One in Eight U.S. Biology Teachers Teaches Creationism

Did these so-called Biology teachers get their degrees from a cracker jack box? They may want to review the actual definition of evolution and then teach the kids what is proven and not a bunch of hokey b.s.

Well that is pretty sad. Sounds like a lot of Biology teachers need to take a refresher course on what is and is not a valid scientific theory.

I don't care what people's personal beliefs are but are being short changed if their teachers are teaching such notions in science class.

Oh well, anyone serious about perusing a career in science will quickly realize how misguided their high school teachers were any ways.

Well, given the fact that the only observed type of evolution is micro evolution, it's sad that 1 in 8 DON'T teach Creationism.

"Well, given the fact that the only observed type of evolution is micro evolution, it's sad that 1 in 8 DON'T teach Creationism."

And the only observed type of creationism is...... oh wait, their is not observed type of creationism.

Teach science in science class, teach religion is Sunday school.

Evolution is just a theory. It has not been proven. To teach it and only it would be near sided. America's youth should be presented a range of theories and told that the answer isn't known for certain. To lie and tell them that we fully understand the process that has lead to the world today is to do them a disservice.

The same uncertainty should be used as when presenting other parts of the natural world that are not fully understood (string theory, the theory of light as sometimes a wave, sometimes a particle, etc.).

The people who know evolution to be 'true' would have none the Earth to be flat not long ago. That is not to say it isn't true, just that it has never been proven true.

"Teach science in science class, teach religion is Sunday school."

It's easy to look at creation and ID as Sunday morning curriculum as is the classification of anything having to do with God should stay as far away from science as possible. That's an instinct among many people today. The misunderstanding is that science and God are two completely separate things, when in fact most people who believe in God believe that they are completely related.

My point is this: those of us who believe in God, believe that He created everything....including science itself. He gave us the minds to understand it, the curiosity to dig deeper, the intellect to form theories, and the intuitiveness to believe or not believe.

If we believe that God created science, how would us saying HOW He created it to work not be teaching science in science class? If we use our beliefs to explain how we understand things to be, why keep them separate when it comes to explaining how we understand things to be?

"Evolution is just a theory. It has not been proven. To teach it and only it would be near sided. America's youth should be presented a range of theories and told that the answer isn't known for certain. To lie and tell them that we fully understand the process that has lead to the world today is to do them a disservice."

I believe you mean "one sided". In any event, you mischaracterize the theory completely. No credible scientist has ever stated that we completely understand the process of evolution. On the contrary, it is creationism that claims perfect knowledge of what transpired and when. I have read creationist arguments, and not one of them holds up to any scrutiny.

As for teaching "all sides", science teaches the side that has the evidence to back it up. As new information comes in, theories are changed to incorporate the new data, or discarded entirely. If creationists want their beliefs to be taught in biology class, they need to make some predictions, test those predictions, and submit their findings to independant peer review. If their findings are confirmed, then they will have a leg to stand on. Until they do that, they should stop whining.

To lary316,
With all due respect, please understand that your quote

"The misunderstanding is that science and God are two completely separate things, when in fact most people who believe in God believe that they are completely related"

is problematic on two fronts: First, you are only speaking for people "who believe in God"; second, one of the beautiful things about science, aside from its success as a human endeavor, is that it isn't affected by what "most people" do or do not believe. It is fiercely independent, as are most religions. Science is as immune to the numbers of the masses as much as faith ought to be.

"Evolution is just a theory. It has not been proven."

Evolution is not just a theory, it is a scientific theory. The difference is profound. A scientific theory is based on evidence and in the case of evolution mountains of evidence. Any scientific explanation that describes how something works MUST always be referred to as a theory as it can be revised or added to as more data becomes available . The name theory in scientific terms does not imply that there is question as to its validity but only to its completeness. We can never claim to know EVERYTHING about any given subject.

"To teach it and only it would be near sided."

Science deals only with scientific theories, I am not aware of any scientific theory competing with the theory of evolution.

"America's youth should be presented a range of theories and told that the answer isn't known for certain."

If you want to have philosophy taught in public high school than suggest it at your next PTA meeting, but science classes should only deal with those theories than have scientific evidence to back them up.

"To lie and tell them that we fully understand the process that has lead to the world today is to do them a disservice."

No one claims to fully understand processes in the scientific field. In my experience claims of complete understanding are only made by religious groups.

"The same uncertainty should be used as when presenting other parts of the natural world that are not fully understood (string theory, the theory of light as sometimes a wave, sometimes a particle, etc.)."

String theory is not currently testable and as such is considered by many to be pseudoscience until such time as the technology exists to tackle the question. Evolution is a completely different story, it has been tested extensively.

"The people who know evolution to be 'true' would have known Earth to be flat not long ago. That is not to say it isn't true, just that it has never been proven true."

Scientist never argued for a flat earth, the church did. Scientists would have examined the evidence and when they did they concluded that the earth was round.

"The misunderstanding is that science and God are two completely separate things, when in fact most people who believe in God believe that they are completely related."

No scientists do not misunderstand at all. They know exactly what those of faith believe it just isn't relavent. Science doesn't deal with belief it deals with evidence. The two are seperated by subject matter (natural vs. supernatural) not personal opinion. Many scientists are also religious but their faith and their profession do not mix.

The primary issue with this subject is that both sides are often too biased or too ignorant to have any sort of decent exchange of ideas. That, and this subject is really too big for anyone to effectively argue about in one paragraph in the comments section of this website.

The truth of the matter is, Evolution is a theory. I'm not saying I disagree with it because modern scientists don't fully understand every aspect of its existence or because I'm blinded by my own religous beliefs, but in the thousands of hours of research I have put into this particular topic, I have found a great number of discrepancies within the theory itself.
For example, if most (more than 98%) dinosaur species were COMPLETELY wiped out within a single generation (by whatever proposed extinction event you choose), how could the Theropod family (what scientists have deemed the precursors to modern avian/bird species) which was completely erradicated still manage to reproduce and evolve over millions of years if they were all killed in one mass extinction.

Also, on another note, there are a couple million (catalogued) species of animal alive to this day. It is theorized that 96% of all life that ever existed on this planet is already dead. Do the math, out of the millions of pooible fossil samples they should have access to, they can barley make a connection between a handful of species, in the 586 million years of fossil records we have access to.

The truth of the matter is, Evolution is supported with INTERPRETED EVIDENCE, not true, definitive, clear cut evidence, therefore, those that

Also, as many others stated before, science and God are not incompatible, at least not to anyone whos put some thought into it. EVERY event that takes place in this universe can be reproduced artificially. As humans, our constraints to achieving some of these feats are time, resources, power consumption, current level of advancement, etc.(we could build a planet piece by piece, much like legos, out of raw atomic material, protons electrons and neutrons, its just that our sun as well all neighboring stars would burn out before we finished). But humans are small compared to the universe. To any who believes there can be inteeligent life throughout our universe, this shouldn't be hard for you to understand(even from a scientific standpoint). Why would it be so impossible for a being existing on a completely different scale/plane (possibly multi-dimensional, not carbon based) than humans be incapable of doing these things. I understand the counter argument, that there's no evidence to support the claim. That would be false. Much like evolution, Gods existance is supported through interpreted evidence. The real reason both sides don't recognize the other sides evidence as valid is because they're BOTH blinded by their faith in their beliefs.

Anyway, what I'm really saying is that theres nothing wrong with having a theory, its great that we live in a country where differences in opinion can be supported and discussed in an open and comfortable fashion. So, all I'm saying is just open your minds a little to all the possibilities, do all the research before you make a choice.

First of all I am glad to hear allot of those statistics because I believed it to be much worse. Second of all the subtitle "Survey reveals that creationism and ID are hardly extinct in high schools" implies that certain facts aren't relevant.
1) making an idea extinct is not like making a species of animal extinct its a lot harder to accomplish, that is if it is even possible to completely eliminate it
2) Most public schools require teaching of evolution, so the fact that the larger percentage prefer teaching evolution doesn't exactly mean it's correct.

If the government expects to continue to get away with brain washing the public schools into thinking the evolution even has a mathematical or realistic chance of actually being the truth then they have got another thing coming, because it is only a matter of time before people in large groups start catching on to the fact that evolution simply doesn't work and start demanding reparations to be made in academia.

It seems that theres been a lot of "mudslinging" on BOTH sides of the argument and until someone points out specific evidence that we can look up ourselves (we are on the internet after all) then all this will ever be is a philosophical debate. Until you put weight (examples/evidence) behind your words all it will be is an empty winded argument.

Science unlike what a lot of us would like to believe is not infallible.
ie: spontaneous generation by Aristotle (belief that maggots and other forms of life can spontaneously form in meat and other items)

Religion unlike what a lot of us would like to believe is not infallible either.
ie: the Catholic church insisting that the world was the center of the universe based off of a misguided translation of the Bible.
And if you are a Christian then you should look up you should take a look at 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (NIV) which says, "Test everything, hold on to the good." Personally I take this passage very seriously.

So some one please present a specific situation on the topic so we can look it up. Please source it.

science is a way to explain the natural world. any true scientific theory can be proven through repeated testing, and can tested to be falsifiable. how can you test ID? Next It clearly states in that little constitution thingy that the government CANNOT mandate religion. If you open up the doors for ID youll have to let in every belief and opinion that cannot be tested like ghosts and vanpires. I do believe I explained it pretty well in one paragraph.

"String theory is not currently testable and as such is considered by many to be pseudoscience until such time as the technology exists to tackle the question. Evolution is a completely different story, it has been tested extensively."

There are many aspects of our universe which we are not able to fully understand, even though they have been tested extensively. I would point out two examples being gravity and magnetism. We see the effects, but do not understand how these effects are created. Our technology level and/or our insight are simply not sufficient at this time to test HOW these forces exist. Nevertheless we do see the effects. We do not currently understand how a supreme entity we know as God could exist, and create a universe as vast as we see ours to be, but that is not to say that it cannot happen. As for evidence supporting God, all we have to do is look at the bible. Those of the secular world absolutely refuse to use this document as evidence, claiming that it is a work of fiction, but it is a document that science has confirmed to be comprised of books that were written over a period of centuries, if not millenia (I am unsure as to the exact dates the bible has been proven to have been written). These books have specific references of events that had not yet occurred at the time of their penning, but centuries later these prophecies came true. This in itself should be considered evidence that something larger is at work here.

We have used science to prove that the books of the bible were written at different times in our history, then used prophecy to show that insight of future events was somehow granted to individuals at differnt points in time, thus validating the bible. Archaeology also validates the bible by proving many events in it actually did occur in the past. In the future, if our technology level continues to increase, we may be able to directly observe other planes of existence that we currently have no way to test for, and show more definitively that God exists.

Evolutionists discredit creationists saying they have no evidence, but we do; they simply choose not to consider it evidence even though it has been validated. They say our theory is not testable, and unfortunately they may have a point there, but then again neither is the source of gravity and magnetism currently testable, nor that of string theory, or any other theory that considers the makeup of reality at levels smaller than current technology allows. They also tell us to make predictions with our theory, and I propose that the bible has MANY predictions which were later proved to be true.

One last note:

"Scientist never argued for a flat earth, the church did. Scientists would have examined the evidence and when they did they concluded that the earth was round."

Before people started to realize that the earth was round, it would have been the scientists of that age who would have proposed that the earth was flat, and used the evidence at their disposal to prove it. As time progressed, so did intuition, and we began to understand that the earth was round. However, there are ALWAYS people who will resist change, especially one that changes their version of reality, and the church is no exception. Even today this phenomenon persists. Scientists actively tried to discredit quantum theory when it first appeared, but over a period of decades they came to understand it did exist. Same thing with dark matter, but now we have seen the stuff floating in space. People are always resistant to change. Scientists are, the church is. But to say that scientists never argued for a flat earth is fallacy at its worst; very likely, scientists originated the idea.

Would it be fair to disallow the research of Creation science? Isn't science an arena for thought, debate, and even at times skepticism? Where would we be if Galileo or Newton or Copernicus hadn't been skeptical about the commonly held understanding of the world? Science is not about forcing others to accept one view or another; it is about a genuine process of the human curiosity at work that is never truly satisfied with, "Because that's just the way it is, so stop asking questions and doubting the status quo". I would say that it would be unfair for students to reach an inadequate model of Evolution that lacks the necessary depth to receive an acceptable understanding of it (much less completely skipping over of it), and likewise, it would be equally unjust to not teach a competent portrayal of the opposing view. Just as in any other subject, BOTH sides of the argument should be explained to the students. For a student to not be able to learn either side sufficiently is just plain bad education.

i have all the evidence that anyone should need to disprove creastionism no matter what pseudo-science garbage it is dressed up in. i have sitting right next to me right now a rock. a simple Acasta (part of the gneiss family of rock formation) rock that my dad was given as a gift by the NWT while he was teaching in Yellowknife. and the simple fact is that the rock was dated to be 4.03 billion years old by radiological decay of certain radioactive isotopes of zircon crystals (Bowring, S.A., and Williams, I.S., 1999. Priscoan (4.00-4.03 Ga) orthogneisses from northwestern Canada. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, v. 134, 3-16.) . Now then how can the earth only be about 6000 years old?

another problem that i have with creationist theory is that while creationists attempt to claim that the "creator" may not necessarily be "god" but may in fact be some form of higher life form that we are unable to ascertain, well taht's all well and good but where did that "higher form of life come from. wouldn't the so called creator have had to oh shall we say evolve from some lower form of life before coming to wield his supposedly allmighty power?

Another problem with creationist theory is the ID version of the Grand Canyon. according to the creationist belief. the Grand Canyon was cut by the huge out rush of water held in large lakes to the northern area of where the Grand Canyon is today by some sort of natural damn, but then a large amount of rain fell and overloaded those natural dams causing them to break and scour the Grand Canyon in just a few days. if this sounds familiar then yeah this is saying that the Grand Canyon was cut by the Flood that got Noah to rescue two of every animal onto his little boat. the only problem with this is that the geology of the Grand Canyon is based on Granite and Shale. these are families of rocks that are VERY difficult to cut with water unlike most canyon geologies based upon sandstone.

Also on the topic of the mass extinctions that have happened in the past of the history of the planet the one that wiped out the dinosaurs was actually the smallest one of the FIVE known mass extinctions, the Ordovician extinction even about 450 million years ago, the Late-Devonian extinction about 370 million years ago, then there was the P-T extinction event in which over 50% of all species on the planet went extinct. this was the largest extinction even in the history of the planet in terms of number of species and this happened around 250 million years ago. then there were the Triassic-Jurrasic extinction event and then there was the K-T extinction event best known as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs which was the largest extinction event By Mass of species wiped out. Meaning that in that case the larger species went extinct and the smaller species evolved to compensate for the ice age that happened due to the meteor strike that was the major proponent of the K-T extinction..

So those are my reasons for disagreeing with the creationist viewpoint. simple facts.

"then used prophecy to show that insight of future events was somehow granted to individuals at differnt points in time, thus validating the bible."
Please state what you are referring to here. You seem to be a poor Biblical scholar, yet try and speak as though you are an authority on the subject.

"Would it be fair to disallow the research of Creation science? Isn't science an arena for thought, debate, and even at times skepticism?"
There is a difference between skepticism and academic dishonesty. Loads of creationist thought and research has been allowed to occur, and it has been fruitless thus far - the creationist movement doesn't even have a single "theory" to speak of - the only thing they seem to agree on is that they don't like evolution, for completely non-scientific reasons. Teaching creation has been brought to the Supreme Court many times, and has been shot down repeatedly largely due to the fact that creationists don't even know what they want to teach!

"Just as in any other subject, BOTH sides of the argument should be explained to the students"
So should we also teach medical students about the excellent research being performed in magnetic therapy, homeopathy, and exorcisms? Should we teach children about the "opposing viewpoint" of the Holocaust (ie that it never happened - and yes, people do believe this)? Should we teach children about Bigfoot as well?

All of these topics have equivalent evidence to creationism. The opinion of a large group of laypeople and a few scientists does not outweigh copious amounts of scientific evidence or the general opinion of the greater scientific community. Simply having an opinion doesn't mean that it belongs in a classroom; if it did nothing could ever get caught, because there are thousands of opposing "viewpoints" on every scientific topic, however the vast majority of them are wrong and have been repeatedly discredited but credible sources who have spent their lives dedicated to scientific research.

I also love the fact that creationists are using flat earth belief and people like Copernicus to try and justify your viewpoints. You're right: they were free thinkers. The problem is, you have the chronology wrong:

Scientists proposed that the earth was not flat, but was round; the church opposed it, and it was later accepted when everybody finally realized the church was being irrational.

Scientists then proposed that the sun was not a perfect, unblemished sphere, but that it had sunspots and other asymmetric phenomena - the church opposed it, and it was later accepted when everybody finally realized the church was being irrational.

Scientists then proposed that we are not in the center of our solar system - the church opposed it, and it was later accepted when everybody finally realized the church was being irrational.

Scientists then proposed that we were not even in the center of our galaxy - the church opposed it, and it was later accepted when everybody finally realized the church was being irrational.

Scientists then proposed the theory of evolution - the church opposed it and.... do you see a trend here? The church has been the one opposing science, skepticism, and change, not the other way around.

Really, it's fine if you want to believe in creationism. Just don't hold this air of "oooh I'm a free thinking skeptic who's being oppressed, and other people just can't accept my radical ideas" : no, you're just someone who's stuck believing the same theory that has existed for thousands of years.

Creationism isn't a new idea, it is an old idea, and no model of creationism can even come close to explaining the fossil record, the age of the universe (of course, creationists can't even agree on this), or how we can recreate the generation of new species through the mating of flies (and other species, for that matter) in laboratories - yet somehow this very probable process which we can recreate didn't occur in the creationist world. Is it that hard to see why scientists have moved to a model that provides many solid answers to these legitimate scientific questions?

And I'll just add in that I am a Christian, but I am also a scientist; and I don't think that lying by telling people that creationism is a solid theory or even a scientific theory is a good way to attract people to the faith.

"another problem that i have with creationist theory is that while creationists attempt to claim that the "creator" may not necessarily be "god" but may in fact be some form of higher life form that we are unable to ascertain, well taht's all well and good but where did that "higher form of life come from. wouldn't the so called creator have had to oh shall we say evolve from some lower form of life before coming to wield his supposedly allmighty power?"

Trying to discredit a theory with your own competing unproven theory is not the most valid method for doing so...

Oh and I do believe in evolution just so you know.

My Mom is getting her masters to become a special ed teacher and she is having trouble getting her thesis done. the fact that 1 in 8 biology teachers teach creationism as a "valid scientific theory means that 1 in 8 schools don't mind, and niether do the districts. This scares me

Origin by Design--edited

Following is a verbatim extract from the book by Harold Coffin, entitled “Origin by Design” published by Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington DC. Hagerstown, MD 21740. Permission to publish has been granted

Chapter 31 is entitled: “Life is Unique”

“ The more scientists study living protoplasm, the more its complexity becomes apparent. The electron microscope and biochemical analysis have opened windows in the living cell that reveal detail almost beyond description. But science has not determined the full complexity of living matter. We cannot yet define what life is, nor have we duplicated it artificially.

Spontaneous Generation.

“In ancient times many believed in spontaneous generation, the development of living organisms from nonliving matter. They used frogs rising from river mud, flies coming from rotting meat, and similar phenomena as proof. Redi (1626-1697) and Spallanzani (1729-1799) of Italy and Pasteur (1822-1895) of France helped to dispel the notion, but the old belief was slow to die. In fact, it has not vanished. Rephrasing it in scientific language, many scientists have incorporated it into mechanistic evolution as the probable method for the origin of life. (Significantly, mechanistic evolution requires, for its survival as a theory, exceptions to two of the best-substantiated laws of life—life begets life, and like begets like.)

“A Russian scientist, A.I. Oparin, in his book The Origin of Life was one of the first in modern times to reintroduce spontaneous generation as an explanation for the origin of life. Oparin gave a detailed argument for spontaneous origin of life in ancient seas, which he thought harboured large quantities of organic substances usable in amino acid formation. According to Oparin, an organic molecule would increase in complexity without the necessity of synthetic ability (the capacity to form or synthesize organic molecules), by the chance combining of substances available in its environment.

“The possibilities of a random combination of molecules to become amino acids and the subsequent joining of amino acids to become proteins with properties of life are unrealistic. Coppedge calculates that the odds are 10(161) to one that not one usable protein would result from chance even if all the atoms on the earth’s surface, including water, air, and the crust of the earth were made into conveniently available amino acids and 4 to 5 billions of years were involved. If events did produce such a protein, it would be of no value unless it possessed some accurate process of duplication to manufacture more proteins. Furthermore, the simplest cell or living object consists of many kinds of proteins.
“Morowitz has determined the probability for the origin of the organic precursors for the smallest likely living entity by random processes. He based his calculations on reaction probabilities, a somewhat different and more accurate approach than most other such computations. The chances for producing the necessary molecules, amino acids, proteins, et cetera, for a cell one-tenth the size of the smallest known to man (Mycoplasm hominis H. 39) is less than one in 10(340,000,000) or 10 with 340 million zeros after it. His calculation employs a generous estimate of the number of atoms in the universe, the total number of atomic interactions over a 10-billion-year age for the universe. Practically speaking, such odds for the chance formation of a cell, even the smallest and simple one, are zero.

“George Wald, Nobel Prize winner, while recognizing the improbability of spontaneous generation, states his personal belief as follows: “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” It is an excellent statement of faith!!

“John Keosian is much more realistic. “The concept that all the parts of the first living thing pre-existed, and that its formation was simply a matter of spontaneous generation therefrom is mathematical absurdity, not probability. All present approaches to a solution of the problem of the origin of life are either irrelevant or lead to a blind alley.”

“Even if the proper conditions were present and the correct constituents fell together in the right proportions, no certainty demands that life would result. Is life merely the fortuitous arrangement of elements and compounds in a unique arrangement? If scientists could put together the constituents of a cell in exactly the right proportions and arrangements, would it become a living cell? The question remains unresolved. Should life be more than the sum of its parts, spontaneous generation would never be possible under any circumstances.

“Occasionally the news media announce that scientists have created life in a laboratory. Such claims bring up the question, “If man can create life now, is there not a possibility that life might have arisen by chance in the past remote history of the earth?”

“Apparently the desire to announce the creation of life is a temptation hard to resist for both news reporters and scientists. The real truth is that scientists have not manufactured life, although they have made real breakthroughs in its study.

Has Man Created Life?

“What must the biologist bring about before he can truly say that he has artificially produced life? According to Lederberg, life requires at least seven substances:

1. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)
2. Four nitrogenous bases in abundance
3. DNA polymerase
4. Ribotide phosphates
5. RNA polymerase
6. A supply of twenty aminoacyl nucleotidates
7. Aminoacyl—RNA polymerase
We should add the following three requirements to the list:
8. A membrane
9. Regulatory mechanisms
10. A constant supply of energy

“So far scientists have synthesized in the laboratory only DNA, the first listed above, but not from scratch. They created neither the DNA molecule they used for the pattern nor the building blocks with which they constructed the new DNA molecule, but obtained them from viruses and bacteria. If a baby can construct a castle from blocks similar to the one you just made you feel pleased. But if he could design the structure, saw down the trees, cut out the blocks, paint them then build the castle; he would be more than a genius.

“Scientists have been able to copy the existing castle with building blocks already provided. But even that is an incorrect statement. Man has not copied the castle—he has only set up the right conditions, and nature itself has done it. DNA polymerase (item 3) did all the work of lining up the building blocks in the right order and joining them together. In other words, the DNA did nothing but provide the pattern.

“But this is still not the whole story. Some have assumed that the synthesized DNA is a living entity. In order to be alive (1) a substance must have a definite structure—it cannot be in disorder or chaos. Synthesized DNA meets this requirement. (2) It must have the ability to take in food, give off wastes, repair, replace, grow, and those other features lumped together under the term metabolism. However, synthesized DNA is completely passive. (3) Living things must have the regulatory mechanisms that control the metabolic processes that keep them in balance and guide the living organism into becoming and remaining the kind of organism that is it destined to be. Again, synthesized DNA fails the criteria. (4) A living entity must be more than merely a passing spark that flashes and then dies away; life must have the ability to reproduce another like itself.

Synthesized DNA does not meet three of the four basic requirements of life. Its synthesis is a great accomplishment, but it is not a living substance.

“No, man has not produced life. He has only provided the proper conditions for nature to manufacture just one of the considerable list of required substances found in living things. But what if man could eventually produce a simple spark of life? What if thousands of brilliant researchers spending thousands of hours in multimillion-dollar laboratories with equipment of utmost sophistication finally would achieve the dream of man—to produce life? Would it not merely emphasize that it would have been impossible for life to have arisen by itself? Life is a truly unique entity, a constant miracle in our midst. It demands intelligence and design behind it.

“God is the underived source of life, the life-giver, a fact that Scripture greatly emphasises. David says, “For with thee is the fountain of life” Jesus said to Martha before he raised Lazarus from the dead, “I am the resurrection, and the life.” Paul testified to the Athenians his belief: “He giveth to all life, and all things.” I personally doubt that humans will be able to create life. It is possible that someday scientists and the mass media will proclaim the accomplishment, but such a claim will certainly require close scrutiny. The assertion will undoubtedly be either questionable or a case in which the synthesis process has incorporated some previously living matter. Living organisms have the ability to change food (nonliving matter) into living protoplasm. When we deal with micro-organisms or viruses we may have difficulty distinguishing the part humans play and the role of the organism.

Magic in a Cell

“It is impressive to fly over a great city at night and see the numberless twinkling house and streetlights, the headlights of cars moving along the city streets and freeways, and to realize the great number of beings that lie below you and the multitude of their activities. If you marvel at what man has accomplished, you will be humbled to realise that if you could enlarge a cell to the size of a city, you would see equal complexity and activity. Man has built the city, but he has had nothing to do with the development of the cell.

“We can compare the individual grains of sand in the bricks of the buildings of the city to the atoms in the living matter of a cell, the bricks themselves to the molecules, the rooms of the buildings to the amino acids, and the buildings to the proteins. Scattered through the city are the factories, power plants, and schools. Throughout the cell we find distinct substances involved in the production of energy, in the transmission of inherited characteristics, in the communication processes of the cell, and in many other activities. The transportation arteries of the city have their counterparts in the canals and passageways distributed all through the cell.

A large city lies mostly on one plane with only major buildings in the city centre rising considerably above the ground level, but the cell city stretches in three dimensions.
“What happens when the cell grows and divides? Its intricacy cannot be rudely disrupted when the cell splits into two. Each portion has to have a share of all the structures and the living protoplasm to enable it to continue to grow and function. Think of the involved mechanisms necessary to sort out and separate the complex parts!

“If a great big metropolis like Chicago should decide to become two distinct cities, how long would it take to separate the transportation network so that each half of the city would have a complete system of its own? What of the power sources and lines? How about the communications complex, the waste and sewage system? Surely it would require years for such a change, and yet the cell accomplishes this in a matter of minutes in some cases. Perhaps a better comparison would be the building of another city just like Chicago (or any other large city). It staggers the mind to think about it. Such duplication of great complexity on a fantastically miniature scale is a universal feature of living organisms.

“A blueprint of staggering intricacy—a code of complete and detailed instructions—directs and regulates all the intricacy of a cell and the organism it belongs to. Even if the laws of chance operating on atoms and molecules already present were able to produce simple amino acids or proteins, chance would never put together an exquisite and meaningful series of symbols—the DNA code—that conveys almost limitless meaning to the developing organism. An explosion in a print shop, a monkey jumping on a typewriter, would never produce a driver’s manual. Neither can the much more detailed instruction of the DNA code be the result of random activity.

“Every thinking person must find himself impressed with the evidence for a Master Designer who wrote the code, made and brought together the building blocks, and directed the construction. “Know ye that the Lord he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture” (Ps. 100:3).

Wonders of the Human Body

“Let us examine some of the larger manifestations of life. Take, for instance, man’s nervous system. The brain is an organism we are only beginning to understand. It is not adequate to call it a computer, for it has vastly superior abilities to those of even the most complex one. Besides being able to store and recall a tremendous mass of information over a lifetime, the brain can take a fact, compare it with a great amount of relevant information already available, and weigh it against judgement and conscience before coming to a conclusion. And how long do such processes take? Usually only a fraction of a second.

“What computer can analyse the grandeur of a symphony, the loveliness of a sonnet, or the beauty of a sunset? Or which one can appreciate the inspiration of quiet meditation or the emotions of a mother’s love? As the brain receives information from the senses, it makes appropriate responses based on the total experience, judgement, information, and heredity stored within itself.

“In brain surgery the surgeon needs to know the functions of its various tissues. By means of a small electric probe he touches various brain tissues to determine how vital they are in the normal functioning and control of the human mind and body. During certain classic experimentation Wilder Penfield, a Canadian neurosurgeon, discovered two sites on either side of the head, just forward and above the ears that appeared to be the storage areas for the memory of all life’s experiences. (Physiologists now believe that memories may be more widely distributed throughout the brain than just these areas). As he probed with the electrode, patients under local anaesthesia recalled vividly past experiences in their lives, incidents they had forgotten for many years.

“In recording them, Dr. Penfield declared, “One woman heard the voice of her small son in the yard outside her kitchen, accompanied by the neighbourhood sounds of honking autos, barking dogs, and shouting youngsters. One patient in the operating room listened to an orchestra playing a number that she did not herself know how to sing or play and that she recalled only vaguely having heard it in her church at home in Holland. She seemed to be there in the church and was moved again by the beauty of the occasion just as she had been on that Christmas Eve years earlier” It would thus appear that man actually has a registry of his total life experiences, like a tape recorder constantly running. Unfortunately, he is not always able to replay his memories.

“Almost incomprehensible detail exists in each part of the body, detail that seems unaccountable by any theory of gradual evolutionary development. Look, for example at the circulatory system. The average human heart beats 100,800 times a day to move the equivalent of ten tons of blood, the weight of 140 people. The energy expended equals that needed to carry 60 people (weighing 150 pounds each) from one floor to the next. In a lifetime, approximately 83 million gallons of blood passes through the average heart, enough to fill an average home swimming pool more than 3000 times. It reaches each part of the body through miles of veins and arteries and thousands of miles of capillaries.

“Man’s ability to reach the moon has thrilled the world, but the capillary systems of three men in a space capsule, if combined and placed end to end, nearly reaches the distance from earth to its satellite.

“ With his intelligence, his ability to conceive and design, man has produced many marvels, but none of them come near being the marvel that he himself is. The most marvellous, the most complex, the most intricate entity in the world—the human being—must have had a Designer.

“Anyone who can contemplate the eye of the housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camouflage of a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from variations in arrangement of proton and electron, and then maintain that all this design happened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident—such a person believes in a miracle far more astounding than any in the Bible. To regard man, with his arts and aspirations, his awareness of himself and of his universe, his emotions and his morals, his very ability to conceive an idea so grand as that of God, to regard this creature as merely a form of life somewhat higher on the evolutionary ladder than the others, is to create questions more profound than was answered.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Practical evidence in support of this dissertation?

Hop onto Google and check out the Bombardier Beetle’s unique method of defending itself. This defence method was researched and documented by the National Academy of Sciences, who hold the copyright. While you’re at it, check, out the Canadian wood frog; another unique creature that appears to have solved the riddle of resurrection. One wonders why all frogs don’t use this method of living their very interesting lives.

Then of course there’s vision. Even Darwin expressed his misgivings about trying to explain the paradox of vision in the light of common evolutionary theory; the plain fact is that no evolutionist, palaeontologist or any of the other –“gists” who so slavishly pursue evolutionary theory has ever discovered or been able to produce any kind of animal species that would prove/support their theory by having eyes in a variety of stag-es of development. The problem with the eye is that it's a bit like the ubiquitous moustrap; you need all five bits in place and fully operational for it to function as a mousetrap; remove even the most insignificant part--if indeed there is such a part, and the thing ends up as a bit of useless junk.

There have been umpteen cases of eyes in various stages of regression, purely as a result of no longer being required—fish found in underground river systems with vestigial eyes, in England, donkeys and mules in the coal mines of the of the late 1800’s having gone blind. This is just plain old adaptation and has absolutely buggeral to do with evolution; like the cockroach found in Patagonia; a subspecies of all cockroaches that has adapted to survive the bone-chilling temperatures of its adopted environment. Put it back in the tropics and it simply dies from overheating.

The conclusion? Evolutionary theory that today is taught as a “science”, sucks like a Hoover.

Leon du Toit
South Africa.

Origin by Design--edited

Following is a verbatim extract from the book by Harold Coffin, entitled “Origin by Design” published by Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington DC. Hagerstown, MD 21740. Permission to publish has been granted

Chapter 31 is entitled: “Life is Unique”

“ The more scientists study living protoplasm, the more its complexity becomes apparent. The electron microscope and biochemical analysis have opened windows in the living cell that reveal detail almost beyond description. But science has not determined the full com-plexity of living matter. We cannot yet define what life is, nor have we duplicated it artifi-cially.

Spontaneous Generation.

“In ancient times many believed in spontaneous generation, the development of living organ-isms from nonliving matter. They used frogs rising from river mud, flies coming from rot-ting meat, and similar phenomena as proof. Redi (1626-1697) and Spallanzani (1729-1799) of Italy and Pasteur (1822-1895) of France helped to dispel the notion, but the old belief was slow to die. In fact, it has not vanished. Rephrasing it in scientific language, many sci-entists have incorporated it into mechanistic evolution as the probable method for the ori-gin of life. (Significantly, mechanistic evolution requires, for its survival as a theory, ex-ceptions to two of the best-substantiated laws of life—life begets life, and like begets like.)

“A Russian scientist, A.I. Oparin, in his book The Origin of Life was one of the first in modern times to reintroduce spontaneous generation as an explanation for the origin of life. Oparin gave a detailed argument for spontaneous origin of life in ancient seas, which he thought harboured large quantities of organic substances usable in amino acid forma-tion. According to Oparin, an organic molecule would increase in complexity without the ne-cessity of synthetic ability (the capacity to form or synthesize organic molecules), by the chance combining of substances available in its environment.

“The possibilities of a random combination of molecules to become amino acids and the sub-sequent joining of amino acids to become proteins with properties of life are unrealistic. Coppedge calculates that the odds are 10(161) to one that not one usable protein would re-sult from chance even if all the atoms on the earth’s surface, including water, air, and the crust of the earth were made into conveniently available amino acids and 4 to 5 billions of years were involved. If events did produce such a protein, it would be of no value unless it possessed some accurate process of duplication to manufacture more proteins. Further-more, the simplest cell or living object consists of many kinds of proteins.
“Morowitz has determined the probability for the origin of the organic precursors for the smallest likely living entity by random processes. He based his calculations on reaction probabilities, a somewhat different and more accurate approach than most other such computations. The chances for producing the necessary molecules, amino acids, proteins, et cetera, for a cell one-tenth the size of the smallest known to man (Mycoplasm hominis H. 39) is less than one in 10(340,000,000) or 10 with 340 million zeros after it. His calculation employs a generous estimate of the number of atoms in the universe, the total number of atomic interactions over a 10-billion-year age for the universe. Practically speaking, such odds for the chance formation of a cell, even the smallest and simple one, are zero.

“George Wald, Nobel Prize winner, while recognizing the improbability of spontaneous gen-eration, states his personal belief as follows: “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” It is an excellent statement of faith!!

“John Keosian is much more realistic. “The concept that all the parts of the first living thing pre-existed, and that its formation was simply a matter of spontaneous generation therefrom is mathematical absurdity, not probability. All present approaches to a solution of the problem of the origin of life are either irrelevant or lead to a blind alley.”

“Even if the proper conditions were present and the correct constituents fell together in the right proportions, no certainty demands that life would result. Is life merely the for-tuitous arrangement of elements and compounds in a unique arrangement? If scientists could put together the constituents of a cell in exactly the right proportions and arrange-ments, would it become a living cell? The question remains unresolved. Should life be more than the sum of its parts, spontaneous generation would never be possible under any cir-cumstances.

“Occasionally the news media announce that scientists have created life in a laboratory. Such claims bring up the question, “If man can create life now, is there not a possibility that life might have arisen by chance in the past remote history of the earth?”

“Apparently the desire to announce the creation of life is a temptation hard to resist for both news reporters and scientists. The real truth is that scientists have not manufac-tured life, although they have made real breakthroughs in its study.

Has Man Created Life?

“What must the biologist bring about before he can truly say that he has artificially pro-duced life? According to Lederberg, life requires at least seven substances:

1. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)
2. Four nitrogenous bases in abundance
3. DNA polymerase
4. Ribotide phosphates
5. RNA polymerase
6. A supply of twenty aminoacyl nucleotidates
7. Aminoacyl—RNA polymerase
We should add the following three requirements to the list:
8. A membrane
9. Regulatory mechanisms
10. A constant supply of energy

“So far scientists have synthesized in the laboratory only DNA, the first listed above, but not from scratch. They created neither the DNA molecule they used for the pattern nor the building blocks with which they constructed the new DNA molecule, but obtained them from viruses and bacteria. If a baby can construct a castle from blocks similar to the one you just made you feel pleased. But if he could design the structure, saw down the trees, cut out the blocks, paint them then build the castle; he would be more than a genius.

“Scientists have been able to copy the existing castle with building blocks already provided. But even that is an incorrect statement. Man has not copied the castle—he has only set up the right conditions, and nature itself has done it. DNA polymerase (item 3) did all the work of lining up the building blocks in the right order and joining them together. In other words, the DNA did nothing but provide the pattern.

“But this is still not the whole story. Some have assumed that the synthesized DNA is a liv-ing entity. In order to be alive (1) a substance must have a definite structure—it cannot be in disorder or chaos. Synthesized DNA meets this requirement. (2) It must have the ability to take in food, give off wastes, repair, replace, grow, and those other features lumped to-gether under the term metabolism. However, synthesized DNA is completely passive. (3) Living things must have the regulatory mechanisms that control the metabolic processes that keep them in balance and guide the living organism into becoming and remaining the kind of organism that is it destined to be. Again, synthesized DNA fails the criteria. (4) A living entity must be more than merely a passing spark that flashes and then dies away; life must have the ability to reproduce another like itself.

Synthesized DNA does not meet three of the four basic requirements of life. Its synthe-sis is a great accomplishment, but it is not a living substance.

“No, man has not produced life. He has only provided the proper conditions for nature to manufacture just one of the considerable list of required substances found in living things. But what if man could eventually produce a simple spark of life? What if thousands of bril-liant researchers spending thousands of hours in multimillion-dollar laboratories with equipment of utmost sophistication finally would achieve the dream of man—to produce life? Would it not merely emphasize that it would have been impossible for life to have arisen by itself? Life is a truly unique entity, a constant miracle in our midst. It demands intelligence and design behind it.

“God is the underived source of life, the life-giver, a fact that Scripture greatly empha-sises. David says, “For with thee is the fountain of life” Jesus said to Martha before he raised Lazarus from the dead, “I am the resurrection, and the life.” Paul testified to the Athenians his belief: “He giveth to all life, and all things.” I personally doubt that humans will be able to create life. It is possible that someday scientists and the mass media will proclaim the accomplishment, but such a claim will certainly require close scrutiny. The as-sertion will undoubtedly be either questionable or a case in which the synthesis process has incorporated some previously living matter. Living organisms have the ability to change food (nonliving matter) into living protoplasm. When we deal with micro-organisms or viruses we may have difficulty distinguishing the part humans play and the role of the organism.

Magic in a Cell

“It is impressive to fly over a great city at night and see the numberless twinkling house and streetlights, the headlights of cars moving along the city streets and freeways, and to realize the great number of beings that lie below you and the multitude of their activities. If you marvel at what man has accomplished, you will be humbled to realise that if you could enlarge a cell to the size of a city, you would see equal complexity and activity. Man has built the city, but he has had nothing to do with the development of the cell.

“We can compare the individual grains of sand in the bricks of the buildings of the city to the atoms in the living matter of a cell, the bricks themselves to the molecules, the rooms of the buildings to the amino acids, and the buildings to the proteins. Scattered through the city are the factories, power plants, and schools. Throughout the cell we find distinct substances involved in the production of energy, in the transmission of inherited charac-teristics, in the communication processes of the cell, and in many other activities. The transportation arteries of the city have their counterparts in the canals and passageways distributed all through the cell.

A large city lies mostly on one plane with only major buildings in the city centre rising con-siderably above the ground level, but the cell city stretches in three dimensions.
“What happens when the cell grows and divides? Its intricacy cannot be rudely disrupted when the cell splits into two. Each portion has to have a share of all the structures and the living protoplasm to enable it to continue to grow and function. Think of the involved mechanisms necessary to sort out and separate the complex parts!

“If a great big metropolis like Chicago should decide to become two distinct cities, how long would it take to separate the transportation network so that each half of the city would have a complete system of its own? What of the power sources and lines? How about the communications complex, the waste and sewage system? Surely it would require years for such a change, and yet the cell accomplishes this in a matter of minutes in some cases. Perhaps a better comparison would be the building of another city just like Chicago (or any other large city). It staggers the mind to think about it. Such duplication of great com-plexity on a fantastically miniature scale is a universal feature of living organisms.

“A blueprint of staggering intricacy—a code of complete and detailed instructions—directs and regulates all the intricacy of a cell and the organism it belongs to. Even if the laws of chance operating on atoms and molecules already present were able to produce simple amino acids or proteins, chance would never put together an exquisite and meaningful se-ries of symbols—the DNA code—that conveys almost limitless meaning to the developing organism. An explosion in a print shop, a monkey jumping on a typewriter, would never pro-duce a driver’s manual. Neither can the much more detailed instruction of the DNA code be the result of random activity.

“Every thinking person must find himself impressed with the evidence for a Master De-signer who wrote the code, made and brought together the building blocks, and directed the construction. “Know ye that the Lord he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture” (Ps. 100:3).

Wonders of the Human Body

“Let us examine some of the larger manifestations of life. Take, for instance, man’s nerv-ous system. The brain is an organism we are only beginning to understand. It is not ade-quate to call it a computer, for it has vastly superior abilities to those of even the most complex one. Besides being able to store and recall a tremendous mass of information over a lifetime, the brain can take a fact, compare it with a great amount of relevant informa-tion already available, and weigh it against judgement and conscience before coming to a conclusion. And how long do such processes take? Usually only a fraction of a second.

“What computer can analyse the grandeur of a symphony, the loveliness of a sonnet, or the beauty of a sunset? Or which one can appreciate the inspiration of quiet meditation or the emotions of a mother’s love? As the brain receives information from the senses, it makes appropriate responses based on the total experience, judgement, information, and heredity stored within itself.

“In brain surgery the surgeon needs to know the functions of its various tissues. By means of a small electric probe he touches various brain tissues to determine how vital they are in the normal functioning and control of the human mind and body. During certain classic ex-perimentation Wilder Penfield, a Canadian neurosurgeon, discovered two sites on either side of the head, just forward and above the ears that appeared to be the storage areas for the memory of all life’s experiences. (Physiologists now believe that memories may be more widely distributed throughout the brain than just these areas). As he probed with the electrode, patients under local anaesthesia recalled vividly past experiences in their lives, incidents they had forgotten for many years.

“In recording them, Dr. Penfield declared, “One woman heard the voice of her small son in the yard outside her kitchen, accompanied by the neighbourhood sounds of honking autos, barking dogs, and shouting youngsters. One patient in the operating room listened to an or-chestra playing a number that she did not herself know how to sing or play and that she re-called only vaguely having heard it in her church at home in Holland. She seemed to be there in the church and was moved again by the beauty of the occasion just as she had been on that Christmas Eve years earlier” It would thus appear that man actually has a registry of his total life experiences, like a tape recorder constantly running. Unfortu-nately, he is not always able to replay his memories.

“Almost incomprehensible detail exists in each part of the body, detail that seems unac-countable by any theory of gradual evolutionary development. Look, for example at the cir-culatory system. The average human heart beats 100,800 times a day to move the equiva-lent of ten tons of blood, the weight of 140 people. The energy expended equals that needed to carry 60 people (weighing 150 pounds each) from one floor to the next. In a life-time, approximately 83 million gallons of blood passes through the average heart, enough to fill an average home swimming pool more than 3000 times. It reaches each part of the body through miles of veins and arteries and thousands of miles of capillaries.

“Man’s ability to reach the moon has thrilled the world, but the capillary systems of three men in a space capsule, if combined and placed end to end, nearly reaches the distance from earth to its satellite.

“ With his intelligence, his ability to conceive and design, man has produced many marvels, but none of them come near being the marvel that he himself is. The most marvel-lous, the most complex, the most intricate entity in the world—the human being—must have had a Designer.

“Anyone who can contemplate the eye of the housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camouflage of a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from varia-tions in arrangement of proton and electron, and then maintain that all this design hap-pened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident—such a person believes in a miracle far more astounding than any in the Bible. To regard man, with his arts and aspira-tions, his awareness of himself and of his universe, his emotions and his morals, his very ability to conceive an idea so grand as that of God, to regard this creature as merely a form of life somewhat higher on the evolutionary ladder than the others, is to create ques-tions more profound than was answered.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Practical evidence in support of this dissertation?

Hop onto Google and check out the Bombardier Beetle’s unique method of defending itself. This defence method was researched and documented by the National Academy of Sci-ences, who hold the copyright. While you’re at it, check, out the Canadian wood frog; an-other unique creature that ap-pears to have solved the riddle of resurrection. One wonders why all frogs don’t use this method of living their very inter-esting lives.

Then of course there’s vision. Even Darwin expressed his misgivings about trying to explain the paradox of vision in the light of common evolutionary theory; the plain fact is that no evolutionist, palaeontologist or any of the other –“gists” who so slavishly pursue evolution-ary theory has ever discovered or been able to produce any kind of animal species that would prove/support their theory by having eyes in a variety of stages of development. There have been umpteen cases of eyes in various stages of regression, purely as a result of no longer being required—fish found in underground river sys-tems with vestigial eyes, in England, donkeys and mules in the coal mines of the of the late 1800’s having gone blind.

The problem with the eye is that it's a bit like the ubiquitous mousetrap; you need all five bits in place and fully operational for it to function as a mousetrap; remove even the most insig-nificant part--if indeed there is such a part, and the thing ends up as a bit of useless junk.

This is just plain old adaptation and has absolutely buggeral to do with evolution; like the cockroach found in Patagonia; a subspecies of all cockroaches that has adapted to survive the bone-chilling temperatures of its adopted environment. Put it back in the tropics and it simply dies from overheating.

The conclusion? Evolutionary theory that today is taught as a “science”, sucks like a Hoo-ver.

Leon du Toit
South Africa.

There is one huge problem with evolution. It's a THEORY! because nothing about it has been proven. Every evolutionist says that life began with one simple life form, yet none of them can give a good reason for how that life form was created!!! So if evolutionists are just teaching ideas instead of facts (because there are no facts) are they no different from the preacher on Sunday morning? Both are strictly stating their opinion on a given topic. The more science develops, the easier it is to believe in ID, rather than evolution. Science is now disproving evolution.

For example, The idea of Spontaneous Generation was believed to be a scientific law because some guy put a wet T-shirt and some hay in a wooden box, and found the next morning that a hole had been chewed through one side of the box. He concluded that a mouse had Spontaneously Generated from the T-shirt/hay combination, and chewed his way out. This experiment, and others like it, were enough to make Spontaneous Generation a scientific law! Of course we now know that a mouse obviously chewed his way into the box, and not out of it.

Anyone who believes evolution can be proven is just wrong! Nothing can be proven 100%. ID provides a clear and easy reason for the creation of life.

Also, the idea that Carbon Dating disproves the idea of the earth being less the 10,000 years old is also flawed. A few years ago, some scientists put a group of chemicals in a container (these chemicals made up the chemical formula for a common rock) and tested it with carbon dating. The results said that the "rock," which had just been created, was over 100 million years old. Carbon Dating doesn't work and cannot be accepted as proof of anything.

Evolution is just a Theory......HAHAHAHA!!!

That comment cracks me up every time I hear it.

A Scientific Theory must be falsifiable !

"Most religious beliefs are not falsifiable, and are therefor outside the scope of experimental science."

Anyone who says Evolution is "just a theory" needs to visit their local library / bookstore.

Support Science not Superstition !!

There is no evidence for Evolution, therefor it cannot be called a scientific law, so it remains the Theory of Evolution.

"Support Science not Superstition" I use science to support religion. In fact, science is religion's greatest tool! Modern Science is helping to disprove evolution by showing just how crazy it really is. This world is set up too perfectly to be considered an accident. Only by ID could this world have been created.

Oh boy, a whole lot of lying and misleading going on here.
Seweweek: I love how the book you cite says that:
"The possibilities of a random combination of molecules to become amino acids ... are unrealistic," despite the fact that in the 1950s it was shown that amino acids arose in days in a chamber which contained only hydrogen, water, methane, and ammonia.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53am.html

The author then continues to cite insane statistics about the "odds of life arising" and other such nonsense. What's beautiful is he cites quacks like Coppedge who have been shown to use grossly wrong and misguided assumptions in their calculations, and have been repeatedly proven wrong:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html#Coppedge
You can find that every person and statistic cited in that quote has been some combination of misguided, misleading, or incompetent.

Then, the author talks about one of the oldest and dumbest examples that creationists repeatedly point out, but always fail to research: the evolution of the eye. Do a little research yourself:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/
Hell, even Darwin himself proposed a path in which an eye could have evolved:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
And just one of many creatures found along the evolutionary path of the eye:
http://www.physorg.com/news115919015.html

Really though, the most telling quote of the whole essay is this: "to then maintain that all this design hap-pened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident, such a person believes in a miracle far more astounding than any in the Bible." This conclusively shows that the author does not understand even the most basic fundamentals of evolution. Specifically, evolution is not a random process; yes, it relies on the random changes in genes, but it is the nonrandom process of natural selection that makes evolution work. Yes, without the direction of natural selection, evolution would be impossible, but this is simply not the case and if the author doesn't even understand this point then he simply has no place to speak in a discussion of evolution.

"Also, the idea that Carbon Dating disproves the idea of the earth being less the 10,000 years old is also flawed. A few years ago, some scientists put a group of chemicals in a container (these chemicals made up the chemical formula for a common rock) and tested it with carbon dating. The results said that the 'rock,' which had just been created, was over 100 million years old. Carbon Dating doesn't work and cannot be accepted as proof of anything."
Uhh, sure. Well let's live in this imaginary world where this is true (among the thousands of other instances where carbon dating has been confirmed by other blind dating methods), how might you resolve:
- The fact that we see stars that are millions or billions of light years away?
- The fact that it is easy to show that it takes 100,000 - 1 million years for a single photon to leave the sun?
- The magnetic alignment in the earths crust, which can be checked by the ocean floor, and can be seen to have flipped many times in the earth's lifespan?
- Where did the moon come from? Why does its makeup point to the fact that it came from earth, and if this happened only 6,000 years ago, why isn't there a huge moon-shaped chunk missing from earth? How the hell did the moon go from volcanically active to dead so quickly?
- How do you explain the layering of the grand canyon?
etc. etc. etc. There are so many processes on this earth and in this universe that simply do not make sense on such a minuscule timescale. You might as well throw out all of the science done in the past 500 years.

Wow, there have been some really dumb things posted in this thread over the past couple of days. Some of my favorites:

“…science and God are not incompatible, at least not to anyone whos put some thought into it”

Really? Cause I always thought that the fact that science deals only with natural phenomenon and the fact that the concept of God is supernatural kind of puts a kibosh on the whole notion of their compatibility.

“As for evidence supporting God, all we have to do is look at the bible. Those of the secular world absolutely refuse to use this document as evidence…”

Duh! Do the Analects, Bhagavad Gita, Koran, Talmud, Tao-te-ching, Upanishads, and Veda count as well or are they false God evidence?

“Archaeology also validates the bible by proving many events in it actually did occur in the past.”

Such as? I know a lot of stories in the bible that science has satisfactorily proved did not happen such as Adam & Eve, the great flood, the day the sun stood still, etc.

“Anyone who believes evolution can be proven is just wrong! Nothing can be proven 100%. ID provides a clear and easy reason for the creation of life.”

Yeah, it is great so long as you have no interest in finding out the truth.

“A few years ago, some scientists put a group of chemicals in a container (these chemicals made up the chemical formula for a common rock) and tested it with carbon dating. The results said that the "rock," which had just been created, was over 100 million years old.”

I’ll just skate over the fact that the chemicals they put in the container were probably over 100 million years old. *whistles*

“There is no evidence for Evolution, therefore it cannot be called a scientific law, so it remains the Theory of Evolution.”

Seriously now, some of you really need a refresher course on what a scientific law and scientific theory are. A scientific law describes an observation in nature while a scientific theory attempts to explain it [scientifically].

"If you've used the phrase 'evolution is only a theory,' you might be a redneck..."

I can't express how annoying it is, as a scientist, to hear someone attempt to counter evolution by claiming its a theory. You know what else is a theory?
Gravity, germs, electromagnetism... really anything that is "known" scientifically are JUST theories.
For you to be able to read what I have typed is due to the interactions of a number of theories involving band gaps (for the transistors in your computer), electromagnetism (for the transmission of energy and data), chemical synthesis (if anything around you is made of plastic or other non-natural products) and more. Nothing from these theories is proven to be true, yet their predictive power allowed for your computer to have been designed and manufactured.
ID, on the other hand, is not a theory, as it is untestable (or insofar as it can be tested it has been found to be false). At best ID sets up a system of moving goal posts by claiming that a specific feature of a higher order creature is too complex to have "spontaneously" evolved; the eye was even viewed by Darwin as difficult to explain. But this has been answered (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html), causing ID supporters to pick other organs or features to rally behind. Basing a "theory" on specific, separate examples, without postulating an overwhelming trend (as in ID) makes for a poor theory which doesn't stand up to scientific rigor. As such, ID must be discarded (in its current form) as a scientific theory and does not belong in a science classroom, except as an example of how not to make a theory.

As for the previous LONG quote - from an author with no credentials given - I would like to note that the claim as to the possibility of spontaneous generation as a completely random event is poorly discussed by the author. Sadly I can't find the article, but there was evidence discussed recently (last few years) about how reaction kinetics make certain reactions on the road to life more favorable than otherwise predicted. This was due to the fact the evolution-like selective processes were observed in non-living material (essentially, small enzymatic or catalytic chemicals that were chemically favorable would become more prevalent than less favorable compounds).

I fell asleep before I posted and got ninja'd. Also, even though I did just post, I believe that getting into these discussions feels like troll baiting. Any creationists or IDers who come to post here will believe that they have this grand understanding of science, far better than any scientist, and that since their pastor gave them this understanding it has to be true. Any argument given by a scientist will just be dismissed because the IDers lack the critical mind capable of challenging their religious upbringing. The evolutionists will just get annoyed, and the creationists will just ignore what they are being told.

I thought that science was based on repeatable experiments and laws derived from them. Apparently these teachers don't give in to scientific method. We are now officially back in the days of alchemy.

They must think that because they believe in the bible and creationism that they need to put that onto kids that are there to learn science, not theology.

Someone else said a few comments down "Teach science in a science class, teach theology in sunday school" There needs to be a separation. There is no proof to intelligent design. We have not seen the plans for our design nor will we ever. We have seen proof of evolution. But there are still people that just don't give into anything science may say and will only base their views of the world on what a book tells them and what a preacher has said. Ever hear of the flat earth. Those people are nut jobs...

Science and religion really are not incompatible, just wait a second before I someone replies with bigotry. Science is in essence a set of assumed facts based on testable hypothesis. While religion is a set of beliefs based untestable hypothesis. Though I don't disagree with the theory of evolution, I think it is wrong to teach children saying it is a fact due to the fact of it has never been proven true. Humans in essence have only seen microevolution on a small scale in recorded history. Therefore we have little data supporting the theory. In essence the theory is like the M theory, there is no possible way of ever testing it to be true, therefore we must only teach it to people who want to learn it. Due to the fact that biology class in high school is required, and the theory should be taught in college courses because it is not required of the student.

CAN ANYONE PROVIDE ME WITH SOME PROOF OF EVOLUTION!!!!!!!!

because all I have read is that evolution must be true because . . . . . . . . I would really like to hear some solid examples that supports evolution.

kokorokun, your definitions of science and religion don't point to how they are NOT incompatible. Please clarify.

Jacob, the fact that your flu vaccination from 10 years ago (or even one year ago) is evidence of evolution. Further, the fact that we are finding more and more bacteria that are becoming resistant to our commonly used antibiotics is also evidence that organism evolve. If you want to look at macroevolutionary change, consider the existence of the appendix and tailbone in humans, neither of which have a use in the body, yet are functional in other animals. Both are vestigial features that indicate that modern humans are one step along an evolutionary continuum. Plenty of other species have vestigial limbs or organs (snakes, whales, etc.) which all are indicative of a large process of change that scientists term evolution.

Sorry, slight typo on the last post. It should read:

*the fact that your flu vaccination from 10 years ago (or even one year ago) no longer protects you is evidence of evolution.*

"If you want to look at macroevolutionary change, consider the existence of the appendix and tailbone in humans, neither of which have a use in the body, yet are functional in other animals. Both are vestigial features that indicate that modern humans are one step along an evolutionary continuum." That is not proof. It's just another idea of what could have happened.

This debate could obviously go on forever, and it has been ever since the mid 1800's. But one question still remains unanswered by evolution. Where did life come from in the first place? Intelligent Design gives the plausible reason that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1 NIV Bible). But evolution cannot provide any credible answer, only theories that take more faith to believe in then the Bible.

"If creationists want their beliefs to be taught in biology class, they need to make some predictions, test those predictions, and submit their findings to independant peer review. If their findings are confirmed, then they will have a leg to stand on. Until they do that, they should stop whining."

all i see is a bunch of evolutionists on here whining. you know, all Darwin had a doctorate of THEOLOGY! he started as a creationist, a minister in the Catholic Church, and then decided to abandon his faith when he invented his theory. Darwin was never a scientist. And as far as I know, in all the years of science that was taught to me in high-school and college, the teachers all taught that the science could NEVER PROVE ANYTHING, REPEAT, ANYTHING!!! Look it up in your forgotten textbooks, science cannot prove anything. Just think about the whole thing about the solar system. Hundreds of years of thinking about the earth being the center of the universe was thrown out the window, yet just before, everybody in the world thought that it was fact! Lol. We're all entitled to our own view about how the world works, and we can peacefully debate it to our hearts content. But in an effort to be fair to our children, we should teach all theories in our schools, not that I personally believe in all those theories, but it should be our children's choice as to what to believe. Personally, I think we're all being a little bit childish as to our beliefs, lets all just agree to disagree.

I'm out...

I'll add my .02, although probably neither side actually reads the comments -- too busy dreaming up the rebuttal .

Point 1 -- why is this being reported in a science magazine? This is the behavior of teachers -- not anything actually enlightening from a scientific viewpoint.

Point 2 -- Evolution -- if it is the correct theory -- will continue to function whether or not even one person believes in it.

Point 3 --There could be other alternates. There seem to be only two possible viewpoints. Evolution and ID -- perhaps there are other possibilities.

Point 4 Evolution has become a religion, and it's advocates are trying to build a theocracy. I find this the most terrifying of all the points of discussion. Here's what I mean
-- It is ILLEGAL to teach creationism in US schools. EVOLUTTION is the only acceptable theory. This was reinforced by the courts a few years back. Sounds like the first chirch of evolution to me
-- Scientific and popular media sound clarion calls dismissing all but the evolutionarty faithful e.g.
-- Popular Science has had several articles/blogs discussing evolutionin a manner which would have done a televangelist proud
-- Scientific American devoted an almost an entire issue to
attacking anyone foolish enough to have any doubt that evolution was the only theory. They even prefaced the massive evolution section with the snide comment that, of course, SA readers would not really need the articles -- because they would already have the correct belief.
(Why then do the issue?)
-- Even the famous Simpson's TV show did an episode condedemning any non evolutionary belief. In fact, contrary to their usual 'Homer is an idiot' theme , they were strident in pointing out that Flanders was a poor misguided zealot.

I actually believe that evolution could be a correct theory. However, I also believe that the efforts of many in the 'Scientific Community' on this topic are just plain shameful. Let's continue to investigate and keep an open mind, let's not become the very dogmatists and zealots that have plagued scientific investigations for centuries.

Neither of these "theory's" can be proven but I would rather go for the "theory" that has a written historic record. which is most obviously the creationist view. A written record is a lot more sure than trying to "read" the history in some rocks.

Keep your Theology out of our Biology !

"But one question still remains unanswered by evolution. Where did life come from in the first place? Intelligent Design gives the plausible reason that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

You are right, the theory of evolution has not answered the question of where life came from but that does not make ID any more plausible. ID is a theory that exists only in the absence of knowledge. It does nothing to further our understanding and from a scientific stand point such a theory is completely useless.

Even if a God did exist and did create life science would not study the fact that he/she/it did it, but only how they did it.

"But one question still remains unanswered by evolution. Where did life come from in the first place? Intelligent Design gives the plausible reason that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

You're absolutely right about evolution not explaining how life arose. Such phenomena fall under theories of abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution merely explains the changes we see throughout lifeforms that already exist. And it's well documented.

Maybe Jesus created life? Maybe Allah did? Maybe God is real but he has his own god? Maybe there are an infinite number of gods. We don't know, and neither do you. We can speculate about the creation of life and the universe until the cows come home, but evolution doesn't claim to make any predictions about either of the above mentioned. The theory of evolution doesn't necessarily try to refute God, either. It is simply the best explanation for what we see today.

Let's assume, for a second (or two, or three, or however long it takes you to read this) that the biblical account of creation, namely Genesis, is correct. We will concede that God is all-knowing, all-powerful, infinitely wise etc. etc.

This God would create the universe, life and everything else in a modern week, or so. When this god was laying down the rock strata, it decided to place simple lifeforms on the bottom. This god, ever the trickster, decided to create ever more complex lifeforms as he created the new layers above. "Gee, I think I'll make these fossils change verrrrrry slowly over time", said God. "I think I'll show increases in traits that would be selected for by natural selection, and show creatures who are selected against by the environment to suddenly go extinct" elaborated God as he sips a cup of Earl Grey and reads the BBC. To top off the fossil record, God also decided to show the emergence and gradual rise in frequency of beneficial structures.

"And it was good", God declared. But there was still something missing -- an evolved primate with the cognitive capability to contemplate Him in the first place. So God created homo sapiens. He decided to give them tremendous curiosity, the ability to use tools and complex emotions and social structures/tendencies, which would look to be simply evolved traits from a social common ancestor with great apes -- other creatures who have complex social structures.

God made homo sapiens and great apes with ~95% of the same DNA, gave homo sapiens a fused chromosome to explain the difference in chromosome numbers between the respective species (incidentally, it was evolutionary biologists who predicted this fused chromosome) and made humans (perhaps cruelly!) to be, well, not extremely well-adjusted to bipedal locomotion.

Among other things, God also gave humans -- in all of our cultural flavours, geographical realms and regions -- the capability of creating their own religions. Some of these religions would evolve in the dense forests of Africa, Asia and elsewhere. Some of these religions developed in the North American tundra. Some of these religions, apparently God's favourites!, evolved in the deserts of the Middle East. In any case, most religions had their own distinct Gods to worship, their own mythologies and their own laws and rules.

"That oughta fool 'em!", God said as he finished designing a species -- homo sapiens -- with the intelligence, curiousity and wonder to critically examine the world around them. "To any sane, critically thinking individual, it would appear that my existence may be, well, questionable at best". God then threw a handful of dust onto his newly-created planet, and humans were born. It would seem that God: intentionally created the Earth to look old just to test our faith, without giving any evidence at all of His existence; spread geographically isolated humans around Earth to intentionally forbid them of any exposure to Christianity, and thus condemning them to hell; Carefully crafted an elaborate fossil record to make evolution look awfully compelling by such evidence alone, and then decided to punish those people who, quite naturally, decided to use the brain He gave us by questioning fantastical claims of miracles and his existence.

It appears that God is a rather cruel individual.

It's true what they say: "Go to heaven for the climate, and hell for the company". By Christian logic, there should be a lot more interesting people in hell than in heaven.

Glad to see many High Schools teach reality.

Will anyone approach this topic without a bias?
Can anyone research both topics (Evolution and ID) without preconceived notions of truth in their heads?
Can anyone look beyond the surface of both issues and ignore assumptions to truly understand both topics before presenting an argument?
Will anyone argue without ad hominem?

"The theory of evolution doesn't necessarily try to refute God, either. It is simply the best explanation for what we see today." I find it difficult to believe a theory that has no proof whatsoever. Yes there are many ideas that point to evolution being the reason why we are here today, but with no proof to back it up, and countless flaws that contradict evolution, it simply does not carry enough weight to be accepted in my book.

What I mean by countless flaws is there are many examples right here today that go against what evolution teaches. For example, biologists have indicated that there is no theoretical age limit on the common tree (because of the way the annual growth rings are created). however, the oldest known tree in creation right now is 4,700 years old. But according to modern science trees should be able to live way longer than that! Isn't also coincidental that the biblical flood is said to have happened around 4,700 years ago. That is just one example that questions evolution.

And of course there is no found skeleton that provides an evolutionary link between two creatures.

there is just too many problems with evolution, and no proof for it.

Considering the plethora of opinions expressed regarding the contentious issue of evolution vs. creation, what has always struck me as rather odd about Homo Sapiens is the person who categorically states: “Don’t confuse me with any facts; my mind is made up,” which is so amply demonstrated here.

With this kind of attitude/philosophy, the only person you’re really treating unjustly is yourself.

Can there be such a thing as an enlightened bigot, or would this be just another example of an oxymoronic attitude in action?

For those who would like to consider the latest information—evidently gathered mostly in the States—about the secrets of the DNA code; all verifiable facts that even noted atheists have come to accept as irrefutable, there is a rather interesting website: www.gnmagazine.org/evolution

I used to be a devout evolutionist, but then I got confronted by facts that I had no way or refuting or trying to explain away, which ultimately served only to prove that truth is immutable; even more steadfast than say, the Grand Canyon?

Anyway, check the website out for yourself and then decide.

It disturbs me that so many anti-intellectual, anti-science people have found their way here. If they actually LEARNED something here, that be good, but these people are generally incapable of learning. The reason why ID should not enter into any scientific discussion is because it ISN'T SCIENTIFIC. It's 100% made up. It has NO basis in ANY scientific fact. There is NO scientific evidence supporting it. Why shouldn't this made-up "controversy" be taught in school? For the same reason holocaust denial shouldn't be taught, or that the earth is hollow and lizardmen live in the center, or that pixies hold things to the earth as opposed to gravity. Even if there WERE a real controversy among scientists, it STILL shouldn't be taught in high school because a high school classroom of uneducated, untrained students is NOT the place to have a scientific debate. No one in that classroom is in any position to know any better than the actual scientists studying the situation, including the teacher.

And to those saying you want evidence of evolution, if you REALLY did, it's easy enough to find. The truth is, the only reason you want evidence is so you can close your eyes and cover your ears when it's presented to you.

And it's not the job of evolution to explain the origin of life. That's a completely different field of study.

“I find it difficult to believe a theory that has no proof whatsoever.”

Are we talking about creationism? Because if we are I would have to agree that there is no proof what-so-ever to support such a claim. As for evolution there is a mountain of proof and you would know this if you bothered to look.

“For those who would like to consider the latest information—evidently gathered mostly in the States—about the secrets of the DNA code; all verifiable facts that even noted atheists have come to accept as irrefutable, there is a rather interesting website: www.gnmagazine.org/evolution ”

Yeah thanks Seweweeksp, I will make sure to visit your religious website to get the facts on evolution…..not.

“the oldest known tree in creation right now is 4,700 years old. But according to modern science trees should be able to live way longer than that! Isn't also coincidental that the biblical flood is said to have happened around 4,700 years ago.”

The oldest tree on earth used to be 4700 years old that was until they discovered a 12,000 year old redwood in California. Oh but doesn’t that make it older than the earth itself according to your messed up calendar?

"The reason why ID should not enter into any scientific discussion is because it ISN'T SCIENTIFIC. It's 100% made up. It has NO basis in ANY scientific fact. There is NO scientific evidence supporting it."

Hmmm lets see. ID is grounded in the Bible, which is the oldest known book in the world and which it's oldest copy is a few thousand years old. And the oldest copies say the same thing as a modern Bible, there is no difference.

Then there is the theory of Evolution. Began in 1859 When Darwin published his own "made up" theory of how this world evolved in "The Origin of Species."

EVOLUTION is "100% made up" and has "no basis in any scientific fact," with "no scientific evidence supporting it."

"The oldest tree on earth used to be 4700 years old that was until they discovered a 12,000 year old redwood in California. Oh but doesn’t that make it older than the earth itself according to your messed up calendar?"

I think that still messes up the evolution calender as according to you that tree should be well beyond 500,000 years old. The fact that the oldest tree is only 12,000 years old is support for ID and against Evolution.

I have tried very hard to find proof for evolution. But because I have not found any, I must side with ID. It makes more sense.

I would love to here some proof for evolution if anyone is willing to provide some.

"I've witnessed first hand the power of ideas, I've seen people kill in the name of them, and die defending them... but you cannot kiss an idea, cannot touch it, or hold it... ideas do not bleed, they do not feel pain, they do not love, and they cannot be destroyed.”
All the science in the world will not shake my Faith. I have realized that the more confident we become in our "knowledge" of the universe, the more we realize that we don't know everything. The theory of gravity, once thought to be solid, is now being questioned. The truth is, while some creationists believe in a creation time of 7 earth rotations, it could be that the earth was created in 7 periods. We aren't entirely sure. Just like evolutionists, we weren't there the day it happened. But we got here somehow. I choose to believe that God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is the reason.
There once was a man who looked upon the most beautiful painting he had ever seen. He looked at a stranger standing beside him and remarked, "What a beautiful painting. Who painted it?” The stranger replied, "No one painted it. Over many years, the colors appeared and rearranged themselves in the form of an image." The gentleman replied in astonishment, "But that's impossible. Someone had to have painted it." The stranger replied rather sternly, "Impossible? My friend, have you seen the author of this piece?" "No", the gentleman remarked. “But just because I haven't seen him doesn't make him nonexistent. The only proof I need is the beautiful work of art which stands before me.”
You can silence every science teacher who chooses to teach creationism. You can destroy textbooks. You can tell children that God is a lie. But no matter how hard you try, you can’t kill an idea. You can’t kill a belief. That, my friends, has been hypothesized, tested, and proven. The question now is can you live with the results? The only other option you have is to get over it.

"The fact that the oldest tree is only 12,000 years old is support for ID and against Evolution."

How on earth to you arrive at that conclusion? The age of the world oldest [living] tree does nothing to support ID or evolution. It is simply one of numerous examples (there are vastly more conclusive examples) as to why the biblical age of the earth is wrong.

The oldest tree fossil we have thus far dates back nearly 385 million years.

"EVOLUTION is "100% made up" and has "no basis in any scientific fact," with "no scientific evidence supporting it.""

Are you purposely being obtuse? There is tons of supporting evidence. Maybe you choose not to understand any of it but reality is not defined by your level of comprehension.

"I would love to here some proof for evolution if anyone is willing to provide some."

Most theists seem to be willing to accept microevolution so instead of burying you in deatil I will instead direct you to a sight which discusses some of the scientific evidence for macroevolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Can we argue without insulting each other?

"But these people are generally incapable of learning."
"Are you purposely being obtuse?"
"Reality is not defined by your level of comprehension."

Evolutionists, try aiming your arrows at the ideas and not at the creationists themselves. You are only giving yourselves a bad name.

"It is ILLEGAL to teach creationism in US schools."

You are correct, it is illegal to teach evolution in the classroom, and it has been for quite awhile:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Once you establish that we are only going to teach Christian ideals in the state-supported classroom, you have, in fact, established a state-supported religion, and have injured the ability for others to practice their own religions, which may have entirely different creation stories.

"EVOLUTTION is the only acceptable theory."
Your right. Creationism is not a theory and certainly not an "acceptable" one, as it fails on the first count: falsifiability, which is the requirement of any scientific theory.

"This was reinforced by the courts a few years back. Sounds like the first chirch of evolution to me"
Scientists of many different faiths (including Christians) believe in evolution. Scientists of only one faith, Christianity, believe in Christian creationism - and heck, that only accounts for a small subset of the Christian faith. This is because evolution is a scientific statement, whereas creationism is a religious belief.

"And of course there is no found skeleton that provides an evolutionary link between two creatures".

Incorrect.

"And of course there is no found skeleton that provides an evolutionary link between two creatures".

Incorrect.

If Forensics can be treated as science then so can intelligent design because that is essentially what it is. People indoctrinate kids with evolution like a church and it makes me sick. I've grown up with the best of both sides and I can say without a doubt that intelligent design is the most probable explination for our existence.

a number of creationist have been trying to create, or pull up some facts to argue against evolution, so i would like to bring up a few things.

first off, some one somewhere back said that the bible is the oldest known book. um.. you might want to check your history. As a simple Example there is the Iliad, homer's poem dates back to around the 8th or 9th century bc. on the note of the bible there are stories, yes it is possible that some of the stories may be true based on similarities of events or what not. but going back to the reference of the Iliad, we can prove that events in the Trojan war happened, but for those of you that know the actual story - and i do want to emphasize story, the tale is very much influenced by the greek gods. so why is the god based out of the bible any more valid than that in the iliad?

now going back to the main argument and point of the article, and with the creationists who have commented; why shouldn't creationism be taught in a science classroom.

well please explain under the definition of science on why creationism has a place in the science class room. thus without using any information from the bible, as it is not a valid scientific source, explain why creation should be in a science classroom. this is the point of the matter, and why it will never be approved. if some one wants to talk about the philosophy of things, by all means talk about you own opinions, beliefs, and what may or may not be. but when in a science class room, stick to science, not beliefs without empirical data.

"If Forensics can be treated as science then so can intelligent design because that is essentially what it is."

What are you talking about? Forensic science applies a broad spectrum of sciences to answer questions. How is that like Intelligent Design which does not apply any sciences?

"People indoctrinate kids with evolution like a church and it makes me sick."

I love how people like to compare scientific understanding to a religion in an attempt to discredit it. Do you not see the irony in it?

"I've grown up with the best of both sides and I can say without a doubt that intelligent design is the most probable explanation for our existence."

Probable? And what scientific data is this probability based off and what credentials do you posses to cause me to think you are reasonably qualified to interpret this data?

"As a simple Example there is the Iliad, homer's poem dates back to around the 8th or 9th century bc. on the note of the bible there are stories, yes it is possible that some of the stories may be true based on similarities of events or what not. but going back to the reference of the Iliad, we can prove that events in the Trojan war happened, but for those of you that know the actual story - and i do want to emphasize story, the tale is very much influenced by the greek gods. so why is the god based out of the bible any more valid than that in the iliad?"

One reason, The oldest original copy of the Iliad we have possession of was written over 1000 years after Homer's death. The Oldest copy of the Bible however, was written only about 100 years after Christ's death which would be about 50 years after the lasts disciples death. That's a pretty big difference. So big that the Iliad cannot be taken literally whereas the Bible can be.

"And what scientific data is this probability based off and what credentials do you posses to cause me to think you are reasonably qualified to interpret this data?"

ND3G, please stick to arguing against the idea of ID and not the creationists themselves. But if you want to talk about credentials, what makes you so qualified to accurately argue for evolution?

and for the record, evolution is still just an idea as there is no proof for it, only theories. So how is it any different from teaching ID in schools if both have never been witnessed by human eyes and must therefore be taken on faith alone. And because evolution has only been around 150 years, and ID has been around since . . . forever, it is a lot easier to put you faith in creationism rather than in evolution.

the seeker -

It's sad that you don't see how big of an idiot you are.

I will not debate a creationist.

You and those like you deserve nothing but ridicule.

"...But if you want to talk about credentials, what makes you so qualified to accurately argue for evolution?"

I am a mechanical engineer who specializes in genetic programming. I use a computer based version of the evolutionary model on a daily basis. There was actually an article on genetic programming in Popular Science last year, you should check it out.

"and for the record, evolution is still just an idea as there is no proof for it, only theories."

A scientific law describes an observation and a scientific theory attempts to explain that observation scientifically. It doesn't matter how much information you gather with regards to the nature of the observation the explanation will ALWAYS be called a theory.

I know that many people see the word theory and think "oh that must mean there is no proof or they wouldn't refer to it as just a theory." Science doesn't work that way. There is so much proof supporting evolution it is as ironclad as a theory can get. The question as to whether or not evolution occurred has long been answered, now science is concerned with the finer details of exactly how it occurred.

FSM -

I say the same thing to you.

Only unlike you I choose to debate the topic so I am not seen as an arrogant fool.

And I also do not believe that you along with the rest of the world that believes in evolution should be ridiculed in any way shape or form. I only pity you and your blindness in this world, and truly hope that one day your eyes will be opened.

I will be praying for you.

"I will be praying for you."

You can talk to your imaginary friend all you want, it still will not change the fact that ID is not science.

I will be THINKING for you.

There are whole organizations devoted to giving Christian Biologists talking points for how to skirt the laws and push an ID agenda in a science class. This is only the beginning. And a sad state of affairs for the public school system. I say let parochial schools teach ID as an alternative, but fire those that try to poison young minds with theistic myths on the tax payer dime.

- xentek

A Science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, "Let me explain the problem science has with religion. "The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"

"Yes sir," the student says.

"So you believe in God?"

"Absolutely."

"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."

"Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."

The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

"But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"

The student remains silent.

"No, you can't, can you?" the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

"Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"

"Err...yes," the student says.

"Is Satan good?"

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."

"Then where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From God"

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?"

"Yes."

"So who created evil?" The professor continued, "If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil."

Again, the student has no answer.

"Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?"

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"So who created them?"

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. "Who created them?"

There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues onto another student. "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor, I do."

The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"

"No sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir, I have not."

"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?"

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"Yes."

"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?"

"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."

"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

"And is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No sir, there isn't."

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees."

"Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

"What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. "What is night if it isn't darkness?"

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word."

"In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?"

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. "So what point are you making, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed."

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time.

"Flawed? Can you explain how?"

"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought."

"It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it."

"Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

"To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean."

The student looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into laughter.

"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir."

"So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?"

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. "I guess you'll have to take them on faith. "

"Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life," the student continues. "Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?"

Now uncertain, the professor responds, "Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God.

It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

top that, darwinists

in reading the comments previously posted i have discovered that the issiue is not weather darwin ism is true or not but who has better evidence.

"You can talk to your imaginary friend all you want, it still will not change the fact that ID is not science."
AND YOU THINK WERE NARROW MINDED?!?!
try watching EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED!

Plz keep your comments shorter, prove evolution is really science and NOT JUST a theory. Also please don't post such bigotrious comments. I know i'm not good by the way because I'm pretty much the incarnation of malice, but I keep it in check.

"try watching EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED!"

That movie is a piece of trash. If you want to discuss Expelled just visit Scientific American's site. They have numerous articles on the film. You may also want to visit \http://www.expelledexposed.com

You could also visit the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) site for their take on the movie. Their press release states "Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.”

Lastly, the film only has a rating of only 9% as per Rotten Tomatoes http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was made by people with no intelligence for people with no intelligence.

"You may also want to visit \http://www.expelledexposed.com"

Well duh! Of course that website is going to bash the movie. Just as "Evolutionrocks.com" and "creationismsucks.com" bash ID. You can't use biased websites as evidence for any given topic, because they will always support only one side of the argument.

Have respect for man's evolution----Have a two page article on Naturalism that simplifies thinking and makes sense of ethical questions. The insight level of order is achieved by the knowledge that order extrapolated to infinity results in realizing the uiverse is ordered an all inclusive concept. If interested request article by email: kingisis @gmail.com/Naturalism. Thanks

ND3G i'm not sure if i'm using this phrase right but, "you got owned". The seeker made a very good point you, ND3G are posting very biased responses and need to re-evaluate your comments. I may be slightly biased against darwinism, but at least I use science and not opinions.

I think some people are missing the point of school, schooling and the education of young minds in general. What to believe and what not to believe is not the job of people outside the student's home to decide it belongs solely to the parents and the individual child, by the way I have a 13 year old daughter and guess what she understands there is a difference between creationism and evolution! If the parents do not want to take on that responsibility then shame on them!!! It is not our right as people outside that family to make a decision like that for them. Some might say it is based on most children being in a single parent family. I for one say NO. I am a fulltime worker and so is my wife. We have a hard time making time for our daughter to ensure we spend "quality" time with her but we do. When I was growing up I lived in a single parent home yet we still managed to have discussions and she helped me with my homework. No one ever says parenting is easy and no one said beliefs are easy to defend, who are you to say what a teacher can and can not teach AS LONG AS THERE IS NO VIOLATION of federal and state law then those people who sit there and say creationism and intelligent design should be thrown out of school need to keep quiet! I believe in a higher power and if a teacher wants to teach my child evolution then fine I have no problem with that... she better be teaching creationism and intelligent design as well. Oh ya and by the way look back at Darwin's biography and even he will say that he believed that "God" COULD have started it all and that evolution continued where he left off. Just thought you scientific purists might need a little reality check and review of Darwin!

The question that haunts the issue is "Where did the very first speck of matter come from?"

To have evolution, it would seem that something has to change from simple to complex.

My experience is the everything goes from complex to simple.

Since people would like to make sense of the world, why would someone expect something to come out of nothing and then go from being elemental to molecular, and from stable to unstable.

Evolution may be scientific theory, but it presumes that there is something in existence to evolve.

When I invent something, I take what exists, use my creative brain and make something new or better. But I never start from nothing.

Where did the energy or matter that started the process come from?

If it was eternal, how is that different that belief in an eternal God?

A belief system is as much a part of the scientific community as it is of the religious faith community.

Evidence of reality is not just the application of the testing process of science in which a process is repeatable. The limited capacity of our mind results in our using inductive reasoning to take individual experience and formulate a general concept which is consistent with the experience. This results in biased and prejudiced expectations.

So enough of this 'belief' that science is objective and religion is subjective.

All of life, even our attempts to be objective, confront conflicts in expectations and reality.

Are there any really serious scientists who say they are not as fervent in their belief that their science gives truth as a religious scholar is in his belief that his faith is based on truth?

We are all trying to make sense out of a world that is so complex and vast that one small mind needs some way to function to avoid extinction. That way is creating a reality from the experience we have had so that we can predict the outcome of our actions and make good choices.

Is it a good choice to believe that science is something separate from faith?

I think there is a more balanced approach.

Everything that exists either is eternal or was created.

If it is eternal, does that not put us in agreement that there is an unexplainable factor -- where did it come from or who made it.

To some God's creation is the answer. Their belief is not some emotional crutch. It is as logical as any other approach to life.

"Everything that exists either is eternal or was created."

If so, then why not say that the matter that makes up the Universe has always existed in one form or another.

If the Universe needs a "creator" then so does your god.

ID is a religious belief in the supernatural and has no place in a school classroom. Teach the "Magic Man in the Sky" theory at home, but keep it out the schools.

Evolution is a fact and does not require a person to be an Atheist to accept it. I recommend the Evolution deniers do a search for Ken Miller; he is a Biology Professor at Brown University and also a christian, his teachings of Evolution are some of the best I heard.

YouTube has some good Ken Miller lecture videos - - check it out!

I (being 14) am growing up in a Christian home, and have been taught creation all my life, however, I was never sure about it until I found an apoligetics ministry calle Answers in Genesis (Genesis being the first book of the bible and giving the basis of creation). To see the ammounts of information proving creation and disproving evolution is astounding. I would encourage people to check them out. I think its great that people are still teaching the bible in our schools.

I (being 14) am growing up in a Christian home, and have been taught creation all my life, however, I was never sure about it until I found an apoligetics ministry calle Answers in Genesis (Genesis being the first book of the bible and giving the basis of creation). To see the ammounts of information proving creation and disproving evolution is astounding. I would encourage people to check them out. I think its great that people are still teaching the bible in our schools.

First of all, I would like to say religion and science are inseparable. What you believe determines how you view the world, like it or not. So either way, what the teacher teaches in the schools is going to be affected by what the teacher believes. You cannot say that macroevolution has been proven by science and creation has not. By the definition of science, it cannot prove anything. No one alive today witnessed creation, and no one alive today witnessed macroevolution. Secondly, I would like to point out that there is a huge difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is a simple variance within the genetic code. Macroevolution is a jump between species. Thirdly, I would like to look at some pieces of evidence.

We've all seen the geological column, right?

http://www.nwcreation.net/images/geology/geologiccolumnanimals.jpg

(Sorry, I wasn't able to post a picture.)

This looks like great evidence for macroevolution, right? Well, it would be, except for a slight problem. The fact is, this is only 5% of the data. The other 95% of the fossils are clams, scattered through all the layers. Most textbooks simply ignore this fact. Thus, it is inconclusive evidence at best. The second area that I would like to look at is the fossil record. If macroevolution did happen, there should be some intermediate links in the fossil record, right? Well, the fact is, the "missing links" are still missing! In fact, we have less now than we did when Darwin wrote his book, due to more information coming out about the intermediate links. Another area I would like to look at is structural homology, which examines the similar structures in different species. If macroevolution really happened, then the DNA structure should be similar in similar species, right? According to Michael Denton, author of Darwin's Black Box, it is not:

"The evolutionary basis of homology is perhaps more severely damaged by the discovery that apparently homologous structures are specified by quite different genes in different species...With the demise of any sort of straightforward explanation for homology one of the major pillars of evolution has become so weakened that its value as evidence for evolution is greatly diminished."

More later...

Moving on to molecular biology...

Molecular biology is a key area for evolutionists. The most important type of molecule in the chemistry of life besides DNA is a protein. Thus, a lot of molecular biology centers around proteins. Part of molecular biology studies the similarities between Cytosome C proteins in different organisms. Take a look at this table:

Organism Percentage difference

Horse 64%
Pigeon 64%
Tuna 65%
Silkworm moth 65%
Wheat 66%
Yeast 69%

Now, if macroevolution were true, you would expect the yeast (a "simple" life form) to be vastly different from the horse. That's not what the table shows, however. Take a look at this table:

Organism % Difference compared to Human

Rhesus Monkey 1%
Rabbit 9%
Horse 12%
Tuna 20%
Screw Worm 25%
Wheat 38%
Yeast 41%
Bacterium 65%

Once again, this looks like great evidence for macroevolution. But in order to get this table, scientists have to ignore 99% of the data and selectively pick the 1% that agrees with the hypothesis of macroevolution.

And now, neo-Darwinism and punctuated equilibrium...

Scientists needed a way to add new genetic information to the gene pool. So they thought,"What if, when the earth was evolving, good mutations happened? We don't see them happening now, but hey, they might have happened millions of years ago." And thus, neo-Darwinism was born. But if good mutations happened in the past, why don't they still happen today? At what point did they stop? In the evolutionist's mind, this solved the problem of jumping from species to species. But there was still the problem of the lack of intermediate links in the fossil record. So scientists came up with punctuated equilibrium, which basically says that macroevolution occurred over short time periods, with long periods of no evolution in between. The idea is that a group of organisms might have been suddenly exposed to high levels of toxic chemicals or radiation, which would speed up the mutation rate among the offspring. Most would die, but a few lucky ones would survive and get several good mutations all at once. As the high levels of toxins continued, the few lucky offspring would produce more offspring with more mutations, and the cycle would repeat.
Punctuated equilibrium still counts on "good mutations", which have never been observed. Since the organisms did not live very long, their chances of being fossilized are greatly reduced. That is how punctuated equilibrium attempts to solve the problem with the fossil record, saying that the lack of evidence for macroevolution is itself somehow evidence for macroevolution.

I would like to take a look at one final area: symbiosis. If "survival of the fittest" is true, why do we have organisms helping each other out? Shouldn't it be "every man/organism for himself"? Let's take a look at two symbiotic relationships. First off is the blind shrimp and the goby. The blind shrimp, as it's name implies, cannot see. Thus, it need something to warn it when danger is near. This is where the goby comes in. The blind shrimp digs a hole and it and the goby live in the hole. The goby has excellent vision. Sea currents will continually wash debris into the hole, so the blind shrimp must clean it out. While it is doing that, the goby stands guard. When danger is spotted, they both scuttle into their hole.

Another relationship I would like to look at is that of the blue-streak wrasse and the Oriental sweetlips. After a day of feeding on smaller fish, the Oriental sweetlips will look for a particular color of coral. When it finds the coral, it will swim up to the coral with its mouth wide open. The blue-streak wrasse will dart out of the coral and swim right into the mouth or up the gills of the Oriental sweetlips. The Oriental sweetlips knows not to eat the little fish. The blue-streak wrasse will proceed to eat all the crud off of the Oriental sweetlips' teeth. This is the main food source of the blue-streak wrasse! Without the blue-streak wrasse, the Oriental sweetlips would lose its teeth. Without the Oriental sweetlips, the blue-streak wrasse would starve.

Think about the problem this poses for macroevolution. At some point in time, according to evolutionists, the Oriental sweetlips' ancestors had no teeth. In a number of generations, teeth began to form. In order to prevent these new teeth from falling out, the new fish would have to develop the instinct for seeking out the wrasse, allowing the little fish to swim into its mouth, and not eating the blue-streak wrasse when the little fish is done. This instinct would have had to have developed at exactly the same time as the Oriental sweetlips' teeth. That's not all, however. At exactly the same time that the teeth and instincts evolved in the Oriental sweetlips, the blue-streak wrasse would have had to have developed the instinct to swim right into the Oriental sweetlips' mouth without fear of being eaten! If all of these things did not happen in the same generation, the entire system would not work!

Source:

Wile, Jay. Exploring Creation with Biology. 1st. Apologia Educational Ministries, 1998.

"If the Universe needs a "creator" then so does your god."

Not so. God is infinite. He does not need to be created. We cannot comprehend the infinite because we are finite beings.

"ID is a religious belief in the supernatural and has no place in a school classroom. Teach the "Magic Man in the Sky" theory at home, but keep it out the schools."

I could just as well say that about evolution: "Macroevolution is a religious belief in chance and has no place in the school classroom. Teach the "Random Chance" theory at home, but keep it out of the schools." I don't have enough faith to be an evolutionist.

"Evolution is a fact"

Could I see some evidence for that statement, please? What if you're wrong?

There is no such animal as micro evolution or macro evolution,these are fundamentalist inventions, nothing to do with science whatsoever.

No, there are no such animals as microevolution or macroevolution, but microevolution is a variance in the genetic code that can produce a different or more specialized organism of the same species, for example, a wild dog versus a domesticated dog. Macroevolution, however, is an entirely different story. Macroevolution is the process by which, say, a chicken evolves slowly into a dog. They are both processes.

Take a look at the words of George Wald on the origin of life:

"Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation."

He goes on to say that "one has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that spontaneous generation is impossible. Yet here we are, as a result. I believe in spontaneous generation."

Hold on, the impossible happened and here we are? He himself admitted that it was impossible and yet he believed in it because he did not want to accept the alternative of a Creator, even though that is where the evidence points.

I dont think that the people who believe in creationism really understand how much evidence has been uncovered. Darwin himself was able to create many new types of birds, all out of a single pigeon. Also many of todays dogs have been created by selective breeding, which works on the same principle of natural selection. And to those that think that they have uncovered some substantial evidence as to the debunking of creationism they are most likely confused confused unless they have been able to do something that scientists have been trying to do for the past 150 years. This theory has been critiqued by the scientific community for 150 years now, they have been trying to disprove it, and yet they have not been able to.

Robocycle4000: "I (being 14) am growing up in a Christian home, and have been taught creation all my life, however, I was never sure about it until I found an apologetics ministry called Answers in Genesis (Genesis being the first book of the bible and giving the basis of creation). To see the amounts of information proving creation and disproving evolution is astounding. I would encourage people to check them out. I think its great that people are still teaching the bible in our schools."

While I applaud your quest for knowledge it is a bit unfortunate that you chose Answers in Genesis as your source for information. Their website is so chalk full of misinformation and outright lies I don't even know where to begin. They prey on those who don't know any better and use arguments that may sound reasonable to the laymen but that completely fall apart after even the most basic research.
I can assure you that there is not a single piece of scientific evidence supporting creation as outlined in the book of genesis no matter how many religious groups may tell you otherwise. NOTE: I absolutely do NOT want you to take my word on this though. It is up to you to gather the necessary knowledge that will allow you recognize truth from fiction when you see it.

So why do religious groups spread this misinformation in the first place? Well my best guess is that they feel that they are doing it for the greater good. What difference does it make if they misrepresent the evidence so long as it helps you maintain your faith? Unfortunately for them most scientists have the nasty habit of actually understanding their field of study so even though sites like Answers in Genesis may be able to fool large portions of the general public they have no hope what so ever of ever diluiting real scientific understanding.

I am sick and tired of people saying that creationism is not science and that evolution is. There are two very important word that makes something "scientific." "FACTS," and "OBSERVATIONS." Has anyone ever Observed evolution? Are there any facts that prove evolution? NO! so who's to say that evolution and creationism are completely different?

That means that both theories must be taken on FAITH alone. I chose the theory that has been around for thousands of years(not 150), is based on the most reliable book with over 1,000 original copies, and makes more sense if you actually take the time to think about it.

Sadly Seeker your frustrations are of your own making. Has anyone ever observed evolution? For a matter of fact we have. Are there facts that prove evolution? Yes, many. Why is evolution and creationism different? Because evolution has supporting evidence and proof while creationism has neither. You can choose to ignore scientific discovery all you want if it makes you happy but don’t be surprised when the rest of the world moves on without you.

ND3G - you say that evolution has been observed, care to elaborate on that? You also say that there are facts. Where are those facts because I can't find any. If you can provide me with some then great. All you have done is refuted my arguments with a yes or no, please provide some evidence to back up your answers.

ND3G - you say that evolution has been observed, care to elaborate on that? You also say that there are facts. Where are those facts. If you can provide me with some then great. All you have done is refuted my arguments with a yes or no, please provide some evidence to back up your answers.

Oh please. Seeker, not only do you know that the evidence exists but you also know exactly how where to find it. The problem is not that you can't find any evidence to support evolution but that you don't want to find any evidence to support evolution.

If you serious wanted to understand evolution you could buy a textbook, take a class, read scientific journals, do any of the things necessary to understand a subject.

Either inform us all exactly how the evidence supporting the theory of the evolutionary scientifically fails to make its case and why or stop wasting everyone's time.

What are you calling evidence, ND? I think you are avoiding the question. I already elaborated on the so-called "evidences" for macro evolution, if you care to take the time to look. You say that evolution is proven, care to show some evidence? I typed it up, I think you can do the same, that is, if you can find any. I need to be shown some supporting evidence of evolution. I did my research, you can do yours.

About the observing of evolution...

Has anyone observed macro evolution? No. Micro evolution is not what is in question. Let me define them to make them more clear.

Micro evolution --The theory that natural selection can, over time, take an organism and transform it into a more specialized species of that organism.

We have seen this in, say, domesticated dogs vs. wild dogs. No one is a denier of micro evolution. However...

Macro evolution -- The hypothesis that the same processes which work in micro evolution can, over eons of time, transform an organism into a completely different organism.

This difference cannot be over-emphasized. There is a world of difference between the two.

One beef I have, ND, is that you say there's evidence, but you don't provide any. Read my previous posts.

Hi Ippy55, as a matter of fact I did read your posts and so did a lot of other people and if you take a look the ratings give to your posts you will notice that they were given a rating of unhelpful 100% of the time.

Since you and seeker insist on being spoon fed knowledge you are start by reading “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution” http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

En France un professeur qui enseigne le créationisme est licencié. Nous sommes un état laïc. Les USA me font peur (parfois).

Glad to hear that archeo, I wish they would do that here in the USA.

You have good reason to be frighted by the USA, we have a lot of wacko bible thumping lunatics here.

Maybe one day we'll catch up with the rest of the world.

This topic becomes more annoying the longer you listen to it. There are quite a few problems with having this argument. I wish I could say discussion, but that would require some form of decency and etiquette when exchanging ideas, rather than sarcasm, mockery, and overall disregard for others beliefs (which both sides are equally guilty of). My question to anyone who posts after this is what do you hope to gain by participating in this debate. Are you honestly trying to educate or enlighten another group that lacks a rudimentary understanding of this scientific principle, or are you looking to bash a belief that you consider ridiculous or inferior to yours. And that statement goes both ways, it applies to creationists as well as evolutionists. You cannot hope to get others to listen to what you have to say (no matter how valid your point), if you criticize them for believing what they do, no matter how stubborn or thick-headed you believe them to be. There is absolutely nothing productive about this approach. All you do is fuel an argument with no end in sight. You would at least save yourself a headache by not participating in the conversation.

To all creationists, the truth of the matter is, Creationism will not be taught in schools, no matter how much you whine about it, no matter what you say, or what logic you try and apply to the argument, things just aren’t going to happen that way. I’m not dogging the belief itself, but there’s nothing to gain from arguing anymore. More people disagree than agree with you, and that’s not about to change; so let it go and raise your own kids the best you can.

I would like to point something out though. There is nothing wrong with believing in evolution or creationism. The real issue is how you express your beliefs and how you interact with individuals of differing beliefs. It’s obvious that many people posting here feel strongly about what they believe and there frustrations have been expressed in their posts, that’s why some are more snippy or sarcastic than others. But, GOD-IS-IMAGINARY, specifically, is the best representation of what is wrong with this discussion. Of all the posts I read yours were the most rude, mean-spirited, or outright malicious in nature. From what I recall you were the one saying “magic man in the sky”, “bible thumping lunatics”, etc. You gain nothing from talking to people like that. You anger those of a differing opinion, and make future discussions that much more unproductive. It really wouldn’t be the United States if everyone was attacked or harassed for not having “the right belief”. Even KKK members are entitled to their opinion (unfortunately), but they get less grief than creationists do. You can't blame your behavior on teachers trying to take evolution out of schools or to bring creationism in. Whether or not creationists push to have their beliefs taught in public schools, they would still be ridiculed for being ignorant, stubborn and so on. It’s human nature to single out and attack those who are different. Look at our history, its just who we are. You can’t try and blame this conflict on one particular group, they’re both guilty. Catholics killed millions of people of differing opinions in the past (which is more representative of the time period than the faith itself), ethnic cleansing still happens to this day. And now, evolutionists/atheists have large enough numbers in nations all over the world to turn the tables on all creationists. I’ve seen students openly harassed in high school/university classrooms by their teachers and professors, simply for believing in something their teacher deemed ridiculous. You want to know why these creationists are being so difficult, this is why. Unfortunately though, there really are a large number of loud mouthed, ignorant, religious crazies out there that do nothing to support creationists claim, but discredit any valid claim they do make. I won’t pretend that creationists are smarter than they are, many do believe what they believe from a lack of education, and barely understand their own religious beliefs. You have to be careful who you listen to, one religous zealot does not speak for all creationists. Scientists have tried to use evolution to prove that blacks are more closely related to apes than other people, but the scientific community quickly denounced them and there theories and distanced themselves from those views as much as possible. So if they get to choose who does and does not speak for them, so should creationists. I do see the problem with that however, there are MANY denominations, and you can't argue against them all, so you generalize. But, you have to choose which people you address carefully. They aren't all highschool dropouts going through the motions of an aged and outdated belief system. There are plenty of educated creationists out there, they just aren't as noticeable as the loud mouthed, bible thumping lunatics (they tend to draw attention towards themselves). As I stated once before, this discussion has been going on for decades, if you honestly believe you’re going to make a difference in the comments section of this page, you’ve got another thing coming. In all honesty, this discussion is more trouble than its worth, and I’m sure both parties will agree to that.

Another thing, using the rating of someone’s post on this website is an ineffective way of trying to invalidate that person’s comment. Their rankings here mean nothing. If any of you have taken courses in statistics, or even attended a high school math class, I shouldn’t have to elaborate.

N3DG- I believe you stated that “ID is a theory that exists in the absence of knowledge” in one of your earlier posts. Do the research on dark matter, and explain how the same doesn’t apply to it, an unproven scientific theory(I want to point out, I’m not making an association between evolution and dark matter by saying “unproven”, I’m simply saying that even by scientific standards, dark matter is just a theory.
I’ll give you credit because you do seem to have a decent grasp of evolutionary theory, as well as scientific law. I also believe you know how to support your claims with evidence, but it’s the evidence where I disagree with you. I would like to continue and talk about those sites you posted earlier providing evidence of evolution (which I did read through), but I’ve been typing for a while and I’m bored now, maybe later.

What sort of evidence would one need to procure in order to disprove evolution. I would like to hear an example, if anyone has one.

Hi paul20panda

The theory involving dark matter is quite different from ID as it attempts to explain a known natural phenomenon. We know that there is far more matter in the universe than we can directly observe due to the gravitational effects this matter causes. This theory is considered scientific because it is testable, repeatable and can be used to predict future results.

ID on the other hand does not attempt to explain any known natural phenomenon. We have no example of complex lifeforms being spontaneously created that requires explaining. And even if some complex organism did suddenly appear out of nowhere we would still need to be able to test how such an event could naturally occur for it to be considered science.

If we knew without a doubt that God created the universe and everything in it, if it was done by supernatural means science would not and could not study it.

"What sort of evidence would one need to procure in order to disprove evolution. I would like to hear an example, if anyone has one."

As per my example above, if a complex organism was to spontaneously appear out of nothingness than at the very least evolution would be disproved as the only means by which complex living organisms can exist. However, even spontaneous creation would fail to provide evidence for an intelligent creator and science would by requirement seek a natural explanation to the phenomenon.

I find it interesting that the ratings, ND3G, tend to be high for the evolutionists and low for the creationists. Does that really affect the post content? No. All it says to me is that the evolutionists vote more than the creationists.

When we observe something strange, we are often asked to give "a theory." In fact, we can normally give merely a hypothesis. These hypotheses are the substance of forensic criminology and the bread and butter of shows like CSI.

In (good) science, theories occupy the rarefied realms of the tested, verified, predictive and falsifiable. Some examples are graph theory or the theory of gravity. Theoretical standards demand complete disclosure and transparency, and the upmost intellectual honesty. Sadly, I've seen nothing resembling sound theory...ON ANY SIDE OF THIS DEBATE!

Creationism consists of the reframing of religious texts and teachings as science, and the search for observed facts to support it. Searching for facts to support (rather than to refute) a hypothesis is Bad Science 101. Sadly, the creationists are not alone in pursuing confirmations!

Intelligent design runs the gamut from masquerading creationism at one end to "I just can't think of a better explanation than that some intentional intelligence had a hand in the origin of life here." ID can be deeply faith-based or nearly skeptical. In essence, ID is a non-issue.

As a theory, evolution is among the weakest. It makes no quantitative predictions and is effectively irrefutable within academe. When compared with theories in mathematics or the physical sciences this becomes pretty obvious (as long as you exclude String Theory and Big Bang Theory). This reality alone exonerates the 10-15% of biology teachers from any transgressions. At least it could, if that were their rationale. Unfortunately, we skeptics probably represent less than 1% of the dissenting population. However, we're so often right in the end that you mustn't ignore our minority!

I staunchly believe that science classrooms are no place for politics or religion. If scientists, teacher and students are motivated to replace sound scientific methods with various unscientific ideologies they need to display the moral courage to so state. Courage is an Aristotelian virtue epitomized by Jesus. Another key trait of Christianity is honesty. There is a sound body of theology to support this. As the loudest dissenters, let us confine ourselves to strictly interpreted, Biblical Christianity.

The Bible makes no claim to be a scientific book, but it is full of testable material. Insofar as it can be tested, I have never found an error in it. This does not, however, mean that I have never found an erroneous interpretation of it. For such erroneous interpretations, one need go no further than their TV or radio on Sunday morning. The proof of this is simple and lies in the contradictions one hears. If one fellow teaches "A is always true" and another teachers "A is always false," at least one of them is wrong--but they probably are both wrong.

The assertion that a book filled with verifiable facts is scientific is actually quite dubious. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it; testability IS falsifiability. And yet, we can't test the past. While we may be able to obtain corroborating evidence, have we doggedly sought contradictory evidence? A hundred-year-old almanac is a book of facts by definition. One hundred years ago it was considered 100% correct by all manner of authorities--including the vast majority of scientists. However, as knowledge grows, it becomes clear that the best information of the past contains errors both factual and of underlying assumptions. That a collection of books written as long ago as those constituting the Bible should contain so much correct information speaks well for the writers. It even bolsters the case for the Bible being quite special. Nevertheless, a book shown to be utterly inerrant not only does not constitute science, it precludes it! For religious teachers to advocate the Bible as science is poor scholarship, intellectually dishonest and doctrinally unsound.

The prevalence of evolutionism-implying-speciation is the dogmatic acceptance of pseudo-science as a reaction to an opposing faith-based pseudo-science movement. Neither one is a theory and both have no place in a science classroom!

The Perpetual Skeptic

When we observe something strange, we are often asked to give "a theory." In fact, we can normally give merely a hypothesis. These hypotheses are the substance of forensic criminology and the bread and butter of shows like CSI.

In (good) science, theories occupy the rarefied realms of the tested, verified, predictive and falsifiable. Some examples are graph theory or the theory of gravity. Theoretical standards demand complete disclosure and transparency, and the upmost intellectual honesty. Sadly, I've seen nothing resembling sound theory...ON ANY SIDE OF THIS DEBATE!

Creationism consists of the reframing of religious texts and teachings as science, and the search for observed facts to support it. Searching for facts to support (rather than to refute) a hypothesis is Bad Science 101. Sadly, the creationists are not alone in pursuing confirmations!

Intelligent design runs the gamut from masquerading creationism at one end to "I just can't think of a better explanation than that some intentional intelligence had a hand in the origin of life here." ID can be deeply faith-based or nearly skeptical. In essence, ID is a non-issue.

As a theory, evolution is among the weakest. It makes no quantitative predictions and is effectively irrefutable within academe. When compared with theories in mathematics or the physical sciences this becomes pretty obvious (as long as you exclude String Theory and Big Bang Theory). This reality alone exonerates the 10-15% of biology teachers from any transgressions. At least it could, if that were their rationale. Unfortunately, we skeptics probably represent less than 1% of the dissenting population. However, we're so often right in the end that you mustn't ignore our minority!

I staunchly believe that science classrooms are no place for politics or religion. If scientists, teacher and students are motivated to replace sound scientific methods with various unscientific ideologies they need to display the moral courage to so state. Courage is an Aristotelian virtue epitomized by Jesus. Another key trait of Christianity is honesty. There is a sound body of theology to support this. As the loudest dissenters, let us confine ourselves to strictly interpreted, Biblical Christianity.

The Bible makes no claim to be a scientific book, but it is full of testable material. Insofar as it can be tested, I have never found an error in it. This does not, however, mean that I have never found an erroneous interpretation of it. For such erroneous interpretations, one need go no further than their TV or radio on Sunday morning. The proof of this is simple and lies in the contradictions one hears. If one fellow teaches "A is always true" and another teachers "A is always false," at least one of them is wrong--but they probably are both wrong.

The assertion that a book filled with verifiable facts is scientific is actually quite dubious. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it; testability IS falsifiability. And yet, we can't test the past. While we may be able to obtain corroborating evidence, have we doggedly sought contradictory evidence? A hundred-year-old almanac is a book of facts by definition. One hundred years ago it was considered 100% correct by all manner of authorities--including the vast majority of scientists. However, as knowledge grows, it becomes clear that the best information of the past contains errors both factual and of underlying assumptions. That a collection of books written as long ago as those constituting the Bible should contain so much correct information speaks well for the writers. It even bolsters the case for the Bible being quite special. Nevertheless, a book shown to be utterly inerrant not only does not constitute science, it precludes it! For religious teachers to advocate the Bible as science is poor scholarship, intellectually dishonest and doctrinally unsound.

The prevalence of evolutionism-implying-speciation is the dogmatic acceptance of pseudo-science as a reaction to an opposing faith-based pseudo-science movement. Neither one is a theory and both have no place in a science classroom!

The Perpetual Skeptic

I am appalled that this is still under debate in (arguably) the most technologically advanced culture on the planet. Our competitors (Europe, China, etc.) must be laughing themselves silly.

I know that most reasonable people want to be "tolerant" of others' points of view, but it is time to get serious - we are talking about the minds of our children here (and, by extension, the survival of our nation and culture, which I happen to value highly).

Evolution is a "theory" in the same sense that these are "theories" (to name but a few - each has been enormously successful at describing the real world):
a) Newtonian Gravity (without which the space program cannot exist - even though we still do not understand exactly what gravity is).
b) Einsteinian Relativity (without which the Hubble telescope and GPS cannot exist, even though most people don't completely understand it - me included).
c) Quantum Mechanics (without which we have no semiconductors, computers, cell phones, iPods - you name it. QM is so non-intuitive that if you think you understand it, you probably don't).

Modern medicine (i.e. flu vaccines, cancer therapies, etc., etc.) CANNOT EXIST without evolutionary theory - more specifically, the process of Natural Selection (thanks, Darwin).

A "theory" is not the same as an "idea". "The moon is made of Swiss cheese" is NOT a theory - it is an idea. Scientific theories are NOT a matter of belief - they are based on EVIDENCE. A religious fundamentalist will not change his beliefs - a scientist often does in the face of conflicting evidence.

The scientific method is not about being proved right, it is about being proved wrong. One significant exception (e.g. Jurassic rabbits) will bring the "theory" of evolution crashing down - can the Bible withstand such analysis? Certainly not, when the gospels don't even agree on where Jesus was born, or whether Mary was in fact a virgin (to be fair, these are almost 2000 year old documents).

There is a MOUNTAIN of evidence (whether you have taken the time and effort to understand it or not) to support the proposition that the Earth is over 4 BILLION (4,000,000,000) years old, and that life has evolved very gradually and incrementally over this time. There is NO evidence that contradicts it.

"There is a MOUNTAIN of evidence (whether you have taken the time and effort to understand it or not) to support the proposition that the Earth is over 4 BILLION (4,000,000,000) years old, and that life has evolved very gradually and incrementally over this time. There is NO evidence that contradicts it."

Are you serious?!?!?!?!?

There is SO MUCH evidence against evolution! Here are just a few examples:

1. The salinity of the ocean. Scientists have figured out how much is added to the ocean each year, and how much has been taken out. It has been concluded then that if the ocean was originally freshwater, it would have taken 1 million years for it to become as salty as it is today. But, the salinity of the ocean is actually slowly decreasing, meaning it has less salt then it did one thousand years ago. Meaning that the earth is SIGNIFICANTLY younger than 1 million years old. Even if the earth was around one million years old, that would not leave enough time for evolution to take place.

2. The moon. It is clear that the moon is slowly drifting away from earth. Meaning that at one time it was a lot closer. Scientists have discovered that 1.2 billion years ago, the moon would be touching the earth and life could not exist. Even if the moon was half the distance from the earth as it is today, we would all drown due to its gravitational effect on earth.

3. The magnetic field. The Earth's magnetic field is essential to life on Earth for many reasons. One reason is that it deflects much of the cosmic radiation that destroys life. Precise measurements of the Earth's magnetic field have been made since 1829, all over the world. During that time, it has deteriorated exponentially -- that is, it has followed a predictable curve. By graphing this curve, it has been concluded that life would have been impossible before 20,000 BC (the field would be as strong as the Sun's at that point) and will cease to exist after 10,000 AD (there will be, for all practical purposes, no field left, and the Earth will be fried by cosmic radiation).

4. The fossil record. There is no fossil evidence that supports evolution. 9 of the 12 supposed "missing links" between man and ape have been definitively proved as being ape. The other 3 have been proven as being human. Archaeopteryx(the supposed link between birds and reptiles has been proved as just a bird, and even the famous "Lucy" has now been proven as a type of Chimpanzee.

5. The Geological Column is poor evidence for evolution. Consider the ratios of dead things found buried in the sedimentary rock: "95% of all fossils are marine invertebrates, particularly shellfish. Of the remaining 5%, 95% are algae and plant fossils (4.74%). 95% of the remaining 0.25% consists of the other invertebrates, including insects (0.2375%). The remaining 0.0125% includes all vertebrates, mostly fish. 95% of the few land vertebrates consist of less than one bone. (For example, only about 1,200 dinosaur skeletons have been found.)

Also consider the abundant fossil remains of marine life found atop every mountain range in the world. For example, clusters of hundreds of gigantic (300kg/650lbs) oysters found atop the Andes Mountains in South America.

6. The Cambrian explosion. Charles Walcott found over 60,000 different fossils in the Cambrian rock where only the simplest life forms were supposed to exist. In fact, organisms from every major phyla in the world can be found in those 60,000 fossils.

7. If creatures really do live according to survival of the fittest, then how do evolutionists explain the relationship between the clown fish and the sea anemone, or the blind shrimp and the goby, or the Oriental Sweetlips and the Blue streak Wrasse? Each of these creatures help each other survive.

8. The mere idea that "something comes from nothing" makes no sense. Or as Frank Peretti puts it "from go to you by way of the zoo."

9. Mutations. Neo-Darwinists say that mutations allowed for macroevolution to occur. However, Mutations do not add genetic information, they take it away. Although some removal of DNA can be beneficial in extreme conditions, the amount of mutations required to turn one organism into another could not happen without the species dying out before the transaction would be complete.

Take for instance the Bombardier Beetle. Let's say that it evolved from the original beetle. That means that the beetle would have to(via mutations) create two chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone), keep them from mixing with a chemical, then at the right time, apply two enzymes that speed up the reaction to an incredible force, and shoot the mixture out before it explodes. Just one wrong mutation, or if all the mutations did not happen at the same time, the bombardier beetle would not exist.

These just scratch the surface of evidence against evolution. all these problems listed above can be solved with one word, a "creator." God has designed this world flawlessly, something that evolution just could never do.

Seeing as you blatantly plagiarized your points above from allaboutcreation.org (a religious site whose sole purpose for existence is to spread misinformation to people who lack the education necessary to appreciate how ridiculous it is) I am going to assume that you do not fully understand what you posted above and why it is so laughably absurd.

Seeker, please do everyone a favor and read some actual scientific literature instead of posting garbage that someone with even the most basic scientific understanding will see right through.

Quick correction, I meant to say dark energy, not matter, in my previous post. But it doesn't change that much, my point is the same.

I would just like to clarify that I do know the difference between ID and the theory surrounding dark energy, I'm simply starting small just trying to convey a teency weency little concept first, and I’ll work my way up from there. Dark energy is believed to comprise about 70% of the universes overall mass-energy, and is believed to generate repulsive gravitational forces, thought to be the driving force behind the accelerating expansion of the universe. We know this because the known (visible/detectable) mass in the universe could not generate the kinds of gravitational forces we have detected. So scientists came up with dark energy. Dark energy is a term used to describe an unknown variable. The object/mass itself cannot be seen, it neither reflects nor generates any electromagnetic radiation in the known spectrum, but its influence can be observed and felt. Presently, there is no way to test for the existence of this material on the macroscopic scale (scientists are currently “searching” for the hypothetical particles/material that comprise dark energy, which may be detectable with our current level of technology). Its existence as a theory is entirely dependent on the utilization of its theorized effects on the surrounding environment as evidence. It is neither testable nor is it falsifiable. There is no other known force in the universe that generates a repulsive gravitational force, so there is no reference point for us to create any sort of an accurate hypotheses, or to back the claim up with evidence; and even if the universes expansion were to slow or stop, that would fail to prove that dark energy does not exist, but that there is simply another variable at work. Its effects can be seen, but by nature, dark energy itself, cannot (this is where it starts sounding a little like the argument for the plausibility of a God, if it weren’t for all the “evidence and testability” to support it). It is at this point that this discussions main topic quickly changes from what does and does not qualify as science, to what does and does not qualify as evidence, as well as what is and is not testable. After examining these criteria, we can then determine whether or not given scientific theories and principles still fall into the category of science. I would like to clarify my point. I am not attempting to validate ID as a scientific theory, but rather show that not even what modern scientists have deemed scientific, actually qualifies as science. I know what ID is, and it is not science. As N3DG said earlier, scientific theory is considered scientific because it is testable, repeatable, and can be used to make predictions of future results. This statement is absolutely true. My issue is that the theories surrounding dark energy/matter, as well as many other scientific theories (including evolution), are not testable or falsifiable, and use biased and inaccurate evidence to support themselves, and therefore do not qualify as scientific theory. The scientific field has become extremely comfortable with using inductive reasoning and inference to develop hypotheses and fill in the gaps concerning unknown forces/phenomena. The problem is that this method applies our accumulated knowledge and experiences to concepts completely foreign to us. Think about how often you hear “life cannot exist without water”, this statement is both true and inaccurate. There are scientists today, who genuinely believe that in order for life to have arisen on another planet, water and organic compounds must have been present (not just for earth-like life to develop, but any). This is a testable statement. Every organism on this planet requires water in some stage of its life to survive. We can prove that prehistoric organisms needed water for survival, and can use observations and tests today to prove that modern organisms do. So using this evidence, and there is a lot of it, one could infer that in order for life to survive, water must be present in the organisms surrounding environment. This statement qualifies as a scientific theory, and is provable with evidence. But just because it’s a scientific theory, does not necessarily mean it is accurate. We end up taking evidence from our known world and applying it to the unknown as a constant. When working under this assumption, we can call any sort of theory fact, and any observations can be utilized as evidence. If we are to accept every single fact we know today as a universal standard that stretches through time and space, than there is no question about the validity and credibility of these scientific principles. But what must be understood is that when you play connect the dots, without all of the dots; you get a very inaccurate representation of the actual product, even if the final result appears fairly conclusive.

As I stated earlier, at this point in time I am simply trying to convey a concept, not write a research paper. There are many basics that must be discussed and understood before any sort of productive scientific discussion can be had, and maybe I’ll touch on them later.

To wrap up, I would like to clarify, I’m not arguing for ID or creationism’s acceptance among the scientific community as scientific theory; but that there are discrepancies amongst the scientific community itself concerning what is believed to qualify as evidence, as well as science. So far I‘ve only skipped along the outskirts of my evidence, never delving to deep into it, mainly because to do so would be a huge endeavor. This discussion has ties to all scientific fields, and is a very complex subject, and not one I’m going to professionally discuss in a comments section of a webpage. I’m hoping just to get people to listen and think, just opening new paths of thought (not to bring people to creationism, but to see the world and universe as it really is, to come to terms with where we are and what we really know). If anyone has any questions or comments (as long as their polite) for me I will gladly answer them to the best of my ability.

I would also like to note that I stand by my previous statement about the rankings on this site being irrelevant and biased. IPPY makes a good point that it seems pretty clear that the evolutionists are voting a lot more than the creationists. I myself haven’t voted once. My previous posts weren’t even anything you could really disagree with, I made a statement about the progress of this discussion and I asked a question, but somehow both of my posts were given a ranking of 1 out of 3. Just thought I’d put it out there.

ND3G - In fact, after reviewing that site I found that most of it's evidence was not full enough to pass anything. Therefore I only took simple scientific known facts from it(the drifting of the moon, and the magnetic field, both of which can be found in any science textbook). In fact, most of my evidence came from real scientific textbooks.

Instead of arguing my sources, as they themselves mean nothing, why don't you try arguing my points. Hey if you can't then fine, that's what I expect, as evolution provides no answer for my previously stated arguments.

You can talk all you want about how my sources are biased or not reliable, but come on, everyone on both sides used biased sources because everyone has a biased on every issue. So debate the arguments, not the sources.

Seeker, the issue with just arguing against the argument is that if your statement is supported by biased/inaccurate evidence, then arguing against you would be a complete waste of time, because your argument would then be flawed and incorrect in the first place. It would disprove itself before the argument even begins. In any circumstance, if you make a claim, you should be able to back it up with reliable/accurate evidence. If your statement isn't supported by these, than it is easy to refute and people are going to dismiss any claims you do make. If you have a valid argument against N3DG (or any evolutionist), then sight some reliable (unbiased sources). If you find one, he will be more inclined to hear what you have to say, and your words will carry more weight. But for the love of god (no pun intended), do not pull evidence from ANY religous organiztion to argue against a scientific theory, all you do is invalidate your own claims, as well as every other creationist out there.

Since you insist Seeker.

Point 1: Your first point makes no sense what so ever. First, a claim is made that scientists know how much salt is added and removed each year, which is pure nonsense. I can only assume these scientists concluded that more salt is going into the ocean than coming out because they go on to state how long it would take a fresh water ocean to become as salty as it is now. Oh but now they state that the ocean is actually becoming less salty! So which is it? Are the oceans getting saltier, or less salty? And more importantly what on earth does any of this have to do with the age of the earth??? If the ocean has become more and less salty at different periods in time than how can you possibly accurately predict its beginnings?

2. The moon is most certainly drifting way from the moon and it has a lot to do with those oceans which you seem to think are only a million years old. The Moon causes tidal bulges on the Earth. Ideally, these bulges would line up with the Moon. The Earth, however, turns on its axis and friction between the body of the Earth and the tidal bulges tends to drag the tidal bulges along. The Moon, meanwhile tries to keep the bulges aligned with itself. The resulting tug of war results in the tidal bulges "leading" the Moon by a bit. However, the oceans are much younger than the earth itself (approximately 500 million years old) and would not have caused this effect during earth's early history. No scientist, at least not one that understands physics thinks the moon was touching the earth 1.2 billion years ago. The moon could very well be made-up of earth material blown off during a rather large impact but if so it occurred when the earth was still forming around 4.5 billion years ago.

I could just as easily disprove every point you made, and certainly others could do a much better job than I.

Opps! I mean the The moon is most certainly drifting way from the earth, of course.

I apologize for being very unclear in my first point about the ocean. What I meant to say was that by taking samples of ocean water, scientists have been able to record how much salt the ocean gains each year. They have discovered however that the amount of salt gained each year is decreasing. I hope that cleared that up.

One quick thing about the validity of sources. How can you say that my sources(whatever they may be) are biased and can't be trusted when you use biased evolution textbooks to get all of your information. What's good for me is biased for you, and vice versa. So instead of saying that my arguments can be discredited because of their source(which I could just as easily say about your arguments), just argue my points. If they aren't legitimate arguments then it should just be that much easier to refute them.

ND3G -- Thanks for actually providing good answers to a few of my points, instead of "that's just wrong" or something else.

I'm curious however how my other points hold up. Especially the lack of evidence in the fossil record. If anyone thinks they have an answer please provide one.

For a century and more the U.S was seen as the destination for forward thinkers. It is sad to me that this icon of technological superiority would, at least appear, to be falling into the abyss of religious dogma.

I think for my own part, if someone started talking to me about teaching creationism in the class room my response might go something like this:

"Well if we teach the Christian view of creation, to be fair, we shall have to include other religion's views such as Hindi, Native American, Shinto and even Scientology." And see what they say then.

ND3G- though I agree with most of your comments, some are a little much. for one, I have as basic scintific understanding and even I can see right through youur so-called proof against religion. it has been around longer than you, as has the earth, and therefore, there is no way you can understand it completely. therefore YOU, my friend, are misinformed, or at least underinformed.

Darwin's theory of evolution is a very poor scientific theory. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that one species can evolve into another species.
The fact is that you can teach a very good biology class without ever touching on the origin of life. It is something that no human can ever truly know so why waste time arguing over it. (Or corrupting kids)
""Well if we teach the Christian view of creation, to be fair, we shall have to include other religion's views such as Hindi, Native American, Shinto and even Scientology." And see what they say then." KPeters
But if you must teach on the origins life, then by all means, please teach every view unbiasedly so that students can come up with their own opinions. School should be more about teaching kids to think on their own, not shove scientific opinions down their throat and call it scientific fact.

The thing about evolution that I believe makes it false is how did cells form in the first place? Seriously, they are supposed to have formed their DNA in a vent in the ocean. The odds are extremely against that, considering that there are many sequences needed to be formed, and if a single one is off, the cell will probably never live or die instantly.