[Buck W.]

“...if I’m not an evolutionist, my questions don’t get credited, or even heard.”

I assume that you’re referring to a science class. If so, and if you are challenging evolution on the basis of faith, then you should not be surprised.

[cartervt2k]

I would ask, no demand, evolution to answer the crucial questions to their argument: how microorganisms evolve into people, how lifeless matter became life and where that matter came from in the first place. Taking their argument at face value because they don’t want to deal in metaphysics is bogus. If they can’t prove intelligent design is false, then it remains a possibility, and, if intellugent design is true, then its basis is no longer in theology alone.

[lucky american]

The one question Darwin couldn’t answer. What came first the chicken or the egg?

[Blood of Tyrants]

There war whole books written on how a single cell in our body works and all of them put together still can’t fully explain it and we are supposed to believe that we accidentally evolved from non-living bits of carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen?

[RubberChickenGirl]

I am in full support of you. Hoping for an excellent turn out and open minds.

My son is doing an Origins course including works by Dembski and Behe and others supporting ID and, of course, Darwin and Dawkins supporting THE MONOLITHIC IMMOVABLE TRUTH. We are doing this at home since such open exploration of ALL possibilities is not welcome in the classroom. All perspectives on origins work with the same facts, but come at them from different presumptions and end up with vastly different conclusions. All sides require *faith* in the end imo. It is equally improbable to the human mind that all things came from nothing spontaneously w/o forethought(whence the elements?) or that all things came from an Intelligent Source. One side won’t admit this.

Historically, the scientific community always flips its whig at upstarts (and ends up wrong more often than not).

[leonid]

There is no base for "creationism science" or "intelligent design," so how can people teach it if they have no material or start? How can you even test children on ID?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have failed to find any theories, research papers, explanations, science publications, or even minute proof for the creationist/ID claims. Before this century, people have always seemed to be fine with teaching these types of things in a theology or social sciences class next to other religious myths. I find it troubling that people are so quick at painting on accusations of hidden agendas and motives like scientists have all banded together to fight religion and provide opposing views in the name of satan. This could not be further from the truth. If you feel that the science community is maliciously spreading lies and deceit, then stop trusting their medicines and technology. It is that simple!


Scientists love finding problems in their work.. Scientists of all religions, all over the world. Why would anyone sane love having to do tremendous amounts of work and experiments..? Well, if it is an important finding.. they often become famous and get grant money thrown at them. It gets on my nerves that people take a good majority of modern science with as much seriousness as they would any pseudo-science like homeopathy or the scientology crap. Theories of all kinds are published for the sole purposes of being scrutinized and teaching others.

And why can't evolution be a form of intelligent design, anyway? It sure looks like it to me. I don't know about your God, but my God is powerful and smart enough to make a beautiful process such as genetic evolution. A process so beautiful and amazing that I am surprised more and more Christians don't openly accept it with wide arms. It just shows that my God is an awesome God and can do anything, it strengthens my faith.

If evolution weren't at least partly true, we wouldn't have domesticated animals or new varieties of plants and fruits. There wouldn't be different variations of human physical features. We wouldn't have found all these fossils of creatures long gone. If evolution weren't somewhat true, man wouldn't have been able to genetically modify a potato to grow hair or rat neurons to turn bright fluorescent colors.

Many witness evolutionary changes very easily in simple organisms but fail to step back and take a look at the bigger picture. The flu virus mutates quite often. The main method of destruction for the AIDS virus is the fact that it can mutate very quickly to evade our defenses. Look at nearly any human genome and you might be surprised to see that our DNA has genes which aren't even important to us, but serve as vital proteins in other organisms. Genetic mutations that viruses have implanted or others that have passed with us from our ancestors fill a good majority of our inactive DNA.


When one sits down and looks at the evidence we have so far it is very hard to say evolution is not an ongoing process. When creationist advocates and scholars decide to sit down and compose texts describing the methods, proof, importance, origin, and general structure of intelligent design.. then and only then will it even start to be taken seriously in the academic field..
The only real "facts" about creationism now is.. what? The Bible's divinity itself and a scholarly monk who "calculated" the age of the Earth from it?


Could someone please try to explain to me, in a logical manner, of the proof we have so far of ID?

I don't care if I get criticized for my beliefs, they won't change. Those of you who do or even think about judging me should already know that prejudice is evil in origin and hate is equal to murder in the eyes of our Lord.

[CzarChasm]

I usually avoid these threads, because they degenerate very quickly into chaos and absurdity, and endless demands for more and more detailed "proof" that simply doesn't exist yet.

You seem sincere, so I though I'd give it a try:

• A scientific theory has to be falsifiable. It has to make predictions that can be tested via experiments or observations.

This means that it must be possible to at least imagine some test or experiment that could produce a result that disproves some or all of the theory. It also means that theories cannot be proved. Theories can amass a large amount of supporting evidence, but they can never be proved beyond question.
So what does this mean to you? Two things:

1. By scientific standards, evolution is a theory, and will always be "just" a theory.
2. Creationism/Intelligent Design do not qualify as scientific theories, because they are not falsifiable. They make no predictions that can be tested. At least, not yet.

Evolutionary theory is incomplete. So are relavitiy, gravitation, quantum mechanisms, and a lot of other well-supported scientific theories.

Theology/dogma is man's interpretation of God's word. Men are flawed. So where theology/dogma conflict with observed scientific reality, perhaps the interpretation should be re-examined.

Good luck with your studies!

[DoctorMichael]

Whining Creationist Echochamber Bump........Bump........Bump........Bump........Bump........Bump........Bump........Bump........bump........bump........bump........bump........bump.........ump...........ump.........mp.......p................

[Darwin Fish]

Please join another political party, or start your own. Anti-evolutionists, literal bible creationists, and young-earthers give the pubbie party a deserved black eye, and subject it to ridicule.

Like it or not, The pubbie party gets mocked (rightly so, IMHO) for being against science because of these Art Bell maroons.

Flame away. See tagline.

[Oztrich Boy]

But I have learned that if I'm not an evolutionist, my questions don't get credited, or even heard.

• "Where you there?"
• "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
• "If Darwin says one species changes into another, why don't we ever see a creature that is half cockroach, half mouse?"