Framers and writers back to work. 12 counties?!

The 58 men and women who worked on the original draft of the new Florida science standards are now back at it. They’re going through all the public and professional input that has flooded in over the past few months. May the force be with them.
This opinion article in the Miami Herald by writer Fred Grimm gave me some serious things to ponder.

Oscar Howard Jr., superintendent of Taylor County’s School District, and Danny Lundy, vice chairman of the School Board, spoke in accents from that other Florida. ”We’re opposed to teaching evolution as a fact,” Howard said, adding that his School Board and 11 others have passed resolutions against the imposition of evolution in the school curriculum.

Wait a minute. Did I read that right? Eleven other counties passed anti-evolution resolutions? How in the world did that escape any real public notice until now? I’m only aware of three right now. I can understand a few school boards hiding in the shadows and only attracting the attention of their little weekly newspapers. But 12 total? TWELVE?! And here I was feeling so clever for discovering one by poking around in search engines. I feel silly now.

And here’s a real good point that should shame just about everyone that has been stomping their feet about how offensive evolution is to them.

Then, the final speaker, Lisa Dizengoff, director of science curriculum at Pembroke Pines Charter School’s east campus, angrily reminded the crowd that after all the carping over evolution, no one had gotten around to addressing the state’s lackadaisical, last-century approach to science education.

”All I heard was this argument about evolution,” she said, disgusted that so many other problems had been preempted by a single controversy.

“The kids lost out again.”

Yes, I agree.

390 Responses to “Framers and writers back to work. 12 counties?!”

  1. S.Scott Says:

    OT – My friend, who is a Mormon, said she’s “all for” the new standards except for the “wording” of this one. Maybe this is why people are in such an uproar.
    – - – Benchmark SC.912.L.2.7: Express scientific explanations of the origin of
    life on Earth.

  2. Ravilyn Sanders Says:

    Oscar Howard Jr and Danny Lundy, seemed to have let the cat out of the bag. I am sure they are going to be admonished by those pulling the levers behind the curtains.

    The idea seems to be to pass such resolutions quietly, without much of public knowledge, but send the comments directly to the state level committee. Then work on PR saying, “XX county boards have serious objects, official objections etc” and spin it in the media.

    I think the activists file freedom of info request to get the list of the counties that have passed such secret resolutions and submitted to the state board. We should make them explain why they kept it a secret.

    Florida, the sunshine state, needs more sunlight in its school boards.

  3. Lane Taylor Says:

    Have you contacted the writer of that article to get his source for his claim of 12 counties/school boards?

    That seems like the logical first step.

    Cheers,
    Lane Taylor, VP, Kansas Citizens for Science

  4. Brandon Haught Says:

    The source was superintendent Howard. The writer was just paraphrasing him. I’ve sent out a few e-mails, though, to try to track things down, provided folks will correspond with me.

  5. Ben Abbott Says:

    The creationists are have some success even though they only represent a small proportion of our state. Their success is the result of the actions they take. It would be very useful to if a FAQ of sorts could be written telling those who want to become involved may accomplish that.

    Perhaps someone associated with “Florida Citizens for Science” can post information regarding to whom at the state level letters on this issue might be sent.

    Information regarding how to become involved with/on the school boards for the various counties under threat is also a good idea. Would it be possible to publicize their meeting times so that those who are concerned might attend?

    Ben

  6. Brandon Haught Says:

    Ben –

    Check out our Call to Action section of our website:
    http://www.flascience.org/xmas1.html
    There you will find contact information for all State Board of Education members … the folks who will be having the final say on the new draft of the state science standards.

    I also have been keeping this floating blog post updated:
    http://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=352
    There you will find names and links to contact information for all education decision makers who have spoken out in some way against evolution.

    Hope that helps!

  7. S.Scott Says:

    Is there a list of the 12 counties?
    I’d sort of like to compare it to these FCAT results:
    http://fcat.fldoe.org/xls/2007/F07g11Scistdis.xls

  8. robert senatore Says:

    Well the Yahoos have spoken… Time to open our first salvo…
    The Dover decision is from a Federal judge…
    Seems to me that we need to sue as SOON AS THE JACKASSES attempt to insert that crap into any science curriculum!!!
    It is time to fight back NOW!!

  9. Kim Says:

    Scott, the first indication is that the resolution school boards are doing on average the same as the state.

  10. S.Scott Says:

    Kim – Do you know what the 12 counties are?

  11. Kim Says:

    No, that were the three we know from until now. I repost as soon as I know them all.

  12. Karen R Says:

    I just e-mailed Ms. Conte here in Volusia to express my gratitude for her support of science education in general and evolution specifically.

    Is there anything I can do in terms of searching out or contacting school boards to help root out these counties hoping to thwart science without detection? Feel free to e-mail me if there is anything I can help you with.

  13. firemancarl Says:

    Brandon, look at this, it was posted on Pharyngula. The reply is on the top. i am sure you will notice just how childish the reply from the SB member is. I think it says a lot about wots going on……

    Anybody interested in more information, feel free to contact me via this message board.
    From: Mark Southerland [mailto:soho@gtcom.net]
    Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:30 PM
    To: Schmidt,Casey Adam
    Subject: Re: Evolutionary theory

    LETS SEE NOW, YOU ARE A TEACHING ASSISTANT AND I CAN RESPECT YOUR OPINION, WHICH I DO NOT AGREE WITH- YOU MAY WANT TO CHECK OUT THIS WEB SITE – http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/ AND SEE HOW MANY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE WITH YOU-CHECK IT OUT YOU MAY START HAVING SOME OTHER VIEWS ON THIS SUBJECT-HOWEVER I WILL NOT CALL YOU AN IDIOT OR IGNORANT EVEN THOUGH I BELIEVE YOU MAY WELL BE. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME, MARK SOUTHERLAND-SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER DISTRICT ONE- TAYLOR COUNTY FLORIDA.
    —– Original Message —–
    From: Schmidt,Casey Adam
    To: mark.southerland@taylor.k12.fl.us
    Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 8:52 AM
    Subject: Evolutionary theory

    Dear Sir
    I am currently a teaching assistant and research assistant at the University of Florida working on my PhD in a science related field and I have a BS in Biology. While it is disheartening for me to have to educate people who are tasked with the important job of creating teaching standards for our vulnerable children, it appears this is necessary. Firstly, your description of evolution as a theory of how the universe is formed, immediately elucidates your ignorance of the issue and forces anyone reading the resolution to think you are arguing from ignorance. While it is tempting to dismiss your conflation of how the billions of suns and planets formed with how species have changed over time and thus conclude your entire argument is false, I will flatter you and continue. You are correct that evolution is considered a Scientific Theory but in scientific terms a Theory is used in a much different manner than in common parlance, where it means just a hunch, or an idea that needs testing. Evolution was initially a hypothesis, which is roughly equivalent to the common usage of the word hunch. His hypothesis has gone through decades of testing from many independent trials and lines of evidence (genetics, the fossil record). During the period of discovery, If ONE single piece of evidence could accurately discredit evolution, the whole theory would have to be dropped as false and scientists would move on trying to find another way to explain the transitions in the fossil record and the genetics and similarities of living forms, but the question would still be there. But during this period of discovery these lines of evidence have thoroughly and confidently strengthened Darwin’s hypothesis more than Darwin could have ever dreamed of. Therefore, Darwin’s hypothesis got elevated to the status of Theory, the final resting place. Because you see, a Scientific Theory is stronger than mere facts, a theory explains a whole suite of facts and thus is much more powerful than the individual and dry facts. The same is true of the Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Plate tectonics. Perhaps I am wasting my time explaining the science, from your mischaracterization of evolutionary theory it becomes apparent that you are more interested in what you perceive are the implications of the theory on your religious and spiritual beliefs. On that issue, I don’t have much to say except to mention, do you think it is fair to force your students to be blinded by your personal religious and spiritual objections. If you truly cared about your students, you would understand that they are going to be competing for jobs and continuing the great American project of industry, technology and scientific advancement. As a current teacher who was educated in another state, I have noticed that the students of Florida have a lot of catching up to do in many areas. If we truly care about our children, that would be our highest priority rather than promoting our own idiosyncratic religious beliefs.
    Sincerely
    Casey Schmidt M.S.
    Posted by: Casey S | January 10, 2008 1:48 PM

  14. nikolai Says:

    Lawsuits should be brought to bear. Religion must be kept out of government and vice-versa. Even the bible says to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to god what is god’s. Pretty damn clear I’d say.

  15. Dani Says:

    It really pisses me off when Scientists want evolution in Schools and whine when bills like this pass, or are in the works. That idiot who wanted “Under God” taken out of the Pledge should have been shot. I don’t believe having “another thought process” taught in schools is promoting idiosyncratic religious beliefs. I don’t understand why the idea of evolution AND the idea of another creation can be taught in schools? Then let the child make their own decision based on the PRESUMED thought processes presented to them, coupled with their upbringing. IMAGINE THAT – A WORLD WHERE PEOPLE GET ALONG AND TWO SIDES COME TOGETHER…

  16. S.Scott Says:

    Dani –
    Religious conflict and persecution pervaded early America, even
    though most of the settlers had fled England to escape from religious
    intolerance there. For example, the Puritans established the
    Massachusetts Bay Colony as a theocratic state in which Catholics,
    Quakers and others were regarded as heretics and subject to the death
    penalty. In turn, the Catholics who founded Maryland persecuted
    Protestants and even some Catholics who professed their faith in
    unconventional ways. On the other hand, the Baptists of Providence,
    Rhode Island believed that all religions should be allowed to
    flourish. Gradually church-state separation came to be seen as the
    key to ending the destructive religious warfare and ensuring
    religious freedom for all.
    “Lectric Law Library”

  17. Dani Says:

    to ensure religious freedom for all means only allowing a theory of evolution in schools, with no mention of any other theory or thought process? That’s insane, no that’s socialistic…
    I was livid when my son came home from school one day and told me he no longer believed in God, but was absolutely convinced that we were products of evolution. I’m sorry, but does anyone not see a problem with that. You can teach evolution as a theory, but I do not approve of teaching it as the ONLY theory because it’s not!!!

  18. Karen R Says:

    Dani – no, evolution isn’t the only theory – but it’s the only SCIENTIFIC theory. As such, it’s the only theory that should be taught in science classrooms. Many ardent ‘Darwinists’ have no problem with the creation (ha!) of comparative religion or philosophy courses in which a variety of origin myths can be discussed. What we fight for is science in science classes.

  19. Dani Says:

    Then if evolution is the only “scientific” theory, do science teachers and Evolutionists go to Church? And if so, what religion is practiced?

  20. Henry Says:

    Dani:

    God(s) are make believe. Science is factual.

    Grow up and lost the fairy tales, it’s pathetic.

  21. Mike Says:

    Why do you never see scientists trying to muscle their way into church to alter what they say but the religious kooks think it’s fine to try redefining science?

    The ones who are loudest against evolution are generally the ones with less education. Very telling.

  22. Gabe Says:

    Dani,

    As others have stated, evolution is the the only scientific theory involved in these debates, and as such, only it has a place in science classes. Creationism and intelligent design as they are being promoted are not scientific theories, and are specific to particular groups within (usually) Christianity. By allowing creationism or intelligent design to be taught in a science class, we would be violating the establishment clause of the Constitution. We’d have to teach every creation story of every religion and persuasion, which is not only impossible, but also has no place in a science class. Leave it for a comparative religion class, maybe.

    Also, evolution does not necessarily conflict with religion, or even Christianity. If you’re interested in understanding why, I suggest you read Francis Collins’ book, “The Language of God.” (He was the head of the Human Genome Project, and is a well-respected scientist.)

  23. Dan C Says:

    Dani-

    What point are you trying to make?
    Why does it matter if scientists go to church?

    A theory is just that…a theory. No one is forcing anyone to hold it as what they believe.

    I’m sorry that you were upset by your son’s comment. The thing is, it’s a SCIENCE classroom, not a religious classroom; that is why you will not see anything other than scientific theory taught in science class.

  24. JLO Says:

    Dani writes, “It really pisses me off when Scientists want evolution in Schools and whine when bills like this pass, or are in the works.”

    You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. The “bill” that you are referring to must be the proposed science standards. And those standards will include the teaching of evolution because that is an important part of science.

    It’s the religious people like you who are doing the whining, the attacking, the lying and all the hyperbole. So stop your whining and take your religion back to church.

  25. mj Says:

    Dani, are you for real or are you trolling? Sorry, I’m in Canada and am not used to seeing such ignorance.

    What FACTS would you teach in a science class?
    How would you back up those FACTS with experiments?

  26. Jacques Says:

    Dani, religion is for church, go to church and pray to your god (or whatever fairy tale you happen to believe in) that you will one day be intelligent enough to understand that there are two issues at play here. One is religious, the other is scientific. They do not cross paths. Or they shouldn’t, it’s only idiots who think that something as foolish as “intelligent design” even comes close to being classified as a scientific theory. It is a terrible, failed attempt to inject religious fundamentalism into the science class.

    Scientists don’t try to discount your god in yoru church, so religionists shouldn’t be interfereing the the science class. You want to talk about creationism in school, do it in religion class, not science class.

    Goddamnit you people are idiots.

  27. Dani Says:

    I don’t want to redefine science, nor do I think believing in a God is any more of a fairy tale than believing in science.
    However, I do not agree that evolution is the only theory that should be touched on. Darwin conjured up a THEORY of evolution. A theory is where everything is possible; it’s a CONCEPT. Therefore, Religion, since you believe has no scientific basis, is also a theory.
    Henry, I will make sure I pray for your sole tonight :)

  28. Dani Says:

    Bottom line is that we all agree to disagree…
    I, personally am happy about this issue. Everyone wants to take religion out of every possible public sector, so why not the other side of the coin? Now you can get a taste of what it’s like. Kinda irritating huh…

  29. Bill Says:

    Even the Catholic Church has accepted the Theory of Evolution and has stated that there is a place for Evolution in Christianity. The creation story is just that, a story. It was written for a certain set of people at a certain time. It, like much of the bible was not meant to be taken 100% literally.

    Here is some Catholic goodness on Evolution:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

  30. Damien McKenna Says:

    People, please read the following:
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science
    This will explain what the concept of a scientific theory is – it’s a little different to the common use of the word and refers to the fact that a great deal of research has been done on the topic.

    Damien

  31. adrian Says:

    Thank God I’m Canadian. LOL.
    The problem is that arguing evolution with creationists requires them to learn. They are offended if you don’t know anything about their background, but the debate has nothing to do with genesis or any other religious matters.
    Science is an internally consistent body of knowledge that allows us to accurately model our universe. It’s built upon very strict rules of hypothesis, experimentation, and results. Everything in science has to be either consistent with the existing models, or reproducible for other scientists to use in order to correct the models.
    Religion is a allegorical based body of knowledge that allows us to model our consciences. The events described in religious texts are not reproducible and very often not consistent with other portions of the text or other religions. Everybody has their own relationship with God so to speak.
    When it comes down to it I want the guy who understands evolution to be working on the next flu vaccine. That method produces consistent results, whereas blessings from any religious source is a lot more random.

  32. Gabe Says:

    Ah, yes, the old “but evolution is just a ‘theory’” argument. Yes, it is a theory, just like germ theory and gravitational theory. Or more generally, music theory – the fundamental ideas that define a discipline.

    Also, by definition, science is naturalistic. Anyone who posits a super-natural cause or reason for something is not engaging in science. By definition, then, creationism and intelligent design are not science.

  33. Henry Says:

    “Henry, I will make sure I pray for your sole tonight”

    You can pray for me, I’ll think for both of us.

  34. Diana Says:

    Dani,

    What do you propose they teach in science class? Creationism has NO evidence to back it up. Nothing, not a pinch. Ergo, it is NOT SCIENCE.

    You want to open up the science classroom but to what? If you can’t replicate results in a lab or prove predictions with experimentation then it just isn’t science.

    How will you back up what you want to teach? What will you say when the kids question your god? Your son, by the way, sounds like a really smart kid. You should encourage him, not try to mash his mind into creationist pulp.

  35. firemancarl Says:

    Dani is a dolt who does not know the history of the pledge. Until 1950 is never had the phrase “under god” . You do not know the very history of things that make you mad.

    Children may make their own choices, but when it is time to learn I don’t think you’d be a fan of “hey mom, I don’t believe that 2+2 =4. I think it equals fish” So lets not go down that road shall we?

    Scientists get upset because this crapola that gets rammed down people throats is not science. You cannot verify the supernatural. Didja ever notice that as the human race because more intelligent, the less and god spoke to the people. Why is that?

    Evolution has withstood 150+ years of rigorous testing.

    BTW, it’s “soul” not “sole” unless you’re praying for Henrys’ feet.

  36. Dani Says:

    thanks henry, lol – (not being sarcastic.)

    i appreciate the insight and value everyone’s opinion (not the smartass comments, that’s really immature for a formidable discussion). I don’t have a closed mind to other people’s thoughts/opinions. I also appreciate the information provided. I too, want a scientist to work on the next flu vaccine and I’m not a fanatic that can’t have a blood transfusion or go to the hospital if i step on a nail.
    I also believe in science and find many aspects intriguing.
    But there are two sides to everything. Hope everyone has a good weekend.

  37. firemancarl Says:

    oopss a grammar correction for my 429PM post

    until 1950 is never —–should be “until 1950 IT….

    human race because more intelligent, should be” human race became….”

    I was typing faster that I was thinking.

  38. mike mg Says:

    Dani:

    i find it disheartening that you have a hard time separating science and faith, one is how and the other is why, dose religion have other explanations for electricity or chemestry,?

    they are not the same things if your child no longer believes in god(s) that is not the fault of the school, have you tough your child what you think is right and explained to him why.? if not why are you mad at the schools.?

    and here is a thought about any thing creationist in science class, what one do you teach, there are more religions than 1 so how do you propose to settle that argument.? i have yet to see that one proposed any where.

    i do plan on educating my children about religions and not just one i will educate him on many different ones from Mormen, Christian to Buddhist

    he will also be learning about sciance, and i will make sure that he knows that they are not the same thing nor can they be exchanged for one another

    “no religion has a corner stone on god, any religion that proposes it has a corner stone on god is an abomination among him. “

  39. Justin Says:

    Dani said: Henry, I will make sure I pray for your sole tonight :)

    =———–
    Why would you pray for this shoes?

    -JP

  40. Dani Says:

    P.S. Diana, I want my son to know and understand both sides of the coin, so he has ALL the information possible to make a decision on his own. Not be told there is ONLY one way to think or believe.

  41. firemancarl Says:

    Something you folks may be interested to know. According to the US Census Bureau, the states with the highest rates of divorce rate, teenage pregnancy, etc etc are all “red” states where they have highest number of religious folk.

  42. Dani Says:

    so was I firemancarl – but I’m getting the butt end of it, haha.
    Ok, I gotta go home…and rest my sole

  43. Jorenko Says:

    Dani, as regards your aside about the pledge of allegiance, you may be interested to know that the original pledge did NOT include the words “under God.” These were in fact added in the 1950s, and in my opinion not for the better, as because of freedom of religion, God has no part of my allegiance to my country.

    On to the matter at hand. The reason ID should not be taught along-side evolution is not because of closed-mindedness. It’s because ID, by definition, is not science. Science deals with the verification of ideas through experimentation and observation. However, ID deals only with faith, which is directly at odds with both experimentation and observation. Therefore, it cannot be taught in science class. This has been covered extensively by many sources. If you want to find out more about this, you may want to read the decision of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, wherein a federal judge decided this very issue. Here’s a handy link for you: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf .

  44. Nathan Says:

    Dani says “Darwin conjured up a THEORY of evolution.”

    I wouldn’t consider 20 years of work ‘conjuring’.

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

    As was commented on before, anything called ‘The Scientific Theory of Whatever’ has years of testing, retesting and double checking behind it. I was taught in my religion classes (Catholic grammer school and high school) to take the Bible as an article of Faith.

  45. Dan C Says:

    Dani,

    I’m not trying to add fuel to anyone’s fire, but what exactly is “your side”? I am honestly trying to understand the “other side” here.

    When I read the above article, I see that the powers that be are trying to pass something that will take credited scientific work and pull it out of a science classroom. How, exactly, is that a good thing?

    I hope you have a good weekend as well.

    I will be praying this weekend that people put some real solid thought into this before they blindly sign it into fruition.

  46. A Passerby Says:

    On a different note, the SB member wrote in his email that firemancarl posted: “…AND I CAN RESPECT YOUR OPINION, WHICH I DO NOT AGREE WITH-”

    This seems impossible to me. If you disagree with an opinion, it is impossible to respect it. You can respect someone’s RIGHT to their opionion or beliefs, you can UNDERSTAND their opinion, but if you disagree with it, I can see no way to say you also respect it without turning yourself into a hypocrite.

    Also, on the subject of scientists attending church, the church the rest of my family attend has the highest concentration of chemists and other scientists seen outside of a lab or college I’ve ever seen. None of them are creationists, or intelligent design-ists, they all wholeheartedly support evolution. Religion and science do not have to be mutually exclusive, as their realms do not overlap. That said, religion has no place in a science classroom. If someone feels the need to bring creationism up in a science class, they should be directed to the religious studies or philosophy department.

    P.S. Shame on you Dani, for stifling the intellectual growth of your son. You should have encouraged him to learn that religion is not incompatible with science, though you seem to have trouble with that yourself.

  47. firemancarl Says:

    Dani,

    You must understand that evolution is based on rock solid evidence. Perhaps you are misunderstanding the issue. Evolution is about changes over time. Many religious people get this confused with and think that evolution is about how life began. It is not. Abiogenisis is the study of how life began. Cosmology is the study of our universe and how it began.

    Those are 3 distinct and separate fields of study.

  48. Eric Says:

    Dani,
    I don’t believe you have the foggiest clue regarding what you are talking about.
    To quote:
    “Then if evolution is the only ‘scientific’ theory, do science teachers and Evolutionists go to Church? and if so, what religion is practiced?”
    Evolution is a scientific theory – it is an explanation of a wide variety of known facts which has withstood several rounds of study and, more importantly, testing. It is utterly irrelevant if science teachers or Evolutionists go to a church, temple, mosque, or some circle in the woods. If you as a creationist, would like to advance a hypothosis – which can measure up to scientific standards – then do so. However, pointing to Genesis and claiming Creationism is a valid Scientific Theory is bunk.
    Likewise, saying ‘This is too complicated for random chance to have produced, therefore it is Intelligently Designed.” fails the most basic precepts of science.
    We do not object to creationism as a belief, we do dearly object to it being presented as Science. By no stretch of the imagination can creationism be considered science. As such, it has no place in a Science class.
    Intelligent Design was at least creationism wrapped up in the wording of science, but it was left to the nearly impossible task of proving a negative – with it’s whole existence predicated on the belief that the universe is to complicated to have begun randomly. As such, it’s core is built on an unprovable statement of belief – bad science at it’s worst.
    If you want to ban teaching Evolutionary theory, please present some other theory which passes muster – and please disprove the current Evolutionary theory. People have been going after evolution since Mendelson, as of yet, the theory persists and is further refined and validated with each attempt.

  49. Rob W Says:

    @mj: Dani isn’t trolling, unfortunately. It can be amazing, but there are *lots* of people in the US like her. There are also plenty of websites with the same weird half-logic that they all read, and they reel it back out on forums whenever possible… thinking they’re doing good by fighting for religion and God.

    They never slow down and actually think about what they’re saying — i.e., a belief based on mythologies thousands of years old has the same “truth” value as a scientific theory supported by huge amounts of experimentation and evidence. They think, well, you have faith in science, and I have faith in God, and that’s that.

    And even more unfortunately, as long as the quality of education in American schools is so poor, many kids aren’t learning even the minor critical thinking skills they need to fight their way out of this wet paper bag.

  50. Jorenko Says:

    One more note, Dani: I don’t think by any means that your son shouldn’t know that some people believe in a literal interpretation of the bible. However, he should be taught that all of our advancements in technology, medicine, and the vast majority of our modern world, were developed with the same methodology as evolution.

    To deny evolution as impossible is to invalidate the process that brought us computers, AIDS medicine, airplanes, cars, fountain pens, particle board, and air conditioners. I think it’s perfectly okay for someone to hold the opinion that the fact that only one of these things is coincidentally nonexistent; everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, my own opinion is that it’s more sensible that if the bible IS true, it needs to be read less as direct word-for-word fact and more as parable.

  51. firemancarl Says:

    Dani,
    if you have issues with evolution, I would ask that you watch these two videos. they absolutely filet the creationist side of this problem.

    There are two videos and each is about an hour long. They give several examples of evolution and define it.

    I think you and your son will benefit greatly from these videos and I hope they will change your opinion.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGND4bEOtS8 part1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuVDB1Zxuc8 part2

  52. Morgan Says:

    Yet another wool-over-the-eyes flock member spouting “IT’S JUST A THEORY”. Here’s a tip: look up theory in the dictionary.

    A theory is an attempt at explaining a fact. THE FACT IS NOT MADE UP – THE THEORY IS.

    So, for example – Gravity is a fact. Whether or not Gravity was a fact a million years ago is irrelevant (even though we know it was) – right now, Gravity is a fact. It is happening.

    The Theory of Gravity attempts to explain the fact of gravity. I think we can all agree on that.

    Similarily… EVOLUTION IS A FACT. It has been scientifically proven. It is visible in the fossil record. It is visible in every piece of DNA on the planet. Regardless of your cries of “it’s just a theory”, and your clinging to your infantile, ignorant and dare I say, mindless view (yes, believing in God requires no work or thought, therefore it’s the easiest thing to do) does not make evolution any less of a fact.

    Look it up. Get off your ass and read the evidence of the world around you. No wonder the world hates the United States – you’re dragging the rest of us down.

  53. firemancarl Says:

    Well, Dani have a good night. Don’t fear any of our, including my, smart arsed remarks. I hope you come back and have read up on evolution and not the stuff the Discovery Institute puts out.

  54. D. Skoll Says:

    I think Dani is trolling. Evolution is a scientific theory. That means it tries to explain observations, but more importantly it makes PREDICTIONS that can be tested. Thus far, the theory of evolution has passed scientific tests with flying colors.

    Religion is personal. If you want to believe in God, fine. If Bob next door wants to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, fine also. Just don’t pretend it’s science.

  55. J.G. Says:

    Let’s say we complete disregard the fact that evolutionary theory can be demonstrated in a few generations of fruit flies. And the fact that no one can ever prove or disprove “intelligent design” since it relies on a supernatural being starting everything…

    Let’s say I play a little game where I consider intelligent design to be an actual theory of something. If I had any say, it still would not be taught for one very fundamental reason: you can’t use it to predict anything. Everyone forgets that education is not about learning the past and then letting it gather dust in our intelligently designed grey matter, it’s about learning what came before so we can advance our understanding of the world. A useful scientific theory helps you do this by allowing you to predict things, such as how fast stuff falls and what vinegar and baking soda will do if you mix them.

    Many scientific theories that have been proven wrong are still taught because they can make some useful predictions. Bohr’s model of the atom is taught even though it’s not technically correct because it can tell us useful things about the structure of the atom. Intelligent design can’t be wrong, by design, but it doesn’t give us any insight into how to advance science.

    Few remember that science is just a formal way of describing what we see so we can predict how things behave. For all we know, God may be setting the position and momentum of every electron in existence as we speak, but we will never know for sure, and furthermore, it doesn’t matter because we have developed a set of equations over many generations that tell us how the world behaves with a great deal of accuracy.

    INTELLIGENT DESIGN MIGHT BE THE TRUTH, BUT IT DOES NOT MATTER SCIENTIFICALLY BECAUSE WE CANNOT UNDERSTAND OUR WORLD BETTER AND ADVANCE KNOWLEDGE BY LEARNING IT. THERE IS A THEORY OF THE ORIGINS OF LIFE AND ITS DIVERSITY THAT CAN HELP US UNDERSTAND OUR WORLD AND ADVANCE OUR KNOWLEDGE, IT IS CALLED EVOLUTION.

    Also, to the guy who is praying for someone’s “SOLE”, perhaps I just might pray for his “SOUL” tonight…
    Good thing there is spell check, too bad there isn’t smart check.

  56. firemancarl Says:

    J.G. it was a “she” who was doin’ the paryin’

  57. Andy Says:

    Americans are a shameful waste of skin, for the most part. This idiotic belief in god is not just a, but the, prime example.

    I am a science teacher, and I’m thankful that I do not work in the US. Religion is not welcome in my lab.

  58. Slar Says:

    Dani, read what Adrian wrote, seriously, science is science, not faith. If it isn’t testable it is philosophy, if it isn’t testable and was created by a higher power, it is religion or faith, not science. Evolution is not in doubt, it is the more subtle nuances of it that we are still trying to figure out. The Theory of Evolution is an explanation of the observed fact of evolution, not a magical thought some scientist made up on a whim. It has withstood the emergence of genetics and various other sciences that were not even around when it emerged. Over 150 years of many people trying to prove it wrong and failing I would consider to it to be a pretty important and successful theory. It does in fact (correct me if I am wrong) have more supporting evidence and is more understood than is the theory of gravity (with the ever elusive graviton). If you want your children to learn about religion or creation (ID is creation repackaged) then send them to the church of your choice, but please do not try to teach fantasy and fiction in a class devoted to fact and reproducable testable reality.

  59. J.G. Says:

    firemancarl: Good to know. I, being a man, automatically lump all idiots into my gender.

  60. Eric Says:

    Dani Says:

    I was livid when my son came home from school one day and told me he no longer believed in God, but was absolutely convinced that we were products of evolution. I’m sorry, but does anyone not see a problem with that.
    —-

    You sent your son to school, and they taught evolution. You took your son to Church, and they taught him faith. He learned about both from people who are imminently qualified in each field, then made an educated choice.

    You attack the school for ‘convincing’ him choose evolution. It is JUST as logical for you to attack your church for FAILING to convince him to choose faith. Neither choice is the correct one. Your son made a decision based on the information he was given, and you respect that even if you don’t agree with it. Perhaps he will change his mind in time, perhaps not. It is up to him in the end.

  61. Eric Says:

    *edit* …and you should respect that… */edit*

  62. SW Says:

    The problem is that the rational people continue to pretend that Religion is non threatening just because the people who hold to it are irrational. The right to hold to and propagate religion is the source of this problem. People who propagate religion are engaging in mental abuse of vulnerable people, and they should be taken to task for it just like any other antisocial act.

  63. Matthew Brown Says:

    A new dark age can’t be far off.

  64. Peter Says:

    Those who can make people believe absurdities can make them commit atrocities. Voltaire.

  65. Peter Says:

    Methinks a little Monty Python is in order here:

    Peasants: We have found a witch! (A witch! a witch!)
    Burn her burn her!

    Peasant 1: We have found a witch, may we burn her?
    (cheers)
    Vladimir: How do you known she is a witch?
    P2: She looks like one!
    V: Bring her forward
    (advance)
    Woman: I’m not a witch! I’m not a witch!
    V: ehh… but you are dressed like one.
    W: They dressed me up like this!
    All: naah no we didn’t… no.
    W: And this isn’t my nose, it’s a false one.
    (V lifts up carrot)
    V: Well?
    P1: Well we did do the nose
    V: The nose?
    P1: …And the hat, but she is a witch!
    (all: yeah, burn her burn her!)
    V: Did you dress her up like this?
    P1: No! (no no… no) Yes. (yes yeah) a bit (a bit bit a bit) But she has got a wart!
    (P3 points at wart)
    V: What makes you think she is a witch?
    P2: Well, she turned me into a newt!
    V: A newt?!
    (P2 pause & look around)
    P2: I got better.
    (pause)
    P3: Burn her anyway! (burn her burn her burn!)
    (king walks in)
    V: There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
    P1: Are there? Well then tell us! (tell us)
    V: Tell me… what do you do with witches?
    P3: Burn’em! Burn them up! (burn burn burn)
    V: What do you burn apart from witches?
    P1: More witches! (P2 nudge P1)
    (pause)
    P3: Wood!
    V: So, why do witches burn?
    (long pause)
    P2: Cuz they’re made of… wood?
    V: Gooood.
    (crowd congratulates P2)
    V: So, how do we tell if she is made of wood?
    P1: Build a bridge out of her!
    V: Ahh, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
    P1: Oh yeah…
    V: Does wood sink in water?
    P1: No
    P3: No. It floats!
    P1: Let’s throw her into the bog! (yeah yeah ya!)
    V: What also floats in water?
    P1: Bread
    P3: Apples
    P2: Very small rocks
    (V looks annoyed)
    P1: Cider
    P3: Grape gravy
    P1: Cherries
    P3: Mud
    King: A Duck!
    (all look and stare at king)
    V: Exactly! So, logically…
    P1(thinking): If she ways the same as a duck… she’s made of wood!
    V: And therefore,
    (pause & think)
    P3: A witch! (P1: a witch)(P2: a witch)(all: a witch!)
    V: We shall use my largest scales.
    (V jumps down)
    —————————-end?———————————
    (walk over while cheering)
    (push her into scale)
    V: Right, remove the stops!
    (wait while scales remains still)
    All: A witch! burn her burn her!!

  66. benjamin barber Says:

    What this is all about, is who controls the information pipelines to the mind. Humans are rational and psychological beings, rational to find solutions, and emotional to communicate with others. Religion is mostly an psychological programming, which tries to justify itself with rational means. However rational thought doesn’t collude with emotional thought very well, and most people should understand this.

    I like many others, feel that schools should be educating children made with rational and psychological curriculum. However at a young age, the mind isn’t developed enough to handle them together, and should be taught mutually exclusively. In primary school, this means only teaching rational thought, as to not intrude on a parents rights. And in high-school when one has the ability to make rational choices, they can feel free to choose their psychological programming.

    Both are equally important, but keep in mind that Buddhist monks are left brained(rational), and are 2 standard deviations from the norm. This is because your mind has the ability to form its own reality, however Buddhists try to enlightenment and happiness through an objective reality(just like scientists). “Just cause you feel it, doesn’t mean its there (there)” -thom yorke

  67. Phil Says:

    If I should believe in intelligent design, please someone tell me why I was intelligently designed with nipples? I’m pretty sure they’re not good for anything…

  68. Johnny numbnuts. Says:

    Let’s just wait for FL to be swallowed up by the sea. That’ll take care of everything.

    “Troll’n and lovin it since 1992!”

  69. ImLovingIt Says:

    Johnny numbnuts: that’s if you believe that heathen Gore. RON PAUL ’08

  70. MJ Says:

    As a physicist, it seems like the entire US has been growing more anti-science for years now. This year domestic science took enormous budget cuts in order to send more money to blow up in the sandbox. Between the hostility from the faithful and the hostility from the government, I have decided to leave the US for either Canada or the Netherlands as soon as I finish my PhD, though a French research group has expressed interest in my work. This makes me particularly sad because I really love the principles that the US was founded on but no longer believe that we stand for that today.

    My research on the physics of gene inhibition ostensibly seeks to give a means to switch off a great number of genetic diseases and has already shown to be highly effective to this end in vitro, but it is abundantly clear that a majority of the US wouldn’t want it because, yes, it relies on evolution.

    As the dollar loses its international clout and our researchers and engineers leave the country for more fertile grounds, I wonder if the creationists will actually be happier when I’m gone.

  71. Jess Winfield Says:

    I’m amazed no one’s commented on the most self-skewering element of Dani’s Christian world-view:

    “That idiot who wanted “Under God” taken out of the Pledge should have been shot. ”

    “IMAGINE THAT – A WORLD WHERE PEOPLE GET ALONG AND TWO SIDES COME TOGETHER…”

    Remind me not to “come together” with Dani.

  72. Eric Says:

    Dani,

    People like you boggle my mind. In one breath you screech for acceptance of something as an equal to evolution so children can make up their minds, then in the next you screech because your kid made a choice.

    If you were doing your job as a parent, you would be teaching your child your views on religion at home if you didn’t like what they came home with. Possibly your kid is smarter then you?

    I have news for you, your children will make their own choices and there is nothing you can do about it.

  73. Alex Says:

    @Dani

    You want your son to be exposed to two separate explanations as to the source of human existence on Earth, that’s fine. One of those is a scientific theory, and one is a religious theory. You should not be upset if your son, through his own free will, decides to trust the theory of evolution. If your son’s religious education is lacking, that is your fault, not the State’s. It is not in the State’s scope of power to teach religion.

    And as a side note, without my library for reference, the concept of a separation between church and government was originally to keep the church free from secular influence. Way to go, Winthrop!

  74. Justin Says:

    Evolution – Scientific theory – Has evidence backing it up that we can PROVE today, here and now.

    Creationism – Religious theory – Has a book written by the jews 2000 years after stuff happened and barely touches on the truth in such a way as to make it a good story.

    Teach evolution in the SCIENCE classroom and CREATIONISM in the relisious classroom (assuming you yanks force your kids to have religious classes)

  75. Jesse J. Says:

    Quoted from Dani-

    # Dani Says:
    January 11th, 2008 at 4:13 pm

    I don’t want to redefine science, nor do I think believing in a God is any more of a fairy tale than believing in science.
    However, I do not agree that evolution is the only theory that should be touched on. Darwin conjured up a THEORY of evolution. A theory is where everything is possible; it’s a CONCEPT. Therefore, Religion, since you believe has no scientific basis, is also a theory.
    Henry, I will make sure I pray for your sole tonight :)

    -End Quote

    Yes you do want to redefine science…you’re taking science and Scientific Theory which has been tested and has a provable factual basis and trying to lump “faith” (which has no logical or provable basis) in with it.

    Evolution is the only current Scientific Theory of how life began and developed. Creationism and Intelligent Design base there entire argument on faith, which requires you to suspend logic and reasoning of certain subjects to conform to a certain idea.

    You can say that God created the world and that Adam and Eve were the first humans…but you can’t prove it in any way.

    However, a biologist can prove that species of plants have evolved over the course of time. An anthropologist can show you how humans and apes have common ancestors (we did not “come from apes” we shared a common ancestor millions of years ago). These people can show you not only why they think the way they do, they can show you every step they’ve taken to prove that idea to be factual. They can give you the knowledge to test the idea yourself. Creationism and Intelligent Design CANNOT.

    Furthermore, you might as well call Intelligent Design “Creationism 2.0″…they simply take parts of evolutionary theory they like and stick on the tag “…’cause God planned it that way.”

    As described in the American Heritage Dictionary:

    Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.

    Dani, if you can come up with another idea that has a factual base to it that isn’t based on a lack of evidence being the sign of supernatural forces, then I’m sure we’d have no problem accepting it to be taught in schools.

    But what you’re asking us is teach our high schoolers and future leaders that there is an Easter Bunny that hides eggs for us. You have “faith” that he exists, so that makes it a sound idea to teach in schools right? Even if scientists can prove that humans are placing the eggs in some bizarre religious ritual and let you review that evidence…you should still be able to have your idea taught too…because you believe in it….you just can’t prove it.

  76. Ben Says:

    Getting off the subject of trolls, what can we do now to perhaps reverse the decision these counties decisions to teach Creationism (ID doesn’t exist, it’s just Creationism with the word “God” replaced with “Intelligent Designer”)?

  77. WeirdJohn Says:

    Dear Dani,

    I’m a Mathematical Biologist by profession. I know that evolution is an absolute fact, as revealed in God’s Universe, there for us all to see. I find the structure and organisation of the Universe, and of life in particular, the single most compelling evidence for me to explore the deeper aspects of my faith.

    I don’t subscribe to the so-called ‘Intelligent Design’ hypothesis. Apart from the fact that ID is not falsifiable, and as such is not a scientific theory, ID requires you to believe that God made mistakes during Creation. I do not accept that.

    I believe that the Hebrew word translated as ‘day’ in Genesis 1 is better translated as ‘a period of time’.

    I also subscribe to the view of St Augustine, who tackled many of these issues in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Augustine argued that the physical world is a physical manifestation of God’s Word (John 1:1) and so it is impossible for the physical word to be in conflict with Scripture. If there appears to be a conflict either we have failed to observe the Universe properly, or we have failed to understand Scripture. He maintained that when many people have all observed the physical Universe the same way we have to accept that we have to examine our interpretation of Scripture.

    Biological Evolution has been observed, in Nature and in the Laboratory. Geological and Radiometric Dating rely on the same concepts as make our cars, TVs, Medicine and computers work. I have no choice but to accept that the 6-day new-universe understanding of the universe is not the full interpretation of Scripture. In fact I personally feel that many of those who refuse to look at (and pray about) evolutionary theory are those people who insist that God should be reduced to a Being that fits in with the capabilities of their own minds.

    It’s important to keep in mind that Scripture teaches us about the history of a single people, and teaches us about Man’s relationship to God and Man. It does not teach us how to solve differential equations, to build a radio telescope or how to tune a guitar, because these things are outside the context of Man’s spiritual relationships.

    I can’t speak for all other Scientists, but I attend an Assemblies of God Church. I have a role within the Church Music Ministry and have received the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. I have been a Born-Again Church-going Christian since 1980.

    I hope this helps you to understand that there is no conflict between God and Science, except when we set out to artificially create one.

    God Bless,
    John.

  78. Enlightenment Says:

    Praise the EVIL BIBLE.

    The God of the Bible allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9). He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife! Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody! In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church!

    Genesis 3:16 “And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” 1 Timothy 2:12 says a woman must not teach, remain silent and must be subjugated to her man. 1 Corinthians 14:34 & 1 Peter 3:6 both say that women have limited rights and are under control of their men. Judges 4:4, 14-15, 5:7, Acts 2:18 & 21:9 all tell of powerful women who were not subjugated by men and were not punished for their authority of men.

    Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT, If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

    When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

    —-

    By the way…only ignorant morons don’t believe in evolution. Dance Monkey Dance!

    —-

  79. Joe G. Says:

    The day I can go to my local church and attend an accredited biology course will be the day I believe it is acceptable to attend one of my local schools’ science classes for a church-approved seminar on religious beliefs.

    They do not contradict, neither do they mix well. If we continue this Luddite-like approach to science education, little Johnny may very well grow up to be a saintly person, but he’ll be buying his technology from overseas, and the bracelets his children will be wearing won’t read “WWJD? “, they’ll read “WWBD?”, “what would Beijing do?”

    I realize many of you don’t believe you’ll die a mortal death, because the world ends a week from next Tuesday, but the rest of us have to continue on in the dark ages you and the fundie Islamists want us to return to.

    I suggest those of you equating the word “theory” with the word “guess” look up the definition of the word “theory” as it applies to science. Hint: it doesn’t mean what you think it does. I have a religious belief, but I have no dogmatic beliefs. My knowledge of science (due to classes where true scientific theory was taught) does not preclude my belief in a Creator, or a great Designer. I simply do not believe that “(elements + God waves His hand) * 7 = LIFE” should be taught as a scientific theory. It’s not.

    -Joe G.

  80. Al Says:

    Please rent and view the movie “Idiocracy” to understand what happens next.

  81. Anonymous Says Says:

    Well, while the rest of the Developed world continues to produce education and school systems which discourage irrational explanations the US is working more and more towards the vision outlined in the excellent film Idiocracy.

    Let the US breed stupidity and contribute to its impotence both domestic and globally in trade and other affairs.

    Really this is just plain stupid.

  82. Rob Poole Says:

    Dani wrote: “Darwin conjured up a THEORY of evolution.”

    Please, PLEASE stop using the word “theory” as a pejorative. “Theory” does not mean “somehow less than a fact.” Gravity is a theory, just like evolution, but not believing in gravity doesn’t make it any less a reality. If you’re flying in a plane at altitude and the engine dies, gravity is very much a reality you have to deal with. Evolution, as a scientific theory, has just as much evidence to support it as the Newtonian and Einsteinian theories of gravity. The effects of natural selection can be observed in a laboratory. It is a fact, get used to it.

    I attended eight years of Catholic school (4 years of grammar school, 4 years of high school), and the Catholic Church taught evolution exclusively in its schools. That’s simply because there is no other credible scientific theory of the origin of species that has any evidence to support it. We were taught about earlier scientific ideas on the subject, such as Lamarck’s hypothesis (which was disproven). Ironically, it was a monk, Gregor Mendel, who discovered the concept of genetic inheritance which disproved Lamarck’s hypothesis, and provided the foundation of modern genetics and modern evolutionary theory.

    Evolution is not incompatible with Christianity. Only heretics believe that the Bible is a completely literal document, and these heretics should not be coddled. We don’t burn heretics at the stake anymore (thank God!), but that’s because we’re a more compassionate society. But I must tell you, sincerely, you risk irrevocable damage to your immortal soul if you persist in your campaign of ignorance.

    Christian fundamentalists should be seen for what they are — not any different from any other kind of fundamentalist, such as an Islamic fundamentalist. Such people twist Scripture and give God a bad name.

    Back to the real topic at hand: How can this secret behind-closed-doors type of skulduggery be allowed to continue? Aren’t these people violating the public trust? (I’m sure THEY don’t see it that way, but most villains don’t see themselves as villains.)

  83. Merwolf Says:

    @john –

    Please have lots of children.

    K? Tksbai, heart, humanity.

  84. ben Says:

    could someone define evolution?

  85. OldBlueKid Says:

    Ha ha ha!… you are so funny U.S., you are making the hole world laugh at loud!!!

  86. OldBlueKid Says:

    I’ll define evolution for you,… every specimen of a species is different from each other (I’m different from my brother, mi neighbour, etc), the specimen that fits better in his environment gets to live and have more descendants (children), his children will be very similar to him(because of DNA). The specimens that don’t fit very well in their environment just die or don’t have that many descendants. So in time the world will popolate with the most adapted specimens to each environment.

    That’s it.

  87. BibleThumper Says:

    Where is the Church when you really need them. The Catholic Church in the 1600′s had the right idea with Galileo–these heretics trying to teach science need to be arrested and condemned, their writings forbidden. Worked with Galileo. The earth is the center universe, right? No one argues anymore about the sun revolving around the Earth. Oh wait…

    Scariest part of the Bible argument is none of the people in Florida thumping the Bible–can actually read the Bible. The Bible is written in ancient Hebrew. Why do I think if we gave a multiple choice question to those trumpeting Creationism, the majority would select English, followed by Latin as the language for the Bible.

    As a last note–I’d like to remind those in Florida desiring their kids learn only of Creationism–home schooling is always an option. Evolution doesn’t need to be advancement. Nothing says we can’t allow future generations to become dumber and dumber. Compare the current generation of Americans to those that came before–anyone else feel our kids seem to be getting weaker in math and science? World War II was a defining moment in time for America as it is known today. The contributions of scientists with the development of everything from nuclear fission to synthetic rubber–but even most of those scientists were refugees, products of European education.

    On a positive note; wealthy foreigners have stopped sending their kids to American schools! A better education can now be found in places like Korea, India, and (gasp) even China.

  88. Merwolf Says:

    @ben -

    Evolution is the process by which living organisms over time react to changes in their environment by rewarding successful genetic response to those changes in the form of breeding and survival.

    Example. The climate changes and grows 20 degrees colder over a period of time. Bears who are born with the longest fur deal with the cold better, survive, and have offspring. They pass their longer fur onto their offspring, who are also successful, and over time, you have a population of long haired bears who thrive in cold weather.

    That’s what evolution is. We artificially evolve animals all the time – if you have a purebred dog or cat who was bred for hunting or long hair and a flat face, you have a product of evolution in your house. It’s natural selection based on successful response to the environment otherwise.

  89. James Says:

    Dani: There’s nothing wrong with teaching multiple points of view in school; however, science class is supposed to teach the scientific method and its fruits. Christ, the Holy Bible, are very important figures in our history and our present. They should be taught about in religion, history, and any course that aims to stiffen a pupil’s moral fibre.

    For some reason, people who push to put religious truth into science class seem to think that religion class isn’t good enough for it. Frankly, these classes are important. And it’s where this content belongs. No one goes arguing that you should teach physics in English because they’re an important part of the curriculum. I am constantly confused why this obvious distinction isn’t made with this topic. Science isn’t “truths”; science is a process through which we make and try to make sense of observations about the world around.

    I see it somewhat the other way around. Here’s science, here’s the scientific method, here’s what we can show using it. Here are real life observations from the real world that you can get into your car/bus/plane/submarine and go look at for yourself. As a result, here’s a conclusion. And on the other hand, here’s religion: our ages old beliefs based on a text many of us believe was written by those who communed with God. It has extremely valuable information in it. If we all used what we learned from it in real life instead of fighting with each other, we’d each be better for it.

  90. 7 Says:

    Let’s suppose a god or gods created the world and all that’s in it a few thousand years ago, and that chimpanzee DNA is as close to human DNA as it is because the gods were simply being efficient with the tools at hand. We now know enough about sociology, biology, chemistry, atomic and quantum physics, and mathematics, to be quite certain that from this point onward mutations are inevitable from generation to generation. No one alive today, save perhaps identical twins, has the same genome as anyone else alive, or who has ever lived. The odds are just too small. Consequently the human population now is different genetically than it was at the time of its purported inception, and mutations will ensure that as time goes on the overall difference will increase. This genetic drift away from where we were is evolution. It’s not as dramatic as it can be, but over aeons the odds are it will be dramatic indeed. Our science, which is used to run nuclear power plants, make iPhones, allows us to develop mutated bacteria that can release disease fighting chemicals, and helps us understand the origin of genetic diseases, implies with a probability of essentially 1 (100% certainty) that from this day onward the human genome, and the genomes of all species, will evolve. For myself, the evidence is overwhelming that today is not the first day evolving will occur, and that it started billions of years ago with the beginnings of life. But it doesn’t matter. Even if humans were created by god(s) a few thousand years ago, evolution as a process is still a fact. We can make it happen in the laboratory.

  91. chad Says:

    see the problem is that school, for the most part, is required. now I know home-schooling is available, but on the large, public schooling is the only option for the vast majority of people. Its one thing to voluntarily attend a religious service and choose to hear religious values and idea taught to you.
    But its another thing entirely to have children forced(for the most part) to be taught that we evolved from lesser organisms. Regardless of the fact that science is empirical in nature, it shouldnt be taught in such a way that children believe that their parents beliefs are wrong. kids are moldable, and when they have no choice but to be taught evolution, it should at least be taught in a very knowing way.

    ie, acknowledge that evolution itself exists, but just like we have no proof of creationism, we have NO proof that life started from nothing but a pool of primordial soup and lightning, or whatever you believe. That is the inherent flaw with teaching evolution. There is no proof of origin, only of the process itself.

    I myself believe in evolution as a process that exists today and is constantly at work, and always has been, but at the same time I am a mormon who believes in God and in Creation.

    Ponder on that. I’m not saying to stop teaching evolution, and im certainly not saying to teach creationism, but science should be taught based on fact, as many of you say, not on presumption that because evolution exists creationism must not. Objectivity is key.
    Peace

  92. CS Says:

    There is no place for God in any place of learning, except as a course in literature.

    Any person responsible for the purest idiocy displayed here should (truly) be shot, and given the opportunity to see if he really is there. This kind of conduct is a crime against humanity, since it literally kills minds and harms us as a species.

    And those who go to great lengths to say “well, i believe in evolution, but i also believe in god…” are also responsible for this, because their support of delusional thinking makes this kind of thing possible. We all know that the religious have found a fall-back position that includes evolution, and we also know that its just as phony as pure creationism.

    Many believe that within 10-20 years we will see scientists demonstrating how the simplest forms of life can arise naturally and spontaneously from the right chemical components and circumstances. When that happens, I’m sure our nutty religious luddites will find a way to cram God into that too. I guess some people can’t be helped.

    If the religious truly had their way, we’d still believe that illnesses were punishments for Sin, that the earth was the center of the Universe, or perhaps even that fire was a magical force to be worshipped.

    /spit.

  93. Matthew Says:

    “The specimens that don’t fit very well in their environment just die or don’t have that many descendants.”

    Oh, good. At least we know that eventually all these silly creationists will be gone…

  94. chad Says:

    CS,
    Just because we can recreate it in a laboratory does not mean that it occurred billions of years ago naturally. The capacity for something to occur is not proof of occurrence, surely someone who believes in science as much as you do should know that

  95. Darron Says:

    My personal opinion is that people must first understand what evolution is before they can debate the subject. I’ve found over and over again that if I simply spend 5 minutes with someone who “doesn’t believe in evolution” and explain to them what it actually is, they leave with a smile accepting evolutionary theory.

    Honestly, the word “evolution” just has a bunch of baggage attached to it. If we just up and changed it to “pastalution” or “Spaghetti Theory” people would eat it up! (and it would please His Noodliness).

    RAmen

    ~D~

  96. Matthew Says:

    “That idiot who wanted “Under God” taken out of the Pledge should have been shot.”
    Dani

    Did your religion teach you this? You remember – that one that teaches you love, respect, and tolerance?

  97. PC Says:

    EVOLUTION HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN ANY SCIENCE ENVIRONMENT! IT’S NEVER BEEN WITNESSED, MEASURED, OR PROVEN!

    EVOLUTION WOULD BE TAKING A GROUP OF CATS AND ISOLATING THEM, AND HAVE THEM ALTERING THEIR TRAITS (OR GENES) USING GENE DRIFTING OF ADAPTING INTO DOGS. THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN LIFE, OR IN THE LAB. SO HUMANS CAN NOT COME FROM APES, WE WOULD HAVE TO RE-CLASSIFIED AS MONKEYS OR APES; I DON’T THINK YOU REALLY WANT THAT TO HAPPEN. I KNOW I DON’T WANT TO BE CONSIDERED AN INTELLIGENT MONKEY OR APE.

    A CAT ACQUIRING GREATER SPEED, OR CHANGING COLOR(S) OR GIVING BIRTH IN A NEW PROCESS OR WAY, IS STILL A CAT. NOT SOME OTHER PHYLUM OR ANIMAL CLASS.

    IT’S AMAZING HOW IGNORANT SMART PEOPLE CAN BE FROM CLASSIFICATIONS OF PHYLA AND SPECIES.

    IF YOU WANT TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION AS AN OCCURING FACT, THEN I AM GOING TO PROPOSE THAT YOU EVOLVED FROM A COUSIN OF THE HORSE. YOU’RE A WALKING, TALKING, THINKING, ASS.

  98. Rubin Safaya Says:

    To Rob Poole and biblethumper, excellent responses.

    Also, I would like to add for clarity that “theory” in the scientific context (or any other) does not mean a blind guess, or even an educated guess…

    A theory, contrary to its colloquial usage, is defined by Webster’s as “The analysis of a set of FACTS in their relation to one another.”

    Thus, that evolution occurs is a fact. HOW it occurs is what The Theory of Evolution proposes to explain. It explains it so well that it has been used to predict much of the cause-effect relationships that have resulted in most of the medical care you receive today. Were it not for evolutionary biology, very little of today’s medical expertise would exist. You cannot peruse any corner of medicine and/or science without running invariably into evolutionary biology, paleobiology, genetics, heredity and all the myriad life sciences that were, of all things, spawned unknowingly by the discovery of a monk (the aforementioned Mendel).

    The problem with imagining that Creationism is anything remotely resembling a theory is that it consists of no facts. When questioned as to the facts that support it, a mishmash of suppositions are presented, but no evidence. When asked what Creationism proposes, no cogent explanation is provided. In short, Creationism/Intelligent Design fell apart upon very basic scrutiny in Kitzmiller et. al. v Dover Board of Education, during a cross-examination of ID’s biggest “expert”, Michael Behe, a molecular biologist from Lehigh University… The court testimony of Behe exposed that Creationism/Intelligent Design consists of no direct evidence, proposes nothing, disproves nothing, and proves nothing.

    It should be noted, however, that contrary to Rob Poole’s post that the Theory of Evolution doesn’t have “just as much” evidence as Newtonian and Einsteinian Theories of Gravity. The Theory of Evolution, in fact, has many times the evidence behind it. Over 150 years of findings published in thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed scientific articles.

    It is useful to note that Mendel, who did not understand yet the mechanism of heredity but observed its occurrence, was vindicated three centuries later by James Watson and F.H.C. Crick’s discovery of the double-helical structure of DNA, the mechanism of heredity (not unlike how Arno Penzias and Bob Wilson discovered in 1960 the Cosmic Microwave Background that Dirac predicted some 40 years earlier). It is also useful to note that modern genetic research on homeobox genes, the “master control switches” of huge sets of genes, are vindicating key aspects of Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge’s Punctuated Equilibrium — namely the abrupt and drastic periods of divergence interrupting long periods of data-backed, not gap-backed, stasis.

    How does the Bible explain the interchangeablity of the Pax-6 homolog between Drosophila melanogaster and Homo sapiens sapiens? Why did the Bible not predict the structure of DNA? If two humans can do it, surely god could have proffered an explanation of his own invention.

    There has not been in the history of modern science (circa the advent of chemistry and physics) a more demonstrable theory with more evidence to support it. If you refute evolution, you might as well walk off a cliff and hope for the best.

    I agree with those who say that faith and science are not entirely incompatible. But whereas science does not attempt to do anything but find facts, religiion does not do anything but pursue meaning… and poorly at that. So in a way they ARE incompatible. But where science is the best system for testing hypotheses and deriving what is fact, as the scientific process is more successful than any system before it for doing so, religion is no better than a great philosophical treatise or a poignant fiction in giving human beings a sense of self-worth and meaning to find their place. The difference is that, Siskel and Ebert’s cutthroat debates aside, usually, people do not kill people over a movie.

    A philosophy, on the other hand, which relies on science to supply to us the observations of beauty, the brilliance, the rarity and the magnificence of the universe “as it really is” (to paraphrase Sagan), would be unmatched in its ability to improve its followers quality of life as well as the quality of life of everyone else.

    How is a sheep being instantaneously popped into existence more fascinating than an evolutionary process which guides itself through natural selection? How is it that people wait for god to give them a parlor trick of a miracle instead of noticing the everyday grandeur in all the naturally observable processes of life? Is it not a thing of gross obstinacy to imagine the greatness of the universe can be confined to one book when thousands of volumes of research papers have yet to uncover all the universe’s secrets?

    I resist the temptation to believe in the impenetrability of the universe’s magic in favor of the reality that we are discovering, and will forever still have things to discover… rather than resigning ourselves permanently to ignorance, however blissful it may be.

  99. Darron Says:

    chad: Evolution doesn’t speak to how life began. Evolutionary Theory explains how things that are already alive change over time. Abiogenisis covers how life began from non-life, and is completely separate from Evolutionary Theory! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

    Cheers!

    ~D~

  100. Matthew Says:

    “EVOLUTION HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN ANY SCIENCE ENVIRONMENT! IT’S NEVER BEEN WITNESSED, MEASURED, OR PROVEN!”

    Ummm…. never heard of antibiotic-resistant bacteria? Did these pop up by virtue of your loving god?

  101. Darron Says:

    “EVOLUTION HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN ANY SCIENCE ENVIRONMENT! IT’S NEVER BEEN WITNESSED, MEASURED, OR PROVEN!”

    Can you please tell me why then do millions of people get a new flu shot every year? God must magically release a new strain of the Influenza virus every season, because there’s just no way it could be evolving! Wait, maybe influenza viri don’t believe in god!

  102. Matthew Says:

    “IT’S AMAZING HOW IGNORANT SMART PEOPLE CAN BE FROM CLASSIFICATIONS OF PHYLA AND SPECIES.”

    I agree – look at your response. Classification of phyla and species was done by HUMANS. We separated ourselves. So we *could* have chosen to group ourselves with the apes. But the real point is evolution *does* occur, and *does* cause enough change to induce humans to separate one type of animal from another. Thus, the naked mole rat is a mammal – yet cold-blooded. And the only species in its genus.

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

  103. firemancarl Says:

    Well well well. I wonder if the Pastafarians are here for a visit? Praise his noodley appendage! The problem is the fundies keep confusing evolution with…cosmology, abiogenisis etc etc They need to learn!

  104. chad Says:

    thanks darron.

    all i have to say is that belief in one does not make belief in the other impossible. Personally, I believe that God operates under the laws of the universe, with evolution being one of them, and acts accordingly.

    who knows, maybe he got life started at the most simple level, and bided his time until life evolved to the point that humanity as we know it existed, then shot a spark of sentience into them.

    the great thing about all of this is that we truly dont know, and only serve to embarrass ourselves when we vehemently shoot each other down. such is the nature of all arguments. the greatest debates of all time exist because the answers are unavailable. If there were a clear answer, there would be a clear answer, and there isnt.

    peace

  105. Andrea Says:

    “Ponder on that. I’m not saying to stop teaching evolution, and im certainly not saying to teach creationism, but science should be taught based on fact, as many of you say, not on presumption that because evolution exists creationism must not. Objectivity is key.”

    The most COMMON misconception about SCIENCE is that it is solely based on fact. Fact is merely an assumption of what someone -observes- in science.

    “We can observe….”
    “We can infer…”

    Many people do not consider what is beyond a mere observation of something. 12 different people can “observe” something and say completely different things.

    i.e., Darwin was just one individual who made observations and from these observations he theorized. He tested his theory by going back and making more observations to validate his theory. However, this is not FACT. What science wants to focus on is the process, not the end-product.

    So, the argument that Science class should only teach things based on “fact” is too weak of a statement.

    Science is a process of discovery – and from this comes conjectures and theories which are tested and retested.

    Much like literature, we do not refrain from letting our children read books because they have death, murder, and sex in them. We let our children read these books because of medaphors, figurative speech, syntax, and language.

    Ultimately, this argument is about Censorship.
    Censorship is not the way to yield a great society. Censorship is only a way to control and brainwash the individual. Do not yield to this deceit. It is the work of the Devil within us.

  106. chad Says:

    I agree with that almost entirely. unfortunately, people will never understand that arguing about it will not solve anything. if anything, we should all give up trying to persuade others of anything. It is human design to believe that our opinions are the truth, and contrary opinions false. An argument is just an unending pissing match. Discussion is very different, and actually useful, but most people never achieve the level of maturity to discuss without arguing.

  107. firemancarl Says:

    Andrea,

    I am curious about your post. Do you think that by teaching evolution as fact we are censoring science classes? I don’t suppose you have heard of the fundies that want books taken out of libraries because they have sex, etc in them?

    Oh, we have examples of transitional fossils.

  108. Ben Abbott Says:

    Faith seeks to explain that for which there is no (or at least no known) evidence.

    Science seeks to explain that for that for which there may be (or more appropriately is) evidence.

    Creationism isn’t faith, it is a rejection of all evidence in favor of the faith of individuals who lived thousands of years ago (prior to human knowledge of evidence respecting the evolution of life).

  109. A. Person Says:

    To those that ignore the historical evidence of evolution, you are a reminder that we have evolved, and you have not.

  110. Lauren Says:

    God and evolution coincide just fine. The problem is the way that many Christians have theologically backed themselves into a corner. They are now at this point where if you disprove any word of the Bible, their faith falls apart.

    Well, it really shouldn’t. You shouldn’t be taking science lessons from a bunch of people who lived 5,000 years ago. Those parts of the Bible are not meant to be literal truth. God is infinity, wisdom, and mystery. God is the beauty of the natural world. Evolution is a beautiful thing. Any questions?

  111. A. Person Says:

    Faith that springs from the well of ignorance is a poison to any that succumb to the temptation to drink.

  112. Lauren Says:

    And also… have these guys EVER heard of symbolism, or idioms? And that idioms can fall out of fashion over time (5,000 years, say) so that you don’t immediately recognize it?

    Anyone remember this one… “I wish she’d go boil her head”

    No one is advocating head-boiling! But, millenia from now, would you be sure?

  113. Qwerty Says:

    Excellent! Glad to see evolution finally being kicked out of actual districts. :)

  114. Ernst Says:

    “chad” said …

    “see the problem is that school, for the most part, is required. now I know home-schooling is available, but on the large, public schooling is the only option for the vast majority of people. Its one thing to voluntarily attend a religious service and choose to hear religious values and idea taught to you.

    But its another thing entirely to have children forced(for the most part) to be taught that we evolved from lesser organisms. Regardless of the fact that science is empirical in nature, it shouldnt be taught in such a way that children believe that their parents beliefs are wrong. kids are moldable, and when they have no choice but to be taught evolution, it should at least be taught in a very knowing way.”

    But, Chad, you are simply saying that what the school teaches should not contradict what the parents say.

    I’m sorry, but if the school teaches that the world is round like a ball, and if a student’s parents insist that the world is flat, there is no question who should win. These parents will simply have to lump it.

    Ignorance of science is no excuse for limiting what the science teachers can teach. If the national science groups and the universities all say that evolution is solid, then that is the conclusion that must be taught in the schools.

    You may not like it, but your personal preferences has nothing to do with it.

    History class teach us that white people enslaved black people for centuries. This actually infuriates some white people because they feel that they should not be subject to being labelled as “slave owners” and “conquerors” centuries after the fact. However, their own personal objections do not change the fact that white people did subjugate black people for a long time and under brutal conditions. History class should not be censored or modified simply because history offends some parents.

    Yes. I know. The U.S. is not the only place that does it. In fact, we are one of the lesser offenders. Most Japanese students are not taught of the war crimes of Japan in WW2.

    It is unfortunate, but you see, you can’t change the facts simply because they are inconvenient. The fact is, evolution is accepted as, not just the strongest scientific theory, but the ONLY viable scientific theory of how things change over time and how we got to where we are today.

    If you are so sure that so many hundreds of thousands of scientists are wrong, then do some research and publish some papers. It’s no surprise that most Creationists have given up trying to publish anything in scientific journals because they don’t have any credible papers to publish.

    Do you honestly think that a paper that proves the existence of a supernatural creator or some supernatural force would not get SOME attention from somebody?

    Scientists are competative egomaniacs. Professors love to see their name in print. They LIVE for publication. If you can get a professor to see that you are right, they would totally jump on a chance to publish the first paper that proves ID.

    That is why we don’t buy it.

    If none of these self-centered, self-serving, attention-seeking scientists are willing to take the opportunity of a life time to publish your ideas, it really says something about your ideas, doesn’t it?

    Look at the reaction to the cold fusion phenomenon.

    Or to the Korean stem cell incident.

    Proving God or even something remotely like it would be quite a hit, wouldn’t you think?

    So why is it that Creationists are giving up on academia, and trying to sneak on to school boards instead? If their ideas are so good, why not strengthen their position by publishing?

    You see, this is why we are highly skeptical. You don’t want to be subject to scientific critique. You don’t want people to even know that you are making bureaucratic in-roads to certain school boards. You pretend to “accept” evolution but try to use public relations tactics to dismiss it every chance you get.

    What should we conclude? How could you ever expect us to believe that your ideas are scientific?

    Ernst

  115. slighted Says:

    crazy…. religion is a double sided sword it provides comfort to many and to none, that we still have these discussions shows how intractable the christian faith is and has been for most of its life span…. look up the council of nicea and see how much of your beloved doctrine hit the floor vs what you actually have left to read in it… theory is just that a theory but it is also a building block of facts that change over time as more facts are discovered… your religious dogma is static and can not begin to deal withth e complex issue involved to prove fact from fiction.. what your dealing with is a belief and beliefs dont change overall people die for those, science is based on ideas which are malleable and can be changed… this country was split for a reason and if you follow history you should be damn glad it was changed.. church rule has never been a good rule…. its like why do kkk members hate and burn people in gods name in most cases when jesus himself was a semite…. the day you let the illiterate run this country is the day it burns tot to the ground…. open your eyes tards quit looking in a book for answers you just parrot out and find them yourself…. i myself cant stand christianity its one of the most unforgiving biased and intractable religions out there…. religion itsself overall is nto a bad thing but remember its built up and run by man and mankind can do some sick stuff…

  116. chad Says:

    oh no im not saying that evolution shouldnt be taught. But a parents religious beliefs should not be infringed upon, nor should the position of a child rearer be compromised because a school teaches a certain subject. I think the problem that exists here is that schools are teaching evolution as not only a principle of life, but also using it to explain essentially everything that is organic in nature, past, present, and future.

    I dont know if you misunderstood me or not, i merely suggested that to tell children that essentially their parents are wrong, is itself wrong. does it really matter if a person believes god put man on the earth? what harm will it do later in life? as long as they know the things that can be known, such as evolution being a real phenomena, then it doesnt matter what they believe. Just as church and state should be separated, the state shouldn’t destroy the integrity of the church.

    pretty much, im saying they should stay away from how life began, or how the earth came to be, because truth be told we dont know. what we do know is that evolution exists.

    thats all i was trying to convey. I wasnt suggesting that schools not teach things we know to be true because parents dont believe in it. accepting evolution does not discredit the existence of god, so it shouldnt matter.

    peace

  117. chad Says:

    that was directed to ernst btw.

  118. A. Person Says:

    Clearly these are people with religious beliefs as deep as dew, strong as a tissue, and the volume of an empty cup. Should they be caught in the subtle breeze of truth they their beliefs might be stripped from them. Don’t fear them, or be cross, these are people who need pity. They cannot enjoy the world in detail, or the act of discovery. In fact all the benefits we inherited as children, the wonder of the child that the investigative spirit, are denied to them. They are forever trapped.

  119. S.Scott Says:

    Chad – you said “the state shouldn’t destroy the integrity of the church.

    pretty much, im saying they should stay away from how life began, or how the earth came to be, because truth be told we dont know. what we do know is that evolution exists.”

    You have nothing to worry about. (and let me just say it’s been pleasurable reading your posts – you seem very honest) – however, you share a common misconception of what is taught in Biology.

    “Biological Evolution refers to the processes that have transformed life from its earliest forms into the vast diversity that characterizes all living organisms today”

    – it does not address the ORIGIN of life or the ORIGIN of the universe. –
    Hopefully that helps :)

  120. S.Scott Says:

    That would be “Abiogenesis” and ” physics” correct?

  121. Ernst Says:

    For Dani,

    I hope you are real and not a troll because we do need rational people on the “side of Creationism” to come forward discuss why they feel so strongly about what they are pushing for. If you don’t step forward and represent your view point, the more manipulative members of your side will keep working to succeed in their own secretive ways, and in the end, they will make you look far worse than you really are.

    ——–

    For the rest of us,

    (When I say “Creationists”, I am specifically referring to the those who are actively pursuing policy changes to be more receptive to ID or Creationism.)

    (When I say “Dani”, I am referring to people whose intentions are good and are looking for a particular result or effect in their lives and would actually sit down with someone who wants to discuss rather than insult.)

    Please keep in mind that the big problem for us is that there are zealots on the Creationism side that are hell bent on putting Creationism in no matter how they must do so. They could careless about Democratic or open government ideals or rules.

    Some of these people, such as Dani, do not have evil intentions, in the sense that they simply don’t understand what they are really doing, and they are simply seeing the final outcome and finding the outcome really unacceptable. They often have difficulties separating cause from effect. “Science”, “religion”, “politics” are mostly just buzzwords to them. They don’t understand the details of government or democracies or any other large complex systems other than through simple bumper sticker slogans, and are often easily riled up by the more manipulative members of their side.

    Please be patient and explain to people like Dani. I know it can be frustrating, and they will often conflate all sorts of social ills and political problems with scientific knowledge and methods. Please bite your lip and hold back the invectives; the impatience will only emotionally drive them away, and it does not help them in the long run.

    Dani may have trouble because she will realize, sooner or later, that no matter how much of the rhetorical arguments she was taught to throw at the “Evolutionists”, it is very difficult for her to accept that she is wrong because it would wreck the foundation she has insisting on building, which is that the Bible is either absolutely right or absolutely wrong, but none of this soft and squishy “symbolic” crap. (Dinosours? Viruses? Bacteria? Other planets? Other suns? Is there ANY room for the idea that it was written by people with limited knowledge?)

    What Dani needs to understand, and we ought to help her understand, is that Creationists are looking to recover their “brand”, which was originally “Jesus” or “Christianity” or the “Bible”. People used to be able to count on the Word of God.

    The brand of “science” has gotten really powerful because any idea in science that has withstood decades of pounding from hundreds of thousands of self-centered self-promoting egomatics (a.k.a. scientists) stands on extremely firm ground, in the same way that any grand statement by Jesus in the Bible would be considered “Truth”. When people say that “the Bible says so”, it used to carry so much more weight in everyday life. But now that science says things that can, on the surface, contradict what the Bible says literally, and can say these things with tremendous credibility, it makes the simple rule of “just trust the Word of God” much more difficult.

    When do you trust the Word of God? Do you do it literally? Every word? Every story? Every example?

    It was much easier when it appeared to be 100% right.

    Of course, Dani needs to review history for herself because the Bible has been slowly pushed away from literal acceptance for centuries. Stoning is no longer considered acceptable. Capital punishment is reserved only for the most egregious of crimes. Women’s rights and roles have expanded a lot more. Most of these changes in attitudes toward the Word of God has been written off as “orthogonal” because they were more issues of “customs of the day” rather than real deep life long truths that all must abide by. We still think of murder as very bad, cheating on your mate as bad, stealing as bad … but we also bend these as well.

    From Dani’s perspective, these modern transgressions of God’s “recommendations for life” are all part and parcel of the same thing: Rejecting Jesus. It’s a simple explanation that yearn for a simpler time with simpler rules. Dani needs to understand that society is simply not going in that direction, and yes, there are philosophical clashes going on. And, yes, as ignorance of complexity is not an excuse for pretending that simple answers work.

    But that has nothing to do with what is considered science.

    The problem for Dani is that, at some point in everyone’s education, we are asked to think for ourselves, and to form our own conclusions. We don’t necessarily ask ourselves the details of how does that $20 bill come out of an ATM, or how that traffic light turns green, or how does an airplane stay up in the air.

    Our default answer is most often: Science.

    It has become such a potent brand, that the anyone who wants the challenge any idea that he/she thinks is coming out of science, must come to the scientific playground and battle science on its own turf. Simply hanging back and not challenging science directly will simply lose out in the end. History has proven this, and I think Creationists are extremely well aware the consequences of a “live and let live” approach.

    Creationists, however, are thwarted at the gates of the scientific playground because their ideas are, a priori, unable to compete in science. Their ideas violate the basic rules of science too greatly to be tweaked into even a partial fit.

    At this point, what can they do? They cannot even cram it in sideways. Since they cannot give up on their idea that Creationism must be given the solid branding of “science”, they must now play all sorts of games. They must do it through subterfuge. Witness Christine Comer in Texas just in time for Texas to reconsider school books. Witness this very article we are all responding to.

    This leads us to the “other” type of Creationists: The really devious ones. I would not call them evil, either. Most of them probably mean well. However, they are willing to use the ends to justify the means. It does not matter that they violate laws or violate rules of science. It does not matter if they use slimy tactics to get on school boards. It does not matter that they use bogus justifications to push opponents out of the way.

    They are now using bureaucratic means to get the result they could not get by trying to fit under the rhetoric of science.

    These people are the ones that are the most dangerous and must be countered directly. They must be exposed at every turn, and their intentions be shown in the bright light of day. They do operate much like Al Queda in that they are just “cells” … individuals or small groups working to sneak into decision points that allow them to steer the school book committees into allowing for “academic fairness” or other buzzwords.

    Dover and Kansas were just early attempt at this. Florida and Texas are next.

    Ernst

  122. Ernst Says:

    Chad said …

    “I dont know if you misunderstood me or not, i merely suggested that to tell children that essentially their parents are wrong, is itself wrong.”

    Oh no. I most certain DID understand you.

    And you are most certainly wrong.

    Go back to the flat earth example. Do you expect all classes (not just science class) to be dumbed down just because some parents believe the earth is flat?

    There is simply no way to allow for your assertion that contradicting the parents is a basis for limiting how ANY class might be taught.

    You are always welcome to remove your children from some classes. I know that when I took AP Biology, the teacher gave every student the option to leave, not only during the evolution portion, but the reproduction portion as well.

    I’m sorry, but you are simply wrong. No class should be dumbed down for such a reason.

    Ernst

  123. PC Says:

    A drug-resistant bacteria is still a bacteria; it’s not a cat. This is called micro-evolution, changes WITHIN a species. Darwins finches were still finches, like the other he examined from other areas, and even on a grander scale, they were all still birds. THEY DIDN’T MORPH into a different class/species of organism.
    The theory behind MACRO-evolution, tries to expand MICRO-evolution into the incorrect assumption “fact” that all species “evolved” (morphed) from protoplasm, or ectoplasm, I don’t know what plasm they’re calling this week. However for a single “evolution” of a protoplasm to a more complex life form, in order to define a new class “organism” is longer than idiotic science dates the existence of the universe.
    QUOTE:
    “Colin Patterson was not the only one expressing such views, however. Over the past two decades, distinguished British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle has stressed the serious problems—once again, especially from the fields of thermodynamics—with various theories about the naturalistic origin of life on the Earth. The same year that Dr. Patterson traveled to America to speak, Dr. Hoyle wrote:

    I don’t know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the Earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty in understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The “others” are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles…. It is quite otherwise, however, with the modern miracle workers, who are always to be found living in the twilight fringes of thermodynamics (1981a, 92:526, parenthetical comment in orig.).

    In fact, Dr. Hoyle has described the evolutionary concept that disorder gives rise to order in a rather picturesque manner.

    The chance that higher forms have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein (1981b, 294:105).

    And, in order to make his position perfectly clear, he provided his readers with the following analogy:

    At all events, anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cubic faces at random. Now imagine 1050 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling at just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order (1981a, 92:527, emp. in orig.).

    Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe (who is a professor of astronomy and applied mathematics at the University College, Cardiff, Wales) went even further. Using probability figures applied to cosmic time (not just geologic time here on the Earth), their conclusion was:

    Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends, are in every respect deliberate…. It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the higher intelligences…even to the extreme idealized limit of God (1981, pp. 141,144, emp. in orig.).”

  124. chad Says:

    S. Scott- Thanks for the input

    I think the only real solution to all of this is to recognize that A: school is meant to be a place of learning , which should involve discussion and deep-thought, and B: teach the things we know to be true. As ive said before, we know with a high degree of certainty that biological organisms adapt and evolve to survive, so we should teach that principle as a matter of fact, we know that organisms that exist today sometimes share many similarities with other organisms, past and present, so we should teach that, but, when we come across blatant uncertainties we should mention them, possibly even discuss the many explanations for them, but what we should not do is teach one particular interpretation of those uncertainties and treat that interpretation as the only interpretation.

    (This might sound arrogant, which I am, but notice that I have not insulted anyone, or shot down anyone’s opinions. This way I can take what everyone says without anger or malice, and they can explain their ideas without being influenced by any unkind responses. The only way to truly learn is to hear everyone out and decide, based on what you’ve heard from all, what the truth of the matter is. no one who gets called an idiot will change his mind or modify his beliefs to fit yours. May i suggest reading the book “How to Win Friends and Influence People” by Dale Carnegie. I believe many of the people who have posted on this board would learn a great deal from it, and maybe even enjoy it.) =)

    peacefulness

  125. Larry Says:

    If it has not been touched on you should consider the methods of science. In science a theory or an inference can be tested and can be found to be false by physical evidence in experiments. This is done all the time in the scientific method. But there is no way to test creation “science”. No experiment to find it false or true in the smallest detail. This is a matter of faith and religion. You accept it or not. Creation “science” comes with complete knowledge. No test is required. This is not science. Theories in real science are themselves being refined, challenged, and refined. But all this comes about with work using the methods of scientists.

  126. PC Says:

    For all you biology “specialist” idiots who believe in MACRO-evolution:

    “A decade later, in 1991, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe published in New Scientist an article with a catchy title (“Where Microbes Boldly Went”) but a dismal message—dismal, that is, for evolutionists who are forced by their theory to believe in the concept of biochemical evolution that allegedly produced the first life on Earth by chance processes.

    Precious little in the way of biochemical evolution could have happened on the Earth. It is easy to show that the two thousand or so enzymes that span the whole of life could not have evolved on the Earth. If one counts the number of trial assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give rise to the enzymes, the probability of their discovery by random shufflings turns out to be less than 1 in 1040,000 (91:415).

    Those “40,000 noughts” with which Dr. Hoyle was struggling in 1981 still were a thorn in his side ten years later. And the situation has not improved in the years since. One of the “scientific heavyweights” in origin-of-life studies from an evolutionary viewpoint is Leslie Orgel, who has spent most of his professional career attempting to uncover the secrets of how life began on this planet. In the October 1994 issue of Scientific American, Dr. Orgel authored an article titled “The Origin of Life on Earth” in which he admitted:

    It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means….

    We proposed that RNA might well have come first and established what is now called the RNA world…. This scenario could have occurred, we noted, if prebiotic RNA had two properties not evident today: a capacity to replicate without the help of proteins and an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis….

    The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. As we have seen, investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best. The full details of how the RNA world, and life, emerged may not be revealed in the near future (271:78,83, emp. added).

    It is not enough, of course, “just” to establish the possibility of spontaneous generation/biochemical evolution. Evolutionists also must explain the origin of the dazzlingly complex DNA/RNA genetic code that is the basis of every living organism. But, just as their fanciful-but-failed scenarios for the explanation of the naturalistic origin of life have left them lacking any substantive answers, so their theories regarding the origin of the genetic code have failed just as miserably. One evolutionist, John Maddox, confessed as much in a curiously titled but revealing article, “The Genesis Code by Numbers,” in Nature.

    It was already clear that the genetic code is not merely an abstraction but the embodiment of life’s mechanisms; the consecutive triplets of nucleotides in DNA (called codons) are inherited but they also guide the construction of proteins. So it is disappointing that the origin of the genetic code is still as obscure as the origin of life itself (1994, 367:111, emp. added).

    Second, not only is the inability of how to get life started a serious stumbling block for evolutionists, but now the where of this supposed happening has been called into question as well. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe have argued that life fell to Earth from space after having evolved from the warm, wet nucleus of a comet (see Gribbin, 1981, 89[3]:14; Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981). Sir Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA molecule, has suggested that life actually was sent here from other planets (1981). Meanwhile, back on Earth, Sidney Fox and colleagues have proposed that life began on the side of a primitive volcano on our primeval planet when a number of dry amino acids “somehow” formed there at exactly the right temperature, for exactly the right length of time, to form exactly the right molecules necessary for living systems (1977). Evolutionists are fond of saying (remember Gould?) that there is no controversy over the fact of evolution; it is only the “how” about which they disagree. Not true. They cannot even agree on the “where.”

    Of course, some evolutionists will attempt to argue that such matters are not properly discussed as a part of the evolutionary process, and that evolution per se only applies to biological change. Dobzhansky, however, settled that issue when he stated:

    Evolution comprises all the stages of development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic matter, and man is a product of the evolution of life (1967, 155:409).

    Third, in his January 1987 Discover article, Dr. Gould, discussed some of the “data” that establish evolution as a “fact” (his statement was that “facts are the world’s data”). An examination of these data disproves the very thing that Gould was attempting to prove—the “factuality” of evolution. He commented:

    We have direct evidence of small-scale changes in controlled laboratory experiments of the past hundred years (on bacteria, on almost every measurable property of the fruit fly Drosophila), or observed in nature (color changes in moth wings, development of metal tolerance in plants growing near industrial waste heaps) or produced during a few thousand years of human breeding and agriculture (8[1]:65, parenthetical items in orig.).

    Dr. Gould thus wants us to believe that such changes prove evolution to be a fact. Yet notice what the professor conspicuously omitted. He failed to tell the reader what he stated publicly during a speech at Hobart College, February 14, 1980, when he said:

    A mutation doesn’t produce major new raw material. You don’t make new species by mutating the species…. That’s a common idea people have; that evolution is due to random mutations. A mutation is not the cause of evolutionary change (as quoted in Sunderland, 1984, p. 106, emp. in orig.)”

  127. chad Says:

    Ernst-
    Again, you’re not reading what I’ve written. When i say beliefs, im referring to religious beliefs. Science and religion are two separate things. Church should teach religion, school, among other things, science. Now clearly, the earth is not flat, and if a parent believes it is, he or she is dead wrong.

    I’m talking about telling children that God doesnt exist and that the creation is a myth. The reason that telling someone that is wrong, is that we don’t know. What we do know is that evolution exists. Without a doubt, organisms evolve. I dont agree with the school system dumping evolution, not in the slightest. All I’m saying is that it is the place of the schools to educate children as to secular knowledge, and that it shouldnt presume to dictate the validity of a person’s religion, as long as the there is not empirical proof to otherwise invalidate it, such as is the case for the earth being flat.

    Its true that class should not be dumbed down in order to preserve parent’s beliefs, but it shouldn’t intentionally make claims against beliefs where the actual truth is not known.

    I hope that evolution continues to be taught, because it is a fact of life.

    thank you,
    Chad

  128. Ernst Says:

    PC, if you are not a troll, please take some time to go visit a museum where they show the big picture of genetic ancestry. If you are serious about considering what position you are taking and wonder if it is a better position than the theory of evolution, then please spend the time.

    I suspect, though, that in the end you are not likely to want to spend enough time to understand the volume of evidence already available. Instead, you are hoping that someone would point you to a rhetorical argument you can throw back at an “Evolutionist”.

    Wanting to have a response (regardless of the quality) is not the same as willingness to discuss details. An open mind requires the latter; the former is only useful for tit-for-tat school yard style shouting matches.

    Ernest

  129. Jeff Bouffard Says:

    WOW! And can you believe I found this website today! What an exchange! I haven’t seen that kind of flame on the web in a long, long time.

    Darwin’s hypothesis a theory? Then it must be testable. This is where the Creationists and Intelligent Designers have us Scientists in a hole. A theory is testable. Darwin’s “Theory” is not testable. You can’t independently confirm anything to do with Darwin’s observations of the Galapagos Islands. But, after the fact, we like to think that we can “explain” how things work.

    I’m an engineer. Science and Religion mix everyday. The West is successful, technologically, because widely-held religious views do not satisfactorily explain “how” or “why” things happen as they do. “Scientists” map out that void and Engineers fill it in.

    I am running for The US House of Representatives, Florida’s 15th District: Brevard, Indian River and Osceola counties. Evolution satisfactorily answers questions I have about where “life” originates. Although I am neither a geologist or a biologist, I am comfortable that Darwin’s Unstated Principle of “Survival of the Good-Enough” explains everything – except insects.

    Just that last part is a joke.

    See electbouf.com – I don’t know if 12 counties really did do some secret ballot nastiness, but I’ll be all over that like….

    HAVE YOU HAD ENOUGH YET! VOTE Libertarian. RUN Libertarian!

  130. Ernst Says:

    Chad,

    The only position that science can take on “God” and “Creation” is that these two concepts are not ideas that science can address.

    Yes, I’m sure you will find plenty of examples of people who say that evolution is proof that God does not exist. They are wrong.

    God might not exist. But evolution, nor any other scientific theory, can prove it.

    If the Biology teacher at your school teaches your kids that God does not exist as part of the curriculum, then that teacher should be fired, and her science teaching credentials revoked.

    Science cannot have a position on ideas that are outside of the natural world.

    On the other hand, you, as a parent, cannot pretend that if a Biology teacher says “we cannot prove that God exists”, that somehow, that translates into “the Biology teacher is teaching Atheism”.

    Your personal sensitivities are not the problem of the Biology teacher, and you have no business conflating her words with what you THINK she is saying. She should say exactly what science can say and what science cannot say. That is her job.

    If her statements are stirring up confusion, it is up to you to help your children clear up the confusion. You can do so by asking her to be more specific, but she is only obligated to stick to her professional positions. You can even contradict the teacher and tell your kids that evolution never happened. It sounds ridiculous in this example, but it is absolutely your right as a parent.

    Ernst

  131. Wally Anglesea Says:

    Two points:

    It seems that the best of the future generation of biologists, physicists, doctors and medical researchers will come from places like China, India, and other countries which don’t have right wing religious fanatics with an overweening desire to dumb down their population. I’d sooner go to a doctor who understood biology than thought it was all made 4,000 years ago, and says” We can”t understand how it all works, so it must have been God”.

    Secondly, if Creationists were honest (and they are not, not a single one of them in my experience), they would admit they begin (in this case) from the dogma that the Bible is the absolute, inerrant, complete word of God as revealed to man. Muslim Creationists substitute the Koran. They do not begin from observation, and critical thinking.

    In no way to they take into account Ancient Aboriginal creation mythology, which predates the Bible by about 35,000 years, nor do they know, understand, or take into account Pheonecian, Norse, Celtic, Hindi, Ba-benzele pygmy, Incan, Inuit, North American Indian, Polynesian, African, Egyptian… I could go on, but you get the drift.

    And what’s even funnier, is that Creationists are quite happy to use all of the benefits of science, geology, chemistry, maths etc, all of which allow them to drive cars, use computers, etc, yet fail to understand the exact same sciences all come together to prove the age of the Earth, the Universe, and the disciplines to allow us to understand it. Yet, they want to impose a way of thinking that picks and chooses what doesn’t challenge their faith.

    Without exception, Creationists are plain hypocrites. I don’t beleive they are just stupid.

    And yes, I’m angry about it. Because the consequences of whacked out beleifs have beenm demonstrated in the past. Both in the US, and in the defunct USSR.Lysenko springs to mind, demonstrating what happens when stupid people convince sheep to follow in their path. And then they legislate it.

  132. Todd Sherman Says:

    “It is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” –Charles Darwin

  133. Ernst Says:

    PC and Jeff Bouffard …

    By the way, I hope you realize that gravity theory, atomic theory, etc … are not “testable” in your definition either.

    Have you “seen” gravity waves? Have you “seen” an atom? Has anyone taken a picture of a “particle”? (No, those pictures are all pictures of bubbles … you are seeing bubble trails …)

    I would strongly suggest bringing in alternative theories to gravity and atoms. After all, fair is fair …

    Ernst

  134. Wally Anglesea Says:

    PC: The origin of life is NOT a sumbling block for Evolutionists. That’s an obfuscation always brought up by creationists.

    The various theories of evolution deal with how life *evolves* NOT how it began. Astrophysics, observational astronomy, and chemistry haven’t been working on that long enough. Give us a few more years.
    Secondly, probability as you pretend to understand it doesn’t enter ito it. You keep pretending it’s all random. Well it’s not *random* some “moves” are invalid, and simply don’t happen.

  135. Wally Anglesea Says:

    Ernst:

    I would also point out that Stellar evolution happens. Stars evolve. We haven’t seen a star evolve from a gas cloud, through main sequence to red giant to dwarf, (or any of the other kinds of stars in the zoo), but we know they do. The physics works, the maths works, and best of all, the H-R diagram is undeniably one of the major tools to demonstrate it all.

    Now what does that have to do with evolution? Well, we don’t see the entire evolution, because the time frames are too long. Of course, Creationists can keep asking for “transitional forms”, as long as they can also come up with an alternate theory on stellar evolution.

  136. Wally Anglesea Says:

    Jeff Bouffard:

    Evolutionary theory is tested daily in labs all over the world.

    Scientists make a hypthesis, come up with a method to test the hypothesis, and then conduct the experiment.

    And here is just one quick one:

    http://news.bio-medicine.org/biology-news-3/Laboratory-test-of-evolutionary-theory-confirms-importance-of-links-between-populations-14295-1/

    Whaty do creationits propose to test their “theory”? The answer is they have no way of testing for their belief.

    Oh, and before anyone cries “micro-evolution!!!” Well, this lab test was only over a short period. The universe has been “experimenting” for far, far longer.

  137. A. Person Says:

    Suppression of knowledge and observation, along with vetted findings, would appear to the the oppression of the working mind. It would hazard a guess these are not people possessed of great intellect, wisdom, or any true faith.

    This country will fall into ruin. A generation that avoids science will produce little innovation, but then again maybe that is happening now. But, dooming a generation must be a small price to pay for these folks.

    Education primarily comes from the parents, and the community. If the parent choose to ignore a fact they might find their view does not agree with apparent findings. Do they fear their children becoming smarter than them, or different from them, or just appearing foolish due to a lack of smarts?

    The Marching Morons are here, and aptly on the march it appears.

  138. A. Person Says:

    I submit this will it will come to pass that ignorance will win the day, year, and decade … here in America. As always, the kids will not be as stupid as their parent need them to be.

  139. nodiggity Says:

    This is an all too-common unsolvable conflict between polarized sides, taking place right now in thousands of communities all over the United States.

    In order to understand it better, one needs to take a little historical perspective, as well as consider where and how these types of situations can arise.

    America is a very young country, when compared to many other more mature cultures such as China (over 4,000 years) or parts of Europe (around 1,500 years). Its inhabitants are very much geographically isolated from each other, and therefore are at the mercy of the few individuals and institutions that are the cultural ‘gatekeepers’ in certain communities, the ones that determine what everyone sees and ultimately thinks.

    Add to this the fact the unbelievable, sobering statistic that only 20% of American citizens hold a valid passport and have traveled outside of their own country, and the result is that we are faced with the sad reality of a population of mental paupers, and while many in the bigger urban centers have certainly been exposed daily to many foreign cultures and more nuanced ways of thinking, those in the rural areas overwhelmingly get their knowledge of the world through third parties such as TV, newspapers and their churches.

    As in Mike Judge’s famous ‘Idiocracy’ (which was so incredibly potent and ‘on target’ that Fox Networks decided to bury it) we have now accumulated several generations of well-meaning, proud and honest folk who sadly do not have a clue on how to think for themselves, (it’s all been spoon-fed to them through networks and televangelists telling them to have large families, buy SUV’s and go to church, but also not develop a skeptical, inquisitive thought process) and while trying their best to inculcate the same values into their children, they do not realize that they themselves have been had on such a colossal scale that only a complete re-evaluation of their own identity, as well as a total re-appraisal of how the world REALLY works would accomplish anything for them.

    But most people, once adult, do not possess the mental strength of character and acumen to realize that they have been duped, bamboozled, and made for suckers by the modern-day expert snake-oil salesmen, the heavyweight specialists of the US royal swindle: ‘Christian’ broadcast and churches.

    So today, in the 21st Century, with an ever-widening cultural gap between on one hand those finely attuned to the subtleties of Tokyo’s ever-changing culture, or the more interesting aspect of creative multi-ethnic life in London, and on the other side those who haven’t ever been anywhere past Fort Lauderdale, we now commonly witness people that are still living in a quasi-dream, seeing life and everything through the ‘Lord™-tinted rosy glasses’ they have been taught to believe as the ultimate expression of truth (“It’s written in the book™”)

    Such a narrow view of our planet, and dimly limited appreciation of its vast cultural heritage only contribute to these people reacting forcefully when one tries to confront them with the obvious reality the rest of us who travel and constantly exchange with so many different people, the vibrant, luxurious wealth of creative ideas, which back home would only serve to get oneself in trouble for harboring doubt, questioning the established order, and ultimately sow the seeds that would throw a wrench into this absolute power choke religious ideas have had on these parts of the United States of America for too long.

    Make no mistake: this is a confrontation of gigantic proportions, and the stakes are far too big for the puppet-masters who keep those subjugated to give up without a fight to the death. It’s only normal, they know no other way. They haven’t had a positive example to the contrary, or any role models.

    Questioning those very values would mean a catastrophe, complete disaster for so many who have led their entire life in this devout fashion.

    THEY WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO START THINKING FOR THEMSELVES, RATHER THAN FINDING THEIR ANSWERS IN A BOOK! They are still applying knowledge of millennia-old folk tales of Bible 1.0 in what has become today’s World 2.0 Their church took over 400 years to admit that the Earth wasn’t flat. What do you expect here? For the pope to suddenly wake up to the fact that encouraging over-population is going to completely mess up the planet, and deplete its natural resources so that we should practice the most rigorous population control TODAY? Give it another 200 years at least.

    As Peter Finch so poignantly proclaimed in the famous movie ‘Network’ well over 20 years ago: “Right now, there is a whole, an entire generation that never knew anything that didn’t come out of this tube. This tube is the gospel, the ultimate revelation; this tube can make or break presidents, popes, prime ministers; this tube is the most awesome goddamn propaganda force in the whole godless world,…”

    We are now witnessing the results of such people being thoroughly brainwashed and not understanding the realities of life beyond their city limits. Physically, living in homogeneous and sheltered gated communities, and spiritually wearing blinders that prevent them to ever become conscious FOR THEMSELVES. Result: Sending troops to Eye-Raq under false pretenses, and ignoring the entire rest of the planet’s seeing them as little else but deluded aggressive GI-Joe caricatures of themselves.

    Not much can be done in such situations, especially in an election year where most if not all of the presidential candidates seem to spend more air time proclaiming their religious devotion than actually talking about the practical ways they will attempt to lead this formerly great country into a renewed cycle of well-being.

    A people, many of whom have by now become so addicted to cheap, plentiful oil, mass consumption of cheap and bland goods, and who are shielded by those spiritual charlatans that keep them pacified from the freight train of reckoning that is about to run into them at full speed, the cultural shock that is coming from the rest of this planet having bypassed them….

    As the science teacher pointed out at the end, again, the kids are the ones that are going to pay the tab. One would hope that some of them will wake up and smell the acrid coffee that has kept their parents so completely subjugated.

    Not much else to say.

  140. Don Says:

    Clearly, neither creationists nor evolutionists have an exclusive on ignorance and arrogance. I am a Christian who can understand that natural selection has and does occur. Having said that, I have found no scientific evidence that Homo Sapiens Sapiens evolved, by natural selection or any other means, from another species. The fossil record seems to indicate that humans have always been humans and apes have always been apes. I also feel that it requires no more faith to believe that all things were created by God than it does to believe that the wonderfully diverse life on this planet somehow developed by chance. Neither my faith or the Bible preclude the acceptance of scientific theory. It does seem, though, as if certain elements on both sides of the coin wish to indoctrinate non-believers. If I am able to accept certain aspects of evolution by natural selection without compromising my faith, then an evolutionist should be able to accept that there may be a modicum of truth to my deeply held beliefs. I just don’t think these two different sets of beliefs have to be mutually exclusive. The theory that all life on this planet evolved from a single-celled organism cannot be proved. There is, however, evidence that evolution within species by way of genetic mutation and natural selection has and does occur. Except for narrow minded bigotry and arrogance, there is no reason why faith and science should be mutually exclusive. Please let me know if I have erred in any of my statements as I do not claim to be an expert in either subject. Of one thing I am certain- the more I learn, the more I realize how little I truly know.

  141. PC Says:

    I intentionally use these degrading terms of stupid, idiot, and ass because science (incorrect evolution) lovers like to insinuate that citizens who do NOT believe in evolution are science illiterates, dumb, and “red”. WE ARE NOT; and we do publish papers, as well as papers against articles in science publications, and magazines; it’s just a little overwhelming to undo the fallacies at the rate that educators and the “education system”are trying to push the lies. I am an engineer; I have friends who are physicists, and we all understand fact from theory just fine. My niece (Christian) is in micro-biology, and genetic cell research, yet she understands that science has no origin for anything; not the universe, Earth, animals, or humans. “facts” keep changing in science, based upon new phenomena, and observances, and experiments. It’s okay to experiment, and observe, and make observations. It’s NOT okay, to make incorrect conclusions and call them fact, or insinuate knowledge without acknowledging that “as best we know right now” this is what we can observe/conclude. The “constant” for Carbon 14 dating has changed value several instances over time, gravity still runs into uncertainty problems near the speed of light, Planck’s “constant” is no longer constant at the limits of what we can predict is near light speed, even in just the formulas, there are always “fudge factors” to even make the assumptions trying to be proved. Try explaining “First Cause” without going into multi-planar and multiple-universe/existences simultaneously concluding that things can and cannot exist in multiple planes of existence at the same time. Yes, I’ve done the research on these topics, I am not “red” and NOT stupid, so put away the insults to people, and work with the facts; MACRO-evolution has not ever occurred; no one can explain the how, where, or why of why anything exists. So yes, it’s not science, and yes, all it leaves is faith. But that’s okay, because there aren’t any other explanations that work. DON’T sell observances as excuses of fact; if that were true, I am going to use the fact that in the 1500′s and 1600′s there are many recorded “observances” of knights from France, Scotland, and England, getting their armor on to go fight “dragons”. If dragons could be dinosaurs, that would mean they aren’t any older than 480 years extinct. Transitional fossils, do not explain MACRO-evolution, nor do they provide HOW, WHERE, WHEN, or WHY what exists back then or now is here. They are evidence of micro-evolution inside of an animal class, or plant class…etc. Even the “walking fish” is still a fish. Because science misclassified a rat as a mammal; only explains how much science goofs up, or just plain doesn’t KNOW. If you don’t want to use and believe in faith, then keep riding the roller coaster of science and scientific “constants” and values, but be prepared to have nothing solid to believe in “for sure”.

  142. Wally Anglesea Says:

    And I intentionally use the term hypocrite. Because, basically, that’s what a creationist is.

    You can put up any “facts” about knights putting on armour to fight dragons. If you want to beleive in dragons, go ahead. If you want to beleive that your car’s spark plugs are fired by tiny angels that jump between the termmials, go ahead. It just makews you look stupid.

    If you want to state categorically that the one and only true revelation is in the Bible, and ignore basic archaeology, and mythology that predates the bible, at least admit you are bigoted.

    Oh, and try to keep up. Carbon 14 dating is improved. Unlike dogmatic beleif in religoin, science progresses. The only thing you have is “I don’t know why, so God must have done it.

    I’ll bet your daughter would never go to her colleagues or superiors with “I don’t know why this does this, It must be god doing it”

    BTW, I’m a Christian. The difference is, I know that Bible and life of Christ as a moral compass. Not a science text book.

  143. Justin Bailey Says:

    Um, you do know dragons are just pretend, right? Like how God is just pretend?

  144. PC Says:

    I feel sorry for you Wally, if you are a Christian; there really isn’t anything left for you to insult. At least you admit that Carbon dating has “got better”; that just means different. Carbon dating got different; not better, not worse, just a different guess value. I am up, that’s the problem you face. Science is a tool for understanding current conditions/conclusions; it can try and explain historical evidence, and it can try and predict future expectations/results. Currently mathematicians cannot explain all the forces/constants that exist over long periods of time (of 3 seconds or so) on a child’s toy top. They CAN explain it for 1 locked/definable “instantaneous” fragment of the most minuscule portion of a micro-second, if we “freeze” time and all the “observable” variables with it. Luckily the inventor of the toy top didn’t worry about understanding how it all worked at the “astrophysics level”, but enjoyed the success of having it work. I am sure the inventor tried many different designs, and “formulas”, and design of experiments, to find a solution that worked. Or , maybe it was an accident, not intended for the final use, but still workable. 3M “Sticky Notes” were an accident, you might not know, by a worker trying to make a better coating for cassette tapes. Science can now explain it, and observe it, and re-create it. My children will utilize science as the tool it is, not as an excuse for lies and incorrect application(s). As a tool, one must understand the limitations of that tool; I wouldn’t send my children out to a granite quarry with a hand trowel to cut me a granite boulder 6 cu. ft. in volume. Reset your compass, and understand science better; go back to school. I have never observed angels near my spark plug gaps; have you ever observed ball lightning in nature?

  145. Shimrod Says:

    I suggest those nitwits who think that lightning is still caused by god and that the sun still goes round the earth should look here.

    15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense – by Scientific American

    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF

  146. Wally Anglesea Says:

    Carbon 14 dating “got better” because our understanding got better, opur instruments got better, and the science got better. It’s called improvement.

    You might not understand it, but for instance, X-Rays (opr at least the technology to use them) are better now than they were 40 years ago, or even 10 yearsa ago. Just like CPU’s are faster, as the manufacturing process got better, and the science improved. Cars are more efficient now than they were 10 years ago. Science is a methodology for making those improvements. Newton is still correct, you know, just as Einstein is correct.
    Our understanding improves. God gave us the ability to learn, and improve our understanding.

    We don’t just depend on Carbon 14. There are KNOWN decay rates for every radioactive material. And don’t say the decay rates have changed, because there is NO EVIDENCE they have, and for them to have changed at the rate you would propose, the first time the first caveman lit a fire he would have blown up the countryside. If you don’t understand why, then no one can help you.

    I’ve never left school I continue to learn, and my understanding gets better. You see, I learn, and I’m excited that there are new things to understand, and discover. You however, have the perfect, boring knowledge, you are left with “God did it”.

    Finally, the value of pi is 3.14159 and some more. It hasn’t changed. It’s a “constant”. It helps us understand the following:

    1: The size of the Earth, the Moon, and the Sun
    2: The Earth’s distance from the sun
    3: the distance to the nearest stars (a thing called geometry does this for us. Check it out)
    4: The value of the luminosity of stars that are further out.
    5: Cepheid Variables, and their period luminosity relationship
    6: the distance to The Andromeda Galaxy. – a litle over 2 milklion light years.

    Everything is independantly verifiable by *any* amateur astronomer with relatively inexpensive equipment.
    At that point, you have to accept the universe is *at least* 2 million years old (and that’s enough to make the young universe nitwits choke).
    …. or else you have to lie to yourself and pretend it’s all wrong.

    Stop treating the Bible as a science text book.

  147. PC Says:

    I’ll suggest you try our website, but it’s just a suggestion, for those Christians who want to know why they should believe, what they believe, and correct that which is believed, but is in error.

    http://www.apologeticspress.org
    http://www.apologeticspress.org/allegeddiscrepancies/

    Ball lightning IS observable, has been predicted to be possible, but science can’t quite explain why it works in the format it exists.

    Any knowledgeable Christian knows that all things come from God.

    The bible doesn’t say the sun goes around the earth; you have quoted a common “argument” which is untrue; try the “alleged discrepancies” section, if you really want to explore and minimize your ignorance/error.

    A hand trowel can be used for discovery and fun; my kids use theirs in the dirt, and find all kinds of neat things. Science too can be fun and lead to discovery; just not discovery of how everything came into existence.

    I no more believe recorded, observable accounts of knights fighting dinosaurs, as I do of Darwin observing, and discovering, the key principle to the creation of new species and evolution in large. He did a wonderful job of discovering and recording his findings on adaptation/ genetic cause traceability.

  148. Michael Says:

    When I first started reading this, I immediately felt compelled to respond. Not only am I a Florida citizen but I have friends and family who are educators in my state’s public school system, so the idea of minority religious belief forcing itself into the public school system of Florida hits very close to home for me.

    But as I’ve spent the last hour or two reading over the comments and responses to this story my heart sank. The posts people made quickly strayed far from the topic, and have become much more emotional and combative. Some are definitely angry and even insulting toward the other side. I must ask, what good has all this done?

    I believe in God, and I believe in Evolution. I’ve argued against Creation many times, and I can say I’ve never won. Sure, I made my point well. I’ve used many of the arguments given here for Evolution against many of the arguments also given here for Creation. Never have I changed someone’s mind, and rarely have I given someone much pause. Nearly every person I have dealt with had Creation as such an integral part of their faith that to ask that person to let go of that one belief seemed to be asking him or her to forsake their faith in God.

    I never quite understood this, since for me God and Science and Evolution and Physics and Faith all sit happily together without conflict, but I could never find it easy to ask someone to let go of part of what they believe.

    As I sit here writing this looking over respondents like PC and chad and Ernst and Wally all make very compelling arguments that I have heard before, I see no sign of people on either side even trying to come together, save the far-too-infrequent posts from someone like WeirdJohn who echoes my own belief that Science and Faith are not mutually exclusive in a person’s life. This debate is going to keep on going as long as each side does such an eloquent job of repulsing the other, each absolutely convinced they have to teach their counterpart how the world should be. You can bemoan the state of American primary education all you like, but this discussion stopped being about public schools a long time ago. Instead it has become mostly bickering over who has the better belief.

  149. PC Says:

    Wally, you need to check some facts, better. Cars haven’t gotten any more efficient at 4 cycle combustion today as they were in the beginning. Try Jay Leno’s website about his car collection(which is impressive with “firsts” of automotive technology); a bit back he did a comparison of 1920 electric cars and current electric cars. The only major difference in the decades of technology “improvements” was the safety of the batteries and components in it. 4 cycle combustion is what it is; the cycles and energies/inputs haven’t changed through the years, just our understanding of them. FWD on cars was introduced in the 1920′s , put into production on the 1966 Oldsmobile Toronado, but didn’t get widespread acceptance until the early 1980′s. As fast as CPU’s have gotten, is still not fast enough to solve the toy top equations beyond the instantaneous “snapshot”. The value of PI has changed, and has been recalculated many times looking for accuracy, with accuracy growing as technology has increased.

    Known decay rates have been applied to different materials/particles as they have been discovered; yes. But we keep finding new particles, with new decay rates. And, when bombarding and colliding all the KNOWN particles that can be observed, recorded, and measured, there is still an amount of energy near 10^26th power of energy left over as unexplained, in a SINGLE particle of an atom. That includes the “dark energy” particles as well; so don’t think you’re going there. Nuons, muons, etc…all gone, with PLENTY of energy left over. My physicist Christian brother calls that “God”; in every particle, every molecule. I don’t know what the energy is, but I’m not calling him wrong, either.

    Newton’s laws are being challenged by string theory and quantum mechanics, and Einstein himself stated his theory doesn’t always work, in every situation. Stop running around trying to find a point to argue about. If you want to think you can see 14 million years into the past, go ahead. If we imagine time as a string, and put three dots all on top of each other, and call those three dots your birth, your entire life, and death; there is one thing you can know. While you can see the string going into the past and up ahead, you still don’t know where the string came from. It’s outside your scope of “finite” for the string is “infinite” (like God).

  150. chad Says:

    I’m going snowboarding tomorrow, so I don’t really have time to keep posting, but I’ll keep this short. Love and Peace everyone, Love and Peace. who cares what the reality of the situation is. Just read immanuel kant and assume that everything we experience is just how we perceive it, and therefore we can prove nothing. Problem solved

    (just a little foolishness and gaiety to end my part in the discussion)

    Live life to the fullest and learn what you want to learn

    peacefulness

  151. nodiggity Says:

    January 2008: And this is where we stand: Intelligent Falling. (comic relief)

    KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held “theory of gravity” is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

    “Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, ‘God’ if you will, is pushing them down,” said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

    Burdett added: “Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, ‘I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.’ Of course, he is alluding to a higher power.”

    Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world’s leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

    According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God’s Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

    The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue “so they can make an informed decision.”

    “We just want the best possible education for Kansas’ kids,” Burdett said.

    Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein’s ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

    “Let’s take a look at the evidence,” said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden.”In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, ‘And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.’ He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, ‘But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.’ If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling.”

    Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton’s mathematics and Holy Scripture.

    “Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein’s general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world,” said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. “They’ve been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don’t know how.”

    “Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work,” Carson said. “What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that ‘gravity waves’ and ‘gravitons’ are just secular words for ‘God can do whatever He wants.’”

    Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

    “Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the ‘electromagnetic force,’ the ‘weak nuclear force,’ the ‘strong nuclear force,’ and so-called ‘force of gravity,’” Burdett said. “And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus.”

  152. PC Says:

    Michael, I’m not asking to exclude science as worthwhile, even as an educational method or tool. I’m not asking Wally to have faith, that’s up to him to decide. What I don’t want, is the lackadaisical attitude that as long as Darwin and other “evolutionists” have put an idea in a textbook, that it is correct, and acceptable to use everywhere. I use science everyday, even it’s methods and thought processes; but I understand it’s limitations, and usability to explain everything can be mis-leading. I also refute the statement that people who do not believe in the evolution of one species into another class, are all red-necked, hillbilly, Bible thumping, non-intelligent individuals. We’re intelligent on many topics, as many as pro-evolutionists want to sidetrack into. Evolution eventually boils down into the fact that there was no Creator(you don’t have to equate that to God at all), no Creator of any kind; everything happened by accident, mutation, or randomly. Looking logically at the intricacy of a DNA molecule, can only lead to an absolute appreciation for the symmetry, beauty, and sheer intelligence of the design. Good, intelligent design, comes from an involved, intelligent designer; call it whatever you wish, Buddha, Allah, I don’t really care, as long as man isn’t the designer. That’s the ultimate goal of evolution/science; to make man smart enough to say man can understand enough to know everything; and unfortunately, realistically, we can’t, and don’t. All I ask is that the teacher includes that knowledge and its implications, when teaching the scientific method to students, and stop using evolution as a reason for intelligent, creative humans to come from apes, and protoplasmic ooze, when that process has never happened, now or ever.

  153. not a US citizen Says:

    Florida Citizens for science,
    I applaud you and your work, but worry that you might be playing into these madmen’s (and women’s) hands.

    This movement by your anti evolution lunatic fringe strikes me as a troll.
    They want to start a fight so they can paint anyone with an education as anti christian and thus “energise their base”.Elections coming and all that..

    How about you start comparing them to muslim creationists?
    “Are they terrorists?Why do they hate the west and its freedoms of thought?” etc. etc.

  154. nodiggity Says:

    Just to make sure some of you don’t actually think it was real, the previous post I made was a reprint from one of our secular, godless newspapers “The Onion”.

    But it was used to make a point about where to go from here when beliefs rather than facts shape someone’s view of the world, and distort how they interact with it.

    Rather than add any further commentary, it may serve us well to read a timeless quote one of the great philosophers, Voltaire made centuries ago:

    “Those who can make people believe absurdities can make them commit atrocities.”

    ng

  155. PC Says:

    No-diggity;

    You make a quite intellectual ape, you’ve convinced me, I give up. Now go to the ape – man wall chart on the wall in your room, and see if you see yourself in the lineup.

  156. PC Says:

    One of the most widely read manuscripts in the Middle Ages was an allegory that compared life to a game of chess. The anonymous author wrote, “Wherefore play the game of life warily, for your opponent is full of subtlety, and take abundant thought over your moves, for the stake is your soul.”

    “When the game is over, it all goes back in the box” pp. 7 John Ortberg

  157. PC Says:

    “It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.” — Albert Einstein

    “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”–Albert Einstein

    “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.” –Albert Einstein

    “The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible.” –Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

    A smart man, who knew the limitations of what he knew. Brilliant.

  158. nodiggity Says:

    Well, PC don’t be straying too far into the ‘intellectual apes’ analogy, as the very case you make could only serve to abundantly prove that in fact, species have indeed evolved over time, and still doing so today.

    For that matter, let’s not insult apes at all, as they are either:

    1- the amazing creation of yada-yada-yada™ supreme intelligent designer.
    2- the result of millions of years of incredible fine-tuning and evolution.

    Speaking of which, this dude from Texas who (as it is still argued) usurped the 2000 election over a few ballots in Florida, and since then squandered almost one TRILLION dollars of our tax dollars into blowing up sand dunes and camels might certainly qualify as another ‘intellectual ape’ …..

    Even members of the Simian order could probably grasp the colossal things that could have been accomplished for ALL of our children’s education with that kind of money. All gone now.

    Must have been part of another facet of ‘intelligent design’ I don’t quite get either, and probably never will.

    ng

  159. Mohamed Says:

    Isn’t belief in evolution also a matter of faith?
    “Acceptance of evolution is not the same as a religious belief. Scientists’ confidence about the occurrence of evolution is based on an overwhelming
    amount of supporting evidence gathered from many aspects of the natural
    world. To be accepted, scientific knowledge has to withstand the scrutiny
    of testing, retesting, and experimentation. Evolution is accepted within the
    scientific community because the concept has withstood extensive testing by many thousands of scientists for more than a century. As a 2006 “Statement on the Teaching of Evolution” from the Interacademy Panel on International Issues, a global network of national science academies, said, “Evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines” (emphasis in original). (See http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf.)

    Many religious beliefs do not rely on evidence gathered from the natural
    world. On the contrary, an important component of religious belief is faith,
    which implies acceptance of a truth regardless of the presence of empirical
    evidence for or against that truth. Scientists cannot accept scientific conclusions on faith alone because all such conclusions must be subject to testing against observations. Thus, scientists do not “believe” in evolution in the same way that someone believes in God.”
    -National Academy of Sciences (Science, Evolution, and Creationism)

  160. PC Says:

    1. yes

    2. wouldn’t contend they’ve had that long to adapt.

    One thing I have heard commented on is that sooner or later, most presidential candidates proclaim they are a Christian or Christian supporter; in order to get a majority vote. I’m not a Bush supporter, wasn’t a supporter of his father, nor am I a supporter of Clinton. At least Clinton, as dumb as everyone said he was, and as obvious a liar he was for inventing the internet; had a balanced budget for America. But this really is just another sidetrack, trying to find some complaint which you think you can stand on. Politics is politics. THIS is not about Bush, or Bush, or Clinton, Obama, or Clinton, or Huckabee, or any other individual running for President. Get back on the topic if you want to argue; the problem is, your pockets are empty, you got nothing left.

  161. PC Says:

    Apparently, nodiggity is having a hard time comprehending my statements, so I will again clarify.

    “evolution” within a species has happened; it’s called adaptation, “survival of the fittest”, mutation, and many other titles.

    “evolution” of protoplasm to any other form or species, has NOT happened. Man did not evolve from simians, or any other cross-mutation of a different species.

    Teach the scientific thought process and method; no problem.

    Teach that the pursuit of knowledge can be beneficial; no problem.

    Teach that adaptation occurs in a species; no problem.

    Teach that life all came from protoplasm; not acceptable.

    Teach that we know the exact instance of the beginning of the universe; not acceptable.

    Teach that science can find all the answers to the universe and life; not acceptable.

    Teach my children that they are anything less than a design from an intelligent entity; not acceptable.

  162. NotProvided Says:

    Everybody who has posted here should visit this web site, if they haven’t already. It might help to clear up a lot of the confusion.

    http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm

  163. FMCH Says:

    PC,

    Looks like you along with the other xtians are missing something. You said “Teach that life all came from protoplasm; not acceptable” You are mixing up evolution with abiogenisis which is the study of how life began. You also seem to be mixing up evolution with cosmology. These ar etypical mistakes made by fundies.

    You also said “Teach that we know the exact instance of the beginning of the universe; not acceptable” We don’t, we can only go as far back as 10 to the 23 seconds after the “big bang”

    “Teach that science can find all the answers to the universe and life; not acceptable”

    And why not? Until Newton, it was believed that angels held up the planets. Until Galilelo (sp?) came along, everything orbitied the Earth.
    Saying that science cannot fidn answers to these questions is pure ignorance. It might take a long time, but science will.

    “Teach my children that they are anything less than a design from an intelligent entity; not acceptable.”

    There is no evidence for a supernatural entity. There is no scientific data for support of that idea.

  164. FMCH Says:

    PC,

    Might I direct you to view these two videos. You will see excellent examples of evolution with cited sources and the shattering of ID/Creationist/YEC claims. The makers of these 2 vids ask for input, especially from the ID/YEC/Creationist camps. They do however, expect that you will have a scientific analyisis of your claims with scientific proof.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGND4bEOtS8 part1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuVDB1Zxuc8 part2

  165. FMCH Says:

    Hey PC, if god magically created all species, why do we continue to see new species?

  166. FMCH Says:

    Here’s the Top25 Creationist Fallacies ENJOY!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXMKPvWqgYk

  167. BibleThumper Says:

    This thread sure has gotten long!

    One stance that creationist seem to take was summed up by the following:

    “EVOLUTION HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN ANY SCIENCE ENVIRONMENT! IT’S NEVER BEEN WITNESSED, MEASURED, OR PROVEN!”

    What proof is there that God exists? Faith and proof are two different words.

    Faith: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; (wordnet.princeton.edu)

    Proof: any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something; (wordnet.princeton.edu)

    While a belief in God is fine. It is not fine to insist that another person must believe in God exactly as you do. At least not in the United States. The nation founders were smart enough 250 years ago to realize there needs to be a separation of church and state. Education was not as important 250 years ago as it is today–but there is nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing an education for all. Hate to use the word, but a federal/state funded educational system has evolved over the last few centuries A public education is for all and should be devoid of any type of religion.

    This is not to say an individual can not raise their children with a strong religious faith. There are several options outside of the public sector. Homeschooling is one option. A much more popular option is a parochial school. To those that feel public education is destroying their child’s faith–it is time to step up to the plate and remove your child from the public school system. Invest in your child’s future and send your child to a private school.

  168. WeirdJohn Says:

    To PC and his friends:

    An example of evolution and speciation of a higher animal is the Eastern Rosella from Australia. Before I begin the story though I’m going to have to give a few definitions to make sure we communicate effectively:

    Species: Two animals/plants are in the same species if they will recognise each other and breed under natural conditions. The progeny must also be members of this same species and fertile.

    Population: A group of organisms belonging to the same species. Separate populations of the same species are usually separated by geographical feature’ although there are populations of big cats in Africa where separation between groups seems to be based on consanguinity.

    Now to the story:

    The Eastern Rosella is an Australian parrot, about 12 inches long, that lived in a contiguous range that ran in a huge arc from north-eastern NSW, through south central NSW and into South Australia (look at a map). at the eastern end of its range it was a green bird, at the western end it was a red bird, with varying and continuous gradations in colour throughout the middle section. Birds that came from regions a few hundred miles apart could recognize each others as mates, and would have progeny coloured in between. In the 1950s the Murrumbigee Darling Irrigation Scheme (A HUGE area, the worlds largest irrigation area) resulted in the wholesale destruction of the trees that the bird nested in. Now there are two separate populations of the two ends, with no rosellas in the middle thousand miles. If you take birds from these two populations they do not recognize each other as mates unless you artificially colour them or feed them hormones.

    Where there used to be a single species there are now two. This is an example of speciation at work. We are observing that the green birds are now becoming greener (no mixing of redder genes, and green is a better coloration for defense in thu east) and similarly for the red birds in the west (where the landscape is red, providing better selection of redder birds).

    This is evolution at work. In this case a catastrophe occurred dividing a single population into two. This provided a selection pressure, so normal variation resulted in evolutionary pressures resulting in brand new species evolving.

    Selection pressures can occur due to any number of natural forces.

    I hope a bird is an advanced enough animal for you. If you wish I can find references to other higher animals where speciation has been observed occurring due to evolution by Natural Selection and the survival of the Fittest (Hmmm…. sounds like a catchy title for a book, how about “The Origin of species by Natural Selection and the Survival of the Fittest”? Oh wait, I believe Mr Darwin already wrote a book like that…)

    God Bless,

    John

  169. 4g1vn Says:

    Tell me, are all the people on this list wrong and you’re right? What are your credentials?

    http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

  170. Wally Anglesea Says:

    PC: Newtons Laws are NOT being challenged. Learn a bit abpout science.
    Newtons laws work, still today. They apply just as well now as they did then. However, they apply only up to a certain level of accuracy.

    I’m sorry for you, PC, if you truly think cars are as efficient now as they were in the days of the Model T Ford. YOu get far, far more torque from smaller capacity thatn you did.

    Yes, science discovers new particles. It s good thing. It means we know more, ya know?

    Now, you can cower in your absurd faith that scienc e can’t discover anything new about the universe, but it does. And it’s science that allows you to post on the Internet. The same science that proves evolution is a fact. The same science that proves that Stars evolve over billions of years.

    Ball Lightning? There are several theories of how this natural atmospheric phenomena happens. Science will figure it out. Your silly “God makes it happen” is the common cry of the credophile who says “I give up, I can’t figure it out”

    Decay rates, Yes, The great thing about science, is it allows us to learn new things. And What I mean by decay rates, we KNOW very precisely, what elements decay into other elements, and at what rate, and at what concentrations. Which is why we know the seamounts off Hawaii are millions of years old.

    Also taking Einstein out of context, and quote mining is the common approach of Creationists. And telling lies for God is still a sin.

  171. ben Says:

    right john, i believe pc would agree with you that there is evidence for micro evolution, the birds feathers did change colors. However, this proof doesn’t scale to prove macro evolution. Birds adapting to reproduce in selective color feathers doesn’t provide proof for birds adapting to reproduce non birds.

  172. ben Says:

    i am a christian.

    also specifically for wally, and any other bible believing people on this thread, if you truly do ” know that Bible and life of Christ as a moral compass. ” i ask if christ came to die to save us from death, that which is the wages of our sin, romans 6:23, billion year macro evolution does present a problem with death predating sing. we christians run into personal theological problems by simply stating god could have created any way he saw fit either by seven literal days or millions of years.

    none of this to distract from the current thread topic

  173. Jamie Says:

    Science class teaches science. In science you come up with a hypothesis and then attempt to prove that hypothesis. If the experiment is *reproducible*, and the outcome is *consistent* and the meaning *unambiguous*, then that is science. How you come up with that hypothesis is irrelevant, as long as you can test your theory.

    Evolution is science. It originated as a hypothesis, a bold one as it directly conflicted with the dogma of the day. Evolution as yet has stood up to scientific tests. If one day we find a problem, then we can refine our hypothesis, but until then it remains our current best scientific model.

    IMPORTANT BIT: If you want to teach creationism in class, then provide your theory, and then provide a scientific experiment that can back up your theory. Until you can do this, please file creationism under “not science”, and leave it out the science classroom.

    Respond.

  174. Marco Says:

    Man did not evolve from apes, rather man and apes evolved from a common ancestor

  175. PC-Bash Says:

    PC -

    Interesting. You start your relies by calling people who accept the scientific theory of evolution as something that has stood up to rigorous testing as “idiots”, yet you don’t want to be called an idiot yourself. It’s interesting that I can use this bit of irrational logic to decimate your entire argument.

    Evolution, both micro-evolution and macro-evolution, can be observed through DNA. We can compare DNA of species that are related, and compare this DNA to remains from thousands and millions of years ago. Just as it is possible for an engineer (as you call yourself) to perform a three way differential analysis of three related systems, it is possible to perform a three way differential analysis of DNA. What we have found is that these species are related, and many small changes over time eventually cause species to split. A species is defined as a group that can inter-breed. At one point, the ancestor of the Chimpanzee and Human had this ability. Somewhere, a few million years ago, this ancestor was split into two groups who evolved over time. Eventually, these two groups lost the ability to inter-breed. The evidence for this historical event can be found by comparing the human genome to that of other primates.

    The fundamental concept of science and engineering is that we should not rely on faith to do our jobs. This is an important lesson to teach our children, which is why questions of faith do not belong in the math or science classrooms. If P is proven to not equal NP, the proof should not quote the Torah, the New Testament, the Koran, or any other mythological story. When an engineer builds a skyscraper, he should use math and physics. He shouldn’t use the description of the Tower of Babel, a quote out of The Book of Revelation to John, or pray to his fictional spiritual father figure that the building stands. He had better rely on cold hard equations and good building materials. Religion and Science are two distinct bodies of believe. They should not be combined to form a Chimera so people like you, who have too little faith, can rest assured that the faith of you or your children will not be questioned.

    If you choose to believe in Christian Mythology, then your faith will be questioned every day. You are using the science of Quantum Physics to write your responses to this article, or to read this article at all. Without Quantum Physics, we would not have discovered the semi-conductor, or been able to build the transistor. Interestingly, many people of weak faith tried to stifle this field as you are trying to stifle biology now. Your car was also built using engineering that boldly stands against quasi-scientific rabble in your book of worship. You have two choices, you can either ignore that which makes your holy book irrelevant, or you can accept reality. That decision is yours, and is purely theological. However, what you don’t have the right to do is put my children at a loss by reducing science and mathematics to metaphysics. What makes engineering and science strong is its rigor. People like you and your ilk wish to dilute science so it is convenient to your weak faith. If your faith was strong, it could co-exist with evolution. Since your faith is weak, you must strike out all that question it.

    Claiming “Deus vult!” (that’s “God wills it” to those of you with an English bible) to answer the nagging problems with your faith, such as why animals evolve over time, puts you in great company. I believe that was the same argument used by Pope Urban II to begin the First Crusade. That turned out quite well, didn’t it? Maybe there are good reasons why State and Church should be separate after all, no?

    As an aside, this is not the first time that people of weak faith have tried to poison society. One of the most notable times sparked the beginning of the Dark Ages, when the Roman Catholic Church ruled with as much power as monarchies. In this time, people who came up with theories that opposed Catholic dogma were often run out of town, tortured, burned at the stake, or merely excommunicated. Of course, you would have all of this done to you as well, since you are a Protestant. They didn’t really like that Martin Luther guy at all. His ideas were as much heresy as you see evolution now. But, had it not been for heretics like Martin Luther, you would not be able to spout the nonsense you are spouting to us today. Interestingly, the Church at the time tried similar tactics to discredit the Protestant movement as the ones that your are regurgitating through your half-baked arguments.

  176. chad Says:

    to get back on the topic of this article, lets everyone agree that ditching the teaching of evolution as a principle of science and life was was stupid. people clearly adapt and mutate, evolve if you will, just as all living organisms do. why anyone would want to stop teaching something we know to occur is foolish, and it seems that most christians on here do believe that evolution occurs, so shame on the 12 counties. That was foolish of them, and inappropriate for a place of learning.

    There, my two cents on the actual topic of the blog. Stop bashing each other please, it just pisses people off. Again, i recommended this earlier, but read “How to Win Friends and Influence People” by Dale Carnegie. It has many wise things to pass on to its readers about how to deal with people, and expect results at the same time, which is something that most of you cant possibly be doing with all this arguing.

    peacefulness

  177. S.Scott Says:

    Peace Chad :)

  178. Ben K Says:

    AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!! … Need I say more.

    You don’t have to believe in science… It stands on its own, whether you believe it or not. It doesn’t care. It is the gaps in the theories that must be tested, both by those that wish them to be true and those that do not, but do not mistake science as being on the same playing field as religion. It does not require belief, but instead skepticism. Scientists are constantly poking holes in theories in the effort to find out the truth.

    God, in his infinite wisdom, gave us no proof so that we must choose to believe and have faith. Belief is holding that something is true even when there is no empirical proof. If there was proof you would not be able to believe in it, you would simply know… Because the lord asks for faith and belief then there must be no proof that god exists, if you believe in Him.

    Religion believes it knows the truth and so feels a need to discredit science in areas where it may disagree with them. (pardon the anthropomorphisms)

    It is intolerant and un-American to try to shut the mouths of those that wish to put forth their opinions on either side. In America, you have the right to believe what you wish, to say it out loud and in public and in print, you have the right to be offended by what others say and do, but you do not have the right to tell them to stop… If you can stop them, then they will be able to stop you. People sometimes ask them selves why people put up with the public espousing of frankly distasteful opinions by people that strongly believe they are right. They do it because they want to be able to disagree equally loudly and publicly, and freely.

  179. Ben K Says:

    O, BTW, Mendel, The father of genetics, was a monk…

    Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called “Mendelianism”. He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868.

    from http://www.adherents.com/people/pm/Gregor_Mendel.html

    Many of the great scientists of the past have been devoutly religious, examining the world and trying to discover the truth in what they believed to be God’s creation. Like most scientists, they were often wrong, but eventually, the sometimes right answers were pieced together to form the basis of our science today.

  180. firemancarl Says:

    It is the religious crowd who fear that one day they will wake up and find that their beliefs in a sky fairy have been wrong all along and they won’t know what to do.

    Here are a few quotes from Richard Dawkins that I think say a lot

    “I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”

    “Religious people split into three main groups when faced with science. I shall label them the “know-nothings”, the “know-alls”, and the “no-contests”"

    “Religions do make claims about the universe–the same kinds of claims that scientists make, except they’re usually false.”

  181. WeirdJohn Says:

    Ben,

    There is no such term as ‘micro-evolution’, nor is there any such term as ‘macro-evolution’. These words are not used by biologists. They were invented by ICR and Ken Ham. The big problem is where do you draw the line between the two? So far ‘Dr’ Hovind has moved his definition around several times to avoid paying out his $250k.

    Evolutionary theory does not state that the progeny of a bird will be a not-a-bird. What it does say is that a long time ago, certain dinosaurs developed traits that made them both dinosaurs and something else. Over time these traits proved better adapted, and eventually a point was reached were the creatures concerned were not dinosaurs anymore – they were what we today would call birds.

    It’s important when discussing these things to recall the definition of species I gave earlier. It doesn’t matter if a the descendants of the Eastern Rosella are different colours, whether they have 8 sucker arms or shoot laser beams out of their eyes. If these creatures will select each other as mates under natural conditions and have fertile progeny they are the same species (it’s a bit more complicated for plants due to the ease of forming fertile hybrids via polyploidy), if they don’t then they aren’t.

    Consider a Doberman and a Shi-tzu. They will select each other as mates under natural conditions (assuming the former isn’t too hungry) and will have fertile (if odd looking) offspring.

    Conversely you can get Lion/Tiger hybrids. They only occur in captivity, where there is a lack of suitable mates available. The hybrid is not fertile. This is because they are separate species.

    In the 1970s Dick and Beryl Lanyon, sheep farmers from near Boort, in the wimmera district of Victoria found strange lambs being born. These creatures were some kind of weird goat/sheep hybrid, and they bred true. Normally this would be impossible, because goats and sheep do not usually select each other as mates, and if you force the issue the resulting progeny is sterile. The Lanyons had a billy goat that had never successfully sired any baby goats. Analysis showed that this goat was a mutant, and he had an extra chromosome that allowed the goat/sheep hybrids resulting to be fertile. I have no idea why the goat liked mounting sheep, but he did, out in the fields. This is a case of a new species arising, and the animals were indeed a weird mix of goat and sheep. The two species are not terribly distant, and it was just plain chance that they happened to get a mutant billy goat. By the way, the Lanyons were ardent Baptists, and destroyed the goat and the ‘geeps’ under order of their Pastor, on the basis that they were ‘un-natural’ creatures. If it had happened that the geeps were better farm animals (the Lanyons bred Merino sheep for their wool) then the geeps would have no doubt found an economic niche, and would still be with us today, and in far greater numbers.

    In the same way, the rare ‘jumps’ that occurs (‘punctuated equilibrium’) – in contrast to the slow process of genetic drift – gives rise to new species. The geep was not better suited to its environment, so selection pressure (a farmer breeding for ultra fine wool) selected against them.

    I would also remind you that as a practicing Christian I see no conflict between Christianity and Evolutionary Theory. They do not operate in the same realms (one is physical, the other is spiritual). The real issue is of course does Creationism have a place in the Science class? The answer is no, just as molecular biology has no place in Sunday School.

    Yours in Christ,

    John

  182. WeirdJohn Says:

    And bringing Richard Dawkins into the debate does nothing to further discussion. His views are as narrow and pre-conceived as any others you will find in this topic. It reveals a major failing in his own understanding of the debate that he cannot separate Science and Religion, just as do the people he rails against so vehemently. He is one of the minority of Scientists who has made Science a Religion for those who feel the need to avoid investigating their own spirituality. His views are just another excuse to avoid facing God. Other people use drugs, gambling, sports, technology, their kids, their parents, the weather, world hunger, the existence of evil and the traffic for the same thing.

  183. PC-Bash Says:

    WeirdJohn -

    I don’t use any of those things to avoid “facing God”. Does that make *me* a person who makes Science their Religion?

    I don’t look to mythology to answer the questions of existentialism. For me, it is enough to know that I *am*, that it does not matter why I am here. I do not need mythology to give me morality. I have philosophy for that. I do not need a god or any other spiritual father figure to give me purpose, I have reality.

    If you choose religion, that is your choice. I respect it. However, to insinuate that those who don’t choose religion are somehow closing their eyes to the world around them is just a little bigoted.

  184. WeirdJohn Says:

    PC-Bash, if you have looked into things and are happy about your philosophy for yourself, that is your affair. I may disagree about what you believe (and probably do), but that is irrelevant to what I said. Too many times Dawkins is put forward as ‘the Great Hope of Humanistic Rationalism’, with the implication (primarily via his own self promotion) that he represents Scientific consensus on the subject of religious people. Unlike yourself Dawkins tries to stifle debate. He uses ad hominem attacks on anyone who maintains (as I do) that Science and Faith do not conflict as they have nothing do do with each other. I wish Dawkins spent more of his time on molecular biology, which he is very good at, and less of his time attacking things he maintains don’t exist. He is an embarrassment to many of us in the scientific community, as he clouds the discussion by buying into the same arguments as the radical fringe. You need look no further than the title of his book ‘The God Delusion’ to (and I have read it) see that he approaches this topic (that of religious life and faith) from a position of fundamental bias and preconception, rather than taking the rational (I’m tempted to say logical) position that Science and Religion have nothing to do with each other and that it is misguided attempts to conflate the two that give rise to the need for this kind of debate. Ken Ham, Hovind, ICR and Dawkins are all part of the problem. If Science was taught in Science classes, and Faith in Religion classes, and there was proper education about the boundaries between the two then there would be no need for anyone to take issue over this whole Evolution (a fact) vs Religion (a matter of Faith) problem that is purely an artifact of ignorance and bias on both sides.

  185. PC-Bash Says:

    WeirdJohn -

    Fair enough. I can agree with your argument. Science and Religion are like oil and water as far as I am concerned.

  186. Bill Says:

    Looking logically at the intricacy of a DNA molecule, can only lead to an absolute appreciation for the symmetry, beauty, and sheer intelligence of the design. Good, intelligent design, comes from an involved, intelligent designer; call it whatever you wish, Buddha, Allah, I don’t really care, as long as man isn’t the designer.
    **********
    Then explain to me why so many deformed children are born every day? If God was so perfect and created such a perfect thing of “symmetry, beauty and sheer intelligence” why is it so capable of birthing children that are flawed. From hair lips to mental retardation?

    Teach my children that they are anything less than a design from an intelligent entity; not acceptable.
    **********
    Then send them to a religious school. You have that option. But don’t force my children to learn something that I believe is stupid, idiotic and just plain wrong. If you are unhappy with what your child learns in public school send them to a private religious school or home school them.

  187. ABO Says:

    The concept of intelligent design recognizing the similarities in living organisms has solid science as its foundation with a tremendous amount of evidence for it’s theory. However Florida’s Department of Education will surly continue to promote Darwinian evolution as the best method to explain life’s diversity in public schools classrooms.

    One of the solidest reasons Darwinian evolutionary theory has been successful within the government funded school arena, is its ability to pretend it’s not religious. Wile scientist, book makers, and grant writers make a living promoting this controversial theory, few folks recognize it as a multi billion dollar industry promoting literature, films, and mandatory school biology curriculum. The fight is not for science, the fight is for the cash cow which is called the evolution business. With each new declared discovery along with the applauds of atheist and a band wagon full of secular humanist, the so called scientific community has little to do but wait for the next shipment of funds to promote the faith.

    The separation of church and state test may not stand today as it has in the past. Pinpointing the faith based aspects of the doctrine of evolution has been the subject of both scientist and creationist since its inception. Evolutionist using such redirect as perhaps, maybe, could have, we believe, suppose, might have, we don’t know yet etc. have provided the major building blocks for this true religious dogma, which can only be believed through faith.

    The First Church of Evolution recognizes the concept of change beyond species or what has been called macro evolution by some as a religious doctrine. It’s not water baptism or the resurrection of the dead, but rather the faith based teachings of the Prophet Charles Darwin. This genuine Florida based religious organization claims to be the religion Darwin spoke of being made of by his followers. The church recognizes that all the writings of Darwin are considered sacred among those who believe. And the church has the responsibility to imagine new transitional fabrications. That’s right “transitional fabrications”. From Hackle’s bogus embryos to Donald Johansons collection of bones called “Lucy” all of the evidence for change above species that has been produced is believed to be viable only through imagination. Quote from a church spokesman , “The belief in change above species which is taught and promoted throughout our world today, can only be seen through a bold leap into imagination.” Even at the beginning Erasmus Darwin, Charles’s grand father said, “ …would it be too bold to imagine, that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament, which THE GREAT FIRST CAUSE endued with animality…?” Could faith in imagination be the true science of evolution?

    The church has no objection to the teaching of Darwinian evolution or monkey to man. But it does consider presenting Darwin’s theory, as science only, constitutes blasphemy.

    The First Church of Evolution may appears to be just another bazaar religion, but lets hope the ACLU doesn’t get involved, that is of course if the Department of Education is subject to the separation of church and state.

  188. John444 Says:

    I think there could be a good place to teach Intelligent Design in Science classes.

    I think it would serve as an excellent example to show would-be scientists of the dangers they can fall into if they:

    1. treat speculation as fact
    2. make hypotheses from inconsistent or even non-existent data
    3. formulate theories basied upon emotion and feeling rather than
    the data presented.

    and so-on

  189. firemancarl Says:

    ABO,

    First, I wanna say that you obviously know nothing about evolution. #2 Let me add that you are confusing abiogenisis with evolution. Abiogenisis is the study of how life began. Evolution is the study of how life has evolved.

    Why is it that you fundies continue to say that evolution is a “religion” ? Lets see here, we have no church, we pray to no one we make claims about invisible sky fairies. I could go on, but why bother?

    You seem not to know what you are talking about and trying to help you would be like tapping my head against a metal object ad nauseum.

  190. firemancarl Says:

    One more thing ABO, after rereading your post, as mind numbing as it was, I have a suggestion. Why not go to Montana and build a bunker you keep yourself safe from the rabid evilutionists!

  191. Jester Says:

    ABO,

    I usually do not post comments on any site but your comments took the cake. You wrote:

    “The concept of intelligent design recognizing the similarities in living organisms has solid science as its foundation with a tremendous amount of evidence for it’s theory. ”

    However, during the Dover case was being heard, the Discovery Institute and the Thomas Moore Law Firm turned in ZERO evidence to support the ID argument. Everything that was presented by the ID proponents were only other people’s reviews and have done ZERO testing on their end. What evidence do you have that SCIENTIFICALLY supports the ID argument. The Discovery Institute is the largest Creationist/ID organization and they couldn’t produce any evidence. Please tell us all to where you get your evidence from. We would be glad to see this evidence even if they were unable to produce it during the Dover case.

  192. James Says:

    What this basically boils down to is that the ID folks either don’t understand science or don’t want to understand it.

  193. Dr. Stephen Thomas Says:

    The problem with evolution is that there is no evidence to prove it. (Actually only fake evidence.) No fossils show ev, life can’t be synthesized in the lab. In fact fossils show absolutely no sign of Darwin. In every case where living species have multi-million year old fossils, the fossils look identical to the modern specie. (Coelacanth, frogs, crabs. ferns, etc.) The problem with ID is that there is massive evidence to prove it, but absolutely no evidence to show where it came from. Until REAL evolution evidence is found, or until a “creator” is scientifically found (not religiously), the best and MOST SCIENTIFIC curriculum would be: “we really don’t know how life began on earth, but here is what we have so far:…..we really don’t know why the Big Bang blew, or why it blew when it did, but here is the evidence we have so far…….we really don’t know how species appeared or organs like the eye, heart and liver formed, but here is what we have so far…..and here is the timeline for the appearance of those species and organs.” This curriculum would eliminate all court battles between creationists and evolutionists, and it would be REAL science. It would save millions of dollars which are totally wasted over this unimportant argument in court costs. 99.9% of people don’t spend a minute of their day thinking about it. The money could be far better spent on education, teacher’s salaries, etc.

  194. S.Scott Says:

    Dr Thomas – couple of questions… Why are you here on this blog? Do you live in Florida? I noticed on the link that you provided eludes that you are from Chicago. What is your intention for posting on this blog? Please answer these questions honestly before I consider getting into a debate with you.

  195. Marco Says:

    Dr Stephen Thomas is wrong on so many statements in his posting that it is difficult to know where to begin. Firstly, science makes no claim to know why the big bang occured nor does it profess to know exactly when or how the first multifuntional cell based animals(sponges) came to be. But science DOES know from fossil dating approximately when this happened and further a great deal about the subsequent EVOLUTION of life forms thereafter. Neil Shubin’s recent book “Your Inner Fish:A Journey Into The 3.5 Billion Year History of The Human Body” would provide Thomas with much of the factual data supporting evolution. Shubin, a paleontologist who teaches at the University of Chicago’s medical school spends his summers north of the Artic Circle looking for fossils in layers of stone and sediment. His major discovery is the fossil of a 375-million-year-old amphibious creature-a key evolutionary link between fish and land dwellers. He has named it Tiktaalik, an eskimo word meaning a large fish. Thanks to developements in genome research, molecular biology and good old fashioned fossil hunting, we now know that much of the mechanism for making the human body is present in some of the earliest of Earth’s muticellular creatures.
    His discovery was a triumph for evolutionary theory, which predicted that sometime in the Devonian period an intermediary species between sea creatures and land dwellers had to have emerged. Shubin pinpointed the most likely area where rocks from that periodwould be exposed and spent several summers looking for fossil amphibians. Tiktaalik’s discuvery is a strong refutation of the claim that evolution as a theory lacks predictive power. Tiktaalik is a lesson in human developement as well. The bones in its fins which allow itself to be propped up are fore runners of human arms. It also is the first animal capable of moving its head independent of its body. Shubin traces the developement of the human form from the 500-million-year-old ostracoderms, the first animal that had a bony head plate made up of thousands of small teeth fused together. Shubin concluded that hard bones evolved not to protect but to eat! The head bones were to evolve in many different ways. Some of the jawbone of fish and reptiles became, in humans, the bones within our ears that allow us to process sound. This re-purposing has its downside, however. Nerves that extend from facial muscles to our brain take a circuitous route that reflect the primitive skeletal placement. Another example is the placement of the nerve that controls the diaphram-it exits the back of the neck. A “rational design” would have it located closer to the diaphram, but the fish controls its breathing from the brain stem, and we are stuck with that arrangement. But, as Shubin says, ” we can only dress up a fish so much without paying a price.” we choke, succomb to hiccups, develope hemorrhoids and hernias and fall prey to heart disease all because our bodies are spruced up versions of primitive models. And the kludges andpatches that have developed over millions of years of evolution, like all kludges and patches inevitably break down. Hardly an “intelligent design”.

  196. Dr. Stephen Thomas Says:

    Hi S. Scott. I have no agenda other than a great fascination with the subject, and a desire to see true science taught in the classroom. And, Darwinian evolution is not true science. It is a huge amount of imagination made up by so many teachers and “scientists” that it has been crowned with the “true science” label. The amount of time and money wasted on this debate is phenomenal. Darwinian evolution is an immense roadblock in the way of true science which might allow us a chance at finding out how species/ organs really did form.
    I am not a creationist or religious in any way. I have no group agenda, and I don’t represent any group. I would assist any group whose goal would be to to teach real science in American classrooms. I hope this is “honest” enough for you.
    And, you wanna debate? Great! Actually, less than three years ago I debated on your side!
    And, if you want to communicate further, who are you?

  197. PC Says:

    Dr. Stephen, it is most refreshing to read your website pages. Thanks for bothering to do some research and common sense analysis, to come with correct conclusions. It is refreshing, thanks again.

    S.Scott apparently thinks this debate is only on-going in Florida. LOL

    Maybe his arguments are only good in the state of Florida, I can’t think of any other reason why it makes a difference where you are.

  198. Zablorg Says:

    Dani, you sicken me. “Hur hur lets teach about magical pixie men in SCIENCE CLASS”. Hear that, Dani? SCIENCE.

    Retard.

    And as for your idiotic comment on the pledge, are you aware of the seperation between church and state? Thought not.

  199. Schatten Says:

    I find it rather telling of people’s intelligence when they refer to creationism as a theory, it is no such thing, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena that is supported by experimental evidence. In other words, evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains how it works, just like the theory of gravity explains how gravity works, but you don’t see morons trying to say gravity doesn’t exist and jump off of buildings.

  200. Lusankya Says:

    PC: you said “A drug-resistant bacteria is still a bacteria; it’s not a cat.”

    I suppose you would’t mind then if you had Tuberculosis, and your doctor treated you for Salmonella. After all, they’re both the same species, right?

  201. Jester Says:

    Dr. Stephen Thomas,

    You must not be that good of a doctor if you can’t seem to do some more research besides just researching Creationists/ID websites. Especially, regarding the EYE as that was even demonstrated how it evolved in the Dover case. You see, during that hearing, scientists submitted over 12,000 of lab tested, peer-reviewed, articles, AND the results of those tests. Everything from the eye, immune system, the flagellum, and a couple of other items that were supposedly “IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY” but proved otherwise. Now, I ask what books or sites that weren’t already mentioned in the Dover case that were proven false are you using. Surely, these institutions, which millions of dollars worth of backing, should be able to uphold their view with evidence in a court of law. Surely, you must have SOME remarkable insight to never-before-seen evidence that hasn’t been submitted for review? Surely, if ALL this Creationist/ID evidence was solid, don’t you think they would have won the Dover case? The problem is that when you put the Creationists “evidence” under scrutiny, it never passes any of the time tested methods of science. Oh, but wait, I know, let’s change the rules of how we do our testing so that we can allow the supernatural into the testing process. Please tell us Dr. Thomas as to how we test for the supernatural with the methods that science uses.

  202. Dr. Stephen Thomas Says:

    FYI: I am not a creationist, religious, biblical, attached to any group, or believer in the supernatural. So, please don’t put me in that category. That gets tiresome. A few years ago I would have been 100% behind the thinking of this website. My doubts came when I began studying fossils out of a fascination with the subject. I looked at species that spread over a great period of time, in some cases 100′s of millions of years longer than it took man to evolve from early primates. I was actually stunned to see: there is absolutely no fossil evidence whatsoever for Darwin’s theory. In reality Darwin is a giant roadblock in the way of true science, and the finding of how we and species actually got here. It didn’t happen the way Darwin said. And what people need to do is THINK, not accept. When you think, you cannot come up with Darwin as a possible scenario for the appearance of species and organs.

    Regarding Dover PA on Nova(since you brought it up) and evolution:

    (1) The Dover case was horribly run by the anti-evolutionists, and was a frustrating watch. The evolutionist “experts” sat on the stand with their typical condescending smirks and babbled bullshit which was accepted as science by the court. The student’s art project showing that now famous evolution of man that the Dover student painted, which was unfortunately destroyed, should make one think: where are those same lead-up fossils for bears and elephants? These fossils should be fairly easy to find, as they would be very geologically recent. Why have none been found?

    (2) To compare the change of color of a moth or resistance to a drug as the kind of evolution that would result in the formation the eyes and hearts doesn’t even meet the description of “ridiculous”.

    (3) “Irreducible complexity” is an absolute ENGINEERING rule for every mechanical and electronic device on the planet except in the case of the evolution of organs. The idea is so completely obvious. The term wouldn’t even have been coined were it not for the ridiculous notion that eyes or hearts could evolve from nothing with each micro-step being somehow useful for its host. Partially evolved organs would be nothing more than tumors which the host would have to carry around for thousands (millions?) of years until they hit a point of function How would your camera work with 20% of the parts missing. How fast would you car take you if 70% of the parts were missing. Of course you could use either as a paper weight and say that was an intermediate use, as the evolution expert would have done on Nova. The ONLY mechanical or electronic devices on the planet that would be useful with half the parts missing are in the world of evolution. The example used by the evolutionist of using a mouse trap as a tie holder as proof that “irreducible complexity” is incorrect was an abomination that Behe should have screamed at. But, amazingly, he just took it quietly. The evolutionists could have taken all of the metal parts off and used the mouse trap as a BOOKMARK as further proof that irreducible complexity is wrong. This example is typical of nonsensical evolution “evidences”. I really wish I were in Dover during the case. I could have helped them. (As a scientist, not a creationist, just to make sure you understand that.)

    (3) The tiktaalic was brought up as a miracle find of a “transitional fossil” and a branch from water to tetrapod species. Tiktaalic was immediately assigned an important branch on Darwin’s Tree of Life with great celebration. On further study, according to the evolution scientists that study it, tiktaalic couldn’t support itself on those leg-fins, and couldn’t have walked on land. It had eight digits, not five. It would have had to dis-evolve three digits. These facts were not mentioned on Nova. If these guys stumbled over a dead seal, evolutionists would celebrate the great find of a new transitional specie. Transitional water-to-land fossils should be all over the place anyway. The fact that they had to go to northern Canada to find tiktaalic is laughable.

    (4) The archaeopteryx that was hailed in the case as a branch between dino’s and birds had a large set of sharp teeth. Which means it would have had to evolve teeth, then to a “180″ and dis-evolve teeth and evolve beaks. Is this believable? Add to that the fact there are absolutely no fossils that show either the evolution or dis-evolution of archaropteryx teeth. (Or the evolution of land “anything” to flying “anything”.)

    (5) The ridiculous notion that the bacteria needle injector, used by the evolutionists as an example of why “irreducible complexity” is wrong, that evolved into the cork-screw tail and rotary motor is beyond the pale. Try drawing out the evolution from “no injector” to “injector”, then to “rotary motor and corkscrew propeller”, and think of a use or advantage for each of the steps that would be required. If you can do that I will bow down and worship.
    (6) All of the institutions, articles, books, and millions of dollars that you cite are nothing more than choir books written by choir members. Evolution is a self perpetuating myth. The choir members are “scientists” who are rewarded by government grants and large salaries, teachers who will lose their jobs if they think independently, and gullible followers. Unfortunately there are few real scientists. Real scientists question and doubt. Evolution scientists celebrate anything as evidence for what they believe and must follow.
    Real science should teach that we really don’t know why the big bang occurred, or why it blew when it did, or how life began on earth, or how species and organs came about, but here is what we have so far:……. Of course there is overwhelming evidence that species are biologically related, and that the earliest species were single celled. No one would argue with that. There is no evidence that one specie morphed into another, or that organs evolved in micro-steps. If this was taught in schools, it would be good science and it would end the ID/ev battle, and save millions of dollars being uselessly spent on court cases. The funds could be far better used for schools and teachers salaries. And, maybe someday, by getting Darwin out of the way, we can find out how we and species really got here. The bottom line is that 99% could care less anyway.

  203. ABO Says:

    firemancarl

    Abiogenists wasn’t what my post referred too.

    You appear unaware of what information I provided for you. There are religious originations which have portions of their doctrine which include the imaginary element of Darwin’s idea. So to say evolution is not a religion term may be correct in most situations, but not all. The concept of change or life having evolved from one living filament, is a religious doctrine within the church I sited.

    And you are mistaken, there is a church. A church which believes the evolutionary change you say you see, can only by seen through faith.

  204. ABO Says:

    Jester

    If you take a look at the Dover case from a non bias position, you might find that they weren’t interested in evidence, but rather in declaring a religious motive to be the unacceptable element.

  205. jbblack Says:

    To Dr. Thomas:
    (Doctor in what, if you don’t mind me asking? Literature? History? From where? I do appreciate your taking the time to get a doctorate, but field and accreditation is important. I wouldn’t want Dr Laura Schlesinger (doctorate in literature) to perform a heart transplant, after all.)

    You have some excellent points to make. I’ve considered them, and I have a few counterpoints to make. They are numbered in accord with your posts above, for easy reference.

    (1) “Where are the same lead-up fossils for bears and elephants?” Not every organism becomes fossilized. Fossilization is incredibly rare, and depends on multiple environmental factors.

    (2) Then you lack a realistic concept of time. These are minor changes that have occurred during the course of our lifetimes–which is what? Sixty to one hundred years? We are talking about billions of years here.

    (3) We are not discussing engineering. We are discussing biology. You would have a much closer approximation of it if you would look into how open-source software projects have developed over the years.

    (3) (You had two threes. But I won’t disagree with your alternative to the Theory of Integers) What is so laughable about Northern Canadian fossils, exactly? I’d be more concerned with what the fossils could reveal to us. And you are right; it could not support itself on those fins. BUT gradual improvements on that design would have made it possible, and if those improvements give a survival advantage, it would have been likely. See number 3 (the first number 3 above).

    (4) There’s no reason to believe that a species can gain attributes and then lose them. It doesn’t depend on whether or not you can believe it, but instead on what traits help a species to survive and propagate. And as for the lack of a “complete” fossil record, see #1 above–if there were an unbroken fossil record as you seem to imply, that would mean that EVERY creature that ever lived and died would be fossilized. That is an idea that I find ludicrous; the only difference is that logic backs it up.

    (5) I don’t require worship or compliance. The traces can be seen by DNA/RNA comparison, and the utility of the intermediate steps would not have been very great, or they would not have been superceded by improvements. Doctor or not, you really should consider a beginner’s textbook on biology.

    (6) The comment about being choir recitation is irrelevant; what matters is not how many scientists believe it, what matters is whether or not it can account for known phenomena using known facts. Whether they get large salaries or not is also irrelevant–it has NOTHING to do with whether or not their theories are correct–but for the record, the payoffs are seldom in the field of research or teaching. Scientists are not some happy in-crowd. Each researcher wants to get his name noticed by disproving the others’ theories with new data. There actually IS a large amount of competition. Unlike the creationists, we welcome the competition. But if a theory doesn’t fit with the majority of facts, why should it be considered an equal?

    The bottom line is that we are not trying to teach our children that their parents are always right. We are trying to present them with facts that they can use to help them improve their lot in life. And while 99% could care less anyway, it is that 1% that drags the rest of humanity into each successive year, kicking and screaming all the way.

  206. jbblack Says:

    “Real science should teach that we really don’t know why the big bang occurred, or why it blew when it did, or how life began on earth, or how species and organs came about, but here is what we have so far:”

    Real science teaches exactly this. We don’t know what happened, so we go out and develop theories and test them with known data to find out what likely did happen. From these we are able to get working models–theories–of how the world works.

    Theories like Intelligent Design don’t even put an emphasis on finding out the facts; they start with the conclusion that they are comfortable with and try to rationalize it. Science–real science–starts with the observations, and then develop theories that work with these facts. This often leads to theories that the scientists themselves have trouble with accepting, but this does NOT change the fact that they are closer to the truth than our previous understandings.

    Intelligent Design is not science. It’s not about finding out what happened or how the world works. It’s about coming to an obstacle you don’t understand, giving up, and saying “god must have done it” and “we can’t know.”

    I don’t know about the university that you graduated from, but that attitude wouldn’t have gotten me through my freshman year.

  207. S. Scott Says:

    ABO – what chourche are you talking about? Send a link please.

  208. S. Scott Says:

    sorry – churches!

  209. Dr. Stephen Thomas Says:

    jbblack
    “Real science teaches exactly this. We don’t know what happened, so we go out and develop theories and test them with known data to find out what likely did happen. From these we are able to get working models–theories–of how the world works.”

    JB, this is a wonderful and scientific notion. Except there are absolutely zero fossils that show Darwinian evolution or the morphing of one specie into another. There are exactly zero lab experiments that have come even remotely close to creating life or life’s building blocks. There are exactly zero fossils that demonstrate the evolution of eyes, hearts, organs. And out of all of these “zero’s” was created an immense “science” whose millions of leaders and supporters say there is no other possible way it could have happened, so don’t even think about it. Sorry, that doesn’t look like science to me. This evidence-less science is being taught in schools just as if it had overwhelming evidence, which this site promotes. Students should be taught to think independently, to wonder, to search, to analyze, to question what their peers, instructors, AND church leaders tell them. And if they learn that in school, that is real education. FYI: when I graduated from college I was a full-on believer in evolution just like you.

  210. Dr. Stephen Thomas Says:

    By the way, PC, thanks for the kind words!

  211. Dr. Stephen Thomas Says:

    jbblack

    Re: “You have some excellent points to make. I’ve considered them, and I have a few counterpoints to make. They are numbered in accord with your posts above, for easy reference. “ My response to your discussion: (I hope you read this since I didn’t see your response for a while.)

    (1) Regarding bear and elephant fossils: they are huge, and recent and non-existent. Your answer is an excuse
    (2) Minor changes times millions of years will make eyes and hearts? I don’t have a realistic concept? Here is a question for you: did eyes or hearts evolve in one specie, or millions of species at the same time? Just curious, since both scenarios are impossible.
    (3) Software is not electro-mechanical like eyes and hearts. Software is like writing a paragraph, which CAN be reducibly complex.
    (3) “gradual improvements on that design would have made it possible, and if those improvements give a survival advantage, it would have been likely.” This is evolution-speak for “we haven’t found anything, so we will say “would have’, “might have”.
    (4) “There’s no reason to believe that a species can gain attributes and then lose them.” If there is no evidence, then DON”T MAKE A THEORY UNTIL THERE IS.
    (5) “Doctor or not, you really should consider a beginner’s textbook on biology.” Please don’t insult me. I won’t insult you. That detracts from intelligent discussion. My education probably far exceeds yours. And you talk around intermediate uses for the injector and motor without listing any, since there are none, which is typical of evolution-speak.
    (6) Scientists want to find evidence that supports evolution so they can get a big pat on the back from the choir. If the evidence doesn’t support, it is bent so it does (tiktaalik, archaeopteryx). They want to write books that will make the choir swoon, so they will get attention and be really noticed (“The Blind Watchmaker”) Going against the flow of evolution will cause scorn and possible job loss. Not thinking, agreeing, promoting evolution means advancement, more money and grants, praise.

  212. PC-Bash Says:

    Dr. Stephen Thomas -

    I’ll assume that you are another shill for the ID camp, although your method seems to be to further confuse the issue. I believe the term “irreducible complexity” was coined by ID, and it is unfortunate that you would use this term to form an argument. At the best, it shows that your research has not gone beyond ID propaganda. At the worst, it shows that you buy into the ID mis-information campaign.

    Still, I’d be more than happy to shatter your “irreducible complexity” by using one of ID’s famous examples: the eye. Many animals have light sensitive sensory organs. For instance, the iguana has the parietal eye on top of its head. To go from a light sensitive organ, which is useful to itself, to an eye is not difficult, nor is it any sort of engineering feat. First, an animal evolves an organ that is able to discern between light and dark. Heat nerves in human skin can discern between sunlight and darkness — if you don’t believe me, stand out in strong sunlight for a few moments. To make this nerve tissue more sensitive to light material would not be a long leap in evolutionary terms.

    Individual nerves do not give as much information as bundles of nerves. Over time, animals would have evolved the ability to discern movement by noting shadow or light changes in different bundles. The brain would interpret this as movement, and it would be possible for the animal to track this movement. This would have a clear evolutionary advantage. As time goes on, it would make sense that these extra-sensitive nerves would curve inward on the body, to protect them from getting scratched. Still, this curving would cause other problems, namely that of sand or other debris getting into this cavity. Animals with narrower openings would have less debris enter this cavity, and animals that developed sphincter muscle would have additional protection, with the ability to close off this opening to protect it from harmful debris.

    This hole and sphincter muscle would have another interesting advantage: pinhole focus. Pinhole focus is not as accurate as focusing a lens, but a small opening can restrict the amount of light that enters the optical cavity, and can allow an animal to better discern the size of the object that it is viewing. Sight here would be no better than being able to discern between light and dark, and being able to discern motion, but it has a distinct evolutionary advantage.

    Still, the cavity is susceptible to debris. The sphincter muscle helps, but skin tissue could help even more. If skin, or perhaps some other translucent material grows over the opening, then the animal can go places that it would normally have to avoid. It would be able to burrow without worrying about scarring the optical cavity. Furthermore, the skin could act as a better filter for light and darkness. This skin covering has distinct evolutionary advantage.

    Developing a skin covering that is more translucent, and one that has a better shape certainly isn’t far-fetched either. There would be an obvious evolutionary advantage here: with the ability to focus light coming in, the animal would be able to discern shapes. These shapes could tell an animal quickly whether the object was potential food or a predator. This has extreme evolutionary advantage. As this covering improved, the animal would have easily rose to the top of its food chain.

    It seems very plausible to pull apart the eye based on this analysis. The translucent covering is the cornea. The sphincter is the iris, the hole the pupil.

    I fail to see how evolution could fail to develop an eye, or how any part of this eye, when approached in this logical order, is too complex to evolve from simple nerve tissue, over millions and millions of years. I find the idea much more plausible than the idea that a mythical fairy gave animals eyes. One mechanism only requires that animals evolve to take advantage of their environment. The other mechanism requires faith in something that can never be proven.

  213. PC-Bash Says:

    Dr. Stephen Thomas -

    I don’t want to launch an ad hominem attack, but the photograph on your blog looks very similar to a promotional photograph that I saw at an advertising agency I once used. It appears to be photoshopped. Given the moderation policy on your blog, your thinly veiled ID content, and the photograph, I am quite nearly convinced that you are astroturf for the ID campaign.

    Please give me some evidence to the contrary. If I can see this through a cursory glance, I wonder what others might think?

  214. Dr. Stephen Thomas Says:

    Hi PC Bash, and thanks for your reply.
    I have explained in almost every reply that I am not religious, not biblical, not connected to any group or camp. I think nature is incredibly intelligent, however I have no idea what the source of that intelligence is. (I realize that this is a dangerous sentence, so please don’t try to overanalyze it.) I have no agenda other than the love of this subject and the desire to see real science taught in the classroom rather than the myths of evolution and/or any religious dogma. Certainly the wonders and workings of nature should be taught in the classroom, and I would aid any group who seeks that as a goal. I’m sure that this won’t be clear to you because evolutionists have a hard time understanding my description. Most evolutionists think everyone is either in camp A or camp B.
    (1) You stated“….an eye is not difficult, nor is it any sort of engineering feat.” To say this means you have absolutely no concept of how complex an eye is. Even the most “simple” of eyes are far beyond your or my ability to comprehend. The retina alone is composed of 130 million cells, each attached to a neuron (total 130 million neurons) which coalesce into the optic nerve. Each neuron is specially designed to carry a chemical/digital signal to the brain which must decode. Further, there is no light outside your or my brain. There are electromagnetic waves, NOT light. ALL light is in your brain. Your brain converts the code from the retina and optic nerve into light and an image. It’s not as if a specie somehow discerned light “all over the place” and so evolved a simple pinhole camera as a start to full vision. Further, did the eye come first, then send a nerve to the brain, which then evolved the ability to decode the code chosen by the eye to make an image? Or, did…………never mind. For me to go on would be time consuming and useless. Try to imagine that little bit that I mentioned above evolving by mutations and natural selection. I say not possible, you say easy engineering. But to believe evolution you must continue to believe the eye is “easy engineering”, so keep on believing. Then throw in all of the other organs that had to evolve at about the same time: hearing, smell, touch, hearts, lung, blood vessels, liver, pancreas…………….That must have been quite a show.
    (2) Another question that I posed that has not been answered by anyone on this blog: Did the eye evolve in one specie first? Did it evolve in millions of species all at the same time? I wish someone would answer this plausible question. Maybe you, JB?
    (3) Again, irreducible complexity is an unnecessary term because it is so obviously correct. It was coined because of the ridiculous notion told by evolutionists that an eye half evolved would yield half vision. (“The Blind Watchmaker”) Go to GM and pull a car off the assembly line when it is half way done and see how far you can drive. (Oh, you might say, it’s a tie clip or paperweight!) Ditto with a stereo player or TV. But, according to evolutionists, an eye or heart that is half way evolved would be half useful, maybe as something else. Like a paperweight? Bait? To me and all logic, before a pre-organ became functional, it would be a tumor the host and progeny would have to carry around for hundreds of thousands of years.
    (4) Your description of eye evolution seems like some giant mystical being is forming and shaping each step. I’m glad for one thing: you have a great imagination. That can be useful in many endeavors, but not science.

  215. PC-Bash Says:

    Dr. Steven Thomas -

    You have failed to refute any of my arguments successfully. I’ll attempt to go down your points one by one.

    “I have explained in almost every reply that I am not religious…” and “I think nature is incredibly intelligent”

    In order for these comments to not be religious or metaphysical, you must define intelligence in a manner that is consistent with nature itself. You speak of intelligence as if it is a force outside of nature that somehow shapes it. This is not science. Science seeks empirical evidence. There can be no empirical evidence for an external intelligence, unless you can point me to that intelligence.

    “To say this means you have absolutely no concept of how complex an eye is.”

    I have a very good idea of how complex an eye is. I have worked in the area of computer vision, and I have studied optics. I have also dissected plenty of eyes in my day as a biology student. The eye is an interesting organ, but as my description in my previous comment has pointed out, and as you have failed to refute in any sort of meaningful way, there is nothing about the eye that cannot be explained through evolutionary theory. Prove me wrong, I’d like to see compelling evidence that is more than hand-waving that the eye is supposedly an example of irreducible complexity.

    “Each neuron is specially designed to carry a chemical/digital signal to the brain which must decode.”

    Grammar issues aside, I think I understand the point you are trying to make. Optic nerves in the retina evolved from heat and light sensitive nerves millions of years ago. You can feel sunlight on your arm, this is no engineering feat.

    “Further, did the eye come first, then send a nerve to the brain, which then evolved the ability to decode the code chosen by the eye to make an image?”

    This argument is nonsense. You are attempting to place the cart before the horse. Nerves existed long before optic nerves did. The brain existed long before optic nerves did. There are plenty of examples of worms that never evolved an eye or anything like it. Still, these worms have brains (as primitive as these brains are) and nerves. As for how the nerves connect to the brain, follow the development of the fetus in the womb. On that subject, does it not seem odd to you that a developing human fetus has both gills and a tail while in-vivio? I wonder why your intelligent designer saw a need to give a fetus these organs, and then quickly let the fetus re-absorb them. Evolution can answer that question more readily. Yet, I digress.

    “But to believe evolution you must continue to believe the eye is “easy engineering”, so keep on believing.”

    More hand-waving here. Do you have any actual statement to refute what I said above, using your intelligent design “theory”, or are you just going to brush this aside like ID pundits have brushed aside hard science? I can only assume that if you fail to refute one of my statements that you must not have an argument against it, and therefore you are implicitly agreeing with it.

    “Did the eye evolve in one specie first?”

    Scientific evidence is to the contrary of this. Mammal eyes and mollusk eyes evolved from two different paths. This is evident in the difference in their structures. The “third eye” on the iguana’s head is an additional evolutionary path. Strange, for such an example of “irreducible complexity”, we have three different families of animals that have evolved eyes using different steps, and the resultant eyes behave in a similar, but different manner. So, either this intelligent designer of yours felt the need to produce several different types of eyes with different faults… or Occam’s razor will point out that evolving an eye isn’t that difficult at all. Hmm, I wonder which is an easier pill to swallow? That there is some mysterious force in the universe that can’t decide which eye is best, or that evolution takes different turns?

    “It was coined because of the ridiculous notion told by evolutionists that an eye half evolved would yield half vision. (“The Blind Watchmaker”) Go to GM and pull a car off the assembly line when it is half way done and see how far you can drive.”

    Finally, we get to the worst possible analogy from the ID camp. The dreaded parts-of-a-whole analogy. Allow me to defeat this here. For your analogy to even approach correctness, it would not be possible to do something nonsensical like take a half-built car away from the factory and drive it, any more than it would be to take a half-developed fetus out of the womb and let it try to breath on its own. Wait… Does that mean that lungs weren’t designed because a fetus grows them? As you can see, this analogy is worse than worthless. We know that the eye was evolved over time, because we can find animals that have eyes that have not developed as much as your “irreducible complexity” example. You would know this, had you paid attention in biology class. Worms have eyes, but these eyes don’t have lenses, nor are they close to as complicated as a mammal’s eye. These eyes are similar to an earlier step in evolution. However, at the same time, these eyes are on a different evolutionary branch than human eyes. For something that needs to be designed, nature has certainly found a bunch of different ways to evolve the same “complex” thing, in varying levels of “completeness”. So, it turns out that an eye does not need a lens, or even an ocular cavity to be useful to the animal. We have the iguana and the lowly nematode as proof of this. Consider your analogy dead, beaten into the ground, and buried. Sad, I don’t even have a doctorate.

    “Your description of eye evolution seems like some giant mystical being is forming and shaping each step.”

    Strange, I don’t get that impression at all. There are real-world examples today of each and every one of those steps. I have already enumerated some of these. I don’t see where a god, err, sorry, I believe you ID pundits are using the term “intelligence” or “architect”, comes into the picture here. Evolution could have easily carried one step to the next using only natural selection. The fact that we find so many different eyes in nature that aren’t at all evolved the same nor have a similar structure should point out that either your designer had a lot of time on his hands, or evolving an eye is easier than you would want to believe.

    If you want ID to become a theory, then please provide some evidence that it is so. Start by making some observations, write up a hypothesis that can be both proven or disproven (no, existence of “God” cannot be proven or disproven), and conduct an experiment that can prove your hypothesis without a doubt. Charles Darwin has already been down this road. His theory, his experiments, his research, and his claims have stood up for 150 years. I have yet to read anything that you have written that has given any evidence to the contrary. Hand-waving does not count.

    Better yet, provide a hypothesis that disproves the theory of evolution. Conduct a reproducible experiment that proves this hypothesis. Then, I will concede my argument. Hand-waving does not disprove evolution, it only shows that you don’t understand scientific method.

    That, by the way, is why I am against ID being taught in schools. It is impossible for scientific method to remain if any half-baked theory can be maintained through hand-waving and proclamations of it being “self-evident”. Science is not about faith, it is about evidence. ID does not belong in science, because it is impossible to prove the existence of God. It only stands on faith and feelings. If you want to teach ID, keep it in church where it belongs.

  216. Dr. Stephen Thomas Says:

    I think we can conclude that you are a 100% dedicated evolution believer, with absolutely no doubts. That makes you not a scientist. Because good science wonders and doubts. (GR) Even most religious people have doubts, with good reason, so it’s pretty amazing that you don’t. You believe in reducible complexity for biological E-M devices, but not for man-made E-M devices. You believe the eye is an easy engineering project. You say “hand waving” lots, whatever that means. You continue to assign a belief system to me, even though I have clearly discussed my thoughts. So I won’t re-repeat them. And you make up great stories about how eyes grew. Have you ever debated an avid Christian who is 100% sure Noah took all the animals two by two? That is what it’s like debating with you. So I think we’ve gone about as far as we can, because we are wasting each other’s time. Nite (SP)

  217. PC-Bash Says:

    I am not an “evolution believer”. I neither believe or disbelieve in evolution. However, there is plenty of empirical evidence to back up evolution and the theory of natural selection, and no empirical evidence to back up any alternate hypothesis, including ID. Please, enlighten me if I am wrong here. Give me something concrete to back up ID that isn’t a tired analogy that I have already heard and debated with a Jehovah’s Witness.

    “You believe in reducible complexity for biological E-M devices, but not for man-made E-M devices.”

    Please, show me one electromechanical device that exists in biology. Please, show me one man-made device that has evolved. Otherwise, please stop with this tired analogy. Analogies do not turn half-baked hypotheses like ID into scientific theories. They just make you look like a deipnosophist.

    “You continue to assign a belief system to me, even though I have clearly discussed my thoughts.”

    Wait, do you or don’t you believe in an intelligent designer? You seem to be very ambivalent about this point, because your foil is that you don’t belong to the ID camp. Yet, the posts on your blog and the comments you have posted here make it seem as if you believe in the existence of an intelligent designer. That is the only belief system that I have assigned to you, because you yourself have said repeatedly that that is what you believe. If this is not the case, then please enlighten me as to what you do believe. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

    “And you make up great stories about how eyes grew.”

    My “stories” are only paraphrasing the overwhelming evidence (not conjecture) that has shown that eyes evolved from far simpler organs. You are so caught up in this idea that eyes are complicated that you fail to comprehend how simple the eyes of nematodes or the third eye of the iguana truly is. Still, you don’t provide any counter-points here, just further analogies. Do you have a single paper published in a peer reviewed scientific journal that you can call on here. I will gladly back up every one of my statements with citations if you only ask for them. I don’t need to go to biblical stories to find my answers, I have papers and reproducible scientific studies. There is a mountain of evidence to support natural selection. There is only about twenty tired analogies that I have found in support of ID, none of which have any empirical evidence.

    “So I think we’ve gone about as far as we can, because we are wasting each other’s time.”

    In other words, you really don’t have any refutations for a single one of my points. I took three years of debate in high school. If this was an actual debate, then I just won. Thanks for playing. Please come again.

  218. Dr. Stephen Thomas Says:

    I am not an “evolution believer”. I neither believe or disbelieve in evolution. However, there is plenty of empirical evidence to back up evolution and the theory of natural selection (THERE IS NONE), and no empirical evidence to back up any alternate hypothesis, including ID. (THERE IS LOTS OF EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN-EVEN YOU ADMIT THAT BY USING THE WORD “ENGINEERING”- BUT NO EVIDENCE FOR THE SOURCE) Please, enlighten me if I am wrong here. Give me something concrete to back up ID that isn’t a tired analogy that I have already heard and debated with a Jehovah’s Witness.

    “You believe in reducible complexity for biological E-M devices, but not for man-made E-M devices.”

    Please, show me one electromechanical device that exists in biology. (A HEART, EVERY BONE-LIGAMENT-TENDON-MUSCLE SYSTEM) Please, show me one man-made device that has evolved. (EVERY ONE OVER TIME AND ON AN ASSEMBLY LINE) Otherwise, please stop with this tired analogy. Analogies do not turn half-baked hypotheses like ID into scientific theories. They just make you look like a deipnosophist.

    “You continue to assign a belief system to me, even though I have clearly discussed my thoughts.”

    Wait, do you or don’t you believe in an intelligent designer? (ANSWERED ABOVE) You seem to be very ambivalent about this point, because your foil is that you don’t belong to the ID camp. Yet, the posts on your blog and the comments you have posted here make it seem as if you believe in the existence of an intelligent designer. That is the only belief system that I have assigned to you, because you yourself have said repeatedly that that is what you believe. If this is not the case, then please enlighten me as to what you do believe. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

    “And you make up great stories about how eyes grew.”

    My “stories” are only paraphrasing the overwhelming evidence (not conjecture) that has shown that eyes evolved from far simpler organs. (YOU PARAPHRASE OTHER FAKE STORIES, NOT EVIDENCE) You are so caught up in this idea that eyes are complicated that you fail to comprehend how simple the eyes of nematodes or the third eye of the iguana truly is. (THEY AREN’T SIMPLE,JUST “SIMPLER”) Still, you don’t provide any counter-points here, just further analogies. Do you have a single paper published in a peer reviewed scientific journal that you can call on here. I will gladly back up every one of my statements with citations if you only ask for them. I don’t need to go to biblical stories to find my answers, I have papers and reproducible scientific studies. There is a mountain of evidence to support natural selection. (THERE IS NONE-DON’T LISTEN TO ME, TAKE A LOOK A THE FOSSIL RECORD, THEN THINK FOR YOURSELF) There is only about twenty tired analogies that I have found in support of ID, none of which have any empirical evidence.

    “So I think we’ve gone about as far as we can, because we are wasting each other’s time.”

    In other words, you really don’t have any refutations for a single one of my points. I took three years of debate in high school. If this was an actual debate, then I just won. Thanks for playing. Please come again. (CONGRATULATIONS!)

  219. PC-Bash Says:

    I have done as you requested. I have cited references for my words where you have asked for them. Please see below.

    You fail to recognize that the burden of proof for intelligent design is on intelligent design. This cannot be proven scientifically. You cannot prove the existence of an intelligent designer. The mythical being conjured up here cannot be touched, cannot be measured, and therefore cannot be proved empirically. Sorry, that’s just how science works.

    “THERE IS LOTS OF EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN-EVEN YOU ADMIT THAT BY USING THE WORD “ENGINEERING”- BUT NO EVIDENCE FOR THE SOURCE”

    I have never used the word “engineering” in nature, other than as a flippant remark regarding the incredible claims made by ID. You want some evidence for evolution, here’s some case studies:

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE1aTegula.shtml
    Here’s one with the fossil evidence that you continually claim does not exist. Careful, it implies that humans evolved from primates, so it might offend you:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/evidence_mn.html
    Here’s a reference to evolution being performed in the lab (you claim on your website that this has never been done):
    http://www.amazon.com/Methuselah-Flies-Study-Evolution-Aging/dp/9812387412

    I have thousands more of these.

    “EVERY ONE OVER TIME AND ON AN ASSEMBLY LINE”

    Machines do not evolve on an assembly line. Machines are put together on an assembly line. There is absolutely no correlation between this analogy and how species evolve. Of course, I wouldn’t expect you to grasp the concept of natural selection, or you wouldn’t make the sort of arguments that you do. Your position is based on ignorance of how evolution and natural selection works. Your analogies are flawed, but this flaw is rooted in your misunderstanding of this theory. That is what I am trying to point out to you, among other things.

    “ANSWERED ABOVE”

    Repeat it again for me, in simpler terms. Do you believe in an intelligent designer, or do you not? You are purposely being evasive here, because you know that if you answer this question truthfully that your argument begins to crumble.

    “THEY AREN’T SIMPLE,JUST “SIMPLER””

    How simple do you need me to go here until you concede this point, exactly? Here’s a description of the parietal eye found in iguanas and other lizards. This was certainly not designed by anything intelligent.
    http://www.anapsid.org/parietal.html

    “THERE IS NONE-DON’T LISTEN TO ME, TAKE A LOOK A THE FOSSIL RECORD, THEN THINK FOR YOURSELF”

    Kindly review the anthropology link above. There *is* fossil record evidence that shows the evolution of humans.

    Now, that I have cited a few references, please do the same. Give me some actual evidence, an actual scientific study that provides some backing to your claims of intelligent design. The eye and heart analogies have been done to death and refuted as junk science. Please provide for me something credible.

  220. PC Says:

    Hey DR… now you see why I quit posting here; there’s no way to win in the fantasy world of evolution-believe. I wonder why he’s still PC-Bash, if he’s been arguing with you? Shouldn’t he be DR-STEVEN BASH by now? LMAO! Nice refuting, by the way; you still got my vote for the Florida Science Review Board committe, even if you’re from Chicago. :-)

  221. Dr. Stephen Thomas Says:

    Hi PC. I gotcha now. I was wondering if you were Bash or were somehow connected to PC Bash. So the name PC Bash is from your previous battle! I’m glad you are not connected to Bash. Even your short comments seemed too intelligent. I guess you went through some of the same circular arguments that I did. You must have had a good laugh watching me.
    Actually I am California. My son went to med school in Chicago. While visiting him I visited the Field Museum there. That is where I started really looking at the fossils and wondering where the evolution was, since I didn’t see ANY! I really was an enthusiastic evolution believer, even though I was never like Bash. Obviously I am very fascinated with the subject.
    I will look for your “debate” on this site and maybe I can get my good laugh.

  222. PC Says:

    Doc, There just isn’t anything that can be done for those of us, not on either side of the battle. Neither side wants to lose, so we punish the kids for the sake of our integrity at “being more right”. I’m not asking for religious ideas to be pushed into the science class, but don’t promote errors as scientific fact either, with belief in no other alternative demanded as unacceptable, until the next discovery changes that “fact” again.

    I have no problem with adaptation of species, we can follow that, and genetically trace common DNA traits of the variations. It’s the global “association” of adaption to the MACRO theory of evolution of “life” that has been assumed, but is not proven.

    I really couldn’t believe Bash asked for E-M biological examples, since there aren’t any; DUH…medical instruction manual….”take hand and hold over heart..”

  223. Dr. Stephen Thomas Says:

    PC:
    How about eyes are “easy engineering”. Bash must be some incredible engineer. I would think eyes would be kinda tough from scratch with no plans, no models, and no prototypes and only NS and M to get you there. Not for Bash! Doesn’t any engineering require intelligence? If you want to read an interesting book, try “The Blind Watchmaker” if you haven’t. It’s an interesting read and you would swear Dawkins is trying to prove intelligence, because he gives overwhelming and interesting evidence for it. Then he goes “no, sorry, that’s not it. It’s NS and M”.

  224. PC-Bash Says:

    Nice refuting? I must be missing something here. I have asked several times for citations for the analogies given by the ID argument, and have yet to receive one. How can one refute an argument without even a single citation, or is intelligent design about saying what you “feel” is correct?

    Where are your citations? Name one. Please.

  225. PC-Bash Says:

    Also, I fail to see what Dawkins has to do with this debate. I haven’t cited him as a reference once. Do you need to change the subject, or can you actually answer any of the questions I have posted? Oh, that’s right. It is an impossible position to argue from where you are. You can’t prove the existence of God, so therefore you don’t need to.

    It’s an interesting double standard, is it not? Evolution and natural selection has to stand up to rigorous testing to become theory, yet intelligent design just needs a few half-baked analogies and a few people to “feel” that this is right.

    If evolution isn’t correct, then why hasn’t there been a single accredited scientific journal that has published an article stating this? Why do I have to go to religious sites to find any arguments for intelligent design? Can you honestly make the claim that ID is being discredited because of some world-wide conspiracy by independent scientists?

  226. PC-Bash Says:

    PC -

    Wait… Now I’m confused.

    “I have no problem with adaptation of species, we can follow that, and genetically trace common DNA traits of the variations. It’s the global “association” of adaption to the MACRO theory of evolution of “life” that has been assumed, but is not proven.”

    Hmm… So you believe that species adapt over time, and that it is possible to genetically trace these adaptations using DNA. This is strange. You attempt to split evolution into two pieces, micro-evolution and macro-evolution. DNA and adaptations work on the small scale, but not on the large scale? The fact that two species of birds share common DNA is believable, but yet the fact that humans and chimpanzees do is not? How can you accept one, and not the other? At what point is evolution acceptable for you, and at what point does it become unacceptable?

  227. PC Says:

    http://www.apologeticspress.com/articles/3580

    Jellyfish..old or new?

    Imagine Doc, if things didn’t adapt to their environment, but just stayed the same all the time?

  228. PC Says:

    Everything …Bash, shares the same genetic material. DUhhhh.

  229. PC Says:

    One of the newest, and certainly one of the most exciting, of the sciences is that of genetics. After all, every living thing—plant, animal, or human—is a storehouse of genetic information, and therefore a potential “laboratory” full of scientific knowledge. Studies have shown that the hereditary information found within the nucleus of the living cell is placed there in a chemical “code,” and that it is universal in nature. Regardless of their respective views on origins, all scientists acknowledge this. Evolutionist Richard Dawkins, in his book, The Blind Watchmaker (1986, p. 270), stated what all scientists today know to be the truth of the matter when he noted: “The genetic code is universal…. The complete word-for-word universality of the genetic dictionary is, for the taxonomist, too much of a good thing.” Creationist Robert Kautz, in his book, The Origin of Living Things (1988, p. 44) agreed when he wrote: “It is recognized by molecular biologists that the genetic code is universal, irrespective of how different living things are in their external appearances.”

  230. PC-Bash Says:

    Great. So we agree. All animals share an amount of common DNA. Now we are getting somewhere. How did all of these different animals get this shared DNA?

    So, why is this DNA shared between animals? Did a magic fairy “intelligently” implant all of these animals with the same DNA?

  231. PC-Bash Says:

    Wow, PC. Somehow you managed to change a mildly interesting fossil discovery about jellyfish into a church surmon in that link. It’s interesting how you could read such an article, but your creationist blinders prevent you from understanding a sentence of it.

    The scientist conjectured that it is possible that either jellyfish evolved much quicker than imagined, or that they are older than first anticipated. Neither of these outcomes (which are not the only possible outcomes) have any major impact on evolution or natural selection. Also, you have made a blind assumption that these jellyfish are exactly the same as modern jellyfish, which had you bothered to follow the references cited by these articles, clearly is not the case. Similar, yes. Exactly the same, no.

    So, what an interesting conspiracy you have concocted here. You have attempted to refute every piece here, using a completely haphazard and shotgun approach. First, you claim that it is impossible to date the fossils (which would shatter your young-earth-creationist slant). Next, you attempt to draw a conclusion that evolution doesn’t exist, because we found a jellyfish that is 200 million years older than previously found. Which is it? Does carbon dating work, or doesn’t it. Talk about circular logic, you reek of it.

    Most of your other articles on your website reek of the same garbage reasoning from an ignorant perspective. Do you have any articles that you can site that have passed peer review by accredited scientists? I have given numerous citations so far, each accredited, and this merely scratching the surface of the additional material I can present.

  232. PC Says:

    “I must be missing something here. I have asked several times for citations for the analogies given by the ID argument, and have yet to receive one. How can one refute an argument without even a single citation” :

    “Please, show me one electromechanical device that exists in biology.”

    Doc gave you three..at least.

    “Please, show me one man-made device that has evolved.”
    (EVERY ONE OVER TIME AND ON AN ASSEMBLY LINE)
    I’ll go further than Doc…a toaster!! They used to use hot coals, then they got better, with two slices of bread placed into two metal racks, with a glowing rod between them, and then you flipped the racks on swivels, and toasted the other side; then they got enclosed, with hot elements on both sides of each slice….etc.. Oh..ok, I’ll give two….CELL PHONE…..they used to be expensive walkie-talkies, then they got better….

    “Wait… Now I’m confused.”
    Yes, you are. That’s what we both have said. Dis-liking evolution on a grand scale does not automatically throw someone into the ID camp as default. Adaptation is not an excuse for men coming from apes, or protoplasm. DNA produces proteins, similar ones in different species, even; but birds and bird DNA doesn’t come from humans and human DNA. The materials are the same, but coded differently. Just like bricks are used in many buildings, but each building can look differently styled on the exterior.

    What citation are you waiting for? The one from Chevrolet?

  233. PC-Bash Says:

    You fail to understand how science works. You have given a bunch of conjectures and a bunch of analogies as arguments as to how evolution is flawed.

    Unfortunately, this is not how science works. If you want to disprove something, you need to follow scientific process. You have not.

    A proper citation defending your points, just one, from an accredited and peer review scientific journal, could help your case tremendously. Such an article would at least show that one of your claims has stood up to actual scientific scrutiny, instead of the sleight-of-hand sophistry that you are attempting here.

  234. PC Says:

    “Does carbon dating work, or doesn’t it.” (that’s a question…by the way… ?)

    It works, like multiplication in math; except the multiplication factor keeps getting changed. LMAO.

    Oh, wait…Carbon dating is evolving too…getting better and better…yonger and younger….making our “old facts” not so good “facts” anymore.

  235. fla mom Says:

    wow. there are alot of comments here. i’m overwhelmed.

    my son is turning six. hes going into first grade next year. im pretty nervous, since he will start having science classes, and i really dont know how to answer the questions he will have.

    i’m a christian, but i’m not sure about this intelligent design stuff. is the intelligent being supposed to be god? because, I could understand that.

    PC, you seem a pretty level headed guy. could you explain this to me

  236. PC Says:

    “So, why is this DNA shared between animals? Did a magic fairy “intelligently” implant all of these animals with the same DNA?”

    If you change “magic fairy” to “designer”; I’m in.

    If you’re reading the articles, you’ll notice most of them are not written by me…but by scientists….some even with P.H.D.’s…oh…wow…imagine scientists that disagree with you…even doctors….astrophysicists…Physics scientists…..

  237. PC-Bash Says:

    I don’t care who you claim are writing these articles. I just want one article from a peer reviewed scientific journal that supports your position. You claim that ID is a valid theory. Show me how it went from a hypothesis to a theory.

  238. PC Says:

    fla mom, I’m pretty sure you’re not who you are(someone new or different from a previous post), and so this is an attempt to get me to “sell” you on Intelligent Design.

    First: I do not subscribe to all the beliefs that the ID people believe and try to promote.

    Second: I believe that there is a “creator” for all that exists as we know it. I do not have to push the God button, Allah button, or “magic fairy” button. That being said, there is too much intelligence and order(and organized chaos as well) in this existence to not have been ordered and designed for a purpose.

    Third: if we and everything in this existence can not know everything, then the intelligence that IS able to sort and order the “design” of everything HAS to be infinite, and know everything, in order to design knowledgeably.

    If you want to teach your child that there is an intelligent being and that (for you) you believe that to be God, that is your choice. It should not be forced on the other students in your child’s class, but neither should science be sold as the only alternative with it’s “facts” which are not correct, and change constantly to keep the fallacy alive for scientists. That’s the science communities’ goal; to overwhelm you, and “BASH” you until you just give in; because there are so many of them, and they get media attention, funds, and notoriety for their “facts”. So it doesn’t matter if it’s true, doesn’t matter a jellyfish that was originally 300 million is now only 100 million….doesn’t matter if the Tiktaalic’s leg-fins can’t support weight, because they MIGHT have somewhere in time, evolved the ability.

    Teach your child that it’s ok to not know everything; because there’s no way anyone can. It’s ok to question, and even believe. That’s what scares the hardcore evolutionist so much, because if their pursuit of knowledge cannot find out truth in everything they study, then they have to go back to believing, and they don’t want to do that. Hardcore Evolutionists don’t want to believe in their inability to discover everything, learn that there is to know….etc. You can read it in almost every post on here; they’re scared. Scared to believe.

  239. PC Says:

    Doc, we need to get together somehow…

    I enjoy your perspective on life as we know it. Again, refreshing to know that the “BASH”ers haven’t driven intelligence extinct in humans.

  240. PC Says:

    “I don’t care who you claim are writing these articles. ” Ahhhhh truth at last!

    “You claim that ID is a valid theory.”
    No, I don’t claim every ID concept presented from the hardcore ID camp are correct at all.

    “Show me how it went from a hypothesis to a theory.”
    It’s ok with me if it stays a hypothesis…you can call it that…go ahead.
    hypothesis
    hypothesis
    hypothesis
    hypothesis
    see…? It’s ok.
    It can even be a concept; a concept of an infinite, intelligent, omnipotent designer. Works for me.

  241. PC-Bash Says:

    PC -

    As usual, you completely miss the point.

    If you want to claim that evolution is invalid, then the burden of proof is on YOU.

    You need to present a hypothesis that can be proved or disproved. Then, you need to prove this hypothesis. That is how science works. The fact that you fail to grasp this is exactly why the decision to teach evolution or intelligent design in the SCIENCE classroom should be made by people who understand SCIENTIFIC METHOD, and not by politicians or by the general public.

    Science doesn’t work by making repeated claims that you don’t believe in something. Science works by presenting empirical evidence to back up a hypothesis. You, and the ID camp at large have repeatedly failed to do this.

  242. PC-Bash Says:

    Also, ID can never be even a hypothesis, because the tenants of ID rely on things which cannot be disproved. You cannot formulate a valid hypothesis that deals with things that cannot be disproved. Everything in the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection can be proved. Theoretically, everything can be disproved. This is perfectly valid in science. HOWEVER, there has yet to be any compelling proof to discredit evolution or natural selection as theories, despite the continual sophistry from the creationists.

  243. PC-Bash Says:

    I find it interesting that creationists constantly need to try to poison science by claiming that science does not answer questions of belief.

    In reality, this is a great compliment. Of course science doesn’t answer questions of belief or metaphysics. Science is about empirical evidence, and proving and disproving ideas through scientific method. It is impossible for a scientist who believes in “irreducible complexity” to be objective about scientific method. A true scientist has no beliefs other than what he can observe, and does not attempt to answer questions of faith.

    That is what the creationists are afraid of. They are afraid that their children will stop believing in God, because God is not required to understand the world around them. They would rather have a world in which any scientific theory that can discredit their book of myths and fairy tales is instantly discredited by the theocratic government. They want to be able to select, on their own, which passages in this mystic book they should follow, and which passages are invalid. They read into this book literally, they probably handle snakes since the bible tells them to. They fail to grasp that this book was written in metaphor. They fail to grasp that the stories in this book are meant to guide morals, that they are fables and the written thoughts of wise men, not “truth”. They wear their religion on their sleeve, and are unable to separate fantasy from reality. They are, in fact, false believers.

    It is possible for religion and science to exist in harmony in the world. It does already. Science cannot answer the questions of metaphysics and morals. To that, we must look to philosophy and religion. Muddying science by injecting it with creationism does not make science validate religion, it only makes science weak. We are an industrialized nation competing with other nations. Weak science will ruin our ability to compete with the rest of the world. If every scientific theory can be threatened, not through science, but through politics as the creationists wants, then we will not be able to teach any science to our students. This is what the creationists, and their foils like “Dr.” Thomas and PC want. Science scares them, it makes them question their beliefs. Their faith is so weak that any question of it could make it fall like a stack of cards. They do not care that they are muddying the education of the general public, as long as their children don’t come home with questions they cannot answer.

  244. fla mom Says:

    thats pretty rude. lol. why am i lieing about who i am? i just want answers to questions my sons gonna ask.

    i dont believe evolution, i mean, we used to be monkeys? lol. how can i explain to him that its wrong?

    someone else here said evolution has been around for 100 years. why havn’t scientists figured out that that its wrong yet? can’t you or that doctor prove them wrong?

  245. PC-Bash Says:

    fla mom -

    I recommend that you start reading here. This will help to clear up your questions:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

  246. fla mom Says:

    i dont want to read a bunch of websites. i just want a simple answer.

    dad once said if you can’t explain something to a three year old, then you don’t understand it. im no three year old, but sometimes i feel like it when reading all this stuff. lol. i think that PC and that doctor guy are right, but i want them to answer my questions. i dont want an arguement.

    so please dont “bash” me lol.

    all these websites are good and all, but they dont make it simple to someone liek me.

  247. PC Says:

    Fla mom:

    If you want to teach your child that there is an intelligent being and that (for you) you believe that to be God, that is your choice. It should not be forced on the other students in your child’s class, but neither should science be sold as the only alternative with it’s “facts” which are not correct, and change constantly to keep the fallacy alive for scientists.

    Teach your child that it’s ok to not know everything; because there’s no way anyone can. It’s ok to question, and even believe.

  248. Karen R Says:

    Fla mom, be careful. You have already made up your mind that evolution cannot possibly have occurred. If you teach your son that God is truth, and that the Bible is the only truth, you may well end up convincing him that the whole God thing is ludicrous. Most religious people believe that the world we see is a gift from God – and that the study of that world is holy work. The world we live in and all the evidence we have ever found proves beyond all doubt that evolution occurred – that life on earth changed over time. Religion does not require that you blind yourself to the world – you can teach him that science teaches us about the world God created.

    I don’t think you want to set your son up for disbelief in God if he goes out into the world and looks for himself and finds that the evidence rules out the God you have drawn for him. You have every right to teach him that God is behind everything – but you hurt your son by denying the evidence that exists. Some of my closest atheist friends were brought up to value truth – and when they discovered that their church had been denying the truth that exists all around us, it broke their faith. I’m glad for them – I don’t think you’d be glad to watch your son lose faith.

  249. fla mom Says:

    PC, isnt there an experiment to prove that evolution is wrong?

    i thought thats how science worked. i don’t remember much from science class, but i do remember that and cutting up frogs.

    you seem real smart, not like some others here. this must have been done, right?

  250. fla mom Says:

    karen, im not worried about my son losing faith. hes a good boy. i worry about him asking questions i can’t answer, which is why im trying to find answers lol

    pc and dr steven thomas have a lot of good stuff on they’re sites, but i cant give all of that to my son. hes six. lol

    i just want a simple proof that evolution is wrong. i think it might be on those sites, but thats a lot of reading. im hoping they can give me something my son can use.

  251. PC-Bash Says:

    fla mom -

    PC or Dr. Thomas aren’t going to be able to give you what you ask for, because it doesn’t exist. They are spinning circular arguments to try to cast doubt on evolution. These arguments are easily refuted, because they are nonsense. It reminds me of a heckler calling out taunts on a baseball field. The heckler has no basis in reality, but that doesn’t stop him from trying to confuse this issue with everyone else around him.

    If there was any compelling evidence that evolution was wrong, then evolution would be stricken from the books as a disproved theory, and the person who brought forth this evidence would no doubt win the Nobel Prize. As of this date, no one has found any evidence that disproves evolution, and creationists have been trying for 150 years. I challenge PC to give you the answer to this question, but he will evade it, just watch my words. In fact, you will find that ID fails you at every turn because it is pseudoscience, and it is built upon a shaky foundation.

    There is nothing wrong with teaching your son about God and faith. Likewise, there is nothing wrong if science and religion disagree. Science and religion are like oil and water, they don’t belong together. Science does not attempt to answer the questions of why we are here, or what we should believe. Science answers simpler questions.

    Evolution is not going anywhere. Your son is going to learn about it, and many other things that the creationists don’t want him to learn. My advice to you is to tell your son that there is no conflict between science and religion, no matter what these ID proponents, the creationists, or what PC or Dr. Thomas tell you.

  252. Dr. Stephen Thomas Says:

    Hi PC. I was going to be done with this site, but for the heck of it I took a look, and….uh oh. Here I go again. I really enjoy your writing and clear thinking. Now you are stuck with Bash. So I will take a little pressure off of you. Watch his answers to these thoughts: There will be none. He will ramble on endlessly, use the “hand waving, straw man” phrases, and dismiss the questions without answering.

    To BASH or any other evolution believer:
    1. This is simple: there are absolutely zero fossils that show Darwinian evolution in any form. If you know of any single example, please inform us.
    2. There are over 150 million fossils that show absolutely zero Darwinian evolution. Why? Oh, that’s right, they haven’t been found yet. Please discuss and make excuses.
    3. Evolutionists say eyes evolved when there was no vision on the planet earth. How did mutations know that if it continued in one of millions of possible directions, it would wind up with an incredible vision system?
    4. Re-do question three with hearts. When there were absolutely zero pumps on the planet earth, how did mutations and NS come up with the incredibly complex pump that is the heart? And please don’t talk about early simple hearts. The simplest and earliest hearts required brains to run them, vessels to carry blood, blood to be oxygenated, lungs…………………
    5. Which evolved first, the lung? The heart, then the lung was added? The heart, then the vessels, then the lung was added? Was the blood added after the heart or before? Did the nerve connection to the brain come after or before the heart evolved? Did they all evolve at the same time?
    6. How did one specie with two sexual beings evolve? Did one half of a specie evolve a pre-penis, then a pre-penis owning individual decided to insert it into a fold of a peer that had some sort of strange fold and no pre-penis just to see what would happen? Then the penis carrier thought that was pretty good, so testicles and ovaries decided to evolve and bingo…….a baby? I can’t quite imagine the stages of evolution on this one. Please help me here.
    7. Did the above question (6) happen to millions of species all at once, or to one specie that then spread the wonders of sexual reproduction to others. Oops, one specie couldn’t have procreated with other species and spread the wonders. Please explain.
    8. Did one species evolve eyes, or did it happen all at the same time in millions of species. Bash, you are so brainwashed and eager to throw out an answer, you didn’t comprehend my question and you gave me a completely ridiculous but serious answer without thinking about the perameters. You said the answer is multiple species. The odds of eyes evolving in one specie is beyond miniscule. (See three above.) For each additional specie that is evolving eyes, you multiply the odds against for each new individual specie. To help you out here: if you generously assign the odds for one individual evolving eyes at 1:1,000, the odds of two species evolving eyes at the same time is 1:1,000,000. The odds for three species at the same time is 1:1,000,000,000. Need I go on? Now throw in the odds of hearts evolving in multiple species. Then hearing systems. Then liver, pancreas, stomach…………..one in a googal plex would not suffice as an answer to this question.
    Have fun.

  253. Dr. Stephen Thomas Says:

    The above is the citation you ask for. The citation is simply THINKING AND USING YOUR HEAD and COMMON SENSE> That’s all that is required to disprove Darwin. Reading nonsense from other brainwashed clones is a worthless waste of time. And, I could cite dozens of other proofs that Darwin was wrong. I don’t have time, and this should suffice. Now go on and do some independent thinking yourself. You will be able to come up with unending numbers of other. You call yourself a real scientist. You are nothing more than a real spouter of Darwinian dogma. I am certain that you won’t think on your own, because the brainwashed do not have that ability.

  254. Karen R Says:

    Fla Mom, I got my degree in geology – so I’m not the best person to be answering questions about biological evolution. Countless people here and elsewhere have done an excellent job describing the genetic evidence. What I can tell you is what I learned in geology classes and in the field – and it leaves no room for doubt.

    See, geologists began by digging, and discovering species that no longer exist. This was hotly debated at the time – many people didn’t believe that God would allow his creations to go extinct. As more and more discoveries were made, it became clear that there were many, many species that were in fact gone from the earth. Religious groups that believe God would not make false evidence concluded that extinction indeed occurs – some suggested that these species died out in the great flood.

    These scientists began cataloging the many species that had been unearthed – their location, their position in the layers of the earth, their biological features. You should know that these early scientists were almost all religious people – they studied the earth and everything it could tell us about Gods creation. As the collected information grew, they were able to classify them based on their biology – much as we categorize species alive today. They noticed that there were many fossils that shared some, but not all, of modern species. They found whole groups of extinct species which shared primitive features with many others.

    To understand how they started arranging these fossils by date, I have to explain some of the basic principles of geology. They aren’t at a 3-year-old level by any stretch, but I’ll try. The first major principle is that of original horizontality – the idea that sediment deposits itself in horizontal layers on top of the underlying layers. The principle of superposition is simple – it’s the idea that the earliest our oldest layers are those at the bottom, and that in an undisturbed sequent, each successive layer is younger. Sand following the rivers being broken down and deposited in deltas cannot deposit itself below layers of rock that existed before. This allows scientists to date a layer in terms of the other layers surrounding it. These are relative dates – no numbers, just older vs. younger.

    They developed other principles, like that of cross-cutting relationships and intrusive relationships. This means a fault must be newer or younger than the rock it exists in, and that a volcanic intrusion through a layer is younger than that layer. Scientists used these basic principles (please ask me if you want more detail, they really are just logical tools and I’ve never met even a young-earther who disagreed with them after explanation) to relatively date layers all over the world. They traced layers from one region to another, letting them put together a basic timeline of geological history around the world – again, these are relative dates, not actual ages. Large scale events like volcanic eruptions provide layers that can be found over a huge area, allowing us to relate equesnces in different areas. As an example, you might find layers Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta, and Echo in New Mexico, and layers Foxtrot, Golf, and Hotel in Colorado. If layer Charlie represents a large scale event, finding layer Charlie under the others in Colorado tells us that Foxtrot, Golf, and Hotel are younger than Alpha, Bravo, and Charlie – but tells us nothing about whether Delta and Echo are younger or older than Foxtrot, Golf, and Hotel. Decades of discoveries have given us a good picture of the broad strokes, and we still work to understand local geology all over the world to help fill in details.

    Anyway, the point of the last two paragraphs was to explain how we arrive at the older and younger part of the analysis I mentioned before. Getting back to fossils, scientists had been digging and tracing and discovering and sorting. Placing fossil discoveries in context with the ‘dates’ of the layers they were found in, they were able to ‘date’ the extinct species. As more and more fossils were found, patterns began to emerge. Some species disappeared abruptly – they would never be found in younger rocks. Some species that were remarkably similar to those that disappeared could be found in progressively younger layers – and as the data came in, it became apparent that as time passed, species had developed and changed. ‘Parent’ species were found that had features shared by no other species at their time – but those features could be found in hundreds of species in the layers that came later.

    When you line up all the fossils we’ve ever found, and all the rock layers we have tied together in order of deposition, the patterns are beautiful. I can’t hold it against religious folks who believe that evolution is the method God chose to give us the world we have today, because the development of life on this planet is awe inspiring. If any of this seems reasonable to you, you should check out the talkorigins.org site reccomended above – scientists of many fields have put together great information about the different aspects of evolution.

    I hope you notice that at no point did I bring in radiometric or isotopic dating. This is because the tree of life we have pieced together existed before we started assigning actual dates to anything. The sequence of species we discovered was evident long before we could say that the Cretaceous period ended about 65 million years ago. What is important about dating is that it confirmed EVERYTHING we had already discovered. We don’t date a volcanic layer to the Cretaceous, and find younger species in the rocks below it. We don’t find a species that disappeared in the Triassic above a layer that we can date to the Jurassic. All the technology we have recently begun using in scientific research has confirmed what we’ve known for a long time – that life on earth has been constantly changing, that the path from then to now is infinitely wondrous and spectacular.

  255. Karen R Says:

    I cannot believe I wrote that much, that was not my intention. I hope it helps someone, even if it’s more than you are willing to read. I will repeat my warning, though – I don’t think you want to convince your son that belief in God is somehow tied to the literal truth of the bible. When you teach your children that the Bible is truth, and that truth is of the greatest value, you are setting them up for failure. Either they will never seek out the truths of the world, or they will search on their own and discover that their family and church have no interest in the truth. He may not give up God entirely – perhaps your son will learn about the world and mellow into a faith that does not require him to deny the evidence in front of him – but if you’ve raised him to value the truth, the version of faith you’ve taught him will not survive even a cursory look at the evidence.

  256. PC-Bash Says:

    “Dr.” Stephen Thomas -

    That was not the type of citation I asked for. I want an article from an accredited and peer reviewed scientific journal. I see you are unable to produce that, because your argument has no basis to stand on.

    1,2,3,4,5,7,8 –

    All of this nonsense can be explained away here:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

    Please come up with better analogies. These have been around for ten years. They have been disproved so often that a child could do so.

    6 -

    Please read the following links. These will shatter your argument:
    http://www.dorak.info/evolution/sreprod.html
    http://ambergriscaye.com/reefbriefs/briefs2.html
    http://www.microbiologybytes.com/introduction/myc2.html

    Let me know if I should break these down for you in terms you could understand.

  257. PC-Bash Says:

    Also, I noticed that you started deleting the comments I left on your blog. For such an “objective” guy, you are certainly afraid of what I have to say. Did I say something that you couldn’t refute? Or, does a differing opinion not belong on your blog?

  258. PC-Bash Says:

    Apparently, my response to your questions here is awaiting moderation. I guess I included too many links. You’ll have to wait until a moderator approves it.

  259. fla mom Says:

    karen, wow thats alot of response. that might be what my son will be learning, i think.

    i do hope that PC can give me something this detailed! i know that god created life, and i know that he created all life at the same time, in the garden of eden. do you think this place being dug in utah might be eden? lol. that would be a good explanation for my son.

    i don’t know much about geology, so ill take your word on the layer stuff. maybe an earthquake stacked all that stuff, like during the flood? lol they say that’s where the grand canyon came from, i think. if the flood could do that, maybe it has something to do with how these rocks were layered, or maybe not.

  260. Karen R Says:

    Fla mom, I’m thrilled that you gave that the once over – it was about three times longer than I meant it to be. The history of our planet is way too much information to try to explain in a blog comment – but I sure tried.

    I’m afraid I don’t have much to say about Eden – I personally think that too much of the Genesis story was taken from myths of previous cultures for it to be a literal story. It is, however, an awesome piece of literature – and it along with the other early Jewish and Christian texts has had too large an influence on western society for us to ignore completely. I do think that if you do some research at some point in the future (perhaps along with your son) you will come to the conclusion that different life forms appeared on this planet at different times – there were no cows back when there were dinosaurs. Whether or not God is behind everything we see is obviously a matter of faith, not science – but if what we see today is God’s handiwork, then evolution – the development and changes in life over time – was the path he chose to get us here.

    And as for layers and the flood… Those principles I mentioned rule out the possibility of a single flood being responsible for all the geology we see today. Going back to the principle of cross cutting relationships, we know that if a massive flood causes a canyon, the flood cannot be responsible for laying down the rocks that the canyon cuts through. They must have been there before the canyon was formed. Similarly, earthquakes cause faults and fractures in rocks – but only in rocks that existed before the quake.

    My favorite lab instructor gave us a handout when we were studying those principles – and I’ve wished I kept it ever since. It was a very simplified example of how rock sequences were deposited. I’m afraid I won’t do it much justice, but I’ll try. It was a cross-sectional picture of a big pit alongside a cliff. The bottom layers were just dirt – a layer or two of sand from normal deposition. The next layer was silt – really fine grained stuff – perhaps deposited after a long drought. The next layer was sand, but it contained arrowheads. There were a few more layers of sand, silt and clay, and then a layer of sand with some ceramic fragments. Then a few more layers, and then a layer with some glass bottles. After another couple layers of sand, there was a layer full of beer cans and plastic shopping cans. Above that was a layer of fill dirt brought in by the county, then a layer of grass installed by the county, and then the poles for a sports goal post were driven down through the top several layers.

    I think that was a reasonable version of the handout – and it really does give you an idea of what I mean by sequencing layers based on their position. The arrowheads are obviously older than (were deposited before) the bottles and beer cans above them, and the fact that the base for the goal posts is drilled through those layers makes it clear that the posts are younger than the layers. ‘Real’ stratigraphy is much the same – obviously more complex, but it’s those same basic principles that guide us.

    Another missive – sorry! Methinks I need to go volunteer my services to some professor who needs a cheap field assistant / rock toter. I obviously miss getting to talk about rocks.

  261. Dr. Stephen Thomas Says:

    PC BASH
    You haven’t read my blog. Your arguments are constantly misdirected, rambling, and a repeat of Darwin Dogma. Try reading my first page, and make your comments within that scope. If you do they will stick. If you want to ramble on with dogma, you should make you own blog.

  262. Dr. Stephen Thomas Says:

    Hey Bash, you are completely incapable of independent thought. You “answer” questions with useless links written by other drones, trite phrases, and condescending non-answers. My favorite is “hand-waving”. It really is useless communicating with you. Sorry. Over and out……………for sure this time.

  263. Karen R Says:

    I should mention for anyone wandering in here that the last few posts from me are not intended to address science curricula. While I’m not religious, I don’t think that religion or a belief in God is somehow incompatible with science. Faith is faith, and I don’t really have any problem with a person who believes that God wound up the watch, so to speak.

    The problem is when fundamentalists find a contradiction between their faith and the evidence the world provides – and then want to limit education to the parts of the world that they consider to be religiously acceptable. I can’t do a thing about people teaching their kids that the earth was created in 6 days, or that God put different species on the earth at different times just to mess with our heads. What I can do is help make sure that our students are not taught some religious misunderstanding of scientific evidence. That’s the goal here – not to teach some invented Darwinistic religion, but to teach students about the world and the endless number of nifty things we’ve discovered. Our science classes should teach scientific methods, history, and discoveries – and it seems awfully silly of religious groups to reinterpret the current state of science when we have a whole system full of scientists gladly helping us get our standards in shape.

  264. PC Says:

    Fla mom:

    This website is devoted to the cause of getting Evolution accepted as truth in the science classroom; even if there is no evidence to do so. So, most of the comments here are not going to be supportive of the cause that you seem to seek for your son. The Dr. has given in the preceding posts plenty of examples of evolution en masse not being possible, I have given many posts to the same cause, and with the same effect. These people want to believe that they can know where everything came from, and originated, and they want to use scientific methods and errors to teach others that mentality. They are not interested in logic, common sense, engineering, probability, seismic events, or biology to prove there is intelligence behind this existence; only “facts” that lead to conclusions, that lead to theory. So, if you are looking for answers to give your son, go elsewhere. I don’t have a website personally, but the one I have listed is good on certain topics and gives logical answers. I do not support every viewpoint at that website, but have found it helpful to arrive at my own decision on how life works. I can tell you that examples of new, living, breathing species are found every day; whether due to cutting down rain forests or just biologists finally getting acceptance of their published papers.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19028712/
    (from 2005 published papers by a scientist/team)
    Is it really a new species? or have we just found an adapted version of another? The evolution and archeology/geology people want you to think it supports their theory.

    So, you and your husband/partner didn’t receive a gift from an intelligent Creator; you received a gift from an ape with mutations that happened to survive because of an oddity in it’s gene structure. Or a protoplasm, or a dinosaur, or…you get the idea , I hope.

  265. PC-Bash Says:

    fla mom -

    As expected, PC has just sidestepped answering your question. You asked for proof, and he gave you more sophistry. He wants to imply that new species are still being “created” by the “intelligent designer” today, which is simply just not the case. He cannot provide proof to back these claims, because proof does not exist. You can’t prove the existence of God or the existence of an “intelligent designer” — whatever that’s supposed to mean.

    He talks about evolution, but he gets his terms confused. Evolution does not care where life originated from, that’s a completely different theory: abiogenesis. Evolution just claims that living things evolve over time. That’s all that evolution means. If you want proof of evolution, you need only look at man’s best friend, the dog. Dogs have been bred through the centuries from wolves and foxes. I’m sure you know someone who has a “mutt”, that’s evolution. As you can see, teaching evolution does not conflict with the existence of God, because evolution has nothing to do with how life began.

    The next piece of the puzzle is speciation. Speciation is the theory that as living things evolve, they form different groups that no longer interbreed. This also has copious examples in nature. If two groups of animals of the same species are separated from each other long enough, as they evolve they will eventually evolve to the point that if these two groups are brought back together, they will not breed with each other. This reason could be as simple as a change in plumage color, such as what happens with birds, or more technical, such as a genetic change that prevents these animals from having viable offspring when bred.

    The last piece of the puzzle is natural selection. This is easy. The animals best adapted for survival survive, those who are are less adapted for survival die out. This can be shown if you ever watch Nature or any other animal show. The deer is a prime example. The strongest bucks get to mate with more does, which passes their traits on to their offspring. The weakest bucks don’t get to mate with as many does, or possibly no does at all. Their contribution to their species is cut off.

    These three pieces, evolution, speciation, and natural selection explain the variety and continual change of the flora and fauna around us. As you can see, there is no contradiction with this concept and that of God. Evolution doesn’t prove that god didn’t create animals, that would be the theory of abiogenesis, which is different from evolution. Evolution doesn’t explain how old the earth is, that would be geology. There is certainly cross-pollination between these different fields, but the core concept of evolution does not violate your belief in God. That’s what we want to be able to teach our children in school. Does that infringe on your beliefs?

  266. PC-Bash Says:

    Dr. Steven Thomas -

    I’m sorry that you have decided to give up. Did you run out of counter-arguments? You have decided to fall back into personal attacks, calling me a “mindless drone” and implying that I am not capable of thinking for myself. It is sad that people must use personal attacks when they become desperate. It would have been more mature of you to back out before you resorted to such tactics, because they only make you appear to be crass.

    I’m sorry that you were unable to make a single point that I could not refute, either with my own words, or with the words of others. Maybe this would be a good time for you to spend in introspection, you may want to re-think your position after all.

  267. PC Says:

    “Humans, and all animal species, are incredibly engineered machines; thousands of times more complex and better engineered than any device on the planet. We have servo-motors (muscles) that move rods (ligaments) that in turn move ball and socket joints (hip, mandible). We have an incredibly complex and efficient pump (heart), a pair of digital cameras that produce 3D (eyes), miniature sound speakers (ears); and on and on. The one thing that makes us different from an incredibly engineered robot is LIFE; that we are alive. Life separates us from robots. And, life is the one thing that separates evolutionists from being able to see intelligence in the universe. NOT religion, but intelligence; there is a big difference here. If we were functioning and not “alive”, and were constructed of plastic and metal, and an “evolutionist” could observe us, he would have to admit that we are the result of an intelligence beyond imagination.”

    Well said, Dr. Stephen!

  268. fla mom Says:

    thank you karen and “bash” and PC!

    you have each given me something to think about. i see now that maybe evolution isnt that bad of a think to teach to my son. as “bash” said, it doesn’t mean that god didnt create life. i breed dogs, so i understand his analogy.

    maybe the real evil is that abiogenesis that “bash” mentioned. i can talk to my son about that.

    PC your right that i can teach my son about god at home, and that is what i am doing now. i read him stories from the childrens bible, he loves noah and david and goliath. lol

    now i think i understand thanks to all of your help that evolution isnt a bad thing. i dont think we evolved from monkeys since that isnt in genesis, but thats something else anyways. i can talk to my son about that.

    thanks for all of your help.

  269. PC-Bash Says:

    fla mom -

    I’m glad that we could help you out. You compared yourself earlier to a three-year-old. I think this is unfair. You have grasped a concept that neither PC or “Dr.” Steven Thomas could grasp. You are smarter than you think your are, because you have been able to reason your way out of the trap that creationists have been laying for Christians ever since Darwin first presented his theory to the Royal Society. :-)

  270. Dr. Stephen Thomas Says:

    PC
    Thanks! I feel very honored that you would take the time to read and copy it over!

    Bash
    You couldn’t and your links didn’t even remotely answer the challenges I posed. The site on sexual reproduction treated it like it was just “there”, out of a clear blue, without the slightest thought about how it got there. “Evolution needed it because it (sexual reproduction) speeds up evolution.” You ought to try reading the links you send before looking foolish and sending them. I wonder if the guys that wrote them are “real scientists” too.

  271. PC-Bash Says:

    “Dr.” -

    I thought you were done posting here? Didn’t you say that? It seems, that just like Intelligent Design, you are inconsistent and prone to rehash the same tired arguments over and over again.

    It is a shame that you can’t be as rational as fla mom.

  272. PC-Bash Says:

    …and apparently you didn’t bother reading the link about sexual reproduction in fungi perfecti? That’s very interesting, an organism evolving to share genetic information with other members of its species, and without needing a penis or vulva, as you claim is required for sexual reproduction. I wonder how you can refute that with your creationist nonsense packaged as coming from a seemingly rational dentist?

  273. Cletus Says:

    I say let them teach Creationism in school. If they want to be stupid let them reap the rewards of their efforts. And it might help to teach them a handy catch phrase that they’ll need to use with regularity: “You want fries with that?” Be stupid! It’s your God given right.

  274. PC-Bash Says:

    Cletus -

    I understand your sentiment, of course, but other than firmly planting my tongue in cheek, the damage that Creationism, or its current two political incarnations, “Intelligent” Design and anti-Evolutionism, will cause to children and to science as a whole is much more scary than it is funny. This political movement is having a chilling effect in science education already. Teachers are becoming afraid to teach controversial subjects, because of the fear of offending their fundamentalist students and the very real consequences that can happen because of this offense. Is it better to not offend anyone, but allow students to graduate school entirely ignorant of reality? What does this ignorance breed when given enough time to fester? I am reminded of what regularly happens in the Muslim world, where teachers are arrested and severely punished when they teach the non-Imam-approved versions of history or science. Certainly, things are not that bad here, but teachers must often choose between teaching verifiable truth, or glossing over things that might offend someone. I am trying very hard not to invoke a slippery slope argument here, but the amount of clout that the religious right seem to hold right now makes it difficult not to.

    Making light of the situation can provide comic relief, but I fear that too many people who should be taking this struggle seriously are not, because they believe that the creationists don’t have a leg to stand on, since their argument is entirely irrational, and easily refuted. The problem is that politicians don’t care about rationale, they only care about votes. Many would rather teach the wrong thing in school, but please the largest number of people. Muddying science to appease the ignorant seems like a good “compromise” to these people, but truth and empirical evidence can never be compromised, if science is to remain science.

  275. Cletus Says:

    I wasn’t kidding. Let them be stupid. Adapt or perish. I think it is a perfect way to demonstrate evolution vs creationism.

  276. PC-Bash Says:

    If they get their way, they will force everyone to study their beliefs, or they will want all teaching censored so it does not contradict their beliefs. So, it won’t just be the creationists that get failed into the service industry. That is precisely what they are trying to do in this case. They failed at the state level, so now they are digging in at the county level.

    This battle isn’t about the creationists’ children — they are probably screwed already. This battle is about everyone else: teachers, employers, students, etc. I fall into the “employer” camp at this point. If the rigor of science can be weakened to allow for a magic fairy, then anyone who learns this pseudoscience must be suspect. I’m not going to hire an engineer who I will trust with people’s lives that professes to me an ignorant belief that the scientific method should be ignored when it contradicts his beliefs. That position is what the creationists want.

    The compromising position of the creationists, as PC and “Dr.” are attempting to take, is that of agnosticism. They would rather a valid scientific theory be stricken from the books because (at least in their twisted logic) it is in direct opposition to the concept of an intelligent designer. This position is equally damaging, because it leads to self-censorship. It is the “political correctness” of the twenty-first century, censor yourself so you don’t offend someone’s backwards religious beliefs.

    Despite what they may claim, the belief of an intelligent designer is something that can only be taken on faith, hence religion. The suspension of belief/disbelief as would be the case in taking an agnostic stand in this case, is lending credence to this religious belief. Science does not support faith, it only supports empirical evidence. Even taking an agnostic stand in this debate is a claim that the evidence is wrong, but there is no proof of it being wrong and no proof of an intelligent designer. This is not science, it is sophistry. It may work to convince a politician, but no true scientist would fall for it — unless their minds were poisoned by being taught this sophistry at a young age.

  277. Karen R Says:

    If they want to start a private school and poorly prepare their own kids, more power to them. I don’t like the idea of brainwashing children like that, but there’s not a damn thing I can to to stop it. There is no good reason in the world to subject the rest of the state to their stupidity.

    Seriously, should we let people who think ‘evolution should be taught as one of many theories of the origin of the universe’ decide what everyone elses’ kids learn?

  278. Jump! Says:

    Baby steps towards a theocracy – good job USA! Look at how quickly Iran changed from an open society to one where religious doctrine reigned supreme. I weep for the future.

  279. Dr. Stephen Thomas Says:

    To anyone except PC BASH:
    I have a great idea for you evolutionists, particularly the ones that think you are so smart and everyone that disagrees with you is inane insane and stupid: Why not teach real science to the kids? Teach what fossils there are, what they look like, and what their dating shows, and when species appeared. Teach the biological timelines that have been tested and are apparently pretty darn accurate. Don’t teach that the fossil record proves Darwin’s theory. It doesn’t. It does only in your combined imaginations. Don’t make up stories about how eyes and hearts evolved when they are complete figments of the imaginations of the writers, and teach the kids as if they were fact. And, of course, don’t teach creationism, ID, or “alternate ideas” in science classes. Stick to real provable science. Someday if the fossils are found that demonstrate that Darwin was right, teach that then. And someday if science finds the source of the incredible intelligence that is in nature, teach that then. And, someday if lab experiments can yield life, and we can figure out how things got started, teach that then. But, until evidence of any or all of the above are found, keep education to what is really there. That will prevent an enormous waste of time and money that could much better be placed in schools, teachers, supplies, and activities. Teach Darwinian evolution, ID, and Creationism in philosophy, religion, and history classes.

  280. PC-Bash Says:

    …or we could just maintain the status quo of the past 70 years.

    No new evidence has come to pass to discredit the scientific theory of evolution. You have been unable to provide one shred of evidence. Without this evidence, you insist that we should use our emotions to strike evolution from the books. “Dr.”, I have no idea how you got your doctorate, because you don’t understand the first thing about science.

    Once something has been elevated to a scientific theory, it takes more than emotion, scripture, or broken analogies to discredit it. Once something has been elevated to a scientific theory, it remains there until it can be disproved. You cannot disprove it, so you and all of the other closet creationists wish to use politics to do so. Since you don’t have any idea of how science works, your opinion is less than worthless here.

  281. PC-Bash Says:

    Better yet, instead of wasting your time by posting here, why don’t you put your thoughts together, write an article, and submit this to an accredited and peer reviewed scientific journal? Certainly, if your claims are so damning, a scientific journal would jump at the chance to make a historic change to scientific theory as we know it, right? If you do this, you would be the first person with your position to ever have his article published. Of course, that’s not saying that other people haven’t tried already and have been turned down. But, don’t let that stop you, after all, you think you’re right. If your logic is so infallible, then why don’t you put it to a more worthy test than posting here?

  282. Dr. Stephen Thomas Says:

    Bash
    This wasn’t written for you. Can’t you read? Your your continued generalized nonsense amazes me. Is there some sort of evolution church that you attend every Sunday?

  283. PC-Bash Says:

    If you want to send personal messages, feel free to e-mail people. Posting responses in a public forum leaves you open to be responded to by anyone, including me.

    So, why not write an article for inclusion in Nature. Obviously, you think you have some unique insight on the validity of evolution, why not stand behind your words and put your name behind it?

  284. Karen R Says:

    So, Dr. Thomas, am I to understand that you have no problem with evolution, only with the theory of natural selection? In a previous post, you mentioned the 150 million fossils that have been unearthed – you must be aware that we have an endless supply of fossils that show biological transition between life forms. I’m wondering whether you have any actual knowledge of these fossils and the theories comprising evolution.

    You ask some pointed questions – like how an eye ‘knew’ it would develop into an incredibly complex visual system. If you had any real understanding of this debate, you would know that the concept of an ‘endpoint’ of evolution is a creation of the religious. Evolution was the process that brought us to here and now, but the idea that it is guided with an end in mind is religious, not scientific. And if you had any real understanding of biology, you would know that vision has its roots in many ‘primative’ species. Even unicellular organisms have light-sensing photoreceptors. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye) has some nice diagrams and a decent review of the different species with ‘half an eye.’

    I’d love to tackle your heart/lung question – mostly because I don’t know the answer and the process fascinates me. I find those questions incredibly funny – if you had any education in science, you would ask better questions. The explanations are out there, but I suppose you aren’t interested. That happens when you think someone has already provided you with all the answers.

  285. Dr. Stephen Thomas Says:

    Hi Karen R
    Let’s see. My choices are:
    (1) To believe that an immense, invisible, super-intelligent, SUPER BEING created life on earth, then created all of the different species along with their miraculous organs; the whole thing happening in a week or so.
    (2) To believe that somehow NOTHING and luck got chemicals together on the early earth and, from a completely sterile soup, formed live single celled species which then slowly, in millions of steps, morphed into all of the different species along with their miraculous organs with absolutely no plans or knowledge of what the end result would be.

    Which is more believable? Neither. They are completely equal. They both require miracles beyond belief. So, I really have absolutely no idea how we got here. Is this really clear? I have a very difficult time communicating this very easy concept to evolutionists and your friend BASH.
    I do enjoy debate with evolutionists because there are so many obvious holes in the theory, evolutionists think they are so scientific (they’re not), and they are so condescending to anyone who disagrees with them, just as you are to me.
    To answer your comment: You speak in generalities, just like all evolutionists, without answering any specific questions; or you “answer” by being condescending without answering. Is this type of communication in the DNA of all ev believers?
    In answer to your comment:
    Karen: You must be aware that we have an endless supply of fossils that show biological transition between life forms. ME: There are none. Zero. Fossils show incredible stability of species, not Darwinian changes. Have you looked? Please give me examples. I really am open minded.
    Karen: If you had any real understanding of this debate (CONDESCENDING), you would know that the concept of an ‘endpoint’ of evolution is a creation of the religious. ME: Mutations that supposedly lead to eyes, hearts, etc. stopped at the point of function, which would be hundreds of millions of years ago. Since mutations are about one per one million transactions (Dawkins) and are a CONSTANT, why did eyes (and all organs) stop evolving? Why didn’t they keep right on going, and morph into some other organ, or some super eyes? (A scary thought.) I know: NS decided to not choose anymore mutations for all organs circa 300 MYA. That NS is real smart!
    Karen: And if you had any real understanding of biology (CONDESCENDING), you would know that vision has its roots in many ‘primative’ species. ME: So, vision evolved in thousands/millions of species at the same time? Is that a miracle or what! I can’t even come close to describing how impossible that would be. What a damn coincidence that the exact same hundreds of thousands of mutational steps, along with the exact same NS would occur in thousands/millions of different species at the same time! Now, that is true science! Doesn’t that at LEAST make you wonder? Could this be true??? Think about the reality of what you believe.
    Karen: Wikipedia has some nice diagrams and a decent review of the different species with ‘half an eye.’ ME: That is exactly what evolution proof is: “nice diagrams” of eyes done by a believer. Sorry, K, but that is not scientific, nor is it evidence. Anybody can draw anything, and make up any story.
    Karen: I’d love to tackle your heart/lung question – mostly because I don’t know the answer and the process fascinates me. (Ask BASH. He knows all.) ME: I know the answer: there isn’t one. This should be an easy one for evolution geniuses, but, there just isn’t one (a genius or an answer). This one point alone makes Darwin impossible. And if even you admittedly can’t answer my questions, why do you find them “incredibly funny”?
    Karen: I find those questions incredibly funny (CONDESCENDING) – if you had any education in science, (CONDESCENDING) you would ask better questions. The explanations are out there, but I suppose you aren’t interested. (A perfect example of a condescending non-answer.) ME: Gee, I stumped you, and every evolutionist that I have talked to. That isn’t good enough? Believe me, I searched hard for the answers when I was a believer (2003 and before). The more I saw, the more my belief went away, and the more anti-ev I became. And if you want to label me, call me an Anti-Evolutionist.

  286. Karen R Says:

    What is your degree in, anyway? I find it hard to believe you would ask these questions if you had any higher level biology or paleontology training. I only took basic introductions to both, and we covered enough to be able to describe the ACTUAL theories involved in evolution, not the bastardizations you present.

    You keep making some strawman out of your deluded interpretation of evolution, and asking us to explain how that could be possible. I was honestly interested in how a man with a doctorate could ask such a simply moronic question about vision, and figured I’d offer up some information in case you were interested. You’re damned right I’m condescending – that’s because I was raised to value the truth, and you were obviously raised to value being right. Seriously, spend a little time with the facts, and I’ll treat you with a little less contempt.

  287. PC-Bash Says:

    Debating with this guy is much akin to debating with a brick wall.

    If you read his “blog”, you will find it full of contradictory arguments. He cuts and pastes what other people say (like what he did with your comment), and then inserts snarky come-backs. If you pull out all of his come-backs and try to form them together into a position, it is completely contradictory and nonsensical. He wants to poke holes in evolution, and he doesn’t care if the holes he pokes are completely contradictory. All he cares about is trying, very poorly, to counter something that he feels is wrong. It is an emotional appeal, much like a teenager trying to worm his way out of being grounded.

    We have found many fossils that show the eye at different forms of development: eyes without corneas, eyes without retinal curvature, etc. His argument is that of repeating a lie over and over again, hoping in his heart that it becomes truth. In fact, there exists eyes at several different levels of evolution today, from the very simple (e.g. in worms), to his so-called “super-eyes” that we have yet to evolve (shrimp, birds of prey, dogs, lions, etc). So, his argument that if evolution is real, it would still be happening today, is true. Of course, what he doesn’t want to admit is that the human eye is a poor example of the best eyes evolved. He would probably also insert snarky comments about humans who have developed better eyes through mutation, for instance, humans who now contain an extra set of cones that can better discern green colors. If he believes that an intelligent designer created humans, then wouldn’t that intelligent designer give us the best eyes? Why would this intelligent designer allow some humans to have better eyes? Of course, his position on a creator is very confused, especially on his blog. He simultaneously argues for and against ID, and always against evolution.

    The reality is that this “Dr.” is nothing more than a troll. He has nothing useful to say on the subject, other than heckling and calling people “condescending” if they point out how flawed his argument is. I don’t know if he is a shill, why a dentist would spend so much time posting in various forums about this is suspect. It could be that he is fanatical about his beliefs, which makes sense by the way he picks and chooses arguments. He doesn’t seem to understand how science works, but I guess that isn’t part of the course for getting one’s D.D.S. The only reason why he uses his title is because he thinks it lends credibility to his position, when in reality it only make him look like more of a troll.

  288. PC-Bash Says:

    “Dr.” -

    Let’s take your argument one step further. You have claimed repeatedly that there are examples of irreducible complexity, complexity that can never be explained through evolution. These examples, if truly IC, would imply the existence of an Intelligent Designer. If such a designer exists, where is he? How was he created? Was he designed by an even more intelligent designer? If so, then how was that designer designed? What we have here, is infinite regress. Trying to place a designer here only results in a contradictory statement which can never be answered. That is not science, it is poor sophistry, not even philosophy.

    We have a theory that has withstood rigorous testing, and neatly solves the problem of evolution: natural selection. You have danced around this subject, but you are never clear on this. Do you believe that animals with better advantage are more likely to survive, or not?

  289. PC-Bash Says:

    I also find it odd for a dentist to be arguing this. If the human jaw was designed intelligently, then why do we grow wisdom teeth? Why are there so many genetic issues with human teeth and jaws? Why would an intelligent designer see fit to create some people with a cleft palate, curse others with weak enamels, etc? Why would an intelligent designer smite some with mental retardation or cerebral palsy?

    What makes more sense, that these issues are micro-variations as the ID camp will tell you, or that they are mutations that can be passed on? If mutations, then wouldn’t that indicate that (as opposed to your statement on your blog) that not all mutations are fatal? Furthermore, if there are harmful mutations, such as mentioned above, and useful mutations, such as having extra cones in a human eye, then would it not be a likely conclusion that some mutations can give individuals of a species an advantage, or others a disadvantage? Would it not then be a logical conclusion that natural selection is feasible, and that we can see it at work every day?

    Given the overwhelming evidence, I find your position completely untenable.

  290. Karen R Says:

    I have gotten pretty good at avoiding debates with idiots in real life, but damned if I can keep myself from doing it online. I think it’s the idea that an innocent visitor could see nonsense like that posted as the ‘last word.’

    I wouldn’t want to keep trolls like that from posting – even slightly more educated visitors will realize he’s arguing against his own stunted version of evolution – but I really don’t like his crackpotishness to be the most recent post on a science board.

  291. Dr. Stephen Thomas Says:

    Oh boy, two against one! How fun! This site can kick me off if I get too challenging for you. I don’t know why I keep on with this site anyway. It IS really fun to see if any evolutionist can answer a simple question. I haven’t found one yet who can. I even got into discussions with Dr. Francisco Ayala, one of the leading evolutionists on the planet. And, you guys should be proud. You are both as astute as he is in answering simple questions!
    Evs: If you read his “blog”, you will find it full of contradictory arguments. ME: What contradictory arguments? Please list them so I can make corrections! You continue to say that I make them, but you never cite page and verse.
    Evs: He has nothing useful to say on the subject, other than heckling and calling people “condescending” if they point out how flawed his argument is.
    ME: The perfect example of the complete inability of ev believers to answer the most basic of challenges.
    Evs: Trying to place a designer here only results in a contradictory statement which can never be answered.
    ME: Please read the beginning of my last comment, AGAIN.
    Evs: Do you believe that animals with better advantage are more likely to survive, or not?
    ME: Sure, but why did homo sapiens dis-evolve the ability to survive in the wilderness unclothed? Is that survival of the weakest? Out of billions of species, we are the only specie on the planet earth that cannot survive unclothed in our own backyards most months of the year. Oh, let me answer that for you: I am setting up a straw man, putting the cart before the horse, hand waving, I should get a basic biology book, and I am an idiot for asking.
    Evs: If the human jaw was designed intelligently, then why do we grow wisdom teeth?
    ME: Nature obviously isn’t perfect. How could evolution lead the maxillary teeth to evolve and perfectly articulate with the mandibular teeth, each cusp, groove, and fossa, fitting perfectly into an opposing cusp, groove, and fossa? How did the maxillary mutations and mandibular mutations get separately and perfectly selected by NS? That is a real WOW! Oh, let me answer that for you: I am setting up a straw man, putting the cart before the horse, hand waving, I should get a basic biology book, and I am an idiot for asking.
    Evs: Why would an intelligent designer see fit to create some people with a cleft palate, curse others with weak enamels, etc? Why would an intelligent designer smite some with mental retardation or cerebral palsy?
    ME: Sorry but evolution did it! Evolution has to keep on with these great mutations so eyes and hearts and we can keep on improving, of course. Silly question. You have given perfect examples of how mutations work, and make the wonders of nature even better!
    Now, if you want, you can answer me, and I won’t communicate anymore. This is my last here. It really is a useless debate with no answers coming from the evs. I don’t want to damage this website, and they really have been nice for allowing me to talk. Really. So, you can call me all the names you want, and try to make me look stupid so that will be the last entry here, and you will look good. Bye.

  292. PC-Bash Says:

    so that will be the last entry here

    I doubt that. You’ve said that twice already.

    What contradictory arguments?
    and
    Please read the beginning of my last comment, AGAIN.

    Your blog is full of them. You attempt to find examples of irreducible complexity, which implies intelligent design. You then attempt to argue that both intelligent design and evolution is wrong. Which is it? Is there irreducible complexity, or not? You make an argument, but you don’t understand the logic of your argument or its implications. Just come out and say you’re a creationist already, or admit that you don’t have a clue about what you are talking about. If you want to tear down ID, then you lose your opportunity to make an IC argument.

    Sure, but why did homo sapiens dis-evolve the ability to survive in the wilderness unclothed?

    We no longer needed fur and hair. Notice that we stand upright, and the most exposed part of our body, our head, still has hair. If a mutation, such as albinoism or lack of hair, doesn’t harm an animal’s ability to survive, then natural selection will not have the opportunity to cull it. Poor argument. Please try again.

    How did the maxillary mutations and mandibular mutations get separately and perfectly selected by NS?

    All genetic evidence so far has pointed out that the genes that express this part of our phenotype are related. That probably wasn’t covered in your course on dentistry, but google knows the answer to this one.

    Sorry but evolution did it! Evolution has to keep on with these great mutations so eyes and hearts and we can keep on improving, of course. Silly question. You have given perfect examples of how mutations work, and make the wonders of nature even better!

    Thanks for conceding your point here. Glad you were paying attention.

  293. PC-Bash Says:

    Also, regarding the human and fur argument. It is fairly well established through anthropology records that humans migrated from tropical regions to temperate regions. Having fur is a distinct disadvantage in a tropical region: fur attracts more parasites, it retains sweat longer (harder to regulate body heat), it is harder to clean (thus leading to more opportunities for disease), etc.

  294. Dr. Stephen Thomas Says:

    Your answer is so inane, I have to give it one more go.
    Apes in Africa (the tropics), as well as lions, and tigers, etc. evolve fur even though they don’t need it. Apes then dis-evolve fur and become homo sapiens. They migrate to where it’s freezing cold, colder than they could imagine, and they don’t re-evolve fur. I get it! The wonders of evolution at work!
    Sorry, bye again…………

  295. Karen R Says:

    I doubt we’d ever kick you off – your arguments are often faulty, but you aren’t advertising, aren’t threatening, and aren’t any ruder than the rest of us =)

    I might come hang out on your blog sometime – I am pretty sure that you just don’t have all the facts. It’s possible you have them, but the points you bring up ignore so many details and discoveries that it’s hard to believe you’ve looked at the *huge* body of scientific knowledge we have to work with. The hows and whys and their importance are still being debated (by scientists) every day, but the fact that evolution occurred and is responsible for the variety of life on this planet is undeniably supported by the evidence.

    That’s actually why I support education so strongly – I think it does us very little good to teach someone a concept without explaining how we came to agree on that concept. If you’re just taking someone else’s word for it, your mind can be changed with half-truths and outright lies. You can’t possibly be a complete idiot, but you obviously just don’t have a firm grasp on what scientists *actually* have to say about evolution. Your blog mentioned you used to ‘believe’ in evolution – I suspect that if you’d originally been taught evolutionary theory properly, we wouldn’t be having this ‘conversation.’

  296. PC-Bash Says:

    “Dr.” -

    You should really consider either leaving or just stop saying that this post will be your last. Obviously, you aren’t going anywhere, so why keep claiming that this next post will be your last?

    We don’t really need fur if we can make clothes, do we? Why spend all of that energy on fur when we have a large enough brain to seek clothing? Of anything, not having fur puts us at an advantage, because we can cast off our faux fur when we don’t need it.

    Comparing lions to humans is meaningless here. There are so many physiological differences between a lion and a human, that whether a lion has fur and a human doesn’t doesn’t really answer the question. Furthermore, lions live on the Serengeti, not in the jungle.

    Karen -

    Regarding “Dr.”‘s blog, I wouldn’t bother trying to post comments there. He screens and deletes comments he disagrees with. Also, he won’t unscreen a comment until he has attempted to refute it. He likes to take advantage of blogs that don’t screen comments… yet he won’t extend the same courtesy on his blog. You can try your luck, but there’s a reason why there are so few comments on his blog, and it probably isn’t because people aren’t attempting to leave them.

  297. Dr. Stephen Thomas Says:

    Hi
    This is just a nice comment from me to you. No debate with you or Bash intended. Karen R, you must own this blog? Bash too? I can’t quite figure out who is who. Well, I give you an A for allowing me to render my opinion. Obviously we are not going to change each other’s minds, so I really am going to stop the debate. But, thanks for allowing me the space you did.
    Feel free to read mine, and comment all you want. My preference is that you find where you think my thinking is wrong, and comment on that. And I don’t get anything out of links that will “educate me”. I have read them all in detail. I got here from Talk Origins, which I have spent a lot of time studying. In fact I have a debate printed on my blog with a TO patron. When I was debating him, I actually started out as pretty much an evolution believer. I played devil’s advocate at the beginning, and debated as if I was a non-believer. We communicated over about three months. By the end I came to point that I am right now. Thanks again for the fun.

  298. PC-Bash Says:

    I have nothing to do with this blog, I just post here from time to time.

  299. PC-Bash Says:

    By post, I mean comment. ;-)

  300. Karen R Says:

    Same for me – no right to ownership at all. I shouldn’t have used the collective we, my apologies.

    I’m actually ‘taking’ your Darwin exam – not so much for you, but because at least some of them are reasonable questions. I’m fairly sure they’re answerable, but it will require research – research I expect to enjoy =)

  301. Dr. Stephen Thomas Says:

    Great, and if you do find the answers, I will of course be very interested. But I bet…………….Oh well, never mind. Either way, you can contact me on my site. My email address is there also. I would be interested in who you both are, what you do, and your ages, etc. if you don’t mind giving that up, and since you know all about me. Just to get an idea of who I have been communicating with. What states are you from? Gee, isn’t it nice being so friendly?? Obviously we three have a very common interest. Me, I have been fascinated with the subject since I was a kid. And the fascination never goes away.

  302. PC-Bash Says:

    Any unfriendliness is nothing personal.

  303. Rene Says:

    As Professor Maciej Giertych, heard of Genetics Department at Polish Academy of Sciences, author of 90 scientific papers, has stated: macroevolution requires increase in genetic information, while microevolution continually shows us decreases in genetic information.

    Empirical science does not promote macroevolutionary atheism. That is a metaphysical preference of a few popular scientists of the day who want to ignore the real fossil records that are missing millions of transitionary phased fossils known as “missing links”. macroevolution is incompatible with micrevolution and all science classes need to leave the failed theories about what they fantasize might have happened billions or millions of years ago to conjecture rather than dogmatic theology of atheism. And, in favor of scientific objectivity, we should all start looking at all science based alternative viewpoints in regards to our universe and man’s origins, without banning those that do not line up with someone’s philosophical preferences towards atheism or theism.

  304. PC-Bash Says:

    Rene -

    Flaunting a professor does not make your viewpoint valid. Smart people can be wrong just as easily as dumb people.

    Empirical science does promote evolution. Trying to split hairs between “microevolution” and “macroevolution” is senseless. It sounds like you are attempting to regurgitate terrible arguments presented by the Discovery Institute and the Christian Faith Ministries, and you are doing a poor job at it.

    Please provide specific examples to back you metaphysical claims.

  305. PC-Bash Says:

    Excuse me, I meant to say Empirical Evidence, not “Empirical Science”.

  306. PC-Bash Says:

    Also, please list some of these “alternate theories” that you are talking about. After all, your argument hinges on there being valid scientific theories that can replace our current understanding of evolution and abiogenesis with something more accurate.

    Obviously, you aren’t going to say ID here, since ID is now considered a laughingstock, even among some of its original proponents. So, if not ID, then what?

  307. Paul Wayne Says:

    “We are denying freedom of ideas, speech and shutting down one side,” Carter told The Ledger. “The kids ought to be able to study both sides of it, so we don’t just turn out a bunch of rubber-stamped robots in the classroom.”
    Wouldn’t it be wise to just pass a law that whereever Evolution is taught that Intellegent Design be explained also and of course to be sure we don’t turn out a bunch of rubber-stamped robots whereever Intellegent Design is taught Evolution be expained. Especially every Private School where Evolutional teaching is shut down. The kids ought to be able to study both sides of it. Paul

  308. PC-Bash Says:

    The problem is that there isn’t “two sides” to it. Evolution is the only game in town in biology right now. There are no alternate theories, hypotheses, etc.

  309. Albert Says:

    PC-Bash – are you stoned! The alternate Theory is Creation – and by the way there is ample evidence to conclude a creator – more in fact than Macro evolution! This kind of I know all attitude is the reason why people get so heated about it – Teach what is true and proven Micro-evolution gradual changes within the species – there is NO evidence for changes to another species – Oh and by the way Micro evolution – variation whith in the species or adaptation (whatever you’d like to call it fits a creation model)

  310. Albert Says:

    Oh and BIBLE THUMPER – we pay tax dollars to have our children educated they should be EDUCATED – truth – not a theory – if you’re going to teach theory teach all sides – creation – evolution both – I see no one having a problem with any other theory in science teaching both pro and con – why are people so afraid of both being taught and letting facts speak for themselves – and please not the seperation of church and state argument again – That was to protect the church from the state not the opposite – if you’re going to have to go down this path do both or do nothing – it’s only fair

  311. PC-Bash Says:

    Albert -

    The alternate Theory is Creation

    You do not understand the basics of the scientific method. Creationism is not even a valid scientific hypothesis. To be a hypothesis, it must be stated in a way that can be both verified and falsified. It is impossible to falsify the existence of a theistic being. Creationism and ID are not valid theories. Sorry.

    there is NO evidence for changes to another species

    Start reading here. There is plenty of evidence in support of speciation, and speciation has been performed in the lab.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

    it fits a creation model

    Just because something may work with a fable doesn’t make the fable true. There is absolutely no evidence in support for creationism.

  312. PC-Bash Says:

    truth – not a theory

    You obviously don’t know the definition of a scientific theory. Try looking it up.

    we pay tax dollars to have our children educated they should be EDUCATED

    We are fighting an uphill battle to properly educate your children. Unfortunately, this means teaching them that much of what their parents believe are urban myths, fantasy, and junk science. Apparently, you don’t appreciate that.

    if you’re going to teach theory teach all sides – creation – evolution both

    Should we also teach the Hindu creation myth, the Cherokee creation myth, the Tibetan creation myth, the Egyptian creation myth, etc.? In the science classroom, we will teach that which has been verified through the scientific method. Myths do not count.

    That was to protect the church from the state not the opposite

    You need to read the original letters penned by Thomas Jefferson on the matter. The concept of a separation between church and state was to prevent “Establishment” — the idea that churches were sanctioned by the state to collect tithes from citizens within their parish, and that the state would favor one religion over the other. If you bothered to read history instead of regurgitating creationist talking points, you might learn something. Chances are that your kids will.

  313. Steve Says:

    Lets test this theory. All those who believe in evolution dont believe in the God of the Bible. All those that believe in the God of the Bible believe that God created the heavens and the earth in less than a weeks time. So its not whether the facts dictate ones belief system – its the other way around. If I do not want to believe that God of the Bible exists the theory of evolution will help me rationalize that God doesnt exist. If I believe that the God of the Bible exists I will undoubtedly be a creationist. So its whether you believe in the Bible or not. Thats the root of the problem. My mind can betray me through deceptive reasonings on either side of the spectrum. So it boils down to this theory ” A man’s (or woman’s) sexual morality dictates his (or her) view on science. If I reject the standard of sexual morality found in the Bible then evolution will be a convenient theory for me to embrace. Those who believe in the standards found in the Bible and have humbled themselves before a Holy God to find forgiveness and grace to live a moral life, it is not hard to believe that creationism is true. So to conclude – those who have sexual habits that are outside the “norm” will always be evolutionists. Thence all evolutionists have a moral twist. Hmmm is this a theory or a fact. You may get upset and call names but test it out to see if it is true. If your honest you will have to conclude its a fact.

  314. PC-Bash Says:

    Steve -

    I probably have a stricter moral code than you do. For one thing, I don’t instantly assume that people are sexual deviants because they see the truth in evolution. Would it be fair for me to claim that all Christians are bigots, just because their bible tells them to be bigots? There are plenty of Christians who are not bigots as you obviously are, and who also happen to see evolution as a valid theory. It is a fundamentalist minority who must view the creation myth as literal, instead of allegory. You apparently belong to this minority. If so, then you have great company, including fundamentalist Muslims.

    Also, I fail to see what any of this has to do with evolution. You have conceived a poor strawman argument, evidence of your ignorance maybe.

  315. Steve Says:

    PC-Bash -

    As the outside reader can see (as was predicted) you have resorted to name calling. You did not address the conclusion at all with any factual observation. You should test to see if it is correct (either by survey or an honest self examination). You have done neither. You have had a knee jerk reaction. Calm down and let us reason together. If your approach to science is the same, it confirms again the postulate that was put forth – that a mans morality dictates his science or philosophy. Have you ever read the Bible ? You state that you are probably more moral than I. You have come to a conclusion without any facts. Is that the same way that you determined whether evolution is true ? But one thing is sure we must all except basic premises (by faith) before we can use them in our conclusions drawn from our observations. Again I ask have you ever read the Bible ?

  316. Steve Says:

    PC Bash

    You obviously have given yourself over to the evolution theory with all your mind. According to you then there may be some species of humans that have not evolved to be as smart as you. So should you treat them with contempt ? Who else in history had that contempt for others believing they were of a superior race ? Several. Hitler, for one, was an devout evolutionist. He believed that some species of man were inferior and that the “weaker” species needed to be eliminated. He had great contempt for the Jewish people and also Christians. God is much smarter than all of us. Even his “foolishness” is much wiser than the most intelligent on earth. No one can out smart him – sorry to say even you. The problem is that your “cleverness” has become your enemy. Pride has become man’s downfall. God loves choosing the weak and elemental things of this world to confound the “wise” of this world. Job a very intelligent man even argued with God but he was no match for God’s wit and finally acknowledged His superiority. It is hard for a man argue against his maker for he will be one day so confounded that he will finally have to acknowledge his superiority – hopefully before its too late. The paths men walk in their mind away from the truth leads to suicide and depression. It leads to frustration and a voidness of soul. The only thing they hold onto is their vain pride which will forsake them when they encounter problems beyond their ability to understand or control. This is the position God puts us all into at one time or another – we can either gnash our teeth in anger at God or weep over our foolishness. It will be your decision one day as it had been mine. Hope you make the right choice.

  317. Joseph Says:

    Amen Steve !

    For further thought ….

    Dawinism In Education

    The theory of evolution is a philosophy based on faith, not scientific fact. “It is,” says Phillip Johnson, “sustained largely by a propaganda campaign that relies on all the usual tricks of rhetorical persuasion: hidden assumptions, question-begging statements of what is at issue, terms that are vaguely defined and change their meaning in mid argument, attacks on straw men, selective citation of evidence, and so on. The theory is also protected by its cultural importance. It is the officially sanctioned creation story of modern society, and publicly funded educational authorities spare no effort to persuade people to believe in it.”

    “TELL A LIE ENOUGH TIMES AND IT BECOMES THE TRUTH.” That was the strategy Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda director, used in his war against the Jews of Europe and it worked and it’s working in America’s educational system to promote Darwinism.

    “America’s teachers brainwash our school children that Darwinian evolution is scientific; that the philosophy of naturalism is scientific; that moral relativism is based on Einstein’s theory of relativity*; that “scientific socialism” is based on the social sciences; that society and law are evolving along with the human animal and hence are scientific; that all environmental, collectivistic, satirist policies are firmly based on the physical and social sciences and not the myth of religion; and finally, that everything related to the Bible is pre-scientific gibberish.”

    “As long as Darwinists control the definitions of key terms (such as science), their system is unbeatable, regardless of the evidence.” – Phillip Johnson This is clearly shown whenever any educator attempts to challenge Evolution on scientific grounds.

    Roger DeHart, who taught biology for 15 years at the Burlington-Edison High School in Washington state, presented creation theory, intelligent design and evolution theory, even showing the movie Inherit the Wind. Even though he did not promote any theory over another, the American Civil Liberties Union complained that DeHart was “violating the law” by teaching intelligent design. As a result DeHart lost his position; the school replaced him with a teacher fresh out of college.

    In Minnesota, Rodney LeVake who taught evolutionary theory lost his job when he also wanted to introduce design theory. He filed suit, citing a violation of his free exercise of religion, free speech and due process, because the school board wouldn’t allow him to question evolution. However, the Minnesota Appeals Court decided against him.

    Phillip Bishop, who taught classes in exercise physiology at the University of Alabama, makes no secret of his religious views: He tells students he believes the human body was designed by God and is not the product of naturalistic evolution. Students who wanted to hear more were invited to attend a voluntary, after-hours meeting to discuss what Bishop calls evidences of God in human physiology. When a handful of students complained, the university ordered Bishop to cease and desist from making any comments about his faith.

    “Bishop challenged the restrictions in federal court and won. The court noted that the restrictions were aimed only at religious speech and not any other forms of speech. Besides, several professors testified that it was common practice to share their personal views with students, and that the university had never objected before. The court concluded that the university’s actions toward Bishop amounted to unconstitutional “viewpoint discrimination.”

    Nevertheless, the university appealed the decision, and it was overturned by a higher court. The Supreme Court declined to grant a hearing in the case, allowing the university’s restrictions on Bishop to stand.

    In 1999, Darwinists launched a vicious campaign of threats and ridicule when the Kansas State Board of Education refused to require that Darwinism be taught as the sole explanation for life’s diversity. (They did not ban the teaching of evolution, as the media widely misreported.)

    Typical of that response was a column by Scientific American editor John Rennie, which urged college admissions officers to “make it clear … that in light of the newly lowered educational standard’s in Kansas, the qualifications of any students applying from that state … will have to be considered very carefully.”

    Sadly, those tactics paid off the following year, when state elections shifted the board’s membership enough to re-impose the old orthodoxy.

    In 2001, a non-binding amendment was added by the US Senate to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Authorization bill. Sponsored by Sen. Rick Santorum and approved by a vote of 98-1, the amendment urged teachers to help students “distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims” and become “informed participants in discussions regarding [biological origins].”

    Darwinists sent a letter to Congress signed by the heads of 80 scientific and evolution-advocacy groups. The signers brazenly reminded legislators about what happened in Kansas and warned that the “apparently innocuous statements in this resolution mask an anti-evolution agenda that repeatedly has been rejected by the courts.”

    Despite the letter, the amendment remained in the legislative package with only minor changes. Not only that, but the idea is spreading. In Ohio, the state legislature is considering a measure much like the Santorum Amendment, while some members of the state board of education are pushing for a revised science curriculum that teaches evolution as “an assumption, not fact.”

    A statement distributed by Ohio Citizens for Science, a pro-evolutionist organization, accused intelligent-design advocates of “legalized church terrorism” and branded them as “our local Ohio Taliban.”

    The Supreme Court has ruled that Secular Humanism is a religion. Today Darwinism is uncritically taught as fact while alternate theories of biological origins, such as Biblical Creationism and Intelligent Design, are vehemently resisted. As a result schools, through teaching evolution, promote the religions of atheism and secular humanism and thereby violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

    ——————————————————————————–

  318. PC-Bash Says:

    Joseph -

    I was waiting for someone to invoke Godwin’s law. When people run out of ideas, in their ignorance they must compare their opponents to nazis. Good job. From that bit of inanity, I really don’t think you leave anything meaningful in your argument.

    As long as Darwinists control the definitions of key terms (such as science)

    It’s simple, if you want to make ID into a valid hypothesis, then you must present it in a way that can be both verifiable and falsifiable. ID is neither of these things. It is junk science.

    The rest of your comment is rubbish.

  319. PC-Bash Says:

    Steve -

    Have you ever read the Bible?

    Yes I have. I was raised in a Christian home, although I was never a believer myself. I have read all of the bible, and I have been through “bible study” indoctrination.

    When I was a teenager, I studied the bible in depth, and began listing the multitude of contradictions, hatred, and outright outdated material in it. It is sad that with so much good that exists in the bible, that people like you latch on to that which is bad. You bash homosexuality (in your thinly veiled attack above), and you are bigoted against people who do not believe in the same fairy tales as you do.

    But one thing is sure we must all except [sic] basic premises (by faith) before we can use them in our conclusions drawn from our observations.

    Only someone so indoctrinated by faith that they are unable to approach things from an objective standpoint would say that.

  320. PC-Bash Says:

    Steve -

    According to you then there may be some species of humans that have not evolved to be as smart as you. So should you treat them with contempt?

    No. For instance, I’m trying to have an intelligent conversation with you, but you do make it so hard.

    …Hitler…

    Ah. In your ignorance, you invoke Godwin’s law. I’ll skip over this strawman, it only shows the (lack of) caliber that I deal with here.

    God is much smarter than all of us. Even his “foolishness” is much wiser than the most intelligent on earth. No one can out smart him – sorry to say even you. The problem is that your “cleverness” has become your enemy. Pride has become man’s downfall. God loves choosing the weak and elemental things of this world to confound the “wise” of this world.

    Where is this god of yours? Can you observe him? Can you measure him? No. He falls outside of science.

    As for outsmarting this infallible myth of yours… Can your god think up something more complicated than he can understand? Can he build a mountain larger than he can pick up? Omnipotence is an impossibility. A fairy tale. Child’s play.

    …Job…

    Ah. Here’s an interesting tale. Your god allows your anti-god (Satan) to torture Job as part of a wager. Yes… this is certainly the sort of monster you should worship.

    It will be your decision one day as it had been mine. Hope you make the right choice.

    Alas, the threat for the unbeliever. Show me a miracle that isn’t written in your book, modern proof for the existence of your god. I choose to see the world through rational eyes, through the eyes of an objectivist. These threats mean nothing to me.

  321. PC-Bash Says:

    You did not address the conclusion at all with any factual observation. You should test to see if it is correct (either by survey or an honest self examination). You have done neither.

    You essentially have called anyone who follows modern science and evolution “sexual deviants”. This does not even deserve a response. You are a bigot, fueled by the hatred you crave, and the interpretation of your “holy” book that you choose to back up this hatred. As for who started the name calling first, perhaps you should read your first comment on this thread. It is more of a reflection of you than it is a reflection of the people you are talking about.

    Now, let’s get back to discussing evolution instead of theology, mythology, and bigotry.

  322. Steve Says:

    It’s interesting you condemn others for the very same things you have done. I have no hatred but concern for those who hold your position. You have yet to scientifically prove or disprove the theory that was presented. You dismiss out of hand – the same you accuse others of doing. If you were honest in your view you would say lets examine this theory and lets see if its true or not by proper examination. But you reject it based on an emotion and not logic. So what is your definition of bigotry ?

    Now we know that those (Darwin, Hitler, etc.) who have expoused the view of evolution used this theory to dismiss any accountability to the Creator. They did this because they did not want to submit to his moral code. You may protest that no one should look at the motives of those who propagate such theories. But that is what courtrooms do all the time – look at motive.

    Could it be that you know that this theory is true in your life – instead of admitting it you dismiss it out of hand. Remember all have been in the same boat at one time or other in their life – but there is a way of escape from moral selfishness to true joy of living for the benefit of others (which is God’s moral code). I will not call you names or try to embarrass you – just trying to get you to think outside the narrow box you have put yourself in.

    Although you may not want to expand your perspective – I am still willing to enter your world and look at the facts you espouse and we will determine what your “Givens” are and see what you have to accept by faith vs what a believer’s faith is.

  323. Steve Says:

    PC-Bash

    No threats here friend. Just trying to level with you. You have already proven the theory by your “veiled” admissions. (You know what I mean)

    If you really want to see or hear of a modern day miracle then Im glad.

    There are many ! You can email me and I will send you a list of many modern day miracles from around the world. My Email address is VoiceForAccuracy@aol.com.

    God ultimately is a God of power and not just vain janglings. So if thats what you are looking for then there is good news for you. I too was a skeptic like you … I argued vehemently against the Bible and the God of the Bible. I was a proud atheist until I found myself in a deep depression – I finally cried out to this God and he revealed himself to me. I didnt go on anyone elses experience or even my parents I sought myself and discovered the truth. It has brought me joy beyond measure even though I have suffered greatly in this life – God has sustained me. So I understand where your coming from. Not that I am any better than you – I am not. But I have found what all our souls long for -peace and joy in the midst of tribulation.

  324. Steve Says:

    It would behoove you to research Jacob Eames an intellectual and an atheist to see his life story.

  325. PC-Bash Says:

    You have yet to scientifically prove or disprove the theory that was presented.

    Because this is an elaborate strawman. Your “theory” has nothing to do with evolution.

    Now we know that those (Darwin, Hitler, etc.) who have expoused the view of evolution used this theory to dismiss any accountability to the Creator. They did this because they did not want to submit to his moral code. You may protest that no one should look at the motives of those who propagate such theories. But that is what courtrooms do all the time – look at motive.

    Bad people use that which good people create. For instance, the Crusades were downright evil. Yet, the Catholic Church used quotes from your bible to propagate this crusade. Just because people do evil with a thing, does not make the thing evil. Just as the bible can be misinterpreted to fuel your hatred of non-believers, evolution can be misinterpreted to support eugenics. Here, the interpretation is what is at fault, not the idea per se.

    Could it be that you know that this theory is true in your life – instead of admitting it you dismiss it out of hand.

    Nice try at a veiled ad hominem, but no.

    As per the rest of your comments… none of this is relevant to the discussion of evolution.

    You are a Christian… good for you. I have already been through that indoctrination, and have rejected it. However, that has nothing to do with evolution, science standards, or anything else. I’d be happy to debate you about the improbability of the existence of your god, but that is not relevant to this blog.

  326. Steve Says:

    You still have stayed in your narrow box. You have come to a conclusion that I have hatred. This is far from the truth. But again you have demonstrated a narrow minded evaluation based on no fact but on your moral persuasion. However you conclude and research to try and bolster your true motive.
    Im sure you’ve heard of the man who lost his keys at night after he parked his car. He went over to the other side of the street to look for them. When asked why he did this he said the light was better over there. You stick only to a narrow field of “if I cant see it it must not be true”. Do you hear yourself ? I closed minded person if ever I saw one. But I understand why you do this. You already admitted what your preference is as was discerned from early on before you admitted to it. You used the term “ad hominem” – this was your choice from the beginning. Using the term bigot haterd etc. 9I guess that isnt ad hominem). I stated a theory about a motive not using the an ad hominum. An ad hominum is personal attack against one making an argument when an argument is not refuted by sound reasonings – however if the reasoning is based on motives of an individual which shows the bent of reasoning then it is based on sound argument not ad hominum. Otherwise the mind is clever enough to contiue circular reasons where no outside source is allowed into the argument thus concluding a theory based on a closed and narrow minded assesment of limited allowable “facts”. Thus no thinking outside the box and limiting yourself to your own observations is self serving only until the source outside the box grants the one in the box to see outside his box will he see his error. This takes humility to admit you dont know everything and are willing to seek something outside your thinking. When you do then you will understand until then round and round you go .

  327. PC-Bash Says:

    Steve Says:

    Nothing of consequence, some sort of incoherent rant.

    We are supposed to be talking about evolution here. As most creationists, you have veered far off into left field, and have completely lost coherence. Perhaps you should wait until you can put together two coherent thoughts (you aren’t drunk, are you?).

  328. Steve Says:

    There you go again ad hominum attack. You obviously love the darkness and anyone who wants to expand your thinking is a threat to your false refuge.
    Evolution is a fallacy and you once probably knew it. You embrace a lifestyle that has to have that as a “fact” otherwise you would have to do something about it.
    You say you wont believe anything you cant see or touch. So I guess you were here at the beggining of time and saw it all happen. If there are any honest thinkers in your audience they will see your foolish logic and be saved from the error of your thinking.
    I will leave you to your narrow sandbox to play with others. Hopefully you will come to your senses someday. Your hatred of those who want to help you is obvious to all. It is obvious that you are an angry man and that you have no peace in your life. Deep down you know its true, regardless how you want others to view you. You’ve had enough light now to have no excuse. You have no cloak for what your true motive is. You have already stated it before, without me even mentioning it by name. You have made your choice.
    You have no facts to back up evolution at all – you are not open to any discussion that shows motive. You are on the losing team, sorry.

  329. PC-Bash Says:

    Evolution is a fallacy

    So you keep saying… but I have yet to hear a valid reason why this is a fallacy. Simply repeating something over and over again does not make it true, any more than repeating “God created the earth” magically makes it true.

    So I guess you were here at the beggining [sic] of time and saw it all happen.

    Well, neither were the multiple authors of your fantasy book. Science at least makes an effort to observe the world around us, and to infer historic events based on the evidence around us. You are relying on the word of a document that has been mistranslated, started as an oral tradition with who knows how many changes, and has been copied by hand for thousands of years.

    Your hatred of those who want to help you is obvious to all.

    Wait… somehow I’m the one with hatred? You are the one who called those who don’t believe the same way as you do “perverts”. You are the one who is making the insinuation. I am simply calling you a bigot, which is certainly true given your worthless argument.

    Do I have hatred in my heart because I don’t like being proselytized to, and because I want to keep the science classroom free of such nonsense?

    You have no facts to back up evolution at all

    Keep telling yourself that. If you decide to join the rational world, you might want to take a look here. Plenty of evidence.
    http://www.talkorigins.org

    Besides, evolution is the status quo. If you want to argue against this, then YOU must provide evidence to back up your claim. You have none, which is why you continue this inane drivel.

    You are on the losing team, sorry.

    Apparently, not in Florida.

  330. Steve Says:

    You have had plenty of evidence previously written here ahead of my coming. But to brush all off with error in thinking.
    So Ive tried to reason with you outside your denial of the truth. Suppose your conclusion is true (which it isnt) then there could be no justice system. Government could not punish one for breaking a law because it wouldnt be fair to punish one if he was not quite evolved into an advanced creature as yourself – all humans could not be held accountable for doing wrong. So you really couldnt have everyone a equally accountable to be a responsible citizen. Then if one killed another you couldnt punish him because his nature may still be like his ancester the of the lower spectrum of the animal scale. As you know some animals do kill other animals and there is no law against that. You couldnt expect one to act civilly, they couldnt help it because of their lower nature. Thus what then do you do ? Do you isolate them or pardon them or as some in the past have tried to eliminate a segment of the population. What a paradox you find yourself in. But Im sure you dont want to think outside the box and you will not want to discuss this at all – you will say bigot or something else and brush it off. You couldnt have a standard of conduct or any such moral standard if evolution was accepted as truth. You would have to admit it – your silence on this subject speaks volumes.

  331. Steve Says:

    P.S. Take another look at Godwin’s law. It does not preclude the use of term you suggested but limits it to part of an legitimate argument not a total exclusion of the use. Again you misrepresent. Could it be you do it with all of your other facts ?

  332. PC-Bash Says:

    then there could be no justice system.

    WTF? Can I have some of the glue you’re huffing?

    You couldnt have a standard of conduct or any such moral standard if evolution was accepted as truth.

    Morality has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Sorry. This argument has been tried over and over by creationists. It is plain moronic.

    Morality is in the realm of philosophy, not science. Evolution neither discredits morality nor does it support it.

    On an aside, one does not need religion to be moral.

    It does not preclude the use of term you suggested but limits it to part of an legitimate argument not a total exclusion of the use.

    Your implication was that evolution condones the sort of behavior that the Nazis were guilty of, hence it falls under Godwin’s law. Evolution has nothing to do with what the Nazis did. Evolution is a statement of why life is the way it is on the earth now, not a moral code to which humans should live and which humans should die. Only ignorance would confuse the two. Godwin’s Law requires an amount of ignorance to work, which you certainly possess about a great many things.

  333. PC-Bash Says:

    You have had plenty of evidence previously written here ahead of my coming.

    No. I have been given rhetoric, not evidence. There is no evidence that life was created by your god, nor is there any evidence that contradicts evolution. I am asking you, YOU, to provide me with something to back up your dubious claims.

  334. Steve Says:

    Wow you seem not to connect the dots. You dont want to see the relationship between your so called science and philosophy. Lets use the same reasoning you use against the Bible as for your conclusions. You have to rely upon information from people you dont even know. You accept by faith their “discoveries”. You havent gone out and discovered anything yourself yet you accept as gospel anything that people say in order to promulgate your view. So I would say to you as you say to me “these guys are full of hate” they have an agenda they are reacting against the truth because they want to brainwash us to believe something that hasnt been proven in the laboratory or observed in person – things that have taken place over “billions” of years. But the things that have taken place less than 7 thousand years ago with plenty of witnesses, being well documented and more reasonably accepted which you would not believe at all. Who is being dubious ?

    So you want me to just accept the theory of evolution without you having to prove it. But you dismiss off hand that creation took place without having to prove it yourself that there is no such thing. Your funny.

    Let me make this simple for you.

    You believe in evolution and want to force others to believe it especially vulnerable children. Then you challenge others to prove it not so.

    I believe that creation took place. Can you prove it didn’t happen ? Can you. I think not.

    So then prove to me that evolution is true. You have given no evidence that it is true. All your “evidence” can be shown not to be a given fact but hypotheticals not without other alternative explanations. So you have to choose between explanations according to your religious belief or lack thereof. Especially when you obviously have a personal grudge against the Christian faith which forces a bias in your choice. Now do you see the connection between a mans philosophy and his hypotheticals. Im sure others can see it clearly.

  335. PC-Bash Says:

    You dont want to see the relationship between your so called science and philosophy.

    There is no connection between evolution and morality, which you seem to imply.

    You have to rely upon information from people you dont even know. You accept by faith their “discoveries”. You havent gone out and discovered anything yourself yet you accept as gospel anything that people say in order to promulgate your view.

    These discoveries are published along with steps required to duplicate them. To be accepted, discoveries must be duplicated and verified. None of this is based on faith, although you desperately want it to be. Religion is based on faith, science is based on objective evidence that has been verified. Huge difference there.

    they have an agenda they are reacting against the truth because they want to brainwash us to believe something that hasnt been proven in the laboratory or observed in person

    Speciation and evolution have both been verified in the lab. Full stop.

    Perhaps you should try reading. I recommend you start here:
    http://www.talkorigins.org

    But the things that have taken place less than 7 thousand years ago with plenty of witnesses, being well documented and more reasonably accepted which you would not believe at all. Who is being dubious ?

    Highly unreliable “witnesses”, consisting of “prophets” who believe that they are in communication with a mythical being. Today, these people would be labeled insane, like David Koresh or Jim Jones. However, we should just take their word for it, huh?

    How do you explain all of the contradictions in your reliable book of fairy tales? Why don’t Mark and Luke agree about the lineage of Jesus, or when he was even born? Or… are you glossing over details?

    Who is being dubious indeed?

    So you want me to just accept the theory of evolution without you having to prove it.

    It has been proved, and it is the status quo. If you don’t accept it, then you must overturn the overwhelming evidence, posit an alternate theory to explain why this evidence seems to imply evolution, and furthermore come up with proof of your “divine intervention”. Good luck with that.

    You believe in evolution and want to force others to believe it especially vulnerable children. Then you challenge others to prove it not so.

    Not so. I don’t have to have faith in it. It has been documented. We have evidence to support it. It is considered the bedrock of modern biological science. Children should be taught to think rationally, not to accept things on blind faith, such that your god created the world in six days, of which there is absolutely no evidence.

    So then prove to me that evolution is true.

    I have no need. It has already been done. If you would bother to read, instead of hiding in your ignorant little world, you would come to see this.

    All your “evidence” can be shown not to be a given fact but hypotheticals not without other alternative explanations.

    Please provide me with a single alternate hypothesis. The Discovery Institute has been unable to come up with a single credible alternate. Maybe you can.

    So you have to choose between explanations according to your religious belief or lack thereof.

    This has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with ignorance. Evolution says nothing about religion. It is your poor interpretation of the bible that leads you to believe the things you do.

    Especially when you obviously have a personal grudge against the Christian faith which forces a bias in your choice.

    I have no such grudge. I have a grudge against ignorant hicks who think their mystic book has answers to all of science, instead of being allegory.

    Now do you see the connection between a mans philosophy and his hypotheticals. Im sure others can see it clearly.

    If anyone else can follow your broken logic, I’d be very impressed.

  336. PC-Bash Says:

    I believe that creation took place. Can you prove it didn’t happen ? Can you. I think not.

    This is why creationism is not a valid scientific hypothesis. For it to be valid, it must be verifiable and falsifiable. Your mythical creator cannot be measured, cannot be observed, and cannot be proved or disproved. He falls neatly outside of science. It is impossible for science to work with fairy tales.

    However, science can observe the world around us, and can find out why things are the way they are. Unfortunately for your literalist interpretation of your fairy tales (do you also handle snakes and speak in tongues?), science shows a much more plausible explanation for why life has such emergent complexity than creationism does.

  337. Steve Says:

    “On an aside, one does not need religion to be moral.”

    Im glad we are making progress. You do infer by your comment that man can have a moral standard. How did this evolve then ? Did it come from an ape ? Do animals have morals ? Or maybe God put a conscience in all mankind to know right and wrong. But all have strayed from that moral standard at one time or another. Some realize it some try to deny it but guilt is a function of a mans conscience – no other animal has this. Then did it come from an amoeba or gazelle where in the chain did it show up ? Is it a function of chemistry or maybe a subject that seems anathema to you. A soul which cant be seen but known by the conscience (which is the evaluator). You have one we all have one – obviously you have seared yours to the point you cant hear it any more – but there is still hope for you.

  338. PC-Bash Says:

    Still, the burden of proof is on you. You must prove that you are right, because you are going against the status quo. The vast majority of scientists accept evolution. A few quacks don’t, but there are quacks in every field.

    For a scientific theory to be struck down, it must be discredited. You have not been able to do this so far, nor has anyone else in this thread. Please give me a valid reason, outside of morality, philosophy, or theology, why evolution doesn’t work.

    Here’s your chance to put up, or shut up.

  339. PC-Bash Says:

    Im glad we are making progress. You do infer by your comment that man can have a moral standard. How did this evolve then ? Did it come from an ape ? Do animals have morals ? Or maybe God put a conscience in all mankind to know right and wrong. But all have strayed from that moral standard at one time or another. Some realize it some try to deny it but guilt is a function of a mans conscience – no other animal has this. Then did it come from an amoeba or gazelle where in the chain did it show up ? Is it a function of chemistry or maybe a subject that seems anathema to you. A soul which cant be seen but known by the conscience (which is the evaluator). You have one we all have one – obviously you have seared yours to the point you cant hear it any more – but there is still hope for you.

    Wow. So… the reason why we have morals is because we possess something which cannot be measured, cannot be observed, does not interact with us, and yet somehow magically acts as an “evaluator”? How does this “evaluator” interact with the brain, if it cannot be measured by equipment far more sensitive than the brain can perceive?

    Morality is an emotional response to one’s values. Values are in the realm of philosophy. Our brain evolved to be capable of having emotion and rational thought (although, some of us seem to be more capable of this than others).

    So, if your god governs your morality… then is the only reason why choose to be good is out of fear for punishment? That seems less noble than doing the right thing because it is the right thing. You do the right thing, because otherwise your mythical father figure might ground you for all eternity.

  340. Steve Says:

    You still havent disproved the theory that a mans morality dictates his philosophy.
    I would say that you think abortion is not wrong, but would defend the punishment for one who would break a turtle egg. Thats true isnt it ? Since your conscience is out of balance you cant see your inconsistencies. You already made an admission to your sexual disposition. The conscience will reprove you for this but you did not listen to it. Even nature will not reproduce this type of behavior it would be the end of that species. So I guess you would say that it would be an inferior type and its distinction imminent.

  341. PC-Bash Says:

    You still havent disproved the theory that a mans morality dictates his philosophy.

    You have it backwards. A man’s philosophy dictates his morality. This has been shown to be true in children’s psychology. Parents teach children morality, children use this morality and philosophy to infer additional morality. There are hundreds of references on this, try using google.

    I would say that you think abortion is not wrong, but would defend the punishment for one who would break a turtle egg. Thats true isnt it ? Since your conscience is out of balance you cant see your inconsistencies.

    No. Nice strawman, but no. I am against abortion.

    You already made an admission to your sexual disposition.

    No, I have not. I’ll admit it now though. I am heterosexual, and I only sleep with women in which I am in long term relationships with.

    The conscience will reprove you for this but you did not listen to it.

    Really?

    Even nature will not reproduce this type of behavior it would be the end of that species. So I guess you would say that it would be an inferior type and its distinction imminent.

    How, precisely, are my morals going to cause extinction?

    Like most creationists, you have jumped to conclusions, and your mind is too clouded by your biblical talking points to see reality.

  342. Steve Says:

    “Still, the burden of proof is on you. You must prove that you are right, because you are going against the status quo. The vast majority of scientists accept evolution. A few quacks don’t, but there are quacks in every field.”

    The majority of the people believed at one time the earth was flat. The Bible taught thousands of years ago that it was a circle – those in the majority persecuted those who held this view . The majority view is not necessary the right one – dont you know that ?

  343. PC-Bash Says:

    Also, I have yet to see how any of this blathering you are doing has anything at all to do with whether evolution is valid or not. You seem to be losing focus, too busy attacking me to keep your eye on the ball. Perhaps you should provide some evidence supporting your claims that evolution is invalid.

  344. PC-Bash Says:

    The majority of the people believed at one time the earth was flat. The Bible taught thousands of years ago that it was a circle – those in the majority persecuted those who held this view . The majority view is not necessary the right one – dont you know that ?

    Yes, but people had to prove that the earth was round. You can’t even prove that your god created the earth or life.

  345. PC-Bash Says:

    Also, the bible doesn’t say that the earth was round.

    Consider the following verses:
    Isaiah 11:12
    Revelation 7:1
    Job 38:13
    Jeremiah 16:19
    Daniel 4:11
    Matthew 4:8

    How can a round earth, or a spherical earth have ends or corners? If the earth is a sphere, how could the devil take Jesus up to the top of a high mountain and show him all of the earth? Go fish.

  346. Steve Says:

    The Bible talks about the flood which can now be proven by overwhelming evidence. But Im sure you dont hold that view.

    “No, I have not. I’ll admit it now though. I am heterosexual, and I only sleep with women in which I am in long term relationships with.”

    No where did I imply your preference but dispositon. You said women (plural) which confirms this. As to your abortion stand I hardly believe it. Im sure you have caveats to this too.

    Promiscuity brings forth a rampant spread of STD’s and the eventual demise of those who defend it.

    Time will tell who is right and who is wrong. It always proves out. Wish you the best.

  347. PC-Bash Says:

    The Bible talks about the flood which can now be proven by overwhelming evidence. But Im sure you dont hold that view.

    Really? What proof?

    Even if there was a flood, it doesn’t instantly mean that the whole of the bible is accurate. The flood myth is believed to be explained by a meteor impact in the Indian Ocean. I don’t necessarily hold to this theory, I think it is more likely that it made for an entertaining story to draw in converts.

  348. PC-Bash Says:

    Im sure you have caveats to this too.

    Promiscuity brings forth a rampant spread of STD’s and the eventual demise of those who defend it.

    I really don’t see how any of this has anything to do with evolution.

  349. PC-Bash Says:

    Although, I didn’t say anything about promiscuity. As far as you know, I am living in an Old Testament paradise with multiple wives.

    Still, this is really getting off-topic from evolution.

  350. PC-Bash Says:

    You cannot attack my position, and your own position is untenable. So, instead, you are trying to attack me. This is great, it’s a lot like watching a train wreck.

  351. Steve Says:

    “Also, the Bible(sic) doesn’t say that the earth was round.”

    Sorry wrong again – read: Isaiah 40:22
    “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:”

    You should do your research more thoroughly – the vernacular at the time was east west north and south or rather 4 corners.

    I dont think you would understand the Bible esp the quote in Matthew. Since God can see all at once (the spiritual dimension) … not one sparrow can fall to the ground without his knowledge. The spiritual realm is different than the physical realm. So its not hard for all to be seen in the spiritual realm by a piritual being. The Bible also says the devil blinds the minds of those who do not believe – so Im sure you cant understand spiritual truths. You even admit that you cant, you even deny that there is one. Even your father misquoted the scripture to your maker in the wilderness so you should keep to your own physical realm of touch taste and feel.

  352. PC-Bash Says:

    It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,

    Claiming that the earth is circular is not the same as claiming it is a sphere. Fail.

    You should do your research more thoroughly – the vernacular at the time was east west north and south or rather 4 corners.

    So… this vernacular existed in the bible as well, or was it added when the bible was “translated”? This vernacular is based on the belief that the earth is flat. It disappeared as soon as the belief that the earth was flat fell out of common usage. So, the bible is at least full of contradictions. But, we knew this already.

  353. PC-Bash Says:

    I dont think you would understand the Bible esp the quote in Matthew. Since God can see all at once (the spiritual dimension) …

    Yet something else that cannot be shown to exist in science, and must be based on faith alone. Notice a pattern here?

  354. PC-Bash Says:

    The Bible also says the devil blinds the minds of those who do not believe – so Im sure you cant understand spiritual truths. You even admit that you cant, you even deny that there is one.

    Ahh… so I’m blinded by the devil now… Nice.

    Truth requires something more than being written in a book of fiction. There is no objective proof to this “truth” of yours. Am I supposed to take it on faith? Why should I believe your “truth” over the Hindu “truth” or the Shinto “truth”?

    Even your father misquoted the scripture to your maker in the wilderness so you should keep to your own physical realm of touch taste and feel.

    …my father? Do you know him or something?

  355. PC-Bash Says:

    Can we please get back to evolution. Remember? You were supposed to discredit it for me.

  356. Steve Says:

    “I really don’t see how any of this has anything to do with evolution.”

    Of course you dont you are spiritually blind. 2Cor 4:4 , Eph 4:18 and John 12:40.

    Its only the ones who humbles themselves before a Holy God, that God will grant spiritual sight. For God resisits the proud and gives grace to the humble. You will find yourself one day in a situation that will bring you to the end of your own resources. Cry out to God then He may let you will see what you have been espousing is wrong. Even the greatest king in the world was lifted up with pride until he was humbled before the mighty God. Until you find yourself in that position you will remain in your blindnes – waking up in the fearful dread of your committed pride. Then we can have a good discussion and you will then know the truth.

    The prince of this world has blinded the minds of those who dont want to believe in God, they are under his captivity. Again I hope for your best.

  357. PC-Bash Says:

    Of course you dont you are spiritually blind.

    Again with the spiritual blindness… So, do you believe that the Jews, the Muslims, the Buddhists, the Hindus, and anyone else who doesn’t believe as you do are also spiritually blind?

    Once again, you are spouting theology, which has absolutely nothing to do with science. Your theology requires faith in the supernatural. Science requires observation and rational decisions based on these observations.

  358. PC-Bash Says:

    You are unable to discredit evolution, and must fall back to your mystic book for quotes about how I have been blinded by the devil, and will go to hell for my beliefs. This isn’t a rational position. You are blinded by your faith, and are unable to see objective reality. Nor are you capable of having rational discourse.

  359. Steve Says:

    You will see. :)

  360. PC-Bash Says:

    What sort of response is that?

  361. PC-Bash Says:

    So… are we going to talk evolution, or are you going to continue the give be the fire and brimstone conversation?

  362. Steve Says:

    You haven’t discounted creation. You can believe as you will – since you have free will to choose. This is a power play. You want me to know the details of evolution, I choose not to listen to the twisted interpretation of so called facts. You choose not to believe in creation you have no facts to disprove it. Any clear thinking individual who hasn’t a dog in this fight let them choose themselves instead of indoctrination into your ideology let them look and see. There also is plenty of evidence of a worldwide flood – there is much proof. But you have an inborn bias against anyone who will present the facts in opposition – you would even dispute it if was on video I’m sure.

    So lets do this since you mock the God of the Bible – I will let him speak for himself. He is much more wise and intelligent than you and I. But you have chosen not to listen to your conscience or even see the order in life that clearly shows intelligent design. You have not only mocked the God of the Bible you want to force your error upon the lives of the children of Florida. You should know what the scripture says about misleading those who are young and causing some to stumble in their faith. Since you have quoted scripture then I will also do so. Read Matt 19:14 and Luke 18:16
    and for further study you should read Matt 18:6, Mk 9:42 and Luke 17:2.

    God is not mocked and when you lay a snare for one of these little ones you will see the consequences – I didn’t say it the scripture did. Its sad to see how hard hearted you are – a seared conscience with the inability to understand your error. You and I know that the whole problem is that you do not want to acknowledge that we all are morally bankrupt before a Holy God and that his mercy is granted only to those who humble themselves before him. You obviously made that chose early on in life. By your stand you have committed to destroy the lives of millions of children by teaching them error.

    As I said this is a power play. God is bigger than your “majority” and for the children’s sake you will learn that lesson from his hand. I too believed like you but finally came to my senses. He taught me also that He was real. May this reverberate in your mind daily until you come to your senses. None of us is perfect only a Holy God is – I understand that now. I was on my death bed twice and tasted of God’s mercy on my life as I humbly cried out to him. I’ve been operated on more times than you have fingers or toes – the supernatural does exist – you can’t honestly explain it away. I hope you will some day understand. Why don’t you humble yourself before God and ask him for wisdom He may surprise you. God resists the proud of heart but gives grace to the humble.

    Oh by the way, thank you for your spelling checks.

  363. PC-Bash Says:

    There also is plenty of evidence of a worldwide flood – there is much proof.

    What proof? There are stories, but stories are not proof.

    You and I know that the whole problem is that you do not want to acknowledge that we all are morally bankrupt before a Holy God and that his mercy is granted only to those who humble themselves before him.

    The bible is morally bankrupt. Remember Lot? The guy who tried to send his daughters out to be raped and humiliated? Remember Abraham? The guy who would have sacrificed his son because a voice in his head told him to?

    Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with morality, no matter how much you creationists want it to. Morality is an entirely separate thing from where we come from.

    By your stand you have committed to destroy the lives of millions of children by teaching them error.

    The facts back up evolution. You have yet to give me a single point to discredit evolution. You continue to quote scripture. Yet, you claim that evolution is wrong. How is it wrong then, what’s your evidence to support it? I think you have not even bothered to read up on evolution. You are convinced that your three thousand year old book is correct, without even considering a different opinion. You want to teach children to use blind faith out of rational inquiry. Which is more damaging? Children learning to never question their elders or works of fiction, or children who learn proper science?

    As I said this is a power play.

    Indeed it is. The fundamentalist creationists are trying to cram their backward ways down our throats. Funny thing is that they feel that their mythology is somehow valid, yet all of the other religions of the world are wrong. Do you believe the same thing? What makes your god so special?

    He taught me also that He was real.

    How is that? Did he speak to you? Did he appear in front of you? Did you see a burning bush? Or, did you read mythology until you started to believe it?

    You speak of being “saved” by the grace of your god. Did you actually see him intervene, or was it merely coincidence? How do you know that it was your god that saved you?

    Why don’t you humble yourself before God and ask him for wisdom He may surprise you. God resists the proud of heart but gives grace to the humble.

    See, here’s the problem. One, I have no void in my life to be filled by religion. I do not need “saving”, I was born right the first time, etc. Second, if I needed religion, which religion should I choose. There are hundreds of religions, and if I choose the wrong one then I go to “hell”. In fact, if I choose the wrong “flavor” of religion (e.g. Baptist versus Catholic versus Seventh Day Adventist versus Jehovah’s Witness), then I go to “hell”. What makes you so certain that you are worshiping the right god, or worshiping him the right way? I call bunk. There is no tooth fairy, there is no Santa Claus, and your god does not exist.

    Still, I don’t see how any of this has anything to do with evolution. The burden of proof is on you to discredit evolution, not for me to discredit each and every creation myth. There are as many creation myths as there are religions, as there are cultures. You keep claiming that there is evidence that discredits evolution. Where is it?.

  364. Steve Says:

    I have no reason to look at evolution. It is a myth. Truth does not depend on us to verify itself. We can disbelieve the truth – that doesn’t mean its not so. One can make seemingly plausible argument but if a mind does not have the capacity to understand it falls to the ground. Their is a difference between knowledge and wisdom. A wise man looks at the overall picture whereas a man with no wisdom and some knowledge depends upon only what he knows or discovers – or he has to weigh the veracity of others when depending on them for information. No man knows all things. So therefore the bias of our own preclusions will dampen out ability to come to the right conclusion with the limited information we receive.

    You rely on information others have gathered – have you checked their veracity ? Yet you wholesale dump everything that one with a different view has because it doesn’t fit into your frame of reference. don’t you think God is wiser than all of us with much more knowledge than us. You have to accept certain “facts” by faith. God not only speaks to the mind but mostly the heart. We then perceive a greater picture to what life is all about. Not a narrow view but an inspirational view. The problem is that God in his nature will not share wisdom with the proud hearted (one that thinks he is above his maker and can “out think” God) He knows it would be to his destruction – we see this in the world in which we live. Only God is totally benevolent. He only gives wisdom to those who know there must be something more to life than just what we see, taste and touch and as a man or woman seek to know more – God will reveal himself to them. But a person must come to the point in life of being pressed beyond himself to do that. You speak of if you cant see it then it must not be there. Can you see thoughts ? Can you see wisdom ? Can you see the wind ? Can you …
    You can observe evidence of these things but not the actual force behind what we see. You say that in evolution things evolve. What force makes these things evolve ? You cant answer that. You don’t want to answer that – you say that they don’t mix. God gives everyone just the right amount of wisdom so that he sees what man does with it. If he is unfaithful then God restricts more wisdom in that person’s life. If one is faithful with it then God gives more. Where do your thoughts come from ?
    Do they spring up from our basic needs or desires ? Can our thoughts be influenced by outside forces ? What about thoughts of what is right or wrong morally? Do they come from within or without ? Is this evolved or in our nature at birth ? Do we know when we do something wrong or is that conditioned response? If so then from what influences ? How about a child -can he survive on his own ? Where does a mother’s love play in this or lack of it ? Why do some prefer to destroy a little one for not wanting the bother to take care of it no matter what. But some show sacrifice by bringing one up with love and nurturing. Is one right and one wrong ? What moral code is there for judging what is right in society ? Is that a process of evolution ? According to your theory of the survival of the fittest why shouldn’t the Judeo – Christian faith, which you call weak and a myth, long ago faded away.
    Most all of the leading scientists throughout history have been devout men and women. From Newton to Pascal and so on. Even Einstein said that undoubtedly there must be a designer of life for such orderliness to take place. He even acknowledged the existence of Jesus Christ saying there is overwhelming proof. If you want to rely on men of wisdom then listen to what they have written in their journals. The cloud of witnesses is so great that you would have to purposely ignore their voices. But why would one ignore these learned men ? Because maybe it would crimp their own view of themselves – those who want to be their own god. Each person deciding what is right and wrong in their own mind thence having many god’s – which leads to conflict. Thats why one God is the only lawgiver and all must humble themselves and acknowledge his sovereignty as the only benevolent dictator.
    So what would you have government do if one doesn’t submit to your beliefs – throw such a one in jail ? It would’nt be the first time in history that one went to prison for not conforming to to “majority” view. If you dont want to reason outside the box you have set up, then thats up to you.
    Im not an expert on the subject and dont pretend to be. Im in a different field than you. So I have to rely on the veracity, tenor and character of those who espouse your view and those who don’t. I find much more reliable those who believe in creation. From the great Jewish and Christian minds of the past to the present – I choose the more enlightened. I will stand with them.

    However if you really wanted to be open to an honest hearing on the subject I would be delighted to research your error and post it for you.
    But Im not sure you want an honest discussion but anything presented will be rationilzed away because of your bent.

  365. Steve Says:

    Moreover this country was founded by creationists and God blessed it . As this country further digresses into unbelief the less God will bless. If you don’t want to acknowledge God in your life that is your choice but to those who do then that is their choice. You can go the way of many other civilizations by your acceptance of immoral behavior. Such as the Roman empire, the Grecian period, Assyrian empire, Babylonian empire, the Incas, Aztecs, Pompeii etc. Study the “evolution” of all of these empires. Everyone diminished rapidly when they became immoral. That is a fact.

  366. Steve Says:

    “The 58 men and women who worked on the original draft of the new Florida science standards are now back at it. They’re going through all the public and professional input that has flooded in over the past few months. May the force be with them.”

    You must be grieved over the opening statement of this blog. ” The force be with you” Hmmmmm What force is that ? Can you feel taste and touch it ? Maybe an unseen supernatural force – from what side of the spectrum though ?

  367. Aunt Lori Says:

    Steve Ive looked up Jacob Eames as you have suggested and found this interesting article:

    ADONIRAM JUDSON: AN INTELLECTUAL EVANGELIST

    “I agree with you, the Bible is no different than the other sacred scriptures of the world. Jesus Christ was only a good man. But I cannot tell my parents. At least, not for a while.”

    Adoniram Judson, honor student at Brown University, was talking to his closest friend, Jacob Eames, an avowed atheist. Adoniram’s father, pastor of Third Congregational Church in Plymouth, Mass., had sent him to Brown with great hopes. Adoniram had consistently led his class in grades. He had, however, gotten into company with Jacob Eames and a few of his friends, all professed atheists and persuasive unbelievers, which led to his own total rejection of Christianity.

    After graduation, back home in the parsonage, young Adoniram opened the Plymouth Independent Academy. All the while, he played dual roles. On the outside, he piously took part in family worship and church attendance. On the inside, he denounced everything he had been brought up to believe spiritually.

    Bored with life in Plymouth, he announced one day to his parents that he decided to go to “the big city” and write for the stage. There was, however, no fame or fortune there for him in New York. After a few weeks of a vagabond’s life, he traveled back to his uncle’s home, secured a horse, and headed west. One night, he took lodging in a local inn.

    Adoniram was tired and needed rest, but rest did not come. Throughout the night, he heard sounds in the next room–low voices, people moving about on the creaking floor, but most of all agonizing cries of despair and desperation, obviously coming from a dying man. Adoniram could not stop thinking about death. How would he face this enemy that his own father would welcome as the doorway to God? His philosophy offered no answers beyond this earthly life.

    At sunrise, Judson inquired, “How is the sick man?” “Dead,” the innkeeper replied. “Too bad,” Adoniram replied respectfully. “Did you know him?” “No,” the innkeeper replied. “He was a young man from the college in Providence. He registered as Jacob Eames.” That reality sent Adoniram’s mind reeling. He wondered about the eternal destiny for such a man without hope. Suddenly, he had the feeling that his father’s God was true: The beliefs of Jacob Eames that he too had accepted were empty and failed him at his greatest hour. He left the inn that morning headed for Plymouth.

    Back home, after weighing the arguments for and against the Christian faith, he was convinced in his mind and convicted in his heart that the Bible was true. On a bleak December New England day, Adoniram committed himself fully to God.

    His dedication led him into ministry. The largest church in Boston sought him as its pastor, but his commitment went further afield. Twelve days after his marriage to Ann Hasseltine in 1812, he sailed with his new bride to India. Refused entry, they sailed on to Burma. After laboring under inhospitable conditions for seven long years, the couple rejoiced in their first convert. Today in Burma, there are 3,905 Baptist congregations with nearly 663,000 baptized believers.

  368. Steve Says:

    Good job Auntie !

  369. PC-Bash Says:

    I have no reason to look at evolution. It is a myth. Truth does not depend on us to verify itself.

    Ah. Here we get to the crux of the problem. You blindly follow what someone else says, because you believe it to be true. Science does not instantly believe something to be true, it has a verification process. I bet you also have problems telling the difference between urban legends and reality.

    So therefore the bias of our own preclusions will dampen out ability to come to the right conclusion with the limited information we receive.

    You mean, like outright dismissing evolution because the only “truth” that you have been exposed to comes from the bible?

    You rely on information others have gathered – have you checked their veracity?

    Yes. I happen to be an amateur mycologist, and I have gone through quite a bit of biology.

    Yet you wholesale dump everything that one with a different view has because it doesn’t fit into your frame of reference.

    Your “frame of reference” requires faith in something which cannot be observed, cannot be measured, and which has absolutely no evidence to back it up. I honestly think these first few paragraphs are about you.

    don’t you think God is wiser than all of us with much more knowledge than us. You have to accept certain “facts” by faith.

    Well, that wouldn’t be science, that would be religion. Science does not accept facts on faith alone. That is another point of contention between fundamentalists and scientists.

    Only God is totally benevolent.

    Not in the old testament!

    Can you see thoughts ? Can you see wisdom ? Can you see the wind ?

    We can observe thoughts. We can examine wisdom (and separate old wives’ tales from actual wisdom). We can observe the wind. We cannot observe your god at all. As far as reality is concerned, your god simply does not exist.

    You can observe evidence of these things but not the actual force behind what we see.

    Not true. We can see the force behind anything in natural science or physics.

    You say that in evolution things evolve. What force makes these things evolve ?

    No force makes things evolve. They just do. Evolution happens through mutation, which is simply part of how DNA is copied. Natural selection acts as “pressure” to allow some living things to do better than others based on their merits. What force is behind capitalism? Your god doesn’t push some people to do better than others when it comes to business. Good ideas, good business succeeds, bad ideas and bad business fails. You are attempting to look for intelligence where there is none. Evolution and natural selection is nothing more than the emergent behavior of very simple rules.

    You cant answer that. You don’t want to answer that – you say that they don’t mix.

    Well, I just did answer that. :-P

    God gives everyone just the right amount of wisdom so that he sees what man does with it. If he is unfaithful then God restricts more wisdom in that person’s life. If one is faithful with it then God gives more. Where do your thoughts come from ?

    My thoughts come from neurological processes within my head. Do you believe that your god makes you and everyone else think? Obviously, he has a *lot* of time on his hands.

    [thought process, psychology, raising children]… Is that a process of evolution?

    Yes.

    According to your theory of the survival of the fittest why shouldn’t the Judeo – Christian faith, which you call weak and a myth, long ago faded away.

    Well, cultural fads don’t necessarily fit within the evolutionary model. Religion is sort of like junk DNA. It doesn’t help humans, and it usually doesn’t hurt humans. However, less and less people are choosing faith these days, so maybe it is fading away after all.

    Most all of the leading scientists throughout history have been devout men and women. From Newton to Pascal and so on.

    You should read up on your history. Newton studied alchemy, and in his later years fell far away from his fundamentalist roots. He started as a devout Christian, but in the end, he was a deist alchemist. As for Pascal, most of what I have read on the fellow points that he was Christian by default, according to his “wager”, to be on the safe side. I wouldn’t call either of those two devout.

    Even Einstein said that undoubtedly there must be a designer of life for such orderliness to take place. He even acknowledged the existence of Jesus Christ saying there is overwhelming proof.

    Umm… you *really* need to read more. For one thing, Einstein was JEWISH. Second, the quotes that you are referring to are taken *way* out of context. Einstein did not believe in a Judeo-Christian god, or any other god that could be confused with a personal god. He believed in order and rules in the universe, which he called “god”. That’s a huge leap from what he believed, and fairy tales in a 3000 year old book.

    But why would one ignore these learned men ? Because maybe it would crimp their own view of themselves – those who want to be their own god.

    Hmm… who wants to be their own god again? Me? I think not.

    Thats why one God is the only lawgiver and all must humble themselves and acknowledge his sovereignty as the only benevolent dictator.

    Which god? Your god? One of the Hindu gods? Buddha? How do you decide which god is the true god? Do you rely on the fact that you were raised a Christian to make that decision, accept it on blind faith? What if you’re wrong? How will blind faith help you then?

    If you dont want to reason outside the box you have set up, then thats up to you.

    My “box” is relying on that which can be observed and proved to exist through scientific inquiry. Your box is the belief that you should have blind “faith” in what a single book tells you, above any other thing. If evidence shows that your belief is wrong, then it is the evidence that is wrong, never what you believe. Who is really in a box here?

    Im not an expert on the subject and dont pretend to be. Im in a different field than you. So I have to rely on the veracity, tenor and character of those who espouse your view and those who don’t.

    Indeed. You have no idea of why evolution is a “myth”, but you blindly cling to this belief. You justify your convictions with this little gem:

    I find much more reliable those who believe in creation. From the great Jewish and Christian minds of the past to the present – I choose the more enlightened. I will stand with them.

    To you, “enlightened” means those who cling blindly to something with no evidence, and who ignore evidence to the contrary. I have a different word for this: ignorant.

    However if you really wanted to be open to an honest hearing on the subject I would be delighted to research your error and post it for you.
    But Im not sure you want an honest discussion but anything presented will be rationilzed away because of your bent.

    What bent? I have asked you over and over again to find some evidence against the status quo (being evolution). You claim that you don’t need to, because you have blind faith that it is wrong. How is that honest? How can anyone say that they believe in something, know it to be true, and rely on this on faith alone, and still be considered honest?

    Please research this and get back to me. I have asked you to do this over and over again. Please find me one shred of evidence that disproves evolution. Don’t quote scripture to me, don’t give me “blind faith” as your evidence, give me the same sort of evidence that a scientist would use to discredit something.

    You say that you want creationism taught in the science classroom. Well, you have to play by the rules of science in the science classroom. Give me evidence. Hearsay, and words in a book do not count as evidence. You have no evidence that your book isn’t just a work of fiction.

  370. PC-Bash Says:

    Moreover this country was founded by creationists and God blessed it.

    Yes. The Christian founder myth. This country was founded by deists, which are very far from Christians. Their “creation” involved a “god” (and many deists did not even call it a god or use this word in any sort of religious way) that set up the variables of our universe, and left the rest to run its course. Deism is the belief that if there is a god, he could care less about you. That’s not at all Christian, and would never be mistaken as Christian by an educated person.

    You can go the way of many other civilizations by your acceptance of immoral behavior. Such as the Roman empire

    First, religion does not have a monopoly on morality. Christianity itself, if followed literally, is not as moral as you might think. Most of your “rules” are derived — not in the bible at all. Did the bible say anything about abortion? No.

    It is possible to be an atheist and be moral. *gasp*

    As for Rome, the Roman empire failed for many reasons… but note that it did not fall until *after* Christianity was adopted. How do you explain that?

    After the fall of the Roman empire, “Christiandom” (Europe for those of you not as well read) was controlled by the Church. We call this period of history the Dark Ages, and much of this darkness was caused by this theocracy. Your argument works against you.

    That is a fact.

    Someone needs to dust off his history books and give them a thorough re-reading.

  371. PC-Bash Says:

    You must be grieved over the opening statement of this blog. ” The force be with you” Hmmmmm What force is that ? Can you feel taste and touch it ? Maybe an unseen supernatural force – from what side of the spectrum though ?

    Wow. That joke seemed to fly right over your head. The “Force”, as from Star Wars. Please tell me that you have seen that movie. It isn’t on the banned watching list for your church, is it?

  372. PC-Bash Says:

    Aunt Lori -

    Ah, yes, the “Jacob Eames” urban legend. Let’s dig into this for a second, it makes for an interesting thing.

    There are about as many different versions of this story as there are sermons on this character. Each telling is completely different. Eames is either a Deist like our founding fathers (older versions of the story), or an atheist (modern versions of this story).

    Not that I am entirely dismissing this story. There may have been a Jacob Eames, and he may have died. Everything else regarding Eames is cleverly crafted. The story sounds like a sermon, and the facts should be taken with the same grain of salt as any sermon given.

    Personally, I am going to remain a skeptic of this story until I can see more evidence to back it up. I don’t accept things on “blind faith” like my friend Steve here does.

  373. PC-Bash Says:

    There may have been a Jacob Eames, and he may have died.

    By this, of course, I mean that he may have died in the way described. Of course, if he existed in the early 1800′s, he’s long dead by now. :-)

  374. Steve Says:

    Is this your philosophy ? If not explain your definition of science.

    The philosophy of science seeks to understand the nature and justification of scientific knowledge. It has proven difficult to provide a definitive account of the scientific method that can decisively serve to distinguish science from non-science. Thus there are legitimate arguments about exactly where the borders are, leading to the problem of demarcation. There is nonetheless a set of core precepts that have broad consensus among published philosophers of science and within the scientific community at large.

    Science is reasoned-based analysis of sensation upon our awareness. As such, the scientific method cannot deduce anything about the realm of reality that is beyond what is observable by existing or theoretical means. When a manifestation of our reality previously considered supernatural is understood in the terms of causes and consequences, it acquires a scientific explanation.

    Resting on reason and logic, along with other guidelines such as parsimony (e.g., “Occam’s Razor”), scientific theories are formulated and repeatedly tested by analyzing how the collected evidence (facts) compares to the theory. Some of the findings of science can be very counter-intuitive. Atomic theory, for example, implies that a granite boulder which appears a heavy, hard, solid, grey object is actually a combination of subatomic particles with none of these properties, moving very rapidly in space where the mass is concentrated in a very small fraction of the total volume. Many of humanity’s preconceived notions about the workings of the universe have been challenged by new scientific discoveries. Quantum mechanics, particularly, examines phenomena that seem to defy our most basic postulates about causality and fundamental understanding of the world around us. Science is the branch of knowledge dealing with people and the understanding we have of our environment and how it works.

    There are different schools of thought in the philosophy of scientific method. Methodological naturalism maintains that scientific investigation must adhere to empirical study and independent verification as a process for properly developing and evaluating natural explanations for observable phenomena. Methodological naturalism, therefore, rejects supernatural explanations, arguments from authority and biased observational studies. Critical rationalism instead holds that unbiased observation is not possible and a demarcation between natural and supernatural explanations is arbitrary; it instead proposes falsifiability as the landmark of empirical theories and falsification as the universal empirical method. Critical rationalism argues for the ability of science to increase the scope of testable knowledge, but at the same time against its authority, by emphasizing its inherent fallibility. It proposes that science should be content with the rational elimination of errors in its theories, not in seeking for their verification (such as claiming certain or probable proof or disproof; both the proposal and falsification of a theory are only of methodological, conjectural, and tentative character in critical rationalism). Instrumentalism rejects the concept of truth and emphasizes merely the utility of theories as instruments for explaining and predicting phenomena.

  375. Steve Says:

    You have misrepresented so many facts and also true HIStory. You need to do a better job in studying history. The vast majority of the founding fathers were evangelical Christians.

    I will take one at a time.

    You ask and answer yourself … “Did the bible say anything about abortion? No.”

    Now if you would use logic you will see that the scripture implies that abortion is wrong. Or do you believe in implied logic or just explicit logic ?

    Exodus:
    22 ¶ If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
    23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
    24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
    25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

    Life for Life ? Hmmm does that mean a woman’s fruit (unborn child) is a life – and if just a mass of tissue then why should one be punished with his life for taking the life of the unborn ?

  376. Steve Says:

    Pascal, one of the most intellectual scientists of all time – of course you should be familiar with Pascal’s Theorem developed at age 16 which astounded the scientific community . He was not a Christian by default. Its true he was raised a catholic but later made a commitment to the true God of the Bible and rebuked the catholic church at the time for their “sins”. You need to read his remarkable work “Pensees”. A terrific, highly cogent and very insightful understanding of man’s mind. It may do you some good to read it.

  377. Steve Says:

    Since I havent decided whether Im going to law school or not. This discussion may make up my mind for me. I see the necessity to stand in the gap for those of us to believe in something greater than ourselves before the legal system of this once great country and to prevent an outdated philosophy of evolution from being established as our national religion replacing the Judeo-Christian foundation.

  378. Steve Says:

    Dont want to tax your mind any further today will see you tommorrow.

  379. PC-Bash Says:

    You have misrepresented so many facts and also true HIStory. You need to do a better job in studying history. The vast majority of the founding fathers were evangelical Christians.

    Really? So Thomas Jefferson, the writer of the Declaration of Independence, was a evangelical Christian? I hate to break it to you, but much of what made it into the Declaration and later the Constitution was based on the philosophy of John Locke, who was anything but evangelical.

    Let’s take a run-down here of founding fathers and religious beliefs:

    Thomas Paine wrote pamphlets against organized religions.

    George Washington was known to support Unitarians and Deists, not a very evangelical thing to do.

    John Adams once said “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!” During his administration, the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.” He was heavily involved in this process, and agreed with this notion.

    Thomas Jefferson once said “I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian.” He was a strong supporter of a separation between church and state. Not a very evangelical thing to do. He called himself a Deist.

    James Madison once said “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” Not a very evangelical thing to say.

    Benjamin Franklin once said “As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion…has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble.” He was a Deist.

    So, who are your evangelical founders? Those are who I consider to be on the top of the list of founders. Maybe you meant someone else?

    Now if you would use logic you will see that the scripture implies that abortion is wrong. Or do you believe in implied logic or just explicit logic ?

    It never explicitly says that abortion is wrong. There is a passage about a man hurting someone else’s child, but nothing about an adult choosing not to bring a pregnancy to term. In the days that the bible was written, there were abortificants, which were available and well known. The fact that something as detailed as what to do when someone kills someone else’s unborn child is laid out, but abortificants are not is very telling. You are interpreting the bible to say something that it doesn’t. You do that a lot, apparently.

    Life for Life ? Hmmm does that mean a woman’s fruit (unborn child) is a life – and if just a mass of tissue then why should one be punished with his life for taking the life of the unborn ?

    Again, this is a specific case. One person kills the other person’s unborn child. It says nothing about parents deciding not to have children, or deciding to terminate a pregnancy.

    He [Pascal] was not a Christian by default.

    You need to read his remarkable work “Pensees”

    I did read his work, in the original French, which is where I got his “wager”. I’m very familiar with it.

    The problem here is that Pascal is arguing by Game Theory, which he later says is his justification for his beliefs. Unlike you, who blindly cling to your beliefs, he chose his beliefs just because it was the “safer” action, and he then goes into depth to derive why he believes the action is safer.

    William James had this to say of Pascal, and I think he sums it up quite well.

    Surely Pascal’s own personal belief in masses and holy water had far other springs; and this celebrated page of his is but an argument for others, a last desperate snatch at a weapon against the hardness of the unbelieving heart. We feel that a faith in masses and holy water adopted willfully after such a mechanical calculation would lack the inner soul of faith’s reality; and if we were ourselves in the place of the Deity, we should probably take particular pleasure in cutting off believers of this pattern from their infinite reward.

    So, like what I said, he was Christian by default. He chose to believe the way he did, because he thought it costs little, and the benefit, though remote, of going to Heaven outweighs the risk to his sanity. You may want to read it again. Alas, it is not as interesting of a read in English as it is in French.

    …outdated philosophy of evolution from being established as our national religion…

    Evolution cares nothing about religion. Evolution is a statement. It is your own error to derive more from this statement (just like you do with your insane interpretations of the bible) than is actually said.

  380. PC-Bash Says:

    Oh by the way, thank you for your spelling checks.

    Well, I didn’t want the reader to be confused, perhaps thinking those were my misspellings.

    Also, when you use sic, you shouldn’t correct the spelling. For instance, your attempt to capitalize bible above. For what it’s worth, I rarely capitalize terms like “bible”, “god”, etc. I feel this gives respect to something that does not reserve my respect. I am reminded of all of the people who have been killed over these terms throughout history, due to a terrible and irrational belief system that this ridiculous book inflicts upon its believers.

  381. Steve Says:

    Did you go to seminary or were you involved in “Christian” work at one time or another ?

    Your hardness of heart is so astonishing ! Did someone disappoint you at one time that you are so bitter at God ? You have a deep resentment and an ungrateful heart, even studying hard to prove that God does not exist. You efforts will be futile my friend. You will fall exhausted at your last.

    You ramble too much as I said lets look at one thing at a time. There is so much that you have purposely taken out of context that we should examine one at a time.

    Let’s get back to Exodus 21 and if we have time we will cast down each and every point that you have so proudly puffed out your hard heart.

    You say : “Again, this is a specific case. One person kills the other person’s unborn child. It says nothing about parents deciding not to have children, or deciding to terminate a pregnancy.”

    It’s interesting and astonishing to see your blind logic – are you that blind that you cant see plainly what you are saying ? Your answer should show all your feebleness of mind it would greatly amusing if it wasn’t so serious. You derive all of your “facts” by implicit interpretation then when it comes to an implicit word in scripture you dismiss it out of hand saying it isn’t explicit. I marvel at you willful twist in method. (you still haven’t answered the question on your philosophy of science)

    Lets do our ABC’s in logic step by step and breakdown what you have said. You first proudly stated ” Did the bible say anything about abortion? No.”

    What was the purpose of that statement ? Did you want others to infer that abortion is sanctioned in the scripture or being narrow minded did you want to play word games ? You even admitted that it was a life – good we are making progress. You admit at least that. The fact is as you examine the passage you indeed see that there is life in the womb. The punishment to be met out shows the seriousness of taking that life. So are you implying that the motive of the woman determines if its a taking of life or not ? If she wants the child then its taking a life, however if she decides to kill it, it doesn’t matter. What a sad commentary. It’s interesting to note the father is given the choice to lay the on the aggressor his punishment on top of what is to be meted out by the judges.

  382. PC-Bash Says:

    Steve -

    It’s interesting and astonishing to see your blind logic – are you that blind that you cant see plainly what you are saying ? Your answer should show all your feebleness of mind it would greatly amusing if it wasn’t so serious. You derive all of your “facts” by implicit interpretation then when it comes to an implicit word in scripture you dismiss it out of hand saying it isn’t explicit. I marvel at you willful twist in method. (you still haven’t answered the question on your philosophy of science)

    No, you are misrepresenting what I said.

    My argument has been so far that literalists pick and choose what to interpret in the bible. This passage on abortion is no different. You choose to see some parts of the bible as allegory, and choose to take other parts of the bible literally. A passage which deals with how to punish a person who attacks a woman and takes her unborn child’s life is much different than the passage claiming that abortion is immoral. You are reading into this too far, not me.

    What was the purpose of that statement ?

    Let’s go back to my original statement that you have purposefully twisted. “Most of your “rules” are derived — not in the bible at all. Did the bible say anything about abortion?” The context of this question is whether the bible claims that abortion itself is immoral. It does not.

  383. Steve Says:

    Which theory of evolution do you promote – Darwinian , Punctuated equilibrium or the hopeful monster theory ?

  384. PC-Bash Says:

    Did you go to seminary or were you involved in “Christian” work at one time or another ?

    No.

    Your hardness of heart is so astonishing ! Did someone disappoint you at one time that you are so bitter at God ? You have a deep resentment and an ungrateful heart, even studying hard to prove that God does not exist. You efforts will be futile my friend. You will fall exhausted at your last.

    Like what I said, I actually read the bible, as opposed to listening to sermons or letting other people interpret it for me. I didn’t spend my time “studying hard”, I just bothered to read. If more people read this bible critically, there would be far less Christians.

  385. PC-Bash Says:

    Which theory of evolution do you promote – Darwinian , Punctuated equilibrium or the hopeful monster theory?

    You act as if these are competing theories, when they aren’t. The latter two theories attempt to explain phenomena that we see in the fossil record. They aren’t in complete exclusion to original evolutionary theory. Instead, they attempt to explain how sometimes a small change can cause a cascade of change over a short period of time, which can certainly be demonstrated using mathematical models. Likely, all three occur.

  386. PC-Bash Says:

    You even admitted that it was a life – good we are making progress. You admit at least that.

    Why shouldn’t I. A fetus is a mass of cells, each of these cells are living. Of course it’s alive. No one would argue that this isn’t life. The so-called “Pro-Life” movement have attempted to twist this term, to equate the potential in those cells with the current state of those cells. It is alive, at the same level that a microbe or another sizable mass of tissue is alive. As for when it is sentient or sapient — this normally occurs long after the point in which abortion would be illegal anyway.

    Understanding how the embryo forms is essential in understanding how DNA and evolution lead to changes in the phenotype. So, this may be a slightly relevant discussion. However, we seem to be digressing from evolution here, mostly due to, I think, your admitted ignorance of evolution.

  387. PC-Bash Says:

    So, do you still believe our founding fathers were evangelical Christians, or have I effectively shattered that misconception?

  388. PC-Bash Says:

    you still haven’t answered the question on your philosophy of science

    Your question was vague:

    Is this your philosophy?

    Is what my philosophy?

  389. Steve Says:

    I see you are a product of sophism. If you can’t draw the conclusion that taking a life in the womb is wrong and that the Bible is implicit in this then there is no hope for you except for you to find that you will have to learn the hard way. You will face a problem which is beyond your reasoning power – you can either gnash your teeth or weep in your beer.

    You are blinded spiritually by your pride and sexual habits. This is spiritual problem not an intellectual one. Your conscience is the place that discerns right and wrong – God’s wisdom is spiritual. This ability to see absolute truth is choked out by wrong spiritual motives or carnality. Although the fruit of this carnality is eventually the death of a society – where anything goes – man does what is right in his own eyes – the conscience becomes less able to discern right and wrong. You will never know God by your mind alone it would seem foolish to him. But God did not give us a mind to discern him by just intellect but by conscience and heart. God is more clever than us – he cast out of heaven the one that wanted to be like him. God’s way of determining if one loves him or not is through what he accomplished at the cross. Those who are humble of heart realize the sin of and destructive nature of a rebellious mankind. He who realizes that and has a tender heart will understand the cross of Christ – those who are proud of heart will not. God is the genius in all of this. He will sort out the tender heart vs. the hard hearted in his divine plan.

    God does not force you to chose him – you have a choice depending on your heart not intellect. An honest tender heart will understand the gospel.
    This is the dividing line – it is genius. So you can choose your own path. But if by your error you cause others to stumble then you are obviously going to be in brought to God’s chastisement and not man’s. So my job is done here I pray your heart is softened. You will hear no more from me. It is now the Creator’s turn.

    P.S. – It is the heart that rebels and the mind follows. Deal with the heart and your mind will see the real truth.

  390. PC-Bash Says:

    If you can’t draw the conclusion that taking a life in the womb is wrong

    It isn’t stated in the bible that it is wrong, is it? No. You gave me a very specific example, and used this to extrapolate meaning, like the Young Earth Creationists use biblical genealogy to extrapolate the age of the earth. You are making an interpretation and using this to draw your own conclusions. Your bible, however, is silent on this issue, and a vast majority of other things you think of as Christian.

    You claim that there is some sort of spirituality that decides this for you. Can you observe this? Does your god actually talk to you? No. This is nothing more than the hand-waving that your church does to convince you to think one way or another. It has nothing to do with your book, nor is there any other evidence to back it up. You blindly accept things, which is why you cannot open your eyes to the world around you.

    I could demonstrate to you without a shadow of a doubt that evolution is valid. In fact, many people already have done this, which is how it was elevated to scientific theory to begin with. You, however, would dismiss it. In your words “I have no reason to look at evolution. It is a myth. Truth does not depend on us to verify itself.” In other words, you believe that the truth of something has nothing to do with evidence. Yet, you think I’m the one who’s lost?

    Although the fruit of this carnality is eventually the death of a society

    Strange, because we didn’t enter the Dark Ages until after Christianity was adopted…

    You will hear no more from me.

    Somehow, I doubt that.