“Expelled” Reviewed
April 19th, 2008 at 09:08am Mark Noonan
By Dave Berg over at NRO:
The highlight of the film features Ben Stein interviewing Dawkins, who concedes that an intelligent being may have created life on earth. But that being cannot be “God.” Instead, he suggests it may be an alien, itself a product of “Darwinian evolution.” Oh, the scientific imagination — there’s nothing like it on God’s green earth.
Dawkins has since complained that the interview was set up under false pretenses, and that he didn’t even know who Stein was. It is rather astonishing that it did not occur to the world’s smartest atheist to look up Ben Stein on the Internet, where he might have readily discovered numerous examples of his writings that are critical of Darwinism.
Dawkins dismisses the Emmy-winning actor as having “no talent for comedy.” He believes during the interview Stein is an “honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist.” A lawyer, a law professor, an economist, and a speechwriter for both Nixon and Ford, Stein hardly seems to fit the description “honestly stupid.”
In the end, the film isn’t really about intelligent design as much as about a relentless attack on an authentically free inquiry. As Ben Stein points out, “Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only anti-American, it’s anti-science. It’s anti-the whole concept of learning.”
We live in an age of lies - a lot of people believe a lot of things which are either outright false, or heavily distorted. I’m constantly amazed at the amount of sheer nonsense people believe - my favorite example of this is the Kennedy assasination. I’ll bet that if we did a survey of the American people, a very large minority would come back with the opinion that a conspiracy killed Kennedy, and a much larger number of people - perhaps even a large majority - would hold that there are at least a lot of unanswered questions surrounding the event. This belief flies in the face of every single fact which has been discovered about that tragic day - the further anyone investigates, the more clear it becomes that Oswald, a lunatic acting alone, killed President Kennedy. But very, very many people believe otherwise, and no amount of evidence will convince them to change their views.
So it is with a host of issues - in this case, the debate between ID and Darwinism. Its good here to define what we’re talking about - ID is not creationism. Creationism is the belief that the world was created in six literal days approximately 6,000 years ago - many of my Evangelical brothers and sisters believe this; I don’t. ID is the belief that the development of life on earth - heck, the development of anything, anywhere - is only explicable if there is a will guiding the whole process. The chances of even one random accident resulting in anything useful are so small that to believe that we are the result of nothing but a series of random accidents is laughably foolish - and even such a theory (that its all developed by random chance) still fails to explain how the basic matter of the universe came to be. Darwinism is not a belief in evolution, as such; it is the belief that no matter what else is said, there must be no Creator, or at least no Creator which intervenes post-Big Bang in creation. When we say we’re debating “creation vs evolution”, what we’re really debating is ID vs Darwinism.
If there is one thing we should never see in the scientific community, it is the phrase “rigid orthodoxy” - but that is precisely what we have these days, and not just in the debate over origins. Such orthodoxy also reigns supreme on such matters as global warming and the genesis of homosexuality, as well as other subjects. To say that there is a “consensus” about a subject means only one thing - no one has really looked at it or been able to explain it, so the herd of science has arbitrarily decided that “X” shall be considered true about a subject. Scientific advance, of course, has always rested on those who ignore consensus - and one does wonder how many bits of sciece lie submerged beneath the waves of ideological purity which have taken over so much of the scientific community. A true scientist is not someone who asks, “what does everyone else say”, but “what evidence do we have to form an opinion?”.
Stein’s new movie might just be the thing to break this logjam - to expose to a mass audience just how purblind a great deal of our higher educational establishment has become, and thus move people to demand changes. We should not fear truth - and we should go where ever truth leads…time to stop consigning vast areas of research to the trash heap simply because we’re afraid to buck trends.
Entry Filed under: Science
236 Comments Add your own
1. Christian Wright | April 19th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Everybody knows that the Universe, the Earth, and all life was created by the FSM.
2. kmg | April 19th, 2008 at 10:05 am
“ID is not creationism” – Mark
The whole premise of your support for ID is based on this fallacy. ID is demonstrably creationism re-packaged to appear scientific rather than religious. One of the more blatant methods was revealed in the 2004 Dover case in Pennsylvania. In that case, Judge Jones examined the history of the writing of “Of Pandas and People,” a key textbook that ID proponents are trying to force into public schools. The book was first published in 1989, two years after the Supreme Court ruled against teaching creationism in school. Early drafts contained numerous references to creationism and creation science. At some point before publication, those references (about 150 of them) were replaced with the term “Intelligent Design.” According to Judge Jones, “The overwhelming evidence at trial established that intelligent design is a religious view, a mere re-labelling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.”
The term Darwinism has been bastardized by ID proponents to mean a refusal to believe anything other than life being randomly created from nothing. That definition is only accepted by the ID proponents.
Contrary to your premise, this is about creationism vs. evolution. Evolution is a long-established, testable scientific theory with reams of supporting data. Evolution does not address how life first began, nor should it. It is about how life adapts to its environment over time.
ID (creationism) is a religious belief about the origin of life. It is not testable and does not come anywhere close to being even a nascent scientific theory. ID’s supporters have only been able to advance their agenda through lying, obfuscation, and demonizing those who believe science should not be corrupted by religion.
3. Economist » Blog Ar&hellip | April 19th, 2008 at 11:10 am
[…] ParaPundit wrote an interesting post today on âExpelledâ ReviewedHere’s a quick excerpt…stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist.” A lawyer, a law professor, an economist, and a speechwriter for both Nixon… […]
4. Global Warming » &hellip | April 19th, 2008 at 11:14 am
[…] Tim Blair wrote an interesting post today on âExpelledâ ReviewedHere’s a quick excerptSuch orthodoxy also reigns supreme on such matters as global warming and the genesis of homosexuality, as well as other subjects. […]
5. Jeremiah | April 19th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Hey, kmg, I have a question for you…
Natural selection? If it is fact that are a product of the “evolutionary” chain, our ancestors picking the strong from the weak, thus, we are therefore, their descendants. If that is the case, then we are just animals, thus, nothing we do can be wrong. Wasn’t this philosophy, the philosophy of Darwin, the same philosophy that led to Auswitch, the same as Hitler’s and Margaret Sanger’s eugenics?
If that is correct, then shouldn’t those who practice polygamy be ok?
6. Brian (Boston) | April 19th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Mark, I am a scientist and I reject the notion that ID has been tested stringent to scientific standards. You can believe whatever you want to believe, but belief is not science.
Being anti-Darwin does not make ID plausible. Instead it just opens the door to more questions and the search for greater knowledge on the subject. What I have seen and heard from the ID folks is that certain elements of life are too complex to happen naturally thus something interjected.
Speculation is not science. We can speculate, but we must be able to reproduce results in a controlled environment.
I cannot imagine a world where every time something hard came along we would just throw our hands up and say it must be an “intelligent designer” that created it. There are math problems that take years to solve, but they are solvable.
And just because you disagree with scientists over ID and homosexuality, does not make the scientists wrong.
I will see the movie, because it will be interesting. But unless there is scientific facts presented, that where tested in a controlled environment, then I doubt I will change my mind.
7. Mark Noonan | April 19th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Brian,
Errrmmmm…speculation is the foundation of science. We ask “why?”, and then move from there…Darwinism says “Don’t ask certain questions”….and thus cannot be science.
And the movie is not, from what I understand, so much about science - it doesn’t seek to prove ID nor disprove Darwinism - but about the rigid ideological orthodoxy imposed on education…its not whether ID has merits or not, it is the insistence that ID be ruled out of order and not even raised in a science setting.
8. kmg | April 19th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Jeremiah,
Your question is a perfect demonstration of obfuscation. Evolutionary theory doesn’t claim that our ancestors “picked” the strong over the weak. Rather, environment and genetic changes led to natural selection of those better suited to the environment in which they were living.
Are we “just” animals? Here is where you confuse sociology with biology.
We are animals, as the alternate would be plants or minerals, but we have evolved to the point that we are at today. As mankind evolved, along with our brains, we developed social norms. These norms were necessary for man to band together and increase the odds of survival. You see some of these same kinds of social norms within other species that live in groups. As our brains and speech developed, these norms became more complex to adjust to an increasingly complex society.
Your question is one of morals. Being an animal, again as opposed to a plant or mineral, does not mean that is no such thing as right or wrong. Just because A=B does not mean B=A. All humans are animals, but not all animals are human. Humans have developed morals. It is perfectly okay to believe in the overwhelming evidence of evolution without believing in the efficacy of or supporting Eugenics. Believing in evolution does not equal being a Nazi.
I’ve read your postings on this blog and I know that you will never accept evolution because it conflicts with your religion. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is what I think you believe:
- God created the universe in 7 days
- The earth is approximately 6,000 years old
- Mankind appeared on Earth in our current form with Adam and Eve
- All human life is descended from Adam and Eve.
Given those beliefs, no amount of evidence will cause you to even consider the possibility of evolution. You arguments against evolution are based solely on your religious beliefs, rather than facts and evidence.
9. Mark Noonan | April 19th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
kmg,
There is no test for evolution, and there is not an iota of evidence of one species becoming another…there is sufficient evidence of variation within species to consider micro-evolution as established fact…but there is no science behind the concept that a single celled organism over billions of years changed into me typing on this computer, and a gazelle running on the African plains…but that, also, is not what is at issue here; what is at issue is free enquiry and academic freedom.
If ID is the idiocy you say it is, then it will swiftly be proved as much in a scientific setting…what are you afraid of?
10. Mark Noonan | April 19th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
kmg,
And you’re getting further off subject - we’re not here to debate whether or not the world is 6,000 or 6,000,000,000 years old…but what, exactly, do we mean by “science” and should we exclude certain avenues of inquiry?
11. Jeremiah | April 19th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Your question is one of morals.
kmg,
Yes, that is correct. Now, you must tell me where in science, can morals be tested, where and when they originated.
If science can’t explain morals and they can’t be tested, then you must contend that science has no explanation.
Just as science can’t explain faith, you can understand in your own individual way what faith is, because you use it in some way every single day, but herein lies the difference in what each individual bases their faith in.
For example … there are many things that you know you can’t possibly do on your own, so you must rely on something else, something that has the capacity to get you the required result that you are looking for, that being science … In the end, you resort to the collective and stored data that science has accumulated, things that have been tried time and time again and they worked…Again, it is what you placed your faith and reliance in that got you to that point…but there’s some things that science can’t even do, and will never do, no matter how many tries and errors you go through…why? Well, in truth, that won’t always be the case, depending on your definition of [science] is, or is not … science consisting of the definition of humanistic or [secular] science won’t be able to explain the complete dynamics of any active organism invisible to the naked eye, for whatever is inside that organism is exclusive to it, just as we are exclusively bound to this earth and universe, therefore, science in the secular form is bound to it…how? Because the mind that holds the secular view, is using their ability to choose (free-will), to deny anything that they can’t actually see in a physical form here on earth–concluding in their minds that they are the product of freak accident. And it’s been this way from the beginning of time, even after the overwhelming evidence of The Creator, they used their free-will to believe in themselves…they died, as it were, and ascended into “nothingness.” Haha…how silly.
So, it gives me the pleasure in letting you know…that you do have someone greater than yourself that you can rely on that will never let you down.
Experimenting with science will let you down the first try, and sometimes it goes tragically wrong, Darwin gave us his “science” and left us with his deadly, Deadly, DEADLY ideology!!! Just look at the Jews that were slaughtered, because they were deemed inferior, retarded, and weak. Beautiful, healthy people starved and marched in the dead of winter for miles where they were shot and thrown in a trench, many of them used for experimentation for what? For SCIENCE, many of them put in ice-cold water for hours and hours at a time, pulling chunks of flesh and hair out of their bodies. Many of them poisoned. All in the name of science.
Today, that same sort of “science” is being used to silence the Christian community.
But let me tell you, friend, in my science, God, the Creator of this magnificent earth and universe is the science behind it all, and He loves and cares for people…and ain’t no man can take that away from me.
You want proof, just look around a little bit.
12. Jeremiah | April 19th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
….And 50,000,000 unborn children have been murdered in the name of “science” here in America.
When is enough?
13. Tractatus | April 19th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Deleted - mindless insults.
14. Jeremiah | April 19th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Tractatus,
The problem with you evolutionists is that you won’t acknowledge that you are indeed weak!
I acknowledge my weakness, ok?
But when you won’t accept your weakness, giving yourself the impression that you are the “only arbiter” on science, makes you even weaker than you already are…How so?
Because aren’t able to test what you cannot see with physical man-made instruments.
And this is what leads to wars, because then you think you can silence thoughs whom you deem “delusional” for placing faith in something greater that they cannot see but they place faith in Him.
In other words, instread of bowing to the All-powerful, you deny Him and you worship your weak little self, and lift yourself up to a standpoint of authority over-all.
NO MAN IS GIVEN ANY AUTHORITY ON EARTH…WHAT-SO-EVER!!!
Only God be praised and glorified. Period. And He will be glorified and praised. Forever!
15. Tractatus | April 19th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Because aren’t able to test what you cannot see with physical man-made instruments.
Do you even know what science is, Jerry? It certainly doesn’t appear that you do.
16. Jeremiah | April 19th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Tractatus,
In order to test something from your secular point of view, you must test your theory with what you have at your disposal…because you can’t accept anything but the physical experience that it brings.
The difference here …. You’re placing faith that your theory will work, well, what happens if it doesn’t work … What prohibited your theory from going through … Did you ever think … Hmmm, it’s interesting how this works, but something else is in it that won’t allow me to do my thing.
So what is it?
Did you ever think … maybe God wants me to look to Him for the answer?
Nine out of ten chances … He does.
17. Jeremiah | April 19th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
I take that back, ten out of ten chances. That’s means all the way, your complete faith.
18. BARRASSO | April 19th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I can see why science threatens your beliefs, every time science is put up against religion science wins. The damned scientists keep learning things that weaken the religious myths you base your reality upon, so many stupid arguments in so few posts, to point out one I’ll just quote a recent post by John Derbyshire
“As so often with creationist material, I’m not sure what the point is. Darwin’s great contribution to human knowledge, his theory of the origin of species, is either true, or it’s not. Is David saying: “When taken up by evil people, the theory had evil consequences. Therefore the theory must be false”? Is he asserting, in other words, that a true theory about the world could not possibly have evil consequence, no matter who picked it up and played with it, with no matter how little real understanding? Does David think that true facts cannot possibly be used for malign purposes? If that is what David is asserting, it seems to me an awfully hard proposition to defend. It is a true fact that E = mc2, and the Iranians are right at this moment using that true fact to construct nuclear weapons. If they succeed, and use their weapons for horrible purposes, will that invalidate the Special Theory of Relativity?
If David does not think that Darwin’s explanation for the origin of species is correct, let him give us his reasons; or better yet, an alternative explanation that we can test by observation. That a wicked man invoked Darwin’s name as an excuse to do wicked things tells us nothing, nada, zero, zippo, zilch about the truth content of Darwin’s ideas.
And, as always when the Darwin-Hitler business comes up, I note that guilt by association cuts two ways. Islamic fundamentalists are Darwin-hating creationists to a man. (And probably to a woman ? but the women don’t get to say much.)”
“What do we mean by ?science? and should we exclude certain avenues of inquiry?”
Yes, we should exclude certain avenues of inquiry, like philosophy and religion, those aren’t science.
Can science give us morals? No, morality is philosophy not science SASQ.
Also how the hell is abortion “Science”?
19. Jeremiah | April 19th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
BARRASSO,
Can science give us morals? No, morality is philosophy not science SASQ.
Right! Now when and where did they originate?
Also … Islamic fundamentalists are Darwin-hating creationists to a man.
The Islamic Jihadists are no different that the Darwinist-Hitlerites, they may hate the Darwinists but they’re no different.
How? Because they worship the Created instead of the Creator, did Muhammad ascend into heaven? No!
It was Muhammad that started the first major Jihads, therefore, the Islamists worship the physical man, and that’s all he was, a sinner just like everybody else.
Jesus, on the other hand, came as God in the flesh, and He had the Spirit of God in Him, therefore, we worship the Spiritual Jesus, and we can have the Spirit through accepting His plan of Salvation.
We do not worship the flesh like the Islamists, like the Atheists, like the Hitlerites.
See?
20. Mortimer | April 19th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Deleted - mindless insults.
21. Mark Noonan | April 19th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
BARRASSO,
The opinion that science always wins is your opinion - and it is not a correct one; only when science plays with loaded dice does it win out against religion. One of the more stupid concepts of modern times is that faith and reason are in conflict - than you, so-called “Enlightenment” for that bit of mountebankery…
I guess you guys like to sit around congratulating yourself on how smart your are for not believing…meanwhile, in not believing, you have fallen, by turns, for eugenics, socialism, fascism, Nazism, communism…these days, you defend abortion and pornography. On the other hand, believers are believing the truth…wondering when you guys will humble yourselves a bit and drink of the wellspring of Reason, known as God.
22. Tractatus | April 19th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Yes, challenging you to cite actual evidence in favor of ID is “mindless insults” Such cowardice, Noonan. Sack up for once, would you? Stop hiding and and be a man.
23. Tractatus | April 19th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
well, what happens if it doesn’t work
You observe and try again. That’s called the scientific process. Clearly, it is something you know nothing about.
24. Diana Powe | April 19th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
I’ll start by making a prediction. Expelled will quickly disappear into box office oblivion as the few people who see it and who aren’t already aware of and approve of its premise describe it to others as a poorly made and rather dull piece of propaganda. It will quickly go to home video where, again, it will sell only to people who are already inclined to believe what it has to say.
Of course, it would be interesting if the non-choir members who see Expelled were aware of the filmmakers’ own intellectual suppression efforts. After filming and using footage of biologist P. Z. Myers in the film, they had him thrown out of line for a public screening in Minneapolis. However, they failed to notice another person used in the film, Richard Dawkins, who was there as Myers’ guest so Dawkins was able to get in and subsequently challenge one of the producers, Mark Mathis, who falsely claimed that the showing was invitation-only, when, in fact, the producers were using an Internet RSVP system in which attendees names would be checked against the RSVP list.
Oops. So much for intellectual integrity.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/a_late_night_quick_one.php
25. Christian Wright | April 19th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
If you don’t believe in evolution, how do you explain amphibians?
Better example: The reason why the flu virus in 2008 won’t work in 2009 is because the virus evolved an immunity to the 2008 serum.
Just look at all the dogs in the world. Big dogs, small dogs, dogs that specialize as ratters, dogs that specialize in water fowl, dogs that are useless except as pets. 5,000 years ago, they were all wolves.
26. Jeremiah | April 19th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Another thing we must look at, is the misconception that the earth was not created in six days.
Ok, first of all, I think this philosophy stems from the Biblical understanding of time as we’ve read it thusly, ‘A thousand years is as one day to God,’ and that would be a correct understanding as it would relate to God’s patience on our behalf to accept the His plan for our lives. It deals specifically with that.
To make the distinction on the Creation of the earth in six days, let us go to Genesis in our Bibles, and read following each act of Creation….Does it say….And a thousand as the first day? No! It says…
‘And the evening and the morning were the first day’. and the second, and the third, and the fourth, and fifth, and sixth and the seventh.
He done this on our account, for this was when we were encapsulated within the confines of time, and thus, time began…and as the events were set forth to unfold, it would set the future of mankind’s existence.
So, God planned ahead, you see. He gave us a part of Himself, in that we have a choice, just as He has a choice, only He set limits for what we can accomplish, as we are only physical…
For example - We can’t see in the dark - God can. We can lift only so much - God can move mountains and planets in the bat of an eye.
All the qualities we in nature show a part of God. Things that animals can do we can’t, a cheetah running 70 miles an hour … I doubt any man has ever ran over 30 or 40. Man has to create something, a car.
Peregrine falcon can fly and then make a drop a vertical drop at over 200 miles an hour.
Man has to create something … a plane.
Peregrine falcons can see things too, from afar off, man has to create something….Binoculars.
Woodpeckers chisel holes in rock-hard wood, man has to make something - a hammer and chisel.
Chameleons change color - man has to create something - Dye and fabric. LOL!
Honeybees give directions where the nectar source is coming from by dancing what the location of the give is in correlation to the sun - man has to create something - radar imagery and satellite.
Ducks can float - man has to make something - a boat.
A frog catches prey and retrieves it with its long sticky tongue - man has to create something - a sling shot.
Fish live underwater - man has to create something - a submarine, water-suit and oxygen tank.
Just about every individual creature in nature does one thing in particular to its survival, with brilliant and perfect design, and man can do them all by copying from nature…He can’t do them all on his own, because he’s not equipped/Created with the necessary physical features that the other creatures were created with.
The difference is, animals are always satified and content with what they have…but man? Oh my goodness, he wants more and more and more and more ….. Why? Because his soul is not satisified, he’s searching in the wrong places….It’s right there, all you gotta do is ask.
27. Diana Powe | April 19th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
As to the central claim of Expelled, that there is a quasi-conspiracy to suppress open intellectual inquiry into ultimate origins, it is utter bunk. According to one of its chief advocates, biologist Michael Behe, PhD, astrology is just as much a scientific theory as intelligent design as he noted in his testimony in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
Apparently, the crushing weight of the enforcement of scientific orthodoxy has failed to take sufficient note of Prof. Behe as he continues to make a living teaching biochemistry at Lehigh University.
In fact, it was Prof. Behe’s truthful testimony which was extensively cited by Judge John E. Jones III (an appointee of the current President Bush) to describe intelligent design as an “untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in
religion” in entering an order barring the Dover Area School District from “maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID.”
28. southerner | April 19th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Jeremiah et al,
Regarding this idea that ‘Darwinism’ or the theories of evolution or natural selection led to something you call “Auswithch”, the idea has been clearly refuted so many times it’s truly sad that you bring it up.
I’m going to make this as simple as I can. AS another poster above mentioned, just because a scientific theory is invoked in the pursuit of some form of evil ideology or social program does not mean that said theory lead to that program, rather it is often the case that the theory is being used to legitimize said program.
In the specific case of Hitler and the Jews, Hitler clearly misunderstood the concept of Natural Selection. He believed that since Natural Selection supposedly talks about “the survival of the fittest” (a gross simplification) , that the Germans had a right to exterminate the Jews since the Germans were “better” than the Jews. As you can see already from this brief summary this was a more than somewhat arbitrary decision on Hitler’s part. The Jews have survived for millenia, often in very trying conditions and therefore, by the logic of Natural Selection, the Jews should be judget among those “fittest” to survive. In any case, there is nothing in Natural Selection that gives one group a right or reason to exterminate another, nothing whatsoever.
So you see, it is you Jeremiah who in fact have something in common with Hitler, and not the evolutionists. You have both completely miss-understood this theory and used your mistaken logic to propogate false, ideologically based ideas.
Let me make this as simple
29. southerner | April 19th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
And Mark, just for the record, you mention above that “there is not an iota of evidence of one species becoming another”.
Just to clarifiy, is it therefore the position of the Intelligent Design movement (for it is not a scientific theory, and has been judget not be so in Federal Courts), that such forms of evolution cannot or do not occur?
I’m very curious what your answer to this is.
30. Diana Powe | April 19th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
“Darwinism”, of course, is the term used for the purported anti-science conspiracy among scientists to suppress consideration of intelligent design as a hypothesis. This has nothing to do with the one thing that Charles Darwin actually described which is his proposed mechanism for the process of evolution that he and others had already accepted as true as far back in history as the Ancient Greek philosopher Anaximander of Miletus. Darwin’s proposed mechanism was natural selection which is an ongoing area of study along with other proposed complementary mechanisms.
The theory (i.e. accepted overarching explanatory framework) of evolution is not considered settled among biologists because of the enforcement of rigid orthodoxy. It is considered settled because to deny it would require denying countless observable aspects of the world which underly other large areas of science which we routinely rely on such as geology, inorganic and organic chemistry and genetics. Of course, saying that life has evolved on Earth over billions of years does not exclude the possibility of a designer who has or does intervene in the evolutionary process. However, the designer hypothesis does not have any place in teaching the state of science because it is not science, given that the designer hypothesis is not falsifiable.
Talking about the Intelligent Design Hypothesis is certainly one of the things that could be fruitful in a comparative religion or philosophy class. That would be particularly interesting if it was truthfully presented as being a hypothesis that is necessarily open to any sort of proposed Intelligent Designer including the aforementioned Flying Spaghetti Monster. However, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, no matter how interesting they might be, have no place in the teaching of science until one actually shows up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster
31. Jeremiah | April 19th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Southerner,
Regardless of what you want Auswitch to be, the fact remains, man was created with a choice, yet, you evolutionary protaginists want to pretend that the Holocaust was nothing but Hitler’s idea … well, i’ve got news for you little fellow, it’s written all over Darwin’s history … and for you to cover up for Hitler only shows how extreme and fanatically hate-filled you ACLU, Liberal hate-mongers are.
I’ll say this … You need to get off the Liberal left-wing propaganda and fill your head with something that has some hope in it.
32. phnx | April 19th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Will one of you enlightened leftists please explain to me how life began in the first place?
I’d like to hear something other than the primordial soup theory. Since this hasn’t been proven by scientific method it must be taken on faith…much like ID.
The ball’s in your court.
33. Christian Wright | April 19th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
phnx:
If I had to choose between a scientific theory and and a fable, I go for the theory.
34. Diana Powe | April 19th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
phnx,
Your question is rather imprecise beginning with the fact that, while we know countless examples of things which all can agree are alive and countless examples of things which all can agree are not alive, there is no universal definition for life. There are lots of characteristics which living things share, but there is no agreement on what are the necessary and sufficient characteristics to say that something is alive. This is an ongoing area of research.
Also ongoing is research on the question of specifically how Earth got from being a planet with no life to one with life. There are several different hypotheses, any of which may or may not lead to a theory. In fact, it may be that more than one mechanism may have been in operation at the same time in different parts of the planet. If that were the case, for instance, an Intelligent Designer (the Flying Spaghetti Monster, perhaps) might have intervened to suppress all but the one which led to us, however, that wouldn’t be a useful element to study as it is impossible to falsify the existence or operation of an FSM.
So, the work continues to try to elucidate an answer to your excellent question…
35. kmg | April 19th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Mark,
You say I’m getting off the subject, but you should be addressing Jeremiah. I don’t believe your intent when you posted this was to label everyone who believes in evolution a Nazi.
Back to the topic at hand, you can’t put forth a bunch of fallacies and insist we debate within those confines. Here are the fallacies:
- ID is a scientific Theory. Here is the definition of scientific theory: a theory that explains scientific observations; scientific theories must be falsifiable. How is ID falsifiable?
- Evolution is not testable. Evolution is testable through observation. How is ID testable?
I am not afraid of ID and no one is trying to prevent it being proved in a scientific setting. Your problem is that you want it taught as a scientific theory on par with evolution without subjecting it to scientific rigor. Can you identify when ID has ever been scientifically tested? Can you point us to the peer-reviewed publications that document this testing? Simply saying that if something can’t be explained by science it is therefore due to God, Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any other deity, is not science and should not be taught in schools. If the Discovery Institute is so sure of ID as a scientific theory, then produce the science. Don’t try to pass off your beliefs as science.
36. Tractatus | April 19th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Will one of you enlightened leftists please explain to me how life began in the first place?
You do know that evolution does not address the issue of the beginning of life, right?
Try again. The ball’s in your court.
37. kmg | April 19th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
phnx,
Evolutionary theory does not address how life began, so your question is not relevant to the topic.
38. kmg | April 19th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Tractatus beat me to it.
39. Jeremiah | April 19th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
kmg,
The very thing you’re trying to do is prevent the truth from getting out through two methods:
One - For your objection that ID “can’t” be tested.
Two - And the main reason, through Seperation of Church and State issue, the greatest and worst disaster that ever befell this Nation. Of course, that’s a long, long story, I won’t get into that, it wouldn’t be worth my time wasting it on it…at any rate, it’s stupid.
Back to what I wanted to get to - You say, ‘Can you identify when ID has ever been scientifically tested?
You test ID through faith, God says - ‘Examine me, O Lord, and prove me…
Be still and know that I am God.
40. Jeremiah | April 19th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Regardless of what you think, every time you use faith, it doesn’t matter what kind of faith it is, that is the nature in which God chose to bestowe a part of Himself to you.
Now, your theory is your choice, you’re entitled to it, however, I choose to base my beliefs on acknowledgment that I am weak and that there is a greater power still…..because it’s been proven….that you choose to deny it? It’s not skin off my nose, But … you’re theory will sure lead our country down the gutter fast with your secular thinking.
What has made America great is the Christian scientists, in fact, the first major discovery was made by the Christian people.
41. js | April 19th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
so if evolution never had a beginning, how did it ever start
the entire precept of evolution is that life on earth evolved from a single cell
you cant deny it
http://library.thinkquest.org/26070/data/eng/2/1.html
evolutionary theory isnt complete without a full scientific examination of the entire spectrum of life, problem is, the spectrum they present is so full of guess that its truely a useless issue to debate, that is why liberals refuse to debate the whole issue, because they will ultimately lose to the truth, which is, factually, they dont know….
in reality, its better for them not to enter into a debate on evolution, because every time they do they get stumped
there is no actual proof that evolution is real, not the way they want it be anyways, not one time have they provided empirical scientific proof that it is, never did, never will
just gossip and rumors, because its only guess work
42. Jeremiah | April 19th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
no universal definition for life.
Non-sense, Diana.
Jesus said, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life.
Without Him we are as dry bones, to be pitched into the fire and burned.
The Spirit of God is Life, friends.
CW,
I hate to say this, but that story you wrote is just pure garbage.
Psalm 14:1 - ‘The fool hath said in his heart, there is “no” God.’
Blasphemers
43. kmg | April 19th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Jeremiah,
Thank you for proving the point that ID is just creationism by another name. You’re not helping Mark’s argument.
BTW, I’m not trying to prevent the “truth” from getting out. As I said, if ID is a scientific theory, subject it to scientific testing and let the truth come out. ID proponents refuse to take that simple step. I assume it is because they already know the answers they will get.
44. Christian Wright | April 19th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Life started with amino acids.
Lifeless chemicals mixed in the correct proportions created life.
Happy now.
45. js | April 19th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
really jeremiah, when i first woke up that the spirit world was real, it was looking for everything but God…eastern religions really do get a hook in on people, and unless they learn that they are dealing with demons and demonic powers, they will fail in the end
if we try hard enough, we can find God, He is as realy as the oxygen that we breath
problem is, so many people dont want to work that hard, our own minds are our enemies, when we learn to shut our minds up, and rid ourselves of the ever present noise polution in this day and age, we get a chance
the hardest part is to silence your mind…and learn to concentrate with your soul
46. js | April 19th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
“45. Christian Wright
Life started with amino acids.
Lifeless chemicals mixed in the correct proportions created life.”
Ive yet to meet someone that could actually prove that.
Go ahead, we are waiting.
47. Jeremiah | April 19th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
kmg,
My friend, for the unbeliever, the Truth, will come out I can assure of that…When? When the body ceases to exist. Death which none shall escape, but only through God’s Spirit.
48. Jeremiah | April 19th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
if we try hard enough, we can find God, He is as realy as the oxygen that we breath
He sure is, js. And as long as we go by what the Word of God says, then we can’t go wrong, but when we stray from what His Word says, then we’re in trouble.
49. NeoClown | April 19th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
The Chinese, and Russians, think it’s a wonderful idea for us to teach ID in our schools.
If Americans aren’t learning mathematics and engineering, we don’t pose much of a threat to the rest of the world.
50. southerner | April 19th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Wow Mark, you’ve really got some first-rate minds fighting your corner for you.
51. js | April 19th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Mt 18:20 -
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them
whats even better is when he shows up on your doorstep!!
52. kmg | April 19th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
On the other hand, believers are believing the truth…wondering when you guys will humble yourselves a bit and drink of the wellspring of Reason, known as God. - Mark
And Mark now admits that ID is just religion masquerading as science. I think this debate is about finished.
53. js | April 19th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
gee
read over the whole blog
did not see where mark actually said that kmg…seems like the only the word masquerading occurs, is your post…thats like, putting words in someone elses mouth so to speak….its also a lie…
54. Christian Wright | April 20th, 2008 at 1:00 am
Deleted - off topic.
55. Mark Noonan | April 20th, 2008 at 1:31 am
kmg,
Evolution is also not falsifiable - there’s no way for me to demonstrate to you that one species cannot possibly develope into another. I can demonstrate the extraordinarily high odds against it happening even once, and then extrapolate out from that the really, really vastly improbable story of evoution as accepted in modern biology classes….but I can’t prove that evolution didn’t happen. So, if the test of science here is falsifiability, then evolution is a much a matter of faith as ID is.
What we want is to learn - you say that since ID pre-supposes a Creator, that it is ruled out of court for school science courses. Why should that be? Only an assumption that God doesn’t exist justifies keeping ID out of science class - and the presumption that God doesn’t exist is not falsifiable, and thus - by your definition - doesn’t belong in science class.
There’s a gigantic hole in your learning - boiled down, you are saying “assume life” - and from there you work it out that a completely unguided process of random mutation resulted in zebras and seagulls. Figure the odds - and I mean, literally, figure the odds of even one useful mutation happening…not even a shift from one species to another, but just a shift adding something useful to an existing species. The chances of this happening are vanishingly small - and in this you’ve already assumed life, which leaves out of your vastly improbable equation the even more improbable event of lifeless materials forming themselves into self-replicating DNA.
There can be no harm - and likely would be a great deal of intellectual stimulation - if at the start of biology there was a free ranging discussion of how matter came to be, and how life arose out of this matter. Put out there the various ideas - some of them are quite fascinating; but include in it the concept that a Creator put it together…the kids aren’t dolts, they’ll figure out quick if you’re pulling their leg….and therein lies the real reason for opposition to ID: it is logical; it makes sense…in fact, it makes so much sense that next to it the threadbare theory of a purely natural selection evolution looks laughable.
Darwinism - as distinct from Darwin’s actual theory of the origin of the species - is deathly afraid of God…fearful that if there is a God, then He’ll have to be taken into consideration…and prideful people don’t want to admit to something superior to themselves.
56. Robert | April 20th, 2008 at 2:03 am
Mark, what if someone believed in a Superior being, but not YOUR God - are they wrong in your eyes? What about believing in something greater than yourself and everyone and everything on this planet, but not restricting that Creator to you own beliefs, judgements, and YOUR Bible.
Mark, what if there IS a God and He is not what you think Him to be? What if the REAL truth is MUCH larger and more complex than you can even begin to imagine? What do you do then?
The man in the interview, Dawkins, believes in something greater than himself. He believes in intelligent alien life with powers and characteristics so complex and so unimaginable to us that it might seem to be God.
What is wrong with that, Mark?
You yourself said that the first step of science is to ask “Why?” I do that all the time, Mark. And my questions do not stop with - “The answer is in the Bible.”
The Bible and the Christian religion are only a tiny fraction of the REAL truth. That REAL truth of the Universe we cannot even try to comprehend - it is SO HUGE!
So Mark, whose mind is closed to possibility? Someone who is free to question ALL of life’s wonders, or someone who thinks that ONLY their beliefs are valid?
Why must you put God into such a small box, Mark? God is FAR greater than your Bible and your beliefs. You are entitled to those beliefs, but to condemn those who belief evolution and entertain other notions of the Universe is to actually belittle God.
You insult God by putting Him into a box that only you are able to say is truth.
Imagination is God’s greatest gift to humanity, Mark. Perhaps you should use yours a little more before you condemn others beliefs, before you condemn science, as false because it contradicts YOUR belief system.
May we all find some degree of truth someday. Maybe that truth might even start by looking for intelligent life in the Universe that is not human, but has beliefs and customs of its own.
Maybe EVERY living thing that might exist in the Universe is looking for God. Did you ever think of that, Mark? Maybe you should….
57. Diana Powe | April 20th, 2008 at 2:26 am
Evolution is completely falsifiable. If the fossilized remains of an elephant were found to be contemporaneous with fossils dating to the Middle Cambrian period, then the whole thing would fall to the ground. However, that’s never happened.
So, the Intelligent Design hypothesis, which is not falsifiable, does not belong in the science curriculum. I’m sure that it comes up frequently in informal discussions and the alert teacher could certainly use it to distinguish between the realm of science and metaphysics. However, as no one can either prove or disprove the existence and operation on our world of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the FSM or any of its equally likely candidates for an Intelligent Designer has no place as part of teaching science.
Also, trying to make a claim that the series of changes necessary to build a chain of successively more complex organisms from the first protocell to Mark Noonan typing on his computer is too improbable to have happened fails to consider the possibility that the universe we observe is part of a multiverse. Even if it were true that this chain was fantastically improbable then the fact that we found ourselves in one of the few (or the only) universe in which it happened would not have any effect on its likelihood. As it is, given that the Earth has been the recipient of uncounted yottawatts (yes, there is such a prefix) of energy from the sun over its existence, the processes that go on here are not random at all but are chaotic which is something quite different.
58. Mark Noonan | April 20th, 2008 at 2:29 am
Robert,
We Christians have already figured that out - in a very real sense, we can’t even know what God is, exactly; we can really only know what He is not. Part of your problem here is that you think that Christians are people who don’t think - that we just rely upon the Bible and Authority and that is that. Actually, of all the world’s religions, it is Christians who have thought longest and deepest about the fundamentals of life and the universe.
Certainly there is a bit of “because the Bible says so” in the Christian religion - but we believe the Bible because we have thought about things, and what is contained in the Bible is very much in accord with rational thought. Be that as it may, that is not the issue here - the issue is, as stated, what constitutes science and should anything be disallowed from free inquiry?
59. Mark Noonan | April 20th, 2008 at 2:32 am
Diana,
It is just so mind-bogglingly ignorant to try and lump Christian belief in with your FSM…I know, non-believers like it because it allows them to think that God - and his Church - are really no different…but even a cursory examination of the evidence demonstrates that belief in God is rational and, in fact, non-belief requires an irrational act.
And your elephant example would not falsify evolution - to falsify it, you’d have to demonstrate conclusively that it could not have happened, ever.
60. Diana Powe | April 20th, 2008 at 2:37 am
The oppressive hand of scientific orthodoxy as evidenced by Michael Behe, PhD’s faculty page:
So, Lehigh must be inherently friendly to intelligent design? Not so much, as noted by Dr. Behe, “My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them.”
61. Mark Noonan | April 20th, 2008 at 2:46 am
Diana,
How many other professors have to put that disclaimer up? Bet that the university made him put it up…aside from that, here is the rest of it, which you didn’t quote, as it severly questions your worldview:
There is, as I’ve noted, the very large stretch required to think that a species can, by accident, turn into a different species…this is stretched much, much further once someone undersands just how complex even something as simple as a single celled organism is…and how it doesn’t work unless all the parts are there.
62. Diana Powe | April 20th, 2008 at 2:53 am
Mark,
For purposes of the Intelligent Design hypothesis, there is no evidence of any kind that would suggest that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was any more likely than God as described in our Christian theology. You may not like that, but your not liking it doesn’t make it so.
Also, although you’ll just deny it, you’re completely mistaken about the hypothetical Cambrian elephant not falsifying evolution. Evolution says that life has proceeded over time to produce ever more complex forms. In the Cambrian, the most complex form of life was the trilobite. Mammals like the elephant were far in the future. If an elephant were indisputably there, the whole simpler-to-more-complex scheme wouldn’t be worth anything as a scientific theory.
As to your reiteration of your “accident” objection, I would simply refer you back to the last paragraph in my Comment # 57.
As I said, talking about the ID hypothesis is completely unobjectionable as long as no one tries to incorrectly force it into a science curriculum.
63. Diana Powe | April 20th, 2008 at 3:03 am
Mark,
The fact that Michael Behe is academically free to pursue his efforts to actually demonstrate examples of irreducible complexity in biological systems (which he has so far failed to do) simply shows the propagandistic nature of Expelled. If he succeeds, he can then offer his work to see if it can be reproduced by other scientists. If so, then he will have established a basis for trying to incorporate Intelligent Design into science instead of metaphysics.
64. Freedom1 | April 20th, 2008 at 3:37 am
Darwinism is a weak theory. So, weak in fact that the only way to protect it, is to prohibit people from criticizing it and to destroy the academic careers of people who do dare to criticize it. That’s not very scientific. That’s totalitarism.
I saw “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” in a Los Angeles theatre. After the movie ended the audience applauded.
65. Mark Noonan | April 20th, 2008 at 3:45 am
Diana,
I know that is what you’ve been told and I know that is what you meekly and incuriously accept because you want it to be that way…but, that isn’t the way it is…perhaps you should try a bit of independent thought?
66. Plantation Owner | April 20th, 2008 at 5:51 am
“Darwinism is a weak theory. So, weak in fact that the only way to protect it, is to prohibit people from criticizing it and to destroy the academic careers of people who do dare to criticize it. That’s not very scientific. That’s totalitarism.”
Sounds like the same tactic they are using with global warming, errr climate change or whatever the term du jour is.
Liberals don’t see this as a problem as long as it is their message that is being forced upon the people. Now if some non-liberal approved message was out there……………
the excrement will hit the fan!
67. jeff | April 20th, 2008 at 8:39 am
study DNA please.
closest thing to our DNA?
earth’s dirt.
next is a rare breed of monkey.
and then the list goes on with less and less %.
but they all have a part of it.
sunday school is over.
support freedom of thought.
learn.
have a beautiful day.
68. kmg | April 20th, 2008 at 8:42 am
js,
his qouted remark comes from the last paragraph of post #21. I read that as an admittal that this is not about science, but about religion.
69. js | April 20th, 2008 at 9:00 am
why not just prove one event of speciation….wouldnt that disprove intelligent design?….speciation isnt sticking rapidly developing fruit flies into a controlled environment and forcing genetic changes to occur…thats nothing but adaptation…speciation is the actual changing of one species to another…a complete change sufficient to demonstrate the creation of a species that before the change, did not exist….for example…the manatee and the elephant…science claims that the manatee’s closes living relative is the elephant…while science makes such claims based on similarities in skin cells…there are no offerings of evidence of the actual speciation of the manatee to the elephant in archeological records….
so, effectively, using the same logic, two children that draw similar pictures have the same parent…which we know to be defective logic…just like evolution….
so where is it?
it doesnt exist…its all a big bunch of kids in the sandbox…and they are not playing fair….because some huge developments of evolution were based and advanced on fraud…just like what they teach in our schools…
70. js | April 20th, 2008 at 9:05 am
sorry KMD, the quoted reference doesnt say one word about religion masquerading as anything…you just want to hear what you want to hear, regardless of what is said…
71. kmg | April 20th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Mark,
I did not say “that since ID pre-supposes a Creator, then it is ruled out of court for school science courses.”
I said, “Simply saying that if something can’t be explained by science it is therefore due to God, Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any other deity, is not science and should not be taught in schools. If the Discovery Institute is so sure of ID as a scientific theory, then produce the science. Don’t try to pass off your beliefs as science.”
There’s a difference between the two statements.
Pre-supposing a Creator is not just one aspect of ID; it is the entirety of ID. Your statement pre-supposes that ID is a scientific theory and that the only objection to it is the reference to a Creator. My objection is that it is not science, as determined by the court and the scientific community, and therefore has no place in a science class. If you want ID taught in schools, teach it in a Comparative Religion or Philosophy class. That is where your free-ranging discussion of how matter came to be belongs until you have some science to back it up.
Maybe Behe should spend less time trying to educate people on ID and more time scientifically testing it. The education part doesn’t seem to be going so well, since in the Pennsylvania case his testimony proved to the court that ID was just another name for creationism.
72. js | April 20th, 2008 at 9:12 am
to be truthful, science has used fraudulent information in courts of law to prove that evolution is true…but that did not change the truth…our courts are full of mistakes and errors based on modern mood swings in society…and science…so dont give us the BS that science had empirical proof that God doesnt exist, nor that evolution is an empirical fact, because it isnt.
73. js | April 20th, 2008 at 9:20 am
funny thing…if scientists only objection to creationism is that its based on the faith that God exists…shouldnt they realise that evolution also is nothing but faith that evolution exists? certianly, evolution is not empirical science…yet neither is there empirical evidence that God doesnt exist…so, effectively, all things being equal, and all the scientific study that has been conducted does not prove the source of all life, it can actually be professed through faith that the evidence supports both suppositions, that God created the world and that all life evolved from a pool of amino acids in a petree dish four billion years ago…..
so, teaching evolution in schools is factually no different than teaching ID, all things being equal..
74. jeff | April 20th, 2008 at 9:25 am
we all believe in a god or such.
but in our own ways.
we all believe in nature as well.
but in our own ways.
that is freedom.
not the beating of a drum of brainwashing.
we all also and hopefully believe in crime and our continue efforts in removing it.
so we all can live and share this world together.
no matter what we may believe in.
that is the real point.
have a beautiful day.
75. kmg | April 20th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Be that as it may, that is not the issue here - the issue is, as stated, what constitutes science and should anything be disallowed from free inquiry? – Mark
As you said, Mark, let’s get back to the issue. What constitutes science? Here is the definition of science from the American Heritage Science Dictionary, “The investigation of natural phenomena through observation, theoretical explanation, and experimentation, or the knowledge produced by such investigation.” Demonstrate the scientific observations and experiments conducted in support of ID, specifically supporting ID’s assertion of a Creator.
Should anything be disallowed from free inquiry? No. As I’ve already said, ID proponents are not being barred from inquiring, testing, and experimenting on their idea. Students are free to inquire about ID to their heart’s content. What ID proponents are being barred from, and rightly so, is passing off their speculation as scientific theory and forcing it to be taught in schools.
76. kmg | April 20th, 2008 at 9:43 am
“so dont give us the BS that science had empirical proof that God doesnt exist, nor that evolution is an empirical fact, because it isn’t.” – js
JS,
Show me where in this thread I stated that science had empirical proof that God doesn’t exist or where I said that evolution is empirical fact.
“…thats like, putting words in someone elses mouth so to speak….its also a lie…” - js
77. FmrMarine | April 20th, 2008 at 9:46 am
brian b;
>>>>And just because you disagree with scientists over ID and HOMOSEXUALITY, does not make the scientists wrong.<<<<
Ahh the truth buried in the darwin smoke screen.
This is what the leftist, self proclaimed gay - lesbian serial disruptor’s who post here, are really trying to prove .
Christianity is “wrong” therefore meaningless, therefore can not stand against their perversions and political agenda.
78. js | April 20th, 2008 at 9:47 am
who said i was talking about you kmg?
you ever read a court case? the triers of fact? they have been referred to in this blog, no? AND…isnt it a situation that if fact is fact, it is therefor, empirical? no? this is simple process son, that all the study done to support evolution can also be claimed to support ID…or do you thing you can document the limitations of God’s power, ecspecially when you cant document His existence or non existence….
and for a court of law to weigh that one and not both are equal, is a miscarraige of justice, just like your defined ability to miss points, jump to conclusions, and make false accusations…
79. FmrMarine | April 20th, 2008 at 9:55 am
kmg
>>>>I said, “Simply saying that if something can’t be explained by science it is therefore due to God, Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any other deity, is not science and should not be taught in schools.<<<<
This point is EXACTALLY why darwin has NO place in our schools.
There have been over TEN “scientific explanations” of the origin of the universe since the early 1900’s this is YOUR proof of”science”?
In the 1970’s “scientists” warned of doom and gloom due to an approaching ICE AGE!
NOW
some mere 30 years later we are going to burn alive, be flooded, and blown away by massive hurricanes due to “global warming????
These are the “scientists” to whom you look to disprove GOD ??
GOOD FREEKING LUCK
80. js | April 20th, 2008 at 9:57 am
did anyone ever figure out what made evolution skip advancing every species on earth while mankind solely advanced in intelligence and logic? the truth is, the chances of that happening are equal to the odds of lifes beginning created from a single cell by chance multiplied by the odds that any speices would evolve to mankinds status in the world….would be enormous, yet, science and courts wont even consider it as a factor…
81. js | April 20th, 2008 at 10:04 am
just the fact that mankind exists is evidence of Gods existence…
82. jeff | April 20th, 2008 at 10:04 am
evolution vs. creationism.
there is no thin line there.
so leave science in school alone.
if they want to have courses on evolution, creationism, then do so if there is a demand for it.
but not as a requirment, but as a personal choice, that only applies as extra credit courses.
that is the real issue here, and should end here.
have a beautiful day.
83. kmg | April 20th, 2008 at 10:31 am
My mistake. I thought you were replying to my post preceding yours since I mentioned the Dover case. In that case, who were you refering to since no one has said the things you claim?
84. kmg | April 20th, 2008 at 10:43 am
BTW, js, I’m not your son, so get of the condescension kick. As Mark said, the issue is what constitutes science and should anything be disallowed from free inquiry? Try and address the topic without mentioning religion. I’ve stated the definition of science. How does ID fall into that definition? I’ve said no one should be prevented from investigating anything they want, but it should not be taught in science classes unless and until it undergoes the same scientific rigor as other accepted theories. Should we allow the idea that a guy with really large legs is pedaling a bike that spins the Earth to be taught alongside the Theory of Gravity? Does that idea constitute a scientific theory?
85. Christian Wright | April 20th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Mark Noonan: “Evolution is also not falsifiable - there’s no way for me to demonstrate to you that one species cannot possibly develope into another. ”
Go to a pet store and buy a tadpole and watch it grow legs to become an amphibian.
86. Plantation Owner | April 20th, 2008 at 10:58 am
“Go to a pet store and buy a tadpole and watch it grow legs to become an amphibian.”
That is not evolution, genius!
Evolution would be a single celled organism, that goes with the flow and not having direct action in its life, changing into a complex biological being over the course of millenia.
Single celled organism that goes with the flow - you should easily relate to that.
87. jeff | April 20th, 2008 at 11:03 am
nice try.
but….
evolution is a “gradual” process of change of an existing species animal or plant life due to “gradual” changes in it environment.
tadpole to amphibian as in egg to chicken.
is call the process of birth.
have a beautiful day.
88. kmg | April 20th, 2008 at 11:04 am
To stay on topic, here is the stated goal of the Discovery Institute (the creator and proponent of ID):
“To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.”
Their roadmap does not include scientifically testing ID, but instead focuses on trying to discredit evolution and conducting a PR campaign to get ID taught in schools.
How is that science?
89. felix the cat | April 20th, 2008 at 11:49 am
It is pointless to attempt to reason with people who are deeply entrenched in their religious psychosis. Human understanding of the world and how it works evolves (HA!) over time. The method of that understanding is science. Religion deals with the transcendent and though they may run parallel paths the is no converson between the two.
The problem with ID is that it claims to be science when it is not. It is creationisim dressed up. Those that wish to offer “alternatives” to established science do so with deciet because they just can’t stand anything that challenges their 16th century world view.
The next thing you know, they want to offer alternatives to gravity. (Like it is some sort of super sticky Jesus glue.) Maybe when you folks get sick you should see a physcian who was taught in medical school that disease is caused by bad humors and demons and the way to cure a broken leg is through trephening.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
90. Jeremiah | April 20th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
ftc,
contrary to what you think - anger, confusion, death, hatred, pain, sickness, suffering, and all the ills of the world are all a product one thing - sin.
Sin affected every living thing.
Everything was created perfect and to last indefinitely in the beginning, we wouldn’t die, never get sick, or anything if man had not decided he wanted to do things his own way.
Nevertheless, even though our physical bodies will suffer the agonizing pain of the physical world, there is a part of us that will never die and will not suffer provided we strive to do what God asks of us, which is only have faith.
So we should take what little trials and tribulations we go through in life with joy and contentment for the cause of one man who took our place, who suffered, bled, and died for our sake, that we might be afforded His Grace and Mercy.
Just look to the Cross.
91. Piggy | April 20th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
So if how did the bacteria form that gets us sick?
Sin or evolution?
92. Diana Powe | April 20th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Of course, when you don’t actually have a response to an argument and all else fails, resort to being condescending.
93. Jeremiah | April 20th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Piggy,
It was sin - so God sent the curse.
Before sin, there was no sickness.
94. Jeremiah | April 20th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
God was our helper in the beginning - but now that we have sinned, we’re on our own, and we hav to figure it out - and only one way to do that - that’s through Faith.
95. felix the cat | April 20th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Jerry:
Existence is an imperfection. The saying “nothing’s perfect” not a rationalization for failure, rather it is a statement of fact. The only perfect” thing” is no thing. Non-existence.
Personally I think you need mental help. I have never come across anyone who is as welded to religious dogma as you. Do you actually believe that “sin” ( a purely human abstraction) is responsible for disease? You know nothing about science in general and molecular biology and particle physics in particular. What you have is a faith in the literal interpretation of the New Testement. You have this faith because you lack both the will and the intellectual capapcity to think critically and for yourself. You are weak and a mindless cult follower. Which is fine for you I suppose but don’t feign superiority to those that don’t buy into the insanity that you try to sell. Build a time machine and go back to when magic and superstition ruled the minds of man.
96. kmg | April 20th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Jeremiah,
Pandora released disease and pestilince into the world when she opened that darn box. Should that be taught in science classes?
97. Mark Noonan | April 20th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
kmg,
That is because the first step is to cease the censorship of ID in the schools - we’re fighting tooth and nail just to be allowed to introduce the subject…on the other side is the Establishment which simply decrees, with no actual evidence, that ID is psuedoscience and that materialism is all there is - it is being claimed that we on the ID side of the debate are trying to inject religion in to science…the reality is that we’re just trying to inject free inquiry into a place which has been reserved for the religion of Darwinist Materialism (it takes an immense leap of faith to hold that there is no designer - the evidence for a designer is so obvious, that to reject the concept takes a mental wrench…or the mindless acceptance of dogma).
While there are many claims that ID is refuted or that natural macro-evolution is established fact, the reality is that neither is true - we simply don’t know, and likely never will know, the answer to precisely how the species got to be where they are…natural selection is an interesting theory, but it is just a theory - and, in my view (as well as the view of many others) it leaves out some rather commonsense elements…such as how matter was created, and how life arose from lifeless matter.
In the end, if the Darwinists would just say “we don’t know” to such questions, there would be a lot less controversy…but well enough isn’t left alone, and ideologues on teh left insist on teaching as if it were fact, and they keep on insisting that there’s just no way for a designer to have been, or to intervene in his creation. As for why it is like this - because some people, due to pride of the worst sort, just refuse to admit to ignorance…everything has to be tied up in a little bow, and there can’t be anything transcendent which can call us to account for our actions…pride and fear is a big motivator, and it is what drives Darwinism…
98. Mark Noonan | April 20th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
kmg,
And you keep denigrating Jeremiah’s religious belief as if (a) it would have any affect on our good brother in Christ and (b) as if by some magical incantation you could disparage religion, that would so how confirm your views.
That is no office of yours - yours is to reconcile the physical world with the spiritual world…the toughest nut you’ll have to crack is how a man 2,000 years ago - crucified in an obscure corner of the world - literally changed the whole world after his followers went about saying they had seen him risen from the dead. You can say its just one more myth in a long line of myths…but if a myth, it certainly has had a larger and more lasting impact than any others…and does not the massive impact of this story - an impact which goes on this very day in the hearts of billions of your fellow human beings who are, literally, willing to lay down their lives in acceptance of this story - at least get you thinking a bit?
Perhaps there is something to a Creator, and a Creator who intervenes? Would explain a lot - in fact, it would kind of tie together the rather incomplete story produced by sciene for why things are here…
99. Tractatus | April 20th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
I know that is what you’ve been told and I know that is what you meekly and incuriously accept because you want it to be that way…but, that isn’t the way it is…perhaps you should try a bit of independent thought?
Coming from a man so incredibly ignorant about science, what scientific evidence supporting evolution exists, and how science actually works, this is particularly rich.
There is no greater example of a man “meekly and incuriously accepting” what he’s been told (”Goddiddit! End of story!”) than you, Noonan. You have never once exhibited independent thought on this subject (among others). It’s probably why it’s so easy to play Creationist Bingo with you. When challenged to provide direct scientific evidence for ID/creationism–you know, the stuff that would actually justify its inclusion in science–you dodge like a coward. It’s far easier (and safer for your calcified world view) for you to wallow in ignorance than to actually look at the facts (many of which you claim don’t exist even after having been shown them).
I present the challenge yet again, though I know you will do everything you can to avoid it: Present the scientific evidence supporting creationism. Not your misguided critiques of evolution, not your conspiracy theories about “suppression of ideas,” not your other conspiracy theories about “wanting to prevent kids from hearing about god.” You want ID to be on equal footing with science, present the *scientific evidence* in favor of the argument. That is it. Put up or shut up, Noonan. Which one is it gonna be?
100. felix the cat | April 20th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Mark:
I will respond in more detail later, but for now suffice to say you are an absolutist. You equate scientific inquiry with “materialism”; whatever that is. Your religion runs your life because in reality your faith is so weak that you feel compelled to stamp out any evidence to the contrary. I have no problem with ID (or in its’ nakedness Creationism) being taught in schools. In fact I encourage it. But not in a science class. THATS the problem. The forum, not the substance.
And as KMG is concerned, Pandora is A MYTH!!!!!! An analogy. A fable.
And Mark, when you expouse this talk about Jesus and his humble beginings you obviously know nothing about human behavior. Do you think that Elvis fans; as rabid as they are could start a religion? How about Ayn Rand fans? How about a group of uneducated, fearful and superstitious people living ~ 2000 yrs ago claming to see someone “rise from the dead”. Maybe he wasn’t actually dead at all.
Ever heard of the expression “saved by the bell”?
Look it up.
101. jeff | April 20th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
so if i wanted to go to any sunday school program and start a class on evolution.
how would that go over.
food for thought.
have a beautiful day.
102. 42 | April 20th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
‘the toughest nut you’ll have to crack is how a man 2,000 years ago - crucified in an obscure corner of the world - literally changed the whole world after his followers went about saying they had seen him risen from the dead.’
First off you’re under the notion that it change the world for the better…explain
Second, the nut is EASY to crack…advertising…from the beginning Christianity has been the ONLY religion to actively recruit others, and what advertising did you use…Join us or burn in Hell
well that nut was simple to crack
Back OT, what exactly is there to teach about ID….The creator made everything: Well that was a short lesson
“In the end, if the Darwinists would just say “we don’t know” to such questions, there would be a lot less controversy”
-What??? Show me ONE Darwinists who isn’t saying “we don’t know”! That is the basis off all science…”We Don’t Know” is the central premise of everything scientific.
The difference between Science and Religion is that a when scientists says “we don’t know” they make an attempt to find the answers, where as someone grounded in religion would just say, eh, God must have done it
“but it [evolution] is just a theory”
And no one says otherwise…which is why it continues to be studied….ID is not a theory, there is nothing to be proven…it is a philosophy to attempt to answer that which science has not…but remember, Gravity is also just a theory…should we not teach it in school and just chalk it up to a Creator pushing down on everything? Light is just a theory, should we not teach it in school and just chalk it up to a Creator lighting some candles?
103. js | April 20th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
“evolution is a “gradual” process of change of an existing species animal or plant life due to “gradual” changes in it environment”
yet science cant explain the explosion of species during the cabrian period….so the thesis of “gradual” is contradicted…..
next….
104. jeff | April 20th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
js
try the webster’s dictionary.
i’ll wait.
oh and that explosion you talk of.
do you mean instead of billions of years, it was millions, and during that period was there a major change in the environment?
have a beautiful day.
105. kmg | April 20th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Mark,
1. I have not denigrated Jeremiah’s religion or any other. I have simply pointed out that trying to force ID into science classrooms is an attempt to force religion into those classrooms. ID proponents deny it out of one side of their mouths, but couch their arguments in theology out of the other side. Felix the Cat easily understood the point about Pandora. It is an ancient religious parable that has no more place in a science classroom than creationism or Jeremiah’s belief that disease is caused by sin. They have the same amount of scientific evidence supporting them; none.
2. ID is not being censored in schools. It can be taught in a philosophy or religion class.
3. Evolutionary Theory does not address how life began and is not in conflict with ID (creationism). That is a false argument created and driven by the Discovery Institute to try to force religion into science classrooms.
4. Evolution is a theory. Everyone agrees with that. Gravity, relativity, and wave propagation are also theories, but without them we would have never set foot on the moon or sent spacecraft to the farthest reaches of our solar system.
I have tried several times in this thread to keep the discussion on science and not religion, but it is you, Jeremiah, and others who keeping bringing it back to that topic.
You are the one making the claim that ID is not creationism, but is a scientific theory. The onus is on you to prove the positive, not on me to prove the negative. It is interesting that the Discovery Institute has done nothing, nada, zip, zilch to subject ID to scientific testing, the first step in getting ID recognized as a scientific theory. ID cannot stand on its own merits, so instead they must set up a false conflict with evolution to further their stated goal, “To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.”
Put up your proof of ID as a scientific theory instead of complaining that the “Darwinists” are picking on you and won’t let you teach religion in science class.
106. Diana Powe | April 20th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
No, the “fighting tooth and nail” is going on to try to introduce a metaphysical topic, the Intelligent Designer hypothesis, into a part of the curriculum where it doesn’t have a place - the teaching of biological science. There is no legal impediment to talking about whether the God described in the Judeo-Christian tradition or the Flying Spaghetti Monster might have a hand (or noodly appendage) in human origins in a philosophy or comparative religions class.
107. Mark Noonan | April 20th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
kmg,
And neither does macro-evolution - the changing of one species into another is also something we have nada, zip, zilch in the way of evidence…it hasn’t been seen, it can’t be replicated in a laboratory…it can’t, as you would put it, be falsified…and yet this bit of metaphysics is allowed, and another type - which bases itself on observed phenomena, just as Darwinism does - is disallowed?
Makes no sense - seems to me that it is an attempt to shut down debate. There is no harm at all in talking about origins in science class - in fact, I’d bet that such would be one of the most appreciated parts of the class….but its not allowed, because a lot of people want there to be nothing other than themselves, and want Darwinism to be true, because it makes it easier for them…no God, no need to actually do the right thing…never has naked fear been so palpable than when we watch Darwinists squirm at the very thought of God…
108. Mark Noonan | April 20th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
felix,
The fact that they were a bunch of un-educated peasants and yet managed to shake the world - and all but one of them suffered horrible death because they wouldn’t deny they saw Christ risen…doesn’t get you thinking at all?
Hmmm…perhaps the whole problem is that you’ve never actually thought about anything, ever?
109. Diana Powe | April 20th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Mark,
Please enlighten us as to how if the fossilized remains of a species (say Loxodonta africana), whose entire class (Mammalia) hadn’t even appeared yet, was found to have been coexistent with trilobites during the Cambrian period that this supposedly would not completely invalidate the central premise of evolution? How would a hypothetical “Darwinist” defend evolution when there was physical evidence found disproving the idea that life progressed from simpler to more complex forms as predicted by the theory (i.e., the overarching explanatory framework)? If you can’t explain it and be consistent with evolution then you have falsified evolution.
110. js | April 20th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
wow, another halfwit
jeff, i see the only thing you are good at is evading the facts, instead of facing them…if the enviroment forced evolution, then at the rate it was going during the cambrian explosion, until now, there would literally be billions of species…so stuff your holier than thou attitude because you are basting in ignorance…and dont tell me what to do, you have no authority and certainly not the intelligence to pull it off…
111. bongoman | April 20th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
How can you shut down debate when there’s no meaningful research being done by ID proponents?
More here…
112. js | April 20th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
ya know, through the last 5000 years, men have testified that God exists, during every generation, in every nation that has existed, and it still goes on today
if we were to count the number of people throughout time that testified that they have had a spiritual experience in thier lives, it would be well over 500 billion people, or, over 80% of the people who have ever lived.
Accounting for those who outright deny Gods existence, true atheism, it would account for less than 3% of the people who ever lived…
Yet, we debate that God exists, we debate whether God created the world with fools and rumor mongerors who, for sport, would instigate the arguement just for entertainment….we dont need to prove anything to them, thier ignorant claims however rise to the odor of our courts, affecting our lives, and if we dont get hold of it, they will control our destiny through the ignorance of our own elected government officials….like the DNC…
113. felix the cat | April 20th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Yeah Mark, it gets me thinking. It get me thinking that you and Jerry are eye spinning insane.
Has it occured to you in your pompus and condescending manner that there is more than one religion? That creation myths are the de rigure of western civilization? That the Ionians and the Egyptians and the Romans and the Greeks and the American Indians each had there own brand of religious certainty? What makes you and your worship of an idol tantamount to absolute certainty about the nature of reality? Huh????
We’re waiting….
Has it ever occured to you that perhaps eastern religions (Hinduism, Taoism, Budhists, etc) might have some insight into the nature of human interaction with our own nature? Or do you dismiss this out of hand because they don’t worship Jesus???
That the majority of the worlds human population doesn’t subscribe to the ecumenical hollier than thou crap that you place such a value on. If I were you I’d read up and be open minded before you come forth from the mountain as the latest incarnation of Moses.
As Forest Gump said, weakness is as weakness does and you; my freind, have the most teniousness of faith.
114. js | April 20th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Modern experimental work indicates that variations in organisms appear in consequence of 1) the duplication or multiplication of the chromosomes that occur in the cell nucleus, 2) in the translocation or displacement of parts of chromosomes, 3) the loss of chromosomes or parts of chromosomes, 4) gene mutations, which appear ot be the result of the rearrangement of the molecules that make up the gene, or the action of inhibitors or stimulators of the genes, 5) loss of genes, 6) cross-breeding varieties.
All the above causes are simply a shuffling or rearrangement of parts of the chromosomes or of genes. Such rearrangements may be expected to yield a considerable amount of variation, but clearly must be within the type…
…If a species be defined as a freely interbreeding community, no new animal species has yet been bred by any experimenter. This is very remarkable in view of the fact that breeding experiements lasting over some 30 years have been made with the vinegar fly, Drosophila melanogaster. This produces about 25 generations in a year, hence some 900 successive generations of this species have been bred in the laboratory in the unsuccessful attempt to convert it into another type. This corresponds to about 30,000 years of human existence. There appears to exist no mechanism whereby a new type of organism can arise from an existing one. This explains why all breeds of dogs, pigeons, etc., despite their great diversity are still dogs, pigeons, etc.
That it is impossible to change a dog or a pigeon into anything else but a dog or a pigeon is evident from such facts as the following which are taken from the work of Dr. Hurst, already quoted: “1) The gene is the sole basis of hereditary transmissions. 2) In every case that has been investigated more than one pair of genes are concerned in the development of each character…Genetical experiments show that in the simplest case, at least four pairs of genes are concerned in the organisation and development of the wild agouti coat colour of rabbits, and many other genes are also concerned.”
http://www.tanbooks.com/doct/science_today.htm
115. kmg | April 20th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
js,
You’re quoting a creationist who died over 50 years ago? Have their been no experiments in evolution since then?
116. kmg | April 20th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Mark,
On Macroevolution:
It is a common claim of antievolutionists that there is a limit to the amount of change that can be made. Creationists like Gish (1979) claim that there is some limitation within “basic kinds”, without being able to express exactly what basic kinds might be, or why change is restricted within them. Others such as Johnson (1991:18) claim that the limit lies in the availability of genetic variety, and that when that limit is reached change ceases, and although he does accept that “Darwinists” have “some points to make”, he is hardly fair when he says that variation “might conceivably be renewed by mutation, but whether (and how often) this happens is not known” (p19). Of course it is known. We have had experimental evidence of rates of mutations since the 1910s, and modern research both mathematically and empirically confirms that rates of mutation occur at around 0.1-1.5 per zygote, which is to say every embryo has between 1/10th and 1.5 mutations on average, depending on species (Crow 1997). The average mutation rate ? that is the average rate of persisting mutations in a population ? is 2.2 x 10-9 (Kumar and Subramanian 2002). Further, genes do not have evolutionary histories that match exactly the history of the species in which they exist; a field known as coalescence genetics covers the ability of novel genes to persist across speciation events, so that the variability is “available” when it is selectively advantageous (Hey and Wakeley 1997). Note that this is not to say that variation is maintained in order to be available. It’s just that it is available when selective pressures change some of the time.
Creationists often say that species cannot be evolved from each other because chromosome numbers are different. Humans, for example, have 46 chromosomes, while chimpanzees have 48. But the human chromosome 2 is the result of what is called a Robertsonian fusion ? the ancestral ape chromosomes 2p and 2q appear to have fused at their ends (telomeres) to form the human chromosome 2 (Williams, not dated), and other species that have large chromosomal differences can still interbreed (Nevo et al. 1994). DNA aligns according to local sequence rather than large-scale chromosome structure, and this is why inversions and translocation in parts of the sequence still allow interbreeding.
There appears to be no single amount of genetic variation common between closely related species that prevents interbreeding. In some, only a few are sufficient. In others, much variation, such as the large chromosomal difference in Nevo’s mole rats, fails to prevent interbreeding. Introgression, or the leakage of genes across species boundaries, has been observed in lizards, plants, birds, and fish.
In summary, there is no barrier to species forming. This may not be enough to show that large-scale macroevolution occurs, though, according to writers like Johnson and Hitching (1982), but the logic here implies some causal force actively preventing change, rather than a problem with change occurring. For if there is enough change to form new species, and each species is slightly different from its ancestor, then simple addition shows that many speciation events can cause large-scale evolution over enough time. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Conversely, many single steps can traverse long distances. There is no evidence of any kind of barriers to large-scale change (Brauer and Brumbaugh 2001), although creationists are free to offer some.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
117. kmg | April 20th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Mark,
Read “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Pay particular attention to the section on Scientific Evidence and the Scientific Method. Then explain how ID meets the criteria for a scientific hypothesis or theory.
118. js | April 20th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
kmg
you repeat the same lies that they made up over 50 years ago, so what
does it make it any less true? nope….speciation in nature has never and i quote; “NEVER”, been shown to exist.
so once again, your chewing on a bone of ignorance, instead of facing facts, is your work position call “local stooge”? we have a few others just like you …i was wondering…you all probably went to the same school, had the same idiots teaching you the same thing, because you all repeat the same mistake
unless you have something that proves that evolution is an empirically proven fact, you really dont have anything to stand on….
“It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about anything…or at the very best, they are not science”
(GG Simpson)
so, in scientific theories, it must demonstrate a beginning, a middle and the end result, none of which has been done by darwinism, nor modern evolutionists….
119. Mark Noonan | April 20th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
kmg,
I don’t think there are barriers to change, as such, but I hold there has been insufficient time to see all the changes we’ve got - and, also, its still an “assume life” theory…the largest and most important factor is left out, or glided over as “primordial soup” bunged with lightening, or some such.
Only an active Creator explains matter, the rising of life from matter, the variety of life we see (I know - Darwinists say its all explained by slow changes over time; I say there hasn’t been enough time, even in a 6 billion year old earth) - there is nothing in evolutionary theory, other than ID, which fits all the known data. This isn’t, by the way, another restating of the “God of the gaps”, but an acknowledgement that the facts of life indicate a Creator, and a Creator who has intervened, from time to time in His creation.
I’ve seen some of the attempts to explain origins without a reference to a Creator, and they are rather funny…the most laughable is the concept of an infinite number of parallel universes, thus allowing the prospect of our universe, so perfectly suited to having life on this planet in particular (understanding that if the Big Bang had gone even very slightly differently in the first second or two, we wouldn’t be here today)…and, of course, even the existence of an infinite number of parallel universes still requires a Creator.
Given the inability of Darwinism to offer an plausible explanation for the existence of matter, the initial emergence of life and the wide variety of species we see, the failure to discuss ID in science is a disservice to the quest for knowledge.
120. js | April 20th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
so tell us, while you seem to want to deal with “science” that is trying to prove evolution, how exactly is that science…i mean, science is being able to test dna, study biology, and from the evidence directly observed, to create a theory based on empirical evidence..yet, evolution is nothing but guesses, and fraud, and mistakes…and its advances are based on the same guesses, frauds and mistakes….
so how does that meet the definition of science…because nobody has ever shown how a monkey became a man…or whatever because a dog, became a dog, or how a fish became an elephant….where is it, empirical evidence?…there isnt any…its not science…voodoo plucking roosters in Haiti is more scientific than evolution….almost…so where is it?
its just gossip…thats the truth.
121. kmg | April 20th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
js,
Speciation in Nature:
Example one:
Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)
Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. “An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila”, Nature 23:289-292.
Example two:
Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate “race” of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)
(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)
Mosquin, T., 1967. “Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)”, Evolution 21:713-719
Example three:
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)
Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Example four:
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.
(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)
Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
“Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing