Past Month's Most Commented Stories

Home > Readers

Commentary: Microbiological advances point away from Darwin

Thursday, April 3, 2008 9:51 AM PDT

By Tyler S. Ramey / for The Daily News

Printable version E-mail

E-mail this article 311 comment(s)

Font Size:

Cathy Zimmerman framed her issue well in “War on science must end” (Feb. 17 column). Her premise surely resonated with others convinced that the current tension within science has its source in those darn anti-Darwinists. At least she got that right.

Like it or not, Darwinism is a social and scientific brainwash. Some proof of this lies with those rolling their eyes or laughing at such a statement, all without ever having examined the absence of evidence for the theory or more plausible explanations regarding origins. Darwinism only passes as purely scientific among those who believe in a purposeless and philosophically material universe; this describes those of the scientific organizations Zimmerman cites as the final authorities on what qualifies as science.

The logical — purely logical — basis of Darwinian evolution fails in so many ways that critical thinkers are left mystified about the reasoning ability of those who hold to it. One need not be a believer in the supernatural, i.e., God, to recognize Darwinism’s insurmountable problems, not the least of which is its mathematical impossibility based on the law of small probability. Sadly, evidence involving numbers won’t convince scores of innumerate citizens (the numbers equivalent to “illiterate”) who believe they have a real chance at winning the lottery But statistical evidence aside, modern cosmology presents enough philosophical and scientific problems for Darwinism, but that’s another letter.

There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, Ph.Ds and MDs — probably not those “respected” ones Zimmerman refers to — who are intellectually honest about where scientific discovery is leading, and it’s not closer to Darwin ... that’s just a fact. Many of these scientists and medical doctors and researchers have been expelled from academia because they dared question the Darwinian paradigm. So much for academic freedom and the open market of ideas.

Zimmerman’s column reads like someone baptized by Carl Sagan or Richard Dawkins (no bias there, I’m sure), not one who has thought carefully about latest discovery or weighed compelling evidence about origins opposite of Darwin’s antiquated theory. But I understand the fear of avoiding fair examination of evidence. If it leads one away from Darwinism, alternatives require uncomfortable progression toward that which Darwinism denies altogether, an intelligent cause of the universe.

And we can’t have that. So, faith in Darwinism at all costs is the only choice for those who cannot stomach a supernatural source for all that is. It’s more respectable by the way to admit Darwinism’s failure while not admitting belief in God than it is to continue propagating a debunked theory.

Darwin didn’t have the tools of microbiology in his century. Were he exposed to the micro world of the irreducible complexity of single cells, Darwin’s theory would have been a footnote in his own journal instead of a religion. It’s high time that the brainwashed masses consider the implications of new, that’s NEW, scientific discoveries and allow themselves to follow where real evidence leads, not where old traditions or naivety demand.

Tyler S. Ramey is a Longview resident.

averageguy wrote on Mar 17, 2008 9:31 AM:

" Excellent! Thank you. "

publicawarness wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:12 AM:

" It is high time that comments like this get into the news! Science is making leaps and bounds that do not point toward evolution! Thanks for your article! "

The Dogs Meow, wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:33 AM:

" Why is tdn publishing a non-scientific article on a scientific topic from a member of the 'Columbia Evangelical Seminary' and having it miss-represent Cathy Zimmerman, a 'Lecturer in Violence Against Women'? Or do I have the people wrong. Anyways, science is founded on gathering evidence then evaluating what that evidence suggests. Not, having a belief and searching for supporting evidence. And science tries to disprove hypothesis NOT trying to disprove someone else�s hypothesis as this article is attempting, but fails to provide more than opinion. "

Why 2 blogs, wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:35 AM:

" Why are there two blogs for this article? One here. The other under 'local, area news, sundays articles' "

Oh Dear wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:39 AM:

" Ill bet the Evolutionists are knashing there teeth over this. How dare anyone dispute this false religion. LOL "

Be curious wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:52 AM:

" For a scientific perspective on how cells MAY have evolved suggest you read Capra's "The Hidden Connection" discussing the implications of non-linear dynamics and systems theory. Science and scientific theory is a process not an absolute and does not require faith, just an open inquiring mind. "

Mr. Grim wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:17 AM:

" This article is absolute hogwash. The author offers not one shred of evidence to support his claim. If you're going to try and refute Darwin's claims, you need to come to the table with some peer-reviewed research (which there are volumes of in support of Darwin's theories, by the way). Whoever this Tyler S. Ramey guy is, he is obviously not a scientist or even a wannabe. Just another fearfull Christian spouting nonsense. Do some unbiased research of your own before you publish weak-ass arguements in the paper. You are doing your faithful readers a disservice by publishing personally weighted attacks on something you know nothing about. "

R hoffman wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:44 AM:

" Both sides need to get over it. There are two types of evolution. Micro and Macro. Micro cannot be disputed. Well you can, but don't. The difference is micro is a change withing the species. That acounts for changes say as in the mant different breeds of dogs. Also as in hybreading of plants. The term "Mutation" only refers to change. It means nothing sinister as some would leave you to believe. It is shown in the very micro-organisms talked about in this commentary. If these changes didnt happen, bactiria wouldn't change and "evolve" to become more hardy and resistant to medications and the like. Mutation dosent not mean changeing from one organism to another. "

Thoughtful wrote on Mar 17, 2008 12:32 PM:

" Some citations to some specific scientific research on how advances in microbiology have discounted the Darwinian theory would have been greatly appreciated and bolster this weak argument. While I personally agree with the conclusion the article does little to help the critical thinking science minded individual reach the same conclusion in a reasonable manner. "

See what I mean wrote on Mar 17, 2008 1:07 PM:

" Wow ...Look how angry these evolutionists get when you attack their religion. "

me wrote on Mar 17, 2008 1:39 PM:

" I learned long ago (in a science class, no less) that it takes much more "faith" to believe in evolution, than it does to believe in Creation. Evolution has definitely become a religion whose followers are not open to new scientific discoveries if they don't support their theory. "

Why a new flu vacine every year? wrote on Mar 17, 2008 2:00 PM:

" Because the flu evolves is why. I was looking for a radio station the other day (PBS) and found some religious station and the speaker said they had found dinasour foot prints and human footprints on the same strata, clearly a lie designed to make a point. That is all this article on evolution is, just a religious person trying to lie to make a point. Now you can believe in UFO's or lepricans or the Loc Ness Monster, or whatever you want. But let's not throw away science just to make you feel better about the bible. How many of you got a flu vacination this year; thank Darwin. "

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District wrote on Mar 17, 2008 2:12 PM:

" Read this decision, remember the one that Pat Robertson said that Dover would suffer god's wrath for, it states that intelligent design is simply teaching creationism and ultimately that means that god did it. This decision also made teaching intelligent design illegal in public school science classes. Well if that were true we could simply abandon science and concentrate on prayer, that's what president ratface does, relys on faith insead of data, facts, or truth. Why do you ignorant bible thumpers insist on talking about things you have zero comprehension of. Oh I guess that would be everything. "

FDR wrote on Mar 17, 2008 2:26 PM:

" The US recently ranked with the world's "C" students in a test administered every three years by the organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Science and Math. According to a 2002 study by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, the US was the only developed nation in the survey where a majority of citizens reported that religion played a "very important" role in their lives. So in a very religious country with relatively poor science education is it any suprise that a 2006 poll found that 55% of Americans believe in creationism? Just because a majority (in this country) believe it doesn't make it true.
Science is built on six core principles: observation, communication, classification, measurement, inference, and predicion. You must start out with observable, verifiable, and repeatable processeces and work your way up towards making a prediction. In science, inferences about how things work are continually constructed, modified, and even rejected based on new observations. Hard core creationists who feel that the world isn't big enough for science and religion work the opposite way: they have their predicion (via Genesis) and work their way back down the scientific chain, attacking the processes, inferences, measurements as a way to instill doubt in evolution. Mr. Tyler Ramey is one who started out with his preconceived beliefs, he served on the board of the Columbia Evangelical Seminary. "

So sad for some Christians wrote on Mar 17, 2008 2:27 PM:

" It is so sad that ignorant individuals call scientific study a "religion". They are stunting their children's intellectual growth by not recognizing the value in scientific research. I am a Christian, and there is nothing that has been discovered in scientific study that refutes the Bible. In fact, most discoveries point to the truth in the inspired words written years before many things of a scientific nature were known. It is not necessary for folks to denigrate science to put forward religion. They are not opposites - and in fact only enhance one another. No one living now on this earth knows how God made this earth, this universe, life - both plant and animal, or his plan for the renewal of life, and the renewal of each and every form eventually on this planet, and every body in space. Science seeks the origins of the uiniverse, the origins of life, the study of all living things, the ways in which this planet renews itself, how life sustains itself,and recovers from the ignorant destruction by man, among many other things. It is not sacreligious to study such things. God gave us a mind and expects us to use it. "

Numerous problems: wrote on Mar 17, 2008 4:40 PM:

" I realize this is a glorified letter to the editor, but when it's linked off the front page some readers may take this as an actual article.

As mentioned before the author is a board member at the Columbia Evangelical Seminary. Strangely the author chooses not to cite a single source but rather we are to take his word.

Third if TDN is going to reference a prior article it would be great if the hyperlink actually worked. I don't think anyone wants to email Cathy Zimmerman "

Evilution wrote on Mar 17, 2008 5:34 PM:

" Poor silly evolutionists,,boy do they get mad when they dont hear what they want to hear..If you want to get them really excited, talk about their questionable degrees...Ha what fools "

1.2.3. wrote on Mar 17, 2008 5:50 PM:

" 1. Yes Darwinism is one of the greatest leaps of faith you can choose. 2 Glen Rose Texas is where you can find dinosaur and human footprints formed at the same time. 3. Anybody that thinks human existence as it is today can be maintained without a major correction such as a depression, war, famine, etc� probably believes their great, great, great.... grandfather was a primate. "

Agreed wrote on Mar 17, 2008 6:09 PM:

" Good point. If people want to be ignorant, let them be ignorant. "

Tyler S. Ramey wrote on Mar 17, 2008 9:19 PM:

" It's interesting to read the numerous logical fallacies of some hostile respondents. For the record, I don't serve on any board of any organizations, but if I did, such a fact would have nothing to do with the premises of the article under scrutiny. Those who do Google searches and discover information they believe true would do well to confirm it by reputable means, or at least pay attention to dates and other such important details. The suggestion of one or two hostile respondents (who are apparently insecure in their own positions) that a past affiliation with a Christian seminary disqualifies my assertions is a violation of Logic 101, further advancing my claim that Darwinists are not clear thinkers. "

Tyler Ramey wrote on Mar 17, 2008 9:31 PM:

" P. S. It's fascinating how readers have turned the subject of my article into a "creation/evolution" debate of sorts.

Perhaps rereading the article, then emailing me for clarification, would help those who are confused. "

Evil? Boy you guys can assign right and wrong to anything wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:55 PM:

" Yes my degree is in History and my other degree is in Education. What is your degree in; HOW ABOUT NOTHING, I doubt you finished high school. As an educator it's pretty easy to see you didn't get much of one. Yet you act like you are some kind of intellectually superior. My question is superior to what; a field mouse? Please read the Kitzmiller v Dover decision, a republican judge ruled that you are full of it. "

BobC wrote on Mar 18, 2008 1:18 AM:

" So many liars for Jesus. So many uneducated hicks. The religious flat-earthers who are so afraid of science have made our country the laughing-stock of the world.

Tyler S. Ramey, it's very obvious you know nothing about science. You show off your total ignorance of science because you want to defend your childish belief in magical creation. Everyone knows you're a liar. By the way, it's called biological evolution, not darwinism. Darwin has been dead for more than a century.

R hoffman, what's your evidence for the invisible boundary that makes evolution come to a complete stop before a species looks too different from its ancient ancestor?
"

Absolutist wrote on Mar 18, 2008 1:29 AM:

" Partial and compelling list of scientists dissenting Darwinism:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Link for peer-reviewed scientific publications supporting intelligent design . . . for those antagonists who pretend to want them.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640

Link explaining why intelligent design theory is not creationism. No matter how much antagonists misrepresent ID theory, it just ain't creationism . . . keep wishing Darwinists.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1329

"

Richard Forrest wrote on Mar 18, 2008 2:12 AM:

" Just to take the author to task on a few of the statements made in this poorly-informed opinion piece:

�There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, Ph.Ds and MDs � ... who are intellectually honest about where scientific discovery is leading...that�s just a fact.�

No, it�s not a fact, but a blatant falsehood promoted by the Discovery Institute. I�m and evolutionary biologist, and I have no problem in agreeing with the idea that we should be skeptical about �Darwinism�. It is the role of scientists to be skeptical about every theory.

�So, faith in Darwinism at ...It�s more respectable by the way to admit Darwinism�s failure while not admitting belief in God than it is to continue propagating a debunked theory.�

This is a blatant and outright falsehood which is a gross insult not only to the many evolutionary biologist who are devout religious believers, but also to the more than 10,000 Christian ministers who have signed a statement which says that they see no conflict between their faith and accepting the findings of science.

�Were he exposed to the micro world of the irreducible complexity of single cells, Darwin�s theory would have been a footnote inin his own journal instead of a religion.�

�Irreducible complexity� was PREDICTED by evolutionary theory over 80 years ago! This is a matter of historical record. I suggest that Tyler S. Ramey learns something about evolutionary theory rather than regurgitating the misrepresentations, distortions and outright falsehoods peddled by creationists.

"

Avinash Machado wrote on Mar 18, 2008 2:37 AM:

"

Many who believe in Evolution believe it because it is the fashionable thing to do, rather than look at the evidence. It is a theory that has no real evidence. It is more like science fiction than genuine science. "

MikeF wrote on Mar 18, 2008 5:45 AM:

" Thanks folks. It reassuring to know that all the uneducated don't live here in Florida.
"

Rodjk wrote on Mar 18, 2008 6:16 AM:

" Funny how the Dover School Board, when it went to trial, could not find a single scientist to support ID. Even Michael Behe, called their "Star" witness, accepts evolution and the billion year old earth. He admitted that he did no research and had nothing to support his claims. He did not publish papers on the subject, and did not know anyone who did. He also admitted that his definition of science was different from that used by, well, real scientist.

Notice the author gave no sources? Nothing to support his claims?

To support evolution there are many, many transitional fossils, observations of speciation and DNA evidence. Start here:
www.talkorigins.org "

David W. Irish wrote on Mar 18, 2008 6:24 AM:

" There is certainly nothing like an article without any substance, which starts off with a grandiose claim ("microbiological advances point away from Darwin") and then goes on to provide absolutely no evidence to back it up.

Tyler Ramsey does nothing more than repeat the empty claims of creationists ("Intelligent Design" is creationism, repackaged), without any support whatsoever.

Like so many creationists before, Tyler does nothing but repeat a series of claims which have been debunked over and over again. For example, much is said by creationists about how "hundreds of scientists... who are intellectually honest about where scientific discovery is leading, and it�s not closer to Darwin... that�s just a fact." Interesting proclamation, but the reality is that those "hundreds" of "scientists" who are being referred to are nothing more than people who got a "science degree" from non-accredited diploma mills and degree programs at non-accredited Christian schools, who have never worked a day in their lives as a scientist, nor have they submitted articles for peer review. These "hundreds of scientists" are simply there to lend their phoney credentials to signing petitions and statements put out by the Discovery Institute, to give the impression that real, actual working scientists are on their side.

The fact is that creationists are the ones who are not examining the evidence for evolution. They simply blow it all off, and just deny that the evidence is evidence of anything at all, then go on to write books which re-hash the same claims. "

Lee Jay wrote on Mar 18, 2008 7:06 AM:

" Is this article for real? That evolution occurs is a fact that humans have used to their advantage for millennia, having bread entire species into existence, some of which are now staples of our existence. All the arguments against are purely religious and have no grounding in fact whatsoever. Creationists ramble on looking for imaginary barriers to evolutionary progress, having never found any, and so simply claim without basis some "line in the sand" that evolution can't cross (macro - micro dividing line). It doesn't exist. Meanwhile, all the huge worldwide industries that depend on the theories that underpin evolution for their success keep grinding on (industries like petroleum, natural gas, medical treatment, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and pest control), making profits and supporting the ways of life of all of us, even the whack-job religious fundamentalists whose faith is too week to continue to believe in their Bronze-age fairy tales unless they are backed up by modern science.

Evolution is how it is - new species come into existence all the time. Humans have even created their own. The theory of evolution is a description of how those observed events take place, and it's advanced considerably since the time of Darwin. Yet, with all the modern tools we use and all the scrutiny that's been applied to the theory from so many different branches of science, we still have no evidence that the basic theory is false in any way - quite the contrary. "

darwin risies from the grave wrote on Mar 18, 2008 8:04 AM:

" In the immortal paraphrased words of the Principal from the Education Decathlon seen in the movie "Billy Madison", Your argument lacks fact, merit, and sense. "

Thethyme wrote on Mar 18, 2008 8:30 AM:

" I find it funny that Evolution is being accused of being a religion and closed minded b/c religion and closed mindedness go hand and hand, and who casts these stones religious people... That is too funny.

Evolution is a fact it does not require belief it happened and it continues to happen. The theory of evolution explains the mechanism via which it happens. The theory is robust and has changed significantly from when Darwin originally proposed it. The core of Darwin's theory evolution via natural selection is still a central tenant.

This article points out there is new evidence but does not state what that evidence is or where we can find it, this is very hallow, it is not enough to just criticize evolution it is not going anywhere, if fact it been here all along. If there is a better explanation then it must also propose a testable alternative theory that not only explains all the evidence and supposed holes in evolution with out creating newer holes, but must also be supported by the evidence.

Somehow I doubt the folks who are motivated by religion are interested in finding where science leads� they have likely concluded it leads to atheism or Islam or some such nonsense� Science is only a threat to those who faith is so weak that their vision of god collapses when they learn about the natural world, I suspect these people are really repressed and closeted atheist anyway.
"

Relax wrote on Mar 18, 2008 8:31 AM:

" You believe what you believe and I believe what I believe. The fact that what I believe says I am going to Heaven and you are going to Hell should not affect you or anger you at all because you don't believe it. It's not that I am mad at you, I simply believe in the Bible and that's what it tells me. Do not attack a person for believing something different. Stating your point/theory in a respectful way will certainly make the other person more likely to listen with an open mind. Then if they still don't believe, the world can still live peacefully with the two different ideas. I am talking to both sides of this argument as well, not just Darwieners. Also, I'm sure the gentleman could have and would have provided much more fact based theory and evidence if he had more than 7 paragraphs to work with. But this is merely an introduction to this research, and anyone can easily find thousands of hits on the internet if they want to explore the merits of the argument further. "

Wow wrote on Mar 18, 2008 8:35 AM:

" Yes now I do see, I was wrong, I do belive in evolution now. I do belive you so called educated evolutionist did come from striped rear ended apes,,it shows..lol "

Concerned wrote on Mar 18, 2008 8:46 AM:

" There is a difference in the micro/macro arguments presented in the above comments that needs attention. Succession (micro) is adaptation by a species that increases it own fitness and thereby likelihood to survive in the environment it currently occupies. This type of adaptation has been well documented as occurring. The creation of the various flu vaccines and domesticated lines or breeds of certain livestock are prime examples. Evolution of entire families and distinct species from a common ancestor (macro) lacks merit from a fossil and purely scientific perspective (i.e. there has been no "missing link" CONCLUSIVELY found and agreed upon which supports Darwinian theory in it's entirety ON A SPECIES/FAMILY transitional level). If the macro theory aspect weas valid the assumption is the evidence would plainly support the theory. Conclusion (and my point): Lumping the two trains of thought or using one to justify the other (micro and macro) is not justified at this point from a scientific perspective. One has been clearly justified the other has not. Hope that helps keep the discussion relevant to know scientific facts. "

Cathy Zimmerman wrote on Mar 18, 2008 8:54 AM:

" This came in my mail this week, something that might interest the groups of Christians who wrestle with science. It's a press release, so the excited language is theirs, not mine. I have seen wire stories about Dowd, however. (He will be in Portland Saturday, April 12, 2008 at 7:00 PM at
First Unitarian Church of Portland
1011 SW 12th Ave.). Here's his pitch:
"Rev. Michael Dowd, author of the bold new book “Thank God for Evolution!” (Council Oak Books) is bringing his cosmic gospel to the Portland area in April.
Rev. Dowd, an ordained Christian minister and former Baptist and United Church of Christ pastor, and his wife Connie Barlow, an acclaimed science writer and author of "Evolution Extended" (MIT Press) and “The Ghosts of Evolution” (Basic Books), are packing pews and leaving audiences across America awestruck with their programs that present evolution as theology, not theory.
Dowd's breakthrough book, "Thank God for Evolution!" and the couple's mobile ministry propose a marriage of science and religion that is being embraced by those on both sides of the debate over the origins and evolution of life on Earth, including five Nobel Prize-winning scientists and a long list of religious leaders.
Grounded in mainstream science and preached with pentecostal fervor, the former anti-evolution fundamentalist turned evolutionary evangelist shares a “God’s eye view” of everything from microbiology to supernovas in a provocative program that is inspiring evolutionary epiphanies among believers and non-believers alike and liberating religious literalists left, right and center.
"

TheThyme wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:12 AM:

" Macro and Micro Evolution are the same thing, it only becomes macro evolution once enough micro evolution has built up to create a new species that can no longer breed with the orginal ancestor species. This Macro Vs. Micro is just playing semantics with words. "

Alex Marthaller wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:20 AM:

" Agreed, it is time to put this argument to rest. Speaking as a Christian as well as an educated man of reason I find that this debate will only cease by finding a complementary relationship between the media fed and rather uneducated relationship of 'choose faith or science'. It is ridiculous, and this is why. First of all science and faith are two completely different experiences with completely different means and different ends. While science uses logic to find proof in a-posteriori phenomenon (the physical world through logical experience), Faith utilizes intuition, introspection, trust, etc to try to understand the a-priory noumenon (that which is really real but out side of logic)its aim is to find truth. Truth and Proof are different means all-together; however, can exist in a complementary relationship. Second, your facts are watered down cliques. Take a biology course at the local college from a reasonable instructor and you will understand that it is not Biology's intention to thrash religion, but only to give logical evidence of observations of the process of living things. Evolution holds perhaps the strongest evidence for any established proof in the past century and is most likely accurate; however, that is not to say that a supremely divine consciousness, we call God, did not create that process. The universe is so amazingly vast and wonderful that we should give God more credit;everything we see in science is seeing into Gods mind. How wonderful indeed. "

BobC wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:23 AM:

" Absolutist said "No matter how much antagonists misrepresent ID theory, it just ain't creationism." Everyone knows the designer of intelligent design is the Christian Sky Fairy. Of course ID is creationism and you, Absolutist, are extremely dishonest. "

rrrrrrrrrr wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:27 AM:

" Jumping to conclusions again. If the theary of intilligent design is the norm,than who is the designer. I vote for Bhuda. "

BobC wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:27 AM:

" Concerned, you need to educate yourself instead of spreading lies about evolution. There are several fossils of transitional species, and DNA analysis has shown beyond any doubt new species develop from old species. The biologists have the fossils. The liars for Jesus have nothing but their dishonesty and their total ignorance of science. "

BobC wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:30 AM:

" Nobody cares about the nitwits who deny the facts of evolution. The problem is when these liars for Jesus try to force science teachers to do their lying for them. "

whatever wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:44 AM:

" So what is the point of this article. What are you trying to say? Evolution is wrong, so we have this "supernatural force" that created everything? Now what? How do we go about proving this "supernatural force" which caused things to be. Let's start testing your "theory". What "evidence" do you have?? And please, don't use a book that has existed for 2000 years, has been edited and revised numerous times; is ripe with "stories" plagiarized from much older superstitions from the past; Is at the heart of causing ( and continuing to cause ) some of the most bloody and divisive conflicts in human history. Wow!! Yes!! What an epiphany!! that is a book I want to use to base the existence of all things on!! "

abb3w wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:32 AM:

" I'm afraid Tyler's statements about "absence of evidence" and "the micro world of the irreducible complexity" indicates a failure to review all of the information. Thus far, no claim of a structure as "irreducible" has survived critical analysis; EG, Intelligent Design advocates' "poster child" of the flagellum. A search for "flagellum evolution" at any major search engine will not only turn up the ID position, but several articles refuting it; a search at Google Scholar (for technical journals) will make finding the evolutionary position easy to find. The eye (another common example) is another frequently used "ID" example where the "irreducible" has proven reducible.

More important, the discoveries of modern genetics include the presence of a large block of telomeres (normally only found at chromosome ends) in the middle of human chromosome pair number two, along with gene patterns on the two sides consistent with two chromosome pairs from the great apes-- which have one more chromosome set than humans. Again, searching for "chromosome two evolution" provides the information for those who care to look for it.

Dawkins goes too far in his opposition to Religion (see, for example, David Sloan Wilsons' "Darwin's Cathedral" about the evolutionary benefits of Religion). Evolution is "the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence concerning a substantial range of phenomena". It can not be so easily dismissed.

Oh, and "1.2.3." -- the tracks you refer to have are now generally considered discredited; see
http://paleo.cc/paluxy.htm "

Addressing the lies wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:40 AM:

" Just about everything you've written in the article was completely false. New discoveries leading away from Darwinian Evolution? What discoveries, exactly? Bacterial Flagellum, perhaps? Do you remember how Michael Behe championed the Bacterial Flagellum as an example of irreducible complexity? Do you remember how REAL scientists tore that apart and showed how it clearly is NOT irreducibly complex?

Science is a DISCIPLINE, most certainly not a religion. And it's sad that advocates of Intelligent Design cannot be swayed in their convictions, even after a federal judge... a federal REPUBLICAN judge... a federal republican judge appointed by GEORGE BUSH... delivered a scathing ruling against the Dover school district and the proponents of Intelligent Design. Did that change the minds of said advocates? Of course not. Instead, they claim the judge is an ACTIVIST judge with his own agenda and that his decision was over reaching, etc etc etc. And then they go on to find so called NEW evidence to prove their "theories". And when scientists pick apart those conclusions and show them how they're wrong again, they'll move on again, and the cycle will continue.

Yeah, I get worked up when I read about this garbage. Why? Because I don't appreciate religious fundamentalists using these BLATANTLY dishonest tactics in order to inject religion into public schools where my kids are taught. It's no wonder this country is so far behind the rest of the world when it comes to science!

You should be ashamed. "

Challenger wrote on Mar 18, 2008 12:07 PM:

" Give me one good example of quantum leap evolution resulting in a DISTINCT new species that has recently occurred or has been thoroughly documented and accepted. "

Addressing the lies has it right wrote on Mar 18, 2008 12:12 PM:

" It's all in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District decision and it spells it out clearly. Faith is based on no evidence and that's inherant in it's definition. I recommend Tyler S. Ramey stick with sunday school, you would have to be about 6 years old to accept his argument. "

Science Guy wrote on Mar 18, 2008 12:23 PM:

" A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.

---

Friedrich Nietzsche "

thethyme wrote on Mar 18, 2008 1:39 PM:

" Challanger: Every species that exisit today is just such an example. "

To Challenger: wrote on Mar 18, 2008 1:52 PM:

" You have a distinct misunderstanding of what evolution is, or you wouldn't have made that information request. Evolution does not happen where one day a creature is one species, and then the next day, it is a different species. Species separation happens over a period of tens or hundreds of thousands of years. You start with a particular creature population, then you separate the population somehow, either across a new river divide or through a great distance... something to keep the two populations from mating anymore. Over time... and I mean a LOT of time, more time than our puny minds can comprehend, the two populations will change, each to adapt to their ever changing environments. Little by little, because the genetic code of the two populations changes IN INDEPENDENT DIRECTIONS, the BIOLOGICAL ABILITY for a member of population 1 to mate with population 2 will diminish, until ultimately the genetic code between the populations differs so much, they can no longer produce offspring with each other. When that happens, you have two different species that originated from one. It is a very, very gradual processes of lots and lots of "micro-evolutionary" steps. You put all those micro steps together and you end up with one "macro-evolutionary" step. "

Wow wrote on Mar 18, 2008 2:11 PM:

" It absolutely AMAZES me the hostility from community members towards someone giving their opinion. I don't understand though why it becomes an attack against Christians or God. That makes NO sense at all. Maybe the reason that this community's morals are plummeting while crime is skyrocketing is in direct correlation with the overwhelming negativity towards Christ. Way to go Tyler for having the courage to put forth such a controversial article and put yourself out there for criticism. You are doing something right otherwise you wouldn't be attacked . There are people who support you. "

To Bobc wrote on Mar 18, 2008 2:37 PM:

" why are you so full of hate?? Were you not held as a child?? "

SOUTH KELSO wrote on Mar 18, 2008 2:58 PM:

" Religion enforced by man has brought us so many wonderful things. The CRUSADES, THE SPANISH INQUISITION, WITCH BURNINGS, WARS,RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION, and innumerable forms and implementation of HATE. How Sad when the message of God is love. "

Challenger wrote on Mar 18, 2008 3:21 PM:

" Wow what staggering arguments. And you guys thought Tyler's argument was weak! I was taught in college that today the evolutionary process works slowly, but in the past it must have progressed at a much more rapid rate. That was how we got from the primordial sludge to the immense amount of speciation that we have today (i.e. chemicals non-living, to unicellular, to multicellulal etc.). The theory stated that today we see no transitional stages of this "quantum leap" evolution I mentioned (because of the slower pace present today), but it was emphatically stated that the fossil record would one day provide evidence for this "quantum leap" evolution necessary to arrive at today's plethora of complex organisms from unicellular species. Without this evidence it was admitted at the time the theory would fall apart. I guess the commenters have no knowledge of these missing link fossils substantiating the "quantum leap" evolution necessary to arrive at the state the natural environment is in today. In other words, slow changes even over a long, long, long, long period won't get you from non-living chemicals to the complex biological creatures present today. You need the missing links or transitional organisms or you will never make it. Sorry Charlie. Show me evidence and I'll think about buying it. "

To: South Kelso wrote on Mar 18, 2008 3:26 PM:

" Your rite religion has NOTHING to do with God..religion is mans plan for God, not visa versa,,sad isnt it "

BobC wrote on Mar 18, 2008 4:05 PM:

" Challenger said 'You need the missing links or transitional organisms' We got them mister. You need to educate yourself. Your ignorance is no excuse for spreading lies. Check out this book. 'Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters' by Donald R. Prothero. Also, google your ancestor called tiktaalik roseae. The evidence from DNA analysis is so powerful the fossils are not even necessary. Sorry, but you're going to have to give up your childish magical creation idea if you want to live in the 21st century and not be laughed at. "

I'm getting arthritis trying to convince you. wrote on Mar 18, 2008 4:35 PM:

" But it's just a waste of my time. It's a matter of faith and you can choose to believe what you wish. I guess I just wonder why you pick such a silly stance, and denagrate the science you benefit from. Remember the flu shot, but also how many to other advances that stem from the understanding of basic biology. "

Absolutist wrote on Mar 18, 2008 4:58 PM:

" Amusing . . . all of this. Look what poking at chimps can do.

Oops, that was an ad hominem attack on Darwinists . . . no, wait. Maybe not. "

2B wrote on Mar 18, 2008 5:10 PM:

" Don't be Hatin'!!! "

2 BOOB c wrote on Mar 18, 2008 5:59 PM:

" Your soo full of hate,why would anyone want to check out any book to recomend? Is it full of hate too..as far as I can see your the only one being laughed at..just wondering if your picking it up too??? "

UW PSE wrote on Mar 18, 2008 6:25 PM:

" What a waste of time this article is. Evolution is happening RIGHT NOW all around us. We've witnessed it occurring in the very short time we've been on this planet. First, someone needs to give me a single shred of evidence that a God even exists. Then back up "inteligent" design with some substantial information. After they do that, I MAY aknowledge that "inteligent" design MAY exist. Until then, Darwin is my man. "

to:UW PSE wrote on Mar 18, 2008 7:20 PM:

" Its a waste of time explaining anything to you..you are a public school student..do I need to say any more??? "

What's there to explain? wrote on Mar 18, 2008 7:55 PM:

" UW PSE makes valid points. What empirical evidence do we have that God exists? A 2000 year old book? The say-so of the faithful? That doesn't seem like much to be basing your entire world view on. Science has a good track record of discovering this thing we call reality. Imagine that.

Alex

"

gotta ask wrote on Mar 18, 2008 8:33 PM:

" I just can't let a poster state "there is nothing that has been discovered in scientific study that refutes the Bible" without asking: Where, exactly, does Adam and Eve fit on the evolutionary tree? "

QED wrote on Mar 18, 2008 8:34 PM:

" -Sigh- Another science opinion piece by someone who knows little or nothing about science.

Unfortunately, the hate toward the average Christian in this debate is misdirected. Those deserving of that hate are opportunists like the Discovery Institute, an organization motivated by a political and financial agenda. By pandering to poorly science-educated political conservatives and religious fundamentalists who willingly swallow propaganda as long as it validates their beliefs, the DI lawyers and PR salesmen are laughing all the way to the bank.

After all is said and done, scientists will continue to ask questions, experiment, and make predictions with new information. As the body of evidence for evolution grows, through new fossil finds and the ever-revealing science of genetics, authentic scientific endeavors will continue to add to a legitimately established theory of the origins of man. "

whats really funny wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:05 PM:

" Its no matter what,,God is still in control..it doesnt matter if you have faith in evloution, or a God created universe..every knee shall bow ,,ever tounge confess,,Jesus Christ is Lord..were will you all be when he calls you home..cause your all gonna die some day,,and thats. not debateable..fools rush in were angels fear to tread. "

bshaw wrote on Mar 18, 2008 11:08 PM:

" any religion is like a cult. if you start it at a young age you will be brain washed into thinking that particular way. and all other faiths, and "gods" are wrong. go ahead and rip this comment, but think of how many people think everyone is wrong. my favorite part is how many kill in the name of there "god" over the years. "

Pip the Mighty wrote on Mar 19, 2008 12:08 AM:

" What's your degree in, dentistry? "

Tyler S. Ramey wrote on Mar 19, 2008 12:27 AM:

" The hostility here is stunning, but I am pleased about all the Darwinists who can be baited with a simple reader commentary. Very amusing.

While I could attempt to address each and every objection noted, some easier than others, it seems that the antagonism demonstrated thus far would only intensify were I to supply reasoned responses. I am tempted, though, to further tease Darwinists into more name calling, misrepresentation, general ranting, and. . . well, the point is made.

Those interested in a serious dialogue can email me directly or call . . . heck, I'm in the book, but hostile opponents need not bother. Civil exchanges only.

rameyts@kalama.com

"

Alex wrote on Mar 19, 2008 6:36 AM:

" To Tyler S. Ramsey: Baited eh? So the purpose of your commentary wasn't to enlighten but to insight? That doesn't sound very Christian to me. Perhaps you should consider your own motivations for writing this piece and how it fits into God's plan. "

overeducated wrote on Mar 19, 2008 7:37 AM:

" There is no god, no allah, no ethereal plain. Get over it and realize that we are all we have. No supernatural being is going to come and save us from our own mistakes. The fallacy of religion is that god will make it alright in the end. As it turns out our only hope for continued survival, on this island we call earth, is science. Science has been saving the lives of billions of people for a long time. "

Scientists are messed up! wrote on Mar 19, 2008 7:41 AM:

" The arrogance with which darwinists speak is amazing. I am not a profoundly religious person, but I also believe that our tiny limited capacity brains haven't the ability to even fathom the realities of the universe. Even our most intelligent "scientists" will tell you that everything they spew is based on their faith of a concept or theory. Everything is based on faith. Darwinists confuse adaptation with evolution. I believe even Darwin recognized this. Scientists can't even grasp the concept that God may exist (maybe not in the exact form from the bible). But simply dismissing the notion of a creator is plain foolish. "

Dan wrote on Mar 19, 2008 7:58 AM:

" 2 BOOB c, trust me, it is you we are all laughing at.. your the one doing the hating, BoBC is only trying to help you with some plain speaking! "

Buckley wrote on Mar 19, 2008 8:38 AM:

" Wow . . . I'm stunned by the so-called “educated” biological evolutionists. If you are going to represent biological evolutionist, do it with logic and reasoning, not name calling and Ad Hominem attacks. One poster wrote, “Everyone knows you're a liar.” This is your argument? Go back to university and take a class in logic. The same goes for the person who mentioned that the author is “a member of the ‘Columbia Evangelical Seminary.’” So what? What has that got to do with the strength or weakness of the man’s argument? Here’s a quick lesson in logic and argumentation: stick to the facts, don’t make personal attacks, and leave the red herrings for snacks. "

Patrick Draper wrote on Mar 19, 2008 9:03 AM:

" The letter is wrong in so many ways that it's impossible to know where to begin. It's fractally wrong. No matter if you look at large things, or the small things, it's wrong at all levels of magnification.

"

Lee Jay wrote on Mar 19, 2008 1:18 PM:

" > "....I also believe that our tiny limited capacity brains haven't the ability to even fathom the realities of the universe."

You're speaking for yourself, and based on the rest of what you wrote, you seem to be correct. "

Bethany wrote on Mar 19, 2008 7:24 PM:

" What a waste of good newsprint. Tyler Ramey must have alot of time on his hands, he really ought to think about writing a comic book, it would at least be a good outlet for his imagination. And I bet he could probably get the little kids at his church to the stick figure drawings with those cute little bubbles over their heads. "

Absolutist wrote on Mar 19, 2008 9:17 PM:

" Again, look at what poking at chimps accomplishes. Such hostility. Such intolerance.

Have a banana, Darwinists. "

Don't turn off your brains wrote on Mar 19, 2008 9:51 PM:

" Those who believe that evolution is a fact must remember that true science must be testable and falsifiable. We can't test evolution nor disprove it, therefore it is just a scientific theory. A interesting, compelling one, but a theory nonetheless. The fossil record shows us many species which no longer live. That does not mean that they were transitional. I don't claim to know the the methods used to create the world. I don't know that I could fully understand them if I did. What I do know is that the complexity of our world and universe bears me to the conviction that someone very bright designed all that is. The deeper we dig I dig into science, the more I find that points to the intricacy of our planet. Call it an accident of matter if you wish. But that initial bit of matter had to come from somewhere. The root of the issue to me lies in the search for that initial matter. Where'd it come from? It is no more of a stretch to say that it (the matter) always was, than to say that God always was. Evolution is such a small portion of a greater body of knowledge that I refuse to get hung on it. It cannot be proven one way or the other using empirical means. Anyone who tells you that it is a fact is dishonest. Oh yes, I do have a Master's of Science degree from an accredited university. "

Sammy6 wrote on Mar 19, 2008 11:32 PM:

" "...who are intellectually honest about where scientific discovery is leading, and it’s not closer to Darwin ... that’s just a fact."

No, Tyler, that is an outright lie.

I am amazed at the depth of lies that these creationists will stoop to in a vain effort to refute evolution.

In reality, if you read the newspaper once a month, you'd see that the latest discoveries in DNA research are showing more and more how much we are related to other species and to common relatives in the past.

So come on, Tyler, just because we are all monkeys, doesn't mean you have to act like one by writing this drivel. "

Richard Forrest wrote on Mar 20, 2008 4:19 AM:

" challenger wrote; "I was taught in college that today the evolutionary process works slowly, but in the past it must have progressed at a much more rapid rate."

I have no idea where you were taught this, but it wrong. No reputable text on biology could contain such outright nonsense. It took three billion years for living organisms to evolve much at all.

Tyler S. Ramey wrote: "The hostility here is stunning"

Perhaps if you bothered to educate yourself in the subject rather than repeat the falsehoods promoted by creationists you'd meet less hostility.

I have been reading creationist sources for over 30 years, and have yet to come across any which does not built it's arguments on misrepresentation, distortion and outright falsehoods.

I am opposed to creationism in all it's forms (which includes ID, of course) because I am opposed to dishonesty. I think it perfectly reasonable to be hostile towards people promoting dishonest arguments, especially if they are attacking the education system on which our future and the futures of our children rely. "

Absolutist wrote on Mar 20, 2008 7:00 AM:

" Richard Forrest should educate himself in the source of ID theory . . . think Plato, Aristotle. While it's true that creationists really like ID, that fact doesn't make ID theory less reasonable. Not all ID proponents are the creationists Forrest hates.

Can anyone name the common logical fallacy Forrest commits in assuming such? It's basic logic.

Next, Forrest comments that "No reputable text on biology could contain such outright nonsense." What about reputable texts in philosophy? Oh, wait, that's right . . . when it comes to philosophy, there's just no way of arriving to truth, just ask a Darwinist about his; it'll tell ya'.

Sammy6: More hostility? More hate. More name calling. Rise from the primordial soup, Sam. Read something besides a newspaper . . . and go to school.

"

Richard Forrest wrote on Mar 20, 2008 7:29 AM:

" Don't turn off your brains wrote: "Those who believe that evolution is a fact must remember that true science must be testable and falsifiable."

It is a fact that evolution happens. We can observe it in action in nature and replicate it in the laboratory. Evolutionary theory proposes *how* evolution works. The fossil record is not and has never been the primary evidence for evolution.

Science does not offer proof. It offers provisional explanations for the evidence, and although there is dispute and discussion over the details no biologist has presented any scientific argument against the fact that evolution happens, and virtually every biologist accepts that evolutionary processes are responsible for the diversity of living organisms on earth. The very few who don't do so for religious, not scientific reasons. "

Interesting wrote on Mar 20, 2008 7:57 AM:

" Thank you Daily News for keeping this blog going. Good discussion! It is too bad that this kind of debate cannot be held within our schools. Those interested in this topic may want to see the upcoming documentary, Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed. The movie stars Ben Stein of Farris Buhler fame. In theaters next month. http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php "

Sammy6 wrote on Mar 20, 2008 1:14 PM:

" Well, Absolutist, since you seem to know less about the true origins of ID than Mr. Forrest, it appears that you are, at best, uninformed. At worst, well, I'll skip that for the sake of keeping this clean.

It was proven to the judge's satisfaction in the Dover case that ID is just the latest "veneer" over creationism. The folks who created the Disinformation Institute should never have committed their now infamous wedge document to paper. They let the cat out of the bag as to what they are really all about.

As for questioning my schooling, I'll put mine up with about anyone's. I hold an advanced degree from one of the most prominent colleges in the western states. You can belittle reading a newspaper, but perhaps if you did, you would know about some of the exciting discoveries that I referenced instead of dismissing the whole notion of being well-read.

I want to bring this back to WWJD. Would Jesus lie, as the creationist community seems to do so readily, to get religion into the schools? And if you really believe in Him, how do you think he will judge your actions? "

Absolutist wrote on Mar 20, 2008 2:41 PM:

" Sammy: You seem a little sensitive or insecure about your education. I didn't question your schooling, per se, but simply encouraged you to "go to school." Perhaps "go back to school" would have been best.

I've noted in previous posts that Darwinists aren't particularly good at basic logic. The fact that The Discovery Institute is a proponent of ID theory in no way eliminates the theory as a viable option to Darwinism (basic logic, Sam). And, intelligent design theory has sources that predate Christianity; so injecting Christianity and WWJD, and OMG! those religious people are trying to sneak religion into the schools serves what point? Again, basic logic, Sam.

Obviously, creationists do like ID theory, But that, again, has nothing to do with the merits of the position.

Oh, the fear. The hate. The intolerance. The hostile chimps. Oops. Ad hominem, again (keeps sneaking through the keyboard).

"

no doubt wrote on Mar 20, 2008 2:59 PM:

" Whichever side you take, you cannot deny that this topic always stirs up controversy. The only way to handle it is to allow both sides to be heard, and make your own decision. This country began with the "self evident" truth that people were CREATED. Now, apparently we are to believe it is self evident that we were not. The effort to disallow or silence one side or the other is antithetical to what our country is all about. If you believe you are right, relax, it won't hurt to let the other side be heard. If you won't hold your idea up and allow it to be criticized, it makes me wonder what you are afraid of. "

Don't turn off your brains wrote on Mar 20, 2008 4:35 PM:

" Richard, as you well know, evolution has always relied on the fossil record for major pieces of evidence. You say that the fossil record has never been the primary evidence for evolution. That argument is specious at best. The theory of evolution relies on fossil, chemical, geological, and hereditary evidence. All scientists know that without the fossil record, Darwinian evolution would go nowhere. That is a fact. The lab experiments you refer to have never shown reliable examples of beneficial mutations in any animal species. Operating on the microbial level doesn't count, because these experiments have generated nothing beneficial. Understand, I am not even attempting to disprove evolution. I am simply wanting people to be clear that the mutation of one species to another has never been observed in any controlled experiment. I realize that it is a difficult task to ask the scientific community to produce an example of a process that took millions of years in nature. But, unless they can, it is not Science, it is Philosophy. Both are important disciplines but hardly identical. If you would please, Richard, please provide me an example of an experiment that showed a clear beneficial mutation from which offspring could be produced, keeping the altered, beneficial genetics. What's more, show me multiple examples which are exclusive of one another. Academia relies on the free flow of knowledge between colleagues. Please don't confuse scientific research with philosophical ideas. They are not the same. Scientists must operate within their own rules. "

Sammy6 wrote on Mar 20, 2008 6:09 PM:

" Absolutist, you are good at sticking to your message, even if it is a lie. You keep posting the same lie - that the DI is merely a "proponent" of ID. In truth, we know from evidence presented in Dover that the DI is, in fact, the creator of origin of ID as an attempt to get in the schoolroom door by another path. So either you are posting this out of ignorance or willful intent to deceive. Given your condescending tone with everyone here, I think the answer is clear.

Your childish attempts to dismiss others' viewpoints on "logic" are irrelevant, when your own argument lacks any reasonable logic itself. The same is true for ID, which asks for an equal position in the classroom, but without following the burden of proof that has been met by evolution. That lack of any proof whatsoever is what leaves your "logic" argument empty.

"

Absolutist wrote on Mar 20, 2008 7:00 PM:

" Don't turn off your brains: Indeed. I've been amazed at the dogmatism of Darwinists, who purport to be the torch-bearers of all things scientific, when the fundamental principle of scientific method is "repeatable and observable events."

Well stated, your cordial challenge to Richard.

What about it, Richard? "

Jee Whiz wrote on Mar 20, 2008 8:03 PM:

" I have read everyone of these blogs..I must tell you I thought evolution was the norm,,well because the "educators" said so. Now with this discussion I think they are wrong,I have been looking on the WWW and find way for logical evidence of ID than anything else. now I sure all the bloggers who tell us how vast of an education they have will call me names.
I have found no one person who belives here in thses blogs in creation a harsh word ,or demeaning to any others..so I must think that these evolutionist have something to hide,,or feel threated in there beliefs,,and like one creationist said "evolution must be a religion..like Islam or they would not feel this threated..how else can you explain it..And oh yea you "educators" educated me..so blame yourself for my grammor "

AC Green wrote on Mar 21, 2008 12:46 AM:

" Wow. Seven paragraphs and not one shred of evidence to back your position. Not very scientific for someone who apparently has a deep understanding of microbiology. This article boils down to "I don't like the idea of evolution, but I can't intelligently argue against it, so I'll just complain." You're in way over your head. "

Absolutist wrote on Mar 21, 2008 1:12 AM:

" Has anyone read this list noting scientific dissent from Darwinism? The list features hundreds of scientists noting their specialty, university, or position. Beware, though . . . it's hosted at that, ahem . . . uh, dastardly Discovery Institute web site, and we know (because Sammy and others say so) that nothing good comes from that Discovery Institute. Amusing.

Don't be haters, chimps. Here's the link . . . oh, and I believe that someone remarked earlier that the credentials of those dissenting from Darwin were from bogus schools. Well, that just ain't so. Read 'em and squawk, chimps.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660 "

To Richard Forrest wrote on Mar 21, 2008 8:10 AM:

" I am a professional biologist (senior level by the way) and I don't buy it. It is not for religious reasons. Succession occurs, but I am not a product of spontaneous generation. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. "

Sammy6 wrote on Mar 21, 2008 8:19 AM:

" Ahhh, Absolutist, always the provocateur. Riddle me this. As a percentage of all the scientists in this country or the world, your purported list represents, what, a tenth of a percent? Wow. Compelling.

Keep repeating the already thoroughly disproven crap from the Disinformation Institute and we'll keep hittin' 'em out of the park. "

Ditto wrote on Mar 21, 2008 2:25 PM:

" AC Green hits that nail on the head. "

Absolutist wrote on Mar 21, 2008 3:06 PM:

" Sammy continues demonstrating the reasoning ability of some Darwinists . . . in my experience, it's most of them. Must I provide the actual names of the fallacies? Here's the deficiency explained, in chim-pan-zee.

Question: Since when is determining what is true based on percentages or popular vote? When Sammy asks "As a percentage of all the scientists blah blah blah," what effect does any number of scientists have on the truth or falsity of Darwinism?

Answer: None.

Bad logic is what people demonstrate when they either can't argue effectively or simply don't have reasonable responses.

The "reasoning" noted in Sammy's last remark is like counting all the posts here and determining what's true based on the most posts. That's ridiculous.

See what happens when you poke at chimps?
"

Tyler S. Ramey wrote on Mar 21, 2008 3:23 PM:

" O. K. . . .

Earlier, I encouraged those interested in serious dialogue to either email me or call. No takers. Seems that posters here are like road ragers who flip fingers while passing the opposite direction.

It's impossible to have a reasoned discussion with those who are either not well acquainted with logic, or who refuse to abide by fundamental principles of communication, demonstrated clearly by most of the hostiles here.

Were a Darwinist to agree that truth exists and that it can be known, and if he or she could agree to weighing evidence in order to establish either the truth or non-truth of a given position, then a discussion is possible.

However, I think a consistency to be found here is that Darwinists will deny universal or absolute truth and will not want to be confused with facts that violate the morality they wish to maintain.

"

Sammy6 wrote on Mar 21, 2008 10:07 PM:

" Nice try, Absolute Zero. Scientific consensus and an overwhelming body of evidence are not a popularity contest, which seems to be what you are trying to intimate.

Your belittling manner exposes only someone who is both insecure personally and insecure in his position.

Yes, you must detail your purported fallacies. That's called the scientific method. Proof, junior, proof. But you instead can only stoop to name calling. Your true agenda shows through in your continuously calling evolution "Darwinism". There is no such term, except as coined by creationist luddites who refuse to see the truth. At least be a man and admit your position. "

Richard Forrest wrote on Mar 22, 2008 4:52 AM:

" Don't turn off your brains wrote: "The theory of evolution relies on fossil, chemical, geological, and hereditary evidence."

No it doesn't. Evolutionary theory does not rely on any evidence from geology or chemistry, and if you bothered to educate yourself in the subject you would find that it does not draw on the fossil record as primary evidence.

To Richard Forrest wrote: "I am a professional biologist (senior level by the way)"

Why on earth should anyone believe you? You are posting anonymously on the internet. If you want to find out if I have any scientific credentials, just google "Richard Forrest" and "palaeontology".

"Succession occurs, but I am not a product of spontaneous generation. "

This sentence alone cast very serious doubts on your claim.

Tyler Ramey wrote; "Were a Darwinist to agree that truth exists and that it can be known, and if he or she could agree to weighing evidence in order to establish either the truth or non-truth of a given position, then a discussion is possible."

Science does not offer "truth". It offers provisional, testable explanations for phenomena we can observe and measure. If you want truth, talk to religious authorities. The problem you have then is that they all offer truth, but those truths are all different and largely incompatible.
"However, I think a consistency to be found here is that Darwinists will ...the morality they wish to maintain."
Evolutionary biology is not a belief system and does not offer moral guidance any more than any other field of science. "

Richard Forrest wrote on Mar 22, 2008 5:02 AM:

" Absolutist wrote: "Has anyone read this list noting scientific dissent from Darwinism?"

Yes, I have. It contains very few biologists, and many engineers, dentists, medical doctors and so on who are not actually scientists.

Furthermore, the statement is couched in such anodyne terms that there is nothing in it with which I, as an evolutionary biologist strongly opposed to creationism in all it's forms could object. It is the business of scientists to be skeptical, about "Darwinism" (a deliberately misleading term in the context of the statement, by the way) as much as any other scientific theory.

The claims made by the DI and other creationist organizations go far beyond the wording of this statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism

It's worth pointing out that over 11,000 Christian clergy has signed a statement saying that they see no conflict between accepting the findings of science in respect of evolution and their faith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project "

Alex wrote on Mar 22, 2008 6:55 AM:

" absolutist, you were the one whom initially stated that hundreds of scientists are on this list dissenting from Darwinism. If numbers don't mean anything, then why bring it up in the first place? "

River Bissonnette wrote on Mar 22, 2008 7:43 AM:

" I am a science teacher with a degree in Evolutionary Biology who sent an e-mail to Tyler S. Ramey shortly before the above 3:23 message from him was posted to the comment section inviting him to participate in either a Skype conversation that would be made into a podcast OR to join the forum below. I have already created the forum and sent an invitation to Tyler to join so that he can clarify his position and statements from the original 17th of March editorial. This is a invitation only forum to join, but anyone can view the conversation.
In my initial e-mail with Tyler he agreed to participate in answering my questions aimed at clarifying points he has made in the above editorial and feel, given his time limitations, that the forum will serve this purpose better than a podcast.
The first messages have been posted and I now await Tyler’s response with a point by point discussion. I feel that point by point is necessary as a common creationist tactic is the “Gish Gallop” or “Hovind Hop” in which a barrage of comments/statements are made in an attempt to not have them answered, but instead to overwhelm the conversation.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AconversationwithTylerSRamey

"

Absolutist wrote on Mar 22, 2008 8:50 AM:

" Well, Samantha, name-calling (you know, "Absolute Zero," "liar," stuff like that) is ad hominem . . . so is calling Darwinists chimps, as I'm inclined to do, out of affection for primates, of course. And, evolution IS Darwinism proper; so, why avoid the roots? Are you ashamed?

Next, since you asked for the logic lesson, determining truth by popular vote is consensus gentium, a common fallacy easily rectified by dealing with facts, not counting votes.

Next, the red herring, a fallacy of diversion, is committed when one attempts to smuggle in unrelated issues to the matter under scrutiny. This is often accompanied by the strawman fallacy. So, when objections to creationism, a subject not suggested by the commentary is attacked, a red herring is introduced and a strawman is built and torn down . . . by hostiles who refuse to deal with the merits or lack thereof of ID theory.

"

Citizen wrote on Mar 22, 2008 9:02 AM:

" It's okay if you want to pretend you live in pre Renaissance Europe. But keep it to your own people. Your ignorance is hurting others. You have all but shut down medical science in the USA. Serious research has moved to Enlightened Europe.

This dark age in the USA that your ilk has brought is so tiresome. Get thee back to your places where you come from. You're free to be what you want to be. Just keep it where it's appreciated.

The nation wants to get past the likes of you. "

Sammy6 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 12:35 PM:

" Wow. An entire paragraph of pure gibberish. As for who "refuses to deal with the merits or lack therof of ID theory", it is you, my friend. The scientific community has already proven it. Federal court in Pennsylvania has proven it. ID is fake science conjured by creationists. "

TRamey wrote on Mar 22, 2008 1:12 PM:

" It was disappointing to learn that River Bissonnette's invitation to an online discussion was categorized within a creation/evolution debate. ID is philosophy, not the creationism opposed here.

Further, River's post here noting the invitation poisons the well (another logical fallacy) relative to the discussion she desires as she mentions both Duane Gish and Kent Hovind, two creationists who don't impress me. Neither of these gents utilize very sophisticated material to communicate their message.

Again, if you want a creationist in the category of Gish or Hovind, talk to someone else. I'm interested in philosophy . . . logic especially, but that's a tough sell here. "

Absolutist wrote on Mar 22, 2008 2:56 PM:

" Richard said: "'Science does not offer 'truth'. It offers provisional, testable explanations for phenomena we can observe and measure. If you want truth, talk to religious authorities. The problem you have then is that they all offer truth, but those truths are all different and largely incompatible."

Question: Richard, is your statement "Science does not offer truth" scientific? And, is your statement absolutely true? Further, when you say that science "offers provisional, testable explanations . . .," is that absolutely true or not?

If you admit to the "truths" of what you claim here, then you contradict yourself immediately, since you say that truth is largely relative, yet you make exclusive truth claims yourself that you seem to believe are applicable to all of us.

Truth is not relative, and you cannot escape the fact that you claim to know the supposed truth that truth claims are "all different and largely incompatible." "

Richard Forrest wrote on Mar 23, 2008 2:50 AM:

" Absolutist wrote: "Richard, is your statement "Science does not offer truth" scientific?"
It's telling you something about the nature of science. It's one of the characteristics which defines science. And no, I'm not contradicting myself. I made no statement whatsoever on the nature of truth, nor any claims about having access to truth. It is a simple matter of fact that many religious people claim to know the truth, and it is also a fact that most of those truths are mutually incompatible. "

To: Richard Forrest wrote on Mar 23, 2008 6:57 AM:

" Richard, once again I am asking for the evidence of true evolution being successfully tested in the lab, any lab. It is a necessary step to achieve before a hypothesis or theory can be offered as scientific fact. Please tell me when and where this happened. Your "appeal to authority" argument is lost on me. I don't care about your degree, I care about the proof that you say exists, show me, please. As far as being educated goes, I have studied evolution (in and out of the classroom) for many years. Geological evidence is necessary to the case of evolution because that is one method for establishing benchmark dates for rock strata. Chemistry is necessary because it is such a basic building block for all things (living and non-living). The chemical changes necessary for evolution to occur require great adjustments indeed. If your premise is that paleontology stands alone in the world of evolution, to the exclusion of these other disciplines, you are mistaken. Tested, valid scientific examples please?? "

Absolutist wrote on Mar 23, 2008 1:21 PM:

" Richard: When you said in a prior post that "truths are all different and largely incompatible," is that a statement on the nature of truth?
Obviously, it is. So, when you say in your latest post that you "made no statement whatsoever on the nature of truth," would you like to reconsider that?

Don't beat yourself to death with basic principles of logic. Admit that truth exists, then a discussion about WHAT is true can commence. Note: Even a denial that truth exists is a statement, belief, or thought that is believed to be true. It's inescapable; so, don't attempt to circumvent this criticism.

After simple principles of logic (communication really) are agreed upon, a good debate about stuff can be initiated. "

Maybe everybody here is partially right wrote on Mar 23, 2008 1:22 PM:

" It always surprises me to see both sides of this issue dukeing it out trying to convince the opposing writers that they are completely wrong. Has anyone given any thought whatsoever to the possibility that just maybe GOD knows more about science than all of us? I am not a christian, but do believe in god. I am a retired research scientist with a degree in biochemistry, and found all the in-depth scientific arguments in this thread interesting, but really folks, how many ordinary people reading them will have the necessary scientific background to understand what is being said. To simplify things...look at the number of medical tests and treatments that we take for granted today that would have been considered "magic" less than just 100 years ago. Perhaps god is revealing science to the human population at a rate that can be understood by us at the period we are living in. Do you think that Adam would have been able to comprehend DNA? It has been in my lifetime that DNA was discovered, and look at the advances as a result. I seriously wonder how many, if you should be diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, would simply pray about it and hope to recover, or would you go to your doctor and avail yourself of any treatment which came about by long hours of exhaustive research by using the "scientific method"? IMO God is THE scientist, not a "merlinwannabe" "

bluE wrote on Mar 24, 2008 2:58 AM:

" darwins contribution toward our understanding of this world has done more than the babble of any religion ever. you mythological folks can think what you will, believe in the spaghetti monster if you wish, but just dont mix it up as science cuz it is nothing of the sort. and leave me out of your holly wars too cuz dont want no part of your profitsees of doom and new world orders. "

RE: Dogs Meow & others wrote on Mar 24, 2008 1:59 PM:

" The author of this article is accused of being non-scientific. Science is the process of trying processes via experimentation in search of proof. Microbiology proves that Darwin's self-described "foolish youthful ideas" of evolution and natural selection is not only improbable, but virtually impossible. It is only by proving through countless check and recheck and check again tests and experiments that true science proves anything. A theory can be concluded by such experiments, once proof is attained. The so called "Theory of Evolution" doesn't even have enough data to be a hypothesis, let alone a theory, scientific or otherwise. Like Darwin himself wrote, it was just "foolish youthful ideas" that people have now turned into their own religion because they do not want to be accountable to a Creator, no matter Who that may be. Do away with your Creator, and you have no accountability, right? The problem is, no matter how hard you try to do away with the Creator, He still exists. Let's put it this way, when in a building, you see the evidence of the architect, but you cannot see the architect. You do, however, know that he/she exists. Just saying he/she isn't there doesn't make him/her go away. We all have an inherent sense of right and wrong. We're born with it. It's not in any other breathing life on earth. Just humans. Did we put it there? No. Our nature is selfish. Who, then? Creator? Imagine... "

River Bissonnette wrote on Mar 24, 2008 3:00 PM:

" I’m sorry that I put the forum in a category not of your liking and in acknowledging your request I have moved it to the Philosophy section of the forums. My original placing was based off of the way in which I perceived your approach and title of your editorial.

I was not trying to “poison the well” in mentioning the tactics of populous creationists of which Tyler himself rejects, but instead was hoping to lay some ground rules as to how the conversation could commence. I’ve studied philosophy and logic, by pursuing a BA in Philosophy of Science after my BS credits were completed, as well and would rather have a Socratic type of discussion as to what your intentions were in stating your case in the way you did. I did start the questioning a little early and should have allowed time for us to first shape the conventions of how our dialogue was to follow.

I am still interested in having such a conversation and will await your contributions to the rules of engagement. Similar to you, Tyler, I would rather keep the discourse jovial and short with questions being asked on both sides as to better understand each other and our positions. "

River Bissonnette wrote on Mar 24, 2008 3:16 PM:

" As for the statement made on March 23 at 6:57am that “…evidence of true evolution being successfully tested in the lab…” does not exist and asking for “…valid scientific examples…”, I have always found this extremely odd since only needs to conduct a quick search of a peer review based/scholarly database to find thousands of examples. Entering “evolution experiment” or “evolution test” into scholar.google.com brings millions of hits of Evolution being tested and experiments being conducted that validate the modern synthesis of Evolutionary Biology. Yet sadly these arguments from incredulity and ignorance seem to be what most anti-scientific claims about Evolutionary theory are based upon.

Similarly the comments from March 24 at 1:59pm can be discounted as arguments from ignorance and incredulity for the same reason in addition to being based in scientific illiteracy and anachronistic devotion. Natural selection has been shown to be correct in millions of experiments and the idea of Evolution has grown FAR BEYOND Darwin and is not limited by his ignorance, nor does science ever “prove” anything. A simple example of natural selection is bacterial resistance to antibiotics or the fact that some bacteria have evolved to digest nylon. Other examples of Natural Selection are industrial melanism (not limited to pepper moths) and the fact that changes in local, regional, and global environments have shown that organisms adapt to these changes through selective processes that effect behavior and/or morphology. "

JWH wrote on Mar 24, 2008 4:41 PM:

" Who wrote the bible? God? no, it was man. Who decided what was to be included in the bible and what was to be left out? God? No, again it was man.
It's about time that all of the right wing evangelicals started to look beyond the words of the bible and took into account what their religion has actually stood for over the test of time! If I remember it was the catholic church who proclaimed you could in essence buy your way into heaven, seemingly the same mantra that the mormons are using today. Also, wasn't it the DIVINE right of "white" man that made it possible for people to stomach such abborations as slavery and indian removals, the killing and subjegation of the natives of the carribean. "People of God" have been using religion for an eternity to bring validity to their perverse desires of wealth and expansionism. Will this ever end? Only when people realize that the bible is a book and it's writin by man. Faith is one thing but using your faith to bend reality to meet your own desires is the ultimate hipocracy. Did Jesus intend for his flock to be steered by a righteous man or one wearing a rolex and taking grandmas life savings to fuel his jet??
"

C'mon River wrote on Mar 24, 2008 5:15 PM:

" Come on River, you know better than to hide behind a BA or BS degree. In particular you should know that in the arena of argumentation that evidence needs to be presented to prove one's premise. I asked for specific examples of a beneficial mutation in any animal. You failed to provide any. Instead of engaging in the argument you have thrown out a red-herring argument which refers to my "incredulity and ignorance" because I haven't found the evidence that would prove your point. I think you are confused. You see, you are supposed to provide the evidence to support evolution. Having studied science, I have yet to find an example of a controlled experiment which resulted in the beneficial mutation of an animal species which has the ability to reproduce others of its kind. If there are millions of these examples, as you maintain, please show me one. I agree with you that natural selection does occur. However, that is only one mechanism in a long chain required for macro-evolution to occur. For too long many scientists have been attempting to pass off their philosophies as science. They are not the same thing. "

Lorena Birk wrote on Mar 24, 2008 7:21 PM:

" TalkOrigins.com has a list of hundreds of Creationist and Intelligent Design Creationist negative arguements, red herrings, and strawman claims etc. that are gone over and demolished, including those posted here by Creationist and Intelligent Design Creationist. That is TalkOrgins.com. They have multiple references to peer reviewed research (that creationists can not be bothered to either do themselves or look up). As far as beneficial mutations: how about the one that prevents us growing a saggital crest like other primates? Our jaws are gracial (not heavily muscled) because of this mutation! What about the one that affects the Sonic the Hedghog gene in the whale group that prevents full development of a hind limb? Dr. Thewissen, a cetelogost, relatively recently described this mutation. They grow a hindlimb bud, complete with hip bone, a femur, and sometimes an upper tibia. Then, a few months into gestation, it regresses into the body wall. This is a result of a mutation! Macroevolution is microevolution write large. You are not going to find 1 single mutation that will change, say, the ancestor of chimpanzees and humans, into either of our species. That is an invalid claim made by creationists. I highly suggest anyone interested in learning about modern evolutionary theory and its history visit TalkOrigins.com. "

satan wrote on Mar 24, 2008 8:57 PM:

" dear readers: sorry to break the news but ive been posing as god and youve actually been worshiping me. i killed god a few years back. sorry. "

Ray Garza wrote on Mar 24, 2008 10:43 PM:

"
You secularist are the most closed minded, intolerant, self-righteous, judgmental folks on the planet.

Oh, I know the church is full of hypocrites, come join us there's room for one more.
"

TRamey wrote on Mar 25, 2008 1:55 AM:

" What's the point in exchanges with committed Darwinists? I've not yet encountered one who can admit to first principles of thought, absolute truth, and basic rules of logic.

Until then, no discussion is possible. "

GalapagosPete wrote on Mar 25, 2008 8:55 AM:

" TRamey, What would you consider to be a absolute truth, and what evidence do you have to support it? "

To: Loren wrote on Mar 25, 2008 9:24 AM:

" Not one of the examples you provided of beneficial mutations has been tested in the laboratory, under controlled conditions. It cannot, therefore, be scientific. Science must be tested. Scientists must live by there own rules. Why is it that not one Darwinist in this forum can admit that there is not a single witness to testify to the occurrence of evolution in the past. There is not one concrete example from science. It is a philosophy, the same as creationism. I find it amazing that with all the collective brain power in this forum that not one Darwinist will provide anything more than ridicule of those who ask questions. Some of you claim to be teachers. No wonder WASL science scores in our state suffer so much, when questions go unanswered and free thought is squelched. Physicists at MIT and other universities admit that the origins of the universe (Big Bang, etc...) cannot be proven beyond the philosophical level. Why can't the Darwinists admit their hypocrisy. Call evolution a nifty explanation, a compelling argument, or a hypothesis. Don't call it a fact. Facts must be concrete. "

River Bissonnette wrote on Mar 25, 2008 12:06 PM:

" Why are you trying to limit the field of inquiry to animals, will you not accept examples in plants/fungi/protista/bacteria? Why limit the discussion to “controlled experiments” when most theories in the natural sciences are based on historical narratives that are just as valid as experiments are in other sciences? Kind? Do you mean species? How can you accept that natural selection occurs, which is driven by mutations both beneficial and deleterious, and not accept that over millions and billions of years that it can cause changes that lead to new species? The distinction between micro and macroevolution is only a matter of the amount of time over which the build up genetic changes occurs over and why leave out speciation that occurs between micro and macro? Why not accept the beneficial mutation that allows a new species of bacterial to digest nylon? Why hide behind amenity instead of at least using a nom de plume for each of your posts so that one can follow your line of argumentation? AND why not point out that you have shown ignorance and incredulity, no red herring here, instead of using the resources that I have pointed out to you with the key words that will give you thousands of articles that show the inaccuracy of your claim. Anyone can use the key words “evolution beneficial mutation” to find thousands of examples of what you say you have never seen in your study of science. "

River Bissonnette wrote on Mar 25, 2008 2:22 PM:

" Part I
The next post by the “Anonymous To:” poster at 0924 on March 25 is another perfect example of why the USA needs a better understanding of how science works especially in the field of Evolutionary Biology. First, testing of hypothesis can be done in a variety of ways and one that is used quite often in the natural sciences (geology, ecology, biology) is constructing a historical narrative based in the Hypothetico-deductive method which tests hypothesis based off of events that cannot be repeated and does not have to be conducted in a lab under controlled conditions. Observations are collected, hypotheses are constructed, and predications made. The hypotheses can then be tested without lab experiments, but instead by making additional observations that will allow one to accept or reject a hypothesis. It is not necessary to directly observe past events that are being tested since logical inference can be used to construct a scenario that is again tested by making predictions of what might occur based off of our current understanding. There is a difference between a fact and a theory in science. In science theories EXPLAIN facts. "

River Bissonnette wrote on Mar 25, 2008 2:35 PM:

" Part 2
For example the facts are that; birds are more genetically similar to reptiles than to mammals, birds appear in the fossil record around the time that other reptiles are also using feathers for different reasons, birds skeletons are more similar to reptiles in the fossil record than any other animal, and transitional forms (those with structures of two types of animals) are found that contain parts from both birds and reptiles. These with other facts lead to a theory to explain how this occurred and when talking in all the evidence we end up the the current Evolutionary theory. Facts such as; genetic similarities of different organisms that lead to a nested hierarchy used by the scientific classification system of Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, the observed changes over time seen in the fossil record and how these match the genetic similarities of organisms, past and present biogeography (where animals live), and similarities based on ontogeny, vestigial anatomy and genetics, and similarities in embryology. Why, if evolution was not correct, are family trees of all living organisms which are constructed from different lines of evidence the same? And why is evolutionary theory supported by chemistry, physics, and geology? In the end creationists are not just anti-evolution or anti-biology they are anti-science as they must attack radiometric dating (physics), plate tectonics (geology), and genetics (chemistry) to name a few. "

TRamey wrote on Mar 25, 2008 4:02 PM:

" GalapagosPete: O. K. . . . briefly:

Absolute truth is reflected in the first principle of thought . . . the law of noncontradiction. And, please . . . don't anyone exhaust with some idea that using the law to defend the law is a circular argument, because that is easily refuted.

The proof of absolute truth is the attempt to deny it. Try it. Note: You thought I was going to make a different appeal besides reason, didn't you?

Samples:

"There is no truth."

Really? Is that true?

"Truth is relative."

Really? Is that absolutely true or relative?

And, when guys like Richard Forrest say things like,

"I made no statements about truth" or some such thing . . .

Really? Well, is that a statement about truth?

These are very simple examples; more complex ones I can supply. But the point is made.

"

River wrote on Mar 25, 2008 4:07 PM:

" Part I:

You presuppose the conclusion you're attempting to prove when you say that "logical inference can be used to construct a scenario that is again tested by making predictions of what might occur based off of our current understanding."

Current understanding? Don't you mean current conclusions? I think you do, and if so, this is begging the question. Basic (bad) logic. "

Lorena Birk wrote on Mar 25, 2008 8:30 PM:

" No lab work showing modern evolutionary theory is sound? So, when these mutations are actually examined/documented using modern technology, the scientists really aren't seeing them? I gave a website that has reference material to actual peer reviewed articles, articles written by real scientists in labs and in the field. Hundreds of thousands of papers utilizing descent with modification verses zero for creationists and intelligent design creationists. It is a baseless claim that there is no successful research on evolution. Oh, and don't even complain that "the evilutionists wont let creationist publish". The Dover trial made it clear that they don't even have any research to publish; they just have negative arguments, misquotes, strawman arguments, and red herrings. The judge asked and the creationists could not deliver.

Once again, TalkOrigins.com. Better yet, use PubMed to search for articles! Modern evolutionary theory works and researchers use its concepts all the time and publish on it. Oh, and as far as Big Bang cosmology: evolutionary theory does not encompass the origins of the universe or the very beginnings of life! Long story short, descent with modification. Use TalkOrgins to learn about evolutionary theory and PubMed to search for research papers that supposidly don't exist. "

Hmmm wrote on Mar 25, 2008 9:56 PM:

" I'm not gonna say whether you are wrong or right but where are the sources? You say all these different things yet site no sources of value. Cathy Zimmerman is not even an expert on this subject so I really don't know why she was sited. You should have sited experts on the subject of "Intelligent Design" which at this time is the leading theory that opposes darwin's theory. It talks about how Darwin's clear cut rules don't consider some of the more complex organaisms that we have found today and hint that there is some kind of "Intelligent Design" behind them. The thing is this is a very new theory as far as science is concerned. So before you want to argue years of people following Darwin's theory understand that it takes a long time for a new theory to be thought of as the right theory in the science community. Of course these are just theories and this one of "Intelligent design" in no way proves or disproves or even attempts to have anything to do with religion or god. Gotta love science though it's always changing and we're finding new things about the universe. Now we just need to get the public on the right side of this whole global warming mumbo jumbo lol. "

GalapagosPete wrote on Mar 25, 2008 10:07 PM:

" TRamey, Interesting, but science is about facts and research, not absolutes, not truths. Science observes, researches, reports accurately, draws conclusions, creates hypotheses, develops theories. Absolute truths are something to discuss in a philosophy class, but are useless to science, where nothing is absolute, nothing is final, everything is tentative and subject to change based on new evidence. "

To River wrote on Mar 26, 2008 7:33 AM:

" Do you talk just to hear your head rattle?? "

confused wrote on Mar 26, 2008 8:33 AM:

" Been reading forum. Wow, what am i? I believe in people's choice to think what they think. Who am I to press upon anyone my beliefs based on my experiences with life. I am not a scholar, intellect, or consider myself an authority of the subject. I am aware of current findings regarding both, although I haven't done the work personally it's out of my realm of perspective so I will have to take it as. Their is obviously contention between arguments or their would be none. Until all evidence is proven without a shadow of doubt let whomever believe what they want. Who are you to press upon anyone what they should believe in, heated with personal insults? You guys are gonna go round and round, and for what? I told you so? To prove someone was ignorant? Some people need the feeling something higher is in control and a plan is in affect, others have comfort in making their own way being in control of their own destiny. Sorry you all should know this, didn't mean to ramble semantics. Point is; Let me believe (based on my civil rights) what i want to. And until the evidence is proven in it's entirety the battle of who is superior will continue. Why do you care how i think or believe anyway? That's my GOD given right! "

Lorena Birk wrote on Mar 26, 2008 10:46 AM:

" You can believe what you want, however, understanding modern evolutionary theory is vital to medicine and agriculture. Why do we need a new flu virus every year? Why is there no cure for the common cold? Hint: these viruses are evolving. They are not the same from one year, even from one host to another! How do farmers raise better crops and food animals? They breed them, picking and choosing which lines that meet their specifics. This is a form of artificial selection which Darwin went over in his book and which modern evolutionary theory uses as well. Some creationists do accept this (Behe for one) but then they move the goalposts and claim, all right, microevolution is all right, but there is no macroevolution. They do not however have any research showing why macro is impossible. Just negatives. Macroevolution just takes more steps and more time. Fossils, DNA, developmental biology fill in those "God of the gaps" claims. Oh, as far as Intelligent Design Creationism being a theory: What hypothesis and subsequent research have they to back up that claim? Nothing. Intelligent design creationism is not a theory, it is religion pretending to be science, as the Wedge document and written/spoken gaffes by its adherents clearly shows. "

River Bissonnette wrote on Mar 26, 2008 12:20 PM:

" It looks, by the timing, grammatical patterns, and reference to logical fallacies that Tyler Ramey is the above anonymous author.
Anyone who has an understanding of scientific methodology knows that past events, and even events not directly observable during lab experiments, can be tested by logical inference. First inferences are made based on observations such as; species A looks and behaves like species B and therefore they are related to one another. Next are the hypotheses; If A and B are related then they we should be able to find transitional forms in the fossil record and their DNA should be more similar to each other than any other similar species (along with a Null and other hypotheses. The last step is the do research or wait for new observations that reject or support the hypotheses. A real life example can be found from an on-line text book. Search for “Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science” and look for chapter chapter 5 AND, again, by doing a search on scholar.google.com one can find thousands of more examples of this process being used. The findings of the transitional fossils of whales in Pakistan and the fish-amphibian fossil in the northern Canadian islands used this same process to great success. You can also research why marsupials exist in S. America and Australia and matching this with plate tectonics and biogeography to find fossils in Antarctica. "

mill creek wrote on Mar 26, 2008 3:20 PM:

" Something about this entire thing bothers me, which is why I won't put in my two cents... to tell you the truth, reader articles have little place here. As far as I'm concerned. "

Ha hah! wrote on Mar 26, 2008 3:50 PM:

" De-volution - definition: Residents of Cowlitz County "

TRamey wrote on Mar 26, 2008 6:54 PM:

" Galapagos: You prove my point when you say that "science is about facts and research, not absolutes, not truths."

Is that assertion about science factual? Is it absolute? Is it true? If none of these, why should anyone believe what you yourself do not? Further . . .

You say that "Absolute truths are something to discuss in a philosophy class, but are useless to science, where nothing is absolute, nothing is final, everything is tentative and subject to change based on new evidence."

So, are we to assume that your statement is not true? And, why is it that you contradict yourself by 'discussing' truth here, and not reserving your remarks for a "philosophy class"?

You also say that in science, "nothing is final." However, is it FINAL that "nothing is final" in science?

Do you recognize your reasoning problems?

"

Re :To River wrote on Mar 26, 2008 6:55 PM:

" I think your rite, he does talk to here his head rattle, cause he makes no sense..just rettorick. "

Nom De Plume wrote on Mar 26, 2008 8:56 PM:

" Okay River I'll use a Nom De Plume to make you happy. Catchy one, huh? Anyway, I still await a clear example of OBSERVED evolution within an animal species. I took your advice and researched online. I found a number of interesting articles on evolution studies. One featured the release of lizards onto islands of the Carribean which had no lizards previously. Low and behold, the little fellows showed changes based on surroundings, but not one of them turned into a snake or another type of critter, they all remained lizards. In another case of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, all of the research I could find resulted only in modified types of the same organism (bacterium). Being a victim of utter ignorance I was unable to find any of the examples you said exist (ones that show beneficial mutations). Please cite a specific example. As far as the hypothetical-deductive method of science goes, it has SOME validity. However it is not infallible. Being that my main area of study is in Geology, I'll refer to scientists who had been poo-pooed by their colleagues for holding views which disagreed with conventional thought: Dr. Gene Shoemaker, J. Harlin Bretz, and David Levy to name a few. Imagine if these men had simply relied on the hypothetical-deductive methods of their colleagues; or if the remnants of the Missoula Flood hadn't been found or if Comet SL9 hadn't been filmed hitting Jupiter. This method would have still supported wrong assumptions. Good evening. "

GalapagosPete wrote on Mar 26, 2008 11:27 PM:

" Confused, No one cares what he believes, but he represents his religious beliefs as science, and that's just a lie. That would be bad enough, but he wants his lies taught as true in science classes, and that is simply unacceptable. By the way, nothing in science is EVER "proven without a shadow of doubt." It doesn't work that way. Only psychotics have, and only the weak-minded require, that level of certainty. "

GalapagosPete wrote on Mar 26, 2008 11:29 PM:

" Mill Creek, You actually posted to say you had nothing to say? And you thought that was necessary because...? "

Primordial Soup? wrote on Mar 27, 2008 12:50 AM:

" Just a quick question... if life began its evolution in some strange primordial soup, where's the trap? It's taught that this "primordial soup" was very hot. What bacteria can survive in such heat, and even if it could, it would need to be still in a "trap", such as the trap in the plumbing below your kitchen sink, in order to begin to "evolve" into a new life form. There are no explanations how this constantly boiling, fast moving primordial soup provided the necessary trap and cool temperatures for evolution to even begin to occur. Just a thought... "

To: "Why 2 blogs?" wrote on Mar 27, 2008 1:11 AM:

" This little note is for "Why 2 blogs?", and anyone else that needs a quick web/internet lesson. First, this is not a "blog". This is a message board. A "blog" (the word "blog" being derived from two words, "web log") is maintained by a single individual in their own space on the web and normally contains personal opinions on various subjects. Most "blogs" are not set up for the forum type discussion seen here in this message board "comments" area at TDN. Here's a bit more info, just FYI, that should help alleviate some confusion about the differences between the internet and the World Wide Web. When you use your Web browser, (Internet Explorer, Netscape, Firefox, Safari, Opera, Camino, Flock, Konqueror, Mozilla, or Lynx) you are using the World Wide Web. The World Wide Web (www) is just one portion of the internet. The internet is a vast network of computer servers all over the globe that are connected online 24/7, and that network has many functions. Besides the WWW, we use electronic mail (email), which is separate from the web (unless, of course, you use web-based email such as hotmail, gmail, or yahoo mail). There is also usenet, which is similar to web forums, but where binaries (files) can be uploaded for sharing. mIRC chat, precursor to current chat clients, is still used today worldwide in "terminal" windows such as MSDOS for various reasons. Other internet segments include "Gopher", FTP, and HyperTerminal. It's not just the WWW. "

100's and 100's Scientist? wrote on Mar 27, 2008 12:41 PM:

" Ok who are these hundreds and hundreds of scientist that you are refering to? If you could site at least one of them it would be intersting to google him or her and see what kind of credentials they have. It's amazing to me that you expect people to just take your word for it, just because you said it doesn't mean that its a fact. You offer absolutly no sources for your information and that quite frankly is not impressing anyone, darwin or anti darwin. So lets here some of these scientist "

Primordial Soup wrote on Mar 27, 2008 2:21 PM:

" The theory goes that after the Big Bang happened there was this primordial soup. It was a mixture of non-living chemicals. Some of these chemicals reacted to form proteins. This has been re-created in a anaerobic laboratory environment. Supposedly these proteins managed to form some type of simple celled organism (in an anaerobic environment?). These were the precursors for all life forms. So therefore Big Bang proponents believe that human beings are all the result of accidental chemical reactions initiating from the primordial soup. Our complex genetic codes a product of time. Lots and lots of time (somehow switching from an anaerobic environment to an aerobic one?). Therefore an extrapolation would be humans are an accident of time no more important than any other substance, say mud, water whatever. Comparatively speaking it would have been much more likely for a computer hard drive to have evolved on it's own from the primordial soup than say a human being, monkey, owl,etc., considering complexity involved in each. No one would contend that a computer hard drive could occur without a designer. Why is that? "

Mike wrote on Mar 27, 2008 2:59 PM:

" This kind of mass cleaning of minds is cathartic for all of us. It's kind of like democracy at it's best.As our knowledge base gets increasingly more advanced we need to concentrate not so much on the various paths that have led us to our present realities, so much as the ones that will lead to civalizations future transcendance. "

River Bissonnette wrote on Mar 27, 2008 3:11 PM:

" Part 1:
To: Nom De Plume. Again why not Plant, Fungi, Protista, or Bacteria? Since clear and observed examples of evolution have been seen at all levels, from small genetic changes leading to variations in one species (micro) to greater genetic differences leading to disruption of interbreeding (speciation) and finally large changes that lead to the occurrence of types of organisms above the species level (macro), then the question is “where to begin”? Micro, Speciation, and Macroevolution are all examples of evolution with the only difference between them being the amount of time required leading to larger and larger changes in genetic divergence from the original organism. As Kenneth Miller is found of saying and I paraphrase, “The other end of the room is far away, but you can make it there one step at a time.” Your example of small population of lizards introduced to an island is called the “founder effect” and/or “bottlenecking” in Biology and genetics and is a perfect example of the first step in evolutionary change that leads to new species or even organisms above the species level of their ancestor AND SO you have already proven that evolution has occurred. Your next statement is validation of my declaration that most people need a better education in what Evolutionary Biology REALLY says since evolutionary theory does not say that a lizard will change into another currently existing organism like a snake, which is a one time non-repeatable event. "

River Bissonnette wrote on Mar 27, 2008 3:12 PM:

" Part 2:
. It could be possible that through selective pressures another reptile species could loose it’s limbs and look similar to a snake, but that would be an example of “convergent evolution” when organisms take on similar morphology due to similar ecological constraints (like dolphins and ichthyosaurs). It also shows a complete ignorance/misunderstanding based of the common names of organisms compared to the scientific name (which is based of ancestral relationships found by evaluating how genetic similarity matches the fossil record). For example a Red-Tailed hawk is not closely related to a Goshawk since the former is in the genus Buteo and the later is in Accipiter. Your assertion that all bacteria are the same is based in the same ignorance and is as well incredulity since you asked for beneficial mutations helping when the example of nylon eating or drug resistant bacteria do just that. I am glad to see that you admit your “utter ignorance” of this field and I assume that is why you are here, to acquire help in becoming more informed about the scientific reality of how evolution works. And AGAIN if you would like to learn about example of beneficial mutations you only need to type “beneficial mutation” into scholar.google.com where you will find thousands of hits including this one “Sympatric Speciation Driven by Beneficial Mutations”. Lastly your claims about geology, Shoemaker/Bretz/Levy, and H-D you seemed to both miss and grasp the point. "

River Bissonnette wrote on Mar 27, 2008 3:31 PM:

" You gave no examples yourself, when at least I told you how you could find articles on the subject, and you completely missed the point when talking about the Missolua floods and the impacts of SL9 hitting Jupiter when they are examples of H-D and the Historical Narrative working. We never directly observed SL9 impacting Jupiter since the impacts happened on the side facing way from the Earth and we were not there (we were viewing it remotely). Same thing for the Missoula floods as the current topography of south-eastern Washington and the sediments, including the ridge that runs from Troutdale to Portland was discovered using H-D within a Historical Narrative.
To Primordial Soup:
The “Trap” you ask for has been discussed for decades now. First bubbles forming on the surface from wave action can make a bilipid layer and trap organic molecules for later synthesis. Clay has the ability to draw the building blocks of life to it due to polarity and help them accumulate. AND Mica can do the same with the added benefit of having many layers for possible synthesis leading to increased selection. We can also talk about ocean hot vent communities, but that will have to wait. As for the heat, species of the simple, evolutionary tree base, archaeabacteria survive in and need water that is at or above the boiling point, with some living in water around 120 Celsius.
"

To river wrote on Mar 27, 2008 4:29 PM:

" Give it up..you lose, stop chasing your tail..please "

Lorena Birk wrote on Mar 27, 2008 5:27 PM:

" Here are the articles pertaining to those mutations I mentioned:mutation in jaw musclature in humans:Stedman HH, Kozyak BW, Nelson A, Thesier DM, Su LT, Low DW, Bridges CR, Shrager JB, Minugh-Purvis N, Mitchell MA. “Myosin gene mutation correlates with anatomical changes in the human lineage.” Nature. 2004 Mar 25; 428(6981): 415-8.Hindlimb mutation in cetaceans:Thewissen JGM, Cohn MJ, Stevens LS, Bajpai S, Heyning J, Horton WE (2006) Developmental basis for hind-limb loss in dolphins and the origin of the cetacean body plan. Proc.Nat.Acad.Sci. USA 103(22):8414-8418.Also, do you enjoy milk? I do, and I am one of those people who have a mutation that allows me to enjoy lactose long after babyhood. If I did not have it, I would be lactose intolerant as some humans and nonhumans are (cats can be lactose intolerant for example) Other mutations include ones that allow certian species of bacteria to digest nylon, plant cultivation, animal breeding, HIV resistance, heart disease resistance, etc. What exactly do you think creates variation with in a species? What do you think makes organisms' DNA different from each other, even with in the same species? How do you think researchers can trace who is related to who in a single family? Your family heratige can be traced by reading your DNA, the mutations accumulated there, the ones unique to your line and those connected to you. "

To: 100s of Scientists wrote on Mar 27, 2008 6:48 PM:

" Here's a short list of the scientists to whom you refer: (It's all I had time to compile.
Duane Gish, Ph.D. Biochemistry, Ken Cumming, Ph.D. Biology, Patricia Lynnea Gathman Nason, Ph.D., Dan Criswell, Ph.D. Biochemistry/Microbiology
David Dewitt, Ph.D. Neuroscience, Frank Sherwin, M.A. Zoology (Parasitology), Todd C. Wood, Ph.D. Biochemistry/Genomics, Robert Franks, M.D. Robert H. Eckel, M.D., Gary Parker, Ed.D. Biology, Bert Thompson, Ph.D. Microbiology, David Menton, Ph.D. Cell Biology, Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Joseph A. Mastropaolo, Ph.D. Kinesiology/Physiology, Carl B. Fliermans, Ph.D. Microbiology, Ian G. Macreadie, Ph.D. Molecular Biology, Andre Eggen, Ph.D. Animal/Molecular Genetics, Lyubka P. Tantcheva, Ph.D. Biochemical Toxicology, Walter J. Veith, Ph.D. Zoology, John K.G. Kramer, Ph.D. Biochemistry, Benjamin L. Aaron, M.D., John R. Meyer, Ph.D. Zoology
Lane P. Lester, Ph.D. Genetics, Alan Gillen, Ed.D. Science Education, Gregory J. Brewer, Ph.D. Biology, Roger W. Sanders, Ph.D. Botany, Arthur J. Jones, Ph.D. Biology
Kelly Hollowell, J.D., Ph.D. Mollecular and Cellular Pharmacology, Donna O'Daniel, M.A. Biological Sciences, Glen W. Wolfrom, Ph.D. Animal Husbandry, Mark H. Armitage, M.S. Biology, David A. Demick, M.D., Randy Guliuzza, M.D., George F. Howe, Ph.D. Botany, David A. Kaufmann, Ph.D. Anatomy, Jonathan B. Scripture, Ph.D. Biochemistry, Richard Oliver , Ph.D. Biology, Inis J. Bardella, M.D., Gary A. Eckhoff, D.V.M.
"

Nom De Plume wrote on Mar 27, 2008 7:08 PM:

" River, you have still missed my point. Yes, the short legged lizards do better in trees. The longer-legged ones did better on the ground. None of them turned into anything other than a lizard. You are correct, a snake would be a poor comparison and not accurate to what evolution would expect (my fault). I tried to read the abstract you referenced, I could only access the introduction. The rest required a log-in which I don't have. As far as the scientists I listed, I have not missed the point! They illuminate my point. Arrogance in scientists leads to inaccurate conclusions which, without concrete evidence can't be overturned. Scientists must be willing to accept the fact that they may be wrong. That is all I have been saying. Are you willing to admit that there is room for error in the theory of evolution? Or, are you so entrenched in your belief system that any arguments must be wrong because evolution is fact? I have been reluctant to give my qualifications in this forum because, in most cases, I find them irrelevant. However, based on your statements asserting my ignorance, I must reply that I have Master's of Science degree for which I worked diligently. I am more versed in these topics than you may wish to believe. The difference is that I am willing to admit to the fallibility of science and scientists. I have not been so knuckled by others that I abandon free thought. Illegitime Noncarborundum! "

GalapagosPete wrote on Mar 27, 2008 10:32 PM:

" Nom, What makes you think scientists, as a class, are not willing to admit that they may be wrong? Apparently you are acquainted with no real scientists because that's the whole point of science, that any theory may be disproved at any time, although one that has withstood the test of time, such as the theory of evolution, is not likely to be. As for whether there may be error, of course there could be, and if so it will be discovered in the course of time, but because of real scientific research, not because of the unsubstantiated assertions of creationists. "

GalapagosPete wrote on Mar 27, 2008 11:27 PM:

" You talk a lot, but you don't really say anything. You assert that there are some sort of calculations (Dembski's "law of small probability" is merely philosophy and has never been validated) that make evolution impossible but do not explain just what these supposed calculations are or what they're based on. You assert that cosmology, the study of the physical universe, in some way presents problems for evolution but you do not explain what those are, either. You claim that hundreds of "intellectually honest" scientists are discovering that scientific discovery is not leading closer to Darwin, but fail to mention that this small group of "scientists" are not researchers in biology, in fact are overwhelmingly not biologists of any sort much less evolutionary biologists, and that in any case the statement they signed merely states that, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." First of all, natural selection and mutation are not the only forces driving evolution; second, all scientists are skeptical by nature and third, they do carefully examine evidence because that's what scientists do. It's taken them six years to get a mere 700 signatures on so mild a statement. Why didn't the Discovery Institute try to get scientists to sign a statement that said, "Evolutionary biology is false"? "

GalapagosPete wrote on Mar 27, 2008 11:48 PM:

" "Expelled from academia"? Well, people with nutty ideas are often ostracized. Sometimes they are able to support their nutty ideas with evidence (not philosophy, EVIDENCE) and their nutty idea becomes the new paradigm. When they do the work, when they present the evidence, when they persist in the face of opposition, when they have evidence. (Did I mention they need actual evidence, not clever merely rhetoric?) And just what "discovery" or "compelling" evidence are you referring to that casts even the slightest shadow of doubt on the theory of evolution? There isn't any. None. And as for Darwin's theory being antiquated, Darwin's theory has been expanded immeasurably since he first proposed it. By attacking his original work rather than modern evolutionary theory, you are conceding that you have no valid response to current science. Had Darwin had microbiology, had he known of DNA, he would have discovered what we have in modern times: he was right. Gods are no longer necessary, except for the superstitious. "

Sammy7 wrote on Mar 27, 2008 11:49 PM:

" I'm evolving. Nice, Absolutist, pulling out my favorite Latin phrase. But all your BS about logic still doesn't hide the fact that you have provided no evidence whatsoever for I.D. (creationism). "

To Lorena Birk wrote on Mar 28, 2008 7:06 AM:

" Read up on the differences in pasteurized versus raw milk. You may find out that the ability to digest milk relies less on a mutation of genetic make-up and more on the availability of enzymes within the milk itself. Gut flora also becomes a factor (which is influenced by diet). Genetics do make a difference (Asian tend to be more susceptible to lactose intolerance) but often times a change in diet from highly processed to a raw food or more unprocessed diet will, with the addition of raw (unpasteurized) milk will alleviate the symptoms of lactose and wheat intolerance. I know because I have seen total relief of these symptoms in my wife, mother and mother-in-law through the alteration of diet. Point being: You made a claim and gave an example. Your example of genetics and evolution are highly suspect as being incorrect due to the likelihood that the problem is environmental exposure rather than genetic in nature. "

Hey Petey wrote on Mar 28, 2008 8:26 AM:

" You hit the nail right on the head. The whole point of evolutionary theory is to do away with the necessity of God so that one is not required to answer to a higher power for one's actions. The evolutionary theory was needed for a purpose. Scientific study was not the stimulus. If it was there would be a clear foundation for the science. Big Bang to primordial soup to anaerobic proteins to single celled organisms to multi-cellular species adaptation is quite a "leap of faith". So instead of starting at the beginning and clearly substantiating evolutionary theory from it's foundation theorists pick a point well along in this theoretical process (somewhere around the arrival of complex organisms and their adaptation ability) and run with their theory. The problem is they lack a well thought out concrete foundation with which to work. All the while they are not to concerned as long as they can provide some kind of intelligent sounding theory that they believes results in the death of God. At least attempt to provide a solid foundation for the beginning of life if you wish to gain credence for your theory. Staring at the beginning is a necessity not an option. "

Yo Sammy wrote on Mar 28, 2008 8:30 AM:

" DNA code. It's a code. Someone (i.e. a creator) put the code there. It wasn't random chance. Code has to have a creator. Order left to it's own leads to disorder. No code left to itself does not result in code with out some outside input. That is rational thought. Will that work for evidence? "

Jackal wrote on Mar 28, 2008 8:58 AM:

" I'm not sure if this has been brought up yet, but one of the major pieces of evidence supporting Darwin was the drawings of embryos in their early stages, and how they all look alike. However, if you find REAL pictures of the embryos, you'll see they really don't look alike. Also, he skipped the actual beginning of the embryos--the beginning stages in Darwin are actually the middle stages of fetal development. Go ahead, look it up. The beginning stages look nothing like the Darwin drawings, and nothing like each other. "

Peter Piper wrote on Mar 28, 2008 1:55 PM:

" Evidence of truth is not necessarily truth of evidence.Semantically abstractive obfuscation does nothing to advance anyone's positions. "

Degrees degrees degrees wrote on Mar 28, 2008 2:42 PM:

" Lets skip the degrees and just talk. I would urge everybody to read or reread carefully The Origin Of Species by Mr. Darwin, and So Human An Animal by Rene Dubos.Insight and synthesis could be really good for all of us. "

Nom De Plume wrote on Mar 28, 2008 4:46 PM:

" I am amazed at the line of reasoning here: We believe that evolution is correct. If you believe that evolution is not correct, then you must find evidence to refute it. That evidence must be presented by a credentialed PhD in evolutionary biology. However, our institutions will not support research done toward a Master's or PhD if it refutes evolution. Additionally, we will not knowingly confer an advanced degree on someone who publicly espouses any non-darwinian view. The reason for this limitation is that we know evolution to be correct. Furthermore, anyone who disputes evolution, particularly "real" scientists, must be a crack-pot, because we all know that evolution is true. Goodness, aren't we sophisticated scientists? In response to those who continue to bring up ID, it is not a scientific argument, it is a philosophical one. In the same way that evolution is one philosophical interpretation of a singular body of evidence. Regarding the embryos, they were shown to be frauds years ago. No self-respecting evolutionist will use them as evidence. To GalapagosPete: you are mistaken about my acquaintance with real scientists. I work with them regularly. I assume you don't include me in the realm of "real" scientists (despite my credentials) since I don't fully support evolutionary theory. Why so personal, anyway??? Sheesh. "

TRamey wrote on Mar 28, 2008 8:19 PM:

" Galapagos: Gee, how convinced will you be if I spend time I don't have replying to all your queries?

I'm simply amazed at how so many posters here insist that ID is creationism. It's not. Saying so over and over and over doesn't make it true.

Nowhere in the original article did I suggest a debate about evolution and creationism; yet, Darwinists continue to react to that debate, which was never "on my radar." Intelligent design theory is a philosophical position. That said . . .

Galapagos: The inescapable philosophical implications supported by modern cosmology yield enormous problems for Darwinism. I would be glad to share these with you and Sammy and other hostiles here . . . granting that you submit to the logical criticisms I noted in the previous post.

Until then, there's no point. You're unreasonable and disinterested in what is true, only what you believe is true.

"

GalapagosPete wrote on Mar 28, 2008 9:54 PM:

" Jackal, What drawings of embryos are you referring to? There were lots of such drawings around then. "

Lorena Birk wrote on Mar 29, 2008 9:08 AM:

" Lactose intolerance mutation(C-13910T)exists. There are several articles on it on PubMed. Haeckle was wrong and also doctored a few pictures (non of which are used by reputable reference except in cases where they comment on his inaccuracy). Scientists looking at the evidence realized this. Instead, Karl Earnst von Baer was right. Long story short Haeckle: thought that stages such as fish/amphibian/reptile stages were to be found in embryo as it developed. Baer: there are stages, but they are not these clear, fish/ambphibian/reptile stages. They are “general properties”, such as a notochord for those with spinal cords, bone development, etc. Things that phyla are based on. Looking at an embryo, Baer realized that there are broad scale similarities between embryos of different species that are in the same phyla. Indeed, early stage embryos can not be differentiated easily. Creationists like to dreg up Haeckle, but neglect to tell their followers about Baer or modern embryology. Developmental biology doesn't use Haeckle. As far as Intelligent design creationism not being a form of creationism; the WEDGE DOCUMENT disagrees. It would help ID to get into peer reviewed research if they actually had real research to back up their claims. They don't! Behe and the wonder team at Dover had nothing to give the judge when he showed interest in seeing their "research". They don't understand how something happened, therefore "God did it!" "

Oblique the centric myopia wrote on Mar 29, 2008 11:41 AM:

" So on the one hand you have intelligent design and on the other you have evolution, both competing for market share as it were.When you repeatedly mow down the tall dandolines in your yard eventually you wind up with a yard full of short dandolines.Now is that evolution or is it adaptive compatibility?Could a Creator have set an evolutionary process in motion while concurrently establishing an elaborate originating order for the ascent of man in a moral universe? "

Lorena Birk wrote on Mar 29, 2008 1:27 PM:

" Oblique the centric myopia, you are describing what Jean-Baptiste Lamarck hypothesized about; any physical change to an organism is transmitted to its offspring, the most common example is of a giraffe, by frequently stretching its neck, will have offspring with subsequently longer necks. This is not modern evolutionary theory. While there are environmental influences, those influences must affect the genes involved in reproduction. You can't cut off a mouse's tail and expect its offspring to have lost the backend of their spine. However, if you have a something, such as a mutation, that affects the genes responsible for tail growth, that affects those reproductive sex cells, you could. Just cutting those flowers isn't really going to be doing much. You're not affecting what counts. You also wrongly assume that its just evolution and Intelligent design creationism. Intelligent design creationists have failed to produce any research supporting them. Instead, they misrepresent, misquote, and use negative arguments. It is also a false dictonomy as there were/are other thoughts on the origin of species (not abiogenesis mind you, which is the creation of life). What about orthogenesis? Neo-Lamarckianism? Process structuralism? Saltationism? The different flavors of creationism? Some intelligent design creationists, such as Behe, accept descent with modification. They just don't comprehend macroevolution is just microevolution on a much larger timescale, as has been stated before. If everything needs a creator, who created the creator? "

To Oblique wrote on Mar 29, 2008 2:22 PM:

" 5 billion years produces a lot of variation and extinction.Perhaps their is a way to link ID with evolution both scientifically and philosophically. "

TRamey wrote on Mar 29, 2008 2:55 PM:

" Bad logic . . . again.

Lorena Birk: The "wedge document" is certainly a tool for creationists, but the fact that the "wedge document" exists, and the fact that its source is the Discovery Institute, or the fact that a judge ruled a certain way HAS NOTHING TO DO with the truth or non-truth of intelligent design theory. Further . . .

Because you believe that ID theory is creationism (and I concede that it is a form of), does not make it any less of a reasonable philosophical position.

Now, simply because ID is a form of creationism, does not, therefore, mean I agree it is in the same category of creationism as has been argued against in this forum by all the hostiles. Saying ID is the creationism all you Darwinists fear doesn't make it so. I'm amazed at the sheer inability here to see this point. "

TRamey wrote on Mar 29, 2008 2:57 PM:

" Peter Piper: You need to stop taking fortune cookies so seriously. "

Lorena Birk wrote on Mar 29, 2008 3:26 PM:

" Oblique the centric myopia, it sounds like you are describing a concept by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Essentially, you cut off say, the tails of mice (or in your description flowers) and their offspring will have similar mutilations. This is not modern evolutionary theory or even Darwin’s original hypothesis. For in neither the mice, nor the flowers, have you affected their gametes, their reproductive cells. It is a discredited concept. Secondly, you have a false dichotomy of evolution (an apparently inaccurate one if the earlier part of your post is taken into account) and intelligent design creationism. ID has prevented no research to support its arguments (which are negative arguments and not what theories are based on), misquoting/misrepresenting real research. At the Dover trial, even though they were asked, the IDC people could produce nothing (other then the said negative arguments and misquotes/misrepresentation. The judge gave them an opportunity to do so. Also, if everything needs a designer, who designed the designer? The designer of the designer? The designer of the designer of the designer? Etc. Saying it is “God” doesn’t solve things either. Which god? What evidence do you have to support its is say, a certain Christian denomination’s concept of a god and not Vishnu? The Flying spaghetti Monster? "

Lactose mutation wrote on Mar 29, 2008 8:22 PM:

" Your lactose mutation may exist, but everyone that has lactocse intolerance does not have it for life. Therefore the mutation is not the single cause for lactose intolerance. Your agruement is inconclusive. You used the example to support your point and it does not hold water. The pasteurization process kills benefical enezymes that aid in the digestion of milk. Consuming raw (unpasteurized) milk often alleviates the problem. Again your example was not conclusive, therefore your argument is suspect. I know it may be hard for some to admit when they are wrong, but admitting fault is human. "

TRamey wrote on Mar 30, 2008 7:08 AM:

" Lorena Birk: You ask: "If everything needs a designer, who designed the designer? The designer of the designer? The designer of the designer of the designer?"

First, it's a "category mistake" to ask what created an immaterial and uncaused being, i.e., God. It's like asking "What does blue taste like?" So, your conception of God is inaccurate, or the question wouldn't be asked.

Second, it's not true that everything needs a designer, only things that have a beginning (design) have causes (designer). Traversing an infinite series of causes and effects is impossible, Arriving to the present cause (the material universe) from the infinite past could never happen if there were not an undesigned, immaterial, and uncaused cause of all there is. Same with moments of time. Without a beginner of time, the present moment never arrives.

Now, one need not accept that this Cause or Beginner is the Judeo-Christian God, but it well addresses the objection you raise. Aristotle/Aquinas.
"

Lorena Birk wrote on Mar 30, 2008 9:43 AM:

" "Lactose mutation", the claim was that no nonlethal/beneficial mutations exist. Not whether it was the sole cause of lactose intolerance/tolerance. The lactose mutation is just an example of an existing non-lethal mutation. That is what I was using it for. It is one accepted cause of lactose tolerance with in the scientific community. T-13910 alleles are still changing with in certain populations. They are evolving. I am not saying you are wrong with environmental influences. Conversely, I am not wrong because scientists have documented these mutations with in these genes and they are non-lethal and are functional. Once again, creationists often claim there are no beneficial/nonlethal mutations. None. Nodda. The evidence shows otherwise. They are mostly neutral, can have beneficial mutations, or can be lethal. T-13910 is one example. "

Lorena Birk wrote on Mar 30, 2008 12:59 PM:

" TRamey, the smoke screen for a version of the Judeo-Christian god that Discovery Institute plays is just "designer". The concept of "everything needs a creator", variations there of, are frequently played by creationists of all stripes. Following that line, IDCs fail to specify who designed the designer, all the way down. According to this, it doesn't even have to be a deity, as the said "designer" is just "designer" (although, as I've said before, the Wedge document makes it clear that it is one form of the Judeo-Christian deity). Of course, how do you prove an "imaterial and uncased being"? Which version of a god/goddess/supreme being is correct? Episcapalian? Protestant? Pastafarian? How is my concept of a deity wrong? Which god are you refering to? How do you disprove someone's idea of an mythical being when it is based on visions? Getting into the beginnings of the universe, Big bang cosmology, why couldn't the universe, in one form or another, always exist? If a deity/desinger/prime mover has always existed and did not require a creator, why not the universe? Besides, as for time: time as we know it, started at beginnings of our universe. Also, for Lactose mutation, how do you kill a protein (which is essentially what enzymes are)? Do you mean change through heat? Could you give me an article I can look it up at? That would be great. "

To lorena birk wrote on Mar 30, 2008 1:48 PM:

" Give it up..we are not impressed,,go away, please. "

Lorena Birk wrote on Mar 30, 2008 2:42 PM:

" Sorry, I enjoy learning. Could Lactose intolerant please tell me what article I can find that info in? I would enjoy following that thread and learning about that. And really, how is my concept of a god wrong and someone else's right? Could Tyler S. Ramey tell me what research in microbiology have completely destroyed modern evolutionary theory? The actual articles from peer reviewed research? As far as I am aware, thanks to the Dover trial, there is none. The judge asked them if they had any and to show to him. He gave them an opportunity to shine. They did not have anything. Only popular accounts that have no research to back them up and are choked full of misquotes, misrepresentation and lies. That includes those statistics by Dembski. It isn't as if they haven't had time: design inference has been around since Paley and the new IDC craze of today has had millions of dollars through donations and time to come up with some research. "

TRamey wrote on Mar 30, 2008 5:24 PM:

" Lorena: You're not understanding that only caused things (effects) need a causer. A chair (an effect) is a cause of a chair maker (causer). Since an infinite series of causes and effects (things that had a beginning in time as we know it), is impossible, there has to be an uncaused cause of all things that have a beginning.

And, as you know, it's impossible to obtain absolute knowledge of God's existence, but there is sufficient evidence to conclude God's existence . . . much like the evidence that exists that a given bridge will support your car. Physical laws, observation, history, etc., tell you that the Golden Gate will hold you up. Fair assessment of evidence for God's existence is no different . . .

Yet so many think belief in God requires some ridiculous leap of faith. Not true. Small step of faith on the heels of a lot of evidence. "

TRamey wrote on Mar 30, 2008 5:33 PM:

" As far as "versions" of God go . . .

Concluding philosophically that God exists, or must exist, it becomes necessary to use the same tools of reason that allowed this ascent to determine which or what kind of God exists.

The options are few (seven, actually), but it requires some "heavy lifting" (careful and interested thought) to conclude well. That said . . .

The amount of evidence for God's existence far outweighs the evidence against existence. Just like that bridge . . . more evidence exists that the Golden Gate will hold me and my car than evidence that it won't. But do I have absolute knowledge about that?

Not exactly. Sufficient knowledge to make a reasonable decision?

Yep.

"

Lorena Birk wrote on Mar 30, 2008 11:46 PM:

" How do you tell a caused thing from a none caused thing? (How do you tell design from designed?) How do you falsify an "imaterial and uncaused" being? These arguements for a deity boil down to "my book/scroll/shaman is better than your book/scroll/shaman" or "I've had a better vision than you have" with no attempts to falsify using evidence. Considering I have no idea which religion you belong to, let alone which denomination, it is reasonable of me to consider "God" as different versions (I'm trying to be inclusive of everyone so no one feels left out, there are a lot of different deity concepts out there). This evidence for IDC, where is it? Consider the human body. Inverted retinas (we have a blind spot where squid and the like don't), our bipedalism can result in backpain as well as difficult births compared to most other mammals, etc. Now, was this deliberate? Accidental? Either one makes the deity out to be either a jerk or incompetent. Orginal sin of some Judeo-Christian religions doesn't help either for they have a concept that God knows and sees all. I ask, why didn't he know his creations would screw up, be kicked out of Eden, and left to suffer? Why make them in the first place? Following that line, the deity is sadistic and cruel and not the loving deity so many believe in. "

To Lorena Birk wrote on Mar 31, 2008 7:51 AM:

" Try:

The Untold Story of Milk: Green Pastures, Contented Cows and Raw Dairy Products by Ron Schmid, ND. This will give you the information you may be interested plus plenty of background information. It specifically lists the many different enzymes that are destroy during the pasteurization process and there roles in digestion. Check out the Weston Price Foundation for less technical info. on raw milk. "

To; Lorena wrote on Mar 31, 2008 8:11 AM:

" Please read the book of Job in the old testement. "

Rob wrote on Mar 31, 2008 9:02 AM:

" Hmmm...article thick on opinion...
Thin on actual supporting evidence.
Also, why is a newspaper in America supporting this article via publication without an explicit "Editorial" tag on it??? There is zero factual basis for any of the ideas contained within, and, Mr. Ramey, your non-existant understanding of the topic shines through. Not a single shred of evidence did you use to support your own story. "

To Rob wrote on Mar 31, 2008 9:29 AM:

" As if you would know. "

Lorena Birk wrote on Mar 31, 2008 10:00 AM:

" Thank you for the article name and author. Which journal or publication was it in? Also, to To Rob, perhaps he read Mr. Ramey's editorial? There was no peer reviewed work cited (because none really exists) showing support for intelligent design creationism. I gave some evidence for modern evolutionary theory (the mutations T/13910, MYH16, Shh, Hand2), but that is just a small fraction of the data available at research sites and in research publications. The fact that these mutations exist still stands. Oh, and as far as Job, if this god is so powerful, why doesn't he destroy Satan? Get rid of the problem? He just chooses not to? Why? Islam has the same threats if you don't believe: torture, eternal punishment, etc for showing skepticism. Why should I believe your religion (whatever version it is) and not theirs? This is love and benevolence? Try reading Leviticus. I would bet money you don't follow every single rule (it isn't just the Ten Commandments) that God wants you to follow. And don't use the "Jesus did away with all of that" ploy. Matthew 5:17 notes that is not the case "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the phrophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them." He is not just talking about Pharisee laws, although some apologetics write that he is. "

Lorena Birk wrote on Mar 31, 2008 10:13 AM:

" Just checked up on that "The Untold Story of Milk". It is a book by a Naturopathic physician. Was anything in the book peer reviewed? Does the Longview Library have a copy? "

To Lorena wrote on Mar 31, 2008 10:23 AM:

" Im sure you understand,,its not that most dont belive in the Living God,,or cant belive, its I wont,, It just boils down to your own free will. Free will is something the living God will never take away. "

Lorena Birk wrote on Mar 31, 2008 12:08 PM:

" Free will still does not explain how the threats in Job are any different than those by any other religion if you don't believe their cult. Why believe one is better than another? What is a living god? Can a god die? What is living? Existing? How do you prove one deity exists and not another? Besides, free will implies that a deity is not omniscient (all knowing/all seeing). It still doesn't explain why the orginal editorial had no research to back up its author's claims. "

Lorena Birk wrote on Mar 31, 2008 12:25 PM:

" Also, it is interesting that where do you get the concept of a Christian god, from any sect? I have heard, "the Bible", whatever version(s) used by the church. What makes the Bible true? Because it is written by God. Where is the evidence for that? Because it said so. Why does it say so? Because it is written by God...... This is begging the question, just running around in circles. Variations of this and because my priest/parents told me also occur. Yet, this evidence is no more suggestive than any other religion. And the Bible was clearly written by men and has errors in it, add ons centuries after the events were suppose to occur, been translated and some word change because of that, etc. The history of the Bible is facinating, but certainly doesn't support believing in one god over any other religion's deity(ies). It is a fun read for sure though. "

To Loren Birk: Book wrote on Mar 31, 2008 2:00 PM:

" Don't have the book with me currently. I do know that the book was reviewed by other Naturopathic physicians. The are more than a couple hundred references to peer reviewed research within the book itself. Many of which come from highly regarded experts in their day. Citations in the book from modern experts however are not as prevalent as one may expect. This is due in a large part to the modern milk industries reliance on pasteurized milk and the tendency to avoid funding research (even stifling said research in a university setting) that shows their product is inferior. A very interesting read. "

Lorena Birk wrote on Mar 31, 2008 3:23 PM:

" "Book", so they're claiming persecution from the research community? I'll try looking the book up at the library. Anyways, I'm still interested in how you kill an enzyme. Are you confusing enzyme with bacteria? Trying to remember, but I think enzymes can be changed by heat, but not killed; it is a specialized protein and isn't an organism. "

Pen Name wrote on Mar 31, 2008 3:57 PM:

" Lorena Birk if Jesus Christ himself landed tomorrow in the middle of the Mark Morris football field you would be searching the peer reviewed research to see if it really happened.Whether you have a microscope in your hand or a bible the truth is nobody really knows how we ultimately got here.That's what gets people up at 3 in the morning. "

Good debate wrote on Mar 31, 2008 4:34 PM:

" I want to thank everybody who has participated in this lively debate and in paticular Tyler Ramey for getting it going.Kudos to Richard Forrest and Alex Marthaller for their offerings and also to Lorena Birk for carrying a lot of the recent load.I would like to see discussion on the big bang theory as opposed to the steady state theory for the origin of the universe and how either one could link to evolution, intelligent design or both. I hope Mr. Ramey in paticular will weigh in on this. "

Pen Name wrote on Mar 31, 2008 5:38 PM:

" If Jesus Christ did such a thing, there would be evidence (video, photos, many written accounts by various groups not associated with trying to develop an early church, etc). The records of him existing were written decades and centuries after he was suppose to have died (the New Testament). He is absent from the writings of writers of the time he was suppose to have lived as are his "miracles". The closest I can seem to find is a Johoshua Ben Pandira who did not have a virgin birth (which is very common in pagan religions, the virgin birth). Of course, he also lived 100 years before JC was suppose to be born and was stoned to death then hung. He did perform magic tricks however and is described in the Talmud (Sepher Tolduth Jeshu). Otherwise, stories of Jesus outside of the Bible can only be found well past the time he was suppose to have died. As far as Jesus rising as a major religious figure in so short a time as being evidence for his existence; it isn't that uncommon. Look at the Cargo Cults that developed after World War II finished. John Frum, even though there is no record of a man ever existing, quickly rose to mythical man status, with people swearing they have seen him and felt him. As far as how anyone got here....reproduction? "

Book wrote on Mar 31, 2008 8:09 PM:

" Enzymes altered beyond all benefical use for digestion, killed, something like that. My research on the topic was years ago, but you get the point. "

Wow wrote on Mar 31, 2008 9:16 PM:

" It would be a very interesting to have a public forum on the subject,,ie evolution-- creation.
as long as no violence accured...might be worse than Nazi, Judaizme..we would have to see. The creationist might have to have a police escort,, well by the looks of these comments, the evolutionist seem way more violet when you attack there religion..
But it would be fun to attact there religion with logic,,and denounce their agnostic scientist..maybe we could see. "

Book wrote on Mar 31, 2008 10:00 PM:

" Killed, destroyed, inactivated. Terms used as descriptors in the book for what happens to the enzymes. Quote from book to whet the apetite. "The belief in widespread lactose intolerance is a misconception; most people are simply intolerant to the pasteurized homogenized milk products commercially available. People who test positive for lactose intolerance and have problems with commercial milk often digest raw milk with no problems at all, especially raw milk from animals fed mostly grass." I imagine looking more closely at some of the citations will get you the more technical version on what actually takes place when the heat is turned up so to speak. "

Movie wrote on Mar 31, 2008 10:02 PM:

" Just heard about a new movie coming out kinda along the lines of this discussion. Everyone interested here might consider catching it. The title: EXPELLED "

Lorena Birk wrote on Apr 1, 2008 10:02 AM:

" What research article is the claim "widespread lactose intolerance is a misconception" based on? Maybe I could look that up specifically. As far as evolutionary theory causing violence: it describes and explains but is not an indicator of what should be done. Besides, cooperation, altruistic behavior, is a successful survival strategy for a social species. Humans are not the only ones cooperating with each other either. Other social animals do so as well. As far as the Expelled movie; it regurgitates the same Darwin=Nazism that creationists spout. Eugenics predates Darwin (farming practices anyone?) and Hitler's movement was motivated by the religious concept of the Great Chain of Being: one group being superior than another as well as using several groups (it wasn't just Jews but the mentally retarded, physically disabled, etc) as scapegoats for economic problems. Either way, it still doesn’t make evolutionary theory as wrong: the data supporting descent with modification is strong and being actively researched. That includes research in the microbiology sect. Oh, and by the way, ever hear of "Gott mit uns"? This was used by Nazis; they wore it on their belts too. Guess what it means? Hint: it isn't related to Darwin. The movie Expelled is tanking for this reason and the fact they are/were suppressing viewings by people who are knowledgable about evolutionary theory and getting ripped for an embarrasing mistake with Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers. "

Alex Marthaller: Book review wrote on Apr 1, 2008 12:28 PM:

" Editorial Review

Part science lesson, part motivational speech, and part sermon, this book has it all. A former Young Earth creationist minister, Dowd came to the realization that it is possible to believe both in God and in evolution. To many, this is far from earth-shattering news; to Dowd, it is groundbreaking information he has taken on the road with his wife, acclaimed science writer Connie Barlow. This book is their presentation in print form. It starts with an excellent overview of Darwinian evolution, then goes a bit off track as Dowd uses terms like "Lizard Legacy" and "Monkey Mind" in trying to explain what evolution means to human psychological development; this motivational section is complete with self-help exercises to assist readers in bettering their interpersonal relationships. Next, the book goes into a sermon about how we need to tame our Monkey Minds with religion, or Higher Porpoise, whatever religious tradition we choose to follow. It wraps up well with an ecological call to stop global warming. A well-written work that presents some interesting concepts; recommended for larger libraries. --Jennifer Kuncken, Williamsburg Regional Lib., VA, Library Journal

Book Description
Finally, the war between science and religion is over. The winner? All of us. With supporters from an incredibly wide spectrum of backgrounds and beliefs, including five Nobel laureates, Thank God for Evolution! builds bridges, provides guidance, and restores realistic hope for humanity and the body of life as a whole.
A movement has been growing over the past few decades that "

Alex Marthaller: Book, "The Language of God". wrote on Apr 1, 2008 12:31 PM:

" From Publishers Weekly
Collins, a pioneering medical geneticist who once headed the Human Genome Project, adapts his title from President Clinton's remarks announcing completion of the first phase of the project in 2000: "Today we are learning the language in which God created life." Collins explains that as a Christian believer, "the experience of sequencing the human genome, and uncovering this most remarkable of all texts, was both a stunning scientific achievement and an occasion of worship." This marvelous book combines a personal account of Collins's faith and experiences as a genetics researcher with discussions of more general topics of science and spirituality, especially centering around evolution. Following the lead of C.S. Lewis, whose Mere Christianity was influential in Collins's conversion from atheism, the book argues that belief in a transcendent, personal God—and even the possibility of an occasional miracle—can and should coexist with a scientific picture of the world that includes evolution. Addressing in turn fellow scientists and fellow believers, Collins insists that "science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced" and "God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible." Collins's credibility as a scientist and his sincerity as a believer make for an engaging combination, especially for those who, like him, resist being forced to choose between science and God. (July 17)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

From Scientific American
A devoutly Christian geneticist such as Francis S. Collins, author of The Language of God and leader of the Human Genome Project, can comfortably accept that "a common ancestor for humans and mice is virtually inescapable" or that it may have been a mutation in the FOXP2 gene that led to the flowering of human language. The genetic code is, after all, "God’s instruction book." But what sounds like a harmless metaphor can restrict the intellectual bravado that is essential to science. "In my view," Collins goes on to say, "DNA sequence alone, even if accompanied by a vast trove of data on biological function, will never explain certain special human attributes, such as the knowledge of the Moral Law and the universal search for God." Evolutionary explanations have been proffered for both these phenomena. Whether they are right or wrong is not a matter of belief but a question to be approached scientifically. The idea of an apartheid of two separate but equal metaphysics may work as a psychological coping mechanism, a way for a believer to get through a day at the lab. But theism and materialism don’t stand on equal footings. The assumption of materialism is fundamental to science.
George Johnson is author of Fire in the Mind: Science, Faith, and the Search for Order and six other books. He resides on the Web at talaya.net --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

"

Wow wrote on Apr 1, 2008 2:19 PM:

" You guys really have lost it. "

h00t0wl wrote on Apr 1, 2008 6:51 PM:

" Why is this listed as news?? It is obviously opinion. I am not angry. I am not a "Darwinist". I am, in fact, a Christian. But I dont believe that everything in the bible is literal truth. I believe it is true of the knowledge that people had at the time they were writing. I dont think science and Christianity cant co-exist. I believe that some people who cant accept life without absolutes want to make this an argument. I know that some people dont believe you can be a Christian and a Democrat at the same time, let alone let science and Christianity peacefully co-exist. Jesus loves us all - even those of us who believe the earth is flat. After all, at one point in human history you could be burned at the steak for hearesy for aspousing to that "theory". I am for lightening up and loving one another, as is what Jesus did. "

Lorena Birk wrote on Apr 1, 2008 8:46 PM:

" I've asked before: how do you prove a non-material being with science? Especially whichever form of the Christian deity Collins believes in? Ultimately, it comes doen to his exposure to that religion and basis in a Bible alone. As far as morality:non-humans who live in large social groups have checks and balances in place to control aggression and prevent food and sex free for alls? Tit for tat, being kind to others, etc, can be found in other species. They certainly haven't read the Bible nor have knowledge of any other human religion (yes, other religions have moral rules too, many of which the Judeo-Christian religion borrowed from). Besides, elements of human language (symbolism and syntax for example) can also be found in other species, in our closest relatives (symbolism and gestural behavior; their vocal cords are too high and they don't appear to have the enervation necessary), and in farther removed mammals such as certain whale and dolphin species (syntax). Frans de Waal, a primatologist has several general public books (with many references he published in peer review) that address morality and reconciliation behavior (Peace Making Among Primates and Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong, and a more new publication, Our Inner Ape). I am not saying Collins does not know what he is talking about as far as our genetics, but when it comes to behavior, he uses “God of the Gap” arguments. "

Lorena Birk wrote on Apr 1, 2008 9:05 PM:

" Loving one another, doing unto others, etc, predate Jesus Christ. Buddha and Confusius both have similar positive words of wisdom. They predate the Jesus stories by 600 to 500 years respectively. This suggests that, despite the different times and religions (which Judeo-Christianity borrowed heavily from) that concepts of peace and the ability to work together are not exlusive to one religion. They appear to exist in successful societies because successful societies would not last long without them. And Jesus did not always preach peace, nor did others in the New Testament. Revelation is particularly violent and threat filled. Hardly loving. Then there is this, Matthew 10:34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." H00t0wl, what is a Darwinist? Someone who understands and accepts the data supporting modern evolutionary theory? Calling people who do is a little like calling people who undestand and accept Newton's theories as "Newtonists". You can be a Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim, etc, of whatever denomination, and still practice and understand science. People like Kenneth Miller, and even Collins (to the extent he doesn't stray into topics such as behavior as stated above) are under the broad title of Christian. You are right however, saying that IDC through microbiology research has disproven MET isn't news. It's creationist propaganda with no evidence to back it up. "

To Lorena wrote on Apr 1, 2008 11:39 PM:

" I have just found this article..and read all the comments or blogs how ever defined,and it took some time because of the number of comments. Alot of them made sense, especially the short and sweet, do I need to define short and sweet to you? I can find some in the dictionary or maybe common sense will sufice. Now I must say or ask, have your read them all? From reading your many comments I dont think you have. But giving you the benifit of the doubt, wich comments do you pay attention to? The ones that you figure you can reply to, due to your vast knowledge and intepose? Common sense seems to fail you,I hate to see this in anyone that seems,or maybe seems to be intersted in the facts,I would change to a differnet paragraph, but this comment situations eludes me. danged java
Any way many people have given you commen sense variations, you ingnore them, your counter comes from text from book years old "30 or 40 years old" and when someone offers you text way earlier you dismiss it. (why)?
When some one points the cannon at you you change the subject,you fling arrows at a taget you canot hit.you blame were there is no blame, I do understand you have no use for God, so why blame him when he dosent exist to you.
You look for proof of Gods existance.
And yet you dont look for proof of evolution,why is that? Ive ran out ofspacesorry "

To Loena wrote on Apr 2, 2008 12:05 AM:

" Ok I see how you did this you just started a new comment to continue on. I have read were you quote scripture to benifit your self,and most of the time taken it out of context,,one commenter asked you to read Job, did you??. You said the Bible was written by men and. was full of mistakes. Dont you think all the books and articles you recomend were written by men, could they not to be full of mistakes?? You show no intuition,no creativeness in your context, you seem to just spew forth what your teachers in college told you to say( indoctranation). Have you ever looked up the word education in the dictionary?? Im not trying to be mean, I just want you to have an open mind, yours seems to be sooooooo closed, dont be so ridged in your thoughts.God does love you ,even if you dont like it, and Im sure you figured out who this is commenting..I too have come to the conclusion that I have some questionable degrees. Have you ever watched the movie good Will Hunting? I too could of saved alot of money on my education on 7.50$ in late fees at a library and got the same education, instead I to listened to proffessors with their own adjenda. And Englisg was not my best subject,,it really never made sense to me..oh well.Erik "

Lorena Birk wrote on Apr 2, 2008 11:43 AM:

" To Lorena 1, Which "30 to 40" year old book have I dismissed based on age? The lactose intolerance one? I haven't dismissed it. I want to read it so I can find the reference the author uses and follow up on it, see if any new research supports it or not. What other research at the time it was done too. Also, a couple hundred years ago, it was "common sense" the earth was flat. That the earth was the center of the universe. Common sense doesn't involve intensive research nor attempts to falsify, which people who actually research modern evolutionary theory do. Peer review sorts through mistakes. It also includes references for further information. The Bible lacks this. Bits and pieces were rejected based on the whims of the emerging church. Popular press publications have the same risks, even the ones I cited (Collin's book is popular press). I used the mutations as one example used in modern evolutionary theory (one that Darwin didn't have): the sequence of the fossile record (we have more "tranistional" fossiles than Darwin did), the fact that farmers can actually change what they are raising through artificial selection (Darwin used this a lot in his publication). The evolution of new species has been observed: a new mosquito, nylon eating bacteria, HIV strains, orchids, etc. TalkOrigins has other examples of the evidence. Limited-space-here-as-you-said. "

Speculation wrote on Apr 2, 2008 11:47 AM:

" If a Christ like figure did show up next week would he be a benevolent dictator leveling the playing field for all of humanity?Would he be a master scientist debater explaining the Bible's many metaphors in ways that would astonish us?Would he in one afternoon successfully finish Einstein's unified field theory with a piece of chalk and a chalkboard?Would he claim that the Bible's seven days were actually referencing seven billion years and then explain how ID and evolution are mutually compatible and in such a cogent manner that followers of both belief systems would be completely satisfied? I wonder? "

Lorena Birk wrote on Apr 2, 2008 12:07 PM:

" As far as Job: God uses Job to show Satan the faithfulness of God's flock. He (the supposidly good god) allows Satan (the bad god) to torment Job, try to turn him away from God. However, God (the good one of course) uses threats as well as rewards. why would an all powerful god need to do this? Use an innocent man to show someone else, "hey, look at this guy, isn't he an awesome follower? Oh, you want to see? Go ahead, torture him, he wont break!" There is also a section on the folly of trying to understand creation (Job 38). I get this hint but, if it is folly to try to figure out how the world works, why bother with modern medicine that relies on these techniques of science? Vacination, surgery techniques, drug interactions, etc? Why bother with modern farming techniques, technology such as dams, windfarms, etc? These things are based on knowledge gathered through research relating to the real world. To Loena: science goes through a peer review process to cut down on mistakes; it requires testing attempts to falsify the hypothesis. The Bible and other religions do not do this. It is usually based on personal revelation/priest/parent told me and word games in philosophy. Microbiology can't say there is a god or not, nor which one. Just the process-evolution. Which god loves me? What am I blaming a god for? "

Ontological wrote on Apr 2, 2008 12:43 PM:

" The ID crowd is still trying.Lorena seems obsessed with the lactose question.Tyler seems to have gone on vacation.This message board has gone on so long I'm using the first names of people I don't even know. At the rate it's going TDN could turn this whole exchange into a minor novella.The Darwin faction has made progress with their main point of trying to keep the ID movement from intruding on the teaching of hard science in our schools, while the ID people continue to make salient philosophical thrusts.I don't know where the debate will head now,but Mr. Ramey is correct in saying that their are reputable scientists who believe in some form of a creation scenario. "

Lorena Birk wrote on Apr 2, 2008 12:58 PM:

" Correction, a couple hundred years ago, infections were caused by demons and several thousand years ago the earth was flat. Speculation: How is the scientific method a belief? And would he be able to reconcile a faith based syetem with an evidence based system? "

Lorena Birk wrote on Apr 2, 2008 1:43 PM:

" Ontological: I only seem "obsessed" with the lactose thing because I was exchanging information and used it (the mutation) as one example. Nothing more. As far as reputable scientist believing in a creation (I'm assuming religious based?), which ones? Are they active in abiogenesis (evolutionary theory is not the creation of life) research? This list created by the Discovery Institute has "scientists" made up of many people who are not even in biology, let alone dealing with MET or Abiogenesis research. Plus, it boils down to their research which, as I stated before as have others, is non-existant for IDC. To be a reputable scientist, you have to publish and go through peer review for your hypothesis. "

Sammy6 wrote on Apr 2, 2008 5:49 PM:

" Wow, Absolutist, unreal. For someone who likes to argue this on point of logic, your leaps here are astonishing.

" DNA code. It's a code. Someone (i.e. a creator) put the code there. WELL, NOT NECESSARILY. HOW DO YOU SHOW THAT EVOLUTION DIDN'T PUT IT THERE? SMALL CHANGES, TIMES BILLIONS OF YEARS = E V O L U T I O N. CERTAINLY DNA RESEARCH IS SHOWING THAT DNA HAS CHANGED AND EXPANDED OVER TIME. It wasn't random chance. NOBODY SAID EVOLUTION IS RANDOM CHANCE. Code has to have a creator. Order left to it's own leads to disorder. AND WHAT'S THE LOGICAL OR SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR THAT LEAP OF LOGIC? No code left to itself does not result in code with out some outside input. THAT'S RIGHT, AND EVOLUTION IS THE CHANGE OF ORGANISMS IN RESPONSE TO -- GASP -- THEIR ENVIRONMENT! That is rational thought. Will that work for evidence? "

As a proof point, I submit this excellent article on DNA and evolution:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/03/30/bocar130.xml "

h00t0wl wrote on Apr 2, 2008 6:16 PM:

" Wow. Just read Lorena's comment that refers to my comment. Seems as though you enjoy a good argument. Just to clarify - I don't know what a Darwinist is. That is why I put it in quotes. If you read my comment as opposed to glancing at it, you might understand that the point I was making was one of confusion about why this was printed as a news article instead of an op-ed piece. There was no "news", only opinions of Tyler Ramey. I put darwinist in quotes because it was argued in the article and in the comments that darwinism is a religion, as opposed to being a scientific theory. I accept scientific theory as being flawed by lack of human understanding, just as I accept humanistic concepts of a higher power as being flawed because of a lack of human understanding. I believe that science and religion both attempt to seek the truth, when applied correctly and with an open mind. "

"for the Daily News"? wrote on Apr 3, 2008 9:24 AM:

" Was Ramey paid for this 'religion' piece ? I don't see "Reader Commentary" in the byline. Ramey states "faith in Darwinism (sic)is the only choice for those who cannot stomach a supernatural source (sic)." Can anyone find the address of a "Darwin Faith Center"? Doubt it. His stylized argument is a waste of print space. Bottom line, Ramey attacks humans who "cannot stomach a supernatural source". Ramey identifies "brainwashed masses" who he feels need to accept a Genesis-type creation version on "faith" until proven otherwise, 100% by science. God does not need earthly apologetics like Ramey. Faith is personal. Science is impersonal. Ramey could have summed up his philosophy on Darwin's theory in one sentence: 'Darwin's theory is heresy, and those who give it credence are heretics.' Ramey's bash against the "brainwashed masses" sounded angry and personally impotent. I myself believe in a supernatural being on faith, but I don't have to believe the Genesis creation story. Ramey is not a very good spokesperson for "faith" or God, IMO. Faith in God, and 'love thy neighbor' cannot be socially promoted by this type of article in a newspaper, but intolerance of others beliefs can be promoted. Another sentence was really ridiculous, "Zimmerman’s column reads like someone baptized by Carl Sagan or Richard Dawkins". Ramey even needs to slight Zimmerman on a personal level to argue his point. I suggest Ramey take the plank out of his own eye, before sticking it in others. "

Who cares wrote on Apr 3, 2008 11:29 AM:

" Whether Mr. Ramey was paid for his piece or not is really irrelevant.This is an argument that has gone on ever sense Darwin published his book. Its faith stacked against science. I would like Lorena Birk to speculate on what happens to us when and after we die and I mean in a metaphysical sense.To the people who have Jesus landing in Longview give me a break.The ID people lose all credibility when they start down that road.I would like Galapagos Pete and Tyler Ramey to rejoin the festivities and I think someone should come up with some legitimate peer reviewed scientists who believe in ID. "

Victor & Yony wrote on Apr 3, 2008 1:55 PM:

" Tyler, I enjoyed your article. Book of Job Chapter 38: Then the LORD answered Job: "Who is this that questions my wisdom with such ignorant words? Brace yourself, like a man because I have some questions for you. "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you know so much. How were its dimensions determined and who did the surveying? What supports its foundations, and who laid its cornerstone as the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy? "Who defined the boundaries of the sea as it burst from the womb, and as I clothed it with clouds and thick darkness? I said, ‘Thus far and no farther will you come. Here your proud waves must stop!’ Do you realize the extent of the earth? But of course you know all this! For you were born before it was created, and you are so experienced! "Have you visited the treasuries of snow? Where is the path to the origin of light? Where is the home of the east wind? "Can you hold back the movements of the stars? Are you able to restrain the Pleiades or Orion? Can you guide the constellation of the Bear with her cubs across the heavens? Do you know the laws of the universe and how God rules the earth? Who provides food for the ravens when their young cry out to God as they wander about in hunger? "

Lorena Birk wrote on Apr 3, 2008 3:00 PM:

" H00t0wl, I apologize for reading your commentary wrong. Victor & Yony: Evidence of the past of our universe is in the present. These traces are what scientists look at and check against known properties of our universe. The speed of light, cosmic microwave background radiation, etc, are reliable traces. Predictions have been made, then proven through observation and attempts to falsify . Either way, claiming that no one (but a god) was there at the beginning, would also cancel out any other claims of what happened (such as in the two Genesis accounts). The writers of Genesis (if that is the creation myth you’re going for, and even they contradict each other) weren’t there either. I am curious about the Bear constellation: do constellations move or, does the earth? Do the stars move, or does the earth? I’m pretty sure that the earth is the object moving. The Talk Origins claim CH901 deals with geocentrism detail. Physicists are pretty sure about the laws of the universe but so far haven’t discovered what deity is pulling the strings. These rules just seem to be a product of our universe. Does your god lay there? Perhaps, but it is not the deity of the Bible. Mr. Ramey has still not given any research supporting IDC. Which scientists? Maybe they were kicked out because they weren't doing research (hence jobs)? "

R hoffman wrote on Apr 3, 2008 7:27 PM:

" I am amazed at all the backbiting and hateful responses from both sides. This goes to both sides...just cause you dont believe something, doesn't mean it isn't truth. As for the comments saying prove to me there is a God? Well if you claim to believe in science as you say you do, science in reality proves nothing, but only shows coralations. And even if stonecold evidence was being shown and was undenible...it wouldn't change your mind. As for the next side...you should know better. So..I guess its my turn to be attacked? "

Another comment wrote on Apr 4, 2008 3:04 PM:

" The Scopes trial proved that people tend to believe what they want to believe. All the empirical biological evidence in the world will never convince some people that modern homo sapiens arose from some lower order of primates.They tend to believe that all that we know terrestially and cosmolgically came from a steady state introduction and has progressed from that point.Einstein postulated that space is a circle and that time doesn't really exist at all except as a rather stubborn illusion.Time is a human construct.Science deals with cause and effect, and predictions based on cause and effect,all elaborately laid out these days in self reinforcing journals.The scientific community may find out ultimately that they have missed the forest for the trees. "

Peter Piper wrote on Apr 4, 2008 3:57 PM:

" Lorena Birk is so convinced of evolutions supremacy, that maybe she herself should take on the task of scientifically disproving it.She could get a lot more known that way than by continually parroting the darwinian zeitgeist.Tyler Ramey what have you got against the innocuos fortune cookie? Are you ever going to rejoin this debate which you started? "

By the way wrote on Apr 4, 2008 4:16 PM:

" Lorena Birk never answered somebodies question for her to speculate on what happens when people die. What is she afraid of? "

To Absolutist wrote on Apr 4, 2008 4:26 PM:

" Truth is relative. Very good! "

Hey Pete wrote on Apr 4, 2008 4:37 PM:

" Innocuous is spelled like I just spelled it. By the way God started with let their be light and here we all are. "

Morphing wrote on Apr 4, 2008 4:45 PM:

" There seems to be a suigeneris disconnect in the modeling of many of the statements herein.Perhaps we need to look to behavioralist B.F. Skinner for a more rationalist construct of how science can successfully interact with the vageries of religous philosophy. "

GalapagosPete wrote on Apr 4, 2008 11:33 PM:

" By the way, Why should Lorena reply? What does "what happens after we die" have to do with whether the theory of evolution is correct? "

Lorena Birk wrote on Apr 5, 2008 9:19 AM:

" "By the way", I don't know what you mean by that question. As far as the body, I have reason to understand you rot like any other organism. Or, if you are embalmed, you hang around for awhile taking up space. People could cremate you, or do whatever the culture calls for. As for a life after death; I don‘t know and neither do you, only what your religion (or religious exposure) has told you. TalkOrigins.com has a well written reference about Big Bang (actually expansion, not explosion) cosmology with the references asked for; parts of this should be standard scientific knowledge for those in cosmology and astronomy (I‘m not so much into this, more biology). http://www.talkorgins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#sources.
Dr. Ned Wright has a cosmology tutorial and has updates at http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#news
The Journal of Paleontology Sciences http://www.aaps-journal.org/
National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) http://www.ngdc.noaa.gove/mgg/mggd.html
Nature http://www.nature.com/nature/indexhtml
Science http://wciencemag.org/
As for MET don't have to disprove it myself; researchers have been going over modern evolutionary theory for over a hundred years. Some things were found wrong (such as humans having a large brain before full bipedalism). Others, such as some form of mutation affecting whale hind limb development, or the existence transitional fossils, a method of trait transmission from one generation to another, etc, appear to be correct. The thing about science is, if new, verifiable evidence comes along (something IDC has failed to provide), aspects of the theory will be changed to accommodate it, or, the theory is thrown out. "

Hi Galapagos wrote on Apr 5, 2008 10:45 AM:

" I think Lorena should answer because it would get her out of the realm of pure science.For instance does she believe in any form of reincarnation,or transmigration of the soul? Does she believe we have a soul? Does she believe in animism? Is she fond of Spinoza's concept of a God as it were of logic.Since she's a devoted Darwinist she must surely believe that when we die thats it. Any thing else would not fit the Darwinian model.It is a question that poses a difficult conundrum for proponents of evolution.I hope she will try and answer it as she is very bright and she has not ducked any query yet.I would welcome your thoughts to Galapagos. "

TO R HOFFMAN wrote on Apr 5, 2008 11:28 AM:

" ON THE CONTRARY ALL OPINIONS ARE WELCOME HERE.THAT WAS A GOOD POINT ABOUT CORRELATIONS.I think we can extrapolate from Lorena Birk's latest posting that she does not believe Jesus rose from the dead after three days, or that he himself raised Lazerus from death after Lazerus had been dead for three days.Also the Darwin crowd conveniently overlooks the fact that their is a Roman account of the Jesus story.Do they think the Romans made it up? Sure their were no cameras to record for posterity these momentous events but even the Romans eventually adopted Christianity,and that speaks for itself. "

Clearly wrote on Apr 5, 2008 12:43 PM:

" Their is no question that evolution is a functional scientific theory, whose matrixes continue to logically develop even as considerable research data is added to them.Lorena Birk has done a highly laudable job of answering well the many technical questions about evolution that have been posed to her.She has also patiently awnsered many questions from left field.The ID people would be wise to study many of her postings again.I still am not clear whether Tyler Ramey engendered this debate to advance the creation scenario from the Christian religion or his own personal philosopy. The data is there to back unequiviocally the theory of evolution.Those who don't believe should carefully re consider.This is not an attempt to demean peoples various religions. Religion and evolution are and should be unrelated. "

Hi Lorena wrote on Apr 5, 2008 12:57 PM:

" You should teach a class. You are brilliant and continually facinating.I wish you would have the direct personal debate with Tyler Ramey that he has wanted to have with any takers. Then please submit a transcript to the Daily News so we can all enjoy it. Thanks again. "

To all that think Lorena has the asnwer wrote on Apr 5, 2008 7:58 PM:

" Stop responding to it,,it feeds upon you responding to it.it has not a factual respose to anything but its religion. witch is its religion,darwinism, wich in itself is a religion,darwinism takes more faith to belive in than Creation, Have any of you ever read any of the books, and or liturature it refers to..its nonesense,the authors come to conclustions a kindergarten student would not. You have to relize people the evoltionist will go to great lenghts to convice you they have all the answers. Belive me its just therory and in no way fact. make them prove there retoric, they cant,,Just on thought Trex had big teeth to eat meat?? no all they can prove is that they had big teeth..no one was there to see what they ate. maybe just giant daisies..who knows, evolutionist dont,have they ever beenable to examine the contents of a Trexes tummy...ummmm no. "

Giant Daisy wrote on Apr 6, 2008 8:22 AM:

" Hi,

I assure all of you that the poster above me is flat out wrong. Even though I grew to the enormous and impressive height of 20 feet during the Jurrasic period I was never eaten by a T-Rex. Thank you. "

Lorena Birk wrote on Apr 6, 2008 10:38 AM:

" "Hi Galapagos" Why is this a problem for MET? MET deals with teh development of new species, not life after death. I see no evidence for reincarnation or transmigration of the soul, however, if any evidence came about that can be verified by testing, then I would accept it. As far as people rising from the dead: people do hallucinate and there is a strange period between waking and dreaming (that Carl Sagan explores in his book “The Demon Haunted World”) that lends itself to hallucinations because your brain is not connecting with your senses (the “I’m falling dream is one example, seeing someone standing by your bed is another). People can be led to believe they saw something as well. Sagan uses an experiment involving a car crash. People watch it on a video and then are asked about the accident. The interviewer will drop the name of an object that was not in the video and those responding often begin commenting on it as if it were there. Even when the video is re-shown , with no evidence of the object, some “vehemently protest, stressing how vividly they remember” (139). Sagan notes “[t]he greater the time lag between viewing the film and being given the false information, the more people allow their memories to be tampered with.” (139). Also, are you a Newtonists? Or a Galileoist? "

Lorena Birk wrote on Apr 6, 2008 10:42 AM:

" The Roman reference to the existence of a Jesus, would that be Tacitus, his “Annals?” Joseph L. Daleiden ("The-Final-Superstition") notes that this was written 120 C.E. and there is no other reference to back up the claim. By this time, the religion had spread (remember the Cargo Cults I wrote of earlier? No big surprise there). There is also a Suetonius, author of “Lives of the Caesars” and wrote about a “Chrestus [sic]”. However, this was written “ninety years after Jesus supposedly lived, and in a different country.” There is also Pliny, who wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan. A “Christus” is mentioned as having followers, but it is not backed by other references. There are a few more stories relating to a Jesus figure. One historian, a Josepheus (30-60 CE) notes that one is a “robber-captain who planned an unsuccessful attack on Josephus. The second refers to Jesus, son of Sapphia, a Galilian, “leader of a seditious tumult of Mariners and poor people.”” (137). Mr. Daleiden notes that the third one is a “later insertion” because it does not flow with the rest of Josepheus’s text, that this part is only mentioned after “the fourth century”, that its claims a group “are not extinct even to this day” work only if the passage was written well after the figurehead of the new religion had gone, such as, “a hundred years later” (138). "

Lorena Birk wrote on Apr 6, 2008 10:44 AM:

" “TattLhta”, I am curious, could you please explain to me what you think a theory is? How is the theory of MET a religion? More importantly, what do you think a religion is? As far as what a T-Rex ate; there are coprolites (that’s fossilized poop) of several dinos, there are some from therapods (T-Rex and the like). Carnivores. Also, researchers have been able to determine what modern animals have eaten over their life and where they lived, by analyzing the elements in their bones. I do not remember if this has been applied to any fossils, but I highly suspect it has.
"

Lorena Birk wrote on Apr 6, 2008 2:10 PM:

" Thank you for the support.

I am still curious as to what research shows MET is failing and supports IDC. What/who is the designer, and how do you tell non-designed from designed? "

To Galapagos: From Jackal wrote on Apr 7, 2008 9:08 AM:

" Sorry about taking so long to reply, but the embryo drawings I am referring to are embryos that are shown in many science books, they were drawn for Darwin by someone whose name slips my mind at the moment. Anyways, they were supposed to show that in the very first stages of development, all the embryos looked alike, proving that they came from the same beginning. However, a while ago we were able to take pictures of actual embryos in the first stages of development, and discovered something--the first stages shown in the drawings weren't the first stages at all, but further along in the developmental process. Furthermore, even those stages had been misdrawn, having things misplaced so they looked more similar. However, those drawings were still used in the science books even after they were proven faulty. "

Morphing wrote on Apr 7, 2008 10:48 AM:

" Way back when Tyler Ramey made the point about the irreducible complexity of the single cell I really thought he was on to something.I would like to see more amplification from both sides on that point.Lorena Birk needs to get on Vatican web connections for more sourcing of Roman accounts on the Jesus story.She needs also to be cognizant of oral tradition in this matter. I must say for a Darwinist she has an impressive knowledge of religion, and I mean that as a compliment. "

Lorena Birk wrote on Apr 7, 2008 11:03 AM:

" "To Galapagos: From Jackal" it sounds like you are describing the work of Earnst Haeckle, who did manipulate the drawings. I have commented on this before: TalkOrigins.org creationist claim CB701 Embryos do go through periods of development that are similar: in the womb we humans develop a “notochord, body segments, pharyngeal gill pouches, and a post-anal tail.” just like other vertebrates. This is common knowledge in developmental biology because researchers can see this happening (check ought://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embrio.htm for human development and, just for comparison, http://mouseatlas.caltech.edu/ for mouse development). There are also some differences; but this would be predicted as species the farther the common ancestor is in time and the further along in development they are. It is not the same science as when it was in its infancy. Embryos and fetuses can now be photographed/scanned in the womb, something unavailable to the fathers of developmental biology. TalkOrigins also has another article, by John Wilkins on “Darwin’s Precursors and Influences”. He notes that “Haeckle’s so-called “biogenetic law [that embryos go through adult stages of earlier ancestors as they develop]” was never part of Darwin’s theory”. We do not go through fish then amphibian, then reptile, then early mammal, etc stages. From Jackal, can you tell a mouse blastocyte from a human one? Without genetic testing.
"

Peter Piper wrote on Apr 7, 2008 11:19 AM:

" I just read my latest fortune cookie and it said I'm soooo not ready to join the Lorena Birk fan club or Tyler Rameys either because neither have completely made their case yet.I do hope that Tyler hasn't given up because he has raised some interesting issues.However the silly and redundant colloquy over the designer of the designer of the designer of the designer did neither one of them a whole lot of good.To Jackal I would submit that embryonic stucturalism can slice both ways.GalapagosPete could help out by telling us all about the finches.I would also like to hear more about the laws of small probability and how they may or may not apply in an evolutionary context. "

Want to know wrote on Apr 7, 2008 11:43 AM:

" I want to know what Lorena Birk thinks of the comments of Richard Forrest way back toward the beginning of this message board? While Forrest was a little hard on Tyler Ramey he generally seemed to point towards a peaceful co-existence between religion and evolution, and he certainly implied that religion can be a positive force on our complex world stage. "

GalapagosPete wrote on Apr 7, 2008 8:58 PM:

" Peter, Better idea. Read this. Finches is in there. So's a lot of other cool stuff. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

"Small probability" does not apply to evolution, because after something has happened it is a matter of academic interest only to try to compute what were the odds of it happening in the first place. It is not evidence that it didn't happen.

On the other hand, what's the probability of an eternal, intelligent being who has always existed and who has the power to create all of reality? "

Jackal wrote on Apr 8, 2008 9:09 AM:

" The thing about blastocysts is that they are a clump of cells that haven't taken shape yet, so you can hardly say they resemble the animal they're becoming at all. However, when they do start taking shape, a mouse and human embryo are indeed different. Now, here's one of the arguments I've formed myself, just out of what I see to be common sense: If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes? Why are there these apes that haven't evolved, and why aren't their any apes in the process of becoming human? Evolution is a lengthy process, I'm pretty sure and evolving chimp wouldn't lose all his hair and have his bone structure straighten out while he slept. So why don't we see any halfway creatures? Now, this is just formed from my thoughts and observations, and I'm a high schooler, so perhaps I am misunderstanding something. Another argument I read a while ago is that if there is a God, why would he allow all this crap to happen? I would like to point out that in the Bible, God bowed out after his son was killed. He stopped having any direct involvement with his people, and let them have free will. That's what the Bible says, anyways. "

????????????? wrote on Apr 8, 2008 11:21 AM:

" What about Darwin repudiating his theories when on his death bed??? Check it out! "

To clearly wrote on Apr 8, 2008 11:29 AM:

" Your recent message was well constructed but erroneous. Tyler Ramey was talking about intelligent design not creationism. The continuing problem with evolution is that there are so many gaps that have not been adequately addressed scientifically people ironically need leaps of faith to hold the conceptual structure together. Academia should allow for this dichotomy and make allowances for it in their cirriculums. A well laid out ID class would be one possible alternative. It could be offered in addition to evolution. I can practically hear the Darwinists leap out of their chairs as I propose such an idea. "

Hello wrote on Apr 8, 2008 11:59 AM:

" Every one should immediately go back and read the seminal comment from don't turn off your brains. "

Wow! wrote on Apr 9, 2008 9:00 AM:

" It is obvious that the belief in God and Scinence can co-exist in this world. If not, I challenge all religious folk to refuse pain medication the next time they have a major surgery. Yes, physicians are "healers", but they cannot do it without scientifically produced medications.
Not to mention that if you really think about it, what sounds more rediculous? Evolution, or history based on things people never actually saw, but wrote about it? People write about seeing UFOs today, but they must be crazy, right? "

Jackal wrote on Apr 9, 2008 11:02 AM:

" Nobody's believed that Religion and Science completely contradict each other since the reformation centuries ago. There is a difference between medical sciences and Evolution. Also, you're shooting yourself in the foot when you say 'Evolution, or history based on things people never actually saw, but wrote about it?' Nobody was around to see Evolution or any evidence of it, need I remind you. However, people DID see Jesus. The stuff in the Bible? There are other records of it. There are documents in nearly all the ancient civilizations mentioning Jesus and his disciples and prophets. Meanwhile, NOBODY has left documents or records of animals changing into other animals. Honestly, Evolution sounds more 'rediculous' to me than something that has documents mentioning it from a long time ago. Nobody here is denying that it's either God or Science--However, Evolution does indeed contradict faith, except for in the case of minor changes, like human skin darkening when you live in a tropical area. "

Lorena Birk wrote on Apr 9, 2008 11:48 AM:

" Jackal, asking the “why are there still apes” question is similar to asking if my cousin and I share a common ancestor with my grandmother, why is my cousin still around? Also, evolution works on the population and generations: individuals don’t turn into another species overnight. There is no reason why the current species of apes should turn into humans. Also, who said apes haven’t been evolving along their own trajectory? They have. There are subspecies of chimpanzees and gorillas, and a few subspecies of orangutans. Look up the humanoid fossil record at TalkOrigins.org. There are transitional forms available. As far as hair loss; that can be traced from looking at the different species of lice; lice that live on hairy animals are different than those found on less haired specimens. I’ll have to look for the research info, but I think some researchers are looking into the genetics and fossils of early lice to come up with a possible answer to when the loss of a thick pelt occurred. And besides, humans are not completely hairless. Look closely at your arm or your leg. You have hair, but it is much, much finer than any other known primate. As far as mouse and human embryos eventually looking different the further along they are in development: that is expected. However, they still grow features necessary for them to belong to the vertebrates/mammals. "

Lorena Birk wrote on Apr 9, 2008 11:50 AM:

" Richard Forrest is correct that there are religious scientists who support the evidence for MET through their research. These researchers existence is evidence that the two can co-exist. The problem is that religions make a claim one day (the sun circles the earth say) and science finds out that no, there is evidence that this is not so. Science fills “god of the gaps” problems. Of course, it can never prove or disprove the existence of a deity (how do you use the tools of science, rooted in material reality on a nonmaterial thing?) And that this design opinion piece lacks actual reference to evidence. However, what is meant by irreducible complexity? From M.J. Behe “meaning that the removal of any one part of the system destroys the system’s function”? Behe blatantly states it can not evolve, it must be designed. However, Behe’s star child the bacterial flagellum(s) have been shown through real research to be anything but. You can remove parts and they can still function. They might not function as well, but they can still swim or, another function, be a secretion system. Simplified, but, any flagellum who has a slight advantage over its fellows will reproduce and leave more offspring. Much of IDC claims are based on negative arguments and no research of their own to back it up. "

Lorena Birk wrote on Apr 9, 2008 11:55 AM:

" Ah, Darwin recanting on his deathbed. Well, this is called the Lady Hope story and did not happen (TalkOrigins.org claim “CG001: Darwin recanted on his deathbed.”. His daughter, who was with him at the time, noted that this Lady Hope did not visit him at all. Besides, even if he did say he was wrong, hundreds of thousands of research papers and evidence still exist supporting MET. "

Lorena Birk wrote on Apr 9, 2008 12:19 PM:

" To clearly: The modern intelligent design movement is creationism of a sort. Intelligent design creationism is appropriate because the movement has no evidence to back it up, uses the same creationist talking points (while trying to avoid some such as age of the earth/universe), they use propaganda instead of evidence to back up their claims, it is defined in creationist terms, and the publications are written in a creationist manner. The Wedge Document, while denounced by Ramey, is the manifesto of the DI: it is explicitly clear that it is a child of the Judeo-Christian creationist sects. Read the thing “The Wedge Strategy Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture” at http://www.public.asu.edu/~jmlynch/idt/wedge.html. There is also the Panda’s & People book, pushed by the DI, which is basically a word for word copy of a creationist piece. They gave themselves away when they forgot to delete creationist completely: it reads cdesignproponists. It is a form of creationism and uses the same strategy as old time creationists. It plays on “God-of-the-gaps” arguments as well as outright lies about what research doesn't exist (Bacterial falellum(s) for example) whereas science fills them, including MET. "

Lorena Birk wrote on Apr 9, 2008 12:37 PM:

" Morphing, the claim that cells are irreducibly complex has the same problem as the bacterial flagellum(s) claim: no evidence to back it up and a blatant distortion of real research. There are a multitude of different cells out there, of different single celled organisms that have “pieces” missing or, more importantly and completely missed by IDC, doing different things in the cell, when compared to others and yet they still survive. A perfect example is the difference between eukaryotic cells, cells that contain a cell membrane around the nucleus and organelles (protests, plant, animal, fungi) and prokaryotic cells that lack this membrane (the monera). Prokaryotes don’t have mitochondria (powerhouses of the cell and originally foreign bacteria), but animals and plants do. Prokaryotes have simple flagella while animals have complex. Centrioles: prokaryotes and plants no, animal cell, yes. Now, there is variation with in these groups as well, predicted by MET and new research is bound to find more goodies out there than this simplification. "

To Lorena wrote on Apr 9, 2008 2:31 PM:

" Do you talk just to hear your head rattle?? "

Believer In Castle Rock wrote on Apr 9, 2008 4:13 PM:

" We are to be known by the love that we have for each other, and our over-flowing love will cause many to believe. Fellow Christians we should spend more energy and time in prayer to God then in a disagreement. God has the power to reveal his truth that is being pushed away in today’s worldly beliefs. "

ThereisnoGod wrote on Apr 10, 2008 9:05 AM:

" This article only claims that there is proof that the Darwinian theory can be disproved. All I read were juvenille insults to people who believe in evolution. There was nothing about evidence found or proven. This article is not news. It's a rant and that's all it is. What's your proof? What exactly is this lady talking about? The only thing said here is that microbiological studies are disproving the Darwinian theory. I'm assuming the theory of evolution though it is not directly mentioned. But this article says nothing about any discoveries. It says nothing at all. Simply ridiculous. I laugh at the Bible thumpers who see the Bible as a history book and not the book of myths and legends that it truly is. No one gets into heaven. No one goes to Hell. It makes life much easier to understand and deal with. If there is a God strike me down now as I write this blasphemous piece of writing! Oh my heart! aaarrrrgghh! "

Kelsosmellso wrote on Apr 10, 2008 9:09 AM:

" THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE ABOUT ANY SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES! ONLY THE IMPLICATION THAT THERE IS ONE! WHAT IS THIS PERSON TALKING ABOUT? I guess you need blind faith to understand what this article is even about. "

Athiests4peace wrote on Apr 10, 2008 9:21 AM:

" Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
-John Lennon- "

Blind Faith wrote on Apr 10, 2008 9:30 AM:

" This article did exactly what the writer intended it to do. It fired up all the Christians throwing their hands in the air and hailing halleluiah! But their blind faith has once again blinded them to the fact that this article says absolutely nothing. Infact the articles title is the most informative part since the article itself only repeats it without saying what evidence it is that is actually disproving the theory. Darwin had many theories it doesn't even address directly the theory in question. I believe that it is speaking of the theory of evolution but for all I know it could be his theory that dogs like the taste of bacon more than the taste of their own fecal matter. That theory can be disputed as well. "

Theorist wrote on Apr 10, 2008 10:05 AM:

" Religion is also a theory. "

Lorena Birk wrote on Apr 10, 2008 10:38 AM:

" Tyler S. Ramey, what discoveries in microbiology? It can't be the bacterial flagellum(s) or cells. Blind Faith I agree with, which aspects of MET are being disproven? What do you think MET is Ramey? How is science to deal with supernatural events/beings? Part of this "tool kit of science" is the ability to falsify, and MET has been going through this weeding process with much success. Yet, how do you propose to do this with the supernatural, which, can seem to do anything? "

To: Atheists4peace wrote on Apr 10, 2008 10:59 AM:

" After all, I suppose all these gangs form because of religion, yes? Meth is the holy drug, after all. "

Hey Darwinists wrote on Apr 10, 2008 1:37 PM:

" Would you folks accede to a well engineered ID class being taught in our schools as one post suggested?If not why not? It has also been proffered in these many postings that the science which could support ID would come forward if it is not suppressed by the quantifiable sub strata of the body politic you people represent.Socrates always put religion above science. It might be wise for all you dedicated evolutionists to do some research and find out why that was. "

Golly wrote on Apr 10, 2008 2:00 PM:

" I think it's time for Tyler Ramey to write not just another article but perhaps even a book about this controversey.People are yearning for a scientific as well as a philosophical basis for their lives. I think Mr. Ramey and his supporters should be allowed to present their case. "

To Wow wrote on Apr 10, 2008 2:12 PM:

" Yes the ancients who used willow bark to cure headaches must have been some top scientists. "

What? wrote on Apr 10, 2008 2:52 PM:

" Teach ID in the public schools? You have absolutely unequivically got to be kidding. While they have been adroitly dancing around the pinhead this is what Tyler Ramey and his minions have been after all along. "

Peter Piper wrote on Apr 10, 2008 3:06 PM:

" Thanks GalapagosPete. The website you directed me to was supremely pedestrian but I know your intentions were good.By the way you should check out the latest research from MIT on small probability. "

Time to concede wrote on Apr 10, 2008 3:23 PM:

" All you misguided ID believers, give it up already! "

To What? From Jackal wrote on Apr 11, 2008 9:41 AM:

" Why is it such a problem to teach ID in schools? It is just as plausible, if not more so, then Evolutionary theory. If you find this to be so insignificant and incorrect, why are you so determined to prevent students from learning about it? To Time to Concede: Why should we give in? You haven't proven your case in the slightest. I have no reason to concede, nor do any other believers involved in this debate. Perhaps you aren't aware of what a debate is like; you present your case and provide evidence to back it up. You do NOT degenerate into ridiculing and scoffing at your opponent. Prove to me that my faith is 'misguided', and I may just consider 'giving in'. I dare you to attempt so. "

To hey Darwinists wrote on Apr 11, 2008 12:02 PM:

" I think you were alluding to Aristotle, not Socrates. You could make a derivative connection to Socrates, who had Plato as a student, with Plato then being Aristotles mentor and teacher.Top thinkers of their times these people never the less had a much more limited knowledge base to work with.Those who believe fervently in the theories of Charles Darwin should endeavor to be tolerant of those who disagree. If the popular will predisposes toward the elevation of ID to a teachable academic status then perhaps it could show up eventually in the public schools. "

To GalapagosPete wrote on Apr 11, 2008 12:13 PM:

" I'm not sure what Peter Piper was talking about. I thought the site you directed him to was very informative and continues to be so. You and Lorena Birk have been very helpful in guiding us as this discussion has progressed. I want to thank you both. I also want to say that I think the ID people have every right to their beliefs. "

truth wrote on Apr 11, 2008 1:11 PM:

" One thing that is very frustrating as a Christian is that those opposing this faith do not take the time to understand what they are arguing against. I don't think anyone in their right mind would believe evolution over the Bible if they knew both. It is sad that the world is full of anti-Christian believers, but they have no idea what the Bible even says. There is more scientific evidence in the Bible than in Evolution and if you want to know the future... read the Bible.. It tells you what will happen next, too bad more people don't realize that. Someday it will be too late. They will fight to the grave for evolution and leave this world empty handed without salvation. That is the reality. "

wow wrote on Apr 11, 2008 1:31 PM:

" It is a sad world today... How can so many people buy into evolution and reject Christianity? That is crazy. Do you think when you die your evolution is going to help you? Have you ever wondered why evolutionist reject Christinity and many don't even know what they are rejecting? The Bible is full of scientific truths. The greatest scientist/creator of science is God Himself. The Bible holds many revelations about this life and about what is to come. It is a sad thing for one to go to his grave rejecting a free gift.. of eternal life. I challenge you to find out more about the Bible and you will be surprised what it has to say! "

Hi wrote on Apr 11, 2008 2:00 PM:

" Can't we all just get along? "

Science Proof wrote on Apr 11, 2008 2:51 PM:

" Evolution will never wipe out "intelligent design" ( or what ever flavor of political correctness term used). While they may be able to explain a different time table than the bible for the record of creation, they still cannot say where or how all the material and energy that was used/changed/created in the big bang came from or HOW it started! It cannot be stated in any terms that "someone" didn't create the mess to start with, and then regularly (or irregularly) "tweak" the events and materials to make the changes that created "US". "

joe wrote on Apr 11, 2008 2:59 PM:

" This whole conversation is a hoot!

Most of the many scientists and Christians I know are open minded and follow the recursive path from observation to hypothesis to prediction to observation in their daily lives. Most of them realize there is no inherent contradiction between the theory of evolution and the theory of eternal life. They believe both, and their beliefs evolve as new data become available.

Members of each group and both groups find great humor and irony in these debates. Thanks for the entertainment!

[A hypothesis is an explanation for an observation. A theory is a hypothesis that has gained strength through repeated observation, successful prediction, and lack of simpler explanations. A 'law' is a theory that has gained strength through repeated observation, successful prediction, and a lack of simpler explanations.]

p.s. To see some fun-minded Christians teaching about evolution, watch their Veggie Tales movie, "Larry-Boy and the Rumor Weed." "

To joe: From Jackal wrote on Apr 11, 2008 3:31 PM:

" Well said, I don't want this to become an insult contest, as I stated before. I have no problem debating, but it irks me greatly when people make comments like "Why don't you just recant your beliefs, you're wrong, you're ignorant" and all that. That's not a very well-devloped thought process in my opinion. "

Kelso Guy wrote on Apr 11, 2008 4:09 PM:

" If they were to teach ID in schools, which ID would they teach? Christian? Greek? Hindu? Egyptian? All of them? "

Wondering when wrote on Apr 12, 2008 11:52 AM:

" Almost 300 opinions later and I think if TDN let this go another month their would be 300 more. What we have got to figure out as a collective species on this planet is how to do the social engineering needed to eliminate the great extremes beteen wealth and poverty. Whether that process is religiously inspired, pragmatically promulgated or both makes little difference. If the true measure of a civilization is how the least of its members live we have a long way to go. "

Practical reason wrote on Apr 12, 2008 12:12 PM:

" The reasoning behind the Darwinists not wanting ID taught in public schools relates to practicality not discrimination. Anything that would take time away from the teaching of hard science in our public schools would tend to lead us to an even less competitive position as a country scientifically on the world stage. "

Lorena Birk wrote on Apr 12, 2008 12:26 PM:

" Kelso Guy is correct in asking, which IDC would the class teach? Ideally, if it were taught (not in a science class, they have no research to back up their claims, use negative argumentation, and distort real science) as many forms of IDC as could be taught should be taught. Not just the Judeo-Christian belief of creation. Greek myth, Mali, Scandinabvian, Aztec, all would be valid. While the spearhead of this modern form of IDC (Phillip Johnson) has emphatically said it is Christian creationism, some of the movements literature defines the designer so broadly (just a "designer") it could be any deity or even, space aliens. One would have to go have the movements history, the difference between ontological naturalism (what they accuse science of mostly using)and methodological naturalism (which science does use to get the job done), the redefinition of words to suit the movements purposes and misinformation tactics, that there is no positive evidence for IDC and only negative, which is no way to do science. I am not saying they have no right to their beliefs: that is all creationism, whichever form you follow in whichever religion,is. But, making baseless claims that the foundation of modern biology (and mixing up other theories relating to other fields of science) are about to topple with no evidence of research to support their claims, something to comment on. Claiming descrimination however wont work; they haven't even tried to publish IDC based work, as Dover showed. "

Smart wrote on Apr 12, 2008 12:40 PM:

" Lorena Birk is one smart gal. She reminds of that song from the 80s, She Blinded Me With Science. Good job Lorena! "

Mark wrote on Apr 12, 2008 1:48 PM:

" "Because the flu evolves is why."
You need to learn the different between mutations/natural selection and evolution from one kind to another.

answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/antibiotic-resistance-of-bacteria

answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/natural-selection-vs-evolution "

To Tyler Ramey wrote on Apr 12, 2008 2:10 PM:

" Just because a lot of people believe in the theory of evolution it doesn't automatically follow that they also believe that the Universe is purposeless and philosophically material. Darwinists struggle with lifes meanings just as we all do. Because they have a well developed scientifically based system for the ascent of man and all other life on earth does not mean they are unfeeling automatons. By attacking Darwinists with broad generalities that have little or nothing to do with evolutionary science Tyler Ramey has done a disservice to all of us. "

Yo Practical wrote on Apr 12, 2008 2:22 PM:

" Who says a course on ID would not consist of hard science? It's a theory that needs developing just like evolution has needed and continues to need. "

Seeker wrote on Apr 12, 2008 2:35 PM:

" You can run from pole to pole and never scratch your soul. "

Forum wrote on Apr 12, 2008 9:13 PM:

" Lets really have a community discourse..do the evolutionist want to particapate,,,I as a creationist have more than enough ammo to dispense with this evolution thing all together,,well if they are willing to live with the truth...time and place,,,time and place, please, I will even give you my private E-Mail address if the satamose evolutionist will particapate...I promise a good dousing of flamible material againt the religion of evolution. "

GalapagosPete wrote on Apr 12, 2008 11:10 PM:

" Yo Yo Practical: Since there IS no hard (or any) science behind ID it stands to reason that a course on ID would lack hard science. And since it isn't science at all, much less a scientific theory, it would not be appropriate to teach it in a science class. "

...in the end... wrote on Apr 13, 2008 12:09 AM:

" ...every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess that Jesus the Christ is Lord of all. It will be then that all recognize the fact that there is a Creator, and His name is Jesus. Rejecting Him is foolish, but people are foolish. It honestly does take more faith to believe that all of this universe in its order came from absolutely nothing exploding in space, which, by the way, was "just there"? What blew up? How did it get there? That's A LOT OF FAITH!
"

Curious... wrote on Apr 13, 2008 12:07 PM:

" Question directed to those of you writing comments such as "ignorant bible thumpers insist on talking about things you have zero comprehension of". Since you seem to have the final word on science versus religion, is this some preconceived notion or did you actually READ the bible also, before reaching this conclusion? "

Re: WOW ! wrote on Apr 13, 2008 12:42 PM:

" Comment regarding Christians belief in "...history based on things people have never actually saw." (Have you read the bible?) You have never seen gravity but you depend on it. You've seen the results...as Christians have seen the results of their faith. God gave us a brain for a reason. One, the discoveries of medicine. You suggested Christians refuse pain meds...Why ????? We all need to understand each other better. This conversation could go on forever. "

info wrote on Apr 13, 2008 1:22 PM:

" Hey... those in this conversation might find the new movie coming out "Expelled" by Ben Stein interesting. "

Dr. Harold T. Kriesel wrote on Apr 13, 2008 11:43 PM:

" As a life-long devout Christian who also believes in Darwin I find a lot of these comments superfluous. Anyone who has studied Genesis 1-3 knows that it is a mythological (myth does not equal "false") story. There is truth there and truth we need to live by. But there is no scientific proof there.
It was not intended to be a scientific treatise and the early Jews knew that. Were they more intelligent than we are? Perhaps. Dr. Kriesel "

GalapagosPete wrote on Apr 13, 2008 11:47 PM:

" info opined, "Hey... those in this conversation might find the new movie coming out "Expelled" by Ben Stein interesting."

Really? Why? As far as I know "Expelled" has nothing whatever to do with this topic. I've never even heard of it, and I'm sure no one else here has either.

And who's Ben Stein?

Bueller? Bueller? "

Jackal wrote on Apr 14, 2008 9:05 AM:

" Galapagos: I haven't heard anything about this movie, but I know who Ben Stein is. He's a millionaire, not sure how, but he used to have a game show called 'Win Ben Stein's Money' or something like that. I believe Jimmy Kimmel assisted him in it. And as for not teaching ID because of a lack of 'hard science'. Evolution doesn't have a lot of proof behind it either. Both theories are unproven, and the Bible makes it clear something was going on with Jesus. You can't deny his existence. Both theories have a right to be taught. If you don't think it would fit in a science class, then fine--make a theology and religions class. Even if someone chooses not to be religious, I still find it important for everyone to be exposed to every religion out there. Who knows, it might help with the discrimination against Muslims after 9/11. "

Lorena Birk wrote on Apr 14, 2008 11:18 AM:

" As far as IDC being a theory: those who think it is, can you please explain to me what you think a theory is? As far as this Expelled movie: it makes the same erroneous claim that Nazism and eugenics are a result of "Darwinism": even though Nazism has clear roots in religion (Gott mit uns)and "The-Great-Chain-of-Being". Also, eugenics predates Darwin's original theory (farmers use a form of it: I guess the producers believe farming burst into existence when Darwin first published). Mark, as far as AIG, they accept microevolution with in “kinds” (what is a “kind?) but not macroevolution (which is just microevolution over a longer span of time). AIG has failed to specify what prevents micro turning into macro (given time, the changes in bacteria that lead them to antibiotic resistance could lead to changes in their position in nomenclature). What would prevent these minor changes from eventually adding up to larger changes? Phylum defining changes? There has been plenty of time, 4.5 billion years in fact. Plus, mutations do not always lead to “loss of functional systems” either. Some bacteria flagellums have improved function of their cilia due to mutations. And even a “loss” could be beneficial: just look at the mutation in Shh (Sonic hedgehog gene) for whales. Jackal, what do you understand modern evolutionary theory to be? (hint, it isn't the strawman monkeys/apes to humans overnight claim) Tyler, you still haven't given IDC research.Where is it? "

How about this wrote on Apr 14, 2008 12:55 PM:

" Why do humans separate conjoined twin and remove extra limbs from their babies? Maybe this is evolution and we are stopping humans from evolving. Maybe we are meant to have two heads or eight limbs. "

To Lorena Birk wrote on Apr 14, 2008 2:19 PM:

" Would you please explain more about what the God of the gaps discourse is all about? "

Asking wrote on Apr 14, 2008 2:52 PM:

" Which comes first the ecological niche that a species of some kind evolves to fill or the species itself which then creates its own place in the biological panalopy? Do apex predators dictate what a closed eco-system consists of or are they merely the product of said eco-system? Are all life forms constantly changing to a higher form of existence or does survival of the fittest dictate an exigent hierarchy of extinction? How do the darwinists come up with their 4.5 billion year timeline? "

DarwiniansRdumb wrote on Apr 14, 2008 3:12 PM:

" This theory of evolution is just ridiculous. Is it not obvious that there has to be a big invisible undetectible being controlling every aspect of our lives and everything has a purpose. God is running everything it's true. He plays us like a big video game. The power of God is awesome! "

So far wrote on Apr 14, 2008 4:37 PM:

" So far we have had atheists, utopianists,people who appear to have some knowledge of science and the scientific method, apparent actual scientists, religous types of varying degrees of dedication, religious types who also may be scientists, and one person perhaps tongue in cheek, who claims he is Satan. I don't know if Tyler Ramey knew what he was precipitating with his relatively short article in the daily news but the results have been stimulating, educational, sometimes funny,and always interesting.With their bio-chemical computers on their shoulders human beings can come from a lot of different directions with their thought patterns on the issues raised in this forum. I am so thankful to live in a country where everyone can be heard if they want to be. Thank you to TDN for facilitating this message board. "

Re: To Wow wrote on Apr 14, 2008 6:41 PM:

" The ancients who used willow bark to treat headaches were, indeed, the top scientists of their day. You can thank them every time you pop the top of an aspirin bottle. Only then it was considered "magic". When I was little the idea of a cordless phone (much less a tiny cell phone) was considered science fiction, just something to view on Star Trek. EVERYTHING evolves, open your eyes. "

To one who said... wrote on Apr 15, 2008 12:25 AM:

" "The thing about science is if new verifiable evidence comes along...aspects of the theory will be changed to accommodate it, or, the theory is thrown out." Just think, then "science" could give you new "ancestors"! "

look on the internet wrote on Apr 15, 2008 8:11 AM:

" From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about a shift from religion to science. For the "gap" interpretation of the biblical creation account, see Gap Creationism.
The God of the gaps refers to a view of God deriving from a theistic position in which anything that can be explained by human knowledge is not in the domain of God, so the role of God is therefore confined to the 'gaps' in scientific explanations of nature. The concept involves an interaction of religious explanations of nature with those derived from science (see also Relationship between religion and science). Within the traditional theistic view of God as existing in a realm "beyond nature," as science progresses to explain more and more, the perceived scope of the role of God tends to shrink as a result.

"

Re: look on the internet wrote on Apr 15, 2008 8:05 PM:

" According to who???? "

July 2009
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

›› Today's Events
›› Submit An Event

View All Events

Top Jobs

More Top Jobs

Top Garage Sales

More Top Garage Sales

Top Rentals

More Top Rentals

July 2009
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

July 2009
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

Past Month's Most Commented Stories

Commentary: Microbiological advances point away from Darwin

Thursday, April 3, 2008 9:51 AM PDT

By Tyler S. Ramey / for The Daily News

View All Events

» Search

July 2009
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31