Designed to deceive: Creation can't hold up to rigors of science

CONTRA COSTA TIMES ^ | 12 February 2006 | John Glennon

[PatrickHenry]

MORE THAN A CENTURY and a half since Charles Darwin wrote "On the Origin of Species," evolution remains a controversial concept among much of the population. The situation is quite different in the scientific community, where evolution is almost universally accepted. Still, attacks on the teaching of evolution continue.

The more recent criticism of evolution comes from proponents of intelligent design, a new label for creation "science." They claim ID is a valid scientific alternative to explaining life on Earth and demand it be taught in science classes in our schools along with evolution.

Although intelligent design is cloaked in the language of science and may appear at first glance to be a viable theory, it clearly is not. In fact, intelligent design is neither a theory nor even a testable hypothesis. It is a nonscientific philosophical conjecture that does not belong in any science curriculum in any school.

A theory in the scientific sense is quite different from how the word is often used in conversation.

Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. They are based on extensive data and their predictions are tested and verified time and again.

Biological evolution -- genetic change over time -- is both a theory and a fact, according to paleontologist Stephen Gould. Virtually all biologists consider the existence of evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated in the lab and in nature today, and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming.

However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanics of evolution, which are supported by data and are constantly being refined by researchers whose work is subject to peer review.

But there are many established facts concerning evolution, according to R.C. Lewontin, Alexander Agassiz Professor Emeritus of Zoology at Harvard University. He, as do virtually all biological scientists, agree that it is a fact that the Earth with liquid water has been around for more than 3.6 billion years and that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period.

We know for a fact that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old and that major life forms now on Earth did not exist in the past.

It is considered a fact by biologists that all living forms today come from previous living forms.

A fact is not the same as absolute certitude, which exists only in defined systems such as mathematics. Scientists consider a "fact" to be something that has been confirmed to such a degree of reliability and logic that it would be absurd to think otherwise.

Denying the facts of evolution is akin to denying that gravity exists. What is debatable, with both evolution and gravity, are the theories of the mechanics of how each operates.

Supporters of intelligent design vehemently disagree, but they do not offer alternative theories or verifiable data. Instead, intelligent design proponents attack evolution with misinformation, half-truths and outright falsehoods.

Intelligent design does not develop hypotheses nor does it test anything. As such, intelligent design is simply a conjecture that does not hold up to scrutiny.

False arguments

Unfortunately, intelligent design has considerable credibility outside the scientific community by making specious claims about evolution. Below are some of the leading charges made by intelligent design and creationist proponents in the past several years.

• Evolution has never been observed: But it has. Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population of living organisms over time.

For example, insects develop resistance to pesticides. Bacteria mutate and become resistant to antibiotics. The origin of new species by evolution (speciation) has been observed both in the laboratory and in the wild.

Some intelligent design supporters admit this is true, but falsely say that such changes are not enough to account for the diversity of all living things. Logic and observation show that these small incremental changes are enough to account for evolution.

Even without direct observation, there is a mountain of evidence that confirms the existence of evolution.

Biologists make predictions based on evolution about the fossil record, anatomy, genetic sequences and geographical distribution of species. Such predictions have been verified many times, and the number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming and growing, especially in the field of genetics.

Biologists have not observed one species of animal or plant changing quickly into a far different one. If they did, it would be evidence against evolution.

• Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics: It clearly does not. This law of physics states essentially that disorder increases in a closed system. Some intelligent design and creationist proponents say this means that the order required in the evolution of simple life forms to more complex ones cannot take place, at least not on a long-term basis.

What critics of evolution don't say is that the Earth's environment is not a closed system. It absorbs enormous heat energy from the sun, which is all that is required to supply fuel for the evolution of plants and animals.

Order arises from disorder in the physical world as well, in the formation of crystals and weather systems, for example. It is even more prevalent in dynamic living things.

• There are no transitional fossils: This argument is a flat-out falsehood. Transitional fossils are ones that lie between two lineages with characteristics of both a former and latter lineage. Even though transitional fossils are relatively rare, thousands of them have been found.

There are fossils showing transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to whale, the progression of animals leading to the modern horse, and from early apes to humans.

• Theory says that evolution proceeds by random chance: This is an example of a half-truth perpetuated by intelligent design and creation supporters.

Chance is an important element of evolution, but it is not the only thing involved.

This argument ignores other forces such as natural selection, which weeds out dysfunctional species, and is the opposite of chance.

Chance takes place in genetic mutations, which provide the raw material of evolutionary change, which is then modified and refined by natural selection. But even at the genetic level, mutations occur within the framework of the laws of physics and chemistry.

Opponents of evolution argue that chance, even enhanced by natural selection and the laws of physics, is not enough to account for the complexity of DNA, the basic building blocks of almost all life forms. (RNA is the foundation of some microbes). However, there literally were oceans of organic molecules that had hundreds of millions of years to interact to form the first self-replicating molecules that make life possible.

Irreducible complexity

The attack on evolution that intelligent design proponents use most often today is one based on "irreducible complexity." This has become the foundation of their attempts to cast doubt on evolution.

They argue that certain components of living organisms are so complex that they could not have evolved through natural processes without the direct intervention of an intelligent designer.

Michael Behe, a leading proponent of intelligent design, defined irreducibly complex as "a system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

In other words, irreducible complexity refers to an organism that does something (a function) in such a way that a portion of the organism that performs the function (a system) has no more parts than are absolutely necessary.

The argument made is that the entire system with all its parts, such as an enzyme used in digestion or a flagellum used to propel a bacterium (an example Behe favors in his defense of irreducible complexity), would have to come into being at one time -- a virtual impossibility.

If one of the parts were missing, Behe argues, the system would not be able to function, and thus a simpler, earlier evolving system could not exist.

It is not as easy as it may appear at first glance to define irreducible complexity because there is not a good definition of what a part is. Is it a particular type of tissue, a cell, or segment of DNA? Behe is not clear. But even if he were able to define a true IC system, his argument would fail.

There are several ways an irreducible complexity system could evolve. An early version could have more parts than necessary for a particular function. The individual parts could evolve. Most likely, an earlier version of the system could have had a different function.

This is observed in nature. For example, take the tail-like flagellum of a bacteria, which Behe says supports irreducible complexity. It is used for functions other than motion. A flagellum can be used to attach a bacteria to a cell or to detect a food source.

Thus, a precursor to a more complex flagellum could have had a useful, but different, function with fewer parts. Its function would have changed as the system evolved.

Simply put, the irreducibly complex system argument doesn't work. Most, if not all, of the irreducible complexity systems mentioned by intelligent design adherents are not truly IC. Even if they were, they clearly could have evolved. That is the consensus of almost all biological scientists.

Intelligent design is not science

The theory of evolution and common descent were once controversial in scientific circles. This is no longer the case.

Debates continue about how various aspects of evolution work. However, evolution and common descent are considered fact by the scientific community.

Scientific creationism, or intelligent design, is not science. Believers of intelligent design do not base their objections on scientific reasoning or data.

Instead, it appears that their ideas are based on religious dogma. They create straw men like irreducible complexity or lack of transitional fossils, and shoot them down. They fabricate data, quote scientists out of context and appeal to emotions.

Intelligent design disciples do not conduct scientific experiments, nor do they seek publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Still, they have had an impact far beyond the merits of their arguments.

One of their most persuasive arguments is an appeal to fair play, pleading to present both sides of the argument. The answer is no. They do not present a valid scientific argument.

Within the scientific community, there is virtually no acceptance of intelligent design. It has no more place in a biology class than astrology in an astronomy class or alchemy in a chemistry class.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Sorry, it [Pasteur's Law] has nothing to say about abiogenesis. You are very misinformed.

Beg your pardon, Guv'nor -- Are you illiterate, or just stupid?

I have ALREADY posted evidentiary citation from the Encyclopedia Brittanica demonstrating that Pasteur's Law of Biogenesis is Fundamental and Universal:

"omne vivum e vivo" (every living thing arises from a preexisting living thing) ~~ "among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology"... etc.

La génération spontanée est une chimère" ("Spontaneous generation is a dream") ~~ Louis Pasteur

By Contrast -- you have, as usual, ZERO counter-argument in favor of the Evolutionist Fantasy of "Random Chemical Abiogenesis". There's a reason for this, of course -- Evolutionists like to ASSERT for themselves a "primordial chemical soup" Exception to Pasteur's Scientific Law of Biogenesis, but of course such an Exception has never been Proven, or even Evidenced; Evolutionists just like their Monopoly over Government School Financing.

State-Established Religions usually do.

BTW, you're unchristian behavior isn't getting you any points with God.

Oh, give me a break.

Orthodox Presbyterians don't "score points" with God. That's not the way our theology works.

As I have already said -- you are presumptuous enough to lecture me on my own Religion, even though you don't know the first thing about it.

Typical Closed-Minded Evolutionist Arrogance.

If you actually read the link, you would know that *soft* isn't what you claim it is. Then again, you have reading troubles, I am asking too much of you. The creationists lied through their teeth about what was discovered.

I did read the Link. In fact, I read it in its entirety.

• I SAID, "Dinosaur Soft Tissues" were Recovered.
• YOUR OWN LINK SAYS, "Dinosaur Soft Tissues" were Recovered.

  On 24 March 2005, a team of paleontologists lead by Mary Higby Schweitzer published their discovery of dinosaur soft tissues recovered from the cortical bone of a T. rex femur. (YOUR OWN CITATION)

Try reading your own bloody Citation, you emotionally-invested dilettante.

The thing is, Evolutionists don't quite know how to explain it away yet:

"This may not be fossilisation as we know it, of large macrostructures, but fossilisation at a molecular level," commented Dr Matthew Collins, who studies ancient bio-molecules at York University, UK. (etc.) (AGAIN, YOUR OWN CITATION)

AT THIS POINT, the Evolutionists are scrambling to come up with a halfway-believable explanation as to WHY there are still-elastic Bone-Marrow Tissues inside T.Rex. Bones, despite the fact that they have assured us all along that the discovery of Preserved Dinosaurian Soft Tissue is Impossible, since it is Biochemically-Impossible for Soft Tissues to last for more than 100,000 years.

OOPS. Just one more thing that Evolutionism got wrong, flubbed its Predictive Value as a Theory YET AGAIN.

Typical. And yet, as always, you're still perfectly happy to steal our Creationist Monies, to support your Evolutionist Religion in the Publik Skools.

Tax-suckling Evolutionist LEECHES.

[RunningWolf]

Xzins,

The EVO message at its core towards you. I have pulled and paraphrased actual text from genuine messages that come from these little knuckle heads except I removed any reference to religion or science

Xzins I never said this was that, so I am not interested in your concerns. And I have already told you, numerous times what it was, so how can you be so stupid or a liar to say otherwise??

Are you a psychopath or something? You do know that to don't you? I mean what is keeping you from going off on a J. damer killing spree should you have a crisis of faith?

And I have already told you, 20 times that x = y and the burden of proof is on you. I don’t care in your whiny plea that x does not equal y. now slither away and don’t come back till you can act like a grown man.

I don't give a rat's behind what the the physical evidence is, I have told you repeatedly that it goes against what you believe, how can you say otherwise when I have told you? You are so stupid I am surprised you can even type a reply together, the opinion of bigoted retards means nothing to me so why should yours?

That's your problem, not mine. You show where it is wrong instead of complaining about the implications to your world-view. Nobody really cares.

Now one thing is for certain, The ChiComs really like the EVO's of America ie; to use the darwin based natural sciences of Marxist Atheism to replace Christian value's

2 December, 2004
CHINA
Party’s secret directives on how to eradicate religion and ensure the victory of atheism
The Department of Propaganda has prepared a new paper to promote atheism and ban religions and superstitions. It is intended to stop conversions among leading party cadres and youth.
Beijing (AsiaNews) – ‘Westernising’ and ‘disintegrating’ trends in the name of religion threaten China and the government must “be patient and meticulous in imperceptibly influencing the people”, especially the young and leading party cadres, so as to stop the “growth of religions, cultic organisations and superstitions and strengthen Marxist atheism”. These are the main points presented in a paper prepared by the Department of Propaganda of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) to stop the growth of religion and spirituality among the Chinese. Conversions among the young and leading party cadres are of particular concern. For this reason, the government is particularly interested in exploiting all the means of communication at its disposal, especially Internet, as privileged “tools to conduct Marxist atheism propaganda and education”. According to the paper, Internet is a new resource for improving the moral development of the young who are its greatest users in the country. In a summit on religions held in Beijing in October, the government stressed that, given China’s special conditions, it is opposed to “laws based on western mentality”. Religious freedom is in this sense a concession of the state, not an innate human right. The secret paper for party members only was leaked to the West by party members opposed to the government’s atheist policies and released to the public by a Canadian Website: The Voice of the Martyrs. It is divided in eight parts; here’s a synopsis by AsiaNews of its main points: Part one stresses the importance of increasing research, education and distribution of Marxist atheist information in order to stop the growth of cultic organisations and superstitions. ‘Westernising’ and ‘disintegrating’ trends in the name of religion are seen as a threat to China; hence, the importance given to the expansion and purity of the CPC and to improving every aspect—spiritual, moral, scientific and cultural—of national life. Part two explains how to broaden the appeal of Marxist atheism and its goals, especially among the young and leading cadres of the party, who have been rediscovering faith and spirituality The paper insists on the “need to promote the development of every individual in terms of the needs of the people”. Propaganda and education are key elements requiring “patient and meticulous efforts to imperceptibly influence the people, above all the young and leading party cadres”. Part three emphasises the goals of Marxist propaganda. There is an absolute need to “eliminate fatuity (i.e. weakness or imbecility of mind) and superstitions” and replaced them with the norms and dogmas of “scientific thought”. The people must be helped to recognise “the general process and rule of the development of human society” so that it can “voluntarily and firmly stick to the historical view of Marxist materialism.” Reaching this goal means educating people in the “natural sciences” so that they can have “the basic knowledge about life, [. . .] the universe, the origin of life, the rule on human evolution, and correctly deal with various natural phenomena, natural disasters, birth, aging, disease and death.” The paper stresses the importance of good health and healthy bodies which must be promoted by helping people “acquire the habit of good behaviour, and scientifically and reasonably conduct of physical exercises, health care, living, sightseeing, recreation and entertainment.” Health care, sports and leisure must find inspiration in Marxist atheism and follow the practical directives of party members. Integrating Marxism in the education system is the main focus of part four. This is to be achieved through Deng Xiaoping’s four standards, namely ideals, morals, knowledge and discipline. The paper reiterates the party’s absolute monopoly over education and the need to “stick to the principle of separation of national education and religion [and] integrate Marxist atheism propaganda and education into the syllabi of the course of political theory”. Part five explains how to integrate Marxist doctrine in everyday spiritual activities. Marxism must permeate all activities in everyone’s life so as “to change old habits into new ones, conducting people’s cultural and sports activities, satisfying people’s spiritual and cultural demands, [and] popularising knowledge on laws, rules and regulations”. Media are dealt with in part six. Television, radio and newspapers represent important channels through which “Marxist atheism propaganda and education can be conducted”. Internet is particularly prized as a new frontier from where to broaden the appeal of Marxist culture. “We shall enrich,” the paper says, “the pages and sections related to morals of some key websites, strengthen the instruction and management over online comments, and make Internet a new tool to conduct Marxist atheism propaganda and education.” Part seven is dedicated to integrating Marxist atheism research, as a key subject, into the social science. Superstition, pseudoscience and cults are harmful and must be removed from the minds of leading party cadres and the young. This will be done by strengthening Marxist atheism departments, training of talented people, running well atheism research institutions and related departments in colleges and universities. Lastly, part eight highlights the importance of spreading Marxism in order strengthen the power of the party leadership. Party members, especially leading party cadres, must boost “the party culture continuously, firmly hold a materialist worldview, and voluntarily set an example in studying and disseminating Marxist atheism” among the people. (DS)
Printable page

Wolf

[xzins]

...how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? ...

From the Augustine quote you posted.

By posting this, are you saying that you accept the resurrection of the dead?

[Right Wing Professor]

since it is Biochemically-Impossible for Soft Tissues to last for more than 100,000 years.

I guess a good lie is worth repeating over and over, eh, OP?

What's Presbyterian for 'Al-Taqiya'?

[xzins]

No, I was commenting on your question that seemed to assume an ongoing discussion between us....specifically the part where you say something about what I do or don't accept.

[WildHorseCrash]

Actually, OP's point about evolution being the creation myth of the atheists has a solid basis.

Since the theory of evolution does not deal with "creation" (in the sense a creation story does) and is not a myth, it is not a "creation myth." If you can support your assertion further, though, I will consider it.

[Right Wing Professor]

You just gave a list of elements from Genesis that you claim can be verified externally: global flood, 'powerful biotics' in fruit, etc. It seems a reasonable inference that you believe that the narrative in Genesis can be scientifically justified.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Current theories about fossil preservation hold that organic molecules should not preserve beyond 100,000 years. ''Our theories don't allow for this," Schweitzer said.

[P-Marlowe]

Evolution doesn't deny the existence of God.

But it denies the relevance of God. It reduces God to nothing. One cannot deny the relevance of God while at the same time claim to worship him.

I respect Atheistic evolutionists. I have little or no respect for so-called "Christian Evolutionists".

Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. (2 Timothy 3:5 KJV)

[freedumb2003]

I have to assume you are trying to run some sort of "guilt by association" argument?

The fact that the Chicoms are using science (and apparently not just evolution WHICH IS NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN THE REFERENCE) as part of a plan to promote their agenda is meaningless.

The Chinese Communist Party members shave in the morning. I shave in the morning. Therefore I am a Chinese Communist Party supporter.

This is YET ANOTHER Logical fallacy which is all you CRIDers can use. And it is a form of lying, which is your stock in trade.

[Right Wing Professor]

Current theories about fossil preservation hold that organic molecules should not preserve beyond 100,000 years. ''Our theories don't allow for this," Schweitzer said.

You're assuming 'this' refers to the reporter's text. What reason have you to believe that?

Since the statement, as I've shown, is clearly erroneous, we are left with the possibilities that either the reporter misrepresented what Schweitzer said, or, less likely, Schweitzer herself said something particularly stupid. In either case, it doesn't matter; the statement is factually false, as anyone but a BRAIN DEAD RELIGIOUS FANATIC would have discovered in five minutes using Google. And, of course, once the obvious error was pointed out, only a unprincipled lying mentally unstable lunatic would go on repeating it.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Beg your pardon, Guv'nor -- Are you illiterate, or just stupid?"

No, I just actually understand what Pasteur was doing. You haven't a clue.

"I have ALREADY posted evidentiary citation from the Encyclopedia Brittanica demonstrating that Pasteur's Law of Biogenesis is Fundamental and Universal:"

It also has nothing to do with abiogenesis on the ancient earth.

"By Contrast -- you have, as usual, ZERO counter-argument in favor of the Evolutionist Fantasy of "Random Chemical Abiogenesis"."

I wasn't asked to. You made the ignorant claim that Pasteur had disproved abiogensis (and you erroneously thought this meant evolution). Pasteur did no such thing. Pasteur provided an excellent case against the belief that germs and various insects spring fully formed from decaying food. That is what he showed; creationists are woefully ignorant if they think this means that life couldn't have arisen through natural means 4 billion years ago. Pasteur showed no such thing.

"Orthodox Presbyterians don't "score points" with God. That's not the way our theology works.

As I have already said -- you are presumptuous enough to lecture me on my own Religion, even though you don't know the first thing about it."

Well, your denomination must be very different from every other denomination of Christianity that frowns on lying and rude behavior. In fact, the prohibition against lying is in the Ten Commandments. I assume your denomination accepts them still.

"AT THIS POINT, the Evolutionists are scrambling to come up with a halfway-believable explanation as to WHY there are still-elastic Bone-Marrow Tissues inside T.Rex. Bones, despite the fact that they have assured us all along that the discovery of Preserved Dinosaurian Soft Tissue is Impossible, since it is Biochemically-Impossible for Soft Tissues to last for more than 100,000 years."

It was never said to be impossible. It was said to be improbable. Again, you have misstated what the link said. Typical.

"Typical. And yet, as always, you're still perfectly happy to steal our Creationist Monies, to support your Evolutionist Religion in the Publik Skools."

LOL Funny coming from a theocrat. BTW, buy a dictionary, you can't spell.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

"Omne Vivum e Vivo":
"Every living thing arises from a preexisting living thing."
-- Pasteur's Law of Biogenesis

---

Until you Evolutionists can demonstrate any Exception to this Scientific Law -- even one exception.... even ONE... just ONE...

Then WHY should the (at most) 13% of the Population which has put its Blind Faith in the Government-Recognized Religion of Atheism and its Anti-Scientific Fantasy of "Random Chemical Abiogenesis"...

...why should this Atheist-Religionist Minority be allowed to impose its Evolutionist "Creation Myth" upon the Vast Majority of Americans who do NOT subscribe to this Anti-Scientific Fantasy of "Random Chemical Abiogenesis"?

Oh, yeah, that's right... you enjoy a Massive Government Subsidy for your Beliefs, and like any State-Supported Religion, you don't want to give it up.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"But it denies the relevance of God."

No scientific theory has anything pro or con to say about God. ALL scientific theories use only naturalistic, testable claims. If you have a beef, take it up with all of science, because that is what you are arguing against.

" One cannot deny the relevance of God while at the same time claim to worship him."

Is the proposition of God needed to explain the movement of atoms? The planets? If so, how does one include God into the equations?

" I have little or no respect for so-called "Christian Evolutionists"."

I am sure the feeling is mutual. :)

[xzins]

Thank you.

Atheism does make it possible for anyone to create any morality they feel like based on the needs of the moment, doesn't it?

And remember: Google caved in to the ChiComs. (Freedom of speech, indeed.)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Until you Evolutionists can demonstrate any Exception to this Scientific Law -- even one exception.... even ONE... just ONE..."

Do you know what a *law* in science is? Do you know that Newton's Laws of Gravity are technically false? You also are oblivious to the fact that Pasteur was talking about the production of life NOW, not whether the formation of life was a natural processes.

[WildHorseCrash]

Current theories about fossil preservation hold that organic molecules should not preserve beyond 100,000 years. ''Our theories don't allow for this," Schweitzer said.

You're assuming 'this' refers to the reporter's text. What reason have you to believe that?

Since the statement, as I've shown, is clearly erroneous, we are left with the possibilities that either the reporter misrepresented what Schweitzer said, or, less likely, Schweitzer herself said something particularly stupid.

A fuller quote, found here, adds context:

"Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this [soft-tissue preservation]," Schweitzer said.

I report, you decide. (But to me it does look like the reporter didn't understand that she was discussing the manner of this particular fossilization, and not making a blanket statement about organic molecules.)

[xzins]

You said that I believe Genesis to be a "scientific account."

I don't think it is intended to be anything like any type of scientific research report.

I think it is a factual "historical account."

I think it's accurate,too. But...see...now we're having a discussion and you know where I actually stand.

[Right Wing Professor]

Until you Evolutionists can demonstrate any Exception to this Scientific Law -- even one exception.... even ONE... just ONE...

We've been creating viruses from protein and nucleic acid, both well-defined organic chemicals with known structure, for at least 40 years. We expect to be able to create mycoplasmas in the same way in the next 10. The main reason it hasn't already been done is no one sees the point.

You're making your stand on some incredibly shaky ground.

[jwalsh07]

It's not up to OP to "disprove" abiogenesis, it is incumbent on you to offer evidence that chemical evolution produced the first replicator. Biogenesis is indeed the law of nature as we know it. Life has never been observed to come from non life.

Abiogenesis , which I have nothing inherently against as a matter of course, being the source of replicators on Earth is not even science by your own definitions. It can never be falsified because it will never be possible to know the initial conditions. You can't observe it and you can't repeat it. In fact, if you were to be honest you'd have to treat it the same way as intelligent design and demand that an out of control federal judge ban it from public schools.

But somehow, I think you will take a pass on that.