Woman to Woman

By Patrick

October 24, 2005 07:38 AM | Link to this

Anybody who says that Intelligent Design isn’t Creationism is just lying to themselves, and the rest of us. I find it interesting that the Catholic High School I went to never once tried to mix Science and Religion. And they could have done it if they had so desired since they are not a public school. Why do you people feel the need to do it? How come you can’t study this at church? Better yet, send your children to one of the many religious schools in this state. That way, you know they are getting the type of education you desire.

By Ben

October 24, 2005 07:41 AM | Link to this

NO

By Paul

October 24, 2005 07:59 AM | Link to this

Although I do not feel qualified to adequately address the issue as to which theory is correct, I find it puzzling, however, that anyone would object to those wishing to express their opinion(s). There are (what) 40 minutes per day in a high school science class. If every child in the USA had those minutes filled with only the same “required” subjects, our children might be deprived of exploring many areas of “original thought.” As a result our country could suffer too.

Let’s face it, everyone is not going to agree on religion or politics, but obviously the debate goes on. Thankfully we are not trying to resolve the differences the way it is being done in some other countries.

By Terry

October 24, 2005 08:04 AM | Link to this

To consider discussing the concept of Intelligent Design in a science class, one would have to ignore the principals of scientific method and redefine the word science.

A scientific theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon hypotheses that have been proven and verified multiple times. Using this definition, Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.

Intelligent design cannot even be considered a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an educated guess based on observation, however even a hypothesis requires that it be supported or refuted by experimentation.

The concept of intelligent design cannot be proven true or false. Therefore it fails the first basic test of being considered scientifically.

Evolution, on the other hand, is well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is scientific fact! The only theoretical aspect to the Theory of Evolution is proving (or disproving) various hypotheses concerning the mechanisms that drive evolution.

Intelligent Design belongs in a electives class on ancient mythology. Give young, inquiring minds a chance to see religious dogma from a detached view point and all religions will finally go the way of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny!

By Ben

October 24, 2005 08:05 AM | Link to this

And we wonder why Georgia schools and students are so bad!

By Ken

October 24, 2005 08:08 AM | Link to this

What constitutes legitimate theories for how the Earth and it’s life came into being…?

Many theories abound, and none have been proven or disproven in their entirety.

By Lyrazel

October 24, 2005 08:17 AM | Link to this

Can you teach Intellegent Design without invoking Christianity or God?

By Ken

October 24, 2005 08:25 AM | Link to this

I think you could teach Intelligent Design without invoking Christianity, God, or any other religious ides.

I believe the basis is that ‘someone’ or ‘something’ designed the world in which we live. Could be space aliens. Could be something else. Who knows. I know what I believe.

Didn’t that movie ‘Mission To Mars’ work off of the same premice? It proposed the idea that beings from Mars carefully constructed the ecosystem in which we live.

By Renee

October 24, 2005 08:28 AM | Link to this

Science and religion should be kept and taught separately. If you want more religion taught to your kids in class, they should be sent to a religion based school.

In my opinion, religion is ones own belief, whereas science has factual backing.

By Ken

October 24, 2005 08:30 AM | Link to this

Terry…

Many aspects of evolution have been proven to be accurate, however, it is still called a theory. We do not reference the ‘Theory of Gravity’ do we? Why is that? B/C there are still unanswered questions about the entire theory of evolution, unlike the scientific certainty of gravity…

Do we have a direct link to where man came from?

Do we know where the first organism came from? For that theory to be complete, it MUST have a starting point. What is that starting point and where did it come from?

Do we know why there are multiple species of life and why they all act in very different ways?

By Bruce

October 24, 2005 08:40 AM | Link to this

We want to teach everything but Intelligent Design, why is that? Just what are we afraid of?

By kt1066

October 24, 2005 08:47 AM | Link to this

Science class is for studying science. Science is based on facts, not opinions. As explained nicely in an early post, intelligent design ideas don’t meet any scientific criteria for hypotheses or theories. You wouldn’t introduce “alternative theories” in math, such as 2 plus 2 actually equals 5; neither do you introduce other opinions in science when those opinions are not scientific. This isn’t a question of squelching other voices or opinions; this is a question of whether we will teach science or religion. The intelligent design proponents are people with weak faith, seeking factual verification that can’t be found; they may feel secure if they can pretend that God is scientifically verifiable, but they want the rest of us to go along with them. Safety in numbers kind of thing. Galileo’s theories ultimately prevailed because he had the facts on his side. Religion doesn’t deal with facts; it deals with belief, faith, symbols, philosophy, maybe even Truth, sometimes, when its adherents don’t get in the way.

By Renee

October 24, 2005 08:48 AM | Link to this

But let’s be honest: design has religious implications. Which is why some fervent evolutionists don’t want it to be true. (Shaunti’s comment)

I think it’s the other way around. The religious fundamentalists don’t want to admit the theory of evolution. It’s much easier to believe that a higher power is making everything happen.

By Billy

October 24, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this

Ken — Intelligent Design offers no more of a strating point than does Evolution. And any criticisms about Evolution having “gaps” are missing the point. Evolution is based in science. Creationism is not, nor is its pseudo-scientific cousin, Intelligent Design.

Now, I don’t know for sure that evolution was a completely random occurrence. Missin to Mars had us evolving from Martians. Stargate: SG-1 and Star Trek: The Next Generation have both had themes of human life evolving from an acient humanoid life form that seeded the galaxy/universe with its DNA, knowing that in some places evolution would eventually lead to another humanoid species. It is possible that this occurred, but we have no scientific basis for this assumption.

But let’s say for the sake of argument that we were to find evidence that proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Intelligent Design was the way we came to be. Only our proof, in this hypothetical situation, is a bunch of alien artifacts that prove we were an alien 6th grader’s project for the school science fair. All the people clamoring for the inclusion of Intelligent Design today would be claiming that the alien artifacts were fakes or something, because it would have removed the possibility that God had their specific being in mind when he started this “life” thing.

As if God couldn’t come up with something better…

By Man Of Science, Man Of Faith

October 24, 2005 09:02 AM | Link to this

I would submit that the origins of the universe are the same as the origins of life. Therefore I don’t understand the linking of Intelligent Design to evolution. The argument that life is too complex to have evolved without a helping hand implies evolution is more complex than, say, quantum mechanics, which is nonsense in my opinion. To link an Intelligent Designer to life and life alone is nothing but hubris in my opinion; another example of humans creating god in their own image. Searching for the origins of life and other scientific endeavors are noble pursuits, but we needn’t dilute the scientific method of testable hypotheses with all this “Intelligent Design” chatter in public classrooms. The phrase is a euphemism for faith, and that is a personal, not public, matter, and one on which folks of different cultures and backgrounds have vastly different opinions. Science need not invoke an Intelligent Designer, but scientists are free to do so if they wish, without coercion from either side of the debate. Let students be free of public coercion as well.

By Terry

October 24, 2005 09:03 AM | Link to this

Ken: you are right, it is still the Theory of Evolution. And that is because, although we have proven evolution is a fact, we don’t have all the answers to the mechanisms at work. For example, we know that horses at one time were 2 foot tall, three-toed mammals. They still have 2 vestigial toes and are a bit larger in today’s world, but we‘re still working out all the details of what drove these changes.

We also still have a Theory of Relativity and a Theory of Quantum Mechanics, a Unified Field Theory (in which gravity is one proven piece), etc.

That still doesn‘t justify a scientific view Intelligent Design. Any hypothesis must be provable (or refutable) by independent scientific testing. ID doesn‘t lend itself to any type of testing.

This makes ID a philosophical concept, not a scientific theory. I‘ve got no problem with that. Philosophy occasionally discusses concepts of scientific thought. However science never addresses philosophical issues. Philosophical concepts just don’t fit into the scientific method model of analysis.

No matter how you try to dress it up. Intelligent Design is not a scientific principal, theory, or hypothesis.

You want it discussed in public school — okay. But you’ve got to put in the right class and it just doesn’t fit into our current definition of what science is.

By Just Being Me

October 24, 2005 09:04 AM | Link to this

Dear Diane and Shaunti:

I am so sorry for the sarcastic comments I’ve made in the past regarding the shallowness of your columns. I promise I won’t ever do it again. Please, PLEEEEEASE don’t take the forum away from us again. Don’t punish all these people just because I can’t control my mouth.

Didn’t know I was addicted until it was taken away,

JBM P.S. Wonderfully thought-provoking, deep, intelligent topic you two brilliant women picked this week! :-)

By Bruce

October 24, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this

But if evolution is a proven fact where are all the half ape/half human caught in the middle of the process?

By Renee

October 24, 2005 09:08 AM | Link to this

JBM — Toooo funny! My thoughts exactly!!

By Billy

October 24, 2005 09:11 AM | Link to this

Bruce, we don’t want to teach “everything but Intelligent Design.” We want to teach science. Intelligent Design would be great for a class on comparative religion during a discussion on varying theories of creation. It has no more business in a science class than does a strict interpretation of creation according to the book of Genesis. Or the theory that the world was created when Orson Welles thought it into existence so he’d have a forum in which to tell the story of a man and his fond memory of his sled.

By Tim

October 24, 2005 09:13 AM | Link to this

Creationism (y’all know that is what this really is) is based on philosphy not biology… it doesn’t belong in a science class

By Brian Curtis

October 24, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this

Terry has the central point, and it’s a good one: we can’t teach “competing theories” if there’s no theory to TEACH.

And Intelligent Design fails every test for being a scientific theory. Does current evolutionary science have all the answers? No, but it has more of them than any other explanation… and Intelligent Design has none. Zero. Nada.

Read my lips, people: We can’t teach ID in a science class because it’s not science. It’s not even a theory, let alone a “contested” one! We don’t teach ID in science classes for the same reason we don’t teach Hindu creation myths—because, interesting though they may be, they don’t qualify as science. They’re not testable; they don’t make predictions; they don’t explain anything.

And it’s not an either-or proposition. You can’t prop up ID by trying to poke holes in evolution. If the theory of natural selection is proven to be flawed (highly unlikely, given the overwhelming degree of confirmation), it’ll have to be replaced with another scientific theory that meets all the entry criteria for science. ID doesn’t even come close. It’s an attitude, not a theory.

And can we dispense with the silly idea that “theory” means the same as “random, wild guess”? Two other prominent theories in science are called “atomic” and “gravitation,” after all.

By Ken

October 24, 2005 09:17 AM | Link to this

Terry…

Concepts of all types are the starting point for the scientific method. Without a concept, the scientific method never begins.

The concept of intelligent design may not have been proven or disproven using the scientific method. That should be the basis for teaching or not teaching the subject. Not whether or not you agree or disagree with the concept. If that is the case, should we not use that as the basis for all scientific theories we teach.

By David

October 24, 2005 09:22 AM | Link to this

I can’t believe this is a debate for school teaching. It’s incredible how fearful religious people are about evolution being true. The compartmentalizion of the religious-minded makes me laugh sometimes. They’ll go about living their lives with normal reasoning skills for 99% of the day and then flick this switch that makes them believe arguments counter to facts.

100 years from now most Christians will be satisfied with evolution (it’s already happening with a large chunk of believers). Most of them have no problems with the earth revolving around the sun today. They’ll face reality down the road and people will look back and laugh how they went kicking and screaming for decades into truth. Just not the “truth” that Shaunti promotes.

By Bruce

October 24, 2005 09:24 AM | Link to this

After reading Terry’s last post I find myself at a crossroad. Terry you make a vaild point in which I must agree. ID should not be taught as Science. But I can’t help but feel ID should be taught as an alternative to evolution.

P.S. I would still love to see one of those half ape/half humans……

By Billy

October 24, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this

Bruce, I think what you’re looking for is Australopithicus africanis. I’m not sure about the spelling.

What about Neanderthal man? He was the result of a divergent line of evolution but, for whatever reason, disappeared.

MOSMOF, I don’t think the origins of life and of the universe are the same. I can fathom there being a random spark that turned chemicals into simple life forms. I can fathom the Big Bang. I cannot fathom the void prior to the Big Bang. What was there before? What triggered the bang? If all the mass of the universe was, at the time, condensed to size of the head of a pin, what did that? What created the mass to begin with. Until someone answers this with a reasonable answer, I’ll go with God. He may have begun the universe, but I don’t think he began life. I see him as the type of guy who’ll just let things run and see where they go.

By Terry

October 24, 2005 09:29 AM | Link to this

Ken: Are you saying we should teach concepts of magic in a science class?

You’re right, science doesn’t depend on your or my view of a particular concept. And a concept doesn’t have to be proven. But it does have to be testable.

By stewie

October 24, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this

Shaunti says that science should be brave enough to consider unscientific answers to scientific questions…huh!!!. Then it’s not science. Until science can determine a way to test for an intelligent creator, it it nothing more than speculation…great for philosophical debate, but not science. The scientific gaps in evolution or any scientific study do not deserve an apology or an explanation because acknowledgement of those gaps is implicit…it’s part of the scientific method and gives scientist a new way to seeks answers. Shaunti shows once again that she has no real knowledge…only a penchant for rhetoric.

Also, why stop at high school? Most of the real education in evolution comes at the post-secondary level. Are the intelligent design crowd going to start complaining about science curriculums at state universities. If we are going to dumb down science, we might as well do it right…

By Terry

October 24, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this

Intelligent Designer proponents - you should be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. Do you really think ID can stand up to the application of scientific methods of thought?

Maybe I should switch sides in this argument. There’s no surer way to eliminate the myths and superstitions of religion that to apply scientific analysis to it.

By Ken

October 24, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this

Terry…

Actually, I am proposing exactly the opposite. If it can’t be absolutely proven, then it should not be taught.

Period.

Testable? Can we test the ‘Big Bang’ theory? It is taught in school, at least it was in my school, in seventh grade I believe. I don’t know how testable that is.

By Terry

October 24, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this

Billy: You assume that Big Bang actually occured. There’s still a major debate on that concept which is beyond the scope of this thread.

By Bruce

October 24, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this

Billy,

No what I am looking for is a being (ape to Human)caught in the middle of the evolutionary process here, now, today. Not years ago but right now at this point in time. Where are they? Why isn’t this evolution still going on today? Why did it stop? When did it stop?

By Terry

October 24, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this

Ken: Most of our science is not absolute. Any good scientist will tell you nothing can be proven absolutely. That’s why it’s all theories. Scientific theories are our best explaination of tested observations about the physical world. They are alway open to new TESTED observations that change some aspect of the theory (but hardly ever does the entire theory get tossed).

And big bang is still a hypothesis that is waiting on definitive tests. The alternate concept of steady-state universe also has it’s proponents and is also being actively tested. Current science is arguing over the interpretation of the results as it supports these two concepts. It is interesting to me that the biggest argument against steady-state is “let there be light” and the biggest argument against big bang is the mathematical requirement for multiple dimensions of existence and a willingness to ignore our understanding of physical laws of space/time to make big bang possible.

By Stewie

October 24, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this

Ken,

So if something can’t be proven..yet…scientist and science educators should just give up…just tell students, we don’t know everything so don’t bother going out yourself and becoming a scientist?

No, we can’t go back and time and spend the inordinate about of time studying if the big bang caused the beginning of life. We can look at what we know about physics and biology and genetics and anthropology and with some accuracy determine the most likely course of events. We can also look at proven aspects of evolution (yes, there are many facets of evolution that have nothing to do with the big bang) and make accurate statements about the diversity of life.

I agree with Terry, put ID to the scientific test. If we are going to prove that life came about from an intelligent creator, then we first have to prove that such a creator exists. Anyone out there know a scientific method to investigate this…besides faith? Jerry Falwell often says God talks to him…should we get him in a lab somewhere and examine his brain waves when he says God is talking to him?

By Jack

October 24, 2005 09:46 AM | Link to this

JBM. Yes this blog is addicting. Kind of like a train wreck, you just have to look at it!

By Billy

October 24, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this

Terry, I’m talking hypothetically. I don’t really have much of any belief as far as the Big Bang is concerned because the only evidence we have of it is, I believe, the fact that the universe is spreading out, everything moving away from everything else.

But that is not my point. I can buy into God playing a part in the beginning, but I believe in “the beginning” as billions of years ago, not as the agricultural revolution, or even the first incident of life on Earth. Creation I can attribute to God, Life I attribute to chance. Diversity of life I attribute to evolution.

By E. Lewis

October 24, 2005 09:52 AM | Link to this

The only possible place for intelligent designer to be taught in public schools would be in a religious studies class along with all of the other religious based origins of the universe theories. There are many of those. Unfortunately, my experience around here has shown me that the only religious based teachings are fundamentalist, Protestant Christian, evangelical based. I’d like to se the reaction to teaching the Hindu version of the beginning of the world.

By Chilao

October 24, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this

Of course there is no such thing as evolution. Dark-skinned people with wide nostrils for breathing warm humid air, with the air molecules further apart, just naturally migrated to where there was lots of sun,(hence the dark skin), and fair-skinned (i.e. white) people, with thin noses for breathing cold concentrated air just migrated to where it was easier to breath, up in the cold north, adn there was only sun less months per year. Are you aware the Arab/Semitic nose has an internal curvature to cool-down/humidify that hot desert air?

Geez, no such thing as evolution? Guess wide-nostril people got tired of those heavy oxygen rushes and migrated to where the air was more humid and they would get less of an oxygen dose each breath of air.

If you were truly Secure in your religious beliefs, you would not require the concept of faith be taught in public schools, which is all that the concept of intelligient design is.

By Ken

October 24, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this

Stewie…

You just made my point. No side of the Intelligent Design or any other issue can have everything the way they want it.

Of course we would not stop teaching anything that cannot be absolutely proven. Doing that would prevent our greatest minds from freely hypothesizing and searching for truth.

The question lies in how do we determine what ‘unproven’ items can be taught and which can’t. Without a specific criteria, it simply looks like subjective rhetoric.

For the record… I would NOT teach intelligent design in school, and would not have wanted that taught to me in my litany of chemistry and biology classes. At the very MOST, I would want it to be presented as an alternative theory to spark the interest of discovery.

By Billy

October 24, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this

Bruce — the lack of the link today does not mean that the link never existed. As our common ancestor with apes would have been exposed to different environments/habitats/prey/predators, its evolutionary path would have diverged. We used to write everything by hand. Spanish, French, Italian, and other languages all evolved from Latin, but we rarely hear anyone speak Latin. We don’t hear people speak a “middle” language, halfway between Latin and Spanish. Does that meant Spanish came to be all on its own?

By Chilao

October 24, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this

WIth all that we have done with livestock selective breeding, do you know if you threw a cow and bull from each bread of cattle or a stallion and mare from each horse breed into a large breeding field, in 100 years the cattle would all look like Texas Longhorns, the closest we have to the original Auroch, and the horses would mostly all look like the Spanish Barbary horse, many would even have striped legs. There are wild mustang herds out West that look exactly this way.

Now some would argue that an ID person made all that happen that way, returning the animals to their design. Others would argue it is evolution’s natural selection. Probably depends of your religious belief’s, huh?

By Jack

October 24, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this

What about Spanglish?

By Marc Marton

October 24, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this

To answer Billy’s question about the absence of half man/ half ape beings, you see them all the time. Many are talkshow radio/TV hosts and pundits.

By Bruce

October 24, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this

Billy,

Come on now, you started out with some intelligent debate but now you are going off on a tangent. Different forms of communication is grasping at straws don’t you think? If evolution is the cause of what we are today why did it stop? We still have apes just as they were before Humans. Those apes still have different environments/habitats/prey/predators that plague them as they did back then so again what stopped the process? Or is this just one of those GAPS?

By Billy

October 24, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this

Assume that Spanglish becomes the dominant language in 150 years, and the only people who really speak Spanish and English are villagers in remote areas in Guatemala and survivalists in Idaho, respectively. Would Spanglish have come to be on its own just because we could no longer find the entity/entities from which it evolved? No.

By BonnieJean

October 24, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this

…..everybody has something to say and NOBODY was here when it happened. Explain how you got here. Through sex? I doubt it. That was the physical channel but how did you really get here? Can’t explain it huh? Let’s all dress it up and call it whatever we want, Intelligent Design, Creationism….Evolution, Big Bang. If you weren’t here then you can’t speak about it. God is the creator of ALL things. He’s the unexpected, the unexplainable and invisible but he exists and created all that was, is and will ever be.

By Stewie

October 24, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this

Ken,

What is taught in schools comes from a consensus of people that are deemed experts in the field. If you disagree with their conclusions, it is your obligation to come up with better ones.

Can we prove that matter is made up of atoms? We can’t see them, but we accept the findings of chemists that tell us, based on their knowledge of chemistry and the use of sophisticated instruments, that matter is made up of atomic and sub-atomic particles. But why not teach an alternative explanation for electricty for example. Maybe electricity is really just God flowing through the lines to everyone…maybe electric potential that causes our hearts to beat in rhythm is really just an intelligent being working in every living thing’s cardiac muscle.

Why is evolution different from those examples?

By Stewie

October 24, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

Bruce,

Actually Billy’s example is an apt explanation…the ability to speak is an example of behavior, which is probably the most affected by the process of evolution.

You say why has evolution stopped? What evidence do you have that it has stopped? There are new species being discovered all the time. Why are the presence of primitive forms of primates evidence against evolution?

Your view of evolution is not correct…it is not a linear process, with one species turning into another. It is an inverse tree.

Who is to say that modern homo sapiens is not a transition? Why do apes and humans have eyes on the front of their faces, unlike other mammalian species. Why do apes and humans have thumbs, and why do apes and humans have a pendulous p*** (i.e., unsheathed)? Do you believe that the domestic canine is related to the wolf? Do you know that man and ape are more genetically alike than dog and wolf?

By Billy

October 24, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

Good one Marc!

Bruce, The language thing is an analogy, and I apologize if it wasn’t good enough to explain my point. No one says Evolution has stopped. I certainly don’t think it has. Evolution is why I had to have my wisdom teeth cut out. It’s why we have vestigial organs like the appendix. What does it do? It just gets inflamed and has to be removed before it kills you. It serves no real purpose.

Perhaps apes still are evolving. We don’t know. We can measure genetics in the short term, but I don’t know how well we can measure where things are headed, evolutionarily speaking. Maybe it’s Heisenbergs(?) Uncertainty Principle applied to Evolution. We can’t look at us or at other species and tell the direction we are headed unless we observe over a period of time. And with evolution, that period needs to be longer than usual.

By Jack

October 24, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

Religion should be taught by Mom & Dad & church. I don’t want the government to tell my children about it. It should be mentioned as all theories should but not taught as “gospel”

By Billy

October 24, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

Nice, BonnieJean. Perhaps we can teach that in science. That’s just what we need to get America up on top of the world in education!

By Ken

October 24, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

Stewie…

Not sure where you are going with the comparison of evolution to electricity. I am not challenging the fact that evolution should be taught in schools. I am not even saying that intelligent design should be taught in schools.

I am merely trying to understand what makes it OK to teach one thing and not another. What is the litmus test that identifies what should and should not be taught.

By John

October 24, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this

From Shaunti:

It’s bizarre that we urge students to question and probe and unearth anomalies in every area of science except this one.

This is why I have no respect for Shaunti…did she even re-read this?

Is there any other facet of science where the unscientific try to fill the anomalies with “I don’t know the answer so God must have done it?”

We don’t know the causes of certain diseases, so should we just encourage students to resign to the notion that God wants those people to be sick?

And how about this gem?

Intelligent design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence

Intelligent design is not a study of anything. It is a conclusion based on nothing but a rejection of other theories. A study has to have evidence…where is the evidence for intelligence? Lack of scientific evidence only means it hasn’t been discovered yet.

By Stewie

October 24, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this

Ken,

My point, and a question for you is: why do accept the scientific explanation of electricity, but not evolution?

By Billy

October 24, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this

Ken, I think the litmus test is consensus by experts in the field. With something unknown, like the Big Bang, it is presented as an unprovable hypothesis. I don’t recall ever hearing it presented as fact. Nor evolution, for that matter.

As far as which unprovable theories we teach, in science we teach unprovable theories that are at least supported by scientific evidence. And, again, they are presented as theories. This seems almost like argument for argument’s sake. You appear to be of the opinion that an opinion with no scientific basis should still be given a fair chance, even though you personally don’t want it taught.

Maybe this is like pornography…I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it. I can’t tell you what the line is that divides what should be taught from what should not, but I can tell you which things go into which categories.

By Bruce

October 24, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this

Well then can you tell me when the last ape turn into a human? How long ago was that? Again do not go off on a tangent. We are not talking about other species we are talking about the evolution of humans. Has the belief changed that humans evolved from apes? If so, then I apologize. But if not then tell me where I can go and see for myself a half ape/half human. In order for me to believe this process is the truth you say it is I want to see it for myself.

Stewie asked the question how do I know it has stopped. Well that one is simple, I can’t see one.

Differences in communication and, what was it, your wisdom teeth are adaption not evolution. Chilao’s example of the nose is nothing more than adaption either.

By BonnieJean

October 24, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this

Actually Ken, it is God, that’s flows through the lines of electricity and anything else you can try to name. It is God that keeps the body up and running, no matter how you define and explain. Just keep living, you’ll know if not now, in our next life that it was God you denied, because he wasn’t something you could explain and wrap your simple mind around. God IS the big picture behind all that you think you’re smart enough to know and see and all that you can’t.

By Billy

October 24, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

BonnieJean, go away and let us have a serious discussion.

Bruce, I don’t recall the claim being that humans evolved from apes, I recall it being that they evolved from a common ancestor. And adaptation is the essence of evolution, the driving force behind natural selection, or vice versa. You can’t differentiate between the two.

By BonnieJean

October 24, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

Ken, how do you know blue is blue…scientifically that is? Weren’t you TAUGHT your colors? Or, did they in kindergarten give you the formula of how we conclude blue is blue? And don’t go to say we mix this color with that color, because I’ll need you to define, scientifically that is, those colors as well. How do you know the thing you’re sitting on is a chair…did someone tell you in kindergarten to take a sit and sit down? Did they give you the scientific proof that it was a chair. Have you ever gone to find out the scientific backings in proving that the thing that we sit on and holds us is a chair. Can you post the scientific formula that explains what a chair is and how it came to be?

By Billy

October 24, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

Sorry Bruce, forgot to answer your other questions. You can’t see air. Do you deny it exists? You can’t see God. Do you believe in him? We’ve explained that a common ancestor in the past can explain evolution, but you completely reject the idea, claiming that in order for the link to be valid, you need a live specimen today. Why? Why can we not explain it using analogies?

The reason is because you are dead-set in your beliefs. You don’t want an analogy because you do not want an explanation. Your criteria is set intentionally so that no one will be able to give you the evidence you require. You want a link today? If there were a “half-ape/half-human” today, you would argue that it is proof against evolution, because the halfling would not have evolved into us/apes if it could have survived in its current state. You are using a circular logic to counter scientific evidence.

By Stewie

October 24, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this

Bruce,

You and I obviously have a different thought process. There’s plenty of information on the net about your questions.

But instead of going back and forth about the evolutionary basis of our origins, why don’t you offer an explanation of how all the species got here? And if it is the work of a creator, how did it happen? Did God take dirt and turn it into flesh? What type of chemical reaction would that have to be? How did the creator come up with the immune system and circulatory system? At some point, since we are physical beings that we can see and touch, there has to be a physical explanation as to how we all got to be here? So how did the creator do it?

If you are going to reject the scientific explanations, and desire to be credible, don’t you think you should provide the details of alternatives?

By Billy

October 24, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

BonnieJean, blue comes from the breaking of white light into the light spectrum, as with a prism. White light consists of red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet, the cherished “Roy G. Biv” from school. If you see something blue, that oject is absorbing all colors of light in the spectrum except for blue, which it reflects back into your eye. Your brain interprets the light as blue. You then assign blue to the list of things God does in our lives, in addition to the sun shining, the rain falling, and the cable guy always showing up at the end of three-hour block of time he says he will come.

By Bruce

October 24, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this

Billy,

Maybe you didn’t say it but that is what is being taught, or at least it was when I was in school. First you try to explain it and now that isn’t even what happened. Just answer the question. Why aren’t apes still evolving into humans today? I’ll give you a hint, IT NEVER HAPPENED….. Just because our DNA is similar doesn’t mean they are our ancestors.

By Billy

October 24, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

Bruce, you’re framing a process that takes millenia as if it’s something apes do over the weekend. The proposition is as ludicrous as it is detrimental to our nation’s status in the world scientific community. And, again, man did not come from apes, but from an ancestor that is common to both man and apes. Evolution occurs not in individuals, but in populations. Apes are probably still evolving, but they wouldn’t evolve into humans. Think of it as a highway. We got off at the “human” exit, apes at the “apes” exit. We’re now on separate roads, having missed each other’s exits. That’s not to say apes and/or humans won’t take another exit down our respective roads.

By Jack

October 24, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

By Stewie

October 24, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

Actually Bruce, if you want to get more specific all primates (including humans) evolved from a tree shrew.

By BonnieJean

October 24, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

Billy, and where does white light breaking into the light spectrum……comes from? How does your brain interprets the light as blue? How did the brain come to be? We could go on and on and you could explain yourself until you’re blue…get it….but you still cannot omit God from the big picture….sorry charlie!

By Billy

October 24, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this

What’s you point Bonnie? God exists? I believe it. I don’t think he micromanages our lives to the point you do. And, regardless of whether he does or not, we have no scientific proof, and won’t until God comes and tells everyone, everywhere, that he is the reason grass grows and the President can’t pronounce “nuclear”.

And until we get that proof, “God” just doesn’t cut it as a scientific explanation for jack $hit.

I have come to the conclusion that you are a forum troll who is here only to repeatedly post you drivel. Leave the board to those who want to actually engage in discussion of the topic

By Renee

October 24, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

Bonnie, in my opinion I think that is the problem I have personally with religion for the most part. The argument that God created everything and it just is because God did it. And it’s that way because the Bible says so. It seems that people don’t think for themselves anymore when it comes to religion.

By David

October 24, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this

Bonnie, you’re doing a disservice to believers here.

By kimberly

October 24, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this

I don’t think one school of thought actually contradicts the other. If God created everything, why would it be contradicting God to explain the manner in which things reached their current form? When Genesis was written, humans had neither the knowledge nor the comprehensive frame of reference to understand the development of nature the way do now. People who stamp their feet and wave their fists and say that “science” contradicts the bible are just looking for something to fight with their neighbors about, and they’re just itching to criticize others who don’t live exactly the way they do. What a waste of breath!

By Charlie

October 24, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this

Another problem with the Theory of Evolution is that DNA information is actually lost and worsens over time. This is the opposite of what Evolution would require. Even Natural Selection does not slow the harmful gene degeneration.

By Voice of Reason

October 24, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this

Ok Bonnie we’ll play “your” game. So where did GOD come from?

By Billy

October 24, 2005 12:07 PM | Link to this

Charlie — What? DNA doesn’t worsen over time. A lack of genetic diversity in a population will lead to problems. The population is at higher risk of dying out completely from the same disease, etc. That is part of why inbreeding leads to physical problems, like what you see in many pure-bred dogs. Is this what you mean by DNA degrading?

By Just Being Me

October 24, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this

Renee - Wow. My daughter just confided in me that she doesn’t believe in God anymore and pretty much cited those same reasons. Needless to say, I’m heartbroken and don’t really know what to say to her, except the same thing that I’ll say to you: no one can prove to you that God exists. Frankly, I don’t know why Christians even bother to argue His existence with all these ridiculous examples they purport must be proof. Like I said, no one can prove His existence, if they could, there’d be no reason to have faith. I think it’s just one of those things where you don’t really believe until you have an experience that causes you to believe. Personally, I have a lot of doubts about the Bible, the beginning times, etc. But, I will always believe in the God of the Bible, just because I experienced Him for myself. No science, math, history, or current event can ever change that for me.

Hopefully, my daughter’s just going through a phase. Until she comes out, I just pray regularly that one day she’ll have a “sho nuff” experience that changes her mind forever.

By Archie

October 24, 2005 12:13 PM | Link to this

I agree with some of what Ken said 8:30 a.m. about evolution being called a theory. Diane makes a good argument but I don’t understand the anger from the atheist and agnostic crowd because all you have is a theory compared another to theory. One side says you can’t prove a creator exists and the other side says the universe just exists and has evolved over time to where we are today. I don’t think science classes should require the teaching of intelligent design because it can’t be done scientifically as far as I know. Evolution has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena, but evolution has not been proven otherwise it would not be a theory. I think Diane wins this debate because intelligent design can’t be tested and challenged scientifically but I am still not comfortable with all of her statements.

By Just Being Me

October 24, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

Voice of Reason, that is the same exact question my daughter asked - and an unsatisfactory answer is the very reason that she no longer believes.

By marzipan

October 24, 2005 12:18 PM | Link to this

BonnieJean, Are you going to have eternal life? According to Jesus, what must you do to have eternal life?
Sell everything you have and give all the money to the poor. —Heaven will be very empty, it seems. How many Christians take seriously this direct command of Jesus? “And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? … Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor; and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.” (Matthew 19:16-21. See also Luke 12:33)

By Ken

October 24, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this

Stewie…

I am not attacking the theory of evolution. In fact, I believe we are contuing to evolve. Human beings are bigger, stronger, faster than ever before. We can cross-breed dogs for certain traits. The same can be said other varieties of animals. In fact, I believe my two office plants have cross polenated right before my eyes.

The point I am tring to make is this… Evolution has holes, just like other theories when it tries to explain where life on Earth originated. That simply lead to my following question of why we teach one unproven scientific theory versus another.

Bonnie…

Trust me, and all of the other people from this BLOG when I say that I absolutely believe that God is the creator of everything and that he was the Intelligent Designer of this great universe. That, however, does not mean that we as a society cannot engage in discourse b/c there are many people out there who do not believe. Their thoughts are welcome, and to be honest, simply solidify my fait more and more on a daily basis.

By marzipan

October 24, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

According to Jesus, how should slaves be treated? They should be beaten for disobedience, but not more severely then they deserve. —Jesus never denounced slavery: he endorsed it! He incorporated it into his teachings as if it were the most natural order (which it was for the biblical writers who didn’t know any better). Why doesn’t the bible—supposedly inspired by an all-loving deity—ever hint that there is something wrong with such a brutal social institution? If it were not for the influence of the bible, the appalling American slave trade might have been curtailed, along with the bloody Civil War. (Luke 12:41-48)

By Chilao

October 24, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

Good one, Voice of Reason.

Who put God where he is, to be in a position to be the Master Intelligient Designer and to go around the universe playing control-freak experiments with what he created. For YEARS people have told me God must exist, since there is so much that cannot be explained. But then they stumble when I ask “Who created him?” in following their own logic.

By Billy

October 24, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this

Archie, I understand what you’re saying, but a theory as it relates to the scientific method can be very different from our general definition of a theory. People have “conspiracy theories” that are basically random conclusions drawn off of coincidental “evidence”. On a good day.

Scientific theories are the best scientific explanation at the time. They are tested and retested. The tests support the theory. When tests refute the theory, its very existence is threatened. If it no longer explains what it purports to explain, it is no longer any good. Evolution cannot be proved, but it cannot be disproved and it can be reproduced.

I’m glad you see the failings of teaching non-science in a science class…

By Jake

October 24, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this

Metaphysics made simple. Something came from nothing or something always was. Please let me know if any of you have a third possibility. You can call that physics or God or something in between. But whatever you call it, it doesn’t justify teaching ID in science class in public school.

By John

October 24, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this

It is somewhat interesting that a political polarization is put on something that is basically an issue of science and science education.

The content of science classes is not about what individuals think, nor about what political parties thing. Science classes are about what the scientific community views as being relevant issues.

So far, ID has not found a place in the scientific community. There has yet to be a single scientific paper defining what the terms “intelligence” or “design” are, in the context of the usage by ID proponents. The proponents have each relied on their ability to publish outside of the normal scientific channels of peer-reviewed media. The things that have been published make great claims, none of which are substantiated by any physical measurments, or solid mathematics.

For example, the writings of Will Dembski make all sorts of unsubtantiated claims about information theory, such as the existence of something called “complex specified information,” or of a “law of conservation of information” for this new type of information. Yet, we do not see a single example of a scientific definition of these ideas, nor a test that would disprove these ideas, if they are indeed false.

Taken together, the ideas of ID are kind of like astrology. In each, we see an application of mathematics to something technical that is used to make an interpretation. In each, there is a failure to produce a mechanism that would relate the calculations to the alleged phenomenon that is supposedly being interpreted. To bridge the gap, hands are waved. When failures occur, the astrologer has a fallback position of “the stars incline but do not control;” the ID proponent says “ID is not a mechanical theory”.

If something like a scientific theory of ID were ever successfully developed, the outfall would be that yet another mechanism would be added to the collection of mechanisms of evolution. ID does not replace evolution. At best, it is an additional mechanism for the origin of change in species.

The implications to religion are much more interesting. Given a scientific theory of a “designer,” we would no longer need traditional religious texts, prayers, rituals, and supernatural beliefs. We would need only know math and science. We would know this new “designer” the way we known chemistry.

By Mara

October 24, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this

Chilao, VoR, and all y’all. We could actually make this into a question of absurd proportions akin to a house-of-mirrors. If God created man, who created the God who created man? And who created the God that created the God that “designed” man? And who designed….ad infinitum. I find it incredibly interesting that IT is touted as NON-religeous creationism, yet I haven’t heard of any self-proclaimed agnostic or athiest supporting it. If it truly is not a christian creationist tale, why then wouldn’t people from all beliefs find it as compelling as the churched flock do? Perhaps because it really does depend on faith and not science.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

October 24, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

This topic is more about divisive view points, than it is about educating our children.

The best way to educate our children about our religious view is on any given Sunday morning at what is called Sunday School.

I don’t want anyone pushing their religous views on myself or my child. So I take her to a church I have selected, with a book (the bible) and a teacher I prefer.

You can find a Sunday school at almost every major intersection of this state and there is no lack of funding or test to pass.

By marzipan

October 24, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

Do the Ten Commandments prohibit incest or rape? Answer: No The “ten commandments” do not condemn any sexual acts. The only sexual practice prohibited by the list in Exodus 20 is adultery, which, although a valid marital concern, is a legal act between consenting adults. The violent and degrading crimes of rape and incest surely should have rated a “top ten” list, but they do not appear. Adultery in the Old Testament was considered a crime that could only be committed by a wife. Harper’s Bible Dictionary explains: “The law was probably intended to ensure that any child born to the wife was really the husband’s child, since it was considered crucial for the husband to have offspring, so that the family name could be perpetuated.”

By DB

October 24, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

As soon as someone comes up with a TESTABLE hypothesis and an experiment to support the completely UNSCIENTIFIC, UNTESTABLE, VAGUE(not specific) theory of Intelligent Design, I will gladly teach it as SCIENCE. Until then, let’s not confuse our kids with CONJECTURE and ILLOGICAL arguments based mostly on the lack of information. I think a lot of people need to brush up on the theory of evolution and the scientific method. It’s mostly a big understanding that science only deals with that which can be supported by evidence, and faith deals only with that which cannot be supported in any way. Both sides lose.

By mit

October 24, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

is shaunti for real? evolution hasn’t been proven either? ms. glass blasts her thought with the avian flu. as a scientist, I can not think of one biological system that doesn’t use darwinian evolution. I also can not think of one biological system that can be explained with ID. Anyone here think of one? if so, let me know of it and I will correct you. (I didn’t read earlier posts)

Evolution is said to have holes. yet the people who say such things (shaunti) never bother to say what holes they are referring to, so let me know of one. just one. all the things that shaunti’s source refers to (you don’t know exactly what) i have guesses though. so, “At the molecular level in living beings we’re finding a world of high-tech gadgets that exceed anything explained by Darwinian evolution. You’ve got information storage, retrieval, and processing. (DNA, no evolutionary hole there) You’ve got signal transduction circuitry(casade effect, evolutionary explained), high-efficiency nano-engineered motors (flagella, no holes there either), digital data embedding technologies (he has me on this one, i have no idea what biological system he is referring to).

Nylonase, an enzyme produced by bacteria that breaks down nylon. Now explain to me how a bacteria can have a protien that breaks down something that was not invented until 1953 with ID. just try it.

By Renee

October 24, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

JBM - I understand where you are coming from.

Personally, I do believe there is a God. What I don’t agree with is religion. I have been to too many churches where the people preaching the word are talking the talk and not walking the walk. When I have attended church and asked questions, I have been given the same answer “because that is God’s word”. I see people proclaiming to be Christians and they are the most hateful people I have ever seen.

I am spiritual, not religious. I believe in God. I don’t think he is so hateful as to send all gay people to hell (for instance). I rather think God gives everyone a will, to either live good or bad. There are good people who do bad things and recognize their wrongs and go on, and there are just bad and evil people. As I’ve gotten older I have come into contact with people who are just evil.

I don’t think church and state should be comingled. You have a country of many religious diverse backgrounds, so who is to say Christianity is the basis for laws. Laws should separate right from wrong. It’s wrong to kill for any reason other than self defense (people anyway). I think a good person who is an aetheist would agree with that.

By Bobb

October 24, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

I personally don’t believe that Hot Pockets, high definition television, and low profile tires are the inventions of highly paid evolutionary accidents. Poop might just “happen�, but life – much less intelligent life – did not. However, I still don’t want the state teaching children about God’s purposes under any guise, because both the state and the children are sure to get it wrong. Let them get evolutionary theory wrong, but not eternity. Parents: do your job.

By Stewie

October 24, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

Ken,

I get your point…I think we just get to it from different directions if that makes sense.

I think underlying contention about the issue, at least from my point of view, is that I see science education as a means to challenge students to choose careers that attempt to answer the unanswered questions. Ultimately that requires an open, objective point of view. I see the supporters of unscientific theories, i.e, intelligent design, as suppressing objective thought. No one needs an open mind to embrace Intelligent Design because that “theory” only leads to one conclusion.

By Ann

October 24, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

Shaunti disproves her own argument in her last paragraph: “Science took an essential leap forward when Galileo was brave enough to free science from being run by religion and seek the truth.”

Science should be FREE from religion. Period.

By John2

October 24, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

Every time Shaunti attempts to argue something she trots out quotes from sources that are from extremely biased sources. The guy has PhD in mathmatics? So what? That makes him no expert in biology. The Discovery Institute isn’t a credible scientific institution, but the main institution pushing ID. All this crap about high tech gadgets is just that…it’s all explained by biology. T

By Billy

October 24, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

John, your 1:15 post was a great analysis.

By Jack

October 24, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

marzipan. Maybe you should re-read the bible. You take things wayyyyyy out of context. Now you will tell us that Jesus himself had slaves and also condoned incest & rape. Sounds like you’re just trying to stir the pot. Gotta do better than that.

By Bobb

October 24, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this

Ann - Can’t speak for Shaunti, but I’m guessing that what she meant is to free the theory of intelligent design of religious trappings and look at it on its own from a scientific standpoint. I think she made the comment that ID doesn’t presuppose who or what the theoretical intelligent designer is. Regardless, it would be a tall order for evolutionists as well as ID proponents to try and see it objectively.

By Brian Curtis

October 24, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this

Bonnie Jean: No one is saying “God doesn’t exist,” except in the fevered imagination of fundamentalists who hate science and see it as a threat to their faith.

God may well exist; he may not. But it’s not a question for science to address, and it can’t serve as a scientific theory because it doesn’t answer any questions. What you’re talking is philosophy, which is a fine pursuit… but it ain’t science.

Bruce: You seem very confused about what evolution actually is.

First of all, apes do not, as individuals, “transform” into humans like Optimus Prime. Rather, their descendants are slightly different from the ancestors; the differences add up; and after a long enough time, you get something very different from the original.

That’s all evolution is: an accumulation and diversification of small changes that wind up in different places, as we and apes did from our common ancestor.

You want evidence? Check the DNA, the fossil record, and the examples already cited. Humanity HAS evolved from earlier forms. If you go back far enough, you find points where other species diverged from ours… the “common ancestor.”

Finally, evolution has not stopped. It continues to this day, and we’ve even seen new species form in the past century alone. It’s very slow, of course… but so is erosion, and we know THAT happens, right?

And, as previously stated, any gaps in evolutionary knowledge do not equal “proof” of intelligent design. Because intelligent design is STILL not a theory. It has none of the qualities of a scientific theory, so there’s no way to teach it if you wanted to.

By mit

October 24, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

bobb,

poop doesn’t just “happen” either. its a process that has been completely explained by evolution.

and what is your definition of “intelligent life”. i take it you are against evolution.

By mit

October 24, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this

b.cutris,

evolution can happen at an extremely fast pace as well if the conditions meet the need.

I will have to look up the species, but a fish that was once a marine animal (salt water) was displaced into a fresh water environment. One single gene mutated for the fish to switch. less than one years time. much of our domestic foods only needed a single gene mutation for it to become harvestable(wheat) or edible (almonds).

By mit

October 24, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

i didn’t mean the fish switched from salt to fresh waters (salmon already do that) they lost a phenotype that was not needed in the fresh water environment. i can’t find the species I am referring to because there is a new study out about sticklebacks. they are fish that have body armor in their marine enviroments but loss it when in freshwater. The gene that does this is called Eda. How close to fish are we? We have this gene ourselves though it has only be used/manipulated in mice. it controls hair patterns in mice. it is called Eda in mice too but may have another name in other animals.

By Billy

October 24, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

Hehehe…Optimus Prime…

Bruce, you are way off on your perception of evolution.

Regarding our domestic food…I don’t think it would fall under the scope of Darwinian evolution since we selectively bred it for certain characteristics. It was unnatural selection.

By Michael H.

October 24, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

Ms. Feldhahn’s “expert,” as usual, is not a scientist but an advocate, in this case religious philosopher William Dembski, whose career is devoted to attempting to resurrect the teleological argument from the refutations offered from David Hume to Richard Dawkins. He is a “Senior Fellowâ€? at the “Discovery Institute,â€? a well financed, religious think tank that exists to promote this line through public relations and marketing. It is one of almost countless such groups created in the last twenty years to promote ideologically motivated, non-peer reviewed “researchâ€? directly in the public domain because they are interested in affecting policy and public attitudes, not adding to human knowledge. Unable to make a case in the real academic world they bypass it and try to persuade laypersons that a “controversyâ€? exists among scientists when no such controversy exists and that their views are being treated seriously by scientists, when they are not.

One might ask why Dembski has published nothing in a peer reviewed scientific journal (he is not a scientist is one reason) and might also ask why he has failed to convince anyone outside of religious circles of his views.

Ms. Feldhahn claims that “To their credit, some scientists are trying; publishing dozens of peer-reviewed intelligent-design articles in top scientific journals.â€? Really? I would challenge her or Dembski to provide one article from a peer reviewed scientific journal that takes the approach of intelligent design theory out of the millions of articles that have been published. As Lawrence Krauss, professor of physics at Case Western Reserve University noted in an interview on the PBS Newshour, August 5, 2005, “A colleague of mine did a study recently of 20 million scientific articles over the last 20 years. In that, if you do the key word “evolution” you’ll find about 115,000 hits. If you do intelligent design, you’ll find 88 hits. Of those 88, all but 11 were in engineering journals where you hope there’s intelligent design. Of the remaining eleven, eight were critical of intelligent design and the other three weren’t in research journals. So it’s really a marginal notion and it’s — I have no problem with people exploring it. But if they want to explore it, they should explore it the way the rest of scientists explore it. They should publish articles, perform experiments, do tests, fight with referees and, after maybe twenty or thirty years if they convince their colleagues, then maybe it will get in high school textbooks.â€?

I would also ask Dembski and Ms. Feldhahn to provide one testable hypothesis that derives from intelligent design theory, one “explanation” of a natural phenomenon that it accounts for that evolutionary theory has not, or to name one scientific discovery or practical application that results from it.

This talk about “proofâ€? is a semantic smokescreen. (And where is the “proof” for intelligent design, merely attacking evolutionary theory is not evidence for an alernative view.) The biological sciences have not witnessed the emergence of a rival or alternative view to evolutionary theory since the appearance of Darwin’s work The Origin of the Species. If so, I would like Ms. Feldhahn or Dembski or those who agree with them to answer the above questions and find where it makes its appearance in the history of science. I would like to see which Nobel Prize winners cite intelligent design as a part of their work and which members of the National Academy of Scientist believe that it is a rival to evolutionary theory.

The sole “argument� that these people have put forward is that evolutionary theory hasn’t accounted for all the facts and it has problems, claims which can be made of any scientific view. They ignore what this theory has accomplished, how it meets the agreed upon criteria for being not only a scientific theory but a good one, and how intelligent design fails to meet any of this criteria. It is a philosophical argument invoked to support religion, nothing more, nothing less.

As Jerry Coyne, a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago wrote in a excellent article, The Case Against Intelligent Design: The Faith that Dare not Speak Its Name, (August 11, 2005 in the New Republic Magazine) essentially refuting the contentions of Dembski and his chorusers like Feldhahn:

We have realized for decades that natural selection can indeed produce systems that, over time, become integrated to the point where they appear to be irreducibly complex. But these features do not evolve by the sequential addition of parts to a feature that becomes functional only at the end. They evolve by adding, via natural selection, more and more parts into an originally rudimentary but functional system, with these parts sometimes co-opted from other structures. Every step of this process improves the organism’s survival, and so is evolutionarily possible via natural selection.
But biologists are beginning to provide plausible scenarios for how “irreducibly complex” biochemical pathways might have evolved. As expected, these systems involve using bits co-opted from other pathways originally having different functions. (Thus, one of the enzymes in the blood-clotting system also plays a role in digestion and cell division.) In view of our progress in understanding biochemical evolution, it is simply irrational to say that because we do not completely understand how biochemical pathways evolved, we should give up trying and invoke the intelligent designer. If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance “God.”

I think instead of offering the opinions of a scientific and philosophical illiterate such as Ms. Feldhahn, this newspaper should draw upon the expertise of the highly regarded, Pulitzer Prize winning historian of science, Edward Larson, in the history department at the University of Georgia. Why publish the views of a religious ideologue that inform us about nothing when you have a real, highly respected expert in your own backyard who could genuinely educate the public about all of these issues? Give him three times the space he was offered before and the newspaper will begin to do its bit for education in the sciences.

By Jack

October 24, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this

At least we evolved enough not to throw our poop at those we don’t like or agree with. LOL

By mit

October 24, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

billy, we were able to bred for certain characteristics only after we understood what we were doing. initially wheat pods will burst to spray seeds out but we used wheat whose pods didn’t burst which is a single gene mutation that occured naturally. the same with almonds, wild type almonds are poisonous, a single gene mutation makes them sweet to eat. We didn’t do this, it occurs naturally.

By The72John

October 24, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

It amazes me that the fundamentalist types who apparently enjoy posting here so very much can ignore, even though it is repeated to them ad nauseaum, the difference between the popular use of the word Theory and the scientific use. Though we can ASSUME they know how to read, the phrase “a scientific theory is the best explanation to explain a particular phenomenon based on all available information and rigorous testing of multiple hypotheses” seems to just bounce right off their skulls.

Look, it’s very simple. If you want to teach intelligent design as a philosophical extension of evolution, then by all means, do so. In electives that cover a variety of philosophical approaches to the origins of life. However, since ID makes no attempts to explain specific processes, etc., it is a WASTE OF TIME to teach it in a science class.

Do you people realize that we are on the verge of being outpaced and outmaneuvered by China and Asia as a whole on the scientific frontier? While we’re busy battling a bunch of medieval minds still clinging to tired superstition that we are steadily losing scientific ground to the rest of the world. It’s time to wake up, get the Church OUT of science, where it has proven time and time again throughout the history of the world that it has NO business, and get back to worrying about our place in the global market.

By the way, Bruce - do you know what a “Strawman” argument is? It’s what you’ve created with your silly request for a half-man, half-ape creature. Not only does evolution NOT state that men evolved from apes (again, that’s a “gasp” argument created by people much like you to get people emotionally workd up) but it states unequivocally that the superior organism will out-survive and eliminate the inferior one. Obviously, Bruce, as superior organisms emerged, they replaced the inferior ones in their evolutionary niche…that’s why it’s called “Survival of the fittest”, and that’s why there are many examples of various evolutionary stages to be found in museums around the world.

By Joseph

October 24, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this

A “transcript” of a debate between a Scientist and a supporter of ID. (to be read tongue in cheek):

Moderator: We’re here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des—-

(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate’s kneecap.)

Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn’t mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the “naturalistic” explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible —- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!

Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can’t rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn’t prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let’s not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

Intelligent Design advocate: That’s a load of b****** sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we’ll see how that plays in court!

Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form b******; it’s so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.

By chuck

October 24, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

According to Terry, Evolution is a “proven scientific fact”. Terry shows his limited education in science when he makes such a statement. Certainly, evolution THEORY is based on observation. It just as certainly is not PROVEN and cannot be in its MACRO form. Since according to evolution humans are at or near the end of the evolutionary chain, NOBODY ever observed MACRO EVOLUTION. What has been observed is the fossil record. So, the question arises,

“What has been learned about the fossil record?”

Here are some quotes about that from noted scientists around the world:

Fossil record’s incompleteness ‘… [the fossil record’s] incompleteness means that it is very likely that no fossil hominid yet found is on the direct line of descent to modern humans.’

– J.S. Jones, Department of Genetics and Biometry, University College London, in a book review. Nature, Vol. 345, p. 395, 31 May 1990.

“…two definitely human skeletons were found in Cretaceous ‘age’ sandstone (supposedly more than 65 million years old), the bones still joined together naturally and stained green with copper carbonate.”

“Most people don’t realize that in terms of numbers of fossils 95% of the fossil record consists of shallow marine organisms such as corals and shellfish.6 Within the remaining 5%, 95% are all the algae and plant/tree fossils, including the vegetation that now makes up the trillions of tonnes of coal, and all the other invertebrate fossils including the insects. Thus the vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) together make up very little of the fossil recordâ€â€?in fact, 5% of 5%, which is a mere 0.25% of the entire fossil record. So comparatively speaking there are very, very few amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal fossils, yet so much is often made of them. For example, the number of dinosaur skeletons in all the world’s museums (both public and university) totals only about 2,100.7 Furthermore, of this 0.25% of the fossil record which is vertebrates, only 1% of that 0.25% (or 0.0025%) are vertebrate fossils that consist of more than a single bone! For example, there’s only one Stegosaurus skull that has been found, and many of the horse species are each represented by only one specimen of one tooth!8” Andrew A. Snelling, B.Sc.(Hons), Ph.D. Associate Professor of Geology

In a number of fossil layers, dated as being 225-230 million years old, scientists have found fossilized pieces of wood that were dated as being 33,000 years old using carbon 14 dating.

One scientist…an evolutionist, wrote in an article:

‘… the false idea that the fossil record provides an important part of the evidence that Evolution took place… No good Darwinian’s belief in evolution stands on the fossil evidence for gradual evolution so nor will his belief fall by it.’7 New Scientist, 25 June 1981.

Since 1981, evolutionists have been downplaying the role of the fossil record, because they know that if anything, it supports the idea of a catostrophic end to the lives of many of these creatures in a flood more than it does evolution.

“…there are literally thousands of different types of animals and plants which are alive and essentially unchanged from the way they appear as fossils. Such facts make it difficult to believe that these forms were separated by those imagined millions of evolutionary years.” Dr Joachim Scheven

These are just a few of the hundreds of examples concerning the fallacy of trusting the fossil record to base your BELIEF in evolution on.

The bottom line is, EVERY argument used as a reason for studying the theory of evolution can be used equally to support the study of the theory of intelligent design.

By marzipan

October 24, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

Maybe it’s you who should read the bible Jack. This part:

“And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes.” (Luke 12:47-48) The entire context (Luke 12:41-48) shows that this is not part of a parable—it’s the explanation of a parable, after Peter asked a question. But even if it were a parable, it would carry the same weight as a teaching of Jesus.

The word “servant” above is doulos, which means “slave” in Greek, and is correctly rendered “slave” by the NRSV, NAS, Scholar’s Version, and others. Any other questions?

By Renee

October 24, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this

That was funny Joseph!

By Jack

October 24, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

marzipan. Read into it any way you wish. What ever floats your boat.

By chuck

October 24, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

The infamous ‘horse evolution’ series For the last century or so, this fine animal has been put to a more unfortunate use. Its alleged ancestry has been used as one of the key ‘proofs’ of evolution. It started in 1879 with the American paleontologist O.C. Marsh and the famous evolutionist T.H. Huxley, known as ‘Darwin’s bulldog.’ Since then, many museums and popular books have presented a neat series starting from the dog-sized, four-toed ‘dawn horse’ or ‘Eohippus,’ which supposedly lived 50 million years ago. The next creature is usually a larger creature like Mesohippus, which had three toes. The next one was larger still, for example Merychippus, which had two of the toes smaller than the third. Finally, there is the large modern horse, Equus, with only one toe, while all that is left of the other two are ‘vestigial’ splint bones.3 Some of the diagrams also show trends in tooth changes, with increasing hypsodonty (high-crowned teeth). This is supposed to demonstrate a change from browsing on bushes to grazing on grass.

How clear-cut is it, really? As the biologist Heribert-Nilsson said, ‘The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks,’4 and the famous paleontologist Niles Eldredge called the textbook picture ‘lamentable’5 and ‘a classical case of paleontologic museology.’6 As shown in a detailed thesis by Walter Barnhart,7 the horse ‘series’ is an interpretation of the data. He documents how different pictures of horse evolution were drawn by different evolutionists from the same data, as the concept of evolution itself ‘evolved.’

This especially applies to reconstructing the animals from fossil skeletons, which are usually very incomplete. The evolutionist Gerald Kerkut wrote:

‘It takes a great deal of reading to find out for any particular genus just how complete the various parts of the body are and how much in the illustrated figures is due to clever reconstruction. The early papers were always careful to indicate by dotted lines or lack of shading the precise limits of the reconstructions, but later authors are not so careful.’8

Informed evolutionists now realize that the picture, even in their own framework, is not a straight line at all. While they still believe in horse evolution, the modern view of the horse fossil record is much more jumpy and ‘bushy.’9

What is the ‘dawn horse’? This creature was discovered in 1841 by Richard Owen, one of the leading paleontologists of the day, the inventor of the word ‘dinosaur,’ and a staunch opponent of Darwin. Owen saw no connection with the horse, but thought it was very like a modern-day hyrax�that is, a rock badger or coney. So he named it Hyracotherium. Other fossils of the same type of creature were later named ‘Eohippus’ or ‘dawn horse’ by more evolutionarily-minded paleontologists. But the name given by the discoverer takes priority. Thus ‘it is not clear that Hyracotherium was the ancestral horse’, according to Kerkut.10

By chuck

October 24, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

Living horses come in a wide range of sizes. Their heights are usually measured in hands. One hand = 10 centimeters (4 inches). The largest is the English Shire horse, which can measure as much as 20 hands.1 Ponies are horses under 14.2 hands,1 and the Fallabella is just over four hands when fully grown.

Horses vary in other ways too. Modern horses can have 17, 18 or 19 pairs of ribs. Also, three-toed horses are known today. O.C. Marsh himself noted that some horses in the American southwest had three toes of almost equal size, ‘thus corresponding to the feet of the extinct Protohippus.

By chuck

October 24, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this

Many evolutionists claim that the horse’s splint bones in their legs (see diagram right) are vestigial, that is, useless leftovers from its alleged evolutionary past. But the evolutionary zoologist Scadding pointed out, ‘vestigial organs provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.’21

He pointed out that the argument is unscientific, because it is impossible in principle to prove that an organ has no function; rather, it could have a function we don’t know about.22 Scadding also reminds us that ‘as our knowledge has increased the list of vestigial structures has decreased,’ and pointed out that the 19th century claim of hundreds has been shrunk to a handful of doubtful cases.23 Also, at best, vestigial organs could only prove devolution (loss of information), not evolution.

By The72John

October 24, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

Chuck, why don’t you just post the web addresses of your little fundie web sites instead of the full text drivel? Oh, maybe it’s because you’re afraid that we’ll all see how biased your sources are, hmm?

You know, it’s really funny that this argument continues. WHAT DOES ID TEACH US ABOUT SCIENCE? Nothing. Can it explain cell division and allow a greater understanding of that process that will eventually allow some high schooler to choose a career in science? No. Does it explain ANYTHING about science, other than “Gee whilikers this stuff is just TOO hard to explain - GOD must have done it”.

If science and modern understanding has shown us anything it’s that whatever we have learned is but a fraction of what remains to be learned. Maybe primitive man - and Chuck - need Deus Ex Machina explanations to fill in the gaps, but modern science does not. Accepting as pat some divine cause to anything we don’t understand ensures that we’ll remain complacent in our search for new knowledge.

By Stew

October 24, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

Chuck,

How does anything you have posted support Intelligent Design?

By Chilao

October 24, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

What about those extinct three-feet tall little semi-humans recently discovered on some Indonesian island? Not QUITE human, but close?

It is funny how some expect us to find people similiar to ourselves but of a different species, when we can be sure we would have killed them all off long ago.

By chuck

October 24, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.

Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.

Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement that includes a scientific research program for investigating intelligent causes and that challenges naturalistic explanations of origins which currently drive science education and research

By mit

October 24, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

chuck,

your argument is not very good. yes, species in the fossil record and even today have died due to floods, fires, asteriods, comets, tornados, etc etc. the fossil record is not needed in my opinion, bacteria demonstrate evolution better than any other organism with their fast reproduction and growth rates. the fossil record already shows numerous species of hominids. if there weren’t, we wouldn’t need the sapien behind the homo in our classification. in the true classification of us, we are considered a subspecies, homo sapien sapien.

your bottom line is wrong too, intelligent design is not a theory, its a hypothesis. evolution is a theory because the hypothesis has proved true. tell me one thing that can prove the hypothesis of ID. the fossil record is not one of them since it proves there are more than one species of hominid that were obviously a primitive type compared to hominids today.

By Darwin's Waiting Room

October 24, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

Shaunti, could you provide an example or two of peer-reviewed scientific papers, published in widely respected journals, that support ID? I know you and Diane write columns of limited length, but here in a blog, you’re not as constrained.

Forgive me for quoting Michael Shermer of skepticmag.com, but he phrases this issue more succinctly than I can:

“Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such as hypnosis, the origins of language, and black holes, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion.”

This link provides Dr. Shermer’s quote in context: www.skeptic.com/aboutus/discoverskepticism.html

As other posters have pointed out, we’re all trying to find truth and an understanding of the world around us. Many of us want to believe that we have a place in that world, and that we’re here for a reason.

Man’s search for understanding has taken many forms, and two of those forms of understanding are scientific and philosophical. I think that the vast majority of literate people agree that those who claim to be scientific must abide by the Scientific Method, and that’s been discussed at length in prior posts. Any conclusions (theories, “facts,” hypotheses, assertions, dogma, etc.) that aren’t reached via the Scientific Method are by definition NOT scientific.

I agree with those persons who insist that non-Scientific ideas do not belong in a Science class. Students would be best served by teachers who encourage open discussion and critical thinking. HOWEVER, members of our society also need to understand that debate about faith, religion, and other worldviews, is meant to address deep-seated psychological needs. The drive to fulfill those needs is perfectly human, and is a powerful motivation. Debate and discussion is a key aspect of education. Let’s keep the debate and discussion in classrooms going, but we should not confuse debate about scientific principals with debate about philosophy and religion.

By Stew

October 24, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

Chuck,

I found your posts on www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org.

Can you elaborate on what it says:

• In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection â€â€? how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose*

An example in how this can be applied in regard to the diversity of living things?

An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

Again, how about an example? How would one go about testing that our circulatory sytems was designed by an intelligent being, as opposed to being developed through evolution. And if designed, how would the circulatory system be implemented…would it suddenly appear in a newborn? How would you test this?

Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,� and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation.

Please explain how this is positive evidence. How is the lack of evidence in one theory, positive evidence for another?

By The72John

October 24, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

“intellectual”, is it? Funny…I thought you fundamentalists were afraid of or contemptuous of intellectuals. Now you want to BE one?

And really - if you’re going to tell us how intelligent design is going to be helpful, you could pull it from somewhere OTHER than the Intelligent Design website.

But then, you can’t actually find objective sites to support your little Luddite theory, can you?

By Robert

October 24, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this

How very wrong you are about “intelligent” design and science. Scientific theories are agreed upon ideas based on scientific evidence. These theories go through very rigorous scientific scrutiny before being accepted by the scientific community. Darwin did not simply write down his thoughts and then “voila!” everyone believed anything he wrote. His theories went through years and years of challenges and scrutiny - and passed!

I do, however, notice that those pushing for “intelligent” design want to skip this scientific process all together. Why? I don’t know for sure, but it seems that the religious nuts on the right are playing a very large part. Watching some TV programs that are funded by the Christian Coalition on this topic sends a very clear message to me. And, the evidence that they suggest may be true facts independently, but then they string them together in a wholly inappropriate way to support this “theory.”

Until any theory goes through the proper scientific rigors, then it will never be accepted, regardless of how much money or politics or BS is behind it!! And, getting acceptance is not a beauty contest and neither is it popular support by the general public. The general public believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe (as did the Church) and they were also WRONG!

By Billy

October 24, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

Chuck, Chuck, Chuck. How sad. You’ve yet to post an original word of your own.

My favorite part was, “see diagram right.” That was brilliant, and swayed me. I’m now on your side.

By marzipan

October 24, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

What is the last of the Ten Commandments?

Don’t boil a young goat in the milk of its mother. —Believe it or not, this prohibition in Exodus 34:26 is the official tenth commandment, from the only set of stone tablets that were called “the ten commandments.” There were three sets of commandments: The first time Moses came down from Mount Sinai with commandments, he merely recited a list (Exodus 20:2-17), which is the version most churches today erroneously call the “Ten Commandments,” although they were not engraved on stone tablets and not called “the ten commandments.” The first set of stone tablets was given to Moses at a subsequent trip up the mountain (Exodus 31:18). In this story, Moses petulantly destroyed those tablets when he saw the people worshipping the golden calf (Exodus 32:19). So he went back for a replacement. God told Moses: “Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.” (Exodus 34:1) Here is what was on the replacement tablets (from Exodus 34:14-26): 1) Thou shalt worship no other God. 2) Thou shalt make thee no molten gods. 3) The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. 4) Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest. 5) Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks. 6) Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord God. 7) Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven. 8) Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left until the morning. 9) The first of the first fruits of thy land shalt thou bring unto the house of the Lord thy God. 10) Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk. Keep this in mind next time you are tempted to boil a goat. This list differs, obviously, from the one in Exodus 20 (was God’s memory faulty?), but it is only this list that is called the “Ten Commandments”: “And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.” (Exodus 34:28)

By Michael H.

October 24, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this

72John,

Better be seated when you read this as you might injure yourself laughing. Chuck cut and pasted from one of his fundamentalist sites the “argument” that the ark was big enough to take in all the species and save them from the flood brought about by the all loving God. And worse, this guy is a teacher in public school (not so funny.)

And what is not so funny either is our scientifically illiterate president thinks that this ID nonsense should be taught because “religion has been around a lot longer than evolutionary theory.” Lord, help us (pun intended.)

By Darwin's Waiting Room

October 24, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

For those of you interested in some recent developments on the mechanics of evolution, you might want to peek at an article in Discover magazine. Some freely available computer software implements entities which perform a few very simple rules, and which are subject to random variations along the lines of Darwin’s discussion of natural selection. The resulting entities become capable of very complex activities, and they do it without the intervention of supernatural entities.

The best part is that many persons of openly religious motivation, scientists and non-scientists alike, have picked apart the various versions of computer code and the results. They have been instrumental in helping to debug the computer code, and have made many contributions to the research efforts. Using computer code as a framework for the project’s ongoing research and discussions has given everyone a common language to express their ideas WITHOUT resorting to philosophy or assertions of supernatural intervention. No ghosts in the machines in this case.

No, the project is not meant to uncover the Meaning of Life. It’s meant to demonstrate that very complex entities can evolve from very simple entities by way of very simple constraints. Admitted ID’ers are an integral part of the ongoing discussions and research!

http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-05/cover/

By Bella

October 24, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

I’m OK with Intelligent Design. I’m just NOT OK with the it’s approach from a Western, Christian perspective. Right now, Intelligent Design is being presented as an external creative process with no voliton. My faith teaches that Intelligent Design is an internal creative process with volition. How will Christian fundamentalists incorporate THAT into education?

By mit

October 24, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

what cracks me up most about ID is proponents keep saying the evidence, the evidence. But they have none.

what evidence for ID and against evol? what evidence for ID alone for that matter?

chuck, dude, I would just stop now. your evidence for ID (which just alot of words really isn’t any evidence) reads like a bunch of words in support of evolution. And exactly how is ID an intellectual movement?

By Bella

October 24, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

I’m OK with Intelligent Design, just not it’s Western, Christian bias. Right now proponents are supporting creation as an external process with no volition. My faith—which is just as valid—extols creation as an internal process with volition. How can they incorporate that and other perspectives into Intelligent Design education?

By chuck

October 24, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

The “cut and paste” responses were given for Terry, who is still spouting evolutionist drivel from 30 years ago. They were used to specifically refute his arguments. It is clear that neither the fossil record not Terry, supports the teaching of the theory of evolution.

As for supporting the theory of Intelligent Design, in a perfect world, there would be no need for teaching it “public” schools. BUT, the world is not perfect. In science classes across the country, teachers DIRECTLY contradict what students are being taught in their homes AND at church. They do so with the same kinds of outdated, universally refuted arguments that Terry makes. The “horse fossil” drawings still appear in science text books as does the completely fabricated drawing of the supposed fish embryo and its almost identical human embryo. Even though the originator of the drawing admitted that it was speculation over 40 years ago, it is still included in science textbooks as “FACT”.

You folks keep screaming that you ought to teach science in science class…why not do that? Why teach ANYTHING about the origins of life OR the origins of the universe? It really adds nothing to the knowledge of BIOLOGY or EARTH SCIENCE today. Since no one was there and no one observed ANY of it, why teach it AND since it cannot be replicated OR agreed upon why go through the constant battle? This is not about science anymore, it is about POLITICS and the desire by the left to eliminate all public discourse concerning GOD.

Why else would the conversation ALWAYS end up with the “scientists” calling the CREATIONISTS stupid and uneducated. Many of the scientists leading the Intelligent Design movement got their degrees in the same universities as your evolutionary gods, yet came to a DIFFERENT conclusion. The Evo’s cannot fathom that intelligent, scientifically trained people can look at the data concerning evolution and come up with a different conclusion, because they have been trained to view all creationists as idiots. That is, more importantly, how THEY TREAT OUR CHILDREN in the classroom. These types of disagreements occur between scientists ALL THE TIME without the perjoratives, yet when it comes to this ONE FIELD, there is no room for disagreement? That more than anything else tells me this whole mess is POLITICAL and not about SCIENCE.

By The72John

October 24, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

No Chuck, there such division in this field because what you are talking about IS NOT SCIENCE. It’s religion, or theology, or faith, or superstition, or something along those lines, but it IS NOT SCIENCE.

You can shout and capitalize all you want, and whine about how people treat your children - and I guarantee you it’s NOTHING compared with the way you hate-mongering fundies and your children treat other people - but the simple fact remains that if anyone has politicized this debate its the religious RIGHT who wants to make ALL public discourse about religion.

It ain’t science, it ain’t never going to BE science. At BEST it’s philosophy and at WORST it’s bad theology attempting to maintain the strangle-hold of superstition on humanity.

It’s really funny that a search for the various “controversies” and “errors” in evolutionary theory yield ONLY sites that are hosted and run by rabid right-wing religious fanatics. So there are a few scientists who have come to certain conclusions that “support” your idea…so what? The VAST majority of scientists support Evolutionary theory. We’re supposed to say “OHHH, I see” because there is a handful of crackpots who happen to also be scientists? Don’t think so.

I really hope you teach something harmless…like Gym.

By Billy

October 24, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

Preach on, Brother John…

Chuck, please tell me you do not teach Science. Or History. Your rebuttal (No one was there) sound like some of the things I’ve read by Holocaust deniers. There are plenty of things we can’t observe directly in the world. We observe evidence of their existence. That is what we do with evolution. Intelligent Design is asking us to eschew the scientific method. It is asking us to acknowledge that which may or may not be based on…faith, and nothing more.

By BonnieJean

October 24, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

Marzipan, keep that attitude and you’re gonna have an interesting meeting with God Almighty….you do know there’s gonna be a meeting? You’re funny…sad but funny.

By The72John

October 24, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

Ooo, there’s gonna be a MEETIN! Ye haw, git ‘er done, praise the Lord and pass the AM-MOO-NITSHUN.

By Noam

October 24, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

Q: Why teach anything about the origins of life or the origins of the universe?

A: This is an excellent question. In fact, most biology and physics curriculums in the country touch very lightly on these topics, there is just too much to teach and life origins is a very complex topic with a lot of ongoing work. Ditto for the origins of the universe.

HOWEVER, this is has nothing at all to do with evolution, which is the foundation for modern biology. There is zero controvery over evolution; there is simply so much evidence for it at this point. Hundreds of thousands of researchers competing with each other for decades in a dozen biological sciences have discovered nothing but corroborating evidence for it. Its not just that the fossil record fully supports evolution, but other lines of evidence, chief among them analysis of DNA at the molecular level, and analysis of the relationships among modern species…they all produce the results that modern evolutionary theory predicts.

So, I do agree that this mess is completely political: Its a small number of well funded, well connected, right-wing religious folks lobbying everywhere BUT in scientific circles, where they have not earned any credibility, for their veiled religious pseudoscience to be given equal weight to real science.

Real science works off of research and gets taught in schools after it has been tested over and over again and become fully accepted. ID is junk, scientists know its junk, and so ID-promoters have to circumvent the usual route of doing real science and instead use political means to create mass misinformation. Poor women like Shaunti, who clearly mean well but have to scientific background, buy into this because they aren’t educated enough to see through the well crafted BS, and just cause more damage. Its sad and frustrating - I wish US schools did more to teach their students critical thinking skills.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

October 24, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

What would be the benefits of teaching Intelligent Design along with our current science curriculumn? What would be the goal, other than having another point of view thrown into the mix of things?

Will we use Intelligent Design as a part of our medical research? Will the Intelligent Design research play a part in cures for aides, birth defects or increasing our intelligence as human beings? I’m curious about the ultimate goal and what the outcome is going to look like?

By DB

October 24, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

Bobb: ID has no scientific standpoint! It is completely untestable, lacking specificity, and unable to be supported by evidence, all of which are requirements for the scientific method.

By mit

October 24, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

chuck, you are soooo soooo wrong.

I don’t know many, if any, scientists that are truely atheist people. Most i know go to church on sundays and teach their childern christian ideas.

there is no debate in the scientific community about evolution vs creationism. that’s because they are two different things. and they are viewed that way by scientists. Behe is a biochemist and ID advocate. yet he can’t get published in peer-reviewed journals b/c he provides no evidence through experiments. its all conjecture. When Behe provides the scientific community with evidence based on the scienftic methods then he might get some discussion but for now he can only publish in journals that accept opinions based on opinions.

By DB

October 24, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this

chuck: How does ID explain only “certain” things and not all things? It’s kind of illogical to claim that. You’re mixing apples with orangutans.

By Stew

October 24, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this

In science classes across the country, teachers DIRECTLY contradict what students are being taught in their homes AND at church.

And what should teachers do given that each of those homes and churches may teach something different? You are apparently a teacher, does this apply to whatever subject you teach? It seems that math is the only objective subject.

Why teach ANYTHING about the origins of life OR the origins of the universe? It really adds nothing to the knowledge of BIOLOGY or EARTH SCIENCE today.

Not true, the knowledge of evolutionary principles can be applied to many aspects of the world today, especially areas undergoing dramatic change. I kind of agree about the origins of the universe though, it is way too complex, and the origins of life gets pretty complicated also…you really need a background in genetics and other bio courses. But students interested in going into a biological field need to be exposed to the discipline.

The Evo’s cannot fathom that intelligent, scientifically trained people can look at the data concerning evolution and come up with a different conclusion, because they have been trained to view all creationists as idiots.

They are not viewed as idiots for coming to a different conclusion, but many are viewed with contempt for providing no evidence or even a testable hypothesis, but then calling their conclusions scientific.

These types of disagreements occur between scientists ALL THE TIME without the perjoratives, yet when it comes to this ONE FIELD, there is no room for disagreement?

What other scientific field is there ongoing debate about the contributions of a devine entity?

By Billy

October 24, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

In science classes across the country, teachers DIRECTLY contradict what students are being taught in their homes AND at church.

Is that a bad thing?

Science is supposed to contradict baseless claims. It broadens perspective by enabling people to think for themselves. That is what is so upsetting by the insistence on scientific method and evidece. If people think for themselves, then they’ll decide for themselves when it comes to religion. God forbid!

By DB

October 24, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

mit: ID is not a SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS in that it cannot be disproven or supported for that matter. It’s simply an “explanation” and not even a hypothesis in layman’s terms, let alone scientific terms. However, that’s just further evidence that ID is totally unscientific.

Thanks for fighting the good fight though. You’re loose use of the word “hypothesis” can be misconstrued by many. I just don’t want people even getting confused that ID can be a scientific hypothesis.

By The72John

October 24, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

Science is FULL of things we don’t yet know or can’t yet explain. The rational man accepts that there are always going to be things we can’t explain and that no matter how much we learn, there will always be more to learn.

The superstitous man requires something to fill in the holes instantly. That’s what ID is - it’s the grasping-at-straws of the superstitious few who either can’t handle or simply can’t comprehend the vast, vast unknown that is the Universe.

Personally, I prefer the idea of uncovering the Truth about the universe one tiny detail at a time, rather than dismissing anything we can’t explain with a “Well, that must be God”. One guarantees that we will keep learning, keep exploring, and keep discovering. The other is a sure path towards intellectual stagnation and a modern Dark Age.

By Ken

October 24, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

Amazed hit it on the head… What would be the real benefit of teaching Intelligent Design…? At the present time there would not be a single one.

Until scientists can prove anything, it should not be taught in the classroom. Additionally, disproving one thing does not necessarily mean proof of a different idea.

Also…

Many people reconcile the scientific facts presented by Darwin and others about evolution with the faith. I know I do. Darwin’s theories simply attempt to explain how life on Earth has come to be in it’s present form. It has flaws. It has holes. It DOES NOT explain where life began. It’s not perfect. Noone knows all of the answers except for God.

By mit

October 24, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

Db,

I know its not a scientific hypothesis but I would like them to call it something besides a theory. it doesn’t deserve that distinction. A scientific hypothesis is the initial idea that has yet to be tested so I will aleast give them the benefit of saying that ID is an idea. though not a scientific one, they can try all they like. I don’t mind.

chuck, Behe has tried to answer question like, what does evolution not explain? And every time there is someone there to give an example that proves this guy wrong. there is one thing that will blow darwimisn out of the water and that is irreducible complexity, which behe has yet to find and probably never will.

and the fact that you are just now realizing this is political and not about science tells me alot. No wonder your an ID proponent, those answers are a whole lot easier to come up with aren’t they?

By Randy

October 24, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this

It’s simple, there are people who don’t want to answer to a creator. They have been looking for a way humanity came around without having to answer to God. Unfortunately, when the universe came into existance billions of years ago it had to have some help, as things don’t appear out of thin air(if things do, I need a few million dollars to appear in my hand). Macro evolution is a joke! Hasn’t been proven in 145 years.

By The72John

October 24, 2005 04:56 PM | Link to this

Oh look - more Strawman arguments made by yet another ignoramus.

By Randy

October 24, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this

Back before Columbus sailed the ocean blue, the scientists were saying the world was FLAT, Washington died because the scientists BLED him in 1799. With DNA evidence in play now, it’s only a matter of time before everyone realizes macro-evolution is a JOKE!!! Some of the people who don’t want to answer to the creator will fight it, of course. How ignorant they will feel down the road.

By The72John

October 24, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this

I feel dumber just reading your “writing” Randy.

By Terry

October 25, 2005 07:10 AM | Link to this

It seems a vast majority of the ID proponents are a bit emotional about having their philosophy taught in public schools. That’s not really the issue. The issue is: should ID be taught as a science or a philosophy?

Why is the idea that ID is a philosophical concept so hard for creationist to accept. The very foundation of your belief is faith without proof. If ID could be proven it would be a science, but it would no longer require faith of belief.

In this question I still go back to the principles of the scientific method. Is there today a testable procedure to either prove or refute any aspect of ID? If such an experiment cannot be described, then ID still belongs in the realm of philosophy! Once a rational & repeatable experiment is defined, then and only then, ID should be considered for inclusion as a science study. With this measure as a milestone, the concept of ID does not rise to the level of scientific thought at this time.

It should also be noted that this rational applies to the concept of ID only and not the whole area of religious thought, as this still belongs in the arena of mythology and as a study of man’s inhumanity to man. Religion and Science Don’t Mix! Don’t forget Galileo was convicted of heresy in 1616 by the Inquisition and this conviction was not overturned until 1992 by Pope John Paul II.

By Marc Marton

October 25, 2005 07:24 AM | Link to this

In reference to the issue of who decides what should be taught in school, teaching intelligent design would be tantamount to teaching our kids astrology as part of the curriculum.

By Voice of Reason

October 25, 2005 08:05 AM | Link to this

I love how people say, “there will be a meeting!” or “what will you do when you have to face God?”

Well my question is, what are you going to do if there is NO god. NO meeting.

By Voice of Reason

October 25, 2005 08:06 AM | Link to this

Okay Randy, we’ll play the game with you too. God created the world, but who created Him. Afterall nothing just appears out of thin air right?

By DB

October 25, 2005 08:31 AM | Link to this

mit: Yes, I was even uncomfortable with the use of “hypothesis” as you didn’t want to use “theory” with them. You know how they take little “inconsistencies” and blow them out of proportion toward their cause.

We’re wasting our time arguing against ID or for evolution. The ID proponents will never listen, and they’ll always quote opportunists like Behe as if they even understand what he’s saying. Since the guy is so “brilliant” according to many, I wouldn’t put it past him that he’s just using his esteem to put out a few best sellers catering to the ID proponents to make some good money. I honestly think that may be the case. It’s just another example of someone using big words and a degree to be more credible, and the followers hear just what they need to perpetuate their ideas although they don’t even take a minute to try to understand what they’re spewing, or how baseless it is.

People need to realize ID isn’t scientific, and that’s the most important point in arguing against teaching it in the science classroom. And that’s my agenda. I will quit teaching before I’m forced to teach any form of ID in my science classroom. And I will fight to keep it out of the science classroom as long as I live. However, I do mention it in the classroom as an example of what IS NOT science, and that gets rid of a lot of misconceptions. I will NEVER teach it alongside scientific theory.

By chuck

October 25, 2005 08:35 AM | Link to this

Here is the bottom line on this topic. Children are required BY LAW to attend school between the ages of 7 and 16. They don’t have a choice. For parents who are unable to afford a private Christian School education for their children OR who lack the background or ability to homeschool their children, there is no choice but to send them to public schools.

Now think about the irony of this. If I were to stand in front of my history class and tell them that the Muslim Faith is a sham, or that their Jewish Faith is pointless and stupid, I would be summarily FIRED. YET science teachers can do that exact thing to Christians, Muslims and Jews EVEN TO THE POINT OF RIDICULING THEM IN CLASS FOR THEIR BELIEFS and nothing can be said to them because they teach “science”.

I agree that there is ample evidence to teach micro-evolution or as it was once referred to as: adaptation. The case for MACRO evolution is not clear cut at all. The “scientific” reliance on the fossil record became unworkable because of HUNDREDS of examples of anomalies in that record so evolutionists have switched to micro-evolution as their argument for the origins of species. Regardless of the slant, BOTH are used to beat up on Christian, Muslim and Jewish children in school who happen to believe in the CREATOR. There probably would not be any problem if science teachers didn’t use their “faith” in evolution to denounce faith in GOD, but they routinely DO. I know of cases right here in my school where Christian children were ridiculed because they dared to question the mighty SCIENCE teacher’s conclusions on evolution.

So science teachers…how would you like it if your kids were routinely called stupid because they believe in evolution? How would you like it if your deeply held belief system was denigrated and your children were laughed at based on your belief system…whatever it is? Why are scientists so afraid of discussing a competing idea in class? I thought ya’ll were all about free and open discussion and testing of ideas. How can ID be tested if it is routinely dismissed WITHOUT testing and without discussion. Many in the science field have posted on this board that they are Christians. Certainly you have no problem with spending one class period per year on intelligent design theory.

The hypocrisy is evident. Scientists routinely look at the same data from the same studies and draw different conclusions and that is not only okay, it is expected EXCEPT on this ONE TOPIC. There have been numerous examples of scientists disagreeing on what the data shows on environmental studies, second-hand smoke studies, global warming, and on and on, but by God, if you disagree with the data on evolution you are not a scientist, you are an idiot.

By chuck

October 25, 2005 08:41 AM | Link to this

BTW, Micael H is a partime philosophy professor who thinks therefore he is an expert on EVERY topic ever mentioned on this Blog. So Michael, who are you today? MIchael the economist? Michael the philosopher? Michael the pain in the butt? No, today it is Michael the biologist? What a joke.

By Bobb

October 25, 2005 09:01 AM | Link to this

DB - I don’t know anything about the official ID theory other than what the title implies. I was just offering a possible explanation as to why Shaunti was using Galileo as an example of throwing off the shackles of religious doctrine to look objectively at an issue. Which I would have thought those who disagree with her beliefs would find ironic.

mit - No, it seems obvious that life has evolved. But independent of the current ID theory, I personally think the odds are pretty remote that life happened by chance in some primordial soup and then evolved by a series of more chances to its current state. I remember watching some episode of Start Trek with bald guy where they went back in time to the exact spot and moment where it all happened in some goop, and thinking how preposterous it was - the show and the idea of spontaneous creation of life. Just doesn’t seem plausible to me.

By Tim

October 25, 2005 09:05 AM | Link to this

For parents who are unable to afford a private Christian School education for their children OR who lack the background or ability to homeschool their children, there is no choice but to send them to public schools

if someone does not like what is being taught in public schools but cannot afford to pay for private Christian schools then DON’T HAVE CHILDREN

goodness… that was challenging to figure out

By Just Being Me

October 25, 2005 09:09 AM | Link to this

Chuck and Michael:

Both of you need some practice in making strong arguments without putting other people down. Try focusing on fewer put-downs, less sarcasm, and being less condescending.

By Jack

October 25, 2005 09:15 AM | Link to this

We could not afford to send our children to a privated Christian school. We sent them to public school and we attended church on Sunday and my wife and I answered their questions about God. Wow how hard was that?

By David

October 25, 2005 09:18 AM | Link to this

Hey Darwin’s Waiting Room… thanks for the link to Skeptic Mag. I’ve read a couple of Michael Shermer’s books, but never checked out his website. Got it bookmarked now.

By Billy

October 25, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

Bobb — Scientists have recreated forming life by adding an electrical spark to a homemade primordial soup.

Chuck — Teachers don’t teach “science”, they teach Science. Evolution is Science. ID is “science”. And kids who are die-hard believers in evolution run the risk of being ridiculed for that belief at church and Sunday School. Do you advocate Sunday School teachers and preachers teaching Evolution in Church as a competing theory to creation? No? I didn’t think so.

You talk of children being “ridiculed” by teachers. What exactly do you mean? If a teacher truly ridiculed a student, then he or she should be punished. But when you say “ridicule” it makes me wonder if that was truly the case. If a kid stands up in Science class and says God created Earth as writtend in Genesis, to which the teacher responds that there is no scientific basis for that idea, then it is not ridicule. I’ve seen plenty of people (you, for instance) that incessantly argue their point and continuously refute what the evidence points to. You say you teach History. What if a student said the Holocaust never happened? What if no matter how much evidence you gave, he kept arguing about it? Would you not tell him there is no basis for his conclusion? I could easily see a similar situation occurring in a Science classroom.

By Bruce

October 25, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

Billy and Stewie,

I apologize for cutting out yesterday but I had business to attend too. Where were we or would you prefer to just drop it and move on since you really cannot explain your position without backtracking and going off on tangents?

By bernard

October 25, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this

To call ID a theory is to elevate it to a level with gravity and relativity - ideas which have been at first hypothesized then demonstrated by repeatable scientific experiments to be true. ID is unsubstantiated crap. NOT a theory, but perhaps a hypothesis that could be proven. Proof by a negative, i.e. absence of proof to the contrary, has never been scientifically acceptable and should not be now. Until the witch doctors can come up with something,get them out of the classroom, please.

By mit

October 25, 2005 09:29 AM | Link to this

bobb,

so instead of thinking life arose from a primordial soup (which has been shown to actually work), you believe we came from dirt and a rib? To me that is what sounds highly implausible. All the religious texts expalining the origins of life are as ridiculous or more so than the judeo-christian explanation. What science does is look for answers, they might be hard to find and you might not like the answer but ID can not be lumped with science since it never actually looks for correct answers. With science, if you find a gap or hole, that means you keep looking but with ID that gap or hole is your answer. By which you will stop looking and in the end ignore the facts.

By Jack

October 25, 2005 09:30 AM | Link to this

If the teachers we to stress the fact that this is theory and not fact, what harm is done. Wouldn’t it broaden the horizons of the student’s mind by showing all of the theories?

By Bobb

October 25, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this

Billy - I didn’t say that life didn’t start in a primordial soup. I said I didn’t believe it happened by chance - and that includes the electrical spark.

By mit

October 25, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this

jack,

what other scientific theory is there that explains it better than evolution? there isn’t one.

By Stew

October 25, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this

Chuck,

There have been numerous examples of scientists disagreeing on what the data shows on environmental studies, second-hand smoke studies, global warming, and on and on, but by God, if you disagree with the data on evolution you are not a scientist, you are an idiot.

That is a complete false analogy. Do any of those debates on environmental studies, second-hand smoke, and global warming involve religious implications? No!

I do believe however that any science teacher that ridicules a student for asking a question should be disciplined if not fired.

And I certainly believe that teachers should be sensitive to a student’s religous beliefs, but not subservient to them.

ID is faith, there’s no way around that. If you are going to start mixing faith and science, how do you do that?

By Jack

October 25, 2005 09:39 AM | Link to this

Theories don’t always have to be scientific to be spoken of.

By Stew

October 25, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this

Bruce,

Go out on the internet or go to your local college and educate yourself on what evolution really is…because you don’t have a clue.

When you understand the concepts correctly and can speak intelligently for or against them I would be glad to continue a friendly debate with you.

I don’t mean this as a personal attack…but you really don’t understand the concepts of evolution even at a basic level.

And by the way, if you are going to do internet research, don’t do yourself a disservice and only researach anti-evolution web sites…you need to know both sides of an argument to debate them.

By Tim

October 25, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this

Theories don’t always have to be scientific to be spoken of

I would hope a theory would have to be scientific to actually be spoken of in a science class

By Bruce

October 25, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this

Stew,

Again I apologize for wasting your time with my ignorance. However, since I have children at the level in school right now I have a good idea of what they are teaching. Just as it was in my day they are still teaching that humans evolved from apes. I will take your advice but would suggest you do the same. Examine both sides objectively……

By Lyrazel

October 25, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this

Its peculiar how ID proponents say ID can be taught without advocating religion or god; but obviously ID cannot be discussed without said inclusions because no one can actually say if it was Intellegent—or just an accident that caused life…. Certainly if one can prove a fact from a fiction one should be able to do so without invoking spirtual/mythological beliefs, yes? ..if we dont rely on scientific evidence humans WILL make up beliefs thus inventing new mythologies to fit misunderstandings to ease fears of the unknown. Death is feared by many, small wonder many humans invoke theories of god-life/reincarnation instead of the complete culmination of life which is accepted for all plants and invertebra and cockroaches. Feel good science is fine for TV…otherwise it needs to be based on repeatable facts…not hopes…not StarTrek….

By The72John

October 25, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this

I see that Chuck has been doing his ID talking points homework. The division of evolution into Macro- and Micro- versions is a classic technique of the Creationists. Basically, their method is to say “There are things we don’t yet know, and there is information we don’t yet have, therefore the entire theory is wrong”. Well, I’m glad that other scientists don’t have so fatalistic an attitude. We never would have learned anything if we just threw up our hands because we didn’t have ALL the evidence.

Talking point #2 - the “persecution” of religious people by education. This one is my favorite. The religious crazies of the world think that because some people don’t bow to their will that they are being persecuted. I doubt that Chuck could cite ONE incident of a child being “persecuted” by his teacher. I suspect his idea of “persecution” is that of most narrow-minded fanatics: a child is forced to hear ideas that don’t jive with his superstitious mindset. That’s not persecution, Chuck, it’s deprogramming.

And seriously - you seem to think that YOU’RE an expert on everything. As far as I can see Michael is far better educated than you - why is his opinion just annoying and yours so superior? Maybe JESUS is talking to you and telling you what to say?

By Jack

October 25, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this

The dawgs may be eating gator tail this weekend! (even without Shockley)

By Billy

October 25, 2005 10:10 AM | Link to this

Bruce — Giving an analogy is not going off on a tangent. We have consistently answered your questions. You repeatedly ask the same questions, in fact. You just refuse to accept the answers. You want the same evidence, but your requirements for that evidence are faulty. We give you the evidence you need and explain why it work, but you refuse to accept its validity for some unknown reason.

By Jack

October 25, 2005 10:11 AM | Link to this

You all do realize the world is really flat. The Sun revolves around the Earth also.

By Ken

October 25, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this

All activists use talking points. Do you think that the opponents or proponents of Intelligent Design would be any different?

By Stew

October 25, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this

Bruce,

Well I haven’t been in a pre-university education setting for awhile, but I did major in biology in college and had to take courses that included evolution, and not one of my professors taught that a species of apes suddenly turned into a species of modern humans.

I don’t work in that field, but I have always found the subject very interesting…and I have spent a good bit of time revisiting the subject lately, since it’s been newsworthy, and that includes creationism web sites and web sites with other alternatives…(yes, there are other alternatives…and not just that Spaghetti Monster…)

By The72John

October 25, 2005 10:25 AM | Link to this

Talking point #3 - Man evolved from apes.

The simplistic minds of the Creationists can’t comprehend the difference between man coming FROM apes, and man and ape sharing a common ancestor.

Didn’t one of them say something earlier about “The DNA evidence will prove Evolution wrong” or some such like that? The DNA evidence shows that we share something like 96% of our genetic material with chimps…exactly how does that DISPROVE evolution?

By Van

October 25, 2005 10:51 AM | Link to this

No, it should not be a requirement - BUT - to be intellectually honest, the many different theories should be addressed.

Since it is not possible to teach all theories of creation or evolution, we will offend everyone - one way or another.

While evolution with in a species is common, the cross specie evolution is less clear.

By Tim

October 25, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

Jack… I won’t comment on the dawg and gator tail comment… the way the gator offense has been playing you may have a point… but not matter what I will always bleed orange and blue

By Billy

October 25, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this

Bobb — I understand. That spark is something people are going to disagree about. Once that spark ignited life, however, isn’t is plausible that life evolved from that point?

Bruce — You come back on here, talk smack about how we won’t continue the argument, and then go away when we further explain ourselves? Nice.

By Ed

October 25, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

For all Christians, there should be no fear of the teaching of evolution. Evolution definitly exist. It has been proven. What hasn’t been discovered with scientific facts is what is behind the evolution. What actually caused or enabled something to evolve to adapt to whatever it is that they adapted to. The more they research, the more question arise. As for the non-believers, they are afraid of anything that may point to a creator. So they will continue to fight. They can’t accept that there is a God with intelligence beyond there comprehension. Liberal have that problem.

By Bobb

October 25, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

mit - I don’t recall mentioning dirt, ribs, or biblical texts. Nor did I say the theory of evolution was invalid. Rather, I said that I personally - with no knowledge of ID - don’t believe that life was created or evolved by chance. In other words, I’m not disputing the mechanism;I’m saying that someone had to concieve it, build it, throw the switch, and maintain it. Hopefully it is under warranty. To be honest, I don’t have the religous background, or indepth knowledge of ID or evolutionary theory to debate them. It is just a gut feel that tells me the odds of life just happening all by itself are too great.

By Ken

October 25, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this

The fact that humans and chimps share 96% of the same DNA proves one thing… That humans and chimps share 96% of the same DNA.

By Bruce

October 25, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this

Billy,

Calm down, some of are busy. Stew has made it clear that I am in no way able to address this subject with him so I will apply that to you also. I guess the story of evolution has changed according to what science wants it to say so I am out of my league. Every since I was old enough to remember I have always been taught that the study of evolution claims that humans evolved from apes.

Now here we have you telling us different. Again, I will apologize to you alos for my ignorance. But let the record show that evolution has always been taught that humans evolved from apes and that you cannot deny. You can howeer, clam it has gone down a different path to try and justify the claim.

By The72John

October 25, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this

It isn’t intellectually honest to address a mythology in the context of science…there is not a single idea of creation, be it Hindu, Christian, what have you, that contributes to SCIENCE.

By chuck

October 25, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

If you call someone’s faith ridiculous is that ridicule?

If you say “I can’t believe that anyone still believes that in this day and time” as one science teacher said to the child of a close friend, is that ridicule?

If a science teacher calls one’s faith “superstition” is that ridicule?

The answer is of course. These are incidences that I know about personally, that have happened in the past 15 months. That is why we are so passionate about this debate. It does matter.

By Tim

October 25, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this

But let the record show that evolution has always been taught that humans evolved from apes

yeah that is how it has always been taught by people who didn’t know what they were talking about! but let the record show that is not what Darwin stated

By Jose Arcadio

October 25, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

Why is this even a debate? If your faith is strong enough, nothing should be able to shake it. You listen to the evolution discussion, take it all in, and then draw your own conclusions. I agree with whoever said that they would not want the government teaching intelligent design in school.

This very discussion/debate is why the United States is falling behind in science. Leave it at the door, have a debate with the preacher/pastor, family members, etc. Both of my parents have science degrees, and are deeply religious. We debate evolution frequently.

By The72John

October 25, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this

Good job Ken. Talk about higher reasoning skills. I am in awe.

Bruce, you are obviously the product of a flawed education. Either that or you’ve been thouroughly brainwashed. The claim that “Man came from apes” has been made by religious wackos to create shock and distaste for evolution. It’s much like when the Repubs in West Virginia told everyone that the “Liberals were going to take away their Bibles”. It isn’t accurate but it stirs up an emotional response.

By Billy

October 25, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

Chuck — That is not ridicule as far as Science goes. It is fact.

Bruce — You repeating “They tech evolution as man evolving from apes” like a mantra does not make it true. You may have been taught that. Your child may have been taught that. I don’t know. I wasn’t taught that. If you (and yours) were, then perhaps the teachers did not understand the theory as scientists do. I’m sorry if a couple of bad teachers ruined the theory for you.

You say “Every since I was old enough to remember I have always been taught that the study of evolution claims that humans evolved from apes.” Who was teaching you that? Was it your parent? Preachers? Or actual teachers in school? At what levels of schooling? If I didn’t believe in evolution but were forced to teach it because it is the most scientifically plausible theory, that is how I would teach it because it would generate the response in people it has generated in you.

Regardless of what you say has been or is being taught, we are not arguing that man evolved from apes. Yet you keep bringing your argument back to that. Why? Why is that such an important issue for you? Can you not accept that it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand? If I teach the Earth is flat, it makes me a bad teacher. It doesn’t make the planetary/geological/geographical concept of the Earth change to “flat”.

By Stew

October 25, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this

But let the record show that evolution has always been taught that humans evolved from apes and that you cannot deny.

What record? Are you serious? Of course any educated person can deny that. How old are you…a hundred or so?

Frankly, if you are old enough to have kids in school, and you are from the south, I doubt if evolution was even taught when you were in school.

What I find humorous, is while people like you make ridiculous statements like the one above, scientist continue to discover more and more about the subject. Contrary to Randy’s ludicrous statement about DNA, genetic research does more to confirm inter-species (that’s right Randy, MACRO-EVOLUTION) every day. The outdated methods of classifying creatures by anatomy are being replaced by genetic typing, and the whole animal kingdom family tree will be re-drawn. Scientist are mapping common DNA among species, and finding that not only are we descended from a primate ancestor (not a gorilla), if we go back far enough we can include the starfish in our family tree. These scientist can put our evolutionary history together with incredible accurary, something that could never be done by relying on the chance finding of fossils. They are even starting to identify areas where different species diverged.

So enjoy languishing in your ignorance Bruce…

By DB

October 25, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this

chuck: I don’t call ID stupid in class. I treat it objectively, and ID simply doesn’t hold water in an objective sense as it has absolutely no evidence and cannot be tested in any way. ID is baseless in a physical and scientific sense. It is mere opinion, and science does not deal with opinion. Your argument is illogical. I therefore call it UNSCIENTIFIC in class, and I expect kids to make their own decision. In fact, it is a perfect example of showing kids what IS NOT science and how scientifically illiterate our society is at this point. I don’t care if they don’t agree with evolution. I simply teach it because that’s the leading scientific theory, and they need to learn it to pass my tests just as I had to learn History to pass the tests although I didn’t always agree with the “Anglo” perceptions we were fed.

And for your “fossil record”, scientists don’t depend on the fossil record too much as it’s very tough to get the big picture. That’s why they use all branches of science to back things up. MACROevolution has been shown in many examples using observation of the past 150 years of organisms and backing it up with DNA analysis, which is quite reliable. If you’re curious, read about the Ensatina salamander, ferns, stickbugs, etc. The list goes on and on and will get bigger as time progresses.

You can quote the science of 1950 and say it’s unreliable because it is. But educate yourself on the last 40 years, especially the last 10, and you’ll realize the evidence is overwhelmingly supportive of evolution. In fact, I dare you to get a Ph.D. and disprove the theory. That is exactly how science stays as accurate as possible. Skepticism is welcomed.

It’s fine if you don’t want to agree. If you take your opinions away and look at the vast amounts of evidence, you would logically say that evolution is most probable, but as soon as you take into account your OPINIONS, you don’t want to believe it. Religion and science are separate, and if you can’t see that, that’s fine. The scientific community will continue to base all biology on evolution regardless. At this point, evolution is very close to being considered a law.

The mere fact that this is such a debate manifests how scientifically illiterate we are as a country.

By The72John

October 25, 2005 11:41 AM | Link to this

The religious right constantly expects science to yield to religion, even when the evidence is overwheliming in the favor of science. They are absolutely TERRIFIED that something might chip away at the Shield of Biblical Infallibility they have erected around themselves. You know the one - it’s already so full of self-inflicted holes that it could be used as a sieve. Yet they keep on keeping on.

It amazes me - I know so many people of faith who have no problem accepting the validity of science. I daresay they are far happier than the Bruces and Chucks of the world, and far less afraid of the truth.

By DB

October 25, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this

And, chuck, if my kids were called stupid in class for believing evolution, I would talk to the teacher about it, plain and simple.

Also, scientists are not afraid of talking about “competing ideas”(you forgot the word scientific), but ID is not a competing scientific theory. It is mere opinion and is in no way a scientific hypothesis, theory, etc. It is simply conjecture based on opinion.

By The72John

October 25, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this

Tim and Jack, let’s put your debate into the proper on-topic perspective.

Now - the GATOR is an evolutionary throw-back. It has basically resisted all change for eons as far as we can tell.

The BULLDOG, on the other hand, is the end product of generations of selective breeding and has been guided down the road to perfection by intelligent men and women around the world.

So…you tell ME which one wins in a fight. ;-)

By Tim

October 25, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

lol @ The72John

By justthinking

October 25, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this

This is just one more example of how incredibly simple minded religion makes people, or is it just that simple minded people can only understand simple religion? Look at this Chuck for example. He’s a teacher and he does not see that ID is philosophy and not science. He posted a long thing trying to show how it was truly possible for the ark to have one of every animal on it with all these measurements a couple of weeks ago! Then there’s Randy with his pronouncements which hardly ever even make sense. Randy’s arguments are “This is the way it is because I say so.” Of course, he doesn’t understand science. And the latest religious boob, BonnieJean with her ridiculous threats toward someone who obviously knows much more about what the bible really says than she does. Religion has always used fear to keep the masses from questioning. Religion has always kept ignorant people in line. Maybe that’s a good thing.

By Ken

October 25, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

The Gator would then obviously be superior…

It was able to survive over eons without any outside interference. Natural selection obviously kept a nearly perfect creature from complete and utter ruin.

Besides, I’ve seen gators eat dogs whole.

By DB

October 25, 2005 12:00 PM | Link to this

Chuck: I’ll treat you like a student. In order for you to have a valid scientific point, you need to come up with a specific, testable hypothesis that will arrive at an experiment or observational study that will test the presence of an “Intelligent Being” causing the millions of species we have on the Earth. Also, it will have to explain both the new species that have formed in the last 200(observable) years and all the species that have gone extinct. Or you just have to find such scientific studies that are accepted by the scientific community. Hmm… Why would species go extinct?

I’ll be waiting.

By Ken

October 25, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this

DB…

Thank you for making a very clear point on how to prove or disprove the entire idea of Intelligent Design.

BTW… Can you do the same for the origin of the first living organism as it relates to evolution…? Where did that very first living organism originate…?

By Billy

October 25, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

An electrical charge hit the primordial ooze and resulted in the first microorganism.

By Jack

October 25, 2005 12:13 PM | Link to this

72John. Good one.

I thought the first living orgasm happened when Adam and Eve did it.

By Billy

October 25, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this

Jack, that was the first STD

By lozen

October 25, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this

I’m really learning a lot from you bloggers this week. I didn’t study science (took one general science class in high school and was told by my teacher that girls just didn’t do well in science because they just couldn’t grasp the concepts and, unfortunately, I believed him when I was 14!)I therefore don’t have much scientific knowledge and I appreciate the education I’m getting from DH, Billy, Stew and others. I do know we are falling behind more and more in science. I do know DB is right and the very fact that this is such a debate shows how scientifically illiterate we are as a country. And it isn’t just science either!

By Ken

October 25, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this

Billy… Electrical charge…? Primordial ooze…? Are you serious or is that sarcasm…?

By Remby

October 25, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

So by current Intelligent Design reasoning; “An alien named Ghod came down and manipulated the genetics of our monkeys to create humankind.” Ok - lets take the argument of intelligent design. Some supreme superior being made the universe and we are not saying it is religion. So therefore one must assume this being is an otherworldly alien? NO you say? - Then if you say its God then you are once again presenting religious creationism as a science. Plain and simple. Otherwise the teachers will have to present ID as some superior alien entity not god. Do you want that? I believe in God, and have my faith! That’s it in a nutshell. To try and study God in a science class is also a big mistake. When we analyze the existence of God under a microscope and you don’t find proof of god under that microscope then you will have to say he doesn’t (in scientific fact or theory) exist. Now my faith says otherwise. Note that word faith! Science is to analyze existence that we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt and evolution is an existing theory that has held up under the microscope of proof many times. It has helped us create new technologies and develop new medicines, and many other things we enjoy today. Now did god create evolution as a way to form the world and it’s life? Quite possibly. Again an issue of philosophical study and not science study. Intelligent Design should never be in the science classes as it is ultimately unprovable and will only create more atheistic results, but ID should be debated rigourously in the philosophical arts. Keep church and state seperated! But still keep the Church and faith alive in your hearts always. Please drop this silly Intelligent Design movement. You either believe in god or you don’t!

By Billy

October 25, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

It has been replicated in a laboratory setting, Ken. As the Earth cooled, chemical on the surface bonded, blah, blah, blah. They formed amino acids, which are the building blocks for proteins and the body in general. The microorgainsm then evolved. I’m perfectly serious. It’s every bit as likely as some omnipotent being farting out everything already fully formed.

By Atman

October 25, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this

I just want to take a moment to comment that in the few weeks that I’ve been checking this forum up, this is the first time that I see an actual civilized debate going on (could it be that a certain T-guy isn’t around to ruin it for everyone?).

Thus I’d like to congratulate you all. :3

Anyhoo, carry on!

By John

October 25, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this

According to its proponents, most notably lawyer Phillip Johnson of the conservative political thinktank known as the Discovery Institute, intelligent design is not creationism. Indeed, Johnson and others make tremendous effort to distance themselves from young-earth global-flood creationists (at least for now).

Yet, so weak and vaccuous is ID that its proponents immediately begin slinging canards that followers of the creationism versus evolutiond debate have seen for decades.

Most of these canards usually deal with some aspect of the mainstream view of geology, such as the age of the earth, or the non-existence of a global flood in historical times, which flat-out disprove young-earth global-floodism.

Such canards are universally devoid of scientific accuracy and value, many are bald-faced lies, but none constitutes an argument in any scientific sense. All are one-liners that may appear to be valid to those who have little knowledge of science. Indeed, one sure sign that a person is a scientific ignoramus is the spouting of such one-liners. Such a person has subsituted ignorance for knowledge, lies for truth, and intellectual vandalism for scholarship.

For those who have been following the one-liners that “chuck” has been posting, I would refer you to

http://www.talkorigins.org

and in particular

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html

which is a claim by claim refutation of an ever growing collection of such anti-science garbage.

By Jack

October 25, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

It was fun to see Tab get everyone fired up. Not too many ladies have joined today. Another non-subject we can argue religion over.

Hi Lozen!

By chuck

October 25, 2005 12:46 PM | Link to this

Here is a “non-biased” source for those of you who keep screaming about the “proof” of evolution as if it is a settled question. Part of my point is that there is much more that we DON’T KNOW than what we do know. This is one example.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/05/08/GENES.TMP&type=science

*A team led by UC Santa Cruz postdoctoral researcher Gill Bejerano used high-speed computers to compare the gene sequences of humans and animals, they report in Thursday’s Science Express, a Web site managed by the journal Science.

They found that the chemical sequence of certain segments of DNA in specific vertebrates precisely matches some DNA segments in humans. In all, they identified almost 500 segments that were “completely unchanged” despite tens or hundreds of millions of years of evolution in animals as seemingly unrelated as mice and men.

Metaphorically speaking, it’s like finding planks from Noah’s Ark in the bulkhead of the Jeremiah O’Brien.

It’s hard to understand how the oldest of these DNA fragments — some more than 400 million years old — could have endured unchanged over such an incredible length of time, the scientists said. By comparison, the dinosaurs went extinct relatively recently, a mere 65 million years ago.

These DNA fragments “are now evolutionarily frozen. We don’t know of a biomolecular mechanism that would explain them,” said Professor David Haussler of UC Santa Cruz, a computational biologist who runs the lab where his postdoctoral colleague, Bejerano, did most of the work. The research team also included scientists from the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia. Their computer-crunching uncovered 481 matched DNA segments, each of which is at least 200 “base pairs” long. The longest is 800 base pairs. (Strands of DNA are composed of “base” molecules that pair up, forming a continual genetic code that controls growth and activity in virtually all life forms.)

The long-run survival of the genetic segments is especially puzzling because for DNA, time is a ruthless gauntlet. Over the eons, genes routinely suffer mutations caused by accidents, such as when a high-speed space particle or cosmic ray smashes through the DNA coil, or by errors that occur when DNA copies itself.

How could the 481 matching fragments have endured intact for so long and in such widely separated life forms? After all, the human evolutionary line and chicken lines went their separate ways 300 million years ago, while the human and fugu-fish lines said sayonara more than 400 million years ago.*

Here is an idea. Maybe they are unchanged because they were designed and created that way. As for the similarity between the DNA of humans and chimps, Is that surprising? Let’s assume that the supposition of a “common ancestor” is FALSE. Can you think of another reason why the DNA between chimps and humans is 95% the same? Let me list some for you.

Is it possible that this occurs because ALL MAMMALS have certain characteristics that enable them to function as mammals? For instance:

Breathing: When God created mammals, he did so in such a way that they all required oxygen to live. Would it make sense for some mammals to have lungs and others to take in all of their oxygen through the skin directly into the bloodstream and others to extract it from water as they drink? No. God used the same types of sytems for all mammals. That being the case, shouldn’t all mammals share a significant amount of DNA?

Evolution is clearly not the only way to explain the phenomena of shared DNA. DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. In other words, if two organisms look similar, we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans.

One web site phrased it like this:

What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have ‘evolved’ from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size [6]. If humans were ‘only’ 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross

What this amounts to is that evolution is only one way of explaining why this is true. It is not the ONLY way to explain it. While I don’t pretend to be able to “PROVE” the existence of God OR an intelligent designer who created life…neither can evolution be proferred as the “proven” means by which these similarities occur. It is NO MORE PLAUSIBLE THAN THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY IN SHOWING WHY THIS OCCURS. If then one is going to be taught, why not the other?

By The72John

October 25, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this

Chuck’s “one website” is either www.christiananswers.net or www.answersingenesis.org - top two results in Google for this particular phrase. Again, SOOOO objective.

Chuck, and we’ll say it twice just so it sinks in, the reason that intelligent design CAN NOT be taught as a competing “theory” is that it has NO. SCIENTIFIC. CREDIBILITY. None. Zip. Nada. It’s an easy answer for a complex problem. Why do things work this way? Because GOD made it that way. That is great for a child, Chuck, but big boys and girls need more info.

Again, NO. SCIENTIFIC. CREDIBILITY. None. If you want to take issue with current Evolutionary theory then by all means, find REAL science, not PSUEDO science. The fact that there may be some evidence that does not corellate with our current understanding in no way supports ID.

By The72John

October 25, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this

By the way, it’s ALSO interesting that Chuck cut-and-pasted the article about unchanged DNA pairs, but LEFT OUT the possible conclusions of the scientists conducting the experiment. Their conclusion was not that we all breathe (by the way, if this is the case why do we not have a 90-something % DNA match with Cows? Aren’t Cows mammals? Don’t Cows breathe?) but that its possible that the particular pairs that have not changed have not done so because the purpose they serve has been relatively perfected.

It’s a little more scientific than “Because God made me that way”.

By Stewie

October 25, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this

Chuck,

That’s an interesting article…too bad you didn’t print all of it. No where does the author state, or imply that archaic gene fragments are the result of intelligent design…in fact the author states several times that there is some evolutionary advantage to those gene fragments, albeit yet unknown. By the way, there is a philosophy in evolution that diversity doesn’t have to be a result of an advantageous or non-advantageious situation. It proceeds because nothing prevents it. At any rate, it seems like a good research subject for a biologist to get funding for.

Thanks for providing a good example of the creationist ploy of using real scientist’s work to advance a non-scientific agenda. The creationist takes exciting scientific news and tries to turn it around. The scientist sees this as an opportunity to take a discipline to a new level.

The rest of your post is pretty much illogical gobblydogook…lots of words that make no real point.

By Bruce

October 25, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

Well gee if I didn’t strike a nerve. I never meant to cause such hostility I was just recounting the text books we used in school where there was a picture of the timeline of man. In that picture the timeline started with a picture of an ape and ended with a picture of modern man. And was also remembering a conversation between my child (8th grade) and I where she descirbed the same picture.

But I guess these textbooks are all wrong and you guys are right so let’s just part as friends. Unless you are too intelligent to have such an ignorant friend……

By chuck

October 25, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this

If you want to take issue with current Evolutionary theory then by all means, find REAL science, not PSUEDO science. The fact that there may be some evidence that does not corellate with our current understanding in no way supports ID.

While it may not support ID, neither does it refute it. What it does do is point out that evolution is not the end all be all of theories. Several of you have made assertions that evolution is “a proven fact”. That is not the case at all. If it was, it would be a LAW not a theory. If it was, there would be a clear fossil record in nice neat order. If it was there would be no need for debate OR to talk about “competing ideas”. BUT, that is clearly not the case. I would be perfectly satisfied if neither theory was taught…especially since fewer than 1% of students enter a science field that would be impacted one way or another by this information. Why not just say, “We don’t know” and be done with it?

By The72John

October 25, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

Look everyone - CHUCK would be PERFECTLY HAPPY if neither “theory” were taught. Well, First - ID isn’t a theory, though Chuck remains oblivious to this fact.

Beyond that, Chuck also refuses to understand that modern evolutionary theory is accepted by ALMOST EVERY SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD. This so-called competing theory nonsense is just that - it’s NONSENSE. It’s been manufactured by religious fanatics like Chuck who think that getting together and making a few websites based on specious reasoning entitles them to set themselves up as a legitimate competing theory.

But by all means - let’s fall even FARTHER behind the rest of the world in our science education output. Let’s let Asia pull even FARTHER ahead of us in Bio-medical and Bio-technical research. That’s just fine. Let’s all go live in Chuck’s little dark age of the willfully ignorant.

And Bruce, if you can’t tell the difference between an actual APE and a representation of a NEANDERTHAL, then yes, you are far to stupid to be friends with anyone.

By DB

October 25, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

Billy: Please don’t misrepresent science by saying life’s origin has been shown to occur in an experiment. It hasn’t. Scientists only made a few biological molecules show up so far. Science does not claim to know the exact origin of life, and evolution does not account for it. It may or may not be replicated in the future. There are many theories. We’ll have to take the “wait and see” approach on that one. This is for Ken’s question, too.

By Billy

October 25, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

Yeah, DB, I understand that. I don’t guess I worded it that well…

My point is that scientists have shown how it could have happened, and yet we still have people saying it is not a possibility, even though they have nothing to show why not other than a book written between 5000 and 1700 years ago and an inordinate amount of spittle.

By Stewie

October 25, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

Bruce,

I get your point now…that particular diagram is from the 60s and not considered accurate anymore…there are more updated timelines…based on archaeological findings…but I can see that a kid would just see a monkey. If teachers are still using that image, even if only to introduce the idea of evolution, I can see it being confusing.

By Bruce

October 25, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

The72John,

Thank you for putting me in my place. Please take a bow… But before I go please tell me where this Neanderthal man evolved from. Nope never mind I would be to stupid to understand anyway. But then if I did understand as you do then I would be just as WRONG as you are…..

By The72John

October 25, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

Um. Bruce. Do you understand what the phrase “common ancestor” means? That’s the whole point of this discussion. Evolution states that the various primates, man included, share a COMMON ANCESTOR. I mean, it’s not that hard of a concept.

I’m beginning to think that you’re just wilfully stupid. Or is it that you are only capable of thinking and regurgitating what is contained in the Bible?

By Jose Arcadio

October 25, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

So Chuck, what if teaching the theory sparks something in the student to want to learn more about evolution that could lead that student to biological advances for the world and the United States?

I swear, the religious right is going to drive this country’s magnificent science program into the ground.

For you to be a teacher, how can you be so apathetic about students learning science? Discuss the theory, debate the theory of evolution, and by all means teach it. That’s like the not wanting to teach Ghengis Khan or Marco Polo. Since so few students become historians, there is no point in teaching about these two people.

By Bruce

October 25, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

Stew,

Thanks.

By Terry

October 25, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

Chuck: That life evolves is proven science. The mechanisms of change is, in many cases, still hypothesis and conjecture.

On the other hand, there is a concept that is studied in Philosophy of Religion classes that states that it is part of God’s Intelligent Design that there can never be any proof of the Diety’s existence. That belief on faith is a integral component of religion. Or, to put it more simply,if you could prove Intelligent Design, there would be no need for faith.

So, if this premise is true, wouldn’t the study of ID as a science be heresy?

By Bruce

October 25, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

The72John,

Ok you win….. feel better now?

By vince

October 25, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this

What is wrong with teaching both? Who said the choice should be either or? Education should stimulate debate, welcome thought, and inspire creativity. Isn’t it cool to believe that a higher power started it all, and then kicked back to watch it grow and change? Evolution does not make you anti-religious. In fact, it celebrates religion.

When this topic started heating up, I couldn’t help but think about The Scopes Trials in 1925 and that 80 years later, we’re still working on the topic. I guess if you are anti-evolution, the last eighty years of no social evolution is worth fighting for.

But, again, topics like these are lovely ways to focus our attention away from the real issues.

By chuck

October 25, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

Jose can you see? In the 8th grade earth science book, evolution is covered on 4 of 875 pages. I don’t think it will set science back to skip those pages, but thanks for playing. And I thought Tim was the only drama queen on the blog.

By Tim

October 25, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

Honey I am a queen but it sho ain’t for drama :)

but thanks for playing

By Noam

October 25, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

Whats wrong with teaching both?

The answer is that that is a false dilemma. There is no “both”. Intelligent design is not science. There is currently only one scientific theory for how species come about and that is evolution. Its the only game in town. Intelligent design is in the same box as creationism, the stork theory of child delivery, astrology, and Harry Potter.

As for the real drama - the real drama is that if religious nonsense like intelligent design gets into the school, that is a first step towards more major violations of the establishment clause, which is one of the few things that really make this country great.

By The72John

October 25, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

Bruce, I won’t be happy until reason triumphs in the face of superstitous adversity.

Chuck, one assumes that public school education extends beyond 8th grade science.

By Jose Arcadio

October 25, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this

I would be perfectly satisfied if neither theory was taught…especially since fewer than 1% of students enter a science field that would be impacted one way or another by this information.

How am I a drama queen? I just restated what you stated. You said that students would be impacted, and should not be taught this information.

By Billy

October 25, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this

Vince, you can’t teach both in a science class because one has no scietific basis. ID is pseudo-science. Discuss them in a class on philosophic thought or comparative religion. Fine. Do not teach them as equal in a science class. And if you discuss them both in science classes, don’t get mad when the teacher blows ID out of the water as a scientific “theory”, which it isn’t.

By DeltaX

October 25, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this

Vince, (not just for you - so do not take all of it personally)

The real issue for most of us is that this is even a topic and the ignorance it holds.

The real issue for most of us is that people use words like theory, fact, etc incorrectly - then say “That is not what it means to me!” What something means to the universal you does not matter in science - called standards.

The real issue for most of us is that science eliminates (as best it can) what man may want to be true [adgenda] and levels the playing field.

ID removes the leveling that takes place with in the scientific process:

• ID skips the part that requires a factual basis that preceeds callng it a theory.

Science attempts to explain; not prove.

By chuck

October 25, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

Terry, if you read my post I clearly stated the same thing as far as proof of God goes. Teaching intelligent design would in no way change that concept. Teaching intelligent design would no more “prove” the origins of species than does evolution.

BTW, what does the term “proven science” mean anyway? Answer this question: “Has evolution been shown to be the ONLY MEANS by which species could have come into existence?

Also Terry, I don’t get my opinions about God from philosophers, but rather from His word.

By The72John

October 25, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

Hey - don’t lump ID in with Harry Potter!

By Terry

October 25, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this

This entire thread has focused on proving or disproving evolution. The focus should be on proving or disproving the concept of “Intelligent Design”!!!

And in this focus, there are two separate components to the question:

First is the question as to the pre-conceived “design” of the physical world. This presupposes that some species were also designed to fail.

The second is the question of “intelligence.” With hundreds of years of atrocities in the name of a creator, one would have to question the intelligence of the design. Unless you are also saying that man’s inhumanity to man is part of the design.

Then there’s the whole question of the development of three diametrically opposed versions of monothesist religion that each condemn the other two to eternal damnation (two of which even call for helping this process along in their holy books.)

And finally, if there is such a thing as ID, the question of free will vs. God’s will comes into play. Doesn’t the hypothesis of ID also lead to the hypothesis of pre-ordained existence?

By Terry

October 25, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

Vince: there is nothing wrong with teaching both. The question in this thread is should ID be taught as philosophy or science. (Or mythology)

By Bruce

October 25, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

The72John,

Bruce, I won’t be happy until reason triumphs in the face of superstitous adversity.

Didn’t you mean to say; Until everyone thinks and believes as I do?

By vince

October 25, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

Not teaching both promotes narrow minded thinking a whole lot faster. The schools should offer students objective information for both and let them actually (WARNING: MAY CAUSE HEART MURMURS) think on their own and learn how to intelligently debate a topic.

The people who only want Intelligent Design to be taught are less in favor of promoting religion and more in favor of keeping out lesson plans that allow children to think and learn. How much do you need for this class? “God Created the World” That is probably a one day workshop. Lesson one, God was hanging out one day, a little bored, and thought a Starbucks cheese danish would be the bomb, so, she snapped her fingers, and boom, here’s earth and it’s people. (Starbucks would have to evolve from Adam and Eve’s day, but lets not go there) Simple. Done deal. No thinking required, and my little darling will get into heaven because they honor all things God.

Evolution requires probably a few semesters, some books, some thinking, research, experiments, papers, labs, some guest speakers and (WARNING: HEART MURMUR)actual student/teacher debate. Too much time for all that. Besides, if evolution catches on, then the single thinking people that never evolved are going to stick out in the spotlight.

By Terry

October 25, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this

Ah Chuck, I’ve been waiting for that one. So where, exactly, do you hear God’s word? The Torah, the Bible, or the Q’uran? How do you know it’s God’s word? Can you prove it? Or are you just hearing voices?

Do you really want to get into a theological discussion on what your book (whichever one it is) teaches?

ID in a philosophy class is reasonable and appropriate. I still have seen nothing defining the science behind ID.

By Billy

October 25, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this

“Answer this question: “Has evolution been shown to be the ONLY MEANS by which species could have come into existence?”

No. But it is the only one that has a shred of scientific evidence that supports it enough to even merit the label of “theory”.

By The72John

October 25, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

Of course that’s what you want me to say, Bruce. The truth is, that there are many, many religious people in this world who accept science, belive in science, and believe in the rational world.

Then, there are people like you and Chuck, and the other religious fanatics of the world. No matter what evidence is put before you, you will clap your hands over your eyes and ears and shout to the sky before you acknowledge it. You are the fools who believe the world is only a few thousand years old. You are the idiots who claim that “they” carved fossils and put them in the ground to trick the Godly. You are the frightened ones who refuse to acknowledge anything that conflicts with your precious notions because you are TERRIFIED of not having strict guidelines to live by.

You are irrational, credulous, superstitious and most of all, dangerous. Because of people like you, we are mired in THIS DEBATE while far more serious issues continue. You disgust me, Bruce - I will make no bones about it. I find your clinging to a primitive notion of God pathetic, and I look at the men and women of faith who have developed far past your pathetic legalism and wonder why in the world anachronisms like you continue to exist.

By chuck

October 25, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this

Answer to question 1: Were some species designed to fail? OR Were some species designed for a specific purpose and when that purpose was fulfilled they were no longer necessary? OR Let’s assume you were talking about dinosaurs in your question. Prior to the flood, humans lived much longer than they did post-flood. Could it be that because of God’s judgement, the composition of the formerly oxygen rich atmosphere changed and certain species could no longer survive the decreased oxygen content and increased ultra violet rays from the sun?

Question 2: It is clear that God gave man a choice as to whether or not they would serve Him. If I go out and kill someone and scream “Terry, that was for you!!!”, would I be representing you or would I be acting on my own while delusionally assuming you would approve even if that assumption contradicts what you explicitly stated in the past, in writing?

Question 3: See question 2

Question 4: What does pre-ordained existence have to do with ID? I am not sure what you are implying here.

By Terry

October 25, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

Vince: Philosophy class = YES. Science class = where’s the science?

By Billy

October 25, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

Chuck — Are you implying that an increase in oxygen intake combined with fewer UV rays will allow be to live to be 900 years old?

By Michael H.

October 25, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this

Chuck,

I’ll tell you what. If you stop insisting that you know my identity then I will accept your word that you are not the coach at the middle school as others have claimed and you have denied. You have invented more than one biography in your postings here and it makes one wonder how much influence your version of Christianty has upon your character. And one of these days you may learn why the ad hominem attack is not argument. (Noticed that you had absolutely no response to the content of my post either. Couldn’t find a ready answer at the fundamentalist websites?)

Secondly, virtually everyone who teaches philosophy treats the design or teleological argument in their classes, usually through the work of Hume and Paley because it originated in philosophy and remains a philosophical argument. (I invite you to survey the table of contents of any philosophy of religion text or most any intro text and see for yourself. Or go to one of the better encyclopedias of philosophy and learn for yourself.) Have you read any of the philosophical literature from which this view originated? Have you read Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion or Paley or Dawkins? Have you read William Dembski, the philosopher cited by Feldhahn and the responses to his work? I have and I teach them, but I doubt you have any familiarity with their work. (By the way smartass are you a biologist? Not that it is relevant?)

The bottom line, as you put it, is what should be taught in the science classes, which I would suggest is the best science we currently have. (What other criterion would be appropriate?) And this does not include intelligent design as an alternative because it has virtually no standing among scientists. The fact that it may or may not conflict with the religious views of some Americans is irrelevant.

You’re really getting your butt kicked here. It is both entertaining to watch you cut and paste segments from your websites and select out of context quotations in a desperate attempt to rescue your profoundly unsophsticated religion from the intellectual beating that others are giving it here. Nonetheless, this sort of discussion should have ended in the second half of the 19th century.

By Terry

October 25, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

Chuck: FLOOD? What flood? When? Any proof?

Also, the Bible and the Q’uran both clearly state that non-believers must be destroyed/killed/stoned to death/etc. (I haven’t studied the Torah as much, so I am unsure, but, If I remember correctly, it’s also in there.) Or are you free to pick and choose which passages of your book to follow?

By DeltaX

October 25, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this

Heck, lets teach the notion that all atoms were of 5 types (maybe 3?) like the Atomatist! Or the group that though all matter was gas—>liquid—>solid, condensing down the chain (they did not relize ice was less dense than water and it took science to illuminate that fact).

The thing is that there are tons of ideas; and they are different than theories - but one who argues against the scientific approach would not care to follow those guidlines; especially when the guidelines are what they are in-effect removing - and that is why people ralley against this ID notion.

By Michael_D

October 25, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

The new Atlanta theme song is so much more STUPID than most of you on this thread it simply boggles the mind. Arent things bad enough with this cities overcrowding, excessive number of bleeding heart liberals/democrats, insufficent City Govt, ineffective roadways and all its other failings.

Why do we need the Atl city govt to toss money down the toilet by coming up with some wannabe (c)rap artist’s rendition of a elongated and stinky Farts put to music.

No wonder Atl is magnet to uneducated “democrats” and bleeding hearts. As if remaming the airport wasnt enough of an embarrassment…must we be sujected to more toilet humor from the buffoons incharge of Atl.

POOT

By Bruce

October 25, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

The72John,

I said you win, what more do you want. Just because I do not agree with evolution you link me to someone that does not believe in science. I don’t think I have ever said that.

Listen, if you want to believe that you came from a monkey or some other primitive life form go ahead, knock yourself out. But please allow me the coursity to believe as I wish also. Where in the world would we be if we never asked any questions? I asked a simple question to which I got very complex answers that never really answered the question so I let it go. You chimmed in on a discussion between me and others and now your feelings are hurt because I refuse to allow you to bully me. Do you really think your belittlment of me will change my mind? How childish is that? Next thing you know you will be telling me your dad can beat my dad up.

By Michael_D

October 25, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

I have no doubt some on you on this thread came strait out of a gorillas behind.

POOT SQUIRT

By Billy

October 25, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

Bruce, if we never asked questions we’d be a bunch of ultra-conservative religious zealots who believe things like AIDS being transmitted via tears. We would still believe the Eartht to be flat, that meat spontaneously transforms into flies, and that we get sick because God is testing/punishing us.

Oh. Wait a sec…

By Voice of Reason

October 25, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

What would you prefer Michael_D, the redneck anthem, “I Got Friends in Low Places.”? Don’t start with your retarded babbling because no one is interested.

By Terry

October 25, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this

Michael H.: Would you not also use the works of Thomas Aquinas in a theological argument for ID?

Also, I liked you treatment of the teaching of a Philosophy of Religion class, but you got a bit emotional there. That doesn’t help your argument.

And finally, since you have a background in religious philosophy, have you read “The End of Faith” by Sam Harris. If not, I highly recommend it. If so, I’d like your take on it (I’m in the middle of it right now).

By The72John

October 25, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

Bruce, last time I checked this was a public blog, which means that any conversations you have are fair game. Call me crazy…

The truth is that you are incappable of understanding the answers you got because they are too complex for you. You need simple answers and simple solutions and anything else is beyond you - that’s it. It’s that, well, simple.

Seriously, if you think my feelings can be hurt by a simpleton like you, you are sorely mistaken.

By Michael_D

October 25, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

Voice of STUPIDITY…you are the type precisely to which I refer. Country song, (c)rap song…what difference does it make..NONE I say and dont you wanna know why?

Well Im gonna tell ya. Atl doesnt need a silly theme song. Its just that simple you ignorant buffoon.

How many $$$ were wasted on auditions, city employees time, musicians, wannabe (c)rap artists, production, recording, advertising etc. SIMPLY A WASTE like you…VOICE of FECAL MATTER.

POOT

By The72John

October 25, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

And Bruce, don’t you find it the least bit obtuse that, even after the concept has been explained to you over and over, that you STILL used the phrase “if you want to believe you came from a monkey”?

And you wonder why I think you’re an idiot.

By Michael_D

October 25, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

I fart in your geneal direction.

POOT

By The72John

October 25, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

Yo, Michael_D, I think you want the “Redneck Argument Clinic Blog”. That’s three pages over.

By Voice of Reason

October 25, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

Ah you got me funny guy. As if wasting money is a new concept for any form of government. I guess you have to pick your battles. Mine is paying into the welfare system that allows you the opportunity to have a computer with an internet connection.

By Michael_D

October 25, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this

Cmon Voice of Fecal Matter…surely (dont ever call me Shirley) you can doo doo better than that.

POOT

By Michael_D

October 25, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

Yo?…hmmm…let us dwell on this word Yo? Its meanings? Its origins…ah the ghetto. Now I understand.

See ya The72Johns…FLUSH!!!

NEXT.

By Voice of Reason

October 25, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

Yeah I guess you are right Dumb A*. POOT on you. That’s more your level.

By The72John

October 25, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

Yes, you are clever. My ironic use of a popular word places me squarely in the ghetto. Perhaps the same place you have purchased the Crystal Meth you are so clearly currently flying on.

By lozen

October 25, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

Also Terry, I don’t get my opinions about God from philosophers, but rather from His word. Yes Chuck and herein lies the problem. Do you actually read the book? I assume you are speaking of the bible even though it is only one of the works considered to be His word by human beings. Genesis doesn’t say how he created the earth and all the creatures in it. Well, it does say the Yahweh of the Jews formed man from the dirt and surely you can see that could be referring to evolution. there are many christians who believe in god and have no quarrel with evolution. As a fundamentalist though you can’t even use a little imagination can you? You aren’t supposed to. The devil will get you if you do. By the way, what does the devil look like Chuck according to the bible?

By Michael_D

October 25, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

Meth…more levels…LMAO…what originality from you silly dimbulbs.

You guys are at best…LAME.

POOT

By ARR

October 25, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

Bruce: arrgh! I’ve read this thread from top to bottom and I’m pulling my hair out. The theory Evolution does NOT contend that we “came from a monkey” or “evolved from apes.” Imagine it this way. I-85/75 exists as a single highway in the middle of Atlanta. You go north (or south) and it splits into TWO. Then you have I-85. And separately you have I-75. I-85 represents humans. I-75 represents “monkeys.” But I-85/75 represents something else. It isn’t a monkey because I-75 is a monkey. But it also isn’t a human because I-85 is a human. I-85/75 is the COMMON ANCESTOR of I-85 and I-75. I-85 the human did not evolve from I-75 the monkey but from I-85/75 the common ancestor. Once you’re on I-85 the human, there is no more I-85/75 because it’s behind you. It doesn’t exist anymore. You would have to go backwards on the highway or, in other words, back in time in order to see I-85/75 the common ancestor. Please let me know if this is a clear analogy.

By The72John

October 25, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

Who let the troll in?

By Voice of Reason

October 25, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

72John - you’ll have to excuse Michael_D, he’s part of the LatchKey program for “special children” in Cobb County. When they thought they were getting laptops, they donated the CPUs to the retards, and this what the rest of us get out of it.

By Tim

October 25, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

so what is Ga-400 then?

By Michael_D

October 25, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

What does an interstate highway have to do with monkeys, gorillas, humans, primates, evolution etc. Your ANALogy is as clear as a toilet bowl stuffed to the brim with Turds.

I suggest you try again.

Secondly you are wrong. One may go back in evolution thru Devolution…ie DEVO (whip it…whip it good). This is proven fact and when applied via quantum mechanics its makes it even more so.

I thought any IDIOT could understand that. We dont need no STINKY lecture from you ARR…ya brown shirt.

POOT

By Ken

October 25, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this

I love to see rational, intelligent individuals of the world reduced to name calling and childish insults.

It simply reveals that they are NOT rational, intelligent individuals. Rational, intelligent individuals would rely on the facts and facts alone. If others are not able to understand, then oh well, so be it.

By Michael_D

October 25, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

Oh…nice Voice of Fecal Matter…slanting on special needs children…Look I dont mind you taking your ever so STUPID silly pot shots at me, butt why bring special needs children into the mix.

I suggest you walk a mile in their shoes or go attend some sensitivity classes.

SHAME and POOT ON YOU!

By DB

October 25, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

Chuck: Whoah! You’ve gone of the deep end!

You’re whole similar genes argument is absolutely ludicrous. You need to do some studying of molecular genetics before you quote a bunch of inaccurate information as you did earlier with the dino DNA! You seem not to know what DNA is, let alone that it’s the best biological “history book” in that it is not “perceived” but real and mistakes are good in that you can trace them and even deduce migrations. And your questions about things being designed to fail. Well, organisms that go extinct do so because the environment changes too fast and the variations present in the species can’t produce fast enough change. The cool part is those that have the proper variations survive, and we call that natural selection, which is an integral part of the theory of evolution. I know you said you accept natural selection, but you moved your argument to macroevolution-speciation. Sorry, but you can’t accept one and not the other. The environmental change could be something as simple as humans moving to a new area and overhunting a species until it goes extinct. Or it could be something as drastic as methane hydrates being released due to global warming changing the composition of the atmosphere to the point where the Earth temperature increases dramatically causing first a spike in temperature and later possibly an ice age.

Quite simply, you should stop arguing against science since you have absolutely minimal knowledge of it. The facts you come up with are absolutely inaccurate. You are only showing that you have little grasp of the theory of evolution or science in general. And if you represent most proponents of ID, I rest my case and say that is the exact reason why many still think ID should be taught in the science classroom.

By DB

October 25, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this

Chuck: And the whole “unchanged/frozen DNA segments” to which you refer are called genes. And even introns are found to be useful. Your whole point, although you didn’t notice, supports the theory of evolution in that those genes are found in many organisms because they are successful. The bulk of most of the DNA in most organisms is the same, but it’s the small percentage of genes that differ that make the huge structural differences found between organisms.

The 4% of different genes found between humans and chimps accounts for all their differences. My goodness, look what happens when you get genetic disorders like Trisomy 21 or dwarfism in humans. Less than 0.1% of the DNA is changed, and you get serious differences.

I’m getting tired chuck!

By DeltaX

October 25, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this

Lozen, You have no input on any subject do you?

Is your only purpose in life is to find a point that you believe is wrong and argue it? Even if you do not have the knowledge to do so?

I know you and I are on the same ‘side’ of this arguement; yet would rather you not pull the team down with your ignorant prattle.

By DB

October 25, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

Tim: GA-400 is the Neanderthal.

By Tim

October 25, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

ok thanks… I think I understand it all now

By Billy

October 25, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

Is there any wan to kick Michael_D out of here?

By ARR

October 25, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

Billy: just ignore him. don’t post responses to his baiting to it’s easier for others to sift through it and find the real posts.

By Michael_D

October 25, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

To answer you IDIOTIC question…NO…there isnt anyone to kick me out of here, Billy “natural curly hair” D Williams.

Why dont you climb back into the toilet from whence you came then wipe yourself cuz ya breath stinks.

POOT

By Just Being Me

October 25, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

Hey Jack! ~waving~ regarding your 12:45, I’m here… just sitting on the sidelines soaking it all in. I can’t really contribute much to this conversation because I’m not sure I understand both sides clearly.

By The72John

October 25, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this

No, 411 between Rome and Cartersville is the Neanderthal…I think 400 would be more like Australopithecus .

By Bruce

October 25, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

OK ARR you want to get in on this fine I will except that anology but tell me why did the common ancestor stop producing? What was the common ancestor?

By Stewie

October 25, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

Ken,

It is sad that this subject has disintegrated into petty discourse. It seemed contentious, but fairly civil for awhile there, but as many have said…it is a politically charged subject.

I imagine if it continues to spiral downward the AJC will shut it down again.

Anyway, I wonder if a solution to this controversy, at least in high schools, would be to implement an elective philosophy-like course that addressed these science vs faith issues. Something voluntary, but still had rigorous requirements, i.e., you had to have certain pre-requisites like biology, history, etc and also would have to have a gpa that was of a certain standard.

By Michael_D

October 25, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

AJC should shut it down because it is quite obvious that the majority of you havent a clue about grammar, punctuation, spelling nor life in general.

POOT

By DB

October 25, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

Bruce: The common ancestor is most likely a lemur-like or a sleuth-like organism, but no one knows for sure.

By chuck

October 25, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

I don’t know Billy, but wouldn’t it be a great experiment. One theory holds that prior to the flood, there was another layer of the atmosphere that was water saturated and that both increased the level of oxygen and barometric pressure and decreased ultraviolet rays. We use this concept in part to promote healing of wounds that won’t seem to heal on their own as is the case with some diabetics. They place the patient in a hyper-baric chamber. There is some really interesting research on that. I just read an article a few days ago about the medical uses of such an environment. It’s something to think about. The website is:

www.lifesupport-usa.com/ L4CompanyNews/DeepSeaSpace.pdf

Michael H, you are a strange sad little man. Didn’t Hume as part of his Dialogue condemn both the “vulgar” sceptic who ignores science AND the “refined and philosophical sceptics” who push scientists into the most difficult to understand areas of science which cannot yet be explained scientifically?

As for Dawkins, his main goal in life was to come up with an argument that would completely refute Paley’s logic of “design =designer”. His idea of the selfish-gene fell well short of that.

While that may be interesting from a philosophical point of view, it has little value in determining whether or not ID theory has SCIENTIFIC value.

BTW, unlike you, I’m not so stupid as to put enough information in a blog that I could be personally identified. That is internet 101 dufus. There are a lot of crazy people out there. If you want to spend time worrying about that, enjoy. I suggest you go back to ALL of my posts, print them out and then when you figure out who I am, come see me. I’d like that. We’ll have a cup of coffee and discuss philosophy.

By Stewie

October 25, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this

Oh come on Michael_D…most of us know we are spewing a lot of hot air sometimes…what else should you do while you are waiting for a client to call back?…let us have our fun…it keeps us from kicking the dog when we get home.

By The72John

October 25, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this

What happened to the caterpillar when it became the butterfly, Bruce? The common ancestor CHANGED, and the improved version displaced the predecesor from its ecological niche.

As for what the ULTIMATE comman ancestor was, well we don’t necessarily know that yet. It may even be impossible to say that ONE thing is the common ancestor. But that doesn’t mean the PROCESS can’t be observed. We can look at a river and know that somewhere is a source. Even though we haven’t found it yet, we still know it exists.

These really aren’t the probing questions you’re trying to make them out to be.

By Michael_D

October 25, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this

Stewie…thats the most sane/logical posting of the day and I must agree.

POOT

By DB

October 25, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this

Chuck: What does hyperbaric treatment have to do with ID? And what does it have to do with evolution. Also, where are you getting your “water saturated atmosphere” information? As all scientists know, a water-saturated atmosphere(water vapor) would decrease the atmospheric pressure since water vapor is much less dense than oxygen and nitrogen, the main components of our atmosphere. I can see your argument of pressure increasing due to oxygen content increasing, but the change would be minimal, and water saturation wouldn’t in any way increase the oxygen content. If you meant water in the liquid sense, it would not be part of the atmosphere.

Your inaccuracies continue…

By The72John

October 25, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this

There is nothing funnier that watching a biblical literalist try to use science to make MYTHOLOGY into reality. If anyone is sad, it isn’t Michael. It’s deluded, small-minded religious fanatics like Chuck.

By A

October 25, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this

Bruce: the common ancestor stopped producing because it was basically less equipped for survival than we are. The organisms that have traits better suited to survival survive. The organisms that have inferior traits suited to survival don’t survive.

Also, I don’t want to give the impression that the theory resembled a clean branch like the highway analogy. It is a gradual process that occurred over time, where organisms with “good” traits live on and those with “bad” traits do not.

By Billy

October 25, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this

Bruce, the common ancestor died out as it was no longer suited to survive in its environment. I live in Gainesville, off I-985. It splits off around Buford but ceases to be I-985 shortly past Gainesville. Why? It no longer would function best as an expressway. I-75 is apes and I-85 is Man. Both keep going on and on. I-985 is Neanderthal Man, which functions for a while before dying out at the point at which it is not ideal for its environment.

By chuck

October 25, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this

Michael D is actually Michael H’s alter-ego. He is the the cool, sophisticated and funny Michael, while Michael H. is the pompous, bland, dysfunctional, Michael.

Keep it up Michael D. You are hilarious.

By The72John

October 25, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

Only in the mind of a derranged religious loon would someone who uses toilet humor be sophisticated.

By DeltaX

October 25, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

Stewie,

Are the schools not trying to force enough info down kids today? Is this ‘extra’ stuff for the parents to teach?

And how can one think that if adults cannot agree on what-is-what, that the act of teaching what we do not adhere to ourselves will help them?

This is absurd. Just because the RR want their (ignorant) say; everyone thinks they must jump.

By Jose Arcadio

October 25, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this

Or to use what somebody previously stated: it had served its function.

By Terry

October 25, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this

This thread continues to argue the merits and significance of evolution. I thought the discussion was suppose to be on intelligent design.

So, let’s try a different tack.

Let’s say that there is no Theory of Evolution, just for argument’s sake.

Can anybody clearly define the science behind intelligent design? That is: state the hypothesis, define the experiment for it’s proof, and state the expected outcome that would either prove or disprove the hypothesis.

Note that there is a basic principle of science that says that the absence of proof is not the same as the proof of absence. Which would mean, in this case, that a statement such as “there can be no other explination” doesn’t rise to the level of proof of anything.

If you cannot clearly define all three pieces of a scientific hypothesis, then you don’t have an argument for ID as a scientific concept, you have an argument for ID as a philosophical concept.

It’s really that simple. We don’t need to digress into the Flood, or dinosaurs, or monkeys. None of this area of discussion sheds any light or understanding on the question at hand.

By DeltaX

October 25, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this

Anyone know the scientific term for when a one cell organism aborbs another (not eat, mind you) and the newly absorbed organism becomes a part of the original?

Great discovery of another organism that does the above: An organism absorbs another photosynthetic organism, new organism looses cell membrane, and the mouth-parts of the original organism are lost bc of being now obsolite since there is a photosynth factory in it now. And the finale? They merge dna…

There are a huge number of possibilities in evolution that currently do not need a god to describe the increase in complexities.

Think about it. Billions of organisms making their way best they can and joining force over eons (earth could have been seeded, and therefore would not have all the beginning componets)

By Stewie

October 25, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this

Delta X,

Perhaps that is too ambitious for public schools but note that I mentioned elective…this type of course would not be required.

And I’m not suggesting that the Religious Right be placated either…really just the opposite. I was raised a reluctant Buddhist (I’m half-Asian) and I would have wanted to take such a course. As I’ve posted before I’m against teaching ID in a science class, and I’m against teaching it as it’s own accepted subject, but I don’t see anything wrong with the issues being addressed…and again, only from a Philosophical point of view…which I admit could be much harder to maintain in certain school districts.

The point I was tring to make though was that students would have to earn the right to take that type of class, i.e., it would be open only to those committed to being objective.

Maybe that type of scenario isn’t possible in the political climate we are now in though…

By Terry

October 25, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this

As a side note. Religion is based on faith. Science is based on doubt.

It is incumbent on a scientist to doubt everything, even the results of his own experiments. That’s why independent experimentation is required before any hypothesis in science is accepted with any level of confidence.

Religion requires faith. If one could prove ID, there would be no more need for faith.

By DeltaX

October 25, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this

Stewie,

Maybe that type of scenario isn’t possible in the political climate we are now in though…

That is what I was driving at. What you suggest is a survey class. Sure, I would be ok with that, but it exists in college and public schools are over-run with adgendas as it is.

More-over; given the vast amount of ignorance as to the scientific method and terms, it seems what we need is MORE SCIENCE - not LESS.

By Billy

October 25, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

Phagocytosis

By Ken

October 25, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

A…

Here’s a more philosophical question… Are we humans actually preventing or adversely altering human evolution through the way we mate and procreate?

You mentioned that the common ancestor stopped producing because it was less fit for survival than us. That it had inferior traits. Yet the human race consistently cares for individuals with ‘inferior traits’ thereby keeping them in the gene pool. This keeps various ‘defects’ from being naturally eliminated from humanity, and we know of many defects linked directly to the inheritance of genetic code. Our compassion prevents the very idea of ‘survival of the fittest’.

It would seem that this compassion we show to those of ‘inferior traits’ actually adversely affects our ability to evolve. Otherwise, many of my friends would no longer be around. Many of my friends are much smaller, much weaker and far less healthy than myself.

By lozen

October 25, 2005 05:05 PM | Link to this

Deltax, who asked you? Who cares what you would rather?

By jlb

October 26, 2005 07:15 AM | Link to this

What’s so wrong with having the theories taught as theories and allowing the parents to guide the children through beliefs and non-beliefs?

By Jack

October 26, 2005 07:31 AM | Link to this

“Why do we need the Atl city govt to toss money down the toilet by coming up with some wannabe (c)rap artist’s rendition of a elongated and stinky Farts put to music.” Perfectly put Michael. This should be put on the front page of the AJC and said on all the news programs. What a great way to spend OUR hard earned tax money.

By Terry

October 26, 2005 07:55 AM | Link to this

jlb: There’s nothing wrong with teaching theories. That’s not the question. The question is: should ID be taught as a science?

And the answer to that is NO. It should be taught as a philosophy.

By jlb

October 26, 2005 08:23 AM | Link to this

I understand the question Terry.

Again, if it is a theory…what is wrong with teaching it as a theory? In a class of Theories. When it all boils down to it they are ALL just theories. Religion…Creationism/Darwinism…Philosophy…. Seems to me you are all arguing about the labeling. Who really cares. Let the parents draw the lines in regards to the labels.

If each individuals beliefs are so very important to them (as evident in this blog) then use those personal belief energies to teach and guide the growing minds around you in lieu of trying to obtain the approval of people who will never make a difference in your personal life or change their beliefs too suit your state of mind.

By Terry

October 26, 2005 08:29 AM | Link to this

jlb: No, we’re arguing over the definition of science.

To consider discussing the concept of Intelligent Design in a science class, one would have to ignore the principals of scientific method and redefine the word science.

A scientific theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon hypotheses that have been proven and verified multiple times. Using this definition, Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.

Intelligent design cannot even be considered a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an educated guess based on observation, however even a hypothesis requires that it be supported or refuted by experimentation.

The concept of intelligent design cannot be proven true or false. Therefore it fails the first basic test of being considered scientifically.

Can you clearly define the science behind intelligent design? That is: state the hypothesis, define the experiment for it’s proof, and state the expected outcome that would either prove or disprove the hypothesis.

Note that there is a basic principle of science that says that “the absence of proof is not the same as the proof of absence.” Which would mean, in this case, that a statement such as “there can be no other explanationâ€? doesn’t rise to the level of proof of anything.

If you cannot clearly define all three pieces of a scientific hypothesis, then you don’t have an argument for ID as a scientific concept, you have an argument for ID as a philosophical concept.

But, answer a question for me: What’s wrong with teaching ID as a philosophical concept?

By Lyrazel

October 26, 2005 08:34 AM | Link to this

If ID is ever to be taught as more than just a philosophy the ID people need to get together and establish some kind of UNIVERSAL ID fact book, right? So far from what I have read the whole theory-belief-philosophy varies from group to group. Say, what about including them who believed we hail from dolphins/sea creatures or alien red-headed giants? Do they get a chapter? Or how about the one about the whole Egyptian culture being dominated by aliens who spread their teaching to places like Peru where they left parts of the mothership to be worshiped! I will miss you Jolly Green Giant, ho ho ho…no more peas in the valley….

By DB

October 26, 2005 08:37 AM | Link to this

The better word is endosymbiosis. Read “What is life?” by Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan.

Ken: Great question! It’s not philosophical; it’s scientific. I discuss with students all the time that with our medication and surgery we’re promoting bad genes to stay in the gene pool by making almost everyone survive. Every time we save a life with antibiotics, we’re promoting the genes that code for a “weak” immune system. And every time we save a life with certain surgeries, we’re promoting “weak” genes. I guess we could start sterilizing everyone who “would have died” and continue natural selection. :)

However, there will always be diseases like HIV, Ebola, Bird flu, and situations like driving where reaction time and decision making can save your life and promote those genes that code for a better brain. However, that’s only a very small portion of the population.

Again, it is a great question.

By jlb

October 26, 2005 08:43 AM | Link to this

Never said there was a problem with teaching it as a philisophical concept. I agree that there is no science behind Intelligent design. I still do not see why it can not be taught in a class of theories, along with religion and other like non-provable ideologies. I personally believe that Intelligent Design is a speculative theory. Just like the stories of the bible. All nice stories…but where is the proof.

By DeltaX

October 26, 2005 08:43 AM | Link to this

Terry,

Don’t you find it disturbing how this debate clearly illustrates the lack of understanding of the scientific process? [people do not get that it is not a ‘my idea is better than yours situation’]

That is the first thing the schools teach a person in science; yet such a vast number of people are ignorant. And now that they do not understand the process, they think in terms of casual connections.

This is evidence that science needs to be bolstered in schools; and not watered down even more - you think people are confused now, just wait until 10 years after introducing non-science into science class!

By Randy

October 26, 2005 08:49 AM | Link to this

What I like is most homosexuals are for macro-evolution because it would allow their lifestyle, with no creator to answer to. The sarcastic thing is the biggest evolutionists who ever lived, Hitler and Stalin, would have them killed if they were in power. Conclusion, if your a homosexual you can’t win, if a creator exists and one does, your lifestyle is going to condem you. If the evolutionists were to take over(God forbid), you will be put to death as they would see you as a inferior being.

By Terry

October 26, 2005 08:49 AM | Link to this

jlb: I’ve got no problem with teaching ID in philosophy class. In fact, I support any efforts to ensure that is where it is taught.

DeltaX: Yeah, there’s a nother whole thread on America’s problems with math/science education that I have also been following. It’s a major problem that has been clearly documented throughout this thread!

By chuck

October 26, 2005 08:51 AM | Link to this

DB, the whole point of the DNA fragments post is that it is unexpected.They went on to speculate AS YOU DID. They said:

“Haussler explains, the matching DNA fragments might have been preserved in pristine shape because they serve some useful evolutionary purpose — its nature still unknown.”

So when the “observation and testing” don’t conclusively prove something, what do scientists do? THEY SPECULATE Since nobody was present at creation to see whether or not God INDIVIDUALLY created man as HIS WORD SAYS, men doubt. That doubt led to science and science, unable to prove ANYTHING in regards to evolution, speculated. That is what this whole discussion is about. If you want to believe that Man and ape have a common ancestor, I won’t argue with you. They do, but that common ancestor is GOD who created them all.

By DeltaX

October 26, 2005 08:54 AM | Link to this

jlb,

I still do not see why it can not be taught in a class of theories, along with religion and other like non-provable ideologies.

That is a philosophy class. You have reached the endpoint of this debate - anymore is just kicking around covered ground.

Laz, There are books that sum up the ID notions: Bible, Koran, Tora…etc. There needs to be a scientific bases before any books get written - and then one book would be best.

By Michael_D

October 26, 2005 08:56 AM | Link to this

Good Morning Friends…and what a Lovely day it is going to be. On another subject…and please respond accordingly…

I guarantee you that whining pinhead Ashley Smith had sex and snorted Meth with Brian Nichols. I guess people are gonna doo doo what they are gonna doo doo, BUTT to publish a book and appear on Oprah as the shining, pitiful angel is quite deceptive at best.

Im just not buying the poor pitiful, feel sorry for me and NOW God has turned my life around persona this nimrod is portraying.

Sorry Ashley…come up with a better line…POOT

By The72John

October 26, 2005 08:57 AM | Link to this

It always comes back to sticking fingers in your ears and putting hands over your eyes. Whenever a biblical literalist is confronted with a challenge, he retreats back to “Because GOD said so”. You can’t argue with fools - why even try?

And Randy, I really don’t know what crack you are smoking, but please smoke a little more. If you’re unconscious, you can’t spew out garbage like you just did.

By FatMoose

October 26, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this

Chuck,

How is the below any different than what we are covering?

So, by IDers system, the double slit paradox could be explained better by an intelligent being annihilating certain photos because he likes the wave shadow pattern one the wall better than clean slits?

Scientist SPECULATE, but based on science! If you speculated purely on what you thought made sense; the above, along with thousands of other oddities would never be understood.

By Randy

October 26, 2005 09:02 AM | Link to this

The way I see science is simple. It does some good in finding cures for diseases etc. However, when it comes to evolution, the scientists who pursue this avenue need funding and they only get funding when they find something that the funding organizations wants them to find. Conclusion, atheists want macro-evolution to exist, so for the scientists to continue to live for free and do their research they need to keep saying that evolution exists, or their funds would dry up. Now many scientists have questioned macro-evolution and said that things like DNA, fossil remains etc. don’t back up macro-evolution. What are you atheist and agnostics going to do now, you have no defense and your are unprepared for your meeting with the creator at the time of your death? What are you going to say to God? I thought we came from chimps, so I didn’t need to answer to you. God will say, down deep you know better!! Your not that stupid. Think it through!!!

By Billy

October 26, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this

Randy, you have gone off the deep end there. Homosexuals believe in evolution because that means they don’t have to answer to God? First, as many have said here, evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. Secondly, Hitler and Stalin? Are you serious?

Many people have used Darwinn’s theories to advance their own agendas, perverting those theories along the way. The right, which largely wants ID taught in science classes, loves the idea of Social Darwinism. The like the idea that if they are wealthy then it must be because they are more advanced, better equipped to survive in our world. This allows them to argue against social programs to help those who are less fortunate, for the poor are poor because of their own doing.

I have read several instances in which Hitler claimed he was doing God’s work. I have yet to see a place where he refers to evolution. I guarantee you people who believe in a god have killed far more people than those who believe in evolution. Based on your either/or argument, at least.

By Voice of Reason

October 26, 2005 09:09 AM | Link to this

Man, Luckovich went big today. Real Big.

By Terry

October 26, 2005 09:13 AM | Link to this

Randy, Let’s try this again. There is no problem with teaching ID in a philosophy class. The quesiton here is: does ID meet the criteria to be considered a scientific concept?

Can you clearly define the science behind intelligent design? That is: state the hypothesis, define the experiment for it’s proof, and state the expected outcome that would either prove or disprove the hypothesis.

If you cannot clearly define all three pieces of a scientific hypothesis, then you don’t have an argument for ID as a scientific concept, you have an argument for ID as a philosophical concept.

But, answer a question for me: What’s wrong with teaching ID as a philosophical concept?

By ARR

October 26, 2005 09:13 AM | Link to this

Ken and DB: but won’t some portion of people in our society with “bad” or “weak” genes just generally not breed? if you are born with severe birth defects which shorten your lifespan or ability to function, i don’t think you are altering evolution by caring for that person because, depending on the severity of the birth defect, that person may not breed, which would work to eliminate those certain genes, wouldn’t it?

the ability of your “smaller and weaker” friends to get food and to procreate isn’t hampered. just as there are small and weak birds that survive, so are there small and weak humans.

By DeltaX

October 26, 2005 09:17 AM | Link to this

The way I see science is simple. ~By Randy

Yes, it is; so stay out of science then and stop expecting the world to conform to your simple view of everything.

By Randy

October 26, 2005 09:22 AM | Link to this

Anyone who doesn’t believe in a creator is either a idiot or hasn’t thought it through. The universe came into existance at some point(it began), 2nd law of thermodynamics. For me not to believe in a God, or creator, I would have to believe that things appear out of thin air, things just appear(poof, like a magic trick). I can’t do that. The only possible logical conclusion is that a supernatural being does exist, has always existed(that entity is eternal, always existed, nothing created him) and that entity created this world as we know it. As for macro-evolution, their are to many problems with that unproven thoery, why are fossil remains less conclusive now than 145 years ago when Darwin came up with the theory, why can’t chimps swim, why didn’t chimps evolve also, why can no other animal reason or talk, why has it never been proven that any animal not just man has changed to another species, why does DNA not allow for even the smallest change and a million more??? It just doesn’t make sense!!! Also, the big question, why would you want to believe in evolution(which means your existance here is basically irrevelant, there is no purpose to life), when on the other hand God will give you eternal life if you accept him??? Evolution is a lose/lose scenerio, beliveing in Jesus is a WIN/WIN.

By The72John

October 26, 2005 09:22 AM | Link to this

Are strength and size the only qualities that cause one to be selected for survival? What about cleverness and intellect?

This is a bit of an extreme example, but take Stephen Hawkings…he is arguably one of the greatest scientific minds ever produced, but were it not for modern medicine he would be long dead.

It’s not just physical characteristics that advance the species…

By Just Being Me

October 26, 2005 09:26 AM | Link to this

Randy:

Okay, you pulled me off the sidelines. What the heck are you talking about? What about a homosexual who does believe in creationism and answers to a creator who does not condemn him/her based on the gender of his/her partner in relationship?

What on earth are you thinking, dude?

By Billy

October 26, 2005 09:26 AM | Link to this

Randy, you are an idiot. Go away so we don’t have to rehash the same discussion we’ve had all week.

Man didn’t evolve from chimps, we have a common anestor with them. Believing in evolution does not keep you from believing in God. Nor does it keep you from living an upstanding, moral, ethical life. I believe in God, though he’s probably different from your idea of God. I’m a good guy. I have a friend who is an atheist and he’s a better person than many “Christians” I know.

If I die and God says, “Hey man, what’s with the evolution thing?,” I’ll say, “My bad. It seemed like a good idea at the time. It seemed to make sense.” Then he’ll say, “Yeah, the scientific evidence did point that way. At least you didn’t advocate teaching Intelligent Design or Creationism in science class! Welcome to heaven!”

By Terry

October 26, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this

Randy and Chuck: Can you both quit ranting long enough to answer a question:

What’s wrong with teaching Intelligent Design in a philosophy class?

By Ken

October 26, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this

DB… I hope you don’t assume that I would not care for the weak and the sick based on my post. It was meant as a question for discussion.

ARR… Of course certain people would selectively not breed, both with “good” and “bad” genes. But many with “bad” genes continue to breed on a daily basis. Your example is very extreme which is far from the norm.

As for my friends who are smaller and weaker and less healthy, they survive mostly due to technology. They survive because man has developed ways to defy the laws of the natural world. Your examples relate to creatures that have survived because they are small. That characteristic makes it easier for them to hide from predators or find alternative sources of food.

By DeltaX

October 26, 2005 09:29 AM | Link to this

New devices have frequently omitted what were once neccasary functions: See reference above in blog regarding organisms loosing mouth-parts after absorbing a photo-sythetic organism.

Conscousness can easily account for the reason the mechanical/selective dna evolution aspect of humans could fall out of the equation: No need for strong legs to run from prey if you can use your brain and evade.

By Randy

October 26, 2005 09:29 AM | Link to this

Terry, No ID should not be taught in science class, but neither should macro-evolution. Teaching anything in any school class should be proven 100%. Evolution has never been proven and confuses children, it was an interesting theory 145 years ago and that theory was bound to come up with the way humans think at some point, however we don’t need to present it as fact. I mean listen to some of the people on this site, they think it’s real. Is macro-evolution real or is it just what they want to believe, or what some scientists have to say to keep getting funding???

By Kelvin

October 26, 2005 09:31 AM | Link to this

Wow, Michael D., I agree with you about Ashley Smith.

As for the rap part, the song does sound like construction on the highway.

Why would I want to come to Atlanta and be treated like a child? I can’t stay out past 2:30, I can’t buy liquor on Sunday, and people beat you over the head with their opinions.

That’s exactly why the Super Bowl isn’t coming here.

By Tim

October 26, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

“Hey man, what’s with the evolution thing?,�

my God is more like “Guuuuuuuurl what were u thinkin?!”

By Billy

October 26, 2005 09:33 AM | Link to this

Randy, look at what you’ve said. The universe had to start somewhere, so the “only possible logical conclusion is that a supernatural being does exist, has always existed(that entity is eternal, always existed, nothing created him) and that entity created this world as we know it.”??????

That is like me saying, hey, there’s a car in my driveway. It must have been built by someone. That person must have built it from start to finish, then driven to my house and left it in my driveway. I’ve said that I can’t fathom the universe beginning without a “divine being” but I only apply that to the the beginning of the universe itself. I can easily understand how the galaxies and everything in them formed, and how life began and evolved.

By Randy

October 26, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this

Sorry Billy I don’t have time to read all posts done throughout the week. You can call me a idiot if you like, but I am absolutely right. That’s my curse, I’m absolutely right all the time, no misconceptions.

By FatMoose

October 26, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

existance at some point(it began), 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Wrong, By thermodynamics and other laws of conservation; there, like you say but do not get, no poof and everything appeared.

So, no; we do not know there was a beginning - less you want to get tricky and say there were infinite beginnings.

If your first statement is that flawed, why do you think anyone would consider the finer points that must rest on your gross foundation of ignorance.

By The72John

October 26, 2005 09:38 AM | Link to this

Lol Randy…are you on anti-psychotics? If not, you should be. You’ve got SERIOUS emotional problems, guy.

By Ken

October 26, 2005 09:38 AM | Link to this

I know it’s a little after the fact, but can someone PLEASE verify Billy’s claim that scientists have recreated life with a “homemade primordial soup” and an electric spark?

Additionally, can someone point others on this board as to where we can read up on such “experiments”. I spent several years in secondary education studying chemistry and biology and never heard of such a thing.

By Terry

October 26, 2005 09:42 AM | Link to this

Thank you Randy. As this thread is about the question of ID as a science, your answer that ID should be in a philosophy class is the bottom line.

However, it would be interesting to start a thread on whether the Theory of Evolution, or the Theory of Gravitiy is or is not science. That is not the subject of this thread. If people would just stay on subject, we might could get some understanding of this issue!

Chuck, how about you: Why can’t we just teach ID in a philosophy class?

By Randy

October 26, 2005 09:43 AM | Link to this

Billy, Yes that is my point exactly, a creator does exist. I have a whole other argument on why that creator is Jesus Christ. You got my meaning. As far a macro-evolution goes, God can do anything, he could have developed us from another species(same ancestors as chimps) but there is no proof of that and they have had 145 years to prove it. What I want is for schools to stop putting things in science books and presenting them a 100% fact, when they can’t prove it.

By Randy

October 26, 2005 09:46 AM | Link to this

Terry, Gravity is not a theory, it’s a fact. It came from Newton a brilliant man(considered in the top 3 last 1000 years) and a devout Christian.

By Voice of Reason

October 26, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this

Thanks for proving your hypocrasy Randy. “For me not to believe in a God, or creator, I would have to believe that things appear out of thin air, things just appear(poof, like a magic trick). I can’t do that.”

You can believe that if you believe that, “The only possible logical conclusion is that a supernatural being does exist, has always existed(that entity is eternal, always existed, nothing created him) and that entity created this world as we know it.”

How dumb do you sound saying nothing can just appear, but this mystical being just happens to have been there? I wish you could hear yourself. Maybe you smack you in the head and wake up.

By Terry

October 26, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this

Randy, I was being snide and you’re being too critical.

By Voice of Reason

October 26, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this

Randy - So Jesus is the Creator now? What happened to God and Jesus being the son of God? Lord have Mercy, for the flock is full of fools.

By DeltaX

October 26, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this

Randy,

Gravity exists, that is a fact.

The Theory of Gravity (how and why it works) is just that; a Theory - but a scientific Theory.

Ken, No that did not occur - at least how many (and this blog) simpley explain. The experiment provided certain coumpounds that would have had to also formed. So they skipped some of the first ‘sparks’ and seeded them.

Yet, the Theory of how that could have happened is well documented [poster in my office that shows the process] and there are new evidences that these first sparks may be created in and around stars. [a true experiment would potentially take eons - hence it not taking place]

All of what life needs can be seen throughout the galaxy [it is not this sterile abyss we once thought - organic material abounds!] - there is a much bigger picture to this.

{Some Hope for Randy: Well if we (on a molecular level) were created in stars; there is your god/light metaphore - and light *is outside time and space…you should look into science without disdain, there are possible answers that ‘fit’ in your bible}*

By The72John

October 26, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this

I don’t pretend to understand the mathematical modeling and complex details of the Big Bang theory, but it does not state that something came from nothing. It postulates that all the energy and mater that exists in the universe at one time occupied a single point. That point exploded, sending all energy and matter rushing outward and expanding. There is substantial physical evidence to support this theory, whatever you personally want to believe. I realize that fundamentalists have a problem with this concept, but science is NOT subjective.

Furthermore, it IS possible for matter to spontaneously appear from energy. For instance, we are able to detect the presence of black holes by the radiation created by spontaneously generated particle pairs. Particle/anti-particle pairs will often appear out of nothing around a black hole. Usually they quickly annihilate, but sometimes they form just at the event horizon; one particle is lost to the gravity well, the other escapes. The resulting radiation lets us observe the perimeter of the BH.

So see Randy, things DO appear from nothing sometimes. Not that you’re interested in actual science.

By Billy

October 26, 2005 10:11 AM | Link to this

Yeah, Ken, I misspoke before. DeltaX explained it well.

Randy — The argument is not over the existence of a creator. It is over teaching untestable “theories” in science class. As has been said repeatedly, calling ID a theory is scientifically inaccurate as it cannot be tested. Inserting God into science class would be one step further into the abyss of scientific ignorance into which proponents of ID are so eager to push us.

You say you are right. Maybe you are, but that discussion is best reserved for philosphy and comparative religion classes. You have no proof for your ideas other than your faith, circular logic, and an ancient, incomplete book that has been translated time and again and reworded to meet peoples needs at the time.

By Jack

October 26, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this

Cleverness and intellect is the reason why we are on top of the food chain. (most of us anyway)

By Randy

October 26, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this

Voice of reason, God(the creator), Jesus, and the Holy spirit all the same entity in different forms. So technically Jesus did create the universe. I look at them all as the “Good Spirit”, as some cultures don’t know the name Jesus and may call the “Good spirit” something else. All need to bond with the good spirit!

By Stewie

October 26, 2005 10:22 AM | Link to this

Macro-evolution is nothing more than gradations of micro-evolution (different phenotypic expressions) over periods of time such that a population has changed enough genetically that it can no longer breed with the original population. This is faciliated by the other factors that produce evolution, including mutations…(e.g., a herbivore has a gentic mutation that produces an enzyme that allows that herbivore to digest a particular plant, perhaps a plant that over time is taking over a grassy savanah with normally unedible shrubs). Over thousands of generations these sub-populations become more and more isolated and also show dissimilar phenotypes (fur patterns, lengths of bones, changes in hoofs, changes in jaws, and in birds changes in the tone of their mate-attracting song). Genes enter and leave these populations, so that utlimately there can be no reproduction between dissimilar populations..and there you have a new species..i.e., macro-evoltuion. You can continue this line of thinking to the formation of new genus, then new familys etc.

This has been observed in dozens of animal species..birds, salamanders, fish, etc. It is well documented, and universally accepted by scientist.

Unfortunately some on this blog have no conception of this process and lack the intellectual capacity to follow it through.

By Stewie

October 26, 2005 10:25 AM | Link to this

Delta X,

You are right..a survey class is what I was referring to, and I have to agree with you that is a naive thought.

Those that want ID in schools would just focus their agenda on that type of class…there’s probably no chance of it being objective.

By Randy

October 26, 2005 10:26 AM | Link to this

The72John, Where did the energy and matter come from to start with, to do the big bang??? You believe that all this came together at a particular point in time and created the universe just at random?? Wow, do you realize the size of the universe??? What are the chances of that happening and why would a event like that just happen once, just enough times so the universe would be created and man would come into existance. Wow, what a coincidence.

By Voice of Reason

October 26, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this

But your good spirit just happened to be - nothing created it?

By DB

October 26, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this

Randy: So the Universe didn’t exist before Jesus?

By DeltaX

October 26, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this

Ok,

Those who do not know the difference between Theory [note the capital ‘T’] and theory, please listen:

{Not being snide, but this is paramount in order to have this discussion}

Too many people still do not understand the difference b/w Theory(based on scientific facts) and theory(casual idea).

Can we please expect everyone to adhere to this standard, now that it has been posted in bold.

By Randy

October 26, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this

You are misinformed Stewie. No animal has changed species throughout time, DNA has confirmed this. I can see Darwin not having anymore sense than to think that macro-evolution could exist but now we have DNA and that disproves it 100%.

By DB

October 26, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

ARR: Yes and no. Those most unfit wouldn’t breed, but it’s more like those that are most fit are more likely to breed and have successful offspring. Populations are “bell curves” as far as fitness is concerned, and even some that aren’t so fit do breed, just not as much. It’s not cut and dry. So, in any population, the best adaptations survive the most. In our population, most everyone survives regardless.

And, no, I’m not assuming people don’t or shouldn’t care for the sick, and I don’t suggest we leave the sick or unfit to fend for themselves. I’m just saying that it does allow for bad genes to stay in the gene pool. I’m just talking about the repercussions of it all.

By Stewie

October 26, 2005 10:36 AM | Link to this

Randy,

You don’t know what you are talking about.

Perhaps you’d like to elaborate on your statement:

I can see Darwin not having anymore sense than to think that macro-evolution could exist but now we have DNA and that disproves it 100%

Do you even know what DNA is made up of, do you know the definition for a gene, do you know the scientific definition for evoltion? Do you know anything?

If you want to talk genetics bring it on, otherwise go back to your preaching..

By Randy

October 26, 2005 10:36 AM | Link to this

God, the creator is eternal, always existed(or he would not be God). He created the universe billions of years ago, so Jesus would predate the universe.

By The72John

October 26, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this

Well Randy, that’s the thing. We just don’t know. But if we throw up our hands and say “It was God!” then we learn nothing. Ever. The more we learn, the closer we get to the answer. Your way would have us still living in the muck cowering away from eclipses and comets.

Do us all a favor, Randy. Find yourself a nice cave and live there. That way your surroundings will match your mind, and the rest of us won’t be saddled with your primitive superstition and flawed reasoning. Not to mention your bigotry.

By FatMoose

October 26, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this

Randy,

You should read the post on here; they answer your questions before you ask.

No, there does not have to be one big bang - it could be an infinite fractel[Theory of a multiverse]; which would not conflict with your belief that god is infinite - or out of time.

Sad that you and I actually believe in the same superstructure - I just know that god [as I understand him from his word] would not put me in such a comprimising position as to choose bw him and a fact. So, I look a little and use my brain that he gave me; and low-behold it can fit - I just cannot have a personal adgenda and I must let go and let god. But that does not mean do not think!!!

By Voice of Reason

October 26, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

Randy - you are a fool! smack yourself please.

By Jack

October 26, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this

Where is Zack? Randy could use the backup. Jesus pre-dated the universe? Didn’t mary pre-date Jesus? After all, she was His mother. What came first, the chicken or the egg?

By Stewie

October 26, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this

Randy,

I’m waiting…how does DNA disprove macro-evolution?

(which by the way is only a semantic expression..not a real scientific construct).

By Jack

October 26, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this

Sorry Mary, I meant to capitalize.

By Randy

October 26, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this

I tell you what I know, believing in Macro-evolution is a lose/lose situation. What you know is what scientists have told you, the same scientists who need a paycheck to continue experiementing and living off funding from people who don’t want to believe in, or answer to a creator. Kids who were nerds in high school and now think they know something, who believe more in books written by man than what their heart and soul is telling them. Science is not going to do you much good on your death bed!

ner

By DB

October 26, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

Chuck: So now your “discussion” has “moved” to include that man and monkey do have common ancestors all the way to God. I won’t argue with you because I have no evidence against that. I will, however, assume you just conceded that evolution takes place by that statement. It’s good to see you have adjusted your mindset through your learning.

People: Science is not saying God or “something” didn’t create the Universe. Science cannot deal with that issue at all. Obviously, we’re all here witnessing ourselves and the Universe in some odd way, and therefore there must have been a beginning of some sort. As for explanations, it’s all opinion. Let’s just agree it happened.

By DeltaX

October 26, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

Stewie,

Crazy how peoples total make-up is controled by the notion that their loving god would shame them if they thought outside the box - but they are still expected to develop and grow somehow. And do not forget that the great gift was choice! ehem

Can you image the brain chemistry of someone living within those paradoxes? Ohhhh - the colors! Must be better than the northern lights!

By The72John

October 26, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this

Randy, you are truly the most colossaly stupid person ever born. Ever. Anywhere. Seriously.

By Randy

October 26, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this

Thats a very good point Jack, what did come first the chicken or the egg? That is one of the best arguments for creation I ever heard. God created the chicken first and the chicken had eggs.

By The72John

October 26, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this

There we have it, folks! Randy, in his wisdom, has single-handedly answered one of the most discussed and argued scientific koans of all time! Thank you, Randy - you have answered one of life’s great questions for us.

By DB

October 26, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this

Ken(and others): Now here’s another cool question. If we sterilized all humans that “would have died” from medical problems even though we saved them(so they don’t pass on their weak genes), we could “engineer” evolution(and we also do it with gene therapy). Because that “engineering” is accomplished through our intelligence, could that be considered ID hundreds of years from now?

By jlb

October 26, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this

God, the creator is eternal, always existed(or he would not be God). He created the universe billions of years ago, so Jesus would predate the universe.

Wow, Randy! For someone who is touting religion you really don’t understand. Jesus was the son of God and man. His mother was Mary. Mary did not predate the universe. Jesus, being the son of God and man has, inherently, attributes of both God and man.

By The72John

October 26, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

DB, you’re talking about eugenics…that’s not a “cool” question, it’s the stuff of nightmares. It wouldn’t be considered ID in a few generations, it would be looked back on as an atrocity.

By DB

October 26, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this

Randy: The egg! It was “invented” by fish and then gradually improved by amphibians and reptiles. Reptiles “invented” the hard shell, which of course birds still use. And the chicken is one of them. I’m sorry, but it is a great argument for evolution!!!!!

By DB

October 26, 2005 10:56 AM | Link to this

And the true egg was even “pre” fish.

By Stewie

October 26, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this

Randy,

That’s not an acceptable answer..you said that DNA disproves evolution 100%. That’s quite a statement…please explain it.

By DB

October 26, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this

It’s not “cool” in the sense of actually doing it that way. I’m just saying the question is stimulating. Don’t take me wrong. We will be doing it through gene therapy in the future.

However, in the long run we may reduce variations to the point where we wouldn’t be able to adapt to the environment.

By DB

October 26, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this

Then there will be great ethics discussions arguing germ line therapy vs. somatic cell therapy.

We have already done it a few times in humans, but luckily it has been somatic cell therapy(not passing it down). But with plants and animals we have done both.

By Michael H.

October 26, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this

Terry,

Thanks for the comments. The list wasn’t meant to be exhaustive. I don’t think I would include Aquinas as his appropriations of the arguments from Aristotle’s Metaphysics, the “five ways,� are a better fit under the rubric of the cosmological argument for God’s existence, rather than the teleological argument. I’m not familiar with Harris’s work.

I think that a bit of passion regarding this issue is legitimate as there is a lot at stake. The attacks on evolutionary theory are a threat to science education in the United States, indeed, they have undermined the willingness of many biology teachers to address evolutionary theory in their classrooms. They are part of a larger religious-political-ethical agenda which includes a distinctively anti-science component. The journalist Chris Mooney just published a book titled The Republican War on Science. I have read some of his shorter pieces on the subject and look forward to reading the book. But emotion can have a place in argument and, as someone who teaches logic at least once a year, I certainly agree that it neither adds to nor subtracts from an argument itself.

By mit

October 26, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this

Db,

I don’t know if the reptiles started the hard egg shell. all todays species of reptiles lay soft shell eggs. i do believe birds evolved from reptiles and the hard shell egg evolved with them since they didn’t make nests on the ground and therefore couldn’t regulate the temperature of the nest. Hard shell is then needed since the egg is not covered. though that is a quess.

randy, what is your definitions of macro and micro evolution? if i am thinking of them correctly, you can’t have one without the other. and I don’t know anyone who actually looks at evolution and divides them up.

By DB

October 26, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this

Yeah Randy: I would say DNA supports evolution 100%, and there is a huge pile of evidence.

By Ken

October 26, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this

Mit… Interesting point about birds/reptiles and hard/soft shell eggs…

How exactly did birds come to create hard shell eggs versus soft shell eggs? Did they make a decision? Did it just happen?

By Chilao

October 26, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

Speaking of eggs and fish, are you aware that, with the exception of small isolated lakes high in Central Asia, the only live-birth of fish are in the New World(Americas). All fish in Europe and Africa, and nearly all of Asia, spawn with the use of lain eggs. Talking fresh water fish, pelagic/ocean fish are too wide-moving.

Now why on earth would the Intelligient Designer do such a thing? For that matter, since the Earth is due to be destroyed by fire, why would he be creating new sulphur-tolerant organisms down along hydro-thermal vents deep in the ocean? What on earth does he have planned after he gets rid of the humans?

By Randy

October 26, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this

Let’s say that macro-evolution is true, why can’t any other animal reason, talk. Why did we evolve so as we went to the moon and other animals don’t have enough sense to get out of the way of my car? Micro evolution is where a bird for instance changes color due to predators in the area, however it is still a bird. It didn’t evolve into a snake for instance. Macro-evolution is a major change, bird to reptile ect. Either way a creator created them, so this conversation is irrevelant.

By DB

October 26, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this

mit: By the word “hard” I meant calcified. And although most reptilian eggs are leathery(but calcified), some species of turtles and tortoises lay hard-shelled eggs that have identical crystal content as bird eggs. My whole point was that the evolution of the hard-shelled egg started in late reptiles and the transistion between them and birds, and we really don’t know the exact species for the origin of the hard shell in birds, but it was probably a reptile. But I do believe the leathery shells in early reptiles and the hard shells in turtles and tortoises came before the birds’, so I assumed reptiles “invented” it. I may be off on my phylogeny though. I will look it up out of interest.

Thanks for the stimulation though. Are you a biologist?

By joe

October 26, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this

Randy, I’m nominating you for a Darwin Award. Have you ever heard of it? It’s named in honor of Charles Darwin, the father of evolution and it commemorates those who improve our gene pool by removing themselves from it. So go on Randy. You’ll be in heaven and you’ll get a reward for going there early.

By Randy

October 26, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

Basically it comes down to a simple fact, there are people who have had a life changing experience thru Jesus Christ and know that to be true and real and there are people who haven’t. No matter what I say these people are going to dispute it. They have a belief(or lack thereof) system in place and they are going to defend that belief system. The difference is my worse case scenerio is their best case scenerio at death(their best is they become dirt, my worse is I become dirt). When I die I’m going to heaven, I’m 100% positive of that. When I answer to the creator, I’ve taken care of business. When they die, provided that they don’t see the light before that point, they are not going to be prepared. What If you lived 200 years ago and scientists(doctors) told you that to cure you, we need to bleed you with leaches. Same difference, at what point does science learn everything?? What if science is at a stage where they think certain things(like they were 200 years ago with bleeding)and they are wrong??? You don’t find God with intellect, he wants more, he wants your belief and faith. Just like a football coach wouldn’t want a player who didn’t have faith in his own ability. God wants the strong people who have faith.

By DeltaX

October 26, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this

Randy,

Why does it threaten you so much?

What have you decided in your black/white world would happen to your god/faith if you found out that things did evolve from a single cell?

Are you that convinced that god’s structure is ridged as you believe [and is limited to your knowledge]? Do you know the arrogance of that? Do you think this is a good part of your faith and god smiles at your efforts to assert your belief of his plan as truth?

Why, if you are christian, do you not ask these serious in your mind and look for guidance? Again, are you arrogant enough to think you know gods mind?

By mit

October 26, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this

ken,

the soft to hard shell would be a very simple change. since reptiles lay their eggs covered to regulate the temp there really is no need for a hard shell egg. but birds lay their eggs uncovered. they use their feathers as the incubator and therefore a need would arise for an egg with a hard shell. the birds themselves didn’t make this decision. like all other things that have to make an adaptation, the hard egg shell was needed due to climate, conditions, or a combination of the two, or a combination of more factors I can’t think of.

evidence for reptiles to birds, farmers market, look at some chicken feet, spooky little dinosaur feet is what they look like. this was my initial evidence for thinking birds came from reptiles(dinosaurs) when I got a turkey foot just to get one when i was a kid. now the fossil evidence has become overwhelming.

By DB

October 26, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this

Randy: Your beliefs are your beliefs. Science is science. The two don’t mix, so please don’t argue to have your beliefs put into the science classroom. Then we’d have to include the Aborgine dreamtime creation theory, all the Native American theories, and everything else for that matter. They all have one thing in common. They are absolutely NOT science.

By mit

October 26, 2005 12:00 PM | Link to this

db,

yeah, a biologist almost, just doing my masters

i was just guessing I really don’t know all the animals that produce hard shelled eggs, i would think that it could easily be done by both independently as well, like languages. most of the languages come from a central language but there are languages that arose independently.

this would take alot of research

By mit

October 26, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this

forget the reptile and birds though.

lets try to figure out the platypus.

an egg laying mammal.

By DB

October 26, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this

mit: Good for you! I hope you teach(at least a little bit) in the future. Yes, the only difference between leathery and hard is the amount of calcium, and it is easy in an evolutionary sense to make the transistion.

Out of curiosity, what is your focus for Master’s research?

By DB

October 26, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this

transition

By Billy

October 26, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

Randy, other animals can reason and talk. They just have yet to develop speech as we know it.

There was the gorilla who mastered something like 600 signs in ASL (sign language). She saw a duck. She didn’t know a sign for “duck” so she combined the signs “water” & “bird” to describe the duck. That shows some reasoning skills. She had the ability to communicate with us on a rudimentary level. Dolphins have been known to come to the aid of people in the ocean. That shows some reasoning, I believe…Not that I think for a second this would convince you of a single thing that has been discussed on this forum.

The animals who get hit by your car are removed from the gene pool. Ones who get out of the way survive to breed more, increasing their presence in the gene pool.

By DB

October 26, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this

The platypus sure is a weird one in many ways!

By Joey

October 26, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

Ms. Feldhahn’s opening sentence illustrates what is wrong with this whole debate — the lack of understanding about what a theory is in scientific terms. A theory is not just any ol’ idea that someone wants to put out there. It is formulated from the results of testable hypotheses with reproducable results. It is also designed to provide the simplest explanation for the phenomenon in question. Finally, theories are not “proven” or “disproven”. A hypothesis can be accepted or rejected based on the outcome of an experiment.

Just saying “we believe life is too complex to have evolved by chance, therefore there must be a designer” is a philosphical conjecture that CANNOT be tested. It’s certainly an interesting thought, and it may even be close to what I believe myself, but it isn’t science and it doesn’t belong in a science classroom. The argument that it should be taught alongside biological evolution in the science class doesn’t make sense. We don’t teach magic alongside physics or alchemy alongside chemistry so that kids can make up their own minds about how things work.

By Brian Curtis

October 26, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

Randy: So now evolution is gay? This is getting funnier by the minute. Everything you don’t like must be driven by “fear of a creator� in your mind, huh? No other possibilities exist. Must be very comforting to have all your answers spelled out for you. In which case, why do we waste time with science at all?

“The way I see science is simple.� Of that, I have no doubt. But like it or not, evolutionary theory is not the place for you to preach your “believe in my creator or you’re stupid!� philosophy; it just won’t get anywhere. Not because people FEAR what you say… but because they simply don’t care. The stuff you’re talking about has nothing to do with science, and science doesn’t need to worry about your creator one way or the other. Neither does my auto mechanic, or the mathematician down the hall.

So the real question is this: why are some creationists so all-fired terrified of science that they have to attack it every time we learn something that might contradict their reading of the Bible? Is their god really that weak? Is their faith that shallow and fragile? Do they honestly believe that science teaches a philosophical perspective of “There’s no purpose in life,� or is that just the boogeyman that church leaders use to scare people away from rational thought?

“The only possible conclusion is that a supernatural being must exist.� Uhhh, right. That statement alone shows how little you know (or care) about science, except as another tool to advance your religious agenda.

P.S. Chimps CAN swim.

By Brian Curtis

October 26, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this

P.P.S.: Do you notice how every discussion of “intelligent design� instantly turns into an attack on evolution interspersed with pious claims about “having faith in the Creator�? If there was any doubt that ID is simply religion trying to sneak into the schools, that should put it to rest.

The intelligent design crowd HAVE no theory; they don’t even understand what a scientific theory IS, nor do they particularly care. They just want to erase science from the schools because they’re afraid students might learn to think rationally and ask logical questions�perhaps even about (gasp!) their sacred faith!

Never mind the fact that science takes no interest in, or position on, religious questions one way or the other. That’s not enough for the zealots. They want to stamp out science completely, because it keeps coming up with answers that weren’t found first in the Bible. And that’s a frightened, pathetic way to live. Are they hoping to win more converts by exposing their fragility and fear this way? Because somehow, I don’t think it’s working. Ignorance can help fundamentalism, but only up to a point.

By Billy

October 26, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis — Well put. Thanks. But don’t expect it to make the tiniest bit of difference. Like Bruce earlier this week, Randy seems dead-set in his opinions no matter how often we refute his claims. He is resorting to spouting Biblical BS since he evidently has no ability for critical thought.

By Ken

October 26, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this

Mit… I understand the need for soft and hard shell eggs. What I don’t understand is how the first hard shell egg came into being. Not that I really care, but I am posing the question fo discussion.

What caused the bird to create eggs with more calcium in the shell? What was the catalyst? Something physically inside that bird caused them to lay hard shell eggs.

By Jack

October 26, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

Didn’t Hitler try ID via genicide? Make the perfect race? Have the cream of the crop mate with the cream of the crop.

By Billy

October 26, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this

Ken — Perhaps animals were laying eggs with shells of varying hardness. Some, who eventually became birds, were in an environment in which eggs with harder shell were more likely to be viable for whatever reason — temperature, predators, whatever. Those harder shelled eggs survived, the offspring from them survived, and proceded to lay eggs that were a tad harder. Over many generations, the eggs became completely calcified.

Or it could have been the result of a random mutation that just happened to be beneficial and was therefore passed on into later generations.

By DB

October 26, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

Ken and Billy: Whatever “selective pressure” it was, it occured during or before the first birds appeared because all birds have the hard shell. And the mutations only made the variations in “hardness” possible, but the environmental selective pressure is what made hard shells more successful. And reproductive strategies are the most “naturally selected” because they are most important for survival. The selective pressure could have been a combination of factors. It probably had most to do with the fact that birds have to sit on their eggs for incubation and not break them(as mit mentioned). No one knows exactly what it was.

By lozen

October 26, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this

BrianCurtis, that’s it in a nutshell - your 12:11 and 12:19 posts.

By jlb

October 26, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this

What happened to Randy?

By mit

October 26, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this

all we need to know is the egg came way before the chicken did.

By DB

October 26, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

Jack: Also, royal families did that quite often, and the inbreeding led to many genetic disorders. That’s an example of the need for just the right amount of variations, which is the purpose of sexual reproduction anyway. However, inbreeding is good in some cases like small tribes in Africa “quickly” propagating the sickle cell gene, which makes people resistant to malaria. Many people don’t realize that the prevalence of Sickle Cell trait in Africa is directly related to the fact that Malaria has been killing people for eons. The mutation, which is just one base pair of DNA changing(amazing that it affects the structure of hemoglobin, which in turn makes the red blood cell an entirely different shape), that causes sickle cell occurs at the same frequency in all populations across the globe, but since it is inherited and makes people(carriers) resistant to Malaria, it is concentrated in Africa simply because carriers are more likely to survive for the past millions of years because Malaria is the number one killer in equatorial regions. That is a perfect example of natural selection in humans.

By Billy

October 26, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

DB — that’s what I was saying…

By DB

October 26, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this

mit: Exactly! I’m glad Randy asked it though.

By Billy

October 26, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this

DB — I knew that about malaria! From what I understand, using the typical genotypic square (whose name I can’t recall) two carriers would result in one child with the “full dose” of sickle cell, who would soon die because the cells could not carry Oxygen to the body, one who would not have sickle cell at all but would likely die from malaria, and two who would have sickle cell, but only to the point where it prevented their contracting malaria. Only 2 of every 4 hypothetical children would survive, but it’s a lot better than all of them getting malaria. Or am I totally off-base on that?

Also, I believe people whose genetic ancestry can be traced to Europe during the Bubonic Plague have been shown to be a little more resistant to contracting HIV, though I am not sure of any numbers…

By DB

October 26, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this

You know, this whole discussion is promising to me. For the sake of our future in science, I am getting worried that the ID/Creationists may actually ruin science education more than it already has with these various lawsuits and movements. If this discussion represents the population, maybe people are learning from it and therefore science education will return to something respectable.

By Billy

October 26, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

“If this discussion represents the population, maybe people are learning from it and therefore science education will return to something respectable.”

DB, I think this, as usual, is not the result of a mass movement on the part of the general population, but the result of a very vocal minority.

By Ken

October 26, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

Brian… there will always be zealots on both sides of virtually any issue where religion comes into play. We simply need to accept that, and keep zealots on the sidelines. Most of the time they are nothing more than chatterboxes who want to hear themselves.

However, there are times when those zealots raise legitimate questions when it comes to the ethical uses of our scientific knowledge (i.e. cloning). One may not agree with the underlying basis for the outcries, but the moral implications should be considered.

One other thing…

I am glad you said some creationists are terrified of evolution, b/c I am a creationist in many people’s definition of the term, but am not terrified at all by the theories of evolution. I still beleive that God created the first living things in this world, but that does not mean that the living creatures of today did not evolve from God’s first creations. Even a true creationist, and I’m talking ultra-fundamental, cannot believe that Adam and Eve looked like us.

DB… BTW, for many arguments made on this board, the “selective pressure” does matter. It has been stated that “science” can be tested and verified. If we are not able to test and verify the “selective pressure” than anything we say about how hard shell eggs came into being is simply our best guess based on incomplete evidence.

By mit

October 26, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

db,

i haven’t actually proclaimed a official focus. infectious disease is my general focus currently so I will probably stick with it and concentrate on bacterial infectious disease

By marzipan

October 26, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

The God Who Wasn’t There: The Truth Comes Out This documentary (that belongs in every high school class on comparative religion)was produced by Brian Flemming, a born again atheist who was once a Christian fundamentalist. He is best known for his 2001 off-Broadway show “Bat Boy: The Musical,” about a fictional bat child who is a product of tabloid sensationalism. In this film he shows that the biblical Jesus is just as fictional as the bat child. Atheists and biblical scholars know this, but getting the facts to the public has been difficult. The June 27 issue of Newsweek had a review of the film by Elise Soukup, in which she said, of Flemming’s motivation: “With religion increasingly influencing politics, the goal is to encourage a movement of atheist activism.” “I think that the United States is heading in the direction of theocracy,” says Flemming. “The problem is that we let religious people say stunningly false things and we consider it rude to question those beliefs. But we should be shunning those people.” “If that sounds intolerant, that’s the point,” Flemming says, “I’m not tolerant of suspending reason.”

By mit

October 26, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this

what proof is there that jesus was truly fictional? the romans didn’t have an account of jesus but that doesn’t meet he didn’t actually live. the romans didn’t keep track of everyone they executed. and jesus really didn’t do anything to the romans that would make them take notes. and even if he did accomplish something against rome then they probably didn’t write down that either since empires don’t write down bad things that happen to them. so what other evidence do you refer to in saying biblical scholars know that jesus didn’t exist? just curious, i really don’t believe jesus was the son of god and mary was a virgin but i do believe he was an actual person during those times. religions don’t usually pop up based on a fictional character. they all have a base upon someone real or another religions’ teachings which is based on real things.

By Terry

October 26, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

This entire thread has gone hopelessly off course!

The question was: Should science classes require the teaching of Intelligent Design theory?

It was not about evolution. Even if one was to totally debunk the Theory of Evolution, it would not justify elevating intelligent design to a scientific footing.

Again I will ask: Can anybody state a scientific basis for intelligent design?

(And can we all get back to the subject of this thread?)

By Ken

October 26, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

If anyone gets a chance to see ‘Bat Boy - the Musical’ please do. My wife and I saw it at ‘Dad’s Garage’ a couple of years ago and it was a hoot.

As for the quotes associated to Mr. Flemming… He is no better than the religious fundamentals so many people ridicule in this country. To not be tolerant, is not the ideals we stand for in this country.

I can disagree, yet tolerate. I do it with people every day, including with people on this BLOG. Once you get into any movement that becomes intolerant, you bcome no better than other extremist movement throughout the course of history.

By Voice of Reason

October 26, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this

Translation of Terry’s post : “You guys have lost me! Let’s back up!”

By The72John

October 26, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

Ken, I disagree, and that’s part of what’s created this problem. It’s this post-modern nonsense of “everyone’s perspective is valid”.

Ok - if you want to believe that the world is 5000 years old and that man started with two people, then that’s great. But when you start talking about replacing solid, scientific REALITY with superstition and mythology, then it’s OK to be inflexible.

By Jack

October 26, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this

Zealots also do things such as blowing up abortion clinics and murdering the doctors who work in them. All in the name of God. Cloning is fine for specific organs. We really don’t want to clone a whole human. It might get confusing.

By Bruce

October 26, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this

Actually Billy, I believe I do understand it a little better now and thank you for your time and effort. Are all my questions answered, NO, can they be, I do not know but what I have come to realize is that maybe science does have its place. The way I see it now is simple to me.

Science has an explaination for all that is around us and we use our brain to process the facts as they come in.

Faith, on the other hand is another way to process these facts, except you use your heart to process them.

I think what is sad is that some folks get so wrapped up with the brain they forget to use the heart also. Sometimes the heart can/would be a better tool in determining the validity of the facts.

The two most important facts I have learned this week are:

Can science and intelligent design coexist? I think it can as long as we (humans) use the correct tool to process the infromation as it comes in. This may not make sense to anyone else but me but it settles it in my mind.

By Terry

October 26, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

Translation of Terry’s post: If the subject of discussion is intelligent design and science, why can’t we actually discuss intelligent design and science?

All of this other stuff is just obfuscation. Which is a sure sign that you have no defense for your position on the actually subject!

By Terry

October 26, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this

Bruce: You’ve summarized the basic concepts pretty well!!

A couple of notes - First off, although I am loathed to talk about evolution in a debate about ID as I don’t think there is necessarily any conflict between the two, The general Theory of Evolution has been proven - it’s the mechanisms that drive evolution that are still not well understood.

And secondly (and more importantly): Intelligent design is a concept based on faith. Science is a method based on doubt. Faith and doubt are mutually exclusive!

By Randy

October 26, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

Excellent post Bruce. I’m not for intellligent design to be taught in school, some of the people who don’t know God, could be trying to teach it. Let’s leave learning about God to the people who he has selected(most pastors and priests) to teach it.

By DB

October 26, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this

Ken: The selective pressure doesn’t matter as much as the fact that it did happen, and it was gradual. But I never said it doesn’t matter at all. The evidence is in today’s animals, fossils and the DNA. Scientists don’t know for sure what selective pressure made it happen. And they teach what “probably” made it happen and promote skepticism and alternative explanations within the confines of science. So, the fact is that it did happen, and the selective pressure is not yet identified, and probably never will be. Evolution is nothing more than change over time, which did happen, and there’s no doubt it did.

By DB

October 26, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

Bruce: Science cannot with 100% prove anything. That’s a concession of all scientists(or true scientists). It only finds the most “reasonable” explanations and minimizes the chance that those explanations are incorrect. So you’re absolutely right in that science cannot prove evolution 100% correct. However, evolution, at this time, is a scientific fact as determined by the scientific community.

If that’s the case, we shouldn’t teach that everything in history is a fact. It’s nothing more than perception of observed events. We just assume according to history they are facts.

NOTHING IN THE UNIVERSE IS AN ABSOLUTE FACT! We can argue against anything. However, when things are backed up with a lot of evidence, they get more near being what we call a fact. And that is what science is. You cannot claim or teach anything in a science class unless it has been supported by mountains of evidence.

By mit

October 26, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

bruce,

your #1 lesson learned is wrong. evolution has been proven to happen 100%.

its fact that staph used to be susceptible to antibiotics and it is fact that through evolution this same staph is now resistant to multiple types of antibiotics.

its fact that we do not have a cure for HIV after 25 years because of the evolving virus, it evolves to bypass everything that we throw at it.

the only thing left that has not been proven is the mechanisms or pathways that evolution took in specific instances. such as: why does an animal, like a mongoose who stay in packs, stick its neck out for the rest of the group when warning of an intruder, like a lion?

platypus too, why has a mammal come to lay eggs instead of live births?

evolution is 100% fact whether you like or not. the only questions left are things like, why did it go this way and not that way. WE as humans didn’t evolve from chimps but share a common ancestor that we both diverged from. and the diverge was a long, long time ago. because we are hominids and chimps are pognids. our spinal column connects to the base of our skull (at the bottom) and a chimps spinal columns connect to their skull at about a 45 degree angle on the back. this enable us to walk upright whereas the chimps do not. We may not fully understand how or why point A went to point B but we do know evolution occurred to make the trip from A to B possible.

By hewhoasks

October 26, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

OK, let’s dispose of one bad argument forever. “Theoory” is a word with more than one meaning. Here’s Definition 1 of “theory” from my ACD:

“A coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Newton’s theory of gravitation.” Note, by the way, that it *is referred to as the “theory of gravitation.”

There has been a lot of bad explanations for the actual real world along the way: phlogiston to explain heat, earth, air, fire, and water as the principles of matter. We don’t teach those in science classes because they aren’t science. We should not teach crationuism nor intelligent design. Same reason: they aren’t science.

The flood myth started to be abandoned about 300 years ago, when intelligent people looked at the evidence and found that the evidence was such that the flood myth couldn’t be true. 300 years ago the common notion was that fossils were rocks that in some mysterious way bore traces of what looked like living organisms - not actual remnants or records of living organisms.

The creationists would pull us back 300 years - and thousands of years more. “Intelligent design” is simply creationism cleansed of its overt Old Testament trappings so its backers can claim that it isn’t based on religion.

Who fails to see that the intelligent design advocates and the creationists never follow through? They make some lame attack on the theory of evolution (wich they themselves instantly accept as valid, but that’s no surprise) and then begin advocating their philosophy. Philosophy doesn’t beling in science class, should not be used to replace science. If the creationists wish to ignore science and ignore the evidence they can’t be forced to do otherwise but that they are adamaant about their beliefs doesn’t grant them any entry into the science classroom.

You will also frequently (almost always) see the creationists (original or disguised versions) using language deceptively to put forth their views. For example they intentionally and falsely take the wrong definition of the word “theory” (definition 1, above, is the operative one) in the phrase “theory of evolution” and base their claims on that wrong definition.

Scientists use words to communicate but they are careful to choose their words appropriately and use the words to describe the concepts and facts which they wish to convey. The thory of evolution arose form observed facts and remains consistent with obseved facts. Much has been learned since Darwin’s time that amplifies the understanding of the theory of evolution and those facts have been added to the body of knowledge that surrounds and supports the theory of evolution.

By Billy

October 26, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

Thanks Bruce!

By Bruce

October 26, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

Mit,

I would consider your points as vaild but to me your examples are more along the lines of adaptation than evolution. Like I said my conclusions make sense to me but it may not work for anyone else.

By Billy

October 26, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

Mit, Bruce has accepted our side of the debate — ID has no scientific basis and should therefore not be taught in science class. Let’s worry about convincing him about evolution later, ok?

;-)

By marzipan

October 26, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

mit, is there any proof that jesus wasn’t fictional? Is there any proof at all that would convince a Martian who had never heard of the bible and didn’t consider it any different from any other book, that there was a jewish rabbi who was crucified by the Romans at the insistence of other rabbis because he claimed he was god and that was blashemy to the temple leaders? Doesn’t it seem likely that the rabbis in power who supposedly were so threatened by him, would have written something about him? Why do you think the majority of the people of his own time, his own people, didn’t believe their promised messiah had come? They had been waiting for him for a long time! And they are still waiting. That’s why they’re Jews and not christians.

By hewhoasks

October 26, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

Bruce”

“the only questions left are things like, why did it go this way and not that way.”

Isn’t that the question Darwin tried to answer? We call it “survival of the fittest.” Some hang way too much on that phrase and create the idiocy known as “social Darwinism,” which we cna ignore here.

I prefer to look at it the other way: fitness of the survivors. Those that survived average out to be more fit than those who do not, but that’s for species, not individuals. If the environment in which a species is found turns much colder the species may survive, adapt, move, or even flourish. Or warmer. If there’s a famine then a species can die out because the individual members of the species all were unable to find food - or at least, for species that reproduce sexually, the surviving males and the surviving females couldn’t find each other. No doubt some species die out by dwindling down to just a few members and then all the remainder dying without reproducing (eiter alone, or with help, like the passenger pigeon and dodo) and some die in one big calamity (which might have also hit a lot of other species.) But species do die out. (It’s worth noting that 300 years ago the idea of species extinction was opposed by the religionists of the time: that suggested the creation was imperfect. Sigh. 300 years.)

Lamarck argued that giraffes got long necks from generation after generation of giraffes straining to reach higher leaves. Darwinists say that the giraffes that somehow inherited longer necks were able to eat both the low leaves and the high ones, putting the short-necked giraffes at a disadvantage. The long necks came from mutations - and had to include mutations that changed the circulatory system. Honest evolutionists and creationists can agree that’s remarkable, but the creationists go way to far in what they add. There’s reason for awe in almost every aspect of every species. Creationists want to attribute the coause of all that awe to a creator, which is fine. That’s not science, so it doesn’t belong in science classrooms.

By DB

October 26, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

Bruce: 99.9% is pretty good though. If we throw out evolution, we would also be unable to teach as fact things like the Law of Thermodynamics, Conservation of Mass and Energy, Gravity, Theory of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, London Forces, Van der Waals, Ideal Gas Laws, Acceleration Due to Gravity, Nuclear Fusion and Fission, and many others. I surely hope you wouldn’t argue against those.

By mit

October 26, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

bruce,

adaptation is a process of evolution. in order for one to adapt to say a climate change. it must evolve, though we now can simply put on a coat, we will still evolve, producing thicker fat layers, etc. we humans evolved into bipedal beings becasue we had to adapt to grasslands. our ancestors that stayed in the forests are the great apes of today becuase they were already adapted to their environment.

By Ken

October 26, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

DB… Your listed items are far more provable than evolution through experimentation and mathematical quantification.

Evolution is a theory based on lots and lots of evidence where the gaps are filled in with our best guess. We can certainly see various aspects of evolution in our midst. I gave an example of my two office plants apparently cross-polenating. To look at evolution with the same absolute as gravity or the conservation of mass and energy, to me, is simply preposterous.

By Bruce

October 26, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

DB,

Thanks but I am through arging this subject. As I have stated here I have learned something just not everything. But I will tell you that you folks need to get together and come to a common ground. Some of you are saying it is not 100% and then other say it is. I guess it depends on the scientist you talk too.

By lilith

October 26, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

Why did humans begin standing upright? One theory is that they had to stand to pick food from trees. Chimps and apes pick food from trees too! I know that it was the female that first began standing upright. She had to. She was totally vulnerable on all fours. She could not protect herself from being mounted from behind. By standing up she kept unwanted males from getting to her so easily. Then, of course, the other males saw what the women had learned and realized they wouldn’t get poked so easily if they stood.

By mit

October 26, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

lilith, One theory is that they had to stand to pick food from trees.

i have never heard this theory before. and like you said chimps pick food from trees so you can go ahead and scrap that one. humans became bipedal to adapt to grasslands. they had to see over the grass to look for predators. another one is we needed to use both hands so we had to become bipedal. we may never know exactly why but your mating explanation is pretty funny.

By chuck

October 26, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

Too busy to blog today. I’ll try to catch some of you up to speed on items of discussion today. I’ll start with jlb.

You said:

Wow, Randy! For someone who is touting religion you really don’t understand. Jesus was the son of God and man. His mother was Mary. Mary did not predate the universe

I don’t know what your background is as far as whether or not you believe in God Or whether or not you are a Christian. While I don’t have time to give you a thesis on the topic, Randy was exactly correct in saying that Jesus pre-existed the universe. Your statement refers to the incarnate Christ, Randy’s refers to the PRE-Incarnate Christ. If you read the first chapter of John this is clear. It says:

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Clearly, the Bible teaches that Jesus was not only present at creation but was also the agent of it. I don’t have time to get into a discussion of the trinity today, but I’ll just say this. There is ONE GOD who exists in three separate but totally unified entities. They are God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Terry, in answer to your first question, ID should not be taught in a philosophy class because it is not a philosophy. It is a fast growing branch of science. I personally don’t care if you acknowledge that fact at all. If you are going to have children indoctrinated with the the theory of evolution in direct opposition to what they are being taught at home and at church, then there MUST BE A COUNTERBALANCE TO THAT. The simpler solution would be to stop teaching evolution, but that isn’t going to happen. Also, very few high schools offer classes in philosophy, yet biology is required. Placing ID off in a class that isn’t often offered is not a viable compromise.

By mit

October 26, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this

hewhoasks,

some evolutionary questions can not be simply answered by survival of fittest.

for example. a squirrel will risk its own life to warn other squirrels of danger. why does he do this?

if it was just survival of the fittest, this squirrel would protect itself by hiding and let the other squirrels worry about themselves.

By mit

October 26, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

chuck is funny. It[ID] is a fast growing branch of science.

By DB

October 26, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

The leading explanation is that the Rift Valley formation created a drier landscape where trees we less common and grass was more common. This created a situation where starvation was common, and walking on two legs was essential(takes the least amount of energy) since food was at such large distances. Using less energy to find distant food was a good trait.

Ken: Call it preposterous, but the theory of evolution has withstood the same scientific scrutiny as all the others. In fact, I would say evolution has much more “physical” evidence than many of the others.

Your quote:

“Evolution is a theory based on lots and lots of evidence where the gaps are filled in with our best guess.”

It is no different than , gravity, quantum mechanics and the rest. You’d be surprised how much scientists are finding out how much they don’t know about conservation and even gravity. There is a lot of speculation there too. It’s just the same. We all see the results of gravity, but we can only speculate as to why it happens. We all see the results of conservation of mass/energy, and the same. We all see the results of evolution, but our speculation is much more “reproducible” as to why it happens. We can set up “experiments” with selective pressures and see that evolution occurs. Take bacterial resistance for example.

There are all sorts of theories explaning gravity, and but no one knows for sure how gravity really works. Should we stop teaching gravity as fact?

Bruce: I, too, am tired of this. But I must say that ID proponents have much more to “get together” than the scientists.

By The72John

October 26, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

How is ID science? What processes of science does it explain? How can it help a practical scientist create something new? Does it teach us about chemistry, physics, anything? No. It is not science, no matter what Chuck or any other proponent of it tries to convince the world of.

If Chuck wants to continue to wallow in superstition and doesn’t want his child educated properly, then by all means - take your kid out of school and put him in a REAL indoctrination center. A Christian School. Or homeschool him.

Chuck, aren’t you a teacher? Surely the loss of income is worth the cost of your child’s soul.

By DB

October 26, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

And chuck comes back saying “ID is a fast growing science”!

Wow!

chuck: I’m still waiting for your specific, testable hypothesis for ID. And I’m still waiting for your “testing” proposition of that hypothesis.

You never did respond to that.

By DB

October 26, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this

chuck: Are you being facetious? Really.

By Stewie

October 26, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

This topic seems to be running out of steam (although I’m sure Chuck will liven it up).

But MIT, you raise an interesting question…though from a biological point of view, doesn’t fitness really refer to fitness of the population or species, i.e., it’s ability to perpetuate itself. That squirrel’s behavior, which is the same for a Cardinal, and the musk ox would have been selected for also.

The fitness of those species that have a “just me” behavior pattern is usually demonstrated by their ability to reproduce in large numbers…the insects around my carport seem incredibly good at this for some reason.

It is interesting that the higer up a species goes on the intelligence scale how important behavior is, but not the quanity of it’s progeny.

I realize you know this but I’m just throwing my two cents in at the end of the day.

By mit

October 26, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

db,

gravity is a cool subject. something so strong that it can keep a 110 story building on the earth but yet weak enough to let you pick up your remote control off the table.

weird stuff

By The72John

October 26, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

If we ever needed more reason to fear these fundamentalist types, Chuck’s statement “simpler solution would be to stop teaching evolution” would do it.

Chuck would really have us plunged into scientific ignorance, just because he doesn’t want his narrow religion challenged.

Hey man - why don’t you move to Afghanistan. The Taliban sounds like it’s more your style.

By Stewie

October 26, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

oh..by Cardinal, I mean cardinal the bird…not a member of the Catholic church…and I’m not touching that one :).

God it’s time to go…

By Michael H.

October 26, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this

Chuck,

I can see from your bluffing remarks that you have little grasp of Hume’s epistemology and haven’t read the Dialogues, the relevance of which is that most philosophers, rightly or wrongly, believe to be a refutation of most forms of the design argument.

Your comment on Dawkins is nothing but an ad hominem attack, which is all you are capable of other than cutting and pasting the remarks of others. Unlike Dembski, who never held an academic post and whose entire career is devoted to supporting theism by attacking evolutionary theory, Dawkins is a tenured professor at Oxford University with a considerable international reputation. But you will just ignore those rather inconvenient facts won’t you? So, why don’t you actually read the Blind Watchmaker? Scared that your laughable fundamentalism will vanish in smoke?

But it is still fun to witness how you are getting your butt handed to you by others here. Too bad, you lack the intellectual competency or honesty to recognize it. And this state employs you as a public school teacher. Sweet Jesus. By the way, what subject do you attempt to teach, besides a benighted form of Christianty? What degrees do you have? What mail order Bible college degree did you convince the school system you possessed?

By mit

October 26, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

stewie, there is really no need to risk your own life in order to reproduce or to protect the species as a whole.

the squirrels would be just fine if they just looked out for number one. as demonstrated by the majority of humans.

fitness - the extent of a species or population being adapted to its environment in order to produce offspring.

By The72John

October 26, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this

Don’t worry, Stewie, the Cardinals are doing more than enough touching of their own. :-)

By Ken

October 26, 2005 05:04 PM | Link to this

DB… Gravity and the conservation laws can acually be mathematically calculated. Both can be quantified. Both can be wisually seen and experienced.

In fact, we do have information as to why these things happen. for example, we actually recreate zero gravity areas on Earth and gravitational areas in space. Evolution is an observation. It is a conclusion that we have come to based on historical evidence that we have compiled.

Please do not misunderstand… It is scientific. We are learning more and more each day. Many aspects are very real. However, it, in my scientific opinion, is not nearly as absolute as some items you previously mentioned.

By Terry

October 27, 2005 07:25 AM | Link to this

Ken: We don’t recreate zero gravity on earth OR gravity in space. In fact, even our Earth orbit astronauts don’t really experience zero gravity. The experience constant free-fall. Their space ship (the Orbiter) is just moving forward so fast that it keeps falling past the Earth, hince orbit.

The free-fall experience we create on earth is done with an airplane affectionately known as the ‘vomit comet’ that flys large camel-backs in the air to create the ‘zero-gravity’ effect that astronauts experience. And the effect of gravity we create in space is centrifical force.

However, you are right that we can accurately calculate gravity and conservation of energy laws and predict their bahavior.

By Terry

October 27, 2005 07:36 AM | Link to this

So, I’ve seen lots of posts dealing with the science behind Evolution. But not one post documenting any science behind intelligent design.

In fact ever direct challenge to an ID proponent has either been met with an attempt to discredit evolution or no response at all.

Any argument concerning the science of evolution has no bearing what so ever on whether or not intelligent design can be considered a science.

Is there no one reading this thread that can come up with a rational scientific hypothesis for ID? You know, one that is independently testable!

By Brian Curtis

October 27, 2005 07:44 AM | Link to this

Chuck:

I’m afraid that “compromise” is neither necessary nor appealing. So WHAT if your kids are learning something that’s in direct conflict with your fundie superstitions? That’s because the truth often is… too bad for you.

Look: Suppose you decide to raise your kids with the Biblical notion that blacks are an inferior offshoot of humanity, a separate race. They’re gonna learn in biology class that all human races are basically the same—and that’s in direct conflict to your warped ideology. Heck, if you want to teach your kids that the earth is flat, or that it’s only 6000 years old, they’ll learn otherwise in school too. And those teachers will completely disregard your parental wishes to preserve ignorant superstition and the philosophy that goes with it.

Guess what? Tough s*. Science has no obligation to “compromise” on the truth just to appease religious zealots. Creationists are messing with something they don’t understand, and they are (quite properly) getting their butts whipped. Science marches on despite the hysterical proclamations of every religious superstition that tries to interfere with it.

By Ken

October 27, 2005 07:50 AM | Link to this

Brian… Very foul language. I don’t expect such diatribes from you. Baby, you’re better than that.

Why has this subject gotten you so riled up?

By DB

October 27, 2005 07:50 AM | Link to this

Ken: There is no such experiment that creates zero gravity on Earth! You can only create a “weight” of zero by either using magnets, which simply overpower gravity’s pull in the opposite direction, or a free fall, which simply cancels it out because you are accelerating with gravity. However, in both cases the force of gravity is still there, even when you are weightless in a space station or a diving 747! And as for your gravity in space comment, you act as if there is no gravity in space and we can bring it back. That is not the case. Gravity is everywhere in the Universe. Also, mathematics in no way is physical proof. You see, even gravity is not that simple, and we rely on the same deductions and inferences.

I’m not a physicist, so please tell me if there some experimentation I don’t know about when you mentioned making zero gravity.

Like I said, we can observe gravity, but no one can really explain it. You can observe evolution, and it is tougher to observe for the untrained given the time required. But evolution is much more easily explained. It’s like arguing against the formation of mountains. You can’t see it happening before your eyes, but few people argue the scientific explanation.

Anyway, thanks for the stimulation. I am engaged to say the least.

By DB

October 27, 2005 07:55 AM | Link to this

Terry: Yes, we’ve fallen into the ID trap of explaining evolution even though it’s been supported for 145 years.

I now believe it’s time for me to start asking scientific questions toward ID.

By Ken

October 27, 2005 08:10 AM | Link to this

DB (and Terry)… I apologize for not using more explicit terms. I tend to write stream of concious on these BLOGS except when making a specific theological point due to time constraints.

In any event, you can see, in fact you have proven that the force of gravity exists. Does it matter if we counter it through magnets or some other force? We can verify it through experiments and quatify it through mathematics. For example, if I remember correctly from my several physics classes, that all objects have a gravitational pull and that pull is proportional to the weight of the object.

However, IT UNDOUBTEDLY EXISTS. We experience it. It is not a probablity. It is an absolute.

I do not believe that the same evidence for the entire theory of evolution exists. I don’t know if you call it macro vs. micro evolution. I am not concerned with buzz words. Buzz words simply put you in an ideaological box.

The discussion earlier yesterday said that birds evolved from amphibians (or was it lizards). Sorry for not going back into the strand. Anyway, here’s the question… How do we know birds evolved from lizards…? B/C there are very similar characteristics…? B/C we see dated fossils that suggest such things…? B/C their DNA is XX% the same…? All of these methods deal in probability.

Someone else earlier in the thread said that science is based in doubt. That science is continuing to question various conclusions. Well, as a trained scientist, I am merely questioning some of the conclusions surrounding the theory of evolution. Much of it I can see and quantify and understand. Some of it I can’t and can’t and therefore will not take carte blanche.

By Brian Curtis

October 27, 2005 08:17 AM | Link to this

Ken: It was ONE swear word, buddy. Just one. And yes, fundamentalist idiocy does get me riled up, especially when they mess with something as important as education.

Actually, we’ve all be using the wrong terminology throughout the discussion (as many are no doubt aware). “Evolution” is an established, observed phenomenon—a fact. The theory that explains how it operates is properly called ‘natural selection.’

Our society has rather lazily ascribed the name “theory of evolution” to pretend that evolution itself has NOT been observed. This is incorrect. It has. It’s a known fact, like the fall of bodies (gravity) and the orbits of the planets (Kepler’s laws, among others).

The THEORY that explains the observed fact of evolution is natural selection. That theory, like all other scientific theories, operates by degrees of confirmation—testable predictions, conformance with all available evidence, and so forth.

Evolution itself—the accumulation of genetic changes that turn one species gradually into another (usually several others)? It’s an observed fact. Proven, cut and dried. No serious doubts about it in the scientific community. Only the mechanism (the detailed workings of natural selection) is theoretical. And that leaves “intelligent design” out in the cold.

By Ken

October 27, 2005 08:21 AM | Link to this

Brian… Sorry if I came off harsh. I don’t always agree with you, but I definitely respect you, and was very surprised.

BTW… Amen to leaving intelligent design out in the Siberia of academics.

By Terry

October 27, 2005 08:23 AM | Link to this

Actually I’m the one that spoke of science being based in doubt. It is incumbent on a scientist to doubt everything, even his own experiments until independently verified.

The inverse of this is religion - which is based in faith. The underlying concept I was looking at is the philosophical idea that God does not want us to be able to prove his existence. Belief must be based on faith. This very notion is an anathema to science. i.e., faith and doubt are mutually exclusive.

However, to address you statements concerning evolution. Who cares! I’d be happy to stipulate that we might need to reassess the theory of evolution as to whether or not it is science if it will get ID proponents off that bandwagon.

Discrediting evolution does nothing to justify ID as a science. I’m still waiting on any scientific argument for ID.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t teach ID. It clearly belongs in a philosophy class, not in a science class.

By Ken

October 27, 2005 08:35 AM | Link to this

Terry… Are you a lawyer…? You don’t need to stipulate anything to keep intelligent design out of science class, at least not with me.

The questions are meant for discussion and to illustrate that this BLOG can have discourse without resorting to name calling. Nothing more.

By Terry

October 27, 2005 08:40 AM | Link to this

Ok, I’m still waiting on a scientific ID argument.

By Billy

October 27, 2005 08:47 AM | Link to this

Chuck — ID is not a branch of science. The idea is preposterous, and if you are going to insist on going with that argument we’ll be at an impasse.

Furthermore, to use an argument fundies like to use to refute evolution, John was not there at the beginning of time, so how does he know Jesus existed then. Christ “Incarnate”, eh? I guess we all existed at the beginning since God in her omniscience knew we would come into being (physically) at some point down the line. So maybe that means John did exist after all, huh? Oooooh….

Mit — “i have never heard this theory before. and like you said chimps pick food from trees so you can go ahead and scrap that one. humans became bipedal to adapt to grasslands. they had to see over the grass to look for predators. another one is we needed to use both hands so we had to become bipedal. we may never know exactly why but your mating explanation is pretty funny.”

That’s what I’ve understood to be the prevailing theory, however I recently heard one that does make some sense. A scientist was theorizing that our bodies adapted to water. A four-legged animal can generally run faster than a two-legged one, so the benefit of walking upright in grasslands is the vision. Is that benefit worth the decreased speed?

The scientist with the water theory put forth that our bodies’ elongation and lack of fur were adaptations that made us more hydrodynamic. He thinks we were partially aquatic in the sense that we swam and caught fish (eons ago). Our bodily features made catching that fish easier. Fish in our diet led to the increased brain size that really sets us apart from other primates. It allowed us to evolve into a higher-reasoning species.

An interesting proposition, though I don’t know anything else about it…

By Billy

October 27, 2005 08:53 AM | Link to this

Wasn’t it Archaeopteryx or something that was a “missing link” of sorts for the reptile/bird connection? A small lizard/dino that walked on its hind legs and had feathers?

By Terry

October 27, 2005 08:54 AM | Link to this

Somehow this BLOG has gotten into the theory of gravitiation (and yes, believe it or not, it’s a theory)

Ken said …proven that the force of gravity exists. Does it matter if we counter it through magnets or some other force? We can verify it through experiments and quatify it through mathematics. For example, if I remember correctly from my several physics classes, that all objects have a gravitational pull and that pull is proportional to the weight of the object.

Well, sort of. At a macro-level this is true and relatively easy to calculate. But then there’s a couple of places on the Earth where this is not entirely accurate. The most noteable of these is the ‘Atlantic Gravitational Anomoly’. It’s an area in the south Atlantic where the pull of gravity is stronger. We can still compute the effect of this pull, but it has to be calculated differrently than the surrounding area (I know because I usae to write programs to calculate satellite orbits effected by this anomoly).

We don’t know why this happens, but does that mean that we should quite teaching gravity as a science just because we don’t know all the mechanisms at work?

The Theory of Evolution is really in the same boat. And I like Brian’s post that differentiated evolution from natural selection. We know evolution happens, we just don’t understand all of the mechanisms.

I’m still waiting on ANY scientific discussion of ID. But we keep getting sidetracked into evolution. This is obfuscation which prevents us from an in-depth discussion of ID.

By Brian Curtis

October 27, 2005 09:04 AM | Link to this

Terry: You do realize that’s because there’s nothing to discuss, right? I mean, there’s no substance to “ID.” None. They have no theory.

Intelligent design consists of pointing at a random organism and saying, “Lookee there. No WAY that came from evolution, nossir. Musta been God—err, I mean, ‘a designer.’ Not God, though. (But probably. I mean, who else? C’mon!) What’sa matta? You some kinda atheist ‘r sumthin’?”

Not really much substance there for a discussion of ID as a scientific theory… for obvious reasons.

By Billy

October 27, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this

“This is obfuscation which prevents us from an in-depth discussion of ID”

That’s because there cannot be an in-depth discussion of ID as it is completely unscientific in nature and therefore on appropriate for discussion as the philosophical construct it is.

By Michael H.

October 27, 2005 09:09 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis,

Good post using the analogy to racism. Insightful comments as always. Isn’t it an odd criterion for what should be included in a science curriculum, i.e. “The best science we have conflicts with my religious beliefs and offends me, therefore it shouldn’t be taught to my children.�

I don’t care what these people think either, as their religious beliefs render them beyond the reach of rational argument. But I do share your indignation or anger regarding this issue because it affects our lives. My concern is that these reactionary and intolerant religious beliefs are being used to legitimate a range of policies from the inclusion of ID in the public schools, restoration of prayer and de facto religious services in schools, limits on stem cell research, denial of rights to gays, the prohibition of abortion, the overturning of a carefully conceived law permitting terminally ill individuals to choose physician assisted suicide, and to promote hatred towards anyone who has the audacity to hold a different view. Conservatives used to speak of “creeping socialism.â€? I fear the reality in the United States might be better described as “creeping fascismâ€? or “Christian fascism” as James Luther Adams of Harvard Divinity school calls it.

In any case, fundamentalism is a scourge on this culture and it needs to be exposed as the fraud that it is and prevented from harming the rest of us who want to retain the benefits of a technological and democratic society.

By Billy

October 27, 2005 09:11 AM | Link to this

“therefore on appropriate”

Only! Only appropriate!

By Ken

October 27, 2005 09:22 AM | Link to this

Michael… Fundamentalism is a scourge on any culture regardless of that particular strain of fundamentalism.

Unfortunately, most fundamentals do not represent the vast majority of any of their respective movements. They are simply the squeekiest wheels.

Do you really believe the “terrorists” we are fighting today are the mainstream beliefs of Islam…?

Do you really believe the “Christian Fascists” you refer to are the majority of the Faith…?

Do you really believe the totalitarian Communists like Mao and Stalin represented the majority of that movement…?

The same way I don’t believe taht Ted Kennedy actually speaks for the vast majority of “liberals” in this country.

By Brian Curtis

October 27, 2005 09:26 AM | Link to this

Ken: Actually, you’d be surprised how many far-right crazies honestly DO believe that terrorists like Osama really DO represent all of Islam. You can tell whenever someone sneers about a “religion of peace.” (Like Christians have any room to comment on that….)

Michael H: Well said!

By FatMoose

October 27, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this

It discourages me to see that there have been about two posts by females after the “we have equal weight in this world” rants last week.

• The first a rage post regarding religion

• The second a joke at mens expense

The lack of opinion from women bugs me and their non-participation in wholeistic issues drives the notion that they are just not plugged in - unless the topic revolves around them.

[thats my quick vent for the day - thanks for tolerating it]

By Stewie

October 27, 2005 09:29 AM | Link to this

the squirrels would be just fine if they just looked out for number one. as demonstrated by the majority of humans.

oh I have to disgree with that, MIT, although we may be looking at this from different angles. The squirrels, (eastern ground squirrel, prarie dogs, etc) wouldn’t be fine if there were no other squirrels to reproduce with. Sure, an individual squirrel could get probably get busy most of it’s lifetime, but in an active predator/prey environment, the population would diminish..unless that population had a mechanism that alerted it to predation. Behavior (over the long haul) probably was selected for…although I would admit that in a large stable population the instinct to alert could be a relic that piggy backed on another selected trait.

By the way, I’m sort of going down this path to demonstrate to a certain poster that this is the types of arguments scientist have, as opposed to arguing that the squirrels get some devine message from GOD to squeal about a coyote.

By DB

October 27, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

Ken: Again, it’s the same argument. Evolution, which is change in organisms over time, does happen. It’s an absolute just like gravity. We have seen allelic frequencies change and the genetics of simpler organisms change. That’s the definition of evolution. It’s the “how” where there is a few disagreements, just like Gravity. But, again, the how of evolution is much more “understandable” than gravity.

By Billy

October 27, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this

Ken, the difference between all of your examples and Ted Kennedy is that Kennedy is by no means the most extreme liberal you can find. Nor is he trying to affect major, wide-scale change on behalf of everyone he purports to represent. Kennedy can be boted out of office just as soon as his constituents in Massachusetts decide to do so.

Mao and Stalin gained power and started controlling everything on behalf of everyone. Islamic terrorists want to rid the world of infidels so they can expand the Muslim world. Christian facists do claim to be a majority of the faith; at the very least they claim to be morally superior to everyone and aim to change th world in order to save everyone’s souls. The people Kennedy speaks for can band together to vote him out if they desire. In none of your other examples was/is that an option.

I agree about your statements on fundamentalism, though.

By Stewie

October 27, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this

Oh by the way, MIT I am in complete agreement with you that natural selection is not the only mechanism for evolution…for example many species rings don’t originate only by a “survival of the fittest” model, but are more influenced by isolation mechanisms.

By Spoiled Lesbian

October 27, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this

Next time you need surgery, are you going to ask your dr what his/her religous beliefs are or how well he did in micro-biology, genetics, chemistry, physics, pathophysiology, etc. — ya know SCIENCE CLASSES

By chuck

October 27, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

db, I have a question for you? Does your biology textbook have Haeckle’s drawing of the fish and human embryo’s in it? I’m sitting here looking at one biology textbook that DOES have the drawing and I’m just wondering if your textbook includes it and if so, what you think about it?

By Billy

October 27, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this

Chuck, are you trying to argue that the similarities of human embryos to “lower” animals is evidence against evolution?

By mit

October 27, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this

chuck,

those drawings were made in the late 1800’s, we all know them to be invalid today and guess what, that picture you are seeing in the textbook is used as an example of an invalid theory, why, how, etc etc. I have never, in high school and college, been told this is real, it has always been used as an example for an inaccuracy. how does your schools science teacher teach it? he probably skips right over it. and if your school has and uses this textbook that tells you one thing, its old and your school is too underfunded to afford new textbooks

By hewhoasks

October 27, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this

mit:

Yes, I know. That’s why I say “fitness of the survivors.” For species there’s the equivalent of being an Olympic athelete in perfect health - and then being killed by a bus.

By Randy

October 27, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

Many of you liberals sound like the author Lee Strobel, a staunch atheist sounded before he did his research and found that Christianity was the truth and became a Christian. He did the research though because if he had a immortal soul it was worth the effort, as eternity is a very long time. Now he knows. Smart guy!!

By Billy

October 27, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

“Many of you liberals sound like the author Lee Strobel, a staunch atheist sounded before he did his research and found that Christianity was the truth and became a Christian. He did the research though because if he had a immortal soul it was worth the effort, as eternity is a very long time. Now he knows. Smart guy!!”

Randy, you just summed up the problem a lot of us have with organized religion. An “immortal soul” is “worth the effort”. So, basically this guy accepted Christianity because he wanted the selfish assurance that it will not be over when he dies. He’s scared of death and wants there to be more. That’s why religion is so important to people.

And what were his “research” materials? The Bible? What else? Did he mix some chemicals in a beaker over a bunsen burner, make a few observations and come up with the equation C(6)H(12)O(4)+4PSO(4)=Jesus?

By mit

October 27, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this

randy,

hinduism is the truth, sorry to bust your bubble.

lol

By hewhoasks

October 27, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this

mit:

“if it was just survival of the fittest, this squirrel would protect itself by hiding and let the other squirrels worry about themselves.”

A hiding squirrel gathers no nuts; all squirrels venture out to find food.

If there were colonies of squirrels that didn’t sound a warning when a predator appeared they may have all been picked off, one by one, until there was no breeding stock left.

But in fact I don’t know what happened, know if there were such squirrels. It is possible, though, to see how for the species there may have been an advantage in warning of danger.

By chuck

October 27, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

The textbook has a publication date of 2001. It does NOT point out that human embryos DON’T HAVE gill slits. I don’t know how the teachers teach it in my school, but to me, that is irrelevent. The point is that “scientists” have used these drawings as if they are fact, which we know to be totally false. The same is true of the “horse fossils” mentioned earlier in the thread.

Terry keeps saying that the refutation of evolution is not the same thing as a scientific argument FOR ID. That is true, but it is a LOGICAL argument for inclusion in a science class along side of evolution. They are branches of the same tree. As for not being published in “peer-reviewed” journals, why do you think that is? According to one expert in the field who testified in a lawsuit over ID, the science field, like many others is closed to ideas that don’t follow the “widely accepted” party line. Behe has a Ph.D in Biochemistry and is a professor at Lehigh University. Those are pretty good credentials in my estimation. Do you have a doctorate from a major university in biochemistry db? What about you Terry? Based on your posts, you should place as much credence on his ideas as you do your other sources. Just because it doesn’t agree with your pre-conceived faith in evolution is no reason to dismiss it out of hand.

In effect, evolutionists use a form of circular argument for their cause. They say, We know they had a common ancestor and therefore the DNA is similar. Then they say the DNA is similar so they must have had a common ancestor.

They observed these similarities in both DNA and function and determined that the cause must have been evolution. Proponents of ID, also scientists, observed these similarities and arrived at a different conclusion. They used both observation AND knowledge of scientific processes found in hydrology, geology, biology and chemistry and came up with a different possibility of the cause. While I agree with the idea that the ID movement is another name for creationism, it IS a non-religious way of teaching the concepts and would easily pass the establishment test.

I love the “reasoning” process used by BC, Michael H. Terry and others who ridicule Christians for beliefs based on God’s word. They ridicule us for that, but THEY are staking their arguments in the words of scientists. I doubt any of them have actually observed these things on their own. I prefer to put my trust in God rather than man. I can see the order in His creation and it points to Him, not some “primordial soup”.

By hewhoasks

October 27, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this

Randy:

Super keen for Lee Strobel, but his conversion didn’t turn theology into science.

What is it to so smoothly assert that those who believe in evolution aren’t Christian? Nowhere did Jesus say “I was in school and was taught evolution and ye did not stop the teaching.”

All the anti-evolution nonsense is added on to Christianity by individuals who claim to be Christian.

By The72John

October 27, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

I think that it’s not so much the fear of death, it’s the fear of living. People like Randy need a strict set of guidelines to live by because they haven’t evolved (see, this is still on topic!) enough emotionally or developmentaly to make decisions about everyday life for themselves. On the Perry scale, Randy is squarely in the Dualist stages.

By Bruce

October 27, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this

I don’t know how the subject of squirrels came up but this notion that squirrels give out warning signals to others squirrels is well… a little silly. As a young boy I grew up hunting squirrels and I never saw one stop and take a bullet for the rest of them. Every, EVERY, squirrel I saw was running because they were wild and scared of things different in their enviroment. I can’t count the number of trips I made around a tree trying to get a clear shot at a squirrel because he was running from me. I have seen them do the same thing when a deer or hog would come into their comfort area. Not one climded out on a limb and said I take this one, you guys run for it. Of course someone will say “how do you know what they were saying”. No I can’t talk to animals but if you observed them long enough you learn their behavior. And them barking, running and hiding is done not to protect others it is done to protect themselves.

By Randy

October 27, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this

Billy, Lee Strobel has several books out, where he will tell you exactly how he went from being a atheist to a christian(from not knowing to knowing). They are in any book stores, libraries, on the internet. I’m not into religion(I do go to church), I’m into a personal relationship with the creator of the universe and you do need to be concerned of what happends to you when you pass from this life to eternity. As far as religion being important to people, the way I was raised, was I was raised to be a warrior, not concerned with death. However, there are just to many things which tell me a creator exists. I would be fine, if when I die that’s it, but I know its not. Plus, if you get to know Jesus, he’s the greatest.

By mit

October 27, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this

The point is that “scientists� have used these drawings as if they are fact, which we know to be totally false.

actually they don’t, darwim didn’t even use his drawings back then.

these are from the 1800’s over 200 years ago. scientists at the time also believed in spontaneous generation which is also wrong. you still learn about in science class because that’s the history timeline for science.

By The72John

October 27, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this

Lol at Chuck for calling someone else’s logic circular.

A quick review of fundy Chuck’s sources shows that they’ve got a couple of primary talking points - the horse “fallacy” and the drawings are among them. It takes about five minutes to find various scholarly articles that refute both positions. Both are obfuscations and diversions set up by the ID people to try to poke holes in evolutionary theory. See how Chuck continues to cling to his precious simple-minded beliefs…it’s sad, really.

See Chuck, there are many, many, many MORE scientists who support and accept evolutionary theory than those who accept ID, and ALL of them have PhD’s from highly respected universities.

Why am I even bothering - arguing with a religious fanatic is like banging your head against the wall. And Chuck, it’s only the “Word of God” because you THINK it is…that’s subjective. The word of scientists is rooted in actual testing. Your Bible is just man’s attempt to understand the world around him, and primitive man’s attempt, at that.

By Randy

October 27, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this

Joh72, You don’t know me, I have no fear of living, I almost have a MBA, I own millions of dollars of real estate, I haven’t had a real job in 14 years and I’m in my 40’s. I have been married to only one wife and my children are extermely successful, confident and intelligent. Have a great day.

By DB

October 27, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this

Chuck: The book you’re looking at is either quite old, or it’s probably as an example of “faking science” in a newer book. And what do you know, science took care of that just like Piltdown man. But embryo’s of fish, humans, and all vertebrates for that matter do have similarities, a notable one being the gill slit region. For us, they develop into the inner ear, and for fish, they become the gills. Now, no one is saying the embryos look just alike, but they are quite similar.

I’m still waiting for your ID hypothesis and experimentation!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Others: It is true that natural selection isn’t the only mechanism of evolution. There is sexual selection, genetic drift, and some others. Here’s the clincher. They’re all part of the theory of evolution.

Terry: That stuff you say about the Atlantic Anomaly is cool! Do you think it has anything to do with a “denser” mantle or crust in that area throwing off the mass calculation, or did they investigate that and find out it’s something yet unknown.

By Brian Curtis

October 27, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this

Randy:

Many of you fundamentalists sound like the author Dan Barker, a staunch Christian preacher, sounded before he did his research and found that logic led to truth and became an atheist. He did the research, though, because he knew if he was wasting his life on a lie it was worth the effort—after all, this life is the only one we get. Now he knows. Smart guy!

By The72John

October 27, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this

Randy, based on your writing, I doubt seriously that you would be accepted even into an undergraduate program, much less a graduate one. Your language skills and reasoning abilities resemble those of a junior high student, not a college student.

Everything I need to know about you comes shining through in what you write. You are a limited, narrow-minded bigot. That pretty much sums you up, bumpkin.

By Stewie

October 27, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this

Terry keeps saying that the refutation of evolution is not the same thing as a scientific argument FOR ID. That is true, but it is a LOGICAL argument for inclusion in a science class along side of evolution.

No more logical than Aliens created everything…and there’s no evidence for that either. You need to take a logic course

They are branches of the same tree.

Wrong, one has observable and measurable phenomenon, i.e., matching gene sequences, matching anatomy, matching behavior. An open minded person can easily accept the validity of those observations. ID has nothing you can observe or measure, it’s only a concept for the faithful

“As for not being published in “peer-reviewedâ€? journals, why do you think that is? According to one expert in the field who testified in a lawsuit over ID, the science field, like many others is closed to ideas that don’t follow the “widely acceptedâ€? party line.”

Conjecture and opinion..same as your religious ideals. Maybe he’s not published because he’s not that good a biochemist.

“Behe has a Ph.D in Biochemistry and is a professor at Lehigh University. Those are pretty good credentials in my estimation.”

Doesn’t mean he’s a good biochemist or an expert in other branches of science. I’ve worked with biochemist with PhDs and they aren’t all geniuses.

“Do you have a doctorate from a major university in biochemistry db?”

Nobody here needs to, there are plenty of Doctorate holders who put Behe to shame, with published opinions and research…available for all of us to read, and much of the information about evolution can be understood by lay people.

They used both observation AND knowledge of scientific processes found in hydrology, geology, biology and chemistry and came up with a different possibility of the cause.

With no possible way to prove or test for the cause

The bottom line philosophy for ID proponents:

We don’t know the mechanism of some observable phenomenon and it hasn’t been recreated in a lab, therefore it must be supernatural.

There is absolutely no logic in that statement and there never will be no matter how much pseudo-science babble you cut and paste here.

By DB

October 27, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

chuck: I only have a Master’s, and my focus was evolutionary genetics and biotechnology, and I’ve been teaching life sciences for 10 years. So, according to you, I’m not worthy to criticize Behe as millions of other have. I do know his “Irreducible Complexity” claim is absolutely illogical in that all of his examples can be naturally selected.

chuck: What’s your degree? I DON’T CARE! I don’t for one second judge people based solely on their degree. I know a lot of people with only Bachelor or Master degrees that can put many Doctors to shame. And I know a lot of MD’s and PhD’s that aren’t all that intelligent. You only have to be reasonably intelligent with the right work ethic to get a Ph.D. in most fields. However, biochemistry is pretty tough.

By hewhoasks

October 27, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this

“I love the “reasoningâ€? process used by BC, Michael H. Terry and others who ridicule Christians for beliefs based on God’s word.”

Creationism and ID aren’t based on God’s word, they are perverted notions conceived of by ignorant men and then “justified” by searching the Bible.

The global flood was disproved 300 years ago. That doens’t mean there wasn’t a major flood, doesn’t mean that those who wrote of it didn’t experience 40 days and 40 nights of rain, didn’t see all the lowland around them covered by water. If they were lowland dwellers then for them the entire world was covered by water: they didn’t fly to Peru and check out the Andes. The authors had no possible way of seeing the entire earth: they wrote about what they knew, what they saw.

So the words of those who wrote about the flood could be honest and accurate - yet not describe a true global flood. It is unnecessary for faith and unnecessary for Christianity for the interpretation of the words about the flood to mean a true global flood, yet some still insist on what demonstrably did not happen. For no good purpose.

The creation story ignores facts. The temperature of the earth is suitable for life because of the balance that exists between incoming solar energy and outgoing infrared radiation. Before there was a sun there would be no way for the earth to be habitable - nor could grazxing animals see to be able to eat without a sun. It’s a fable.

The biblical literalism is a perversion of what happened. Historically the church (the Catholic Church) did not let any except the priests have copies of the Bible. Many Christians found that wrong and worked to put the Bible into the hands of the people (something made far easier by Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press.) Some early pioneers in bringing the word of the Bible to the people were executed for having done so - burned at the stake. (That’s burned at the stake for having brought the Bible to the people. Same organizaton, incidentally, that gave the world the Crusades.) When the people had the Bible in their own hands they then had access to the source of authority for the church - something that had been denied to them by the clergy of the Catholic Church. From that flowed a respect for the Bible: the people at last had a way to see the holy words themselves. Now, centuries later, that’s been perverted into absolute Biblical literalism.

Those not in the center of that literalism can easily see how the literalists put much of their effort into issues peripheral to the mission of the church, to the message of Christ.

How likely is it that, at the judgment day, the big question will be “did you proselytize creationism?”

Not very.

By DB

October 27, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this

Thanks Terry!

By DB

October 27, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

chuck: Also, I wonder if that textbook was one of those textbooks used by Texas where all the states follow. Could you give me the title and author of the book?

The textbook I use by Campbell, Reece, and Mitchell has evolution as the main theme. That’s where modern textbooks are going.

By DB

October 27, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this

Ken: Oh, I almost forgot one for you. Evolution can actually be mathematically calculated also. Read about Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Also, chi square and others. Also, read about computer models calculating evolution.

By Billy

October 27, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

Chuck — we knew from observation we were similar to other animals, and learned from the fossil record that were were likely had common ancestors. The DNA helps prove the point. People (and science) were arguing evolution before we knew what DNA was. DNA now just supports the arguments and expands the evidence for evolution.

By DB

October 27, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this

chuck: What exactly do you mean by “evolutionist”? You use it as if it’s some competing religion? I’m just curious.

By DeltaX

October 27, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this

The72John

People like Randy need a strict set of guidelines to live by because they haven’t evolved

I absolutely agree with you! People have reactions before they have choices (just like the squirrels being skittish about everything) - and these poor people are still in the reaction stages.

I am sure it serves a purpose. Think about marriage and how we now have socially acceptable choices for divorce: not having a choice served a purpose when people did not have the sense to marry for love, and instead would arrange marriages preventing a lasting bond; so you had to engineer a perminant situation. But now, we can marry based on who we want to actually be with - in which new trials crop up - and so we see a boom of divorces durring the transition. My hope/belief is that once humans get used to this new ability of choice in love; you will see the divorce rates begin to drop again.

The freakout sessions religious (or anyone entrenched in tradition faces) folk are having are just the dissonance of change - I hope;)

[pls excuse spelling - busy today]

By stewie

October 27, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

man there aren’t any women getting in on this topic…

There are plenty of these pages out there, but I found this to be a pretty good one. It can be a bit heady in a few places but there are a lot of good concepts addressed…for anyone that is curious. I’m sorry…I’m one of those nerds that Randy was referring to.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/tutorials/physical.htm

By DB

October 27, 2005 12:13 PM | Link to this

ID Hypothesis:

The theory of evolution can’t yet explain every detail as to how DNA changes and therefore how organisms change structurally, chemically, and physically, therefore some intelligent entity must be the explanation for all those details that yet can’t be explained.

Ok, I made the hypothesis, so I did some work for you. Now can someone tell me how to test this? Keep in mind this hypothesis is inaccurate and untestable. :)

By chuck

October 27, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

So Stewie,You said,

We don’t know the mechanism of some observable phenomenon and it hasn’t been recreated in a lab, therefore it must be supernatural.

The evolutionists say, “We don’t know why this happens so it must be evolution.” Two branches of the same tree.

By Billy

October 27, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

“my children are extermely successful, confident and intelligent.”

In spite of the fact their father is an idiot.

By Voice of Reason

October 27, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

Yeah Randy, we gotcha! Millions, huh? MBA, too! WOW.

By Billy

October 27, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

If you’re so successful that you own millions of dollars of real estate, why the hell would you waste your time getting a post-graduate degree?

By chuck

October 27, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this

John72, you said:

If Chuck wants to continue to wallow in superstition and doesn’t want his child educated properly, then by all means - take your kid out of school and put him in a REAL indoctrination center. A Christian School. Or homeschool him.

I did make the sacrifice. My children were homeschooled and then went to a Christian high school for 2 years. My son is currently in a secular college, has a 4.0 GPA and is a young man of faith. Also an excellent classical guitarist when he’s not playing classic rock on his dean cadillac.

Billy, and db you can correct me if I am wrong, Modern Paleontology no longer believes that the archaeopteryx is the missing link, that it is not the ancestor of modern birds and that its own ancestry is a matter of serious debate.

By GetThis

October 27, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this

“because they haven’t evolved (see, this is still on topic!)”

As cultures evolved, they needed fewer and fewer explanations for the unknown. As in the first Ten Commandment “Thou shalt have no OTHER Gods before me”. (must thave been a slew of them out there then)

Not all individuals within a culture evolve at the same rate. Obviously. LMAO

By chuck

October 27, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this

BTW, unlike Brian Curtis and Michael H., you are an excellent spokesman for your cause. You think logically, you don’t bluster, you don’t try to demean your opponents and you don’t use perjoratives. I admire that and also the fact that you are a teacher.

You’ll never convince me that macro evolution explains the diversity of life on the planet, and I’m sure that I’ll never convince you that the Biblical account of creation is the literal truth. That said, assuming I am correct, your desire of keeping creationism out of public schools could have the net result of sending millions of young people who will believe the idea of evolution and deny God to an eternal hell. EVEN IF YOUR POSITION WAS FOUND TO BE TRUE IN THE END AND THERE WAS NO GOD AND NO ETERNITY (WHICH OF COURSE WILL NOT HAPPEN), What harm could come from teaching another idea WITHOUT ADDING ANY COERCION TO BELIEVE IT. There is no requirement in ID laws around the country that teachers must believe or even encourage others to believe it. It is just presented as an alternative view. I would hate to think that the science community is against the open exchange of ideas in and about scientific processes and their possible causes.

By Billy

October 27, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this

Chuck, that would be news to be. And as has been said before, skepticism is the essence of science.

By chuck

October 27, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this

Oh, and db, don’t say that you don’t want it in there because it “isn’t science”. Let’s assume you are correct…is character education part of science? Is it part of math or English? NO, but all of us have to have a component of it in our classrooms because it is state law. Doesn’t make it right, but we do it anyway.

By DB

October 27, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this

chuck: What? Since when do scientists attribute everything to evolution?

I’m changing my stance chuck. I believe I’ve gone out of my way to answer every question people have had so far; or, in other words, I have more than explained my position. I’m going to ask you questions to explain yourself from now on. If you claim ID is scientific, I want scientific explanations. You can’t say, “If science doesn’t yet know this little detail, it is therefore caused by God or was designed by some Creator to be that way.” In case you didn’t notice, that is not a scientific explanation.

You haven’t answered ONE question in any rational fashion. You may think you answered them, but most of your answers are either inaccurate, illogical, or downright impossible.

It’s time for you to start defending ID as science, something your man Behe still hasn’t done.

By The72John

October 27, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

our desire of keeping creationism out of public schools could have the net result of sending millions of young people who will believe the idea of evolution and deny God to an eternal hell

Why is it that Creationists and fundamentalists in general believe in such a limited God? If the universe is as infinitely complex as we learn more and more with each passing year that it is, then why would the creator the fundies insist created it be so…basic? Are we really to assume that a being who could create, design and maintain the nearly unfathomable complexity that is existence would be a spoiled, petulant child when it came to dealing with part of his creation?

Or is it simply more rational to believe that things like the Bible, instead of being the literal word of God, are merely primitive man’s attempt to understand divinity from within the confines of their limited understanding of the world?

I really, really just don’t understand.

By Billy

October 27, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

Chuck we are not saying we should keep ID out of the classroom, we are saying we should keep it out of the science classroom. We don’t have “character education” in science classes apart from insisting that kids do their own work!

By DB

October 27, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this

Sorry, chuck, but there’s enough to learn in science than to waste time with ID and lose scientific education. And as for character education, that’s a bit slim, and it’s not in the curriculum or law where I teach. It’s part of the system in the form of consequences.

So, should we teach composition in math, too?

I’m not demeaning you. I’m simply asking you to explain yourself, and you never do.

By Michael H.

October 27, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

Ken,

I didn’t say anything about Muslism fundamentalism nor did I claim that fundamentalists constituted a majority in any religion. I mean that Christian fundamentalists in the United States are disproportionately affecting our political life and doing so in a fashion which is detrimental to the public good.

Most of my friends are Christians, but unlike fundamentalists they are open minded, tolerant, and respectful of others, take the Sermon on the Mount seriously, and accept evolutionary theory as the cornerstone of biology. I only wish there were more Christians like them and fewer of the mindless dogmatic variety that spend most of their time posting here.

By Jack

October 27, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this

Well boys, been too busy to post. WHERE ARE THE LADIES? See ya next week. Remember: The more things change, the more they remain the same.

By Ken

October 27, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this

DB… Thanks for the info on Hardy-Weinberg. Very interesting and the mathematics behind it were not overly complex.

The only thing is, however, that based on the assumptions associated with the law, Hardy-Weinberg would not work with a great many traits.

For example… One of the main assumptions is that mating must be random. Well, for something like blood type, this would hold true. I don’t know of too many people that mate based on that trait, i.e. the thought of blood type does not enter into the mating equation.

However, a great deal of other traits are not random: height, weight, hair color, race, intelligence, just to name a few. People absolutely mate based on those traits, thereby rendering the random assumption invalid. I apologize if that is too simplistic, but I was only able to spend a short time reading.

By Ken

October 27, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

Michael… And I am saying that fundamentalists OF ALL TYPES are affecting our political lives as well as own personal well being. Anyone out of the mainstream will affect someone. That is the very definition of mainstream.

Christian fundamentalists affect you more than me b/c you don’t agree with them at all.

Radical liberals like Ted Kennedy affect me more than some b/c I rarely ever agree with him at all.

However, I tolerate him b/c I don’t have the authority to vote him out of office and this country welcomes his viewpoints the same that this country welcomes the viewpoints of Christian fundamentalists.

By Brian Curtis

October 27, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

Chuck, you’re still not getting it. Science welcomes all ideas that are willing to play by the rules of science. To be discussed and taught in the realm of science, an idea has to meet certain minimum qualifications: it has to be rational, internally consistent, testable and falsifiable, etc.

Intelligent design fails every one of those tests—and quite blatantly, too. It doesn’t merit discussion because it simply isn’t good enough or logical enough to qualify for entry into the scientific arena.

An open discussion doesn’t mean we have to waste class time on aliens from Andromeda creating the earth, or sneezed out by the Great Green Arkleseizure, or any other such tale. Those might be interesting in a class on mythology, folklore, and philosophy… but they’re just not good enough to merit debate in a forum on science.

As for “what’s the harm”…? Well, aside from destroying the very foundation of science by allowing vauge attitudes and opinions to masquerade as “theories” (to avoid offending any religious sensibilities!), there’s the problem of teaching students what we know, categorically, to be false. That’s lying, and you can’t demand that public schoolteachers conspire with you in lying to your kids.

Basically, what the zealots are asking is for a tremendous amount of class time to be wasted teaching opinion as if it were science, denying the students both a better understanding of rational thought AND degrading the quality of future generations of scientists.

You might as well as them to spend every class playing ping-pong as teach them about “intelligent design.” It’s an equivalent waste of time… and ID doesn’t even improve hand-eye coordination.

By The72John

October 27, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

Christian fundamentalists affect us because they are trying to force their belief system on the rest of the country. Ted Kennedy is not trying to PREVENT religious people from living their lives as they see fit, but Christian fundamentalists are very MUCH trying to shove religion down the throats of the rest of us.

Whether by using tax-payer money to fund private church activities or by stacking the Supreme Court with people who would base their decisions on their personal religious beliefs, the fundies of this nation ARE trying to outlaw anything they don’t agree with.

By DB

October 27, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this

Ken: That’s the whole point! It was mathematically proven that in order for evolution, i.e., allelic frequency change, not to occur, all those conditions must be met. And it’s obvious none of them can be met in real life situation with any species. And you just said random mating cannot occur. We all know mating is cannot be mating random. Also, populations must be infinitely large, and that cannot occur. And no migration of individuals into or out of a population can occur.

In other words, the mathematician stated that it is impossible for any population to exist without having allelic frequency changes. Therefore it is impossible for any population to exist without evolution occuring.

It’s a very profound concept if you really read into it. On the surface, you misunderstood it, but that’s common.

By Stewie

October 27, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

Ken,

No one else addressed this so I thought I’d give it a go.

The Hardy-Wienberg formula describes a population in stasis, i.e., it’s not changing the genetic distribution of that population. Random mating, which is a requirement for this equation, would not discriminate on any factor, not even blood type. The mathmatic results that you read about would ensure that the dominant alleles (genes) stay dominant and there would be no genetic change.

Evolution can come about when non-random mating (discriminating on features found desirable) occurs, which is what we do (some of us less than others). Now the probability of recessive traits is higher and the chance of genetic change (of the total population over subsequent generations) is higher.

This alone doesn’t constitute evolution but if external forces change, there is now more genetic variability that may be selected for.

By Terry

October 27, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

Well, I’ve been gone a good part of the day and need to catch up with a few of you:

DB: The Atlantic Gravitational Anomaly was untested back when I was working in orbit dynamics (lat 70’s). But the best scientific models centered on a large heavy mass (such as iron) under the ocean at that area. Rough calculations would have made it about twice the size of Everest.

Chuck: refutation of evolution is not the same thing as a scientific argument FOR ID. That is true, but it is a LOGICAL argument for inclusion in a science class along side of evolution. They are branches of the same tree

HUH??? It is not a good argument to compare one concept with another to justify inclusion in any dicipline. They each need to stand alone and be judged by a measure of the definition of science. That is, we must analyze how the Theory of Evolution measures up to the scientific method separately from analyzing how ID measures up to that same scientific yardstick.

If either of them pass the muster of being based on independently verifiable scientific hypotheses, then they should be included in science. If they don’t, then they are subjects for a philosophy class. Why is this so hard to grasp?

And, lastly, why is discussing intelligent design in a philosophy class considered so unacceptable?

By Stewie

October 27, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

sorry DB, I must have been composing at the same time you were…hope it didn’t muddy the wates.

By chuck

October 27, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this

DB, I’m not sure what you were referring to in your 1:16 post. I agree that you have tried to answer the questions posed and that you have done so in a rational gentlemanly way. I just don’t agree with you.

By Stewie

October 27, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this

What the hell is a wates? I meant muddy the waters…

By DB

October 27, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

Ken: You are a rational person! I enjoy discussing things with people like you because I know it’s not a waste of time.

By Ken

October 27, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

DB… Actually, I think it was poor documentation on the sites that I read. Your explanation was much more concise.

By Terry

October 27, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

We definitely have a problem with Christian fundamentalists in this coultry, specially in the government. And it’s been with us a lot longer than the current administration, but President Bush is more blantant about it. (and I’m basically a conservative, go figure)

In fact it’s been with us throughout our history. Case in point - prostitution is only illegal because it’s a religious sin, not because it causes harm to our fellow man (or woman, I’m not a sexist). It’s considered a victimless crime because there’s no victim.

But even if the Supremes overturn Roe, that just means that abortion is not guaranteed in the Constitution, it does not necessarily make it illegal. The whole issue would then become a state level issue (as it rightly should be). Then abortion rights supporters will have to fight the fundamentalists at the state level.

But the biggest problem worldwide is our overwhelming tolerance of fundamentalist thinking, be it the Christians or the Muslims. (And don’t kid yourself, this war is a religious war. Jihad is a call for world domination - look up what it really means.)

By Ken

October 27, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

The72John… If you believe that Ted Kennedy IS NOT trying to force his belief system on the population of this country, then I’m not sure what more I can do.

His beliefs simply deal with different items than Christian fundamentals. Christian fundamentals would very much like to restrict certain actions and lifestyles in American society. Mr. Kennedy would very much like to force American society to support certain actions and lifestyles.

Neither leaves any room for the individual to make their own decisions and to simply tolerate how others live.

By chuck

October 27, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

Terry, I addressed the philosophy class deal in a post at 4:07 yesterday. Here is the excerpt:

Terry, in answer to your first question, ID should not be taught in a philosophy class because it is not a philosophy. It is a fast growing branch of science. I personally don’t care if you acknowledge that fact at all. If you are going to have children indoctrinated with the the theory of evolution in direct opposition to what they are being taught at home and at church, then there MUST BE A COUNTERBALANCE TO THAT. The simpler solution would be to stop teaching evolution, but that isn’t going to happen. Also, very few high schools offer classes in philosophy, yet biology is required. Placing ID off in a class that isn’t often offered is not a viable compromise.

By DB

October 27, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

chuck: Cool. I understand you don’t agree with me. I’m just asking you to state your case in a scientific way. That’s whole of crux of the matter. If you think ID should be taught in a SCIENCE classroom, then show me how ID is scientific. If you can’t show that ID is scientific, then you can’t demand it should be taught in a science classroom. That means you are being unreasonable and simply trying to push your religious beliefs into the science classroom.

I believe many others have been saying this all along.

With this blog, you are only making it extremely obvious that ID proponents want to evade explanation and push religion into the science curriculum. Believe me, if you could show it to be scientific, I would agree with you.

So, the question for you to answer is this.

Is ID scientific? Yes or no. If yes, then show us how it is. If no, then you have no validity in your argument that it should be taught as SCIENCE.

It is simple logic.

By DB

October 27, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

From the looks of things, it looks like logic should become a requirement in high schools.

chuck: Again, “fast growing science”. How is that?

By The72John

October 27, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this

Christian fundamentals would very much like to restrict certain actions and lifestyles in American society. Mr. Kennedy would very much like to force American society to support certain actions and lifestyles

Ken, if YOU don’t understand the difference between these two positions, then I don’t know what more I can say. Let’s use a slightly out-of-date example here…do you honestly believe it’s equally extreme to A) Outlaw interracial marriage and B) Require that those marriages be recognized legally?

One is a law designed to tell OTHER people what the can and can’t do. The other says that while individuals may have the right to disapprove of something, they do not have the right to legally discriminate. If find it almost incomprehensible that you don’t understand the difference between the two.

You seem a rational person, but this causes me to question. Basically, you’re saying that actual freedom and equality is an ultra-liberal concept…Funny, but I thought that we were SUPPOSED to be the home of the free? Apparently that’s only if our freedoms don’t offend someone.

By DB

October 27, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

Obvious Conclusion for this Topic:

Religion and Science are completely separate in that religion deals with faith claims, and science deals with evidence and inductive and deductive reasoning. Religion in no way threatens science, and science in no way threatens religion.

ID is a religious or unsubstantiated personal explanation of “who knows” that requires no evidence other than the absence of evidence. It is therefore an attempt to introduce religious thought into science. And evolution is a scientific explanation of change in organisms over time backed up by mountains of evidence. Evolution does not claim to explain the origin of life, and although evolution is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, there are some instants of evolution that have not been directly observed since it takes thousands or millions of years, and one can not possible travel in time. However, things like macroevolution have been shown in several species, so it is reasonable to assume it has taken place in many other species of the past, present, and future.

In essence, ID should not be either considered or taught as science.

My regards to chuck and all the others.

By DB

October 27, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

Ken: I totally understand. The Internet can be a double-edged sword.

By Ken

October 27, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this

The72John… Actually, I understand completely…

You are correct in your assertion (although as you said very outdated) with interracial marriage. I actually would have used same-sex unions for a more timely example.

However, he pushes other agendas. Most of my beefs with ultra-left liberals like Mr. Kennedy revolve around social programs (welfare, social security, affirmative action, minimum wage) and their continued abuse. This is not the forum for that discussion. It may not be restictive, but it is still pushing ideological agenda.

By The72John

October 27, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this

Same-sex marriage is a hot button issue that often makes it impossible for people to think rationally, Ken. Otherwise I would have used it.

Though you’re correct - this is not the time. I look forward to debating economic issues with you in the future.

By Terry

October 27, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this

Chuck: You still don’t make sense. You said “ID should not be taught in a philosophy class because it is not a philosophy. It is a fast growing branch of science. I personally don’t care if you acknowledge that fact at all.”

I’d be happy to acknowledge that as a fact if you could provide me just one scientific independently testable hypothesis.

“If you are going to have children indoctrinated with the the theory of evolution in direct opposition to what they are being taught at home and at church, then there MUST BE A COUNTERBALANCE TO THAT.”

That’s an emotional argument, not a logical one. Is ID provable only by faith of belief or is it provable by the science of doubt?

I don’t think you fully comprehend what you’re asking for. Let’s take a hypothetical scientific look at ID:

*Hypothesis statement: If man was created before woman then there is no need for him to posses nipples.

Test: See if man has nipples.

Results: If man doesn’t have nipples, then man was created first, just as the Bible says. ergo ID is validated.

Corollary: If man has nipples, then woman came first and ID doesn’t have a foundation.*

Now it’s your turn. State any hypothesis you want and let’s actually see your argument.

You see, the real gotcha is that, once you succeed in getting ID admitted into a science study. It will be studied and it will either be proven or disproven.

If the philosophical concept that God purposely doesn’t want humans to be able to prove his existence is true (i.e., God wants us to rely on faith in his existence) then a scientific query can only serve to prove that he doesn’t exist.

Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it!

By Terry

October 27, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this

DB: I think you’ve hit on the very crux of the argument!!!

requires no evidence other than the absence of evidence

That’s the problem. A scientist cannot stop digging for an answer. The absence of evidence is what drives a scientist to ask more questions. A belief in intelligent design is really a call to stop asking more questions.

The basic credo of science is that the absence of proof is not the same as the proof of absence!

By chuck

October 27, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this

Yes, DB, ID is scientific. Before I answer the second part I want you to answer one question for me. Based on the following, tell me how evolution has been tested. I’m not talking about DNA and I’m not talking about the little recent examples of fish in mountain streams. I’m talking about the actual testing that led to the conclusion of the “common ancestor”.

A scientific theory must be: 1. a simple unifying idea that postulates nothing unnecessary (“Occam’s Razor”) 2. logically consistent 3. logically falsifiable (i.e., cases must exist in which the theory can be imagined to be invalid) 4. clearly limited by explicit boundary conditions so that it is clear whether or not particular data are or are not relevant to verification or falsification

Empirical Criteria

A scientific theory must: 1. be empirically testable or lead to predictions or retrodictions that are testable 2. actually make verified predictions and/or retrodictions 3. involve reproducible results 4. provide criteria for the interpretation of data as factual, artifactual, anomalous or irrelevant

This is not a trick question or anything caculated to arrive at any pre-conceived answer. I want to know what, in BRIEF TERMS, testing was done that led to the conclusion of the common ancestor. I’ll wait for your answer and then address the second part of your question tomorrow.

By The72John

October 27, 2005 04:56 PM | Link to this

I’ll wait for your answer and then address the second part of your question tomorrow.

Oops, Chuck has to go hit the net and brush up on his talking points. Which will it be, Chuck, www.genesisfordummies.com or www.pseudosciencerocks.com? Or maybe it’s www.godismyblinders.com.

By lozen

October 27, 2005 05:30 PM | Link to this

Many, many religious people do not see any conflict between their faith and studying evolution. What is it exactly that leads some like Chuck to think evolution is going to turn religious people into atheists or something?

By Terry

October 28, 2005 07:31 AM | Link to this

Maybe we’re all being too tolerent of religious fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim, etc.). We’re in the midst of WW-III - a religious war between Christians and Muslims that has been building for hundreds of years. Tolerence has allowed both sides to grow large numbers of radical activist.

The real shame is that, at least on the Christian side, our religious fevor is not even based on the original Hebrew text. It’s based on the King James version which was ‘translated’ loosely to suit the needs of the time to subugate the masses, not set them free. A reading of the ancient Hebrew, along with the books that were left out of the modern popular Bible yeilds a complete different understanding of the mythology.

And the Q’uran has it’s own bias flavored by Muhammed’s problems with the Christians and Jews of his time.

It’s more than a shame that our current world and all the wars that are being waged throughout the world are all because of our religions and their lack of tolerence.

It is past time for learned, reasoning people to say enough!

By DB

October 28, 2005 08:00 AM | Link to this

chuck:

Well, chuck, since you must not believe in DNA, and I don’t know where you got the mountain fish thing, I’ll have to concede that the whole mountain, more like planet, of evidence will never satisfy you. I sometimes wonder if you’re reading this blog. I don’t know why I feel obligated to answer your questions as that’s all I’ve been doing for the past few days. All the requirements you posted from http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaqscitheory.htm or other various sites does nothing more than set the stage for failure of your ID explanation.

Experimental Evidence of Ancestral Genes: 1) Teeth Gene “Turned back on” in Birds 2) DNA Analysis of almost every living thing having similar genes. 3) Tracking of mutations in mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome proving that DNA mutates. And much much more…

Natural Selection: 1) Bacterial Resistance to Antiobiotics(Natural Selection) 2) I need not go further with this because you already confirmed that natural selection occurs.

Speciation(Macroevolution):

Some of these are forced speciation in an experimental setup, but you’ll have to read about all of them because I’m not taking the time to elaborate.

1) Ensatina Salamander 2) Primrose 3) Stickbugs 3) Ferns 4) Drosophila 5) Fireweed 6) Trapopogonan 7) Eastern Spotted Skunk and Western Spotted Skunk 8) Rhagoletis pomonella

Good Articles(This is my approach):

http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/~spgp/20040210/Langen_2004.pdf#search=’what%20is%20right%20with%20teaching%20the%20controversy?’

http://bio.classes.ucsc.edu/bio175/jiggins&bridle04.pdf#search=’Rhagoletis%20pomonella%20speciation’

And many many more…

Common Sense: 1. Sexual Reproduction takes place(and for a reason), and yes, not just in humans but in plants, animals, fungi, and even some protists! 2. All the different species on Earth, ESPECIALLY those that have formed recently since it disproves all species were formed at once all “as is”. 3. Any new species MUST by definition is a result of evolution.

And, chuck, the theory of evolution meets every requirement you mentioned, especially the one about being falsifiable, which ID is not.

I can’t believe I even took the time to do this after all the posting I’ve already done. You obviously haven’t been reading.

Now, again, I’ve been waiting for a long time for you to speak in scientific terms about ID giving a hypothesis, experiments, etc. But you haven’t answered. You’re not representing your cause too well.

What you call God or God’s work, I call Energy and the Laws of the Universe.

Chuck, this is it for me explaining my side. I almost think you think you will get people to submit by wearing them out with your repetition.

By DB

October 28, 2005 08:05 AM | Link to this

Terry: Yes, that’s it. It’s now time for chuck to hold up his end of the bargain, which he hasn’t.

By Randy

October 28, 2005 08:25 AM | Link to this

Let me clear up a statement from yesterday questioning my accomplishments. First of all, I have no need nor desire to lie, everything I said is absolutely accurate. I said I almost have a MBA and I do. However, I worked on but didn’t finish a MBA in the early 80’s at American University in DC, I will agree my writing is not up to par, out of practice. I have to work on my real estate holdings today(if you call that a real job, Jesus has been very good to me), so I’ll let you guys debate whether or not science is the only thing that exists. Good and evil, having spirit, love and hate, etc must all be from scientific formulas. Have a great day.

By Billy

October 28, 2005 08:28 AM | Link to this

Randy, you didn’t answer my question: If you own millions of dollars of real estate, why do you feel the need for a poat-graduate degree?

By Ken

October 28, 2005 08:33 AM | Link to this

Lozen is correct… Many religious people, including myself, absolutely see evolution as scientific fact and also very easily reconcile it with the beliefs of our faith.

Terry… The Christian faith is based on the original Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin, etc. texts. That is exactly where the King James Bible originated. Those writers didn’t just pull the stories out of the air. They translated the original works into King James English.

Luther did the same thing for the Germans.

Several groups have done the same thing here in the present times (NIV, New American Standard, etc.)

There will always be disconnects with any translation b/c our language may not clearly identify words in the original Hebrew or certain ideas may be misunderstood. For example, the original Hebrew language and culture does not see a person as a body and soul. They had a single word for the human being that encompassed both. The body/soul idea came in when Greek thought was introduced by the writers at Christ’s time.

It is these reasons that many Christians (including myself) do not take the text as absolute literal truth. They look at the underlying concepts, ideas and traditions.

Like the creation story. God created the world in seven days. Some people look at that as seven days. Seven actual sun ups and sun downs. I prefer to ask, what is a day to God. A day to God could be trillions of years.

Or…

Take the story of Adam and Eve. Some people take it very literally, right down to the time frame and the idea that everyone can be traced back to Adam. I do not. I believe that story represents the idea that God created man and that creation is represented as Adam and Eve and the garden. In fact, when Cain is banished, he meets up with another group of humans and lives with them. They were not descendents of Adam. They came from somewhere.

This merely underlines my point from yesterday… Any extreme fundamentalism will cause problems. Just look at the rallies in Iran and the comments from the “President” Ahmadenijad. He is calling for the destruction of Isreal and the United States. How are we supposed to respond to that?

By Randy

October 28, 2005 08:37 AM | Link to this

Billy, I worked on a MBA 20+ years ago before I bought millions of dollars of real estate. I’m not working on a MBA now, you are right I have no need of an MBA now.

By Ken

October 28, 2005 08:37 AM | Link to this

Billy… Some people just want to better themselves.

By Billy

October 28, 2005 08:50 AM | Link to this

OK Randy. I guess yesterday when you said “I almost have an MBA” I inferred that you were still working on it.

Ken — I think the best place for some people to start to “better” themselves is with learning science, yet many, such as Randy, blithely refuse to accept scientific evidence.

By Terry

October 28, 2005 08:53 AM | Link to this

Randy: When you look at the number of people in Iran that support their President’s statements about the destruction on Israel and the US, you can’t really call it ‘extreme’. It very mainstream to Muslims. Jihad is a call for world domination (non-believers must either submit to Islamic law or be killed). This is as important to their religion as belief in Christ is to Christians. To say that this mindset is just the extremist is dangerously naive.

Look at how the Muslim world cheers when a terrorists blows up a group of non-believing women and children. Or why 80% of British Muslims would NOT condemn the London bombings.

Quite fooling yourself, the “Religion of Peace” defines the world as existing in 2 houses, the House of Islam and the House of War. Look at how non-believers are treated under Islamic Law.

Both religions supposedly believe in the same God, but neither side can be tolerent of the other, it’s counter to their very religion.

Enough!

By Randy

October 28, 2005 09:03 AM | Link to this

Billy, I have no problem accepting scientific fact. I have a problem with what is motivating the scientists, do they need money to prove their theory(so they find what the people who are giving them money want them to find), many scientists dispute macro-evolution, why not listen to them. I think scientists can go back and do certain things, maybe a few hundred years and be accurate, but I don’t think they can go back thousands or millions of years and be accurate. Plus, at what point do I listen to scientists, 500 years ago when they said the world was flat, 200 years ago when they said bleeding people would heal them(Washington), now, when a majority say macro-evolution is correct or 50-75 years from now, when the scientists all agree that macro-evolution was just a stage science went through and is not correct??? Which scientists do you want me to listen to????

By Lyrazel

October 28, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this

If ID is science please place the name of one published book that all ID academics, scholars and teachers can use as the basic treatise of ID to begin teaching. Thanks.

By Ken

October 28, 2005 09:12 AM | Link to this

Billy… I guess I believe the place to begin bettering yourself is by building your faith. After that it would be music and art.

The point is that he is trying to better himself and not sitting around wasting away.

Terry… I think you may have been pointing your response to me. You are correct that “extreme” can be used in a relative fashion. In Iran that is not extreme, but to people in other countries it is.

Ironically, though, you focused on my use of the word extreme without coming out to comment on his actual statements. Does that mean you agree?

I will not profess to know much about Islam, however, I will say emphatically that I do not worship the same God as President Ahmadenijad. I cannot count the ways my God and his are different.

By Terry

October 28, 2005 09:15 AM | Link to this

Randy: You said “There will always be disconnects with any translation b/c our language may not clearly identify words in the original Hebrew or certain ideas may be misunderstood.” Can I take that to mean you’ve read the original text and the competing views of translation issues? And you’ve also studing the books King James left out?

I don’t have time to get into it fully today, but King James (and all modern translation taken from it) tranlated the New and Old testaments to suit the mythological bias of the Church at the time of the translation. This was back when the Earth was still the center of the Universe. These were people with the mindset of the inquisitions. Look at how religion has done nothing but justify man’s inhumanity to man.

The Bible is the true word of God (of course Muslims believe the Q’uran is the true word of God)? Read Deuteronomy 13:7-11 and Leviticus and live by them!

Jesus has been good to you? That mean you believe he works in this world on a daily basis. Look around at the state of the world and ask yourself if you’re really worshiping an all-loving diety. Look at the wars raging throughout the world today and realize that fully 99% of them are purely wars of religious intolerance.

And then go back and really study the translation issues in the New and Old testament.

By Randy

October 28, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this

Terry, I see your point, I’m a Christian and I love everybody. I want everybody to have a happy life(including muslims etc). I don’t want people to have to accept Jesus as their lord and savior or be killed, Jesus gave us free will, he doesn’t want Robots. He wants you to love him of your own free will. That’s the difference between Christians and Muslims. I don’t want our soldiers fighting in Iraq and dying, but the muslims have what you said, (Jihad) and they will kill anybody or any country that doesn’t believe what they do, if they get powerful enough.

By Just Being Me

October 28, 2005 09:19 AM | Link to this

FatMoose - For the record, and at the risk of being redundant since I already said this, I have stayed out of this discussion because I lack knowledge of the subject matter. I have no desire to spit out any old comment just to “hear” myself “talk”. I do not know enough about this subject to participate.

Furthermore, these topics change from week to week. Participants have a right to choose whichever subjects they want to discuss, and ignore the rest. I’d be willing to bet that many of the women are doing as I am, sitting on the sidelines, following along, but declining to comment as this is not a topic of interest to them, for whatever reason.

By Billy

October 28, 2005 09:22 AM | Link to this

Randy — You point out things scientists have gotten wrong, but it is scientists who further our knowledge of the world around us. Many knew the world was round earlier than 500 years ago. It was scientists who showed us the fallacies of a geocentric universe, who advanced medicine beyond using leeches for whatever ails you, and who designed so many elements of our technology that lets us go to space, perform surgery with robots, and, soon, perform surgery with robots in space. Oooh…(I heard it on the news — 3” robots performing surgery…)

Anyway, early scientists often got things wrong. Their methods weren’t as good as ours and their “equipment”, if they even had any, was extremely crude. Hippocrates, the father of medicine, was way off base in a lot of his theories. Yet they still got things somewhat right. Leeches and bloodletting are still in use today occasionally, and there is no doubt that bloodthinners, largely derived from the anticoagulating effect from leeches, save many lives of people who have heart disease or strokes.

Refusing to listen to scientists today just because a scientist hundreds of years ago was off track is like me saying the Bible has nothing to offer because people have slaughtered millions in God’s name.

By Randy

October 28, 2005 09:25 AM | Link to this

Terry, I watched a documentary on TV a few months ago about a group of Muslim fighters in South America who captured a group of about 30 tourists. They tried to ransom them for several months while keeping them captive in the mountains of South America. When they couldn’t ransom them they started asking them what religion they were, some were catholic, some were protestant, some said they were atheist or agnostic. They ended up killing about half of the tourists and releasing the other half. The half they killed were the ones who claimed to be agnostic or atheist. So it’s not a religious war, it’s a war vs. Muslims who are out to kill or convert anyone who is not muslim. Bush is just defending our freedom.

By Randy

October 28, 2005 09:33 AM | Link to this

Billy, You said that some scientists thought the world was round 500 years ago and were right, some, no many scientists today think that macro-evolution is incorrect, so they must be right. Really man, I just don’t think anybody, even the most brilliant scientist can tell things that happened thousands or millions of years ago. To much time has elasped and reguardless of what some people have said on this site, macro-evolution has never been proven.

By Billy

October 28, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

“…they started asking them what religion they were, some were catholic, some were protestant, some said they were atheist or agnostic. They ended up killing about half of the tourists and releasing the other half. The half they killed were the ones who claimed to be agnostic or atheist. So it’s not a religious war, it’s a war vs. Muslims who are out to kill or convert anyone who is not muslim.”

Randy, this shows that your God and their God are the same god. Atheists, agnostics, pagans, whatever, would all be considered heathens in Islam. Christians and Jews, while not God’s most devout followers, are still somewhat on the right track, because they believe in the same God. They just don’t believe Mohammed is his prophet. Since you believe in the same God, however, Isalam is more forgiving of your lack of faith in Mohammed.

The Jewish, Christian, and Islamic “God” is the same entity, as all three religions are related. Each religion ascribes different characteristics to God, however.

By John2

October 28, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this

Ken,

As far as I”m concerned, Iran is still due some payback for the early 80s. That is the country we should have invaded.

By Namelesswoman

October 28, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this

Middle class values, age and jihad will conflict every time. There is something about wealth-apathy that makes fundamentalism teflon. Of every nation the ones who own the most stuff tend to be the ones who are not reached by fundamentalists. This is a comfort-zone few zelots can penetrate. Strapping bombs on the belly is something few adults over 40 would do. Shaunti would never strap a bomb on her chest to prove her point… Her sunday-goes-to-church middle class lifestyle does not afford any fundamentalist an ear if they say: you cant wear pants, make-up, drive or give opinion because you are a woman as it says in the King James bible…no, she reads modern bibles. Why she would leave her husband and her traditional family values if he decided to strap her children into 10-commandment suicide bomber costumes to trick-or-treat the ACLU offices!

By Jack

October 28, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this

John2. We should also tell OPEC that if they want to eat, lower the price of oil. If not, let them eat oil.

By The72John

October 28, 2005 10:01 AM | Link to this

Ah Randy, it must be nice to live in a world utterly devoid of logic. So easy to dismiss anything you don’t want to hear with a “It’s not true ‘cause I say it isn’t”. You ignore multiple examples of empirical evidence and wave it away with simple “nope!”.

“Scientists” bled people to heal them (though those people weren’t anything remotely close to scientists)a few centuries back and this is your “logic” to discount anything you don’t want to aknowledge? Brilliant, Randy. You’re like the Boy in the Bubble, except your bubble is wilful ignorance.

And just for the record, “scientists” knew the world was flat as far back as 300 B.C. The whole “Columbus discovered the world was round” is one of those BAD examples of popular (and apocryphal)wisdom that is utterly false. Aristotle wrote:

*The evidence of the senses further corroborates this. How else would eclipses of the moon show segments shaped as we see them? As it is, the shapes which the moon itself each month shows are of every kind — straight, gibbous, and concave — but in eclipses the outline is always curved: and, since it is the interposition of the earth that makes the eclipse, the form of this line will be caused by the form of the earth’s surface, which is therefore spherical.

Again, our observations of the stars make it evident, not only that the earth is circular, but that it is a circle of no great size. For quite a small change of position to south or north causes a manifest alteration of the horizon. There is much change, I mean, in the stars which are overhead, and the stars seen are different, as one moves northward or southward. Indeed there are some stars seen in Egypt and in the neighborhood of Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions; and stars, which in the north are never beyond range of observation, in those regions rise and set.

All of which goes to show not only that the earth is circular in shape, but also that it is a sphere of no great size: for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be so quickly apparent. Hence one should not be too sure of the incredibility of the view of those who conceive that there is continuity between the parts about the pillars of Hercules and the parts about India, and that in this way the ocean is one.*

Eratosthenes the Alexandrian mathematically estimated the circumfrence of the Earth in 200ish BC. The Khalif El Ma’mun did the same in the ninth century, and came up with a figure that was remarkably accurate.

I’m sure there WERE people in the 15th century who thought the world was flat. They would have been few and far between, but I bet some of them were named Randy.

And seriously - you love everyone? Are you the same guy who randomly started gay-bashing in your first post on this topic? Yeah, you LOVE about as much as your average fundamentalist, which is to say - not at all.

By Naimah

October 28, 2005 10:10 AM | Link to this

I am not a Christian but whether people want to admit it or not, science PROVES that there had to be a Creator of this vast world. I agree with the gentleman early on in the post who stated, get a Ph.D at ANY accredited University and you will that most SCIENTIST agree or their studies agree that this earth had a creator. So don’t back down now beccause the Creator has a Religious grounding. If the Creator was supposedly a life form from Mars that no one had yet to see, science would agree with that so long as it does not involve organized Religion.

By The72John

October 28, 2005 10:11 AM | Link to this

C’mon Jack - do you read the news? Exxon-Mobile posted an all-time record quarterly profit yesterday. Not gross revenue - PROFIT. If you have any understanding of how business works then you should understand that if Company A) purchases a commodity from group B) - i.e. OPEC and then records record profits, that the cost to the consumer is not coming from A) it’s coming from B).

Exxon and its fellow oil companies claimed they had to raise prices to meet their expenses, but that just wasn’t true, was it? If they raised their prices to the consumer to meet increases in expenses their revenues should have remained flat, barring some huge spike in consumption. Since there was actually a slight decrease in consumption and somehow their profits still spiked incredibly, this says one thing - they were price gouging on an inelastic resource.

If you want to tell anyone to put price controls on oil, then look to the companies themselves.

By Billy

October 28, 2005 10:20 AM | Link to this

Randy, you keep bringing up “macro-evolution”. Do you mean speciation? That part of a species’ population can evolve into another? Sorry, but I think the scientists you’re speaking of probably resemble more the scientists who may have said the world was flat than do the scientists who support evolution.

I think most scientists probably would argue that if you are going to differentiate between macro- and micro-evolution, then the two are still just two sides of the same coin. Adaptation, what you may call “micro-evolution”, is what occurs in a species as a result of changes in its environment, diet, etc. External pressure. A series of these adaptations over many generations will result in speciation or “macro-evolution”. A new species arises, diverging from the path of its ancestor.

By Randy

October 28, 2005 10:23 AM | Link to this

John72, I have nothing against gay people, I was just stating a point in Darwin’s book “The origin of the species” survival of the fittest and how Hitler and Stalin use this in killing millions of people who they saw as inferior, some of those being homosexual people. So if you are gay shouldn’t you be against evolution??? As far a being logical, I’m very logical, I can’t see how something like the big bang would be possible without a creator. Things just don’t appear out of thin air without help, if they do, I’ll take several billion in my hand, now, would be good.

By The72John

October 28, 2005 10:23 AM | Link to this

science PROVES that there had to be a Creator of this vast world. I agree with the gentleman early on in the post who stated, get a Ph.D at ANY accredited University and you will that most SCIENTIST agree or their studies agree that this earth had a creator.

And yet another member of the peanut gallery chimes in with utterly unsubtantiated claims of “It is because it is”. I’m guessing you belong to the fundamentalist wing of some other religion, then? Possibly Islam, based on your name? Try something other than “it is because I say it is”.

By Randy

October 28, 2005 10:26 AM | Link to this

John72, I know where you get the John, but is the 72 your IQ??? Just asking.

By Ken

October 28, 2005 10:33 AM | Link to this

Terry… Again, I think you may want to address your responses to me rather than Randy.

I gave you a perfect example of how difference in language can be translated and certain meanings skewed. In fact I have done “some” study of the original Hebrew/Greek during classes at my church.

As for the books left out of the King James Bible…

The King James Bible did not leave out any books. The King James Bible is a translation of the Cannon formed many hundreds of years prior. The books kept were the ones those church elders faithfully believe represented the core values of the faith.

By Curtis Rivers

October 28, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this

I am a retired United Methodist minister. Intelligent design is a misnomer for refurbished creationism, and another attempt by conservative Christians to impose their beliefs on our nation. We live in a dangerous time when the polarization of our nation could lead to anarchy, as such polarization of nations has done in the past. Secondly, my daughter is adopted from Honduras, and is of Mayan heritage. If we are to teach “intelligent design,” then I think her religious heritage must be taught, along with all others in our nation. Wow! We won’t have any time for reading, writing, and arithmetic in school and we can we can achieve our goal of being the least-educated people on the planet. That sounds like an intelligent design!

By Billy

October 28, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this

Randy, the Big Bang is not the issue at hand. I have stated repeatedly that I cannot fathom the universe beginning without some omnipotent creator. The issue is not even whether or not “God” or somebody started life. The issue is ID and whether it should be taught in science class. I, along with most others on thise board, have fallen into the trap of defending evolution, as you and Chuck have repeatedly reframed the issue. We have yet to get a response to the repeated request for an example of a scientific experiment that supports ID.

As far as gays being against evolution…wow. Hitler claimed to be doing God’s work. Shouldn’t the gays be against the Bible? Come on. Evolutions is science, and as such it is neither morally good nor morally bad. It just is. There is no qualification of it in the moral sense until someone uses it for bad, like Hitler, or good, like curing polio and eradicating smallpox. I’d like you to give me a place where Hitler ever cited Darwin. Oh, and try to find a quote where he didn’t take Darwin completely out of context.

By Randy

October 28, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this

Billy, I’m not for intelligent design to be taught in public schools, that would be to much like what the muslims want(forced religion). Jesus wants you to love him of your own free will. I however, don’t want macro-evolution taught in schools either as it has not been proven and is further away from being proven now than 145 years ago, when Darwin’s book first came out. Let science class tell the truth, from a scientific point of view, we are not sure where the first man and woman came from. Hitler was a staunch evolutionist, if he said anything about God, it was because Germany was and is a strong Catholic country.

By Jack

October 28, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this

I do know about business John72. No need to be condesending.

By Stewie

October 28, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

I’ve been reading about Michael Behe and I have to admit he is a clever guy. I think his ideas are ridiculous but he seems to have tapped into a gold mine.

His main point is that biological systems like vision in the eye, which are made up of smaller systems (nerves, chemical reaction etc) cannot be attributed to the gradual changes that evolution would explain.

Why? Because no one has demonstrated in research any function of any of the subsystems. For example, one of the chemicals involved has never been shown to have any value in any other way. Therefore…(according to Behe..and this is the “science” attributed to ID)..since there is no documented function of the chemical, it must not have been selected for by natural selection. Which leads to the conclusion (by false logic) that a designer must have packaged up all these subsystems to create the eye.

His publication record with real research isn’t especially noteworthy and aside from his ID publications, he hasn’t really published anything in several years. But I’m sure, given the current anti-science environment across this country, his book sales, and speaking engagements are doing a lot to supplement his pay as a professor at an unremarkable univerisity.

I’ve read some of his writing, and if you didn’t have any type of science background, he will dazzle you with the terminology…and there is a lot of it.

The sad thing is that many people are falling for it…

By Billy

October 28, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

What specifically did Hitler say? Kindly cite an example. I asked for a quote before.

How do you figure evolution id further away from being proven now than when Darwin first posited the theory?

And what do you propose we teach in biology? Maybe that lions brethe life into thier cubs, like the Church used to claim? Please! Evolution is the theory with science to back it up. And we do say we don’t know where the first man and woman came from in the sense of “just outside Peoria at 8:17 a.m.” We are fully cognizant of the fact that science does not presently have the answers to all the questions, and a true scientists admits as much. But right now evolution is the best theory to explain it. To call it “unproven” or “just a theory like ID” is to completely misunderstand/mischaracterize what science is.

And to say “Hitler liked evolution” as “evidence” evolution is wrong is complete lunacy.

By Stewie

October 28, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this

Randy,

I would be embarassed, even though I’m anonymous, to make the statements that you make..refuse to back them up..and then keep making them.

Please explain why their is more proof against “macroevolution” now..and why DNA supports that.

And you’ve made plenty of anti-gay comments on this blog, even to someone that has defended this country, so don’t keep throwing that “I love everyone” lie out.

You may be sitting on a million dollars but you are still a moron..

By Randy

October 28, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this

I think we have made some great progress this week. Most everybody seems to agree on several aspects. A) A creator must exist(except for John with the 72 IQ) B) That macro-evolution is incomplete and unproven(shouldn’t be taught in school) C) That it’s better to have a relationship with the creator than to be in a religion(especially Islam)doesn’t mean don’t go to church. Church is great. Finally, we should be glad we live in a country where we can think, say and do whatever we want as long as we are not hurting someone else, Jesus would want it that way.

By DB

October 28, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this

Ken: Great synopsis of the Bible! I totally agree with the Cain thing. Form a city? With whom? Had kids? With whom? His mom? Was he incestual? Some say that wasn’t a sin at that time. What???? Etc. Etc. I really think those that believe you must interpret the Bible literally are in denial. You can’t even interpret law in a literal sense, and they were written recently. The point is that many people see the Bible as a general way in which to see things. You can’t take things literally when there are translations and some “statements” even mean totally different things now.

For instance, if I said, “That’s sick.” to my friends when I was in high school, it would mean “That’s disgusting.” If I said that to kids now, it would mean “That’s cool or crunk, or whatever.” Times change, and people change. And to be honest, people in the Bible days didn’t understand a whole lot, and their explanations of things around them reflect that. Jesus did exist. Anyone who believes otherwise is a real conspiracist. Was he the son of God? Who knows? Was Mary really a virgin? Who knows? It’s all opinion and faith on a physical level.

Believing in evolution doesn’t mean you have to abandon your beliefs.

Don’t think for one minute that I and most other scientists think of the world like Randy says we do, that all there is is science. I don’t think that way at all. There are some things science will never explain. Even if the Big Bang and Evolution are accurate, there still has to be something incomprehensible that started it all. And I consider that a given. Is it God? It could be. Then again it very well may not be. My whole outlook on life is that I just don’t know, and I know no amount of science will ever find answers. I know that science does help us understand the Universe to an extent that it can make our lives better.

I know if I do something wrong, there will be a consequence. I strive to be a good person, but it’s not for the fear of any God, it’s for the sake of mankind and avoiding bad experiences or making someone else suffer.

I’m not an atheist. I just simply don’t know, and I will never pretend that I do, nor will I listen to any human that thinks he or she does know the origin of the Universe or whether or not there is God. I can speculate. But agreeing that evolution takes place doesn’t mean you’re speculating about the origin of the Universe.

I do, however, know that all of us being here and experiencing everything around here is quite a miracle. But I also know that evolution has plenty of evidence and makes the most sense, and arguing against it in order to align with your beliefs is baseless. If you argue against it scientifically, argue that it is improbable or impossible, and come up with some evidence that supports your explanation. Argue against it all you want for personal reasons, but there still will be the “scientific community” deciding what is and what isn’t science.

I just wish the ID proponents could realize that they should be arguing about the origin of the Universe, which is not anything evolution claims to solve. I think they don’t realize that.

Ken and Lozen have it right. Evolution does not impinge on any religious belief. So, I just wish people would realize that and quit spending their whole life arguing against it just for the sake of preserving their beliefs as if it threatens them. YOU DON’T HAVE TO BELIEVE IT IF YOU DON’T WANT TO! But don’t try to take it away from science, which most likely saved your life at one time or another.

Chuck: The only reason you cling to ID is because you’re afraid you may have to change your beliefs a bit. In reality, you don’t. And ID is not science!

By Randy

October 28, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this

Stewie, What have I not backed up?? I’m not a scientist, so I will withdraw the DNA statement, although I have seen it explained on TV. Is your definition of a Moron someone who isn’t quoting from science books?? Well I use common sense, I go out and grab a hand full of dirt and ask who created this in the beginning. I look at a seed and ask who or what created the first seed in the beginning. I’m not interested in what a human who grew up in the same schools I did, who went to the same (or maybe a little bit better college) that I did thinks he knows. That he has devoted his life to research and needs funding to continue his scientific research so he finds what the people who are giving him the money want him to find. Get rid of what scientific books tell you, get that out of your mind and use your God given intellect and that will lead you to the truth. Books(except the bible) are written by men and all points are disputed by books by other men.

By Billy

October 28, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this

“Stewie, What have I not backed up??”

For one, you have not cited a single example of Hitler quoting Darwin, even after I asked you thrice.

It is also apparent that your big issue with scientists isn’t what they research or believe, but funding, as if they are stealing your money so they can sit around and dplay with a chemistry set all day while trying to prove everything you believe to be wrong. And pull your head out of your a* and accept that the Bible was written my men as well just as all other books have been.

By Billy

October 28, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this

Damn I can’t type today…

By Randy

October 28, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

Billy, I saw a documentary on the History channel on Hitler, about how he had been influenced by Darwin’s book and several other books on evolution and why he killed Jews, anyone insane, others. Actually it was a book he wrote after Mein Kampf that they found hidden in some vaults that were just recently were found, that told of his thoughts on evolution. It was just a couple of weeks back so maybe the History channel will show it again soon.

By Randy

October 28, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this

Bible was written by men inspired by God.

By DB

October 28, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this

Randy:

Should I say all churches are just creating followers to make money and a good living? Some do. But I know that’s not usually the case.

By DB

October 28, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this

Randy: Do you suggest your doctor get rid of what his or her medical books tell them? Are you kidding me?

People have been picking up dirt for a long time and wondering where it came from. And they used refined common sense and what others learn about it to come up with a conclusion. It’s called science. And, by the way, your common sense doesn’t seem much like common sense to me. It’s more like common nonsense.

The dirt has a lot of organic matter from decaying organisms, a lot of clay(miniscule chunks of sand), and some small particles of granite(sand) for the most part. All of it is at the location because of a lot of weathering, erosion, and chemical reactions. Science can explain all that. But in a deeper sense, it can’t necessarily explain where all the elements came from that make all that up. You’re asking the big question of the origin of the Universe, and science can’t answer that.

By DB

October 28, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this

Randy: Common sense would say that what you see on TV is often biased by those that are funding the programs, just like you think scientists are. As a scientist, I think many shows depicting evolution are so inaccurate I don’t wonder why people jump all over it.

Fact: Most TV is worthless.

By Randy

October 28, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this

DB, I think scientists are like some churches in a way(and most churches are great and mean well), they start off with the right intention. But, their human faults get in the way. There are some pastors who are staying in their church past the time that they should leave to get a paycheck and wait for retirement. They are and were great men of God, but they have lost their effectiveness and need to give way to a younger pastor who will lead more people to the truth and Jesus. The same is true for scientists, I’m sure they think in the beginning that they are going to find the missing link, but as the years go by and they realize they don’t know nearly what they have claimed they know, what are they suppose to do, keep telling the people funding them what they want to hear or go work at McDonald’s or worse a school??? On naming the scientists who don’t believe in macro-evolution, I’ll have to write their names down in the future and tell you them. I hear and see them on TV all the time but don’t keep a record of their names. I’ll start keeping a record, or it’s probably in the internet.

By Billy

October 28, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

“Written by men inspired by God” is not the same thing as “written by God”, therefore not “God’s Word”. Hitler was also “inspired by God”, as are Islamic radicals and countless hate groups. Though I’m sure you’ll just offer up the typical, “They believe perversions of God’s word and aren’t true believers.”

So you are saying that Hitler was in the proces of forcing Eugenics on everyone. Look, we’ve talkked before about weeding out those who can’t fend for themselves, about how we keep people alive and in the gene pool that would otherwise be weeded out. Hitler was doing more than this; he was passing judgement on people based on religion/ethnicity/sexual orientation. Did he make those judgements based on Darwin? No. Those judgements came from his perverse reading of the Bible.

Plus Eugenics and evolution, while related, are not the same thing. Eugenics requires only the basic understanding of genetics — offspring have characteristics of the parents. If you control who becomes a parent, you control what the offspring are like. This is not evolution until you maintain the process for so long that the subjects adapt/change to the point of becoming a new species.

By Randy

October 28, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

DB, I will agree most TV is worthless. So what we as humans have to base our decisions on in what men write and put in books or what’s on TV or some other means of communication. That’s where Jesus is so great, I have had a life changing experience with Jesus Christ, It is absolute, it makes me so content. It’s like no other feeling and I thank God everyday that he showed me he was real. I only want others to have that same chance and know and feel what I’m feeling. But only if they want that chance, free will. Have a great day.

By Norman M.

October 28, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this

Students throughout their schooling from the first grade to high school graduation should be taught the best possible science. The theory of evolution is a wonderful living theory which will continue to have changes as science is ever expanding. It should not become a “religion” any more than matters of faith should become science, to do so cheapens both. I am a 65 year old minister and pastoral counselor and hold a Doctorate in Ministry. In the 1950’s and 1960’s during the high water mark of church growth there was little even said about evolution in church. The very idea of what “Bible radio” is putting forth, that a person must believe in “Creationism” before personal salvation can take place is ludicrous! The idea of “intelligent design” could be covered in one class session a an interesting idea for class discussion.

By Randy

October 28, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this

Billy, Take up the problem with Hitler with the History channel. They were very specific on him being a evolutionist. In the book he wrote he describes how if he defeats all of Russia and Europe the final battle will be with Amerika. It may be on the History channel again soon, it was just on a week or two ago.

By The72John

October 28, 2005 12:00 PM | Link to this

Lol, Randy! You’re questioning MY IQ? Dang, that’s just funny. I don’t care who you are…

Let’s just look at a couple of your assertions. For fun.

First - now, I’m not affirming your “Hitler was inspired by evolutionary theory” line, because I don’t have information one way or the other, nor do I particularly have the patience at the moment to research it. But let’s just assume that it IS accurate. The conclusion you expect us to draw from this is that because someone made some bad choices based on a particular theory, that the theory itself is flawed. A shining example of illogic, Randy - truly. Because Charles Mansen committed crimes because he believed Helter Skelter was telling him to, we should consider Helter Skelter evil? Sorry, but no.

Number 2 - I can’t even begin to address your “conclusions”. If anything more was needed to prove that you are a deluded loon, your post would certainly suffice.

Number 3 - things coming from nothing - This has already been addressed, not that you have the wit to comprehend the discussion.

Number 4 - the Bible was written by men. If, as you posit, the Bible was written by men inspired by God, then there would be no variation and no inconsistency. Since there is, the Bible is either not divine or God is fallible.

These are simple logical exercises, Randy, which may explain why they are above your grasp.

Jack, I wasn’t trying to be condescending. You made a statement that is clearly inconsistent with the evidence.

By Billy

October 28, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this

Randy, I’m not going to take up Hitler with the History Channel. I am going to take up the History Channel with you. As a History major I cal tell you that if I even mentioned using a History Channel program as a source in even the most basic of papers I would be laughed out of the school…The History Channel is TV, pure and simple, and if you expect me to buy your Hitler as an evolutionist (there’s that word implying a religious belief again…) argument you’re going to have to give me an actual source for your claims.

And that still doesn’t address your faulty logic of “Hitler likes evolution ergo evolution is bad.”

I argued that Hitler was practicing Eugenics, which is the injection of morality into genetics, not evolution, which is science, without a moral guidanceone way or the other, but you haven’t addressed that either. You just defer my points to a tv show you saw a while back.

By Gomez

October 28, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this

Should Intelligent Design be taught in science classes? NO!!

Should science teachers mention the topic? YES!!

Why? So students can see the the lengths that the religious nuts in this country will go to turn America into Jesusland.

It’s nothing but creationism in disguise.

The most damaging thing about the debate is that it distracts real scientist from real work.

And Randy, if you develop cancer…make sure to tell your doctor your opinions concerning scientist…idiot.

By Terry

October 28, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this

Randy: You said “So it’s not a religious war, it’s a war vs. Muslims who are out to kill or convert anyone who is not muslim.�

OK, how about Bosnia: Christians v. Muslims; Cyprus: Christians v. Muslims; Côte d’Ivoire: Christians v. Muslims; East Timor: Christians v. Muslims; India: Hindu v. Muslims; Indonesia: Christians v. Muslims; Kashmir: Hindu v. Muslims; Kosovo: Christians v. Muslims; Kurdistan: Christians v. Muslims; Macedonia: Christians v. Muslims; Middle East: Christians v. Muslims; Nigeria: Christians v. Muslims; Northern Ireland: Protestants v. Catholics; Philippines: Christians v. Muslims; Chechnya: Christians v. Muslims; Sudan: Christians v. Muslims; and Uganda: Christians v. Muslims.

And you also said “Most everybody seems to agree on several aspects. …A creator must exist�. That’s not what I read in these posts. I get the sense most people haven’t addressed this issue, except for a few radicals. Focusing instead on the issue of ID and evolution.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

By DB

October 28, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this

Randy: Is socioeconomic level inversely proportional to intelligence level? Based on your logic, one could come to that conclusion.

By The72John

October 28, 2005 12:46 PM | Link to this

Terry, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. Are you showing that religious groups often war with each other, or are you claiming that muslims are always the agressors?

By Terry

October 28, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

The72John: I’m saying religion is the cause of war.

By Ken

October 28, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this

Terry… You’re examples are real, but grossly exaggerated. All conflicts cannot be boiled down to Chritians vs. Muslims. It’s not that simple.

It is too easy to make that point considering that a large majority of the world’s population is either Christian or Muslim.

You should also consider that many nations do not have free religious rights that exist in America. Many countries restrict religion, especially in Muslim countries.

Conflicts around the world are not religious. Conflicts are cultural or ideological or racial or tribal. They may appear to be religious, but I suspect that is not the underlying issue.

By The72John

October 28, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this

Well, it’s the cause of MANY wars - I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s the cause of ALL wars. I also think that without religion period, we would still have wars over something else. Religion just seems to be the most convenient excuse.

For instance, many of those modern conflicts you mentioned are more the result of ethnic tensions - many of them very old and many of them predating the current religious predominations of the group involved.

By Billy

October 28, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this

How did we get onto religious wars again?

By The72John

October 28, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this

I’m pretty sure ID is discussed out.

By Terry

October 28, 2005 01:03 PM | Link to this

The72John, I’d go so far as to say MOST wars throughout history (and most other flagrant examples of man’s inhumanity to man).

Ken, isn’t ideology another word for religion? Often, the media does not identify the precise causes of some of the conflicts around the world. Clashes are frequently described as being ethnic in origin, even though religion may have been a main cause.

A group of world religious leaders from the Buddhist, Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Christian, Jewish, Muslim and many other faiths met in Geneva Switzerland during 1999-OCT. They issued a document, The Geneva Spiritual Appeal, asking political and religious leaders and organizations to ensure that religions are not used to justify violence in the future. Delegates believed that that then-current 56 conflicts had religious elements.

By Billy

October 28, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this

Yup…and without a single shred of science to support it being included in science class…I think that’s one thing we have agreed on.

By Terry

October 28, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this

Ken, Doesn’t your statement that You should also consider that many nations do not have free religious rights that exist in America. Many countries restrict religion… actually mean that an uprising in that country would be religious.

By The72John

October 28, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this

I would hazard a guess that at least as many wars have been fought over territory and power as have been over religion.

By Michael H.

October 28, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this

Given the recent developments in physics in string theory and the fact that we can teleologically reason from the features of the natural world to the characteristics of God, we can conclude that God is probably a giant system of strings. This means that the earth was created by the Spaghetti Monster thesis has an empirical basis. (See the website for more details.)

Now if we can only get a tax exempt status for our Church of the Sphagetti Monster, a few rich scientific illiterates to fund our research institutes, a few crackpot academics to sign on, we can have our theory taught in public schools as a special version of intelligent design.

By Terry

October 28, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

The72John, you might be right, but that still doesn’t speak well of religion.

Billy, you’re right, religious war isn’t the topic. Sorry, I’ll focus back in to ID. However, throughout this entire thread of over 636 entries, there hasn’t been one post that even begins to justify ID as a science. So we’re kinda beating a dead horse.

What I said a few posts ago is just about the bottom line of this thread: What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

By Randy

October 28, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

Terry, Muslims are against anyone not muslim, plain and simple. Be they Hindu, Christian, Atheist etc. We are infidels. John72 take some anger management classes, you don’t know near as much as you think you do.

By The72John

October 28, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

That may be Randy, but you know nothing at all.

By Ken

October 28, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

Terry… Ideology is not another word for religion.

Uganda? Do you really believe it was based on Christian vs. Muslim…? It was tyranny. Plain and simple.

Chechnya? Do you really believe it is based on Christian vs. Muslim…? It is one group of people wanting to be independent of another.

Norther Ireland? Wouldn’t you surmise is based in the idea that England basically crapped on Ireland for over 1000 years. The religious aspect more than likely is not the root cause of the problem.

Kashmir? This is two countries fighting over a plot of land irregardless of their religion.

Uprisings in some nations are due to religious tensions but definitely not all. The72John and I agree on something.

By DB

October 28, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

I still haven’t see ANY(ZERO, NADA, ZIP, ZILCH) evidence or even conjecture thereof by chuck or Randy to back up ID as science.

Come on. We’re all waiting here and getting bored.

By DB

October 28, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

I’m almost tired of being so respectful. Believe, me, I’ve held back a lot.

By Randy

October 28, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

Actually John72 I know everything, at least the things that matter. You sir are the idiot. You don’t know and you don’t even know that you don’t know.

By Randy

October 28, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this

I do feel like I’m back in grade school with you John72, I guess we need to go out back, so I can whip your a*s. Ha! Why does this discussion bother you so much???

By The72John

October 28, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

Lol Randy…keep it up. You make yourself look more foolish by the moment. You can’t refute anything that anyone has said - instead you stubbornly retreat into childish tactics of “Uh huh, I know ‘cause I know!”.

I find it very hard to believe that anyone as clearly intellectually deficient as you could manage to play Monopoly, much less preside over some real estate empire.

Too bad you claim you’ve had children. Genes like yours can only hold back the species. Hmm…maybe that’s your plan…refutation of Evolution by intentional Devolution. Intriguing.

By Terry

October 28, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

I agree with DB: I still haven’t see ANY evidence or even reasoned conjecture Chuck or Randy (who actually believes he know everything - a sure sign of a dellusional mind) to back up ID as science.

Come on. We’re all waiting here and getting bored.

By Terry

October 28, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

We’re up to 648 posts and still not one argument for ID as a science.

By The72John

October 28, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

Ah yes, there’s that love that Randy feels for all people! He now wants to kick my a*! When reason fails, resort to violence.

Just like a Christian.

By Randy

October 28, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

DB, No one has implied that ID is scientific. To me science is man’s attempt to explain a world without God. One has nothing to do with the other. What we Christians object to is teaching a theory which is unproven(Macro-evolution). I remember being back in school and learning about evolution and going to church at the same time and I never considered church to be incorrect, just because of what some teacher was teaching me in school. I also remember getting out of college and people asking me, is college helping you with business? I remember saying, you know college teaches you many things, but very little relates to real life. It’s true, college just teaches you how to learn, not many facts that are revelant in real life.

By Randy

October 28, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this

That is what you have done from day 1 on this site John72. Hostile. Hostile. Go get you a punching bag, or find you a girlfriend.

By Randy

October 28, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

Ok that’s 652 posts on this site and no argument to ID being a science.

By Terry

October 28, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this

Randy, are you really that dense. There have been posts too numerous to mention explaining in nauseating detail what the criterion is to be considered science. Amd I’m not going to reiterate it again. Suffice it to say ID doesn’t meet any measure of the concept of science.

You even said, just a couple of posts ago No one has implied that ID is scientific. Ok, well if it ain’t science, then we don’t need to consider speaking of it in a science class. That should be the end of this discussion.

And you can just continue with your quaint, pagan ideology.

By The72John

October 28, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

Yes Randy, I’m hostile towards fundamentalist fanatics. Glad you noticed! You are damn right. I think they - and therefore you - are one of the most dangerous groups on the planet today. I think we would all be far better off if you could just be exterminated off the face of the planet.

Unfortunately, doing so would make US as bad as YOU, so we don’t have that option. Apart from that, some of us actually do value human life in general, not just the lives of those people who exactly agree with us. We even truly believe in the value of freedom, unlike you people, so we have to let you run your yaps even when you are spouting out nonsense.

That said, let’s look at another of your statements: “No one has implied that ID is scientific”. Apparently, you missed the many, many, many posts where Chuck has said exactly the opposite. IN FACT, Chuck said very specifically “Yes, DB, ID is scientific”, and also “It is a fast growing branch of science. I personally don’t care if you acknowledge that fact at all.”

So…you claim to know all but you can’t even keep track of your one ally’s comments? Doesn’t speak highly of your omniscience.

By Randy

October 28, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this

Wow John72, You must have a rough world to live in, being that even the most liberal organizations acknowledge that 94-95% of people in the USA believe in a God. That 52 of 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were devout Christians, that the Christian population in the world is put now at 2 Billion. I glad we have someone like you here, who knows everything. Someone who is smarter than Newton, Einstein, and 90 percent of the greatest minds in the last 1000 years, who all believed in God. People would get confused, if you were not here to set them straight. Your are the one who is dangerous.

By Terry

October 28, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this

Has anyone noticed that Chuck is strangely absent from today’s discussion. Seems he made a commitment at the end of the day yesterday (October 27, 2005 04:43 PM) promising to explain the science of ID.

I guess the concept of keeping your word is not part of his idea of living a responsible life. I wonder if that’s true of all Christian fundamentalists.

By The72John

October 28, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

Perhaps you don’t know the difference between a fundamentalist and a normal person of faith, Randy?

Not surprising, as you also don’t know the difference between your a* and a hole in the ground.

By Terry

October 28, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

90% of the greatest minds of the last 1000 years live in a pagan society where the earth was the center of the universe. We’re growing out of that need to believe in gods and beginning to see that morals and ethics are not something to be edicted from on high.

(By the way how many Mulsims or Buddist or Hindu in the world today?)

By Randy

October 28, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

So there are normal persons of faith??? Wow, there might be hope for you yet. I guess a fundementalist is someone who won’t back down when you start attacking them. I basically just go to church and didn’t do that for a 15 year period in my 20’s and 30’s.

By Randy

October 28, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this

Muslims are 1.5 Billion, Hindu’s and Buddist’s are much smaller. Again this is probably on the internet.

By Stewie

October 28, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this

For Randy,

I’m one of those that believe in a God also, but not your particular narrow interpretion.

And apparently many Christian institutions don’t believe the same as you either This is from Baylor University, one of the most rigid religious institutions in the country. It appears on their biology department’s web site:

“Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University, Waco, TX, teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science’s statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously.”

But I forgot you almost have an MBA so you must know something they don’t.

By lozen

October 28, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this

The Exxon Mobile news is disgusting isn’t it? Oh yeah the gas companies really were having a hard time last quarter! There is no way to argue with a religious fanatic. Chuck actually believes learning about evolution will put the souls of young people in danger of hell fire! And that one can work out mathematically how Noah got all the animals on the Ark! How can you debate such idiocy? No Randy, you are the one who is dangerous. Abortion is not murder and no woman should ever be forced to become a mother!

By Randy

October 28, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this

Stewie, I believe in God, but I’m not God. If I have a narrow interpretation of God, maybe God won’t require that of you(I wouldn’t chance that though). You, me and everyone else will be judged by the creator, not by me.

By Randy

October 28, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

Iozen, It simple on abortion, use birth control. If you don’t want to have a baby don’t spread your legs without being prepared. That way you don’t murder a innocent child.

By Randy

October 28, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

The conversation has been stimulating but I am out of here. Everyone have a great weekend.

By The72John

October 28, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

Yes Randy, you’re so right! A fundamentalist isn’t someone who adheres to a narrow, strict interpretation of their religion and, because of an inability to imagine that the nature of the world might in any way differ from this dogmatic interpretation of everything, honestly believes that everyone should be forced through law or force to believe and behave as he does, despite vast evidence to the contrary, for their own good.

It’s just someone who refuses to back down. Bravo!

By Boscoe

October 28, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

So how did the scientific world come to such a sorry state? James Gray (himself an evolutionist) has said: “No amount of argument, or clever epigram, can disguise the inherent improbability of orthodox evolutionary theory; but most biologists feel it is better to think in terms of the improbable than not to think at all.”.. Evolutionists are beginning to feel the “heat” of contrary evidence to their sacred theory. In fact, even evolutionists are turning against other evolutionists, who they fear have abandoned the cause. Michael Ruse, professor of history and philosophy of biology at the University of Guelph, Ontario, has written a defense of evolutionary theory entitled Darwinism Defended in which he accuses some of his fellow evolutionists of thinking the following:”Why is it that something so bogus, so clearly inadequate when judged by the stringent criteria of genuine science, should have gone so far? Why has Darwinism been such a success for 100 years, despite the sense of unease that so many clear thinkers have felt? It is simply because Darwinism has no rivals!In a sense, this accusation is true. The rational arguments for creation have often been poorly framed. Worse yet, the debate has not been engaged in by many Catholics who are seemingly afraid of appearing anti-scientific. The atheistic implications of this theory is immense. According to A.N. Field, “Its principal achievement has been to empty the churches by mass manufacture of atheists and materialists.” The powerful ideological foundation of evolution is expressed by Bozarth: “Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing. “Furthermore, In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The Creator is stripped of His creative power in the modern mind, and soon fades from memory: “… Darwinianism amounts to no more and no less than a denial of God’s creative efficacy in the sphere of biogenesis and speciation.”On the ashes of destroyed Christian belief, an idol arises. Pierre Paul Grassé, France’s foremost zoologist states, “Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshiped.” In this ideological void, a new belief system arises to replace the old: “… the evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern, however incompletely, the lineaments of the new religion that we can be sure will arise to serve the needs of the coming era.”A universal law of the cosmos is the Law of Entropy, also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Entropy means the steady disorganization of a closed system, which is witnessed by all of us on a daily basis. If you do not put energy into cleaning and organizing your room, for instance, it naturally tends towards disorganization; it becomes messy. The Second Law states that the universe is going from the organized to the less organized. Evolutionary theory, however, states just the opposite: species are tending towards greater organization and complexity, in opposition to the universally applicable Law of Entropy. How can this be? In order to demonstrate that evolution did in fact occur, evidence of transitional forms between species (showing the transition from one species to another, such as from a reptile to a bird) must exist. And these transitional-form fossils (if they exist) must be very numerous, as they are a record of a very long period of evolution, leaving a “trail”, so to speak, in the rock strata. Is there evidence for this occurrence? No, there is not. But what we do find is what has been called the “Cambrian Explosion”, where the fossils appear so suddenly and numerously in the Cambrian rock strata that it has received this name. “The first abundant fossil record of complex invertebrates appears in rocks of the so-called Cambrian Period…. In Cambrian rocks are found fossils of tribolites, sponges, brachiopods, worms, jellyfish, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, swimming crustaceans, sea lilies, and other complex invertebrates. The appearance of this great variety of complex creatures is so startlingly sudden that it is commonly referred to as the ‘Cambrian explosion’ in geological literature.”The evolutionist Niles Eldredge, a paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, states: Creationists have made much of this sudden development of a rich and varied fossil record where, just before, there was none… “The sudden appearance of a varied, well-preserved array of fossils, which geologists have used to mark the beginnings of the Cambrian Period (the oldest division of the Paleozoic Era) does pose a fascinating intellectual challenge.The fossil record was key to Darwin, and he recognized that ultimately the proof for evolution would have to come from this fossil record. “Darwin was embarrassed by the fossil record, because it didn’t look the way he predicted it would, and, as a result, he devoted a long section of his Origin of Species to rationalize the differences” According to the biogeneticist Michael Denton, the absence of transitional forms is “one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record.” Stephen Jay Gould, professor of zoology at Harvard University, calls the lack of fossils “the trade secret of paleontology.” There is consistency in the fossil record, but not of the kind hoped for by evolutionists: “But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places.” G.K. Chesterton once said, “The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing.” When the fossils do appear, they appear complete. George Simpson (an evolutionist) points out, “It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly, and are not led up to by gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” Furthermore, the fossil record is not a witness of “transitional forms fading into each other, but to the stability of the type.” Therefore, fossil evidence to support the theory of gradual transitional changes in species does not exist.

By DeltaX

October 28, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this

And here is lozen to bring up abortion again - thanks, your one post for the day has to complicate the blog more.

You do not care what I would rather? Understood; but that does not change your uselessness and damaging prattle.

FYI for those who may not understand my dislike for Lozen: See bloggers; the same frustration of the fundies not being able to discuss a topic rationally occurs with lozen and whiley. Who, I might add, claim it is a purely mans world [where all men are held responsible for the 2% that commit crimes] but do not partake in a wholistic debates or world issues.

They will all come out again when it is a topic about women though and demand that these things are mens fault.

By The72John

October 28, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

Was that supposed to be somehow meaningful?

By lozen

October 28, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

By FatMoose It discourages me to see that there have been about two posts by females after the “we have equal weight in this worldâ€? rants last week. The first a rage post regarding religion The second a joke at mens expense The lack of opinion from women bugs me and their non-participation in wholeistic issues drives the notion that they are just not plugged in - unless the topic revolves around them.[thats my quick vent for the day - thanks for tolerating it] Fatmoose, why are you so hostile toward women? Why do you use this blog to put down women over and over? Why do you believe you aren’t part of the problem for women? When we do post, you tell us how crazy we are and what biddies we are and how much you laugh at us. Then you get your 17 year old daughter involved in the discussion and teach her to laugh at the more experienced women on this blog and to have no respect for other women. When we don’t post, you get bugged and you “choose” to think we aren’t interested unless the topic revolves around us! I’ve been following the discussion all week just as some of the other women have and I’ve learned a lot. But I still don’t know why you have no respect for women; was it something with your mother? Have you ever tried therapy?

By DeltaX

October 28, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

Boscoe’s posts meaningful?

I think we are all still waiting for that day…

The72John Know much about backup dna? They recently found that many lower forms of life can revert to previous dna sequences that provided a better edge - which is quite instantanious.

By Stewie

October 28, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, Wow…that must have taken a long time to type..

You know you might as well post your source, so everyone can go see what other gems you are reading, especially the ones on how to avoid being possessed by the devil.

www.tldm.org/News8/evolutionAntiScience.htm

You are kind of late to the party..all of those points have already been addressed.

By DeltaX

October 28, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

I cannot speak for Fatmoose;

But I dislike you, a fundie woman - not women.

By Billy

October 28, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

Boscoe — blah, blah, blah.

Hopefully whatever school you went to has started teaching things like paragraph structure…

By FatMoose

October 28, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

But I can speak for me…

Ditto on what DX said.

And if it was a lack of respect for ‘women,’ why are you and whiley the only two? That does not constitute lying and stating that I act a certain way to all women. It is TWO women that I have no respect for - and maybe a couple floaters.

By chuck

October 28, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

Whew! finally got a little breather today. Haven’t had time to read today’s posts, but here is a synopsis of why ID should be taught in science class IF evolution is taught:

These conditions for considering an idea to be a scientific theory came from an atheist web site. I posted them earlier, but I want to add some emphasis today.A scientific theory must be: 1. a simple unifying idea that postulates nothing unnecessary (“Occam’s Razor�) 2. logically consistent 3. logically falsifiable (i.e., cases must exist in which the theory can be imagined to be invalid) 4. clearly limited by explicit boundary conditions so that it is clear whether or not particular data are or are not relevant to verification or falsification

Empirical Criteria

A scientific theory must: 1. be empirically testable or lead to predictions or retrodictions that are testable 2. actually make verified predictions and/or retrodictions 3. involve reproducible results 4. provide criteria for the interpretation of data as factual, artifactual, anomalous or irrelevant.

Having gone back to read DB’s answer to my request, I only had time to read one article on the Ensatina Salamander. According to that web site and others, speciation occurs when an organism changes to the point where it cannot reproduce offspring that can reproduce with the original organism.

That being the case, let’s just look at one case where that is false. If organisms, according to that definition, cannot produce reproducing offspring, they are different species. Look at lions and tigers. Lions and tigers are different species. I think everybody can easily look that up if you doubt it. Lions and tigers have reproduced offspring and while most of those offspring are sterile, there are a number of them who have reproduced. According to evolution that should not be possible, but it has occurred. Logics teaches that if any part of a statement is false then the whole statement is false.

It has been shown that, Biologists offer a dozen definitions of the term “species” (Claridge, Dawah, and Wilson 1997). These definitions are not fringe accounts of species but prominent definitions in the current biological literature.

Let’s look at the logical case for teaching ID as a science. Scientists themselves cannot agree on even the definition of a species. Scientists use so-called speciation as a proof of evolution present and infer that it therefore proves evolution past. If there is one case of separate species producing offspring that are not sterile should scientists then declare that these two species are actually the same species? Not necessarily, but it does show that the definition of speciation is at best flawed.

Now let’s look at the criteria for an idea becoming a theory. ID clearl meets 3 out of the 4 criteria in each set and part of a 4th criteria in the second set. The idea that it is not scientific because it doesn’t meet EVERY criteria is ludicrous. Even some of the scientists who have posted on this topic concede the idea of a creator. If there is agreement on the idea of a creator even among scientists (some anyway), shouldn’t science look for evidence that confirms OR refutes the claim? How can science do that if it isn’t studied in science classes?

Also, (and I am aware this is kind of disjointed and hurried, but this is th last day to post on the topic and my last chance to get it in so I can’t help that) think about who sets the “rules” or criteria for determining whether or not an idea is worthy to be called a theory…scientists who have only been taught evolution and who further would have been ridiculed for even acknowledging ID. If you have bought into evolution as THE ONLY explanation, then you are obviously going to try to keep out competing ideas as a “waste of time”. That is just another way of saying that your mind is made up and you don’t want to hear anything that refutes your “deeply held beliefs” in evolution. You become guilty of the same thing you accuse creationists of.

The National Academy of Sciences defines a theory as:

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. ID certainly meets that requirement, again with at least 3 of those covered. It certainly is a theory. This is even admitted by that venerable bastion of evolutionary thought the National Geographic which said the following, and I quote:

“National Geographic Evolutionary theoryâ€â€?that acts of random mutation and natural selection over millions of years gave rise to us humans and all other lifeâ€â€?is the best answer scientists can give to the question of life’s origins. But the answer is hardly satisfying to many Americans. A recent CBS News poll found that 55 percent of respondents did not believe in the theory of evolution at allâ€â€?and even most scientists agree that the theory leaves some questions about biological origins unanswered. Most career evolutionary biologists delight in the unexplained (for one thing, it means they’ll have jobs for at least a while longer as they search for answers). More and more people, though, are gravitating towards an alternative explanation: intelligent design. Intelligent-design theory states that certain features of the natural world are of such complexity that the most plausible explanation is that they are products of an intelligent cause rather than random mutation and natural selection. Supporters of the theory say the nature of the intelligent cause is outside the scope of the theory.”

You can see the concession in bold (my emphasis)in their statement. Not being a scientist, I am not even going to attempt to explain the science behind ID. You can look at the following if you want to read about that:

http://www.idthefuture.com/index.php?p=934&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#more934

http://speakout.com/activism/opinions/3116-1.html

http://www.kansasscience2005.com/WellsJ%20reply.doc

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm

Also a number of other sites.

By SoMuchStupidnessHere

October 28, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

Intelligent-design theory states that certain features of the natural world are of such complexity that the most plausible explanation is that they are products of an intelligent cause rather than random mutation and natural selection. Supporters of the theory say the nature of the intelligent cause is outside the scope of the theory.�

Excellent, because it is currently UNknown, must be ID.

Kinda like the earth being the center of the universe, and the sun revolving around the earth? LOL

By chuck

October 28, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

That’s not what it said dufus. It said ID is the most plausible explanation.

By Billy

October 28, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

Chuck, your sites are from people with agendas, I believe. Kansas Science? Is that what we want this decision based on?

By lozen

October 28, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

Oh, and here comes Deltax, sticking his pin head out of his little hole again. Deltax thinks it’s his responsibility to keep us pure on the blog. Somehow though it’s only when I say anything this week (never mind the stupidity of Randy, Boscoe or Chuck) that it becomes
“prattle” for Deltax and he gets hysterical again. Deltax, what did I say that got your little tiny panties in such a wad?

By lozen

October 28, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

Freud said “Religion is the mass neurosis of humanity.” Boscoe, Chuck and Randy lend a great deal of credence to that statement.

By DeltaX

October 28, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this

I am not having another bs conversation with you lozen; you have proven you (note: specifically you - whether yu are a man or woman) do not have anything to provide.

Taking to you is a waste of time like the fundies.

By lozen

October 28, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

Intelligent Design = creationism Creationism = ID

Intelligent design = creationism = folk tales, superstition, mythology.

By The72John

October 28, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

I suspect that primitive man thought that the sun revolving around the earth was the most plausible explanation, too. Primitive being the operative word.

You know, other than the obvious problem of ID trying to inject superstition into science, the other obvious flaw is that it is not forward-looking, it’s backward-looking. It does not seek to DISCOVER new knowledge, it seeks to make existing knowledge conform to old.

What benefit, other than making religious fanatics like Chuck and Randy happy, does ID bring to mankind? None. It is a ready-made easy answer that does absolutely nothing to meet the goals of science - to learn more.

Don’t understand something? Lacking a piece of the puzzle? Must be God!

Possible responses to a pandemic flu outbreak:

A Real Scientist: It’s a good thing that we’ve advanced so far - we are able to track the changes that have allowed this virus to devlop the capability to efficiently transfer itself from host to host! Now we can develop a vaccine and treatment and reduce our world-wide death toll.

An ID Charlatan:

By lozen

October 28, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

Delsux, is that a promise?

By The72John

October 28, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

new knowledge confirm to old - should be old beliefs.

And the ID Charlatan’s line was: Cough

By DeltaX

October 28, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

Name calling?

And you are how old?

Absured.

By DeltaX

October 28, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this

And what would ID provide that religion does not already for those who choose it?

What would it alow us to test in the future?

And by the same reasoning religous groups deduced through their infinite wisdom that aids was generated by gays. Yeah - that is the kind of science the world needs! (sarcastic)

By Stewie

October 28, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

According to evolution that should not be possible, but it has occurred.

That’s not an accurate statement.

The lion/tiger mating you are referring to is an example of hybridization. The salamander article showed that the salamanders had drifted apart genetically enough that they normally would not breed with each other, however the article also cited a number of examples of hybridization, and the DNA analysis…which showed the progeny to be gentically identical to one (not both) of the parent species.

Here is a good article on it from a professor’s lecture: http://www.auburn.edu/~folkegw/evsys/introgr.htm

The geographical distribution drove the divergence, which is the principal of species rings…the fact that they might have successful reproduction doesn’t invalidate that principal, the populations of salamanders are still distinct.

As far as ID meeting those criteria, I don’t see it…can you explain? Until you can produce the designer, how can you test for the design or lack of it?

By FatMoose

October 28, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

Aids

Two [of the many] possible conclusions:

The scientist come up with: a complex process creating a complex organism that took ages to form.

The IDers path would look like this: Or that god is mean, and will smite those opposed (where did choice go?), but did not think that it would spread to his followers - and made a miscalculation. So now, we must sacrifice a goat to have him remove this issue.

By Stewie

October 28, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

And this statement:

Intelligent-design theory states that certain features of the natural world are of such complexity that the most plausible explanation is that they are products of an intelligent cause rather than random mutation and natural selection.

Why is ID the most plausible explanation? Just because something hasn’t been explained yet doesn’t mean it can’t be explained eventually…

By SoMuchStupidnessHere

October 28, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

wow, all week and we did not hear the “likelihood of life not being ID is the same as a strong wind ripping through a junkyard and turning out a Boeing 747” argument.

or the “7-chimpanzees banging on 7 typewriters for 7 years could probably turn out a so-so novel’ argument.

By DB

October 28, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

Again, chuck evades the question and starts the “scientists” can’t agree on a definition of species. Wrong, chuck. Macroevolution or speciation means several things, but in sexually reproducing organisms, it means they are new species when they can’t reproduce with each other, period. In the case of the Lion and Tiger making a STERILE Liger, that is an example of speciation in progress. Part of the theory states that in highly related species, like cats, some of the offspring can reproduce and create fertile females in that they have not fully speciated. So, in other words, chuck, the speciation between lions and tigers is not quite finished. And your rant about lions and tigers is not an example of the failure of evolution; it bolsters it to show “intermediate” examples of speciation. AND THAT IS WHY I DIDN’T INCLUDE IT IN MY LIST OF EXAMPLES OF SPECIATION!!!!! That’s the whole point chuck. The disagreement you pointed out is that some scientists think cats and dogs should be considered highly related subspecies and not quite fully separate species if they can still reproduce.

The point is that you so insidiously failed to elaborate on the ENSATINA in your useless rant about the lion and tiger, which is a great example of species follow for the past few hundred years and found to meet back in some valleys after isolation only to see they can’t reproduce. So, what do you have to say about ENSATINA? I see you avoided that topic quite well and clung to the “proponents” latest laundry list of nonsense. ENSATINA shows 7 different variants, and some cannot reproduce(speciation), and some can, and some barely, do with further supports the intermediate levels that takes place before full speciation.

Now, again, where is your scientific defense of ID?

We’re still waiting chuck. You have absolutely zero scientific credibility at this point.

By chuck

October 28, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

Well Stewie, if it cannot be explained by evolution, what other possibility is there?

By Billy

October 28, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this

DB, I swear I read something about the Arctic Tern that sounded similar to the ensatina example. That was several years ago, though. Do you recall this example?

By Stewie

October 28, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

Well Stewie, if it cannot be explained by evolution, what other possibility is there?

I think I alluded to that answer but we may have a posting delay issue here.

You say “cannot be explained”…I say “hasn’t been explained yet”. Guess it depends on your motivation to know.

But I also say God is the architect, Evolution is the general contractor.
(Actually, I just stole that from my wife )

Time to go home…I enjoyed the debate (except for Randy)

By DeltaX

October 28, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this

For IDers,

There is a creator, which I believe there is (god), and this complex world/system; think about how complex god is…

You think that even IF the science existed, you could do the math? Your want/need of putting god in science is absurd. And I say that out of respect for god.

By mit

October 28, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. ID certainly meets that requirement, again with at least 3 of those covered. It certainly is a theory.

id incorporates: facts: no, give me the facts. laws: what laws? inferences: you can’t have inferences with ID testable hypotheses: no, ID can not be tested.

chuck. it certainly is NOT a SCIENTIFIC theory. nowhere in your post did you provide one clear testable fact of ID being science. you basically typed (cut and pasted probably) all that for nothing.

By Alexander

October 28, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

In his uncommon way of seeing the universe, Issac Asimov in his non-fiction “In the Beginning” did one of the nicest jobs of placing evolution alongside creation, then - stripping-away the disparate time scales - revealed a remarkably similar chronology. Under either scenario, life on Earth developed in the same sequence and with the same amount of mystery and wonder.

Should ID be tought in the public classroom is a discussion I’ll reserve for ethicists and philosophers, not armchair theologians.

I for one, hope we never arrive at a finite answer to the question of why are we here and where do we come from, because whatever one believes, that is the mysterious truth which we can all celebrate and be inspired.

By Whiley

October 28, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this

“Yawn”, what woman truely cares about this topic? What I’m concerned about was that guy who kidnapped a 63-year-old retirement home resident in the Lawrenceville area, drove him to Chamblee, and was arrested after running naked into a Subway store.

Teaching of Intelligent Design theory????? Are you kidding me?

lol

By Terry

October 28, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this

Thanks for a reply chuck!!! I appreciate your attempt at a rational, scientific explanation of your view on this subject. You didn’t quite make it, but I appreciate the effort!

Admirable try, but obfuscation won’t help - 3 out of 4 doesn’t cut it. Note that the definition of theory has an and clause in it. Basic logic 101 say that an and MEANS THAT ALL CRITERIA IS NECESSARY. An or clause would let you get away with your logic, but that’s just not science. Also, the one criteria you can’t cover is TESTED (and you left out independently verifiable). Which, of course, is the key to differentiating science from fancy nonsense. (And I honestly don’t think you have any of them covered, but whatever.)

Again, no. They each need to stand alone and be judged by a measure of the definition of science. That is, we must analyze how the Theory of Evolution measures up to the scientific method separately from analyzing how ID measures up to that same scientific yardstick.

If either of them pass the muster of being based on independently verifiable scientific hypotheses, then they should be included in science. If they don’t, then they are subjects for a philosophy class.

Again, scientist continually asks questions. If we don’t know the answer today, then it is a scientist’s job to keep asking questions until we do - that’s science. Using if we don’t currently know the answer, then it must be God as an answer is really closing the door on scientific inquiry all the way back to the Dark Ages. That’s an anathema to science.

Two axioms to keep in mind as you try to understand the concepts of science and logic:

Again, I appreciate you playing along, but, sorry, no prize for you today. Maybe you can play again some other time!

By DeltaX

October 28, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this

We could test ID by applying all the old testiment rules (you know the ones where you pay the father for raping his daughter…etc) for the next 20 years and see if the world get better or worse!

I am better on worse - and therefor a false theory. Lets start with eye-for-eye.

Hold on a second! This was already tested! And we moved away from it for a reason - bc that path leads down spanish inquisition avenue - right next to holocoust rd! I do not want to be in that ‘hood again!