Bring It On!

Academic Freedom Legislation: The Creationists Back Door?

July 3rd, 2008 | by Daniel DiRito |

While I despise the efforts of fundies to push their ideology, I have to give them credit for being so persistent. When the Bible speaks of a great pestilence, who new it could have its origin in the pews of the pious. Yes, I know that’s a harsh assessment of those who believe they are simply pursuing their beliefs…but when those beliefs are in direct opposition to scientific evidence, they can be nothing less than a menacing manifestation.

The following video discusses the latest efforts to promote intelligent design as a scientific theory, which is frankly little more than deliberate deception…and that seems to me to be contradictory to fundamental Christian values. Unfortunately, many of these zealots believe the end justifies the means. I doubt their creator sees it that way. Then again, I’m of the opinion that they created god in their own likeness so I’m sure they can give him any of the attributes they need to justify their actions.

Funny how that works…when they need a compassionate god, they cite the good works and kindness of Jesus…and when they need fire and brimstone, they conveniently pull from the Old Testament. Perhaps that’s the beauty of the Bible…it’s malleable enough such that most actions can be justified.

Anyway, the latest effort is a two pronged attack. The first, as discussed in the video is to argue that the academic freedoms of instructors are impinged when they are prohibited from teaching “the controversy”. In other words, since science, by its construct, is rarely offered as an absolute certainty, the creationists argue that the debate remains open as to the origins of the universe and should therefore be a legitimate component of science education. The following excerpt is an explanation of the issue from the religious perspective.

From Baptist Press:

BATON ROUGE, La. (BP)–In a first for any state, Louisiana has adopted an academic freedom law giving teachers greater protection and freedom in teaching the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution, something supporters of academic freedom in science call a significant step forward.

The law allows “open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied, including but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.” A statement on Jindal’s website June 26 said he had signed it along with dozens of other bills.

Robert Crowther, a spokesman for the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, cited two reasons the law is needed.

“First, around the country, science teachers are being harassed, intimidated and sometimes fired for trying to present scientific evidence critical of Darwinian theory along with the evidence that supports it,” Crowther wrote on Discovery’s science and culture blog June 27.

“Second, many school administrators and teachers are fearful or confused about what is legally allowed when teaching about controversial scientific issues like evolution. The Louisiana Science Education Act clarifies what teachers may be allowed to do,” Crowther wrote.

Yes, proponents of these bills are careful to avoid any discussion of creationism or intelligent design as religious concepts in conflict with evolution. Instead, they want to open the door to teaching them by contending that evolution is just one theory. That brings us to the second component of their argument…which contends that the fundamental issue is a question of “strengths and weaknesses”. The New York Times provides a good explanation in the following excerpts.

From The New York Times:

Now a battle looms in Texas over science textbooks that teach evolution, and the wrestle for control seizes on three words. None of them are “creationism” or “intelligent design” or even “creator.”

The words are “strengths and weaknesses.”

Starting this summer, the state education board will determine the curriculum for the next decade and decide whether the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution should be taught. The benign-sounding phrase, some argue, is a reasonable effort at balance. But critics say it is a new strategy taking shape across the nation to undermine the teaching of evolution, a way for students to hear religious objections under the heading of scientific discourse.

Already, legislators in a half-dozen states — Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri and South Carolina — have tried to require that classrooms be open to “views about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory,” according to a petition from the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based strategic center of the intelligent design movement.

” ‘Strengths and weaknesses’ are regular words that have now been drafted into the rhetorical arsenal of creationists,” said Kathy Miller, director of the Texas Freedom Network, a group that promotes religious freedom.

The Discovery Institute has provided a template for legislators to file “academic freedom” bills, and they have been popping up with increasing frequency in statehouses across the country.

As you can see, there is no limit to the effort to undermine science and substitute Biblical doctrine. If these folks can’t succeed in the courts, they try the legislature. If they can’t succeed in the legislature, they seek to stack the school boards. Regardless, at each juncture, they refine their arguments to overcome the obstacles that have previously precluded the implementation of their absolutist ideology.

Sadly, those who are promoting a literal interpretation of the Bible are willing to exploit the uncertainty that comes from a commitment to scientific integrity…a commitment that is clearly the backbone upon which academia has been structured. Instead, those who believe they already have all the answers are not constrained by humility and frequently demonstrate a disregard for the complexity of all that exists. Such is the nature of absolute intransigence.

Below the video, I’ve included a graphic I found on the web a while back. I’m posting it because it provides a level of reason and rationality that is so often absent in the efforts of those who are intent on undermining science. Please click on the image to view it full size.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 140 Responses to “Academic Freedom Legislation: The Creationists Back Door?”

  2. By rube cretin on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    Daniel,

    Great post. Tried to send a comment earlier, but forgot to do the spam calculation and lost it. Therefore i will attempt to reconstruct my stream of consciousness.

    I suppose we all have epiphanies in our life. The subject of your post reminds me of one of mine. I grew up in the south and was raised by a wonderful family in a fundamentalist baptist environment. Following the big war and military service I attended college and undertook the study of biology, because of my innate interest in the natural world. During the course of my study i was required to take a course in comparative anatomy during my junior year. I recall vididly one evening bent over a dead cat disecting the various organs, mussels, nerves, blood vessels, etc. I was amazed at the ease with which i was able to identify the parts and it occurred to me that i had previously found the exact parts in fish, amphibians, birds, and other organisms. I recall drifting for a moment into a sort of twilight zone where evolution became a truth for me. Over the next few months i struggled to reconcile my religion with this truth. Eventually, i became an agnostic. Sure i wrestled with atheism, but came to the conclusion that if someone shows me evidence of god i will believe it.

    I have discussed epiphanies with my gay son and hge explains something like this occurred when he realized his gayness as an adolescent. Therefore, one thing i do believe in are epiphanies, those moments when we say ah.

    Every time I listen to this song i am reminded of epiphany.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQdsCL_g1dM&mode=related&search=

  3. By Lista on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    Those who oppose Intelligent Design have quite a habit of making incorrect statements about it, such as “Those beliefs are in direct opposition to scientific evidence.” This is not true. They also make accusations such as the suggestion that Intelligent Design is a “deliberate deception” or that the motive is to “undermine science and substitute Biblical doctrine” or that such scientists “believe that they already have all the answers”, as if Evolutions are not also guilty of the same.

    They also accuse Intellegent Design scientists of not being “constrained by humility” and disregarding “the complexity of all that exists”. While making such accusations, they do not seem to realize the extent to which these same accusations can be applied to Evolutionists as well.

    And then they call the idea and the scientists names, such as “Absolutist Ideology” and “Absolute Intransigence”. These are all false accusations and calling your opponent names never proves anything.

    It is absolutely true that Evolution is NOT “an absolute certainty” and it most definitely does have strengths and weaknesses. It seems odd that anyone would be threatened by this. Why shouldn’t the strengths and weaknesses of a THEORY be taught?
    The Intelligent Design group is NOT “promoting a literal interpretation of the Bible”. Creationists may be doing that, but there is a distinction between Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates. The first is a theology, but the second is a science. Yes, that’s right, I said science. They follow all the same scientific rules as the Evolutionists do and are very committed to “scientific integrity”. The fact that Evolutionists are reluctant to acknowledge this does not make it not so and to suggest otherwise is another false accusation.

    Actually, I don’t see what would be so wrong with it if the items in the graphic were taught in a Chemistry class. Science keeps changing. So what? All we are asking Evolutionists to do is admit this.

    Probably the most serious of accusations that are made against Intelligent Design scientists is the whole idea that they are “intent on undermining science”. This isn’t true.

    As to the video, once again, there are accusations made such as the idea that Intelligent Design is philosophical and not scientific. Atheists will continually make this claim because they are threatened by Intelligent Design. The only reason the Intelligent Design advocates adamantly deny that they are trying to sneak religion into the classroom is because once again, they have been falsely accused.

    Calling this debate a conflict between science and religion clouds the issue. Creationism may not be a science, but Intelligent Design is. Opponents of the idea will deny this, but that doesn’t make it not so.

    In the video, Michael Dowd talks about Christians not having been exposed to Evolution “taught in a sacred meaningful way”, yet what I think is even more true is that most people, Christians and otherwise, have not been exposed to Intelligent Design presented in a scientific way and the reason why is because it is continually silenced and stifled in it’s expression. Michael Dowd also talks about Christians feeling threatened by Evolution, yet what I think is even more true is that Atheists are very threatened by Intelligent Design.

    If you want to read some intelligent discussion on the issue, there was some that took place at my blog at http://wwwramblingsoflista.blogspot.com/2008/05/off-subject-comments.html or you can check out the Discovery Institute at http://www.discovery.org/v/22 or http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php. It would not be fair to accept all the accusations that have been made about Intelligent Design without first checking out the facts for oneself.

  4. By Lista on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    I lost a longer comment as well, but for now, I just want to say in response to Daniel that just because a creator uses the same good design over and over again while creating several different species, this does not prove evolution.

  5. By Lista on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    Those who oppose Intelligent Design have quite a habit of making incorrect statements about it, such as “Those beliefs are in direct opposition to scientific evidence.” This is not true. They also make accusations such as the suggestion that Intelligent Design is a “deliberate deception” or that the motive is to “undermine science and substitute Biblical doctrine” or that such scientists “believe that they already have all the answers”, as if Evolutions are not also guilty of the same.

    They also accuse Intellegent Design scientists of not being “constrained by humility” and disregarding “the complexity of all that exists”. While making such accusations, they do not seem to realize the extent to which these same accusations can be applied to Evolutionists as well.

    And then they call the idea and the scientists names, such as “Absolutist Ideology” and “Absolute Intransigence”. These are all false accusations and calling your opponent names never proves anything.

    It is absolutely true that Evolution is NOT “an absolute certainty” and it most definitely does have strengths and weaknesses. It seems odd that anyone would be threatened by this. Why shouldn’t the strengths and weaknesses of a THEORY be taught?
    The Intelligent Design group is NOT “promoting a literal interpretation of the Bible”. Creationists may be doing that, but there is a distinction between Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates. The first is a theology, but the second is a science. Yes, that’s right, I said science. They follow all the same scientific rules as the Evolutionists do and are very committed to “scientific integrity”. The fact that Evolutionists are reluctant to acknowledge this does not make it not so and to suggest otherwise is another false accusation.

  6. By Lista on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    There it is. I guess I just have to submit it in smaller chucks.

    Actually, I don’t see what would be so wrong with it if the items in the graphic were taught in a Chemistry class. Science keeps changing. So what? All we are asking Evolutionists to do is admit this.

    Probably the most serious of accusations that are made against Intelligent Design scientists is the whole idea that they are “intent on undermining science”. This isn’t true.

    As to the video, once again, there are accusations made such as the idea that Intelligent Design is philosophical and not scientific. Atheists will continually make this claim because they are threatened by Intelligent Design. The only reason the Intelligent Design advocates adamantly deny that they are trying to sneak religion into the classroom is because once again, they have been falsely accused.

    Calling this debate a conflict between science and religion clouds the issue. Creationism may not be a science, but Intelligent Design is. Opponents of the idea will deny this, but that doesn’t make it not so.

    In the video, Michael Dowd talks about Christians not having been exposed to Evolution “taught in a sacred meaningful way”, yet what I think is even more true is that most people, Christians and otherwise, have not been exposed to Intelligent Design presented in a scientific way and the reason why is because it is continually silenced and stifled in it’s expression. Michael Dowd also talks about Christians feeling threatened by Evolution, yet what I think is even more true is that Atheists are very threatened by Intelligent Design.

    If you want to read some intelligent discussion on the issue, there was some that took place at my blog at http://wwwramblingsoflista.blogspot.com/2008/05/off-subject-comments.html or you can check out the Discovery Institute at http://www.discovery.org/v/22 or http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php. It would not be fair to accept all the accusations that have been made about Intelligent Design without first checking out the facts for oneself.

  7. By Lista on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    There it is. I guess I just have to submit it in smaller chunks.

    Actually, I don’t see what would be so wrong with it if the items in the graphic were taught in a Chemistry class. Science keeps changing. So what? All we are asking Evolutionists to do is admit this.

    Probably the most serious of accusations that are made against Intelligent Design scientists is the whole idea that they are “intent on undermining science”. This isn’t true.

    As to the video, once again, there are accusations made such as the idea that Intelligent Design is philosophical and not scientific. Atheists will continually make this claim because they are threatened by Intelligent Design. The only reason the Intelligent Design advocates adamantly deny that they are trying to sneak religion into the classroom is because once again, they have been falsely accused.

    Calling this debate a conflict between science and religion clouds the issue. Creationism may not be a science, but Intelligent Design is. Opponents of the idea will deny this, but that doesn’t make it not so.

    In the video, Michael Dowd talks about Christians not having been exposed to Evolution “taught in a sacred meaningful way”, yet what I think is even more true is that most people, Christians and otherwise, have not been exposed to Intelligent Design presented in a scientific way and the reason why is because it is continually silenced and stifled in it’s expression. Michael Dowd also talks about Christians feeling threatened by Evolution, yet what I think is even more true is that Atheists are very threatened by Intelligent Design.

    If you want to read some intelligent discussion on the issue, there was some that took place at my blog at http://wwwramblingsoflista.blogspot.com/2008/05/off-subject-comments.html or you can check out the Discovery Institute at http://www.discovery.org/v/22 or http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php. It would not be fair to accept all the accusations that have been made about Intelligent Design without first checking out the facts for oneself.

  8. By Paul Watson on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    Lista,
    Ok, a few simple questions:

    What designed the Designer (and something had to have done, otherwise you accept that complex creatures can occur without design)? Another Designer? How many designers are there, each designing each other?

    Where is the actual evidence for the existence of a designer? Not evidence that evolution is not precisely as envisaged by Darwin (it isn’t), or even that it struggles to explain everything about living creatures (it does), but actual evidence for a designer.

    Oh, and gravity is only a theory. Is there a Holder keeping your feet on the ground that can’t be detected by any known test too?

  9. By Lista on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    There it is. I guess I just have to submit it in smaller chunks.

    Actually, I don’t see what would be so wrong with it if the items in the graphic were taught in a Chemistry class. Science keeps changing. So what? All we are asking Evolutionists to do is admit this.

    Probably the most serious of accusations that are made against Intelligent Design scientists is the whole idea that they are “intent on undermining science”. This isn’t true.

    As to the video, once again, there are accusations made such as the idea that Intelligent Design is philosophical and not scientific. Atheists will continually make this claim because they are threatened by Intelligent Design. The only reason the Intelligent Design advocates adamantly deny that they are trying to sneak religion into the classroom is because once again, they have been falsely accused.

    Calling this debate a conflict between science and religion clouds the issue. Creationism may not be a science, but Intelligent Design is. Opponents of the idea will deny this, but that doesn’t make it not so.

    In the video, Michael Dowd talks about Christians not having been exposed to Evolution “taught in a sacred meaningful way”, yet what I think is even more true is that most people, Christians and otherwise, have not been exposed to Intelligent Design presented in a scientific way and the reason why is because it is continually silenced and stifled in it’s expression. Michael Dowd also talks about Christians feeling threatened by Evolution, yet what I think is even more true is that Atheists are very threatened by Intelligent Design.

  10. By Lista on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    I already did this on my blog and since it is very complicated, I’d whether just refer you to the earlier discussion, so if you want to read some intelligent discussion on the issue, there was some that took place at my blog at http://wwwramblingsoflista.blogspot.com/2008/05/off-subject-comments.html or you can check out the Discovery Institute at http://www.discovery.org/v/22 or http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php. It would not be fair to accept all the accusations that have been made about Intelligent Design without first checking out the facts for oneself.

  11. By Lista on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    I already did this on my blog and it is quite complicated, so if you want to read some intelligent discussion on the issue, there was some that took place at my blog at http://wwwramblingsoflista.blogspot.com/2008/05/off-subject-comments.html or you can check out the Discovery Institute at http://www.discovery.org/v/22 or http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php. It would not be fair to accept all the accusations that have been made about Intelligent Design without first checking out the facts for oneself.

  12. By Lista on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    I keep getting the duplicate comment message even though I do not see my message. Come on!

    Anyway, I already had this discussion on my blog and it is quite complicated, so if you want to read some intelligent discussion on the issue, there was some that took place at my blog at http://wwwramblingsoflista.blogspot.com/2008/05/off-subject-comments.html or you can check out the Discovery Institute at http://www.discovery.org/v/22 or http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php. It would not be fair to accept all the accusations that have been made about Intelligent Design without first checking out the facts for oneself.

  13. By Lista on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    What do I have to do in order to get this to submit? I keep getting the duplicate comment message. Come on!!

  14. By Lista on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    Come on! What do I have to do in order to get this message to submit.

    I already did this on my blog and it is quite complicated, so if you want to read some intelligent discussion on the issue, there was some that took place at my blog at http://wwwramblingsoflista.blogspot.com/2008/05/off-subject-comments.html

  15. By Lista on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    Or you can check out the Discovery Institute at http://www.discovery.org/v/22 or http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php. It would not be fair to accept all the accusations that have been made about Intelligent Design without first checking out the facts for oneself.

  16. By admin on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    Every pseudo-scientific argument for ID has been thoroughly, repeatedly and definitely debunked. If the fine people at the Discovery Institute would like to be taken seriously then they need to do peer-reviewed and accepted scientific research. There is no more reason to allow IS in a science class room than there is to allow drum lessons in a library. Both are misplaced, unwanted noise.

    Show me one argument I cant debunk about ID Lista, just one real, provable verified argument.

  17. By Paul Watson on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    Lista,
    I’m a geneticist with a Masters degree in statistics. Evolution and Intelligent Design are not that complicated.

    I’ve also read your blog, but didn’t find answers to my questions in your discussion with BB. I did find that you think science is just ‘biased opinion’ at which point I realised there wasn’t any point going further because it won’t make any difference.

    Oh, and I read that page. It starts with a premise (that there is a designer), accepts it’s true without question and looks for supporting evidence. That’s not how science is supposed to work. Especially given that several examples of irreducible complexity (such as bacterial flagella) have been reduced making the case an awful lot weaker

  18. By Lista on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    I’m not going to be able to keep working on this forever this morning. I’ll eventually have to leave the computer and do other things.

    Any “science” that is based on an unproven hypothesis, “Random Selection” from one species to another, is going to be biased because the hypothesis is not proven. If another group submits another hypothesis “An Intelligent Designer” this is also a bias. You used the word “premise”. I use the scientific term “Hypothesis” and Evolution Theory also has one. All scientists look for supporting evidence of their Hypothesis. This IS how science works. It’s called the Scientific Method.

  19. By Lista on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    To the Admin,
    You are imposing a double standard on me by insisting that I have to prove my case. Evolutionists have not proven their case either. For every “pseudo-scientific” argument for Evolution has also been thoroughly, repeatedly and definitely debunked. Peer-reviewed and accepted scientific research is difficult to do when there is a strong bias in the scientific community in support of the status quo. I guess I could call Evolution Theory unwanted noise too, but then again, that is just name calling, so we are again getting no where.

    You have said “Show me one argument I can’t debunk about ID, Lista, just one real, provable verified argument.” I say “Show me one argument that ID can’t debunk about Evolution, just one real provable verified argument.” You can’t require of ID to do something that Evolution is also not able to do. That is a double standard and not fair.

  20. By rube cretin on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    daniel,
    Please indulge a delusional old man. when i read your post this morning i was taking a break from reading some Joseph Campbell. If i may be permitted i would like to reframe your post just a tad. It really won’t matter, because most will just ignore it anyway.

    Campbell says,”In Hinduism the religion of the God Visnu is that of love. In the Vishnu way of analyzing love, there are five degrees of love and a model that represents each of these different stages. The whole discipline of seeking and achieving illumination can be conducted from the energy of this channel.”

    “The first degree of love, that of servant to master, is the low deggree of love. “Oh lord, you are the master. I am the servant. Tell me what to do, and i shall do it” This is the way of the religion of law, where there are a lot of commandments- ten commandments, a thousand commandments, a hundred and ten thousand commandments. It is a religion of fear. You have not awakened to the divine presence. It’s out there and you are here. This way is principally for people who have not had much time to devote themselves either religious thinking or to love.”

    “The model that represents this first stage is that of the little monkey king, Hanuman, who is the servant of Rama. I don’t know wheather there is a specific example of this stage in the christian religion, but there doesn’t have to be, because the Christian tgradition is nothing else for most people: obeying ten commandments here, ten commandments there.”

    He goes on to talk about the other stages and if you are not familiar with them i highly recommend. Now you say what does that have to do with all this? I think you know.

  21. By Daniel DiRito on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    Rube,

    I’ve always liked Campbell. His talent resides in his ability to transcend many of the long standing arguments and provide some level of beneficial insight into the human experience. The example you cite is just one of many.

    I’ve long argued that it is far easier to believe in God than it is to deny his existence. We humans are uniquely aware of our mortality which means we’re forever traumatized by the thought of our impending death. So much of human behavior is therefore an attempt to reduce the terror that this awareness creates.

    A belief in a creator and an afterlife has proven to be one of the most effective methods. In knowing as much, I’m happy that religion provides comfort to so many people. Unfortunately, the pursuit of comfort is really little more than evidence of need.

    Hence we return to the notion of love. Is love the comfort someone or something can give…or is it possible that true (higher) love would be giving without any expectations?

    Back to religion. Don’t we believe in God because we want the comfort his existence seems to offer? When we embrace a divine being, don’t we then behave in specified ways in expectation of receiving a reward from him? Wouldn’t it be appropriate to ask ourselves where the love we profess for god sits on this scale of love?

    In the end, I don’t believe in God…but I do believe in love.

    Take care my friend!

    Daniel

  22. By Paul Watson on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    Litsa,
    Yes, you do use hypothesis. You use it incorrectly. That is the point. A hypothesis is testable. It is not testable that there is a designer.

    Secondly, the scientific method tries to falsify the hypothesis, not prove it. If a hypothesis can be tested, but none of the tests falsify it, that hypothesis is accepted. Again, not understanding this basic tenet makes it quite hard to discuss this with you because we are not using the same language or references.

  23. By Chris Radulich on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    So Lisa

    Do you believe it was the ancient Martians or Alfa Centurians who designed us?

    Why would you call the designer intelligent? Your appendix services only one purpose at this time. If it goes bad it will kill you.

    Then there is the eye. Not much of a design that has 50 % of the population needing glasses. The first eye glasses in the western world is thought to be in 1284. So for much of human history a large portion of our population has been doomed to a very fuzzy world.

    In the US 3% of the children born major have birth defects. A pretty poor record for a manufacturing process.

    And as asked before Who designed the designer?

    But here is something you can try and see what acceptance it gets. Nobody truely understands how gravity is transmitted or actually caused. So what you need to do is go around telling people that it is gods hand ( or an alien machine) that causes the illusion of gravity and this should be taught in our schools.

    It is not your ideas that we fear. It is the stupidity behind them.

  24. By mark on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    The time worn canard you use (likely tracing its roots back to E Scot) of evolution being as proven as gravity is very instructive. While pro-evolution-is-fact forces use it often, I read recently where a scholar had never heard of the converse.

    To paraphrase the profesor, physicists do NOT say that gravity is as proven as evolution. They know better than to demean the law of gravity (not to be confused with the theory of gravity).

  25. By Paul Watson on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    Mark,
    There is no law of gravity. Gravity has never been proven to exist. Sorry, but it hasn’t.

    No one has ever seen a graviton. No one has seen a gravity wave. No one has ever seen a curve in space time or a Higgs boson. There is no proof gravity exists. It’s just a theory. And in science, theory has a very specific meaning that is much narrower and tougher than the general usage of the word.

  26. By Paul Watson on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    Blog at New Scientist abut this very subject:

    http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2008/03/are-id-proponents-being-silenced.html

  27. By Paul Watson on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    And while I’m here:
    http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/evolution

  28. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    The following video discusses the latest efforts to promote intelligent design as a scientific theory, which is frankly little more than deliberate deception…and that seems to me to be contradictory to fundamental Christian values. Unfortunately, many of these zealots believe the end justifies the means.

    My only comment is to doubt that those who advance intelligent design as a scientific theory are deliberately attempting to deceive anyone. If they believe anything to be true, it is that God is the creator of the universe and, therefore, that science cannot, if its discoveries be true, discover anything other than that the universe has been created by an intelligent designer. With this, Daniel, there can be no doubt that YOU disagree but to suppose that those who advance ID are being deliberately deceptive, one must believe that they who advance ID THEMSELVES disagree with their own theory.

    No sir. I do not believe that you can believe that. Whatever you may say about ID, it will do you no good to slur them that advance ID as being deliberately deceptive. They may be themselves deceived about the factuality of their theory but who can believe that they do not believe it themselves?

  29. By island on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    Daniel bases his assertions on unproven assumptions that are common to extreme left-winged reactionaries, not mainstream Americans:
    “Yes, proponents of these bills are careful to avoid any discussion of creationism or intelligent design as religious concepts in conflict with evolution.”

    No, these academic freedom bills, which typically work in conjunction with the science standards are written to strictly prohibit the teaching of religion, creationism, “creation science”, “creation facts”, and ID.

    Any attempt to violate the law will put teachers and/or schools in jeopardy of prosecution, so all of the necessary mechanisms to prevent this from happening.

    You automatically over-react to assume that the DI has simply repackaged their game, rather than to change it’s tactics, but this has NOT been established, and is NOT what the law allows, so your bogus assertions are based soley on your paranoid fear of the unknown.

    This kind of stereotypically predictable reaction-ism, and the ideologically distorted half-truths or blatant lies that go with it, are the reason why I’ve started this very incomplete list for the next go-round in Florida.

    Bobby J. also got a copy, and I hope that I had an effect on him!

    http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=PluckPersona&U=f4af536be6e34501aa356a4a76ef99cf&plckPersonaPage=PersonaBlog&plckUserId=f4af536be6e34501aa356a4a76ef99cf

  30. By Daniel DiRito on Jul 4, 2008 | Reply

    Craig,

    Yes, I do disagree…and the Dover trial is all the evidence needed. The court found that they took the notion of creationism out of one book (portions were verbatim) and they placed it in another book as intelligent design and attempted to portray it as a worthy adjunct to science education.

    In other words, they knew that the courts had previously rejected the teaching of creationism in schools so they deliberately devised a plan to circumvent the prior ruling. Nah, that’s not deception, is it?

    Yes, I realize they believe what they believe and they are entitled to do so…and they also think they are right…but what does that have to do with science? Bottom line..attempting to hoodwink the system on an issue that has already been adjudicated is at best intellectual dishonesty.

    The fact that they continue to seek ways to circumvent the prior ruling is their right as well…but don’t expect me to call it anything less than it is.

    Regards,

    Daniel

  31. By Chris Radulich on Jul 5, 2008 | Reply

    Daniel

    I take it you are not going to support the hand of god theory of gravity.

    The reason for the attack on evolution is that it robs man of an another ego trip.

    The church fought the solar- centric model of the universe because it did not make us special. With the geo centric model we were the center of the universe and therefore proof that god favored us. With the solar model we are just one more insignificant planet revolving around an insignificant star.

    Much the same with evolution. With “intelligent” design” we are special. With evolution we are just one species among other. Nothing special about us. Another blow to our ego.

  32. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 5, 2008 | Reply

    Or, as an alternate explanation, because each of those things removed God from the center of the universe and placed man’s rational mind in God’s place there.

  33. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 5, 2008 | Reply

    It is, I would think, belief in God as the ruler at the center of the universe that is the ultimate blow to human ego and, it seems to me, atheism that is the ultimate in egotism.

  34. By Paul Watson on Jul 5, 2008 | Reply

    Craig,
    Alternatively, the belief that we are special and unique in the universe is a fair bit of egotism yourself, wouldn’t you say?

  35. By steve on Jul 5, 2008 | Reply

    You know… I go both ways on this. Nobody has witnessed a new species of animal seemingly pop out of nowhere. I don’t know… a horned rabbit… a new furry fish, whatever… logically it wouldn’t work… Everything we have in this world can be explained logically. However, we cannot go back and undeniable prove Jesus did or did not exist or find the chemical reaction that created life billions of years ago on this planet. We also however cannot prove why we have the ability to reason, to invent, to create what we do that makes human beings so unique and so special. The theory of evolution does not tell us why we do what we do but only gives us a road map as a species of how we got here. There is still our own human ability to reason that is greatly unexplained. So why can’t there be a “higher power” explanation? Why can’t we be open to the idea and still research and understand evolution? Why is it one way or the other and not both? Why can’t we search for God too? If we want to continue to advance, all options have to be on the table.

  36. By Paul Watson on Jul 5, 2008 | Reply

    steve,
    Bluntly because science does not and cannot do God. As God tends to work in miraculous ways, that is ways that do not conform to scientific laws and which cannot be reproduced under testable conditions, science will never be able to do anything about the existence of God.

    Doesn’t mean three isn’t a God, or even a creator, but science isn’t the place to be looking for him. Science is where we try our best using our primitive monkey brains to make sense of the universe and to predict how it will behave. Ascribing things to an unknowable, unpredictable figure is not scientific. We might get it wrong (phlostogen, for example) but when we realise we screwed up, we try and put out something else that’s better (meaning predicts things including the thing that screwed over the last brilliant idea).

  37. By Chris Radulich on Jul 5, 2008 | Reply

    atheism says that there is no god, not that man is the ultimate or that he is god. How is ego involved here.

    The fact that god is all and we are his special creation is where the ego comes into play. I mean god create man in his image, right.

  38. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 5, 2008 | Reply

    Paul,

    It is egotism only upon the assumption that there is no God who has created man specially. As I say, it takes an atheist to think that egotism. On the assumption that it is true, it is mere credulity, not egotism.

    Chris,

    atheism says that there is no god, not that man is the ultimate

    man is the measure of all things” –Protagoras.

    Ring any bells?

    Atheists place man at the pinnacle and man’s reason as the highest good, beyond which none must look for a standard of knowledge acquisition, morals, and ethics. It is posited that man alone has the power to destroy life on earth (literally via sciences discoveries put to practical use in nuclear bombs as well as the whole system of global warming dogma) and to save it (via groups of priests called legislators magically incanting sacred incantations first called ‘bills’ and then dubbed ‘laws’ mandating 70% reductions in greenhouse gases from the levels of the year of their god, 1990, as if, you know, just chanting such incantations will make it so — more global warming dogma). They both make the choice to create life (IVF, genetic engineering) and to destroy it (euthanasia, abortion and ESC research) at will. They are their own standard of ethics (moral relativism and situation ethics). In my opinion, anyone who says atheists do not make man the ultimate or as gods is most likely self-deceived.

    As for your second paragraph, see my response to Paul. Believers, for the most part, believe that, though created in God’s image, lost that image at the fall and have never regained it this side of the grave. Even in creation in God’s image, believers do not consider man to be on a level with God. That was the serpent’s lie: eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and you will become as gods. In following that advice, man lost even that likeness to God with which he had been created. Even if you take all that as pure mythology, it does not teach egotism. It teaches that, since the fall, all men are born in sin and, unless redeemed by God, lost forever. Tell me, please, where is the egotism in that?

  39. By Chris Radulich on Jul 5, 2008 | Reply

    It is egotism only upon the assumption that there is no God who has created man specially.

    Absolutley no logic in that statement at all.

    egotism

    1. excessive and objectionable reference to oneself in conversation or writing; conceit; boastfulness.
    2. selfishness; self-centeredness; egoism.

    not believing in god implies none of that. Believing in a god that created you implies all of that.

    a·the·ism
    1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
    2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

    no where in the definition is man even mentioned.

    No they don’t believe that they are god , just the next best thing. Sometimes even gods representitive.

  40. By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 5, 2008 | Reply

    Chris,

    If your ridiculously reductionist reading of my comment finds no logic, I’m not surprised. Have a good night!

  41. By Lista on Jul 6, 2008 | Reply

    Well, this comment thread is moving along so quickly that I can hardly keep up. When there were only 15 comments, I proceeded to type out an entire page in response to Rube Cretin’s confusion over how the Stages of Love relate to Christianity. I included verses and all. Next, I did a Google search relating to the Scientific Method and began to form some of my thoughts relating to Paul Watson’s comment that he addressed to me. Meanwhile, I checked the post again and realized that there were 17 more comments added since I checked it last. Wow!! As I read the remaining comments, I realized that I had even more thoughts than before. I’ve decided to place the names of the people I’m responding to in bold print, so that you can better follow where my thoughts are coming from.

    Well, I’m going to have to reduce what I typed for Rube Cretin down to a single paragraph. The Old Testament focuses mainly on Law (the first Phase of Love), but in the New Testament, Christ died for our sins and released us from our bondage to the Law. The New Testament is more about Forgiveness and Grace. Without quoting the verses, I’m just going to say that we are told that if we love God with all our heart and our neighbor as ourselves, this fulfills the law. (Matthew 22:37-40). In the New Testament, Christ brings in a New Covenant of Grace and frees us from the Law of sin and death. (Romans 8:2). Also, we are freed out of our bondage and fear and are adopted into God’s family, to become God’s Children. (Romans 8:15). If you want to better understand this, read the book of Romans.

    Paul Watson, Considering the number of comments under this post, I don’t really have the time or energy to fully answer your questions about the Scientific Method. I have given it some thought, though, and may return to it again at a later date.

    Some of Mark’s remarks are worth repeating about the “Pro-Evolution-is-fact forces” over using the idea that Evolution is “as proven as gravity” and that “Physicists do NOT say that gravity is as proven as Evolution”, because “They know better than to demean the Law of Gravity”. Don’t you see? That’s the whole problem. Evolution is too often presented as fact, when in reality, it is very much, just a Theory.

    I guess gravity has not been proven, but it has been proven that things fall when dropped. That’s been observed, tested, experimented on and documented over and over again. The only thing that is not proven is what it is that actually causes the falling phenomena.

    In contrast, the actual concept of Natural Selection Between Species has never been observed or successfully tested. Note the “Between the Species” part of the sentence, for this is key. Steve touched on this point and makes some other interesting points as well.

  42. By Lista on Jul 6, 2008 | Reply

    Your suggestion, Craig, that Intelligent Design is a “deception” is a false accusation with no basis in the facts. I appreciate the fact that you don’t believe that such deception is deliberate, yet I’m afraid that it is the Evolutionists that are the deceivers, just as is illustrated in Mark’s comment that I summarized above.

    Yeh! Preach it Island!!

    In Daniel’s comment about the deception of taking the notion of Creationism out of one book and placing it in another book as Intelligent Design, I’d like to know who the “They” refers to. I’m guessing it was a small group of Christian Creationists, not representative of the scientific emphasis that is presented by those who advocate Intelligent Design.

    Paul Watson, you say, “Science does not and can not do God.” The thing is, though, it should not be doing Atheism either. The main idea that Intelligent Design advocates are opposing is not Evolution as a whole, but the idea of Natural Random Selection, occurring as an Undirected Process. Again notice the bold print, for it is the real key to the controversy and Random, Undirected Natural Selection from one species into another can not be proved and has never once been observed. Perhaps if some of the Evolution lovers who are not Atheists better understood the real root of the conflict, they wouldn’t be so afraid of the Intelligent Design idea.

    All that the group really wants is for the schools to stop pushing an unproven Atheistic idea on our children and making it sound like a fact, whether than a Theory. All they are asking for is that the “Strengths and Weaknesses” of that idea are presented, just as the author of the initial post has admitted.

    Craig made some very interesting points about Global Warming and I’d like to add that man seems to think that we are both the cause and the solution, even though the idea that this is a natural reoccurring phenomena beyond our control is just as likely.

    I wasn’t going to get involved in the Egotism discussion, yet when I got to the end of these comments, I realized that I do have something to say about it, for I thought of a verse. Romans 12:3 says, “For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.” (KJV). Pride is only Egotism when it is in excess of what is true. If being created in God’s Image is true, than it’s true. We can not deny it in order to appear more humble, yet I really do love what Craig said about fallen man being born into sin, so I’m going to repeat his closing question; “Tell me, please, where is the egotism in that?

  43. By Paul Watson on Jul 6, 2008 | Reply

    Litsa,
    I’ll try again. Science is about things that are testable, predictable and repeatable. An unknown, unknowable and unpredictable creator is not scientific. It might be true, but it is not scientific which is all we are arguing about. Not truth versus non-truth, but science versus non-science.

    Craig,
    Your assertion concerning the egotism of belief is fine, but it also applies in reverse. If atheism is true and there is no God, then there is no egotism in assuming that the only thing we can turn to is man, however flawed he is. Equally, if there is no God, your belief in a supreme being who cares about you personally is profoundly egotistc. Lacking proof of either, both must be considered equally egotistical, must they not?

  44. By Lista on Jul 6, 2008 | Reply

    Ah yes, I remember the Predicting part of the Scientific Method. One of the things that I noticed when I studied this Method was that not everyone has defined it in exactly the same way. The definitions are similar, yet not exactly the same.

    On the page that I referred earlier, the four steps given are Observations, Hypothesis, Experiments and Conclusion.
    http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

    In an old College Chemistry Text Book that I kept from my youth (the copy write date embarrasses me), the four steps are 1)Collecting Facts, through Observation and Experimentation, 2) Analyzing, Evaluating and proposing a Hypothesis capable of explaining them, 3) Planning and Conducting Additional Experiments designed to “Test the Hypothesis” and 4) Modify the Hypothesis if necessary so that it is compatible with all of the experimental data. Note that the first three of these steps do include within them the key words used in the definition given on the Discovery Institute’s page and the forth step (Modify the Hypothesis if necessary) is an action that will be based on the other key word (Conclusion).

    Next, I did a Google search on the web, but only had the time to look at one page.
    http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
    The four steps given here were slightly different. 1) Observation and Description, 2) Formulation of an Hypothesis, 3) Use of the Hypothesis to Predict the existence of other phenomena, or the results of new observations and 4) Performance of Experimental Tests of the Predictions.

    As you can see, this post included Predictions just as you have. This was the page/post that I was going to work from in order to give you a response and I still may do it, yet I’ve sort of got to go now and when I get back to this this evening, I’m sure that there will be even more comments. I can only do what I can do. Oh well.

  45. By Lista on Jul 6, 2008 | Reply

    In relation to the Egotistical discussion, perhaps we are talking about man’s search for a sense of worth and self-esteem, whether than excessive ego. Egotism is something that we must judge about individuals, not groups. Let’s stop accusing each other and try to focus on the actual real debate.

  46. By Lista on Jul 7, 2008 | Reply

    Please do stay tuned because I am indeed working on this, yet my response is taking longer than I had planned. Hopefully, I’ll get it submitted sometime this evening.

  47. By Paul Merda on Jul 7, 2008 | Reply

    Lista and all,

    When the day comes that the Inteligent Design proponents actually come up with a real live testable, repeatable experiment to indicate the existence of a designer, then it will be science. Until then, its just another philosophical outlook on how things may be. Evolution is science and until it is debunked by a better theory, I’m afraid it is here to stay.

    You can look up the evolution of the horse below and see how much evidence there is on the subject of evolution… The transitional fossils, the huge time-frame etc is all there.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

  48. By Lista on Jul 8, 2008 | Reply

    Paul Watson,
    Since each time I submit something, I try not to go much past one word processor, type written page, I don’t have space to quote what’s already been said, so I’ll do my best to summarize it..

    First, you said the Discovery Institute web page I referred started with a premise (there’s a designer) and they look for supporting evidence. You claimed that’s not how science works and expressed concern that I think science is biased.

    I responded by explaining that any science based on an Unproven Hypothesis is going to be biased, that the scientific word “Hypothesis” is better than the word “Premise”, that Evolution Theory or Darwinism has an Unproven Hypothesis (Random, Undirected, Natural Selection from one species to another) and that all scientists look for supporting evidence. That’s called the Scientific Method.

    Next, you claimed I was using the word “Hypothesis” incorrectly because a Hypothesis has to be Testable and the Scientific Method tries to falsify the Hypothesis, not prove it.

    In your most recent comment addressed to me, you said science is about things that are testable, predictable and repeatable, the quest to explain an unknown, unpredictable Creator is not scientific and this debate is not about truth vs non-truth, but about Science vs Non-science.

  49. By Lista on Jul 8, 2008 | Reply

    As I read through the web page I referred about the Scientific Method (the last link given in my previous comment), the first thing I noticed is that the author of this page admits there can be problems with Bias in research. Like I mentioned before, this post or web page included the idea of Predictions, just like you, for Step 3 of the Scientific Method describes using the Hypothesis to Predict the existence of other phenomena or the results of new observations and Step 4 suggests that the reason for the Experiments are for the testing of Predictions.

    The other thing I noticed in this web page is the statement “It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved.”, just as you said, yet the author goes on to say that “A HYPOTHESIS MUST BE RULED OUT OR MODIFIED IF ITS PREDICTIONS ARE CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH EXPERIMENTAL TESTS.”

    Let’s consider, for example, the Hypothesis; “Life Evolved from Random, Undirected, Natural Selection from one species to another.”, or actually just part of that idea; “Life can Evolve from one Species to another.” This idea can be tested through selective breeding, which has been done. To support this Hypothesis, the results of breeding experiments have to match the expectation or “PREDICTION” that such breeding will eventually result in the creation of another species. Unfortunatly, the results of such experiments have time and time again been INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PREDICTIONS.

    According to the Web Page in question (Appendix E, from Rochester University), the Hypothesis needs to be “RULED OUT OR MODIFIED” if it’s predictions are “REPEATEDLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH EXPERIMENTAL TESTS”, yet Evolutionists will continually refuse to do that and keep trying to explain away the fact that their experiments have continually been incompatible with the prediction that a new species will eventually be produced by selective breeding.

    So let’s get back to the issue at hand. You say that “science is about things that are testable“. Well, the Hypothesis “Life Evolved from Random, Undirected, Natural Selection from one species to another over billions of years” is not testable and what’s more, no one has ever observed or been able to produce through breeding, or any other means, any example ever of one species evolving into another.

    The bottom line is that all of the same arguments that are used against Intelligent Design to establish that such is not a science, can also be used to establish that the original ideas of Darwin, that are still being taught to this day are not science either. There is double standard here and that is all I need to say. Proving Intelligent Design Theory, with out a shadow of any doubt, is not even necessary and besides, all that is being asked of the schools is that they teach both the “Strengths and Weakness” of the Theory or in other words, admit that it an Unproven Theory and stop teaching it as if it is proven science.

  50. By Lista on Jul 8, 2008 | Reply

    Paul Merda,
    I don’t have to come up with absolute, unrefutable proof. The point is that Evolutionists have not done so either. There are flaws in every single thing that Evolutionists do in order to try and prove Random Selection from one species to another. The proof is just not there and anyone who tries to present this idea as definite fact is being deceptive.

  51. By Chris Radulich on Jul 8, 2008 | Reply

    Darwin has been widely accepted since 1930’s. No one has ever been able to disprove it since.

    Lisa

    Please give me a site that has any sort of proof of ID beyond saying ID is right.

  52. By Lista on Jul 8, 2008 | Reply

    Chris Radulich,
    Again, again and again, you guys miss the point. Since Evolution Theory or Darwinism has never been proven, it is not fair to ask Intelligent Design Scientists to do what Evolution also can not do. All that Intelligent Design Advocates need to do is show that they have Evidence, just like Evolutionists have Evidence.

    Earlier I gave a few links to web pages on the Discovery Institute sight. Here they are again. These explain what Intelligent Design is and is not. In the second of these links, read the paragraph on the bottom about “Is Intelligent Design a Scientific Theory?”

    http://www.discovery.org/v/22
    http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

    There is also some interesting discussion on my blog on the subject that offers more actual evidence than has appeared on this thread.

    http://wwwramblingsoflista.blogspot.com/2008/05/off-subject-comments.html

    Repeating this stuff over and over again gets tiering, that’s why I’m leaving links instead.

    From the second of the two Intelligent Design links, you can do a search of the Discovery Institute Database and find all sorts of articles in support of Intelligent Design. Type in things such as Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, Icons of Evolution, Natural Selection, DNA, etc.

  53. By Lista on Jul 8, 2008 | Reply

    I wrote something longer earlier and lost it and now I’m low on time and in fact, may have trouble getting back to the computer in awhile, so I’m going to leave you with this.

    Again and again, you guys keep missing the point by asking Intelligent design to prove their Hypothesis, because Evolution has not proven theirs either.

    If you want evidence though, go to the Discovery Institute Site at
    http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
    After reading about Intelligent Design, do a search by typing in words like Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, DNA, Natural Selection, etc. You will find all sorts of articles written in support of Intelligent Design.

    There was also some interesting conversation about this subject over at my blog that includes more evidence than this comment thread does. It gets tiering repeating this over and over again. That’s why I’m just leaving you a link.
    http://wwwramblingsoflista.blogspot.com/2008/05/off-subject-comments.html
    Please do go check it out. I may be away from the computer for awhile, though, so please don’t feel neglected if I don’t answer when you comment.

  54. By admin on Jul 9, 2008 | Reply

    Lista once again there is no evidence on the DI institute that isn’t refuted by every half-way educated biologist. There is not ONE scientificly valid argument that they make that hasn’t been debunked. You keep brining up google - google Intelligent Design claims refuted.

    Evolutionary science has achieved a level of “proof” that ID can’t simply because all the evidence points to evolutionary theory and none to ID. You are purposefully mixing the terms proof and hypothesis. ALL modern biological science supports evolutionary theory. None of it supports ID. Evolution is not a hypothesis it is a Scientific Theory. The Gravity is also a Scientific Theory and yet my fat ass manages to stay in my chair every day because of it and not super-glue. Scientific Theories are not (as has been argued) anythign close to being a hypothesis, or an idea, or a fun thought I had while sitting in the tub. You and your ilk who keep pushing for some divine hand at making the universe constantly and purposefully try to confuse people by misusing the English language instead of properly using the scientific method.

    NO EVIDENCE NONE NONE NONE. When you can produce anything at all the entire scientific community will do cartwheels for you, until then quit trying to push ID as anything but religion in scientific clothing.

  55. By Paul Merda on Jul 9, 2008 | Reply

    Lista,

    You are wrong that Evolution han’t proven their claims. Have you ever heard of genetics? The whole of modern genetics studies is based upon the framework of evolution. How do you think we share 99% of our genetics with chimps? It is primarily because we share a common ancestor, it is really that simple.

    Let’s not forget that modern medicine is constantly fighting with bacterium and viruses that regularly have genetice chnages such that some bacteria are no longer able to be killed with antibiotics. That is because there genes have changes due to the pressures of natural selection.

    Just because a few quacks write an article about irreducible complexity does not mean it is true and in fact when it comes to the eye, they have been thouroughly debunked just by looking at modern animals.

    The fact remains is all that ID has is a hypotheses which has no experimental evidence to support it, they only have philosophical arguements. Saying that life is too complex to happen by chance and showing it through experimentation are two comepletly different things.

    Also, don’t forget that Evolutionary Theory is a way to descrbe HOW the diversity of life on this planet arose, not how life itself arose… That would be up to Origins Science.

  56. By Chris Radulich on Jul 9, 2008 | Reply

    And there is the fossil record. Again show me a web site that has specifics and not the eye. Aside from its design not working correctly in 50% of the cases, there is a clear evolutionary path to the eye.

  57. By Lista on Jul 9, 2008 | Reply

    Chris Radulich,
    I have left a link twice now to the Discovery Institute site that you can use to search from. This is not a Google search as the administrator has suggested. Maybe I didn’t make that clear. It is a search through the data base of Discovery Institute articles.

    I do not have time to do all of the research for you right now. I wish that I did. I’m not a fast reader and there are all sorts of things going on in our life right now that may soon cause me to be away from the computer, at exactly what time such will occur is unclear. You can judge me as lazy if you like and continue to believe all that you want to believe or you can go to my Web Page and read how complicated my life is right now.

  58. By Lista on Jul 9, 2008 | Reply

    The Administrator,
    Once again, there is no evidence presented by Evolutionists or Darwinists in support of Natural Selection between species that has not been refuted by Intelligent Design Scientists. There is not ONE argument for this that has EVER be observed or confirmed by the Scientific Method.

    Don’t tell me about the beaks of the Finches. I put the phrase between species in bold print for a reason.

    It wasn’t Google that I brought up. It was a search done from the link I gave to the Discovery Institute Site. As to Googling, though, try Googling Evolution refuted or Darwinism refuted and I’m sure you’ll find web pages on that as well.

    You’re claims are not true, Admin. I never once suggested that Hypothesis and Proof were the same. You are putting words in my mouth. The Gravity Theory has way more validity than Evolution does. There is no comparison. Such is a deception and Natural Selection between the species has no scientific credence at all. Honest scientists will admit this.

  59. By Lista on Jul 9, 2008 | Reply

    Paul Merda,
    When I read your claim that Evolution has “Proven” their claims, I just sat here with my mouth opened realizing that you actually really do believe that. Genetics is also used by Intelligent Design Advocates to illustrate the presence of an extremely complicated language. Language is evidence of the presence of a designer.

    Commonalities between the species, even within genetics does not prove Evolution. It only shows that the Designer used the same thing more than once because it works.

    The Evolution of Bacterium and Viruses is also not a between the species argument. Most Intelligent Design Scientists do not deny the existence of Natural Selection within a single species.

    The word quack is an accusation and the making of accusations never proves anything.

    Evolutionists and Darwinists also have a hypothesis with no experimental evidence to support it. The Hypothesis is Random, Undirected, Natural Selection, between the species. Don’t keep removing the bold print part of this Hypothesis, because that is where the deception lies. When the full Hypothesis is examined scientifically, there is no observable evidence what so ever and therefore, it too is

    Oh and BTW, Anthorpology, from which all the fossil records are found, is a science based more on observation and speculation, than on “the Scientific Method”. So if the Scientific Method is what we are using in order to define science, than you are going to have to throw out all your fossil evidence as well. Not that it’s necessary to do so, there are so many holes in it, that it doesn’t hold water anyway.

    As long as all the fossils in the link you gave me are called horse fossils, I’m not convinced that this is a between the species argument. One again, most Intelligent Design Scientists do not deny the existence of Natural Selection within a single species.

    When I did a search on that link for the word evidence, all I found was the repeated statement, “There is evidence for…”, but the actual evidence was not described.

  60. By Lista on Jul 9, 2008 | Reply

    To all,
    Actually, it is quite obvious that die hard Evolutionists and Darwinists are not going to be convinced. All I am asking, in relation to anyone else who is listening, and has at least somewhat of an opened minded, is that you will take the time to study both sides of this issue and not just take the word of either side, just because of what they claim to be true about their opponent.

    Intelligent Design Scientists do not claim that they have proof, only that Evolutionists and Darwinists do not, so which do you think is the more arrogant of the two positions? You’ll never know which of the two is a “Deception” until you have taken the time to check it out for yourself, which I most definitely challenge you to do.

  61. By Lista on Jul 9, 2008 | Reply

    Ok, You know what? Here’s one of the articles.

    http://www.discovery.org/a/3405

    After this, click on search again. Not Google Search, but the Search link, between the words Contact and Links and type in words such as Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, DNA, Natural Selection, etc. That is unless you are afraid to explore intelligent arguments coming from the other side of the issue.

  62. By Lista on Jul 9, 2008 | Reply

    Here’s another one.

    http://www.discovery.org/a/4529

  63. By Paul Merda on Jul 9, 2008 | Reply

    Lista,

    You guys say a “designer” did it, an evolutionist says nature did it. We can see nature all around us, what about your designer. Please prove your “designer” exists so that we can move on. There is little need to prove that nature exists, no?

  64. By Lista on Jul 9, 2008 | Reply

    Please prove that nature happened by “Random Undirected Chance”, between the species, so we can move on. Are we talking in circles or what?! I wish I didn’t have to keep repeating myself. Did you bother to read any of the links I left?

  65. By Paul Merda on Jul 9, 2008 | Reply

    Lista,

    Yes I did and to me it seems to be the same rehashed arguement, “evolution doesn’t have ALL the answers so ID MUST be right”… No we are not talking in circles Lista, your guys have nothing and still have nothing other than a philosophical idea…

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

  66. By Lista on Jul 9, 2008 | Reply

    Intelligent Design Scientists do not claim that they have proof, only that Evolutionists and Darwinists do not, yet the evidence really should be obvious.

    The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork.” Psalms 19:1 (KJV).

    The heavens declare His righteousness and all the people see His glory. Psalms 97:6 (KJV).

    For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” Romans 1:20 (KJV).

  67. By Lista on Jul 9, 2008 | Reply

    You know what, Paul?
    You’re not listening. The point is that Evolution also has nothing and Random “Undirected” Natural Selection, between the species also can not be proved and thus is nothing more than a Philosophical Atheistic Idea. I can repeat this just as many times as you can.

    I don’t have to deny what you are saying, but only to point out that the same is true of the main Hypothesis that Darwinism is based on. I don’t have to prove, or even have evidence that is superior. All I need to do is show that your evidence is not superior to ours.

    Just in case you’ve forgotten, the actual subject of this post is whether or not the “Strengths and Weaknesses” of Evolution should be taught honestly in the class room.

  68. By Daniel DiRito on Jul 9, 2008 | Reply

    Ahh yes! At last Lista reveals the substance of her hypothesis…three Biblical verses. Should it still be unclear, faith is not fact and the leap from faith to fact is not a scientific endeavor…nor is it consistent with the scientific method.

    Lista, while I fully respect your right to your religious beliefs…I find detestable your inclination to misconstrue them as science. At least science has the measured restraint to admit that it cannot disprove God.

    You, my friend, would be well served to grant science a scintilla of its due…yet I realize that would challenge the certainty of your faith. In fact, that’s the essential crux of the creationist argument…any concession to science may well set in motion a methodology of measurement that might remove the means to maintain the deniability, and the certainty, that is so critical to the preservation of faith. And you can’t allow that to happen, now can you?

    Regards,

    Daniel

  69. By Lista on Jul 9, 2008 | Reply

    Daniel DiRito,
    I guess I should have expected that one. The Hypothesis is based, though, on the complexities of nature, not the Bible. People are determined to believe what they want to, though, and there is nothing that I can do about it.

    I’m just hoping that there are people out there listening and not commenting that are more opened minded. Just because many of the Scientists have faith does not prove that that is the reason for their Hypothesis.

    Once again you are making accusations which do not hold up when a person honestly evaluates the facts.

    Darwinism claims that it can prove Random “Undirected” Natural Selection between the species, which is just as bad and just as incorrect. Intelligent Design Scientists do not claim that they can prove God. I’ve denied that accusation time and time again and none of you are listening.

  70. By Daniel DiRito on Jul 9, 2008 | Reply

    Lista,

    If you’re truly interested in the science, take a look at this video series. I assure you your assumptions about the lack of evidence for evolution are flawed.

    A Primer On Evolution

    Regards,

    Daniel

    P.S. The series isn’t yet complete and I will continue to post the video segments as they are uploaded.

  71. By Chris Radulich on Jul 9, 2008 | Reply

    I went to the discovery site again. This time I listened ( i did not listen before because I do not care about the differences between creatsionist and ID)to the video which basically says that our genes are too complex. The only proof offered is because I said so.

    I checked further and found that this is attributed to the work of William Dembski.

    Here is a

  72. By Chris Radulich on Jul 9, 2008 | Reply

    Screwd up the code

  73. By Chris Radulich on Jul 9, 2008 | Reply

    Once again link

  74. By Chris Radulich on Jul 9, 2008 | Reply

    Just came back from a tour of the shenandoah caverns. There I saw a formation in the shape of a castle( complete with turrets), a dragon and a bishop with his miter. Must be further proof of ID. I meaqn how could simple drops of mineral water form such complex shapes.

  75. By Lista on Jul 9, 2008 | Reply

    I was trying not to tell you guys this, though if you go to my Blog, you will know. We may be evacuated soon. We live in Northern California and have been on Precautionary Evacuation notice for two days now because of the fire. We are considering leaving tonight whether they tell us to or not. I’d love to finish this conversation, but I have no idea when and you guys may have all left by then, but there’s nothing I can do.

  76. By Chris Radulich on Jul 9, 2008 | Reply

    Hope everything works out well for you.

  77. By Lista on Jul 9, 2008 | Reply

    Thanks Chris,
    I’m going to bookmark this page and I will be back. All I really want to impress upon the minds of those who are listening and not commenting is please do check out the facts for yourself and do not take anyone’s word for it. Please do read the evidence on both sides.

    You guys take care and I hope that we have the chance to talk again.

  78. By Paul Merda on Jul 10, 2008 | Reply

    Lista,

    The simple fact is that ID is only about interjecting the supernatural into science and science is now, has been and always will be a naturalistic approach to understanding the universe. The minute someone attempts to bring the supernatural in, the minute it is no longer science because supernatural causes are by definition “miraculous” and indeed arbitrary. Therefore, one will not be capable of explaining anything with this approach…

    I was watching a History Channel show called “How Life Began” yesterday and a team at Harvard is attempting to create a living cell. My questions to you is…if we humans can create life, are we not then on an equal level with the Intelligent Designer?? According to the philosophy you are espousing here I would have to say in order for you to be consistent, that you would have to answer yes…

  79. By island on Jul 10, 2008 | Reply

    What’s all this talk about ID? I thought that the topic was academic freedom???

  80. By Lista on Jul 11, 2008 | Reply

    Well, you know what? We changed our minds and are still in town. Go to my blog and read about the fire. It’s really been something.

    Hi Paul,
    The minute the idea of the supernatural is mentioned, we are moving into the Philosophical and Spiritual and this is supposed to be a discussion about science.

    I am not the one who brought up the supernatural. Intelligent Design Scientists do not state whether the designer is supernatural or not. They only state that there is evidence of Design, Period. They strictly stick to what they can observe in nature. I know that that is hard for you to accept, but it is indeed a fact.

    When I quoted those verses, I was not using the Bible as a proof of anything, but only pointing out the message within these verses, that Evidence can indeed be found in nature, just as Intelligent Design Scientists have observed. Perhaps it was a mistake to use verses. One little slip up like that does not prove a religious basis for a Scientific Hypothesis. You guys are alway finding “Proof” when you want to see proof, even when such proof isn’t there.

    Let’s abandon the Philosophical now and stick to science.

    I do not believe that humans can create life and even if they can, it would be life from life, such as fertilizing or altering an already living cell, not creating life from non-life. Humans can not do that and never will.

    From here on out the word Philosophy will not be permitted. Let’s talk about Science.

    Oh there’s Island.
    I’m glad you’re still around. Yes, good questions. I have no idea at all why anyone would be bothered by the simple request to present the “Strengths and Weaknesses” of Evolution in an honest way in the class room. What’s the big deal? I have no idea at all why this is such a big problem?

  81. By Paul Merda on Jul 14, 2008 | Reply

    Sorry Lista, the Team at Harvard has already created cell walls and have placed primitive organelles into them, all they need to do now is get the “cell” to metabolize and reproduce and they will have created articificial life, from scratch…

    Sorry ag

Fish.Travel