The Religious Cult of Evolution Fights Back

I am a little worried about Radio

How so?

He was rough on some of our FR friends.

I was?

I think Radio might be an actual scientist. And, as much as some of them don't like to admit it, they have a belief system rooted in knowledge. It's not a religion, mind you, but still something they feel strongly about. If you read any of the Feynman books, you'll see a very pure example of this. Also, people feel threatened by religion in public places. Here in NYC there are traditions that let us deal with it, perhaps better than in other places.

As for durasell, I was changing batteries the day I logged on. And being of little imagination found the name convenient.

I looked over my posts on this thread. I never insulted anyone nor denigrated anyone here. I am confused why you think I was being rough.

He was rough on some of our FR friends.
I was?

How do you argue against something that a person feels in their bones?

And if -- by some long odds -- you happen to win the argument, it's not a triumph of logic or science, but an act of cruelty. You taken from them something that's more than likely sustained them through tough times and personal tragedy...

[ The Religious Cult of Evolution Fights Back ]

So true, so true.. A relgious cult..
It takes faith to believe a lizard decided to grow feathers..
I would know being a member of a religious cult with one member..
Its takes faith to drive from point A to point B and expect to actually get back again,
alive at that..
it often does not happen that way...

And if -- by some long odds -- you happen to win the argument, it's not a triumph of logic or science, but an act of cruelty.

Hmmm... We should not defend a theory because it may shake someone's faith?

Yes, exactly. Under some circumstances:

A)That faith doesn't transgress over into public policy

B)It doesn't annoy me, personally. And by annoy, I mean ring my doorbell, call me on the phone, stop me at airports when I'm trying to relax or ask me pointed questions during cocktail parties about my state of happiness and well being.

[Disputing evolution is saying that every scientists in the life sciences is wrong. Scientists from disciplines from genomics to paleontology rely heavily on evolution and support it 100%.]

This simply is not true. Lots of scientists in ALL displines do not support evolution

Please quantify "lots" and clarify "do not support evolution". Provide citations supporting your numbers.

While it's true that Alacarte overstated things just a bit, he didn't overstate them nearly as much as you have understated them.

According to polls 99+% of biologists accept evolution. That's not "every" one, but it's pretty damned close.

As for scientists in general, chew on these:

11/97 Gallup poll of scientists:
Q1: God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.
5%
Q2: Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.
40%
Q3: Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.
55%

Or from Ohio scientists give opinions on intelligent design versus evolution:

Most all of Ohio's science professors (92 percent) thought "Ohio high school students should be tested on their understanding of the basic principles of the theory of evolution in order to graduate." Scientist responded negatively (90percent) to the testing about the knowledge of "intelligent design" as a requirement to graduate.
[...] the vast majority (93 percent) of science professors said they were not aware of "any scientifically valid evidence or an alternative scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution."
[...]
Nine out of 10 scientists (91 percent) felt the concept of intelligent design was unscientific and the same number responded that it was a religious view
Ninety percent of the responding scientists stated that they felt no scientific evidence supports intelligent design, while 2 percent were unsure
Some 84 percent felt acceptance of the evolution theory was "consistent with believing in God"

And here are dozens of Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations concerning evolution. For example:

"The fossil record of vertebrates unequivocally supports the hypothesis that vertebrates have evolved through time, from their first records in the early Paleozoic Era about 500 million years ago to the great diversity we see in the world today. The hypothesis has been strengthened by so many independent observations of fossil sequences that it has come to be regarded as a confirmed fact, as certain as the drift of continents through time or the lawful operation of gravity."
[...]
Evolution is fundamental to the teaching of good biology and geology, and the vertebrate fossil record is an excellent set of examples of the patterns and processes of evolution through time. We therefore urge the teaching of evolution as the only possible reflection of our science. Any attempt to compromise the patterns and processes of evolution in science education, to treat them as less than robust explanations, or to admit "alternative" explanations not relying upon sound evolutionary observations and theory, misrepresents the state of our science and does a disservice to the public. Textbooks and other instructional materials should not indulge in such misrepresentation, educators should shun such materials for classroom use, and teachers should not be harassed or impeded from teaching vertebrate evolution as it is understood by its practitioners. The record of vertebrate evolution is exciting, inspirational, instructive, and enjoyable, and it is our view that everyone should have the opportunity and the privilege to understand it as paleontologists do."
-- SOCIETY OF VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY (1994)

That sounds pretty "supportive" to *me*...

and since the advent of DNA more are doubting.

Please provide specific numbers and citations for your assertion. Be sure that your response explains the explosion in the numbers of journals and papers detailing how DNA analysis confirms evolution, including for example:

The Journal of Molecular Evolution alone results in approximately 36,000 hits on a Google search -- clearly there's a great deal of interest in this subject, even if *you've* never heard of it. It contains a great deal of evolution-supporting DNA analysis as for example:

Comparative Analysis of the Complete Plastid Genome Sequence of the Red Alga Gracilaria tenuistipitata var. liui Provides Insights into the Evolution of Rhodoplasts and Their Relationship to Other Plastids
ABSTRACT: We sequenced to completion the circular plastid genome of the red alga Gracilaria tenuistipitata var. liui. This is the first plastid genome sequence from the subclass Florideophycidae (Rhodophyta). The genome is composed of 183,883 bp and contains 238 predicted genes, including a single copy of the ribosomal RNA operon. Comparisons with the plastid genome of Porphyra pupurea reveal strong conservation of gene content and order, but we found major genomic rearrangements and the presence of coding regions that are specific to Gracilaria. Phylogenetic analysis of a data set of 41 concatenated proteins from 23 plastid and two cyanobacterial genomes support red algal plastid monophyly and a specific evolutionary relationship between the Florideophycidae and the Bangiales. Gracilaria maintains a surprisingly ancient gene content in its plastid genome and, together with other Rhodophyta, contains the most complete repertoire of plastid genes known in photosynthetic eukaryotes.

There is no proof for evolution

Gee, really? You're apparently entirely ignorant of these 29+ independent lines of evidence for evolution, then -- each with vast amounts of evidence supportive of evolution.

and lots of proof against it.

Please state some, and provide citations supporting your assertions.

The main evoluionary scientists are liberals and bury their head in the sand,

Please provide support for your amazing claim.

fake evidence

For example? Please provide support for your amazing claim -- or retract it and apologize.

and generally try to hide any evidence that doesn't support evolution.

For example? Please provide support for your amazing claim -- or retract it and apologize.

The reason evolutionists are afraid of ID is because the fakes, the phony evidence the evidence against evolution will be taugth, they are not taught now.

Which "fakes" and "phony evidence" and "evidence against evolution" would that be, please? Provide citations for any you might provide.

Evolution isn't taught, it is indoctrinated into our children.

Please provide support for your amazing claim.

If ID isn't anything to worry about then why not let it be taught?

Because it's not formulated as a scientific theory, and there's little or no evidence for it.

If it is taught side by side with evoluion THEORY and this theory is correct then most children will see the truth, right?

Wrong, since most children do not have the background or analytical skills to properly judge such an issue. Nor is there enough time available in school to present a proper overview of the necessary evidence in enough detail to allow an informed decision on the issue, without pushing aside many other critical school subjects.

so what is wrong with teaching it?

See above. Furthermore, science is not multiple-choice. In science classrooms, the predominant theories (i.e., those which have been accepted by consensus as best explaining the evidence) are taught. ID is *not* a predominant theory -- in fact it's not even a theory at all, it's a hypothesis.

Nothing except it exposes a lot of the lies about evolution.

Please provide examples of these alleged "lies", and provide citations for them.

Now I know you think I am a creationists, this is not so.

Actually, that's not the noun I had in mind.

I am not religious, although I went to church when I was a child I haven't been since I was 12. I don't pray and I am not sure I believe in God,

I don't care whether you do or not -- but when you start spouting nonsense about established science, expect me to call you on it, lest someone out there mistakenly believe that you might have an idea what you're talking about.

but I do know this.

Careful now, many people "know" things which just ain't true.

When you look at the evidence, and keep an open mind, evolution doesn't stand up.

Odd, when *I* looked at the evidence and kept an open mind, evolution stood up fantastically. Are you sure *you've* actually looked at the evidence? If so, where, exactly? Be specific.

Cambrian layer for one,

What exactly do you think is allegedly wrong with the Cambrian layer? Be specific.

eyes, wings, not just bird wings but insect wings as well.

Ooookay -- what about them, exactly?

Feathers, no explaination.

You don't say...

Roger H. Sawyer, Loren W. Knapp Avian skin development and the evolutionary origin of feathers J. Exp. Zool. (Mol. Dev. Evol.) 298B:57-72, 2003. © 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
ABSTRACT: The discovery of several dinosaurs with filamentous integumentary appendages of different morphologies has stimulated models for the evolutionary origin of feathers. In order to understand these models, knowledge of the development of the avian integument must be put into an evolutionary context. Thus, we present a review of avian scale and feather development, which summarizes the morphogenetic events involved, as well as the expression of the beta () keratin multigene family that characterizes the epidermal appendages of reptiles and birds. First we review information on the evolution of the ectodermal epidermis and its beta () keratins. Then we examine the morphogenesis of scutate scales and feathers including studies in which the extraembryonic ectoderm of the chorion is used to examine dermal induction. We also present studies on the scaleless (sc) mutant, and, because of the recent discovery of four-winged dinosaurs, we review earlier studies of a chicken strain, Silkie, that expresses ptilopody (pti), feathered feet. We conclude that the ability of the ectodermal epidermis to generate discrete cell populations capable of forming functional structural elements consisting of specific members of the keratin multigene family was a plesiomorphic feature of the archosaurian ancestor of crocodilians and birds. Evidence suggests that the discrete epidermal lineages that make up the embryonic feather filament of extant birds are homologous with similar embryonic lineages of the developing scutate scales of birds and the scales of alligators. We believe that the early expression of conserved signaling modules in the embryonic skin of the avian ancestor led to the early morphogenesis of the embryonic feather filament, with its periderm, sheath, and barb ridge lineages forming the first protofeather. Invagination of the epidermis of the protofeather led to formation of the follicle providing for feather renewal and diversification. The observations that scale formation in birds involves an inhibition of feather formation coupled with observations on the feathered feet of the scaleless (High-line) and Silkie strains support the view that the ancestor of modern birds may have had feathered hind limbs similar to those recently discovered in nonavian dromaeosaurids. And finally, our recent observation on the bristles of the wild turkey beard raises the possibility that similar integumentary appendages may have adorned nonavian dinosaurs, and thus all filamentous integumentary appendages may not be homologous to modern feathers.

That looks a lot like an "explanation" to me, son.

No transitional species in the fosil record.

I see... Here are several hundred for you. Are you sure you know what in the hell you're talking about?

No proof at all that life started here with spontaneous generation,

Science does not deal in "proofs" (2). But your epistemological confusion aside, you seem top be ignorant of these:

The Path from the RNA World Anthony M. Poole, Daniel C. Jeffares, David Penny: Institute of Molecular Biosciences, Massey University
Abstract: We describe a sequential (step by step) Darwinian model for the evolution of life from the late stages of the RNA world through to the emergence of eukaryotes and prokaryotes. The starting point is our model, derived from current RNA activity, of the RNA world just prior to the advent of genetically-encoded protein synthesis. By focusing on the function of the protoribosome we develop a plausible model for the evolution of a protein-synthesizing ribosome from a high-fidelity RNA polymerase that incorporated triplets of oligonucleotides. With the standard assumption that during the evolution of enzymatic activity, catalysis is transferred from RNA M RNP M protein, the first proteins in the ``breakthrough organism'' (the first to have encoded protein synthesis) would be nonspecific chaperone-like proteins rather than catalytic. Moreover, because some RNA molecules that pre-date protein synthesis under this model now occur as introns in some of the very earliest proteins, the model predicts these particular introns are older than the exons surrounding them, the ``introns-first'' theory. Many features of the model for the genome organization in the final RNA world ribo-organism are more prevalent in the eukaryotic genome and we suggest that the prokaryotic genome organization (a single, circular genome with one center of replication) was derived from a ``eukaryotic-like'' genome organization (a fragmented linear genome with multiple centers of replication). The steps from the proposed ribo-organism RNA genome M eukaryotic-like DNA genome M prokaryotic-like DNA genome are all relatively straightforward, whereas the transition prokaryotic-like genome M eukaryotic-like genome appears impossible under a Darwinian mechanism of evolution, given the assumption of the transition RNA M RNP M protein. A likely molecular mechanism, ``plasmid transfer,'' is available for the origin of prokaryotic-type genomes from an eukaryotic-like architecture. Under this model prokaryotes are considered specialized and derived with reduced dependence on ssRNA biochemistry. A functional explanation is that prokaryote ancestors underwent selection for thermophily (high temperature) and/or for rapid reproduction (r selection) at least once in their history.

And:

On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells William Martin and Michael J. Russell
Abstract: All life is organized as cells. Physical compartmentation from the environment and self-organization of self-contained redox reactions are the most conserved attributes of living things, hence inorganic matter with such attributes would be life’s most likely forebear. We propose that life evolved in structured iron monosulphide precipitates in a seepage site hydrothermal mound at a redox, pH and temperature gradient between sulphide-rich hydrothermal fluid and iron(II)-containing waters of the Hadean ocean floor. The naturally arising, three-dimensional compartmentation observed within fossilized seepage-site metal sulphide precipitates indicates that these inorganic compartments were the precursors of cell walls and membranes found in free-living prokaryotes. The known capability of FeS and NiS to catalyse the synthesis of the acetyl-methylsulphide from carbon monoxide and methylsulphide, constituents of hydrothermal fluid, indicates that pre-biotic syntheses occurred at the inner surfaces of these metal-sulphide-walled compartments, which furthermore restrained reacted products from diffusion into the ocean, providing sufficient concentrations of reactants to forge the transition from geochemistry to biochemistry. The chemistry of what is known as the RNA-world could have taken place within these naturally forming, catalyticwalled compartments to give rise to replicating systems. Sufficient concentrations of precursors to support replication would have been synthesized in situ geochemically and biogeochemically, with FeS (and NiS) centres playing the central catalytic role. The universal ancestor we infer was not a free-living cell, but rather was confined to the naturally chemiosmotic, FeS compartments within which the synthesis of its constituents occurred. The first free-living cells are suggested to have been eubacterial and archaebacterial chemoautotrophs that emerged more than 3.8 Gyr ago from their inorganic confines. We propose that the emergence of these prokaryotic lineages from inorganic confines occurred independently, facilitated by the independent origins of membrane-lipid biosynthesis: isoprenoid ether membranes in the archaebacterial and fatty acid ester membranes in the eubacterial lineage. The eukaryotes, all of which are ancestrally heterotrophs and possess eubacterial lipids, are suggested to have arisen ca. 2 Gyr ago through symbiosis involving an autotrophic archaebacterial host and a heterotrophic eubacterial symbiont, the common ancestor of mitochondria and hydrogenosomes. The attributes shared by all prokaryotes are viewed as inheritances from their confined universal ancestor. The attributes that distinguish eubacteria and archaebacteria, yet are uniform within the groups, are viewed as relics of their phase of differentiation after divergence from the non-free-living universal ancestor and before the origin of the free-living chemoautotrophic lifestyle. The attributes shared by eukaryotes with eubacteria and archaebacteria, respectively, are viewed as inheritances via symbiosis. The attributes unique to eukaryotes are viewed as inventions specific to their lineage. The origin of the eukaryotic endomembrane system and nuclear membrane are suggested to be the fortuitous result of the expression of genes for eubacterial membrane lipid synthesis by an archaebacterial genetic apparatus in a compartment that was not fully prepared to accommodate such compounds, resulting in vesicles of eubacterial lipids that accumulated in the cytosol around their site of synthesis. Under these premises, the most ancient divide in the living world is that between eubacteria and archaebacteria, yet the steepest evolutionary grade is that between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.

And:

The emergence of life from iron monosulphide bubbles at a submarine hydrothermal redox and pH front M. J. RUSSELL & A. J. HALL: Department of Geology and Applied Geology, University of Glasgow
Abstract: Here we argue that life emerged on Earth from a redox and pH front at c. 4.2 Ga. This front occurred where hot (c. 150)C), extremely reduced, alkaline, bisulphide-bearing, submarine seepage waters interfaced with the acid, warm (c. 90)C), iron-bearing Hadean ocean. The low pH of the ocean was imparted by the ten bars of CO2 considered to dominate the Hadean atmosphere/hydrosphere. Disequilibrium between the two solutions was maintained by the spontaneous precipitation of a colloidal FeS membrane. Iron monosulphide bubbles comprising this membrane were inflated by the hydrothermal solution upon sulphide mounds at the seepage sites. Our hypothesis is that the FeS membrane, laced with nickel, acted as a semipermeable catalytic boundary between the two fluids, encouraging synthesis of organic anions by hydrogenation and carboxylation of hydrothermal organic primers. The ocean provided carbonate, phosphate, iron, nickel and protons; the hydrothermal solution was the source of ammonia, acetate, HS", H2 and tungsten, as well as minor concentrations of organic sulphides and perhaps cyanide and acetaldehyde. The mean redox potential (ÄEh) across the membrane, with the energy to drive synthesis, would have approximated to 300 millivolts. The generation of organic anions would have led to an increase in osmotic pressure within the FeS bubbles. Thus osmotic pressure could take over from hydraulic pressure as the driving force for distension, budding and reproduction of the bubbles. Condensation of the organic molecules to polymers, particularly organic sulphides, was driven by pyrophosphate hydrolysis. Regeneration of pyrophosphate from the monophosphate in the membrane was facilitated by protons contributed from the Hadean ocean. This was the first use by a metabolizing system of protonmotive force (driven by natural ÄpH) which also would have amounted to c. 300 millivolts. Protonmotive force is the universal energy transduction mechanism of life. Taken together with the redox potential across the membrane, the total electrochemical and chemical energy available for protometabolism amounted to a continuous supply at more than half a volt. The role of the iron sulphide membrane in keeping the two solutions separated was appropriated by the newly synthesized organic sulphide polymers. This organic take-over of the membrane material led to the miniaturization of the metabolizing system. Information systems to govern replication could have developed penecontemporaneously in this same milieu. But iron, sulphur and phosphate, inorganic components of earliest life, continued to be involved in metabolism.

And so on.

no experiment has ever produced even a single cell using the so called primordial soup.

Nor would one expect it to.

It has been proven a mathmatical impossibility for life to have started out of non life.

Please provide the actual calculations. Be sure to describe in detail the model of abiogenesis which is being used, and how you have determined that that exact model is the only way in which life could have originated. Show your work, and use extra paper if necessary.

No proof and not all scientists agree with evolution.

Just because you say so? I am... unimpressed.

enough said.

Would that it were.

It takes faith to believe a lizard decided to grow feathers..

No, actually, it would take a gross misrepresentation of what evolutionary science *actually* says...

Well, maybe some discourse without sarcasm. Wit. That's it. Yes wit should be employed more and sarcasm less when dealing with people of faith and conviction. They are really good people with considerable points of view. I spent many years in college in a B.S.,M.S. and doctoral program and 5 years in surgical residency. I am what some call educated in the extreme. But I still want to know more.Get this. I wrote my masters dissertation on "Pleistocene Fossils of McFaddin Beach, Texas". How smart can I be to have done that for 3 years and then look in the help wanted. Have you ever seen an add for a Pleistocene Paleontologist? I haven't. Not too smart. But I did enjoy the exercise immensely. Made some good friends. So by necessity I went to medical school to get a job. Actually I always wanted to do that. I came in contact with some of smartest dumbasses in the world. Taken out of their own personal stewpot, they were like fish out of water. I guess I am that way too. So when I found all of this information on FR I latched on. Some of the folks on this thread are really well informed. Collectively we are a force to contend with. But I feel this site should concentrate on the constitutional/political side of American culture. Not to say we cannot discuss our faiths. We should, but just without hurting peoples feelings. I see that from time to time. Heck, some guy nearly had me in tears the first time I got in the octagon. 3 second chokehold. Tapped me out. I just didn't deal with the aggression as well as I do now. I wish you science types (I say that lovingly, not perjoratively) would leave pride out and just discuss the facts as facts and supposition as supposition. There is so much we do not know, even the scientific types. But guard yourselves not to believe that science has all of the answers. It does not. For example, I might ask Durasell or Radio if they love their wives (I hope neither of you are queer or wear earrings). You would say "Yes, I love my wife". I might ask you, "What does that mean or does that have any meaning?" Is there anything in the world called justice? If you answer yes, I might ask "From whence does it spring?" Are these senses of love and justice neuronally mediated at the level of the synapse and a chemical potential results in a feeling and that is it? If so, then loving your wife has no more meaning that saying I have an itch. We understand that sensation is neuronally mediated and perceived in the cerebral cortex as a sensation. Are we a bag of chemicals? Or are we more. I would wager most of you are adherents to Freudian or Jungian psychology. By the way, look up the word psychology and you will see it means "the study of the soul". Millions of lives have become validated by this religious concept of the soul. The problem is they are adherents to the notion of science. Cock's postulates don't work here. Yet this army of psychiatrist,psycometrists,psychotherapists, and psychological councilors exist and if they are wrong about the applicability of this "science" their whole lives are invalidated professionally. Anyway, at best, evolution is a theoretical model and not dogma. But those willfully blinded to truth need to believe in anything but a transendent God, who is separate and distinct from the universe, and who is not tied to the universe by cause and effect but who orders the universe. If you would, for a moment consider this possibility. I cannot "show" Him to you. I cannot measure Him for you. But order and randomness in this closed system called the universe is not abrogated by violating the laws of thermodynamics. This basic fact, which has never scientifically disprooved, needs to be addressed if the evolutionist theory is to evolve. Origin. But I find none of the evolution will dispassionately address origin. In refusing to do this they ask us to begin with them on the 1 yardline with 1st down and goal. the evolutionist absolves the requirement for matter and energy. They simply stipulate that it always was. That is a matter of faith. It is the faith of the impersonal. God is not energy or a force, but transendent at separate from the universe, and therefore can reach into this universe with love, redemption, justice, forgiveness. None of these subjects are addressed by evolutionists. They simply say they are axonally mediated neurochemical responses and therefore signify nothing. So guys, tell your kids and your wife when that feeling of love toward them come over you, that those synapses are firing, and you just wanted them to know. Tell them your love is as meaningful as an itch or the tast of a baked potato with butter,chives,bacon bits, and cheese. That is what you are saying. Life is much more, and in your hearts, in that quiet place where you won't let anyone in, you know this. Tear down a few walls and consider the possibility that there is truth out there and not just facts. I am a man of little faith, but my faith is in a great God. Someone once said "I stand at the door and knock. If any man will open, I will come in and sup with him and he with Me." Why don't you invite Him for dinner. He will bring the wine and bread.
Merry Christmas

Songwriter

I am just an East Texas hick. I probably confused you with someone else. I apologize if I pegged you and was reading someone else. The fact that you would look and see is good enough for me. I am a little young for alzheimers disease, but I may have a touch.

Well, just read through this thread. The atheists didn't like the cultist charge thrown back at 'em I see. I see they deny their faith in evolution. They don't believe in evolution? Yeah, right.

I would have thought higher of Freepers than this. If what I see on this thread represents anywhere near a consensus of Freepers, we've had it is all I can say.

I guess these atheist poster consider themselves some sort of a Republican, or more likely, Libertarian, else they wouldn't be posting on Free Republic. The whole lot of you are no better than the demonrats, marxists, abortionists, queers, ACLU, anti-Christmas warriors, and those who tear down the ten commandments, in my opinion.

In reading this thread I can say we have met the real enemy of our Republic.

EvolutionPing

(Creationist thread appeared while I slept!)

Not a list for the creationism side of the debate. See the list's description in my freeper homepage. Then FReepmail me to be added/dropped.

In reading this thread I can say we have met the real enemy of our Republic.

So, in your opinion, Conservatives are not allowed to accept that evolution happened?

Since ID has not been taught for many, many years in public schools but evolution has been taught over and over inserted into almost every subject is it no wonder that ID is not understood or believed by many scientist today. If we kept teaching with certainty that the world was flat and the idea that the world was round and any and all supporting evidence was banished from all learning institutes we would not get very far but remain in darkness. It is very important for many to deny the existence of God. The belief in evolution must be protected to deny the existence of God and the restraints of God upon one's life and upon one's ego that fancies him/herself to be their own God and proudly refuses to bow down to the one and only living God. Also macro-evolutionary belief must remain the only belief system allowed as to keep grant money coming in for many, many unnecessary studies that keep university money and individual pay checks coming in. Above all else it must be avoided at all cost ever having to admit that oneself and one's illustrious educational institute was so foolishly and vehemently wrong.

If we kept teaching with certainty that the world was flat and the idea that the world was round and any and all supporting evidence was banished from all learning institutes we would not get very far but remain in darkness

And yet, many, if not most, of the giants in the history of science got there because they realized the accepted explaination was wrong, and there was a better solution.

These days the IDs cannot come up with a reasoned answer

Evolutionary Gene Origin (EGO) beats ID for thinking people.

Personally, I am all for the privitization of education. Continue to use government funding so that all students have the educational opportunities that they need, but run the schools privately.

It has been proven a mathmatical impossibility for life to have started out of non life

Not that the origin of life has ANYTHING to do with evolution, but I'd like to see this "mathematical proof" of the impossibility of abiogenesis. You may have some argument from IMPROBABILITY, but I have never seen any proof that it is impossible.

...is it no wonder that ID is not understood or believed by many scientist today.

ID is not "believed" simply because it suggests no lines of research. ID presupposes that certain biological structures could not have evolved. In science this is called a null hypothesis, and the obvious response is to conduct research towards falsifying that hypothesis. (There is no way to prove such a hypothesis except by repeated failure to falsify it.)

This is exactly what mainstream science is doing, working to find naturalistic explanations for so-called irreducible structures. This is what science does. This, apparently, is not what ID does.

Feel free to falsify this post by presenting an overview of the ID research program. What are its goals and accomplishments?

#####Personally, I am all for the privitization of education. Continue to use government funding so that all students have the educational opportunities that they need, but run the schools privately.#####

Stremba, would you use the presence of government funding in such a scenario to ban the teaching of alternatives to evolution in those private schools? I'm certain the ACLU and "Reverend" Barry Lynn would. If that's the case, then the private schools will end up no different than the public ones.

Also, regarding life emerging from its absence, would you agree that we have never observed such a thing occurring, and thus any claim that it has occurred should hardly be taken as dogma?