Bill Nye vs. Intelligent Design

It's indisputably ethical to oppose intelligent design; philosophy can not be brought into the class room as a scientific theory. If a hypothesis can not be proved using the scientific method taught to elementary school students, how can it be considered a potential contribution to scientific knowledge?

Actually, it sounds like "criticized" may be too strong a word: the article I read from Waco made it sound more like he was simply using a Bible verse as a springboard to make a point. It's easy to believe, though, that he meant to be a touch provocative-- a skill many teachers employ in making their lectures interesting and memorable.

Sounds like he made his point rather effectively!

Nothing with any intelligence would design a head that looked like Bill's.

"philosophy can not be brought into the class room as a scientific theory. If a hypothesis can not be proved using the scientific method taught to elementary school students, how can it be considered a potential contribution to scientific knowledge?"

This is in itself a philosophical statement. The idea that the scientific method is the only arbiter of truth is a philosophical statment.

Bill Nye is a looser

no, the scientific method -literally- defines science. There is no philosophy about it. If it follows the rules of the scientific method, it is science. If it does not, then it is -not- science.

Not that hard.

All they really need to do is have kids read both like I did and make their own opinion. By forcing "Intelligent Design" on kids as the only truth is to force a religion. Also to those who really think about it a Christian can say that "God" started the "Big Bang" thus both can be right and the fight ended. Yet that is too easy so we have to make sure this fight never ends otherwise how would we pick our leaders. by their policies? but we are so used to it being intolerance and petty things.

"The idea that the scientific method is the only arbiter of truth is a philosophical statment."

Using a rational sentence to propose that an unscientific method might be another arbiter of truth is truely paradoxical.

Well done, you've just stuffed up your own argument!

But if you know of an irrational system that holds more "truth" than science, then I'm all ears.

Don't get me wrong, it's a funny joke indeed, but maybe it's not good to confuse the children like this.

(an unscientific method must have at least one irrational statement within it that will contradict itself somewhere along the line QED).

Many atheists feel that it is simply a human weakness to want to believe in gods. Certainly in many primitive human societies, religion allows the people to deal with phenomena that they do not adequately understand.

If you believe in evolution, then tell me how co habiting things such as plants with flowers and pollinating insects..

The exist in a perfect symbioses, and neither can exist without the other...

therefore how did they come to "evolve"? Why would a flowerless plant become a flowering plant that required more energy(previoussly aesexual) and the symbioses of another organism (and its energy) to be sustained?
How did one come into being without the other? What would drive them to change if the other wasnt already present? Which came 1st?

Evolution cannot solve this problem, and yet many such problems as these are highly disregarded and ignored by "scientists".. yet they teach it as if it were facts.

Well, lets talk a little bit about intelligent design. Think about this: Take a look at a car. And think about it. Is it evolved? There are thousands of people's effort on it to come to that level. It is constantly being inprovised on a previous design to get to the level we see it now.
So, in a way it has evolved. But also, there are people behind what we see as a car.

Now take any living being for that matter - not just humans. The kind of technology goes into a functioning life form, can you think there is no intelligence behind it? The lungs breath the air which is mixed with blood, carried over veins to the cells to replenish them, it carries the waste gas and bring it back and expels it, the heart constantly pumps from day one of the life, and keep bad and good blood separate, and all the magic which happens....
Now, look at human beings and this world. A singular species which have domintaed the earth, if just pure evolution alone, where are the rest? Think. If you think long enough, it is hard not to come away without the doubt of an intelligent design behind it.

Taking bible literally, yes, it sounds bogus. Then it is like trying to intrepret calculus by a kindergartner. If someone has to understand Bible, they need to get to a level they can understand it, if not, it is gibberish to them. I invite you to read the book ' Second Coming of Christ' by Paramahamsa Yogananda, and you should get a glimpse of what Bible is about.

I am not saying I know anything, with my limited brain, when I think, and when I look at my forefathers from my country and what they have contributed to the world (I am from India), I don't think all that folks have nothing much to do but to say all that and it is all fiction. I think our 'scientific enquiry has just begun, and we see remarkable progress in our approach, and now the new world seems to run based on the benefit of the research and advancement we have thought of. But I believe there is a lot more. A lot, lot more that we don't understand. Like death. Just think, you should feel what I mean, if you spend enough time thinking about it. Anyway, my humble 2 cents.

"Certainly in many primitive human societies, religion allows the people to deal with phenomena that they do not adequately understand." We are not primitive? I must have missed that memo.

Regarding the flower and insect, and any other not-fully-understood systems query.

It doesn't matter if we can't explain something right now. It's not science's role to know everything right now. Science is a process not a result. If we don't know how something works people can use the scientific method to try to determine how it works. If something is overlooked or the inital hypothesis is flawed then you don't accurate or useful results.

In any case, whatever has been shown by the scientific method is bound to be a great deal more useful than anything the bible has to say on the topic.

pnt blnk: Just because they don't have an answer for everything all at once doesn't mean their ignoring it. Unlike intelligent design which explains everything all at once the scientists have a hypothosis which a lot of evidence supports, that isn't all going to come at once.
Theres recently been found evidence of anteaters before ants existed, yet now they only eat ants... it's not known what they ate before ants but they must have eaten. They existed before but a better food source came along. Plants polinating via wind may have been around before polinating insects, when the polinating insects came along the plants could evolve to be more specialised.

I can't resist. I love debating science with kids that have read a couple freshmen level books on philosophy, but don't understand the simple terminology.

We teach our children untrue things as fact? Try explaining imaginary numbers to a child just learning how to take a root. It took mathematicians a couple hundred years to work out that one. Or explain how a large portion of the Holocaust was designed by pediatricians. Why can’t I divide a number by zero? We don’t teach necessarily lie about these topics, we simply don’t tell them the whole truth all at once. There are numerous research projects concerning evolution every year. I have a few masters degrees and most of it goes over my head, so how can we expect children to cope with it. As for debate, I absolutely agree. However, the students should question the research on scientific grounds, not simple “I don’t like how it fails to explain everything” grounds. Which brings us back to understanding simple terminology.

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

Now, in case you didn't get this in elementary school science, theories change over time as new data is analyzed and better models are developed to explain the data. Science is based on fact, changes with new data, and offers models to make reasonable and useful predictions about nature. Religion, however, does not. Even if you grant intelligent design fanatics everything (and I wouldn’t suggest you go along with some of those crazy ideas), you gain no useful predictions with it; therefore, it is of no scientific value (e.g. not science for those keeping score). Of course, proper philosophical argument would be a bit more verbose, but I’m lazy. Just look at what intelligent design is—religion. Throughout history, religion has relied upon fear and oppression to gain control over societies. You think Socrates wanted to drink the poison? Galileo just couldn't stay out of the lime light and didn't really care for the Pope anyway? The theory of evolution is our best guess given the data. Intelligent design is a way to inspire fear in the under educated (bad science teachers maybe) and give the truly despicable power. Nothing is certain in science, but in society under-educated masses controlled through fear by power hungry fiends always leads to oppression.

We don’t really understand gravity or time or much at all about medicine or space, but that doesn’t mean Newton and Einstein and Pasteur are completely bunk… the just didn’t have a complete truth. So we teach our children what we’ve learned so far in the hopes they’ll fill in the blanks and take the next step. Don’t stifle generations of innovation and science because you don’t like what they have to say—there has been enough of that in history already.

Incidentally, I believe there are only four truisms in the Universe:
1. One can not create energy.
2. One can not destroy energy.
3. The Universe has in insatiable lust for irony (Douglas Adams knew it best).
4. The first two are still up for grabs.

Bill Nye is looser than what?

Lol I used to love Bill !

Keep up the great work!

---
http://www.wirah.com

Mike,

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy

Christians have always wanted total exclusivity in their thinking, and by extension and of course the total arogance of the viewpoint, everyone else's.

In China there were, for thousands of years, a multitude of beliefs that existed in harmony with each other, Taoism and Confusianism are not mutualy exclusive.

And neither are Christianity and Science. Only fundamentalists (of which the key part of the word being mentalists...) are so closed/narrowminded they are unable to accept anything except their own philosophy.

Intelligent Design is not, has never been, and cannot be considered a viable scientific theory.

The idea that it should be offered up in a science class, as oposed to philosophy/theology classes is just laughable. It shows a total lack of comprehention of the scientific method on the part of the Intelligent Design proponents, or a deliberate and possibly malign one. The sinister thing is that they manage to find enough people, uninformed or fanatical enough to make so much noise that this nonsense is taken with anything more than a pinch of salt.

It is, above all else, a sad comment on the state of the education systems in place in the west.

Aaaaagh! Too many arguments from personal incredulity...

"I can't see how flowers and insects could each possibly evolve into the symbiotic relationship they have today... so it can't be true".

"I can't see how part of a bacterial flaggelum or part of an eye could be of any use so evolution must be wrong and we have 'irreducible complexity'"

Just more examples of simple- or lazy-minded people who want the truth to be black and white and served on a plate. Science isn't easy - if you 'don't get' the Scientific Method, face up to your own shortcomings, read the relevant literature and educate yourselves.

I believe in order for us to harness the power of fire and the wheel, and later ones and zeros, we needed an active (overactive) imagination. While this has obviously worked in our favor, the side effect is the insatiable need to answer any question laid before us. This at least partially explains why seemingly all civilizations have some sort of religion.

Mr bees-and-flowers-christian:

Just because you can't understand a process, doesn't mean it's bunk.

Regarding your bees-and-flowers question, at least I gotta congratulate you, it's a new example for the old "irreucible complexity" fallacy that ID'ers love so much. At least it's not about watches and watchmakers this time.

Anyway, it's not THAT hard to imagine a solution to the problem, if you think harder. Here are some tips to help during your journey:

- don't look at the final result only, remember that the first car produced was quite different than your 2002 Toyota Corolla;
- remember that those insects from the first tip probably did not depend SOLELY on polen, as well as the flowers did not depend SOLELY on those insects to survive.

Good luck.

Christanity is not based on exclusivity. Like any experience, you meet one of a group and assume the entire group is just like that one you met. Soory but it's not true.

Science is a religion. Using science you can not tell the future with 100% accuracy. So if you drop a ball 1000 times and it does what it "should" does that mean it will do the same the 1001th time. Now think real hard on the one. Can you say 100% that it won't just hover in front of you? Nope! So welcome to a faith based religion man. Faith in reproduceable results.

OK continue the ignorance based flame war.

Bill Nye could crush you with a thought.

"Science is a religion. Using science you can not tell the future with 100% accuracy. So if you drop a ball 1000 times and it does what it "should" does that mean it will do the same the 1001th time. Now think real hard on the one. Can you say 100% that it won't just hover in front of you? Nope!"

Well, someone else who does not understand what science is all about. What you are talking about is trial and error - not science. Dropping the ball (or an apple, if you remember your history lessons) is not producing a scientific result - it kicks off a process of thought - which in turn may lead to a scientific explanation of gravity. Once I have an explanation for gravity, I would not need to drop anything anymore, because I know it will fall to the ground each and every time - unless the environmental conditions change.

Therfore if the ball would hover in the air in front of me, it would again start me thinking and analyzing what changed to make the ball behave differently this time. Most likely I will find out, that the original assumption - objects fall in the presence of gravity - is still true. If it is not, then it is still in concurrence with the scientific method to modify the paradigm to take account of any additional factors. E. g. just because gravity is present and a ball hovers in front of me, is not going to change my mind if I find myself in an airplane flying a parabolic curve. Using the scientific method, I would find out, that even though gravitational forces are counteracted, my orriginal assumption about objects falling in the presence of gravity is true.

And no, science will never be able to predict 100% of all future events. Simply because of the complexities involved in explanation. Which sort of leads us directly into chaos theory, which will be really hard to accept or understand for the religious faction amongst you.

You will probably never be able to forgive me. But saying: I do not understand what goes on around me, therefore there must be this guy who is omnipotent, omniscient, omniwhatever, is certainly not scientific. In fact, to me it is just plain stupid. Nevertheless it is probably the one, last thing able to keep a feeble mind from going insane in this complex world of ours. So keep your religion, but do not try yourself on changing scientific paradigms - it is a rediculous effort.

When it comes down to it the people who need to explain themselves are not the scientists, who will always be more than willing to hand over their binders and databases full of calculations and results for open review and critique, but the religious zealots who are willing to base their lives off of books that are millenia old, each with conflicting versions and revisions of events and lessons, and with myriads of interpretations that have led to the rise of a seemingly infinite variation on a base religion (Christianity, for instance) that agrees on main ideas but bicker about the fine minutae of the teachings (Catholic vs. Protestant vs. Mormon, etc).

Regardless, I actually own a degree in Evolutionary Biology (a degree some of you may think is as useless as a degree in Phys. Ed., and which as I look for jobs makes me almost think the same thing) and the fact is that if you take the time to actually study it, the sheer amount of physical evidence and mathematical logic to the whole system, you can't help but agree with it.

The fact that ID has been such a movement as of late is not because it is a revolutionary idea (the idea of the watch and watchmaker has been around for a few centuries now), but that the people behind it are whip-crack smart at advertising and self-promotion. I will give them the honor at being personally blown away not by their "science" but by their PR department. People who are uneasy with the concept of evolution have been waiting for years for something like this to come along so they can grab onto it. The fact that we scientists are willing to raise such a fuss over it is merely increasing its publicity.

And while it may be ironic that I am joining in on the debate after declaiming it as a way to bolster a bullshit, thinly veiled religious crusade, I'd like to end this whole debate by reiterating the words of the original author of this blog post, John Mahoney:

Bill! Bill! Bill! Bill!

Oh, and if you think science is a religion, chant that mantra to the gods of wind, rain, and salted peanuts the next time you step onto a plane. Or the gods of the bodily humours (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humours) next time you need to get surgery. They may serve you as well as that kooky religion called "science" has at keeping you healthy and safe.

May I add just a personal insight in regard to ID and watches being found in fields.

Finding a watch in a field certainly does imply some sort of watchmaker. This may have been a human watchmaker. Maybe it was made by another species though, or a watchmaking mechanism. Whatever further investigation uncovers, only one conclusion may be drawn for certain: the watch presents the end of a long chain of evolutionary development. It did not come into being, and here the proponents of ID happily agree, out of the blue through some mysterious force. So no god created the watch. The argument actually proves the nonexistence of divine intervention. Does it hold true only in this instance? No, the argument is as valid for any daisy in the same or any other field.

Whatever the discussion, at the end there remains one key question for rational thinking people as well as proponents of ID: how did it all start? As far as human logic goes, all evidence points in one direction. Intelligence is never the starting point, but happens at some point far into the journey. It is illogic to imagine things otherwise.

Religion certainly serves a purpose. Especially in these troubled times of a new holy war between Christianity and Islam, this purpose is easily exposed. That religious leaders vehemently discourage individual thought and deviation from doctrine, is no coincidence. And most people, humans being herd animals, would rather not think for themselves. They will happily accept whatever irrationallities they are presented with, as long as they are promissed good pasture - in this life, or the next.

I guess it is futile really, to argue with people who believe in any kind of religion. These people represent the vast majority and are irrational by nature. Which maybe explains, why we humans as a species are willing to even destroy the very substance of our lives for short term gains.

*sigh*

Everyone quibbles that science can't explain everything, by God (oops! by gum!) everything we know up to this point is right!

The very fact that we learn new things every day demonstrates the insufficiency of human knowledge. So to pick up your torch and pitchfork when someone says something that 'science' doesn't agree with is disingenuous, at best. The Bible was claiming that the life of the flesh was in the blood long before they bled George Washington to death.

I just love the generalizations...

I believe science...I'm smart
You have faith in God...you are dumb

Elementary school at it's finest!

I like this one: really improbable thing (macro-evolution from glorified pond scum) + lots and lots of years = intelligent, sentient life

I guess my point is that science and religion both take faith. The scientific method is great at proving what is easily measurable, but it still takes guesswork and theories. Man is so arrogant.

@ William Holt

I dont believe in "god" at all, and have considered myself an atheist as far as any of that is concerned.. I consider christians and any other religious people to be "cultist" weirdos.

DNA is alien. This is a fact, it did not "evolve" on our planet, it was either deposited here directly or indirectly. There are many other factors that lead me to believe that we were genetically engineered at some point along our evolutionary line..

Explain the sudden emergence and prowess of the Sumerian Civilization?

Explain why the gap between Homo Sapiens, and Homo Sapiens Sapiens is way shorter than it should be?

For me, I can just look at the structure of DNA and it rings a chord within me, that it is way too perfect to have come into existence from "trial and error"

I believe the earth to be 4.5 Billion years old, as evidenced by fossilied stromatolites discovered in Australia..

Explain the domestications and breeding of Canines?? You think we developed that many specialized pure breeds throught trial and error? Look at canines history with man, it dates back to the Sumerians (the emrgence of civilization and Homo Sapiens Sapiens)... You think that was accomplished by trial and error in that sort amount of time???

Although I am an atheist, I do have to acknowledge the great deal of factual evidence and information that has been obtained from the bible. This leads me to believe that alot of it is true, and either lost in translation,metaphors or misconceptions...

Take for example the Trilothon blocks at Baalbak. Some of the largest cut stones in the whole world, and how did we find the quarry where the rocks came from? We consulted the bible.. What did it say? It said that the giants quarried and carried the rocks into place, and it told the location of the quarry, abd thats exactly where it was to be found...

Do some research about evolution before you cling to it so vainly like I once did... Learn about carpenter genes and how they prevent mutations (which are not beneficial to dna since it is in a sense already perfect).. What are the odds/liklihood of 2 random animals of the same species, carrying the same genetic mutation,mating many many times, in order to possibly have any chance of passing on the mutation???

Also think monotheism is a comple load of crap, that was a simple mistake of loosing one letter of the ends of the word. God is supposed to be 'GODS'... Many religions have more than one god, this american/euro bullshit religion has one god. Ever think its weird that the word god is only one letter aay from the word GOOD?

How about the fact that many cultures worshipped 'the sun' (which is the life giver to our planet) and that people worship 'jesus; who was "the son" of god?

hmmmmmmm H.Sapiens Sapiens a prodcut of trial an error?

I think not....

Science is funny..

In as little as 100 years, you will look back and consider this current era, barbaric, savage and unknowing......

Science is like a game of mastermind... And trust me I love science.

Also try to explain why humans dont use the full capacity of their brains? And how humans are the only animals capable of memory and conceiving future, present and past. We can control the future. We can imagine something and make it a reality, nothing else on this rock can do that????

"You can't create energy"

oh yea?

You can create thoughts, and that can create energy...

People nowadays seem like they are living in a capped society...

Well, first of all I should apologize because I got carried away a little in my previous post. Yes, there are a lot of really smart people out there, some of them reputable scientists, who do believe in some sort of religion. Sorry to you guys, I did not want to insult you. Yet I am certain anyone can be really smart in some ways and still suffer from the mental disorder commonly called religion.

But getting back to the matter at hand. Yes, science is still the best bet, if you want to understand what is going on around you. (Un)fortunately it is an ongoing process, so we do not know everything about everything. But we do know something about some things. Sometimes science draws the wrong conclusions, sometimes even paradigms foot on wrong conclusions. Still, science is the ultimate tool for understanding. Where science is in error, it has appropriate tools to correct itself in time. Failing to understand how science works is typical for some of the religious antiscientists.

Our problem is much less the scientific process. Rather it is the massive flood of knowledge sweeping across our little planet these days. No single human being can comprehend more than a tiny fraction of the whole. Yet, even (especially) the most shallow minded amongst us, think they are experts at just about everything, coming up with homecooked conclusions, completely wrong most of the time, but shouting out, if not eloquent, then that much louder. Knowledge is neither good nor bad, but a little bit of it may be dangerous. Mixing science and religion is prone to give more than just a bit of a headache.

Let me give you an example. You, the religious fanatic might be putting up a paradigm like: "the Universe revolves around the earth." Then you pretend to be scientific and explain how this earth centered universe is supposed to function, using scientific language. After which you go and demand to be heard in the same forum as any true scientist. Quite naturally there will be some scientists who will find your proposition preposterous. They will say so. They will prove it to you. But you, being faith based, will just shout out louder and louder, until one day the scientists will give up arguing. What happened? Easy to explain. No one in his right mind will again and again argue against the same unreasonable thesis ad infinitum. But you, having a mental disorder, religion, are of course capable of chanting anything, for as long as it takes. This may be a simple "oohm" or the thesis of an earth centered universe. It is like cancer of the mind. In time, nothing else seems more important. Unfortunately for the rest of the world this mental disorder is not easily recognized. And humans being herd animals are always listening for the voice to lead them out of the dark. For many of them the different theses are indistiguishable. Et voila, you ´ve got them following you, infecting their feeble minds with the same mental disorder.

Conclusion: if you feel a bout of religion coming on, please consult with your nearest mental institution, but check first, if they are not already infected too.

Of course this is all a little tongue in cheek. But since religious fanatics can not be influenced by reason, I might as well annoy you all a little. :)

Bill Nye discusses this incident and the problems he has with fundamentalists in a new podcast inteview at www.pointofinquiry.org.

I would agree that religion takes faith. I do believe in science as well. However, I also believe there is a lot of falsely so called science that is equally if not much more based on faith. One of you said something about assuming gravity always works unless the variables changed would have to consider that statement when referencing to the past. To say something acted the same 4000 years or 4million years ago would require you to assume(or believe)(or have faith) that the variables we consider today have always been the same. Yet evolution itself states that things infact have changed tremendously. This same principal can be applied to carbon dating and pretty much any method used to consider the past. There is a serious problem with this theory. Just for the record, many stand on the bible because it hasn't changed but still remains accurate even with our changing knowledge.what do you think?

you know, a book doesn't have to be a science book to be scientifically accurate. If someone writes a biography about a man and says he weighs 150 lbs, jumped off a 200 foot cliff and hit the ground at 60 mph, you could do alittle physics to figure out if that statement is scientifically accurate or not. So even though its a biography it can still be scientifically accurate. I believe the bible falls into this category. Also, I would like someone to fit evolution into the scientific method or the definition of science. It is not observable,experimentable, repeatable,and does seem to violate many scientific laws such as boigenesis, 2 thermodynamics,etc.it just doesn't fit with the method when you relate observable science with beginnings. I believe in the beginning "God" and you believe in the beginning "matter or energy" so tell me how mine has any more faith than yours. Love ya, but only a fool professes himself wise(NIV).

you know, a book doesn't have to be a science book to be scientifically accurate. If someone writes a biography about a man and says he weighs 150 lbs, jumped off a 200 foot cliff and hit the ground at 60 mph, you could do alittle physics to figure out if that statement is scientifically accurate or not. So even though its a biography it can still be scientifically accurate. I believe the bible falls into this category. Also, I would like someone to fit evolution into the scientific method or the definition of science. It is not observable,experimentable, repeatable,and does seem to violate many scientific laws such as boigenesis, 2 thermodynamics,etc.it just doesn't fit with the method when you relate observable science with beginnings. I believe in the beginning "God" and you believe in the beginning "matter or energy" so tell me how mine has any more faith than yours. Love ya, but only a fool professes himself wise(NIV).

I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but for the athiests outthere I want you to remember something. You can't prove scientifically that there is no God anymore than christians can prove there is a God. Atheism is a belief. You have to believe there is no God because you can't prove God doesn't exist. All I'm saying is that you shouuld think about that before criticizing christians for their beliefs. I am a christian and I love science, just not when its misrepresented.

I'm actually writing a paper on intelligent design for my research paper class. During the research part, I spent a lot of time looking at both sides of the fence. There was a common theme on both sides. Each claimed that the other was not a valid theory. Both claimed that the other was not provable.

While the claims against the provability of the theory of evolution are a little difficult to unravel, the claims against ID are very simple. Intelligent Design explicitly states that natural processes COULD NOT have been responsable for the origin of life; it would take a previous intelligence to create, or 'kick off' life. The express denial of mechanistic processes lends disprovability; prove that a naturalistic process can create life, and you disprove the premise of ID.

Well, I just realised I'm going to wander around a bit so, I'll clear one thing up in advance, and get to my point.

ID IS a scientific theory, but it has a vague conclusion. It works to establish correlation between the apparent design in life and intelligence, and expressly denies the possibility of a purely mechanistic process creating life. Opponents claim that this is a blatant repackaging of creationism. It isn't. Those who developed the theory certainly wanted to show how science points to God, but it stands on its own. Remove it from Christian context, and ID could just as easily support, say, scientology. ID is used to support the idea of a judeo-Christian God, but does not in and of itself point to any God or deity in particular.

Now, my point. Neither creationism nor the 'theory' of evolution are scientific theories. They are forensics models. They are sets of assumptions used to interpret evidence left behind from an irreproducable event or series of events. They do make SOME predictions, but are not inherently disprovable, and lack the direct testability of a true scientific theory. These forensics models spawn theories of their own that are scientifically valid in that they are testable and dis/provable. ID is the obvious example for creationism, and biochemical predestination is an obvious one for "evolution." Either one of these theories could be disproven, but to do so would not single-handedly bring down their respective forensics models.

And how is the idea of God unscientific? God Himself may not be scientifically verifiable, but His work is. Problem is, nobody wants to admit Everything as evidence for God, since apparently you have to prove that God exists before it is possible to present Everthing as evidence to begin with.

To claim there is no God assumes knowledge of everything that exists, and thus knowledge of what doesn't exist; in short, it assumes the attribute of being all-knowing. Only God is given the attribute of being all-knowing. Thus, to claim God does not exist is to proclaim yourself God.

I love how people so OFTEN forget that evolution is nothing more than a THEORY. T-H-E-O-R-Y. This means that it has NOT been proven. It has been well speculated since the original idea came out, and a lot of people REALLY WISH that they could prove it. Who wouldn't. If you could prove that there is no God and that evolution is true, then it means that no one is accountable to anything but himself. Man has been trying to do that since man first appeared here on earth.

What it boils down to is this. Evolution is a myth at this point, even in science. On that note, you could also say that "ID" is a myth. However, I take great offence to the idea that I will have to send my children into a school system that, by LAW, is forbidden to teach them the very possibility that man may have possibily, maybe, could have, been actually created by an intelligent designer, yet they, by LAW, are required to teach them what is still very much a THEORY that man, and all life magically spawned out of some primordial pool atop a volcano somewhere out of what is agreed could have only been in-organic matter. How exactly that's possible, for organic matter to just spawn out of inorganic matter, I don't know. You ever hear of the "missing link"? Well, theres a million of them in the theory of evolution. This is why REAL scientists will agree 100% that evolution is unproven, and remains a theory to this day. You wouldn't know that by watching the news lately and seeing these ridiculous stories about people suing school systems for teaching children the "lies" of ID in addition to the "truths" of evolution. Just as Jeremy previously posted above, There is not a single man on earth who can honestly say that they know the truth, and I don't think that some federal judge in Pennsylvania meets the criteria of "all-knowing".

This forcible teaching of evolution upon our public is outright brainwashing and is becoming fascism, as recent lawsuits have proven. Hands down. You want to ignore the possibility of ID in our schools, well then lets also ignore the possibility of evolution in our schools. They're both unproven in science.

Now, don't get me wrong here. I'm not going to sit here and say that either is true. Regardless of what personal beliefs I may have, I will not sit here and say that I KNOW what is right. But I'll be damned if I will sit here and let someone else tell me that they KNOW what is right, while they are unable to provide proper proof. It's very unscientfic, to say the least.

A large portion of scientific community is trying to purport something that has barely made off of the 1st rung of the great scientific method. Theory. It's barely made it to Hypothesis. People have been trying to use the hypothesis to prove that it's true, while quaintly ignoring the fact that it's never been proven. The only "proofs" people have ever given me of evolution end up only being other unproven theories. So what does that leave?

Faith. The scientific community has FAITH in evolution. It is a theory. It is unproven. They really want it to be true. They push it onto people. Sound famaliar? I'm going to start calling them "evangelutionists", lol. In effect, evolution is no less of a religion than they claim intelligent design to be.

Now, on another note. How in the world is the idea of intelligent design automatically relate to religion and philosophy. Granted, this is kind of a loaded question at first, but just hear me out here. I have read some of the most rude and belligerent statements from some people claiming that "Intelligent design is just nice friendly sterile way to recruit people into 'insert religion here' blah blah blah". This is just absurd. For all of the scientific community's attention to detail, and supposed "unbiased" points of view, they sure are quick to dump the idea of ID to the wayside BEFORE it even reaches the Hypothesis stage. When an archeologist finds a clay pot from 5000 years ago buried in the sand in some dig somewhere, do you think the first thing he thinks is "Gee, this clay pot was formed naturally by the evolution of 'mother earth'". No, it is pretty obvious that it was made by someone. It's in a specific molded, symetrical shape that was obviously shaped by a person with a little time. When they uncover walls that have been buried for thousands of years, do u think that they assume that it is a natural occurance? Of course not. That, too, would be absurd. Likewise, all religion aside, is it so ridiculous to think that when you see billions of functioning, downright mechanical-esque, biological organisms that are around us, ranging from humans to amoeba, when looked at closely, appear to be functioning systems of smaller interconnecting sub-systems all interacting with each other in a very organized and consistent way involved in precariously balanced eco-systems, that perhaps, all of this was orchestrated by someone with.. intelligence? It took man thousands of years to build our knowledge to a point where we can, only relatively recently, actually begin to comprehend this organization, yet we somehow want to believe, almost illogically, that it all spawned out of chaos? That life started from a single-celled organism with no estabilished DNA, and over the course of thousands of years nature essentially wrote the programming language that is DNA into the genes of all the varying plant and animal life on earth? WOW, now THAT IS faith. This is not logic, guys.

I hesitate to bring it up, but this is like the old analogy that you can detonate an explosion in the middle of a junkyard, and a brand new bright shiny '06 Honda Accord will be left in the aftermath.

Also, worth nothing is another source of MUCH confusion. There is a consistently required connection amongst lots of people between the big-bang, and the origins of human life. This is ridiculous. I've seen a few posts above trying to link the two together, and this is a classic "tactic". However,this is purely a product of the 2 schools of thought both, once again, trying to claim that they each know everything. Yet these are two completely different topics, different theory's, and for the record, two occurances so far apart in the scope of history that they could and should not be tied together. There are tons more proof of the big bang then there EVER has been of evolution. (And, btw, where did that matter originally come from, and where did the energy that "big-banged" it originally come from?) The proof enough is that A)We know how fast light travels. B)We able to view light as far as billions of light years away, using modern technology. Therefore, it physically impossible for "religious scholars" to say the universe was created at the same time they say man was created. This is pretty plain an simple. (On another side note, the Bible does NOT teach that these two incidents happened at the same time, but that is a discussion for another time.) However this is the number one ammunition that evolutionists will throw back, the fact that we KNOW for the universe is, at the very least, MUCH MUCH MUCH older than man. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of man. In fact, when you throw that aside, you'll see that the timetable for the origins of "modern" man and civilization in the scientific community, and the timetable for the origins of man and civilization in the bible are actually pretty close (considering the scope of history).

I guess my point is, I don't want your evolutionist religion. I wish that people would wake up and see it for what it is...the new, modern, secular religion of Science. How bout this to chew on. Thousands of years ago, primitive man sacrificed children to their gods by literally ripping the children right our of their pregnant mothers, and then sacrificing the fetus on their alter to their god in the hopes that they would bring them health and prosperity, or some other nonsense. Today, modern man sacrifices their children to their new "god", by literally ripping the children right out of their pregnant mothers (abortion), and then sacrificing the fetus on the great altar of science and knowledge in the hopes that it will bring them health and prosperity (fetal stem cell research). Wow, we really have come a long way haven't we. But we haven't really changed much either, have we. I'm sure at least a hundred of you that just read this last paragraph are now FURIOUS that I would even DARE bring up such concepts as abortion and stem cell research. Well, I just must be Pat Roberson himself (ouch). Get real guys. Any unbiased scientist should be able to look at the above comparison and see the similarities. It is FACT that people used to sacrifice their children in such a way. It is also FACT that people do the SAME thing today, but for different reasons. You can't deny this fact. This is what science is all about... Facts, right?

This is not an attack on science, by any means. Science didn't do it. Peoples application of it did. Believe me, I'm the first one to stand in awe at the wonders of modern technology, and the great and wonderful things that science has brought us through our expansion of knowledge. People are killed in car wrecks every day, but it doesn't make all cars "deadly weapons". All cars could however be used as such. It is important to be wary of any sort of all-inclusive notion.

My final point is that, evolution is just as much a religion as anything else, and at the same time, intelligent design is as much a science as evolution. To just throw out one idea and blindly accept another is living proof that the scientific community is, in fact, very biased, and that as usual, man will create for himself whatever he wants to try and feed his own selfishness and desire to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and however he wants.

Good luck guys, I hope it works out for ya.

As to the question at hand, Is Intelligent Design science or philosophy? I have a degree in philosophy and a dregee in religion. I also have two degrees in computer science.
And the very idea that a philosophy has no place in the science class room is lunacy.
Science must have a philosophical basis or it is irrational.
Intelligent design differs from "modern science" in one way and one way only.
The difference lies in the philosopical outlook or assumptions made in the beginning.
"Modern science" assumes philosopically that there is only nature and matter at work in the hypothesis.
Intelligent design assumes that there may be more than those two at work in any hypothesis.
Each camp uses and verifies data by the exact same method.
And that method, by the way, has a philosophical basis or assumptions from which it is drawn.
To throw out either simply because you don't like it, or you have assumed you know more about it than you do, or because one is associated with this religion or that religion, is completely stupid.
If there is to be meaningful discussion of the two positions, then both sides must agree on a set of philosophical assumptions that have equal meaning in both views.
Otherwise you are like a Russian language speaking person arguing with an English language speaking person, each in their own language and both unable to comprehend the language of the other.
And what do have in such a situatiion?

NOISE, without meaning or significance.

So let philosopy be except where you have some inkling of what your talking about.
And let people who do know what they are talking about speak with respect to each other.
The childish name calling and stereo-typing being practiced by persons on both sides of the argument remind me of playground antics like "my dad can bet up you dad".
What a load of crap!
(excuse the vulgar useage of slang)

The major hurdle here is exactly what constitutes a ‘theory’. In science, the word ‘theory’ is very strictly defined. We often hear someone say, “I have a theory about that” when, in fact, what they really have is a ‘hypothesis’ – a guess or a hunch. I suspect that more colloquial usage is what leads people to think that that a theory is tantamount to an opinion and is, therefore, subject to individual interpretation.

The scientific method is, essentially, a recipe for generating theories. In its simplest form, it goes something like this: (1) See some stuff. (2) See some more stuff. (3) Think about all of the stuff that you saw. (4) Say, “Hmmmm… I think that I’ve seen something like this before” – i.e.: identify a suspected pattern. Call this a HYPOTHESIS. (5) Devise an experiment – essentially, subject yourself to observing lots more stuff like the sort of stuff that caused you to make the guess in the first place - intended to prove or disprove your hypothesis. (6) If your guess still looks good, form a statement (equation, law, rule, etc.) that summarizes the pattern. The rule should be sufficiently robust that it predicts the outcomes of other similar stuff. (7) If you’re still convinced, submit the results for peer review. (8) Peers then go out and observe the same stuff – that is, recreate the experiment – and see if they get the same result. (9) If the rule stands up to the prodding of the peer community, then it becomes a theory. Newton’s Laws are the result of just such a process. He saw some stuff (purportedly, a falling apple), saw some more stuff (the moon moving around the earth), suspected that their motions had something in common (a pattern), and subsequently found a set of rules that predicts the outcome of similar events that is now known as the Theory of Gravitation.

Note that gravity is not subject to opinions. We all know that when you lose your grip on a heavy toolbox, it’s going to fall toward the ground. (Newton’s ‘theories’ also predict the amount of force that will be applied to your foot if it happens to be in the way of the toolbox in its attempt to reach the ground.) Try heading over to your local airport and explaining to passengers arriving from out-of-town that the Theory of Flight is not a fact and that they did not actually fly at all. After all - it’s just a theory. Even if something is held to be truth by a majority - like the old “10 million people can’t be wrong” assertion - that doesn’t guarantee its truth value. A good example is the direction that water will swirl in a toilet (sink, etc.) in the North and South Hemispheres. My guess (uh, hypothesis) is that at least 10 million people have got that one wrong. (Go to www.snopes.com and check it out.)

Creationism/ID has been subjected to no such scrutiny. There is no body of observed evidence that logically leads to the conclusion. That doesn’t mean that it’s UNTRUE, it merely disqualifies it from attaining scientific theoryhood. On the other hand, many have observed and re-observed the data and have determined that Darwin’s conclusions are, in fact, concordant with the pattern that is now referred to as the Theory of Evolution. That doesn’t mean that it’s the TRUTH, it merely means that, to date, no one has yet observed the same stuff and drawn a different conclusion with which most scientists agree. The point of all of this is to say that people are permitted to believe anything at all - the First Amendment of the Constitution affords them this right. I merely assert that it should not be taught in the classroom side-by-side with evolution as it would constitute bad science.

The purpose of teaching science is not to fill young peoples’ minds with facts but, rather, to empower them with tools, like the scientific method, that enable them to think for themselves and not be swayed by questionable evidence without drawing their own conclusions. If the children can think for themselves, they’ll draw their own conclusions. But maybe that is exactly what the IDers are afraid of…

I have found a very good website that answers every one of these topics. It is written by scientists with multiple degrees. They give answers that your average person can understand as well as alternate articles for those who like a more detailed in depth scientific paper on the topic. Here's the link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
Check it out!

I am a science teacher who is a Christian. I am also a consumate neophyte when it comes to science, and love to play with ideas. I love the mindset of philosophy, and attempt to apply many of the ideals I learned in college to my world.

All that said (to give you a background with which to judge me), I think this about our current debate over Intelligent Design:

Many people do _not_ understand what is actually being debated. Most of those who involve themselves in the argument are deficient in one way or another. At this point, you cannot take one side of the issue and believe that it will win out over the other side. I'll try to make my case using arguments from both sides.

Conventional scientists: These groups are educated in a carefully cultured social structure that seeks to build a reliable, solid foundation of Science that is complete and wholistic. They want to Understand the world around them in its entirety. There was a reason that Einstein was looking for the Grand Unified Theory -- in the end, scientists want to be able to explain it all.

Their world-view is like a pair of glasses that blocks ultra-violet rays. They argue that since we cannot observe ultra-violet rays directly, it does not diminish the ability of science to understand the world. By defining their world view as based around logic, they ignore the illogical basis of many of our thoughts. We are _not_ rational beings.

As far as we understand, people have a non-deterministic understanding of the world through our neural nets. The belief that our logic can decipher everything in the world is as steeped in the ideals of the Enlightenment as Intelligent Design is in the abosolute faith of religion.

The classical scientists can be ignorant of that which is innately human -- unswerving faith. They can be ignorant of faith even when they display an unswearving devotion to conventional scientific theories to the exclusion of all else.

In my belief where the classical scientists fail is that they assume the high ideal of a truly rational world-view is entirely unrational. For proof of this, read up on Godel's incompleteness theorem. If math iteself cannot be completely grounded, how can science (which relies on math for much of its proof)?

The problem with Intelligent Design is that many of their theories rely on presuppositions for how their ideas can be formulated. This is _not_ science. You cannot take your pet theory and jury-rig it to "fit" science. No matter how often, and how loudly Intelligent Design theorists claim that evolutionists presuppose a universe without a God, they miss the point that sciece cannot become a part of a religios (or philosophical debate).

In my opinion, many of the people who debate this issue in defence of Intelligent Design do so from a philosophical and not scientific understanding of the data. This does not mean that the understanding of conventional science is flawless -- it is actually riddled with holes. It does mean that many arguments of the Intelligent Design Theorists are unable to be used on the world-stage of Scientific Inquiry.

I agree with a previous post -- philosophy needs to arbitrate this argument, but it cannot decide it. Both sides have some merit, and in the end I believe Science will be best served when it tries to distance itself from philosophy. We cannot have science making Christians out of people, and we should not have science making atheists out of people either.

PiGuy, I think you have an open minded approach...at least the most open I have seen on either side of this debate in quite a while. I think there are irrational defenders on both sides of this issue and they do not help their 'cause'.

I believe ID, of sorts, is true (by faith and my perception) AND I think parts of evolution are true and other parts are not (see below). Also, ID and all parts of Evolution do not need be mutually exclusive for those who believe in God and the Bible...but that's for another discussion.

One item you may want to think about, that I found through my research, is the difference between Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution. Micro-Evol is true and is based in fact, just as Darwin explained (from dictionary.com 'Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies'). However, Darwin specifically did not show, and I have not seen elsewhere, any real evidence of Macro-Evol (from dictionary.com 'Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups').

Darwin made a non-scientific leap of faith (as many do today) to assume something along the line of “since Micro-Evol is true and demonstrated, then Macro-Evol must be true and the evidence will be found with future study” (not a real quote, but I think this is his basic conclusion). The problem is I have not seen that evidence. One example...where are the many millions of missing links of all the species here today or even extinct species? They HAVE to be here if Macro-Evol is true...and they should not be hard to find. I would think we would trip over them as easily as we find any other fossils, for every species.

If you use your ‘development of a theory’ model, which I agree with, Macro-Evol cannot be demonstrated as Micro-Evol was by your implication. I cannot scientifically explain how all of this happened (how we, or other species, got here today), but I have not seen anyone explain it correctly either. If someone can point me to the real evidence of Macro-Evol, I would like to see it.

And even if Macro-Evol is 100% true, we still have this nagging little problem of the whole Abiogenesis issue (from Dictionary.com 'The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter')...ID is at least an idea of how it might have happened. No solid scientific studies have shown Abiogenesis to be possible, including the amino acid tests a few decades ago.

As far as the classroom, don't teach ID in science class, but tell kids to keep an open mind until the sufficient facts are (or are not) in on the whole evolution thing. Maybe, just maybe, our kids may find out that we adults haven't figured it all out just yet...

"...the Waco Tribune-Herald reports several people walking out of his talk after he criticized a literal interpretation of the Bible"

Well too bad for Bill. At least they were honest about Bills' anti-Religion remarks. So, he does realize that Creation and Intelligent Design are, in a way, 2 different things. Right?

Creation, for an example; is like the recipe for, say, a Peanut-Butter and Jelly Sandwich.

Take 2 slices of bread, spread P.B. on one slice, and J. on the other, put both slices (PB side to J side) together.

I'm sure you needed that to be explained.

Whereas Intellegent Design would delve into how the bread was made and with what ingredients, the peanuts for PB: they were planted, harvested, shelled, crushed, etc. so-on and so-forth for all of the other ingredients and processes.

Yeah, I know ^that last remark might be able to be picked apart if you really get into the HOW. But for now lets keep it as simple for the sake of my example.

Creation(ism) is just a VERY bare-bones way of telling of how things came to be. God said "Let there be _______".

That, of course, is a very unscientific way of explaining.... well, anything. Creationism is purely FAITH. Believing in GOD also takes faith.

If Bill wants to attack/rebut *the theory of* Intellegent Design then that's fine. If he can explain why such and such theories and/or hypothesis'es that support Intelligent Design are unscientific then he will have my attention and respect.

But to go and essentially bash religion/faith... What's Bills' motive for that?

Oh wait. As a believer in ID I'd have to ask myself the same question. What if I were to bash evolution (or rather: those that believe in it)?

....Okay, I could give a very crude example of how life miraculously started, evolved into different things yadda yadda yadda and here we are today. That goes into the Origin of Life at it's very base. It can even go deeper than that actually. But for now....

Now we get back to the basis of Faith. Life being sparked into something, just as Life was sparked into Adam (being given the breath of life).

I remember reading a letter to USAToday that went something like: "I'm amazed that intelligent men and women in science labs are trying to create life from nothing to prove that (this is exactly what happened)..."

Think about ^that. That's not an EXACT quote, but it's close enough. The letter was questioning the validity of the theory of evolution.

As it has been said numerous times already; Both are BASED on faith. At each theories' BASE is a foundation of FAITH.

So the next question would be - Which is the better Science? Or which can disprove the other?

Bill? Any arguments you have would be greatly appreciated.

In the 1100's, we still believed
that alchemy could turn lead into gold.

In the 1300's, we still believed
that the Earth was at the
center of the solar system.

In the 1800's, we still believed
that manned flight was impossible.

In the 1940's, we still believed
that nuclear radiation was harmless.

And today, we still believe that . . .

1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29 . . .

But what if the other intelligence we seek is way beyond our technology? What if we've got the wrong number?

Is there another sign we
should be paying attention to?
Take a line and divide it so that the ratio of the large piece (B) to the whole line (A) is the same as the ratio as the small piece (C) to the large piece (B):

So A is 161.8% of B and B is 161.8% of C.

The Greeks knew
this as the
Golden Section
The Renaissance artists
knew this as the
Divine Proportion

and used it for beauty
and balance in the
design of architecture

and used it for beauty
and balance in the
design of art

But there's something rather incredible about this proportion:
It was used to design you:
Your hands, face and body!
Simple coincidence? Natural phenomenon? Before you decide, consider this:

In the 12th century, Leonardo Fibonacci discovered an incredible mathematical relationship behind this seemingly simple proportion. It's based on a simple series of numbers, with each new number being the sum of the two before it.

0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89 . . .

The ratio of each number to the before it number converges on exactly the same number (1.61804...) as the Golden Section and Divine Proportion. But that is just the beginning to the mathematical mysteries of this number.There are many examples of the Divine Proportion / Golden Section found throughout the design of the universe and everything in it, but let's start with the most important thing first: You! We'll need a few Fibonacci building blocks:

Each line is phi, or 1.61804..., times longer than the one before it. (Conversely, a section drawn at 0.61804 (or 61.8%, 1 / phi) of each line equals the length of the one before it.)

Let's start with something simple. Take your hand off your keyboard or mouse and look at the proportions of your index finger.

Hold your hand up to the screen. Don't be shy!

Each section of your index finger, from the tip to the base of the wrist, is larger than the preceding one by about the Fibonacci ratio of 1.618, also fitting the Fibonacci numbers 2, 3, 5 and 8.
By this scale, your fingernail is 1 unit in length. Curiously enough, you also have 2 hands, each with 5 digits, and your 8 fingers are each comprised of 3 sections. All Fibonacci numbers! Is this simple coincidence or by design?

Your hand creates a golden section in relation to your arm, as the ratio of your forearm to your hand is also 1.618, the Divine Proportion.

The proportions of your face also show the same ratio. Beauty, in fact, seems to be defined by how closely facial features maintain the Divine Proportion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This handiwork seems more than random in design.
Let's face it . . .

Click Here for Topics Signs of Intelligence Design in the Human Body Technology in Nature UNnatural Selection Other Side of Common Beliefs Seeking The Truth (Conclusion) "Life" In A Test Tube? Was Miller-Urey Reality? Life from Comets? "Life" on Mars? The Scientific Method Organs of Extreme Perfection Irreducible Complexity Given Enough Time ... Do You Feel Lucky? Evolution Or Selection? (Abio) Genesis 1:1 Real Examples of Evolution Who Made Grandma Hairy? The Evolution of Evolution The Rules of Design Letters received

In this section
Real Signs of Intelligence • Fibonacci Convergence • The Human Hand • The Human Face • The Human Body The human face abounds with examples of the Golden Section or Divine Proportion. We'll use our building blocks again to understand design in the face:

The head forms a golden rectangle with the eyes at its midpoint. The mouth and nose are each placed at golden sections of the distance between the eyes and the bottom of the chin. The beauty unfolds as you look further.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Face of Divine Beauty
The blue line defines a perfect square of the pupils and outside corners of the mouth. The golden section of these four blue lines defines the nose, the tip of the nose, the inside of the nostrils, the two rises of the upper lip and the inner points of the ear. The blue line also defines the distance from the upper lip to the bottom of the chin.

The yellow line, a golden section of the blue line, defines the width of the nose, the distance between the eyes and eye brows and the distance from the pupils to the tip of the nose.

The green line, a golden section of the yellow line defines the width of the eye, the distance at the pupil from the eye lash to the eye brow and the distance between the nostrils.

The magenta line, a golden section of the green line, defines the distance from the upper lip to the bottom of the nose and several dimensions of the eye.
A Body of Divine Design
The white line is the body's height.

The blue line, a golden section of the white line, defines the distance from the head to the finger tips

The yellow line, a golden section of the blue line, defines the distance from the head to the navel and the elbows.

The green line, a golden section of the yellow line, defines the distance from the head to the pectorals and inside top of the arms, the width of the shoulders, the length of the forearm and the shin bone.

The magenta line, a golden section of the green line, defines the distance from the head to the base of the skull and the width of the abdomen. The sectioned portions of the magenta line determine the position of the nose and the hairline.

Although not shown, the golden section of the magenta line (also the short section of the green line) defines the width of the head and half the width of the chest and the hips.

Our Invention or His Creation?
Camera (lens, focus, iris, film) Eye (cornea curves to focus, iris, retina)
Microphone Ear drum
Amphitheatre shape Outer ear shape
Pump Heart
Valves Heart valves
Plumbing and hydraulic systems Circulatory system
Communication / telephone cables Spinal cord / nervous system
Ball joint Shoulder joint
Windshield wiper Eye lid
Wiper fluid Tears
Knife Incisor teeth
Mortar and pestle Molar teeth
Woodwinds Voice box
Computer / Electronic circuitry Brain
Computer program DNA
Bubble level Inner ear tubes for balance
Construction crane (jointed arm, scoop) Arm and hand
Honeycomb reinforcements Bee's honeycomb
Solar panel (energy from light) Leaf
Fish hook (reverse barb design) Bee stinger
Light stick (light from chemical reactions) Firefly
Airplanes (airfoil wings, hollow struts, tail) Birds (airfoil wings, hollow bones, tail)
Submarine ballast Fish (ballast bladder)
Sonar Bats, dolphins
Paper from wood pulp Wasp hives
Velcro Thistle burrs (actually inspired Velcro)
Blu-blocker sunglasses Orange oil in eagle eyes to improve acuity
Suction cups Octopus
Inboard propulsion (boats) Squid
Batteries (electricity from chemicals) Eel
Navigation by stars / magnetic fields Bird and butterfly migration
Music Song birds
Anesthetics Venoms and poisons
Swim fins, paddles Webbed feet (frogs, ducks)
Water cooled systems Sweat glands and perspiration
Core aeration for health of lawns Worms, insects and moles

In this section: In Memoriam of Life's Unfit • Unnatural Selection

To those that just didn't make the cut.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evolution recognizes all the life forms whose adaptations led them to be the fittest and to survive, but forgets all the others whose adaptations just didn't make the cut.
Maybe we can't find their fossils, but we can still use reason and imagination to know they existed and express our gratitude for helping to make life what it is today.
Note: This page is dedicated to those with the advanced evolutionary adaptation of having a tongue in their cheek, and to those who can truly appreciate the incredible design and technology found in even the simplest things in life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Adaptation: In Memoriam:
To cope with the problem of excess blood pressure when bending over, giraffes have a network of very small elastic blood vessels to accommodate excess blood when the head is lowered. A highly specialized vessel near the brain acts as a sponge, slowly absorbing blood until the pressure warns the animal to lift its head before damage occurs. A unique system of valves that prevent backflow solves the problem of fluctuating venous pressure. To all those evolving giraffes who passed out and drowned while trying to get a drink of water and to those who couldn't reproduce because their mate always had a headache.
Cats have whiskers the same width as their bodies, allowing them to know if they will get stuck in small places before they enter. To all those evolving cats with undersized whiskers who got stuck escaping to small places and were devoured from behind.
Birds have highly sophisticated and efficient aerodynamic design in their wings, which, as demonstrated by man's early attempts to fly, is no easy feat to develop. To all those evolving bird-wanna-be reptiles who tried to fly but plunged to their deaths before their appendages had evolved into usable wings.
Sharks have highly developed senses enabling them to detect one part blood in one million parts of water, enabling them to find prey at great distances. To all those evolving sharks who went hungry because their nose for blood was only as good as Motorola's famous Six Sigma quality program - 3.4 parts per million.
Digestion required the evolution of a very delicate balance of acids and mucous linings in the stomach. To all those evolving creatures with too little mucous who digested their own stomachs and those with too little acid who couldn't digest their food to survive.
Many flowering plants have evolved symbiotic relationships with specific insects for cross pollenization in order to reproduce. To all those evolving flowering plants whose symbiotic insects didn't evolve soon enough to enable them to reproduce.
Reproduction in insects and mammals alike requires complementary and rather precisely compatible organs capable of "docking." To all those creatures whose over and under sized equipment proved once and for all by their inability to mate that size really does matter.
The non-believer looks at the evidence and sees a universe that clearly is the result of natural processes. The believer looks at the same evidence and sees a universe that clearly is the result of Intelligent design. Is it the evidence that leads us to our conclusions, or is it our beliefs about God that determine how we are able to see the evidence?

Does evolution explain the origin of life or is it just being used to rationalize a belief that life began without God, as our culture moves from freedom of religion to freedom from religion?

Is it possible that evolution theory is being used to make monkeys out of us in more ways than one? Take a look at both sides of this critical issue.

Click on the images below
for more information on each topic
One view says this: CLICK on images for details But there's more
to the picture:
Evolution explains the origin and diversity of life. There are compelling reasons to believe in Divine Creation, and no evidence to deny or disprove it.
Life is the result of a chance interaction of chemicals and lightning in the Earth's early atmosphere. The probability of life occurring on its own is so infinitesimally small that it would be treated as an impossibility in any other branch of science or math.
Given enough time, anything can happen. In some types of probabilities, an outcome must occur. In others there is no reason to assume anything will occur.
Evolution shows that life began on its own. Evolution is a process of change in LIVING organisms. Even if it's true, this provides no basis to conclude that INANIMATE matter turned into living organisms on its own, which is an entirely different process called abiogenesis.
Darwin's work explains the origin of species. Darwin himself admitted many shortcomings in his theory and assumed it would be supported by fossil evidence that still has yet to be found.
Miller and Urey created the beginnings of life in a laboratory in the 1950's. All they created were some basic amino acids, a building block of proteins. There was nothing even remotely close to DNA, a single cell or any life functions.
Life was discovered on Mars in 1996, adding to the evidence for life forming on its own. The "fossil bacteria" was at least 100 times smaller than the smallest bacteria on earth and contained a mixture of chemicals commonly found on meteorites.
Gould's thesis on shells proves natural selection. Stephen Wolfram, a pioneer in cellular automata, says Gould's thesis has mathematical errors and "that natural selection is not all that important."
Richard Dawkins' many books demonstrate that life is purely the result of chance and adaptation. Dawkins' writings have great appeal to atheists and those seeking for answers that deny God, but are filled with inconsistencies and incomplete conclusions.
Life evolved from the very simple to the highly complex. Even the simplest of life forms are highly sophisticated pieces of biological machinery whose origins we cannot explain.
The adaptation and natural selection prove evolution. Adaptation and natural selection prove "micro-evolution," small variations in existing features that may even already exist in the DNA. This does not prove "macro-evolution," the creation of new organs, species or orders.
Common features found in animals demonstrate common ancestry.
Common features can just as logically demonstrate a common Designer.
Early man had ape-like hair coverings, corroborating our descent from apes. Since bones are all we have in the fossil record, representations of tissue and hair appearance can be drawn to look like anything the artist wants you to believe.
Evolutionary transitions from early life forms to modern man, often shown in an "evolutionary tree," illustrate the gradual change from early life to modern man. The fossil record lacks evidence to explain all the orders and species that we find in life. A new theory called "punctuated equilibrium" was proposed to explain the lack of evidence, but the problem is thus that it too is unsupported by evidence.
Evolution explains the origin of life and is a scientific fact. Evolution is used by some to support an unprovable belief that life began on its own. It interprets the evidence we have in the only way possible to support that belief. It ignores opposing evidence. There have been instances of evidence being exaggerated, falsely interpreted and even fabricated. Evolution theory fails to investigate the alternate hypothesis that life didn't form on its own because Divine Creation is defined to be outside the bounds of science, even if it is the truth.

There is nothing wrong with holding beliefs that are based on faith rather than complete evidence. This is the nature of all religions.

When evolution is used to explain life's origin and assumes and unprovable position (or faith) that God did not create life, is it then still science or has it just stepped over the boundaries of science to become a humanist religion? If it's religion, why is it taught in our schools? If it's science, why don't we teach all that we know, and do not know, about the possibilities for life's origins and diversity with complete openness and honesty?

Thank you www.evolutionoftruth.com

Wow, this is the most interesting blog I have ever read.
I have always been a staunch supporter of the theory of evolution. One of my closest friends is a faithful supporter of creationism. We are both stubborn as hell and have never really come to any agreements. The problem is he has no idea what he is talking about and I only know a little. He has no idea what the scientific method is, or even what the two theories (ID & Evolution) are. Therefore he does't even know a valid argument when he hears one. He just repeats his beliefs. I'm just glad that not all supporters of ID are as stubbornly ignorant as he is. I enjoyed reading the arguments that I'm too stupid and he is too unreasonable to make. I especially want to thank sawyer and truebelievre for opening my eyes and educating me a little.

It may be design, but take the word intelligent out. That is a subjective word, that adds a superior feel to it. Superior to what? There is MUCH more that we DON't know, than what we THINK we do know. It could have been something that is relativally STUPID that designed us...!?

Try examing a Flagellum motor and if you conclude it isn't designed by a Creator, than you are an idiot. Evolutionary theory has been disproven so many times over that it can only be classified as a religion itself. Nature and billions of years can't create anything without the DNA that our Creator made in order to give instructions to every living thing how to replicate itself. "Natural Selection" or adaptation as I prefer to call it is programmed in to our DNA as a means to adapt, but is very limited. DNA researchers have proven that it is impossible for one type of animal to change into another type over time. It is clearly limited, i.e. birds have always been birds, humans have always been humans. It's funny how some of the worlds leading scientists have realized evolutionary theory to be false, yet other so called scientists refuse to acknowlege the facts and hold on to their disproven theory. It's simply fear. Fear to admit there is a GOD of some sort and fear that they'll have to answer to Him.
Seriously, a bacterial Flagellum motor is a self assembling nanomachine with fine switching capability, is comprised of 40 parts inluding a drive shaft, fluid circulating cooling fan, drive shaft, U-joint, rotors, stators, a bushing, a rotation switch regulator,etc. It can rotate at up to 100,000 rpm, and reverse direction within 1/4 of a rotation accellerating back to full speed within that 1/4 turn. It is the most sophisticated, efficient machine ever MADE and we didn't make, nor did nature. If you think evolutionary theory could make something like this, you are a religious zealot worshiping at the alter of an evolutionary fairytale. Darwin admitted he was wrong in his writings, why don't the rest of you.
Anyone with even the slightest intelligence and insight can clearly see we live in a universe that was designed.
Please at least copy and paste this link to Nanotechnology researchers network center of Japan, examine the models of the flagellum motor, and give it some thought. If I showed you an inboard boat motor, and told you it evolved, you'd know I was lying. When you look at this motor which is far more advanced, far more precise, and far smaller, and someone tells you it evolved, know that they are lying. http://www.nanonet.go.jp/english/mailmag/2004/011a.html

Oh yeah, Bill Nye is an idiot.

Again, much of this debate has boiled over to name-calling and ad hominem arguments. You are entitle to express any opinion that you choose but please realize that screaming hocus-pocus at the devout or saying that "Bill Nye is and idiot" doesn't actually address the issue at hand. A fool and his money are easily parted. Apparently, though, a fool and his angry, foul-mouthed opinions are not...

Let's be clear here. We're talking about whether or not ID should be taught in the science classroom. Period. History classes expose students to non-Western belief systems all of the time without threatening to undermine their current beliefs. Children SHOULD be made aware of ID. Just NOT in the science classroom.

A theory (T-H-E-O-R-Y) in science is NOT EVER ASSUMED TO HAVE BEEN PROVEN TRUE. It is simply the method by which most scientists in a field believe, based on empirical data and peer review, best explains observations of the natural world and supported by its ability to make predicitons about the behavior of natural phenomena. It is not the same as an OPINION. Furthermore, the purpose of a sound scientific experiment is to establish a forum for DISPROVING the hypothesis. At this time, no IDer has proposed an experiment that could disprove ID (as far as I know) the way the statements of evolutionary THEORY does. Evolution has created its own opportunities to be found invalid and, as of yet, scientists haven't been able to do that.

We did not throw out Newton's Laws when it was discovered that it had gaps, namely, that it was limited to the behavior of objects that are not very big or moving more than about a tenth of the speed of light. Relativity merely came along and filled in the gaps. Newton's predictive powers are still valid within those boundaries. Evolution may have gaps (although, I find it amazing that so many people who are not actually doing research or studying in that field are so expert at identifying them) but it will not likely be replaced wholesale by some new theory. The gaps will be filled in with nitch theories that address those observations.

As for the "where's the missing link argument?", I note that the credited first discovery of a dinosaur fossil did not take place until the mid-1800s. And I mean no disrespect to the faithfully religious but there is no mention of T-Rex walking two-by-two onto the ark. People had no idea that they even existed until TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS after they were gone. So it is reasonable to assume that, while there might actually be fossil evidence of missing links, it may never be found. The acceptance of evolution should not be based solely on what can be found in the dirt of a constantly changing Earth.

Let me urge all of us to present our arguments in a fashion that allows a free and open exchange of ideas (the way it is done in, uh, well, science) without getting off-track and making childish, personal attacks. And, furthermore, I encourage us all to resist the urge to put ID in the SCIENCE CLASSROOM. Not because it isn't true (I don't know for certain and neither do any of you; besides - science doesn't claim to be in the TRUTH BUSINESS) but because it constitutes BAD SCIENCE. That doesn't mean that it doesn't deserve to be debated vigorously - just not in front of a bunch of impressionable kids in a science class.

wow, this blog is really harsh.

All I can say is:

Hutbed, rock rock on.

Oh, yeah - one more thing. Could you please provide me with the original source of the information that leads you to conclude that "Evolutionary theory has been disproven so many times over" or that "Darwin admitted he was wrong in his writings"? I would like to examine them for myself and draw my own conclusions, thank you. Your acumen in understanding things mechanical is evident. Your ability to present a cogent argument is somewhat less so.

And I do not fear that there might be a god whose purpose is to determine my eligibilty for some cosmic country club in the sky. To me, that is not relevant to the argument of whether or not a creator set it all in motion. WHAT I FEAR MOST are people who try to LORD IT OVER people who do not share their belief system.

I'd like to address and rebutt a few of the falsehoods being, probably unknowingly, spread around here.

First, sawyer states:
"I love how people so OFTEN forget that evolution is nothing more than a THEORY.

Obviously, this statement belies a misunderstanding of the scientific process at a basic level. A "theory" is really quite an elevated position in science. Something that is more or less unproven is called a hypothesis, and is not used as a broad explanation for anything by the scientific community. Relativity is a theory, and so is Quantum Physics. Yet without them, their principles, and their related mathematical descriptions of the universe, we could not possibly have invented things like nuclear powerplants, or the flash memory in your digital camera, nor would we have any hope of explaining phenomena like the gravitational lensing we see around very heavy objects in space (black holes).

Sawyer also goes on to say:
"How exactly that's possible, for organic matter to just spawn out of inorganic matter, I don't know."

This mystery is really rather simple: organic matter is really just made of the same types of atoms as inorganic matter. Specifically, carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen. You know, the stuff that is in inorganic things like carbonic acid, or the air we breath. It is also well-known that many amino acids, which make up the proteins we're made of, will self-assemble given the correct conditions.

Lastly, sawyer says:
"This is why REAL scientists will agree 100% that evolution is unproven, and remains a theory to this day."

This is a wishful assertion and is 100% false. As a (humorous) reference, I point you here:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

Now, "Daniel" says:
"Science must have a philosophical basis or it is irrational..."

Now what, preceisely, does that mean?
If you mean that it must follow the precepts of logical argument, then it already does.

Daniel: "Modern science assumes philosopically that there is only nature and matter at work in the hypothesis."

Yes, it does. Now, can you show me verifiable proof that something other than nature and matter/energy exist? The idea that such a thing as "spirit" exists is commonly held, but that is not proof of it's existence, nor is it self-evident.

Jessica: "They [scientists] argue that since we cannot observe ultra-violet rays directly, it does not diminish the ability of science to understand the world."

Well, we can't and it doesn't. We understand how UV rays, and light in general (even the stuff we can't see) very well. How is it do you think your microwave and radio work? We may not be able to see beyond the color spectrum, but the equasions work the same way for all wavelengths and frequencies.

Jessica: "By defining their world view as based around logic, they ignore the illogical basis of many of our thoughts. We are _not_ rational beings."

Just because our thoughts are irrational does not mean that the world around us is. The phenomena that occur inside our brains produce irrational thoughts, but the processes that produce those thoughts are governed by the very well-understood laws of chemistry and quantum physics. And they are quite logical indeed -- counterintuitive, but mathematically logical.

Jessica: "The belief that our logic can decipher everything in the world is as steeped in the ideals of the Enlightenment as Intelligent Design is in the abosolute faith of religion."

There is no such thing as "our logic", there is logic, period. Math is logic, and it is not easy for us to understand, but we can do it. Can you think of a way to take a pile of 4 oranges, and put them on top of a pile of 3 oranges, and not get 7 oranges? Of course not, it's illogical. We didn't invent that law (called addition), we observed it. We didn't invent the number 3, we just named it. We *discover* math and logic, it is not human. Things behave according to logic because, simply, there is no other way for them to behave.

Jessica: "...read up on Godel's incompleteness theorem. If math iteself cannot be completely grounded, how can science (which relies on math for much of its proof)?"

Misconceptions about Godel's Theorem:
1. The theorem does not imply that every interesting axiom system is incomplete.
2. The theorem only applies to systems that allow you to define the natural numbers as a set. (plenty of them don't)
3. The theorem only applies to systems that are used as their own proof systems.
(Taken from Wikipedia entry on Godel's Theorem)

So, math is not inconsistent.

Brian: "One example...where are the many millions of missing links of all the species here today or even extinct species? "

We discover new ones all the time. Here is an example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/05/AR2006040502369.html

Jeremy: "for the athiests outthere I want you to remember something. You can't prove scientifically that there is no God anymore than christians can prove there is a God. Atheism is a belief."

No, not quite. Atheism is a lack of belief. I can't prove that there is no god, but that doesn't require me to make a positive statement about whether he is there or not. I can say that, based on current evidence, that I have no reason to think he is there, but that is not an assertion, and someone who is not making an assertion is not required to give any proof for their non-assertion. Some atheists say that "there is no god". This is called strong atheism, and many atheists are not that way. I am that way with respect to all current relgiions -- I think I can positively say that the judeo-christian god does not exist. As for some abstracted god who doesn't adhere to the bible/torah/whatever, however, I don't think that it is possible to know, nor do they seem to have any verifiable effect on anything so it isn't really worth considering.

If it isn't already obvious, I staunchly support evolution and reject the idea that ID should be taught in a scientific classroom. ID is an idea, that basically says "Well, maybe things work this way instead!" I can come up with those kind of statements all day. ID can't be falsified, it isn't predictive, and it isn't science. Leave it out of the classroom, except maybe a class on religious creation myths.

Sorry, a couple URL's that I referenced in my post were cut off. Let me repost them:

Fish/Amphibian Missing Link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2006/04/05/AR2006040502369.html

Project Steve:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/

Jason:

Great points, the most important of which is the basic misunderstanding of what theory means in science. I wish that more people attacking evolution would try to get their arms around what you've described as an 'elevated position' before spouting off with statements like "nothing more than a THEORY".

I especially like the "your logic" response - there is, indeed, only one type logic for all of us - as well as your contention that a non-assertion requires no proof. IDers should be mindful that, if we're arguing the merits of what should be presented in a science classroom, we should limit our arguments' premises to examples of natural, observable phenomena. If it's SUPERnatural, it's not science. If your desire is to inject a 'creator' into the field of science, you MUST PROVE that it exists and ALSO PROVE that it is capable of such action. At this stage, the existence of god, being neither proven nor disproven, isn't relevant to that argument (again, see "logic").

Your rebuttal of Jessica's Incompleteness Theorem argument is also good. As I noted above, theories are ALWAYS bounded by some set of conditions that are limited to what has been observed (which is why they can be modified later when other new stuff is observed). Only those statements are deemed to have been "proven".

At the very least, I am glad to see that these posts have avoided the playground "my beliefs can beat up your beliefs" stuff.

I believe in Creation, and it's not the same as ID.

ID is the same as evolution, but says God was behind it instead of blind chance. ID is no the same as Biblical Creation theory.

The only solution is to get rid of public schools and let everybody teach what they want.

Bill Nye was funny, but Beakman's world was better.

If you want to read about Biblical creation, go here:

http://evolution-facts.org/Cruncher%20TOC.htm

Oh yeah, Pi Guy is a foul mouthed idiot.

Jason, Chemicals under precise conditions can form amino acids, but without D.N.A. can't form proteins, or of course cells, or of course life.

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design...a silly battle. It all is a battle of religion. Religion is defined in most dictionaries as simply a principle that is believed. The United States Supreme Court in 1961 ruled that ALL forms of atheism are considered to be religions. Everyone that is self-aware is religeous. Atheism in all its' arrogance believes in its' host, worships its' host. Atheism requires a kind of faith that is not quantifiable. It is a blind stubborn faith that is highly deceptive. For example, even though the big line of atheism says, "show me, and I will believe", if God Himself were to descend from Heaven with lightning shooting from His fingers and fire beaming from His eyes, most atheists still would not believe. To them, He would be nothing more than a alien or an illusion. Their world view would not change. Lord, you have given them eyes to see but they are blind, you have given them ears to hear, yet they are deaf. It doesn't matter what a hard core atheist says, he will still not believe, because that is part of his religion.

AMEN.

That's the whole point - for an atheist (whatever that means) who has faith in the scientific method, seeing a god with lightning fingers and fiery eys is EXACTLY what it would take to be convinced that it exists. Is that really so unreasonable?

I believe that a Big Bang event occured. That does not prevent me from thinking, "Well, where did all of that energy come from in the first place?". Many other atheists/agnostics/heathens have also wondered about that. I do beleive that there's something bigger out there (I call it nature or the universe - a "religion" often referred to as pantheism). I just don't think that it spends all that much time worrying about what we're doing here on Earth. It seems as though there'd be lots more important stuff to do anyway. Just because someone doesn't quote scripture or use capital G's and H's doesn't mean that they don't think about deep stuff that they can't or haven't seen, too. It just isn't science.

The fact is, if you want intelligent design taught in classrooms, chances are your wanting your specific religion taught in school. If you're not, then the only thing an intelligent design lesson would consist of would be a single sentence: "There is the possibility that something intelligent created the Universe." Anything else would begin to be exclusive to a specific religion. Evolution does not try to explain how the Universe originated. It explains how we, in our present state, came to be. Whether it happened is not disputable. If you can teach that Ghengis Kahn existed, you can teach that evolution happened. There's just as much solid evidence to support it. How the Universe came to be is up to speculation and rooms of extremely bored men. I don't think anything like that should be taught to children in high school or lower.

I do think that ID should be taught in the classrooms. Based off of the earlier post about a theory being when a guy sees some stuff, experiments, etc., IDers have done the same thing and came up with ID. Yes, the idea of ID did exist before the idea of macro-evolution, but does that fact alone make it untrue?
Another thing, ID is behind many religions, but does that make it not viable? Suppose someone made a bible for evolution, made evolution churches, and created an outreach program. Evolution would then be a part of a religion. Would that then make evolution cease to be a viable theory?
I do believe that scientists should look at facts more with the idea of "Does this mean macro-evolution or ID exists?" Rather than "How does this mean that macro-evolution exists?" I think this would might calm some of the fire-breathing.
But I should mention something; earlier posts mentioned that kids are impressionable in the classroom. This is true. In fact, kids who are taught macro-evolution in the classrooms sometimes have difficulty making unbiased diagnoses of the world around them. They are taught evolution as if it were the only way, and, as a result, interpret facts only within the confines of macro-evolution. But, as was earlier stated, science is changing as new discoveries are found. Isn't it possible that new discoveries might disprove macro-evolution?
Also, think about one thing: science comes from the Latin word "sciens", which literally translated is "knowing". Science is knowing about what is around us. So if ID were true, and we knew it, wouldn't it be knowing, or "sciens"? One thing I am not understanding is how knowing something about the world around us isn't "knowing" (Sciens).
I also would like someone to explain to me the coexistence of the Law of Entropy and the Theory of Evolution (more specifically, macro-evolution). They are opposites. The Law of Entropy says that natural changes tend towards disorder. If you stack pennies on top of each other, eventually, due to rust, storms, bumping of the table, etcetera, the pennies would fall into a disorganized state. Macro-evolution states that everything organized itself from a disorganized state to an organized state, similar to a pile of pennies stacking themselves. How can these coexist?

ID falls short of being a theory - that is, being a part of the current science paradigm - because it doesn't pass the last several steps in the referenced explanation of the secientific method: (1) it doesn't predict anything (that's a biggie in science) and (2) it is not the explanation with which the majority of the scientists in the field agree (evolution is). More than anything else, it requires a SUPERnatural mechanism. Science is explicity limited to NATURAL phenomena. Again, I don't mean to imply that you can't have a belief that is not commonly held. Go right ahead. And I really have no problem with it being presented in schools. It JUST ISN'T SCIENCE and, therefore, shouldn't be presented in science class.

Notes on ENTROPY and EVOLUTION:
Here's what makes ENTROPY and EVOLUTION be NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE: Entropy explains the behavior of what is referred to in the trade as a CLOSED SYSTEM. A perpetual motion machine is not thought to be possible because something has to come into the system from the outside, making it an OPEN SYSTEM, and add energy to the machine (anything that converts other forms of energy into mechanical energy - basically, motion) to keep it going. Example: Think of the weights that pull down in a Grandfather Clock to keep driving the pendulum. When the weights get to the bottom of the cabinet, the pendulum stops. The First Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy is essentially a shorthand way of summarizing the Second Law) says that, in the course of every energy transformation, some of the initial energy of the system is always lost and is maifiested in the form of heat. In general, this is thought of as being wasted energy, enrgy lost from the system that is no longer useful to the machine. This is why when you bend your legs and lean back and forth on a swing just right - that is, add energy to the system - you keep swinging. Stop pumping and you'll eventually come to rest. (Although some things, like engines and refrigerators, actually make use of some of that lost heat as part of their functioning.)

However, LIFE isn't covered under the Entropy rule because LIVING THINGS are NOT CLOSED SYSTEMS. Livings Things bring in energy from the outside thus making themseleves OPEN SYSTEMS. So, in each energy transformation, such as digestion or photosynthesis, HEAT IS LOST but EACH LIVING THING ADDS ENERGY BACK INTO THE SYSTEM - keeps lifting the pendulum back to the top of the cabinet, so to speak - by eating (to add calories, a unit of heat) or soaking up sun to make sugar. As for the lost heat, think about how humans constantly run at a temperature around 98.6 deg F or how wooded areas generate heat images that contrast starkly from adjacent barren regions when viewed from above. At best, Life is only a TEMPORARY MEANS of BYPASSING ENTROPY. EVOLUTION is simply a COMMONLY ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC EXPALANTATION for why some things survive (and, specifically, survive long enough to make more of their kind) and some don't compete so swell. EVOLUTION is just a strategy that MOST SCIENTISTS agree seems to be employed by Living Things in order tht they continue being OPEN SYSTEMS.

Eventually, though, ENTROPY RAISES ITS UGLY HEAD on Life itself. All Livings Things observed to date CAN'T seem to KEEP ADDING ENERGY TO THEIR SYSTEM FOREVER at a rate that is necessary to actually continue to be, well, ALIVE. After that, these mortal shells of bodies are subject to the rules of ENTROPY and, unless they are hermetically sealed in a platnichromatanium box (that is, made to be a CLOSED SYSTEM), they will become increasingly disordered in STRICT ADHERENCE with the Second Law. You know, ASHES TO ASHES, DUST TO DUST, that stuff. Even cooler still, before the SECRETS OF LIFE are completely exhausted from our rotting corpses, other Living Things can make use of them - fertile dirt for plant Life, food for critters Living on or in the ground like worms and grubs and mushrooms - without having to build up all of the assembeled energy (by Life itself) from scratch. I mean, why re-invent the wheel? Pretty clever for a bunch BRAINLESS, INANIMATE BOTTOM RUNGS on the FOOD CHAIN-types, eh?

But, here's another IMPORTANT IMPLICATION of the Second Law or ENTROPY: ENERGY CAN NOT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED. So, when Living Things die, I like to think that that ENERGY RESPONSIBLE for (by some extraordinary, incomprehensible means) ORGANIZING A BUNCH OF INORGANIC MATERIALS - be it in the womb, the seed pod, whatever - and GIVING THEM/IT the WILL KEEP SEEKING Life, that part goes somewhere. It can't just disappear. Where does it go? To me, and many of you out there I suspect, THAT is the really, really BIG QUESTION. That is the reason for SPIRITUALITY. WE don't want to think that WE - our souls/spirits/life forces/Fill in Your Favorite Deep Word Here - just, well, DIE the way our bodies do. WE want to think that WE SERVE some HIGHER PURPOSE. I want to think that, too. It JUST ISN'T SCIENCE.

Am I correct in understanding, then , that there can ever only be one theory for anything? If it requires the majority of scientists to agree on something in order for it to become a theory, and there can never be more than one majority by definition of the word, then there can never be another possible theory? Even if evolution weren't true and what IS true were found, what IS true couldn't be taught in schools because of the majority of scientists? Isn't this a monopoly of falsehood?

Why do so many "evolutionists" demonstrably feel so violently threatened by the prospect of Intelligent Design? Really, they are no different than the "fundamentalists" they attack for being 'backward' or 'narrow-minded' or which they derisively call 'sheep'. It seems to me that it's the 'Scientific Method-ists' that are so vehemently fighting for the right to remain narrow-minded. By this measure, Bill Nye and Pat Robertson may have more in common than they realize! ;-)

I happen to have faith that God authored creation, and that He used every paintbrush in His kit and every color on His palette, which happen to include all the subatomic building blocks of our universe, its physical laws and processes, all squeezed out from His hand and into which He breathed life. His work envelops all of creation, including the tiny corner so far defined by scientific method. I can accept that science and God can coexist without feeling at all threatened by the questions science poses. If anything, I don't want science-based secularists to limit my scope of reality by boxing it into only what can be quantified and empirically labeled, especially since those boundaries shift with every new discovery.

Scientific method has yet to quantify an imagined experience - a vivid memory for instance - beyond the firing of random neurons in moving bands of color on a PET scan or in wild scribbles on an EEG strip. Yet that very real experience, borne in the imagination of an individual can be as rich as many physical events, conjuring the effects of all of the physical senses.

I can place myself in my Grandmother's kitchen as a child - the smell of her cooking thick in the air, sunlight dancing through the lace curtains warms my skin, the anticipated tastes of her labor make my mouth water and my stomach growl. The experience, however, is personal, subjective, and can not be transmitted to the experience of another observer. Does that invalidate the experience? Since my imagination is not quantifiable outside the measure of my own personal experience, does it not exist? Or does it simply render irrelevant my perceptions? What about other intangible personal phenomena such as intuition or the personally measurable effects of prayer?

Intangible realities exist. Like it or not, philosophical arguments bear relevancy to the scientific-theological debate. To allow only pure scientific method as the sole tool for discovering the nature of the world we live in is to amputate a very significant part of what makes us truly human.

Two relevant quotes from my favorite theoretical physicist:

"The whole history of science has been the gradual realisation that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired."

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"
-Stephen Hawking

If Dr. Hawking, arguably one of the most brilliant minds of our time has arrived at a position to accept an author of creation, (if even the mere possibility) that's good enough for me! Afterall, "To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." (You GO Dr. Hawking!!)

Many of you have posted replies to my comments thinking that I was "Jessica". Just to set the record straight, I'm Brian.

Ok, first I'll reply to a few of the things Jason said, and then Pi Guy.

Jason: My first analogy that you attacked was simply that.. an analogy. I was using the image of ultra-violet blocking sunglasses as an example of how scientists block out everything other then specific experimental logic when it comes to theories. They believe that only what we observe directly can influence their theories. The problem with this lies in the fact that people are not all seeing (we can't see the UV rays), and sometimes we need to look for evidence (data) outside the range of what we *think* is necessary. (i.e. Thomas Kuhn's ideas on scientific revolutions). We need to look for data we can't percieve in order to possibly disprove our theory.

Also, you said: "The phenomena that occur inside our brains produce irrational thoughts, but the processes that produce those thoughts are governed by the very well-understood laws of chemistry and quantum physics. And they are quite logical indeed -- counterintuitive, but mathematically logical."

I beg to differ. We understand neither the chemistry of our brains (on a macro scale), nor the ways that conscious thought arises from the order/chaos of our brains. We are investigating that, but we have not been able to produce a functioning working model of the human brain that can do what our brain does (although there are scientists who are investigating how that could happen now). Our model of a neural net has not produced a system capable of thought. The way I see it (on this subject) is that we know how to make bricks (neural nets and their electrochemistry), but we cannot build a bridge (conscious thought) just yet.

The reason I'm saying all this is because one of the previous posts had said that the argument between ID and Evo is based around semantics and philosophy. Science wants to be self-referential, and ID does not want science to be self-referential. As far as I can tell, that's the argument boiled down.

Scientists say "Science is logic," but I disagree. Sciece is not logical, and the world is not bound by logic. As an illustration of why I believe this, let me ask you these questions: are suicide bombers, while they are pushing the trigger, loveable? Why is a sunset beautiful?

Both of these questions have to do with how we comprehend the world. Humanity has understood the world without logic for most of its existence. Logic has proved to be a powerful tool, but it is nothing more. Logic cannot become a belief. You cannot believe only in ideas that you can logically string together. Our minds are not made to handle only those arguments. Stephen Hawkings was right.

One of the problems with this whole debate is that there is the argument as percieved from within the scientific community (which sees ID as unable to remain confined within strictly naturalistic explainations), and how it is seen from the outside (that evolution has philosophical repurcussions).

I honestly believe that the scientific community is being a touch naive in assuming that what it "discovers" is truth (or confirmed reality, if you will). Scientists may call it a theory, but we all know that many people do more then just treat it as a possibility. "Theories" eventually work their way into other beliefs about life. That is the boundary. Theories eventually become beliefs.

The ignorance of the religious comes when they wish to disregard a theory because it doesn't mesh with their world-view. The examples of this are almost endless (Copernicus/Galileo, Darwin, etc.).

Which is why I believe that until we have a philosophical system that can potentially incorporate ideas from both sides, we have no chance of resolving this debate.

Pi Guy, I agree that ID isn't predictive (that is why I am not really at peace with it). It often does not hold up to the standards of scientific rigor.

I don't agree that an atheist, confronted with a true god (or God) would be inclined to accept his (or His, or her) existence. The atheist could always fall back on the belief that any technology, when presented to a technologically underdeveloped society will be seen as magic. In the end, atheist can classify God as an alien, and continue with their beliefs fundamentally unchanged.

Also, my statement about the incompleteness theorem wasn't dealing with a specific scientific theory, but rather the nature of scientific thought in general. True, each theory has its boundaries (and falls outside the bounds of Godel's theorem), but science itself is generally a self-referential system (it attempts to build on its ideas by referring to itself). As such, it will have some level of incompleteness (I guess I don't believe science can defend itself).

Allright. I know my arguments are incomplete. There needs to be much more dialogue, but that is why I'm here! If we don't honestly talk about this (and learn to mend our differences), then all we will have is an argument.

Here are my questions:

1) Do you believe that science should be self-referential and why?

2) How can the tenets of science be used by people who have very reasonable world-views that are not logical?

3) What do you think is the way forward? I find myself arguing about what I _don't_ think is right, instead of what I _do_. I, in my own way, am hindering this argument. How can we get over this?

Thanks,

Brian

Just one question: What do you mean, Pi Guy (It rhymes!), when you say that ID is not predictive? If we're talking about the origins of the universe (past), be it ID, macro-evolution, Big Bang, whatever, how does that relate to the future?

Just read Brian's post and Ork's second post (re: PREDICTION). Let me get back to you on those...

Bitterroot: see below

Ork:
I'm not exactly sure what a "monopoly of falsehood" is but I'll address your 'One Theory' concerns. The answer is YES, there can only be one theory for a given phenomenom.

Sometimes two ideas (just hypotheses - not theories - at this point) actually correctly or similarly predict an outcome. In that case, the one that is most simple is the one that wins (a process referred to as "Occam's Razor"). That doesn't mean that the simpler one is a perfect fit nor does it mean it's TRUE. It means that the one that generally gets applied in practice is the one credited with being THE Theory. When a new idea is presented that purports to newly address that observed phenomenom, the two theories duke it out by having scientists perform experiments and share their results with the scientific community. If they (the other scientists) believe that the new idea has merit, then, and only then, does it become a THEORY. It has to have a pretty significant amount of peer support in order to achieve THEORYHOOD. Another possibility is that each hypothesis is found to be good at PREDICTING behaviors of some part of what is actually observed. In that case, both can become THEORIES that model the, now, two similar but distinct phenomena. (See Wave and Particle Thoeries, below)

Note that, as I stated in an earlier post, new theories don't replace old ones wholesale as though the original is completely useless. Newton's Laws still work fine for PREDICTING much of what we observe and do every day. It's just that Newton's Laws fail to adequately model a few situations that were being observed in the late 1800s and Relativity and Quantum Mechanics stepped up to address those shortcomings. But Newton can still predict many, many things quite well despite its shortcomings in dealing with big and/or fast moving objects.

And again, even ignoring the question of peer agreement, ID is NOT a SCIENTIFIC THEORY because it does NOT PREDICT anything (and because it requires a SUPERnatural device to hold it together (science is restricted to NATURE). It is, at best, a hypothesis whose main body of support is simply that EVOLUTION isn't perfect. From a logical standpoint (and Jason reminds us that there is only ONE Logic), you don't prove something (ID) is true by merely demonstrating that something else (EVOLUTION) isn't true in every instance. The burden of PROOF cuts both ways. If you want ID presented as science, YOU have to PROVE behaves like a scientific THEORY (using Jason's 'elevated position' definition of THEORY). Many people incorrectly think that the colloquial use of the word THEORY ("I have a theory about that...") means that THEORY = OPINION. It does NOT mean that at all in SCIENCE.

But presenting contorversial THEORIES is fair still game. Sometimes two pretty good theories about the same event can go head-to-head for decades, if not longer. And sometimes it turns out that BOTH THEORIES actually turn out to be ACCEPTED by the MAJORITY of SCIENTISTS. In the famous case of Newton [Particle THEORY of Light] and Huygens [Wave THEORY of Light], Newton's considerable stature in the field pretty much weighted the argument so that most scientists at the time accepted the Particle over Wave THEORY. It took 250 YEARS to finally reconcile the fact that they were BOTH valid. It just depended upon how you set up your experiment. Quantum Physics provides the tools that lets you conclusively show that light is both a wave and particle. But they are BOTH now SCIENTIFIC THEORIES and, as such, qualify for being deemed presentable in SCIENCE CLASS.

Bitterroot:
I think that the Scientific Method IS the OPEN-MINDED way to decide what is presented in SCIENCE class. But perhaps we can't be made to agree on that. That's unfortunate.

You raise good points about imagined experiences, memories, smells, etc. I suspect that none who worship at the altar of Science (no offense intended - I concede that, in that respect, Bill Nye and I have as much faith in our belief system as Pat R does in his) say that those things aren't amazing and incomprehensible and don't inspire deep thoughts. We're just more likely to say that AT THIS TIME, the current state of Science is inadequte to encompass those behaviors into THEORIES. We all agree tht it is just about the most complex system that we humans ever have to contemplate so the science is harder. That neither changes a scientist's appreciation of the depth of it all nor quells the desire caused by his curious nature to find patterns - even, maybe especially, in the case of complicated and interesting things.

I think that the CREATION statement that you've attributed to Stephen Hawking has been taken a little out of context. What he actually wrote was, "the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics." If anything, what Hawking is arguing is that SCIENCE and CREATION can CO-EXIST because they don't overlap. Einstein pulled a lot of stuff together by coming up with the THEORY known as Relativity. In addition to predicting the existence of Black Holes and Time Dilation decades before they were observed, it all rests on the assumption that there was some initial powerful release of energy. I don't think that he ever called it the Big Bang, though. However, the point is that Relativity isn't a creation explanation. It's a THEORY whose limitations and assumptions include a statement something to the effect of "Time began with the Big Bang" and that nothing can go the speed of light. But by accepting it as a THEORY, we sort of let it off the "what about before that" hook for the creation question. It doesn't say that there was nothing before the Big Bang or that something can't go faster than the speed of light. It just says that, in that case, Relativity is no longer considered a viable tool set. Hawking is only saying that creation is outside the scope of the current stockpile of Sceintific THEORIES.

I do NOT feel threatened by the Prospect of ID. I endorse your freedom to any belief system that you choose. But that belief system, ID, lies OUTSIDE the realm of SCIENCE. Your favorite theoretical physicist even says so. When one reads his books they quickly realize why Hawking is considered to be the genius that he is. He isn't a cold, quantitative, calculating pencil neck geek. He's incredibly deep, thoughtful, witty, and awe-inspring. But he is also clear that those musings lie beyond the boudaries of current Science. It is for THAT reason that ID doesn't belong in the SCIENCE classroom.

Pi Guy:
What I meant by "monopoly of falsehood" is that kids would be taught something incorrect with no possibility of being taught what IS correct, because the majority of scientists agree on something not true. I apologize, that phrase was a little obscure.

Whether or not ID is a theory, couldn't it simply be taught as an explanation for creation? Perhpas ID is not an explanation of the way things behave, but it is an explanation of how things began. This, in my mind is entirely science, because origins do affect the way things behave to some extent, even if they cannot specifically predict the way things behave.

Whether or not ID gets taught in schools, I agree with
Dr. Kent Hovind: lies should be removed from the textbooks. please visit www.drdino.com for more information.

Ork (very cool screen name, BTW) and Brian:
Thanks for waiting. I’ve been surfing Dr Dino’s site at Brian’s suggestion (more on that later) so it’s taken me awhile to organize my ideas.

Brian:
A few comments (okay, more than a few – sorry) then I'll give you MY answers to the questions that you posed. They are good stuff and relevant to the discussion. I, too, would like more dialogue and for us to mend our differences. Best of all, you said that your arguments are admittedly INCOMPLETE. You're not alone in that. ALL of our arguments are incomplete. My responses are mine, even if others share my opinions and I don’t profess to speak for anyone else; but they are still incomplete. That's why there's a debate to be had in the first place.

There's a difference between being anti-intuitive and being illogical. That a single electron could pass through two adjacent slits in a screen simultaneously is not something that our INTUITION would suggest could happen but it has been shown to occur in the laboratory. However, it is still consistent with the rules of Quantum Mechanics and, therefore, is LOGICAL. (If you’re interested, Google ‘single photon interferometry’.) It is not easy for peoples of the free and industrial worlds to fathom WHY anyone would strap on a fishing vest full of C-4 and make pretend they're waiting in line at the lunch counter. BUT it is LOGICAL – that is, it makes sense when you know something about human development – in that, when you take a person at a very young age living in near-poverty, subject them to fundamentalist hate mongering, and tell them that they'll be a hero and get to move up to the front of the Heaven Express line, that some of them will eventually suspend what we tend to think of as common sense. (From a logic standpoint, the real question might be why there aren’t even MORE of them...) But Science isn't really in the WHY BUSINESS - that's what philosophy, of which religion is a subset, is for. Rather, scientists attempt to answer the question of HOW things work. TRUTH is likewise a philosophical issue and isn't really in the realm of Science. As such, I do NOT believe that the SCIENTIFIC COMMUINTY is at all NAIVE about the TRUTH VALUE of discoveries. And a thousand pardons for not knowing exactly what a ‘confirmed reality’ is so I’ll just leave that one alone. (See also ‘TRUTHS CAN BECOME BELIEFS’ and ‘PRESENTING LIES’, below)

You cite as stumbling blocks that the "scientific community (which sees ID as unable to remain confined within strictly naturalistic explanations [1]), and how it is seen from the outside (that evolution has philosophical repercussions [2])." First of all, to a scientist, ID jumps clean past NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS once it invokes a CREATOR [1] so that is, indeed, a major hurdle. It reminds me of a cartoon that sums up what I believe to be the view of most scientists. (See it here: http://www.webamused.com/blogosophy/
archives/002064.html > No offense intended - just a bit of insight into how scientists contemplate each other's ideas.) Secondly, Darwin - who, by the way, was an ordained minister of the Anglican Church - was completely and utterly aware of the philosophical implications [2] and that conflict caused him to not publish "On the Origin of Species" for over 20 years after the famous Beagle set sail. In fact, he had to be coaxed into finally putting it out in the public domain even then. Daniel Dennett notes in his book, “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea”, that “Origin” isn’t so much an attempt to identify the ORIGIN of ANYTHING as it is an exhaustive chronicling of the evidence that he came to accept as SUPPORT that EVOLUTION OF SPECIES over time had occurred. He clearly was cognizant that the mere assertion that evolution had occurred was going to completely rock the world-view of some people. But, when he was finally ready to let “Origin” be published, he wrote in a letter to his friend, Charles Lyell, that “I would give absolutely nothing for the theory of Natural Selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent…” He knew full well that it was going to be difficult to get our arms around his ideas – and still is, apparently – but he came to accept what his observations indicated - that critters had changed since their inception. And he thought highly enough of the rest of us that he shared with us the privilege of seeing why he thought that it had occurred.

THAT is the crux of this whole debate. The blogosphere is not filled with arguments about the whether black holes exist and we don't 'see' them at all. Their existence is inferred from X-ray and radio telescope images and the gravitational influence that they seem to exert on other celestial bodies around them and most scientists, and lay people for that matter, accept that explanation. There's no heated argument, though, because believing that black holes or UV radiation exist doesn't challenge any current dogma. Sometimes, if they are reinforced positively, THEORIES CAN and do BECOME BELIEFS. However, not all Beliefs can become Theories - not if they don't go through the Scientific Method machine first. I don't believe that all scientists are atheists (I don't think that you’ve implied that – although, others have - I’m just saying). In fact, I suspect that based on the statistics, it would seem that most are not atheists at all and probably already believe that some sort of god exists, sight unseen. But generally, they also believe that a signal on a UV detector is tantamount to 'seeing' a UV photon. If a device is constructed that people can agree is capable of detecting the presence and/or influence of such a god, then that god will have been 'seen' and can be added to the filing cabinet of Useful Scientific Observations. At this time, the threshold for ‘seeing UV’ has been crossed but that for ‘seeing god’ has not. However, I don’t think that that’s what most who consider themselves believers would really want. If that were to actually occur, the PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATIONS of ‘seeing god’ might be even greater than that of the perceived repercussions of accepting Evolutionary Theory. It means that god will no longer be SUPERnatural - omnipotent, omniscient - but will have, dare I say, been reduced to the level of NATURAL phenomenon. Without all of that ascribed power, can such a god actually create anything?

Here are my responses to your three questions:
1) YES, I think that it's just fine for science to be self-referential. WHY? Science strives hard to be self-referential because that conveys a sense of confidence that scientists can reproduce the results under similar conditions (that’s the “other scientists all see the same thing” part of the Scientific Method). Gödel’s Theorem doesn't say that Mathematics is inconsistent or untrue. It merely says that you can't use the accepted mathematical theorems, postulates, axioms, corollaries, etc. (collectively, the ASSUMPTIONS) to prove that Math is universally TRUE (a variation on the Bootstrap argument). In other words, Math only works if you buy into the ASSUMPTIONS. As a result, I see no need to defend the utility of MATH in the face of INCOMPLETENESS and, likewise, see SCIENCE as similarly beyond reproach. They don’t have to be TRUE. They just work.

2) I guess that I’m not sure that I can think of an example of a reasonable and still illogical world-view. I think that reason and logic are pretty much synonymous. Can you (or anyone else) provide me with an example? At this time, depending on the example of such a world-view, I am inclined to say that for people with views that are not logical (that is, with respect to a particular phenomena, they don’t buy into the ASSUMPTIONS of the relevant theory) would have considerable difficulty applying scientific principles. That doesn’t mean, I suppose, that someone can’t accept the basic assumptions from one field (say, mechanics and thermodynamics so that one could design and build a useful car engine) but not another (evolutionary biology to explain why penicillin used to work against some bacteria but now it isn’t effective against the descendents of those very same bacteria {Again, no offense intended but this comic is pretty insightful >
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/
dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20051218}). I think that when one is attempting to apply scientific principles, it pretty much requires not only buying into the bounding theoretical ASSUMPTIONS but also pretty much the WHOLE SCIENTIFIC ENTERPRISE (see LICENSE AGREEMENT in my response to Ork, below).

** THAT is why I OBJECT to ID as a part of SCIENCE CURRICULA. It isn’t merely that EVOLUTION and ID suggest a difference of opinion about Life. It’s that ID actually SUBVERTS the whole SCINTIFIC PROCESS. Science education isn’t (or, well, shouldn’t be) a recitation of facts but an opportunity to participate, actively, in the Scientific Enterprise; to learn how the entire body of SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE had been acquired and what constitutes as QULAIFIED SUPPORT for editing or appending that knowledge.

3) I think that a good way forward is for there to be a more general acceptance that Evolution is NOT a Creation story. (But ID is; its central assumption is that life is too complex to have been CREATED by chance, and so on…) Creation happens at the beginning. The Theory of Evolution doesn’t say, “Life Began Here” the way that ID does. Evolution, by contrast, jumps into the middle. It’s more of a “From this point on” story. (Ork: related to my comments on Dr. Dino – see below) The Theory of Evolution doesn’t cover any sort creation whatsoever – it’s outside its realm of assumptions. (see Hawking comments, earlier post) Essentially, Evolution doesn’t say WHY or even HOW life started. But, if you extrapolate (and there ARE perils associated with extrapolating – making a prediction based upon observed data and then applying that to something outside the data limits) back far enough it does tend to lead to some unsettling - for some people, at least - possibilities. So, again, the way forward is to do a better job of keeping them separated since THEY ACTUALY ADDRESS DIFFERENT ISSUES. ID attempts to explain how things got started while Evolution attempts to explain, not how they began, but how they changed over a long period of time, how they got to where they are today, and where things might likely proceed in the future.

Sincerely, Pi Guy

Ork:
Sorry for taking so long to get here. Thanks for the ‘falsehoods’ explanation – I understand now what you’re driving at - and also for raising some good questions. I appreciate what you’re saying about kids leaving school with incorrect information. None of us want that for them or for society. I’ll tell you what I think about that later but let me start with Prediction.

The ability to make PREDICTIONS is an essential component of any Theory. It’s been written (figuratively) into the Science Club Bylaws since the time of Galileo and Newton. Electromagnetic Theory PREDICTS exactly how much of which chemicals are required to make a 12 volt, 600 amp battery for a car and how to adjust that mixture to make a 1.5 volt, several milliamp “D” cell. It tells us how to adjust the electric fields across the capacitor of an electron gun in an old TV tube to get it to strike just the right spot on the screen and tells us what color we’ll see on the other side of the glass as a result of striking the phosphor coating. It tells us the amount by which the speed of blue and red light in a glass fiber differ so that the encoded information comes out in right order (or how to process the signals if they don’t) at the other end. These are PREDICTIONS that result from applying the Theory. In short, once it’s a Theory, it can be used to make really good guesses at behavioral outcomes based solely on the manipulation of inputs. More on topic, Evolution posits that the landscape of Living Things has changed. Darwin and others have made many, many predictions using the Theory of Evolution that have since been found to be correct. Instead of trying to list some of them, I’ll simply refer you to where some of them can be found (here http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/
evo_science.html and here http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html). To the best of my knowledge, ID doesn’t give us any insight into what Living Things might look like or how the groups might be organized down the road. It only says, “This is what has already happened.” That’s it.

PRESENTING LIES as TRUTH:
You are right that the Big Bang says nothing about the future. Nor does ID or mac-ev. However, the Big Bang isn’t a prediction, or consequence, of General Relativity. It’s more like a term of the Relativity LICENSE AGREEMENT. You’re allowed to use GR to determine the speed of an object so moving fast that its image is red-shifted BUT you must first agree that there was a Big Bang, that light establishes the cosmic speed limit, and that some Black Holes were created at the outset, among other things. From that standpoint, ID is only a License Agreement with NO SCIENTIFIC APPLICATION. Having scientific application IS the benchmark for a concept to be deemed SCIENCE.

Again, I have no objection to ID being taught as an explanation for creation. But Science, to date, hasn’t attempted to answer Creation questions so they, at this point, don’t qualify as Science. They lie outside the scope of Science. More to your point about “teaching lies”, again I say that Science isn’t about TRUTH – that’s a philosophical concept. But Science addresses that hurdle pretty thoroughly. The Scientific Method says that the experiment must be reproducible so that others see the same thing. Many kids (and adults, for that matter) believe that an egg can only be stood on its end during an equinox because they were told that was the case. And an egg can indeed be made to stand on end at the equinox. But it also can be made to stand on end at a solstice or even on the14th of March. The SCIENTIFIC METHOD suggests that the way you convince somebody the “egg on end” hypothesis doesn’t hold up as a Theory is by letting them see for themselves (again – see the same stuff). Their personal observation is the key. Then, there is no need to determine whether what is presented is the TRUTH or a LIE. The students get make the call.

If you’re interested in TRUTH, though, I’d be a little careful about referencing Dr. D’s explanations to students. In particular, he (and several of the other authors on his site) often starts by stating the initial assumptions of both theories (Ev & ID). That seems to be pretty Sound Scienctifically so far. But he and his adherents posit a REALLY UNTRUE EVOLUTIONARY ASSUMPTION repeatedly. Mr. Sampson says, “Both Creation and Evolutionism start with philosophical assumptions. Evolutionists (traditionally) start with the assumption that God has no intervention in this world.” (See 2nd paragraph of Jonathon Sampson’s article here http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=55 , among others; it’s just stated early in the article so it’s easy to find.) Evolutionists make NO SUCH ASSUMPTION at all. They don’t say, “There is no god” but, rather, bypass the concept of god altogether. They don’t say that there’s nothing else out there. They only assert that there exists a process by which Living Things change gradually over time, by a random process that is now referred to as Natural Selection, with no miraculous intervention being necessary. It doesn’t say that there is nor isn’t any god. Only that a god isn’t required to make the process work within the framework of the Theory. It reminds me of the story of when Simon LaPlace submitted his book “Celestial Mechanics” to Napoleon for review. Napoleon is said to have asked why he doesn’t make any mention of a/the CREATOR in the book to which LaPlace supposedly replied, “Sir, I have been able to dispense with that HYPOTHEIS (my emphasis).” LaPlace didn’t say that there’s no god. He only said that it was not a compulsory part of his explanation. (What LaPlace believed about god may be chronicled elsewhere but I am not able to find anything about his theological beliefs. It might be pretty interesting and useful to know his thoughts on that matter. Any ideas? Bueller?)

In summary, I have no problem with ID as a CREATION explanation. I merely object to its being included as a SCIENTIFIC explanation. Students WILL ask, “But where does it all begin?” The proper Science teacher response should be, “That issue is not covered by Science but I can tell you what I think and you all can share your ideas as well, if you wish. Let’s just play nicely while we do it.” It’s going to happen and I support a free and open exchange of ideas. It’s simply incumbent upon the teacher to put the “NO SCIENCE ZONE” sign up during that discussion. That wouldn’t be a LIE at all (but I hesitate, still, to call it TRUTH either!)

Maybe, if one does not wish to discuss "lies" versus "truths" in a scientific discussion, it would be better to phrase it as "knowingly teaching inaccurate data" versus "teaching accurate data." I do not intend to be rude or offensive, but it may make discussions a little less confusing if we use terminology we can all agree on.

No offense taken. I agree that we need a common vocabulary. Neither was I trying to split hairs with the Truth stuff. Instead of being True or Accurate, how about something like "has been observed under such and such conditions" or something similar. But I'm curious - is there some information that you think is being knowingly presented inaccurately?

At any rate, in an attempt to define a common set of definitions, below are a few terms that I think that we should consider (comment on these and add your own):

DATA - Information, typically quantitative; includes measurements and observations in conjunction with an experiment, the main purpose for which is to search for patterns in the data - correlations between a given set of study parameters. (i.e.: the smaller the sidewalk cracks, the higher the murder rate)

Identifying a correlation between two variables is the primary source of a Theory's predictive power. Even if data is collected sloppily, the pattern can often still identified reasonably well. Better and more data can be collected and often can be used to fine-tune the Theory later. The Precision (which is different than Accuracy) of the data is usually part of the set of assumtions (boundaries, theorteical limits, etc.)

EXPERIMENT - observations of a particular event or phenomenom (often in a contrived and/or controlled) in order to test a the modeling ability and predicitve power of a proposed generalization about the workings of nature. At this point, that generalizaion (rule, law, equation, etc.) is called a Hypothesis.

Good experiments can be reproduced and confirmed by other experimenters. Experiments are essentially Theory Filters. Commonly held Data is used to assess the goodness of Hypotheses.

THEORY - A general statement about the behavior of a natural phenomenom. Typically presented as a Rule, Equation, or Law.

It is often the case that the phrases Theory, Law, Equation, Rule, et al are interchanged. Faraday's Law can be stated in words as a Rule - that changing magnetic fields induce electric fields - or can be written mathematically as Maxwell's Curl Equation for the Electric Field.

Comments?

Well you know, this is really funny. Doesn´t it always boil down to this never ever answerable question: WHERE AND HOW DID IT ALL START?

Admittedly, the theory of evolution is not able to answer that question. Nevertheless, it is a tool that helps us understand the world around us, and put it to practical usage. Millions of people benefit from it because of advances in medicine, foodproduction and so forth.

But now ID comes along, and says: "God designed it all". Does this statement serve any practical purpose? Can it do anything to further the wellbeing of people. Does it do any good? No. It simply sits there, arrogantly, twisting peoples minds. Especially those minds that are easily twisted - like young childrens minds.

Therefore: no it should definitely not be taught in science class, or anywhere else for that matter.

Leaves one question. Who or what designed God? Try answering that with ID.

I picked up a rock the other day and asked a random person how old it was. He said , "oh it's really old." I said, "how do you know by looking at it?" he had no answer like many other people I've done the same thing to. Or the answer is, " I read it in a book somewhere." The power of suggestion is a powerful component to a powerful theory. People claim that scientists from all over the world in many if not all fields of science come to the same theory without "getting together" and conspiring. That theory being evolution. Consider that in ecsence they did conspire and didn't know it. Most of them were taught in school/ college that evolution is true. Their presuposition can easily make them see that whatever they observe lines up somehow with this "so-called" fact of evolution as it is taught in schools. After all it has to line up, it's a fact right.(only if you want to pass)(i've been there). If I told you that the guy next to you was a homosexual, then you would start to see everything that they do as a "homosexual" act. Try this sometime. In fact the person is acting as they normally would, and in fact(assuming I know the person) is not gay. However, everything they do would look gay to you because of my "so-called" fact about them. People have forgotten how to do their own research and studies to verify if things are true. What do you guys think?

I would just like to point out that Pi Guy stated Quantum physics, etc. as theory at first then later as law. ??????

I would just like to point out that Pi Guy stated Quantum physics, etc. as theory at first then later as law. ??????

Pi Guy. You made the statement that ID or God doesn't serve any practical purpose, but surely you don't mean that after talking about "the children" and all. Science is observable, experimentable, repeateable. Evolution is a belief of the origin of science and nature. I challenge you the next time a child (or your child if you have any) asks you why something is right or wrong to explain that to them using a natural explanation. Natural explainations, science, and/or evolution don't dare even attempt to explain anything abstract. Consciousness, thought, morallity, creativity, fantasy, etc., are all pretty much undesputed as existing yet cannot be explained without a supernatural explaination. I would like to conclude with a question from Kent Hovind: Do you know everything? Do you know half of everything? (most people with a firm grip on reality claim less than this)For the sake of argument let's just say you know half of everything. Is it possible that God exists in the half you don't know????

sorry I meant to address Peter but the same questions could apply to Pi Guy too.

A question for evolutionists. You may correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe that an animal or organism evolves based on environment, natural selection, etc. Based on the link given by someone earlier about the "half fish half land animal" scientist speculate that the creatures "evolved" forearms because they would get caught in sand.(paraphrased) So could I speculate that if people kept drowning in the ocean that we would evolve gills? However, since we can't observe, verify, or experiment these "evolutionary changes since they "supposedly" take "millions" of years to happen would everyone drown by then? By the way I do believe in science. I also believe that God created everything. Just so you know my world-view. I do not commit to the "God-of-gaps" as some believe, however, the whole "it-takes-millions-of-years-so-we-can't-observe-it" doesn't quite cut it either sorry. I am a very skeptical person. I just won't take someones word that the earth is "x" years old without researching it myself. Thus, I believe, is the esscence of science. What do you think?

As a Christian, I do not want intelligent design preached in the classroom, because I don't know who the professor is teaching the idea or what religious influence he or she is involved in. However, I do believe that with theories like evolution, the instructor must make it clear that they are theories. Just as science cannot prove if there is or isn't a God, neither can they prove that evolution from ape to human is the path of man. When was the last time you saw an ape mate with another ape and out came a homosapien? Or, when did you ever see an ape mate with a human and create something? I love Bill Nye as a scientist. My beliefs are different from his on some issues, and I think he's a very intelligent man who deserves respect.

Genesis 1 is the outline for High Tech Science Intelligent Design Colonization. A Day with the Lord is as a thousand years. The 6 Days of the Creation in the Bible was 6,000 years. Our High Tech Ancestors (HTA), called Man Gods on Earth, Colonized Earth 12,000 years ago, with High Tech Science, just as we would today.
In the 1970s, our scientists projected Colonizing a planet, maybe Venus, with a soupy atmosphere like science says was around Earth. They would send in a blue-green algae bomb into the soup to break down the elements and set up an Eco System. Blue-green algae is the oldest element on Earth.
Genesis 1 is the Creation of Life on Earth, not the Creation of our Universe. The Universes were not Created on Day 4, when the atmosphere of Earth was changed on Days 1, and 2, and the green grass, trees, etc were added on Daya 3.
Day 1 and 2, the Atmosphere was set up with the Ozone Canopy, and the water above the firmament/atmosphere set up an Ice-Crystal Canopy. These two canopies protected Life on Earth from the ultraviolet rays of the Sun.
Day 3, the trees, bushes, grass, etc., were added to complete the breakdown of the soupy atmosphere.
Day 4, the sun, moon, and stars could be seen from land. Then the species could be added.
Day 5, the fish and fowl were added.
Day 6, the animals and Man were added.
Day 6, Man was reproduced in a High Tech Womb, in their Lab, in the Garden of Eden. Man in the beginning was a High Tech Pure-bred Asexual Physical Colony, called Adam and Eve. God nor our HTA would leave two people on a planet.
Day 7, Man was put in charge, but they 'fell' from High Tech Pure-bred Asexual Humans, the Higher 'Nature' of reproduction, to Mis-bred Heterosexual Humans, the Lower 'Nature' of reproduction. Our HTA shut down the Lab, and Man had to go through the experience of living on a Fallen Planet with Division, Disease, Inhumanity, Inequality, Killing, war and Death.
Our HTA do visit Earth off and on as we would follow the trips of our space probes. They are called the Man Gods that travel in fiery chariots in religion and myth.
High Tech Birth gives Man Equality, and with High Tech Maintenance, they have Eternal Physical Life, that Fallen Man looks for, in Life after Death.
Religion and High Tech Science are both about Human physical Life. The One GOD of the Universe joins the seed of Man in both types of reproduction. It is up to Man which type they have on their planet.
Our HTA are the Man Gods of religion and myth. With a High Tech Science translation of the Bible all the mysteries of the our High Tech Past, can be revealed. High Tech Science, Religion and Myth are all about Life on Spaceship Earth, and on other Planets and in spaceships.
The Species Human should be the Caretakers of Life, not the Killer. With our Unbalanced High Tech we have our planet covered with nuclear bombs, that could blow up many planets like Earth, and will destroy Life on Earth, in the Last Days 'Arm'ageddon.
Atlantis is not a myth but was a High Tech Civilization, like the USA, before the Noah/Atlantis Planetary Flood. Their civilization broke the Ice-Crystal Canopy with their pollution, like we are breaking our Ozone Canopy. After the Flood, Life could still continue with the Ozone Canopy.
We are in the Last Days of Life on Earth, and have also polluted our Ozone Layer, and when it is destroyed, Life as we know it cannot exist.
Man started Life on Earth with Eternal Pure-bred Physical Life. After the 'fall' their Life Span was reduced to hundreds of years. After the Flood, it was reduced to 70 years. After the breaking of the Ozone Canopy the Life Span will be 0.
Life is for the Living, not the Dead.
Dolores

When the Noah/Atlantis Society broke the Ice-Crystal Canopy, it broke the land mass into our Continents of today. the Ice is at our Poles. The Flood lasted over one year. The rain began, the rainbow appeared, the seasons began, and Man's Lifespan was reduced from hundreds of years to 70 years.
Man 'in the beginning' had Eternal Pure-bred Physical Life After Birth. When Man 'fell' to Heterosexual Body Birth, they lost their Eternal Lifespan, and it was reduced to hundreds of years.
When we break our Ozone Canopy our Lifespan will be 0 years.
Dolores

Read it again Dolores. You are very creative. I like that but there is a reason your belief was started by a science fiction writer. Love ya, but read the Bible again. Oh and FYI ...a day is a thousand years.... in context with the rest of that chapter and paragraph, it is a simile to explain that God is without time. If you're suggesting it's an equation (1day = 1,000 years) then I sugeest you read the rest. Particularly right after that.... and a thousand years is a day. Another scripture says a day is like "a watch in the night" which is a few hours. "there was evening and there was morning, the first 1,000 years?" I don't think so. Very creative, but not consistant with the bible.

Jeremy.
2 Peter 3:8. KJV. "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
In the 1970s, in the Kansas City Star newspaper, an article about our scientist talking about Colonizing a planet, maybe Venus, they said that Venus has a soupy atmosphere like Earth had 'in the beginning'. He stated that they would send in a blue-green algae bomb into the soup to break up the soup, and set up an atmosphere for human life as we know it. This would take about 1000 years Earth time.
That is why I said each Day of Creation on Earth, is equal to One Day of space travel. Genesis 1 is the steps to Colonize a planet by Humans, not GOD. The Man Gods and Angels in religion and myth are our High Tech Ancestors (HTA) from Space.
Day 1 and Day 2 in Genesis, set up the firmament/atmosphere. The gases made the Ozone Canopy, and the water above the firmament/atmosphere made an Ice-Crystal Canopy. We had lost the knowledge of the Ice-Crystal Canopy. Day 3 the grass, trees, bushes, etc., were added and the soupy atmosphere was clear and the sun, moon, and stars could be seen from land.
Day 4 was not the creation of the Universe, but the atmosphere was clear. Genesis 1 is not about the creation of the Universe, but the Colonization of Life on Earth, like our scientists would do today. You cannot have a planet on Day 1 and the Universe on Day 4. Galileo proved the Earth went around the Sun, not that the sun went around the Earth, as taught earlier.
Now High Tech Science Colonization, by Humans, will prove the Earth was not created before the Universe.
Day 5 and 6 brought in the species and Man was added.
Earth was Colonized by High Tech Science. Man was reproduced in a High Tech Womb and was perfect, or Pure-bred. God nor oour HTA would leave only 2 people on a planet. The Adam and Eve Colony were Pure-bred and with High Tech Science on a planet, Man 'can' live forever in a physical body, with High Tech maintenance.
Our HTA can also leave their planet and go to a new planet or solar system or galaxy, when their sun dies. The do have Eternal Pure-bred Physical Life After Birth.
High Tech Science is the 'super'natural in the Bible. With a High Tech Science explanation of the 6 Days as the Colonization of planet Earth, it can prove that Earth was Colonized.
The supernatural in the Bible could not be translated before we again had the High Tech Science knowledge. High Tech is 'super'natural.
Earth is a spaceship, and the Crew should be Equal and Caretakers, not Killers.
The Adam and Eve Colony were Equal Helpmeets, and were supposed to be the Caretakers of the Balanced Eco System and all the Life species.
When they 'fell' to the Original Sin of Heterosexual Body Birth, our HTA removed their Lab in the Garden of Eden, and do return off and on down through time. Their High Tech recording equipment is the eyes and ears of God. The Man Gods and Angels in religion and myth are our HTA.
The Noah Society and the Atlantis Society of myth, had the Unbalanced High Tech Science like we do today. They made weapons of mass destruction like we are today. Their pollution broke the Ice-Crystal Canopy like we are breaking the Ozone Canopy today.
The Ice-Crystal Canopy broke and caused the Noah/Atlantis Flood. The Ice is at our poles today. Our land mass is broke down the middle, from the Arctic Ocean through the Atlantic Ocean. Atlantis broke down the middle and sank. The land mass in the Noah Flood was under water.
My web site explains all of this. I say we are in the Last Days of Life on Earth and when we break the Ozone Canopy, Life as we know it cannot exist. Our HTA will rescue those left, and will take them to a new planet they are colonizing, like they did Earth, on the Judgement Day. This is called the Rapture in religion.
Our pollution, nuclear waste, all other pollution and oil spills will make the Judgement Day Fire. then Life as we know it cannot exist on Earth. Earth will be destroyed by Fallen Man, not GOD or our HTA.
My web site:
http://home.kc.rr.com/hightech/home.html
Dolores

Wow...drugs are bad.

Sooo... who created your imaginary High tech ancestors?

Douglas,
As to who Created our HTA, I do not know. I say they many have evolved on a Planet like Earth until they had the High Tech Science that we have on Earth, and they keep on Colonizing planets. I do not think Earth was the first place for Human Life, in the Universe and Science today is finding many planets like Earth.
I say Life on Earth did not Evolve, it was Colonized and today we do know how to Colonize a planet, and would use the steps in Genesis. Blue-green algae is the oldest element on Earth and that is what our scientists said they would send, in bomb form into the soupy atmosphere of a planet they would colonize.
Before we can get our Science up to reproducing in the High Tech Womb, we will probably blow up Planet Earth with our Nuclear bombs our Science made instead of using our resources for Life.
But the Bible says our HTA will rescue us, which is the Rapture in the End Times for people in religion.
Sorry, I have never used drugs. I am 84 and it was not part of our lifestyle. I have never been drunk either, and it was in our lifestyle. In my Introduction of my web site, listed above, I tell how all this information happened to me.

Dolores, I can only assume by your answers that you do not believe in the message that Jesus Christ brought to us. I can also assume that you do not believe that the bible that you quote (loosely) from is absolute truth and the authority. In fact, based on what you said, the bible is just a book thats meaning can be manipulated and interpreted anyway that sounds good to you. Though your interpretation seems sound to begin with you are not interpreting scripture with scripture as the bible says we should do. Instead you are interpreting scripture with mans ideas.
On another note, we have NEVER colonized a planet. We can't even colonize the planet we have very well. However, you still assume that we have the capability. You also, said that Earth had (as though it is something that can be verified as a fact) a soupy atomosphere in the beginning. Most of the "science" you propose is based on MAJOR assumptions. The bible also says," beware of science, falsely so-called". Again you also made 2 Peter 3:8 an equation using only the first half of the sentence. Use the second half of the sentence and you will realize that a day in 2 Peter equals a day just the same in genesis. Martin Luther once sais, "If you can't understand how God made everything in 6 six days, then grant the holy spirit the honor of being smarter than you." More on your science: I challenge you to find someone who can actually show you "Ozone layer". It is an idea more than a thing. Similar to dark matter in space. Since we cannot determine what "Ozone" is or how much there is then how can we determine if we are gaining or loosing any? I also don't see the correlation between the Earth on day one and the geocentric theory. The fcat that the bible says the Earth was created first has nothin to do with its motion in the universe. Yet another observation: Nothing that we have that's "high tech" lasts any significant time. Once again the bible states that things of this world "wax old like a garment" and not to store up treasures here because moth and rust WILL destroy them. It doesn't say," well....it will destroy them....unless you're "high-tech". I sorry, but like I said before, you're following a science fiction(emphasis on fiction) writer as an authority on the bible which you seem to incinuate is not authoritative. Scripture with scripture and you'll find the truth. I still say, you are very creative, and I still love ya. Thanks

Jeremy, I was a Missouri Lutheran for 50 years. I am 84 now, and have been writing comments and papers on the Planetary Flood and all the rest ever since. No one agrees with me as yet, but I just keep on going and going.
When I was 49, this new way of looking at the Bible happened to me and I say the Holy Spirit gave me this interpretation of the King James Bible.
I explain this in the Intro of my web site:
http://home.kc.rr.com/hightech/home.html
Also in the Creation section I explain the Colonization better than I do on blogs, as I have other information that I think backs me up.
But if no one accepts it, I am not the judge, and hope in time the jury will accept it. I don't think I say Colonize a planet yet, I say we have the High Tech Science knowledge on how to Colonize a planet and also the High Tech Science knowledge on how to reproduce in a High Tech Womb.
We are too busy on Earth wasting our High Tech Science on weapons of massive destruction, instead of using it for Pure-bred Bodies. Today we do some correction in the fetus before it is put in the female womb, and even in the womb, so the sex reproduction act is not needed.
The Original Sin was Heterosexual Mis-bred Body Birth, by the Pure-bred Adam and Eve Colony, and that started all the Mis-breeding and Killing on Planet Earth. GOD nor our HTA would put two people on a planet.
Thank you for your comments, all comments help me try to explain it better.
Peace and Agape Love.

Dolores. The bible clearly states that there are many spirits at work in the world. Satan, being the master of deception, uses a bit of the truth in his lies as to decieve even those who believe. In order to decern from these spirits, we were given the words of God himself. We interpret scripture with scripture so that when an idea or vision or revelation or word comes to us we can take it to the bible and see if it lines up. If it does (completely, not with a sentence or 2 by itself) then it is from God. However, if it does not completely line up with scripture then it is not from God.
I don't understand it when you say, "God wouldn't do it that way". (in reference to leaving 2 people on Earth alone. First of all, for all of those people out there that say "God wouldn't leave 2 people alone", or "It's not like God to create things formless and void"(in reference to gap theory), there is only one account of God creating and it says he DID exactly that. You literally have no other reference to compare. All of scripture refers back to creation in genesis. God made Adam, then searched the animals for a helper, none was found, God took Adam's rib(by the way, the only bone in the human body that will grow back if you take it is the lower rib, interesting huh?) and made Eve. They were not alone, even with each other. They walked directly with God and they lived on a perfect Earth which we cannot fathom either. It took awhile for the curse to cover the earth and affect life spans and ways of living. Then a flood. There are billions and billions of fossils that prove a world wide flood(things don't fossilize automatically when they die.) Another question for you Dolores, just curious, was Jonah in the fish for 3,000 years? Did Joshua march around Jericho for 7,000 years. It is the same hebrew word used in Genesis where it is supported by a number and evening and morning to ensure we would take it no other way than one ordinary 24hr day just as we do with Jonah and Joshua. Again I say, people may say we have the "high tech" science to colonize a planet then I stand to say we CANNOT claim that we CAN until we HAVE. We "MIGHT be able to" would be a better statement, although, based on what we HAVE done in science so far I say we definately CANNOT. There is little to no correlation between our increasing knowledge in true science and our life span. The bible says we are made up of three things: the body, soul, and spirit. Jesus never said anything about physical immortality in this life. Heck, he died too and came back to tell us about it. Dolores, because I love the subject of truth and the bible and also science I did read your web page and I'm still wondering why we haven't uncovered "Atlantis's evidence of High tech science as we have today much less evidence of Atlantis itself. Tell me what you think Dolores. Anyone else too. thanks. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.(NIV)

Jeremy. Thank your for your comments. I have been hearing similar things for 35 years, and apprecieate it. It helpes me keep trying to say it meaningfully. I know in time it will be accepted. I will try to go through your remarks.
Satan, the master of deception is the male member. That is what happened at the Fall of the Pure-bred High Tech Humans 'in the beginning' of the High Tech Science Colonization.
You can review scripture with scripture, but when you have High Tech Science and the Knowledge of the Atlantis High Tech Society before the Flood, it can be translated understood today. The Christian Bible is the Code Book of Life on Earth from the Colonization to the Judgement Day Planetary Fire.
Otherwise scripture and myth have been translated as supernatural. High Tech Science Knowledge is 'super'natural. I will let time be the judge for my work. When I said God would not do it that way, I am talking about the the Man Gods that looked like Humans. They are our High Tech Ancestors (HTA) that Colonized Earth, called Higher 'Beings, Lord, Angels, Gods and Goddesses, etc. in religion and myth. I do not think they left only Adam and Eve on the planet, we would not either today.
When I say GOD who is not human, I do not know if this Source Of Life (SOL) created Man or if Man evolved. This GOD, not a 'he' god, and I may have said GOD would not leave two persons on a planet. If Life did evolve they would not be created as only one male and female. I will correct saying this about GOD in the future. See you helped me.
The God/HTA that made Eve from Adam's rib, made a female clone. They were Equal Asexual Soul Mates and Equal Helpmeeets, not mates. They were not reproduced by Body Birth. Since the Fall, male and female keep searching for their perfect mate, other half, etc. It is not possible to find your other half, with two different sets of genetics. The only two that make a whole is a male and female Asexual clone with the same genetics. And the sex act is not involved in this type of reproduction.
What happened to the Asexual category of Human? Body Birth made all the other sexual orintations on Earth today, Homo-Bi-Trans-sexual. also Incest, pedophiles, beastiality, etc. became part of the Fallen Lifestyle.
Is there more than two ways to reproduce humans? They 'fell' to Heterosexual Mis-bred Body Birth and reproduced Cain and Abel. Woman became submissive to man and lost her equality. So who started Body Mis-breeding, the Original Sin, the male or female? The male has to make the first action, for the female to reproduce. Eating the apple was not their Sin.
Man had to struggle for their needs. Killing, division, disease, inequality, inhumanity, starving, homeless, orphans, greed, war and death began, and continues today.
There is a physical Lifestyle of Pure-bred bodies, and Equal Sharing of all things, like the lifestyle in a spaceship. Earth is a spaceship with all the Resources Aboard, to be Shared Equally with all Life. What caused this to change to ownership, and the Haves and Havenots? Unequal Body Birth? Could we survive in a spaceship with the Killing Lifestyle on Earth? Will we survive on Earth with our weapons of massive destruction and enough nuclear bombs to blow up many planets?
The perfect Eco System before the Fall, became polluted and destroyed by Man's Killing Nature, instead of the Caretaker Nature. The Noah/Atlantis Society had weapons of destruction and the terrible laser. Their pollution broke the Ice-Crystal Canopy and caused the Planetary Flood that lasted over 1 year. man did have to repopulate the Earth again. It was not a local flood.
The Tidal Wave Action set down a new Top Strata on Earth. We are digging up some of the world before the flood, but we give its age, as with the original rock that was here longer than 12,000 years. It was here since our Solar System was made, along with our Galaxy and our Universe.
The Hell in the Bible is the Black Hole, all life will go into the Black Hole without the High Tech Science to escape it. Our HTA do escape their planet when their sun dies, and move on until they have to escape their Solar System.
This is how Eternal Pure-bred Physical Life continues in the Universes. This is the lost knowledge that is taught in religion as Life After Death. Is there Life After Death as we know it. Life is for the Living, not the Dead.
The One True GOD of the Universes is the Source Of Life of the Atom (Matter) and the Electro-Magnetic Force/Spirit. that makes Life as we know it, visible and invisible. When the Matter and EMF are joined the result is the Soul or Body. This SOL is the God of religion that no one has ever seen. Our HTA were seen and talked to by many.
Our HTA were here at the time of Jesus, and 'regenerated' him in the tomb, and he did go Alive, up into space with them. They will return in the End Times for the Judgement Day.
Atlantis did have High Tech Science and they are the Gods of religion that Killed. They also flew in the air in fiery chariots. Our HTA, the Man Gods and Triune Gods, and Jesus, taught not to Kill and turn the other cheek. How do Christians and other religions that have Thou Shalt Not Kill, follow this God and Jesus or their God?
We have had a knowledge and population explosion like they the Noah/Alantis Society did, in 100 years. In 1900 we had 1 billion people and in 2000, we have over 6 billion people.
Our nuclear pollution, other pollution and oil spills and waste dumps all over the planet, will cause the Judgement Day Fire. Our pollution of the Ozone Layer/Canopy will break and Life as we know it cannot continue on Earth. This is all caused by Fallen Man, not GOD or God or our HTA.
I know we have heard it said, we are in the End Times of Life on Earth, many times, but since the Flood we have not had this kind of a High Tech Science, Polluting and Killing Society.
Man on Earth in the beginning had Eternal Physical Life. After the Fall their lifespan was reduced to hundreds of years. After the Ice-Crystal Canopy Flood, their lifespan was reduced to 70 years, After the Ozone Canopy is destroyed the Lifespan on Earth will be 0 years.
There is more details in the Creation, Fall and Flood section on my web site. I only have 6 sections downloaded, but they have a lot of information in them. They need to be revised, since I have become more sure about what I say today.
Jeremy, any more explanation needed just ask me.
Peace and Agape Love.

Jeremy, I forgot to answer about Jonah in the whale and the walls of Jerico. If the same word is used it is by the translators. They did not know the Day of Creation was 1000 years. They probably wrote from the belief of a supernatural God.
I also say that Atlantis scientists experimented with animals like our scientest do today. Our scientists put a human ear on a mouse, and do other types of experiments. I accept that Atlantis took small animals, maybe lizards or some type of animal and made them big. I think Atlantis had a Jurastic Park, and we are finding all these giant animals and their bones in the new top strata set down in the Flood, as well as their megalithic ruins all over the planet.
In the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, KJV.
Job 40:15."Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 17. He moveth his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 21. He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Job 41: 14. Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about. 20. Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. 21. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goes out of his moutn."
Some of this sounds like dinosaurs, some like a fire breathing dragon, or crocodile.
Do you find other scripture to prove this? I think these events were before the Flood. It will be interesting, when the Bible is translated with a High Tech Science description. We may not be able to translate it all with the correct meaning, but I think most of it is about the Higher 'nature' and the lower 'nature' of reproduction by Humans, and the resulting Lifestyles. The One True GOD of the Universes joins the seed of Man in a High Tech Womb or in the femal womb. It is up to Man which reproduction method they will use. One has Eternal Life, and one has Death.
And I hope the books that were kept of many different religions, will have an outline of the World before the Flood as well as some history after the Flood. The scriptures in India sound like before the Flood.
There is so many interesting things to investigate when High Tech Science is accepted as being on Earth 'in the beginning' and at the Noah/Atlantis time, in all religious writings and in myth.
There is nothing new under our Sun, that hasn't happened before on other planets and on ours.
I accept there is Eternal Pure-bred Physical Human Life After Birth on plants and in spaceships. And the Christian Bible is the Code Book to prove this. Is there really life as we know it After Death? Or is there a different dimension After Death?
I am also for Truth about Life and also hope all people on Earth can start following "Thou Shalt Not Kill", which has not been followed since the Original Sin of Heterosexual Mis-bred Body Birth. At least Christians should follow Jesus, the Prince of Peace, who said not to carry a weapon, and turn the other cheek. The Truth is Jesus is Alive in an Asexual Pure-bred Human Body as well as our HTA, and that they have Eternal Life as long as they keep their High Tech Science.
Peace and Asexual Agape Love.

Jeremy, and others that are interested in religious comments, by Christians, Jews, and others, this is an interesting blog. I make comments there also.

http://billtammeus.typepad.com/

You people are fucking retarded

Religion of some sort was the moral center of all countries in the past. In the present, people are trying to make religion and government separate. What will be the result? A few countries have tried it but so far none have the 'Commonism' that Jesus taught.

True Commonism does away with a monetary basis and All things are Shared Equally, as Life on a spaceship is Shared Equally.

"The God Delusion" By Richard Dawkins. "Religious Education As A Part of Literary Culture" - "Let me not labour the point, I have probably said enough to convince at least my older readers that an atheistic world-view provided no justification for cutting the Bible, and other sacred books, out of our education - we can give up belief in God while not losing touch with a treasured heritage. -

"Does religion fill a much needed gap? It is often said that there is a God-shaped gap in the brain which needs to be filled; - and the need has to be satisfied whether God really exists or not. -

"But could it be that God clutters up a gap that we'd be better off filling with something else? Science perhaps? Art? Human friendship? Humanism? Love of this life in the real world, giving no credence to other lives beyond the grave? -

"Historically, religion aspired to explain our own existence and the nature of the universe in which we find ourselves, in this role it is now completely superseded by science. -

"Polls suggest that approximately 95 percent of the population of the United States believe they will survive their own death. I can't help wondering how many people who claim such belief really, in their hearts, hold it. -

"If the demise of God will leave a gap, different people will fill it in different ways. My way includes a good dose of science, the honest and systematic endeavor to find out the truth about the real world.

"The Mother Of All Burkas" One of the unhappiest spectacles to be seen our our streets today is the image of a woman swathed in shapeless black form head to toe, peering out at our world through a tiny slit. The burka is not just an oppression of women and claustral repression of their liberty and their beauty; not just a token of egregious male cruelty and tragically cowed female submission. I want to use the slit in the veil for something else.

"Our eyes see the world through a narrow slit in the electro-magnetic spectrum. - Imagine a gigantic black burka, with a vision slit of approximately the standard width, say about one inch.

"If the length of black cloth above the slit represents the short-wave end of the invisible spectrum, and if the length of black cloth below the slit represents the long-wave portion of the invisible spectrum, how long would the burka have to be in order to accomodate a one inch slit to the same scale?

"It is hard to represent it sensibly without invoking togarithmic scales, so huge are the lengths we are dealing with. -

"There is a sense in which we animals have to survive not just in Middle World but in the micro-world of atoms and electrons too. The very nerve impulses with which we do our thinking and our imagining depend upon activites in Micro World. -

"Science flings open the narrow window through which we are accustomed to viewing the spectrum of possibilities that once seemed out of bounds or inhabited by dragons. -

"Could we, by training and practice, emancipate ourselves from Middle World, tear off our black burka, and achieve some sort of intuitive - as well as just mathematical understanding of the very small, the very large, and the very fast?

"I genuinely don't know the answer. But I am thrilled to be alive at a time when humanity is pushing against the limits of understanding. Even better, we may eventually discover that there are no limits."

Me: We need all the religious books and myth to translate, and accept the High Tech Life on Planets and in spaceships. Are we ready to be Equal Sharing Brothers/Sisters of Life? Are we ready to accept the High Tech Pure-bred Asexual Human Physical Life after Birth, like our HTA and Jesus, on planets and in spaceships. where there are no limits in Space, as we have on Earth?

Life is for the Living, not the Dead.

Peace and Jesus' Asexual Agape Love.

In 'Time' Magazine, November 13, 2006, is an article "God vs. Science", with opinions from Francis Collins a scientist and a Christian, and Richard Dawkins, a scientist and an Atheist.

Collins: For you to argue that our noblest acts are a misfiring of Darwinian behavior does not do justice to the sense we all have about the absolutes that are involved here of good and evil. Evolution may explain some features of the moral law, but it can't explain why it should have any real significance. If it is solely an evolutionary convenience, there is really no such things as good or evil. But for me, it is much more than that. The moral law is a reason to think of God as plausible - not just a God who sets the universe in motion but a God who cares about human beings, because we seem uniquely amongst creatures on the planet to have this far-developed sense of morality. What you've said implies that outside of the human mind, tuned by evolutionary processes, good and evil have no meaning. Do you agree with that?"

"Dawkins: Even the question you're asking has no meaning to me. Good and evil - I don't believe that there is hanging out there, anywhere, something called good and something called evil. I think that there are good things and bad things that happen."

"Collins: I think that is a fundamental difference between us. I'm glad we identified it."

I say there is a difference between the SOL, the One True GOD that sets the Universe in motion the SOL, and the God that Cares for us our HTA.

It is Time for Fallen Man to understand the fundamental difference between the Good and Evil of the Tree of 'Life'. What did Man fall from? Higher 'Beings' to Lower 'Beings'?

'Good', is High Tech Science Pure-bred Asexual Physical Reproduction of Higher Human 'Beings', that are Equal Caretakers of 'Life' on a planet and in spaceships.

'Evil', is Heterosexual Mis-bred Physical Reproduction of Lower Human 'Beings', that are Unequal Killers of 'Life' on planets.

Humans 'fell' from the Higher Nature to the Lower Nature of reproduction. This was the Original Sin of the Perfect humans 'in the beginning'.

It seems to me, as we observe our Unbalanced High Tech Science, pollution, and all the war and misery on Earth, that Lower Human Beings destroy their planet and all 'Life' on it, before they can get very far out into space. It is built into the Fallen Nature.

Now can we accept/believe there is "'Eternal'Pure-bred Asexual Physical Life on planets and in spaceships, for Human 'Beings' After Birth, instead of believing in 'Life?' After Death.

Eternal 'Life' is for the Living, not the Dead.

Peace and Jesus' Asexual Agape Love.

Bill.
Happy Christmas to you and yours.

Happy Christmas and Peace, Good Will, and Love to All that comment on this blog and to All who read this blog.

Jesus' Peace.

Here is a saying by T.S. Eliot, that helped me understand that Earth was Colonized, 'in the beginning'.

"We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time"

We again have the High Tech Science to know how to Colonize a planet. And the end of all our exploring will be to 'know' the place where Life as we know it, for the first time on Earth. Life on Earth was Colonized by High Tech Science, just as we will Colonize a new planet someday, by High Tech Science, unless we blow up Earth first.

Life probably Evolved on some planet in Space, up to High Tech Science to know how to Colonization a planet and reproduce by High Tech Science. The Only other Way was for Humans to have been created Pure-bred to start with. I do not have that kind of information.

But, Life did not Evolve on Earth, but was Colonized by High Tech Science by the High Tech Science Man Gods of religion and myth, who are our High Tech Pure-bred Ancestors (HTA). We 'are' in their image.

Instead of staying a High Tech Science planet, and being Caretakers of Life with our HTA, Man 'fell' to Heterosexual Body Birth, and had to go through the Learning Time, to see how Genetically Mis-bred people by Heterosexual Mis-bred Body Birth, become Killers and destroy the Life on a Planet. Both physical and the Eco System.

But as religion states our HTA will return before we completely ruin the planet and rescue those that remain Alive.

This can be proved by all the nuclear bombs and wars going on all over the planet. Are we about ready to accept the End Times 'Arm'ageddon is being set up on Earth? The Abomination of Desolation, the Nuclear Bomb, does stand in Israel, one of the signs of the Last Days of Life on Earth, and they are also all over the Planet.

Peace.

I finally can explain the 6 Days of Creation/Colonization in the Bible as 6,000 years Space Time of our High Tech Ancestors as each Day is 1000 years of Earth Time. "A thousand years is as 1 Day with the Lord". The Lord is our HTA.

I also say our HTA sent in a blue-green algae bomb into the soupy atmosphere to break down the soupy atmosphere, when the spirit of God moved upon the waters.

Back in the 1970s our scientists said that is how they would colonize a planet that had a soupy atmosphere like Earth had in the beginning. Our scientist said it would be a planet like Earth that was covered with a heavy soupy atmosphere and the sun could not penetrate it, like Venus.

That is the atmosphere that was around Earth in the beginning. In Genesis, the spirit of God or the blue-green algae bomb, moved upon the face of the waters, and separated the gases and the water of the soupy atmosphere, and made the firmament or our atmosphere. The water went above the atmosphere and also below and made the sea on Earth.

The water that went above the atmosphere made the Ice-Crystal Canopy. The gases made the Ozone Canopy, and they both protected Life from the ultra-vilot rays of the Sun.

On Day 4 the atmosphere was clear and the sun, moon and stars could be seen from the land.

Now Genesis 1: 4,5. "And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

The first 3 verses described the action of the blue-green algae and when the air was clear, vs. 4, 5, on Day 4, describe the clear atomsphere that showed the 24 hour day and night on the planet. Earth was not Created in 6, 24 hour days because the clear atmosphere was not set up until Day 4 of the creation/colonization.

I have been told I was wrong in saying the creation/colonization of Earth lasted 6,000 years, and that it was created in 6, 24 hour days, but sometimes Bible verses are not translated in the proper order, and we did not have the High Tech Science knowledge to translate the Bible.

Verse 4,5 are about when the soup was clear, and the sun reached the land and day and night began on Earth. Days 1 and 2 set up the atmosphere and the sea on Earth, then on Day 3 the trees, bushes, grass, etc. were added to finish clearing the atmosphere.

Hope this convinces the ones that think the creation/colonization lasted 6, 24 hour days. It took 6 Days, 6,000 years Earth Time to set up the Eco System on the Earth for Humans, and in 6,000 years Earth Time Fallen Humans have ruined the Eco System.

High Tech Science and myth also helps understand the Noah/Atlantis Planetary Flood. The Flood, read verse by verse, were not in order also, and confused people to think the flood was only a 40 day flood, when the water continued for 6 months, and took 6 months to drain down, and the Flood lasted over 1 year.

Hope this convinces the ones that still think the Noah Flood was 40 days and nights.

Peace.

Another High Tech Science Truth is that the Hell in the Bible is the Black Hole in Space.

Our High Tech Ancestors (HTA) did Colonize Earth with High Tech Science Colonization and Reproduction. They keep their Eternal Pure-bred Physical Life Forever with High Tech Science corrections and regeneration. This is the Fountain of Youth that Man looks for on Earth. When we die we do not go to Heaven, but return to the elements of LIFE.

When their Sun dies, our HTA have the High Tech Science to escape their planet. When their Universe collapses into a Black Hole, they have the High Tech Science to escape to another Universe. This gives Eternal Pure-bred Physical Life After Birth to Humans.

So people on Earth do not got to Heaven or Hell when they die. You can only go to Heaven/Space in a High Tech Pure-bred Physical Body in High Tech spaceships. You can only go to Hell if you die on a Planet when your Sun dies.

When the Universe of your Sun Collapses, your Atom and Electo-Magnetic Elements then go into the Black Hole and all these Elements are used for a new Universe for our HTA to escape to. This High Tech Science Knowledge should keep Man from Judging his Fellowman as to whether they will go to Heaven or Hell when they die.

There is Eternal Life on Planets and in Universes, but Eternal Pure-bred Physical Life is only on Planets with Balanced Eco Systems and in spaceships, called Heaven in the Bible. The Man Gods were our Pure-bred Human Ancestors. The One True GOD of the Atom and EMF is the Source Of Life (SOL), and the only element that can be called GOD.

Life is for the Living, not the Dead.

Peace.

Another High Tech Science topic. The High Tech Science Reproduction in a High Tech Science Womb.

Why are we still arguing about the female and abortion? After 6000 years of Heterosexual Mis-bred Body Birth, and all the problems and killing that has resulted in people that are alive?

Why we cannot get as upset about all this Killing of people in War is beyond me. I guess this is built-in punishment for the female, for making the male fertilize her, when they were not suppose to reproduce by Body.

I accept that Man in the beginning was reproduced by High Tech Science in the Garden of Eden, after the Planet was Colonized by our HTA.

With all the common ssense in the world, the reaction to High Tech Science Pure-bred reproduction in a High Tech Womb that makes Perfect Humans, instead of the defective Humans maade in the female womb, is frightening to me.

Maaybe it is better for Fallen Man to blow up their planet, and in this way get rid of the defective Life that Kills GOD/SOLs Creation of planets and universes.

Life is for the Living, not the Dead.
Peace and Eternal Physical Human Life can be had in High Tech Pure-bred Genetic Physical Human Societies.

bill nye was the world to my 5th grade class :( we are all sad

bill nye was the world to my 5th grade class :( we are all sad

Evolution is far from science. There truly is no evidence to support it that can't be used to support creation also. Evolution cannot be proven or explained using the scientific method as it can't be tested or seen, therefore it is not science. I am not claiming that creation can be considered science either for the same reasons. These are both religions based on someone's mindset before they look at the available evidence. Fossils can be seen as having been formed over millions of years, but there is a better way to look at it. If there was a worldwide flood what would you expect? "Millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth, and what do we see? millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth." (Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis ministries). So you can see depending on how you think fossils can be interpreted to support both evolution and creation. please visit answersingenesis.org go to answers--get answers and read some articles. They have very good information explaining everything on the topic of creation and evolution, and Christianity in general.

tz.
Above, I have comments about the Planetary Noah/Atlantis Flood and also say the Tidal Wave Action from the Planetary Flood buried the Noah/Atlantis Society all over the planet. Again, we have another Society covering Earth, and are getting ready for the Planetary Judgement Day Fire Catastropy.

I also have posting above about the High Tech Colonization of Earth by our High Tech Ancestors that did use the Intelligent Design described in Genesis 1.

Also that the Fall of the Pure-bred Humans, was Body Birth that started the Genetic Mis-bred people ever since. We are all descendants of the one Blood of Adam and Eve, and with Body Birth, Blood relation intermarriage, has made all the Mis-bred people on Earth.

Do unto others what you want done to yourself, and do not do unto other what you do not want done to yourself, has never been followed since Blood Intermarriage for Human Life began. Greed, Envy, Hate, Killing, Torture, and Killing has been the Lifestyle ever since.

We know what blood intermarriage does to families, but no one has ever considered that all Life on Earth is caused by Mis-bred Blood Intermarriage. Adam and Eve were Pure-bred Clones, and when they 'fell' to Body Birth all the problems on Earth began. Blood Intermarriage is coming to a head today, with our nuclear bombs on land and sea, ready to blow up our Planet. The root cause of Mis-bred Blood Intermarriage is the male member.

Peace, Peace, is an empty word, when there is no Peace.

We are all related by Blood. Since the fall from perfect bodies to Body Birth bodies, all are descendants from, Cain's Evil genetics and Abel's good genetics. Did they marry sisters? That Inbreeding continued down through time. No one knows what the genetics, in the seeds caried that made us, from our mother and father who had different genetics. So the mixture goes on generation after generation, that make defective bodies.

We now can start the fetus in the labratory, and put it in the female, so Body Birth should be stopped. We do not need any more people, than the overload on Spaceship Earth, of over 6 billion people. If we would stop killing so many in war, we would not need to replace people.

Just when it appeared that God may have delayed his response to evolutionists, enter THE QUEST FOR RIGHT, a masterful work on creationism.
The great gulf of ambiguity that once separated Intelligent Design from legitimate scientific discourse has been abolished. It is a fact: The Quest for Right has accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between forces advocating creationism and those promoting evolution. A review:
The Lord has heard the cries of His people and responded with a scientific resource on creationism that will stop these onslaughts against Christianity. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena that will ultimately replace the Darwinian view.
For example, the investigation dismantles the hocus pocus responsible for the various absolute radioisometric dating techniques by which rocks and other materials are supposedly dated. Absolute-"perfect, complete, definite; without a prospect of being incorrect." On these incalculable formulae - and they are incalculable - rest the science council's claim that the earth is of great age, accreting some 4.6 billion years B.C. Upon publication of The Quest for Right, the council's choice of the superlative absolute will be assessed to be a scurrilous invective, an "abusive, offensive, even vulgar, connotation." After all, who would question an absolute? It is a matter of record that these dating systems are the tools by which evolutionists have attempted to rip apart the validity of historical documentations, specifically, that the account of creation as recorded in the Bible is mythology. The Quest for Right has changed all of that: the scientific record of creation has stood undaunted against these attacks and has proven to be an invaluable asset to the in-depth investigation.
The first three volumes of the seven volume set will be published early fall '07. The Quest for Right is all new from the get go and is destined to make headlines that will reverberate within the halls of academia throughout the world. Coming soon to bookstores and online merchants such as Amazone.com, Barnes and Nobel.com, and Walmart.com. Author, C. David Parsons, biblical scholar and scientist extraordinare.

Comments about Linda Parsons post.
Determining the age of the rocks on Earth, is difficult when the High Tech Creation/Colonization of Earth for 6 Days is accepted. A Day is as a thousand years with the Lord. Each Day of Creation/Colonization was 1000 years space travel, not a day of Earth Time. The Creation/Colonization was 6000 years. This is a better estimate when we Colonize a planet, and our astronauts go on a spaceship to Colonize another planet. Their age will be different from ours when they return. The 6 Days will be the pattern we will also follow, as I have explained above.

When we accept that the religious Noah Flood and the myth of the Sinking of High Tech Atlantis was the same Planetary Flood, and the whole Earth was under water, we will see that the rock formation was changed and their remains in the new top soil fossils, should not be given the age of the original rock of Earth, before it was Colonized.
That is where science gets the age of the fossils from the Noah/Atlantis Society, in the High Tech World Before the Flood.

Just as the myth of High Tech Atlantis split down the middle and sank, so the Noah land mass split down the middle and sank. The proof is on our maps. Our land mass is split down the middle into two parts also, from the Arctic Ocean down through the Atlantis Ocean and also sank. The Flood lasted for over a year according the the Christian Bible, not 40 days and nights, to launch Noah's Ark. Noah's Ark was as big as the Titanic, and that takes High Tech to make it, like we have today.

This evening Space Shuttle Atlantis blasted off for the international space station.
The Glory Light of the Lord, that is brighter than the sun in the Christian Bible, was seen again when the shuttle rose up into space.
The Bible and all scripture and myth needs to be translated with a High Tech understanding.

KMBCTV9.com. 7/
Other News:
"Dinosaurs coexisted with their ancestors"
"Dinosaurs shared the Earth for millions of years with the species that were their ancestors, a new study concludes."

In the Noah/Atlantis Society, their High Tech Knowledge worked in the lab on animals and ended up making their Jurastic Park.
Today, our High Tech Knowledge has scientiests also experimenting with animals. They work on genetic change with them and added a human ear on a mouse. We also clone animals. We also have the High Tech Knowledge on how to Colonize a Planet.

In Genesis with a High Tech translation, Earth was Colonized in the 6 Days space time, 6,000 years Earth time by our High Tech Ancestors called God. The Adam and Eve Colony were male and female clones. Eve was made from Adam's rib. They were not reproduced by Body Birth. Adam and Eve did reproduce Cain and Abel by Inbred Body Birth, and all people since are a result of Mid-bred Genetic Body Birth.
Today we again can join the egg and sperm in the lab and just need a High Tech Womb to correct all Genetic and Physical deformitives in the fetus to reproduce Pure-bred Humans like Adam and Eve Clones. Then all Humans have Equal Birth by the Mother of All.

Bill's 'Faith Matters' Weblog. 7/21/07. About Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, and their practices of one man with many wives.
Referral: Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints.
Aottom of article. 3. "There are reports of an alarming rise in the number of birth defects caused by inbreeding."

In Genesis, in the Christian Bible, it records High Tech Colonization and Reproduction, The Fall of Pure-bred Clones to Body Birth, and the Noah Society and the myth of High Tech Atlantis as the same event in the past. Our Earth is split down the middle and so was Atlantis. When translated with High Tech Knowledge Translation Genesis becomes awesome.
The Flood in Genesis lasted over a year, and the tsunami tidal waves deposited all that life, all over the new strata of Earth. That is why there are sea shells on mountain tops.

Science digging up that civilization all around our planet, numbers the years, by the original rock of Earth; the top strata is not that old. All the solar systems in our Universe are the same age. When a Universe falls into a Black Hole it regenerates the elements and explodes into a new Universe of Solar Systems. High Tech Pure-bred Physical Life can escape their planet or Universe, when their Sun dies or their Universe collapses, and move on, and keep their Pure-bred Physical Life After Birth. There is Eternal Human Physical Life on Earths and in Spaceships, called God in our image, in religion.

Are we ready for a High Tech Translation of the Christian Bible and all scriptures and myth?

Above KMBC9.com was also 7/21/07.

Instead of KMBC9.com it should be thekansascitychannel.com

Jesus said to spread what he taught to all people. But what he taught and lived, about Equal Sharing of All needs, and turn the other cheek, became another religion, instead of an Equal Lifestyle.
Today the Christians have done a good job of spreading the Christian Bible around the planet.
Now we need a High Tech Translation of Genesis and the New Testament, to understand what High Tech happened in the past, and what High Tech comes next.
Genesis and the New Testament have the information about High Tech Colonization and High Tech Reproduction, and this information, is in all countries around the world. And the countries with High Tech Knowledge is in many countries today, and High Tech Colonization is a fact, and so is reproduction of the egg and sperm in a dish and then put into the female womb. We just need a High Tech Womb to finish the job of reproducting by High Tech.

Once the whole planet accepts this High Tech translation of Genesis and the New Testament, it should cause all Humans to start Equal Sharing of whatever resources are left, and lay down their guns and bombs, and have Peace until Jesus and our High Tech Ancestors come back to rescue us from the Judgement Day Fire we have set up on land and sea. GOD nor God not Satan ruined our Home Earth, Fallen Mis-bred Humans did.

I do not think we can crank up our High Tech to 'regenerate' all Mis-bred people to Pure-bred people, and make High Tech Spaceships, in time to evacuate Earth to another Planet. But we could get a start on Equality in All Things nedcessary for Human Life as we know it.
It takes 6000 years Earth time to Coloonize a Planet, and we do not have that much time before the Judgement Day Fire, and the breaking of our Ozone Canopy.

It is time for All Fallen Humans on Earth to come to the Truth of the Christian Bible's Eternal Pure-bred Physical Life After Birth on Planets and in Spaceships. Is there really "Life After Death" as we know it? Where? In Heaven? Heaven is a Pure-bred Planet with spaceships, and we cannot Die and go there. There are many mansions/planets that do have Humans with Eternal Pure-bred Life After Birth, and our Ancestors will prove it when they return to rescue us.

To "Be" or not To "Be", that is the question we face today with our nuclear bombs all over Earth on land and ses. Are we ready to destroy all these bombs and Start Living, instead of Dying?

I think it is great that there are people that will challenge thought even when it is in a region that has different belief system. If thought isn't challenge it stays the same and unchanging. Way to go Bill!

Are we sure that we know that the evidence is heading to evolutionism? I have heard that several top scientists have become Christians because of the stuff they have seen in science. I sugest that people should just find out for them selves go to the top of the fields that they have questions about. Go to both sides. Look at the stuff objectivly open. Follow Lee Strobel's foot steps.

all I can say here is that we can prove lots of things with the scientific method. And we can also come to a knowledge of God also. both can be tested. One in a lab and the other on our knees. Do you know of faith? I believe there is a perfect mesh between God and science. we just have yet to understand that relationship. Every discovery we make gets us closer. just wait. Great things are about to happen. And yes, everything has answers.

Kyle.
Genesis has the High Tech Science Knowledge, of today's discoveries, of how to Colonize a Planet with our High Tech Colonization, that is like that in Genesis 1.
Our scientists in the 1960s, projected Colonizing Venus, as it has a soupy water atmosphere as Earth had in the beginning, where the sunlight cannot reach the land area. The 6 Days of Space Time for the Creation/Colonization were 6000 years of Earth Time.
In Genesis 1 and 2. God talked like Humans do, and God, in whose Image Humans were made, was our High Tech Human Ancestors that Colonized Earth. Some of my former posts here, explain the 6 Days of Colonization of Life on Earth. We have been caught up, in Ancestor Worship for 6000 years of the Gods that walked and talked and looked like Humans; we are in their Image only not Pure-bred Humans but Mis-bred Humans.

Genesis 1:26,27. KJV. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
Genesis 2:20-23. KJV. "And Adam gave names to all cattle and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a womoan, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
This Lord God, our male and female High Tech Ancestors Colonized Earth with their High Tech Science Knowledge and also reproduced Male and Female clones in thier Image.
How much clearer does Genesis need to be, to understand the High Tech Science Knowledge of the Reproduction in a petri dish in the lab, without the sex act, and the cloning Knowledge we have today?

Genesis 4: 1,2. KJV. "And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. And whe again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground."
What could be clearer that the Original Sin of Genetic and Physical Pure-bred Adam and Eve, the Higher 'Nature' of Reproduction, 'fell' to Body Birth the Lowwer 'Nature' of Mis-bred Genetic and Physical Reproduction, that became the Original Sin of Pure-bred Humans, and all Humans born by the Original Sin since?

We have to accept this High Tech Science Knowledge was on Earth 'in the beginning' of Life on Earth. Either accept Life on Earth, was Colonized from 12000 years ago to 6000 B.C. years ago. And that Human Life in the Beginning was Pure-bred Humans, not reproduced by Body Birth. We need today to prove with our High Tech Science Knowledge the High Tech Genesis Colonization, or, to prove that Life evolved for millions of years.

Life as we Know it was on Earth for 6000 years and Fallen Humans have destroyed it, in 6000 years. We are up to the End Times Final Judgement Day of our Earth's Death. With our Atomic Waste, and all kinds Pollution on land and sea, it will be the Cause of the Judgement Day Fire; done by Fallen Humans, not done by God. Our Pollution will destroy the Ozone Canopy and then the ultraviolet radiation of the Sun will reach Earth, and Life as we know it cannot exist.

What will be left of Earth, after the Last Days 'Arm'ageddon with a Nucler Bomb War, that is setting up today, in the Middle East with the USA invasion of Iraq, and our battle cry for the invasion of Iran? How will the Nations with the Nuclear Bombs set up sides? Nine countries have the bomb today.

My web site is noted above, and has the sections posted that show all these High Tech Science Knowledge events on Earth since the Beginning of Life on Earth: Creation, Flood, Evolution, High Tech, Fall, and Civilization.

Peace.

I forgot to add, Cain became the First Killer of a Brother of Life, and Humans reproduced by Body Birth are still Killing their Brothers/Sisters of Life.
Fallen Humans have made Brothers/Sisters their Enemy. Why?
The Enemies listed in religion are not Human, but the World, the Devil, and our Flesh, which are not our enemies that we can conquer with weapons of mass destruction. We only destroy ourselves and our Eco System. High Tech Pure-bred Male and Female Clone Humans are Equal Caretaker Helpmeets. Body Birth Mis-bred Male and Female Mates are Killers of God's Life on Earth. Why?
I have not found this reason as yet. It was not eating the Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but using the Evil Reproduction of the Fruit on the Tree of Good and Evil.

My web site:

http://home.kc.rr.com/hightech/home.html

I also post on Bill Tammeus "Faith Matters" Weblog.

Wikipedia. World Population.
As of Sept. 2007 the planet has 6.6 billion people.
By 2011 it is projected to reach over 9 billion.
By 2050 it is projected to reach 9 billion.
The Birth rate has gone down, but is still above replacement level.

Heterosexuals are responsible for this population explosion from 1900 to 2000, a 100 year period. But they do not Take responsibility for these Human, and use starvation and war, as they have in the past, to thin down the overload. And now they have nuclear bombs on land and sea, but if they use them, it will probably Unbalance Earth's Eco System, to where the Earth and All Life will die. Judgement Day for Heterosexual Reproduction on Earth, is at hand.

Today we do not need the sex act to reproduce Humans.
We make a fetus in a petri dish and put it back in the female. Now we need a High Tech Womb so the female can get her Equality back, when she had to be the Baby Maker.
So it should be simple enough to harvest the male seed and freeze it. We do that already and also freeze female eggs. So making males sterile, does not cut down on their pleasure sex activity, and is the best Way, to control the Overpopulation of our Home Planet. All the other contraceptives, and even Heterosexuals doing the homosexual pleasure sex acts, has not stopped the overpopulation.

Correction.
By 2011 it is expected to reach 7 billion people.

Marshall WI is about 20 minutes outside of Madison,WI. My name is Lucas Easley and I am 10 years old and like science and love your shows. I would be very happy if you could come to our school for a visit. Please, it would mean a lot to me and my school

Lucas, I love Bill Nye too. . . . The following answers the question about Intelligent Design. The reason I came to you site is I have an important message to tell you and everyone. The message is from God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost respectively sent in the Spring of 2006. It is about the meaning of First is Last and Last is First . The message is this:
In the morning I go to Heaven. In the afternoon I live my life. In the evening I die, death. What does this mean? In other words this means Birth is Last and Last is Birth. Think of this as a continuos circle of life. Birth, Life, Death, Birth. God also said that Judgment will be before Birth in Heaven. AS birth on Earth is painful so will birth in Heaven. Yes, God has recently made contact and he sent a messenger. OH, one more point of interest. Did you know that Mike Douglas died on his birthday? Mel Steffor

The sheer stupidity of the creationist posts on this board boggles the mind. There is no controversy. Biological evolution is a fact. The list of logical fallacies on this site is nearly endless, but I do so love your arguments from ignorance.

Scientist: "I don't understand some aspect of reality. I will attempt to build a hypothesis that can help me understand it, and if enough evidence supports my hypothesis it will become a theory that will always remain open to any new evidence."
Creationist: "I don't understand some aspect of reality. GOD DID IT!!"

lol. ID is truth? creationists are just plain ignorant. Christianity is just borrowed from pagan myths.It was made up by romans and developed politically.

Christianity- a parody on the worship of the sun, in which they put a man called christ in the place of the sun, and pay him the adoration originally payed to the sun
-Thomas Paine

how about you guys go watch this-

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2660157984780296202&q=zeitgeist-+christianity&total=168&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

Bill Nye kicks a@#, dont hate on him just cause he's right...

The original issue is not whether ID is a view that must be discredited or thought of as hocus pocus, but rather whether or not it should be taught in a science class.

Science is a specific methodology using specific parameters, the scientific theory being one of them. ID by it's very definition does not, by its definition, follow that methodology nor fall within the exact same parameters. That's the end of the discussion. Period. To teach both in the same class changes the nature of the class. You can do it, sure, but then whatever you are teaching is no longer a science class.

However, that's boring and doesn't allow us to insult each other so let's dissect ad nauseum the validity of the methodology and parameters used by either system. *sigh*

Many people in previous posts have defined what "theory" really means and why ID cannot comply with that definition. Those who support ID, in my opinion, don't like having ID excluded from science class because it somehow holds up science as being superior to religion. It isn't and it doesn't. Science is simply a more logical way of looking at the world. ID is a part of Faith which by definition requires a leap over what is logical to reach a conclusion. To contend ID belongs in a science class either A) changes the class so that it is no longer science; or B) requires ID to conform to the methodology and parameters of science...which it cannot.

Science continually seeks to refine and improve itself, or to put it another way, disprove what has come before using a stringent series of tests. ID accepts its own existence as is without such tests which is why it cannot be science but just because ID is not science does not make it less relevant. Literature isn't science, neither is math or social studies, but that doesn't make them any less valid in the effort to create a complete and fulfilled person.

In the interest of full disclosure, my view is thus - there is an ultimate creator of life, the universe, and everything (LUE)...however his plan is so intricate, so grand, so beyond our comprehension that the idea that we humans can understand the most simple of its machinations is gut-busting laughable. Science is mental masturbation and Faith is a fairy tale. Neither are anywhere near the truth, but we are lesser beings and failing a complete understanding of LUE they are the closest thing we have to the ultimate truth. To assume we can understand the master plan is madness, though for some reason - divine intervention, evolution, aliens, chocolate milk - we have been imbued with curiosity and free will so I also accept that our very nature requires us to seek out that complete understanding once excruciatingly slow step forward at a time. ID however, doesn't encourage me to grow while science does. So I choose to believe we came from a place we must have faith once existed and are going to a place we must have faith will exist using the best process of understanding that our limited forms allow us.

Debate that view all you like but whatever your conclusion, you can't disprove my view because I don't claim that it is fact.

I still remember those days in school listening to Carl Sagan and Bill Nye. At the time I just listened, then I grew up. Now I know there is nothing but foolishness about everything the two touched on when it came to evolution and creation. It is very sad to grow up and find out that two nice men like them actually believe in evolution, especially when the evidence for creation is overwhelming. It is more than obvious that everything in the universe has been created by intelligent design. One of the greatest designs known in science is the design of the flagellum. The flagellum is simply too complicated to have been developed by chance over a great period of time. If just one part of the flagellum does not function it cannot work. It is evident that God is still light years ahead in nanotechnology!

The greatest inventor of all time is Jesus Christ! He created everything first! - SaintlyMic.com

Intelligent Design is separate and apart from Creationism (Bible; Genesis).

Darwins' Theory of Evolution has not been proved either. And in fact, each attempt to do so has resulted in one of two outcomes: evidence that the 160+year old hypothesis is not supportable; or out and out fraud (English tree moths).

That's not to say that evolution as a theory is wrong. Just that there has been no proof to support it like we have for Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

"If a hypothesis can not be proved using the scientific method taught to elementary school students, how can it be considered a potential contribution to scientific knowledge?" Based on this post from Ruben and the evidence to-date, evolution should not be taught on schools either.

Fact: even Darwinists have stopped using the fossil record as support for the theory of evolution because it leaves too many gaps.

Fact: specific components of life can be characterized by irreducible complexity e.g., they can't be achieved by stages of evolution even within a species and certainly not trans-species. So how did they come about? Still an unanswered question.

So, to keep Creationism out of the classroom based on the specious argument of separation of church and state may be acceptable, denying the theory of Intelligent Design from the classroom based on "you can't prove it" is simple political censorship in the extreme. You can't prove evolution either and to this day there is no scientific evidence to support it and much to refute it.

If evolution exists, why haven't apes fought humans in the jungles so that the apes could take back the jungles. And an evolutionists answer would be 2 or 3 hundred years is not long enough for an ape to mature to fight humans. Evolution is as much of a hoax as the global warming deal. Global warming never existed but it is only a cycle that the earth goes through. Personally, I am a creationist and I completely support that God made the earth in seven days. Creationists actually have a written out book that they can follow; Evolutionists do not. Also, Creationism needs to be allowed in the classroom so kids can make their own decisions on whether or not they are a believer in Creationism or not. Also, the proper way to go about it, in the older ages (10th - 12th grade), would be to debate it in front of the class - one time thing only. Until then have taught by the teacher in as close to an unbiased way as possible.

If there was no God, then where did all the matter in the universe come from?

It constantly amazes me how the blindly religious always seems to want to make others as ignorant as they are. If any of them actually looked into the history of religious thought they would soon see that the majority of their bible is taken from much earlier philosophies. Even a cursory look will reveal that the tenants of their beliefs come from Sumerian, Babylonian, and Egyptian religions. Christ was not unique, indeed his deeds are recycled from figures as far back as Gilgamesh (which predates the Judean religion by centuries). His image is a copy of Zeus, even their precious ten commandments have been taken almost word for word from the Egyptian book of the dead. So do us all a favor and keep your myths and imaginary friends out of the classroom. If you want them to know about them, that is what your churches are for.

Maybe you guys should check this out. A new book just came out and low and behold it gives us evidence of God, nature, and science, all wrapped up into one big ball.

It claims the Hebrew letters that were given to Moses on Mount Sinai that were recorded in the bible to be inscribed the the finger of God himself can be found to be produced from the units of growth found in nature. The author shows how ALL the Hebrews can be formed from a conch shell. I guess what it reveals is that there is "intelegent design" in the Hebrew letters that correlates through nature.

The book is called "The Primordial Lanuage" by author Anita Meyer.

I think all you scientists out there will now have to reconsider.