Facts and false equivalence – reporting on evolution disputes

October 5, 2009

greatestshow_jacketBritish biologist Richard Dawkins, one of the leading voices of the “neo-atheist” movement, has taken the latest book-sized shot at the “intelligent design” movement. You can read my interview with Dawkins’ here about his new book: “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.”

For a scientist of Dawkins’ caliber, intelligent design is a barn-door sized target. In a nutshell, it maintains that life is so complex that it must be the work of a creator. Its boosters claim their view is based in science and not influenced by religion, but it is widely seen as a thinly-veiled attempt to give a scientific gloss to creationism. That claim to science is the key here — most religions believe that God created the world, of course, but they state this as an article of faith and not a scientific fact.

On this blog, we often report on issues related to science and religion. We have to remain agnostic on the biggest question of all — does God exist? — and take fundamental dogmas as the starting point for each faith. This sometimes strikes readers as strange or biased. Some think it already shows a prejudice against belief. But just imagine what would happen if we took sides on teachings such as the resurrection of Jesus or the divine origin of the Koran. We would not be practicing journalism anymore, but some kind of theological analysis or deconstruction, and our readers would not be getting the information they want about religion news around the world.

That said, we can’t just take everything on faith alone.  As journalists, we have to stick to facts on the ground. It’s hard to question some beliefs, but we can hold people responsible for what they profess. For example, if a Catholic priest has an affair with a woman, that violation of his vow of celibacy makes his affair different from one between two lay people or two non-Catholics. And if he is prominent enough, like the charismatic Miami television preacher Father Alberto Cutié, it’s worth reporting. The same applies to Islam. The scriptures of most if not all religions can be vague and sometimes seemingly contradictory, so Reuters cannot say whether the phrase  “Islam is a religion of peace” is true or false. But we can report if a Muslim known to preach that belief is found to be involved in some violent activity. In both cases, we don’t question the basic tradition or belief but we hold the believers responsible to it in their actions.

darwinm-portraitWhich brings me to the question of evolution. While preparing this post, I had a lively Dallas-to-Paris email exchange with Religion Editor Tom Heneghan about how we cover an issue in which two sides are so opposed.  We agree with how we’ve been doing it so far, but setting outour approach in words took some consultation. Here’s our view of the issue.

(Photo: Portrait of Charles Darwin, 12 Feb 2009/Gordon Jack)

All serious scientists accept evolution as a fact because of the overwhelming and verifiable evidence that supports it. Much of this evidence is laid out in Dawkins’ new book and a book published earlier this year by University of Chicago scientist Jerry Coyne called “Why Evolution is True.” I regard the latter, by the way, as more readable, especially for a layman. These came out now because this year marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin and the 150th of the publication of his major work “On the Origin of Species,” which originally laid out the case for evolution by natural selection. They have also come out because the authors are clearly irritated by the intelligent design movement.

How does that play out when we report about evolution? For example, when we write about the wildlife of Madagascar, we usually include a background paragraph saying something like: “Madagascar separated from the rest of Africa tens of millions of years ago and so its species evolved in isolation from its mother continent.” In a story about its lemurs, we don’t write: “Scientists say Madagascar broke off from Africa tens of millions of years but some people, taking the Bible as their reference, believe it can only be 10,000 years old and that its lemurs were made in their current form by a supernatural creator.” That would create a false equivalence between the two views. The scientists have empirical evidence for their view of these natural phenomena but the religious view is based on scripture and does not stand up to empirical analysis. This is a case of comparing apples and oranges.

Does this mean we have taken sides and are not being balanced? Hardly. In fact, we would lay ourselves open to that charge if we did give equal credence to arguments such as intelligent design. For instance, some boosters for intelligent design, trying to get their perspective taught alongside evolution in U.S. public schools despite repeated defeats, have shifted their approach and argued that for the sake of balance it is necessary to “teach the controversy” between evolution’s supporters and skeptics. But the world of science sees no serious issue to discuss, just a false equivalence created by campaigners trying to claim the seal of scientific approval for arguments that do not stand up to empirical testing.

creation-museumSo why do we “report the controversy” if we think one side has no case? We do it because creationists are numerous and politically and culturally influential in parts of the United States. They’re challenging science teaching in some states and opening museums that claim to prove evolution never happened. We also do it because their influence is spreading to other countries, most notably to Muslim countries through the work of Islamic creationists like Harun Yahya. And we do it because their arguments, flawed though they may be in the eyes of science, challenge scientists, religious leaders, philosophers and other thinkers to refine their arguments for whichever view of mankind they support. These are serious adult questions and attempts to wedge them into high school biology lessons miss the mark by a mile.

(Photo: Ken Ham, president of the group Answers in Genesis, at a creation museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, 26 May 2007/John Sommers II)

Follow FaithWorld on Twitter at RTRFaithWorld

160 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

[...] Blogs Religion, faith and ethics 12:51 October 5th, 2009 Facts and false equivalence – reporting on evolution [...]

Those who have a faith-based worldview should be able to go happily through their lives, revering whatever holy books or teaching that they choose. There are no handholds there for science or naturalists to grab hold of.Once those same people float a pseudo-scientific system like Intelligent Design, now there are many handholds to be grabbed and twisted; and they should be.

Posted by Justin Rose | Report as abusive

It seems simple to me, belief in a god is one thing, but denial of solid facts is completely separate issue. I am demanding that the medical establishment stops pussy-footing around and reclassifies the behavior of people like Ken Ham as nothing more than delusional. As it is, the medical definition of delusion automatically precludes religious faith!Science has a hard enough time making progress as it is without deluded minds, poisoned by hate of atheism or naive religious belief, teaching their (frankly) idiotic ideas to the ignorant bystanders.The time has come to take a stand for truth and that can only begin when we can openly classify to the these folk as either mentally ill or bare-faced liars.

Posted by Marc Draco | Report as abusive

“All serious scientists accept evolution as a fact because of the overwhelming and verifiable evidence that supports it.”Before we can define anything as ‘fact’ we need to first define it, then cite the proof. Evolution is a broad term, not like ‘gravity’ which it has been fallaciously compared to. As currently defined, it is several things. Broadly speaking, it is biologic change over time. Geneticist Douglas futuyma has defined it thusly:“Biological evolution … is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.”But do observable empirical means verify it as fact? One of the longest ongoing series of experiments has been the ongoing reproduction of fruit flys. Although reproductive isolations have occurred, no new species in the ontological sense of a new species (new body design) has been observed. They are still drosophila, in essence a falsification of macroevolution by heritable, mutational alterations.Antibiotic resistance is an observed example of Futuyma’s “changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population”, and there are many more, too numerous to list here, that have acted to enhance a populations survival. These are changes within a species, or microevolution, defined by a Russian entomologist, and reinforced by Stephen Gould and others.Macroevolution, defined in short as the process whereby all biologic life arose, has been unsuccessfully tied to microevolution, being purported to be due to the accumulation of small changes leading to novelty, complexity and radically new species. Unsuccessful in that it cannot be demonstrated. Proof is ‘offered’ by the phylogenetic progression known colloquially as the Tree of Life. Progressions are observable, but actual phenotypic change at that level is not.And here is the crux of the enigma, and the reason why evolution cannot be considered to be ‘fact’ as presently defined. Speciation at the macro level has not been empirically observed, nor is the ‘primary’ purported mechanism of change, natural selection of random mutations acquired over vast time to produce novelty, been proven. It remains hypothetical. ID, rather than a refutation of evolution, is merely an alternative hypothesis regarding a mechanism for the acquisition of novelty and complexity, a form of genetic engineering. In my view, they have functioned synergistically to achieve the beauty and wonder that has unfolded over vast time.So what, dear friend, IS the method of genetic alteration at that level? Intelligent Design is one possibility, and is empirically demonstrable, contra to claims to the contrary, and thus remains on the table as investigative. It is also tenable that the agencies for change existed ‘within’ the natural universe, thus mitigating the supernatural requirement and ‘scientific method’ disclaimer. You are correct regarding Biblical accounts as non-sequiturs, and that if ingrained within science, would be damaging to objective inquiry. But the real threat to science is the consensus, but highly subjective view, that evolution as presently formulated is ‘fact’, and that ID is pseudoscience. Dogma has no place within the sacred halls of objective, investigative science.

“Intelligent Design is one possibility, and is empirically demonstrable,”Why lie? You gave absolutely no reason to believe that today’s disingenuous and unfalsifiable ID is at all demonstrable, you merely stated a falsehood.Paley’s ID was testable, and it failed, especially (but not exclusively) when Darwin showed that nothing has any marks of design, but only those of evolution. Of course Darwin could only discuss a small number of life’s characteristics in his time, however the predictions of evolution (no marks of design (save of our own) while life will be constrained by evolutionary processes) have been borne out by all of the evidence. And no, Behe’s acceptance of evolution answers nothing about that, since accepting the conclusions of nonteleological evolution while denying the science of the same is not an intellectually honest response to the evidence.So we’re back to the usual, the IDist merely tells falsehoods, explains absolutely nothing, and attempts to create a false equivalence.What I don’t often find journalists doing is labeling the claims of IDists as the total lies that they are. Sure, there are liability issues involved (threats of defamation lawsuits have a chilling effect on speech and print), but they really could point out just how dishonest ID is in general, without accurately but expensively stating that Dembski et al. are attempting to deceive people, and succeeding too often.Glen Davidsonhttp://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

LeeBowman said “Speciation at the macro level has not been empirically observed, nor is the ‘primary’ purported mechanism of change, natural selection of random mutations acquired over vast time to produce novelty, been proven.”Every fossil is an empirically observation of macro evolution? As a matter of fact, there is no difference between Macro and Micro Evolution.. Its as if you are saying…well, I believe in stairs but not staircases.Primary purported by whom? Is it a major one, yes. Has that major one been shown to produce novelty…yes. Look at any bacterial species that has evolved to decompose xenotropic compounds, like polychlorinated biphenols.ID is not science, because it does not make predictions that can be tested. Id is nothing more then a God of the Gaps theory. (look, I can use the common talking points as well!!!)

Posted by Jake | Report as abusive

Davidson:”Why lie? You gave absolutely no reason to believe that today’s disingenuous and unfalsifiable ID is at all demonstrable, you merely stated a falsehood.”I’ll state it again, this time as a prediction: Re-design of a species by genetic engineering is now possible, ‘BUT’ with increased data, and subsequent algorithmic analyses, will reach the level a method of radical morphologic ‘redesigns’ of a species. This will validate one method of speciation, intervention in the embryonic process by an intelligence. I further predict that HOX genes will hold the key.In the meantime, please show us where radical speciation (and please, not allopatric, sympatric, parapatric, or hybridization) has taken place by random processes.

Jake:”Macro and Micro Evolution.. Its as if you are saying…well, I believe in stairs but not staircases.”A common but somewhat blasé analogy, since in the case of stairs, they are simply repetitions duplications.In the case of stepwise improvements to a progeny, each would add new or improved functionality rather than be deleterious, would need to offer a reproductive or survival advantage, and would need to become fixed in the population by a procreative act. Even then, the trait could become recessive and eventually lost.The likelihood on ‘one’ species event happening according to that process is highly unlikely, let alone all of them.

LeeBowman states that “micro” evolution doesn’t rule out the possibility of the Intelligent Designer tinkering with cells to cause “macro” evolution.That’s true. Similarly, one year’s “micro” growth in the height of Mt. Everest doesn’t rule out the possibility that the Intelligent Worldbuilder created Mt. Everest in a flash of pink smoke. After all, we’ve never “empirically observed” the formation of a mountain range, have we?However, while we don’t have documented evidence of the intermediate stages between flat ground and the current Mt. Everest, we do have the genetic and fossil record showing us the intermediate stages of the formation of species – from early life to current life.So while I can’t deny Lee’s logic when applied to the magical creation of Mt. Everest, I’m afraid his logic crashes and burns in the face of the evidence for evolution.It is my sincere hope that some day people like Lee Bowman will find the wisdom and serenity to accept that they can still have faith even if science doesn’t validate it for them. And then maybe they’ll keep their particular magical beliefs out of my child’s science classroom.

Posted by RickK | Report as abusive

Ed, if only all reporters grasped the situation as well as you do. It’s frequently not in the readers’ interest to present two sides of an issue as if they’re equally supported – sometimes, one side is just wrong, as in the case of the IDers.However, at the end you seem to conflate coverage of the science itself, with coverage of political controversies about that subject. You can report that there are two opposing views about what we teach kids, because probably a majority of Americans support the ID side. As long as you don’t treat ID as if it’s scientifically valid, scientists will be thrilled with your coverage.

Posted by Curt Cameron | Report as abusive

The attack on intelligent design reminds me of that old saw about the guy who always asks if “you are still beating your wife?” The underlying purpose is not to right wrongs but to disparage.Lets face it. Intelligent design is, if you allow a further mixing of metaphors, a dead horse. Why continue to flog it?The answer, I think, is not about enlightenment, but to further castigate religion, sell books, and to feed the frenzy of the militant atheism faithful. If the idea were to enlighten, then dialogue and working towards an understanding would be called for.Perhaps it is time to ask why Mr. Dawkins wants evolution to be a creation myth in a mano-i-mano competition against intelligent design. Don’t we deserve science, not sectarian combat?

Posted by Stephen Friberg | Report as abusive

Reporting should qualify statements with “current scientific theory” because most things taken as fact are actually theories to be later disproved in light of new knowledge/evidence/understanding. For example Black Holes are only theoretical constructs no actual evidence of Black Holes has been found.

Posted by Tina | Report as abusive

Evolution is not a fact. It is a theory.”Theory” meaning that it is a cohesive explanation for the development of life, based on scientific observation and analysis of physical evidence.The huge piles of evidence supporting evolution are facts. They are real and physical things. Evolution is the most likely conclusion that arises from these facts.Religion, creationism and Intelligent Design are not theory or science. They are based on assumption. They are not based on observation or physical evidence. They rely on circular reasoning. They are not subjected to the scientific method.You can not equate theology and science. Because they are not equal. One is the product of groundless faith. The other is the product of physical fact.The attempts to equate the two are the efforts of theists alone. Having realised that they can not meet the burden of proof, they realise their belief is irrational and unprovable.So they do the only thing they can do. Try to drag science down to their level, by accusing it of irrationality and unprovability.Their hope that this false dichotamy is enough to prevent the steady loss of all but the most fundamental theists from religion.

Posted by Anon | Report as abusive

Like hell we haven’t seen empiric evidence of evolution within the past 1000 years. In fact, a person need only look at their own great grandfathers, for instance, and see how short they were in comparison to most of the people today. That is a marked point highly visible to everyone who cares to check it out.In fact, height is only one difference that is measurable–if someone chose to examine their whole history, many differences would become clear. We sometimes take for granted our native intelligence, but our brains have adapted over time to hold more and more information. It would be difficult to a person born earlier than the 20th century to understand automobiles, computers, cell phones, televisions, and medical progress, just as it will be difficult for most of us to understand what will be the norm 100 from now. Evolution is going on every minute, though it is difficult to see it as we are living through it.

Posted by hyphenate | Report as abusive

RickK – Your use of the terms ‘flash’,'pink’ and ‘magic’ are telling. I’ve never alluded to the so-called ‘poof’ scenario, so please don’t imply that, since I don’t hold to instant creation events. Rather, the evidence points to a gradual process, consisting of both adaptive evolution, an embryonic process which is likely ‘designed in’ to aid in survival. I predict that a subset of that process produces diversity (to produce species variety), and so that specific phyla don’t all look the same. That doesn’t eliminated extinctions, which simply add to creative challenges.There are certainly evolutionary processes, but ‘adaptive’ ones, and ‘within’ species. Extrapolating these functions to the mechanisms that produce speciation events is understandable, since the alternative would be intervention, a no no. You have alluded to ‘reality’ in another post, and I completely agree. But one of the most difficult things we face is the way to perceive it. Design proponents are typically accused of skewing reality to satisfy a ‘faith based’ agenda, and in some cases I personally know that to be true.But with me it is absolutely NOT the case.”It is my sincere hope that some day people like Lee Bowman will find the wisdom and serenity to accept that they can still have faith even if science doesn’t validate it for them.”My conclusions are based on an objective ‘analysis’ of the facts (same data), viewed from an engineering standpoint, which includes statistical probabilities, analyses of synergistic systems that need to co-exist to function, repair and metabolic replenishment systems that co-exist with end-use functional systems, geometric placement of ligament, tendon and muscle tissue, to name a few. Most are structures and systems that would never follow from random copying and folding errors. The evidence is design. Period. In sum, I have no objection to purely natural processes, which would in fact give me ultimate freedom to do as I please. But the evidence is contra to that position, and based purely on an objective analysis of the data.By now you you will have read my 10:42 post, so I need not repeat it. These, my friend, are valid points to consider when conflating micro- with macroevolution. The basic problem with analogies is that they are seldom valid comparisons. Accumulated footsteps or stair treads simply don’t cut it, due to the reasons given above.As I’m sure you know, you never make it through grad school if you don’t accept evolution in its ‘accepted’, consensus synthesis. Nor will you hold a job, or achieve tenure if you elect to teach. That in itself is telling with regarding to ‘agenda.’ So if success with the establishment is more important than considering a valid alternate hypothesis, and bucking the tide to pursue it, I understand completely. Similar to Pasteur’s initially rejected germ theory, we may some day see that hypothesis become validated, and by someone with the guts to act on his/her own, and do the appropriate research to validate it. And yes, regarding “wisdom and serenity”, I would wish the same for you.

Reporters should watch what they say when they are reporting. When they use generalized statements they are saying things very detrimental to all sides by implying false information.He wrote “All serious scientists accept evolution as a fact.” This implies that those who do not believe evolution are not serious scientists, and by extension we should not take their work seriously. The problem with this notion is that the creationists have made many contributions to science.Take for example the MRI, it was invented by Dr Raymond V. Damadian. He is also creationist, but according to this author he was not a scientist and as such we should not take his work seriously. It could then be inferred that that this author would not trust anything that comes from this psudoscientific instrument. This would be a logical interpretation of what he wrote but people are not logical so maybe he ignores or is ignorant of the MRI’s past.Some other famous creationists include Faraday, Joule, Maxwell, Pasture, and this list goes on and on.. From before Darwin to the present day. This is why you never hear the question “What has creationism given us?” You only hear the question “What has ID given us?”Another problem that needs to be addressed in the articles that are published is the Straw-man Fallacy or misrepresenting the other person’s position and then preceding to refute it.An example of this is also found in this article “taking the Bible as their reference, believe it can only be 10,000 years old and that its lemurs were made in their current form by a supernatural creator.” Now this is the creating of the straw-man. If the author had bothered to check the link in his story about ID and visited the website of the museum he mentions (it is owned by Answers in Genesis, the largest creationist group in the US and therefore it can be used as the mainstream view of the creationists) he would find that this statement is not believed by ether group.Then he commits the second part of this fallacy by stating ” The scientists have empirical evidence for their view… but the religious view… does not stand up to empirical analysis.” Now that he has already given a false position to the “religious” he can then easily say there is no evidence for it, because not even his opponent is looking for the evidence that he wants to see!When reporting on the Creation vs ID vs Evolution debate reporters need to be careful about what they write. By misrepresenting the position of the people they write about they harm everyone involved as well as show that they cannot keep their own opinions out of their story. Or it shows the laziness of the reporter in not wanting to find out the position of those involved in the story. It only strengthens the cry of the ID and Creationists that they are being persecuted and repressed if lies are put into press.Reporters need to make sure that they are doing their job and checking what people believe when reporting on beliefs. They also need to make sure that they do not take sides in what they say. It is sad to see an organization like Reuters spreading such easily seen lies in its articles. This only serves to make readers lose respect for the writers. It can be then be a tool to convince others that evolution must be wrong, otherwise why would they be so afraid of us to lie about us? and other statements like that. So please do your jobs and leave the preaching to the priests.

Posted by J | Report as abusive

“Most are structures and systems that would never follow from random copying and folding errors.”Evolution is a combination of random permutations, natural selection and massive time scales. The concept that this can lead to complex systems is perfectly rational.Your assumption that something which is complex must be a design. Just because something is complex, is not evidence of design. It is only evidence of complexity. When you assume something is a design, you are assuming a designer. Meaning you are assuming what you are supposed to be proving.This is the reason why Intelligent Design (AKA Creationsism) is not recognised as theory or science.Intelligent Design operates on the assumption that a complex system is designed, when there is no direct evidence this is the case. It is an argument from ignorance, not based on evidence. It’s interpretation of observations are not grounded.It is important to allow contrasting scientific theories to be taught alongside one another.But Intelligent Design is not subject to the scientific method. It cannot be proven by evidence, because it doesn’t rely on evidence to begin with. Meaning it is not a scientific theory, and hence does not need to be treated as if it were one.

Posted by Noah Idea | Report as abusive

@ LeeBowmanYou contrasted ID with Germ Theory. And claim that ID might be confirmed by “someone with the guts to act on his/her own, and do the appropriate research to validate it”.But ID simply operates on one premise. That life was designed. How can any research validate such an assumption? The assumption is not based on any direct evidence. So what evidence could ever prove that the assumption is true? Anything you care to name?This is why ID is not a scientific theory. It is a mere attempt to give theism the appearence of science, and failing terribly because it cannot comply to the required standards of modern scientific thought.And because ID cannot be proven or tested, it cannot even be called a hypothesis in the scientific sense. More evidence that it is not science at all.Which leaves it as nothing more but a mockery of science, being peddled as “science” to those who do not understand the meaning of the term. And that makes it trickery, something which doesn’t reflect well on theism at all.

Posted by Hmmmm | Report as abusive

Anon wrote, “The huge piles of evidence supporting evolution are facts. They are real and physical things. Evolution is the most likely conclusion that arises from these facts.”At least you didn’t use the term ‘overwhelming’, but yes, the data is vast and diverse. Part of the difficulty in gaining an accurate assessment is that evolution has more than one meaning, or function. But by extrapolation, varied functions have been put together as one. Rather than degrees of change, micro- and macro- are distinctly different functions as I’ve stated.”Religion, creationism and Intelligent Design are not theory or science. They are based on assumption.”- Religion(s) are based on supposed revelations, commandments and historical data. They include rituals, ceremonies and scriptural tenets to be followed by followers.- Creationism is a general term for opposing evolution, either YEC (mostly) or OEC, with varied takes on phylogenetic progressions, and theistic regarding ‘creative events’. Today, there are varied degrees of Biblical literalism involved.- Intelligent Design has been conflated with Creationism, as has been the case in isolated incidents, which have been heavily focused upon. Kitzmiller v. Dover is the favorite example, although neither the Judge nor the School Board defendants were ID literate. Both Judge Jones and William Buckingham have admitted this in interviews and in testimony. While design proponents are largely religious, the tenets of ID are neutral to an intervening god, and solely address the evidences for and against design.The false dichotomy referred to by Anon is actually a trichotomy, as I stated above. In a Venn diagram, all three would have some common ground, and this is the dilemma we face. Not a pretty picture. My own views are not set in stone, and may change with new evidences. But the additions to the data I’ve seen over the last ten years have strengthened the case for ID, in my opinion.

Posted by LeeBowman | Report as abusive

There is no evolution and the science world will accept this fact sooner or later.The matter we see around is composed of atoms that are composed of quarks which are investigated in terms of quantum electrodynamics that has given a world view that is entirely different from what Dawkins and materialists are imagining. While atoms are quanta and in fact virtual particles that are created and annihilated in an instance by borrowing energy from the future, we are face to face with a totally new paradigm. In this worldview, the quarks cannot be ascribed with any ability of conscious choice or selection as they are made up of energy only. What we conceive of matter is the emptiness in the atom that has no color other than what we interpret in our minds.Now let us come to the question on how to proceed with this evolutionary debate. Other than the evidence in hand from the macro world that mutations are 99,9% harmful to any organism as seen in historical data and laboratory tests; that mutations cannot be favorable in all the accumulated millions of steps when for instance building an eye; that in fact organs like eye are irreducibly complex since without the lens, there is no need for the retina, without the retina, lens has no reason for existence; natural selection cannot add new information on the genetic makeup coded on the DNA by using the nucleotides in a totally novel way to encode a new specific organ or function etc. etc. The list may go on and on.Dawkins is living in an imaginary world of his own, and he does not have the courage and ability to see the facts that there is only story telling and wishful thinking in evolution.Creation is totally apparent with countless data since the Big Bang that proves the universe is created out of nothing in an incredibly fine tuning.The sooner is the better for him to wake up to the fact…

Posted by Mert Sonay | Report as abusive

I stand by my statement. Intelligent Design is based on nothing but assumption.It takes the fact that a system is complex, and makes a baseless assumption that complexity equals design. There is no evidence or observation that this is the case. And the assumption can not be proven or tested.Hence I most sincerely doubt that any “data” has strengthened the case for Intelligent Design. Because Intelligent Design does not require data as a factor in its reasoning.If anything, the data discovered by scientists have either clarified or altered the current thinking of evolutionary theory. But that data has certainly not had any bearing on the truth or likelihood that the universe is “designed”.Nor have you attempted to address the fact that Intelligent Design is not subject to the scientific method, which acts as a fatal flaw to it being considered “science” at all. Except by people who are not scientists, or those who pretend they are.

Posted by Anon | Report as abusive

@ Mert Sonay.You rely on the argument known as “what is the use of half an eyeball”. And like many religious arguments used by theists, it is based on faulty logic.You assume that the eyeball is a static design and hence irreducable. You fail to understand the theory of evolution, and how it applies to complex organs such as eyes.Current evidence indicates that the first eyes were no more then basic nerves, which detected changes in light. As creatures developed, those with better ability to determine light were more likely to breed. And hence more likely to pass their genetic information to the next generation.Over incredibly large time scales, those creatures with more able sight detection would have succeeded in a hostile world. Eventually their sensory nerves improved to the point where they could determine depth, colour and eventually sight as we know it. The final result over millions of years are the complex organs we now refer to as eyes.Evidence indicating this can be found by:-The fact that most creatures have developed some form of visual sensory perception.-That even creatures in very different branches of biological development have developed similar sensory organs.-That fossel records confirm that as creatures became more complex, their sensory organs likewise increased in complexity.So it is true that the components of the eye cannot operate alone. But we can see, quite clearly if you ignore my pun, how eyes developed to the form we possess today.When you were informed of arguments against evolution, the theist who informed you evidently had little understanding about evolution. Or for that matter, biology.I fear that when you refer to “countless data” supporting creationism, you are in fact refering to the countless assumptions that creationism makes in attempting to present a cohesive argument. And when someone takes the time to look at these assumptions, creationism falls apart.In addition, universe physics has little to do with evolution. And while universal data certainly exists as to the possible origins of the universe, none of that data directly indicates the existance of a deity.So when you refer to such things as “proof” of creationism, you are wasting your time. Creationism and ID remain baseless beliefs. Just like theism.

Posted by Hmmmm | Report as abusive

Let us ask wishful thinkers the following:- Let us place a huge gallon of protein on soil- Let it rain for months and years on this gallon- Let the lightning strike it hundreds of times- Let us wait and wait for millions of yearsNow:What will we expect to see where we left this gallon of protein after 100 or 200 or 400 millions of years?a-Rabbitsb-Giraffesc-Horsesd-Butte rfliese-Nonef-All the aboveIt is really fun to discuss evolution fantasy!!!

Posted by Tuna Berkman | Report as abusive

On the biggest question of all, does God exist, an answer may exist with a new interpretation of the moral teaching of Christ spreading on the web. Quoting a review of The Final Freedoms:”Using a synthesis of scriptural material from the Old and New Testaments, the Apocrypha , The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Nag Hammadi Library, and some of the worlds great poetry, it describes and teaches a single moral LAW, a single moral principle, and offers the promise of its own proof; one in which the reality of God responds directly to an act of perfect faith with a individual intervention into the natural world; correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries. Intended to be understood metaphorically, where ‘death’ is ignorance and ‘Life’ is knowledge, this experience, personal encounter of transcendent power and moral purpose is the ‘Resurrection’, and justification for faith.”"Here then is the first ever viable religious conception capable of leading reason, by faith, to observable consequences which can be tested and judged. This new teaching delivers the first ever religious claim of insight into the human condition, that meets the Enlightenment criteria of verifiable and ‘extraordinary evidence’ based truth embodied in action. For the first time in history, however unexpected, the world must now measure for itself, the reality of a new moral tenet, offering access by faith, to absolute proof for its belief.”Thus a paradigm shift in the very nature of religion and ‘Faith’ is getting under way. After reading the material, it would be a great mistake to underestimate just how profound this is. Revolutionary stuff for those who can handle it. Free copies of the manuscript are available from a number of links including: http://www.dunwanderinpress.org

Theory of evolution cannot give explanations to complex organs:- How did the nerve originated at first- Cells have no “eyes” to see light, how did the this first nerve cell detect that there was light- Light is electromagnetism and penetrates the eye as photons to be detected as electrical stimulus at the retina, how did this nerve cell comprehend the structure of light as electromagnetism (even man succeeded in doing this a few decades ago)- In terms of evolutionary vocabulary, the nonfit should be eliminated, so an eye with no ability for sight is useless, has no function and should be eliminated- This means only complex, intact eyes would benefit a certain individual- Which gives the conclusion that eye cannot have evolved anyhow through graduation- And eye is definitely created in its current form but with different varieties in various species all around the worldThanks for making me think over and be convinced on creation once again.

Posted by Mert Sonay | Report as abusive

@ Mert Sonay”How did the nerve originated at first”All living entities react to stimulus. As organisms become more complex, this ability to react is known as a ‘nerve system’.”Cells have no “eyes” to see light, how did the this first nerve cell detect that there was light”Organisms react to stimulus. Cells react to stimulus. Light is a stimulus. Sooner or later, a cell that reacts to light strongly would exist.”In terms of evolutionary vocabulary, the nonfit should be eliminated, so an eye with no ability for sight is useless, has no function and should be eliminated”You are confused. Eyes didn’t just snap into existance. The first eyes were simple nerves capable of light differentiation, which was better then no light differentiation at all. These first eyes provided an advantage over no eyes. Natural selection and genetics did the rest.”This means only complex, intact eyes would benefit a certain individual”Incorrect. Even a basic nerve capable of detecting light, is better then having no sight at all. The simple eyes came first. The complex eyes came second.”Which gives the conclusion that eye cannot have evolved anyhow through graduation”Only if you reach the conclusion through bad reasoning, which you have done.”And eye is definitely created in its current form but with different varieties in various species all around the world”Proof that sight is something that benefits the organism. Hence sight is something that is likely to increase chances of survival, which makes it more likely that those with better sight will pass on their genes.”Thanks for making me think over and be convinced on creation once again.”Perhaps you should read a basic textbook on evolution. You seem to have problems with basic theory, which shows in your posts.

Posted by Hmmmm | Report as abusive

Lets get some things out of the way:-The bible is not proof of creationism or ID, because there is no proof the bible is true.-Just because something is complex, is not proof it was designed. Only that it is complex.-Just because the universe began (which itself is not proven), is not proof a deity began it.-Just because evolution has gaps in evidence, does not mean creationism is any more likely to be true.-Creationism and ID are is not based on evidence. It is based on assumptions that are NOT capable of being proven or disproven. Hence it is not science.So please, theists, do not waste everyone’s time by trying to argue any of the above points. Your false logic will be pointed out.

Posted by OhMan | Report as abusive

LeeBowman says re Dover: “neither the Judge nor the School Board defendants were ID literate.”Perhaps. But Michael Behe was ID literate when he said a definition of science that includes ID would also include astrology. The Discovery Intitute (Meyer and Johnson) were ID literate when they put into writing their “Wedge Strategy” to use ID as a means of paving the way for introducing the Christian God back into school science classrooms. And the authors of “Of Pandas and People” were ID literate when they did a text search-and-replace to convert all instances of “creationism” to “intelligent design”.So given all these published examples, it is a perfectly valid starting assumption that ID is promoted by, funded by, and kept alive by a desire to promote Christian (and Islamic) faith.Lee, do you support the goals of the Wedge Strategy? Do you think “Pandas” is an effective protrayal of Intelligent Design.LeeBowman says “Creationism is a general term for opposing evolution”Actually, “Creationism” is a term that covers any belief that life was created by a supernatural being.LeeBowman says: “There are certainly evolutionary processes, but ‘adaptive’ ones, and ‘within’ species.”OK, you didn’t like my implication that you support “magic” for “macroevolution”. So, was the branching of humans from the great apes a natural adaptation, or intervention from the Designer? Was the fusing in human chromosome 2 a natural event, or did the Designer do it?How does “Design” enter a cell or an embryo or the DNA to support changes between species?Do you support the concept of “irreducible complexity” of certain features? If so, how does the Designer make an “irreducibly complex” feature? Does he/she/it tweak physics just enough to cause just the right mutations to occur? Or did the Designer plan the whole thing out when he/she/it created the first proto-cells?In short, what is the proposed mechanism of Intelligent Design?LeeBowman says: “The likelihood on ‘one’ species event happening according to that process is highly unlikely, let alone all of them.”So the changes that separate Homo erectus from Homo sapiens required intervention by the Designer? Or are they the same “species” by your definition?What about the 3-mutation change observed in the Lenski experiment, that led to a completely new ability in E. coli?Or are you basically saying that any change that we’ve observed is adaptive, but any we haven’t observed must have required the Intelligent Designer?

Posted by RickK | Report as abusive

Where is this designer? What does the designer look like? Where does the designer live? How does design occur? When did the design occur? What does the designer do when he’s not designing?I haven’t heard any answers to these questions.

Posted by cheese | Report as abusive

RickK wrote, Perhaps. ” … Michael Behe was ID literate when he said a definition of science that includes ID would also include astrology.”Do you really think that someone with a PhD in biochemistry accepts astrology?! Come on … Ever hear the term “leading the witness”. Read the actual testimony leading up to that concession, and you will see that Eric Rothschild used typical prosecuting attorney tactics. From day 11, PM session:Q “But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?”A “Yes, that’s correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word “theory,” it is — a sense of the word “theory” does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can’t go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.”[ ... ]Q “And I asked you, “Is astrology a theory under that definition?” And you answered, “Is astrology? It could be, yes.” Right?”A “That’s correct.”Q “Not, it used to be, right?”A “Well, that’s what I was thinking. I was thinking of astrology when it was first proposed. I’m not thinking of tarot cards and little mind readers and so on that you might see along the highway. I was thinking of it in its historical sense.”Behe never said that he accepted astrology as a ‘valid’ theory, just one that was considered by some to be science at one time. Behe was too accommodating, not realizing that his words would be twisted and mischaracterized as an endorsement ad infinitum.The ten year old Wedge document was an internal paper, written by Phillip Johnson to encourage members to oppose abject materialism. It was never established as policy, nor did it say anything about injecting the tenets of Christian religion into science; just to limit the effects of hard materialism. For anyone wanting to read it and its rebut, search “wedge document” and “so what”.Regarding Pandas and People, the 22 year old edition that was edited to remove references to ‘creationism’ may have had endorsement by certain ID proponents at that time, but has no relevance to the present day ID concept and tenets.” … was the branching of humans from the great apes a natural adaptation, or intervention from the Designer? Was the fusing in human chromosome 2 a natural event, or did the Designer do it?”While not as major a branching as birds from reptiles which certainly required intervention, there was likely intervention in the divergence of humans as well. These incremental changes over time could have been the work of surrogates to a higher entity, or a higher entity itself. ID doesn’t currently address the question of who and when. The fusing of chromosome 2 is evidence for common ancestry, which I fully accept, and was likely a natural event.”How does “Design” enter a cell or an embryo or the DNA to support changes between species?”When we look at binary software code, it’s difficult to discern its function(s). We have programs to convert binary to text for clarification. When we are able to do the same with DNA code, we may have answers to how genetic changes were made. The alterations over time appear to have been ‘cut and try’, which doesn’t fit monotheistic religious views, but may well be valid. The goal is to go where the evidence leads, regardless.”Do you support the concept of “irreducible complexity” of certain features?”Yes, but with revised definition. Rather than a top-down “removal of any parts causes ceased functioning”, and “either all, or a subset of its components are necessary for it to function properly”, I prefer more of a bottom-up definition, “the arrival of its present structure and function would not occur through random (although selected) incremental alterations, unless each alteration offered a survival or reproductive advantage. Cooption of functions is allowable in some instances, although further research is need to validate the cooption premise).”"If so, how does the Designer make an “irreducibly complex” feature? Does he/she/it tweak physics just enough to cause just the right mutations to occur? Or did the Designer plan the whole thing out when he/she/it created the first proto-cells?”It’s not “tweaking physics”, any more than catching an object before it hits the ground is ‘tweaking physics’ by circumventing gravity. The ‘tweaking’ would be of the genetic code, possible altering the HOX gene coding, is one prediction. TE accepts front loading of all life, including humans. I accept front loading for replication and adaptation functions, but not all of the coding that followed. I feel that any alterations were a combination of directed and natural causes.”What about the 3-mutation change observed in the Lenski experiment, that led to a completely new ability in E. coli?”Interesting work, but of limited relevance to ID and IC. Did the three mutations occur simultaneously? It has been noted that new E. coli abilities (increased fitness by out-competing ancestral strain) has also given way to an added weakness (increased sensitivity to osmotic stress). There issome evidence that adaptational evolutionary changes can weaken and/or reduce information content in some cases.” … are you basically saying that any change that we’ve observed is adaptive, but any we haven’t observed must have required the Intelligent Designer?”I’m saying that they are totally different functions. While adaptive changes may contribute to a radically different species, it would be a minor component. And many adaptive alterations are only temporary anyway (finch beaks returning to normal size, et al).Bottom line. There is evidence that this planet is a kind of biologic workshop, and that we have an active role in it. And don’t forget that like it or not, you are more than a collection of phenotypic DNA constructs.Cheers

“I’ll state it again, this time as a prediction: Re-design of a species by genetic engineering is now possible, ‘BUT’ with increased data, and subsequent algorithmic analyses, will reach the level a method of radical morphologic ‘redesigns’ of a species. This will validate one method of speciation, intervention in the embryonic process by an intelligence. I further predict that HOX genes will hold the key.”Quite obviously you either know nothing about predictions in science, or you’re dissembling yet again.You need to predict something using “ID theory” if you can ever come up with a theory about a magical being. Predicting that humans might eventually be able to make life, or to cause speciation, has absolutely nothing to do with any sort of prediction that god made life in the first place.An honest IDist would also admit that there would be tell-tale marks of design (rationality, purpose) in life that we design, at least at first (at some point we might be able to fake evolved life, as IDists imply that god did). Of course you’re ignoring such details, because they aren’t convenient for ID and its endlessly dishonest avoidance of actual science.Regardless, the fact that we could make life, or cause speciation, is as meaningful to ID as that we can make diamonds is proof that diamonds were “intelligently designed.” You evince no knowledge of science, Bowman.”In the meantime, please show us where radical speciation (and please, not allopatric, sympatric, parapatric, or hybridization) has taken place by random processes.”Sorry, pseudoscientist, evolution isn’t about random processes, or rather, it is about both random and non-random events occurring.And we have exactly the same evidence you accept for “microevolution” in favor of “macroevolution” and of speciation, the similarities and dissimilarities in DNA sequences, as well as the phenotypic results of those genotypes. You’ll have to reinvent science (the whole point of ID, to make it utterly meaningless, I know) in order for that not to be completely adequate evidence.Glen Davidsonhttp://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

I’m amazed that among all these comments critical of ID, not any of you will attempt to answer one of the biggest challenges to evolution, staring you in the face.Instead of scoffing, attempt to explain any possible natural process, that brings a flagellum motor into existence, by small darwinian steps. Don’t be vague, like everybody else, use specifics example that could plausibly mutate, so that natural selection can act on it. Don’t quote an article, I’ve read them all. They explain miracles by using words like ‘homologies’, yet don’t explain how you can have over 3 simultaneous advantageous mutations, let alone the hundreds necessary for even 1 novel protein. ID is guilty of using Darwin’s own yardstick, to critique his theory. Why don’t you Evolutionist stick to science and explain the many faults with it. Explain the motor, and ID will go away, like a miracle. Roll your sleeves up and do the work, instead of contributing to this constant ding from armchair science wannabes.

Posted by Joe Jensen | Report as abusive

Seriously folks.-ID relies on speculation, not actual evidence.-ID cannot be proven or disproven using the scientific method.-It assumes complexity is proof of design, when it isn’t.So it isn’t science. So why do ID supporters keep trying to beat a dead horse?And even if you argue the legs of a mountain for why evolution isn’t ironclad, this STILL doesn’t change the fact that ID isn’t science.@ Lee Bowman.Rather then wasting forum space on long winded yet flawed arguments, address the following points:1. Is Intelligent Design capable of being proven or disproven by scientific process?2. Why do you feel that complexity is conclusive proof of design, and what scientific evidence do you lead in support?Short answers would be welcome.

Posted by OhMan | Report as abusive

The Curse of Darwin:”That those who support evolution are cursed forever to be confronted by theists who have bad reasoning and logic, and not even a basic understanding of what they are arguing against.”"And that no matter how many times you point out their failure in reasoning, logic or understanding, there will always be another theist who will argue the exact same flawed argument tomorrow.”

Posted by Anon | Report as abusive

LeeBowman demonstrates the handwaving required to make ID sound plausible.When I ask how the Intelligent Designer actually introduces “Design” to an organism, LeeBowman objects to my suggestion that the Designer is “tweaking physics”. Lee says: “It’s not “tweaking physics”, any more than catching an object before it hits the ground is ‘tweaking physics’ by circumventing gravity.”Um… Lee… I’M not a Divine Designer. Stopping a ball is different than supernaturally intervening to Intelligently Design a new species. Stop dodging the question and tell us how you think your Designer caused the branching of birds from reptiles. How did the higher being “direct” the change? Did he adjust DNA? Or did he supernaturally force a “surrogate” to adjust DNA? How did he do EITHER without circumventing physics?Evolution, being a scientific theory, proposes a mechanism – a demonstrable mechanism. If ID is science, what is its mechanism?LeeBowman says: “The fusing of chromosome 2 is evidence for common ancestry, which I fully accept, and was likely a natural event.”Lee, that was a major step in speciation. Why is that a natural event, but other speciation events NOT natural? When does your Intelligent Designer intervene and when doesn’t he?RE Behe and astrology. Read the testimony, Lee. You quoted it.Attorney: “But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?”Behe: “Yes, that’s correct.”To broaden the definition of science to accept Intelligent Design is to broaden it so far as to admit astrology.There’s no two ways about it, Lee. Astrology and ID have equal scientific merit.And I have no idea whether Behe believes his morning horoscope or not – nor do you. His degree means nothing with respect to what he believes. Kurt Wise has a PhD in geology from Harvard, and he believes the Earth was created 6000 years ago in a literal Genesis creation. Why should Behe have any more credibility than Kurt Wise? Both invoke divine magic. The only difference is that Kurt Wise’s divine designer doesn’t waste time in trial and error, doesn’t pussyfoot around. :-)An active supernatural agent creating life is creationism. You, Behe and Wise all believe that life was created by an active supernatural agent.Regarding the Wedge Document, LeeBowman states that it doesn’t say anything about injecting Christianity into science.That’s simply false. Here are quotes from the Wedge Document:”Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”"Governing Goals: …To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.”"Five Year Objectives…5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:…Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s) Darwinism”Now, that sounds to me like a plan to use Intelligent Design to promote the Christian God as the creator of life. And that document was written by Johnson and Meyer, the founders of the Discovery Institute – the largest, most active organization promoting Intelligent Design. Meyer himself publicly acknowledge this was a Discovery Institute document.As LeeBowman so clearly demonstrates – “Intelligent Design” cannot be defended without sacrificing honesty.

Posted by RickK | Report as abusive

In response to Glen Davidson to start off with is “GET YOUR OWN SPECIES”!! Instead of re-designing or to put it another way “AGAIN”-designing a already designed species.

Posted by DAVID | Report as abusive

Evolutionary storytelling requires that you act by their rules. Any other reasoning or analysis out of this “evolutionary world” is out of the question. This is total a dogmatic approach.1- In order for a living entity to react to a stimulus, that living entity should possess all the required structures to be considered a living entity. Let us consider this entity to be the cell:- How did the first cell originate- Cell is a giant universe in micro level- How did the first mitochondria originate- How did the cell nucleus originate- How did the DNA originate- How did incredibly complex chromosomes originate- How did the cell wall originate- How did the first amino acid originate- How did the first protein originateThen we may start asking how did this cell react to certain stimuli?

Posted by Mert Sonay | Report as abusive

@ Joe JensenTheists ask for the following to prove evolution:-Every step of development from simple molecule to single cell, to multicell and complex organs.-Every mutation, both random and those resulting from natural selection.-Every single fossil step, in the history of biological development.-Every single gap in the branching evolutionary system of biological organisms.And they say these things must be provided, before they will conclude that evolution is a cohesive theory which explains biological development.But those same theists will believe a religion. Even though they have absolutely NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE AT ALL that their deity, in fact, actually exists.Those things that theists ask for from evolution will be explained in due time. But considering the galling double standards theists have for reasoning or logic, they are not worth working to a schedule for.

Posted by Hmmmm | Report as abusive

Here is some clarification why mutations cannot bring about any favorable features in an organism.Please ask these to Dawkins, he keeps writing fantasies but cannot come face to face with creationists. I wonder why he is running away:- Mutations are breaks or displacements in an organism’s genetic code, or DNA, as a result of radiation or chemical effects.- Mutations also damage the nucleotides (the molecules that make up DNA, expressed by the letters A, T, G and C).- Mutations take place at random. They are unconscious and totally coincidental events that impact on perfect structures.- 99% of mutations are harmful and 1% have no effect. Not even one single beneficial mutation has ever been observed.- It is therefore IMPOSSIBLE for mutations to make organisms more developed and perfect in the way Darwinists maintain.- The changes caused by mutations can only be of the kind suffered by people at Hiroshima, Nagasaki or Chernobyl; in other words, death, deformation and disease.- Mutations have no ability to add a life form’s DNA any new information that does not already exist.- Mutations can add no information of fins to the genetic structure of a bird, for instance. Mutations are merely breakages and displacements in an organism’s genes. Breakages or displacements in a gene cannot bestow any new information on that gene.

Posted by Tuna Berkman | Report as abusive

- “ID relies on speculation, not actual evidence.”ALL theories rely on speculation to a degree. But no, there are features of bioforms that can be quantified and substantiated:Irreducible complexity, but by the expanded definition I have proposed. If it can’t be built by random mutations (even though selected upon by NS), then ID is an alternative. It’s been said that ruling out one doesn’t prove the other, but can you propose an alternative process?- “ID cannot be proven or disproven using the scientific method.”Neither can NS of RM for past speciation events. Nor can the Big Bang be empirically tested. Both depend on inferences from existent phenomenon (infrared shift, velocity and direction of galaxies, etc). The scientific method as stated has its limits for complex, forensic, and multifaceted theories.- “It assumes complexity is proof of design, when it isn’t.”We’re talking ‘specified’ complexity. A snowflake is unspecified, an eye is specified, since it contains multiple co-dependent systems, metabolic replenishment systems, and repair mechanisms. All are required for optimal function; none coopted from another organ by accident (exaptation); and therefore have the distinct appearance of having been designed.” 1. Is Intelligent Design capable of being proven or disproven by scientific process?”Yes, to a degree. 1) Establish methods to speciate in vitro, 2) Rule out alternatives by statistical methods, and by the failure to replicate speciation by natural processes. 3) There may be other ways. We will see.” 2. Why do you feel that complexity is conclusive proof of design, and what scientific evidence do you lead in support?”I’ve addressed that previously.You say ID is a “dead horse”. Consider that it may simply be resting, awaiting tinkerbell to awaken it. Of the tinkerbells sitting in biology classes, somewhat frustrated by the militant stance opposing ID, or even it’s mention except to denigrate it, one may be a future Nobel laureate.

“Stopping a ball is different than supernaturally intervening … “ID doesn’t specify supernaturality, a religious concept. If done supernaturally, and this is a nebulous and undefinable term, why did it take that long? The investigative assumption at this point is that it was done through natural processes, but directed at various points. The designer(s) are not likely biologic entities, due to their limitations, but within the natural universe nonetheless.My objection was to your implication that it was done by ‘magic’ (a supernatural event), which I have never stated or implied.”Lee, the fusing of chromosome 2 was a major step in speciation. Why is that a natural event, but other speciation events NOT natural? When does your Intelligent Designer intervene and when doesn’t he?”The fusing of chromosome 2 was a natural, embryogenic processes, and definitely NOT a step in directed speciation (to form an intentionally altered species). And if the embryo development process required constant intervention, that would be one heck of a housekeeping chore. The process is automated. Species modifications would be infrequent events, would they not?You quote mined Behe, leaving off the rest of his remark ” … And let me explain under my definition of the word “theory,” it is — a sense of the word “theory” does not include the theory being true … “”An active supernatural agent creating life is creationism. You, Behe and Wise all believe that life was created by an active supernatural agent.”Again a false assumption, since ID makes no prediction that the design agency is supernatural (either ‘magic’ or outside the natural universe, take your pick). Stop putting up straw men to knock down, but I fully understand. We hear similar remarks continually, ad naseum.And finally, yes the Wedge document had religious overtones, but it said nothing about teaching religion in science classes. It’s irrelevant anyway, since DI doesn’t set science standards. Further, their current stated purpose AND their definition of ID is secular. The fact that the designer(s) could be a supernatural god is irrelevant. ID merely proposes directed intervention in the progression of life forms, nothing more.

@ Mert SonayCurrent evolutionary theory is that molecules were concentrated in primordal soup, forming the very first initial biological systems. That is the theory I currently agree with.The actual means by which this led to single cell life is still under debate. But there are theories, which are even now being developed.I am not going to waste forum space documenting the lengthy explaination of these theories. The information is easily accessable on the web, and you know that.But the belief that life was created by a designer or deity is not grounded. There is absolutely NO actual evidence of it being true or even possible.Instead of arguing the gaps in evolution, you should consider the fact that creationism (And ID) are nothing but one huge gap.I now ask *you* a simple question:1. What actual scientific evidence exists that indicates the existance of a designer?2. Can the existance of a designer be proven or disproven by the scientific method? If so, what would this evidence be?Please limit your answer in length, for consideration of other readers. Be warned. If your answer contains faulty logic or baseless assumption (eg. arguments from ignorance), these things will be pointed out.I await your reply.

Posted by Hmmm | Report as abusive

Harun Yahya is doing a great job really. He and his team has dedicated their life to – waking up mankind – on the fallacy of evolution, and the fact of creation.Here are some of his websites that you may refer for further information:Darwinist Panichttp://www.darwinistpanic.comDarwin ’s Lost Causehttp://www.darwinslostcause.comFoss il – Museumhttp://www.fossil-museum.comAmbers Deny Darwinhttp://www.ambersdenydarwin.comTra nsitional Form Dilemmahttp://www.transitionalformdilemm a.comQuran Denies Darwinismhttp://www.qurandeniesdarwinism .comDarwinists Ask Ushttp://www.darwinistsaskus.com

Posted by Melis Tanocak | Report as abusive

Faith is not something difficult to attain, God has created numerous examples and creations on earth that will eventually lead a “thinking” person to belief in His Marvelous Creation.- Big Bang is a very utter example of how the universe originated- The origin of the cell is never explainable by evolutionists, they tell you to look at their explanations, but you never find any- Mutations are 99,9% harmful to any organism so they can never be expected to bring about continuously favorable features in an organism- Natural selection, let us come to nature consisting of trees, water, air, winds, lightnings, etc. These have no consciousness and have no intelligence, but merely consist of the 92 elements on the periodic table. How is it possible to ascribe the intelligence in the brain’s composition for instance to these forces?- Natural selection only selects the fast runner, higher jumper, swift hider etc. but this nature, cannot encode new genetic information by using the 4 nucleotide alphabet on the DNA. Can any human being do that? No.I can write here lengths of facts that show how evolution – is definitely and obviously – in an impasse. Please be factual, not prejudiced. These are open ideas for a critical mind, but one needs to be free of any pressures on the mind to give sincere answers to these questions.These and many others that make one think while pondering on the universe and what is created in it, give countless number of facts and evidence that lead a person to a superior intelligence and mind, that is God.Man is created and has a very short life on earth, he is given an incredible body with immense information inside. Right from his birth, he is not left to chance at all, he breathes properly, sees properly, eats properly with no difficulty. He has his bones, organs, nerves all intact to provide him a life, and these are all considered to be given. Yes then looking on the earth all fruits and vegetation also meat is already there once again. These are all given, as well as the universe and galaxies in their fine tuned orbits.These are all “given” by God, these all include immense and marvelous “intelligence” of God, not the dust or dark matter or electrons or atoms possess this intelligence. Man thinks he has great capacity and superiority in nature. How many scientists have spent their lives only to understand the atom? But we have not completely understood it yet? How many scientists have spent their lives to understand the cell? But we have not completely solved its mysteries. It is very apparent that the entire universe with the entire information inside of it, is the Mind of God and we are having great joy in witnessing His Wisdom through science. Yes, science is this, and it should definitely develop to discover more of what is already there but what we have not yet grasped. This cannot be done by losing time in trying to fool people and deceive them that there is a chance behind all this. Chance is a word made up in an attempt to form a new false deity to lead people astray from rather belief in God.God is the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth and all in between.

Posted by Mert Sonay | Report as abusive

@ Leebowman-You assume that complex organs snapped into existence as complex organs, meaning they are irreducible. The ‘what use is half an eyeball’ theory looks at biology the wrong way. Simple organs came first, and gradually became complex organs.This information has been provided earlier in the forum postings. I won’t waste forum space repeating them in detail.-If something is not evidence of evolution, this doesn’t have any relevance to whether ID is a rational alternative. As you seem an educated fellow, you are no doubt aware that ‘Argument from ignorance’ is not good debating practice.-Once again, you believe that complexity is proof of design. I have asked for a basis for this assertion, and you have shown none. Except for the mentioned ‘argument from ignorance’.-The applicability of the scientific method is not debatable.The big bang is testable, based on the evidence that exists in the universe. We can make a hypothesis on the laws of the universe, and we can test this with the available evidence. In this way, our hypothesis can become theory.In the same way Evolution is testable. We can take the evidence which exists, and form conclusions on this evidence. As further evidence is found, our conclusions are either confirmed or altered to fit the available evidence.But Intelligent Design is not testable. It assumes that complexity is proof of design. Everything from that point onward is an argument from ignorance.All scentific theory has some assumptions. But these assumptions fit with available facts. They do not use an assumption as their single core basis of reasoning, and assume it to be true until all other possibilities are removed.ID can either be provable by the scientific method, or it is not science. You cannot excuse ID from the burden of scientific standards.Once again I ask the question:”What conclusive scientific evidence will indicate that Intelligent Design is true, or that complexity is proof of design?”.If your answer involves an argument from ignorance, or assumes the existance of a deity, I will not bother replying.

Posted by OhMan | Report as abusive

@ Mert SonayYou have failed to answer my questions, which I felt were quite reasonable.So rather then answer your questions, I will simply point out the logical failings in your post:1. Faith is not proof that something is true.2. The big bang is only evidence the universe began. It is not evidence that a deity was involved.3. The fact something is complex, is only evidence that it is complex. Not that it was designed.4. The fact that evolution has different theories for why the very first life began, is not proof a deity exists.5. The fact you do not understand mutation and natural selection is not proof a deity exists.6. The fact that humans are intelligent is proof of intelligence. It is not proof that a deity was the reason.7. The fact that you feel something is true, is not proof that something is true.8. The fact that we do not understand the universe, is not proof a deity exists.9. DNA contains all the biological information which makes up a biological form. If you do not understand how this fits with natural selection, it is not my job to educate you.10. If you are going to assert a deity exists, you need actual evidence proving this assertion. Otherwise your assertion is no more then faith (see step 1).Each of these things represents a logical failure in your reasoning. Unless you can fix these failures, you essentially disqualify yourself from participating in a logical debate.If you choose to reply, and the reply involves any of the above logical failures, it will be pointed out.

Posted by Hmmm | Report as abusive

@Melis:Harun Yahya???You mean the fellow that uses pictures of FISHING LURES as proof against evolution? Not only that, but he uses pictures taken without permission (ie, stolen) from a fishing supply website?http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/ho ax/weblog/permalink/the_fishing_lures_of _faith/You mean the Harun Yahya that offers a 10 trillion lira prize for a fossil of a transitional species?http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpr ess.com/2008/09/29/harun-yahya-offers-ei ght-trillion-dollar-prize/Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) offers nothing resembling science – just creationist propoganda.http://sciencereligionnews.bl ogspot.com/2008/10/dawkins-shreds-harun- yahyas-atlas-of.html#He has no credibility whatsoever.

Posted by RickK | Report as abusive

@Tuna BerkmanYour post is almost entirely wrong.You said “Mutations are breaks or displacements in an organism’s genetic code, or DNA, as a result of radiation or chemical effects.”Those are only some of the reasons for mutations, there are many others. If you are an average human, your DNA has around 100 mutations – genetic differences from either of your parents. And mutations can also involve additions of genetic material through gene or chromosomal duplication.You said: “99% of mutations are harmful and 1% have no effect.”Tuna, that is absolutely, unequivocally false. Most mutations are completely neutral. For example, YOUR genetic mutations are almost all completely neutral.And MANY are beneficial. Lactose tolerance, near immunity to HIV, resistance to certain cancers, resistance to heart disease are all beneficial genetic mutations found in select human populations. The Lenski E. coli experiment provides a shining example of how mutations ACTUALLY work – 2 neutral mutations followed by a beneficial mutation resulted in a never-before-seen strain of E. coli developing the ability to consume citrate. Natural selection then led to that superior, mutated strain taking over the whole culture.You said: “It is therefore IMPOSSIBLE for mutations to make organisms more developed and perfect in the way Darwinists maintain.”Well, your premise was wrong so your conclusion is wrong. We have well documented cases of beneficial mutations leading to changes that improved organisms’ competitive advantage.You said: “Mutations have no ability to add a life form’s DNA any new information that does not already exist.”Again, completely false. What mutations can do, they can undo – what they can undo, they can do. They can add or subtract or change. There are plenty of examples of gene duplication or non-fatal chromosomal changes leading to additional genetic “information”.Your post sounds like it came word for word from a creationist website. You should instead try learning genetics from the website of a university biology department.

Posted by RickK | Report as abusive

“The fact that the designer(s) could be a supernatural god is irrelevant. ID merely proposes directed intervention in the progression of life forms, nothing more.” -LeeBowman.No, Lee. It’s entirely relevant. How can a theory claim an action occurred without naming the agent that performed the action? That’s like saying we know a murder occurred, but the identity of the murderer is irrelevant. If there was intervention in the development of life, then some thing had to do that intervening, and the fact that you don’t know who, what, when, why, or how that intervention occurred leads me to believe that you’re full of it. Evolution may not be a perfect explanation, but it offers a mechanism (natural selection) that can be observed and quantified, and theory is being refined all the time. Your (fill-in-the-blank) that intervenes in life processes cannot be observed, cannot be quantified, and cannot be used to make any predictions about the future. ID only looks backward; it cannot look forward.

Posted by cheese | Report as abusive

Fried, and hold the cheese: ;~)”No, Lee. It’s entirely relevant. How can a theory claim an action occurred without naming the agent that performed the action?”Likewise, how can a theory claim to identify a designer if it disavows design?”That’s like saying we know a murder occurred, but the identity the murderer is irrelevant.”Was it murder or accidental death? We FIRST must determine that. If accidental, what would be the relevance of attempting to identify the murderer?”If there was intervention in the development of life, then some thing had to do that intervening, and the fact that you don’t know who, what, when, why, or how that intervention occurred leads me to believe that you’re full of it.”And just ‘how’ would I know that? Once design is established, THEN we can address questions such as who, when and of course why. Like any forensic study, it is done stepwise.But in the case of a ‘life’ designer, surrogate, design team or multiple designers over vast time, placing the ‘who’ question first is putting the cart before the horse. IOW, the only thing available to propel that cart would be scriptural accounts and philosophic assumptions. Better to address the designer question first, to avoid the pitfalls of presupposition, rather than investigative science.Creationists fit the sequence you propose (the wink wink nod nod scenario), but from a scientific approach, you FIRST investigate the earmarks of design based on empircal and statistical evidence. Determining and testing a workable method would help to validate intervention; successful modeling via random mutations would tend to falsify it. No hard evidence is likely to be found for either ID or natural causation, just inferences.”Evolution may not be a perfect explanation, but it offers a mechanism (natural selection) that can be observed and quantified … “Sorry friend; it does NOT.”Your [designer(s)] that intervenes in life processes cannot be observed, cannot be quantified, and cannot be used to make any predictions about the future.”Nor can the purported selected mutations be observed, although there is a slim possibility that those mutations left a mark in the genome that can be later quantified chronologically. I sincerely doubt that, however. If doable tho, worthy of a Nobel prize.”ID only looks backward; it cannot look forward.”Same for BOTH forensic hypotheses.

LeeBowman said: “ID doesn’t specify supernaturality”Please stop the doublespeek. You said an intelligent agent is actively directing biological processes to introduce “Design” and irreducibly complex features.So please explain how that invisible, undetectable agent acting on the inside of a cell is a “natural” being.If “Design” cannot be the result of natural, random mutation guided by natural selective forces, then “Design” is not introduced “naturally”, right?Supernatural = outside of nature.As for Behe – he’s stated openly that (1) science should be expanded to accept supernatural causation, and (2) he believes the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God.Finally, re the Wedge Strategy. Lee said it has “religious overtones”. OH COME ON!Quote from Wedge: “Governing Goal… To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.”For the record – a “governing goal” is not an “overtone”. There aren’t any non-religious interpretations of that goal. Lee, one might think you learned doubletalk from Bill Clinton. Can we agree on the definition of “is”?The Discovery Institute, the leading organization promoting Intelligent Design, wants to change science to allow for supernatural expalantions, and wants to teach that version of science to our kids. You deny this, Lee? You truly feel this is not a goal of the DI?

Posted by RickK | Report as abusive

“Please stop the doublespeek. You said an intelligent agent is actively directing biological processes to introduce “Design” and irreducibly complex features.”I stated it past tense. Quote me where I mentioned a present-day, intervening God. OTOH, I may entertain such a belief, but it has no place within the forensic study of origins by scientific methods.”As for Behe – he’s stated openly that (1) science should be expanded to accept supernatural causation, and (2) he believes the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God.”Don’t forget Johnson and Dembski. But remember, similar to why RD’s atheist stance is a persona position rather than a scientific theory, same for a deist or theist position. Would you disqualify Francis Collins and Ken Miller (both Christians) as scientists for their personal beliefs in a creator god?”So please explain how that invisible, undetectable agent acting on the inside of a cell is a “natural” being.”For a start, if we can do it, other agent(s) can (could have) as well.”If “Design” cannot be the result of natural, random mutation guided by natural selective forces, then “Design” is not introduced “naturally”, right?”Accidental designs can well occur, but the only ones on record are ‘adaptive’ rather than novelty producing (radically different species). Answer: Right.”Supernatural = outside of nature.”Than’s one definition. The others: Attributed to a power that defies natural laws, or a deity. All religious views, and precisely why supernaturality is not proposed in the ID hypothesis. It’s not to be evasive as you claim; just not in evidence at this juncture.Proteins can be fashioned from amino acids, and is demonstratable. A much more magical scenario if you will, is the Universe coming in fruition from a small particle. I don’t see the first is being magical events.”The Discovery Institute, the leading organization promoting Intelligent Design, wants to change science to allow for supernatural expalantions, and wants to teach that version of science to our kids. You deny this, Lee? You truly feel this is not a goal of the DI?”Want to know DI’s current position on ID? Go here for a recent op ed piece from them:http://www.opposingviews.com/counte rs/who-designed-the-designer-is-a-red-he rring-objection-to-id

So you guys think in a quagmire somehow proteins are beginning to appear(which is scientifically impossible) From these protein cells are made (which is beyond of imagination). From these cells there are some entities something that has an existence) appearing. These entities have eyes ears, etc. later they build big cities like Paris and London. In these cities they build a laboratory. And these entities created him/herself??:S out of nothing (read people)are beginning to make research of themselves in a laboratory under a microscope that they also created self. And then they come together and say let’s see how it was possible that we have come so far. Let’s examine how it was possible to evolve from a atom in a quagmire to a living being like us. Let’s see how it was possible that we have gained information from this quagmire to make / protein / cells / chromosomes / DNA / RNA. ???????????HOW IT IS POSSIBLE THAT YOU GUYS THINK IN A SUCH PEGAN BELIEVE???????You people say everything was a miracle. Ok I accept that. But Who let this miracle happen? Coincidence they say. What is a coincidence! Come on!!! Be reasonableHow can atoms who can’t think make such complex and self-conscious LIVING BEINGS (read MEN)So one day atoms says against each other, who do not see, not hear, not feel, not smell and who are not able to think, let’s come together and make a protein, it is very complicated and very difficult but let’s do it. And let us then make from a protein a cell. Let’s make bones and flesh around this cell and a let’s appear very wonderful system in this cell. Let’s put things as mitochondrion (energy plant of the cell) and vacuolar (protects, cleans the cell). Let’s put the chromosomes in the right place. Let’s then code millions of information in these chromosomes of this entity that we simply are creating.A man has millions of cells and each cell has millions of separate information. How can this be created from nothing! Where this atoms get this information from! How do they know to code this information? again they say coincidence!!. ??????AGAIN HOW IT IS POSSIBLE THAT YOU GUYS BELIEVE IN A PEGAN BELIEVE LIKE EVOLUTION?????We can argue this for days..month.. years.. you lost accept it.. I’m sure you all know Harun Yahya. You also read his books? Or are you just know him by evolutionist and atheist people. “On his book we found a fake fly” they say. Are you people stupid? or don’t you have brains? Come on man.. you darwin worshipers use drawings for 150 years.All your evidence is self made crazy pictures you idiots. The picture on the book “the atlas of creation” is a copy of the real fly so what is the deal? And let me explain you another secret. This picture is put by harun yahya deliberately. This book is nearly 4 kilogram en has 850 pages. And yes these Darwin worshipers (read pegan monks) come up with ONE picture with no comment on the other 849 pages. You idiots are the prey on the fishhook. If you people think serious for hmm 10 seconds.. You CAN NOT base specified complexity in a living system on coincidences!!!!.. What’s coincidence? What can coincidence do? Let me answer it NOTHING…in 5 years you can find Darwin only in a museum..The evolution deceit:http://us2.fmanager.net/api_v1/pr oductDetail.php?dev-t=EDCRFV&objectId=97 4Everything in these books is scientifically proved..Here you can find much more books that is very interesting: (it’s al free:))http://www.harunyahya.com/en.m_bo ok_index.phpSo read and see the truth. I hope allah will show you the right path.Regards,Cengiz Eminov

Posted by Cengiz Eminov | Report as abusive

Okay, Lee, let’s pretend that you’ve established design. Now, answer my question: what is the designer if not a god?

Posted by cheese | Report as abusive

@ cheese”Okay, Lee, let’s pretend that you’ve established design. Now, answer my question: what is the designer if not a god?”Firstly, a break in the action. By whom, you ask?Aucune idée, mon ami …http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s3KS_WQ ew4Actually, given the vast time periods, the extensive variety, and the competitive and combative nature of many life forms, I lean toward surrogates (employees) acting under a higher power, angelics perhaps. Doesn’t General Motors operate in this fashion? CEO’s don’t design or build cars last time I checked. And just whom might they be? Part of our upstream lineage perhaps. (Ps. 8:4,5)I hold to dualism, based on personal experience and observations. This points toward man’s actual essence being ‘spirit based’. Good news for any who’d like to gad about the cosmos some day. But again, these are just some observations and conclusions based on a personal interpretation of data, not something taught or ordained, and have nothing to do with the ID premise.I place myself squarely within the rational thinkers mold, but work toward thinking for myself, something that some rationalists seem to have trouble with. I would be a ’2′ on Dawkins’ seven category list.

You know science is a tool, a discipline for exploring the natural world. While one must take on faith that God is the Creator, there surely is abundant physical evidence out there that demonstrates that the account in Genesis 1 cannot be ruled out. IF you haven’t closed your biased mind as has Mr Dawkins. Do you know what the first sentence of he Bible is?”In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”.This is often called the thesis statement of the Bible or “God calling card”. Please take a look at what it means from a scientific perspective.”In the beginning”:–at a particular point along the continuum of TIME”God created the heavens”:—SPACE”and the earth”:–MATTERIn the first sentence of the Bible, time, space, and matter are addressed, — these are the fundamental components of existence, as science LATER discovered and identified. The Bible is taking about them in the first sentenceThe Bible doesn’t begin by telling us how some god was upset and his tail slapped the water and the droplets of water falling from his tail created a chain of islands (Japan)–this is what I was taught in world religion class re: Buddhist teaching about creation–the Bible talks about TIME, SPACE and MATTER, stating that they came into existence through an all powerful God in a very logical way. That right there ought to make Mr. Dawkins stop and take pause, because at the time these words were written down there were no scientists or Antone else around who understood these concepts–and there would not be for 1000′as of years–yet here they show up in the first sentence of the Bible. This goes to the origin of the Bible as being a revelation by an all knowing God to man -who did not fully comprehend all that he was asked to write down. I believe Dawkins is so blinded by his rejection of God’s existence that he completely overlooks and misses all the scientific truth written all over the first 26 verses of Genesis. If he would suspend and withhold judgment while he looked at it, he might be able to see whats right there in front of his eyes. Pride is an equal opportunity blinder–it leaves the simple as well as the brilliant in the dark.

Cengiz EminovRather then answer your rambling, illogical post in any detail, I will just keep it simple:1. Just because you do not understand something, doesn’t make it false.2. Just because you think evolution is unlikely, doesn’t have any relevence to whether creationism is true.3. Just because you believe something, doesn’t make it true.4. You find it unlikely that life can evolve from primordal soup. But you believe, based on no proof, that a deity magically created life.5. Your post is poorly drafted, contains personal insults, dishonestly misrepresents evolution’s position and has no evidence to back up your claims.6. Please read up the concept of “Argument from ignorance”. Until you do, nobody will take you seriously.

Posted by Hmmm | Report as abusive

LeeBowmanOnce again I ask the question:“What conclusive scientific evidence will indicate that Intelligent Design is true, or that complexity is proof of design?”.

Posted by OhMan | Report as abusive

I read that article you provided, bowman. And must say it was quite amusing.I believe it was:http://www.opposingviews.com/counter s/wh o-designed-the-designer-is-a-red-herring -objection-to-idLet us ignore the fact that Intelligent Design is based on arguments from ignorance and circular reasoning. And that it is not capable of being tested. After all, these things are well established. So let’s talk about something different.Intelligent design operates on the (baseless) assumption that all life *must* be designed. The word design implying there *must* be a designer.Which then invariably leads to the question “Who designed the designer”.ID operates on the assumption that life can only exist if created by a designer. Which means that according to ID’s own “logic”, the designer must also be alive and have been designed. Or the designer could not possibly exist.Theists (and I use the word interchangeably with ID supporters) have scrambled in their attempts to try and rationalize themselves out of the logic corner they have painted themselves into. And the article you provided was quite painful to read.In the article you mention, it is claimed that there is no need to question who designed the designer. Because the article claims the question is theological, and beyond the realms of ID.See the massive stuff-up there?Why is the question of the creation of life considered non-theological, but the question of the creation of a designer suddenly considered theological?Does this mean that the designer doesn’t require a cause? If so, then ID fails to conform even to its own logic process. If the designer doesn’t require a cause, why does life require a designer as a cause?Does it mean that the designer was created by supernatural means? If so, then ID is based on supernatural premise. The very thing it tries (very unsuccessfully) to deny.Does it mean that the designer doesn’t need a cause, because it isn’t considered “life”? If so, then once again the designer exists under supernatural premise.Or does it just mean that the concept of a designer is simply an additional level of complexity, which ID infers into the universe without evidence and subsequently refuses to explain?Take your pick, LeeBowman. But no good alternatives among them.

Posted by OhMan | Report as abusive

@ puddlejumperIf you are going to contribute to a logical debate, please do not contibute illogical arguments.1. Faith is not proof something is true.2. The bible has not been proven true.3. The bible cannot be used to prove the bible is true.4. Your entire comment assigns very specific attibutions to very vague words in the bible. It is speculation and not supported by any objective evidence.

Posted by Hmmm | Report as abusive

@ puddlejumperFurthermore:5. Just because something can’t be ruled out, has no relevence to whether it is true or not. Please read up the concept “Argument from ignorance”.6. You mention that “IF you haven’t closed your biased mind as has Mr Dawkins”.Those who support evolution are ready to support a scientific theory. If scientific evidence disproves a theory, the theory will be altered or rejected for another theory which fits the evidence.Theists and creationists will never consider the possibility that their belief might be incorrect. They will not provide any actual evidence proving the truth of their assertion. And no amount of actual evidence will alter their belief in a god, because their belief is not based on actual evidence.As a result, I find that your calling evolution supporters “closed minded” or “biased” is highly offensive and grossly inaccurate.You are either a hypocrite, or intentionally dishonest.

Posted by Hmmm | Report as abusive

There was no ‘Big Bang’, it was the ‘Big Expansion’.Is there place for Nihilists in this country ?

Posted by Gaspard | Report as abusive

It is clear that intelligent design should be taught in schools. Does the US not have religious education classes?It is the attempt to put it into science lessons that is silly.Any by the way, the bible makes NO CLAIM WHATSOEVER about the age of the earth.

Posted by Dafydd | Report as abusive

To all darwinists and especialy to my brother “Hmmm“1. Just because you do not understand something, doesn’t make it false.I don´t understand haa?? read the text beneath. What must I understand of all these lies?2. Just because you think evolution is unlikely, doesn’t have any relevence to whether creationism is true.my dear friend there are two ways to prove the origin of life. creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago. This leads us to one conclusion: that of creation.Many people can´t and do not want to accept this because of the philosophical and religious reasons. That´s why they choose to believe the impossible: that life was created spontaneously by chance!3. Just because you believe something, doesn’t make it true.see 2 and the text beneath.4. You find it unlikely that life can evolve from primordal soup. But you believe, based on no proof, that a deity magically created life.same story.. science shows us the work of god my friend. science = islam islam = science. Through science we can see the work of god, we can know god, we can learn about god, and the most important we come closer to god.5. Your post is poorly drafted, contains personal insults, dishonestly misrepresents evolution’s position and has no evidence to back up your claims.It is my opinion. Because it is a idiot way of thinking about the origin of life. It is not a personal insult. If you think it is, sorry for the insult my brother.6. Please read up the concept of “Argument from ignorance”. Until you do, nobody will take you seriouslyIgnorance you say.. who is ignorance darwinists, people who believe in CHANCE (pegan believe) or people who believe in god. hmm let me think … … … I think the first one.My best friends here are the 10 Notorius Darwinist Fabrications:1. THE LIE THAT “IT HAS BEEN PROVED THAT LIFE COULD HAVE EMERGED BY CHANCE ON THE PRIMITIVE EARTH”The only evidence cited in evolutionist sources is the 1953 Miller Experiment. Yet no living cell was created in this experiment, just a few amino-acids were synthesised. It is mathematically impossible for amino-acids to form strings in the right sequence by chance and make proteins, and for these to give rise to a cell. Miller’s synthesised amino-acids are of no significance, since his experiment used gasses which were not present in the primitive atmosphere on earth. (see Miller’s Experiment http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecula r_biology_09.html) recommended2. THE LIE THAT “THE HUMAN EMBRYO HAS GILLS”This claim rests on a scientific fraud committed by the evolutionist biologist Ernst Haeckel at the beginning of the 20th century. In order to come up with proof of evolution Haeckel created drawings of the embryos of such living things as human beings, chickens and fish and placed them side by side. Yet there were distortions in these images. Today the whole scientific world recognises these as counterfeit. The structure shown as a “gill” by Haeckel is actually the beginning of the middle ear channel, the parathyroid and the thymus glands. (see The Recapitulation Misconseption http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryolo gy_04.html) recommended3. THE LIE THAT “NATURAL HISTORY CONFIRMS THE TREE OF LIFE”Darwinism maintains that life on earth originated and developed from a single root, subsequently splitting off into branches, like a tree. Evolutionists have struggled to make natural history fit this claim for 150 years. Yet natural history actually paints a diametrically opposed picture. The fossil record shows that there was no “tree of life” and that the basic groups of living things emerged suddenly and at the same time. Almost all the known phyla (basic groups of living things) emerged in the Cambrian period, some 530-520 million years ago. (see The “Tree of Life” is Collapsing http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/myht_of_ homology_05.html)recommended4. THE LIE THAT “ARCHAEOPTERYX IS THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN REPTILES AND BIRDS”The 150-million-year-old bird fossil known as Archaeopteryx has been portrayed as “the greatest fossil evidence of evolution” since the 19th century. It has been claimed that this fossil possesses certain reptilian features, for which reason it is the “missing link” between reptiles and birds. This claim has been invalidated, however, by recent findings that prove that Archaeopteryx was a perfect flying bird. Moreover, the alleged reptilian ancestors for birds, the theropod dinosaurs, are all younger than Archaeopteryx in terms of their appearance in the fossil record; a fact which evolutionists try to hide. (see The Archaeopteryx Misconception http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_ history_2_06.html) recommended5. THE LIE THAT “THE EVOLUTION OF THE HORSE HAS BEEN PROVEN BY THE FOSSIL RECORD”For decades now, ‘the evolution of the horse’ has been portrayed as one of the best documented proofs of evolution. Four-legged mammals which lived at different times have been lined up, from small to large, and these “horse series” exhibited in museums of natural history. Research in recent years, however, has revealed that the creatures in the series were not one another’s ancestors, that the sequence is gravely mistaken, and that the creatures portrayed as the ancestors of the horse actually emerged after the horse. (see The Myth of Horse Evolution http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_ history_2_12.html) recommended6. THE LIE THAT “LIVING THINGS POSSESS VESTIGAL ORGANS”For a long time now it has been maintained in evolutionist sources that some organs in living things serve no function, and that these are evolutionary blind spots inherited from the evolutionary ancestors of the creatures in question. For instance, the human appendix and coccyx were for long years regarded as such vestigal organs. Yet the latest scientific findings have revealed that all these organs do actually have important functions. The “list of vestigal organs” drawn up by evolutionists at the beginning of the 20th century is now without foundation. (see The Myth of Vestigal Organs http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryolo gy_02.html) recommended7. THE LIE THAT “VERTEBRATES’ FIVE-FINGERED HAND STRUCTURE IS EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION”The dolphin’s fin, the bat’s wing and the human hand all contain a five-fingered bone structure. This similarity has for a long time been put forward in evolutionist schoolbooks or popular publications as evidence they all evolved from a common ancestor. Genetic research, however, has shown that these organs, which seem so alike on the surface, are actually controlled by very different genes. Evolutionists today admit that “similar organs do not represent evidence of evolution.” (see The Fall of the Homology in Tetrapod Limbs http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/myht_of_ homology_03.html) recommended8. THE LIE THAT “INDUSTRIAL MELANISM IS EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION BY NATURAL SELECTION”Among the most frequently repeated so-called “proofs” of the theory of evolution in the world is that of the moth population in Great Britain during the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century. According to this claim, air population darkened the colour of tree bark, which meant that since dark coloured moths had better camouflage they were protected from bird predators, as a result of which the dark coloured moth population increased. Yet this is not evolution, because no new species of mothsemerged. All that happened was the population levels of previously existing species changed. Moreover, recent works on the story show that the story itself was not true at all; the famous pictures of moths resting on trees were fake and no such “industrial melanism” (darkening of colour due to industrial pollution) ever took place. (see The True Story of Industrial Melanism http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanis ms04.html) recommended9. THE LIE THAT “MUTATION EXPERIMENTS ARE PROOF OF EVOLUTION”Mutations are one of the two “evolutionary mechanisms” proposed by neo-Darwinism. It is suggested that these chance modifications to DNA caused living things to evolve. Thousands of mutation experiments have been performed to back up this claim. Some populations of living things, fruit flies in particular, have been subjected to intense mutation. Evolutionist publications portray these mutation experiments as “laboratory evidence of evolution.” Yet the fact is that far from confirming evolution these experiments have actually undermined it. In not one living thing exposed to mutation has an increase in its genetic information been observed. On the contrary, mutants (living things exposed to mutation) are always deformed, sterile and sickly. (see Mutations http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanis ms06.html) recommended10. THE LIE THAT “FOSSILS PROVE THAT APE-MEN ONCE LIVED”Darwinism’s mort prominent deception is the claim that man evolved from ape-like creatures. This claim has been imposed on society by means of thousands of fictitious drawings and models. The fact is that there is no evidence that “ape-men” ever lived. Australopithecus, portrayed as man’s oldest ancestor, was actually an extinct ape species, not so very different from modern chimpanzees. Classifications such as Homo erectus, placed after Australopithecus in the evolutionary chain, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens archaic, were all different human races. (see The Imaginary Family Tree of Man http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_o f_man_01.html) recommendedAnother important lie..Darwinists maintain that there was no oxygen in the period when life emerged, and that oxygen formed subsequently. Because the existence of oxygen will entirely repudiate all their claims about the beginning of life. Darwinists know that when an amino acid forms in the primeval atmosphere, in the way they maintain, oxygen will immediately burn it up and destroy it. For that reason, they are unable to use oxygen in experiments concerning the origin of life. And all experiments conducted without oxygen have failed. The famous Stanly Miller conducted his experiment in an oxygen-free environment, and he subsequently had to admit that his conditions did not match those of the real atmosphere.a lot of darwinists supports this deception that Darwinists have been putting forward for many years now and claims that oxygen appeared on Earth later. But this is wrong, because:- Rocks dating back 3.5 billion years have been discovered in geological excavations. That is the time when Darwinists claim that life first began. Traces of OXIDIZED IRON AND URANIUM have been found in these rocks. The oxygen level determined here is far greater than that claimed by Darwinists for the period.- In addition, research has shown that the level of ultraviolet rays reaching the Earth in that period was 10 times greater than that estimated by Darwinists. This intense ultraviolet light must have separated water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and have given rise to oxygen.- If, as Darwinists claim, there were no oxygen in the primeval atmosphere then neither would there have been any ozone layer to protect the Earth against ultraviolet radiation. In that case, it is obvious that no organic molecule could form in a world exposed to such high levels of ultraviolet. In conclusion, the presence or absence of oxygen in either case means an environment hostile to amino acids and totally eliminates all Darwinist claims about the beginning of life.The late American physicist Philip Abelson had this to say on this matter:No ozone layer. If there were no oxygen in the atmosphere, there would be no ozone either. Without the ozone layer, ultraviolet light would destroy whatever life was formed. Ultraviolet light. Ironically, it could do more damage in an atmosphere without oxygen. Just as oxygen in the air would destroy the chemicals of life, ultraviolet light beaming in through a sky unshielded by ozone would be deadly! Recent studies of the ozone layer have revealed that, without it, most living organisms now on our planet would die within an hour, and many within a second or two! Not with or without. Evolutionists are locked into a situation here that they cannot escape from. Spontaneous generation could not occur with oxygen, and it could not occur without it! (Abelson, Some Aspects of Paleobiochemistry, Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 69, 1957, p. 275)my dear friends as you see it is hopeless to defend this pegan believe called evolution. The logic that nothing, but chance, is scientific is a flawed one. It is a logical dead-end. If brand-new civilizations were discovered in outer space, would the logic of Darwinism and chance be employed in all of them? Would it be claimed that chance established civilizations everywhere? The portrayal of this miserable logic as scientific is the shame and disgrace of the current century.Regards,Cengiz Eminov

Posted by Cengiz Eminov | Report as abusive

@ Cengiz Eminov1. “my dear friend there are two ways to prove the origin of life. creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way.”Look up the concept of “Argument from Ignorance”. It isn’t a hard concept to understand. It represents an error of logicical reasoning.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A rgument_from_ignorance2. “Many people can´t and do not want to accept this because of the philosophical and religious reasons”Those who support evolution are ready to support a scientific theory. This theory is based on actual positive evidence. If scientific evidence disproves a theory, the theory will be altered or rejected for another theory which fits the evidence.Theists and creationists will never consider that their belief might be incorrect. They will not provide any actual positive evidence proving the truth of their assertion. And no amount of actual positive evidence will change their belief.If you do not understand the concept of “positive evidence” please look it up.http://www.answers.com/topic/positive -evidence3. “science shows us the work of god my friend.”No. Science shows you the facts of the universe. You then attribute these facts to god, even though there is no evidence that god is the cause.5. “It is my opinion.”Your opinion on whether something is believable, is not relevent to whether it is true or not.6. All those examples you provided.Please do not limit your research to creationist websites, especially when attempting to argue evolutionary concepts.All of the examples you provided are either:-Flawed logic,-Already rebutted, or-Have no relevence to whether creationism is true or not.Now I would like you to answer the following questions. If you answer them properly, you will conclusively end the debate to my satisfaction:FIRST”What scientific evidence would you require, in front of you, before you will accept that evolution is a fact? Please list this evidence”SECOND”What scentific evidence would you require, in front of you, before you will accept that god exists? Please list this evidence”

Posted by Hmmm | Report as abusive

Theists and creationists and ID-ists fail the debate before they even start.Their argument is that evolution is not proven true, because there are still gaps in the evidence. And they are right.But the problem is that evolution is always changing to fit the evidence. For science and evolution, evidence is a case of closing the gaps.But theists believe in a designer based on no evidence at all. There is no evidence which proves the existance of a designer. All they have is the gaps in evolution, which has no bearing on whether theism is true or not.At the end of the day, a theory is a race. A race to accumulate enough evidence to conclude your theory is correct as a fact.Evolution has evidence backing it up, and bit by bit, more evidence is being found to close the gaps that exist.Theism doesn’t have evidence backing it up. And none of the evidence being discovered (even by ID supporters) has any direct proof of theism.And even when theists discover evidence which contradicts evolution theory as it is today, all that evidence does is change or alter evolution theory to better comply with the facts of the world.No matter what evidence is found, even those which question current evolution thought, Evolutionary theory only ends up stronger as a result. While theists end up no closer to proving that Intelligent design is correct, no matter what evidence is found.Evolution is running the evidence race. And it is winning by miles. All theism can do is wait at the starting line, and hope evolution doesn’t win.That is why evolution will win. Because science changes to suit the facts, and evidence only makes it stronger. Theism will always remain in the gaps of evidence, as these gaps shrink smaller and smaller with each fossil found.

Posted by Gad | Report as abusive

Scientific Evidence of evolution:Fossil forms, genetics, snowpea flowers, natural selection, animal husbandry, blond hair, deep sea creatures, common genes, genetics, opposable digits, peppermint moths, anti-biotic resistant bacteria, vestigal organs and bones, DNA, professional dog breeding, the dodo, mutation experiments, parallel development of similar organs in different organism branches, common genetic ancestry.Scientific Evidence of design:”Argument from ignorance” fallacy, faith.

Posted by Anon | Report as abusive

…yes Anon, and natural and artificial selection.Question: are we in an (advanced/retarded) phase of evolution in this Messy Information Age ?

Posted by Gaspard | Report as abusive

While science usually ignores such confrontation, as one would the bark of a confused and frustrated chihuahua for the impossible language barrier blocking communication, we now seem to have arrived at a point of direct confrontation. Though most still deem the “debate”, if you could call it that, unworthy of their attention, some scientists are clearly worried about the implications of teaching religious ideology in US public schools.This is not an attempt to provide balance between the two versions of creation because there are hundreds of versions of creation, but only two categories to separate them into.Science and religion are incomparable, science is a pursuit of discovery, a method of gathering, testing, comparing, categorizing, storing and updating information impartially through human observation with only one goal in mind, accuracy.Religion could not be more different, it is the telling of a set of ancient stories by a heirachial organization committed to self preservation in the interest of a self defined morality. It has no commitment to accuracy or internal scrutiny of it’s presumptions.Science is responsible for almost every discovery, achievement, device and comfort known to man. Its results are concrete evidence of the effectiveness of it’s methods.The church’s campaign to teach christian genesis in public schools should not be seen just as an educational campaign it is an attack on the legitimacy of science itself. And well understood to be in response to a heavily declining interest in religion as the world moves past the need for faith and into a future of belief and proof.As this connection to reality becomes more solid and people can satisfy their need for hope through belief in ourselves and not fear our freedom of identity, reliance on religion to shield us from reality will slip away as it should. Not to say it wasn’t necessary until now, science has never accepted their authority to fill this role…What is necessary is for scientists to address the issue of atheism in science. For a community with so much belief there is an unusual lack of energy and resources being directed into life purpose and the human motivational system (thoughts and feelings), and its implications on every level of society throughout history. I think many still think it’s dangerous territory or outside the responsibility of science, and no doubt extremely complicated.I don’t think we need to worry about losing any intellectual battles with the church, but we could all lose a lot if science fails to assume responsibility, as the worlds leading critical thinkers, for all areas of life left to be discovered and if that means delving into the dangerous depths of the human heart and mind then we should all hope there are some brave non-atheistscientific pioneers left out there and support them on their historic journeys into the unknown.A believer in science and evolution should see the extension of Darwin’s theory into science itself and it’s ability to evolve as a system of thought as we do.

Posted by brian | Report as abusive

“Question: are we in an (advanced/retarded) phase of evolution in this Messy Information Age ?”I couldn’t say, Gaspard. That would really depend on what we actually evolve into, wouldn’t it?Call me back in a few hundred years, and I’ll know for sure.

Posted by Anon | Report as abusive

[...] at how Reuters’ FaithWorld blog covers evolution debates, journalist Ed Stoddard observes: When we write about the wildlife of Madagascar, we usually include a background paragraph saying [...]

The argument for intelligent design: “I’m too stupid to figure out how life could have come about naturally, so no one can. Ergo, it must have been God, oops uh…intelligent designer.”What do ID’ers talk about when they’re not bashing Darwin’s theory? What research are they doing about the designer that no one can see, hear, smell, feel, or even see on YouTube? As far as I can tell, the only thing they can say is “creation occurred, but we don’t know when, why, how, where, or by whom.”

Posted by cheese | Report as abusive

“The argument for intelligent design: “I’m too stupid to figure out how life could have come about naturally, so no one can. Ergo, it must have been God, oops uh…intelligent designer.”Are you ready to have your picture snapped? Say ‘cheese’.Twisting Design Theorists’ predictions and evidentiary conclusions doesn’t cut it. Rather than ID’sts parroting ‘goddidit’ as you claim, I hear the lockstep lemmings endlessly chanting ‘mutantdidit’, one of the most arcane mantras ever uttered, and based on the simple observance of ‘adaptive’ traits, nothing more. Ever consider that adaptive evolution is itself a ‘designed in’ function to aid in survivability of species, one more evidence to back ID. I said it before and I’ll say it again for those who may have missed it:”And here is the crux of the enigma, and the reason why evolution cannot be considered to be ‘fact’ as presently defined. Speciation at the macro level has NOT been empirically observed, nor is the ‘primary’ purported mechanism of change, natural selection of random mutations acquired over vast time to produce novelty, been proven. It remains hypothetical. ID, rather than a refutation of evolution, is merely an alternative hypothesis regarding a mechanism for the acquisition of novelty and complexity, a form of genetic engineering.”Conflating ID with religion is merely a subterfuge, i.e. a tactic to confuse the real issue. Rather than ID being creationism in a lab coat, this tactic represents an attempt to place valid scientific inquiry into a robe, a vestment, a cassock worn by clergy. Intelligent Design is an old concept (Plato et al) but an emerging scientific pursuit, and not one to be shuffled under the societal rug. Rather, I view it as the dawn of a new period of enlightenment.

“Ever consider that adaptive evolution is itself a ‘designed in’ function to aid in survivability of species, one more evidence to back ID.”-LeeBowmanYou have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that adaptive evolution is “designed in.”"Speciation at the macro level has NOT been empirically observed, nor is the ‘primary’ purported mechanism of change, natural selection of random mutations acquired over vast time to produce novelty, been proven. It remains hypothetical.”-LeeBowmanDesign has NOT been empirically observed, nor is the ‘primary’ purported mechanism of change, an intelligent designer, been proven. It remains hypothetical. SEe how easy that was?Do you work for the Discovery Institute?

Posted by cheese | Report as abusive

@ LeeBowmanI would like you to explain something for me.”If ID theory is that all life cannot exist without a designer, then the designer must also be alive and hence designed. So who designed the designer?”The article you mentioned from the “discovery” institute claimed that this was a theological question. And didn’t need to be answered by ID.Which means either:- The designer doesn’t need to be designed, meaning life doesn’t need to be designed.-The designer was created in a theological manner, meaning the designer exists under theological premise.-The designer isn’t life, which means the designer is of a theological nature.-The concept of a designer is a proposed level of complexity, inferred without positive evidence and not explained by the theory which proposes it.So which one is it, LeeBowman? And why do you think it is equal to science?

Posted by OhMan | Report as abusive

Seriously.Negative proof and arguments from ignorance are not science. It has never been science. And ID is an attempt to reduce the standards of scientific process, and have those things counted as legitimate science.Why do LeeBowman and others have so much trouble understanding this?And why do they accuse evolutionists as seeking to confuse, trick or mislead when *they* are the ones seeking to undermine scientific standards to suit their own purposes?For a theory which consists of nothing but the logical fallacy “evolution can’t explain it, so it MUST be design”. A fallacy they refuse to address.And no. Evolutionists don’t say “mutantdidit”. They say “mutation, natural selection and genetics did it”. Mutation is only a small part of evolution. Natural selection and genetics are the majority.Something that no matter HOW many times you state to an ID-ist, they will simply ignore it, and keep banging the “they say mutantdidit” drum.

Posted by Hmmm | Report as abusive

@Hmmm- “And no. Evolutionists don’t say “mutantdidit”. They say “mutation, natural selection and genetics did it”. Mutation is only a small part of evolution. Natural selection and genetics are the majority.”Hey, of COURSE they don’t. It’s a parody of the purported mantra that evolution questioners trot out, “I duuno how this could have developed, so godditit.”They obviousy don’t. Now some evangelists, maybe …”Something that no matter HOW many times you state to an ID-ist, they will simply ignore it, and keep banging the “they say mutantdidit” drum.”Uh, no again. Google it and you’ll see that I’m the only one who has used that parody. And I use it for the simple reason that it’s as silly as the ‘goddidit’ idiom.I’ve also used the term fascism to depict academias prohibition of aspects of ID being seriously discussed, to the extent of firing professors and denying tenure if they display any oppenness to the subject. And not religion as you well know; just teleology as a possibility within bio system design.I’ve used the term in that context over a five year period in various blogs and forums. O’Reilly (Fox) used the term tonight during an interview with Richard Dawkins, but it appeared that he was implying that Christian views need be brought up in class. If so, I strongly disagree. To see RD’s reaction to the term, check out youtube.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E CE77Imki9M&feature=player_embeddedHey, it was an entertaining interview, and Richie did well against O’Reilly. But regarding the debate, and objective science, the beat goes on …

Thanks for responding.Unfortunatly, there are many ID-ists who do keep beating the “mutantdidit” drum. And they are dead serious when they do. But that is beside the point.Now could you address the other important parts of my post? I believe it was:”Negative proof and arguments from ignorance are not science. It has never been science. And ID is an attempt to reduce the standards of scientific process”"For a theory which consists of nothing but the logical fallacy ‘evolution can’t explain it, so it MUST be design’. A fallacy they refuse to address.”Care to address?

Posted by Hmmm | Report as abusive

Scientific evidence for evolution? Please give one bit of scientific evidence that does not rest on the ASSUMPTION that evolution has occurred. Dr. Francis Collins, in an address in Harrisonburg, Va. said ” They (scientists) start with the assumption that there was an initial organism that had DNA and a molecule that enabled reproduction.”Is that a scientific assumption or an admission of faith? Evolutionists “believe” that evolution has occurred: Creationists “believe” that God created. Both are positions of FAITH. There is far more empirical evidence of creation than there is for evolution. There are too many new facts brought to light that evolutionists simply cannot explain, but that point to an allwise Creator, to be ignored.Evolutionists struggle to come up with a plausible sequence for the evolution of the eye. But an eye without the neural connection to the brain is useless. And, without neural connections to the limbs and sensory organs, you have a non-functioning mass of matter. Evolution cannot explain it, but the existence of a Creator God can.

Posted by Wayney | Report as abusive

Dawkins and other disciples of Darwinism need a healthy dose of reality?It cures all mental illness.Take a spoonful of http://www.lifescienceprize.org/ with a pinch of http://www.josephmastropaolo.com/josephm astropaolo.html.

Karl Priest and creationists need a heavy dose of reality.The life science prize was a pathetic attempt to play a petty game. The concept being that a creationist and a evolutionist were to face off in a mini-trial format.The rules were simple. Only scientific evidence. And we would assume, the burden of proof would be equal on both parties.No evolutionist bothered to rise to the challange. As the scientific evidence was already available. And all the creationist would do is make “argument from ignorance”The theists concluded that as nobody rose to the challenge, this automatically meant the evolutionists had no scientific evidence (irrational logic). And that this also meant creationism was automatically proven as true fact (irrational logic).The theists, of course, based this on the assumption that creationism would be proven in that mini-trial as science and true.But the problem was that only scientific evidence was allowed, according to the very rules of the trial the creationists had insisted on.Meaning the creationists are claiming they have scientific proof that god exists. Would they care to provide that scientific evidence right now?Bear in mind that any attempt at “argument from ignorance” or other faulty reasoning will be pointed out as an act of unscientific stupidity…

Posted by Anon | Report as abusive

ID seems dead keen on mindlessly repeating the argument that complex organs cannot be reduced.Current evidence indicates that organs such as they eye started as simple organs. And became more complex with each generation.ID-ers can’t seem to understand the concept. Probably because they think that life magically began as complex creatures. But then again, they also seem to believe their theory isn’t theological. As if saying so somehow makes it true.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolut ion_of_the_eye

Posted by Reducable Complexity | Report as abusive

ID is an absolute waste. Yet I find it strangely ridiculous that scientists feel somehow threatened by it. If ID made it into schools, we’d really have no problem, would we? Evolution makes much more sense and is more widely accepted by scientists. We have nothing t fear. Not that I’m for ID being taught in schools. I’m just saying there’s no reason to fight it. Facts and scientific theories speak for themselves.

Posted by EdW | Report as abusive

Religion has always been in a struggle against science.Religion operates on the premise that it is true, until it is proven false. While science takes the evidence of the universe, and slowly fills the gaps in knowledge.So Religion attempts to do the following:1. Censorship of science.2. Suppression of science.3. Emulation of science.4. Sabotage of science.Religion has failed in the scientific community and in the courts. Both with creationism, and ID (implied creationism). As an attempt to emulate science, it is beaten.But we can expect the followers to stick with stage 4 for quite a while yet. It is a process we are quite familiar with.

Posted by Davo | Report as abusive

@ all evolutionists (worshippers of coincidence and matter) and especially to my brother “hmmm”Why you guys always use the words: creationists don’t want to understand, don’t want to see, they ignore evidence etc. etc. etc. Like I said before: the logic that you guys use that nothing, but only chance/coincidence, is scientific is a flawed one.If I ask you what is your prove you say “scientific research”. My friend I also use science to prove creation. If there is a scientific result (like you said “science shows us the facts of the universe” but what is the cause? You guys say ” the cause is coincidence” I use the same scientific result and I say “the cause is god” What makes your argument correct/better/more scientific than mine argument?The scientific results/researches of the last 5 years shows use the enormous and unbridgeable gaps of evolution. How more we research how more we come closer to god and the most important how more lies we discover of evolutionists. But the problem of evolutionists is they don’t want to face the reality, like you said “If scientific evidence disproves a theory, the theory will be altered or rejected for another theory which fits the evidence”. Listen my brother there is NO other theory which can fill up the gaps. creation fits the evidence not coincidence.Evolutionists always say ” if evidence disprove evolution, we will do more researches to prove it” You make fun of yourself.. evolutionists are never satisfied..you give them a clear scientific evidence that disproves there theory, no they say we will find a way. Some of the evolutionists will never be satisfied they are always in a illusion that they can prove “life” through chance/coincidence. Your religion is not science my friend. I repeat: the logic you guys are using that nothing, but only coincidence, is scientific is the shame and disgrace of the current century.If you want me to show you a clear miracle to prove the existence of god, I’m sorry my brother I’m afraid I can’ t show you that. The point is, you should accept the fact that the evidence we have got through science overthrow/defeats your way of thinking in all areas. If you don’ t accept this you will keep believing the impossible. You will always believe that coincidence can create life. My brother you will end up with nothing. Why are you forcing yourself to not accept god? Why you guys always want to find some explanation to prove the origin of life by coincidence even you know it is impossible (because of the scientific breakthroughs we have made in recent years)The world we are living in is only a short test. If god proves his existence through a clear miracle than the test is pointless. Science is only a tool that shows god’s creation/power. We come closer to god through science. Evolutionists always talk about blood, flesh etc. etc. they are worshipping matter. Let me tell you another secret. matter is not what it looks like. The world you see is only a projection of electric signals in your brain. who let this happen? and who sees this projection (of the world) that is created in the brains? welcome in the world of metaphysics and quantum physics my friend. Many evolutionists sees this truth about matter as a frightening fact. You can’t escape my friend. In a couple of years a lot of people will understand this truth about matter. We will know much more about quantum physics.Like I said in 5 years you can find Darwin only in a museum.Regards,Cengiz Eminov

Posted by Cengiz | Report as abusive

@ Cengiz EminovScience is about taking the real facts of the world, and reaching a conclusion based on those facts. If you are upset that religion fails to meet the burden of scientific proof, it is not my problem.Please read up the concept of “Argument from Ignorance”. It is a logical flaw, which you have unfortunately seem to have based your entire argument on. And, I regret to say, your entire religion.You can find the information at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument _from_ignoranceIf you cannot provide scientific proof that god exists, then you have not proven a god exists. And this means anything you say based on the assumption that a god exists is both unscientific and meaningless in debate.Just because you believe in a god, does not make it any more likely that a god exists.The fact that you believe you have proven the existance of a god, yet cannot provide any scientific evidence that he exists, is proof of your illogical reasoning.And I will not debate with people who use illogical reasoning.

Posted by Hmmm | Report as abusive

Imagine that we are on a planet.-And we find living complex creatures.-And that genetics and natural selection ensure that advantages are passed to the next generation.-And we find that these organisms share similar DNA.-And possess different, yet similar biological organs.-And fossils of older lifeforms are more simple organisms, with simple organs with similar DNA.The conclusion that SCIENCE must reach is that:”Through natural selection, simple organisms developed into the complex organisms of today”.That is a conclusions. An assessment which is based on direct evidence, and based on direct observation.But then RELIGION comes along. They take the same evidence. But they claim that nothing can happen unless a designer was behind it all.Now what they have done is taken the real evidence (as science did), and then made ILLOGICAL ASSUMPTONS which are not based on the real facts.-Complexity is proof of design (unproven relationship)-A design can be implied without proof a designer exists (circular reasoning)-If evolution cannot explain something, this means creationism is true (argument from ignorance)-There is a god (failure to meet burden of proof).It is these illogical assumptions which set religion (and creationism/ID) aside from science. And nothing that theists can say can remedy these failings.Ask “Who designed the designer?” and their logic falls apart. Ask them “Prove that God exists” and they cannot.But this was never the point.Their goal is not to justify their own beliefs. They are used to believing things without proof. And it means nothing to them that they have no evidence to prove a god exists.No. Their goal is to drag evolution and science down to their level. To drag you into the muck of illogical debates and the mud of faulty logic.Because then they can create the impression that science and religion are somehow equal. So they can shrug off the crippling humiliation that they believe something that can never be proven.Religion will always attempt to emulate science. It will always try to drag science down to it’s level. But it has failed in the courts, and the schools and the scientific community.Religion will never be science, and it will never be equal to science. No matter how it tries to wedge the issue.

Posted by OhGod | Report as abusive

To paraphrase:Evidence: Complex creatures exist.Conclusion: They are an intentional constructs.Evidence: Similar genetic code:Conclusion: Common designer(s)Evidence: Shared DNA.Conclusion: What else could the embryo process produce? But how did the embryogenesis reproduction system form? It is more complex than the life forms it produces.Evidence: Homologous organs.Conclusion: Again, common designer(s) who use what is there for alternate bio designs.”The conclusion that SCIENCE must reach is that through natural selection, simple organisms developed into complex [ones]“The data shows an ancestral lineage, but not how novel species form. It’s a case of ‘fill-in-the-blanks’ to claim natural selection of mutational (accidental folding and copying errors) is the answer. It’s fine to state RM-NS as a prediction, but it has NOT been demonstrated. Ongoing, a fervent quest, but absolutely unproven.”That is a conclusions. An assessment which is based on direct evidence, and based on direct observation.”No, it’s merely a hypothesis. ID hypothesizes intentioned coding alterations, i.e. data added rather than subtracted.”But then RELIGION comes along. They take the same evidence. But they claim that nothing can happen unless a designer was behind it all.”But what DID happen is evidence of intentioned design. Religion may take that position, but ID is not religion. Further, I’ve blogged on this subject for ~ ten years, and never once quoted scripture.”Now what they have done is taken the real evidence (as science did), and then made ILLOGICAL ASSUMPTONS which are not based on the real facts.”Religion’s assumptions are based on scripture. Care to debate that fact?”-Complexity is proof of design (unproven relationship)”Specified complexity is.”-A design can be implied without proof a designer exists (circular reasoning)”Design CAN be implied by the existence of a design. That is NOT circular reasoning, rather an evidence based conclusion. But you might term it, ‘begging the question’, since it is not proof. But nobody claimed that ID WAS truth. It’s merely an hypothesis to investigate. Abject prohibition of its consideration is evidence of the fear that it just-might-be-true, evidence that RM-NS is on shaky ground.”-If evolution cannot explain something, this means creationism is true (argument from ignorance)”There is no -ism here. That is your (and a few others) injection, and based on nothing.”-There is a god (failure to meet burden of proof).”ID does not state that, so what is your point?”It is these illogical assumptions which set religion (and creationism/ID) aside from science. And nothing that theists can say can remedy these failings.”Au contraire, it is you who is making false assumptions.”Ask “Who designed the designer?” and their logic falls apart. Ask them “Prove that God exists” and they cannot.”This question is obviously unanswerable. If the designer(s) are unknown, how-in-the-world could one answer that question? Would it be proper for me to ask you what (or who) set off the Big Bang? Or did s/he/it use a match or a cigarette lighter?The rest of your comment is more of the same drivel, let’s call it ‘circuitous logic’, i.e. the same points rephrased. But at least you’re consistent. ;~)

LeeBowmanEvolution is a simple deduction from available evidence.Perhaps you want every fossel and step in genetic diversion to be layed out in front of you, and every single step in cell evolution. I have no idea why, considering you believe in a designer with no proof, but that is not my problem.If there is evidence suggesting a branching connection between early simple and later complex organisms, the logical conclusion is that one developed from the other.Intelligent design goes one step further. It takes all the evidence that science looks at, and then asserts that it is all part of design. It is looking at the evidence with an ADDITIONAL assumption.The term “design” implies a designer. To say that something is a design, you must also be assuming there is a designer.It is not scientific to simply say that complexity equals design. This must be based on the available evidence.If you are going to look at scientific evidence based on the POSITIVE ASSERTION that complexity equals design, then you must show evidence that a designer exists.Unless you can prove the existance of a designer, there is no way to conclude that complexity equals design. You may choose to do so, but it isn’t science.So I ask you this question: “Do you have POSITIVE scientific evidence that a designer exists?”You are the one asserting a designer exists. Your entire argument is based on the fact that life is design. So prove that your assumption has scientific value.No logical fallacies. No circular reasoning. No excuses for why you think the rules of logic don’t apply to you. Just Positive Scientific Proof, please.If you want ID to be equal to science, then you play by science’s rules. You can’t drag science down to yours.

Posted by OhGod | Report as abusive

You can’t provide evidence of evolution to someone who doesn’t want to find it.The only goal of creationists here is to push religion, they are not interested in evidence of evolution, because if they were they would have found it for themselves back in grade school..It’s frustrating yes, a cheap attack on the immense integrity of science yes, but convincing a religious person to accept the proof that disproves their religion is not a conversational possibility.. if they were driven by logic and reasoning they would not be religious.You could show them the exact irrefutable piece of magical evidence they were asking for and literally rub their nose in it and if it wasn’t god they would FIND a way to ignore it.Remember desertion for Christians results in burning in hell for eternity.. thus they are emotionally compromised and unfit to present an unbiased opinion.

Posted by brian | Report as abusive

“Design CAN be implied by the existence of a design. That is NOT circular reasoning, rather an evidence based conclusion. But you might term it, ‘begging the question’”Begging the question is also known as the “argument from ignorance”. Or the argument from negative proof.You have essentially admitted that your argument is based on a logical fallacy. I feel we have finally made some progress. Most ID supporters will never admit such, and ignore the issue. Kudos to you.In time, you will hopefully also see why this logical fallacy precludes ID from being taken seriously as science. And why it is equated as being no different to creationism or religion.

Posted by Hmmm | Report as abusive

Wow, this is still going on, and LeeBowman still sounds like a Discovery Institute answerbot.Evidence: Complex creatures exist.Hypothesis: Complexity in intentionally constructed.Further evidence: Complexity is seen evolving naturallyHyopthesis collapses.Evidence: Similar genetic codeHypothesis: Common designer(s)Further evidence: INHERITANCEHypothesis collapsesEvidence: Shared DNAHypothesis: Common ancestryFurther evidence: INHERITANCEHypothesis supportedEvidence: Homologous organsHypothesis: Common designerFurther evidence: Similar organs implemented in very different waysHypothesis collapsesLeeBowman says: “The data shows an ancestral lineage, but not how novel species form.”The intellectual dishonesty of this stance is breathtaking. How can you sleep at night? Do you have to take a shower after writing stuff like this?We have a theory that mountain ranges are formed by tectonic forces. We can measure where the plates are, what direction they move, and how fast they move in the course of a year. But we’ve never actually seen a Mt. Everest form.Lee, your logic would have us favor the divine creation of Mt. Everest over the theory that it formed through natural forces.The fact is we have clear, documented observation of random genetic mutation leading to beneficial traits that then are favored by natural selection. We have seen creatures with these traits then out-compete their peers and thrive. We’ve seen the same forces create significant changes in size and shape of creatures. And we’ve seen this all in the fraction of a blink of an eye in evolutionary timescales.Lee would say: “Fine, that’s micro evolution, but it doesn’t explain macro-evolution”OK, Lee – tell us – what force is PREVENTING these small changes from building on each other over time to become big changes?Le’ts say we have a population of fish living near a mudbank on which yummy bugs live. Let’s say over time one minor mutation, a slightly beefier front fin, builds on another and another, so that the fin becomes thicker and stumpier, allowing the fish to move across the mud and eat more yummy bugs.Now let’s say that one last micro-mutation would push that fin over the edge to become what we might call a leg.Lee, are you suggesting that right at that point, the Divine Designer jumps in and says “Wait! Let ME do it!”, waggles his wand, and *poof*, the fish has a leg?How does your Intelligent Designer prevent natural mutations from adding up to become a new feature?

Posted by RickK | Report as abusive

a few typos:”They’re not even related, Rick. One is a built in adaptive function, the other is not. Dino’s didn’t grow wings as a survival tactic. The conflagration of the two is wishful (and unfounded) thinking.”My wireless keyboard and the autocorrect feature have minds of their own. Imagine small and large changes catching fire (conflagration), s/b conflation.The keyboard will drop or switch a character, and the spell corrector speciates (produces a totally new word). But I have to say, most of the changes are deleterious!Similarly, Glen Morton, whom I mentioned earlier once penned:”I also produced three newsletters. The most recent one is Cretinism or Evilution? I didn’t come up with the word “Cretinism,” my spell checker did. It lacks the word “creationism,” so each time it encountered it, my computer asked if I was trying to spell “cretinism,” which my Webster’s dictionary told me referred to “a congenital deficiency resulting in idiocy.”So blog on but seek truth AND objective science, sigh …

Hi Rick,”We have a theory that mountain ranges are formed by tectonic forces. We can measure where the plates are, what direction they move, and how fast they move in the course of a year. But we’ve never actually seen a Mt. Everest form.Lee, your logic would have us favor the divine creation of Mt. Everest over the theory that it formed through natural forces.”Cute, but you and your ‘design deniers’ are the only ones mention the ‘divine’ term. But a careful analysis and comparison of those two examples, and simple logic, will show that while plate tectonics are a natural process, functional biologic forms are of much greater complexity don’t show the same evidence. Can I quote you that plate tectonics is analogous to embryogenesis?”OK, Lee – tell us – what force is PREVENTING these small changes from building on each other over time to become big changes?”They’re not even related, Rick. On is a built in adaptive function, the other is not. Dino’s didn’t grow wings as a survival tactic. The conflation of the two is wishful (and unfounded) thinking.”Let’s say we have a population of fish living near a mudbank on which yummy bugs live. Let’s say over time one minor mutation, a slightly beefier front fin, builds on another and another, so that the fin becomes thicker and stumpier, allowing the fish to move across the mud and eat more yummy bugs.Now let’s say that one last micro-mutation would push that fin over the edge to become what we might call a leg.Lee, are you suggesting that right at that point, the Divine Designer jumps in and says “Wait! Let ME do it!”, waggles his wand, and *poof*, the fish has a leg?”Of course not, any more than I’m tired of my model T so God poofed me a Corvette. The *poof* scenario is YEC thinking.”How does your Intelligent Designer prevent natural mutations from adding up to become a new feature?”Simply this:1) No need for a radical redesign exists, except via the penchant of a designer, or design team to try something different.2) The incremental mutational steps would offer no survival or reproductive advantages.As to sleeping at night, no, I tend to blog all night. Sigh …

Lee, sorry what??!The thing people often get mixed up is that the concept of intelligent design has been around long before creationism and monotheistic religion. It is simply the belief that a conscious entity is responsible for creation whether it be a “God”, Us or something else. It has no conflict whatsoever with evolution which is the study of how organisms evolve into more complex forms over time.Creationism is vastly different to both, although it starts with the concept of intelligent design, it challenges evolution by providing a genesis story for creation, even naming the creator, based on trust in the person telling the story. It does not rely on evidence at all, it is simply a fact stated to be believed by the organizations of Christianity.It is no good for a creationist Christian to rely on the concept of intelligent design as a point of argument because it is NOT what defines creationism (genesis) as a theory nor does it in any way conflict with the study of evolution. The two are mutually exclusive.

Posted by brian | Report as abusive

Id-ists and creationists are good at debate. They are excellent at picking holes in evidence. And quote mining. And selective reasoning. And making assumptions not based on evidence.They also have an advantage because of their logical fallacies. All of their arguments represent circular reasoning, argument from ignorance, negative proof or simply flawed reasoning. Which means they have an advantage in a discussion. Because they can argue from a position of logical fallacy, while their opponents are restricted to positions of logic and reasoning.But in the courts, the schools and in the scientific community, the only important issue is actual positive evidence. No logical fallacies or baseless assumptions allowed.And you can make illogical arguments in those arenas if you wish. But all it will do is get you laughed at. When ID is taken to task, it fails. Because in the end it cannot back itself up with any actual evidence or science. It fails because it has nothing but assumption. And this baseless assumption goes against archology, natural selection, genetics and biology.ID is irreparably connected to creationism, theism and the supernatural. This is a weakness it can ignore on the discovery institute website, but not anywhere else.All theists have done is put a paper bag over the creationist god’s head, called him a designer, and think this suddenly makes it science. If they have designs on destroying science, they will need to be a lot more intelligent then that.

Posted by Noah Idea | Report as abusive

A note to the moderator. The 3 comments ending in “cheers to all” are duplicates, the 2nd and 3rd edited down since ‘spam’ messages were viewed. If you post any, pick just one please, o/w way too much blather. Regards, Lee

Posted by LeeBowman | Report as abusive

LeeBowman, please stop sending so many copies of your comments, especially some slightly different from others. We cannot read through all of them and decide which one to post.

Leebowman. I have yet to get an answer from either of the logical problems presented.Problem 1:-Evolution takes the evidence, lays it all out and makes a logical conclusion on that evidence.-ID takes the same the evidence, and then makes the additional assertion that all this evidence represents design.-If you are going to assume complexity is design, then you also assume there is a designer.-If ID is going to assert that complexity is proof of design, ID must prove that a designer exists.So, do you have positive scientific evidence that a designer exists? Otherwise, there is no basis for assuming that complexity equals design.Problem 2:-ID assumes that complexity is proof of design.-This means that ID assumes life can only arise from design.-ID claims not to involve a deity or any supernatural aspects.-Which means that for the designer to exist, the designer must be alive and designed.So, without invoking the supernatural, can you tell us who designed the designer? Or who designed the designer’s designer? Or is the ID concept of a designer simply “Creationist God with a paper bag over his head”?Looking forward to your reply.

Posted by OhGod | Report as abusive

[...] tends to regard faith as a foolish thing, this particular post was supposed to explain how they remain neutral when reporting on faith matters, specifically when talking about [...]

I asked what prevents small changes from adding up to be big changes.LeeBowman responded with: “They’re not even related, Rick. On is a built in adaptive function, the other is not. Dino’s didn’t grow wings as a survival tactic. The conflation of the two is wishful (and unfounded) thinking.”This, of course, is utter nonsense. The Kiwi, the Dodo and the Stephens Island Wren all LOST their wings as an adaptive process. So yes, some dinos and all bats GREW wings as an extended adaptive process.Lee, you’re drawing a distinction that simply doesn’t exist. You’re forcing the distinction (like a “wedge”) between “small evolution” and “big evolution” where there is no evidence of one.And yes, you may quote me when I say plate tectonics and evolution are analogous in that both build great change over vast time, one little bit at a time.Lee, you deny that small changes over vast time become big changes.And you sacrifice intellectual honesty when you do so.

Posted by RickK | Report as abusive

It is interesting that no supporter of evolution has bothered to respond to my entry. Anon states that “No evolutionist bothered to rise to the challenge.As the scientific evidence was already available.” If that is true, why didn’t the evolutionists simply produce the evidence and just blow the creationists out of the water?I repeat my challenge: produce just one empirical bit of evidence for evolution that does NOT rest on the ASSUMPTION that evolution has occurred. Real science rests on observations and repeatable experiments. Evolution-i.e., a dinosaur growing wings, etc., has never been observed, can not be repeated, and depends purely on evolutionist imaginations.

Posted by Wayney | Report as abusive

Wayney,Yes, and the creation of Mt. Everest rests on the ASSUMPTION that plate tectonics can push up a whole mountain. It is supported by the evidence of annual growth rate of the mountain due to tectonic forces.We have observed examples of genetic, functional and morphological changes in animals, and we have the fossil record as evidence of “points along the way”.So, if I see my friend fly off on a plane for Paris, and I get regular post-marked letters and phone calls from him from different places in Europe, then I ASSUME he traveled around Europe, and didn’t magically teleport to China for a couple of days between each of his European postcards.You can choose to ASSUME, in spite of all the natural evidence, that some magic took place to make new species. People once assumed divine/magical/supernatural causation for: the sun, moon, stars, lightning, tides, seasons, weather, earthquakes, disease, personality, etc.Like them, you’d be wrong.Evolution is disprovable – there are many things that would disprove it – but it hasn’t been because it is reality:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ comdesc/section1.htmlEvolution makes successful predictions:http://tiktaalik.uchicago.ed u/searching4Tik.html(click the hard-to-see “next” button to page through this site’s story)Evolution has been observed:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/ 26/science/26lab.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&o ref=sloginhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/re leases/2008/04/080417112433.htmhttp://ww w.msnbc.msn.com/id/13845002/This example even ADDED information (through gene duplication), something many evolution-deniers say is impossible:http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org  /cgi/reprint/15/8/931Examples of observed speciation:http://www.talkorigins.org/fa qs/faq-speciation.htmlSo Wayney, I’m anticipating you’ll say “but we’ve never actually SEEN a fish evolve into a frog”. You’re right about that, Wayney. We’ve never seen a diamond form in nature – we’ve only seen them created in labs. So we must not assume diamonds form without intervention by a supernatural intelligent designer. Right, Wayney?Finally, any real scientist who could put forward a theory that overturns the fundamentals of evolution would win a Nobel Prize. Scientists love NOTHING more than proving their colleagues wrong. They long to be the one to completely revolutionize the thinking on a topic. Anyone who thinks scientists conspire to stop good ideas has not met any real scientists.Stopping original thinking is the job of religions, not science.The reason that “Intelligent Design” hasn’t revolutionized any thinking in scientific circles is because it can’t survive questioning. Just like “creation science”, polywater, luminiferous ether, and N-rays – ID belongs on the rubbish heap of ideas that failed to survive the scientific process.Once we remove Christian funding and religiously-motivated promotion, ID will take its place on that heap.

Posted by RickK | Report as abusive

The problem I see with your argument is that you equate “scientific fact” with all “facts,” and you assume the only arguments/data to be considered are “empirical.” Historical data, documents, oral histories, etc… are all data. Men were discovering and understanding the world long before “science” came along.Also, the statement “all serious scientist accept evolution as a fact” (if you are regarding macro-evolution and not just changes within a species) is patently untrue. There are many scientist who reject macro-evolution and have published many rebutals through the years. The statement reflects a “bias” of sorts that you say you are claiming is absent from your articles.

Posted by Danny | Report as abusive

The question is not whether ID is connected to a religious viewpoint. “All” ideas are connected to some “religous viewpoint” about the world. Neither should something be rejected just because it arises with roots in philosophy, physics, or literature. The only question concerning the science of ID is, “Do the examples cited represent “irreducible complexity?” If they do we either have to abandon rationality and reach for a possibility that we have no evidence of existing (ie. that organized systems can somehow be created without intelligence, or accept that a higher intelligence produced the system. The debate is whether irreducible complexity exists. If it does, then evolution fails to explain it, and has a potentially fatal piece of evidence to consider.

Posted by Danny | Report as abusive

“You have essentially admitted that your argument is based on a logical fallacy. I feel we have finally made some progress. Most ID supporters will never admit such, and ignore the issue. Kudos to you.”Wrong again. Firstly, my statement:”Design CAN be implied by the existence of a design. That is NOT circular reasoning, rather an evidence based conclusion. But you might term it, ‘begging the question’, since it is not proof. But nobody claimed that ID WAS truth. It’s merely an hypothesis to investigate.”When I stated that “you might term it ‘begging the question’, (since it is not proof),” I was referring to what YOU, Hmmm might bray about. The same applies to most other evolutionists. In a sense it is still a ‘question’, since it is offered as an alternate hypothesis for the mechanism of radical change, rather than absolute proof. Begging the question can also mean that it’s an hypothesis that requires further investigation.My concluding statement (“But nobody claimed that ID was truth … “) admits that it is hypothetical, but logical to pursue. (see the plethora of interpretations of that phrase, some of which differ widely from Aristotle, Fowler and others, all the way from ‘logical fallacy’, to simply an unanswered or unproven premise).So why is it not a fallacy? A fallacy is defined as “a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning and argumentation”. Begging-the-question does NOT imply that, meaning instead that the ID premise raises questions. Only if that premise is stated as fact (which I have not done) can it be considered fallacious.Consider this: If I were to INSIST that ID was truth, I would be proceeding from an a priori belief, similar to a religious viewpoint. My admittance that it was still up-for-grabs denies that, and demos my objectivity. No, I’ve never called ID hard fact, as prior comments will show.On 11/27/07 at Huffington Post I stated:”Challenging its validity is *not* attacking science, but rather using science as intended; to follow new evidence. Intelligent Design is a hypothesis, soon to be accepted as theory, that is intent on pursuing that evidence.”http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ users/profile/leebowman?action=commentsO n 12/14/08 at Panda’s Thumb I wrote:”If ID is accepted as valid science, and not religion, it must remain objective and open. I am open to ‘ALL’ of the tentative causative mechanisms that have been posited [emphasis added], and open to more as scientific evidence may provide.”http://pandasthumb.org/archives  /2008/12/texas-op-ed-ain.htmlOn 9/11/08 I again stated my position of striving for objectivity (five comments), and gave some reasons why it constitutes ‘good science’, something not always attained.”ID postulates on evidence, not a religious position. Arguing that it is a tactic or a guise, simply because it may be in some cases, fails objectivism. It is more of a deterministic stance, i.e. arrogance.”http://www.opposingviews.com/ questions/does-intelligent-design-have-m erit/commentsAnother place I discuss scientific objectivity was the Citizen, and I also give reasons why ‘banana man’ gave up too easily. Yes, all edible fruit, as well as the teeth-and-toungue, show features of a mutual synergism. Made-to-order if you will.http://www.thecitizen.com/~citizen0  /node/34653Also here:http://www.andrewpatrick.ca/skeptic ism-and-beliefs/intelligent-design-and-s shrc-scientific-belief-in-canadaAt scienceblogs, Michael M wrote [post 32]:”Intellect is something gained by accepting new facts as they become available and making them fit together. You can’t do that if you pretend to know everything already because one book told you so.”"Making them fit together? MAKING THEM FIT TOGETHER?!” I’m afraid that that’s what scientist sometimes do when they support a theory/ hypothesis that they intend to verify at-all-costs. Not falsify. Nev-er. Any evidences of a competing theory/ hypotheses would end up in the circular file. No, objectivity is difficult to muster; impossible actually, if one has an ‘a prior’ belief (or a dedicated support of evo by natural causes). My partial response [post 61]:http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbi ologist/2009/08/how_creationism_and_othe r_idio.php“Intellect is something gained by accepting new facts as they become available and making them fit together. You can’t do that if you pretend to know everything already because one book told you so. “No, it appears that in this case, ‘intellect’ is to first accept evolutionary claims as ‘hard fact’, then try to make the data fit the naturalistic paradigm.But to qualify as objective science ‘If it don’t fit, you must acquit!’Johnnie Cochran was wrong about the gloves, but right in principle.

Nice try, RickK,I checked out the links “Evolution observed”. Evolutionists try to obfuscate the issue by equating natural selection with evolution. But, that is doing exactly what I said: making natural selection evidence of evolution by first assuming that evolution has occurred. No knowledgeable creationist denies that natural selection results in slightly different creatures but we’re still waiting to see a genuine, undisputed (even in the evolutionist community) example of a truly transitional fossil.But, in case you hadn’t noticed in your links, the microbes in your links were still microbes; the lizards were still lizards; the finches were still finches. When they can come up with a lizard sprouting wings, let me know.

Posted by Wayney | Report as abusive

Wayney did exactly as I predicted: “show me a lizard sprout wings”. In other words, Wayney doesn’t believe anything it proved unless we can WATCH it happen.So by Wayney’s logic:- no criminal can be convicted unless the judge and jury watch the crime;- mountains, diamonds, oil and many other natural phenomena were probably created by divine magic because that’s what you assume when you can’t WATCH something happen;- the island of Tuvalu probably doesn’t exist because Wayney has never actually been there to prove it.But Wayney goes one step further and openly lies when he says: “we’re still waiting to see a genuine, undisputed (even in the evolutionist community) example of a truly transitional fossil.”YOU may be waiting, Wayney, but there isn’t a paleontologist or rational, educated person who would agree with you.With this statement, Wayney puts himself firmly in the same camp as Ray Comfort and is “crocoduck” or Harun Yahya and his “half sparrow, half starfish.”Wayney demonstrates that he is the kind of reality-denialist so well described in this video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfo je7jVJpU&feature=PlayList&p=258CAE2F4546 AA95&index=8

Posted by RickK | Report as abusive

It is quite simple really.-Fossil forms.-Genetics.-Natural Selection.-Common DNA.-Branching development of organisms.Evolution is not an assumption. It is the logical conclusion on the facts that exists.If you are going to state that “complexity is proof of design” and use this assumption to colour all evidence you consider, then you need to have actual evidence that this is the case. Otherwise it is an illogical conclusion.The fact that ID is logically flawed is not my assessment. It is the objective assessment. Circular reasoning and arguments from ignorance are not things you can hide. Nor are they considered science.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arg ument_from_ignorancehttp://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Begging_the_questionYou have repeatedly stated that you are not out to prove that ID is true. And I believe you. Because the purpose of ID is not to prove itself, but to attack evolution. That is its goal, and has always been.The evidence for this is the fact that you refuse to prove a designer exists, or that complexity is actual proof of design, or tell us who designed the designer.Instead you keep attacking evolution’s evidence. Which as any logical person knows, has no actual bearing on whether ID is true. Leading a person to question why you waste the time doing so.The conclusion? Because your goal is not to prove ID as science. But to take part in ID’s attempts to wedge the issue and compromise scientific standards.

Posted by Hmmm | Report as abusive

Sick of Evolutionist misinformation?Want to understand the actual logical reasoning behind Creationism and Intelligent Design?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw lsqkAyxqY&feature=channelNSFW-Contains adult themes.]

Posted by Gad | Report as abusive

It’s very amusing to see a religious person try to use logic in an argument. You can’t do this!!Because every point of logic you attempt to use can SO easily be used to tear down the foundations of your own story..Stop pretending to have any respect for logic as a way of proving things! For you guys it’s just a blunt tool in your bag of tricks against sinners and infidels.

Posted by brian | Report as abusive

Leebowman.Logical fallacies are not something you can really disagree with. If they are there, they are there. And ID (as with all theist belief) are based on logical fallacy.You have now admitted that ID is a hypothesis. And I agree with you 100%. It IS a possibility, and it IS something which can be explored further.But as there is no positive evidence that complexity equals design, there is no reason for the scientific or educational community to give it the time of day. And until the ID supporters can find some positive evidence, this is how it will remain.Until then, the ID-ists will continue to spout dishonest comments such as:-No transitional fossils have been found.-No missing link has been found.-No evidence of branching development.-Irreducable complexity.But all ID arguments contain a common factor. They only work when you accept them at face value, and don’t bother to read the rebuttal. Because ID arguments are either based on faulty reasoning, omission of information or blatent falsehood.

Posted by Noah Idea | Report as abusive

Leebowman.You have claimed that you are not seeking to prove ID as a fact. And you have failed to provide any positive evidence for ID, choosing instead to attack evolution. And you have made statements which are knowingly or unintentionally incorrect such as “there has been no discovery of any transitional fossils”.The purpose of this debate has been whether ID should be legitimised as equal to evolution, and whether there is any scientific basis for doing so.So with that in mind, would you consider the following statement accurate?”The goal of Intelligent Design is not to prove itself true or logical as a scientific theory, but rather to attack evolutionary theory using arguments based on misinformation or faulty reasoning”

Posted by Hmmm | Report as abusive

One of my major problems with ID is that it has an inherently Judeo/Christian basis. You never hear about Buddhist or Hindus arguing that that their views of creation and the universe should be taught in science class as an alternative to evolution. This is probably one of the clearest signs that ID does not have a scientific basis, but is instead a philosophical world view.That being said, when viewed as a philosophical school of thought, ID has a lot going for it, such as an inherent ethical framework that implies both a duty towards environmental conservation and preserving human life, worth and dignity (Everything was created by some greater being so therefore everything and everyone has value). These are good things, and almost every major religion and school of thought include some element of this moral framework. However, these issues of ethics and philosophy are unrelated to scientific theory (they are related to the application of scientific theory, but again that’s ethics not science). This isn’t to say however that they are any less important than science, just that the two unrelated subjects, much like math and grammar. No one would say that math is more important than grammar or vice versa, then again I don’t see people insisting that plural nouns be taught as an alternative to multiplication tables.In my opinion the real problem is that the current public school curriculum does not include even an introductory philosophy/ethics course. This would be the perfect medium for presenting concepts such as intelligent design along side other philosophical theories and view points. The fact that young people are being taught history, social studies and the three RS, without even a glimpse of the ideas and concepts that are the foundation of human thought is kinda ridiculous.Creating a basic philosophy curriculum for public schools would allow children the opportunity to understand some of the wonderful ideas and viewpoints that are humanity’s philosophical legacy, which include among other things, the principles and ethics underlying the philosophy of intelligent design. Plus, it would do so in an environment completely separate from scientific theory, which is based upon a completely unrelated set of principles/goals (again math vs. grammar).I’d like to think that at their hearts, intelligent design proponents would be much more fulfilled with the opportunity to impart the ethical and philosophical values of their school of thought upon young People than with the somewhat petty goal of “disproving” evolution and scientific thought. Incorporating basic philosophical education into the public school curriculum would create a forum for teaching intelligent design as a philosophical theory (as opposed to a scientific theory, which one must accept that it is not) as well as other philosophical theories and schools of thought. This would be much more constructive and enriching to students than engaging in a pointless and somewhat silly debate.I really think that this is the best answer to this ridiculous argument, as it recognizes the value of both evolution as a scientific theory and Intelligent Design as a philosophical theory. Plus it allows Intelligent Design to be taught in schools in an appropriate setting along with other philosophical theories and viewpoints (and if you’ve ever sat in a philosophy class, you’d find that the basic ethical concepts and principles of different philosophies often overlap and reinforce each other). Most importantly, creating a basic philosophy curriculum would be enriching and valuable to students.If ID proponents really want to enrich students by expanding the scope of public education, they would accomplish a lot more by promoting the addition of a basic philosophical curriculum than by continuing to insist that intelligent design be taught in science class. Similarly, scientist should also rally around this cause as a way to finally end a petty squabble that has cost a lot of time and energy and has a lot more to do with politics than with science.To intelligent design proponents:On the one hand you have the opportunity to create an enriching “revolution” in education that allows you to present you views in an environment free of controversy that actually impacts student’s thoughts and viewpoints. On the other hand you continue a petty dispute that is little more that a “no it’s not!” argument.To evolutionary proponents:On the one hand you can help create a generation of people with a better understanding of ethics (including scientific ethics) while distinguishing between scientific theory and philosophical thought. On the other hand you can continue to have to deal with a distracting and incessant political concern that often distracts from real scientific discovery and ethical issues.

Posted by Tony Nguyen | Report as abusive

“The purpose of this debate has been whether ID should be legitimised as equal to evolution, and whether there is any scientific basis for doing so. So with that in mind, would you consider the following statement accurate?”"The goal of Intelligent Design is not to prove itself true or logical as a scientific theory, but rather to attack evolutionary theory using arguments based on misinformation or faulty reasoning’”No, of course not. “Attack evolutionary theory using arguments based on misinformation or faulty reasoning?” That is not only “not accurate”, but blatantly false.If you’ve read my comments, you must know that I support evolution, but not as currently stated. The data that it is based on, sometimes referred to as ‘facts’, is evidence of an evolving panorama in which multiple biologic forms (beetles alone, 350k species!) have befalled the landscape. No argument there, and no disagreement that it unfolded over vast time periods.As to the question, ” … should ID be legitimized as equal to evolution … ” I would rephrase it thusly: Should ID be considered as a ‘component’ of evolution? And the answer is yes. My purpose here is not to prove it, but to provide reasons why it is a logical premise, and thus to include it within NDE for further study.Virtually all of the args against its inclusion fall within the category of logical fallacies. Here are a few of the oft repeated ones:- It is not falsifiable. // Nothing of a historical nature is absolutely verifiable or falsifiable, including both ID and RM+NS as the means of speciation (excluding allopatric, sympatric, parapatric, or hybridization). Karl Popper admitted that falsifiability by empirical meas was not always possible. Implied falsification of ID would be demonstrations of speciation experimentally, which has failed numerous attempts. But even if it succeeded, intervention would still be a possibility in other speciation events.- It is not empirically demonstrable. // It actually is, by employing genetic engineering, an evolving science. The time will likely come when a radical new species can be fashioned by intelligent means, by in vitro alterations of an embryo’s coding to produce such.- Supernaturality (if it even exists) is not within the purview of science. // ID does not predict supernatural causation.- Evolution by RM+NS has been widely demonstrated. // It has not. Mayr and Dobzhansky essentially moved the goal posts by allowing sexual and geographical isolations that prevent breeding within a species to be classified as ‘new’ species. While this allowed evolutionists to declare that “numerous speciation events have been observed in a relatively short time”, it has added to the complexity of species classifications, and corrupted reality. In essence, many of so-called new species are merely micro evolutionary alterations.Much of the remaining objections to ID, are merely philosophical garbage, based on circular inductive reasoning. A few …- Bad design. An omniscient creator wouldn’t do it that way. // Mere conjecture. Optimal or sufficient isn’t necessarily ‘best’, but in most of the examples I’ve viewed, the design serves its purpose well. Remember folks, nothing (including my Edsel) is designed to be perfect, or to never break down.- Predator/ Prey, Parasite/ host, evil in the world. // Maybe life on earth was meant to be competitive, and with perils. The question of theodicy has many possibilities and implications, but does not rule out a designer or multiple designers.- “The designer would have to be more complex than [its designs]“, the God Delusion. / Easily refuted by simple deductive logic.- “Who designed the designer?” / As unanswerable as asking what lit off the Big Bang.To conclude, there ARE reams and reams of data to support evolution, but the falling point is where man’s intellect is the means of parsing it. An example: Micro evolution is observable by natural selection, lineages evolve and speciate, thus speciation is due to natural selection. One man proffered it (Darwin), science accepted it (the consensus view), end of story.I’m afraid you can’t escape reality by simply denying it. Based on today’s accumulated data, ID has essentially falsified natural causation as the means of bona fide speciation.

@ Tony Nguyen”One of my major problems with ID is that it has an inherently Judeo/Christian basis.”Actually, it has little support from fundamentalist Christians. Whether YEC or OEC, they tend to feel that it demeans God. Some have use the ID term in place of creationism to get around court decisions. In actuallity, they don’t see guided evolution as being in harmony with Biblical theology, and therefore oppose it. Muslims seem to embrace it more these days, possibly due to a more mechanistic view of creation. Although there ARE philosophical implications, these are not the basis of intelligent designYou have some good suggestions regarding US primary grade education. I would agree, and add human anatomy and physiology as well, since eight out of ten don’t know where their liver is, or how it functions. If they did, there’d be less drug and alcohol use. Maybe now, since health care is so expensive and its merits and methodologies becoming questionable, a better education in those areas would lessen the need for ‘big pharma’ and unnecessary surgery, a plus for society in my view. And yes, ID if valid does have implications of a purposeful existence (insects and rats included), more emphasis on cultural and moral reform just might follow.”To intelligent design proponents:On the one hand you have the opportunity to create an enriching “revolution” in education that allows you to present you views in an environment free of controversy that actually impacts student’s thoughts and viewpoints. On the other hand you continue a petty dispute that is little more that a “no it’s not!” argument.”The ‘revolution’ that follows ID validation will likely be a lessening of atheistic trends, with some converting to TE, some to organized religion. But the points that ID refutes, rather than petty, are fundamental to an understanding of how things came about, and thus far from trivial. ID’sts don’t argue for the sake of arguing, at least I don’t, since my only objective to remove some of what I view as dishonesty and thus a kind of ‘imposed’ belief in materialism, a subjective position. If this lowers the bar to some finding ‘faith’, so be it. That would be their choice.”To evolutionary proponents:On the one hand you can help create a generation of people with a better understanding of ethics (including scientific ethics) while distinguishing between scientific theory and philosophical thought.”Once again, I AM an evolutionary proponent, so I guess that places me (and most ID’ists) in both categories. Regarding ethics, that’s really an aside issue from a materialist world view, although some has used a corrupted view based on materialism to abuse societies. Materialists, which includes both soft and hard atheists as well as TE’s, are just as moral as any others, so I feel that that view is overblown. You conclude with:”On the other hand you can continue to have to deal with a distracting and incessant political concern that often distracts from real scientific discovery and ethical issues.”Yes, and I am with them as well, in keeping science and technology objective and deductive regarding the data, and making sure that religion never enters the science classroom. Except for a ‘chosen few’, design theorists are in agreement on that point.

Leebowman.I claimed that ID is based on misinformation and faulty reasoning. You claim that this is “blatently false”. Unfortunately, it is all too true.1. Your assertion that complexity equals design is baseless. There is no positive evidence that a designer exists, or that complexity can only exist by design. So such an assumption has no real relevence in science or evolution, until positive evidence of such is discovered.2. Long term evolution is testable. Over the last few decades, countless fossils and species have been discovered. Scientists made predictions that new species linking these fossils existed, predictions which have been confirmed by further fossil discoveries down the track. And through the genetic testing of species existing today, these predictions can be confirmed twice.3. Even if humans find the ability to make new species through experiments, this would not have any bearing on whether a designer was involved in the creation of life on this planet.4. The concept of a designer is simply the creationist god with a paper bag over it’s head. It contains the same amount of positive evidence as that supporting theism (ie. none at all). This is why they are treated as the same.5. You underestimate just how many fossils and species have been discovered. The major groups of links in the evolutionary chain have been discovered, and each is technically a transitional fossil between other species.6. Your default claim on any evidence is “it’s not macro-evolution, it’s micro-evolution”. You can choose to ignore the fact that feline, reptile and simian groups are branched into a variety of species. But just as a species is considered the transitional phase between two others, the micro-evolutionary alterations are the transitional phase between species. Given time and microevolution, it is logical to conclude that such changes will eventually cause enough genetic diversity to justify the arbitary designation of a new species.7. The question of who designed the designer is perfecly valid, because it points out the flaw in ID’s reasoning. However, the question IS unscientific. Because it assumes a designer exists, something which there is no positive evidence of in the first place.8. You state that ID has succeeded in falsifying evolution. Yet all of the evidence currently discovered by science either confirms or supports current evolutionary theory. You claimed yourself that you can’t escape reality by denying it. Yet you have just done so, by making claims about the evidence discovered which simply has no basis in reality.9. Each argument created by ID from “there has been no transitional fossils” to “complex organs are irreducable” to “evolution only means mutation” have been easily rebutted by the scientific community and the evidence which exists. These arguments have been proven to be false, misleading, or based on faulty reasoning. The mistake that ID supporters make is that they take Discovery Institute arguments at face value, and never bother to check the scientific counterargument.So in conclusion when I say that ID is based on misinformation, logical fallacy or dishonesty, it is not designed to be an insult to those that believe in it’s validity. It is simply a fact, which has been proven true.

Posted by Hmmm | Report as abusive

Why Intelligent Design fails:-It starts with a conclusion, based on no evidence, and then seeks to prove the conclusion true. And has failed to find any direct evidence proving it correct.-It operates on an argument from ignorence, using negative proof in lieu of actual proof.-It is not capable of being tested, nor does it have any ability to make testable predictions.-It implies the existance of the supernatural, which has no basis in scientific thought.-It implies that supernatural interference is needed, for events that can simply be explained by natural cause.-It’s chief promoter (the Discovery Institute) has been found to frequently participate in misinformation, quote mining, misquotation and deliberatly misleading arguments for why scientific evidence should be ignored.Why Evolution succeeds:-It considers the evidence, and reached a conclusion grounded on the positive evidence which was used to reach that conclusion.-It operates on the assumption that if any evidence contradicts part of evolutionary theory, the theory must be altered to comply with this new evidence.-It has made predictions on the existance of transitional fossils. Predictions which have been confirmed by the later discovery of many different transitional fossils, from a variety of evolutionary branches, even though according to ID logic none of those fossils should exist.-It’s information is published in peer reviewed scientific journals and the positive evidence for it’s conclusions are clearly set out.

Posted by Noah Idea | Report as abusive

LeeBowmanFurthermore, please look at the following. I hope you find it interesting. Hopefully it sums up what I have repeated often on this forum, and what you have difficulty understanding.In fact, I would recommend you watch all of the other connected clips. They pretty much deal with all the main issues of Creationism and ID-ism, and answer the questions you have asked (and we have repeatedly answered).In fact, I strongly encourage anyone looking at this debate (whether or not you support evolution) to watch the clips.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGm LDKQp_Qc&feature=PlayList&p=258CAE2F4546 AA95&index=13(This clip, and all Amon-Ra’s clips, may be considered Safe for Work)

Posted by Hmmm | Report as abusive

“1. Your assertion that complexity equals design is baseless.”Do you understand the difference between complexity (snowflake or fractal) and specified complexity (functional and organized complexity such as a visual system)? Or do you, like so many others, mix and match the two. Specified complexity utilizing co-dependent systems for primary function, metabolic replenishment, and repair systems are way too complex to fall into place by chance events, even if ‘selected’ by NS. The systems are co-dependent, and in most instances would have no function separately. Do you know what Müller cells (radial glial cells) are? Due to their specified dimensions, specified refractive index, and their specified location to align with photo receptors, they bear the hallmarks of design, as nothing of that precision would self develop without intelligent input.In the middle ear, loud sounds are mediated by muscles that contract to lessen the amplitude applied to the connecting bones, therefore avoiding damage that would otherwise occur at an early age. And not to mention that there is a lot more to the middle ear than hearing, i.e. vestibular functions for birds and mammals, and barring that, there could be no flight, and certainly no bipedal or quadrupedal motion (rolling on the floor but not laughing). Both linear and rotational motion sensing from utricle and otolithic sensors, that along with visual input, calculate both postural and motional functions, while serving to maintain visual fixation on objects as bodily movements occur. Think for a moment what’s involved in playing soccer, despite all the incumbent head bumps. And of course, all of these functions evolved via chance events, and progressively functioned in their intermediate stages, sine according to Hmmm, design is ruled out as improbable.”2. Long term evolution is testable. Over the last few decades, countless fossils and species have been discovered.”Why are you citing something we both agree on?”3. Even if humans find the ability to make new species through experiments, this would not have any bearing on whether a designer was involved in the creation of life on this planet.”Why then do I frequently hear the assertion that there is no proposed method of producing new species via intelligence? That is the method I propose, and it is empirically demonstrable.”4. The concept of a designer is simply the creationist god with a paper bag over it’s head.”Will the straw men setups and attacks never cease? Breathtaking inanity, to quote Judge Jones. That absurd argument has been demolished long age, but you guys still keep bringing it up.”5. You underestimate just how many fossils and species have been discovered.”And many are simply sub species and hybrids. By Mayr’s revised classification system, there are multitudes classified as ‘species’ that should not be. And as I’ve stated before, those variants are due to minor ‘diversity alterations’ and ‘adaptive traits’, an apparent designed-in function, and do not correlate with major species events. The preceding are my predictions, and time will tell regarding.”6. Given time and microevolution, it is logical to conclude that such changes will eventually cause enough genetic diversity to justify the arbitrary designation of a new species.”Micro events may contribute to a new species, but are insufficient to produce radical new functions (bird flight). Intermediates would never get off the ground, nor would they know to try.”7. The question of who designed the designer is perfectly valid, because it points out the flaw in ID’s reasoning.”Designers or no, it is still unanswerable as I have stated, and is as silly as the turtles-all-the-way-down syllogism. Why is it not only unanswerable but illogical? As far as we know, only bioforms need to be designed. A quark based designer may have always existed. IOW, don’t stoop to illogic to try and make a point.”8. You state that ID has succeeded in falsifying evolution. Yet all of the evidence currently discovered by science either confirms or supports current evolutionary theory.”It only supports phylogenetic progressions (morphologies and genetics), something ID’ists also accept. Where it fails is in its explanatory power, the mechanisms of speciation.”9. Each argument created by ID from “there has been no transitional fossils” to “complex organs are irreducible” to “evolution only means mutation” have been easily rebutted by the scientific community and the evidence which exists.”Another straw man, since only some ID’sts, and primarily YEC Creationists make that claim. Over ten years of blogging, I have never denied transitionals in toto. When the term is too loosely defined however, practically ‘every’ sub species is viewed as transitional! The key issue is of valid transitionals in areas where radical redesigns are requisite, i.e. land mammal to whales, fish to walking reptiles (Titaalik fins to fingers open to debate) and dinos to birds (dino feathers are not flight feathers). There is a growing number of ID’sts who accept ‘some’ transitionals, which would logically constitute an incremental design attempt. The evidence for design is that it has been incremental in some (or all) cases, rather than an instantaneous creation event.”The mistake that ID supporters make is that they take Discovery Institute arguments at face value, and never bother to check the scientific counterargument.”I do my own research.”So in conclusion when I say that ID is based on misinformation, logical fallacy or dishonesty, it is not designed to be an insult to those that believe in it’s validity. It is simply a fact, which has been proven true.”At one time, some of what you say was true, and even today, there are young earth creationists attempting to validate a number of misconceptions. The Old Testament is a historical document, with anecdotal tales, diet and social rules, and the creation account. I disagree with its literal translation in some areas, in particular those that fly in the face of reason and observable science. But science does not have the answers it thinks it has regarding origins. To validate Darwinian evolutionary theory, it often provides biased and distorted interpretations of the data, with a measure of simply ‘wishful thinking’. Natural explanations for the complexity and aesthetic features of the world remain a dream, even when viewed via present day analyses, and will likely remain so to some, until the next comet impact.Of all the science disciplines, zoology is the one most revealing of the wonder of life. And while biologic life is indeed the greatest show on earth, I would go one step further and call it theme-park earth, a place for bio adventures. As any zoologist knows, there’s not a single creature that does not partake of life’s journey, and with apparent purpose and meaning. If indeed, terra firma is a biotic workshop of sorts, then by extension it may have become a stage, with we as merely actors. Was Shakespeare jesting, or intuitive? I think the latter.Do not we put things together, then observe how they work? Do we not watch our children in a vicarious way? And do we not get off on sports, even if the outcome is bad, and I include serious injury and death on occasion. Evolution occurs, but it is an adaptive process, incorporated within the embryo, administered in part by HOX genes, and designed as an aid to species survival; nothing more. It’s rather easy to lump it into a stepwise process leading to radical innovation, and extend that illogic to all life forms. Why did fruit evolve? Because they had a desire to provide food for animals? Au contraire mon ami, they were needed (necessity), and somehow designed as the need progressed. But like all life forms, they were designed to meet a ‘specific’ need (specified / ordered complexity), then reproduce on their own. If they did it via random natural processes, and without phyla to consume them, they would have expended a huge amount of wasted effort!Then there’s embryogenesis, more complex than the life forms it produces. And as we all know, life just happened. But if you are an engineer, a surgeon or a zoologist, you ought know better.

Tony, Intelligent design IS taught in schools. It is as you said, the philosophical concept that an intelligent designer created life. THAT’S IT! One sentence, there is no more to teach…Anything other than that is religious education, such as creationism. Teaching creationism = teaching Christianity.If you want to teach different religions versions of creation, that would fall under the study of religion, theology.There has always been every opportunity both inside and outside schools to learn about religion.What is being demanded from the Christian fundamentalists is that religious material be forced into a science class.Preposterous! How would you like it if teachings on evolution were forced into church preaching.You know this could be great, we should make a deal to allow religion into the science classroom in exchange for allowing science in a church. I think I know who has more to lose from that trade.Alternative theories in churches!! Protect our children!

Posted by brian | Report as abusive

I almost think Intelligent Design SHOULD be taught in schools. If only so teenagers can be exposed to the hypothesis.With the intention that all the logical fallacies, bad reasoning, dishonesty, misinformation and poor arguments can all be pointed out in detail. Preventing those teenagers from being confused or tricked by those things.But at the same time, having it anywhere near a science class is always dangerous. Should one safely disarm pseudoscience before it causes harm? Or just take the safe route and simply treat it as irrelevent and not worthy of discussion?For safety and science’s sake, I suppose the latter is the better path. Those who fall for it in the first place would probably fail the classes anyway…

Posted by John | Report as abusive

No. RickK, I didn’t lie–I’m still waiting. And, I don’t care how many paleontologists or rational, educated persons disagree. Just reference the ‘undisputed transitional fossil’ and I will refer you to quotes by evolutionists who don’t agree.And,FYI. the dictionary definition of science is:the observation, identification,description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena. And please note, it says and, not or, theoretical explanation. You may ridicule my insistence on observation, if you wish, but observation is an integral part of real science.Your references to my “logic’ are irrevelent. Eyewitnesses are the most reliable evidence. No criminal is convicted purely on hearsay. Acceptable material evidence is what the jury can see.How do evolutionary “explanations” differ from “divine magic”? The idea that life originated from some chemical interactions eons ago sounds very much like ‘magic’ to me.If the island of Tuvalu exists, I accept it because SOMEONE has seen it. I don’t have to see it myself. But, can you refer me to anyone who has seen a dinosaur gradually turn into a bird? The fossils (claimed to be dinosaurs) that have been promoted as showing ‘primitive feathers’ have, upon further examination, been shown to be either true birds or frauds.I do not deny reality. I only reject philosophical. theoretical claims that profess to be science.

Posted by Wayney | Report as abusive

I would only allow creationism to be taught in schools if all creationist theories were given equal weight from all religions in the world.I would love to see little Johnny and Susan come home to their well to do bible thumper family about how they learned all about Indian creation myths and the Great Turtle or the Great Ear of Corn created the world, or some six armed chicka with 8 breasts.That would get those creationists to shut up in a heartbeat mark my words.

Posted by moose | Report as abusive

Wayney.-Transitional fossils-The argument that there are no transitional fossils is incorrect. Scientists have discovered many different transitional fossils, from a variety of branches.The only issue is that creationists declared that the fossil record was insufficient, and listed requirements for a “true” transitional fossil. Each time such a fossil was then found, they would then claim the fossil was “insufficient” and list new requirements.Now we have reached the point where creationists know they shouldn’t ask for certain qualities in a transitional fossil. Because these fossils have a habit of being found, forcing creationists to change their demands yet again.You underestimate just how many types of fossils have been discovered.-Observation-Your conclusion on observation is flawed. Scientific observation involves the observation of actual evidence. Not always the conclusion itself.For example the theory of the big bang is based on observation. The doppler effect indicates that the universe is moving apart. Which means logically, reversing the process leads to a singularity point.Atomic theory is based on observations of evidence and effects. Yet we have no way of directly observing the process. But we know the process must be correct, or else nuclear bombs would not explode, air molecules could not bond with water, and chemistry and physics would never work.Likewise with evolution. Unless you exist for thousands of years, you are unlikely to see even a fraction of the evolutionary process. Which is why science is instead concerned with the real physical evidence which exists, such as natural selection, genetics and modern biology.-What is logical and what is not-You claimed “How do evolutionary explanations differ from divine magic”Evolution takes all the concrete physical evidence which exists and then reaches a conclusion based on that evidence. At all times, it restricts itself to the physical evidence which exists and the natural laws of the universe.Evolution is science, because it is bound by the scientific method. It is capable of being tested by the evidence which exists. It can make predictions which can be verified by current or later evidence.Creationism and Intelligent Design is based on an assumption. It assumes that complexity is design, and assumes there is a designer. There is no positive scientific evidence that either assumption is correct.Creationism and Intelligent design cannot be tested on evidence, because it doesn’t rely on any evidence. If you are going to assume a designer exists without evidence, it doesn’t matter what actual evidence exists in the universe. Nor do these theisms make any predictions or have any utility in scientific thought.And while it almost goes without saying, I will say it anyway. What you believe to be true, or what you believe to be ridiculous, has no bearing on what is actually true.

Posted by Noah Idea | Report as abusive

Wayney,OK, so, how much nonsense did you just post? Let’s add it up, shall we?Nonsense #1: Forensic evidence (like DNA) doesn’t put people in jail, only eyewitnesses.You say a jury believes evidence it can see. I’m sorry, are fossils invisible?Wayney, I’ll bet you worship God with all your heart every Sunday. Tell me, what does He look like?Nonsense #2: Geology, astronomy, epidemiology and paleontology aren’t sciences because they don’t involve controlled experiments and only involve analyzing data after the fact.Have you tried that line on anyone from, let’s say, an oil company?Nonsense #3: The dinosaurs found with fossil imprint or chemical evidence of feathers are false or fakes.That is enormously ignorant. We’ve found evidence of feathers for 23 genera of dinosaurs. Did you ever bother to read something other than answersingenesis?Wayney – there was one fake – archaeoraptor – and it was paleontologists, not lying creationists, that uncovered the fake and announced it to the world. I know you can’t relate to such open honesty, but it does exist.Nonsense #4: There are no fossils of transitional species.We have quite nice examples of transitions between transitions between transitions between species after species. The “no transition fossils” statement, as AronRa’s video clearly shows, is a young earth creationist marketing slogan no different than Philip Morris executives saying “cigarettes are good for you.” If repeated enough, the gullible will believe it.As you say, logic is not relevant to you. Apparently, neither are evidence or intellectual integrity.Why are you so afraid of the thought that you might be just one more small part in a vast web of life stretching back billions of years?It does make me angry that people like you not only close your eyes tight to any evidence that might upset your 2000-year-old superstitions, but you also target America’s children to make them hate and fear science and discovery.In the long run, who does more damage to the viability of our country – the 9/11 terrorists, or people who convince our children to reject learning?

Posted by RickK | Report as abusive

Wayney, so for those exact same set of reasons you don’t believe in religion either??Don’t pretend to use logic as something you use to form your beliefs when you only use it SELECTIVELY to believe whatever you want.

Posted by brian | Report as abusive

Anybody ever heard of the Anthony Flew affair? He was a top devout academic atheist who has now turned agnostic due to what he sees from the intelligent design science paradigm.I would say this is a HIGH level endorsement for the scientific merits of ID.It’s hilarious to see evolutionists try every tactic they can think of to discredit ID. Absolutely hilarious!!! I would hate to try to get somewhere while swimming upstream against the river’s current!

Posted by Matthew | Report as abusive

Anthony Flew is not and has never been a Christian.This is an issue of teaching Christian creationism in a science classroom.Science and the philosophical theory of Intelligent Design are completely compatible. In fact science is in constant pursuit of evidence for intelligent design, unlike religion.

Posted by brian | Report as abusive

Noah idea, you say ” Evolution takes all the concrete evidence which exists and then reaches a conclusion based on that evidence.”Sure, and when Dr. Mary Sweitzer discovered red blood cells in fossil dinosaur bone she immediately concluded that dinosaur fossils are not 65,000,000 years old because red blood cells could not last 65,000,000 years, didn’t she? (Previous to this find, no scientist would have said blood cells could last that long.) And they reached the conclusion that dinosaurs have existed quite recently when they found still pliable tissue, didn’t they? And, what about the so called ‘living fossils’ which are unchanged from those “millions of years old fossils? Have evolutionists come up with an explanation of how evolution got stopped in it’s tracks for millions of years? Sorry, Noah idea, but the fact is that evolutionary scientists examine the evidence and reach conclusions which support their beliefs.RickK, Have fun setting up straw men and then knocking them down. I did not say that logic is irrelevant, I said YOUR REFERENCE to my logic was irrelevant.You say “We have quite nice examples of transition between transition between transition between species after species.” Have you heard of Dr. Colin Patterson, who is/was the senior paleontologist at the British museum of Natural History. He said,” Fossils may tell us many things but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else.”Your ‘examples” are really nothing more than speculation which itself is based on your settled belief that evolution occurred.

Posted by WayneY | Report as abusive

WayneDr. Mary Sweitzer did find soft tissue in that bone.But the tissue was still found inside a fossil that was 68 Million years old.Logically this must mean either:1. The tissue was fake (and not relevent), or2. The tissue is also 68 million years old, preserved by some unique process yet understood.That is not belief. It is logic. Taking the evidence and reaching the logical conclusion.Your assumption that the tissue must be more recent then the fossil it was found inside is baseless, and goes against logic. It certainly doesn’t prove the existance of a designer or creator.You also show an inability to understand basic terms such as “living fossil”.Evolution doesn’t mean that one species virtually turns into another. It means species today have common ancestors.In some rare cases, an ancestor species will continue to exist even after new species divert from the original species.In other cases, an ancestor species will spawn new species who out-compete the original. In those cases the original species may die out.And in rare cases, very old species will exist as they are now, virtually the same as they were millions of years ago. Because they possessed genetics which suited them and hence didn’t require much change as a species.Sorry Wayne, but the fact is that even as you try to attack evolution, you show you don’t even understand basic concepts about it.Instead of attacking evolution, why not try to show your evidence for the existance of a creator/god/designer?Oh, I forgot. You have no evidence. So all you can do is vainly try to pick holes in the piles of evidence for evolutionary theory.The truth? Nothing you say, nothing at all, can stand even a simple rebuttal. Because all of your arguments are based on faulty reasoning or bad logic.And there is no point debating with a person with faulty reasoning or logic.

Posted by Noah Idea | Report as abusive

Noah idea, You say “Evolution doesn’t mean that one species virtually turns into another. It means that species today have common ancestors.” I’m not sure what you imply by “virtually”. But evolution surely means one species eventually turns into another. Otherwise, how could discrete species have a common ancestor. Since you consider me so ignorant, please explain this to me.As for ‘living fossils’, I certainly understand that they are living animals, fish, insects, that are easily identified with fossils supposedly millions of years old. You say:”And in rare cases, very old species will exist as they are now, virtually the same as they were millions of years ago. Because they possessed genetics which suited them and hence didn’t require much change as a species.” How do you know that? Is that a scientific fact or an evolutionist assumption? You offer two “logical” possibilities. You ignore the third option: the fossil is NOT 65 million years old.You evidently are unaware of or unwilling to acknowledge the unreliability of radiometric dating. In 1990, Dr. August Long, professor of Geosciences at the University of Arizona, reported a bone fron an Allosaurus dinosaur was sent to his university for testing. It tested from 9,890-16000 years (not million years). So, where does the idea of 65 million years come from?Mt. Ngauruhoe in New Zealand erupted from May 1954 to March 1955. There were 17 distinct lava flows in 1954. Samples from those flows were sent to the Geochron Laboratories at Cambridge, Boston, Mass. They were tested by the K-Ar method. Rocks that were OBSERVED to have cooled from lave 25-50 years ago tested from <0.27 to 3,5 (+or -.2) million years. If the K-Ar method could be that far off from the KNOWN age, why should we trust the 65 million years?

Posted by Wayney | Report as abusive

Wayney I’d love to hear your theory on how things came about??? Please grace us with your genius on the issue and provide a counter theory, or are you just here to throw stones?

Posted by brian | Report as abusive

Brian, I don’t have any theories. There are only two possibilities to explain the existance of our world and the universe: evolution (without any help from any ‘god’, or special creation by the all powerful God of the Bible. If you know of a third possibility, I would love to be informed.I am a Christian who believes the Bible–including the Creation account in Genesis. But, the fact of creation is repeated and/or affirmed throughout the Bible. As I look at our world, I find it incredible that anyone should think it all came about by chance. Almost every day new scientific facts are uncovered that evolutionists simply cannot explain by trying to apply evolutionary theory.The website http://www.evolution-facts.com supplies thousands of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution. The logical conclusion is that if evolution is false, special creation must be true.So, Brian, I offer my faith in the dependability of the Biblical account coupled with the support of real scientific facts. The controversy is between my faith in God’s ability to accurately tell us what He did and how and your faith in evolution and the credibility of that theory.

Posted by Wayney | Report as abusive

oh….”there are only two possibilities to explain the existance of our world and the universe:-evolution (without any help from any ‘god’,-or special creation by the all powerful God of the Bible.If you know of a third possibility, I would love to be informed.”ahh… there’s this one theory I heard of.. and again this is just a possibility but… its called every other religion and philosophy in the world.I think you need to get out more.. look if you haven’t discovered that yet I don’t think what you call “real scientific facts” are going to help you.By the way, evolution is not a theory that attempts to explain our existence. It’s a theory that attempts to explain the development of living things over millions of years. You’re not very good at interpreting science are you..?Science does not claim that the world or anything for that matter came about by chance, that’s just what your church tells you.. Science is not even interested in chance, it is interested in cause and effect and does not presume to know the origin of the universe like Christianity does. Although it did discover we were actually living in a universe =) Unfortunately the church then had to again change it’s story..you say: “The website http://www.evolution-facts.com supplies thousands of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution. The logical conclusion is that if evolution is false, special creation must be true.”I’m sure I can guess what kind of anti-science religious site this is, but the fact is that you can all stop being so scared of science and stop attacking it because it does not conflict with intelligent design, unlike the church it makes no claims on the origins of creation.The only reason science is so desperately attacked by the Christian community is because true facts are devastating to the church which spreads untrue information. Most accounts in the bible and especially Genesis have been proven absolutely false by a wealth of evidence and information available to most in the developed world.Not as an attack on religion, but simply in doing the job of science, which is to discover facts, religion which needs to suppress facts in order to survive is naturally in danger of anyone who discovers the truth.One more thing, there is no evidence of the god your religion speaks of, NONE. So don’t speak of the importance of evidence and logic in forming your beliefs and making your decisions because it obviously comes a distant second to obligation.

Posted by brian | Report as abusive

WayneyYou evidently are unaware of or unwilling to acknowledge the principles behind the different forms of radiometric dating.Radiocarbon dating is quite accurate, except for fossils older then approx 60000 years. So trying to sneak a dinosaur bone into a lab will create a nonsense result.Potassium-Argon dating is quite accurate, except for rocks younger then a thousand years old. So trying to test month-old volcanic rock will likewise create a nonsense result.You are free to look this information up. It is easily accessible.I am surprised you didn’t know this already. I fear you may have been hoodwinked by the website you are relying on for your information. Their arguments are clearly inaccurate and dishonest.Either that, or you are being actively dishonest. But in your defence, there is no evidence this is the case.

Posted by Hmmm | Report as abusive

Wayney provides more creationist anti-evolution nonsense, no doubt lifted from the pages of answersingenesis:1) “There are only two possibilities to explain the existance of our world and the universe: evolution (without any help from any ‘god’, or special creation by the all powerful God of the Bible”Correct information: Evolutionary theory has NOTHING to do with the existence of our world or of the universe.2) “Almost every day new scientific facts are uncovered that evolutionists simply cannot explain by trying to apply evolutionary theory.”Correct information: There have been no facts to seriously naturalistic evolution of the species in the 150 years since the theory developed.3) “The website http://www.evolution-facts.com supplies thousands of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution.”Correct information: That website does nothing more than link to other advertising sites like shopping.com. *sigh* Come on, Wayney.4) “when Dr. Mary Sweitzer discovered red blood cells in fossil dinosaur bone she immediately concluded that dinosaur fossils are not 65,000,000 years old because red blood cells could not last 65,000,000 years, didn’t she? “Correct information: Dr. Mary Schweitzer’s research shows that it is just possible that organic soft tissue can, in rare cases, last much longer than we thought. It’s an amazing line of research.In addition, Dr. Mary Schweitzer is an Evangelical Christian who can believe in God without lying about science.Dr. Mary Schweitzer DESPISES creationists who use her findings to further their young Earth nonsense. She doesn’t believe lying about science is a particularly good example of Christianity. In one interview, after listening to a Christian creationist like Wayney, Dr. Schweitzer said “No wonder many of my colleagues are atheists.”5) “Your ‘examples” [of transitional fossils] are really nothing more than speculation which itself is based on your settled belief that evolution occurred.”Correct information: Natural evolution requires intermediate forms, creationism does not. Therefore all the intermediate forms (transitional fossils) we find are strong evidence for evolution.Wayney, you’re arguing for a Biblical creation and saying fossils aren’t evidence of evolution?? Please, tell us, where are fossils in the Bible? Where are dinosaurs in the Bible? Where in Genesis are Ediacaran fauna described? Why does a creator need to work through trial and error? Why does a creator need random mutation at all????Here’s an analogy of your logic:- We know people can walk.- We several signs of evidence that indicate people migrated from Alaska, down through North American and into South America.- But since we don’t have actual sightings of them walking, we can’t assume they walked – we can assume they were magically transported.Sorry, but honesty and logic are not dispensable, no matter how much you wish to defend your faith.Perhaps you should contact one of the 12,000 Christian clergy who signed the Clergy Letter petition saying:”We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.”

Posted by RickK | Report as abusive

Oh, and Wayney – here is a factual and fair account of the example you gave criticizing radiometric dating:http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4146

Posted by RickK | Report as abusive

Oh dear, where to start?Noah idea: Transitional fossils? Some early ones were the Piltdown man, the Nebraska man, the Neanderthals, ramapithecus, Lucy, plus many more, and most recently Ida. All these were hailed with “Aha, we’ve finally discovered the missing link”. But, after the initial media hoopla, the scientific community has quietly rejected them. Why doesn’t some famous evolutionist say “What’s the big deal? We’ve got millions of them”.”Unless you exist for thousands of years you are unlikely to see—” Stephen J.Gould came up with the conclusion that it would take more than many thousands of years. So, he adopted the “punctuated equilibrium” theory. The old concept was so slow you couldn’t see it; his new concept happened so fast you couldn’t see it. A sensible conclusion, don’t you think?Hmmm, radio carbon dating is accurate only for fossils younger than 60,000 years. Why? Because after that time the half-life of carbon is too low to be measured. So, a fossil with a measurable amount of carbon 14 must be younger than 60,000 years.So, a dinosaur fossil with measurable carbon 14 must be younger than 60,000 years. Please explain to me, what’s so sneaky about that?Your confidence in radiometric dating seem to be in that the many assumptions to make it work are all ‘carved-in-stone’ facts. Those assumptions seem to be a secret carefully hidden from the general public. But, unless they are all 100% correct, the ‘ages’ they come up with are seriously skewed.Brian, regarding that ‘third option’, please describe explicitly what “every other religion and philosophy in the world” supplies.RickK, In 150 years there have been no facts to seriously naturalistic (sic) evolution of species? Man, get your head out of the sand, The cell Darwin thought was “simple” has been discovered to be more complex that the most advanced modern factory. Evolutionists can come up with no credible way to explain it. That is only one example.I am impressed with your ‘objective’ comment about the http://www.evolution.facts.com website. You obviously did not open the ’3 volume encyclopedia’ link. Perhaps you just overlooked it, or maybe you thought that by your flippant dismissal of it you could discourage anyone else from going there.”Dr. Mary’s research shows –it’s possible–that organic tissue–can–last much longer than we thought.” Could it be possible that her “research” started with the “fact” that it was 60 million years old?I’ll be back on Mon., the 2nd. I’ll be in Phoenix over the weekend to attend the memorial service for my deceased brother.

Posted by Wayney | Report as abusive

Wayney,Regarding your brother, I’m sorry for your loss.Regarding Darwin thinking the cell was simplistic. Are you still arguing against pure Darwinism, or are you arguing against evolution? Darwin got a LOT of things wrong – so did Einstein, so did Newton. But Darwin’s fundamental concept is unchanged: species evolve, and mutation directed by natural selection is a major force in that evolution.Re your 3-volume encyclopedia, I really tried to find it on this web page and couldn’t. I found out how to improve my gas mileage, how to address depression, a NOVA special on human evolution (that’s pretty interesting, but it supports my case, not yours), and a free booklet on how to prove creation. Is that what you meant as your evidence? The free booklet from Good News Magazine?And I notice when discussing “transitional fossils” that you only focus on early hominids, and then you focus on the frauds like Piltdown and Nebraska (both of which were exposed by scientists, by the way).Why do you ignore transitionals like the all of those intermediate species between fish and amphibian, reptile and mammal, dinosaur and bird, land mammal to whale, etc.?And when discussing homind fossils, why do you ignore:Sahelanthropus tchadensisOrrorin tugenensisArdipithecus ramidusAustralopithecus anamensisKenyanthropus platyopsAustralopithecus africanusAustralopithecus garhiAustralopithecus aethiopicusAustralopithecus robustusAustralopithecus boiseiHomo habilisHomo georgicusHomo erectusHomo ergasterHomo antecessorHomo heidelbergensisHomo neanderthalensisHomo floresiensisHomo sapiens sapiensThere isn’t one missing link, there is a spectrum of transitional fossils, as evolution predicts.As for why Evangelical Christian Paleontologist Dr. Mary Schweitzer refutes YOUR interpretation of her work, why don’t you write to her and ask her? Please explain to her how her discovery proves that all the life represented by all the fossils in all the layers of the Earth, representing all the ages from the pre-Cambrian through the Pleistocene, how all that life came and went in a few thousand years.I’d be very interested in her response. I’m betting her response will be similar to Buzz Aldrin’s response to lunar landing deniers.I know none of this could ever convince you. I just want to ensure that anyone reading this will see how your evolution denial is easily and completely contradicted by the evidence.

Posted by RickK | Report as abusive

RickK,Thanks for the condolences. You must have blinked. The ’3 vol. encyclopedia’ link is immediately to the left of the picture of the iron hammerhead embedded in stone. Try again.

Posted by WayneY | Report as abusive

Wayney: Your original email referred to:http://www.evolution-facts.comThis is a nonsense site full of nothing but advertising links.Now you’re referring to:http://www.evolution.facts.comwhich is a hostname that doesn’t resolve for me.Perhaps we can shorten this by simply summarizing the single best piece of evidence presented in the 3-volume encyclopedia.

Posted by RickK | Report as abusive

wayney – “Brian, regarding that ‘third option’, please describe explicitly what “every other religion and philosophy in the world” supplies.”Oh dear… there are hundreds, if not thousands of different religious and philosophical versions of creation. I’m sorry but if you think there’s only 2 then I don’t think I can help you.. there’s no way I’m going to post every religion and philosophies’ version of creation for you to prove they are out there.Are you actually denying they are out there?For your information the christian version of creation is actually a minority opinion in the world, sorry to break the news to you..

Posted by brian | Report as abusive

And those links change to different links every time you load the page…Anyway I think the 3 most important illusions of the argument, in my opinion are:1) Evolution does not attempt to explain the origins of life. Although it explains evidence that is dangerous to the church because it DISPROVES the origins of Christianity.2) The church is not fighting for the acceptance of intelligent design. It is already an accepted concept that scientists are doing more research into than anyone else. The church is instead fighting for the acceptance of the Christian / Genesis version of creation. And trying their hardest to discredit the facts that disprove their version, or at least to confuse people on the issue.3) The Christian church and advocates of creationism are incorrectly and incoherently using the lack of scientific evidence for intelligent design to somehow prove creationism despite their own lack of evidence for intelligent design.

Posted by brian | Report as abusive

Sorry, fellows, I goofed. The correct address is http://www.evolution-facts.org, NOT .com. I checked out the .com site and you are right, RickK, in your evaluation of it. But, please go to the .org site and read the 3 vol. encyclopedia link. There are thousands of ‘best evidence(s) there.O.K., Brian, please tell me where I can get the info on those “hundreds, if not thousands” of other versions of creation. But, if what you say is correct, they are versions of CREATION, not any third alternative.You say that evolution does not attempt to explain the origins of life. Since when? Where did the ‘life began in some warm puddle/ocean’ story come from?FYI, the “Christian church” is not an organization with a unified opinion. Your comments about the “Church” are neither accurate nor relevant.

Posted by Wayney | Report as abusive

You can get them from the books that have been written about them (eg. The Koran, The Torah, Hindu scriptures, etc.. etc..), you can find most of them them online by searching the different religions of the world, or by approaching the people who teach these various beliefs, or in the places of worship or religious study. Finally you can consult a theologian.Were you really unaware of these options?They are all different versions of creation, yes that’s exactly what I’m saying.. you were saying there are only 2 different versions.The theory of evolution traces all forms of life back into the past yes, to their beginning on earth if it could, but unlike the church it makes no claims as to where the universe comes from or where life began.The theory that life originated from single celled organisms evolving into more complex forms still does not attempt to say where those organisms originated, nor is it a major scientifically accepted theory.Christians LOVE!!! to refer to this minor theory as – we evolved from ‘pond scum’ or ‘green slime’, thus that is what scientists are telling us we are. This is a complete distortion of the science and manipulation of the facts.I didn’t say the Christian church was an organization with a unified opinion. Neither is science.But the people I am speaking of ARE ALL christians and belong to a branch of the christian church.Would you indulge me my favorite question to ask a Christian..When you became a religion, the fundamental way you see the world around you, and the laws and morals that govern your life.. how many other religions did you study first before you made your choice??

Posted by brian | Report as abusive

Sorry typo, should read:When you became a CHRISTIAN, the fundamental way you see the world around you, and the laws and morals that govern your life.. how many other religions did you study first before you made your choice??

Posted by brian | Report as abusive

Brian, I did not say there were two VERSIONS; I said there were only two POSSIBILITIES, either special creation or evolution. From what you say, all the other religions have some kind of creation story. So, where or what is any third possibility?No, you didn’t SAY the church was an organization with a unified opinion, but you implied it with ” the church is fighting for the acceptance of the Christian/Genesis version of creation.” The Christians who are defending the Bible account of creation are a definite minority in the ‘Christian’ community. Others claim they believe the Bible, but in accepting evolution, they dishonor the Lord Jesus Christ who is declared, in the Bible, to have created all things.You say “(Evolution) makes no claims as to where the universe comes from or where life comes from.” No, the theory of evolution claims to say HOW the universe began (The Big Bang) and that life DID begin (but it can only spin a fantastic tale about how it began–a chemical reaction that resulted in the first living cell. Reference Stanley Miller’s experiment) That experiment supposedly duplicated conditions that made it possible. However, it didn’t come close. In the primordial world there were no sophisticated laboratories or intelligent minds to direct the process.I was born into a Christian home, was born again at a Christian school. I had not examined any other religion before that. However, since that time, I have become acquainted with the tenets of the major religions and their holy books and have found none that have the authenticity that the Bible has or provides the peace and joy that Jesus Christ gives. Have you given Him a chance in your life?

Posted by Wayney | Report as abusive

You said: “There are only two possibilities to explain the existance of our world and the universe:- evolution (without any help from any ‘god’,- or special creation BY THE ALL POWERFUL GOD OF THE BIBLE.If you know of a third possibility, I would love to be informed.”Don’t try to change what you said now it’s all here on record.I didn’t imply that the church was an organization with a unified opinion, I generalized certain things coming from the church and its followers which can easily be generalized. Never did I imply that every single person belonging to the church has the exact same opinion, the very idea of that is moronic…You say:”the theory of evolution claims to say HOW the universe began (The Big Bang)…”This is absolutely false.. they are two totally different theories. You really have no grip on the realities of science.Also smaller independent scientific theories on the origins of life such as the experiment you describe are just that, smaller independent theories with little acceptance. They are not at all representative of the scientific community though they do help us understand a little more about that branch of science.Finally about your choice of Christianity, so you made the greatest decision of your life WITHOUT first even studying the options??Well don’t feel bad, it’s a rigged question anyway because the fact is that you don’t LEARN religion, you are indoctrinated.. NO-ONE actually studies religions before they choose one.Personally I was born into a christian family but luckily they were very relaxed about it and they stopped forcing us to go to church at about age 12 thankfully. None of us are now religious.From what I saw being raised for a short time as a christian, in hindsight now equates to a form of child abuse and absolute cult indoctrination.You should never force your religious beliefs on innocent defenseless children, it should be illegal.

Posted by brian | Report as abusive

Brian, it is amusing how you try to dance around the issue. You are the one who tried to change what I said. Because I did not give an entire quote of what I said does not constitute an effort to “change what I said”.I don’t know where you are getting your information, but to say that the Big Bang is a totally different theory than the beginning of the universe, that it is an absolutely false statement that evolutionists promote the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe simply shows your ignorance of the history of evolutionists efforts to explain what we see without any help from God. If the Big Bang is not an effort to explain the beginning of the universe, then exactly what are the ‘Big Bangers’ trying to prove?You have my sympathy for your early experience with ‘Christianity’. I don’t blame you from turning away from what you perceive as ‘child abuse and cult indoctrination.’ If you would read the Bible for yourself with an open mind, you would see something entirely different from what you experienced.

Posted by Wayney | Report as abusive

Wayney…I don’t expect you to quote yourself, but the reason you’re changing what you said.. is because you completely changed what you said, and I quoted you to prove this.No where did I say that the big-bang was a totally different theory than the beginning of the universe.I said Evolution and the big bang are two totally different theories, because you said:”the theory of evolution claims to say HOW the universe began (The Big Bang)…”Which is absolutely false..You’ve really got no understanding of how science works do you?? I’d say that neglect of critical thinking are clearly affected your ability to analyze information, judging by this conversation so far..I have read the bible by the way, I told you I was raised a christian for about 12 years. It is the single most propaganda filled text I have ever read in my life to this day. It makes Nazi Germany propaganda look as innocent as a child.It reads like this: And so jesus, our lord and savior and son of god blessed he be, went for a walk to the park, in a manner of godliness because he is our lord and we shalt worship him forever, and in the park jesus our master lord and savior and son of god the almighty ruler of mankind found a man sitting under a tree. And jesus, our lord and savior son of god, divine and wise son of the almighty ruler of the heavens and the earth, spoke to the man, because he is our lord and we love him and will worship him and his father our god…….etc etc etc…

Posted by brian | Report as abusive

You stated in the article that evidence for evolution is verifiable and irrefutable. It isnt, there isnt a shred of evidence for the theory of evolution whatsoever. There is conjecture and assumption but no proof. There is quite a bit of science that disproves evolution. Now that is repeatable, verifiable science.

Posted by Matt | Report as abusive

Matt, since when did evidence ever matter to a Christian??I’m sure your crusade.. sorry ‘opinion’, will be held in high regard by intellectuals everywhere.

Posted by brian | Report as abusive

Some of the best evidence of evolution and survival of the fittest is played out right in front of our eyes in human history.Throughout human society the evolution of science has drastically altered certain countries and cultures ability to survive and dominate others.The US relies completely on scientific achievements to dominate the world militarily.Indeed if a creationist is looking for ‘missing links’ in evolutionary theory you need only look at religion.. It is literally the link between primitive man and modern man, that is why religious stories have gradually become less popular and influential as the science of discovery takes over.Science itself can easily be seen as an advantageous ‘adaptation’ to our surroundings on a conscious level, which offers the enormous advantage of physical knowledge of cause and effect and the world we live in.I don’t say this to insult anyone, there’s just no other way to say it.. religion may still be seen as an advantage in the ‘afterlife’, but it holds no patents on morality, and as long as it is combined with true moral values (belief in ourselves) science is an advantage in the real world.

Posted by brian | Report as abusive

O.K. Brian, I copied and will paste my original comment: Brian, I don’t have any theories. There are only two possibilities to explain the existance of our world and the universe: evolution (without any help from any ‘god’, or special creation by the all powerful God of the Bible.”You claimed I said “two versions”; I replied that I said “two possibilities. either special creation or evolution.” Please show where and what I “completely changed”.You persist in disavowing any connection between evolution and the “Big Bang.” That must surely be news to Isaac Azimov, Carl Sagan and other eminent scientists. In another post I will paste another comment from an evolutionist for you to argue with.

Posted by Wayney | Report as abusive

Brian, here is the quote from an evolutionist scientist:\”The standard Big Bang model does not give rise to lumpiness. That model assumes the universe started out as a globally smooth, homogeneous expanding gas. If you apply the laws of physics to this model, you get a universe that is uniform, a cosmic vastness of evenly distributed atoms with no organization of any kind. \’No galaxies, no stars, no planets, no nothing\’.\’ Needless to say, the night sky, dazzling in its lumps, clumps, and clusters, says otherwise.\”How then did the lumps get there? No one can say—at least not yet and perhaps not ever. The prerequisite for a cosmos with clusters of concentrated matter is inhomogeneity—some irregularity, some departure from uniformity, some wrinkle in the smoothness of space-time—around which matter, forged in the primordial furnace, could accrete.\”For now, some cosmologists all but ignore this most vexatious conundrum. They opt, instead, to take the inhomogeneity as given, as if some matrix of organization, some preexistent framework for clumping somehow leaked out of the primeval inferno into the newly evolving universe. With lumpiness in place, the laws of physics seem to work fine in explaining the evolution of the cosmos we\’ve come to know.\” —*Ben Pabusky, \”Why is the Cosmos Lumpy?\” Science 81, 2:96, June 1981.Please note, he said \”evolution of the cosmos\”. I\’m afraid your understanding of the theory of evolution is much too narrow, going along with the current efforts of evolutionists to restrict \’evolution\’ to merely changes that can be observed right now.Since the theory of evolution is an effort to explain every thing from the beginnings of the universe down to present day phenomena without any supernatural assistance, there is no way you can divorce evolution from the \’Big Bang\”.For all of you who have accessed the \’evolution-facts.org\’ website, wherever an evolutionist scientist is quoted, you will see an asterisk in front of his/her name.

Posted by Wayney | Report as abusive

1st post:”There are only two possibilities to explain the existance of our world and the universe: evolution (without any help from any ‘god’, or special creation by the all powerful God of the Bible.”changed post:”Brian, I did not say there were two VERSIONS; I said there were only two POSSIBILITIES, either special creation or evolution. From what you say, all the other religions have some kind of creation story. So, where or what is any third possibility?”You did not say special creation, you said:”special creation by the all powerful God of the Bible.”Then you tried to change it back to special creation in general, which is fine it means we’re getting somewhere but just admit it gracefully.Possibilities, versions… makes no difference to me what you call it, doesn’t change the point.Evolution is NOT a possibility for the origin of creation, neither does it pretend to be.You seem to be having REAL!!! trouble understanding this.The theory doesn’t even belong to the same branch of science as the ‘Big Bang’ theory.All scientists are ‘evolutionists’, I don’t think it’s a profession..You also need to understand there are different definitions to the word evolution. One is the theory of evolution in science dealing with living organisms, and another is a common way to describe the way in which something grows and changes, like the evolution from a child to a man, a pentium 133 to a pentium 3000, and as you said the evolution of physical matter in the cosmos after the big bang.If you want to learn more about REAL science join the scientific community and listen to the scientists and theories WE respect, not some crackpot website made by Christians to attack logic.

Posted by brian | Report as abusive

It should be made known that the ‘evolution-facts’, website you keep promoting on this thread is a religious site, not a scientific site.It has no basis in popular science, is not in any way endorsed or recognized by the scientific or intellectual community and has a strictly religious agenda.

Posted by brian | Report as abusive

Look I’m going to have to exit this debate wayney sorry, I just had a look at the website and it’s creators and although I had originally predicted it would be Christian propaganda of some sort I had no idea the extent of what I was dealing with here.The level of fanaticism and fraud that I uncovered in 10 minutes leaves me no option but to save my attention for a more constructive debate, it’s actually highly embarrassing to admit I’ve allowed myself to be drawn so far into this…

Posted by brian | Report as abusive

Brian,You are engaging in a tactic known as “elephant hurling”, making wild charges you cannot or will not document. You charge “fanaticism and fraud” but you cannot give one example. To say that evolution-facts.org is a religious site, not a scientific one shows you either have not really examined it or you are desperately trying to avoid the real science presented there.You are probably right that we should end this debate. I am trying to establish the truth but you seem fanatically committed to defending evolution, impervious to real scientific facts. It is obvious there can be no end to it.As to your charge that I tried to change my argument, What other “special creation” could there be but by the all powerful God? You seem to be grasping at straws to try to refute my argument. It isn’t working.

Posted by Wayney | Report as abusive

From your site:”The material for this site was taken from two books, compiled by free-lance Reporter Vance Ferrell.”Feel free to look him up anybody, and his co-conspirator Carl Baugh. Known fraudster and author of the ‘iron hammer’ on the homepage of your website.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car l_baugh

Posted by brian | Report as abusive

So, your logic is: If anyone can be proved wrong once, twice or more, everything he says can be rejected.The author shows many claims by evolutionists that go against modern scientific knowledge. He quotes many evolutionists who reject standard evolutionist dogma. The facts he highlights are still facts. The fact that he has been found wrong on some things does not justify pooh-poohing everything he says. If it did, I would be justified in rejecting carte blanche everything you say, or do you claim to never have been wrong in anything?As Matt has said, there in not one shred of evidence that PROVES that evolution occurred. Evolutionists INFER evolution from the evidence they cite but their inferences are built on the shaky foundation that evolution is a fact (even though it cannot be observed). The changes they cite (natural selection) have never been shown to produce one kind changing onto another. Darwin’s finches are still finches; peppered moths are still peppered moths; the coelacanth (living fossil?) supposedly millions of years old is still a coelacanth, unchanged. None of the claimed “transitional” fossils can be demonstrated to have evolved from the supposed previous animal. It is nothing but speculation, pure and simple.

Posted by Wayney | Report as abusive

I think there may be a difference between Sunni and Shiite on this. If you believe in 12 prophets starting with Adam it follows that he was a real person.It is in fact the Sunnah that encourages Moslems to seek knowledge.http://www.sunnah.org/sources/ hadith_utlub_ilm.htmA Sunni should be living according to the Sunnah.There were loads of faults in the account presented by AlJazeera.1) You can only make sense of Evolution by looking at a sequence of fossils. If we look at the Grand Canyon for example we have different times stratified and we can look at species chance in that sequence.2) In Evolution, and human Evolution is no exception to this, there are blind alleys, there are different species existing at the same time some of which survive and some that don’t. Not every species on the “human family tree” has survived to the present. Neanderthal man is a case in point.3) No mention is made of DNA.http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v 17/i1/DNA.asphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Chimpanzee_genome_projectThe human and chimp genomes are between 95 and 99% similar depending on how you count them. One interesting fact that may help to explain why there are no Neanderthal DNA around today is the fact that the Chimpanzee has one more chromosome. This is similar to the horse and the donkey. Hybrids are viable (the mule) but are not fertile.As for time-scales. The Qur’an talks about “days” which are in fact epochs of time. The Sun, Earth and planets arose from smoke (dukhan of dxn in the Buckwalter transliteration, details of this on my website). This can mean vapour. This is emphatically what happened 4.6 billion years ago. I see no problem.

… [Trackback]

[...] Informations on that Topic: blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/10/05/ facts-and-false-equivalence-reporting-on -evolution-disputes/ [...]