[PatrickHenry]

Nice to see that someone in the press understands what's going on.

[nmh]

Oh good grief! NOt this crap again.

No matter how many times you tell a lie, evolution, it still doesn't make it true.

If "natural selection" was a viable theory we'd all be perfect. To this day, imperfections in people are still not fully understood - deformities and other problems. Imperfections HAPPEN and "natural selection" is a farce that defies reality.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Instead, pupils should be given a framework for understanding the gaps in evidence and credibility between the two camps.

Sure. Jump right to graduate level biology and archaeology subjects when the students are reading at 4th grade levels. That'll work.

[nmh]

People are sick and tired of the pseudo science of evolution because it doesn't even square with the laws of science. Evolution is a belief, based on faith. NONE of it has been proven and leaves more questions than answers. Only the terminally dumbed down buy choice, would believe it godless evolution where chaos creates order and something is generated from nothing. It is also NO coincidence that the evolutionary "leaders: are ALL atheists. Then again, maybe Hitler was right, if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it - that is egotistical people that refuse to recognize God and His infinite power. No, instead they want to use their FINITE knowledge that doesn't hold up to science to keep this charade going - it's all about pride.

[metacognative]

Please give me a VERIFIABLE evolutionary fact.
Name one benefical mutation or evidence of a new species appearing in a hundred and fifty years of searching.
Note; DNA loss, as in bacterial immunity doesn't count nor do fruit flies with legs instead of antennae.

[narby]

two-thirds of Americans said they wanted to see creationism taught to public-school science pupils alongside evolution.

Oh, yeah, there's a good way to help convert non-believers. Take a bunch of impressionable young people, put them in a GOVERNMENT run classroom. And have the teacher put a religious belief up against science with physical evidence in abundance.

Guaranteed to spark an immediate discussion of "proving" the existence of God, and cement the idea forever in many young people's heads that He doesn't exist.

Believers can shoot themselves in the foot so bad sometimes. I mean they're only talking about some Old Testament stories, not anything really important in everyday religious life.

There is no real conflict between Genesis and Science, except in the minds of some believers.

Then we get into the possibility of puting all those animals in the Ark, and how was it that Noah saved all those dry land plants from drowning?

[GarySpFc]

“A widespread theological view now exists saying that God started off the world, props it up and works through laws of nature, very subtly, so subtly that its action is undetectable. But that kind of God is effectively no different to my mind than atheism. To anyone who adopts this view I say, ‘Great, we’re in the same camp; now where do we get our morals if the universe just goes grinding on as it does?’ This kind of God does nothing outside of the laws of nature, gives us no immortality, no foundation for morals, or any of the things that we want from a God and from religion.”

William B. Provine, “Progress in Evolution and Meaning in Life,” in Evolutionary Progress, ed. Matthew H. Nitecki (University of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 70 Provine was Professor of History of Biology, Cornell University

[GarySpFc]

"Lynn Margulis is Distinguished University Professor of Biology at the University of Massachusetts. Lynn Margulis is highly respected for her widely accepted theory that mitochondria, the energy source for plant and animal cells, were once independent bacteria cells. And Lynn Margulis says that history will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology." At one of her many public talks she asks the molecular biologists in the audience to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge goes unmet. Proponents of the standard theory, she says, "wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin -- having mistaken him......Neo-Darwinism, which insists on (the slow accrual of mutations), is in a complete funk.""

page 26 [Source: Mann, C. (1991) "Lynn Margulis: Science’s Unruly Earth Mother," Science, 252, 378-381]

[BibChr]

Science isn't a matter of votes -- or beliefs. It's a system of verifiable facts...

Snip.

...evolution is thoroughly supported by a vast weight of scientific evidence and research

In other words, it is majority vote. It's just that it is a CLOSED vote. Only those who already agree get to vote. No other votes count.

Dan

[the invisib1e hand]

the action of natural selection doesn't rule out --- in fact, argues for --- intelligent design.

[Mogollon]

According to the evolutionists, the universe and life originated out of nothing, means nothing, and has no purpose.

[blackeagle]

bump

[Preachin']

"Nice to see that someone in the press understands what's going on."

Anh he/she had the guts to add his name, as well. /sarcasm

[applpie]

When I point my bony finger at someone else (at the creationists), I have four pointed back at me. The evolutionists forget that their THEORY is also a THEORY--one which is marred by great disagreement among its adherents and a history of fraud and error which they refuse to admit to. It also includes some very bad science, some of which is based on faulty foundations and simplistic 19th century scientific belief. The intelligent design theory is not just creationism revisited...it doesn't necessarily imply God as the creator; some folks acknowledge an alien life form as creator. It does, however, recognize that there is amazing intelligence and knowledge embedded within every single part of the creation and all its parts, together, are perfectly synchronized and balanced.

[Ichneumon]

Bookmark for later.

[JTHomes]

I'm no bible expert, but this should be easy to settle. Let's find the garden of eden and ask the angel with the sword of fire if it is all true. Shouldn't he still be guarding it?

[MEGoody]

"Science isn't a matter of votes -- or beliefs."

>Evolutionists insist that evolution be taught in schools. What they fail to insist on is that it be taught as a theory (rather than a scientific law), and that the weaknesses of/holes in/scientific arguments against the theory of evolution be taught along with the theory.

In other words, evolutionists want to be sure that our kids are indoctrinated into the religion of evolution.

[Baytovin]

"Science isn't a matter of votes -- or beliefs. It's a system of verifiable facts".

True, but the theory of evolution is still in need of a whole lot of 'verification' in order to fit this definition.

[chronic_loser]

The only thing worse that stupid fundamentalists who read a Duane Gish tract and think they have it all figured out are the materialist acolytes who haven't a clue as to how FAITH BASED their own assertions are re: the history of life.

If you want unreasoning dogma, talk to a fundie. But if you want sheer stupid prejudice that doesn't even recognize its own dogmatism, and thinks there is no difference between philosophical prejudice and "science," talk to a biology prof at a state university.

[P-Marlowe]

I haven't been around the Crevo Debates for a while. Since my last post here has the theory of Biogenesis been proven? Have they been able to evolve life in a test tube?

If not, call me when they do.

Thanks.

Marlowe

[Havoc]

Pseudoscience doesn't stand up to natural selection

And natural science doesn't stand up to Scripture and God. Just been in a discussion where somebody ignorant of scripture was actually trying to defend the notion that there is no conflict between evolution and Scripture. Desperation... sheesh.