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

CONTRA COSTA TIMES ^ | 12 February 2006 | John Glennon

[Eagles6]

Except that it misses the issue completely.

Intelligent design isn't science and shouldn't be taught as such. On the other hand evolution isn't religion and shouldn't be taught as such, but it is.

Evolution teaches that all life is the product of random chance and natural selection sans divine intervention.

I believe that leaving the creation of life, setting up the laws of physics and science and imparting us with consciousness to blind chance may be a bit much. Even the author admits there is uncertainty here "biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution"

Is evolution fact? Just because an unknown author says that most scientists believe it to be true isn't going to work for me. The msm says most scientists believe in human caused global warming and most Americans don't support thee war. On the other hand it may, as the Pope said, be God's way of creating man.

[webboy45]

Why is it science to believe in the magic of spontaneous life when that belief is just a matter of faith. There is not proof of spontaneous life and there is no proof that animals spontaneously turn into other species. Interestingly with few exceptions you can't take the DNA from one species and put it into the cell of a different species and have a viable cell.

[GSlob]

Thanks. The article you posted is a good find. And there is nothing complex in ID'ers, although their bibling might be irreducible.

[Camel Joe]

I suggest you read the studies I mentioned and then take a close look at the "science" behind them. Percent error had some value at one time, politics has changed that.

[seastay]

"There is no way to establish that outside intereference occurs"

that was my point

[BenLurkin]

These are the same rigors of science which turned from treating a recognized mental illness (homosexuality) to saying that those who condemn homosexuality are mentally ill (homophobic).

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"...I think he was kidding."

You may be right. Friendly fire alert! (oops)

<< sees the irony.

[tallhappy]

These polemics don't add up to much. They sound like diatribes and appeals to authority.

Gould (the Marxist elitist Professor) states it is fact.

What a convincing argument.

And what is he arguing and who is he arguing with?

It's platitudinous polemic, pretty much bereft of any intellectual substance or rational thought (or rather, more likely, disingenuousness)..

If you think this sums it up it is indicative of saying, yes, this upholds well my world view presented in a manner well within my comfort zone of thought and belief.

[AmishDude]

I'm confused on the "rigors" of science. My science book is written in Korean.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Why is it science to believe in the magic of spontaneous life when that belief is just a matter of faith."

Abiogenesis is not *spontaneous life*, unless by spontaneous you mean a few hundred million years.

"There is not proof of spontaneous life and there is no proof that animals spontaneously turn into other species."

Nobody says that animals spontaneously turn into other species. That isn't even close to an accurate description of evolution.

"Interestingly with few exceptions you can't take the DNA from one species and put it into the cell of a different species and have a viable cell."

Scientists have made trans-species organisms already. The DNA in a bacteria is the same(for the most part) as ours.

[Stultis]

(Butz) can utilize a university website to promote his belief (as fact) that the holocaust did not happen. [...] But, had he done the same to promote a theory of creation, he'd be run out of town on a rail.

That's a lie. We've never done anything of the kind.

Interestingly, though, Butz was a creationist as a young man, when he was on the verge of discovering a rock-solid disproof of evolution that has been kept a careful secret ever since it occurred to Darwin himself on his deathbed in 1882.

Darwin Central kidnapped Butz in 1963 and treated him with powerful psychoactive drugs and brainwashing until he became a discreditable holocaust revisionist loon. We also slept with his girlfriend.

I can only tell you this because you won't believe it. (If you do believe it, we'll know.)

[Camel Joe]

Just because the Bible says "and then there was life" doesn't mean that suddenly it was so. Looking at the Big Bang we know that in the early stages of the universe light could not escape from the dense mass for quite some time, in fact one could say "and then there was light" just like the Bible and you'd be right. Some still question the merits of the Big Bang Theory but for now it is once again in vogue. Why is it then that the evolutionists are so determined to see creative design be dismissed out of hand? Many believe the the Chaos Theory makes the Big Bang impossible, yet no one is clamoring or "suing" anyone to remove it from curriculum's anywhere now are they?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Many believe the the Chaos Theory makes the Big Bang impossible..."

What? Who are these *many* who believe that?

[Eagles6]

Yeah, what you said.

[dmz]

LOL. So you use an ad hominem argument (Marxist elitist) to counter an appeal to authority?

Too funny.

[ex-snook]

Evolutionists are like a blind person touching an elephant. They limit themselves to only life and use science at their viewer. Creationists view the whole aminal, vegetable and mineral universe and regard the evolutionist's views as incomplete.

[D-fendr]

It is a nonscientific philosophical conjecture that does not belong in any science curriculum in any school.

Hope Richard Dawkins is listening.

[Stultis]

Noah and his sons would be as far back as the male genealogy could be traced as they were effectively, our genetic Adams. Noah's wife and his son's genetic genealogy however, would continue right on back through time to the first homo sapiens sapiens.

Today, in labs across the globe, scientists are trying to create life. Assume that someday they do, and assume a few billion years for it to evolve. My bet is that whatever liberals those experiments eventually spawn will howl to the heavens that the idea of intelligent design is nothing but bunk.

Wow! Complete non-sequitor. Why couldn't it have been precisely the opposite? Indeed since the males were all direct relations, but the females weren't, i.e. were presumably only related by marriage, it should be the opposite, if anything. Or why, considering the extreme population bottleneck involved, shouldn't the genetic "genealogy" show to be equally as long for both sexes?

And why do you cite the fact (if it's so) that apes are more genetically diverse then humans as supporting your case? Weren't apes on the ark too, and even fewer of them (only two per species at most, or maybe only two period of the ape "kind") than of humans? Shouldn't they be either equally or even less genetically diverse than humans on the flood/ark scenario? Indeed shouldn't this be true of all species?

Finally, this evidence is not even able to resolve differences on the time scale between the creation and the flood (maybe 5 or 6 thousand years at most on the most "liberal" Biblical literalist scenario).

[dmz]

Awesome. So you understand why creationism/ID should not be taught in the science classroom. They are fundamentally different "aminals".

[PatrickHenry]

Evolutionists are like a blind person touching an elephant.

Creationists are like a palsied person touching a cactus.