for the student to have a religion class that taught all forms of rligious beliefs over the last two years of high school when thier minds are at a developmental stage to look objectivly at all. Wow what a pipe dream that is. Could you imagine public schools giving the student an unbiased view on anything???? Well we can all dream too.

Happy Darwin Day

Bob Swan, San Jose CA — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:00:30 GMT

Hello Jeff Bromley:

You are a human being, and therefore entitled to your opinion about the world. However, you are not entitled to make simultaneous statements like "I have found no reason to reject science" AND "I am a creationist". This is a logical contradiction. Science (which, God help us, could turn out to be a pack of lies) requires building larger concepts out of smaller ones, which are supported by objective evidence (your opinion or belief, or mine, are not evidence). Scientific investigation has produced overwhelmingly strong support for evolutionary theory (in general -- there are still lots of arguments about the details) as well as for the notion that the world is a couple of billion years old, and the universe is in the range of 15 billion. These conclusions are based on a wide range of phenomena that we can actually observe.

You can, of course, remain a creationist. You can believe the world was formed from Silly Putty if you want. But you cannot believe such things and also say you do not reject science. By believing them, you are rejecting science.

Eventually, as many of your co-believers never tire of pointing out, we will die and find out who was right. Or, if science was right, we may not find out anything. If God created us, he created us with intelligence and a desire to understand how things work. Interpreting the clues He may have left leads to the conclusion that He doesn't exist, or at most has a very tenuous contact with his creation. If the clues were left to suck unusually intelligent and diligent humans into fatal error, then God does not seem to be a very nice guy.

In any event, if you are a creationist, stop saying you have no problem with science. If you really mean that, it just means you have no concept of what science is.

Happy Darwin Day

Patricia Lee — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:02:28 GMT

At the Razor’s Edge

By Patricia Lee

I’ve always been fascinated with the nexus between the intuitive and the rational aspects of the human mind. When it comes to great breakthroughs and when reading biographies of great people and their breakthroughs, it seems to me that very often there is a serendipity working between the two hemispheres of the brain that flows into each other.

There was in Medieval times a Franciscan friar by the name of William of Ockam. He was born in a village in the English countryside of Surrey and the principle he promulgated was known as “Ockam’s Razor.” A razor is used to cut or shave away excess; thus, Ockam’s succinct statement of a scientific principle states that when you have two competing theories, which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler, is the better.

Intuitive insight, or, in theological terms what is known as an “epiphany” or an “Aha!” comes in the simpler form, whereas, the rational goes through a deductive series of experimental data.

In “A Brief History of Time,” Stephen Hawking wrote: “We could still imagine there is a set of laws that determines events completely from some supernatural being, who could observe the present state of the universe without disturbing it. However, such models of the universe are not of much interest to us mortals. It seems better to employ the principle known as “Ockam’s Razor” and cut out all the features of the theory that cannot be observed.”

Then, one asks, from whence does the “intuitive” come? What is this “simple flash” that occurs in what can be called a moment of insight?

Several things have brought me to think this wintry day about “Ockam’s Razor.” One, watching Spencer Tracy playing the part of Clarence Darrow in the Scope’s Monkey Trial titled “Inherit the Wind.” Tracy is cross-examining Frederic March, who plays the part of the fundamentalist bible-thumping politician William Jennings Bryant.

“Well, now," asks Tracy, “ in all of these begats in Genesis, does the Good Book tell us where Mrs. Cain came from?” The question remains relevant to this very day, as my morning paper will attest. The battle goes on between the creationists and the evolutionists.

Also, this winter I’ve been reading the “essential Darwin” and I am very surprised with his prolific journal writing. While there was no “eureka” aboard The Beagle or on the plains of South America, and only after constant observing and reading did Darwin deeply reflect more seriously on the “origin”, yet, he had, himself, that serendipitous moment along with Einstein and so many others who had seminal breakthroughs.

William James described it as “The process of discovery in a series of random flashes visiting the investigator’s mind; all the flashes being on an exact equality in respect of their origin.”

There were two both exhilarating and disturbing articles in today’s Boston Globe. One was reading about the opening in February at the Boston Science Museum of an exhibit on Darwin’s life and works. And, an I-Max documentary on the Galapagos Archipelagos. The second is a story out of Washington State in which a local school board has succumbed to the creationists’ mentalities. The juxtaposition of these two articles left me thinking and writing today.

Having just completed a geology class at Salem State College, my fiancé and I are very excited about rocks. We’ve even bought the hammer and tools to go rock combing when we travel. It is a very interesting new hobby. So I was most curious when reading about Darwin’s discovery of geology. Before his voyage aboard The Beagle, he had no knowledge or interest in geology. But on the voyage in 1836 he plunged into the work of Sir Charles Lyell. Darwin wrote in his journal:

“On first examining a new “district” (as he called it) nothing can appear more hopeless than the chore of rocks; but, by recording the stratification and nature of rocks and fossils at many points, light soon began to dawn, and the structure of the whole “district” becomes more or less intelligible.”

While at Cambridge University, Darwin majored in Theology with the goal of becoming a clergyman. Interesting to contemplate this because the revolution he unleashed with his evolution of the species theories has, over and over again, pitted scientific and religious thoughts and beliefs. Darwin was comfortable as a lifelong agnostic even though his family were Anglicans and Unitarians. As a journal-writer he found that over time it saved him time to scribble “in a vile hand,” whole pages “as quickly as I possibly can, contracting half the words, and then correct deliberately sentences thus scribbled down are often better ones than I could have written deliberately.”

This I can relate to, as well, because I write pages and pages in my daily journal until something begins to form into another essay. It is said that Ernest Hemingway would doodle on a fresh paper until the muse came to him. Einstein played the violin. This is where I think the “joining” of mind and spirit work together serendipitously. It is after this “scribbling” that the “cutting” and “pasting” comes. So it is that this “razor’s edge” often is the writer’s tool in “cutting away” and often with an intuitive flash comes into a “simpler form.”

Charles Darwin was a model Victorian man and grew into becoming a naturalist. It was a fortuitous invitation he received when asked to join Captain Fitz Roy’s expedition to South America. Darwin said, “It turned out to be the most important event in my life.”

It is also true; it seems to me, that the artists then come along to make sense out of breakthroughs. In Darwin’s time it was Alfred Lord Tennyson.

In Memoriam, Tennyson interpreted the polarities of faith and doubt.

“There lives more faith in honest doubt
Believe me, than in half the creeds.”

Aldous Huxley said that Tennyson was the “first poet since Lucretria who has understood the drift of science. He seemed to write out of that evolutionary process itself, part of the development by which man arose out of the seeming-random forms, the seeming prey of cyclic storms.”

But when I picked up this morning’s paper and read that a middle-school teacher in Washington State had introduced Al Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” (about the real issues of global warming) and was denied showing the film because one parent agreed that while the planet is warming, it is being caused by God, not man, and it is a sign that Judgment Day is approaching, I was non-plussed. Not at the man’s belief, but at the school board succumbing to such nonsense. They knuckled under and the teacher was told she must get permission before presenting “controversial material” to her class. It is said that they need something to counter-balance these findings. What, I wonder? Teach the children about Noah’s Flood? It is preposterous in this day and age, and yet the whole debate continues between faith and doubt – science and religion.

There is no telling where my few scribbled words will lead me early every morning. But as I sit by my window and look at the cairn on my windowsill – made of natural stones stacked one on top of another (from the tradition of the ancient Scots of the highlands, amongst others), the echoes of these simple groupings of rocks teach me once again about “spirit” working with “mind” and in this quietness of the day I see in the directional markers a way of telling this story and the insight that hopefully comes to each of us as we continue to “explore” and bring our intuitive creativity into a framework of joining with our “knowing.” The echoes of history and of new breakthroughs are always present if we but choose to “listen” and “discern” what is awaiting us at “the razor’s edge.”

+++++++++

Patricia Lee is an essayist
who lives in the seaport town
built of granite on Marblehead rocks
in Massachusetts.

January 30, 2007

Happy Darwin Day

Dan, Echo Park, CA — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:23:32 GMT

FallibleFiend is right, there's too much misunderstanding of biology. X-Men is not a good model for understanding evolution, I cringed alot during the scientific explanations in that movie.

But, here goes...

There exists genetic variation in every population.

Individuals with variations that confer a reproductive advantage will have more babies. Over time, if selective conditions remain constant, the population will have more of those variations in it.

This occurs on the level of the genes. Thus, it is not always a horrible "war," as one person posted. Individuals don't have to die for the population to change over time (although that can happen in some cases).

Example- excuse my weird analogy- Let's say that there's a "hockey gene." You don't have it, so you're not very good at hockey. In your town, hockey players have alot of babies. You are good at math, so you still have some babies because people who have the "math gene" still have medium sized families. Your great-grandson might marry a woman who is really good at hockey and their kid will be pretty good too. But that kid might also have some great genes that came directly from you, including the math gene, making him good at hockey and math. So evolution isn't all that painful.

In response to another claim that bacteria "adapt" to treatments, but are "still the same old bacteria..."

In this case, during treatment, all bacteria are killed except those few that are drug-resistant, a state which was acquired by random mutations in the genes. These resistant bacteria multiply, so whatever comes back after drug-treatment is a genetically different (you've heard of strains, they refer to genetic differences). It is not the "same old bacteria." You can see this when you try to use the same drugs on it. They don't work! You have to use different ones. So don't stop taking antibiotics midway through treatment.

Evolution is not like getting used to hot water in a hot tub or something. "Getting used" to something in biology is called something else.

Understanding evolution isn't that bad. To the religious folk out there- atheists are pretty arrogant, don't let em get you down. None of us really know all that much, I think that's pretty important to keep in mind.

Happy Darwin Day

Hedrick Edwards, Loma Linda, California — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 06:07:46 GMT

When the terms science and evolution are constantly used in such a way that they are viewed as one and the same thing, a monumental disservice is done. Science and evolution are not synonymous. Science is essentially a rational method by which the sense-perceived natural world is observed and analyzed, enabling us to come to conclusions that make sense and are verifiable through repetition.

Can the same be said of the Darwinian postulate about the origin of species? The most that could ever be said of it is that it may be true. No one was there when it all started and it does not appear that the process is repeatable. To make that view of origins absolute, as many finite persons seem bent on foicing upon rational minds, and to put it on the same level as scientific discoveries processes that make verifiable and repeatable discoveries through observations and experimentations (producing the same tangible results) is really to confuse the unsuspecting as to what authentic science is and what it is not.

It is ok to espouse evolution, even to advocate it with gusto, if one happens to believe in its absolute claims; but it is not ok to demand that all of us must swallow its claim to absoluteness - lock, stock, and barrel - and now to even merge it with religion in order to be authentic scientist. I can only reject that kind of irrational narcissism as a distortion of the scientific enterprise.

Happy Darwin Day

Shawn, Pittsburgh, PA — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:23:57 GMT

I am amazed to see how many people who are biased on this subject and use the term 'science method' as a crutch to claim that they are not. In recent years it is becoming evident that our scientific discoveries point towards an irreducible complexity of life. Just because one is not claiming that God is our creator does not mean that they are not promoting their own 'WORLD VIEW'...NOT SCIENCE. The fact that irreducible complexity points towards a creator is why many have held Darwinism so near and dear to their heart despite the mounting scientific evidence that does not support evolution.

Science should be about the pursuit of "truth"...period. When Francis Crick (the codiscoverer of DNA) came to the realization that there is an irreducible complexity of life he came to the conclusion that the information contained in our DNA must have came her from another planet because it could not have came about by gradual evolution. Now that's an amazing amount of faith. However, the question still remains of where did that alien information come from? There has to be a beginning. To believe that something came out of nothing requires a great amount of faith. My hat goes off anyone who can still hold onto this belief despite the mounting scientific evidence to the contrary.

I do not support Evolution Sunday becuase there is a WORLD VIEW that is being promoted by its founders. It is somewhat hidden and it is subtle...but there is an agenda. However, I do believe that science will ultimately affirm the truth that God has written on every man's heart.

Happy Darwin Day

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:58:26 GMT

Once again. We don't have to SEE something in science to be very sure that it exists. Not one person has EVER seen an electron, but nowhere are students taught that scientists are in the least skeptical of their existence.

What we have here is a bunch of people who actually understand science who are saying, "Evolution is good and important science." And we have a bunch of people who maybe got A's in 7th grade life science, but have no higher understanding than that who are making assertions about science and the unlikelihood of evolution, BELIEVING that they are right on track, but in fact just being silly.

I don't get it. Why is it so hard for people to understand that you have to understand something before you can cogently criticize it? The problem is that the creationist and ID literature has presented a comic book version of science that has deluded people into believing a subject of which they are almost entirely ignorant.

Happy Darwin Day

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:01:36 GMT

Irreducible Complexity may be talked about a lot among IDers and other creationists, but actual scientists don't think much of these ideas. There's a very good reason for this, but in order to find that out one would have to read what actual scientists are writing, and not just get it filtered through political and religious blogs masquerading as science.

Happy Darwin Day

Alan Boyle — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:15:04 GMT

Irreducible complexity is an instance of saying, "We can't currently understand how this works, therefore a higher power must have created it." The problem with the argument has to do with the "therefore." It assumes, on one hand, that the current scientific theories are complete; and on the other hand, that there are lengths to which those theories can't possibly reach in the future.

I don't know why folks make such a big deal over the concept of irreducible complexity (or another strange offshoot of ID-think, claiming that new information cannot be created). To me, there's an analogy to, say, the Ptolemaic concept of epicycles ... with scientists assuming that there had to be more and more complex cycles to explain the apparent movement of the planets in the night sky. Of course, once Copernican theory took hold (and Keplerian, and Newtonian, and Einsteinian...), the seemingly irreducibly complex movements of the planets came to be seen simply as objects following the shortest paths in space-time. Seeming irreducibility arises simply because our understanding of a phenomenon is not yet sufficiently complete.

The argument over irreducible complexity is explored in depth here:

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

For years I've been saying that Talk Origins and Talk Design are great resources for folks who really want to separate the wheat from the chaff (Matthew 3:12). If you ever need a reality check on some claim (for example, how evolutionary theory violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics), doing a search on Talk Origins / Talk Design will usually come up with the detailed analysis.

Happy Darwin Day

Jaycubed, Santa Rosa, CA — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:53:03 GMT

More re. pi.

"Christian states, "...the wisdom of God is greater than the wisdom of man" and claims through convoluted cabbalistic interpretations provided by an 18th century Rabbi that pi is "3 x 111/106 " which "=3.14150943".

In the 6th century in China, Zu Chongzi calculted pi to "between 3.1415926 and 3.1415927" with 355/113 (3.151593) as an approximation.

The wisdom of this man, using sticks, was still "greater than" "the wisdom of God", even if one were to accept your tortured claims.

And he came up with it 12 centuries earlier.

Zu was quite a scientist & mathematician. His record includes:

Calcuating one year as 365.24281481 days, which is very close to 365.24219878 days as we know today.

Calculating the number of overlaps between sun and moon as 27.21223, which is very close to 27.21222 as we know today, and using this number he successfully predicted 4 times of Eclipse during 23 years (from 436AD - 459AD).

Calculating the Jupiter year as about 11.858 earth year, which is very close to 11.862 as we know today.

Finding the volume of a sphere as being 4πr³/3, where r is radius

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

Happy Darwin Day

Wayne — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:38:45 GMT

Certain inputters here have once again grouped themselves in with intelligent people (lol) and grouped all creationists together as stupid. Their problem is that they don't really exist at all. Creationist have to ultimately put their belief in someone besides themselves which shows they have a soul, while atheists only believe in themselves. That's where the probelm lies. There truly is no "I" in the illusional existence of people who deny they have no soul. For if they have no soul, then the entity they describe as "I" is only a loop of electronically stored memories they cannot escape from, therefore they cannot truly reason. That's why they say the same thing over and over again until it becomes noxious. If you have to repeat yourself over and over to convince yourself that you have a viewpoint anyone would actually be interested in hearing, then I have to say it's not worth repeating.

Happy Darwin Day

Jaycubed, Santa Rosa, CA — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:12:12 GMT

re. Wayne

I do not consider creationists to be stupid so much as willfully ignorant. Their tortured reasoning can be quite clever.

Putting "Belief" in "someone besides" oneself has no relationship to whether the "Fairy" named "Soul" exists or not, nor whether one person has one & another does not. That is called magical thinking, the belief that one's thoughts create effect in the real world without causal action.

Atheists believe in much more than themselves; we believe in the existence of a vast, beautiful & evolving universe. What we do not believe is that it is inhabited or ruled by magical creatures. Nor do we arrogantly believe that the "purpose" of this universe is to personally benefit us.

However, the tortured reasoning in your post is not particularly clever, unlike that of some of your fellow creationists.

If I follow your logic, I "don't really exist at all". Therefore I must be a figment of your imagination that you cannot escape from. The "say(ing) the same thing over and over again until it becomes noxious" and "repeat(ing) yourself over and over to convince yourself that you have a viewpoint anyone would actually be interested in hearing" can only be a description of your mental process; as you exist, because you have a soul, and I do not, because I deny the existence of your "Fairies".

And that is really where your problems lay.

Happy Darwin Day

Wayne — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:14:00 GMT

My earlier log was a little harsh. Of course atheists have souls too.

But back to evolution. I will never believe I'm an accident. Evolution not only violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, it also breaks down at the point where homo sapiens became 'conscious'. Genes mutating is one thing, but evolving a conscious just doesn't fit the mold. Did all the sudden some distant relative of ours say, "Hey I think, therefore I am"? "Oh, and now I can pass this 'consciousness' thing on to my kids." Have you ever seen the miracle of a child being born? Of them developing both physically and mentally? Is that something that could have possibly come from evolution?

I'm not saying I have the answers. We all have to find our way in this life. I value and respect each person I come in contact with, even if I don't agree with their views or their tactics. Darwin was a man who did the best he could to understand his existence and to explain it to others. I don't have to like or agree with what he said, but I respect him as a man trying to find his way.

Happy Darwin Day

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 23:10:20 GMT

It's always the same thing:

Evolution deniers claiming they have "done their homework" and "have studied the subject enough" and "know what they're talking about" who then go on to make statements so absurd that anyone who understands the subject would immediately recognize they don't have the faintest idea what they're talking about.

Happy Darwin Day

Jaycubed, Santa Rosa, CA — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 23:57:04 GMT

re. Wayne, again

You are speaking your articles of "Faith" instead of observing reality. Your statement, "I will never believe I'm an accident" is a direct statement of Faith, regardless of evidence to the contrary.

As I do not believe in "Fairies", I do not believe in "Souls", the Fairies of eternal human existence.

Souls would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Where people often get mixed up is the idea that energy cannot be destroyed. While this is essentially correct, patterns of energy are destroyed quite easily. Consciousness is not a form of energy, it is patterns of energy within a pattern of matter. These patterns quickly degrade when the organism ceases to function. Death ceases consciousness. The wonderfully complex patterns that form consciousness become another form of energy, it dissipates as heat. There is no change in the total amount of energy, hence energy is conserved. A soul would require a magical source of external energy for it to function after the death of the organism, violating the conservation of energy.

Evolution does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Evolving living organisms take energy from outside of themselves and convert some of that energy into more ordered forms of matter & energy. They are not closed systems. This is an elementary error in the thinking of those who claim evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. A simpler example is the growth of crystals; whereby a random assemblage of atoms grow into an ordered form due to the input of external energy in the form of heat & pressure or chemical reaction. Your interpetation is that a crystal would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics since it is more ordered than it was previously.

Your ideas about consciousness are also very limited. You appear to believe that "all the sudden" consciousness just appears, and that consciousness is only a property of humans. Both of these ideas are unsupported by evidence.

I would instead contend that consciousness has been evolving in a large variety of complex animals for hundreds of millions of years; and that most vertebrates as well as some molluscs (& possibly some arthopods) possess consciousness. It has evolved in different forms, some forms more complex than other forms.

Arrogant monkeys believe that the universe was created for themselves and call that idea "Humility".

Thinking humans look at the universe and wonder: What is "IT"? How does it work? Does it have rules? Can those rules be understood? Is there a process for applying what has been learned to what is not understood?

This process which has been developed is called science. It is a religion, but not as most so-called religious people understand the term. What most people call "Religion" is the "Belief" or "Faith" in a body of dogma whose source is allegedly a "Fairy" or "God".

The word religion comes from the Latin: _ re_{prefix-backwards} _ lig_{verb-to bind} _ ion_ {suffix-making previous verb a noun}. Related to _lig_ are the root words _lex_{law, legal } and _legio_{levy}.

Simply, religion is what connects us to existence, past & present, and to our peers; to all that is and has been. (And through the minor influence of our actions, to what will be.) Science fulfills all those requirements for being a religion. And it is actually based on what IS rather than "What Should Be" like Fairy based "Religions".

As for your questions:

"Have you ever seen the miracle of a child being born?"

What miracle? A severely physically & mentally handicapped man can impregnate a women in a "persistent vegetative state" (ie. brain dead) and a baby can be born from that act. Birds do it, bees do it, worms do it; where's the "Miracle".

"Of them developing both physically and mentally? Is that something that could have possibly come from evolution?"

Yes. Quite easily.

Happy Darwin Day

jeff bromley — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 06:15:56 GMT

"... you are not entitled to make simultaneous statements like "I have found no reason to reject science" AND "I am a creationist". This is a logical contradiction."

Yes I can make this statement because I do understand science. It is testing and observing, which is a simplistic definition but accurate. What you describe is interpretation based on assumptions

The point you make "Science requires building larger concepts out of smaller ones, which are supported by objective evidence" is what is called interpretation. When you build a theory based on the science (the observable testable facts) that theory is an interpretation which is subject to the presuppositions of the scientist. The observable facts or science are neutral by nature.

Do you understand, do you agree?

So I can make that statement without a logical contradiction because I am looking at the same set of facts (or science) and intepreting it from my presuppositions.

Why cant you see this? If youre honest you should be able to understand my point.

Maybe I am not communicating it well, i see this over and over again. A basic inability of evolutionists to realize that they are interpreting the data (science) with a set of presuppositions. This is what a faith is. In evolution or creationism you have to interpret the data (science) from faith there is no way around that fact. No one was there to observe the phenom we call creation or evolution. All you have to look at are the effects (what you can observe) Then you make conclusions based on you presupposition. If your presuppositions exclude God you will see what you believe is evidence for evolution. If they include God you will see the hand of the creator.

But which interpretation fits the evidence. Creation! Evolution doesnt have the data on its side. Evolution proponents will not allow any other theory to be considered. Therefore evolution is a dogma, not a science.

One thing you dont understand is that most of us creationist grew up believing evolution until we opened our minds to God. You have not yet done that are not capable of considering God.

Happy Darwin Day

Shawn, Pittsburgh Pa — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 03:09:39 GMT

If evolutionist are so confident of the theory of evolution why even promote an evolution worldview through Evolution Sunday? Obviously this is not bridging the gap of religion and science (at least evolution science). While most who believe in creation have found a real hope in science affirming to the world the truths that God written on every man's heart, the majority of the pro-evolution posts are simply putting down anyone who believes in creation, intelligent design, or irreducible complexity as being somehow less educated.

Why would an evolutionist even have a campaign to seek affirmation from those whose opinion seems to have little value in many evolutionist eyes?

Even Francis Crick came to the realization that "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have to have been satisfied to get it going." (Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature)

As someone already pointed out...at one time the scientific community believed that the world was flat...the telescope changed all of that. Why is it so hard to have an open mind that perhaps we don't know as much as we think we do and discovering the truth might require the courage to be willing to gaze upon the face of God?

Happy Darwin Day

DesEmery,TheCarborundumChronicles,St.Thomas,ON,Canada — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 04:20:47 GMT

The biggest difference I see between Evolutionists and Creationists is that the first are cold, calculating scientists influenced only by factual evidence, while the second set are warm and fuzzy poets, influenced by internal, inexpressible yearnings which seize upon ideas that approximate what is seen by them as truth. A good education would benefit both.

Happy Darwin Day

Jaycubed, Santa Rosa, CA — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 06:26:30 GMT

"One thing you dont understand is that most of us creationist grew up believing evolution until we opened our minds to God. You have not yet done that are not capable of considering God."
jeff bromley

One thing you don't understand is that most of us who understand & accept evolution grew up believing in god until we opened our minds and actually started looking at the evidence.

Most of us grew up believing in Santa Claus too.

Santa Claus makes more sense than god does; yet when you grow up you stop believing in him.

And as for your contention that most creationists grow up believing in evolution, I find that statement to be preposterous.

Most children in this society are indoctrinated to believe in the concept of creation years before they enter formal education where they (hopefully) learn about the scientific method and evolution. This education is constantly challenged by churches, parents, other role models, and (even) teachers.

I can personally recall High School biology teachers who belittled students who admitted belief in evolution (35 years ago) and have heard similiar reports from the young people in my life since then.

Happy Darwin Day

TheFallibleFiend@hotmail.com — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:55:35 GMT

There is no need to "bridge the gap" between science and religion. They are different things. They concern different realms and they have different goals. They don't need to be reconciled any more than mountain climbing and carpentry need to be reconciled.

Also, evolutionists and creationists are not "looking at the same facts." Creationists are simply not looking at all the facts. They have access to facts, but they don't do a sufficient amount of homework to actually go out and look them up.

Science is about testing. Evolution has been tested and has passed with flying colors. Anyone who is not aware of this has not done his homework. The fact that scientists experimenting with fruit flies have not created anything but more fruit flies is no more relevant than the fact that scientists experimenting with plasma have not created a neutron star.

Electrons are taught as facts to students. No one has EVER seen an electron. Gravity is taught as a fact to students. No one has EVER seen gravity. What we see are the effects of these things and we infer their existence. This is exactly the same thing as evolution. Evolution has been tested in innumerable ways from many different angles and has never been disproven.

Getting an A in "science" in the 3rd grade or winning the 10th grade science prize in your high school doesn't mean you know anything about evolution. Evolution is real science. Creationism is fake science. It fools people with a comic book understanding of science, but not those who actually have done anything approaching an honest day's homework on the subject.

Happy Darwin Day

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 07:12:22 GMT

Evolution only violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the minds of people who do not understand the 2nd law. No actual practicing scientists actually believe this. It may violate people's 3rd grade understanding of the 2nd law, but there is nothing - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - in the 2nd law that is violated by evolution.

Of course there are people who refuse to believe otherwise. These are people who elect to be uninformed. Their opinions are not fact-based.

Happy Darwin Day

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 04:57:55 GMT

Er ... no appreciable number of "scientists" ever believed the world was flat. Therefore, the telescope did not "change all that." Most educated people realized the world was round as far back as Eratosthenes who calculated the circumference of the globe approx 200 BC.

check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

Some of his contemporaries called him "Beta," because he was always second to Archimedes. (Something like the movie version of Salieri to Mozart.) I don't think this is a fair name. He was clearly brilliant in his own right. That they were contemporaries of Newton, didn't diminish the genius of Taylor or Halley. Same for Eratosthenes.

Anyway, it wasn't "scientists" who said the world was flat - it was certain religious people based on what they had read in the bible.

Happy Darwin Day

Douglas Kidd — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:02:35 GMT

Evolution pretends to be science, it needs to point the finger at those nasty fundamentalist so that people won't look to closely at its own claims.

When we look at the history of evolution, what to we find? Piltdown man. Nebraska Man. Just recently National Geographic got burned in a story about a evolutionary bird. There's been funny business in published reports about DNA in man and chimpanzies. Sure we have stories about viruses "evoling" into ...viruses? Somehow this is taken as proof that invertabrates evolved into vertebrates?

Those who say they favor science over religion would do well to live up to their claim, and turn a critical and scientific eye on the "science" that they have received without question as if it were an article of faith.

Happy Darwin Day

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:14:32 GMT

Nonsense. Actual scientists were ALWAYS very skeptical of Piltdown and in the end it was actual scientists who debunked it - not creationists or ID advocates.

Neither Piltdown man nor Nebraska man EVER informed a theory of evolution. Nor did the theory of evolution ever rely on Piltdown or Nebraska man as evidence. From the beginning, scientists were skeptical of both, but as I said in another forum - actual science (as opposed to the pretend science of creationism or Intelligent Design) - actual science takes time.

The problem is that creationists and their ilk have not looked at the history of evolution. They haven't even looked at the current state of evolution. What they have done is gone through a few pamphlets their teacher gave them, or browsed a few pseudo-science websites - and drawn erroneous conclusions from wrong and in many cases deliberately misleading information.

You don't have to be a PhD to understand science and evolution. It surely helps, but it's not an absolute requirement. Evolution is understandable and accessible to the lay person, but not without some effort. A huge ego and a sound indoctrination into religion doesn't help you understand evolution - reading actual books by practicing scientists is pretty helpful though, so is reading journal articles (though frankly I find that pretty hard), talking with actual practicing scientists is another big help.

Those who would lecture people who have done their homework without having done anything themselves remotely resembling an honest day's research should either develop the discipline to not propagate their ignorance, or they should invest the time and effort it takes to learn some actual science instead of the comic book version they learned from a religious screed.

Happy Darwin Day

Shawn, Pittsburgh Pa — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:18:27 GMT

Thank you for correcting my information on scientists believing the earth was flat and Eratosthenes. Upon further examination indeed you were correct.

I guess a better example of the point I was trying to make would be the Geocentric Model. "Early cosmological thought culminated in the geocentric model of Claudius Ptolemny in the first century A.D. So well did Ptolemy succeed that no one soundly challenged his model for more than 1400 years." (Astronomy: The Evolving Universe, Michael Zeilik 9th edition)

Science does take time. It was not until Copernicus that the Heliocentric Concept became widely accepted. Certainly there were others who believed in the Heliocentric Concept, but it took a long time (14 centuries!) to overcome Ptolomy's well developed Geocentric Concept of an earth centered cosmos.

It seems to me that there is a double standard here. I believe that most evolutionists that believe that evolution is a ‘fact’ would also agree that science itself is always evolving as we gain new understanding and develop new technologies. Knowing that we can always expect that our scientific understanding will evolve (through our ever widening understanding of the world), it seems to me that we should be open to all concepts of the origin of life and not simply dismiss something because it opposes the widely accepted theory of evolution. The Geocentric model of an earth centered cosmos was widely accepted in its time but we now know that it was thoroughly incorrect.

Since we know that science does take time, why are we simply dismissing the idea of intelligent design when we know that history has shown us that as we gain understanding our beliefs of what was ‘fact’ and ‘truth’ can look rather silly to us in the present. Why do so many not only dismiss idea of ID but vehemently argue against it?:

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Richard Dawkins – The Blind Watchmaker

“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” – Francis Crick

--Don’t both of these statements have a presupposition that would prevent us to follow our observations if they do in fact point towards design?

Since science is “the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.” why is ID simply being dismissed by most evolutionists? It is readily observable as we have made many new discoveries of the “ultra-complex world of molecular machinery and cellular systems that have been discovered of the past 40 years.” (Michael Behe)

We must be willing to follow the ‘truth’ wherever it leads us….If we are brave enough to follow the truth I have no doubt that science will continue to point towards an intelligent creator.

The heavens declare the glory of God
The skies proclaim the work of his hands
Day after day they pour forth speech
Night after night they display knowledge
There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard
Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world
Psalm 19: 1-4

The glory of God is plain to see…just seek the truth that is written on your heart, and have the courage to put aside your ego and continue to seek knowledge.

Happy Darwin Day

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 05:10:33 GMT

I think your understanding of the history of the geocentrism is better than that of most people, but it is still flawed.

Ptolemy was a MAJOR genius in his time. His work was brilliant. However, it turns out it was also wrong. Hey, knowledge is a progressive thing. "On the shoulders of giants" and all that. Ptolemy would probably not have been as dogmatic as some of his later followers. But his followers weren't all scientists -some were just educated people. (Educated for that period of time meant that you were schooled in the trivium and quadrivium.) Many of the educated classes were schooled by religious people, though, and were first taught by monks or priests.

In any case, the real test of heliocentrism came with the publication of Galileo's "Dialog Concerning Two World Systems." This set the stage for a showdown between Galileo and - not other scientists - but the church, namely the Pope. The Pope won the battle by implicitly threatening Galileo with torture; Galileo recanted. The problem wasn't other scientists - it was churchmen interfering in science again.

Two sidenotes:

1. It was Copernicus who initially proposed heliocentric solar system, but he died the year of his great work's publication. I kinda suspect there's more to the Galileo thing that most people realize. I get the strong feeling that Galileo didn't treat the churchmen with the respecct they thought was due. I have no evidence to support this suspicion.

2. In The Discoverers, Daniel Boorstin relates that at the time Galileo had his problem, the actual mathematics agreed better with the ptolemaic model than the copernican. I have not confirmed this but it's at least possible, because the geocentrists had a whole bunch of fudge factors (epicycles and the like) built into their very complicated model. Galileo supported the Copernican model because it was simple. Nor was Boorstin a church apologist - he documents a number of cases less well known where the church interfered with the progress of science.

There may be a god. There may not be a God. Science can't say anything about it one way or the other. Behe is flat out wrong. His idea of irreducible complexity is scientific nonsense. Scientists dislike ID because 1) it is based on misrepresenting science, and 2) it is based on misrepresenting itself, and 3) it is not possible to prove it is false, if it is in fact false. Behe's pseudo-theory of Irreducible Complexity is an argument from ignorance. Because he can't imagine how it could come about, therefore God did it. That is the essence of his argument. The wrongness and downright wrongheadedness of Behe cannot be explained in soundbites. For example, see the following short video that shows how a flagellum might evolve:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w

However, Behe's argument was known to be wrong by scientists long before anyone figured out a possible mechanism for the evolution of the flagellum. Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.

Here's the facts:

Science doesn't say anything at all about God. However, science has been pretty good at producing reliable knowledge about how the world actually works. Religions don't have a very good track record on that account. It's not enough for them to just say, "we want you to believe this even though science has no opinion on it." They have to give the misleading impression to potential acolytes that their belief is somehow a logical necessity based on the facts. And so they are misrepresenting science - and they are relying on the fact that most people aren't going to actually look up what they're saying, that they're just going to get the soundbites. In fact, they are relying on the intellectual laziness of their followers.

Happy Darwin Day

George Oertel, Barefoot Bay, Florida — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:10:57 GMT

Millions of words arguing about God with no common definition of God. If we are only speaking of the God of Abraham, worshipped by Jews Christians and Muslims, half the population of the world is excluded. It is also puzzling that these groups have been arguing and killing each other about the interpretation of their sacred texts. If we are a omnicient, omnipotent, omnipresent Essence, then none of the Gods invented by humans fit this description.

Happy Darwin Day

Farah Omairi,sydney,Liverpool — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:04:03 GMT

Most of people said he was right..Why he was right??

Happy Darwin Day

Anonymous — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:12:10 GMT

A great amount of the sites that you may locate dealing with this subject are very knowledgeable, while many aren't.

Happy Darwin Day

jim san diego — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 04:30:51 GMT

I believe in the Bible, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth fairy. I do not believe in logic, science, or common sense. That what my Mommy taught me and she was as smart as gwh Bush.

Happy Darwin Day

James El Cajon CA — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 04:44:38 GMT

John - NY
The reason for this dichotomy is that most thinking people believe in evolution, however, society needs a God to maintain our sanity in light of this horrifing truth: That we are simply a random set of chemical reactions.

Happy Darwin Day

Jaime SD — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 04:51:46 GMT

Jeff OR
Do you also believe, as creationist believe: that Noah brought dinosaurs on the Ark and that at that time they were all vegatarians dinosaurs. Imagine that - T Rex playing "go fetch".

Happy Darwin Day

T.J., Salt Lake City, Utah — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 06:41:43 GMT

Creationism as presented by the bible has been proven, without a shadow of a doubt, to be false. So where do we go from here? When seeking to understand the persistent, senseless beliefs of religion's victims, we might want to more carefully consider its leader's primary method of warfare. They seek above all, and often manage, to completely remove the last shred of humanity from a very young age. What is left is a shell of a being with nothing to hold on to but religion. Those who have fallen are completely surrounded. The slightest attempt to understand reality is instantly squelched by their handlers. They have nothing that is real and they live in constant fear. Their entire existence is built upon religious madness. This is why they refuse to acknowledge simple undeniable facts regarding creationism even when placed at their feet. If Jesus Christ himself could somehow come clean for all the world to see, Christianity's victims would STILL believe the bible's incredible lies, including creationism. The bible is said to be the word of God, yet it's fables of creationism do not jive with physical, observable and prove-able reality. The plain fact is that the bible's fables of creationism simply cannot be true. It is physically impossible. Still, religion's victims will continue to hold on to the evil book's idea of creationism and all the other lies with all their might.

Happy Darwin Day

Joel, Portland, OR — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:29:20 GMT

Actually, according to the National Academy of Sciences, Evolution and evolutionary processes are no longer considered a theory. It's considered fact that is constantly in a state of refinement.