[PatrickHenry]

[This ping list for the evolution -- not creationism -- side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. To be added (or dropped), let me know via freepmail.]

[Kevin Curry]

Asimov was always way too wordy.

[LibKill]

When the creationist 'scientists' have as many tons of fossil evidence for their view as REAL scientists have for evolution, then and only then will I give them a respectful hearing.

I'm waiting......

[Southack]

Dear Isaac,

"Why" do I think that some intelligent entity predates Man's existence?

Base 4 math.

You've got your A, C, G, and T bases paired up to comprise the instruction sets in the genes that reside inside DNA strands. To me, that's 0,1,2,3 = Base 4 math.

That's an order of magnitude of greater complexity than Binary math (something for which we don't see forming except with Intelligent Intervention). This math is how programming instructions are stored, replicated, and activated. In fact, not only does DNA store and replicate data, but it also interacts with a processing mechanism that handles programming instructions in a manner that is remarkably similar to how we currently have CPU's processing our instruction sets.

Moreover, we see evidence of code re-use in various other species.

If I saw Binary math representing programming subroutines in a piece of computer software, and knew nothing else about it, I would presume that it was an intelligent entity such as Man that created said program, rather than presuming that natural forces managed to eak out the program by pure chance.

Likewise, I make the same presumption about the Life that we see on our planet.

Evidence of God or at least an intelligence that pre-dates Man? Base 4 math in DNA.

Is this conclusive evidence? No.

Is it persuasive evidence? Perhaps to some, maybe even most.

Sadly for you, Isaac, your mind has already concluded that such evidence has no place in science. Your mind was already made up, and heaven help anyone who dares let such tangible facts get in your way...

[Arthur McGowan]

A pox on both their houses. Neither side gets it.

The necessity of an uncaused Creator is shown not by the design of the universe, but by the existence of the universe. The design of the universe is proof of a designer. But the existence of a universe filled with things which are of their nature contingent is proof enough of an uncaused, noncontingent Creator.

The Creationists make religion ridiculous, with the absurd notion that the STORY of Creation is the same as the FACT of Creation ex nihilo, which is all that Scripture teaches. God made the world by SAYING So, by a creative act. There is no indication in the OT or the NT that one of God's purposes in revelation was the teach us any scientific facts.

[Arthur McGowan]

BTW: All of this would be a non-issue if we would shut down the government schools. The prayer-in-school issue, the pledge issue, and the creationism issue, would all evaporate overnight.

[AntiGuv]

How alarming! I generally have little more reaction beyond complacent derision for creationism, but this essay delivers a powerful wakeup call. If America slides inexorably back into the grips of creationist obscurantism, it will slip into the twilight much the same as the Ming and Qing dynasties oversaw China's demise in a past era. But, what to do?

Are we now, with all these examples before us, to ride backward into the past under the same tattered banner of orthodoxy? With creationism in the saddle, American science will wither. We will raise a generation of ignoramuses ill-equipped to run the industry of tomorrow, much less to generate the new advances of the days after tomorrow.

We will inevitably recede into the backwater of civilization, and those nations that retain opened scientific thought will take over the leadership of the world and the cutting edge of human advancement. I don't suppose that the creationists really plan the decline of the United States, but their loudly expressed patriotism is as simpleminded as their "science." If they succeed, they will, in their folly, achieve the opposite of what they say they wish.

[ancient_geezer]

Bored?

[VadeRetro]

The Bible says that God created the world in six days, and the Bible is the inspired word of God. To the average creationist this is all that counts...

The creationist leaders do not actually use that argument because that would make their argument a religious one, and they would not be able to use it in fighting a secular school system. They have to borrow the clothing of science, no matter how badly it fits, and call themselves "scientific" creationists.

It starts right here, becoming a Liar for the Lord. It's so obviously about what church you attend, but creationists can't admit that. Oh, no! It's about the science, really!

Like hell!

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"Does the Creator take pleasure in fooling us? Does it amuse Him to watch us go wrong?"

Actually yes. In this case, God is laughing at both sides. The sun was not created on the first day. The Days of Genisis are not solar. How long were the Six Days? God only knows.

The Great Learned Ones of both the universities and the churches are floundering in a mud hole of self-humiliation, the same as the philosophers of old who said the earth was held up by elephants. That is the way God wants it. Jesus once told the Father that it was good that the world was made that way.

Also note that Asimov never mentions the "Missing Link", which means that the theory of evolution cannot honestly include humans as 'just another animal'. The "Missing Link" is religiously avoided by many.

[balrog666]

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[metacognative]

When I was a kid, I thought Asimov was smart. Now I think he was just a show off..afraid to debate the dreaded 'creationists'. Anyway, modern science and mathematics have proven darwinism is just AN OLD FASHIONED MYTH

[Trickyguy]

I used to like Asimov a lot when I was a teenager. Then I grew up.

[537 Votes]

God is not dead. Neitzche is, and so is Isaac Asimov. Get over it.

[Varda]

bump for later read

[Cicero]

Oh, horse manure.

If ten million Americans thought the earth was flat, it wouldn't set back science one bit. Presumably these people would go into some other line of business.

As long as the Creationists aren't preventing science from being taught in America, they have a right to their beliefs.

I happen to be somewhere in the middle. I think General Evolution is bad science, but I also think that when Genesis speaks of the six days of the creation it doesn't mean literal days, because the sun and the moon weren't created for the first several of them, and you can't have days without a sun.

But if some people want to believe that the earth was created in about 4,004 BC, that's their business. There are many other problems in America that are much greater impediments to the advancement of science--such as politically correct research grants.

[nightdriver]

I don't suppose it would interest Azimov or other evolutionists that the Bible tantalizingly alludes to man existing long before Adam and going extinct?

Nawwwwww. Didn't think so.

[bethelgrad]

I've gone back and forth between creationism per se, and some kind of synthesis that allows room for the findings of scientific specialists. I really don't have a problem with an old earth, old universe. And I don't think evolution among the species would be too difficult for me. THe only problem is that while an ancient universe/earth have been proven, biological evolution still remains within the realm of conjecture despite it being packaged as fact. Besides, in 20 to 30 years, the scientific community will develope a new theory of the origins of life. They have to justify their grants so be on the look out for a new paradigm.

[WFTR]

For example, we have the description of the cellular nature of living organisms (the "cell theory"); of objects attracting each other according to fixed rule (the "theory of gravitation"); of energy behaving in discrete bits (the "quantum theory"); of light traveling through a vacuum at a fixed measurable velocity (the "theory of relativity"), and so on.

All are theories; all are firmly founded; all are accepted as valid descriptions of this or that aspect of the universe. They are neither guesses nor speculations. And no theory is better founded, more closely examined, more critically argued and more thoroughly accepted, than the theory of evolution. If it is "only" a theory, that is all it has to be.

These two paragraphs alone show that for Asimov, the issue goes beyond science. Evolution certainly is not as well-proven as the other theories that he names, and his attempt to make that claim shows that he is no better than those he tries to criticize. The cell theory is easily proven by the fact that we can look at cells. The theory of gravity can be easily seen and tested. Quantum theory and relativity are a little more controversial, but both can be tested. The same is simply not true of evolution and particularly the evolution of man. There is some good evidence for evolution. I halfway believe it myself. However, I find those who zealously attack creationists just as tiresome and superstitious as the creationists that they despise.

WFTR
Bill

[Timmy]

Sigh. You just can't handle the fact that 90% of Americans refuse to buy into your propaganda, can you?