There is no religious bias in the PBS Evolution Project because Ken Miller says there isn’t.

Access Research Network ^ | 9/19/01 | Josh Gilder

[ArGee]

i think that you're mixing up the term "evolution" with something else.

A lot of people confuse evolution by either giving it different definitions or by misusing the theory altogether. It's nearly impossible to have a coherent discussion of the theory because it means so many different things. For some it has to do with how roaches become resistent to DDT. For others it has to do with wheter there is life after death. You can believe you're talking about transitional forms and suddenly find you're arguing whether the definition of a mammal is based on bones or flesh.

That's one of my biggest problems with evolution, by the way. For something that is so foundational to biology, it sure has a sloppy definition.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

Yes, six days actually, with a day of rest following. I can't tell you for sure how long a "day" was in Genesis, but I have read commentaries that state that the Greek word used in the passage is meant to convey a 24-hour day.

Not to be disruptive here, but Genesis was written in Hebrew by a Jew named Moses.

Shalom.

[Aedammair]

What I'd like to know after viewing "Evolution" last night is; What or who is our common ancestor with the rat? And whose bright idea was to stage the series in a Masterpiece Theater like production. It really was not very well produced.

[twyn1]

Not to be disruptive here, but Genesis was written in Hebrew by a Jew named Moses.

Whoops--my bad :)
You are right...I should have mentioned that the commentaries were of later Greek translations. The original Hebrew word was yom, which, when paired with an ordinal (number), consistently meant a 24-hour day.

[ArGee]

You are right...I should have mentioned that the commentaries were of later Greek translations. The original Hebrew word was yom, which, when paired with an ordinal (number), consistently meant a 24-hour day.

I figured it was a "typo." I would have ignored it except that those who do not believe in a literal 6 day creation use every opportunity they can to prove us to be uneducated. Whatever we say, we should research it thoroughly.

Shalom.

[FreeTally]

When confronted with irrefutable facts and evidence supporting evolution you say what most Creationist say

Thats odd; "irrefutable facts and evidence" have never been produced. Are you aware of any theory that has been proven and has not changed every ten years?

[patricktschetter]

The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [7th Revision]

[Aquinasfan]

Not a complete skeleton of any so-called "transitional" hominids has ever been found. What you cite as "proof" is mostly conjecture, and artistic license from a biased viewpoint. There is no "proof".

Don't forget "Nebraska Man" (a sawed down pig's tooth) and "Pilt Town Man" (another hoax). Like WRhine, I took this stuff as fact too until I read Darwin on Trial.

It was easy for me to change my position regarding evolution about a decade ago because I had already come to understand that most of the things that I learned in high school were incorrect or out-right lies. Sometimes it's difficult to believe that a class of authorities is full of s-it.

[frodolives]

Hey I'm a big Darwin fan, and I love PBS (go ahead, flame on) but I turned this program off last night and won't bother watching. It was some kind of soap-opera style live action drama, Darwing chatting with ladies and kissing while discussing dog breeding. There were miscellaneous bits of information, interspersed with Real Live Drama. Completely lost all credibility.

[Aquinasfan]

What a waste of $15m, especially considering the fact that one of the greatest intellectual movements of our time, the Intelligent Design movement, is right under the scientists' noses.

[WRhine]

It was easy for me to change my position regarding evolution about a decade ago because I had already come to understand that most of the things that I learned in high school were incorrect or out-right lies.

What happened to you is known as "regression". On this subject you were more educated when you were in high school.

[Dimensio]

Don't forget "Nebraska Man" (a sawed down pig's tooth) and "Pilt Town Man" (another hoax). Like WRhine, I took this stuff as fact too until I read Darwin on Trial.

Yep, good thing the Creation Scientists uncovered those for the hoaxes that they were.

Er, wait, the hoaxes were exposed by other evolutionary scientists. Aah, nevermind, it's still a victory for Creationism, even if the hoaxes don't actually contradict existing evolution theories or advance creation theories (if such exist).

[Dimensio]

What a waste of $15m, especially considering the fact that one of the greatest intellectual movements of our time, the Intelligent Design movement, is right under the scientists' noses.

I keep hearing of this Intelligent Design movement and Intelligent Design theory but I've not heard of what the actual ID theory is. Could you explain what the ID theory states, what it predicts, how it can be tested and how it could be falsified?

[WRhine]

Thats odd; "irrefutable facts and evidence" have never been produced. Are you aware of any theory that has been proven and has not changed every ten years?

And of course with close-minded Creationists, such as yourself, there never will be "irrefutable facts and evidence" as long as it concerns supporting evolution. For some of you extremists I am not sure if you would believe in evolution even God came down and told you that evolution was in fact true. Oh and as for the theory changing every 10 years...only in your mind, only in your mind.

[Diamond]

But Christianity is not harmed and the teaching of Christ and the Apostles are in no way invalidated by accepting certain forms of evolution as God's process of creation.

The six days is not just mentioned in Genesis. For example; Exodus 31:17 - It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.'"

Another significant problem is that if there was no First Adam, then there is no Second Adam.

As far as "Genesis being "created three or four thousand years ago for nomadic sheep hearders", and being "spread by aural tradition for hundreds of years if not longer before it was eventually written down, reportedly by Moses", may I suggest that you take a look at the tablet theory of Genesis authorship, which makes a lot more sense from an archeological standpoint.

Cordially,

[Diamond]

I keep hearing of this Intelligent Design movement and Intelligent Design theory but I've not heard of what the actual ID theory is. Could you explain what the ID theory states, what it predicts, how it can be tested and how it could be falsified?

Some of Dembski's articles

Cordially,

[Aquinasfan]

Could you explain what the ID theory states, what it predicts, how it can be tested and how it could be falsified?

Go to www.arn.org and read anything by Philip Johnson, William Dembski, Michael Behe or Jonathan Wells.

The basic idea lies in what Philip Johnson describes as "specified complexity" or simply information. It is the difference between this sequence of 17 letters, LRINTSPVBMWNRJNQP, this sequence of 17 letters, ABABABABABABABABA, and this sequence of 17 letters, MARYHADALITTLELAMB. The first is unspecified and not complex. The second is specified but not complex. The third is specified and complex.

ID theorists observe natural phenomena that carries information, and try to determine how best to explain the existence of the information. The information can be categorized as information arising from accident, natural forces, chance or design.

Simply stated, it is more reasonable to believe that the letters SOS written in the sand were designed rather than a chance occurrence. Similarly, it is more reasonable to believe in a designer of "irreducibly complex" parts of an organism, such as the human eye, rather than creation by blind chance.

[Diamond]

Is Intelligent Design Testable? A Response to Eugenie Scott

Cordially,

[FreeTally]

And of course with close-minded Creationists, such as yourself, there never will be "irrefutable facts and evidence" as long as it concerns supporting evolution.

A hoax is a hoax, Bullsh!t is Bullsh!t and two bones found miles apart does not prove anything. For years, the population is told to believe in evolution based upon hoaxes and bullsh!t, and you want to call those who dissagree with you closed minded. Pretty funny.

There is no evidence or facts, just a wish list of what evolutionists wished happened. And if they could just prove it, then we could be well on our way to "debunking God". It makes me laugh that an entire field of pseudo-science was invented to deny God. Actually, I shouldnt say it makes me laugh, because God aint laughing.

[dbbeebs]

The Big Bang Theory states the universe started at a specific time. Darwin maintained that the universe always existed.

So Darwin's wrong on the "big bang". So what?