[gdani]

Apologies to Cal Thomas but I have yet to find any scientific evidence that shows that woman was created from a man's rib, that it was possible to load at least two of all of the land-dwelling creatures on a large boat, that Adam & Eve were the first two humans, that the universe was created in 6 days, etc, etc.

[mlo]

Perhaps he would like us to teach alchemy alongside chemistry and astrology alongside astronomy too. They are alternative views also.

[Dimensio]

The author of the article is a moron who ignorantly equates evolution and atheism. Belief that evolution is the best explanation available for origin of the species is not the same as asserting that there exists no Creator of the universe. That premise makes every argument within bunk, though I could certainly point out faults with various other aspects of the article.

[dd5339]

I'd suggest reading William Dempski's book, "Intelligent Design". It lays out a very strong arguement against evolution.

Semper Fi

[Doctor Stochastic]

Once again the Post-Modern-Deconstructionist journalists claim to have a method of getting knowledge that supercedes scientific inquiry.

[moneyrunner]

Actually, I have seen no evidence that modern man evolved from pre-human simians. I have hear this asserted, but I have seen no evidence and have not heard of anyone attempting to replicate this process to prove that this is possible.

[jim35]

You find these things difficult to believe, but you're just fine believing that all the complex diversity of life, and the ordered existence of the universe was just some freaky accident? You need not be a Christian to believe in a higher form, or a supreme being. Open your mind. You either believe in creation, or just a big coincidence. Personally, I find the latter to be quite ridiculous.

[Tired of Taxes]

I have yet to find any scientific evidence that shows that woman was created from a man's rib, that it was possible to load at least two of all of the land-dwelling creatures on a large boat, that Adam & Eve were the first two humans, that the universe was created in 6 days, etc, etc.

And that's the whole point, right there. In science, one can bring forth evidence to dispute a theory, thus creating a new theory. In religion, you "just have to believe." A scientist may still subscribe to religious beliefs, but, without evidence, those beliefs alone don't really dispute any scientific theory, not within the laws of logic, anyway. I have heard that Stephen Jay Gould makes a good argument, but I've never read "The Panda's Thumb" (though it's right here on our bookshelf), so I cannot comment further.

[stanz]

ping

[Eternal_Bear]

God also created fruit bearing plants before he created the Sun and the stars. That's a neat trick considering that the earth's temperature would have been at absolute zero.

[elephantlips]

Since the events were overseen by God who, if you believe in Him, would naturally have powers infintely beyond man, why should any of us expect to comprehend Him? If we could, we wouldn't need Him for we would be equal to Him. Only arrogant man expects that if he doesn't understand something, it cannot be true.

[Khepera]

Juat because you have not seen the evidence does not mean there is none.

[narby]

[letter sent to WashTimes]

There's no faster way for a newspaper, or a syndicated columnist, to loose the respect of huge numbers of people than to take on the creation vs. evolution argument. Cal Thomas wrote up the subject in "Making Monkeys out of Critics", and the Washington Times published it on Wednesday.

So which creation story should be used to "balance" Evolution? I'm not an expert on creation stories, but I think there's one about the earth being carried on the back of a huge tortoise. And another one with people popping out of Gods belly button. I think maybe some of the American Indian stories might be particularly poetic, but I don't remember any of them right now.

My point is that there is no serious scientific disagreement about the basic principles of Evolution. There ARE some creation hustlers out there, making a buck with pseudo-scientific arguments against Evolution. They remind me of the environmental hustlers that spin new scientific sounding theories how big business is destroying the planet. Both kinds of scientific hustlers are in the business to create emotional pleas to segments of the population in order to get funding for their "research". Both are frauds.

Who is Cal Thomas to say that an omnipotent God didn't create the universe, knowing in advance that it would eventually produce humans through the process that we call Evolution? It doesn't make it any less a miracle if He created life instantly by some mysterious snap of his fingers, or patiently through eons of time using the natural laws He created.

Science, through "scientific creationism" will not prove the existence of God. And science will likewise never be able to prove that God doesn't exist. You have to believe in Him by faith alone. There is no "proof" in either direction.

(narby)

[Sabertooth]

((((((growl)))))

[Doctor Stochastic]

Actually, there are many methods to falsify evolution. Just because Mr Thomas is ignorant about biology, proves little. (Example, mammal skeletons found in oldest rocks.) What is Mr Thomas's evidence for creationism?

[gcruse]

I believe that the universe came into existence in the form of monkeys flying out of The Great Ass. Since this can't be disproved, I demand it be taught in public schools as an alternative to the Big Bang and evolution. Who can say I'm wrong?

[hove]

Evolution vs. Creation has to be the most tired thread on FR. To the Creationists: You don't need to change the world to conform to your views. Your faith is stronger that that....isn't it? To the Evolutionists: Evolution is a theory...not a fact. There is much science hasn't proven. Maybe Creationists are on to something. Open your minds.

Now we can put this relatively insignificant issue to bed.

[tang-soo]

I just found somethinng very interesting. I had seen the following quote before and went to Google to find it so I could post it here. PLease read the comment at the end of this post ...

This is from the final chapter of Darwin's 'Origin of Species' Notice even Darwin referred to the Creator with a capital 'C'....

There is grandeur in this view of life with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms, most beautiful and most wonderful, have been and are being evolved.

Now for the interesting part. One of the links reported by Google can be found here under the heading 'knowledge matters' is found the following ...

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Notice the difference? The phrase 'by the Creator' has been removed! Upon further investigation I have found that the version with 'Creator' as the source was added by Darwin during subsequent editions. I think the choice of the version used to quote could indicate which side one happens to lie. I would think the honest person would choose the latest edition or at least footnote the other version.

[jejones]

I wonder what other area of science one would have to go back over 400 years to find a respected proponent of one's point of view? History is full of scientists who have fallen for various pieces of crackpottery. Linus Pauling's work in chemistry won him a Nobel Prize, but late in life he took to pushing vitamin C as a cure for just about everything. Brian Josephson, another Nobel laureate for work on superconductors, believes in the metal benders and psychics. A notion is not made scientific by having scientists who believe in it.

[mtg]

Why are believers in one model -- evolution -- seeking to impose their faith on those who hold that there is scientific evidence which supports the other model? It's because they fear they will lose their influence and academic power base after a free and open debate. They are like political dictators who oppose democracy, fearing it will rob them of power.

I think this sums it up very well.

[Physicist]

Apparently, academic freedom is for other subjects.

No, academic freedom is for academics, not for grade school students. I don't want my kids presented with alternatives to mathematics, chemistry, electromagnetism or evolution. If they want to question any of those things later, that's fine, but before they can question them, they first have to learn them.

Creationism simply does not qualify as an alternate theory to evolution. It is pure religion. It has no place in schools.