[JimSEA]

Continual attacks on the theory of evolution should be answered. I couldn't really find anything better than this oldie from Scientific American. Have at.

[JimSEA]

The entire article is at the 2002 edition of SA

[bondserv]

Irreducible complexity from an engineering and informational science perspective closes the door to anything but intelligent design.

[wideawake]

Come back, ZC!

[Secret Agent Man]

all i can say is if evolution is true, life is a random accident and therefore everything in your life and mine means absolutely nothing and everything is completely arbitrary and void of any purpose.

[Parody]

“Scientific American” is neither scientific nor American.

Get this through your head, you charlatan: there’s no such thing as anthropogenic global warming, the gay gene, evolution, or the Tooth Fairy.

[freedumb2003]

I agree that TToE is how God allowed His Plan to unfold.

Is there a point to posting a 12 year old article?

The Crevo wars are many years behind us.

[Dogbert41]

The Creator of the universe did it all in 6 days. I still fear Him. I could care less for today’s “scientists” that tell us “God doesn’t exist or is a liar”.

[dr_lew]

Continual attacks on the theory of evolution should be answered.

... but perhaps not necessarily in this manner, with "embarrassingly" and "fantasy", etc. I prefer a steadfast adherence to the unique status of Darwinian Evolution as a scientific explanation for the Origin of Species.

My doctrine: "Creationism does not offer a scientific alternative to Evolution."

[wbarmy]

There is so much to attack when statements like this are made;

As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.

This is a totally inept analogy and faulty reasoning. The program made those choices based on a specific endstate. Is evolution picking its choices made on a specific endstate? If it is truly random, then there is no specified endstate for the "program" to match.

[Viennacon]

“They lobby for creationist ideas such as “intelligent design” to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms”

This statement alone completely discredits the article. Liberal crapola. Clean up on aisle 12.

As an aside, I am in favor of the disestablishment of public education entirely, so there would be no public ‘science classrooms’ if I had my way. Too radical? Remember, that colleges used to be hotbeds of eugenics. Modern science has become a tool for government indoctrination. Just look at global warming.

[Shery]

To reject God’s word is to enter the road to perdition.

[Phinneous]

I raise the evolutionists’ 12-year old article with a Letter from 1961, in a book from 2003. Mind Over Matter, (Kehot Publishing company, a compilation of responsa from the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, of righteous memory.) The Rebbe was trained in electrical engineering, not just Jewish theology.

I would except it but it’s a long chapter. VERY worthwhile reading. The basis— (from the sages of Israel) G-d looked into the Torah and created the world... there can be no true contradiction between science and Torah. When the onion is peeled back, the conflicts dissolve.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/112083/jewish/Theories-of-Evolution.htm

[kinsman redeemer]

Sin led to death.
To thinks that there was death before sin removes the need for a Savior.
God's Word is True.
You can't have it both ways.

[G Larry]

#3 is pretty low hanging fruit:

“... ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution.”

No, actually it specifically cites these important distinctions to make the case that extrapolating “A” to prove “B” is UNSCIENTIFIC....As this author unintentionally makes clear in his weak statement intended to support:

“Microevolution looks at changes within species over time—changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species.
“May be a prelude”!?!?!? That’s pretty UNSCIENTIFIC!!!!

Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.”

Well that’s cute, but the “evidence” in the fossil record is completely lacking!!!

As for the DNA comparisons, they conveniently ignore the fact that for well over 10 years we’ve known that the key building blocks for differentiation occur below the DNA level.

[eekitsagreek]

If we can evolve, that means we can devolve as well, correct?

[Moonman62]

the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt.

Comparative genomics can now be added to that list.

[GraceG]

Here is something we can all agree on:

When God Designs something it is Intelligent Design.

When Government tries to Design something it is Poorly Designed

[boycott]

So-called scientists start by telling us, “Nothing exploded and then created everything.”

Then they tell us we need to adhere to the laws of nature.

They have some great imaginations and it takes a lot of faith to believe what they’re selling.

[goodn'mad]

“The fool has said in his heart there is no God.”

[Lady Heron]

on the theory of evolution

Put your faith in a theory (because it is faith to believe in a theory(an idea without proof)) or God....I Chose God!