“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.

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.

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.

“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.

Sorry, just being facetious.

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.

>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.

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.

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 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 Earth’s sedimentary rocks were laid down in the Flood, as claimed in anti-creationist literature. The book also claims that creationists

‘are, of course, looking for evidence of a “creation week” and they clearly suggest that this is to be found in the rocks of the Cambrian period.’

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 — since there are a lot of ‘pre-Cambrian’ sedimentary strata, if all sedimentary rocks were laid down in the Flood, then the ‘creation week’ 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 Earth’s 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 ‘The 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 earth’ (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 7:21–23). 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 ‘species’ 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 ‘species’ that now exist are clearly derived from an original dog kind. See John Woodmorappe, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, for answers to all sceptical attacks on the Noah’s 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 ‘re-worked’ or ‘stratigraphic leaks’ 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 ‘simply not found’ in Australia.6 When peddling the evolutionary story such problems are overlooked. Things which fit are talked about; things that don’t fit are omitted, especially in undergraduate courses in biology and geology, and in anti-creationist publications.
The fossils

The authors’ 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 ‘mammal-like reptiles’ for the mammals, and Archaeopteryx for the birds — are held forth as ‘proof’.

The fossil record, rather than showing change from one kind to another, shows stasis — things remaining the same. You only have to look at the so-called Cambrian sea and you’ll find jellyfish, starfish, snails, sea urchins, brachiopods, clams and sponges — things you’ll 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 ‘living fossils’. Dr Joachim Scheven in Germany has a museum of hundreds of living fossils. Dr Scheven’s 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 ‘should have a fossil record as old as the oldest known organism’. 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 — 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 ‘blueprint’. 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 — 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. Let’s 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!—see Message mania — 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 Life’s 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 ‘Squaring off against evolution’. For example, his talk about ‘microspheres growing, budding and dividing in a singularly bacterium-like manner’ has about as much relevance to the origin of life as the formation of soap bubbles in a bathtub. His statement, ‘While experiments of Fox and others have not so far produced life precisely as we know it’, seems to imply that they’ve come close, which is absolutely wrong. Of course, the old argument of ‘given enough time anything can happen’ 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). It’s only under very artificial laboratory conditions that it’s 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. It’s 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. We’re 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 Spetner’s book Not By Chance! for a thorough debunking of Dawkins’ claim that mutations can produce new enzymes.18 With what is now known about the cell’s biochemistry, it is clear that there is no mechanism by which microbe-to-man evolution could conceivably occur. Walter ReMine’s 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 ‘select’ what they’ve done. There is no selective advantage in having one, two or three amino acids lined up in the right order. There’s 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 it’s 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.