Evolution teaching site ops sued
p2p news / p2pnet: Educators running a University of California-Berkeley site meant to help teachers explain evolution are being sued by a California couple who say the web page "improperly strays into religion," says the Mercury News.
"Unfortunately, people have misconceptions about evolution," says the site here. "Some are simple misunderstandings; ideas that develop in the course of learning about evolution, possibly from school experiences and/or from the media.
"Other misconceptions may stem from purposeful attempts to interfere with the teaching of evolution.
"As teachers, it is our role to treat all student questions with respect and initially to accept each question as the reflection of a legitimate desire to learn. However, some questions may well be designed to disrupt the learning process. We need to deal with intentionally disruptive questions in ways that are a bit different from legitimate inquiry. And it is important that we learn to distinguish between the two."
With the blessing of US president George W. Bush, Creationist beliefs are being advocated for US schools, but Jeanne and Larry Caldwell says they’re suing because they, "object to the teaching of evolution as scientific fact," says the Mercury News, which states:
"Defendants include two top biologists from the UC Museum of Paleontology, which runs the Understanding Evolution Web site (http://evolution. berkeley.edu) and an official from the National Science Foundation, who is named because the foundation provided more than $400,000 in public funding for the site."
The suit, "specifically objects to portions of the Understanding Evolution Web site that deal with the interplay of science and religion," says the story. "For example, it challenges the site’s linking to doctrinal statements from a variety of religions to demonstrate that ‘most Christian and Jewish religious groups have no conflict with evolution’.
"That amounts to a government endorsement of certain religious groups over others, the suit contends, and is an effort ‘to modify the beliefs of public school science students so they will be more willing to accept evolutionary theory as true’."
Larry Caldwell, with two children in Roseville schools, "also has sued administrators in the Roseville Joint Union High School District in an evolution-related controversy," adds the story. "The suit stems from his efforts – which he says were frustrated by the district – to persuade the school board to give students material challenging Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution."
Also read:-
Mercury News – Evolution site under fire November 26, 2005
being advocated – Intelligent Design, September 25, 2005
November 28th, 2005 at 7:49 pm
“object to the teaching of evolution as scientific fact,”
at the risk of opening a can of worms, in an unbiased viewpoint, neither evolution or Creationism are scientific facts. They are BOTH scientific theorys. and both have scientific data that supports each of their views.
My daughter was recently in a play at her high school about the scopes monkey trial. seems like the penduilum has swung in the other extreme direction today. talking about theorys is not shoving anything down anyones throat. we all have FREE WILL which gives us the right to decide for ourselves what is truth or not. The secular viewpoint is that it’s rediculous to believe a supreme being magicly created all we know in the universe. and to Christains it’s just as absurd to believe that through billions of years we are the product of enzimes and proteins which happened to come together randomly at just the right time where we evolved from fish, reptiles and monkeys.
secular extremists are just as dangerous to society as religous extremists. The minute ideas, theorys and thought are banned from the public view (which is what is happening) freedom is lost.
November 28th, 2005 at 9:09 pm
Just to pick a nit: Creationism isn’t a scientific theory: it presents no falsifiable predictions. Rather, it’s a religious belief.
Moreover, whenever Creationism has its evidence challenged, the response is to dismiss the evidence. That’s not the hallmark of a scientific theory.
“Fact” and “theory” in scientific terms are not mutually exclusive, by the way. The idea that we’re all composed of atoms is a “theory”. It’s also a “fact”. And the evidence for evolution as a scientific theory, frankly, puts it on par with the theory that we’re all composed of atoms.
November 28th, 2005 at 9:20 pm
“Creationism isn’t a scientific theory: it presents no falsifiable predictions.”
Wrong. you haven’t done much studying on creationism.
“Moreover, whenever Creationism has its evidence challenged, the response is to dismiss the evidence. That’s not the hallmark of a scientific theory.”
this is also true of evolutionists. I’ve sat in discussions on evolution and they quickly rebutt and dismiss evidence that questions their theory’s. doesn’t sound like they are open minded about their scientific principles either.
“The idea that we’re all composed of atoms is a “theory”. It’s also a “fact”. And the evidence for evolution as a scientific theory, frankly, puts it on par with the theory that we’re all composed of atoms.”
Under that definition, so is creationism.
Evolution is a science AND a belief. you’ll find that those who stand by evolution are as rightously sure that they are right (though it’s a theory, not proven fact) as those in the religous community do in theirs. A fanatical belief in No God is as powerful and scientificly blinding as a fanatical belief in a God.
again I will repeat… WHEN IDEAS, THOUGHTS AND THEORYS ARE BLOCKED FROM PUBLIC VIEW OR DENIED ACCESS FROM THE MASSES IN ANY FORM (the nazis did it burning books) THEN LOSS OF FREEDOM IS NOT FAR BEHIND.
it happened during the inquisition by religious zelots. it’s happening in the mid east by fanatical Islamic zelots and it’s happening in America by fanatical secular zelots.
November 29th, 2005 at 2:04 am
Creationism is indeed a theory. It’s probably akin to the theory that the moon is made of cheese. It’s a theory with almost no evidence, but a falsifiable theory nevertheless.
Evolution is no more a fact than any theory can ever really be a fact. That atoms were the fundimental buliding blocks of matter was once thought to be a fact. Then quarks were discovered. Quarks, in their various strange colours and flavors, were next thought to be the building blocks upon which atoms and other matter is composed. Now quarks have been found to exhibit substructure. We shouldn’t fool ourselves that we have ever have the full picture of something. Nevertheless, what we do have is a very high likelihood that, although atoms are not the fundimental building blocks of matter, they the important building blocks which govern the properties of materials in everyday situations.
It is true that strong scientific beliefs can stiffle creativity, but then science is less of an art than religion, so you (usually) don’t see as much artistic license applied to scientific thinking.
Concepts such as creationism should not be blocked from the public. But such ideas should not be taught without a measure of balance. For instance, I’d say for every 50 professional scientists beilieve in creationism and 5000 believe in evolution. Teach this statistic to students and let them decide whom that think is deluding themselves. One might even advocate teach courses with such a weighting of time. 1 hour creationism per 100 of evolution but perhaps that is a little too extreme when the fraction of the generally uniformed general public believing in creation is much higher.
As any reasonable theorist knows, there is always a way to change your theory to meet the observations. I expect over the next few years creationism will dodge many bullets by making minor adjustments.
I for one would like to be holding the gun on this one though.
November 29th, 2005 at 2:32 am
“Creationism isn’t a scientific theory: it presents no falsifiable predictions.”
Wrong. you haven’t done much studying on creationism.
—–
If you’d care to enlighten us, then, please provide the falsifiable predictions you assert Creationism makes.
—–
“Moreover, whenever Creationism has its evidence challenged, the response is to dismiss the evidence. That’s not the hallmark of a scientific theory.”
this is also true of evolutionists.
—–
No, it’s not. Evolutionary biology is based upon decades of evidence, the vast majority of which fits the theory and its predictions. When confronted by contrary evidence (not bogus assertions — they’re not the same thing, you know), and if the evidence stood up to scrutiny, the theory (like all scientific theories) was modified.
November 29th, 2005 at 2:41 am
You have no idea what you’re talking about. evolution IS a theory as well. I’m speaking with no bias. you’re against looking at all evidence simply because you are incredibly biased against religion. Creation theory has many scientific facts supporting it and it takes hours to present it’s case. Evolution has many scientific facts supporting it and it also takes hours to discuss. The reason you make the rediculous assertion that it’s some sort of mumbo jumbo tells me two things..
1) you’re extremely closed minded
2) you have no ideas what the creation theory is.
in a nutshell that’s it. let me know when your next book burning party is. sieg heil.
November 29th, 2005 at 4:01 am
I’ve got a much better idea.
Why don’t we ban stupid lawsuits?
Oh yeah that’s right, the sue em all campaign is made up of stupid lawsuits isn’t it? Guess that’s never gonna happen then.
November 29th, 2005 at 5:34 am
seems to me, another MORONIC bunch of people, want to get rich by sueing someone for no real reason…
November 29th, 2005 at 6:38 am
Moronic IDIOMATIC DOGMATIC bunch of folks stuck in the DARK AGES… It is so SAD.
At first, in this day and age, when we SHOULD know better, I didn’t think it possible for a large group of society to become (and stay) SO IGNORANT… Now, my worst fears are realized —– The Vast Majority of Americans have bcome slaves to Stupidity. Stupidity!
Man! What a bunch of desperados would do to ‘protect’ their territory! I fear for evolution, since these people are going to have a bunch of really screwed up offspring. Let’s just hope they don’t “screw” (i.e. intercourse) each other (that is inbreeding)….
………… ARRRGGGHHHH Depressing
November 29th, 2005 at 6:45 am
I’ve been noticing this one websites and blogs,….
A few years ago (5 or so) most people were wary about this wave of IGNORANCE hitting us. We would correctly point out the errors of these fanatics and go on a merry way.
A year or two ago, it started getting more intense. These idiotics would ‘carefully’ and ‘casually’ sneak into blogs and chats, slipping some DOGMA and SUPERSTITION here and there — with most people not noticing or dismissing it as noise.
Now, it seems there are more Idiots than Educated people —- Even on P2P we get these idiots talking about “god” and “creationism” like it is fact and reality. Do they even know what they are talking about (this is coming from someone with DEEP religious background in NUMEROUS religions, including Christianity/Muslim/Judea, Buddhism, Taoism, Spiritualism, Hindu, whatnot — let’s just say some PREISTS, MONKS, GURUS would consider me among them…cheers).
WAKE UP ALREADY!!! Live life, don’t pretend to live life… Life is too short to waste. Spend time with your family and friends, because you don’t know how much time you have left!
November 29th, 2005 at 9:55 am
It’s a nice theory, but it has no actual scientific basis.
If other fields of science used your concept of what a theory is…well they use to, but then some guy came along and said the world was round and he had facts to back it up.
If you ask around, you’ll probably find that most people don’t really care if you believe in God or not. What they do care about is people trying to bend reality to suit a situation you’d like to be true.
Religion is about the message – it’s an important one and people should pay more attention to it. The message doesn’t need to be corrupted to make more people believe in it.
November 29th, 2005 at 3:34 pm
As I noted above, the status of “evolution” as a theory is not in dispute, nor is whether or not that status means it’s less “legitimate” — it doesn’t. What’s in dispute is whether or not Creationism can be considered a scientific theory. I asked you to back up your assertions on this, and you haven’t done so.
And for the record, I have no bias against religion — I happen to be rather religious. My beliefs, however, don’t include Creationism, and I’m rather put off by the fact that you seem to feel all religious beliefs must include Creationism to be legitimate. Speaking of closed minded…
November 29th, 2005 at 4:15 pm
I don’t know if creationism or evolution is right or wrong. there may be elements of truth to both. why people are afraid of different ideas I’ll never know. christainphobia runs rampant. to my estemed and learnered friend who claims to be christain. learn about the science of creationism as ferverntly as you seem to know evolution. not because it’s right, but for the knowlege. you can’t debate against something until you know what you’re talking about. Here’s a hint… NO creationists ever claim that God waved his arm and “Poof!!” the universe appeared. If you’re a believer in God and you refuse to acknowedge a supreme being having a hand in the origion of the universe you’re either a hypocryte or just paying lip service to your faith. If you’re not a believer then the debate is a viable one.
BTW Darwin himself in his later years said that evolution is wrong. he didn’t use science to determine it. rather science embraced the theory and went out and tried to find proof to support it. they had a closed mind from the begining. this is fact.
November 29th, 2005 at 4:43 pm
What idiots, what noise? Please give exmples!!!
November 29th, 2005 at 4:47 pm
“Moreover, whenever Creationism has its evidence challenged, the response is to dismiss the evidence.” I have seen the same with evolution evidence as well. Why do evolutionists either ignore evidence that supports creationist theory or bury it?
November 29th, 2005 at 5:13 pm
I stongly believe that Evolutionism is as strong as a religion as Chridstianity, Judaism, Shinto, Islam or any of the other major religions.
I have seen scientific evidence supporting both creationism and evolutionism. I have seen evolutionists rabidly oppose those who have differing opinions just as I have seen Christians do the same. I am a Bible believer myself, and yet I can acknowlege the immense damage the Christian Church has caused to the acceptance of the Bible. I come from a prespective of reading the Bible for myself before being under the influence of religious leaders, and I have a much different view of what the Bible says than what they do. In my humble opinion, both sides are wrong. Why not show children both and let them come to their own decision.
November 29th, 2005 at 5:16 pm
“But such ideas should not be taught without a measure of balance. For instance, I’d say for every 50 professional scientists beilieve in creationism and 5000 believe in evolution. Teach this statistic to students and let them decide whom that think is deluding themselves. One might even advocate teach courses with such a weighting of time. 1 hour creationism per 100 of evolution but perhaps that is a little too extreme when the fraction of the generally uniformed general public believing in creation is much higher. ”
There was a time when there was a hundred to one people believing the worls was flat. Just because most people believed it does not make it true. Give both sides equal time. It might promote tolerance on every side.
November 29th, 2005 at 5:23 pm
You make my point exactly whenever I asserted that evolutionism is a religion in other posts. Creatism is a theory that can she shown to have evidence in the histories of the world. Evidence of ancient Israelite people’s can be shown to occur exactly as the Bible predicted. Much evidence can be shown that vindicate what the Bible says to be true. Think about this: Why are white people in America called, “caucasians?”
November 29th, 2005 at 6:05 pm
“They are BOTH scientific theorys. and both have scientific data that supports each of their views.”
This is, at best, a misstatement. Let’s simply say that creationism is an idea. A religious idea. I haven’t said whether it is a good idea, or a bad idea, just an idea.
One of the hallmarks of a theory is that, using it you can generate falsifiable predictions.
Please list specific predictions generated by the creationism idea, and list the experiments which validate them.
Read this – http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html#Heading6.
Good. Now read it again.
November 29th, 2005 at 6:29 pm
“BTW Darwin himself in his later years said that evolution is wrong. he didn’t use science to determine it. rather science embraced the theory and went out and tried to find proof to support it. they had a closed mind from the begining. this is fact.”
Untrue. There were certain facets of the theory that troubled Darwin, but he never said it was wrong. In fact the theory of evolution was a collaborative effort. Alfred Wallace wrote a paper outlining the theory and asked Darwin his opinion. Darwin replied to his friend that he guessed he need to get to work on his own paper. Instead of writing a huge manuscript, Darwin instead wrote “On the Origin of Species” and tried to get Wallace’s name included. Walllace wasn’t a recognized name in the scientific circles of the day.
In later days, Wallace had emotional and financial problems. Darwin on several occasions wrote letters worried that Wallace’s supernatural ideas had no place in the theory.
November 29th, 2005 at 6:40 pm
> I am a Bible believer myself…
Now the book of Mormon, or should i say morons, that’s a bizarre one.
New or old testiment. I find the stories in the old one so much more fun than the relentless repartition in the new one
It is the theory of evolution, not evolutionism. It’s not a religion and indeed there are many scientists that believe neither this nor creationism.
The children will come to a decision, but unfortunately it will be tainted by their parents beliefs and since a large fraction of people in the US believe in some kind of creator they will too (sigh). Over time things will change, but new ideas take years to gain true prominance. In this case it a couple hundreds of years vs a couple of thousand. Here’s hopeing.
November 29th, 2005 at 6:46 pm
I agree with a lot of evolution but in the proper contex.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/16034.htm
I’m done now. moving on.
November 29th, 2005 at 6:56 pm
>Just because most people believed it does not make it true.
Very true.
> Give both sides equal time.
The problem here is that you are saying give fifty percent of the time to people who essentially “believe” the world is flat. Do you really think that is a good idea?
Science isn’t supposed to be about belief it is supposed to be about fact or at the very least probability. Belief doesn’t have a probabilty associated with it and to be quite frank with you the average Joe in the just doesn’t understand even basic statistical analysis. People can and will believe what they want but I would like them to understand the physical universe is not based on what they believe and it isn’t going to change based on a majority opinion.
If you want to teach theology in class then you are welcome to try pushing for that but leave the teaching of science to people with some understanding of it.
November 29th, 2005 at 7:10 pm
> evolutionism is a religion
Yeah, why don’t you start recruiting scientists and see how many people you get to join. Unfortunately the IRS probably wont give you a brake on the tax anymore though.
People might appear religious in their beliefs of evolution but it is not a religion. Unfortunately the people who act as if it is one are generally clueless and are not helping to explain it to the creationist folks.
> Why are white people in America called, “caucasians?”
My understanding of the origins of racial stereo types isn’t great, but really, who cares. They could all be called pinkskins and it wouldn’t make a bit of difference to the amount of melonin in their skin and the underlying genes responsible for it.
November 29th, 2005 at 7:23 pm
Nice piece of flame bait Mr Troll.
November 29th, 2005 at 8:13 pm
What is wrong with parents influencing children to believe in one theory over another? If the people are taught that there is no god, then the state becomes the ultimate authority. I guess you would rather have the state raise kids rather than parents then, since you say that parents taint kids. We have all seen what happens when the state assumes the role of ultimate authority. More people have been killed under the authority of atheistic regimes than under religious regimes.
Mao Tse-tung regime is responsible for the deaths over 77 million people. Hitler’s regime was basically atheistic. It worshipped the power of the ancient “Aryans.” Over 21 million people were killed by that regime. The Soviet Union was also atheistic. countless numbers were also murdered by the government there. We must not forget the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Mass genocide by an atheistic government killed over 1.2 million.
BTW I believe in both “Testaments” of the Bible. Much of what you probably believe is magic is Hebrew metaphor. BTW I believe in both “Testaments” of the Bible. I still stick to the fact that evolutionism (the fanatic belief in the theory of evolution as the source of life) IS a religion. Some people call it Darwinism.
I believe in evolution to some extent, however, I don’t believe that animals or plants for that matter can change into other species. I believe that animals and plants reproduce kind after kind. I do believe that certain genes that are passed down to offspring that make them better suited for life in certain eviroments. However, I do not believe that apes can turn into man even after a hundred million years of reproduction.
My offering of scientific evidence is the fact that the internal organs of swine are more structurely similar to that of humans than are the organs of monkeys. If man came from the ape, then apes would have tissues more similar to that of man. I can go on and on about evidence supporting the theory of creationism, or just plain creationism if you prefer.
November 29th, 2005 at 8:34 pm
I do have understanding of science. I am an engineer and won many science awards in school. I am not stating that 50% of teaching time should be given to flat earth believers. That the Earth is NOT flat is a PROVEN FACT. Evolution as the beginning of life IS NOT PROVEN FACT.
I will agree with you that the average joe does not understand the basics of statistical analysis. However, there are also scientific evidence that lend support to the theory of intelligent design. “Recent” scientific discoveries about how the universe is expanding was mentioned in the Bible thousands of years ago. It is also mentioned in the Qu’ran. There is also overwhelming evidence of the massive flood talked about in the Bible. In the area whhere I live there are petrified trees completely buried by sand which is under about 200 feeet of seawater. Also evolutionism teaches that man comes from an ape or similar lineage, yet a pig is much more internally similar to a man than any ape.
I’m not advocating that the Bible, Qu’ran, mantras, or any specific religion be taught over any other, but I am advocating presenting some of these documents as possible information from a creator. I also point out that there are even some scientists who believe that we were created by beings from other worlds. I do not support the hiding of evidence when it is done by Chrisitians, Jews, Muslims, or even evolutionists. I support the equal examination of all scientific possibilities including the Supreme Being. Not teaching other scientific theories of how we got here as well as the theory of evolution is simply being closed minded and not examining all of the evidence.
November 29th, 2005 at 9:16 pm
Theory: An intelligent Creator has designed all life and has made man to govern it.
Experiment 1: Constitutional government set up by Christians and Deists that is based on belief in “God.”
A government was set up that somewhat followed the precepts contained within the Bible. The country under which that government was set up flourished and became the most powerful and prosperous that the world has ever know. Once that same country and its government discounted the Biblical premis on which it was founded, is has steadily declined and will continue to steadily decline into a third rate bannana republic. In the Bible, it says that when the people reject Yahweh’s law, the country will be invaded; the servants will become masters over the people. Animals will more and more attack humans; Famine and disease will ravage the land. Since America has rejected the laws of the Creator, these things are happening in this country as it has happened in every other (Isrealite descended) country once the law of Yahweh has been rejected.
Experiment 2:
I have followed the Biblical principle of land sabbaths and other Biblical principles related to land care. Output has more than doubled.
Experiment 3:
I have followed the Biblical principle of not giving and /or accepting usury unless absolutely necessary. I am virtually debt free and I have nearly everything I want. I.E. a nice home on over 30 acres of land in Florida (yes, recently purchased).
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
When a country follows specific teachings listed in a book purported to be written by god-given instruction. Things go well. Then the teachings are rejected, calamity soon ensues
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
A Creator has designed the universe and all life within. He has given man charge of life in order to nurture it. He has also given man a manual on how to run things. When man follows the manual, things run smoothly, otherwise calamity follows.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
The kingdom of David and Soloman many centuries ago also followed the teachings contained in a book called the Bible. That (Israelite) nation became the most powerful in the world at the time. Its alphabet is known today as the Phoenician alphabet and is also called the phonetic alphabet. The nation went into decine once the people started rejectiong the teaching contained in the book called the Bible.
The same thing has happened in many other (Israelite) kingdoms
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
These tests were performed by many different kings and people and have yielded the same results.
Please present your experiments that validate that life spawned spontaneously from the mixture of chemicals under the right conditions. Please produce experiments that detail that man has come from mokeys, apes, or a common ancestor. Please explain why the internal structure of pigs is more similar to man when they are supposedly less related.
November 29th, 2005 at 9:24 pm
The reason they are suing is because they don’t want other ideas forced on their kids without showing alternative theories. Rather than sue, it would be better for those parents to teach their own children.
The teaching of evolution as the source of life and not showing intelligent design is like presiding over court and allowing only one side of the dispute to speak or present evidence. That would be obsurd. But then that is what happens in many court rooms in this day and time.
Just because someone believes in Creation theory does not make them a backward moron. Blind faith in any theory including the Bible and or evolution as the source of life is what makes people backwards morons.
November 29th, 2005 at 10:06 pm
I am NOT a Christian, but I am a Bible believer. Once a person disregards what church leaders say and research the Bible for him or herself and spend years studying it, one will become very wise and understanding. Reading the Bible and comparing it to events in history sure puts a lot of things into context and solves a lot of mysteries.
There is evidence that this country was visited and colonized by ancient Israelites (No, I do not believe in the “Book of Mormon”) as well as other races thousands of years before Columbus. Ancient Hebrew script is carved in many different places. Many “Native Americans” celebrate festivals very similar to the ones celebrated in ancient Irael.
There is evidence that an acient form of Hebrew is the original language spoken by the inhabitants of this world. Hebrew lettering (especially the proto-caananite form) represent both individual words as well as individual sounds. Why do babies alway say, “ma ma” when refering to woman and not “dada” regarless of the language spoken in the home?
I have a scientific mind and still believe in intelligent design. I used to be a believer in evolution as the source of life until I started reading the Bible and seeing evidence of its truth. I also have seen much evidence contradicting the theory that life originated via evolution.
I do have to say though that the atheists’ best weapon today are the organized denominational churches. These churches are the ones that continue to spread falsehoods that they know are lies. When these churches forsake the traditions of man and start teaching directly from the Bible, atheism will have a very hard time.
Parents are also the atheists next best weapon. How can a child believe what their parents say about “God” when they find out that their parents lied to them about the Existence of “Santa Claus” and his magic abilities. The same goes for the “Easter Bunny.” In fact, where does the Bible command us to celebrate either Christmas or Easter? It does not!!! In fact the Good Friday death – Easter Sunday ressurection of Messiah CONTRADICTS what the Bible says!!!
Christmas was originally a pagan festival celebrating the rebirth of the sUn.
I do admit that Christianphobia run rampant in this country. That is because IMHO churches have spun the plan of salvation and the Creator’s teaching into a giant fairy tale. What adult in his or her right mind would not be embarrassed to admit that he or she believes in the Tooth Fairy? Any adult who still believes in the Tooth Fairy is very likely to be ridiculed by others. The churches which should be teaching the Bible and the correct holy days to celebrate have instead turned the teachings of the Bible into a tale much like that of the tooth fairy. It is no wonder why many think that Bible belief reeks of comething from the “Middle Ages.” Unbiblical church teachings have confused the hell out of million and millions.
I have also heard stories that both confirm and refute Darwin’s renouncing of evolution theory. Some parts of evolution can be proven, and I consider those parts fact. However, the proven parts of evolution (Natural selection) do not contradict the Bible.
I am not embarrassed to say that I am a Bible believer, because I base my belief on facts and not confusing church dogmas. However, when I mention the possibility of the truthfulness of the Bible, I do expect to have to weather at least 5 different people who try everything that they can to prove me wrong or attack my belief system. Most of those attacking me do not even understand basic Biblical concepts. I wouls say that most atheists wish that Bible believers would disapear off the face of the earth. I know that many times, they get angry once I am able to reasonably answer questions that are meant soly to destroy or debunk the Bible. I love to debate them when I have time to sit down and present evidence and answers for them to study.
November 29th, 2005 at 10:13 pm
“Yeah, why don’t you start recruiting scientists and see how many people you get to join.”
Most have already joined because of their fervent belief. Their congregations are their labs and school classrooms as well as many other places. The religion of evolution is subsidized within the schools.
Let me answer you then. When the Israelites broke free of Assyrian rule and regrouped, they later migrated through an area between the Black and Caspian seas. After passing through this area, some migrated east while most migrated West. This area is also known as the Caucases. These migrating Isrealites became know as the Goths, Vistagoths, Saxons as well as other names.
November 29th, 2005 at 10:20 pm
isn’t it incredible the the mere mention of God or anything that can be remotely linked to a supreme being suddenly gets lashed at with hateful venium.
All I ever said in my first response was that both theories need to be placed side by side and studied without fear and let those who read or hear it decide for themselves. I never promoted religion or preached. I just expressed an opened minded attitude toward all ideas.
secular extremists full of christainphobia are afraid and try to label anything (that can link to a supreme being) in quick soundbites. when the name calling starts then we know the debate has ended.
November 29th, 2005 at 10:23 pm
if this article were about Islam or Judiasm we’d probably have about five posts.
November 30th, 2005 at 3:11 am
> More people have been killed under the authority of atheistic regimes than under religious regimes.
Now Mao was hardly a scientist was he and Hitler may well have been a Christian as you profess to be http://www.remember.org/6/hitler-and-religion.html. He may have also have been an atheist or something else. Just look at the people he was out to exterminate. As regards the state, it’s hardly atheist,
look at who the president is darwin’s sake.
None of this has really got anything to do with evolution one way or the other.
>I believe in evolution to some extent,…
>I believe that animals and plants reproduce kind after kind.
To what extent do you believe it then? Unfortunately your beliefs that things don’t change is founded on even fewer facts than your religion.
Look around you, technology, people, the Earth, the Universe is all changing at quite some hectic pace.
>However, I do not believe that apes can turn into man even after a hundred million years of reproduction.
And how old do you beileve the Earth is 4000 years? You probably have no concept of that kind of time (it’s hard for anyone to comprehend). We are not talking about your geat-great-uncle joe here. Just try to think how many generations you are talk about in that timespan (millions). Many of the elements from which your body is composed decay on much shorter timescales than that.
Oh btw you say you believe in both doctines, then shall I my other cheek or take an eye for an eye.
November 30th, 2005 at 3:17 am
“Let me answer you then. When the Israelites broke free of Assyrian rule and regrouped, they later migrated through an area between the Black and Caspian seas. After passing through this area, some migrated east while most migrated West. This area is also known as the Caucases. These migrating Isrealites became know as the Goths, Vistagoths, Saxons as well as other names.”
Yeah in Russia. Nice story but not very relevant.
November 30th, 2005 at 3:20 am
Ohh but what fun we do have. It’s been quite tame so far if you ask me.
November 30th, 2005 at 3:25 am
As crazy as most people will probably think you are about beings from other worlds, I agree with you about teaching some of the interesting aspects of all the different religions in schools.
November 30th, 2005 at 12:09 pm
The bible writers were not the only ones who mixed actual historical elements into their stories. Am I also supposed to believe that Zeus and Poseidon exist because there really was a city of troy and it was destroyed in the time homer specified? The bible has always been considered a fairly accurate historical document when it comes to ancient world events, but that doesnât mean that every thing it says is correct.
Rick, do you consider the bible the word of god or the word of man? And do you consider the word of the church to be the word of god or the word of man? Please expand on some of your beliefs.
November 30th, 2005 at 3:45 pm
Since creationism comes from the bible, it is only fair to examine a litle more of the book to see just how accurate its other “facts” are.
http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart13.html#ref131
(a) the bat is a bird (Lev. 11:19, Deut. 14:11, 18);
(b) Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21);
(c) Some creeping insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23);
(d) Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6);
(e) Conies chew the cud (Lev. 11:5);
(f) Camels don’t divide the hoof (Lev. 11:4);
(g) The earth was formed out of and by means of water (2 Peter 3:5 RSV);
(h) The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8);
(i) The earth won’t be moved (1Chron. 16:30);
(j) A hare does not divide the hoof (Deut. 14:7);
(k) The rainbow is not as old as rain and sunshine (Gen. 9:13);
(l) A mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds and grows into the greatest of all shrubs (Matt. 13:31-32 RSV);
(m) Turtles have voices (Song of Sol. 2:12);
(n) The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3);
(o) The earth has four corners (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1);
(p) Some 4-legged animals fly (Lev. 11:21);
(q) The world’s language didn’t evolve but appeared suddenly (Gen. 11:6-9; and
(r) A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44).
And creationism itself? According to the bible the earth is around 6000 years old.
http://www.mindspring.com/~jeffpo/earthage.htm
If you believe that I think the dinosaurs would disagree with you. If you don’t believe that why do you believe the rest of the bibles theory?
Why would anyone want to teach theory from a book which has most of its provable facts wrong? You could make the same argument that alchemy should be taught as an alternative to standard chemistry.
P.S.
If this has already been covered by an earlier post I apologize, as there were many posts I missed it.
November 30th, 2005 at 4:34 pm
The statement about beings from other worlds creating manking is not my belief, but also could fall under the concept of intelligent design. The evolutionists only want theirpoint of view taugh and evidence to the contrary and otherpossibilities ignored. It is funny about how evolutionists are so quick to sue when people want to teach other ideas but are so appalled when people who have other ideas sue them in return.
November 30th, 2005 at 4:49 pm
“Mao was hardly a scientist was he and Hitler may well have been a Christian as you profess to be”
Mao was an avowed atheist. Hitler by practice woshipped anscestors. Where in my post did I say I was a Christian? I didn’t, and I’m not. Governments that do not acknowlege and/or opposes the concept of a Surpreme Being usually winds up committing genocide. We will be seeing such things like this in the near future (within the next 20 years) in America (P.S.A.) and Europe
Eye for eye is in the context of how societies punish criminals.
Turning the other cheek is in the context of how a person should try to get along with his or her neighbor. Apply each in it proper context.
“And how old do you beileve the Earth is 4000 years? ”
Much older. The Bible said that in the beginning that God created Heaven and Earth. How much time passed between this beginning to where the earth was void and without form? In case you didn’t know, the Torah (First 5 books of Bible) was written without chapter and verse number. That was added later by the church and translators.
I have more to support me than just blind faith.
November 30th, 2005 at 4:55 pm
“Ohh but what fun we do have. It’s been quite tame so far if you ask me. ”
But why are evolutionists so hateful towards even the mention of a Surpreme Being or Creator? If the theory of evolution is so strong, then why are you afraid of Intelligent Design being given ample time? Is it because you are afraid that proponents of Intelligent Design may actually win the argument and the minds of youth? Yes, yes, evolutionists only want their dogma preeched and no other valid arguments stated.
November 30th, 2005 at 5:11 pm
(a) the bat is a bird (Lev. 11:19, Deut. 14:11, 18); Have you considered that the word bird in the Hebrew mean any animal thet flies. If that is the definition, then the English translation should be flying animal. Just becuse the language has changed does not mean that the original writer was wrong.
Have you ever considered fourfooted (like surefooted)to be a type of metaphor? Well I guess not. I believe that the original words have been misread and mistranslated from language to language, but the basic gist of the thing remains untouched. The Bible has generaly maintained test of time while evolution theory has been changed at every new evidence that disproves some earlier statement.
As a matter of fact, the proponents of Intelligent design are not even saying that the Bible should be used. They only state that there is evidence of a different beginning and that that evidence should be presented.
Which is right, creation or evolution?
Evolution is not proven. Some thirty or more years ago, our educational system dropped the word “theory” and started teaching evolution as if it were fact, because they had an agenda, a plan to introduce certain ideas to our children. Evolution is not science, it is a religious belief system that takes faith to believe in. Science is the study of how things are and how things work in our universe. Evolution is speculation of how someone thinks things might have come into being or might have developed, and there is no way to prove it. That is not true science – true science is something you can prove in the laboratory, or you can observe it happening in nature.
It would take too long to disprove here each one of the so-called “proofs of evolution” that we see in the school textbooks. Many of those so-called proofs have been discarded and disproved by the scientific community years ago (some were actual frauds and hoaxes), but are left in the textbooks because teachers and educators want their ideas taught to our children in the schools, whether they are true or not. If you are interested in learning the truth about evolution, go to any Christian bookstore and ask for books or videos on creation vs. evolution. Books and videos are best, because you will need to see pictures, and there is a wealth of scientific evidence supporting God’s creation, and disproving evolution! If you are reading this on the internet right now, there is an excellent website you can go to at http://www.AnswersInGenesis.org. Click on to their Questions & Answers section, and you will probably find most of your questions answered there.
The Flood
No creationist scientist that I know of claims that all the Earthâs sedimentary rocks were laid down in the Flood, as claimed in anti-creationist literature. The book also claims that creationists
âare, of course, looking for evidence of a âcreation weekâ and they clearly suggest that this is to be found in the rocks of the Cambrian period.â
I expect that all creationists would regard all the Cambrian strata as Flood deposits. Furthermore, both these supposed beliefs of creationists could not be held together â since there are a lot of âpre-Cambrianâ sedimentary strata, if all sedimentary rocks were laid down in the Flood, then the âcreation weekâ could not at the same time be in the Cambrian! The authors seem to be ignorant of both secular and creationist geology.
The amount of water calculated to cover the Earthâs mountains (p. 132) assumes the mountains were at the height they are now, and the sea basins were also unchanged. All creationist Earth models that I know of propose that major mountain-building occurred during and at the end of the Flood. Psalm 104:8, speaking of the waters of the Flood moving off the Earth, says âThe mountains rose and the valleys sank down to the place which you established for them. You set a boundary that they [that is, the waters] may not pass over, that they may not return to cover the earthâ (NASB).2
The book claimed that the Ark had to contain amebas to guavas (page 134). It is stated a number of times in Genesis that Noah only had to accommodate land-dwelling animals that breathed through their nostrils, i.e. land vertebrates (for example, in Genesis 7:21â23). Amebae are water-living and hardly needed to be on the Ark. Plants and insects, etc. could survive on floating vegetation mats and pumice, and via seeds, pupae, etc. Other critics find as many âspeciesâ as they can and then claim that it would be impossible to fit them all in the Ark. In this exercise they irrelevantly count all the insect species, for example, and also make no allowance for speciation since the time of the Flood. The original kinds would have been species, but most would now be the ancestors of several species within a genus or even within a family. For example, the dog/wolf âspeciesâ that now exist are clearly derived from an original dog kind. See John Woodmorappe, Noahâs Ark: A Feasibility Study, for answers to all sceptical attacks on the Noahâs Ark account in Genesis.3,4
The creationist position on the general order of fossils in geological strata is caricatured. Hydraulic sorting and mobility are only two of several possible mechanisms. Creationists consider ecological zonation to be a major factor in the positioning of the fossils. Remember that many creatures buried in the bottom of the column tend to be aquatic bottom-dwelling, relatively immobile creatures. More mobile land-dwelling creatures are buried at the top of the stratigraphic column. There are examples of apparent out-of-place fossils, but these are dismissed by the evolutionary establishment and given labels such as âre-workedâ or âstratigraphic leaksâ to supposedly explain why they are out of place, or the accepted evolutionary order is adjusted appropriately. For example, pollen and wood fragments of more than 60 species of woody plants have been found in Precambrian rocks in the Grand Canyon.5 These findings are seen as being impossible by evolutionists and therefore dismissed out-of-hand.
The book also grossly overstates the consistency of evidence for the evolutionary view of Earth history. For example, a trilobite found in Lower Devonian strata in Australia is like that found in the Appalachian Mountains in the USA, but unlike those found in Africa and South America, which are âsimply not foundâ in Australia.6 When peddling the evolutionary story such problems are overlooked. Things which fit are talked about; things that donât fit are omitted, especially in undergraduate courses in biology and geology, and in anti-creationist publications.
The fossils
The authorsâ claim that the gaps in the fossil record are due to imperfection of preservation or incompleteness of collection simply does not hold up to scrutiny. See, for example, Gould and Eldredge and their arguments for the punctuated equilibrium concept, where they admit that the fossil record is not seriously incomplete, and that the gaps are systematic and real.7 Take, for example, the mammals, which are supposed to be a monophyletic group (descended from a common ancestor). The neo-Darwinian model requires that every one of the groups has descended from a single, unidentified, small land mammal. Huge numbers of intermediate species in the direct line of transition would have had to exist, but the fossil record fails to reveal any of them. Of all the thousands upon thousands of intermediates that should exist, a mere handful of questionable examples such as the âmammal-like reptilesâ for the mammals, and Archaeopteryx for the birds â are held forth as âproofâ.
The fossil record, rather than showing change from one kind to another, shows stasis â things remaining the same. You only have to look at the so-called Cambrian sea and youâll find jellyfish, starfish, snails, sea urchins, brachiopods, clams and sponges â things youâll find in the seas today, essentially unchanged after supposedly 500 million years or more. And yet the genetic system is supposed to be so plastic that, in this time, all the amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds and mammals, plus all land plants and angiosperms in the sea, fish and arthropods evolved, yet other things remained the same. How is it so? There are thousands of examples of âliving fossilsâ. Dr Joachim Scheven in Germany has a museum of hundreds of living fossils. Dr Schevenâs living fossils feature in his documentary video, Living Fossils: Confirmation of Creation, available from Answers in Genesis.
Page 139 says that the creation science model predicts that every kind of organism âshould have a fossil record as old as the oldest known organismâ. I know of no creationist who says such a thing. One would expect that a global cataclysmic flood would bury bottom-dwelling sea creatures well before birds, for example. This is exactly what is found. The fossil patterns could result from a combination of ecological zonation, sorting action of water, effects of mobility, tectonic movements, and erosion at the end of the Flood.
Second Law of Thermodynamics and origin of life
In their arguments for the evolutionary model, Selkirk and Burrows are very misleading in many places. For example, they present an incorrect account of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and its relevance to the origin of life and the origins of new structures (this is almost universal in anti-creationist literature). Comparisons with snowflakes forming are, at the least, irrelevant and, at most, deceitful. Snowflakes are actually low energy, low-informational repetitive structures. The small amount of information required for the formation of snowflakes is present in the water molecules â their directional forces determine the hexagonal symmetry of snowflakes. All that is required is the removal of heat, not the addition of energy. The growth of a child from an embryo, or a plant from a seed, does not contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics because all the information required for this process is present in the genomic âblueprintâ. This, with the cellular machinery to harness energy, causes the formation of the complex organism, just as an automobile is made in a factory by machines which direct energy (with information) to construct a car. The machinery in the living cells drives the living organism to grow, directing energy to do it. Energy will not produce specified complexity unless it is harnessed by a machine to do so. Energy + matter alone will not produce a machine, or a cell. It needs information (a blueprint) and machinery to direct energy to arrange matter according to the information. And such information comes from intelligence, not energy and matter.8,9 See also The Second Law of Thermodynamics â Answering the Critics
There is nothing about the information in DNA or in proteins which is self-constructing. The information does not lie in the amino acids or in the nucleic acid bases, but in the order in which these are strung together. This order is not inherent in the chemicals themselves. Take, for example, the supposed evolution of the hemoglobin molecule. Selkirk and Burrows argue that there are over 200 variations on the hemoglobin molecule which are all functional. Letâs just, for the sake of the argument, be generous to the evolutionists and assume that 85 % of the protein can vary in any way at all (a gross overstatement). What is the probability of the other 30 amino acids aligning themselves in the correct sequence? The probability is (1/20)30 since there are 20 different amino acids. This is a probability of 1 in 1039, which is impossible for all practical purposes. And this is only one of at least 100,000 different essential proteins in a human being, most of which are a lot bigger than hemoglobin. It has been estimated that the information in human DNA would take 1,000 books each 500 pages long just to record it (not explain it!âsee Message mania â Deciphering the human genome: what does it mean?).
On page 107, Michael Archer says that creationists use an analogy about the probability of a cell forming from the raw materials being like a tornado in a junkyard spontaneously producing a jumbo jet, and he criticises this analogy. However, creationists did not invent the analogy; it was Sir Fred Hoyle, then Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University.10 Hoyle is a mathematician, understands this topic, and is candid about the insurmountable problems for all naturalistic theories for the origin of life. For a very thorough treatment of chemical and thermodynamic objections to evolutionary origin-of-life theories, see The Mystery of Lifeâs Origin, by Thaxton et al (right).11 An excellent and up-to-date summary is provided by Aw.12 Sarfati refutes a few currently fashionable theories (see online version).13
Michael Archer is either very ignorant of the biochemical nature of life (he has no qualifications in this field) or he is being deliberately misleading in what he says in the chapter âSquaring off against evolutionâ. For example, his talk about âmicrospheres growing, budding and dividing in a singularly bacterium-like mannerâ has about as much relevance to the origin of life as the formation of soap bubbles in a bathtub. His statement, âWhile experiments of Fox and others have not so far produced life precisely as we know itâ, seems to imply that theyâve come close, which is absolutely wrong. Of course, the old argument of âgiven enough time anything can happenâ is implied in what Archer says, which is ridiculous, because the thermodynamics of polymerisation of proteins and nucleic acids are such that they fall apart faster than they come together under realistically natural conditions (they need the protective environment of the cell). Itâs only under very artificial laboratory conditions that itâs possible to form even small polymers of nucleotides or amino acids.
Archer also glosses over the problem of the steps of evolution. There can be no natural selection until you have fully functional, reproducing cells. The simplest conceivable cell which can reproduce itself must have some 400 or more different enzymes or proteins. Mycoplasma genitalium codes for 482 proteins.14 This is by far the simplest genome known for a self-reproducing cell, and it is from an obligate parasite (hardly a model for the first cell when there is nothing to parasitize!). From the bacteria that have now been decoded, it appears that free-living bacteria need to code for some 2,000 or more proteins. Fred Hoyle has estimated the probability of the proteins for a hypothetical minimum cell coming into being by natural processes15 as something like 1 in 1040,000. Itâs impossible to conceive of such a low probability. Just consider that the number of atoms in the universe is something like 1080, or the number of seconds in the commonly supposed evolutionary history of the universe of 15 billion years is 1018. Each new capacity which evolution is supposed to have produced would require numerous new genes, new enzymes and proteins to be added at each stage. Just consider that a human being has 100,000+ enzymes and proteins, compared to the 2,000 or so in a bacterium. All this new information has to be added by accidents (mutations). Just take, for example, the formation of one very small protein of 48 amino acids. This requires 150 bases to be lined up in the DNA (including a start and a stop codon). The probability of this happening: 1 in 1090. This is just one very small protein. Weâre talking about 98,000 or more extra proteins on top of the bacterium.
Evolutionary apologists such as Richard Dawkins argue that mutations and natural selection produced all the extra information. Mutations are accidental copying mistakes in the information contained on the DNA of living things. However, accidents could never generate the new information required. See some refutations of Dawkins works,16,17 and Dr Lee Spetnerâs book Not By Chance! for a thorough debunking of Dawkinsâ claim that mutations can produce new enzymes.18 With what is now known about the cellâs biochemistry, it is clear that there is no mechanism by which microbe-to-man evolution could conceivably occur. Walter ReMineâs book The Biotic Message (right)is also excellent for showing that mutations and natural selection cannot generate new complex specified information.19
Cheating with chance
Archer tackles the analogy of monkeys on typewriters typing a Shakespearian sonnet. To follow the analogy properly, the monkeys would have to type something which was meaningful and approaching the sonnet before it would be possible to âselectâ what theyâve done. There is no selective advantage in having one, two or three amino acids lined up in the right order. Thereâs no selective advantage in having four or five or 10 or 20. You have to have 100, 200, 300, depending on the protein, lined up in the correct order before it can have any function which can be selected by natural selection. And then that has to be contained in a system which can reproduce it, otherwise natural selection cannot select it.20
Age of the cosmos
In dealing with the age of the cosmos, Archer ignores all the evidence that the cosmos is young and just glibly states that scientists have proven that itâs old. Please see the pamphlet, written by nuclear physicist Dr Russell Humphreys, Evidence for a Young World and the references therein. A more thorough treatment, mainly of other evidences, can be found in The Young Earth by geologist Dr John Morris (right). The Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe by geologist Dr Steve Austin provides a case study of the Grand Canyon, showing that it can be better understood in a young Earth/Flood context. There are many other videos and papers on the subject.
November 30th, 2005 at 5:16 pm
“According to the bible the earth is around 6000 years old.”
untrue. the bible doesn’t say that. literal fundementalists have misinterprited it that way. Many mainstream Christains disagree with that assessment. Also your examples show that the bible has a very good assesment that species do adapt and change over time. that has never been questioned by creationism. and creationism doesn’t come strickly from the bible. again this is a prime example why creation science (yes it is a science if anyone would care to open mindedly read up and study the science) should be studied before being criticized.
there is a lot of common ground between evolution and creationism. but also some very important differences. I’m not a teacher and complete information cannot be supplied on a blog.
Those of you who criticize this need to stop watching pat robertson and jerry falwell and the mainstream media’s reporting on extremists and understand what christianity and creationism really is all about before criticizing it.
Oh and this is the same mainstream media everyone here loves to blast when they misrepresent the Entertainment industry’s position but embraces when the misrepresent christianity.
As far as personal experiences, I’m sure many of you will give testimony of hyprocracy, and fundimentalist religous abuse in their lives to justify their christianphobia. I can give examples in my life about the very same thing. it is why I don’t go to church anymore but I still have a very strong faith. every person on earth is a hypocrite reguardless of what they believe. it’s just an excuse to deny the existance of a spiritual supreme being.
November 30th, 2005 at 7:11 pm
> Mao was an avowed atheist.
Mao’s religion or lack of it is not the point here. Please try reading the article. The discussion is about creationism versus evolution. This not a debate about religion or whether atheists have killed more people than christians its supposed to be about science not belief. Being a scienist doesn’t make you an atheists so this Mao/Hitler stuff is just not relevant. Please get back on topic or going and argue in alt.religion.fanatic.
>I have more to support me than just blind faith.
It doesn’t sound like it. They were a good band though so I’ll give you that.
November 30th, 2005 at 7:25 pm
I don’t think that the advocates of evolution have actually sued anyone.
They may have tried to stop it being taught in schools using the courst but nothing more. Nodoubt you’ll now try to find some isolated incident where some nut has actually did sue to stop it being taught.
November 30th, 2005 at 7:37 pm
The supporters of evolution are afraid that people will continue to live there live in ignorance. They are afraid that society will revert to the dark ages when science and progress were oppressed and suppressed by the church. They are afraid the dogma of the church will engulf young minds with promises of eternal afterlife. They are afraid that the church and the state will increase there control over what people think and do.
I myself do not see this happening to a large extent, but I do wish more people would challange their weekly church rituals and think for themselves rather than being lead by blind faith. Nevertheless, if this faith makes them happy then perhaps that’s ok too.
November 30th, 2005 at 7:42 pm
(p) Some 4-legged animals fly (Lev. 11:21);
How about a flying fox.
Sorry, just being facetious.
November 30th, 2005 at 10:03 pm
“The supporters of evolution are afraid that people will continue to live there live in ignorance.”
Biblical belief is not the same as ignorance!!!
“They are afraid that society will revert to the dark ages when science and progress were oppressed and suppressed by the church.”
This is a legitimate concern. I’m a Bible believer and sometimes fear the same thing. That is why I am not opposed to teaching students about the theory of evolution as long as the theory is not presented as fact. Please keep in minf that there is penty of evidence that refute evolution as the beginning of life as well as scientific evidence of a Creator. Teach both in balence, and let people decide for themselves.
“They are afraid the dogma of the church will engulf young minds with promises of eternal afterlife.” What is wrong with believing in “afterlife?” I do not think that the concept of intelligent design necessarily deals with afterlife. The thoery that is to be taught only deal with how we got here.
“They are afraid that the church and the state will increase there control over what people think and do. ”
Very legitimate concern!!! I am just as cautious about the state as I am about the church. A state that is rules without any accountability to God, people, or who think that they are supreme is dangerous indeed. Just about all governments which do not allow or suppress beliefe in God have been guilty of genocide. A religion without government is a VERY DANGEROUS thing, and so is a government that refuses to acknowlege or allow acknowlegement of God.
“but I do wish more people would challange their weekly church rituals and think for themselves rather than being lead by blind faith. Nevertheless, if this faith makes them happy then perhaps that’s ok too. ”
I have studied evolution and the Bible for about equal perts of my life. I tend to give more credibility to the Bible. I do notblindly follow any church doctrine either. As a matter of fact, I will very likely be told not to come back to most churches if they knew exactly what I believe.
I believe that evolution as a THEORY should be taught in public school as well as the THEORY of Intelligent design. Evidencr for and against each should be presented in an objective manner. Doing this will give students balence and allow them to think scientifically.
November 30th, 2005 at 10:15 pm
I agree with you Rick. I am personally a non-Christian Bible believer. I say that I am non Christian because I believe very little in the unBiblical, man-made traditions of most churches. I believe that the Christian Coalition and many television “evangelists” are realy in the business for the money. I am also sickened by the rampant hypocrisy of the Christian Coalition of America in supporting an industry that promotes porn, violence, and drug use. These entities are atheism’s best friends. Like I said in other posts, it is no wonder why so many people no longer believe in a Creator.
When I attend Sabbath service, I do so at a house congregation where others who actually like to study scripture meet. I like to study the Bible on my own as well. As much as I am appaled at corporate Christianity, I am also appalled at the hate shown to Bible believers by the population. I believe that Bible believers will become more and more hated as time goes by. I also believe that it is entirely possible for corporate Christianity to gain enough power to legislate most aspect of our lives. Both evolutionists and Bible believers have a point.
December 1st, 2005 at 9:20 am
Very well written, but you make a bit of a leap in your hypothesis. The only conclusion I can draw from your experiments and observations is that when a society follows the bibles teachings the society and the people in it are always more likely to be successful. I see no evidence that the bible is gods manual or that he created the universe or that he even exists. It seems equally plausible that the bible was written by knowledgeable men as a means to get other men to act in a manner as to benefit themselves and the society they are living in. The fact that there are small errors in the bible (the earth has four corners, the earth cannot move) that reflect mans view of science at the time gives extra credibility to this hypothesis.
December 1st, 2005 at 10:05 am
Even though I am an agnostic, I agree with what you said, believers do get an unfair rap most of the time. I think it mostly has to do with the fact that what most atheists see of Christians is the crowd cheering at a Pat Robertson rally when he mentions making church law into actual law, and then the non-Christians unfairly blame all Christians for the stupidity of a few. Kind of like how Americans are taunted by foreigners for George Bushâs policies when almost none of us have anything to do with them, and less then half of us voted for him.
I just hope in the future that the country will move back towards a centrist philosophy so that we can have some compromise instead of both sides trying to force their views on others. All that trying to ban gay marriage and trying to completely ban any mention of religion from schools is going to do is split us further apart and seriously hurt the country.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:34 pm
Mao and Hitler (as well as the Inquisition) are examples of what will happen when atheism, evolution, or intelligent design are taught out of balence. There is scientific evidence for and against evolution and intelligent design. I support teaching both THEORIES in science. Those who want to teach one and not the other are the ones who are fanatics. Notice that I said “intelligent design.” Intelligent design theory does not necessarily mean that there is a god (what about space creatures: -) ). It just seems that worshippers of evolution only want scientific evidence pointing to their side of the story presented and all other sides ignored.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:21 pm
Hitler was not an atheist as so many claim, many quotes from his speeches and from Mein Kampf point to the fact that he believed in the bible and in Christianity.
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”
-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
And nobody here has yet to provide any scientific “evidence” that supports intelligent design. Although there is nothing in science that says existence was not originally started by an intelligent being, there is as much evidence to support that theory as there is to support that a giant space alien sneezed the universe out of his nose, and I would rather not give “equal time” in science class to both of those theories.
May 20th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Evolution cannot be proven.
Sometimes you need a little faith.
In all these posts from either side, the only thing missing is truth.
It’s all speculation.