Washington Post: Creationism's Latest Mutation

We have the fossils... we win!

Yet another transitional fossil turns up. It's a frogamander! Amphibians have evolved more than Creationists arguments and are far more interesting.

Gerobatrachus hottoni was probably smarter than any of the "academic freedom" proponents, come to think of it.

NO ONE would think it acceptable for a teacher to question the existence of gravity

Indeed, ask any ID Creationist how they explain the Cambrian Explosion, the origin of life or the origin of the bacterial flagellum. They either will remain quiet or they will respond that such a request is just ‘pathetic’ and that ID should not be held to such silly standards of science.

— PvM

Peter Henderson said: Have a look at this month's "The sky at night" programme from the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/spaceguide/skyatnight/proginfo.shtml Entitled "what we just don't know" (a phrase coined by Sir Patrick by the way) it's a fascinating discussion on astronomy and cosmology. Cosmology is one of those subjects that the more facts we discover, the more questions arise. At one point the discussion centres on "dark matter" and the fact that there really is a lot of the Universe that we just can't see. One of the guests correctly says that it isn't in fact dark matter but transparant matter (if it were dark we wouldn't be able to see anything at all). He then went on to describe what dark matter was and wasn't. At this point another guest admits "Either that or it could be that our theories on gravity could be completely wrong" Great science from the BBC and well worth watching. ...

Mike O'Risal said: Yet another transitional fossil turns up. It's a frogamander! Amphibians have evolved more than Creationists arguments and are far more interesting.

Peter Henderson said: At one point the discussion centres on "dark matter" and the fact that there really is a lot of the Universe that we just can't see. One of the guests correctly says that it isn't in fact dark matter but transparant matter (if it were dark we wouldn't be able to see anything at all). He then went on to describe what dark matter was and wasn't. At this point another guest admits "Either that or it could be that our theories on gravity could be completely wrong"

Dear Mike O'Risal:

That's the same quote I heard from Ken Miller during his brief talk at AMNH exactly two weeks ago. Obviously it is one I agree with, and moreover, note that no "scientific creationist" "scientific theory" has attempted to explain the significance of mass extinctions, paleoecological recovery and "adaptive radiations" in the aftermath of mass extinctions, or paleobiogeographic distributions of fossils. Indeed, I asked Behe via e-mail last summer how Intelligent Design could explain these interesting paleontological observations, and, not surprisingly, didn't get an answer.

Regards,

John

Correct me if I'm wrong: there is no theory of gravity, is there? Isn't it an enigma? Has anyone ever done the maths of why objects attract each other?

This is off-topic, but I personally come from a biblical perspective. The Bible doesn't ignore gravity. You can tell the astro-physicists now, that gravity will never be fully explained, mathematically. But it won't be doing anything capricious, either. That's another topic.

I have, by mail, and personally, lobbied Ken Ham/AIG, and the leading home schooling program, A.C.E., to fix their origins content. I got some attention from A.C.E., but the hard line AIG - type influence is strong. Personally, I would prefer an origins course from, say, NCSE, than from AIG. Common Descent Evolution can be passed off as humoring a bunch of confused scientists. Hard line Youngearthism actually purports to be biblically compatible - which it isn't - so teaching it makes the Bible look foolish.

If you wish to cut those numbers going to that museum - simply get something that contradicts neither the Bible nor science, and provide a real alternative. I endeavour to do so, via my site.

There's an excellent article on the Smirking Chimp: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/14768 , called "Jesus Arm-Wrestled with Dinosaurs." Despite the snarky title and occasional other bits of sarcasm, it's essentially very serious. Well worth reading.

With "that old serpent", the "Dragon", you mean. It was no contest. The problem he had on Man's behalf because Man listened to the dragon, is a different matter. How weird are some titles?

Mr. Heywood -

Before a real scientist explains to you the various ancient and modern theories of gravity, perhaps could clear up some potential confusion by telling us what you think a theory is. I suspect that your concept of a theory is rather different from that of the people who will attempt to answer you.

And could you explain, ideally with an example, how maths [sic - Brit?] can explain "why" something happens. Again, I suspect that your concepts of "maths" and "why" are rather different from those of professional scientists.

If you wish to cut those numbers going to that museum - simply get something that contradicts neither the Bible nor science, and provide a real alternative. I endeavour to do so, via my site.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

Philip Bruce Heywood said: The Bible doesn't ignore gravity.

"Pray tell: Where in the Bible is gravity mentioned?"

The Fall of Man? ;-)

Though I guess ascending into Heaven cancels that...

PvM said: The Washington Post has an excellent editorial on the recent attempts by Intelligent Design Creationists to ‘teach the controversy’ and ‘academic freedom’...

Conservapedia sez: The family of Katharine Graham remain large shareholders, and ensures the (Washington Post) never strays far from its liberal point of view.

What you seem to have omitted is that Sir Patrick made a big deal out of the fact that it was the 666th edition of The Sky At Night, which I thought was mildly amusing

Okay, "bigbang," I'll bite. Give a specific example of an aspect of paleobiology that evolutionary theory fails to account for, and then explain how ID does a better job of accounting for it. Also, please explain how ID is falsifiable.

bigbang

The only, and I dare say only design proponents who are not YEC or OEC is Behe.If you read the textbooks churned out by the institute or supported by it you will see that their main idea is that.

"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."
Of Pandas and People

Does that sound like Common descent to you? I don't think so, Look up quotes by Wells, Dembski or Meyer and you will see what they believe.

I know that you have doubts and are a skeptic, but your problem is the thinking that only people who disagree with the current theory is the undiscovery institute.

Truth is, there are scientists the world over looking for an alternative hypothesis or better explanation (Gould's equilibrium to name one) and they are actually researching something, not quote mining journals without any real knowledge like Behe does.

And you are misquoting Ken miller, he doesn't believe that there are any divine hand involved in evolution and neither does Francis Collins, to say about the BB or physics and connect it to evolution is not wrong by a degree, it's a different field entirely.

I really hope you are not a troll bigbang.

Not to mention that the evidence so far, when looked into objectively overwhelmingly support evolution.

Perhaps in your mind the current answer is not enough but let me say this to you, let real scientist(Many of them theist and are not out to destroy your precious Christian religion) continue to do their work along the line set out by the scientific method, not impede them by stopping in front of a gap as worship it like ID people does.

The Washington Post has a ridiculous editorial that elevates evolutionary theory to the same status as gravitational theory and the truths of mathematics

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Correct me if I'm wrong: there is no theory of gravity, is there? Isn't it an enigma? Has anyone ever done the maths of why objects attract each other?

Philip Bruce Heywood said: This is off-topic, but I personally come from a biblical perspective. The Bible doesn't ignore gravity. You can tell the astro-physicists now, that gravity will never be fully explained, mathematically. But it won't be doing anything capricious, either. That's another topic.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Hard line Youngearthism actually purports to be biblically compatible - which it isn't - so teaching it makes the Bible look foolish.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: If you wish to cut those numbers going to that museum - simply get something that contradicts neither the Bible nor science, and provide a real alternative. I endeavour to do so, via my site.

And while we’re on the subject: its MATH, not “maths” when referring to a series of equations. English is funny that way.

THE BIGGER PICTURE IN THE DEBATE ON DARWINISM IS NOT INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

The reason is elementary: the Discovery Institute and other ID proponents leave out the Triune God, Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Hence, Richard Dawkins can make the case for “aliens” seeding the earth.

There is a better way.

The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately dethrone the unprofitable Darwinian view.

A review:

"I am amazed at the breadth of the investigation - scientific history, biblical studies, geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and so forth - and find the style of writing to be quite lucid and aimed clearly at a general, lay audience." ― Mark Roberts, former Editor of Biblical Reference Books, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

The Quest for Right series of books, based on physical science, the old science of cause and effect, has effectively dismantled the quantum additions to the true architecture of the atom. Gone are the nonexistent particles once thought to be complementary to the electron and proton (examples: neutrons, neutrinos, photons, mesons, quarks, Z's, bosons, etc.) and a host of other pseudo particles.

To the curious, scientists sought to explain Atomic theory by introducing fantastic particles that supposedly came tumbling out of the impact between two particles, when in fact, the supposed finds were simply particulate debris. There are only two elementary particles which make up the whole of the universe: the proton and electron. All other particles were added via quantum magic and mathematical elucidation in an attempt to explain earthly phenomena without God.

Introducing the scheme of coincidence, which by definition, "is the systematic ploy of obstructionists who, in lieu of any divine intervention, state that any coincidental grouping or chance union of electrons and protons (and neutrons), regardless of the configuration, always produces a chemical element. This is the mischievous tenet of electron interpretation which states that all physical, chemical, and biological processes result from a change in the electron structure of the atom which, in turn, may be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics, as outlined in quantum mechanics. A few of the supporting theories are: degrading stars, neutron stars, black holes, extraterrestrial water, antimatter, the absolute dating systems, and the big bang, the explosion of a singularity infinitely smaller than the dot of an “i” from which space, time, and the massive stellar bodies supposedly sprang into being.

The Quest for Right is not only better at explaining natural phenomena, but also may be verified through testing. As a consequence, the material in the several volumes will not violate the so-called constitutional separation of church and state. Physical science, the old science of cause and effect, will have a long-term sustainability, replacing irresponsible doctrines based on whim. Teachers and students will rejoice in the simplicity of earthly phenomena when entertained by the new discipline.

More info: http://questforright.com

GuyeFaux said:

And while we’re on the subject: its MATH, not “maths” when referring to a series of equations. English is funny that way.

Off-topic, but to be fair the use of "maths" in this way is a valid Britishism. For instance I've heard a native speakers say "I'm terrible at maths" or "We need to find somebody that can handle the maths of this problem." English is funny that way.

C. David Parsons said: THE BIGGER PICTURE IN THE DEBATE ON DARWINISM IS NOT INTELLIGENT DESIGN. The reason is elementary: the Discovery Institute and other ID proponents leave out the Triune God, Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Hence, Richard Dawkins can make the case for “aliens” seeding the earth. There is a better way. etc. etc...

There are only two elementary particles which make up the whole of the universe: the proton and electron.

Mike O'Risal said: We have the fossils... we win! Yet another transitional fossil turns up. It's a frogamander! Amphibians have evolved more than Creationists arguments and are far more interesting.

George-O said:

GuyeFaux said:

And while we’re on the subject: its MATH, not “maths” when referring to a series of equations. English is funny that way.

Off-topic, but to be fair the use of "maths" in this way is a valid Britishism. For instance I've heard a native speakers say "I'm terrible at maths" or "We need to find somebody that can handle the maths of this problem." English is funny that way.

There are many Americans who say: "I gots to get me some softwares at the mall." Just shows that the Great Unwashed are everywhere. Feh!

Draconiz says: “to say about the BB or physics and connect it to evolution is not wrong by a degree, it’s a different field entirely."

.

Nonsense. All of science is inextricably linked. If the universe were not as it is, if entropy had not been as inexplicably low as it was at the beginning, 14 billion years ago, life and we would not even be a possibility, let alone here to ponder such things.

Theists/deists like neo-Darwinians Miller and Collins, since they are, after all, theists/deists, obviously believe that God created (i.e. designed) the universe and the laws of nature/physics, but apparently feel that God left the rest of it up to chance, evolution by RM+NS----the only real difference between them and ID proponents like Behe is a matter of degree, since Behe believes that design extends further into nature and life, and more specifically that RM+ NS has only a limited role in the evolution of life.

And finally, virtually everyone believes in the evolution, or the unfolding, as it were, of life. The only issue is how much of that evolution can reasonably be expected to have resulted via RM+NS in the less than 10^40 cells in Earth’s 4 billion year history

C. David Parsons said: THE BIGGER PICTURE IN THE DEBATE ON DARWINISM IS NOT INTELLIGENT DESIGN. The reason is elementary: the Discovery Institute and other ID proponents leave out the Triune God, Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Hence, Richard Dawkins can make the case for “aliens” seeding the earth. There is a better way. The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately dethrone the unprofitable Darwinian view. A review: "I am amazed at the breadth of the investigation - scientific history, biblical studies, geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and so forth - and find the style of writing to be quite lucid and aimed clearly at a general, lay audience." ― Mark Roberts, former Editor of Biblical Reference Books, Thomas Nelson Publishers. The Quest for Right series of books, based on physical science, the old science of cause and effect, has effectively dismantled the quantum additions to the true architecture of the atom. Gone are the nonexistent particles once thought to be complementary to the electron and proton (examples: neutrons, neutrinos, photons, mesons, quarks, Z's, bosons, etc.) and a host of other pseudo particles. To the curious, scientists sought to explain Atomic theory by introducing fantastic particles that supposedly came tumbling out of the impact between two particles, when in fact, the supposed finds were simply particulate debris. There are only two elementary particles which make up the whole of the universe: the proton and electron. All other particles were added via quantum magic and mathematical elucidation in an attempt to explain earthly phenomena without God. Introducing the scheme of coincidence, which by definition, "is the systematic ploy of obstructionists who, in lieu of any divine intervention, state that any coincidental grouping or chance union of electrons and protons (and neutrons), regardless of the configuration, always produces a chemical element. This is the mischievous tenet of electron interpretation which states that all physical, chemical, and biological processes result from a change in the electron structure of the atom which, in turn, may be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics, as outlined in quantum mechanics. A few of the supporting theories are: degrading stars, neutron stars, black holes, extraterrestrial water, antimatter, the absolute dating systems, and the big bang, the explosion of a singularity infinitely smaller than the dot of an “i” from which space, time, and the massive stellar bodies supposedly sprang into being. The Quest for Right is not only better at explaining natural phenomena, but also may be verified through testing. As a consequence, the material in the several volumes will not violate the so-called constitutional separation of church and state. Physical science, the old science of cause and effect, will have a long-term sustainability, replacing irresponsible doctrines based on whim. Teachers and students will rejoice in the simplicity of earthly phenomena when entertained by the new discipline. More info: http://questforright.com

Kevin B said:

George-O said:

GuyeFaux said:

And while we’re on the subject: its MATH, not “maths” when referring to a series of equations. English is funny that way.

Off-topic, but to be fair the use of "maths" in this way is a valid Britishism. For instance I've heard a native speakers say "I'm terrible at maths" or "We need to find somebody that can handle the maths of this problem." English is funny that way.

There are many Americans who say: "I gots to get me some softwares at the mall." Just shows that the Great Unwashed are everywhere. Feh!

Now that's just begging for a reference to the "Unwashed States of America"..... :) Actually, GuyeFaux understates the case. In British English "maths" (as a contraction of "mathematics") is the only correct form. "Math" is as disconcerting as the distinctly peculiar usage "different ... than". Without the invention of the telegraph do you think that we'd have observed linguistic speciation by now?

So it would be correct to say “I’m going to the mall to get some underwears?”

And ID is going to help us find those answers bigbang? I hardly think so as it has never explained anything. To find God(If she exist) we have to look for her, not define any currently unexplained phenomena as God. Otherwise, the rainbow would still be considered as signs sent by God today.

People here have tried to tell you many times(And with great patience) bigbang, the only IDers who understand science is Behe and even he is not above twisting words and lying through his teeth. You keep repeating that random mutation blah blah blah is not enough, yet you never show the evidence that runs counter to what we know today.

Theories can be refined my friend, but with another equally valid set of hypotheses ans examples.

Besides, in my view the idea that the universe is so perfect stems from an egoistic viewpoint where everything is specially (made, designed or evolved) for us. I think everything is as it is simply because the condition of our universe and our world is like this, consequentially life forms most suitable to it arises.

"Life" in our definition is only life as we know it. If the universe has a different constant and laws, another type of "life" might arise, think everything is so perfect for "them" and ask the same question.

As for the other field entirely quote, let me explain what I mean.

If I do not know anything about a snowflakes I may say that those beautiful patterns come from little sky elves, but that is because I am ignorant about the mechanics behind it. Likewise, Miller and Collins, while a million times more brilliant than me might say that the law of physics is set by god or the pink unicorn ,but that doesn't allow them to lecture students that way because they are not physicists(And they do not!).

Ravilyn Sanders said:

I was under the impression salamanders were simply immature frogs that extended their neotany and started reproducing as juveniles, that some salamaders would actually turn into frogs if growth hormones were applied to them, that such an experiment was actually done that made the salamanders frogs.

I'm not sure where you heard this, but if one were to apply the right growth hormones to salamanders, one would just get really big salamanders, not frogs.

Maybe you're confusing the development of frogs with critters like axolotl and mud puppies, which are essentially salamanders that maintain a larval form throughout their lives but still reproduce? Frogs and salamanders are really very different in many ways, and one never turns into the other under any circumstances — not even over the course of evolutionary time.

Ravilyn Sanders said: I was under the impression salamanders were simply immature frogs that extended their neotany and started reproducing as juveniles, that some salamaders would actually turn into frogs if growth hormones were applied to them, that such an experiment was actually done that made the salamanders frogs.

Maths is proper English, and the English have precedent over us Yanks when it comes to the language that bears their name.

dhogaza said:

So it would be correct to say “I’m going to the mall to get some underwears?”

No, but you could there to buy some undies ... Maths is proper English, and the English have precedent over us Yanks when it comes to the language that bears their name.

Mr. Heywood asserts that there is no theory of gravitation (or that that there is no mathematically treated theory of gravitaion?). To either version of his assertion there is a simple answer: before making such claims, it is advisable to work at one's education. The General Theory of Relativity, among other things, is a theory of gravitation, and it is highly developed mathematically. Its predictions have been overwhelmingly confirmed by observation and experimentation. This thread is not a place to explain the GTR, but try at least to learn something about it on the introductory level provided by the Wikipedia. While at that, you may as well acquaint yourself with the chapter on Higgs bozon, which is a theory explaining the origin of mass. Soon the great collider is expected to be operational at the border between France and Switzerland, where Higgs bozon may very well be finally observed.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Correct me if I'm wrong: there is no theory of gravity, is there?

C. David Parsons said:

bigbang said: All of science is inextricably linked. If the universe were not as it is, if entropy had not been as inexplicably low as it was at the beginning, 14 billion years ago, life and we would not even be a possibility, let alone here to ponder such things.

Mark Perakh said: While at that, you may as well acquaint yourself with the chapter on Higgs bozon, which is a theory explaining the origin of mass. Soon the great collider is expected to be operational at the border between France and Switzerland, where Higgs bozon may very well be finally observed.

Higgs boson production at the CERN Large Hadron Collider.

bozon (BOH.zawn) n. A whimsical unit of stupidity and cluelessness.

Science areas aren’t inextricably linked, or they wouldn’t be separable areas now, would they? Say increasingly linked, and it is closer to an actual truth.

I'm glad that the Washington Post published such a terse, strongly-worded editorial condemning the teaching of Intelligent Design. My "pal" Bill Dembski has posted at Uncommon Dissent a brief posting in which he states the Washington Post is "ridiculous" for publishing that editorial:

www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/there-is-no-controversy

What is "ridiculous" is Bill's "frat boy antics" in which he indulges too often at Uncommon Dissent, not the Washington Post's astute opinion.

Regards,

John

Can anyone tell me about the Altenberg16 Dumbski mentioned on his blog? These people seems to have come up with some strange ideas.

PS. The funny thing is Dumbski seems to trumpet it a lot but aren't invited to it! Perhaps because those swanky new ideas don't involve an intelligunt deigner.

Draconiz,

I know of two of the Altenberg 16; University of Chicago invertebrate paleobiologist David Jablonski (He's one of those who has argued persuasively for a fundamental difference in tempo and mode between "background" extinctions and mass extinctions.) and Harvard University population geneticist Richard Lewontin. I believe that a third name associated with this group is complexity theorist Stuart Kauffman.

Best,

John

P. S. Of course Dumbski is absolutely clueless in singing the praises of the "Altenberg 16" as though their existence merely proves the intellectual shoddiness of contemporary evolutionary theory. LOL!

Thank you for the fast reply sir. If Dumbski is not so dangerous to science I may even laugh some more

From reading http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00131.htm about the 16, it seems this new theory is about the fine mechanics of evolution (mainly Extended Evolutionary Synthesis).

A lot of them are philosophers though, and I think they would like to insert the ""will" and "mind" into the theory somehow. Sound kinda Neo-Lamarckian :P

Dear Draconiz,

I like Susan - whom I met at the Rockefeller University evolution conference - since she's written an excellent piece praising the work of noted Near East archaeologist Oscar White Muscarella of the Metropolitan Museum of Art (who is a friend of mine), but I was a bit distressed to hear her state that these Altenberg 16 scientists (Lewontin was originally part of this group, but has apparently dropped out; David Sloan Wilson is a noted theoretical evolutionary biologist who has written extensively on group selection) are crafting some new, "improved" evolutionary theory. While I am sympathetic to some of the views being expressed by some of the "Altenberg 16", I wouldn't portray that in such a generous, sympathetic tone as Susan has done in her writings. Unfortunately, however, Dumbski picks this up as demonstrating ample "proof" of contemporary evolutionary theory's intellectual deficiencies, heralding its potential replacement by the mendacious intellectual pornography known as Intelligent Design.

Regards,

John

dhogaza said:

So it would be correct to say “I’m going to the mall to get some underwears?”

No, but you could there to buy some undies ... Maths is proper English, and the English have precedent over us Yanks when it comes to the language that bears their name.

George-O said: And while we're on the subject: its MATH, not "maths" when referring to a series of equations. English is funny that way.

The creationist troll most recently posting under the false username of JoyBoy said: "Our Lord and Savior will send a great meteor to wipe out the seminary of Satan known as Oxford from the face of the earth..."

At the top of the WaPo editorial is this little nugget which sums up the agenda of the editorialist

"Red-herring arguments about ‘academic freedom’ can’t be allowed to undermine the teaching of evolution."

The teaching of evolution cannot be “allowed to be undermined”?

Pray tell why not Herr Oberführer?

question: What is so important about evolutionary theory that it "cannot be allowed to be undermined"?

answer: Evolutionary theory hopefully undermines belief in God.

question: Why is it important to undermine belief in God?

answer: Because some people want to shape the beliefs of the masses for their own reasons. People who believe in God are harder to indoctrinate because they will often accept religious authority over secular authority.

For example: If you fear the planet is being caused great harm by overpopulation and want to reduce human population growth, you will seek to create easy availability of abortions and you will seek to indoctrinate the people of the world into moral acceptance of abortion as good, or at least as not bad. But since religions are against abortion it becomes necessary to indoctrinate people into disbelief of God in order for the world to be saved from overpopulation.

Another example: If you fear that religious people all to often gain political power and then use that power to hamper your own political goals for society, then it is neccesary that those political leaders lose their cache amongst the masses by causing the masses to at best become atheistic or agnostic, or at the least to believe that God is really not involved with life here on earth. How do you do that? By indoctrination in schools and through media that evolution is accepted as absolute fact by all “nobel minded scientists” and that “creationism” is DUN! DUN! DUN!…EVIL!!! And pushed by “anti-science” demonic religious cultists who want to enslave you.

Everyone up to speed?

Let's not feed the trolls and just ban them

heavymetalthunder said: At the top of the WaPo editorial is this little nugget which sums up the agenda of the editorialist "Red-herring arguments about ‘academic freedom’ can’t be allowed to undermine the teaching of evolution." The teaching of evolution cannot be “allowed to be undermined”? Pray tell why not Herr Oberführer? question: What is so important about evolutionary theory that it "cannot be allowed to be undermined"? answer: Evolutionary theory hopefully undermines belief in God. question: Why is it important to undermine belief in God? answer: Because some people want to shape the beliefs of the masses for their own reasons. People who believe in God are harder to indoctrinate because they will often accept religious authority over secular authority. For example: If you fear the planet is being caused great harm by overpopulation and want to reduce human population growth, you will seek to create easy availability of abortions and you will seek to indoctrinate the people of the world into moral acceptance of abortion as good, or at least as not bad. But since religions are against abortion it becomes necessary to indoctrinate people into disbelief of God in order for the world to be saved from overpopulation. Another example: If you fear that religious people all to often gain political power and then use that power to hamper your own political goals for society, then it is neccesary that those political leaders lose their cache amongst the masses by causing the masses to at best become atheistic or agnostic, or at the least to believe that God is really not involved with life here on earth. How do you do that? By indoctrination in schools and through media that evolution is accepted as absolute fact by all “nobel minded scientists” and that “creationism” is DUN! DUN! DUN!…EVIL!!! And pushed by “anti-science” demonic religious cultists who want to enslave you. Everyone up to speed?

Rilke's Granddaughter said:

heavymetalthunder said: At the top of the WaPo editorial is this little nugget which sums up the agenda of the editorialist "Red-herring arguments about ‘academic freedom’ can’t be allowed to undermine the teaching of evolution." The teaching of evolution cannot be “allowed to be undermined”? Pray tell why not Herr Oberführer? question: What is so important about evolutionary theory that it "cannot be allowed to be undermined"? answer: Evolutionary theory hopefully undermines belief in God. question: Why is it important to undermine belief in God? answer: Because some people want to shape the beliefs of the masses for their own reasons. People who believe in God are harder to indoctrinate because they will often accept religious authority over secular authority. For example: If you fear the planet is being caused great harm by overpopulation and want to reduce human population growth, you will seek to create easy availability of abortions and you will seek to indoctrinate the people of the world into moral acceptance of abortion as good, or at least as not bad. But since religions are against abortion it becomes necessary to indoctrinate people into disbelief of God in order for the world to be saved from overpopulation. Another example: If you fear that religious people all to often gain political power and then use that power to hamper your own political goals for society, then it is neccesary that those political leaders lose their cache amongst the masses by causing the masses to at best become atheistic or agnostic, or at the least to believe that God is really not involved with life here on earth. How do you do that? By indoctrination in schools and through media that evolution is accepted as absolute fact by all “nobel minded scientists” and that “creationism” is DUN! DUN! DUN!…EVIL!!! And pushed by “anti-science” demonic religious cultists who want to enslave you. Everyone up to speed?

Silly claims like that usually need proof. Your opinion isn't good enough to even discuss, I'm afraid. Still, I give your post 2 out of 10. For sheer length.

Since I am an atheist (and therefore part of the evil, Satanic, evolution conspiracy DUN, DUN, DUN!), I'll be nitpicky and point out that in heavymetalthunder's sentence "In non-communist regimes another tact was taken by the leaders of society because religion cannot be outlawed" really should be written as "...another tack was taken..."

By the way, fellow Evolutionist Conspirators, our next meeting is at Safe House #666 at 1900 PST. I'll bring the clam dip. Anyone want to catch a ride in my black helicopter?

Rilke’s Granddaughter: if you don't think evolution was promoted during the 20th century by elites of western society for political reasons, there is plenty of evidence to back that theory up.

Slavery was ended because of religious activists, that made the elites of society decisive in taking up a plan to rid themselves of competition for the mass of people's hearts and minds. The wealth of the western world, especially the British Empire, was in very large part due to slavery. The elites of western society mostly saw themselves as part of the "enlightenment" tradition which had sought and succeeded in doing away with the traditional religious power structure which had grown since the transformation of the Roman Empire into a religiously ruled Roman Catholic Empire. But still the mass of people were religious and were therefore seen as a political problem. That is why elitist establishment organizations such as "The Royal Society" promoted evolutionary theory to the masses.

The leading futurists like H.G. Wells (see his book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shape_of_Things_to_Come) and Bertrand Russell were part of an elite class of people who can be called in some sense "utopians". The elites of society were promoters of various utopian political schemes e.g various types of communism or national socialism or fascism etc, which were seen as progressive "scientific" utopias where the elite of society would be "benevolent dictators" and where religion would be outlawed because religion is competition for ultimate authority. Evolutionary theory was seen as a needed tool to re-educate the masses into losing belief in God so that the masses would go along with the various utopian political schemes. The eugenics movement was led and funded by the elites of western society. Obviously eugenics is going to be seen as sinful by religious people, who were the mass of humanity back then. The eugenics movement believed they were in it for the long haul in order to drastically alter human society. So evolutionary theory was seen as necessary in order to change peoples from theists into atheists or agnostics for the change that leading ideologues like H.G. Wells and leading elites like the Rockefellers, Carnegie and Harrimans (bankrolled the eugenics movement)and the leaders of the various totalitarian communist and fascist "utopian" regimes envisioned for human society and humanity as a species.

No, but you could there to buy some undies … Maths is proper English, and the English have precedent over us Yanks when it comes to the language that bears their name.

If a reasonable argument were effective the DI and the ID movement wouldn't be mounting this multi state assault under the 'Academic Freedom" misnomer in an attempt to do an end around the Establishment Clause. Barbara Forrest has correctly iterated that you can't talk science to these legislators, you have to talk politics, that's the language they understand, and she's right. All they understand is that this is a neutral effort to allow scientific debate , they don't understand there is no debate, to them you are just trying to stifle what you consider a challenge to what they understand to be just a theory. If the pro evolution group is to beat the DI they are going to have to roll their sleeves up and play the same street wise games. For one I would introduce legislation to set up a standard for defining what a peer reviewed scientific theory consists of. I would also make it clear that if the science teacher is to consider the plausibility of ID, then perhaps the several hundred different versions of ID myth should also be considered and thus legislation must be introduced to allow teachers the Academic Freedom to explain what a myth is and how the Christian version of Intelligent Design is just one of a hundred and is no more viable than any of the others.

heavymetalthunder said: The leading futurists like H.G. Wells (see his book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shape_of_Things_to_Come) and Bertrand Russell were part of an elite class of people who can be called in some sense "utopians". The elites of society were promoters of various utopian political schemes e.g various types of communism or national socialism or fascism etc, which were seen as progressive "scientific" utopias where the elite of society would be "benevolent dictators" and where religion would be outlawed because religion is competition for ultimate authority.

Oops! I meant "you're" (long day teaching a daughter to dive a stick....)

Heavymetalthunder, I wish you could have lived as a surf in medieval Europe. The rich landowners were the military leaders, the government, and the religious leaders as well. You would have been brought up in their religion so you would believe they ruled by divine right. Karl Marx was right in that the aristrocracy used religion as a means of control, and to break that control one had to break that religion. But the communist societies were just as moral as other authoritarian societies. The ides that commies were into drugs and sex any more than we were is a laugh. I should caution you that conservative christian material is not a good source on political science.

Frank B said: Heavymetalthunder, I wish you could have lived as a surf in medieval Europe. The rich landowners were the military leaders, the government, and the religious leaders as well. You would have been brought up in their religion so you would believe they ruled by divine right. Karl Marx was right in that the aristrocracy used religion as a means of control, and to break that control one had to break that religion. But the communist societies were just as moral as other authoritarian societies. The ides that commies were into drugs and sex any more than we were is a laugh. I should caution you that conservative christian material is not a good source on political science.

As long as people reject the theory of evolution for religious reasons, there is going to be no end to this political conflict. And when it comes to public education, parents might feel that their children are being taught things as "true" which undermine the family's religious beliefs. Do students have a "right" to learn about the theory of evolution in public school? Do parents have a right to decide that they don't want their kids exposed to certain ideas that they feel are corrupting?

How many people here have kids, and can see this issue from a parent's point of view? I think that for many parents, the situation is analogous with sex education, in that they don't consider it a good influence on the kids.

Ideally, you teach the idea of evolution. Unfortunately, the matter of a theory's status is going to come up. If a teacher candidly and honestly describes the theory as having solid support along such and such lines, you have a problem right there as far as the parents are concerned. If you are a parent who rejects evolution, you feel that your kids are being "lied to" or "brainwashed" when the teacher describes the theory of evolution as well established and solid.

There is not an issue of "academic freedom" but there is the issue of "parental freedom". I think that private schools might be a good option, but people here seem to be politically liberal and are more in favor of supporting public school.

Vince said:

heavymetalthunder said: The leading futurists like H.G. Wells (see his book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shape_of_Things_to_Come) and Bertrand Russell were part of an elite class of people who can be called in some sense "utopians". The elites of society were promoters of various utopian political schemes e.g various types of communism or national socialism or fascism etc, which were seen as progressive "scientific" utopias where the elite of society would be "benevolent dictators" and where religion would be outlawed because religion is competition for ultimate authority.

Wow - You know your on to something when the conspiracy theorists start coming out of the wooodwork... I know: Please don't feed the trolls.......

wallyk said: As long as people reject the theory of evolution for religious reasons, there is going to be no end to this political conflict. And when it comes to public education, parents might feel that their children are being taught things as "true" which undermine the family's religious beliefs. Do students have a "right" to learn about the theory of evolution in public school? Do parents have a right to decide that they don't want their kids exposed to certain ideas that they feel are corrupting? How many people here have kids, and can see this issue from a parent's point of view? I think that for many parents, the situation is analogous with sex education, in that they don't consider it a good influence on the kids. Ideally, you teach the idea of evolution. Unfortunately, the matter of a theory's status is going to come up. If a teacher candidly and honestly describes the theory as having solid support along such and such lines, you have a problem right there as far as the parents are concerned. If you are a parent who rejects evolution, you feel that your kids are being "lied to" or "brainwashed" when the teacher describes the theory of evolution as well established and solid. There is not an issue of "academic freedom" but there is the issue of "parental freedom". I think that private schools might be a good option, but people here seem to be politically liberal and are more in favor of supporting public school.

heavymetalthunder said:

wallyk said: As long as people reject the theory of evolution for religious reasons, there is going to be no end to this political conflict. And when it comes to public education, parents might feel that their children are being taught things as "true" which undermine the family's religious beliefs. Do students have a "right" to learn about the theory of evolution in public school? Do parents have a right to decide that they don't want their kids exposed to certain ideas that they feel are corrupting? How many people here have kids, and can see this issue from a parent's point of view? I think that for many parents, the situation is analogous with sex education, in that they don't consider it a good influence on the kids. Ideally, you teach the idea of evolution. Unfortunately, the matter of a theory's status is going to come up. If a teacher candidly and honestly describes the theory as having solid support along such and such lines, you have a problem right there as far as the parents are concerned. If you are a parent who rejects evolution, you feel that your kids are being "lied to" or "brainwashed" when the teacher describes the theory of evolution as well established and solid. There is not an issue of "academic freedom" but there is the issue of "parental freedom". I think that private schools might be a good option, but people here seem to be politically liberal and are more in favor of supporting public school.

The conflict is created by people who want to force their beliefs on others while allowing no dissent. That is clearly using "science" in pursuit of a political agenda. That is the problem. Leading evolutionists are open about how they see evolution as a weapon against religious belief. It is obvious that that is the driving force in the conflict. It is pathetic that fanatic evolutionists think they are fooling anyone as to their true motivations and goals in their attemtp to be the thought police.

HeavyDruggedWacko: Leading evolutionists are open about how they see evolution as a weapon against religious belief.

wallyk: As long as people reject the theory of evolution for religious reasons, there is going to be no end to this political conflict.

Evolution isn’t supported by all western governments as absolute truth in government supported schools as official policy? Members of the EU haven’t tried to pass legislation calling ID “dangerous”?

Leading evolutionists are open about how they see evolution as a weapon against religious belief.

Leading evolutionists are open about how they see evolution as a weapon against religious belief.

LightGassyFizzle:

I do research in evolutionary biology every day. I see the evidence every day. I teach courses dealing with evolution every year. I have for 25 years engaged with, argued with, agreed with, disagreed with, and learned from hundreds of people similarly doing science. At no time has anyone ever engaged in any of the delusional baloney that you are spouting off here. Where do you get these ideas? Have you working in the field? Do you read the primary literature? Have you taken advanced classes in the sciences? Have you visited any of us in our offices to discuss not just science, but the public discourse and religious hostility to that science? Do you have some documentary evidence of the great conspiracies that you are spinning? Do you have the slightest inkling that the stuff you are spouting here is just a common regurgitation of baseless propaganda that has been repeated so many times that it is boring?

Members of the EU haven’t tried to pass legislation calling ID “dangerous”?

PvM said:

Evolution isn’t supported by all western governments as absolute truth in government supported schools as official policy? Members of the EU haven’t tried to pass legislation calling ID “dangerous”?

Evolution is supported as science just like any other science. As to calling ID dangerous, this is an important development since ID indeed has a strong theocratic component.

raven said: 4. The cultists have done more than a little damage to the USA in the last 7 years. In many parts of Asia and Europe, they are already referring the the USA as an "ex superpower."

Stanton said:

raven said: 4. The cultists have done more than a little damage to the USA in the last 7 years. In many parts of Asia and Europe, they are already referring the the USA as an "ex superpower."

It's quite telling that US creationists do not care one bit about the fact that in those states where they have been successful in coercing school districts into teaching Creationism/Intelligent Design, and/or coercing school districts into not teaching Evolution, the science curricula rank the lowest in the entire country.

Now, now, don't get your undies in a twist! One question – since you don't call it maths in the US, do you use your math when studying physic?

The idea of that vicious and vengeful God, in his infinite mercy and wisdom, wiping out Oxford is rather ironic as Oxford was the leading centre of creationist anti-evolution in Darwin's day, only succumbing around 1870. And of course slavery was justified by the creationist ideas of Agassiz in opposition to Darwin (who was strongly opposed to slavery) arguing that humanity is all one species, with minor variations which are too blurred to be defined as distinct varieties.

More interesting is the daft claim that eugenics is atheist - before it was called eugenics, Darwin reviewed the ideas of his half-cousin Galton and strongly expressed the view that restrictions on breeding could only be voluntary, or it would go against "the noblest part of our nature". However in early 20th century America the idea of forced euthanasia was enthusiastically embraced by many Christians – see http://www.ethicsandmedicine.com/18/2/18-2-durst.htm

And while we’re on the subject: its MATH, not “maths” when referring to a series of equations. English is funny that way.

— George-O

bigbang said: Draconiz says: “to say about the BB or physics and connect it to evolution is not wrong by a degree, it’s a different field entirely." Nonsense. All of science is inextricably linked.

If the universe were not as it is, if entropy had not been as inexplicably low as it was at the beginning, 14 billion years ago, life and we would not even be a possibility, let alone here to ponder such things.

Theists/deists like neo-Darwinians Miller and Collins, since they are, after all, theists/deists, obviously believe that God created (i.e. designed) the universe and the laws of nature/physics, but apparently feel that God left the rest of it up to chance, evolution by RM+NS----the only real difference between them and ID proponents like Behe is a matter of degree, since Behe believes that design extends further into nature and life, and more specifically that RM+ NS has only a limited role in the evolution of life.

And finally, virtually everyone believes in the evolution, or the unfolding, as it were, of life.

The only issue is how much of that evolution can reasonably be expected to have resulted via RM+NS in the less than 10^40 cells in Earth’s 4 billion year history

George-O said: So it would be correct to say "I'm going to the mall to get some underwears?"

Vince said: Oops! I meant "you're" (long day teaching a daughter to dive a stick....)

Frank B said: ... I wish you could have lived as a surf in medieval Europe. ...

Nigel D said:

George-O said: So it would be correct to say "I'm going to the mall to get some underwears?"

No, George, it would be correct to say "I'm going to the shops to get some pants". There aren't any malls in Britain (well, except Pall Mall, but that rhymes with "spell" ;-) ).

"...or to suggest that two plus two equals anything but four"

I'm not a mathematician - I don't even play one at the Disco Institute - but I thought that two plus two totalled to more than four for very large values of two (and assuming information is conserved)?

wallyk said: As long as people reject the theory of evolution for religious reasons, there is going to be no end to this political conflict. And when it comes to public education, parents might feel that their children are being taught things as "true" which undermine the family's religious beliefs. Do students have a "right" to learn about the theory of evolution in public school?

Do parents have a right to decide that they don't want their kids exposed to certain ideas that they feel are corrupting?

How many people here have kids, and can see this issue from a parent's point of view? I think that for many parents, the situation is analogous with sex education, in that they don't consider it a good influence on the kids.

Ideally, you teach the idea of evolution. Unfortunately, the matter of a theory's status is going to come up. If a teacher candidly and honestly describes the theory as having solid support along such and such lines, you have a problem right there as far as the parents are concerned. If you are a parent who rejects evolution, you feel that your kids are being "lied to" or "brainwashed" when the teacher describes the theory of evolution as well established and solid.

There is not an issue of "academic freedom" but there is the issue of "parental freedom". I think that private schools might be a good option, but people here seem to be politically liberal and are more in favor of supporting public school.

Kevin B said: ...And yes, there is a mall in Britain. It is, in fact, The Mall, and (to return to the thread topic), it is where you might find the Washington Post, since it's the processional road between Admiralty Arch (Trafalgar Square) and the gates of Buckingham Palace, and so is somewhere that you might well find a military band playing Souza marches. ...

Nigel D, You are right, serf it is. It was a tough day at work yesterday. But come the revolution, it will be the Smurfs who are first against the wall, then the trolls.

Nigel D said:

Kevin B said: ...And yes, there is a mall in Britain. It is, in fact, The Mall, and (to return to the thread topic), it is where you might find the Washington Post, since it's the processional road between Admiralty Arch (Trafalgar Square) and the gates of Buckingham Palace, and so is somewhere that you might well find a military band playing Souza marches. ...

Does this mean that there is a Souza march called the Washington Post?

Frank B said: Nigel D, You are right, serf it is. It was a tough day at work yesterday. But come the revolution, it will be the Smurfs who are first against the wall, then the trolls.

Nigel D said:

Kevin B said: ...And yes, there is a mall in Britain. It is, in fact, The Mall, and (to return to the thread topic), it is where you might find the Washington Post, since it's the processional road between Admiralty Arch (Trafalgar Square) and the gates of Buckingham Palace, and so is somewhere that you might well find a military band playing Souza marches. ...

Does this mean that there is a Souza march called the Washington Post?

I haven't laughed so hard reading pieces on the Internet in years. Thanks ladies and gents for a most entertaining, if not quite (well...not at all) on topic set of responses. I about drowned my keyboard in coffee when the bit about 'teaching a daughter to dive a stick' came up, nevermind the digression on maths, pants, and physics. Thanks again!

From Suzan Mazur 3-4-2008 article, Mazur: Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution, (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00051.htm) :

.

“It's not Yasgur's Farm, but what happens at the Konrad Lorenz Institute in Altenberg, Austria this July promises to be far more transforming for the world than Woodstock. What it amounts to is a gathering of 16 biologists and philosophers of rock star stature – let's call them "the Altenberg 16" – who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence.”

.

Good article. Here’s an interesting quote from the article: “A wave of scientists now questions natural selection's relevance, though few will publicly admit it….

.

Imagine that, scientists unwilling to publicly question NS’s relevance. So Ben Stein’s Expelled had a point after all; but then no one s/b surprised that neo-Darwinism groupthink had problems after uber-neo-Darwinian Dawkins, explaining evolution to Stein, said that life here on earth may have been designed by space aliens. Bottom line: neo-Darwinian evolution by RM+NS groupthink may soon go the way of astrology. Oh happy day . . . and oh yes, after his performance in Expelled, most would agree that Dawkins is now Stein’s bitch.

You know, I don't mind the practice of moving an off-topic comment (like the one I made about having a good laugh from some of the comments on this thread) to the Bathroom Wall or wherever, but can a link or something be provided to the removal place on Panda's front page? I have never been able to find a comment that has been removed, and I know the one I left about an hour ago posted here briefly.

...well I feel sheepish...I see the post. My browser refused to refresh. Disregard previous request. [bows head in shame]

Bigbang quotemines thusly... Here’s an interesting quote from the article: “A wave of scientists now questions natural selection’s relevance, though few will publicly admit it…" And opines thusly... Imagine that, scientists unwilling to publicly question NS’s relevance. So Ben Stein’s Expelled had a point after all; but then no one s/b surprised that neo-Darwinism groupthink had problems...

Stevaroni says: “The relationship between NS, drift and mutation is only argued about here twice a week or so.”

.

Apparently you need to study the article a bit more closely----the issue involves far more than drift versus RM+NS. Hello?

And BTW, stevaroni, no one really doubts the role of mutations and selection in instances of, for example, microorganisms developing drug resistance, or in the instance of sickle cell and various other mutation in the human genome related to malaria resistance. The issue is only the edge of evolution by RM+NS.

.

Here’s another revealing anecdote from the article showing the mindset and groupthink of so many in the neo-Darwinian camp: “Curiously, when I [Suzan Mazur] called Kevin Padian, president of NCSE's board of directors and a witness at the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover trial on Intelligent Design, to ask him about the evolution debate among scientists – he said, "On some things there is not a debate." He then hung up.”

Sounds about as reasonable and open minded and as a YEC.

bigbang said: Stevaroni says: “The relationship between NS, drift and mutation is only argued about here twice a week or so.” . Apparently you need to study the article a bit more closely----the issue involves far more than drift versus RM+NS. Hello? And BTW, stevaroni, no one really doubts the role of mutations and selection in instances of, for example, microorganisms developing drug resistance, or in the instance of sickle cell and various other mutation in the human genome related to malaria resistance. The issue is only the edge of evolution by RM+NS. . Here’s another revealing anecdote from the article showing the mindset and groupthink of so many in the neo-Darwinian camp: “Curiously, when I [Suzan Mazur] called Kevin Padian, president of NCSE's board of directors and a witness at the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover trial on Intelligent Design, to ask him about the evolution debate among scientists – he said, "On some things there is not a debate." He then hung up.” Sounds about as reasonable and open minded and as a YEC.

And BTW, stevaroni, no one really doubts the role of mutations and selection in instances of, for example, microorganisms developing drug resistance, or in the instance of sickle cell and various other mutation in the human genome related to malaria resistance. The issue is only the edge of evolution by RM+NS.

bigbang said: Here’s another revealing anecdote from the article showing the mindset and groupthink of so many in the neo-Darwinian camp: “Curiously, when I [Suzan Mazur] called Kevin Padian, president of NCSE's board of directors and a witness at the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover trial on Intelligent Design, to ask him about the evolution debate among scientists – he said, "On some things there is not a debate." He then hung up.” Sounds about as reasonable and open minded and as a YEC.

Nigel D said:

Vince said: Oops! I meant "you're" (long day teaching a daughter to dive a stick....)

Anyone's daughter in particular...? Also, is "diving a stick" some modern euphemism for something...?

bigbang said: Stevaroni says: “The relationship between NS, drift and mutation is only argued about here twice a week or so.” . Apparently you need to study the article a bit more closely----the issue involves far more than drift versus RM+NS. Hello?

And BTW, stevaroni, no one really doubts the role of mutations and selection in instances of, for example, microorganisms developing drug resistance, or in the instance of sickle cell and various other mutation in the human genome related to malaria resistance. The issue is only the edge of evolution by RM+NS.

Here’s another revealing anecdote from the article showing the mindset and groupthink of so many in the neo-Darwinian camp: “Curiously, when I [Suzan Mazur] called Kevin Padian, president of NCSE's board of directors and a witness at the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover trial on Intelligent Design, to ask him about the evolution debate among scientists – he said, "On some things there is not a debate." He then hung up.” Sounds about as reasonable and open minded and as a YEC.

heavymetalthunder said: ... In non-communist regimes another tact was taken by the leaders of society because religion cannot be outlawed. The belief by most fanatic evolutionists is that they hope (Dawkins is a classic example) evolution will destroy belief in God for political reasons. ...

Flint said:

Science areas aren’t inextricably linked, or they wouldn’t be separable areas now, would they? Say increasingly linked, and it is closer to an actual truth.

No, inextricably is more nearly correct.

(In which case I must point out that it is superfluous with "inextricable". But that was bigbang's shorthand, not Flint's coherent picture.)

Draconiz said: A lot of them are philosophers though, and I think they would like to insert the ""will" and "mind" into the theory somehow. Sound kinda Neo-Lamarckian :P

Religion was banned in communist countries.

And so was evolution.

Arguing from consequences (at length!) will not affect that science gives us factual knowledge.

heavymetalthunder said: Religion was banned in communist countries.

john donovan said: For one I would introduce legislation to set up a standard for defining what a peer reviewed scientific theory consists of.

"Actually, it sounds as though Kevin Padian assumed that Suzan Mazur was actually a covert Creationist who was out fishing for soundbites about how scientists allegedly question whether evolution occurs or not, and had no intention of wasting his precious time and patience. After all, whenever a Creationist or Intelligent Design proponent mentions 'controversy' and 'evolution', they refer to the lie that there are allegedly a large group of scientists who question whether evolution occurs or not (as opposed to groups of scientists arguing and questioning how evolution occurs)."

Unfortunately, this is a rather accurate assessment of Susan Mazur's views, simply because I had heard her ask Jerry Coyne after his May 1st talk at Rockefeller University whether there was indeed a great controversy in evolution with regards to mechanism. Coyne said no, and noted that the only disagreement is with respect to mechanism. Her recent work has caught the attention of Bill Dumbski and his fellow Disco Tute IDiot Borg drones over at Uncommon Dissent; hopefully she'll wise up and try to distance herself from that interest.

Regards,

John

Well, you know how it is, Mr Kwok, when Creationists tear things up to fish for soundbites: they don't care about the meaning of anything just so long as they have fodder for slandering and lying.

phantomreader42 said:

heavymetalthunder said:

wallyk said: As long as people reject the theory of evolution for religious reasons, there is going to be no end to this political conflict. And when it comes to public education, parents might feel that their children are being taught things as "true" which undermine the family's religious beliefs. Do students have a "right" to learn about the theory of evolution in public school? Do parents have a right to decide that they don't want their kids exposed to certain ideas that they feel are corrupting? How many people here have kids, and can see this issue from a parent's point of view? I think that for many parents, the situation is analogous with sex education, in that they don't consider it a good influence on the kids. Ideally, you teach the idea of evolution. Unfortunately, the matter of a theory's status is going to come up. If a teacher candidly and honestly describes the theory as having solid support along such and such lines, you have a problem right there as far as the parents are concerned. If you are a parent who rejects evolution, you feel that your kids are being "lied to" or "brainwashed" when the teacher describes the theory of evolution as well established and solid. There is not an issue of "academic freedom" but there is the issue of "parental freedom". I think that private schools might be a good option, but people here seem to be politically liberal and are more in favor of supporting public school.

The conflict is created by people who want to force their beliefs on others while allowing no dissent. That is clearly using "science" in pursuit of a political agenda. That is the problem. Leading evolutionists are open about how they see evolution as a weapon against religious belief. It is obvious that that is the driving force in the conflict. It is pathetic that fanatic evolutionists think they are fooling anyone as to their true motivations and goals in their attemtp to be the thought police.

What a wonderful example of projection. Some nutcase who wants to destroy science and hijack the government to teach lies from ancient myths to children, declaring everyone ELSE a religious fanatic trying to force their beliefs on others. And the little asshat isn't even original! Just the same old creationist hallucinations, complete with blood libel. Your ilk has been documented planning precisely the things you're falsely accusing "evolutionists" of doing. Look up the fucking Wedge Strategy, an explicit call to use ID as a starting point for a theocracy. The only one here stupid enough to fall for your IDiotic blathering is YOU.

LowDensityPlasticBlunder exfoliated: The rest of the communist world taught Darwinian evolution and made religion illegal as well.

heavymetalthunder said: Because you believe that evolutionary theory can destroy belief in God and that is why you support it and fight for it, you prove the point I was making.

Because you believe that evolutionary theory can destroy belief in God and that is why you support it and fight for it, you prove the point I was making.

PvM says: “First of all as a Christian myself I have accepted the fact of evolution and the evolutionary theory explaining it.”

.

You seem to be lacking in intellectual honesty and/or rigor----neo-Darwinism unavoidably and inevitably engenders atheism. As uber-neo-Darwinian Dawkins notes: “The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from the agnostic position and towards atheism.”

bigbang said: PvM says: “First of all as a Christian myself I have accepted the fact of evolution and the evolutionary theory explaining it.” . You seem to be lacking in intellectual honesty and/or rigor----neo-Darwinism unavoidably and inevitably engenders atheism. As uber-neo-Darwinian Dawkins notes: “The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from the agnostic position and towards atheism.”

bigbang said: PvM says: “First of all as a Christian myself I have accepted the fact of evolution and the evolutionary theory explaining it.” . You seem to be lacking in intellectual honesty and/or rigor----neo-Darwinism unavoidably and inevitably engenders atheism.

As uber-neo-Darwinian Dawkins notes: “The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from the agnostic position and towards atheism.”

most creationists hold the irrational position that acceptance of evolution and faith are incompatible. This always stems from lack of understanding what the science says.

I think that creationists always confuse methodological naturalism with materialism.

Rilke's granddaughter said: most creationists hold the irrational position that acceptance of evolution and faith are incompatible. This always stems from lack of understanding what the science says.

I don't for a second think that most people here are out to destroy the faith of Christians. They are, however, rather upset when some Christians work to restrict the content of biology classes. It's mostly a matter of principle about the proper role of religion in public education (it shouldn't be there!).

As a practical matter, a high school biology class is going to spend very little time on the theory of evolution. I got interested in the subject after I graduated, because my Dad was opposed to evolution for religious reasons.

Evolution is a very important concept in modern biology. I think the idea of common descent should be explained along with the basic lines of supporting evidence. But in areas where there is a local population not thrilled with the idea of evolution, it could be presented in a less threatening fashion. Instead of stressing that "most biologists accept evolution" (even though true), just explain the basic reasons for acceptance of the theory.

I think that common descent is a much more important idea than natural selection for high school students. It should also be explained that common descent and natural selection are separate ideas, something that creationists seem to have trouble grasping at times.

Rilke's granddaughter said: most creationists hold the irrational position that acceptance of evolution and faith are incompatible. This always stems from lack of understanding what the science says.

If someone doesn’t believe that evolution is absolute truth then that person is out to “destroy science” and take over the government with some agenda from the middle ages, but if someone doesn’t believe in the Big Bang or string theory etc, then that is acceptable and they aren’t accused of trying to take over the government and destroy science? why is that?

People who say they do not accept the Theory of Evolution have actually written, in virtually so many words, that they want to replace existing science, take over the US government and impose a theocracy

Granddaughter says: “your rudeness and utter ignorance of both evolution and Christianity is striking. Evolution is orthogonal to faith.”

.

I do agree with your sentiments regarding Dawkins’s rudeness and ignorance. Regarding neo-Darwinism being orthogonal to faith, well yeah, I suppose one could say that neo-Darwinism is orthogonal to a lot of things, including the hard science of physics and the mathematical explanations of the universe.

.

Stanton asks: “Tell me who told you that Dawkins . . . actively seeks to destroy the faith of other scientists?”

.

You’re joking, right? If you’re not, then you simply must watch Ben Stein’s Expelled where Dawkins spills his guts.

RotundOne said:

People who say they do not accept the Theory of Evolution have actually written, in virtually so many words, that they want to replace existing science, take over the US government and impose a theocracy

All the people who do not accept evolution want to take over the government?

Given as how bigbang has revealed that he is nothing more than a perfidious bigot, can we send him to the Bathroom Wall, and be done with him?

RotundOne said:

People who say they do not accept the Theory of Evolution have actually written, in virtually so many words, that they want to replace existing science, take over the US government and impose a theocracy

All the people who do not accept evolution want to take over the government?

Stanton said:

RotundOne said:

People who say they do not accept the Theory of Evolution have actually written, in virtually so many words, that they want to replace existing science, take over the US government and impose a theocracy

All the people who do not accept evolution want to take over the government?

No, not all of them. Some evolution-deniers have organized into groups, and are funded by rich fundamentalists, such as Rushdoony and Ahmanson, and do have political allies. Like the Discovery Institute, for example.

Regarding my last comment, I misspoke, it wasn't my first comment but my second comment where I said:

"The hard core attempt to define “Truth” about the origins of life and the universe in the forcing of evolution on everyone as absolute truth, and the concomitant fanatic attack on those who disbelieve in evolution as “anti science” rather then as “anti-evolution”, is due to the desire to control what people believe about God and religion. I’m not saying everyone who believes in evolution has that reason in their belief, but it is the cause of the evolution fanatic and elites who want evolution enforced as unassailable sacrosanct truth. You don’t see such passion for other scientific theories because evolutionary theory is the only scientific theory which is seen as a weapon against religious belief and therefore is seen as a powerful political tool. Therefore competing beliefs are attacked as being the worst possible thing to happen to society e.g children will end up stupid, society will fall apart because “science” will be given up if people don’t believe in evolution, everyone will become a zombie, the world will end, etc etc etc."

You guys don’t seem to see the irony of your statements like the above. You scream and shout and call foul when historians show that nazis and commies used evolutionary theory, but then turn around and claim that anybody who believes in ID is a Rushdoony with some theocratic goal? WTF? How is that any different then claiming that if you support evolution then you must be a nazi eugenicist?

You don’t see such passion for other scientific theories because evolutionary theory is the only scientific theory which is seen as a weapon against religious belief and therefore is seen as a powerful political tool.

My point is that for fanatic evolutionists i.e those who try to suppress dissent from evolution and make hysterical claims about people who reject evolution, they are motivated by a political agenda, not a science agenda.

Mr. Larsson: Thanks for pointing to a misspelled word in my recent comment. Indeed, the common English spelling is boson, not bozon. My only excuse (if any) is that I regularly read the literature in several languages, and if related to physics, then most often in Russian, where the term "boson" is spelled in cyrillic in a way transliterated into English more closely as "bozon," so I just subconsciously used the spelling I am more accustomed to. Hopefully the misspelling did not cause a confusion as to what I referred to.

RotundOne said:

People who say they do not accept the Theory of Evolution have actually written, in virtually so many words, that they want to replace existing science, take over the US government and impose a theocracy

All the people who do not accept evolution want to take over the government?

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

heavymetalthunder said: Religion was banned in communist countries.

And so was evolution. Arguing from consequences (at length!) will not affect the fact that science gives us valid knowledge.

Richard Simons said:

RotundOne said:

People who say they do not accept the Theory of Evolution have actually written, in virtually so many words, that they want to replace existing science, take over the US government and impose a theocracy

All the people who do not accept evolution want to take over the government?

No, but some do and it makes others understandably nervous.

RotundOne said: There are people in the ID movement who want to 'take over' the government? Do mean as in a military coup a la Castro? Which ones are advocating this?

When I hear the phrase 'take over the government' it give me image of troops storming the white house. If someone wants to impose their values on the government is that not done every 4 years?

If someone wants undo the establishment clause I think our system gives the right to attempt to do it through a constitutional amendment.

Did this man say he wanted to undo the clause?

Did this man say he wanted to undo the clause?

heavymetalthunder said: At the top of the WaPo editorial is this little nugget which sums up the agenda of the editorialist "Red-herring arguments about ‘academic freedom’ can’t be allowed to undermine the teaching of evolution." The teaching of evolution cannot be “allowed to be undermined”? Pray tell why not Herr Oberführer? question: What is so important about evolutionary theory that it "cannot be allowed to be undermined"?

Science Avenger said:

heavymetalthunder said: At the top of the WaPo editorial is this little nugget which sums up the agenda of the editorialist "Red-herring arguments about ‘academic freedom’ can’t be allowed to undermine the teaching of evolution." The teaching of evolution cannot be “allowed to be undermined”? Pray tell why not Herr Oberführer? question: What is so important about evolutionary theory that it "cannot be allowed to be undermined"?

HMT's intellectual dishonesty is laid bare with his very first argument. The statement was that evolution cannot be allowed to be undermined by red-herring arguments about ‘academic freedom’, not that evolution cannot be allowed to be undermined at all . If someone doesn't say what he needs them to say, he just pretends they did. The facts don't support his arguments, so he simply makes them up as he goes. [yawn]

heavymetalthunder said: In other words there is no reason to allow any dissent from evolution because the matter is settled, evolution is true, there is no controversy, therefore anyone who says there is a controversy about the reliability of evolutionary theory must not be allowed to undermine evolution, must not, must not, must not be allowed, sieg heil comdrade!

heavymetalthunder said: Your stupidity is laid bare by your comment. Do you think that the author of that article will find any argument against evolution to be other then a "red herring" or some other reason that "evolution must not be allowed to be undermined"?

Did you read this part of the article?

In other words...

In other words there is no reason to allow any dissent from evolution because the matter is settled, evolution is true, there is no controversy, therefore anyone who says there is a controversy about the reliability of evolutionary theory must not be allowed to undermine evolution, must not, must not, must not be allowed, sieg heil comdrade!

BTW I’ve asked this of several other people with your attitude. So far, not one has shown that they even had a basic grasp of the theory.

wallyk said: It should also be explained that common descent and natural selection are separate ideas, something that creationists seem to have trouble grasping at times.

heavymetalthunder said: You guys don't seem to see the irony of your statements like the above. You scream and shout and call foul when historians show that nazis and commies used evolutionary theory,

Hey, heavymetalblunder, if you actually had the evidence evolutionary theory would be long gone. But you don't - all you have is silly rhetoric.

gregwrld said: Hey, heavymetalblunder, if you actually had the evidence evolutionary theory would be long gone. But you don't - all you have is silly rhetoric.

"Wow! James Chadwick might be a little surprised that his Nobel prize for the discovery of the neutron was based on a nonexistent particle."

Here is the information requested; however, it is taken out of context and will not mean anything unless you read The Quest for Right. Please know that it is not possible to publish the book online.

The year 1932 remained in the spotlight in that another important piece of the puzzle was uncovered, hence, completing the phenomenon of a charged particle's reversal moment. But, once again, the scene had been set via a previous prediction that would serve to veil the true character of the find. Sir Rutherford and other elementary physicists suggested that the current two-particle atom might be missing an element. The third particle would be of the same weight as a proton, but bear no electric charge. The hypothetical particle was christened a neutron. Thus, the stage was set for the mislabeling of an additional phenomenon.

The error was set in motion as two German elementary physicists, Bothe and Becker, bombarded the metal beryllium with strut bullets. When a strut struck a beryllium protruband, an impact energy wave propagated throughout the family cluster ushering sensitive members into a reversal moment. While the discharging of struts was not understood, it was expected. But, what Bothe and Becker could not have known is that a reversed-charged energy cell manifesting in an open field is discharged differently than one located in the prohibited area between two buttresses in place.

In an instance of a reversed-charged energy cell manifesting in the prohibited area between two buttresses in place, it is discharged two steps prior to one activated in an open field. As soon as the energy cell passes through its forward-neutral interval and begins to brandish a negative sign, it is immediately discharged from the presence of the immensely larger, more powerful buttresses. It is not adhered in place by its new negative sign and later discharged when the process reverses itself. Instead, the reversed-charged strut loses its newly acquired sign and passes through its reversed-neutral interval while speeding away from the protruband.

Returning to the experiment in which the metal beryllium was bombarded by strut bullets, Bothe and Becker discovered a neutrally charged particle flying away from the metal. Remember, Dr. Anderson's discovery of a reversed-charged buttress seemingly verified Dirac's prediction of antimatter. Bothe and Becker's find appeared to be the collection of another promissory note: Sir Rutherford's missing element that would be complementary to the proton and electron. Here was a neutrally charged particle with the apparent "same weight" as an energy cell (proton). Sir James Chadwick, an English physicist working under Sir Rutherford, proclaimed that the particle was the long searched for neutron that physicists had predicted would be found.

Unbeknownst to those involved, Bothe and Becker's discovery was actually that of a strut in its reversal moment at the precise moment of its reversed-neutral interval. The show of vanity was not a neutron, but a strut showing off its reversal moment. If the path of the little actor could have been followed, its mask of deception would have been lifted; the physicists would have detected the temporarily neutralized variant as it changed back into its true character, brandishing a steadily increasing positive sign. Although Bothe and Becker were unable to correctly determine the role of the actor, the investigation awards the pair credit for the discovery of a strut in its reversal moment at the precise moment of its reversed-neutral interval.

Sir Chadwick's misinterpretation, presented under the auspices of Sir Rutherford, was to further veil the true architecture of the charge. Rutherford's model was expanded to encompass the nonexistent neutron which was hailed to be an important building block of the nucleus. Consequently, the nuclei of the individual elements, with the exception of hydrogen, were designated a formulated number of neutrons.

Want to know about a particle's reversal moment? Read Volumes 1-3 of The Quest for Right. Physics will never be the same after this. http://questforright.com

C. David Parsons said: "Wow! James Chadwick might be a little surprised that his Nobel prize for the discovery of the neutron was based on a nonexistent particle." Here is the information requested; however, it is taken out of context and will not mean anything unless you read The Quest for Right. Please know that it is not possible to publish the book online. The year 1932 remained in the spotlight in that another important piece of the puzzle was uncovered, hence, completing the phenomenon of a charged particle's reversal moment. But, once again, the scene had been set via a previous prediction that would serve to veil the true character of the find. Sir Rutherford and other elementary physicists suggested that the current two-particle atom might be missing an element. The third particle would be of the same weight as a proton, but bear no electric charge. The hypothetical particle was christened a neutron. Thus, the stage was set for the mislabeling of an additional phenomenon. The error was set in motion as two German elementary physicists, Bothe and Becker, bombarded the metal beryllium with strut bullets. When a strut struck a beryllium protruband, an impact energy wave propagated throughout the family cluster ushering sensitive members into a reversal moment. While the discharging of struts was not understood, it was expected. But, what Bothe and Becker could not have known is that a reversed-charged energy cell manifesting in an open field is discharged differently than one located in the prohibited area between two buttresses in place. In an instance of a reversed-charged energy cell manifesting in the prohibited area between two buttresses in place, it is discharged two steps prior to one activated in an open field. As soon as the energy cell passes through its forward-neutral interval and begins to brandish a negative sign, it is immediately discharged from the presence of the immensely larger, more powerful buttresses. It is not adhered in place by its new negative sign and later discharged when the process reverses itself. Instead, the reversed-charged strut loses its newly acquired sign and passes through its reversed-neutral interval while speeding away from the protruband. Returning to the experiment in which the metal beryllium was bombarded by strut bullets, Bothe and Becker discovered a neutrally charged particle flying away from the metal. Remember, Dr. Anderson's discovery of a reversed-charged buttress seemingly verified Dirac's prediction of antimatter. Bothe and Becker's find appeared to be the collection of another promissory note: Sir Rutherford's missing element that would be complementary to the proton and electron. Here was a neutrally charged particle with the apparent "same weight" as an energy cell (proton). Sir James Chadwick, an English physicist working under Sir Rutherford, proclaimed that the particle was the long searched for neutron that physicists had predicted would be found. Unbeknownst to those involved, Bothe and Becker's discovery was actually that of a strut in its reversal moment at the precise moment of its reversed-neutral interval. The show of vanity was not a neutron, but a strut showing off its reversal moment. If the path of the little actor could have been followed, its mask of deception would have been lifted; the physicists would have detected the temporarily neutralized variant as it changed back into its true character, brandishing a steadily increasing positive sign. Although Bothe and Becker were unable to correctly determine the role of the actor, the investigation awards the pair credit for the discovery of a strut in its reversal moment at the precise moment of its reversed-neutral interval. Sir Chadwick's misinterpretation, presented under the auspices of Sir Rutherford, was to further veil the true architecture of the charge. Rutherford's model was expanded to encompass the nonexistent neutron which was hailed to be an important building block of the nucleus. Consequently, the nuclei of the individual elements, with the exception of hydrogen, were designated a formulated number of neutrons. Want to know about a particle's reversal moment? Read Volumes 1-3 of The Quest for Right. Physics will never be the same after this. http://questforright.com

I think he means “driving a stick(shift car),” Nigel.

— Stanton

bigbang said: PvM says: “First of all as a Christian myself I have accepted the fact of evolution and the evolutionary theory explaining it.” . You seem to be lacking in intellectual honesty and/or rigor----neo-Darwinism unavoidably and inevitably engenders atheism. As uber-neo-Darwinian Dawkins notes: “The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from the agnostic position and towards atheism.”

Instead of stressing that “most biologists accept evolution” (even though true), just explain the basic reasons for acceptance of the theory.

— Wallyk

wallyk said:

Rilke's granddaughter said: most creationists hold the irrational position that acceptance of evolution and faith are incompatible. This always stems from lack of understanding what the science says.

I have to disagree. The Christian religion does contain some historical claims, and those can conflict with scientific findings. Over time, they may decide that those claims are not really necessary to the core religious faith, and drop the cliams. Or, they may decide that doing so is giving too much away. It's hardly irrational.

And if a person has to choose between his religious beliefs and modern science, it seems to me that he would find his religious beliefs more important to his own life.

A little perspective might help. Remind people of faith that religous ideas have changed over time. Of course, they may feel that this is the problem.

bigbang said: Granddaughter says: “your rudeness and utter ignorance of both evolution and Christianity is striking. Evolution is orthogonal to faith.” . I do agree with your sentiments regarding Dawkins’s rudeness and ignorance. Regarding neo-Darwinism being orthogonal to faith, well yeah, I suppose one could say that neo-Darwinism is orthogonal to a lot of things, including the hard science of physics and the mathematical explanations of the universe. . Stanton asks: “Tell me who told you that Dawkins . . . actively seeks to destroy the faith of other scientists?” . You’re joking, right? If you’re not, then you simply must watch Ben Stein’s Expelled where Dawkins spills his guts.

C. David Parsons - have you not ever heard of paragraphs? They make text significantly easier to read.

C. David Parsons said: [something incoherent on denying neutrons, instead of on creationism]

Nigel D said: As for your and Stanton's contentions about Dawkins, it should be easy enough for you to find some quotes from his writing in which he exhorts all scientists to abandon their faith. That is, assuming that you are right and Stanton is not. If you cannot do this simple thing, then maybe you should acknowledge that, whatever Dawkins says about his own lack of faith in anything divine, he never actually tries to proselytise his atheism directly to other people. Instead, I contend that he writes about it and leaves others to make up their own minds.

Tell me who told you that Dawkins was made the Pope of Evolutionary Biology and who told you that he actively seeks to destroy the faith of other scientists?

Stanton, thanks for the correction. I had returned to the thread after a hiatus and did not pick up on all of the preceding posts. You are right, of course. I would be surprised indeed if bigbang replies in a way that addresses the point.

Your stupidity is laid bare by your comment. Do you think that the author of that article will find any argument against evolution to be other then a "red herring" or some other reason that "evolution must not be allowed to be undermined"? Did you read this part of the article? "What's insidious about these measures is that at first blush they appear so harmless. Isn't everyone in favor of academic freedom? What's so wrong about allowing all sides of an issue to be heard? Why should teachers be punished for speaking their minds? Those arguments might have standing if there were any doubt about the reality of evolution, but, as an official with the National Academy of Sciences told the Wall Street Journal, "There's no controversy." In other words there is no reason to allow any dissent from evolution because the matter is settled, evolution is true, there is no controversy, therefore anyone who says there is a controversy about the reliability of evolutionary theory must not be allowed to undermine evolution, must not, must not, must not be allowed, sieg heil comdrade!

In other words there is no reason to allow any dissent from evolution because the matter is settled, evolution is true

therefore anyone who says there is a controversy about the reliability of evolutionary theory must not be allowed to undermine evolution

You are all funny. All you evolutionists and quasi-evolutionists are hilarious! What if there was a global flood? What if all you understood about evolution could be explained by the flood? How does believing in evolution (because it is a theory of origins, not fact) help you sleep at night? I pray for all your souls dear brethren. I pray that the Holy Spirit guide you and that God reveal Himself to you through His creation. Ultimately, it matters not what you believe but Who you believe in. If it makes you feel better to believe that science is telling you that the earth is billions of years old and that we evolved from apes, then have at it. Just the intricacies alone of the human eye are enough to tell me that I was intelligently and fearfully designed and created. Your failed abilities to dismiss creationists and Christians is comical and you all write for the benefit of each other (no doubt hoping to secure . I was honestly seeking an answer about evolution but am now just more convinced that creation needs to be taught MORE, not less. Your disdain for Christianity, God and God's Word resonates to heaven. I pray that you learn who God is and commit your lives to Him.

Jesus Saves said: Your failed abilities to dismiss creationists and Christians is comical and you all write for the benefit of each other (no doubt hoping to secure . I was honestly seeking an answer about evolution but am now just more convinced that creation needs to be taught MORE, not less. Your disdain for Christianity, God and God's Word resonates to heaven. I pray that you learn who God is and commit your lives to Him.

You are all funny. All you evolutionists and quasi-evolutionists are hilarious!

What if there was a global flood?

What if all you understood about evolution could be explained by the flood?

How does believing in evolution (because it is a theory of origins, not fact) help you sleep at night?

I pray for all your souls dear brethren. I pray that the Holy Spirit guide you and that God reveal Himself to you through His creation.

Ultimately, it matters not what you believe but Who you believe in.

If it makes you feel better to believe that science is telling you that the earth is billions of years old and that we evolved from apes, then have at it.

Just the intricacies alone of the human eye are enough to tell me that I was intelligently and fearfully designed and created.

Your failed abilities to dismiss creationists and Christians is comical and you all write for the benefit of each other (no doubt hoping to secure .

I was honestly seeking an answer about evolution

but am now just more convinced that creation needs to be taught MORE, not less.

Your disdain for Christianity, God and God’s Word resonates to heaven. I pray that you learn who God is and commit your lives to Him.

PvM said: You are slightly confused my fellow Christian friend, evolution is not about dismissing Christianity, just the interpretations of some religious people who foolishly ignore what God is telling them and insist on their own personal interpretation being the best. Trust, me, millions of Christians have no problem with evolutionary theory. Thank God.

Jesus Saves said: Your failed abilities to dismiss creationists and Christians is comical and you all write for the benefit of each other (no doubt hoping to secure . I was honestly seeking an answer about evolution but am now just more convinced that creation needs to be taught MORE, not less. Your disdain for Christianity, God and God's Word resonates to heaven. I pray that you learn who God is and commit your lives to Him.

What if there was a global flood?

— Jesus Saves, at an AER of 0.7%

If there had ever been a global flood, there would still be a global flood.

Nigel D said:

What if there was a global flood?

— Jesus Saves, at an AER of 0.7%

If there had ever been a global flood, there would still be a global flood.

why is having to believe that an apocalyptic flood occurred, even though no physical evidence of its effects or passage exist, a dire prerequisite for salvation for Christians?