Third Party & Independents: Archives

Damn, you’re on a roll Martin. Good job and you always point out excellent articles. I will be damned if the government teaches my school to teach me intelligent design. Genesis doesn’t work either because God created light before the Sun was created. The plants were around before that. With that being said, the plants need photosynthesis to survive. Again, it proves that it is nothing more than a myth. My Methodist Pastor told me this once, “it is the job of the government to make sure people stay out of trouble and are somewhat educated; it is the churches job to teach about God.” Bingo. I am sick of the dispensationalist. In this forum, it is time Edward to build up our coalition against the opposing force whom are intent on brainwashing me and others. If you want to brainwash someone, when do you start? When they are young. We need David Remer on our team as well as you and others. This is going to be an intensive debate. Thumps up Martin.

Posted by: Leon S. Blythe at March 14, 2005 01:58 PM

Mr. Martin said: “Some may point to the bible as compelling evidence of Intelligent Design, but once again, nothing in the bible can be proved; it is all conjecture, written over the span of at least 500 years and by different men with their own agenda.”

I am glad you brought this to the fore. The History Channel has an excellent program on the Gospel from an archeological and scientific perspective in which it has now been established that 1) We have no original text from any of the apostles, 2) we have multiple versions of some of the apostles texts, each with deletions, additions, and changed interpretations, which goes to show that even if the apostle’s words were divinely inspired, they were edited, changed, deleted and added to by many scribes of different languages. Also, the correlations between stories found in the Bible and very similar stories found in a number of other religions, but not the same, lends even more credence to the Bible borrowing heavily from myth and lore preceding Moses, or any of the apostles.

I say, if Creationism is mentioned, these historical facts be found in the same text.

Posted by: David R Remer at March 14, 2005 02:13 PM

VEM
As you said, (human) evolution is a THEORY based on ASSUMPTIONS.
It too was written over a span of time and by different men with their own agendas.

If neither is a fact, then why should either of them be taught in public schools?

Posted by: kctim at March 14, 2005 02:19 PM

kctim,

Because one (evolution) is a scientific theory and one (intelligent design) is a religious theory. In science, a theory is much different than it is in common speech.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena.

Unfortunately, people often confuse the meanings, so they think evolution is equivalent to creation because creation is also called a theory. However, scientifically, creation is a hypothesis:
a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; “a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory”.

So, let’s teach scientific theories in science class and keep religious, untestable hypotheses from uselessly confusing the conversation. After all, if we get rid of all scientific theories from science class, we’ll have to get rid of planets, gravity, atoms, plate tectonics, photosynthesis, etc.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 14, 2005 02:30 PM

KCTim—

Evolution is a theory backed by (some) scientific fact…Creationism, or Intelligent Design if you prefer does not.

Posted by: V. Edward Martin at March 14, 2005 02:35 PM

kctim,
Mind you that 60% of scientists believe in the evolution theory. I have a feeling that you do not know much about evolution and have joined the simplistic, narrow-minded, religious right in the intelligent design. I am a Deist by the way but you have to make a distinction. Evolution belongs in Science and creation, no matter what it is, belongs in Theology. The ironic thing is that the things the Religious Right lobbys for will backfire. Catholics can’t agree with Protestants, and so forth; either way, you get the picture. Lawsuits and complaints would pile up the Board of Education and we have another unwanted problem in an already failing public education. Now, we have already established that “intelligent design” belongs in theology. Now, Muslims and Jews will want their ideology taught in the public schools in the class of Theology. What if a Christian kid found more meaning in Islam than Christianity? Do you see what I mean? The Christian is bound to be offended and guess what, the whole, “you brainwashed my kid and now he worships Allah” lawsuit will be on Court TV. A giant pile of dookie will happen in the public education system, when public education is bad enough as is. You should reconsider your stance. And for everyone else who supports this non sense, heed my warning; a lot of problems will happen because of this and once it is enacted in schools, it will be a long time before it is taken out.

Posted by: Leon S. Blythe at March 14, 2005 02:41 PM

LB
It is still a “theory” though, not a fact. Therefore, it could be wrong.

Why would we have to “get rid” of the things you listed? Can we not actually see, observe and measure those things? Just curious.

Lastly, what experimental testing have we done that has produced a human as the end result?

I ask because I am curious. Both are flawed and neither are fact.
Schools should only teach facts unless it is a specific class, such as “theoretical science” or “Intelligent design.”

Posted by: kctim at March 14, 2005 02:49 PM

VEM
“Evolution is a theory backed by (some) scientific fact.”

by (some)? That is not what schools are supposed to teach. They are supposed to teach facts. Create elective classes for “theories” if you want, but I want my kids to learn facts.

“Creationism, or Intelligent Design if you prefer does not.”

I really don’t prefer either. They both mean nothing to me. Sorry.

Leon
“I have a feeling that you do not know much about evolution and have joined the simplistic, narrow-minded, religious right in the intelligent design”

Actually, evolution makes more sense to me than ID but that does not make it a FACT.
I’m an atheist, the rest of your baiting means nothing to me. Good try though.

Posted by: kctim at March 14, 2005 02:56 PM

LawnBoy,
You are correct in that the scientific definition of a theory differs greatly from the defintion found in common speech. All scientific ideas go through a process called the scientific method. First, an idea is considered a hypothisis until it has survived substantial experimentation and testing. At this point the idea becomes a theory. The third and final phase is only achieved by a minority of all scientific ideas. These ideas are termed laws and are known to definitely be true through decades and decades of scrutiny, and the process of turning any theory into law would be extremely difficult. In fact the only laws we have to my knowledge are the laws of gravity, motion, thermodynamics and superpostion (sediment found on top of other sediment must be younger than the underlying sediment). But being a theory is still very respectable in terms of the proof supporting a theory and this respect for theories should be shown by all science curricula.

Kctim,
If schools are only supposed to teach facts (scientfic laws) then they should not teach the wave nature of electromagnetic radeiation (light and heat), the theory of Plate Tectonics or the theory of gravity. Much of science is based on theories, especially science dealing with the past and other places we can not physically travel to. And remember, theories are just short of being facts, probably a 90% certainty that they are true.

Posted by: Warren at March 14, 2005 03:14 PM

It is still a “theory” though, not a fact. Therefore, it could be wrong.

Why would we have to “get rid” of the things you listed? Can we not actually see, observe and measure those things? Just curious.

Because getting rid of evolution because it’s not fact is equivalent to getting rid of plate tectonics because it’s not fact. Following your logic, the only thing we could teach about plate tectonics is that some mountains go boom sometimes and sometimes the earth shakes. We couldn’t teach that plates move around on molten rock because that’s not strictly fact. We couldn’t teach what we know about what parts of the world are dangerous because that would require thought and interpretation that is not strictly fact.

The only thing we could teach about atoms is… nothing. Literally.

You see, without theories and what isn’t directly observed, it’s impossible to have science. Without theories like evolution, science classes would be limited to lists of observations and teachers couldn’t say anything about what caused them because nothing is ever truly known to the level you require of evolution.

Lastly, what experimental testing have we done that has produced a human as the end result?

None, but that wasn’t the claim. Evolution, however, has provided ample experimental insight many times. No other hypothesis comes close.

I ask because I am curious. Both are flawed and neither are fact.

…but only one survives rigorous scientific inquiry.

Schools should only teach facts unless it is a specific class, such as “theoretical science” or “Intelligent design.”

They are supposed to teach facts. Create elective classes for “theories” if you want, but I want my kids to learn facts.

As I said, this proposal would mean the death of scientific education. Without theories and conjectures, science is just a collection of anecdotes and ideas, no better than a box of Trivial Pursiut questions. Theories and logic and investigation are what make science science.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 14, 2005 03:21 PM

kctim,
“Why would we have to “get rid” of the things you listed? Can we not actually see, observe and measure those things? Just curious.”

I don’t understand your first question so you will have to rephrase it. I am not aware of saying that something had to be rid of, other then intelligent design in Science. If that is the case, I don’t see where your, “can we not see, observe, and measure those things;” makes any sense.

“Lastly, what experimental testing have we done that has produced a human as the end result?”

Are we talking about Evolution or Cloning?

“Actually, evolution makes more sense to me than ID but that does not make it a FACT.
I’m an atheist, the rest of your baiting means nothing to me. Good try though.”

If that is the case, then I don’t think you have a reason to post on this board. This is a battle between Evolution and Intelligent Design. If your objective is to just make Evolution look bad and ignore Intelligent Design, then you are just taking this board off track in my opinion. I would think an Atheist knows better, but then again; you must still be sensitive in that the thought of you evolving from a monkey offends you. I am not sure about either one, but in order to correct the problem, you need a solution. Do you have an alternative, that can be scientifically based, for Evolution? If not, then I don’t see why are you complaining.

“I really don’t prefer either. They both mean nothing to me. Sorry.”

Do you have a problem with teachers to cause students to think of where their origins are from? You don’t like, nor want either to be taught. Perhaps, as an Atheist, you just feel inferior to your origins and thus no one else should ponder and discover what we have yet to find out.

Posted by: Leon S. Blythe at March 14, 2005 03:27 PM

Ok. Let’s accept, for argument’s sake, kctim’s stance that evolution theory is the same as any other (i.e. non-scientific) theory, and “could be wrong.”

The evolution theory has a great deal of solid, tangible evidence to back it up.

Creationism has NONE!

Which of these is more credible?

I think that all these people attempting to discredit scientific theory were the same people who, decades ago, were complaining about being required to take science, history and literature classes when they’ve decided to study business admin, for example. Most likely they took the slacker’s route - slept through class, crammed for tests and essentially flushed any subjects outside their interest.

It’s now come around.

Posted by: Sleemoth at March 14, 2005 03:29 PM

Yes, it is amazing how many people just don’t get it, and think they have the right to impose THEIR beliefs on others, and fear those that don’t believe as they do.

Why can’t the public schools just teach the provable facts? There’s no place for religion in public schools. And if we’re going to have religion in public schools and courts, which one will it be?

Regarding evolution…there is staggering evidence to support the existence of evolution. That does mean evolution is necessarily in conflict with creationism.

For someone argue for religion in public schools (their own religion that is) demonstrates intolerance and lack of fairness. If we’re going to be fair about it, we should all take turns each day saying a morning prayer of a different religion (provided there are enough days in the year).
And for aethists, no prayer for that day. See how ridiculous the situation becomes. The most sensible thing to do is keep religion out of public schools, the courts, and government. That does not violate anyone’s rights, and everyone can still worship as they please.

It’s all about power, control, and intolerance of anyone with different beliefs, and a thinly veiled attempt at it also.

Posted by: Daniel . . . at March 14, 2005 03:30 PM

Blah blah blah “theory equals not true” blah blah blah.

scientific definition of theory:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Gravity is still a theory. Relativity is still a theory. Hell, electricity is a theory - we’ve never even observed electrons.

TalkOrigins is a good resource for anyone interested. Most of the anti-evolution claims can be found rebutted there.

Posted by: ceejayoz at March 14, 2005 03:41 PM

Daniel,
I am gleeful and surprised that you take the Evolution stance for a religious person. To one of your questions…

“Why can’t the public schools just teach the provable facts?”

Someone explained that above with Science, theories and facts.

Posted by: Leon S. Blythe at March 14, 2005 03:42 PM

Leon,

Check the email addresses. They’re different Daniels.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 14, 2005 03:47 PM

Oh, boy. Wow. This is a pretty big subject. And on these boards, at least, I have the feeling that my position is going to be very much a minority position, and that I’ll be arguing against some of the finest minds on this board. I just wish I were equal to the challenge. But, equal or not, I enter the fray …

I recently read a book called Has Science Found God by Victor Stenger, which was a categorical denial of any and all scientific evidence for creation (or the supernatural at all). In other words, I think it’s probably a book the vast majority of you would like. Aside from what seems to me to be some extremely dubious quantum mechanical hand-waving to get around a beginning, he also harshly debunked Intelligent Design. Because I am no expert in Information Theory, I’m not going to try to argue for the correctness of Intelligent Design as currently stated.

However, I don’t think Intelligent Design is necessarily bunk. When we look at a watch or look at a seashore, we consider one to be a product of an intelligent designer, the other to be the product of purposeless waves … unless we see a sandcastle. At the moment, I’m not arguing that our universe looks like purposeless waves or a sandcastle, I’m just saying that any reasonable person has a mental ability to distinguish between design and nature. It seems to me that some scientific investigation is in order for how it is that we can recognize that one thing is designed and other is not. Perhaps there are some scientific, rational, objective principles we can apply to determining if something is designed or not. It’s too early to give up on the search yet. Aside from being useful to creationists, it could also be of use in a search for extra-terrestrial intelligence as we try to see if certain things we aren’t familiar with are the products of design.

If evolution were true, I would not consider it the end of the world for my faith. My greatest issue with regard to my faith would be the idea of a human mind evolving, since I’m of the opinion that we are qualitatively different from the rest of the animal kingdom, not merely quantitatively different. I have problems with several issues in evolution - perhaps you can help me.

I have issues with spontaneous generation - with life being born from non-life. As we plumb the depths of cellular life-forms, the sheer complexity of it is overwhelming. The entire organism is so tremendously inter-related, with so many parts depending on the proper functioning of so many other parts, the idea of such an organism coming into existence based on the purposeless movements of certain molecules seems patently absurd. As far as I know, evolutionists are holding out for the discovery of some “self-organizing principle” which would allow amino acids to “naturally” combine in the proper forms. Until such a “self-organizing principle” is found and well tested, I will continue to regard the idea as rather dubious.

I have issues with macro-evolution. I have no problem with micro-evolution, the idea that, over time, you can change certain characteristics of an organism. Dog breeders can make long-haired dogs and short-haired dogs and big dogs and small dogs, but they cannot make cats. I’m pretty sure that the potential DNA combinations of any single species have a built-in wall of how far you can go. For example, we’re pretty much at the limit for breeding small dogs - it becomes increasingly difficult to breed smaller and smaller dogs. And, in the absence of our human-applied pressure to the species, it would swiftly revert to the norm. I certainly believe an environment can exert pressure on an organism that favors certain combinations, like long hair or short hair. But I also think that once the pressure becomes too great, the organism will die, not change into another form.

I have issues with mutation being the driving force behind change in a species. DNA is so carefully balanced that any tinkering is overwhelmingly likely to be negative, not positive. The odds are horrible, and even four or five billion years is not enough, in my opinion and to my knowledge.

I have issues regarding “irreducible complexity” in organs like the eye or like those of the bombardier beetle. To get either to be useful at all, they require so many inter-connected parts that the idea of them evolving over time seems absurd.

I have issues regarding transitional forms. Yes, you have a few examples of things that look like transitional forms. But we ought to be swimming in them, with the number of species we have alive.

I have issues regarding the emergence of human beings. Why on earth would evolution produce us? Or anything, really, beyond bacteria. News flash - nature cares about nothing but survival and efficiency. The human race is not the most likely to survive, and it is not the most efficient. Provided we don’t blow ourselves off the face of the earth first, we’re going to go extinct in a few million years anyway because of the slow degradation of our DNA. The species that are really likely to survive and thrive are bacteria and viruses. I think that evolution would favor their formation, not that of human beings. We are dead ends, evolutionarily speaking.

To me, evolution is a theory with problems. Until they’re fixed, I don’t feel much pushing me to accept it, other than peer pressure.

If we’re going to teach evolution in schools, can’t we also teach the flaws of the theory? Why do we present it as if it were sacred … almost religiously important?

Posted by: Daniel at March 14, 2005 03:49 PM

Oh, I feel stupid LOL.

Posted by: Leon S. Blythe at March 14, 2005 03:50 PM

To some degree, I guess you could say I have no problems with evolution, just with saying that evolution alone is enough to account for the observable biological world. Not from where I’m standing, it isn’t.

Earlier, Leon said that Genesis was ridiculous because it has plants before the sun. I’ve rebutted this point over on the Democratic side of the forum, under “Addicted to Hate”

Posted by: Daniel at March 14, 2005 03:56 PM

I have issues regarding transitional forms. Yes, you have a few examples of things that look like transitional forms. But we ought to be swimming in them, with the number of species we have alive.

They are all around us. The problem is that we’re seeing them as they are right now, not at transitions from one form to another. We just don’t have the perspective to see it.

Think about seeing a single cel from a cartoon. If you have the perspective to see what’s before it and after it, you see motion. However, if you just see one image, you don’t know that, and you could very possibly think that the cel is a finished painting independent of other images. You need the perspective of time to see change.

If we’re going to teach evolution in schools, can’t we also teach the flaws of the theory? Why do we present it as if it were sacred … almost religiously important?

We should teach the flaws, and we do. It gets taught more defensively than other scientific fields simply because there are people who try to tear it down for religious reasons. If the majority religion of the country thought that atomic theory were heretical, you could bet there’d be a similar debate.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 14, 2005 03:59 PM

Now, as to the “Is it any wonder Johnny can’t compete” part of it, who knows? Perhaps teaching “Intelligent Design” will get all the atheist and agnostic (and other, perhaps) parents to wake up, to teach their kids firmly what why they hold to a non-miraculous theory for the world’s existence, and to take a greater interest in their schools. At the moment, teaching evolution in schools is a great motivation for me as a future parent to carefully train my kids in what I think are the weaknesses of the theory.

Posted by: Daniel at March 14, 2005 04:01 PM

Lawnboy -

No, we don’t teach the flaws, at least not often. I’ve scanned through a fair number of biology texts that we present kids, and none of them (except those coming from a Christian viewpoint) are critical of the theory of evolution or point out flaws. The ones I have cited are mostly drawn from my Christian reading on the subject, though one or two are of my own invention.

Posted by: Daniel at March 14, 2005 04:04 PM

Daniel, we have ample before the eyes evolution in virii and bacteria in laboratories. There is no credibility gap here for those who choose empirical evidence as sufficient. Of course, there are many who don’t - but, hey, they probably invest in the stock market based on astrological charts.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 14, 2005 04:06 PM

True the Theory of Evolution is just a theory, but at least there are some science backing the assumptions that man evolved over time from primitive creatures who share a common ancestry with apes, monkeys etc. Science bares [sic] this out; science on the other hand offers no proof that one all-mighty being created all we see on Earth and the Universe. Therefore I submit again that there is no place for Intelligent Design in the public schools.

VEM - The reason many of us now advocate teaching Intelligent Design as opposed to Judeo-Christian creationism is that we recognize that the nature or acts of God are outside the purvue of science. However, ample evidence exists to suggest that our universe was created by an intelligent designer. Showing that evidence to students alongside the evidence for the Big Bang theory and evolutionary theory would be an acceptable option to me and most other Christians.

I’m at work and don’t have time to go into evidence for I.D., but it includes things such as the decay of the earth’s magnetic field, the small amount of magma on earth and the rate of produceton, the small amount of “space dust” (all are evidence of a short earth lifespan), the sheer complexity of biological matter, especially single-cellular organisms, the total lack of scientific proof of spontaneous generation, the lack of numerous examples of “bridge” species, etc. To say that Intelligent Design is not a scientifically grounded theory is to admit that you have not studied it.

You have to hand it to the Christian Right, they are nothing if not determined to force their narrow-minded views informed by the Bible and faith on us all

I’m saying that you are wrong; you are saying that I am narrowminded. Which of us is more intolerant? Posted by: Chops at March 14, 2005 04:08 PM

Now, as to the 60% of scientists support evolution, I consider that a testimony to the power of peer pressure. Right now, most of you probably consider me (at least to some degree) a religious nutcase who opposes evolution because he needs a creator-god to give him the warm fuzzies, not out of any rational conviction that evolution is false. The pressure is worse in universities and graduate work. How many students want the scorn of their professors, or are willing to stand up and challenge the status quo? They’ll just look stupid. Besides, their professional careers could be threatened. I’ve heard of professors who actively sabotage the careers of their students who don’t believe in evolution. There isn’t much motivation to seek out the facts, and there’s a lot of motivation to conform to the prevailing orthodoxy. And nobody wants to become a religious outcast.

Posted by: Daniel at March 14, 2005 04:09 PM

Daniel,
I will read over it again. I mostly skimmed through it.

Lawnboy,
I find it funny that the religionists try to tear down Evolution so much. The reason I find it funny is their basis for proof. The auschuries of Joseph, the brother of Jesus has been proven to be a forgery. The same thing with the Shroud of Turin. The Religious Right will jump all over something, “hey, this is PROOF” only to be proven false. They are simply desparate. Were they not the same group that tried to make sure the Galileo observation was not exposed to the public? Were they not the same people who constantly try to guilt someone in conscience on abortion, stem cell research, and cloning? The Religious Right has constantly tried to debunk anything that hurts their cause on a scientific basis, because let’s face it; their proof or faith is very scant in evidence. I have even heard people make a strong case that Jesus did not even exist. Evolution is just another example of the Religious Right trying to stop this because it hurts Genesis and their agenda. When is it going to stop? I don’t think it ever will but it is up to us and the scientists to defend and fight our theories over metaphysical googly glok; in order to preserve an intelligent populace as these intelligent people will one day discover and invent things that we could never have imagined. The Religious Right is simply inferior to Science.

Posted by: Leon S. Blythe at March 14, 2005 04:12 PM

things such as the decay of the earth’s magnetic field, the small amount of magma on earth and the rate of produceton, the small amount of “space dust” (all are evidence of a short earth lifespan)

To my knowledge, all those factors agree with the prevailing 13-15 billion year standpoint. Young-earth creationists argue that they point to a 6,000-10,000 year old earth, but their rebuttals have been around for twenty years. Please don’t try to use them; they make us look ignorant.

Posted by: Daniel at March 14, 2005 04:13 PM

LB and Warren
Thanks for your opinions you provided, very interesting to say the least.
I still don’t believe either should be taught in public schools as fact.

Leon
“This is a battle between Evolution and Intelligent Design”

The title says “teaching biblical script” and Mr. Martins post talks about teaching both “ideas” not “facts” in public schools.

“I don’t see why are you complaining.”

I was asking questions and hoping for answers from the people who know more about this subject than you and I.

“Do you have a problem with teachers to cause students to think of where their origins are from?”

Hmmmm? So I should take your WORD that evolution is the answer but yet not take the WORD of someone who says ID is the answer. Neither of you have facts on your side.
There is also alot of FAITH needed to believe in evolution.

“you just feel inferior to your origins”

Inferior? Na. I just refuse to be a hypocrite, dismiss one over the other based on “ideas” and not “facts” and take sides based on my hatred of a political party or someones religion.

“and thus no one else should ponder and discover what we have yet to find out.”

That seems to be what you are saying if it involves religion as a possible answer.

Slee
“Most likely they took the slacker’s route”

I have NEVER voted for a liberal in my life so I doubt if I took this route you mention. LOL!!!

Posted by: kctim at March 14, 2005 04:14 PM

The auschuries of Joseph, the brother of Jesus has been proven to be a forgery. The same thing with the Shroud of Turin.

To my knowledge, conservative evangelicals have always held those to be bunk. Most of those icons are patently ridiculous - don’t get my started on the “Spear of Longinus”

Posted by: Daniel at March 14, 2005 04:15 PM

Yeah… in case anyone didn’t notice, clearly “Daniel…” and “Daniel” are not the same people.

For public schools, I don’t think a class teaching Biblical creationism would be appropriate, since it would be an establishment of specific religion(s). However, a broad “intelligent design” counterpoint to macro evolution seems sensible. Without a counterpoint, I don’t believe evolution should be taught in public schools.

Posted by: Gandhi at March 14, 2005 04:19 PM

I’m at work and don’t have time to go into evidence for I.D., but it includes things such as the decay of the earth’s magnetic field, the small amount of magma on earth and the rate of produceton, the small amount of “space dust” (all are evidence of a short earth lifespan),

And here the lie behind I.D. is exposed. Short earth lifespan is necessary to support the Genesis creation story, not I.D. I.D. theoretically doesn’t complain about the timespan of evolution, just the motivation and cause.

So, you defend Intelligent Design because some evidence might (Daniel disagrees) agree with the Biblical creation story.

What does I.D. have to do with science again?

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 14, 2005 04:20 PM

David -

Daniel, we have ample before the eyes evolution in virii and bacteria in laboratories.

Bacteria and viruses have enormous malleability in the world of micro-evolution. Their DNA can support enormous changes (comparatively). But, to my knowledge, no-one has produced a multi-celled organism from a single-celled organism, let alone a tadpole or minnow.

Please understand, I don’t dispute micro-evolution, only macro-evolution. It’s inter-species change that I find dubious, not intra-species change.

Posted by: Daniel at March 14, 2005 04:20 PM

Lawnboy -

I object! As I read it, the Bible is compatible with an ancient earth. I laid out the creation story as I think Genesis paints in my post in “Addicted to Hate”

Posted by: Daniel at March 14, 2005 04:23 PM

It is futile to debate evolution with Creationists because evolution is based on empirical science which is based on logic. Creationists don’t require either logic or empiricism to believe, hence, persuasion is futile.

I like however the philosophical example I heard once. The analogy is about lawn mowers. To Mr. B., a person with only a one cylinder lawn mower and a tall tale mentor, two versions of how internal combustion are presented to him.

The Tall tale mentor explains that inside the engine are gremlins which gulp liquid gasoline and fart hot expansive gases. IF the Gremlins don’t get fed, the engine stops. Feed them gasoline and shock them with a key switch to wake them up, and the engine runs.

Now Mr. B’s lawn mower came with an explantion of how the single cylinder internal combustion engine functions with expolosive gasoline being ignited by an electrical spark.

Which is Mr. B to believe. Well, Mr. B. has to choose to believe one or the other. If Mr. B. is a skeptic, he will remove the head on his lawn mower, and look inside the cylinder for gremlins. Failing to see any, he will remove the piston to see if they are underneath. If they are not found, he will likely choose to believe the manual that came with the mower.

If on the other hand, Mr. B. is not a skeptic, but a follower and believer in the tall tale mentor, unquestioningly accepting every word as truth, the only truth, and nothing but the truth, Mr. B. will choose to believe in the gremlins.

If you force Mr. B. to watch as you dismantle the engine and show him there are no gremlins, he will likely reply with something like: they can’t stand daylight and died and evaporated when the first ray of light entered into the cylinder. That is the way Gremlins are, you know. That’s is why no one has ever seen a gremlin. Simple.

I love that story, and am reminded of it anytime a true believer wants to debate.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 14, 2005 04:24 PM

kctim,
Thanks for your answers.

Daniel,
Everytime I post something, more posts appear for me to read. I will wait until it slows down until I can thoroughly examine your rebuttal.

Chops,
“The reason many of us now advocate teaching Intelligent Design as opposed to Judeo-Christian creationism is that we recognize that the nature or acts of God are outside the purvue of science.”

I don’t believe that. Maybe that is the case with you, but by the masses; I think that the Creationists just see Evolution as the theory that will be the nail in the coffin so they have to come up with something to counter it. I look forward to your evidence for intelligent design.

Daniel,
The fact is that, neither conservative nor liberal pastors are the ones exclusively supporting nor rebutting these archeaological findings. The fact is that the intellectual theologians and supporters of the intellectual theologians like you refute it. The fact also remains that a wide majority of hardcore Christians truly believe these findings because their evidence for their beliefs are scant. When something comes up, they really believe it for that reason. Call it what you will, but we all know what is going on with these “proofs.” You don’t believe them and have been proven false so I admire you for that. Atleast, you are being honest with yourself. As far as people looking at you as a religious nutball, I hope not. If they do, that person must be closed minded because you can easily distinguish between a Christian and a quack. You think like this, “I have no problem with Evolution but these are my questions.” A quack thinks like this, “The Bible says this and Evolution is just a Satan plow to make the Christians look bad before Armageddon.” You are certainly not a quack.

Posted by: Leon S. Blythe at March 14, 2005 04:25 PM

Now, as to the 60% of scientists support evolution, I consider that a testimony to the power of peer pressure.

Actually, the number quoted is usually much higher.

Anyway, the peer pressure theory doesn’t really work. These are people whose jobs depend in part in finding something new and in building knowledge by finding holes in something old. Their job is to disprove what’s wrong. Their glory is in exposing wrong ideas. Do you really think that peer pressure is a stronger force than the inherent motivations of the field.

Never mind the absolute strength of the arguments for evolution.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 14, 2005 04:26 PM

Here is my stance once again: The Theory of Evolution is sound science born out by decades of study which is ongoing and creditable. Intelligent Design is repackaged Creationism, wholly without scientific merit, and should not be taught or even mentioned in the public school. If Christian what their children to learn it, teach it at home or in a Church setting, not in the public schools, not on my time, or child’s time.

And please explain to me for all who have mentioned it, why the Theory of Evolution needs a counter-balancing theorem? And in the absence of a creditable science-based theorem, why Intelligent Design/Creationism?

Posted by: V. Edward Martin at March 14, 2005 04:28 PM

Actually, the issue is not merely whether there is truth in Creationism or Evolution or both.

The bigger issue is the inalienable right for a person to believe as they choose, and NOT be forced or coerced or imposed upon to indulge those that would attempt to force them believe as they do (as would be the case, if we allow religion into the public schools and government).
And, also, everyone has the right to worship as they choose, as long as that activity does not infringe upon the rights of another person’s inalienable rights. I’m constantly amazed at the argument that removing prayer from public schools is a violation of the rights of those that want prayer in public schools, because it is such a lame and indefensible excuse. No body is preventing them from worshiping anytime they want. They just should not have the power to force others to participate (especially, since they may have completely different religious beliefs).

It is a violation of a persons rights to force beliefs upon them whether they are true or not.
Especially when no one is damaged by another’s religious beliefs. It should matter to no one what anyone’s religion is…not even if they commit crimes against others as a result of their religious beliefs. I don’t care what other peoples’ religious beliefs are, and I don’t try to tell anyone else what their religious beliefs should be.

But, not everyone understands this…some just don’t get it, or refuse to see it as an imposition. Some people think they have that right. Some even think it is their duty. People that engage in this do it because they are intolerant and/or fearful of others that believe differently. The fail to realize and acknowledge the rights of people to believe differently than them. Too bad they don’t spend as much energy trying to teach and convince people of the no-brainer things (such as fairness and respect for others).

If we let religion creep into our public schools, government, and judiciary, then we will return to the dark ages (or worse, like what currently exists in many middle-eastern countries).

Regarding “Why can’t the public schools just teach to provable facts?” …..

There are facts, and there are theories.
One is true, and one is not proven to be true.
Sometimes, theories are confused as facts, but there are many scientific things that are indisputable proven facts. Such as: (1) humans breathe air and walk upright on two legs (at least, at this point in time); (2) dinosaurs used to inhabit this planet a long time ago; (3) the Earth orbits the Sun; (4) 1+1=2 ; etc. These are scientific and mathematical facts. The public schools should stick to teaching the facts. And, there are more than enough facts to be learned in the time allotted, without introducing unproven theories, and attempting to pass them off as facts.

It does not matter how strongly one believes in something. Without proof, it is only a theory. Facts are supported by enormous and indisputable evidence. Theories are not.

Posted by: Daniel . . . at March 14, 2005 04:29 PM

I object! As I read it, the Bible is compatible with an ancient earth. I laid out the creation story as I think Genesis paints in my post in “Addicted to Hate”

Fine, but Chops used short earth theories (hallmarks of creation, but not followed by everyone) to defend I.D. (which has no need for short earth theories).

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 14, 2005 04:30 PM

Everytime I post something, more posts appear for me to read. I will wait until it slows down until I can thoroughly examine your rebuttal.

Heh, heh, heh. :-) I know what you mean. I wonder how many new posts will appear when I click “post” Take your time. I usually have to defend myself from young-earth creationists who suspect me of heresy; it could be quite refreshing (at least challenging) to defend myself from the other side.

Posted by: Daniel at March 14, 2005 04:32 PM

Chops used short earth theories (hallmarks of creation, but not followed by everyone) to defend I.D. (which has no need for short earth theories)

Yes, he did, and I rebuked him for it.

Posted by: Daniel at March 14, 2005 04:32 PM

There is a market for scientists who will attest to Creationism. Follow the money folks. Would the U.S. government hire a Creationist scientist to aid in the development of the A-Bomb in the 1940’s? I don’t think so. The US gov’t. then found it necessary to hire true blue emirical scientists who believe in human cause and effect and laws and theories of science, not gremlins, demons, gods, luck or the power of positive thinking in building something so extremely important, dangerous, and expensive like the first atomic bomb.

My, how time has changed our government.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 14, 2005 04:37 PM

Without a counterpoint, I don’t believe evolution should be taught in public schools.

Why? Essentially, you’re saying that the best effort of science shouldn’t be taught in science class without another idea that the science doesn’t support.

How dare we teach that the earth is round without a counterpoint that the earth is a square?

How dare we teach that gravity is a universal idea without a counterpoint teaching that all objects just want to be loved?

How dare we teach that plate tectonics explain volcanos without a counterpoint about the cave trolls?

Wow.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 14, 2005 04:37 PM

Yes, he did, and I rebuked him for it.

I didn’t see your response until after I wrote mine.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 14, 2005 04:40 PM

(This is Daniel’s post from the other board. The reason I bring it here is because he keeps on talking about it and it fits with the subject, I guess. I have to step out of the house for a bit and pick up a graphing calculator. When I come back, I will debate this response. Sorry for being a lazy reader on this.)

Wow.

Lots of response. Lots to respond to. Question: Leon, do you actually want me to respond point by point? I have answers for most of what you brought up, and for what remains, I imagine I can have answers after I do a little googling.

However, just as Gandhi said, almost all of my response will be to point out the relevant context of your quoted passages.

Some of the things you pointed out turn on longstanding disagreements within the Christian faith, like baptism and predestination. I certainly have opinions on both, but probably not final answers.

As regards the Christian religion being a source of evil, hate, and bigotry, I think you’re wrong but admit that the behavior of many Christians gives you a good bit of ground for slander.

It is quite obvious that neither you nor Aeon is going to be persuaded by any words I can say … you need to see the Christian life honestly lived without hypocrisy for you to believe it’s for real. That’s fair, and I hope that one day God will send into your path a Christian who lives his or her faith.

I will post only one rejoinder now - on the problem of having plants before sun. Young-earth fundamentalists will disagree with me on this, but this is my position, mostly via Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe.

Let’s walk through Genesis 1, shall we? I will quote the verse and then spin what I think is going on in our universe.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Big Bang. God ex nihilo creates the universe as a singularity, which explodes, forming stars, planets, galaxies, etc … even Earth. Approximate time frame 13-15 billion years ago.

The earth was formless and void, and darkneess was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the waters.
Notice the change in perspective. We are no longer looking at the universe, but at Earth. We are now a spectator on the surface of the earth, which is dark and covered with water (possibly in the form of ice, or perhaps other things). The reason the Earth is dark is because the interplanetary debris in the Solar System is cutting off all light from the surface of the Earth. The surface of the earth has never seen the sun. Approximate time frame 4-6 billion years ago.

Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
God clears away the interplanetary debris, allowing the light of the sun to reach the Earth for the first time. However, the earth is shrouded in clouds (like Venus is now) that, until now, have preserved the water, but now prevent the light from being seen as the sun. You can now perceive a difference in day and night - one is light, one is dark. An observer on the surface of Venus would never know about the sun, only light. Approximate time frame: a little after the above, 4-6 billion years ago.

Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse heaven. And thee was evening, and there was morning, a second day.
With the light of the sun now warming the earth, a water cycle develops. Pollutants and noxious gasses are removed from the atmosphere by the cycle, making it actually fit for some form of life. At this point, I’m going to stop giving time estimates because I’m not that much up on them.

Then God said, “Let the waters below the expanse be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear” and it was so. God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters he called seas, and God saw that it was good. And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yeilding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
The tectonics of the planet start to heat up, and thrust continents out onto the surface of the earth for the first time. On these continents, plants begin to thrive on the atmosphere and water cycle created in the last cycle. As the earth continues to be “terraformed” by these plants, they change the atmosphere, leading to the next step:

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light to the earth”; and it was so. God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night. He made the stars also. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
The changes wrought by the plants progressively removing carbon dioxide (and other gasses) and the continual pressure of the water cycle render the atmosphere translucent, to a point where the sun and moon and stars and actually visible from the surface of the earth, and where they can be used for “signs and seasons” etc. There’s no-one around to use them for that, though … yet.

Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in th open expanse of the heavens.” God created the great sea monsters and evey living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” There was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day.
The first of the animal kingdom are created, now that the atmosphere contains the oxygen necessary to support their lives and the plant life necessary to feed them. I do find it interesting that oceanic creatures are created at roughly the same time as birds … I do believe that differs from modern interpretation, where birds evolve from land animals. If I had to guess, I’d say look for evidence in the next little while that birds were contemporary with the appearance of massive life in the sea, before the appearance of massive life on land. I dunno, though.

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping that that creeps upon the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him, male and female he created them.

And with these acts, God is done creating. He brings land-bound animal life into existence and finally mankind as the ruler of all creation. Since we’re here, I guess I’ll respond to your idea that the Bible contradicts itself in saying that God created men and women, and then saying in Genesis 2 that he created man first, then women. Genesis 1 is very sparse on details of how God did the things attributed to Him. Genesis 2 fills in some of the details, particularly those relating to man. Genesis 2 is interesting and presents some problems, but none are insurmountable. I don’t see Genesis 1 being affected at all if God first creates men and shortly thereafter, creates women - he created them both, which is the important thing, and they need each other.

Thanks for your responses and challenges. I hope that one day you meet a Christian who lives the faith. God bless.

Posted by: Daniel at March 13, 2005 03:55 PM

Posted by: Leon S. Blythe at March 14, 2005 04:41 PM

Thanks, Leon.

Posted by: Daniel at March 14, 2005 04:44 PM

Lawnboy said: “How dare we teach that gravity is a universal idea without a counterpoint teaching that all objects just want to be loved?”

I love it. Any and all imaginings are valid when you remove empirical observation and hypothesis testing as requisite for shared experience with predictable and replicatable results.

God is omnipotent, omniscient, and according to Christianity, both capable and willing to intervene in human affairs (the motivation for a great deal of Christian prayer). Hence, anytime anything happens, it is never knowable if it was physical laws cause and effect or divine intervention (god responding to someone’s prayer).

Therefore, the end result of teaching Creationism along side Science is teaching young people that nothing is knowable. Really, follow the logic to its logical conclusion.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 14, 2005 04:49 PM

LawnBoy,

You might as well be talking to a fence post.

Some just don’t get it. It borders on ignorance or deliberateness (or both). Regardless of what they believe (which is fine), they don’t see their attempts to force their ridiculous nonsense upon others as an imposition and violation of others’ rights.

It’s tit-for-tat. If you teach evolution and estimates that the earth is billions of years old, some will insist that creationism be taught, despite the lack of any scientific proof.

I’ve often wondered if the proof of a supreme being is all around us, everywhere, all the time. But that’s just a theory. I’m not going to insist that my theory be taught in public schools since I haven’t a shred of evidence.

Posted by: . . .Daniel . . . at March 14, 2005 04:49 PM

David -

Actually, the real threat to human thinking is evolution. I’m going to quote Chesterton again, so bear with me:

Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself. Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself. If evolution destroys anything, it does not destroy religion but rationalism. If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time. But if it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. This is an attack not upon the faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if there are no things to think about. You cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought. Descartes said, “I think; therefore I am.” The philosophic evolutionist reverses and negatives the epigram. He says, “I am not; therefore I cannot think.”

GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy, p. 34-25

Why should the movement of grey matter in my brain correspond to reality at all? How can I be sure my own thought processes are valid? You could say that evolution favors the formation of brains that reflect reality. Perhaps, but what if evolution favors brains that seem to reflect reality?

It is evolution, not creation, that can really challenge your right to think. And what about morality? Justice? Freedom? Human inventions, just like Racism, Tyranny, and War. Why should we prefer one over the other? Even if one promotes survival, why should we care about survival? And, occasionally, survival is better promoted by indulging in evil - you’re likely to live a lot longer among the KKK if you pretend to be like them.

Posted by: Daniel at March 14, 2005 04:58 PM

“I am continually amazed that Americans in increasing numbers fail to grasp the foundations of their own government; i.e. the doctrine of Separation of Church and State for starters.”

I continually amazed that you view this as a secular county that is somehow moving towards a religious state. History will show you quite the opposite. Maybe it is because you take a nationalistic view of a country that was founded on sovereign and independent States.

More important to this debate is Gitlow v. New York; it applied the Bill of Rights to the States and trampled on the Tenth Amendment in the process.

Public education is a State issue. Religion being taught in public education is a State issue. If not for the 20th century re-write we would not be debating the constitutionality of either Evolution or ID.

When the Constitution was submitted to the American public, “many pious people” complained that the document had slighted God, for it contained “no recognition of his mercies to us … or even of his existence.” The Constitution was reticent about religion for two reasons: first, many delegates were committed federalists, who believed that the power to legislate on religion, if it existed at all, lay within the domain of the state, not the national, governments; second, the delegates believed that it would be a tactical mistake to introduce such a politically controversial issue as religion into the Constitution.

That religion was not otherwise addressed in the Constitution did not make it an “irreligious” document any more than the Articles of Confederation was an “irreligious” document. The Constitution dealt with the church precisely as the Articles had, thereby maintaining, at the national level, the religious status quo. In neither document did the people yield any explicit power to act in the field of religion. But the absence of expressed powers did not prevent either the Continental-Confederation Congress or the Congress under the Constitution from sponsoring a program to support general, nonsectarian religion.
U.S. Library of Congress Exhibit- Religion and the Founding of the American Government

Posted by: George in SC at March 14, 2005 05:16 PM

Intelligent Design, also known as the teleological argument for the existence of God, is taught in Philosophy of Religion courses. I’d recomment the scottish philosphoer, David Hume, if you take interest in philosophy, and logical arguments for the existence of God.

Intelligent Design is not science. I don’t understand how it could ever be mistaken for a scientific theory, or presented as one.

Posted by: phx8 at March 14, 2005 05:16 PM

Daniel,

Basically, you’re saying that evolution is dangerous because it’s not religion. That’s fine as a personal religious belief, but there’s no way we should base science curricula on a fear of science. That’s just nuts.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 14, 2005 05:25 PM

David -

If we’re going to tell stories, I have one:

Two wooden figures wake up to find themselves lying on an old newspaper in the hot sun. One figure is painted yellow, the other pink.

Suddenly, Yellow sits up and asks, “Do you know what we’re doing here?”

“No,” replies Pink. “I don’t even remember getting here.”

So begins a debate between the two marionettes over the origin of their existence.

Pink surveys their well-formed features and concludes, “Someone must have made us.”

Yellow disagrees. “I say we’re an accident,” and he outlines a hypothetical scenario of how it might have happened. A branch might have broken off a tree and fallen on a sharp rock, splitting one end of the branch into two legs. Then the wind might have sent it tumbling down a hill until it was chipped and shaped. Perhaps a flash of lightning struck in such a way as to splinter the wood into arms and fingers. Eyes might have been formed by woodpeckers boring into the wood.

“With enough time, a thousand, a million, maybe two and a half million years, lots of unusual things could happen,” says Yellow. “Why not us?”

The two figures argue back and forth.

In the end, the discussion is cut off by the appearance of a man coming out of a nearby house. He strolls over to the marionettes, picks them up, and checks their paint. “Nice and dry,” he comments, and tucking them under his arm, he heads back toward the house.

Peering out from under the man’s arm, Yellow whispers in Pink’s ear, “Who is this guy?”

William Steig, Yellow and Pink. I found it in Colson’s How Now Shall We Live?, p. 97

I need to go; a friend of mine has dropped by, so I probably won’t be posting for a while. (You can all breathe a sigh of relief now - I’m famous at this school for my loquacity).

Posted by: Daniel at March 14, 2005 05:34 PM

Lawnboy -

I’m saying that evolution is potentially dangerous because it gives no logical foundation to thought or morality. That doesn’t make it untrue, just dangerous.

Posted by: Daniel at March 14, 2005 05:36 PM

Daniel,

It does nothing of the sort. Evolution is true or false independent of morality and thought. Systems of morality and thought and belief have arisen throughout the world, and they arose independently of evolution.

The only thing endangered by evolution is a belief system that refuses to accept it. That has nothing to do with morality.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 14, 2005 05:43 PM

I’ll clarify: The only thing endangered by evolution is your ability to deny it happened. That has nothing to do with morality.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 14, 2005 05:54 PM

Isn’t Chesterton fascinating, Daniel? I’m reading through “heretics” and “orthodoxy” right now. Intellectually dense material. I aspire to find a balance between logic and faith. As a free-thinking Christian, I have to believe that the two are not irreconciliable. There are certianly paradoxes, but much of that is in how one chooses to frame the questions.

That, after all, is faith - isn’t it? “Is there a God and can I discover him” - a question formed from faith in a supreme being - versus “how can I gain more confidence in myself” - a question formed from faith in self.

Science itself comes from the framing of a certain question, and a decision as to how we will go about trying to answer it. Logic framed the question, thus it transcends science. God does as well.

Posted by: Gandhi at March 14, 2005 06:04 PM

Evolution is dangerous ?

Non-sequitur. There’s an error somewhere in that reasoning. Perhaps, you’re really trying to say that some people are dangerous, because they are unable to accept some facts, and will attempt to force their beliefs on others.
Evolution is a process, and most likely, a very good thing, that allows creatures to adjust and grow within their environment. Evolution, itself, has no consciousness, or intent, or ability to be dangerous.

Also, most would agree that the universe is infinite. Infinite in space and infinite in time. In an infinite universe, many things
may be possible. Especially after an eternity.

Posted by: Daniel S. at March 14, 2005 06:20 PM

Gandhi -

GK Chesterton is one of the most delightful discoveries I’ve made in the last four years. It’s absolutely criminal that more people don’t know about him. I’m glad to have a person like you on these boards.

You’re absolutely right about the relationship between faith and reason. The way I put it is that a person’s first loyalty is to the truth. A Christian’s only hope is that God is the truth.

Lawnboy -

You are right that evolution is a theory either true or false, independent of morality or thought. But many people try to explain everything by evolution. As a “theory of everything” - even everything human - it is extremely dangerous, misleading, and (to my mind) false.

Posted by: Daniel at March 14, 2005 06:23 PM

Daniel S.

Time is not infinite, neither is space. Both have a beginning. This can be (and has been) demonstrated mathematically.

I’ve never looked this paper up myself, but I am told that a paper written by Stephen Hawking back in the mid-nineties proves that if there is matter in the universe, and if the theory of relativity is true, then the universe has a finite beginning several billion years ago. Anybody besides me heard of this?

Posted by: Daniel at March 14, 2005 06:27 PM

As a “theory of everything” - even everything human - it is extremely dangerous, misleading, and (to my mind) false.

So you’re saying evolution itself isn’t dangerous, but misuse of evolution is. I have no arguments there.

Misuse of religion is also dangerous, and I believe it is a misuse of religion to allow religious ideas to override the scientific process in determining science curricula.

Would you agree?

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 14, 2005 06:32 PM

Lawnboy - nice responses.
Leon - the Galileo comment is very apt.

The way I see it, Creationists have had since 2000 BC to prove their theory, and haven’t said or done anything that could stand up to any sort of scientific scrutiny whatsoever. Therefore, they should keep their seemingly unprovable theory where it belongs - in a house of worship.
Evolutionists, beginning with Darwin’s theory of natural selection in 1859, followed by years of archeological discoveries which unearthed a myriad of animal fossils and the skeletal remains of early humans, right up to the advances in scientific understanding in the fields of biochemistry, molecular biology and genetics made during the past fifty years, have all produced great strides towards validating, or further expanding, the theory of Evolution.
That’s a lot of progress in a mere 146 years - the Evolutionists are definitely winning.

The modes of thought which give us Creationism on the one hand and Scientific Evolution on the other are diametrically opposed in every way possible, and so, should never be taught side by side in public schools. Creationism is religious faith, while the Science that gave us Evolution has always been about asking questions and trying to get answers - meaning one must take NOTHING on faith.
Let those who are pious send their children to religious schools and non-accredited universities like Oral Roberts if they wish their children to be taught the non-science of Creationism - leaving the rest of us to question everything, and test thoroughly, and keep seeking answers - free of religious dogma and limited only by our own human intelligence and creativity.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 14, 2005 06:34 PM

Lawnboy -

Yes, I would agree, particularly that misuing religion is very dangerous. However, I also think that it is a misuse of evolution to believe that it alone accounts for the origins of all we see.

Adrienne -

Science takes nothing on faith, eh? How about the reliability of the senses, the validity of inference, the invariability of the universe (that the laws are not varied from place to place), the idea that if a thing happened, it is going to happen again, and the reliability of human logic and thought?

Science, like every other endeavor of human thought, rests on unprovable assumptions. They may be reasonable assumptions, but they are not proven in a logical sense. Science requires a philosophy of science.

Posted by: Daniel at March 14, 2005 06:44 PM

Lawnboy -

I believe it is a misuse of religion to allow religious ideas to override the scientific process in determining science curricula.

I certainly agree, including the misuse of religious ideas like atheism to override the scientific process in determining what is taught as science.

Micro-evolution is a well-proven scientific idea. Macro-evolution is a theoretical inference. To teach that macro-evolution is as certain as micro-evolution, and that evolution is sufficient as a theory of origins, is deceptive. The quasi-religious fervor with which it is defended is also suspect.

Please tell me, why do we teach theories of origins at all? Science doesn’t particularly care how the universe came to be. Is it because we have some non-scientific reason for wanting to teach a theory of origins which gives intellectual justification for atheism?

Posted by: Daniel at March 14, 2005 06:54 PM

Time is not infinite, neither is space. Both have a beginning. This can be (and has been) demonstrated mathematically.

I’ve never looked this paper up myself, but I am told that a paper written by Stephen Hawking back in the mid-nineties proves that if there is matter in the universe, and if the theory of relativity is true, then the universe has a finite beginning several billion years ago. Anybody besides me heard of this?

It is believed by many that the universe exists within a multiverse. The universe has been calculated to have begun expansion 15 billion years old, but it may have existed before that, and this iteration may contract in on itself in an endless cycle.

Posted by: ceejayoz at March 14, 2005 07:17 PM

Micro-evolution is a well-proven scientific idea. Macro-evolution is a theoretical inference. To teach that macro-evolution is as certain as micro-evolution, and that evolution is sufficient as a theory of origins, is deceptive. The quasi-religious fervor with which it is defended is also suspect.

observed instances of speciation (macro-evolution)

Science doesn’t particularly care how the universe came to be.

That’d be why hundreds of scientists study the problem, right?

The creation of the universe has big implications for physics, dimensional theories, etc. Your dismissal of science for knowledge’s sake is precisely the problem with those who’ll blindly accept a religious text as proof.

Posted by: ceejayoz at March 14, 2005 07:20 PM

Daniel, you are partially right, and partially wrong. You are absolutely correct in stating that science from a philosophical point of view, makes certain assumptions. One of the most basic assumptions is that human senses, language and thought are the only methods by which something can become knowable and the validity of that knowledge rests entirely upon the ability of other humans to replicate through the same methodology the same experience of knowing.

You are incorrect however, to posit, that scientific knowledge or its methodology cannot be proven by logic. In fact, logic is the proof when it is accepted that the only way to know anything for sure is by shared common and replicable experience by humans.

We cannot know the world as a whale knows it, nor as a microbe knows it. We can only know the world through the senses common to the human species. It logically follows therefore, that if all humans who encounter temperatures above 110 degrees as hot, and react to bodily contact to temperatures in excess of 180 degress for more than a few seconds by retreat from contact, a fact is established, heat at those temperatures and above hurt and cause flight behavior from the heat. Ergo, hot things exist, and we can all appreciate that fact.

It also follows that all humans who are trained to read a thermometer and given an education on the reliability and replicability of that thermometer reading the same for a specific event regardless of where or how that event occurs (451 degrees for example as the ignition temperature for dry paper in the presence of oxygen), a fact is established and is true, regardless of the fact that babies do not yet know what a thermometer even is, and regardless of whether a schizophrenic in full hallucinatory mode may not withdraw their fingers from a burning cigarette.

So, yes, there is a philosophy of science which seeks to understand the limits of what can be and is knowable. However, science as an endeavor is capable of producing facts and proofs which are not refutable by human common experience, whether that common experience be direct, or indirect.

The whole evolution theory is a lot less theory today than accepted proof. Large numbers of physically observeable events in the world today are not explainable by any other common experience of the human senses. The animals unique to the Golopigos or Madagascar for example.

These animals are not found anywhere else in the world, nor have they been found anywhere else in human history. Logic dictates they did not migrate there, for if they had, some of them would evident elsewhere. Combine this set of circumstances with direct observation of mutation and adaptation of microbes under the microscope, and one comes to an explanation for the unique species of those islands called evolution which cannot be logically argued from any other base of common human experience sensory experience.

Now I grant you, that the instant one introduces causes that are not observeable by any common human sense organ, logical arguments can be made for gremlins farting to move pistons in engines or God answering some peoples prayers but not others, but then, there is no common sense organ direct experience to validate the knowability of such causation. There is only belief not dissimilar from a schizophrenic hallucination which is utterly and completely real and experienced by the schizophrenic, but, cannot be validated by direct experience by the rest of the human species.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 14, 2005 07:22 PM

I’m not going to debate the relative merits of the biblical account, but I would like to make a comment about the scientific utility of intelligent design vs. evolution. Evolution is a theory in the best sense. It provokes ideas. When you have the theory of evolution as a background, you can design new experiments and new ideas based off of that background. For example, the idea of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Evolution explains where they came from and how we can stop them, ideas which have been used with great success. Right now, EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGY. It provides a quasi-teleological framework through which we can operate, and is the framework through which all biologists work. Evolution opens new vistas for thought and has advanced science considerably in concrete ways. It is thought-expanding and broadening.
Intelligent design says that there is a certain threshold past which we cannot understand. That some things are just too complex to be explained and that we should just stop looking. It expends all of its energy on proving evolution wrong, and contributes nothing to advancing science. The only explanation for antibiotic-resistant bacteria under intelligent design is a plague from God (after all, “random” mutation could never produce something so obviously designed and useful as a molecular pump that specifically removes antibiotics from bacterial cells).
Evolution is as central to biology as atomic theory is to chemistry, or the theory of gravity is to explaining why we don’t spin off into space. Not teaching it would put our students at a serious disadvantage. We’re already falling behind in biology, we certainly don’t need to exacerbate the situation.

Posted by: brian at March 14, 2005 07:25 PM

I really don’t see why Science and Engineering is even taught in the USA anymore. You know they outsource all those jobs overseas. All the United States has left is the Service Industry.

I say we should teach Johnny Creationism and scrap Evolution altogether. America is already falling behind in Math and Physics, why not this too?

Also, is it true Creationists believe the Earth is 5,000 years old?

Posted by: Aldous at March 14, 2005 08:14 PM

I certainly agree, including the misuse of religious ideas like atheism to override the scientific process in determining what is taught as science.

That’s not what is happening. Evolution is not an atheistic idea. Most, if not all, athiest accept evolution because it best answers the questions asked of it, but athiesm is not the driving force behind evolution. Scientific inquiry is the driving force.

Many people who accept evolution believe in a higher power. In fact, many religions, including Judaism and Catholicism, explicitly accept evolution.

In an October 22, 1996, address to the Pontifical Academy of Science, Pope John Paul II updated the Church’s position: “In his encyclical Humani Generis, my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation… Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines.”

[Wikipedia]

BTW, this also nicely answers the charge that evolution is incompatiable with the growth of morality.

Please tell me, why do we teach theories of origins at all? Science doesn’t particularly care how the universe came to be. Is it because we have some non-scientific reason for wanting to teach a theory of origins which gives intellectual justification for atheism?

No. It’s because knowing how the earth came to its current state answers questions about many things, from the existence of strange fossils to better ways to fight pathogens. It’s not to fill a “God shaped hole,” but instead to answer many of the questions around us.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 14, 2005 08:54 PM

Aldous -

It depends on the creationist. Many of my friends do (the actual figure would vary from between 6,000-10,000 years old), but I do not. I accept the prevailing view that the universe is about 13-15 billion years old and that the earth is about 4 to 6 billion years old.

Posted by: Daniel at March 14, 2005 09:04 PM

The universe is actually infinite in space and age. Think about it. For any boundaries you impose, what is beyond it ?

Posted by: Daniel S. at March 14, 2005 09:32 PM

I’m almost overwhelmed by the things that have been written in this column. I guess I only have one question. Exactly where does the term �Separation of Church and State� originate? Is it actually in the Constitution? If not, then where did the phrase come from?

Posted by: Blaine at March 14, 2005 10:02 PM

No, the universe is not infinite. Space itself is expanding, and time itself had a beginning.

Posted by: Daniel at March 14, 2005 10:03 PM

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter shortly after 1800, in which he said that the Constitution put up an “impenetrable wall separating church and State.” The Constitution actually says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

in the First Ammendment.

Posted by: Daniel at March 14, 2005 10:05 PM

I apologize for insinuating science has no business investigating origins - I was clumsy and shouldn’t have said that. I just meant that science was equally valid, whether intelligent design or macro-evolution is correct.

Posted by: Daniel at March 14, 2005 10:08 PM

Brian -

You are right; evolution is a more useful theory than intelligent design. It is highly applicable, at least in its micro-evolutionary sense. But intelligent design prompts some very useful inquiries into how it is that we know that something is designed or chance. It’s an interesting question, and I’m willing to bet that there is some good science - neuroscience, if nothing else - in discovering how it is we recognize something as designed. Even more so would be a discovery of how to determine for sure or not whether something was designed by subjecting it to some impartial test.

Posted by: Daniel at March 14, 2005 10:11 PM

So, let me get this straight, the Constitution doesn’t actually contain the words “Separation of Church and State�. I actually came from the old school, (before Christmas was called Winter Break and when Bible stories were actually taught in class), when we were taught that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” to mean that government could not claim any religion as the religion of government. Since the founders of this nation had left countries in Europe who had claimed certain religions as state religions.

Could someone provide an abbreviated list of some of the greatest people who were instrumental in the founding & building of this nation?

Posted by: Blaine at March 14, 2005 10:19 PM

Couple of comments:

1. Nothing is going to get solved here. I remember over thirty years ago a pastor coming into our biology class and giving an alternative view to Darwinism. I cannot remember ANY damage to such a thing.

2. In my 10 years sitting on a public school board as a right wing wacko, Darwinism verses Creationism was never an issue. We had bigger fish to fry. If you were to ask people who actually work in public schools whether they be left wing wackos or right wing wackos, or those stuck in the middle, there is not enough time for such nonsense in public education, we are all to busy with Leave No Child Behind legislation.

3. It all comes down to faith anyway. Those who believe in Darwinism, have faith in the Scientific method but accept on faith that matter, time, and energy came “from somewhere!!” I have yet to hear an explaination from a Darwinist that could explain where matter came from.

So you Darwin folks, I know you have faith that “in the beginning, was matter, energy time, and order” which to me is no different than my “In the beginning God”. I also repect your faith in the scientific method. I just wish you weren’t so literal in your interpretation of it!! But then we all need a crutch to get through this world.

And since in watching this debate for over thirty years, and seeing no real progress, my energies have gone into educating children, where I have witnessed great progress, working with both camps.

When you all solve the debate let me know, in the mean time there are too many children to educate to give a hoot!!

Thanks for listening!!

Craig Holmes

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 14, 2005 10:28 PM

I’ve finished scanning TalkOrigins article on speciation. I must confess it’s beyond my depth; I’m a Computer Science major, not a biogist. However, none of the examples I saw listed was very impressive; most involved plants or fruit flies, and none seemed to be conclusive. Additionally, TalkOrigins is rather obviously slanted against creationism; I would be more disposed to accept evidence given from a site less obviously partisan.

Sorry for my short tone; I’m rather tired. I think I’ll give it a rest for the evening, or I’ll say things I’ll have to take back with apologies later.

Posted by: Daniel at March 14, 2005 10:30 PM

George—

I view the country as one founded as a Christian nation, but endowed with secular public institutions, laws, and justice system. And Gitlow v. New York applied some of the Bill of Rights to the states, using the 14th Amendment’s equal protection and due process clauses as a basis for the ruling. The 1st Amendment is one…

Posted by: V. Edward Martin at March 14, 2005 10:38 PM

Daniel,
There is really no difference between “maco” and “micro” evolution besides scale. “macro” evolutionary principles are important too, as when you study how we have natural killer cells that specifically deal with a certain kind of virus, which in turn has proteins evolved that specifically deal with our normal immune system. Evolution as a paradigm currently impacts ALL aspects of biology.

Even more so would be a discovery of how to determine for sure or not whether something was designed by subjecting it to some impartial test.

This is one of the major problems I have with intelligent design as “science”. It is based on the idea that it is obvious that some things are designed, but have absolutely no standards for deciding what is “designed” and what isn’t. It’s so arbitrary as to be meaningless. They try to use the old obscenity definition “I’ll know it when I see it,” but that’s not good enough to be considered science. Posted by: brian at March 14, 2005 10:39 PM

However, none of the examples I saw listed was very impressive; most involved plants or fruit flies

What do you want? You have examples from the only species that reproduce quickly enough for the effect to be seen on the human timescale.

In the only species that could show macroevolution, macroevolution was seen. Your complaint now is that you haven’t seen it proved where it couldn’t be proved; that’s not a compelling argument.

Macro-evolution has been established.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 14, 2005 10:51 PM

Creationism seeks to enshrine in public policy not only a “scientific” viewpoint, but also a religious one. There are many Christians out there whose individual and denominational doctrines on the subject allow for God to be the Creator, and the natural sciences to be correct about evolution and other inconveniently ancient phenomena spoken of in modern science.

It is unfair to them that secular science, which takes no position of any authority on religious matters, and their own religious principles be shunted aside in favor of one religious movement’s view of both God and nature.

Intelligent design is no less insidious for not directly involving religion. One particular commentator on this site challenged liberals and others who wrote of taking things on faith by saying that there were certain principles scientists put their faith in doing their experiments and composing their theories.

Well, my answer to him is relevant to the problem of intelligent design. Sciences asks you to put no other faith in things than that you can vindicate by direct or indirect means. The faith one puts in science is the faith one puts in things seen. Paris doesn’t disappear because you’ve never seen it. It exists and that existence can be vindicated and proved to anybody who hasn’t just decided to disbelieve Paris’s existence out of personal prejudice.

Faith in God is an entirely different thing. How do creatures of nature prove that which is beyond nature? We cannot build the Tower of Babel up to the clouds and be like God. We are creatures of nature, and as such we measure by nature and exist by it. Being its products, we are enmeshed in it, and that is all we experience on our own.

God’s grace, his other interventions included, are supernatural in character, and therefore metaphysical, the laws of physics subservient to that greater order. That includes the laws of physics that determine scientific measurement. Our faith in God cannot be vindicated by some test, because some part of his existence will always remain beyond our measure, and therefore beyond proof or disproof.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 14, 2005 10:58 PM

Philosophy aside, let’s think about practicallity of teaching Intelligent Design over evolution. Regardless of which one is right, or perhaps, less incorrect, certified colleges only care about how well you understand evolution, not ID. Hence, many school districts teach evolution even if it is not required by their state, such as schools in Kansas.

Seeing as most highschools encourage their students to seek degrees from colleges, it would make sense for them to teach evolution. Again, this is irreverent to whether it has any basis in fact or not.

Now, the philosophical discourse may once more resume.

Posted by: Zeek at March 14, 2005 11:04 PM

I am a senior at a Catholic high school, and I am taking a college-level course in Biology. While nowhere in the many textbook chapters that describe the theory of evolution is there a mention of any other theory, the book is clear to show that the theory of evolution is simply a well-developed critical analysis of the evidence that has been uncovered in scientific research. My teacher, who whole-heartedly supports the theory of evolution (as do I) has taken many steps to teach the students in the class that the theory is a theory. The more important thing than simply learning facts and theories is the ability to analyze facts and theories for oneself. My teacher has pointed out that there are huge gaps in the theory - from abiotic molecules to organic molecules; from organic molecules to conglomerates of interacting molecules; from these conglomerates to cells; from unicellular organisms to multicellular organisms; etc. Even the one experiment, reproducing the conditions under which life could have been created from inorganic molecules, has never been reproduced with the same results. Therefore, how can one believe that this is the proper theory? I personally believe in it because I believe that it most effectively and most credibly analyzes the known facts. Again, I stress that the most important aspect of education is no the retention of facts or theories, for these cannot truly help the average person in their everyday life, but the ability to analyze the information that one learns.

In reference to the question of the place of Intelligent Design in schools, I think that such a theory is only for theology class. Even in my Catholic school, I think that the place for religious beliefs, of which Intelligent Design is an example, is solely in theology or philosophy classes, not in science classes. Science classes concern the analysis of facts through reason, not the belief in unprovable doctrines. Thus, as public schools do not allow the teaching of theology or philosophy, I do not see any place for the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools.

As regards the relationship between evolutionary theory and religion, I find absolutely no contradictions in my belief in Catholic theological dogma and the theory of evolution. I do not see the Bible as a credible source with regards to history, and I do not think that the creation stories give us any facts or credible theories. The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is strictly for philosophical reflection not historical evidence.

Posted by: Ryan at March 14, 2005 11:10 PM

Perhaps those that dispute the laws of physics and other scientific “theories” would like to step up and prove the existance of the “Supreme Being”.
Those that wrote the Bible had no knowledge of science, and therefore had no way to explain any natural phenomena other than superstition.

Until Galileo the universe revolved around the earth and until 500 years ago the world was flat.
Both “theories” held near and dear to the heart of Christianity. Galileo was nearly excomunicated for his heresy.

We are all searching for the reason we exist. Some of us just seem to have a better grasp of reality than others.

Posted by: Rocky at March 14, 2005 11:38 PM

My own junior high science teacher said, in the middle of an excellent description of evolution, something like “For those of you who believe in God, As we look at evolution, we see multiple places where God could have taken a hand”. I saw no problem with that. It aknowledged people’s belief and was as inclusive as the subject allows.

It may suprise you, but I actually believe the basic principle of intelligent design. What I have a problem with is the fundamentalist Christians turning this into a war. I have a problem with them arbitrarily putting anti-evolution stickers on textbooks. I have a problem with trying to limit the teaching of evolution in BIOLOGY class. I have a problem with the pushing of the idea that it has to be one or the other, that if you believe in evolution you are somehow damned. I have a problem with the setting of religion against science. That kind of attitude will either make sure the kid doens’t learn science, or else gives up his/her religion. I have a problem with the pushing of pseudo-scientific crap as an “alternative” in the name of “balance”. There is no fairness of viewpoints in science, only fairness of empirical truth. Science doesn’t care about lofty a priori principles or theology. It it works, it goes forward. If it doesn’t work, it gets replaced. Teaching otherwise raises up namby-pamby PC kids who can’t think critically and who have no idea what science even is, and we have more than enough of those already.

I love parents teaching kids religion in the home. I love people going to church and learning about God. I love the idea that parents may understand evolution enough to discuss it with their kids without treating it like heresy that needs to be stamped out. I love the idea of kids learning new ways to think, about the role of faith in life, about questioning assumptions. But don’t do it in science class. It isn’t science, and it doesn’t belong.

Ryan,
Very well said (better than I could have).

Posted by: brian at March 14, 2005 11:41 PM

Zeek,
I’m sure that the creationists plan to start working on the publicly funded colleges as soon as they get the high schools converted. I can hear it now; “a majority of science professors are liberal. We need parity of ideas, so let’s get some creationists in there.”

Posted by: brian at March 15, 2005 12:03 AM

Lawnboy, your answer in the following interchange is not as accurate as it could be, historically speaking.

Please tell me, why do we teach theories of origins at all? Science doesn’t particularly care how the universe came to be. Is it because we have some non-scientific reason for wanting to teach a theory of origins which gives intellectual justification for atheism?

No. It’s because knowing how the earth came to its current state answers questions about many things, from the existence of strange fossils to better ways to fight pathogens. It’s not to fill a “God shaped hole,” but instead to answer many of the questions around us.

The historical facts are that empirical inquiry began in written historical fashion between 600 and 300 BC in Ancient Greece, with influences no doubt from neighboring areas like Macedonia. But, it was the Greeks who sought to find a better predictor of storms on the Aegean Sea than the moodiness of Gods on Mt. Olympus. The sudden onset of storms on the Aegean was killing greek merchants who had little choice for commerce other than by sea, due to the mountainous terrain.

Hence, the Greeks began a kind of inquiry of the natural world to find predictors of change. This line of inquiry of course led to the writings of Heraclitus, Hypocrites, and culminated in the writings of Plato and his student, Aristotle, which in turn was passed to Alexander the Great who was the student of Aristotle.

Hence, we seek the origins of all things historically as a method of predicting change and allowing us to be ready for it, as well as to better understand how to manage our lives, and as you say, to invent, create, and adapt solutions to problems. But the answer is not complete without introducing innate curiosity in the human species which since long before writing, is demonstrated to have sought understanding and origin explanations for its own sake as well as the practical implications.

All prehistory evidence indicates societies had some specialization of tribal or community status based on knowledge. That makes sense especially when the community survival depends upon the story telling tradition of passing information down from one generation to the next in the oral tradition.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 15, 2005 02:25 AM

V. Edward-

Again I think what you see as