Down with Darwinism

John Woodside, Sugar Land, TX — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 03:39:22 GMT

Dear Mr. Boyle,

I am in the middle of a school board rezoning fight in my community at the present time. But our batttle is over how to allocate resources fairly in a rapidly growing district. I shudder to think what would occur if we had to add church / state issues into our current mix.

That being said... There are many like Eugenie Scott and the late Stephen Jay Gould who feel that there is a way to bridge the chasm between science and religion -- and that, as good campers on planet Earth, we all should work on ways to do just that.

Well... let's all sit around the campfire and sing Kum-ba-Yah!

These are great sounding ideas, to be sure -- but only in Utopia. Sorry... But, religious faith and the scientific method are not separate but equal constructs.

At the risk of sounding dogmatic, I must tell you that religious faith does not require validation beyond one's own personal feelings and revelation.

The scientific method is different -- vastly different -- and validation is not just a nicety -- it's a requirement.

I, for one, will continue to work to ensure that there is NEVER a religous intrusion into the public schools in my community.

Sincerely -- John Woodside

Down with Darwinism

R.P. Nettelhorst — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 03:57:05 GMT

Those of us who are theologians need to do a better job of letting people know that accepting the truth of evolution does not mean turning one's back on God. Unfortunately, for many Christians, they think that's the choice they face: God or science. That's why they react the way they do.

I'm generally successful with my students in helping them to see that accepting evolution doesn't mean they need to trash the Bible; instead, they only need to trash an interpretation of the Bible that doesn't fit the text any more than it fits the science. I'm hopeful that they will be able to take that message to the congregations in which they will serve after graduation.

But it is a long, uphill struggle, and the creationists make a lot of noise and get all the press. Those of us who dare to disagree with them tend to be demonized and declared heretics. It is sometimes difficult to get some of my fellow Christians to even let me finish a sentence.

Down with Darwinism

DesEmery,TheCarborundumChronicles,St.Thomas,ON,Canada — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 04:01:54 GMT

Alan - this is from a non-European and a non-USean (???) but still an American (from Canada). Our School Boards are elected when we also elect Mayors and City Councillors, although I daresay the Board members are mainly acclaimed to their positions since few people are attracted to that kind of public service. Education is a Provincial responsibility, not federal, although the provinces always want more money from the feds for "educational purposes." In Ontario, the Canadian Constitution guarantees two streams of schooling, one for The Public and one for the Roman Catholics or the Separate Schools, teaching the same streams except for the Separate School religion classes. The Public Schools intermittently have discussions when a parent or two complains about the Lord's Prayer being used out loud to start the day, the parent insisting on complete separation of Church ad State. I haven't read or heard about any problem with Darwin and creationism. My personal complaint about education in general is the lack of instruction in History and Geography, Civics and Politics, Grammar and Spelling, and similar basics.

Evolution belongs in science class and creationism does not compete with it. Creationism would be accepted by everyone if we had been there when God created everything out of nothing. Evolution is still working in everyday life, which should be just as obvious to all as it can be 'seen' as easily as gravity can be felt, or sound can be heard.

Down with Darwinism

Anonymous — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 04:12:23 GMT

My buddy over at BadAstronomer just absolutely goes bonkers over the intelligent design argument. Now, I know some scientists. I don't really know him, we just disagree on some things occasionally. However, he seems to be handling this issue as

Down with Darwinism

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 04:18:07 GMT

If we look at this diagram:

http://acct.tamu.edu/swanson/
Theory/Pyramid.JPG

We see that the lecturing of a typical class is a very poor way to teach. With science being such a complicated topic, as opposed to the basics like math, which are taught much more regularly year after year, maybe we should try to teach this particular subject with one of those amazing documentaries we see on the science channel that spells things out so clearly?

Down with Darwinism

J Francis — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 04:59:16 GMT

The exceedingly odd thing I find with "creation science" and the like, is that it is clearly blasphemous. To say that human beings were created by God, because it couldn't be by chance, is a not an unreasonable belief, though not everyone shares it. The UNbelievable extention creation scientists (!) make is to say, in effect "God created man, and we know how His mind works so well that we can tell you that He didn't do it though just evolution". It may indeed be a natural process, but just Who created nature? Anyone else see this inconsistency, or is it just me?

Down with Darwinism

E. Chamberlain — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 07:07:31 GMT

I am a evangelical Christian with formal theological training and a master's degree in Mathematics. I am also of the position that evolution is a mechanism of God. I am not at all threatened by the evolutionary theory. Rather, I see it guided, as the rest of the universe, by the hand of God.

Those of my brothers and sisters who share my faith but reject evolution are, in my opinion, worrying too much about some invasion of meaninglessness that would come from conceiting an evolutionary process.

Life is not random, evolution is not random. There is a pattern and a pattern maker. The Genesis account indicates that whole universe was created ex nilho--out of nothing. That is truly the most amazing miracle. That God later breathed his spirit into a creature and thus that creature became man is not nearly as incredible.

Down with Darwinism

Fr. Allen Bair — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:02:23 GMT

I'm a minister and I don't see why intelligent design and evolution can't work hand in hand. From what I've seen, God generally directs natural processes to His own ends, and time simply isn't an issue for Him. If He chose to create just for the fun of it, who's to say that He didn't take His sweet time enjoying it, manipulating a protein here, and an RNA sequence there?

Down with Darwinism

Lor Hope Carman — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:43:37 GMT

Why not present Faith and Theory to the children and explain that we microscopic beings in this Universe don't really have the answers about where we or anything else came from. Faith:complete confidence in someone or somesthing open to question. Theory: an opinion which may possibly but not positively be true.

Down with Darwinism

Scott Jones, Knoxville, TN — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:32:19 GMT

What a great article. However, I must point out that many scientists readily admit that the scientific community is as abrasive or more so than the religious community. While evolution is good science, recent scientific discoveries are beginning to unravel many of its major concepts (such as divergent evolution). Fault lies on both sides, as is so eloquently illustrated in Gerald Schroeder's "Science of God." Let's listen to both sides. While the religious right may be a bit hostile, many scientists are no better.

Down with Darwinism

Adam, Brisbane, Australia — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:38:49 GMT

Evolution is bigger than Darwinism - Darwin knew nothing of genes or molecular biology for starters. And evolution is broadening wider than even the Modern Synthesis of Neo-Darwinism and molecular biology too. Lynn Caporale's work on the evolvability of the genome and the seemingly controlled mutatability of certain regions in most genes, plus all the emerging material on gene-control regions and so forth - well the whole field is exploding in ways Darwin (and his geneticist successors) never imagined. It's not that Darwin was wrong - he was spectacularly right - but there's a lot more to understand and know than the basic level of description he worked with.

Down with Darwinism

A.Getahun,NJ — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:30:36 GMT

Stephen Hawking in Ch. 5 in the baby universes talks about every thing being predetermined but it might as well not be but no one knows the future switch the argument to that forum and hook on the possibility of some people proving that you can know some things in the future. If found to be statsitical significant then let me know.

Down with Darwinism

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:44:23 GMT

Evolution, Intelligent Design?

Let's make it easy for all to see the heart of the matter here by replacing the possible confusions with "Does our universe have intelligence, with "intelligence" subsuming rationality as opposed to irrationality, or not?". If one is a scientist who finds science shows that our universe has intelligence and belies total irrationality, then such a scientist avoids the danger of justifiably (logically as well) being called "a fool" or even a "liar". Those claiming the title of scientist and also claiming that our universe has neither rationality nor intelligence (purpose might also be denied) might be called "fools" because their "science" (and life) becomes, thereby, a search or devotion to something they are claiming does not exist. The appellation of "liar" could be valid because it seems that science clearly gives evidence of and is a search for intelligence and rationality in our universe, which "true" science is even now attempting to discover and expand.

All the irrationality (disorder?) one sees, feels, or can expose does not have the power to destroy any scientific, observed rationality (order).

One can easily understand the despair of those claiming it's all irrational (or without purpose, even absurd) and their ardent hope that someone can provide them with relief, but others are not required or forced to join their state of despair or belief (religion?), even if they claim the highest scientific credentials, because "belief" is outside the usual scope of science.

Here's an even simpler way to make the point being attempted here. Some people believe that they exist others do not believe that they exist. There is no valid scientific evidence that can verify either claim, but most people have no doubts (majority ruling, however, has no bearing here) and it should be clear that the believers (majority) are exempt from the same despair and other tribulations of the non-believers.

Finally, the great discoveries of science, especially astronomy and technology currently, are exponentially expanding the wonder and wealth of existence
in our universe.
.

Down with Darwinism

Kraven, London, Ontario — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:26:20 GMT

I never understood why more people don't get the idea into their head that maybe evolution in itself was created by intelligent design. What's a greater creation than one that improves itself?

Down with Darwinism

Tim Wright, Carlisle, England — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:15:31 GMT

Hi,

For many people the creation, evolution debate is much deeper. If people are animals that have evolved from monkeys, than you can do experiments on people because they are no different than animals. Then abortion is Ok, because we are only animals. Animals have no sense of right or wrong, then why should we. It is not just this theory of evolution at stake, but they way that people see each other. Are they special or just another animal?

Tim

Down with Darwinism

Sean, Torrington CT — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:20:16 GMT

Ugh. That fact that there is even a debate over evolution at this point makes me so sad. The willfully ignorant are the worst kind of losers. You can't argue with person who willingly accepts the circular logic and blatant hypocracy of religious teachings. You can only suffer their presence, and do your best to mitigate their negative effects on society.

Religious types claim that their 'cures' for STDs and pregnancy are great...but what kind of quality of life do you get by following a prophet legally executed by the state? A prophet who piggybacked on the teachings of a genocidal band of nomadic savages from 4,000 years ago!

Whatever. Keep religious fairy tales and idiocy out of our laws, and we'll get along just fine.

Down with Darwinism

Steve Cornell, Bradenton, FL — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:36:24 GMT

Thanks for being a part of building bridges between "faith" and "science" with this article. Darwin is "old" science but he saw existing evidence and recorded it and that is good science. Drawing conclusions based on evidence takes the next step into the "fuzzy" area.

Darwin did not have the tools of microbiology nor quantum physics, so his knowledge base and hence his conclusions, much celebrated today, also are incomplete.

Teachers of faith would do well to be studied in the latest discoveries available to us and stop seeing "science" as an enemy. Both Faith "knowledge beyond our senses" and science, "what we can put together with our senses" are part of a complete human knowledge set. We need both to be whole.

Down with Darwinism

A.J., Henderson, Tennessee — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:42:20 GMT

There is too much proof in a creator and an established creation too believe we came from any other creature except God himself. Do you research in an unbiased fashion and I think you will be surprised at what you find! :)

Down with Darwinism

Quietman — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:01:02 GMT

We constantly hear phrases like "it evolved this feature because" in documentaries and books. Lamarck is the progenitor of this concept and it is WRONG. This gives people good reason for spurning evolution and Darwinism because they consider the terms identical but they are NOT. Darwinism is the STUDY of Mutation and Natural Selection (observational science, not pure theory) while Evolution is Darwinism plus additional scientific theory, constantly in flux and sometimes outrageous in perception. ID falls into the latter category. Darwin's observations are indisputable but theories based upon his observations are often confused as to their source. My suggestion is that scientists should be better educated in Darwin's books rather than the texts that interpret his work so that they won't ruffle so many feathers.

Down with Darwinism

Stephen Jackson, Dallas, Texas — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:06:09 GMT

The idea of educating people in the real history and meaning of their religion is a wonderful idea; one that would be fought tooth and nail by a great number of religious educators. One who understands the meaning of Genesis understands that the teachings are symbolic and allegorical. An English translation loses much of the original subtleties of the work. Such beliefs as the subservience of women to men, or the creation of the ‘Earth’ in 7 24 hour ‘days’ result from a lack of comprehension of what the teachings were intended to mean. A good place to start is with the study of various world religions. Differences aside, it is the consistencies within them that help one begin to understand.

Down with Darwinism

Linda, Pittsburgh, Pa — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:17:58 GMT

Even many scientists who don't believe in Creationism are starting to oppose Darwin. In the age when people are learning more about biochemistry, it seems that evolution is much more sophisticated than just "survival of the fittest" type thing. Almost all biological processes are amazingly complicated and the steps of the process are so intricately linked that they simply could not have evolved in a stepwise fashion, like Darwin suggests.

Down with Darwinism

Bill Ramsey, Huntington, WV — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:18:05 GMT

It seems to me that critics of evolution and creation stereotype each other about equally, and equally narrowly. "The Book of Job," with or without the folk-tale ending--ought to be required reading for any cosmologists. Creationists could question their certainty, and skeptics could realize that a theist wrote it.

Down with Darwinism

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:04:38 GMT

We need more Jon Millers! Education is undervalued, else we'd put some of our best people on it.

Everybody says they value education, but the problem is that most of them value it the same way, say, a couch potato values a million dollars.

We need at least a few science literate people on school boards. But I don't think we need to be science heavy. We should also have linguists and historians and writers. We should have natural born citizens and immigrants. We need a mix.

But right now we're sorely hurting for people who are good scientists.

Down with Darwinism

Loren, Bay Area, California — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:21:01 GMT

So are we saying that if churches are willing to let evolution be taught in Sunday School, it might be more okay to teach "creation science" in public school? Fair's fair, after all.

Naaaahhhh.

Down with Darwinism

jeff newman — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:27:37 GMT

After studying under one of Richard Dawkin's sutdents in the late 80's I watched a debate between several professors and several creationists. The most interesting thing that I took away from the debate was the understanding that creationism itself was a backdoor stategy of evangelical christians to break through the prohibition of teaching religion in public schools.

Down with Darwinism

JC, Riverton, CT — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:38:58 GMT

How is the U.S. going to be able to compete in the global economy when science here is so disdained?

Come to think of it, the "theory" regarding the Earth's shape as a so called oblate spheroid is a little shoddy. Better go see what the Bible says about it.

Down with Darwinism

Andy Vollmer — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:44:18 GMT

The search for a middleground of thought between science and monotheistic creationism is likely to fail . Several facts lead me to this conclusion : It should be obvious that much evidence for evolution is contained in the fossil record . We should also consider the observations of astonomers that indicate the age of our universe to be 13.8 billion years +/- 5% . It is also clear that we humans do not completely understand all of the truths of how this physical reality came into existance or even the underlying phisics of how it works . It should not be surprising that people will see this situation from different perspectives . Let me give an example at the level of two individuals . These two men are father and son . The father's philosophy is faith based and adheres to the idea that the Bible is an infallible work inspired by 'God' . The son's philosophy is science based , preferring the use of the scientific method for revealing what was previously unknown . As you can imagine , this difference of philosophies has led to some lively conversations over the years . Repeated unsettled arguments have done nothing to move either gentleman toward accepting the other's position . In later years a truce develops where this topic is avoided , but both still think that the other is wrong and in defending their position they exhibit a personal weakness either in being 'faithless' or 'being obtuse and/or willfully ignorant' .

Faith and science are mutually exclusive in that the scientific method does not allow for faith and faith based religions do not allow for dissent of dogma . Scientists who claim affiliation with the various religions still use the scientific method in their work and so long as they recognize that they can do meaningful research .

Down with Darwinism

Bill Voss — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 17:15:17 GMT

Back when I was still in school, and believe me, that's been a while, I was asking "Isn't it possible the evolution was God's plan?"

The real issue goes far deeper than evolution vs creationism. The real issue is, all life on earth is related.

With that knowledge comes responsibility that most people don't want.

Down with Darwinism

will dean — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 17:18:46 GMT

You got it all wrong, down with man made religion.Look whats doing all the killing religion, how can we trust the religious people with our children, we cann't..............It all set to blow up one day in our face.......

Down with Darwinism

Ronald Zuzga, Detroit, Mich — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 17:22:58 GMT

Maybe I'm a little confused. Scott talks about a perceived dichotomy between science and religion. I interpret her remarks to mean that there is a dichotomy between teaching science and teaching critical thinking. Isn't she saying that if we try to teach critical thinking, we won't be able to get the "right" science into the students' heads?

I wish she would clarify her remarks. Does she believe that students are incapable of learning to think critically, or that teachers are incapable of teaching critical thinking, or both? Does she have some way to teach critical thinking without the use of examples? Or does she want critical thinking applied to only one side of an argument?

Down with Darwinism

tj, fl — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 17:54:19 GMT

This idea makes some sense.

"Darwin" is a label that is easy to defeat. How could a puny human like "Darwin" possibly contend with an anthropomorphic god? The man, Darwin, is much easier to defeat than the ideas that he put forth are.

People that accept and/or practice sound science don't need special labels. Only the people that actually believe in absurd ideas need labels. "Creationist", for instance.

Down with Darwinism

Justin Lilburn — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:57:00 GMT

I think I want to vomit..... Jesus is coming folks

Down with Darwinism

Erik D, Minneapolis, MN — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:16:44 GMT

I think that some of the arguments from the religion side would calm down if religions were studied in public schools in terms of social and historical context. Are parents so afraid that their kids will become accidentally indoctrinated? Parents need to take more responsibility for what their kids are learning.

If your beliefs (moral, religious, scientific, and otherwise) are so flimsy that you can't even bear to listen to the other side, you're going to get yourself in trouble.

Down with Darwinism

Wade Whitlock, Aberdeen, MD — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:25:49 GMT

I'm going to change subjects on you! Now for something completely different!

Have you seen the MRO HiRise photo of the H2O crater that the Beagle probe was supposed to have impacted? Once again, I have to go with what I have, but the articles say that there is no Beagle there! Doggone!

I must say that the blue color and apparent stripes bear a slight resemblence to an Egyptian scarab beetle diging into the 1 to 2 O'clock wall!

Back to the original topic. I simply place the ID types right there with the astrology believers. They have essentially the same intellectual value.

BTW, how about enforcing the use of real names and addresses, not off-the-wall aliases, for commenters. I place a call for the vote before the Chair!

Down with Darwinism

Thomas R Arnold, Richlandtown, PA — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:38:37 GMT

Is the truth offensive? Are we supposed to lie about reality because some superstitious religious nuts are offended by the truth? I don't think so. DARWIN WAS RIGHT!! Celebrate this observant naturalist. His vision, while imperfect, was essentially right on the mark. DNA analysis has supported Darwin's vision, and so have biochemistry and geology. Dinosaurs are not extinct, because there are more than 9,000 species of Dinosaur still in existence, and some of them taste just like chicken. How many "missing links" do we have to find before the religious nuts stop saying "... but there are gaps in the fossil record." There is just no talking to some people, but do we all have to get stupid just because some people truly are stupid?

Down with Darwinism

Nate Bean, Redmond, Washington — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:03:52 GMT

Thanks for the slanted article. I myself am a researcher [yes, I even live in academia] and am tired of articles such as these: scientists are good while any that oppose are bad. Scientists and researchers throughout history have screwed up, been wrong, had no idea what they were talking about, intolerant of other's views, etc. Even the most cutting edge of research will be lucky to not have been debunked or made fun of by other researchers 10 years from now. Get off your high horse [researchers, scientists, writers] and realize that you too can make mistakes [that don't originate from the 'lesser people].

Down with Darwinism

James B Dickinson — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:09:51 GMT

Evolution, the teaching that life came from a single source by accident. all of the different life forms proceeded from that sorce. Through a process of mutation or small changes to each succeeding generation. not all of these would be benifical, in fact most would not be, if in fact it also was random. Evidence? Life as we know it today does not work like that. How is it that some animals are able to grow another limb, but the highest form of life has no such ability, yet some organs of our body has that ability to replace itself, our liver, our skin, blood vessels, and soft tissue. If in fact evolution is a continuing process why is there no evidence of it in millions of forms of life? If there is no intelligent designer, where did we get ours? not from apes nor any other source, where did it come from? It would have to come from a incredibley intelligent and tremendously powerful source. Would not such a source want its creation to know somewhat of its creator? Do you think if you were able to create such a creature as we are, that is capable of love of hate of honor of respect that you would remain indifferent to that creature? Why? When we crave all of these? where did we get these cravings? Animals allegiances are soon forgotten, not so with mankind, and I suspect not so with our creator. Has such a one made any attempt to influence these beings? What was said? Was the instructions clear? Does it make sense and can we make sense of it? Has our knowledge in science been of help to us?

Down with Darwinism

MoBettaJetta, Fort Worth, Texas — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:14:32 GMT

Evolution is simply a theory intended to dispute the bible. It doesn't matter that you believe a gun can't kill you, it can and will if you try shooting yourself. The same with belief in God. It doesn't matter that you don't believe he is there, that belief doesn't change the fact that he is. You will find out when you die. If you don't believe in Christ and his sacrifice you won't go to heaven. If you do believe in Christ and his sacrifice and you don't end up in heaven, you haven't lost anything. I choose to believe the bible is the true undisputable word of God, and that means the world is only about 8,000 years old. That's the fact, and not believing that does not change the fact!

Down with Darwinism

Derek, Fort Worth Texas — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:36:28 GMT

I happen to think that both creation and evolution are real. The problem is,no matter how hard anyone tries, you can't prove creation. You can never prove that an omnipotent being zapped us into being with mere thought. That is why it is called faith.

Down with Darwinism

Scott, Cranston, RI — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:36:55 GMT

The problem is that the only creationist view they want to teach is the Christian one. If we were to teach religion along with science in public schools. In order to give the children a true view of religion as a whole, they would have to be taught about all the religions. And that would never happen, the Christians don't want their children learning about Islam, or Buddha. They are still very one sided in their views, so therefore as our forefathers stated we must have a separation of church and state. Keep science in the classroom and religion in the churches.

Down with Darwinism

charles parlato — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:48:47 GMT

Well, gentlemen, what are going to do with joint JDs and MBAs who also think that evolution is not solid science. Indeed, what are you going to do with scientists who also think that evolution theory is just that--a theory? Do you think people like me must be "re-educated" to solve this "problem?" Here's the problem, guys. This fact of evolution is no fact at all. It is your theory, and it will fall like so many of the other scientific "facts" of the past 500 years.

Would you like to debate this issue? Where and when?

Down with Darwinism

Steve Weichel — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:59:39 GMT

Intelligent design is a product of liberal extremism or rather people like the ACLU coming down on everyone they can because they want to use the word "God" or have a prayer. All in the name of "seperation of church and state", a phrase which does not even appear in the constitution. I agree religion should be taught. Even a large portion of those that attend church cannot give you alot of answers and in my opinion no one can give you all the answers. I personally don't feel the need to because I am not God therefore it is reasonable that I wouldn't understand everything. Of course some people can't grasp that concept.

Down with Darwinism

Charles Hanna, Dallas, Texas — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:59:42 GMT

One of the problems with creationism is that the "fundamentalists" seem to need to humanize God...if the bible says "six days"...that means Monday through Saturday. One of the problems with Science is that the "evolutionists" seem to need to ignore God.

My thought, as a catholic non-scientific layman is that God's day might be several million of our years in length. And God might have actually started the creation by making a single cell in the primal ooze and starting the drive towards mankind. The fundamentalists won't like that because it makes God much more powerful than them...the evolutionists won't like it because it answers one question..how did it start? which they really have no other good answer for anyway...But your're right...let's stop talking about Darwin, and about Calvin...let's talk about evolution and the fact that neither the fundamentalists nor the evolutionists have the answer. We just have to keep looking...and to do that, we have to keep educating.

Down with Darwinism

Anna, Charlottesville, VA — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:25:06 GMT

Your article ignores the thousands of scientists who disagree wholeheartedly with evolutionary THEORY. Survival of the fittest and genetic drift are observable. "Evolution of the species" is not observed and not proven.

Down with Darwinism

Sharon Thomas, Ponte Vedra, Fl. — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:33:23 GMT

Just for the record, I am a total creationist. That said, I give others the right to believe otherwise. Over the past 20 to 30 years, there has been a great deal of effort to suppress creationism. Everyone should have the right to choose but are not given a choice as information is being with held. We need to create a level playing field and teach both trains of thought.

Down with Darwinism

Jana, Bozeman MT — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:34:59 GMT

I suppose that a solution would be to just to teach both sides of the issue. I realize that this is probably much more complicated then it sounds, but to be fair, this is something that needs to be done.

Down with Darwinism

E SMITH — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:47:07 GMT

YOU'RE STILL LOOKING INSIDE THE BOX,BUT YOU'RE STILL LOOKING.

Down with Darwinism

OceanCaptain, Muldrow, OK — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:49:59 GMT

The biggest problem is the dogmatics on both sides of the issue. True Darwinism did not so much address evolution as it did adaptation however the evolution of various species is not in question. Where religion and science conflict is the evolutionist assertion that man evolved from a lower life form, there is no fossil evidence to substantiate this assertion. Dogmatic Christians make the same mistake when they fail to realize that evolution is just a creationary tool of God. Christians should never try to limit God's power in relation to thier own ability to comprehend and scientists should never discount his hand in nature. This planet, our solar system and indeed the universe itself is entirely to complex and intricate to be an accident and surely no rational, thinking person would honestly propose that this all occured by some freak alignment of circumstances. That sounds just as irrational as the statement that the Earth is only 10,000 years old. Both concepts polarize an issue that need not be so polarized. Like I said evolution is a creationary tool and that is why there will never be a link discovered to show that man evolved from a monkey or lower life form but there will always be plenty of evidence to show how various species have evolved and adpated since the dawn of creation.

Down with Darwinism

Charles Ludmer, Lake Forest, Illinois — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:59:34 GMT

Creationism specifically means creation according to a literal interpretation of the Old Testament. That and any other construct from different religions (Buddhist, Pagan, etc.) constitute the various articles of different faiths called intelligent design. They are just that: articles of faith. They only require belief, not the rigorous, careful collection of scientific evidence. Science does not have the freedom to act "on faith." Nor does it have the freedom to pick and choose which scientific data to accept, as is done by opponents of evolutionary theory to support intelligent design. In short, "intelligent design" is a theological concept, belonging in philosophy or religion classes, not in science classes. Evolution is science and belongs where it is, in science classes.

Down with Darwinism

Michele Graves, Boise, Idaho — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:43:07 GMT

I think, that whatever a person might believe about life on this planet,one must keep in mind that evolution (however you might want to link it to Darwin) IS a theory. Whether or not Intelligent Design is taught in schools (seperation of church and state & all that) is not what I feel is the most important issue here. I feel that science is being stunted because the scientific world is still trying to fit every new find into the same old "Evolutionary" box. There is only one theory being pushed, and every thought that is not of evolution is squashed. It reminds me of the archaic thinking in the scientific world of the sixteenth century where no one questions the popular flow of thought or tries to think outside-of-the-box concerning science. I think the general public is also tired of being treated like we exist on a lower rung of the ladder of intelligence simply because we are not scientists ourselves. No, we may not all be specialists in the area of science, but I believe most of the educated public has the ability to make a decision based on theories presented to us, and make logical comments on such theories. Let's challenge the scientific community to give us more ideas except the same old worn out arguments pushed upon us, and our children, simply recycled in a different package.

Down with Darwinism

Tom Anderson, Tucson, Arizona — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:50:56 GMT

I find on of Ms. Scott's comments interesting: 'We'll give the students all the choices, this is good pedagogy, it's critical thinking. Give the students evolution and creationism, or evolution and evidence against evolution, and let them work this out and they'll become good critical thinkers.' Americans really resonate to that argument. But it's a false argument, and here's where the teachers can help" ...

Why is this a false argument? There is evidence for and against evolutionary concepts as a theory of origins, whether applied to the universe, life, or the human race. I don't see any reason why students should not understand that there are different beliefs, here are the evidences that people use to support their beliefs, and be encouraged to become critical thinkers. Schools can never give students all the knowlege they will need, schools need to teach students how to think for themselves and learn on their own.

Down with Darwinism

D Cull, Columbus, Ohio — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 23:52:19 GMT

"...the sorry state of religious literacy as with the sorry state of science illiteracy."

How perfectly this sums up both sides of the evolution vs. intelligent design issue.
In regards to the Biblical creation, it is a fascinating account that truly is arranged in sequence with how the world evolved from the infinitesimal point of dense matter in the Big Bang to humans. However, God did not intend the Genesis account of creation to serve as a textbook for science class. Moses writing about unicellular biology, organic chemistry, and physics was not in God's plan. The Bible is Scripture concerning the relationship between God and humans, not the end all for scientific literature. (Read Psalm 19 1-4) Do I believe we evolved from apes? Not a chance.

Do I believe the universe was created in six days? Who cares, it doesn't matter, but how you live your life does. (As a sidenote: if you can't read Hebrew you're really not getting the full translation of the Genesis creation account.)

Now for those who don't believe in God or Intelligent Design, you have a most daunting task of proving the universe and life on this speck of a planet are not of design. When you take into consideration the absolute fine tuning of the universe and how it is designed (oops)to support life; when you pour over today's scientific facts, it becomes increasingly difficult not to give Intelligent Design the same fair air time as evolution.

The best website that I have ever found which uses actual proven science and discusses both sides is godandscience.org

I encourage both sides to be more open to the truth.

Down with Darwinism

Ben Anstey, Seattle, WA — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 23:53:29 GMT

Darwin's evolution theory has some obvious relevance but only for limited application. As science has not been able to re-create even the most simple precursors to "live" bacteria there is a lot that we still have to learn. Also the fossil record shows evolution advancing in sudden leaps rather than a continuous path. It would be more enlightening if the article would concentrate on science rather than opinion.

Down with Darwinism

Wolfcry044 — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 23:55:46 GMT

Think for a minute about how intricately you are made. Think about innerspace, and out. Things that make sense don't fall together by accident. It just doesn't happen that way in real life. A computer was created by a technician. A chair was made by human hands. A Space shuttle was designed by humans. How foolish would it be to say that those things happened by accident, and had no creator? How stupid indeed.

We are the very proof people whine that God has not shown them. If people don't accept that, then they would not accept God nomatter what proof was given them. There would always be another explanation, even more stupid than the previous one.

That is my take on it.

Down with Darwinism

DT — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 00:55:14 GMT

The real problem with this debate is that it is missing on key consideration: educational theory. As an educator, it is really embarassing to see both those who are opposed to evolution and those in favor of it subscribe to very out-dated (and, in fact, not science-based) theories of education. Each side accuses the other of "indoctornation" and the reality is that both sides are guilty of this. But the chemists and the biologists whould never admit it because that would mean taking the Education departments in their own universites seriously. The best teachers are the best geeks in the lab. Yes, siree. And that is why scientists keep getting pounded. It is not science that needs to change but the teaching of science. But the rewards system in the sciences is totally antithetical to that idea.

Down with Darwinism

Marie — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 01:03:30 GMT

It's perfectly sensible to teach both evolution and intelligent design. If anything, it should encourage children/youth to think for themselves on this topic instead of blindly accepting either side.

Down with Darwinism

Watcher, Texas — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 01:33:24 GMT

I have absolutely no problem with my children being taught religion, even though I no longer believe in religion as being reality. What I do have a problem with is "Intelligent Design", which is obviously a thinly veiled form of Creationism being labeled as and taught as science. In order for something to be a science it HAS TO HAVE independently testable and verifiable outcomes to support or dismiss theoretical hypothesis'. Intelligent Design does not have this characteristic and is therefore NOT a science. However, feel free to teach my children about every religion on the planet in philosophy class or some other.

Down with Darwinism

Wendal Harmon, N. Ft. Myers, FL — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 01:40:07 GMT

I don't understand all the controversy. Why can't both theories work in harmony? If we don't believe in a higher power, why do we have all these churches? Entertainment? The population of the world believes in a higher power. What set the stage for evolution to work?

Down with Darwinism

Pedro A Delgado, Miami. Fl. — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 02:24:56 GMT

I do not have enough faith to believe in evolution(the absurd thing about believing that things by themselves continue evolving to improve).We all know that the tendency of anything is to degenerate as time goes along.

This applies specifically to anything related to the human species.

To believe that God was the creator of the incredible complexity that you find even in the amoeba certainly requires considerable less faith than to reason/think that evolution did it.

Down with Darwinism

R. Humphrey, Augusta, GA — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 10:53:11 GMT

Why do people think they have put evolution in its place by saying "It's only a theory". Every scientific concept constructed from observable facts is a theory. There is no such thing as a scientific "law" even though the term is used. There is no "Law" of gravity.. There is a theory of gravity. Read a summary of Einstein's general theory of relativity, in which he expounds a theory of gravity. Newton's equation is merely an empirical construct which happens to work. So thinking that you have neatly dismissed evolution by saying "It's only a theory" only exposes your lack of knowledge of what science is.

Down with Darwinism

Peter McGrath, Whitby, North Yorkshire, England — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:29:13 GMT

Of course Darwin didn't get the entire theory of evolution correct in The Origin of Species. He wasn't aware of Mendel's work and the molecular and genetic tecchniqueswe have today weren't at his commend. ID/creationists who attack Darwin are setting him up as a straw man. Darwin does deserve respect and admiration for many reasons: with an untrained mind he independently framed the theory of evolution by natural selection. To do this, he spent five years beingg seasick and risking his life on Beagle while he developed as a geologist and biologist. He practically founded the notion of ecology, did goundbreaking work in geology, anthropology, human and aninmal behaviour, taxonomy, worms, climbing plants. Any ten pages of The Voyage of the Beagle have enough discoveries and scientific insights to keep an average scientist happy for a decade.

Oh, and one more reason: Darwin and his bulldogs tore Victorian science from the grasp of the Anglican clergymen who tried to mediate geology and life sciences solely through Genesis. They established it as an independent profession. What a good day's work that was. A great man, a nice guy, and the founder of many branches of science we take for granted. In short, a man worth standing up for.

Down with Darwinism

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:06:04 GMT

We All Have Problems with Precise Defintions of or Words

With this title in mind, it is appropriate to say "sorry" R. Humphrey, there is a law of gravity in our universe. Said law (perhaps not what your law in quotes is mean't to convey) is not a theory but an absolute fact of our physical universe, specifically,
mass attracts mass (Newton's and Einstein's THEORIES are attempts to explain this law of gravity). If this fact (law) of our universe were only a theory, as it seems you want to define theory, then each time one on Earth dropped a body with mass it would be said to only fall in theory or be said to have only theoretically fallen. Einstein's Relativity Theory discovered the speed limit (law of physcis and our physical universe) for bodies with mass in our universe. All explanations may be considered "theoretical" if you like, but the facts are facts, not theory. Einstein's Special Relativity Theory (REMEMBER, for good reason in view of all the misunderstanding caused by the word "Relativity", Einstein preferred the title "Theory of Invariance") helped us humans to distinguish things in our physical universe which are relative (may have different theoretical explanations) from those which are not (absolute laws often scientific, facts of our universe). For example, the maximum speed of light is the same for all observers in our universe, uniform motion is relative in our universe (rest cannot be distinguished physically from moving at a constant velocity), identical clocks in uniform motion with respect to one another in our universe will not be seen, by one another, as keeping identical time. The clock claiming itself to be at rest and the other moving will, with absolute, scientific rectitude, see (and know if can't see) the said moving clock to be running sowly when compared. Another example, in our physical universe, it is an absolute fact that BOTH (all, if more than two) observers in uniform motion (moving with repect to each other at constant velocity, no change in size or direction) have the right to claim rest for themselves with the other moving. We live in an equal opportunity universe in this matter. There is, in our physical universe, no physical experiment that can detect absolute motion when it is uniform. In our physical universe it is an absolute fact, law of physics that there is no physical experiment that will allow any observer to determine whether said observer is at rest or in uniform motion (moving at a constant velocity) without any reference to some other outside observer or thing. If you are flying in a plane in perfectly smooth air, can't look out any window, are stone deaf, can feel any engine vibrations, fell asleep while waiting to leave the gate, and were not awakened while the plane became airbone in the smooth air, you would not be able to tell if you were underway at 500 miles per hour or still sitting at the gate (asking someone to look out the window for you or other "tricks" are not allowed either). It is also an absolute fact of our physical universe (not just some scientific theory) that all observers can physically detect any CHANGE from uniform motion. We all experience this absolute when we accelerate our car (change size of velocity) or go around a curve (change direction of our velocity). Again, physical THEORIES may attempt to explain these absolutes of our universe, but what they are explaning is not, in the examples given, a theory or a theoretical thing.

I also hope this lengthy comment will help those who think that there is nothing absolute in our universe and give some ammunition to those trying to find some absolutes.

I am certain that Darwin believed that there are absolutes, but I am not so certain about many of the self-claimed Darwinists or Evolutionists. All "true" scientists have strong beliefs about or faith in their area of expertise; so, "faith" and "belief" are there whether admitted or not. After all, it surely takes a LOT of "faith" to believe that humans can uncover the absolutes of our universe, the goal of all "true" science. When Einstein said that the Lord was subtle but not malicious, it does seem that Einstein intended to eliminate the idea of maliciousness, instilling said "faith" in science if the goals of science were futile. That is, of course, why Einstein said "subtle not malicious".

Down with Darwinism

Mike Angove, Falls Church VA — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:50:19 GMT

Several people have suggested that there is no problem with evolution being simply a mechanism of an intelligent agent. Kraven of Ontario says:

"I never understood why more people don't get the idea into their head that maybe evolution in itself was created by intelligent design. What's a greater creation than one that improves itself?"

The ID community has this idea EXACTLY in their heads Kraven. Thank you for putting a fine point on it!

Down with Darwinism

terry lamplough victoria australia — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 01:41:07 GMT

what a relief to hear sanity out there. the solution lies in clear logical thinking. trading insults won't solve matters it's okay for me to say this due the fact I know nothing being untaught and unlearned not to mention a fool and ignoramus. 'it appears to be a case of the emperors clothes'

Down with Darwinism

Wayne Alamogordo, NM — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 04:48:19 GMT

As always, people keep getting religion mixed up with belief in a creator. I don't think religion should be taught in school, but I do believe evolution should be taught as a scientific understanding of how the universe might have been created. Alternatives to evolution, to include scientific, theoretical, and speculative posibilities, should be discussed. Creationism is of course speculative. It is based on faith, so when discussing it along side scientific theories, the difference should be emphasized by the teachers. However, not teaching it to our children doesn't allow them to use critical thinking to make educated decisions for themselves. What is it that atheists are so afraid of that they don't want creationism taught in our schools? What is it that makes atheists call Christians and other people of faith stupid for not believing their dogma? Most religions don't force their beliefs down anyones throats in the manner that atheists want to force evolution down people of faith's throats. Let's give the majority of the people in this country what they want, a choice not an absolute.

Down with Darwinism

Brian Fraser — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 07:33:47 GMT

Heck, take a vacation from this evolutionism / creationism debate stuff. Read about "Scriptural Physics" at: http://members.andiamo-tel.com/~bfraser/ Yeah, how is THAT for a combination!? There is no "God or Science" dichotomy here, nor science illiteracy nor religious illiteracy. This site clearly has a lot of know-how from both camps. And it points out a host of fascinating things that will just blow your mind!

Down with Darwinism

R. Humphrey, Augusta GA — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:39:12 GMT

I would point out to Carlton Lane that the speed of light is an observable fact and that Einstein constructed a thory to explain that fact. The FACT that gravity exists is not a theory-- our attempt to explain it is a theory. You are confusing observable facts with theories to explain those observations.

Down with Darwinism

Bob, Montclair, NJ — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:10:21 GMT

ID is just silly stuff - what is design and where did it come from - not from God, since it is one of his/her tools - so where did God come from? And how do you define design? Was God designed? How did God come to know it? You get the drift here - ID doesn't stand up to scrutiny as a definition - too bad - it turns out that those ID folks don't really like intellectual debate as much as they claim to.

Down with Darwinism

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 19:07:06 GMT

WHY?

One can always ask "Why?" for any claim, theory, statement, law, etc. scientific or otherwise. Therefore, one can never give an ultimate answer in any human endeavor. Parents often silence their child's "Why?" with "Because I say so!"; the persistent child can reply "Why do you say so?" etc. ad infinitum. Those who believe in God may try to stop "whys" with "Because God says so" or "God made it that way", again, the persistent can ask "Why did God make it that way?" yielding the answer "because He did" yielding the question "Why?" followed by "because He did" etc. ad infinitum, again.

Science tries to avoid the problem by saying it is only involved in trying to answer "How?" questions rather than "Why?" questions; yet, "Why?" questions inspire advances in science. For example, in physics, early on, the question was "Why do bodies fall?" (apples for Newton?). The answer became "because of gravity" (Newton's law of gravitation?). Einstein answered the "Why Newton's law?" with "because mass curves space" (and Newton accelerated upward to meet the non-accelerating, apple). Physics isn't yet able to answer "Why does mass curve space?"; but, when and if it ever does find an answer, one can then ask "Why?" (why this way and not some other way). Those who believe in God have their ready answer "because God made it so" still leaving the persistent with "Why did God make it so?". The theists (Darwn seems to have been one) are satisfied with "It's the will of God.", but bona fide scientists have the continuing great fun (responsibility?) that comes in following the paths opened by "why" questions. Had scientists stopped with Newton's law of gravitation or "because God made it so", we would not have General Relativity and all the beauty, wonders, etc. of our universe discovered therefrom.

I doubt if an infinite God will ever lose patience (a characteristic of finite beings) with perpetual "Whys?", especially if such an infinite being set things up that way in order for us to be perpetually (infinitely) entertained. The non-theists (atheists?) can still enjoy the great entertainment if they don't spend all their time trying to show the entertainment or its source is a hoax. How great the difference in joy between those trying to prove its all a hoax and those searching for all the truths of our universe.

Down with Darwinism

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 00:34:51 GMT

Irreducible Complexity is hocus-pocus, not science.

Down with Darwinism

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 00:45:58 GMT

Always knew I had a problem making myself clear, but R. Humphrey let me discover that my writings are so muddy that some can read them and think they say exactly the opposite of what I was saying. Again, R. Humphrey's comment consisting of corrections to my comments about facts and theory is a replication (not a contradiction) of the ideas I was attempting to convey. I found some making comments trying to dismiss everything as theory (or by "confusing theory with fact") and felt a need to show the error therein. However, in a sense, one can no more point out such an error to anyone in any situation than one can answer the question "Why?", because one can ignore what you are claiming is an error by saying that "that's only your idea" (theory?). One need not even accept an obvious, logical contradiction as an error by claiming to be using a different logic (different from yours or the commonly accepted logic) wherein the contradiction does not arise or is meaningless.

People in a free society are allowed to claim, believe, anything they want, for example, the WRONG claim in our universe, that objects with mass in our universe can move faster than the maximum speed of light, but they may suffer from dire consequences they bring upon themselves by so doing. Some may (are allowed to) believe (claim) that if they jump in front of a car (large bullet) moving at high speed, they will not be harmed; however, this claim is not a very good operating principle for our universe. Furthermore, if they tell others in advance of their plan to jump, others, especially those whose knowledge of the workings of our universe is different, have the right to try to stop them, prevent their error (as others see it) from causing them great harm. Great harm can come in our universe by confusing theory with fact. (Sorry, R.Humphrey, my earlier writings did not make this clear to you.)
Finally, Eistein's Special Relativity provides all a way to distinguish that which is relative (explanations, theories, etc.) from that which is absolute, not relative (facts, events, etc.). Some felt that if time and distance (consdered absolutes for so many generations) were relative, as Special Relativity shows and our universe confirms, then there is nothing absolute (sacred?). They, of course, were WRONG and Special Relativity helps us to see some of the absolutes of our universe some of which we were not aware of before Special Relativity. Einstein's General Relativity added even more beauty and wonder for us in our universe.

Down with Darwinism

ron — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 01:50:28 GMT

Evolution is a theory that is very hard to disprove.Darwin is only the first part of this idea.He is credited with its inception.He laid the groundwork with observation not guess work and conjecture.

When Creationists can show me by observation that God created anything only then will I listen to what they have to say.

Down with Darwinism

James Vincent — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 05:38:29 GMT

Three is not one shred of hard evidence that proves evolution. There are presently many hundreds of credible scientists and more coming over almost daily, that have taken a 180-degree turn away from evolution, and are now fully embracing and teaching “Young Earth Creationism.” How is this possible? These men and woman were intellectually honest enough to weigh the evidence and even though it had metaphysical implications, they were not afraid to take a stand for the truth. They all have web sites and are easy to find.

I have viewed or attended numerous scientific lectures conducted by notable physicists, zoologists, molecular biologists etc… showing the evolutionary model verses the creation model and there is no contest. In an unbiased court of law, evolution does not stand a chance of winning.

Sadly most people accept old worn out traditions and the words of others rather that seek out the evidence for their own self. The tables are turning daily revealing the truth about the origin of life.

What we now know about the irreducible complexity of life within one human cell provides more than enough evidence to send the antiquated thoughts of a misguided young man and the H.M.S. Beagle the ship that carried him, to a permanent watery grave.

Down with Darwinism

Mark Foree, Snowflake, Arizona — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 07:01:28 GMT

We (mankind) have used scientific research to explain many things that were once mysterious. However, although science has helped us explain much of the "how" of creation, it has never attempted to answer the "why" of creation. As humans we have a need to know the reason why we live. Only our diverse religious beliefs attempt to answer and give us a reason for our existance. There will always be a need for humans to learn about both the how and the why. I have no problem with a high school teacher teaching broad concepts of both and even the teachers own personal ideas should be allowed.

Down with Darwinism

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 07:09:03 GMT

There are 10s of thousands of evolutionary scientists, moreover, they constitute the top tiers among scientists. The creationists - with EXTREMELY FEW exceptions - constitute the VERY LOWEST TIERS. Jonathan Wells, William Dembski, David Berlinski, Dwayne Gish, John Pendleton - these guys are not scientists at all by ANY reasonable definition of the term.

People who have a comic book undestanding of science are quick to believe that evolution is "on the ropes" or a "theory in crisis." they can only believe this because they are forming opinions in an area where they have done nothing remotely resembling an honest day's research on the subject.

Down with Darwinism

Larry — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:36:01 GMT

Not everyone has 20:20 vision. Redesign your web pages to allow users to increase font size or zoom in.

Down with Darwinism

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:25:44 GMT

Sadly, some people would rather spout nonsensical firm convictions as if they had done an honest day's homework on the subject.

Self-deluded people think they understand evolution well enough to criticize it. They would be more worthy of respect, if they just said, "Well, I don't understand it and I don't feel like putting the effort into understanding it, but I reject it out of hand anyway." This, at least, would be an honest appraisal of the intellectual effort they have invested.

Down with Darwinism

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 01:03:54 GMT

Listening (Humility Trumps Arrogance)

An absolute fact of our universe appears to be that humans make errors and while it seems safe to say that no human is ALWAYS RIGHT, it also appears that humans are not ALWAYS WRONG either. The cliche "pearls of wisdom can come from the mouths of babes, fools, and drunks" seems to fit very well with what is trying to be conveyed herein.

Experts, people in their field of expertise, often make terrible (even able to be called "foolish") mistakes. The famous ERRORS of Einstein in physics are perfect examples. The errors of those eminent physicists claiming Einstein's Special Relativity was foolish (self-contradictory) were found to be the self-contradictory ones, etc..
One may not wish to take the time to listen to "babes etc." and one may be willing to take the risk of missing some truth coming therefrom, but that does not mean "babes etc." can't uncover truth. Those who believe everything comes about only by CHANCE (this seems to include atheists) will surely have to listen to "babes etc." if they want others to take their dedication to CHANCE (atheism?) seriously.

Down with Darwinism

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 01:11:54 GMT

Larry and some others in his boat, Get a WEBTV II. It zooms twice and is cheapest way to the WEB I know. I had to get one because the original WEBTV was very inconsistent about bringing up COSMIC LOG and sending comments.

Down with Darwinism

lyndal hainley south fulton tn — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:54:23 GMT

As far as the age of this there no telling how old it is. but read all the history books you can find and you will be really confused. history was written by the powers that be. and theres all kinds of contridictions. this should tell something. how long man been on this earth?

Down with Darwinism

Mark Levy, London, United Kingdom — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:56:00 GMT

I can't remember who said this but it has been said that scientists are climbing a mountain of knowledge will find theologians on the top waiting for them. I believe scientists are climbing a mountain and will find the book of genesis on top. Unfortunately, most of them have the wrong climbing equipment and will never get there.

Down with Darwinism

John Nelson — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:49:06 GMT

There is a difference between teaching something as fact and teaching about something.

We should be teaching ABOUT the things that impact life on this planet. Both evolution and religion impact our lives on this planet (if you don't think religion impacts our lives just take a quick look at the Middle East). We should be teaching students ABOUT both of them.

Have faith that our kids will be smart enough and strong enough to deal with the reality of both. Don't blind them to information they need because of arrogance.

Down with Darwinism

Kyle T, Houston, TX — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:54:05 GMT

Here's the problem I have with the teaching of evolution in our schools. They are very plainly teaching it as FACT. It is only a THEORY with no hard proof (show me evolution from one species to another). Teach both ideas, let the children decide which is best for them.

Down with Darwinism

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:25:47 GMT

Smart people make mistakes. We have a very effective process, though, for working out way out of those mistakes. That process is called science. It doesn't work overnight the way various religions promise. In fact, it's downright antithetical to certain virulent forms of Christianity - those that apply the same techniques that used-car salesmen apply. "You gotta take this deal RIGHT NOW! You could die any second and then what would happen to YOUR ETERNAL SOUL!"

So, no, science isn't going to save anyone from the boogie man. It's a process and it takes time. If you want answers right now that are unchecked and uncheckable, then certainly religion is the way to go.

But evolution has been checked over and over and over. It has been subjected to tests over and over and over. And it has never been disproved. Not once. The fact that people who haven't even bothered to check don't know about these tests, doesn't mean they haven't occurred.

Evolution only requires faith from people who don't understand it. Those of us who actually have done an honest day's homework on the subject have arrived at belief through understanding, not faith.

Down with Darwinism

John, Chester, NJ — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:55:29 GMT

The problem with "teaching the controversy" is that it can't be done honestly without offending biblical literalist. Can you imagine public school science teachers being allowed to get up and start ripping Genesis to shreds? Could they tell the kids about supernova SN1987, which has been directly measured at around 169,000 light years away, when Biblical genealogies say the earth is only about 6,000 years old? Will they then be required to teach the hairbrained counterarguments, which involve changes in the speed of light and Star-Trek type space warps? There's no way to objectively teach the controversy without stepping on someone's religious toes.

Down with Darwinism

Jaycubed, Santa Rosa, CA — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 04:36:55 GMT

Evolution is a theory which has provided a foundation, not just for the life sciences, but for all branches of science. Geology, cosmology, meteorology & biology are all more clearly understood due to the underlying framework provided by evolutionary theory. We are an evolving species on an evolving planet in an evolving universe.

Monotheism posits a devolutionary universe; one that decays from the "perfection" initially imposed by a creative Fairy. We should be devolving creatures on a devolving world in a devolving universe accordimg to this theory.

Which theory does the evidence overwhelmingly support?

Evidence from all branches of scientific endeavor demonstrate that the theory of evolution is as sound as the theory of gravity and the theory of electromagnetism. New evidence that was not available in Darwin's day, such as genetics and molecular biology, continue to demonstrate the soundness of evolutionary theory and expand its applicability to new areas of scientific exploration.

--------

Should comparative religion be taught in public schools? Of course it should. But who would scream loudest if actual comparisons between different religions, sects & cults were taught in public classrooms?

I have little doubt that preachers from different sects would be chasing teachers with fire & pitchfork; each claiming that "Their Fairy" was being defamed and some "Other Fairy" was being promoted.

--------------

But the most important questions to ask onself are something along these lines:
Is the "Supreme Being" that I choose to worship worthy of that worship?
Is possible for any being that demands worship to be worthy of worship?
Is this "Supreme Being" good or evil? Not whether it claims to be good or evil; but whether the behavior attributed to this being & followers would be considered good or evil by a disinterested observer.

By these standards, I would have to oppose & reject any "Supreme Being" proposed by my fellow man for being unworthy of worship and for being essentially evil. The records of the behaviors of the "Big Fairy", presented by their own believers in their holy texts, demonstrate that any person of active morals would be required to reject these evil, arrogant & destructive supernatural beings if they existed.

Let me also propose that the reason so much energy is spent (by those who deny their place in the real universe) opposing evolution is simply fear: fear of not being "special", fear of their own arrogance being proven unfounded, fear of being responsible for their own actions with no "Fairy" left to justify or forgive them, no god to blame.

Down with Darwinism

DesEmery,TheCarborundumChronicles,St.Thomas,ON,Canada — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:55:36 GMT

"Scientific smorgasbord on the Web," is another one of Alan's blogs appearing today. One section deals with Neanderthal man in Asia and Europe, with archaeological dating placing him in Spain less than 25,000 years ago, and dying out there from a prolonged dry spell in the area. Sadly there are few comments from the public for Alan there, unlike this one, which has a surfeit of opinions.

Science has shown we are not Neanderthals or his descendants, but has also proven our ancestors were in Africa long before his time and may (I said "may" on
purpose) have helped eliminate him. We may also have interbred with him, leading to his eventual demise. The biblical Eve, whose mitochondria we all share, could have been one of his kind (which would help to explain Cain's exile 'East of Eden,' and his wife and children found there).

Our African origins are accepted well by science in general. Progress can be traced back many millenia, from our use of simple tools to our discovery of fire, then the wheel, astronomy, vaccination, atomic energy, and so on. Darwin looked at many forms of life in his voyages, and gradually formed the idea that one form of life could over millions of years could change into another. Look at a chicken skeleton and you will see the reflection of a dinosaur skeleton. Darwin did not say that one day a tyrannosaurus rex laid an egg and out hatched a chicken. He did say that the finches on the Galapagos Islands, separated from other finches on the mainlands, all showed shorter and stronger beaks and bred those characteristics into future generations as they adapted to different conditions on the Islands related to their feeding abilities. They still flew from tree to tree as all finches do because there were trees on the Islands. Had the trees not been there, the finches would have developed bigger and stronger legs and their wings would have become smaller and weaker. Everything evolves, that is, it changes to suit the times, the geography, the physics of being, the light, the dark, the tropics, the arctic. Even ideas evolve, and can be traced backwards through time to find the germinal idea that opens life to those who are the seekers amongst us.

Down with Darwinism

Wayne, Alamogordo, NM — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:14:47 GMT

DesEmery,

I appreciate your philosophical viewpoint. I truly feel sorry for people who are trapped by their dogma and no longer have the ability to be a seeker (both evolutionist and religious zealots alike). Darwin was a seeker. I don't have to agree with his conclusions to know that he had a true thirst for knowledge and understanding. Our time on this earth is short, and it's a shame more people don't take the time to smell the roses. My belief in God and an afterlife give me hope and encouragement in a world that is all too often dark.

For those who have no hope, knock and the door will be opened, seek and you shall find.

Down with Darwinism

Doug, Fairfax, Virginia — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:44:35 GMT

Evolution has been taught in schools and universities for the last 100 years, creation science and inteligent design have not. Why then are more and more people rejecting evolution? We could blame the poor state of science education, but we would be fooling ourselves.

In business, if your products are not selling, and your competitor's are, then there is probably something wrong with your product, and maybe people no longer trust you!

People have good reason to be skeptical of evolution.

Consider the history of this "science". Piltdown man. Nebraska man. Even National Geographic got fooled recently. Every so often a creature that supposedly died out millions of years ago is found to be living with little or no change from its ancient form. (Guess he forgot to evolve with the rest of his buds)

Take a look at any evolution text. You'll find a lot of "scientist believe" and "could be" and "may have been" but very few hard facts.

Even the "facts" are suspect, however. Suppose you read about some bone fragments that are 1 million years old. Are they? If you ask, you will find that there is a margin of error. Ask how sure they are about the figure. They will say, when pressed, that they are, say, 90% sure. Could it be older? Yes, they will admit. Could it be younger? Yes, they will admit, but we don't think so. Ask again, has the dating method you use ever given erroneous findings? Again, they will say yes. Ask again, do all labs give the same answer for the same item? The answer is no, but that's good. Why? Because if one lab doesn't give you the answer you want, you can always find one that will.

Bottom line: What is presented as fact is often a guess. There is a word for that: "SWAG".

Of course, you can turn off your brain and cling to your faith in evolution. Don't be skeptical. Accept unquestioningly whatever the "experts" tell you. After all, it's "science".

Down with Darwinism

Kat, Houston TX — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:44:42 GMT

For those who don't know the meaning of scientific theory:

In science, a **theory** is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition.

Down with Darwinism

Dan, North Branch, MN — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:48:48 GMT

The basic law of biology is life can only come from life. That is observed, what is not observed is inorganic chemicals bonding together and forming a reproducing cell. I would appreciate some intellectual honesty from evolutionists and have them admit that they still live in faith that someday science will have the answer. Oh, I'm sorry, faith is irrational, then I quess it's irrational to believe that life rose by itself unguided.

Or how about the fossil record, how many times do we hear the phrase "unchanged for millions of years"?

Example; rhinoceres and alligators supposedly haven't changed but for some reason their next door neighboors the monkeys were busy evolving into man. How can one species evolve and the other remain unchanged? And that's not even touching how fossils form in the first place.

As far as astronomy is concerned, the scientific communities reaction to Alton Arp's research on quasars speaks volumes.

Finally, all those who think they can combine evolution with God's word should study the old testament and see how the Lord dealt with those who led His people astray.

Firm believer in God's word and the scientific method.

Down with Darwinism

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 04:32:39 GMT

People keep making claim after claim without thinking. Things don't have to change at the same rate - and there are REASONS FOR THAT. It's actually a prediction of evolution and Charles Darwin was well aware of it, since he wrote about it Origin of Species.

We don't know that life can only come from life. That's a supposition. But it's irrelevant to the point. Biological evolution - what Charles Darwin talked about - only takes place after life exists in one or a few forms. Once again the Darwin doubters demonstrate they have firm opinions based on ignorance of the subject.

Finally, Piltdown and Nebraska man have been addressed previously. Neither, ever informed a theory of evolution, both were doubted by scientists, both were eventually proven false by real scientists.

Evolution marches forward, but creationism is now known to be an even greater stuidity than it was 150 years ago. That people don't know that just means they have gone to school and haven't learned anything about the subject.

Down with Darwinism

Jeff Newman — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:36:41 GMT

The greatest irony is that I can imagine Darwin supporting the idea that religious thinking (IE. the belief in an all powerful omnipotent being) is evidenced to have given some advantage to the survival of homo sapien sapien as shown by the spread and obvious success of the species across just about every imaginable niche on earth.

Or, on the other hand, maybe religious thinking is the factor limiting the survival of the species much as the population of a pack of rats is controlled by the amount of available food in their environment. Take away the food (rational thought) and the population either dies off or an individual in the population has a mutation that allows them and their offspring to survive on fertalizer or something. (The fittest outcompete their neighbors just because they can due to a random mutation, not because they "believe" or try harder or are meaner and tougher or that they are being taken care of by the Great Pumpkim in that exclusive gated cummunity in heaven.

I have a great idea, how about 95% of those responding in this thread learn what the term "survival of the fittest" means and how to apply it when referencing Darwin, evolution and science. No, well then, I think the problem is even more basic than this, go learn what is meant by science and what it is and is not.

Since taking this advice takes work and effort I don't expect to see you guys in the classroom - you are to busy rapturing yourselves in the bathroom.

Down with Darwinism

K. Chaz — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 22:21:47 GMT

What’s so funny about religion and science is that they are the same in the fact that humans created and manipulate both. We have science books and the Bible, all written by humans, there for, all tragically flawed. But that is fine, as long as we keep searching for a more accurate truth in both religion and science.

Down with Darwinism

Lauren Unruh — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:06:21 GMT

So you won't think I am off topic, this is about the cultural debate itself rather then Darwinism. I think the debate is a religious one, Darwin just a straw dog. Abortion is abother one. There are many.

The debate is over religion. It seems to be science vs religion, because the major debaters don't want to admit the real bone of contention, religion vs religion. The dominate one in the argument is 'religion' and the other side, called 'science' or percieved as antireligion by many, could be called the natural way.

Native American religion is sometimes called that. I know this argument is really religion vs religion because I started researching Native American religion. That is the real 'debate'.

Down with Darwinism

GEORGE BONNAR..CANADA,,SYDNEY MINES,,NOVA SCOTIA — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 14:56:44 GMT

Just a thought. When churches let erroneous simple tenets like the word ( soul)go on to be believed as being something spiritual,then it doesnt surpise me that evolutionists scoff at christianity. For instance the word (soul) means literally ,(living being)from the hebrew word (nephesh). If no one believes me,get a lexicon.Without going into detail,this mere fact negates a person,s ability of coming back from the dead.This is exactly what satan would have you believe. TSK TSK TSK.

Down with Darwinism

Bob C Texas — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:33:35 GMT

What's all the fuss about??? Let's quit "teaching" notions of origins altogether in school. There's enough material that we do know to worry about what we don't. To equate evolution with the scientific method and then call evolution science is intellectually dishonest at best. Evolution is one hypothesis or notion of origins!!! That's all. To restrict the weaknesses of this hypothetic notion from being taught in the American public schools (or anywhere for that matter) is not to promote education but indoctrination like was done in Soviet Russia. Let's teach only half the alphabet and see how well our children’s function latter. Why can't all reasonable notions of origins be presented or none at all. Why do we allow unverifiable ideas to be equated with the scientific method of experimentation and then call them fact while at the same time banning other reasonable unverifiable ideas? After all we're already here and how we got here won't be changed by our debate.

I never cease to be amazed at how threatened the evolutionists are by the idea of a creator. All notions come down to belief anyway. Evolution just says there was no god involved. What's so wrong with acknowleging the fact that this is beyond the reach of proof which relegates it to the realm of the philosophical. No human saw the beginning of the world so far as we know and this event is not repeatable by us yet evolutionists insist that evolution is fact like gravity. I'm reminded of Rodney King and the LA riots, "can't we all just get along." Apparently we don't have real actual problenms to solve in society if we have enough time to worry about this but then again what we believe about how we got here impacts every other area of our lives.

Down with Darwinism

JOHN DOE, SEATTLE, WASH — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:56:18 GMT

"I never cease to be amazed at how threatened the evolutionists are by the idea of a creator."

The ToE doesn't say anything about a creator. It's been stated before , evolution explains how we got here not why. Hell, you can believe aliens are the why, I don't care, just don't dismiss evolution because you're ignorant about the subject.

Also, If ID is taught in schools as science then why not bring alchemy back and teach it along with chemistry? Teach the bloody controversy. Let the kids see both sides. Full Metal Alchemist should be on the Discovery Science channel.