Creation vs. Evolution, general discussion

[tuppence]

Here is where the two sides can have at it. I, and others with the magic powers will erase posts or parts of posts with profanity, personal insults, mocking, etc. Let's see how civilized we can be, OK?

Thanks,
tuppence

[tuppence]

OK, I'll start.

Something that irritates me about evolution apologists is the way they try to claim that the simple variation which is already found in the gene pool of a population can lead to the kind of changes which are NOT found in that gene pool -- changes which become, through some amount of time, the radical changes in body type and genetics which would cause a fish to become an amphibian or reptile, a reptile to become a bird, etc.

We all know variation exists, and no one is arguing it. The point of argument is where is the evidence which would lead us to think that it is even possible for one type or kind or organism (say, a fern) to change into another type of organism (maybe a pansy, or a pine tree?) entirely, regardless of the time taken?

What evidence is there that this kind of change is even possible?

[Admiral Valdemar]

OK, I'll start.

Something that irritates me about evolution apologists is the way they try to claim that the simple variation which is already found in the gene pool of a population can lead to the kind of changes which are NOT found in that gene pool -- changes which become, through some amount of time, the radical changes in body type and genetics which would cause a fish to become an amphibian or reptile, a reptile to become a bird, etc.

We all know variation exists, and no one is arguing it. The point of argument is where is the evidence which would lead us to think that it is even possible for one type or kind or organism (say, a fern) to change into another type of organism (maybe a pansy, or a pine tree?) entirely, regardless of the time taken?

What evidence is there that this kind of change is even possible?

You're automatically assuming microevolution has a cut off point. On what grounds do you base this on?

[tuppence]

You're automatically assuming microevolution has a cut off point. On what grounds do you base this on?

our experience as humans. We have never seen anything beyond simple variation.

I have used this example before, but we have been working with E.coli for over a hundred years now. With a 20 minute generation time, this easily goes over 2.5 million linear generations. We have thrown every mutagent in the book -- and then a few -- at them. In 2.5 MILLION geneerations we have not seen any variation outside the realm of E.coli. We have had some fat E.coli, and we even had one strain that was able to develop a new internal pathway when scientists removed some rather essential elements in the old pathway, but mostly we have only had dead E.coli. We have NEVER, in all those tries and all those generations, seen anything from this tiny prokaryote that was not an E.coli.


If two-and-a-half million generations of a simple one-celled prokaryote cannot give us any decent changes no matter what we do, the time argument for other organisms seems to be in a precarious state. I keep hearing, "but it takes time!" And I would ask, "OK, how many generations?"

Very simply, no matter whether it is organisms with a long generation time, such as mammals, or a short generation time, such as bacteria, we have NEVER seen a change outside of simple variation.

So, in answer to your question, I would respond
"extant evidence"

[Aineo]

The assumptions that deists practice psueoscience is both ludicrous and insulting since many of the scientists who have scientific Laws named after them were deists.

Real science follows the evidence it does not interpret or manipulate the evidence to support a pet theory.

[Aineo]

hat people believe and what science can show sometimes coincide. Do they see intelligent design in our universe? Yes, but if you discount their science only because they can see what you refuse to see then truth and the pursuit of real science is not in your agenda.

No, the IDeists and their progenitors the YECs and OECs- do not use science, they use pseudoscience that does not abide the scientific method.

Here is a short list of those you accuse of "pseudoscience":
Henry F. Schaeffer Ph.D.
James Tour Ph.D.
Fred Sigworth, professor of cellular and molecualte phsiology at Yale Graduate School
Stephen C. Meyer Ph.D.
Johnathon Wells Ph.D. Ph.D.

Just because a scientists disagrees with the majority does not make his science suspect.

[tuppence]

I might also add that, being part of the ID movement and a personal friend of some of the major players, the ID movement has NOTHING to do with the creation movement.

The Intelligent Design movement has a number of non-Christians in it and, as strange as this may seem, I am even convinced some of them are atheists! All of us involved, however, are challenging evolution as it is presented. ID is NOT a front for any creation group or religion.

What ID does is promote using the scientific method and scientific principles when looking at the world around us. It uses the same methods, essentially, as forensic science. It looks at the evidence in light of our experience as people as as scientists and then asks, "Does this give us enough evidence to consider intelligent design as being the cause of this?" The answer could be no or yes.

But that is all Intelligent Design does. It may open the door to a theological interpretation or discussion, but it does not enter. It looks at the evidence with as many presuppositional glasses off as humanly possible.

This, however, is evidently either anathema to evolutionists or simply a point of terror that someone with training and intelligence might have the nerve to question the currently accepted paradigm.

Creation science is an entirely different thing, for it is based on the supposiiton that God is real and is in control in the same way that secular science denies both when pushed to the wall.

[Yod Heh Vav Heh]

Just because a scientists disagrees with the majority does not make his science suspect.

Quite correct, the fact they use pseudoscience in their ID theories make those theories suspect. Behe is a chemist, his chemistry work that gets published may be excellent, but his ID IC nonsense is just that, pseudoscientific nonsense.

Nice strawman, though.

our experience as humans. We have never seen anything beyond simple variation.

That's not answering the question. What would stop such "simple variation" from accumulating?

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:47 am Post subject:
You're automatically assuming microevolution has a cut off point. On what grounds do you base this on?

our experience as humans. We have never seen anything beyond simple variation.

I have used this example before, but we have been working with E.coli for over a hundred years now. With a 20 minute generation time, this easily goes over 2.5 million linear generations. We have thrown every mutagent in the book -- and then a few -- at them. In 2.5 MILLION geneerations we have not seen any variation outside the realm of E.coli.

That's because E Coli was the common ancestor of all known variants of e coli today, your argument is a classic bait and switch, E Coli today are not the same as E Coli in the past, and that's the point. Your argument is tantamount to saying that Eukaryotes have remained Eukaryotes for billions of years, therefore where's this "large scale evolution" when you've not defined how much variation is contained in the kingdom of Eukaryotes, and you've not defined how much hereditary variation you would count to be enough variation to be "true" evolution. No doubt, if you were pressed for such information, you'd ask for the kind of variation only possible over non-directly viewable timescales and dismiss the genome of current organisms, complete with endogenous retrovirus insertions as not enough proof.

We have had some fat E.coli, and we even had one strain that was able to develop a new internal pathway when scientists removed some rather essential elements in the old pathway, but mostly we have only had dead E.coli. We have NEVER, in all those tries and all those generations, seen anything from this tiny prokaryote that was not an E.coli.

That's because all E Coli organisms are defined by the ancestor we have in living memory! The distictions you want are unfortunately arbitrary, due to common descent. That's why we go for reproductive seperateness as the species level.

This unity and simultaneous diversity is what common descent and evolution are all about, and actually show how the process works and WHY we can plot common ancestry.

Imagine the E coli strains had one thing in common with a previous type of organism, as did another type of organisms, we'll call them D Coli for sake of argument, and we'll call the earlier organism C. Coli. Are E coli and D Coli just variants of C Coli? Yes! Are they seperate organisms also? Yes!

Very simply, no matter whether it is organisms with a long generation time, such as mammals, or a short generation time, such as bacteria, we have NEVER seen a change outside of simple variation.

So, would you count genetic reliance on a substance which does not naturally exist, formed in living memory, proof of evolution? Or would this simply be "variation" which, for reasons unspecified (your incredulity) cannot create variation enough to make what we see today?

ID is not a theory since it offers no predictions, nor does it give a means of intelligently designing anything, since it knows no evidence will be found. It's a pure cart before the horse fallacy. This horse was intelligently designed to pull this cart.

This, however, is evidently either anathema to evolutionists or simply a point of terror that someone with training and intelligence might have the nerve to question the currently accepted paradigm.

You do realise IDeists accept common descent and evolution, right? They just argue from incredulity and don't posit any means of intelligent design for whatever chemical composition they can't understand this week. It's just Paley's Watch applied to the chemical scale now, since evolution explains biodiversity. They can't seem to understand the difference between artificial compositions and naturally occurring ones, and then don't offer a means of how it got there, other than their ignorance renamed "the ID".

The fact creationists of all colours can't actually offer something up that explains everything as well as evolution does is quite telling.

[tuppence]

Yod, your quote at the bottom of your post is Romans 9:19. It is a reference to God's all-powerful will.

Was He then not strong enough to get Genesis correct? Did He not create by kind?

Actually, that was part of your argument above. Yes, there was an E.coli ancestor. It was an E.coli, your alphabetical imagination not withstanding. Thre was a bison ancestor. It was a bovine. There was a pony ancestor. It was an equine. The fact that none of these organisms is evolving now, no matter how many generations we look at, is a clear indication that something has been lost in the genome, even if you are choosing to defend evolution! We don't argue that something has been lost. We know it has. Quite a bit has been lost. It was the original populations which had those perfect genomes, and not what we see today. EVERYTHING points back to Genesis being exactly correct.

Life DID start as original created kinds. And they never 'evolved' past basic variations within those kinds. Why not? Evidently God put whatever is necessary within the original kind populations to allow for variation but also put whatever was needed in to keep populations and individuals within kind.

What stops simple variations from accumulating? Well, some of them don't. We call it genetic load. You see, the ones that we know of as accumulating are all negative! And when we see even one of these mutations becoming heritable per generation of a population, then that population is in error catastrophe and WILL become extinct.

We have NEVER seen even possibly 'beneficial' mutations building on one another to even START to produce anything new in form or function.

You accuse us of argument from incredulity, but that is not the case. We are arguing from a data and experience.

It is you folks, some of whom claim to be Christian, who doubt that God knows what He is talking about and make special pleadings, as your post did, as to why we don't see evolution anymore! You have a true argument from incredulity with doubting that God could have done what He said He did.

You are further incredulous that any sane and educated person could doubt evolution. They must all be brainwashed or something.

So when Behe, a HIGHLY respected scientist, writes a book about something he has found and thought about within his field of expertise, he, because he disagrees with the common paradigm, is suddenly accused of pseudoscience.

Have you read Darwin's Black Box? What about it is pseudoscientific, please?

I assume your 'genetic reliance' bit refers to nylon-eating bacteria. First of all, their ability is due to a loss of specificity in the proteins and, secondly, they die out when in a wild population. So where did you want to go with this?

As far as your criticism of ID is concerned, you are clearly the subject of some kind of brainwashing yourself and are pretty clueless about it. It does not have to make predictions, as it is presenting a method of investigation. That is something different. A method of investigation has nothing to do with your cart and horse nonsense.

One of the ways it was easy to see you don't know much about ID was this, from you: You do realise IDeists accept common descent and evolution, right? The answer is, "some do, some don't." You see, ID is not an ideological stand; it is a challenge and a way to present that challenge. The challenge is to evolution as it is presented today and the way to meet that challenge is through Dembski's filter or simply the concept of irreducible complexity which Behe put forward or perhaps just Phil Johnson's common sense approach. Jonathan Wells did an excellent job presenting the fact that the common icons of evolution have been known to be false by the scientific community for years -- and he referenced and quoted the peer-reviewed papers which showed that.

Yet Wells, Johnson, Behe, and Dembski have some radically different viewpoints and religions! But they are united in their challenge to the farce of evolution.

In the meantime, Paley had a point about that watch. If you ran across a watch in the desert, what would you assume about it, even if you had never seen a watch before? It demonstrates intelligent design vs. the conglomeration of rocks and sand about you. That is a simple and obvious conclusion and Paley had a reasonable argument.

You know, I have read some of Dawkins. I could not stomach a lot of it because he forsakes science for ranting so often, but when I speak on the ID movement, I do use the following quote from his preface to The Blind Watchmaker:

This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved. Darwin and Wallace solved it, though we shall continue to add footnotes to their solution for awhile yet. I wrote the book because I was surprised that so many people seemed not only unaware of the elegant and beautiful solution to this deepest of problems but, incredibly, in many cases actually unaware that there was a problem in the first place!

The problem is that of complex design. The computer on which I am writing these words has an information storage capacity of about 64 kilobytes…. The computer was consciously designed and deliberately manufactured. The brain with which you are understanding my words is an array of some ten million kiloneurones. Many of these billions of nerve cells have each more than a thousand ‘electric wires’ connecting them to other neurones. Moreover, at the molecular genetic level, every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer. The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn’t agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up. No, on second thoughts I don’t give up, because one of my aims in the book is to convey something of the sheer wonder of biological complexity to those whose eyes have not been opened to it. But having built up the mystery, my other main aim is to remove it again by explaining the solution.

In other words, Dawkins is arguing from a combination of incredulity and what is truly religious atheism. He WILL not admit to God, THEREFORE evolution MUST be true and the rest of us idiots! And worse, if you have read more of his stuff!

There's simply nothing at all scientific about evolution anymore!

[Yod Heh Vav Heh]

Yod, your quote at the bottom of your post is Romans 9:19. It is a reference to God's all-powerful will.

Yeah, it's me using subtle humour.

Was He then not strong enough to get Genesis correct? Did He not create by kind?

Begging the question of Genesis' authenticity. The fact is, nothing in reality agrees with anything in Genesis 1, but, I would contend, that is not even the point of what Genesis 1 is about, i.e. it's a creation myth just like the greek one, all mythologies have them, and they're spiritual narratives, not an actual description of what actually happened.

Actually, that was part of your argument above. Yes, there was an E.coli ancestor. It was an E.coli, your alphabetical imagination not withstanding. Thre was a bison ancestor. It was a bovine. There was a pony ancestor. It was an equine.

And they all had an ancestor that was a quadropedal mammal with hooves, what's your point?

The fact that none of these organisms is evolving now,

That's not a fact, in fact, that's an outright lie, since they all are, the gradual changes or "variation" as explained to you repeatedly is evolution in action.

no matter how many generations we look at, is a clear indication that something has been lost in the genome, even if you are choosing to defend evolution!

What's been lost? We've got new variants of an older model. That's like saying all the current models of ford have reduced the ford catalog.

We don't argue that something has been lost. We know it has. Quite a bit has been lost. It was the original populations which had those perfect genomes, and not what we see today. EVERYTHING points back to Genesis being exactly correct.

No, it doesn't. These variants are organisms in their own right, an original common ancestor for all life would not be perfect, it would simply be an organism.

Life DID start as original created kinds.

Prove it.

And they never 'evolved' past basic variations within those kinds.

Define what a kind is, then. It can't be reproductive seperateness, since we've observed evolution over that level.

Why not? Evidently God put whatever is necessary within the original kind populations to allow for variation but also put whatever was needed in to keep populations and individuals within kind.

Why? And prove it. Seems to be an argument from ignorance.

What stops simple variations from accumulating? Well, some of them don't. We call it genetic load. You see, the ones that we know of as accumulating are all negative!

Hahaha, this is so wrong I can't believe you just said it. Natural selection observably does the exact opposite as shown with vancomycin immunity and subsequent reliance, and the ability to devour Nylon and subsequent reliance on it alone as a food source. Genes simply would not accumulate if they had a negative effect, because the organisms would die out.

And when we see even one of these mutations becoming heritable per generation of a population, then that population is in error catastrophe and WILL become extinct.

Almost any hospital in the first world will say different. Ever hear of MRSA? VRSA? Vancomycin resistant entereococci? Don't believe me that these things exist?

We have NEVER seen even possibly 'beneficial' mutations building on one another to even START to produce anything new in form or function.

Outright lie, again. We HAVE, as I already said, MRSA -> VRSA, v-r-entereococcus, flavobacterium k172, delta 32, influenza, the common cold, HIV, SIV. Flu and colds do it ANNUALLY, as you can tell because everyon gets them even though they are immune to the last strain!

"Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.

(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.) "

Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

You accuse us of argument from incredulity, but that is not the case. We are arguing from a data and experience.

No, you're inventing a superficial barrier that isn't there in order to preserve your wrong views. Allele frequency changes can and are spotted with beneficial effects and natural selection is about those getting passed on, the idea that they wouldn't be passed on but in fact, the detrimental frequency changes would is based in what exactly? What would cause that? It doesn't even make sense! And remember this is you saying this, not anyone else, not scientists, not evolutionists, you so back it up.

It is you folks, some of whom claim to be Christian, who doubt that God knows what He is talking about and make special pleadings, as your post did, as to why we don't see evolution anymore!

Strawman fallacy. Anyone that knows what evolution is can go to a hospital and watch it in action.

You have a true argument from incredulity with doubting that God could have done what He said He did.

God couldn't evolve things could he not? So much for omnipotence, even humans can evolve things. It's not about incredulity, it's about the evidence, there's nothing to back up talking snakes, a young earth or global flood, or a man in the sky that uses magic to trick people into believing his stories are wrong. No sorry, people like me need reason in order to accept something. You have none, no more than someone saying Zeus or another imaginary friend exists.

Nice idolatry of the bible there, though.

How about you show how evolution by natural selection is an argument of incredulity against Genesis? I'm suer that'll be funny to read.

You are further incredulous that any sane and educated person could doubt evolution. They must all be brainwashed or something.

Fair comment. They must all be brainwashed or be a nobel lauriete in the making.

So when Behe, a HIGHLY respected scientist, writes a book about something he has found and thought about within his field of expertise, he, because he disagrees with the common paradigm, is suddenly accused of pseudoscience.

No, repeating a strawman won't make it true.

Have you read Darwin's Black Box? What about it is pseudoscientific, please?

Darwin's black box

• The assumption that irreducible complexity is unevolvable
• The examples of irreducible complexity Behe gives have been shown to be reducibly complex (blood factors, liver enzymes, wasp stings, cellular makeup et al)
• Behe never did any actual experimentation to see if they were irreducibly complex
• The conclusion that irreducible complexity is unevolvable therefore it was designed
• Does not take into account we have observed irreducible complexity, both chemically and biologically
• Does not take into account that Darwin already deconstructed the fallacies in the above
• Does not examine the world for potential precursors to IC systems
• Does not examine the world for existing intermediate gradations between precursors and IC systems, which should not exist if Behe and the IC proponent of Darwin's time Mivart were correct.

I assume your 'genetic reliance' bit refers to nylon-eating bacteria. First of all, their ability is due to a loss of specificity in the proteins and, secondly, they die out when in a wild population. So where did you want to go with this?

Flavobacterium K172 developed new genes and allowed them to exploit a new environment which does not naturally exist, which only came about thanks to us. They lost the genetic basis to digest normal hydrocarbons but can now exploit a completely untapped source, that's an entirely new irreducibly complex trait thanks to new genes that has appeared in living human memory.

That alone refutes Behe's "irreducible complexity cannot arise from evolution".

As far as your criticism of ID is concerned, you are clearly the subject of some kind of brainwashing yourself and are pretty clueless about it. It does not have to make predictions, as it is presenting a method of investigation. That is something different. A method of investigation has nothing to do with your cart and horse nonsense.

Wrong, it does have to give predictions if it's to be taken as a serious scientific theory. If you want to see intelligent design, or if you want to see dumb design or if you want to see order arising from natural process, you can. However, only one of these abides parsimony and only one relies on preexisting known constants. The others have to invent entities because they wanted to include them, whether they exist or not. This is why it's pseudoscientific.

Nice ad hominem fallacy, though.

One of the ways it was easy to see you don't know much about ID was this, from you: You do realise IDeists accept common descent and evolution, right? The answer is, "some do, some don't." You see, ID is not an ideological stand; it is a challenge and a way to present that challenge.

So you admit it's nothing more than disagreeing with evolution for the sake of it, without offering anything of substance on its own.

The challenge is to evolution as it is presented today and the way to meet that challenge is through Dembski's filter or simply the concept of irreducible complexity which Behe put forward or perhaps just Phil Johnson's common sense approach. Jonathan Wells did an excellent job presenting the fact that the common icons of evolution have been known to be false by the scientific community for years -- and he referenced and quoted the peer-reviewed papers which showed that.

Yeah, like Dr Hovind refuted evolution by quote mining too.

Yet Wells, Johnson, Behe, and Dembski have some radically different viewpoints and religions! But they are united in their challenge to the farce of evolution.

And they have yet to produce one thing to show that anything "irreducibly complex" or otherwise "intelligently designed" by nonhumans is artificial.

In the meantime, Paley had a point about that watch. If you ran across a watch in the desert, what would you assume about it, even if you had never seen a watch before? It demonstrates intelligent design vs. the conglomeration of rocks and sand about you. That is a simple and obvious conclusion and Paley had a reasonable argument.

The argument is fallacious since it associated complexity only with artificial design. You're walking in a wood, you find some trees, they're difficult to understand therefore someone made them? You really think that's good enough to be taken seriously?

Another example of the fallacious logic at work: You are walking in a quarry, you see a face sculpted in the rock, and you see some crags resembling a face in the rock, and you see a bare rock. Which one is intelligently designed? All three!

Here's my own antiwatch parable:

Parable Of The Beach

You are walking along a beach, you notice that the sand and the pebbles are clearly seperate, making a cool set of lines down the beach. As far as you know, you've only seen people seperate things out like that, some form of intelligence must be behind it!

So, you stake out the beach, to see who's doing this sorting.

You work out it's the sea. The sand is less heavy than the pebbles, and it being washed further ashore, whereas the bigger heavier pebbles get deposited closer to the water.

Amazing, that these natural processes are bringing about an apparent order and arrangement! So is the sea alive or does it have intelligence? No. Are the pebbles in some specific arrangement that it's more likely they wouldn't be in? Yes.

So does this mean the sea could secretly have some intelligence behind it? It's possible. It's even possible that it's the "spirit of the sea" the locals talk about in their old fables.

Does this make it a valid explanation of how the sea works? Nope, didn't think so. Because the spirit of the sea is intangible and unfalsifiable, does that mean it's a valid idea without substanciation? No.

So do we accept it, even if we don't know everything about the sea? No. That's an application of parsimony.

The arguments people use for the existence of gods are often what you see above. It's an argument from ignorance (you/science can't explain where x came from, or the cause of x, and my God says he did it, therefore i believe him and you can't counter it because you don't know) or worse still, an argument from personal incredulity (That's too much for me to understand, the numbers are too big against it, i think God did it, and it says so in the bible).

The above parable you will see replaced with the DNA of a living cell, irreducibly complex systems, the Earth's location, lottery winning, prayer testimonies, the universe's origin et al. In addition, they will probably trot out the "fine tuning" argument; where everything seems "just so" life can come about on Earth.

You know, I have read some of Dawkins. I could not stomach a lot of it because he forsakes science for ranting so often, but when I speak on the ID movement, I do use the following quote from his preface to The Blind Watchmaker:

In other words, Dawkins is arguing from a combination of incredulity and what is truly religious atheism. He WILL not admit to God, THEREFORE evolution MUST be true and the rest of us idiots!

He didn't say that anywhere in there. You are in violation of exodus 20:16. You seem to erroneously equate selective pressure and emergent complexity with a "rant against God." You are clearly being unreasonable here, not Dawkins. Dawkins explains how selective pressures can lead to complexity and thisi s a rant against God? What are you thinking?

There's simply nothing at all scientific about evolution anymore!

Pitiful, you would know this is false if you had actually read and understood the blind watchmaker. But I suspect that is your problem, your inability to understand, not read. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, and assuming you didn't just lie maliciously.

[tuppence]

Most of what you posted is either ignorant of what you are talking about or a lot of hand waving. Neither is credible.

Here are just a few points about what you posted.

1. You have obviously never read Behe's Black Box. That is clear. I assume you cut and pasted someone else's rather ignorant critique. If you ever do read it and wish to discuss it, let me know. I have my copy here, and I have read it.

2. No one, but NO ONE is arguing variation. The argument is that variation is limited and will not move an organism outside of its kind, which, if you like, you may consider the taxonomic family.

3. The nylon-eating variation will not get you anywhere for reasons I specifically mentioned: it involves a loss of specificity and they die in the wild population.

4. Natural selection happens when part of a population dies off under environmental pressure, or simply cannot breed. The surviving sub-population has then lost whatever variants may have been confined to the part of the population that died off. This results, after a few times, in a fitness peak from which there is no known way down and the final result is what we call an 'endangered species.' This is a simple matter of standard population genetics.

5. Genesis is certainly not a myth and is rather a series of eyewitness accounts. In Genesis 1:9 we find that there was one supercontinent in the beginning. It took science awhile to catch up with this. In Genesis 1:14, we are told to use the sun, moon, and stars as our timekeepers. We do. Genesis 1 presents itself as actual history. It bears none of the grammatical markers or other indications of being a myth or allegory or even poetic. Take it or leave it according to what it claims to be, but don't try to reclassify it to suit your own preconceptions.

6. Your parallel to the Ford is incredibly faulty, for each Ford model was designed, presumably intelligently.

7. Incredibly, you wrote: No, it doesn't. These variants are organisms in their own right, an original common ancestor for all life would not be perfect, it would simply be an organism. I had to stare at that twice before believing what I was seeing. I don't think you know what 'organism' means! Of course every variant is an organism in its own right. An organism is a living thing, an individual living thing! What every variant is NOT is something which departs from the kind (use 'family' if you like) classification of the population it belongs to.

8. Your response to genetic load was an ignorant one. Any hospital anywhere can tell you that there is an increase in birth defects being seen. Some are quirks, but most are showing up as inherited. Several years ago National Geographic had a full page spread for a very short list of known genetic causes of various diseases and deformities. This is part of our genetic load and what medicine is fighting against consistently.

9. The cichlids are still cichlids and we call them different species due to their mating cues. Dogs and horses, however, which are MUCH more different from various other dogs and horses than any cichlids are from each other, use smell for mating cues, and thus all dogs and horses are considered basically the same taxonomically. In other words, we are defining species because of different mating cues, not because of morphologic or genetic differences. This is where it gets silly....

10. Allele frequency changes can be seen in different generations of the same human family. This does not make any of them less human, and you will not find anyone who says that this shows humans are evolving. In other words, the allele frequency definition of evolution is completely false and depends for its acceptance on the ignorance of not only the general population but of those in all sciences but genetics! It's a fancy phrase that means absolutely nothing evolutionarily!

11. Ad hominem is not calling your horse and buggy illustration nonsense unless you are either a horse or a buggy. However calling me a liar, which you did repeatedly IS ad hominem and is not allowed on this board. Any more and your posts will be erased in full. I am quite sure you will then holler that because your arguments could not be answered that you were not allowed to talk or some such rubbish. However the time I have taken with this post and others is enough to prove you wrong if anyone wants to check the truth.

12, No scientific method has to give predictions. ID is presenting a known scientific method to use when looking at natural things. You need to learn a little more about science, methinks.

13. Your idea about Wells' referencing of scholastic journals to show his point is a far cry from 'quote mining.' You evidently are not aware of what scholarly referencing is. You can see it in any peer reviewed journal. It is the footnotes in the body of the text which point you down to the reference in the reference section where the author got his information. This is about as far from quote mining as you are from Genesis!

14, You are evidently not aware of Dawkins' references to creationists:

You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution.
-- Richard Dawkins, in Lanny Swerdlow, "My Sort Interview with Richard Dawkins" (Portland, Oregon, 1996)

It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).-- Richard Dawkins, quoted from Josh Gilder, a creationist, in his critical review, "PBS's 'Evolution' series is propaganda, not science" (September, 2001)

15. I have not lied about anything I have written here and I resent your statement that I have. You have disobeyed the rules for posting on this board and if you do so again -- especially in such a flagrent manner -- I will ask the webmaster to ban you. This is a place for discussion, not for calling people liars.

I may be ignorant in a lot of areas, and I know from what you have said that you are. But I, for one, am not a liar.

[Aineo]

Just because a scientists disagrees with the majority does not make his science suspect.

Quite correct, the fact they use pseudoscience in their ID theories make those theories suspect. Behe is a chemist, his chemistry work that gets published may be excellent, but his ID IC nonsense is just that, pseudoscientific nonsense.

The fact what you post is incorrect only shows your opinons are based on prejudice and not truth. Behe earned his Ph.D. in biochemistry.

It seems that all people who post misinformation like to appeal to "strawman" as a means of avoiding the truth. I did not committ a "strawman" I posted the credentials of scientists who disagree with you.

[justforfun000]

5. Genesis is certainly not a myth and is rather a series of eyewitness accounts. In Genesis 1:9 we find that there was one supercontinent in the beginning. It took science awhile to catch up with this. In Genesis 1:14, we are told to use the sun, moon, and stars as our timekeepers. We do. Genesis 1 presents itself as actual history. It bears none of the grammatical markers or other indications of being a myth or allegory or even poetic. Take it or leave it according to what it claims to be, but don't try to reclassify it to suit your own preconceptions.

As I said before, I'll chime in on the specific points that interest me...

It's fair to claim that Genesis is not a myth. But how do you back it up to show that it truly isn't? Only evidence can prove if it is or not. That being said, ALL "mythology" is eyewitness accounts. They didn't just spring out of the ground. Humans recorded what they claimed were real events. Fine. How do you judge whether they have any reality outside this claim?

It took science a while to "catch up" with an idea that we had a supercontinent? You make it sound like a race. Science doesn't have an agenda as to what it declares is true. It doesn't matter if they discovered it 6000 years ago or 2 hours. If they proved their theory based on observable, TESTABLE, evidence, then it's as true now as it was since the begininning of time!

And besides the point, if you want to try to present Genesis as being accurate to science, then try to refute THESE arguments. I'd be amazed to see you even try:

http://www.creationtheory.org/Introduct ... esis.shtml

Ad hominem is not calling your horse and buggy illustration nonsense unless you are either a horse or a buggy. However calling me a liar, which you did repeatedly IS ad hominem and is not allowed on this board. Any more and your posts will be erased in full. I am quite sure you will then holler that because your arguments could not be answered that you were not allowed to talk or some such rubbish. However the time I have taken with this post and others is enough to prove you wrong if anyone wants to check the truth.

I have to agree with Tuppence on this one.... it's not fair to call her a liar without proof that she is deliberately saying something she knows is not correct. She may be WRONG mind you, but that has nothing to do with intent, and you HAVE to be intentionally deceiving to be a liar.

Just be careful with the way you say things. It's far more valuable to have you on this board then to be thrown off for accusations gone a little too far...

[Aineo]

One reason so many people refuse to actually look at the data concerning the speed of light is this one can establish the authenticity of Genesis.

Yod Heh Vav Heh, I will take tuppence's warning one step futher. We welcome debate on this message board, however calling someone a liar and conduct that is disruptive will result in your membership being terminated.

You don't have to agree with other members but you will treat all posters with respect or you are history.

[Joe Meert]

Quite correct, the fact they use pseudoscience in their ID theories make those theories suspect. Behe is a chemist, his chemistry work that gets published may be excellent, but his ID IC nonsense is just that, pseudoscientific nonsense.

The fact what you post is incorrect only shows your opinons are based on prejudice and not truth. Behe earned his Ph.D. in biochemistry.

It seems that all people who post misinformation like to appeal to "strawman" as a means of avoiding the truth. I did not committ a "strawman" I posted the credentials of scientists who disagree with you.

JM: Indeed, Behe is a biochemist who also accepts macroevolution and an old earth. He can hardly be considered a strong friend of the Young earth creation crowd. So far as I know he does not accept the notion of a global Noachian flood, special creation of separate kinds or many of the other tenets of Young earth creationists. I also would not consider Behe near the top of his scientific field. His publication record is somewhat anemic compared to the top biochemists in his field.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[tuppence]

He is a good example of the fact that ID has no relation to the creationist movement.

I'm sorry to see you here, Joe. But that's the way it is. I don't trust what you do, are, and say. That is a matter of my experience with you on forums in the past. So I have resigned my moderatorship here and am leaving. I have recommended the science section of this board be shut down. I know what you and your group are capable of.

[Aineo]

Yod Heh Vav Heh, has questioned the science not only of those who believe in a young earth but those who oppose evolution. So you are drawing an incorrect conclusion if you believe I stated Behe believes in a young earth.

[Joe Meert]

Yod Heh Vav Heh, has questioned the science not only of those who believe in a young earth but those who oppose evolution. So you are drawing an incorrect conclusion if you believe I stated Behe believes in a young earth.

JM: I think you misunderstood my point is all. I am merely pointing out that I find it strange that so many YE-creationists are willing to hop into bed with Behe when most of what he believes is anathema to YEC'ism. I was not tying this directly to anyone here on this board merely clarifying his position.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Aineo]

Anyone who has taken the time to read Behe does not need his position clarified. And why single our Behe? The other scientists I listed are not YE advocates but they do oppose and question evolution.

Yod Heh Vav Heh, made a comment that is an outright lie and my post addressed only his comment not who does or does not support a "young earth" theory.

Would you like a list of scientists who do support a young earth? Some of them have credentials as impresive as those who don't support a young earth.

[Joe Meert]

Anyone who has taken the time to read Behe does not need his position clarified. And why single our Behe? The other scientists I listed are not YE advocates but they do oppose and question evolution.

Would you like a list of scientists who do support a young earth? Some of them have credentials as impresive as those who don't support a young earth.

JM: Not everyone HAS read Behe and there is a perception out there that Behe's work supports YE-creationism when it does not. This information is for them since you already have it. I would love to see a list of scientists who support a young earth who have built their credentials publishing on young earth geology/astrophysics. I would imagine the list to be either very dated or very short.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Aineo]

Behe has not been cited on any thread dealing with a young earth so you are making assumptions based on your prejudice not what has been posted by any person on this forum.

The list is not dated but is short. However at one time the list of scientists who accepted plate teutonics was extremely short before this concept was accepted as scientific fact.

[Joe Meert]

Behe has not been cited on any thread dealing with a young earth so you are making assumptions based on your prejudice not what has been posted by any person on this forum.

The list is not dated but is short. However at one time the list of scientists who accepted plate teutonics was extremely short before this concept was accepted as scientific fact.

JM: Ok, last time. I know from my own experience on other forums and in dealing with the cre-evo debate that Behe is often cited by ye-creationists as strong evidence for their position. I merely try to point this out when I see Behe's name bantered about on boards like this. Obviously, you understand Behe's position and that is fine. Hopefully any lurkers or others who might misconstrue Behe's points on IC as supportive of YE-creationism will after reading through this thread understand that he is not a ye-creationist although he does have some issues with evolutionary biology.
Now onto your other point. Ye-creationism was soundly refuted by the scientific community many years ago. If you were to examine the list of scientists supporting a much younger earth in earlier centuries, the list would be extensive scaled to today's. However, the list of scientists supporting a young earth today is extremely small and they lack scientific credibility because the young earth position has been repeatedly been falsified by modern (speaking post 1850) science. The list of those supporting a young earth can be directly tied to those who believe the bible speaks of a young earth. There simply is not any strong scientific evidence supporting a young earth.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Aineo]

Now onto your other point. Ye-creationism was soundly refuted by the scientific community many years ago. If you were to examine the list of scientists supporting a much younger earth in earlier centuries, the list would be extensive scaled to today's. However, the list of scientists supporting a young earth today is extremely small and they lack scientific credibility because the young earth position has been repeatedly been falsified by modern (speaking post 1850) science. The list of those supporting a young earth can be directly tied to those who believe the bible speaks of a young earth. There simply is not any strong scientific evidence supporting a young earth.

Cheers

Joe Meert

This is not other message boards. What you seem to want to ignore is the increased interest in the speed of light. And what you seem to be ignoring is that not all Christians believe in a young earth. In fact some of the most verbal opponents of a young earth on this message board are Christians.

However a young earth hypothesis is a valid area of investigation even if the majority of scientists don't accept this as a valid concept. Isn't asking questions part of being a scientist or is your concept of science simply parroting what is accepted?

[Joe Meert]

This is not other message boards. What you seem to want to ignore is the increased interest in the speed of light.

JM: I don't want to ignore it, but the recent findings on the speed of light have little bearing on the antiquity of the earth.

And what you seem to be ignoring is that not all Christians believe in a young earth. In fact some of the most verbal opponents of a young earth on this message board are Christians.

JM: That would include me.

However a young earth hypothesis is a valid area of investigation

JM: It may be valid, but it does not bear any fruit.

Isn't asking questions part of being a scientist or is your concept of science simply parroting what is accepted?

JM: Asking questions that will bear fruit is extremely important in science. Asking questions long ago answered is of little value. The 'parroting' nonsense is nothing more than a veiled 'ad-hom'. All scientists live to challenge the status quo, but there are wise challenges that lead to new discoveries and then there are challenges to new science by those who refuse to acknowledge that science has moved well past them. Ye-creationists would do well to understand that science has moved on. There are many more fruitful battles for Christianity than debating a non-issue like the age of the earth.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Aineo]

Ye-creationists would do well to understand that science has moved on. There are many more fruitful battles for Christianity than debating a non-issue like the age of the earth.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Then why are you here? If debating Ye-creationists is a waste of your time why bother?

BTW, if the speed of light has nothing to do with our concept of time why does time slow down the closer a body comes to the speed of light? It seems you are making statements that disagree with science.

[Joe Meert]

Then why are you here? If debating Ye-creationists is a waste of your time why bother?

JM: Read carefully what I said. Debating the age of the earth in scientific circles is moot. The point is settled. Debating the age of the earth with those who have a political agenda is very important (witness Cobb County and Edwards vs. Aguillard).

BTW, if the speed of light has nothing to do with our concept of time why does time slow down the closer a body comes to the speed of light? It seems you are making statements that disagree with science.

JM: Again, be careful about the distinction. I said that the current discussions regarding the speed of light have no bearing on the age of the earth. In your example, you forget the flip side of the coin. Time dilation is a relativistic effect. In any case, it has no bearing on the age of the earth.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Aineo]

You side stepped my question. If it is your opinion that science has made any further discussion of the age of the earth moot then why are you here? If people want to discuss what some scientists are studying then that is their right and priveledge.

Time dilation is a relativistic effect. In any case, it has no bearing on the age of the earth.

I may not be a scientist but even I know this statement is false. Any equation that uses c will be effected by the value of c. And time dilation uses c in the equation.

As to your court decision it was not based on the truth of science but on:

CONCLUSION
For the abode-stated reasons, the Court hereby FINDS and CONCLUDES that the sticker adopted by the Cobb County Board of Education violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and Article I, Section II, Paragraph VII of the Constitution of the State of Georgia. In light of this conclusion, the Court hereby ORDERS as follow
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cobb/selman-v-cobb.html

[Joe Meert]

You side stepped my question. If it is your opinion that science has made any further discussion of the age of the earth moot then why are you here?

JM: I answered it quite clearly....I'll repeat:
Debating the age of the earth in scientific circles is moot. The point is settled. Debating the age of the earth with those who have a political agenda is very important (witness Cobb County and Edwards vs. Aguillard).

I may not be a scientist but even I know this statement is false. Any equation that uses c will be effected by the value of c. And time dilation uses c in the equation.

JM: No you have to keep the contect of your original message. Time dilation is relativistic no matter the value of c. Einstein showed this clearly with his twin paradox. One twin moving at near c will have his watch run slower compared to his stationary twin (this will be the same in a variable c world). Both would observe their watches moving normally. You are confusing issues here arguing that c has decayed (or sped up) significantly enough to affect other fundamental constants that have c in the equation. There is no scientific research to support such extreme changes. Be clear about your context. Relativistic effects are quite different from a varying c.

As to your court decision it was not based on the truth of science but on:

JM: Right, the judge noted that it was an attempt to include religion (ID) as science. The judge was very astute in noting that ID is not science. Glad we agree on that one.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Aineo]

ID can be science as many scientists are showing by use of their own scientific disciplines. And BTW, not all of ID scientists are religious or even Christians. As I read the court decision it was based on an attempt to place a disclaimer concerning evolution, not intelligent design in textbooks.

Time as we perceive time is a manmade concept. Science (in accordance with current knowledge) thinks it has explained a lot. Now how much do you know about the 5 dimensions we humans cannot perceive? However, all it will take is someone (like Einstein) to think outside the box to come up with something new.

However, you have not answered my question. If debating YE-creationists is a waste of time and science has disproved it why are you here?

If your only agenda is to cause trouble for our moderator your presence is not welcome. So what is your purpose for joining this message board?

[Joe Meert]

ID can be science as many scientists are showing by use of their own scientific disciplines. And BTW, not all of ID scientists are religious or even Christians. As I read the court decision it was based on an attempt to place a disclaimer concerning evolution, not intelligent design in textbooks.p

JM: Alien possession can be scientific as well if there is evidence to support it. The problem is that both alien possession and ID have no supporting scientific evidence. You need to read the full decision. The judge actually agreed with you (sort of) regarding ID in that he agreed it could be scientific. What he discouraged was the overtly religious backing of the disclaimer since to date, no scientific evidence could be mustered in favor of ID.

Time as we perceive time is a manmade concept.

JM: Yes and no. The divisions of time as we have set them is manmade you are 100% correct. Time (however anyone chooses to divide it) started at the instant of the big expansion.

Science (in accordance with current knowledge) thinks it has explained a lot.

JM: Actually science thinks it has explained very little. What science has explained quite clearly is that the earth is old and evolution has happened. How evolution happens, what has happened on earth in that expanse of time is full of unknowns and interesting problems.

Now how much do you know about the 5 dimensions we humans cannot perceive? However, all it will take is someone (like Einstein) to think outside the box to come up with something new.

JM: All scientists think outside the box. For example, Darwin thought outside the box. The Curie's and Becquerel thought outside the box. Wegener thought outside the box. Agassiz (a creationist) thought outside the box and realized that the geologic record could not be harmonized with a global flood. Lyell, Hutton all thought outside the box. Thanks to those thinkers we have moved beyond debates about the age of the earth. It's only a few who stayed in the box who want to argue these points, the rest of us have moved on and are thinking outside new, more exciting boxes.

However, you have not answered my question. If debating YE-creationists is a waste of time and science has disproved it why are you here?

JM: I've repeatedly answered your question. For whatever reason, you don't like my answer. Debating creationists is valuable only when they are attempting to promote a socio-political agenda. It is always worthwhile in these cases to point out the scientific (and IMO the theological) backruptcy of their agenda. Scientifically, there is no debate, but politically ye-creationists are very active from inside their 100+ year old box.

If your only agenda is to cause trouble for our moderator your presence is not welcome. So what is your purpose for joining this message board?

JM: I'm sorry if I trouble you. My purpose for joining this board is to discuss the relevant socio-political issues masking behind the terminology of creationism and ID. I've been discussing these issues and politically active trying to stop pseudoscience for over 10 years. You seem to be rational and willing to debate in an open manner. I simply view science and religion as two separate and entirely compatible spheres. You seem to mistrust science. Can we move beyond questioning motives and towards a healthy discussion?

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Aineo]

Sure I can carry on a civil discussion but for me to accept something as true it has to be shown to be true, not defined as true. The age of the earth is defined, not shown by experimenation, ID is a sound scientific theory with some big names behind it.

I agree that religion does not belong in schools. And although you might like to see the courts decision fully in your favor I don't see it that way. If you fight ID without any real rebuttal to what ID scientists have put forth then you are debating from prejudice and truth is not your goal.

JM: Yes and no. The divisions of time as we have set them is manmade you are 100% correct. Time (however anyone chooses to divide it) started at the instant of the big expansion.

Which is where the speed of light comes into the discussion. Has the speed of light been constant since the big bang? Is it your contention that the amount of energy and mass have been constant since the big bang? If not then the speed of light has to have changed or E=mc^2 is out of balance.

As to evolution I have read enough of this one subject to find it totally mythological. You can try to show otherwise but evolution is simply illogical.

And BTW, no matter how hard you try to use science to prove your thesis there will always be some who accept the inerrancy of the Bible including Genesis 1 that you will never convince everyone you are correct. The socio-political benefits of denying Genesis 1 are minimal.

If benefitting mankind is your goal then work to improve the conditions of the poor, homeless, mentally and physically challenged, those with major diseases that need cures, improve all of our youths availability to a good education, and etc.

[Joe Meert]

Sure I can carry on a civil discussion but for me to accept something as true it has to be shown to be true, not defined as true. The age of the earth is defined, not shown by experimenation, ID is a sound scientific theory with some big names behind it.

JM: Ok, then I'm sure you'll agree that the same applies to ID. ID has not been shown to be true and in fact, ID is not even present in modern scientific literature. What 'big names' are behind ID? I don't know of a single 'big name' scientist who is promoting ID. Can you name these 'big names' and why they are considered 'big'? Do you know there are far more scientists named Steve who find that evolution is compelling than there are scientists dabbling in ID?

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articl ... 6_2003.asp

I agree that religion does not belong in schools.

JM: Well then we disagree. I think a healthy discussion of religion can be a very good thing in public schools and certainly in private Christian/Jewish and Muslim schools as well. Religion is an important facet of our society and we do a great disservice to our students if we don't teach it.

And although you might like to see the courts decision fully in your favor I don't see it that way.

JM: I think the court is correct to mandate that no one particular religious viewpoint should be taught above all others and certainly not in a science classroom.

If you fight ID without any real rebuttal to what ID scientists have put forth then you are debating from prejudice and truth is not your goal.

JM: If, and when, ID presents some scientific evidence for its position then it will get the respect it deserves. ID'ists seem content to argue their case in the courts and in the courts of public opinion rather than putting their nose to the scientific grindstone. ID is a socio-political construct and nothing more. Show me the science behind it! How do we test for the presence of an intelligent designer? In your opinion, is the entire Universe designed?

Which is where the speed of light comes into the discussion. Has the speed of light been constant since the big bang?

JM: Recent work has hypothesized that c may have varied briefly shortly after the Big Bang, but certainly not enough to make a 4.5 billion year old earth only 6000 years. What you seem confused about is the difference between the relativistic effects of travel at c and a varying c. Relativistic effects remain the same if c was 2x faster, 5x faster or 100x faster.

Is it your contention that the amount of energy and mass have been constant since the big bang? If not then the speed of light has to have changed or E=mc^2 is out of balance.

JM: All mass arose from the Big Bang. To get a true appreciation of that number (and why the Big Bang is an appropos name) just imagine the amount of energy needed to create the mass of the earth!

As to evolution I have read enough of this one subject to find it totally mythological. You can try to show otherwise but evolution is simply illogical.

JM: What have you read about evolution? What specific faults did you find in say "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" by Gould? Can you honestly say that your rejection of evolution is based solely on its scientific content and not on religious grounds?

nd BTW, no matter how hard you try to use science to prove your thesis there will always be some who accept the inerrancy of the Bible including Genesis 1 that you will never convince everyone you are correct. The socio-political benefits of denying Genesis 1 are minimal.

JM: Yes, I know there are some who insist on the inerrancy of the bible. To them I ask "Which Bible"? The original manuscripts do not exist. Specific books in different bibles were voted into or out of the current manuscripts. It seems to me that biblical inerrancy is more unprovable than is science.

fitting mankind is your goal then work to improve the conditions of the poor, homeless, mentally and physically challenged, those with major diseases that need cures, improve all of our youths availability to a good education, and etc.

JM: I do all that! As a youth I worked with my parents in the barrios of Bogota, Colombia. As a teacher, I teach young people about the wonders of science and try to inspire them to reach their goals. I volunteer for Habitat, have worked in soup kitchens etc etc and I agree with you that these are very important tasks. It is also very important to make sure that our children learn the very best that science has to offer and to keep pseudoscience from creeping in under the guise of ID or young earth creationism. We all do what we can and devote our time and energies where needed.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[slp]

ID can be science as many scientists are showing by use of their own scientific disciplines.

Can you provide an example or two of scientists using ID in their disciplines?

And BTW, not all of ID scientists are religious or even Christians.

There may be a few Muslims or jews, but I have yet to find a single actual ID-advocate that did not have a religious agenda. Who did you have in mind?

[Aineo]

Joe you are talking in circles. You support the courts decision that mandates keeping religion out of schools and then state religion belongs in schools. Private religious schools teach their religion as part of the curriculum. Religion is also part of history and is covered in course materials dealing with history and how civilizations evolve or stagnate.

As to ID, change in science is slow and the fact ID is not found in scientific literature does not mean ID is not a valid concept. Or are you out to limit science to the status quo? ID is growing in acceptance, as even a cursory reading of materials not published in scientific journals will show.

BTW, your link to NCSE Project Steve is begging the question because the scientists I have read who support ID are not creationists.

Teaching youth not to question accepted theories is not expanding their horizons it is maintaining the status quo. True advances in science requires questioning what is accepted as truth otherwise science stagnates and becomes irrelevant to our society.

Slp, in one of my previous posts I listed scientists who support ID and/or oppose evolution based on their scientific disciplines (not their religious beliefs). It seems you are out to marginalize what other scientific disciplines are discovering concerning our universe and scientific truth is not part of your agenda. I find it interesting how you phrased your question:

Can you provide an example or two of scientists using ID in their disciplines?

A better way to phrase this is “are their scientists who came to believe ID through their scientific disciplines? And the answer is yes.

[Joe Meert]

:D Joe you are talking in circles. You support the courts decision that mandates keeping religion out of schools and then state religion belongs in schools.

JM: I absolutely have never supported any court decision that mandates religion must stay out of school. I've only supported decisions that keep religion out of science classes. There is a very clear distinction. As I said, I am in strong favor of teaching various religions in philosophy or comparitive religion classes.

Private religious schools teach their religion as part of the curriculum. Religion is also part of history and is covered in course materials dealing with history and how civilizations evolve or stagnate.

JM: Yes, so....do you expect me to disagree on this? If so, then you will be disappointed.

As to ID, change in science is slow and the fact ID is not found in scientific literature does not mean ID is not a valid concept.

JM: It means it is not scientific. If and when they produce testable scientific hypotheses then we can discuss its inclusion into the science curricula. At present, there is no scientific content in ID.

Or are you out to limit science to the status quo? ID is growing in acceptance, as even a cursory reading of materials not published in scientific journals will show.

JM: LOL, that's the whole point though isn't it? I've asserted that ID is a socio-political agenda not a scientific subject. You've inadvertently agreed.

BTW, your link to NCSE Project Steve is begging the question because the scientists I have read who support ID are not creationists.

JM: Name 5 who do not have some socio-political or religious reason for backing ID.

Teaching youth not to question accepted theories is not expanding their horizons it is maintaining the status quo. True advances in science requires questioning what is accepted as truth otherwise science stagnates and becomes irrelevant to our society.

JM: Right this is exactly what I teach. I also teach them that there are many psuedoscientific enterprises out there that have socio-political or economic goals. Examples include ID, Ye-creationism, beer commercials and political ads. btw...I should also note that I do discuss ID in my science classes as an excellent example of pseudoscience.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Aineo]

JM: It means it is not scientific. If and when they produce testable scientific hypotheses then we can discuss its inclusion into the science curricula. At present, there is no scientific content in ID.

But you accept evolution, which is not a testable scientific hypothesis.

JM: LOL, that's the whole point though isn't it? I've asserted that ID is a socio-political agenda not a scientific subject. You've inadvertently agreed.

Wrong, your assertion is just that your assertion. ID is growing in acceptance in scientific circles and has been for decades.

JM: Name 5 who do not have some socio-political or religious reason for backing ID.

It seems you are more concerned about your socio-political agenda than real science. Evolution is also a socio-political topic that is not going to go away.

JM: Right this is exactly what I teach. I also teach them that there are many psuedoscientific enterprises out there that have socio-political or economic goals. Examples include ID, Ye-creationism, beer commercials and political ads. btw...I should also note that I do discuss ID in my science classes as an excellent example of pseudoscience.

So you admit your teach personal prejudice and not scientific discoveries. Is that science or bigotry?

[Joe Meert]

But you accept evolution, which is not a testable scientific hypothesis.

JM: Of course it is testable. If it was not testable it would not be scientific. It's been tested, retested and tested again and not found wanting (your ipso facto declaration notwithstanding).

Wrong, your assertion is just that your assertion.

JM: Well then why did you agree by noting that it is not found in scientific journals? In these modern days, that's where science is done. I also have evidence for my assertion in that ID is trying to get into the textbooks via court order and not through the normal channels of science.

It seems you are more concerned about your socio-political agenda than real science.

JM:I am a real scientist and that's what I do most of my day.

Evolution is also a socio-political topic that is not going to go away.

JM: You're right on all counts. ID'ers and ye-creationists with a socio-political agenda use evolution to try and further their agenda. People like me work to stop them and evolution as a science is not going to go away.

So you admit your teach personal prejudice and not scientific discoveries. Is that science or bigotry?

JM: No I teach science and I teach how to distinguish science from pseudoscience. ID is an excellent example of the latter and evolution is an excellent example of the former. Heck, even you noted that ID is not found in any scientific journals and the newspapers provide evidence that it is a socio-political agenda. So, are you going to give me those 5 names or not?

Cheers

Joe Meert

[slp]

Slp, in one of my previous posts I listed scientists who support ID and/or oppose evolution based on their scientific disciplines (not their religious beliefs).

I shall have a look see. But like I wrote before, I have yet to find such a person.

It seems you are out to marginalize what other scientific disciplines are discovering concerning our universe and scientific truth is not part of your agenda.

Not at all. I am only out to marginalize those on the margins.

I find it interesting how you phrased your question:

Can you provide an example or two of scientists using ID in their disciplines?

A better way to phrase this is “are their scientists who came to believe ID through their scientific disciplines? And the answer is yes.

Well, one of the centerpieces of ID mythology is that it is a superior scientific paradigm because 'darwinism' has 'shackled the minds' of scientists.

[Aineo]

JM: Name 5 who do not have some socio-political or religious reason for backing ID.

Del Ratzch
Werner Gitt
Michael Behe
Phil Skell
Martin Peonie

They are all highly qualified and respected scientists who are active parts of the ID movement and who have absolutely NO socio-political agenda. One is not even a Christian. Disciplines represented above are philosophy of science, logic, biochemistry, chemistry and biology.

JM: Of course it is testable. If it was not testable it would not be scientific. It's been tested, retested and tested again and not found wanting (your ipso facto declaration notwithstanding).

Link me to the tests. Now, although you dislike my use of macroevolution vs. microevolution I do not have a problem with microevolution. So of your “tests” involve changes within a species you have proved nothing.

[Joe Meert]

JM: Name 5 who do not have some socio-political or religious reason for backing ID.

Del Ratzch
Werner Gitt
Michael Behe
Phil Skell
Martin Peonie

They are all highly qualified and respected scientists who are active parts of the ID movement and who have absolutely NO socio-political agenda.

Let's look at each in turn:

Werner Gitt:
(from answers in genesis website Dr. Gitt has written numerous scientific papers in the fields of information science, mathematics, and control engineering. He has also written several creationist books including:
Did God Use Evolution?
10 Dangers of theistic evolution

So you'll have to forgive me for not believing that there is no religious agenda behind Gitt's embracing of ID.

Del Ratzch:

The Battle for Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the “Creation & Evolution” Debate Del Ratzch (IVP) A thoughtful perspective which argues that a truly Christian framework for science will transcend this narrow debate. Wow!

So you'll have to forgive me for not believing that there is no religious agenda behind Ratzch's embracing of ID.

Michael Behe

He's acknowledged on many occasions that his ID'er is the Christian God and is an active member of the group supporting the Wedge Strategy.

So you'll have to forgive me for not believing that there is no religious agenda behind Ratzch's embracing of ID.

Martin Poene

Is a member of ARN a clearly biblically based ID group.

So you'll have to forgive me for not believing that there is no religious agenda behind Poene's embracing of ID.

Phil Skell

Much harder to get information on Skell although hearsay labels him as a biblically based creationist. I'll give you Skell. So of the 5 you list only 1 has no easily identifiable religious agenda.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Aineo]

Now that you have critiqued their religious views how about addressing their science? Show me where their science is influenced by their religion. All you have demonstrated is your prejudice against someone’s faith is more important than his or her science. You know I can do the same thing. I can show that some of the major proponents of evolution are atheists and some who are most adverse to ID are also atheists.

If science and truth is what you are after then address science and not what you perceive to be the socio-political agenda of people. All you have done in my view is shown you are a bigot out to denigrate qualified people using a non-scientific agenda.

Del Ratzsch is a professor of philosophy at Calvin College, where he specializes in logic and the philosophy of science. He is also a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design. Dr. Ratzsch received his Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Massachusetts in 1975. In addition to his interests in logic and the philosophy of science, Dr. Ratzsch has lectured and taught courses on a wide array of topics including Sherlock Holmes, science-religion, origin debates, intelligent design, and "popular" philosophy. Dr. Ratzsch has written many articles on a large variety of issues which have been featured in journals such as International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Monist, and Faith and Philosophy.
http://www.liveat.ubc.ca/liveatubc/even ... entId=9079

Michael Behe
Michael J. Behe was graduated from Drexel University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry. He did his graduate studies in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania and was awarded the Ph.D. in 1978 for his dissertation research on sickle-cell disease. From 1978-1982 he did postdoctoral work on DNA structure at the National Institutes of Health. From 1982-85 he was Assistant Professor of Chemistry at Queens College in New York City, where he met his wife. In 1985 he moved to Lehigh University where he is currently Professor of Biochemistry. In his career he has authored over 40 technical papers and one book, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, which argues that living system at the molecular level are best explained as being the result of deliberate intelligent design. Darwin’s Black Box has been reviewed by the New York Times, Nature, Philosophy of Science, Christianity Today, and over one hundred other periodicals. He and his wife reside near Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, with their eight children.
http://www.meta-library.net/bio/behe-body.html

What you seem to want to ignore is the list of scientists who question evolution.

Here is a list of 481 scientists who are “intellectual doubters”. Remove the known creationists and you still have a long list of scientists who have doubts.

Note 1.

It should be noted that there are other scientists who are committed evolutionists, but have yet expressed doubt about various mainstream theories on the origin and diversification of life. For example, Francis Crick wrote "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature" (1981) in which he expressed doubt that the origin of life was possible on earth. Similarly, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe have sharply critiqued the origin of life on earth in favor of evolution from space (see "Evolution from Space") Robert Shapiro in his "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth" (1986) also gave a similar critique although he did not postulate that life came from space.
[url]http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207#list]List of Intellectual Doubters of Darwinism[/url]

I thought this note was interesting, and you think creationists are weird.

Character assassination will not make your case and in fact weakens your position.

[The Puppetmaster]

Aineo, it would be remiss of me to say it, but what force do you see in barely half a thousand scientists who "doubt" evolution and yet have no firm basis in which to doubt it and publish in their respective scientific fields?

Surely, if such a group was as powerful and ever growing as some would have us believe, then evolution would truly be a theory in crisis. I assure you, it is not. The scientific community has not, nor will it in the near future without some extraordinary evidence, remove the theory of evolution from the textbooks used today and primary papers. Additionally, a doubter does not mean one finds the whole theory inappropriate, but maybe has more to add or a variation of the theme. As you pointed out, doubters are also not Creationists by default, this is a common black and white fallacy used in debates.

[Aineo]

Puppetmaster, I do not have to accept a theory as sound science simply because science insists evolution is sound science. As I have stated before instead of denigrating your detractors address their science, which I find both logical and accuate.

[The Puppetmaster]

Puppetmaster, I do not have to accept a theory as sound science simply because science insists evolution is sound science. As I have stated before instead of denigrating your detractors address their science, which I find both logical and accuate.

Can you give me some prime examples of this science you speak of? I would be most interested in overviewing their replacement or additions to evolutionary theory.

[Aineo]

Puppetmaster, I do not have to accept a theory as sound science simply because science insists evolution is sound science. As I have stated before instead of denigrating your detractors address their science, which I find both logical and accuate.

Can you give me some prime examples of this science you speak of? I would be most interested in overviewing their replacement or additions to evolutionary theory.

Don't insult my intelligence. I am sure you know who I am referring to but if not then have you read "The Case for a Creator"? Also, I have already posted a link to a list of 478 scientists who doubt Darwinism.

[The Puppetmaster]

Don't insult my intelligence. I am sure you know who I am referring to but if not then have you read "The Case for a Creator"? Also, I have already posted a link to a list of 478 scientists who doubt Darwinism.

Any insult was purely the construct of your interpretation of my post. Asking for examples of ID is hardly offensive.

As to the barely 500 scientists that doubt evolution, what exactly is 500 doubters to the tens of thousands of scientists that support evolution in the US alone? One would think if the case against evolution was as strong as I have heard some state, that it would be a better percentage of scientists raising qualms with this supposed "theory in crisis". Yet, it is barely a 1% last time I checked.

[Aineo]

So in other words you are not willing to discuss science all you want to do is denigrate those who disagree with you?

With a little effort I can find scientists who were eventually proven correct that were denigrated in their lifetime. Just because less than 1% of scientists disagree with the 99% does not make the 99% correct. That is unless the search for truth is not part of your agenda.

[The Puppetmaster]

So in other words you are not willing to discuss science all you want to do is denigrate those who disagree with you?

With a little effort I can find scientists who were eventually proven correct that were denigrated in their lifetime. Just because less than 1% of scientists disagree with the 99% does not make the 99% correct. That is unless the search for truth is not part of your agenda.

Equally, it does not make that 1% correct either. Again, you are quite happy to resort to attacking me and others over supposed character assassinations, yet, when I have asked you for examples of ID's theories, no less than 3 times now, you fail to deliver.

I am not doing your work for you. Posting a book title and saying "read this" is a very poor and impersonal way of debating, if it can even be called debating.

[doppelganger]

JM: Name 5 who do not have some socio-political or religious reason for backing ID.

Del Ratzch
Werner Gitt
Michael Behe
Phil Skell
Martin Peonie

Well, as I wrote in another post, Behe has done no research related to evolution or ID.
Gitt is a technologist and is most certainly a creationist. His 'theorems' are accepted by nobody in his field except other creationists, and they are nothing but circular reasoning.

[Aineo]

In case you have not received the message I am interested in science not what concepts are behind intelligent design. I am sure you understand ID or you would not be standing in opposition to the concept.

Strobel's book has a list of ID scientists who have explained their reasons for seeing intelligent design in our universe so referring to his book is (in my opinion) sufficient. I have also posted two lists of scientists who support ID.

[The Puppetmaster]

In case you have not received the message I am interested in science not what concepts are behind intelligent design. I am sure you understand ID or you would not be standing in opposition to the concept.

If ID is a science, then the underlying principles as I have been asking for are the scientific principles and none other. I didn't expect anything else, just what science there is of ID to explain the origin of life.

Strobel's book has a list of ID scientists who have explained their reasons for seeing intelligent design in our universe so referring to his book is (in my opinion) sufficient. I have also posted two lists of scientists who support ID.

Incorrect. This is a debate forum, not a library. If you wish to put forth an effective defence for ID, you must use specific information, not whole books.

I can easily counter your book with the Talk Origins website and Usenet group, the original Origin of Species, The Blind Watchmaker, River Out Of Eden, The Selfish Gene.

And so ends the debate; a list of texts and nothing more.

[Aineo]

This is my debate forum and I set the rules.

I have listed ID scientists now either discuss their science or retire from the board. I will not be drawn into a discussion of the philosophy of science.

[The Puppetmaster]

:D This is my debate forum and I set the rules.

I have listed ID scientists now either discuss their science or retire from the board. I will not be drawn into a discussion of the philosophy of science.

What is there to debate? You have given a list of names, nothing more, nothing less. There is nothing for me to do other than read all their texts rather than actually debate you with concise and accurate renditions of their arguments and theories.

But if you would rather shy away from the debate, so be it. I hold nothing against you.

[Aineo]

And if you would rather play games and not engage in debating the science of the men I listed so be it. If you oppose ID then you have to have some concept of what these men believe and if you have a concept of what these men believe then asking for a definition of ID is begging the question.

[The Puppetmaster]

Beliefs mean nothing if we are discussing science. It is raw data and empirical evidence that determines how valid a theory is, not the number of supporters and their ideology.

I make no effort to attack the pro-ID side's beliefs. It is what they want to use instead of evolutionary theory that I want to address.

If all their argument for ID consists of believing a higher being created the universe, then it is not worth my time to debate anyway. That is not science, it is wishful thinking and unsupported assertions.

[Aineo]

If all their argument for ID consists of believing a higher being created the universe, then it is not worth my time to debate anyway. That is not science, it is wishful thinking and unsupported assertions.

Then you are on the wrong message board.

Oh, BTW empirical

em·pir·i·cal P Pronunciation Key ( m-pîr -k l)
adj.
1.
a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=empirical

No evidence that is defined as true is empirical in nature. It is defined not tested. So lets see some empirical uninterpreted science that supports the universe or mankind evolved from a mass of gas caused by the big bang.

[The Puppetmaster]

Then you are on the wrong message board.

Not if we are discussing science, which this forum, by the title, appears to delve in.

Oh, BTW empirical

em·pir·i·cal P Pronunciation Key ( m-pîr -k l)
adj.
1.
a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=empirical

No evidence that is defined as true is empirical in nature. It is defined not tested. So lets see some empirical uninterpreted science that supports the universe or mankind evolved from a mass of gas caused by the big bang.

There is none that I know of off the top of my head. But lack of such evidence is not a reason to dismiss the theory.

[Aineo]

I don't necessarily dismiss the theory I dismiss the theory being taught as scientific fact. You dismiss my use of the word "interpretation" when in fact science is "interpreting" or trying explain one and only one side of an issue when evolution is discussed.

Evolutionists like to thow out words like "allele", "specificity", and etc. in interpreting fossils but you interpret those fossils in light of what you believe or accept as true. The fact of the matter is what you observe as adaptions leading from reptiles to mammals could in fact be a lethal adaption that do not lead to evolution but extinction.

tuppence has used billions of generations of E. coli to demonstrate that generations do not prove anything. Not one evolutionist has been able to dispute what science has shown by observing this one organism.

[justforfun000]

You dismiss my use of the word "interpretation" when in fact science is "interpreting" or trying explain one and only one side of an issue when evolution is discussed.

But Aineo, the point is that they are already way PAST other theories because they didn't hold up. Scientists don't waste time by going back to old theories that were long ago debunked as not being as valid as Evolution. If 99% of scientists discarded other theories over evolution, then it's a fair bet that they know what they are doing. You seem to be expressing a label of them being narrow-minded because they refuse to question what has already been DEALT with as reality and what is no longer something that holds up as a theory.

[Aineo]

However, Darwinism has been in continual dispute from day one. The fact is evolutionary biology has "defined" or mandated that Darwinsim is in fact truth. And it is all based on a presupposition that Darwin was correct. Dissenters are ridiculed for dissenting without comment on why they dissent, which is why you don't find dissention among evolutionary biologists they got booed out of the profession.

[Joe Meert]

Now that you have critiqued their religious views how about addressing their science?

JM: I have not critiqued their religious views, I have noted that their embrace of ID appears to arise from their religious beliefs. Anyone can believe in any God/being or hokey religion they want as far as I care. As far as their science is concerned (with regard to ID) they've published nothing in the scientific literature (as you have duly noted) so I can't critique what does not exist.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[justforfun000]

However, Darwinism has been in continual dispute from day one. The fact is evolutionary biology has "defined" or mandated that Darwinsim is in fact truth. And it is all based on a presupposition that Darwin was correct. Dissenters are ridiculed for dissenting without comment on why they dissent, which is why you don't find dissention among evolutionary biologists they got booed out of the profession.

There is always dispute in science. That's the beauty of it. It's NOT a fixed viewpoint. If they discover better evidence that explains things and it is testable, then they change their consensus on what they accept as fact.

If they have "defined" that Darwinism is truth, then knowing how science works, I'm completely confident that they are correct. I'm sure there are disputes on ASPECTS of evolutionary biology, but the basic framework is considered indisputable.

As to the dissenters, I made the analogy before about the AIDS dissidents, and it STILL applies. They would be addressed if they DESERVED to be addressed. They were addressed when they first started dissenting, but their arguments against the theory were in effect only pointing out gaps of knowledge that were already identified as such. They still had nothing valid to say against the HEART of the theory and so there wasn't anything further to discuss. So instead they set up a special website, spreading doubt against the whole hiv concept and made it look like because they were no longer being taken seriously, there was a grand conspiracy to prevent their views from challenging the accepted view.

Do you not see how this is a perfect parallel to the groups trying to denigrate evolution? Even worse than the AIDS dissidents is not only that they are pointing out gaps of knowledge in Evolution as proof for it not being "proven", but also trying to introduce the completely unnecessary variable of "God" into the picture with no testable terms of his inclusion.

This is why they are in general "ignored". They don't DESERVE to be addressed. If they truly bring forth convincing evidence that challenges the theory of evolution, rest assured, it WILL be addressed and verified. Maybe they will, but they haven't yet.

[Aineo]

If and I emphasise the if our newest members want to discuss science and show that ID advocates science is fallacious they can post to their hearts content. However, to avoid discussing the ramifications of real scientific investigations by bringing up ID or creationism is a scape goat.

As to teaching a theory as a scientific fact based on assumptions that is not science that is nothing more than elitists dictating what they think people should believe.

Joe, you are using their religious views to denigrate their scientific research and that is nothing more than infantile backstabbing best left to children.

I am sure you know your reputations for disrupting Christian message boards has preceded you. This will not happen on the board so either stick to science not your paranoid concerns with ID or take your rhetoric elsewhere.

[Joe Meert]

Joe, you are using their religious views to denigrate their scientific research and that is nothing more than infantile backstabbing best left to children.

JM: LOL, that's not even defensible. I have done two things with regard to the individuals you mentioned:

(1) Noted that they have published no ID science that I could criticize. Would you rather I invent science publications for them and then criticize the invented publications? Those people you mentioned with scientific credentials have published a significant body of normal science (behe, poene), but that does not make ID correct or scientific. They need to publish the scientific basis for ID (heck even the Wedge ID strategy acknowledges that this must be done). As you noted, they have not published in the scientific literature on the topic of ID.
(2) I have noted the overtly religious background of the ID folks mentioned and the link of ID to those beliefs. It's not backstabbing, it's simply an observation.

I am sure you know your reputations for disrupting Christian message boards has preceded you.

JM: I know that one individual complains about this, but that hardly makes it a reality.

This will not happen on the board so either stick to science not your paranoid concerns with ID or take your rhetoric elsewhere.

JM: You asked me to comment on ID. I posted a link to one of my comments on Behe (whose name you provided). I also posted a copy of the Wedge strategy endorsed by many ID advocates. So far as I know, posting factual information and answering direct requests for comments on ID is not one of the hallmark signs of the paranoid. So, I'll ask again, politely as ever....where can I find the scientific papers on ID? So far I've been reduced to commenting on popular book titles which you now tell me is disallowed. I'm very keen to discuss the scientific merits of ID, but you have to be willing to show me where this science is located. I simply have not found a single scientific article on ID.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Aineo]

I will repeat, I am not interested in ID per se, and your insistance that ID has a socio-political agenda is not the issue on this forum. Many of the men I have listed have authored books and that is good enough for me and the purposes of this forum. These books and their academic credentials qualify them as valid sources for discussing science if this is not in your criteria to bad. This is a science forum designed for non-scientists to learn about evolution and the latest scientific discoveries.

If you want scientific debates concerning what is published in scientific journals then I am sure there are Internet sites you can post to to your hearts content.

As to your reputation, it has been confirmed from other sources.

And I will repeat, this message board is not your personal forum for advancing your elitist viewpoints.

[doppelganger]

Now that you have critiqued their religious views how about addressing their science? Show me where their science is influenced by their religion.

What science?

None of your list has produced science that runs counter to evolution. Their 'darwin doubting' is personal opinion.

[doppelganger]

So in other words you are not willing to discuss science all you want to do is denigrate those who disagree with you?

I'll gladly discuss it.

But referring to lists and proclaiming they have science is not discussing it.

What research has been done by anyone in the list that even addresses evolutionary biology/population genetics/etc.?

YOU are the one claiming that their science convinced them. What was it?

[doppelganger]

Evolutionists like to thow out words like "allele", "specificity", and etc.

Yes, and business folks like to toss out words like 'business cycle' and compiund intererst and such, just to be elitist and confuse non-business folk.

in interpreting fossils but you interpret those fossils in light of what you believe or accept as true.

So how do YOU interpret the fossil record?

The fact of the matter is what you observe as adaptions leading from reptiles to mammals could in fact be a lethal adaption that do not lead to evolution but extinction.

What is your rational for that?

tuppence has used billions of generations of E. coli to demonstrate that generations do not prove anything. Not one evolutionist has been able to dispute what science has shown by observing this one organism.

Were these E. coli subjected to selective forces that would have favored adaptive changes?

[Aineo]

Business does not force the general public to accept concepts they disagree with. When a business gets dictatorial we can boycott and/or sue the business entity.

I have given you a list of scientist who disagree with evolution and support ID. You as scientists and/or evolutionists can pick anyone of them and take their science to task. It is you who are disparaging a method of research. Therefore it is up to you to initiate the debate. We happen to find ID a valid method of research.

So far all you have done is disparage people and a method and have not contributed a single positive post to this message board.

[doppelganger]

:D Business does not force the general public to accept concepts they disagree with. When a business gets dictatorial we can boycott and/or sue the business entity.

Last I knew, the only people that were trying to force anything on anyone were conservative Christians, who want to legislate scinece.

I have given you a list of scientist who disagree with evolution and support ID.

And you have been given a list of only people named Steve that take the opposite approach. What of lists?

You as scientists and/or evolutionists can pick anyone of them and take their science to task.

As has been pointed out, none of their 'science' has anything to do with evolution. Why would Behe's research on histones be of relevance to ID?

It is you who are disparaging a method of research.

No, it is the ID advocates that have yet to even try to use their 'method of research.'

Therefore it is up to you to initiate the debate. We happen to find ID a valid method of research.

Who is we?

Nobody in that list of people that agree with that vague Discovery Institute statement utilkize ID. Not even the most voacal advocates of it! So what are you referring to? Who is using ID to engage in scientific research?

So far all you have done is disparage people and a method and have not contributed a single positive post to this message board.

I might say the same of you.

[justforfun000]

Ok. It's hard to decide which thread to post in. There are a few essentially discussing the same topic.

I know this i very long, but it's a very easy to read comparison between evolution and forms of Creation theory. Excellent beginning point to actually get to the arguments. Any comments?

http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/creationism.htm

Creationism in the Science Curriculum?
by
Ian Johnston

[The document, which is an expanded version of a shorter essay, is in the public domain and may be used, in whole or in part, without permission and without charge, provided the source is acknowledged. Released January 2001. Revised slightly December 2002]

Introduction

This essay is an attempt to clarify the ongoing public debates over Creation Science, disputes frequently (or even characteristically) notable for the logical confusion, arguing at cross purposes, and generally shoddy thinking (often laced with vitriol) which they seem to encourage from participants in all camps. Much of this confusion undoubtedly stems from deliberate obfuscation, rhetorical skullduggery, and chop logic which partisans of all views use to advance their opinions over issues in which a great deal more than the immediate claims are involved. But much of the confusion emerges also from the endemic imprecision in the terminology and a genuine failure to understand some basic principles of reasonable argument, especially scientific argument.

The central debate itself is frequently misrepresented as a conflict about whether Darwin's account of evolution or the Biblical account of creation is true—a question which is impossible to answer once and for all, depending, as it does, on the criteria we establish for recognizing truth. In fact, however, the usual forum in which the argument takes place concerns itself with a much more specific question with immediate social consequences: Should Creation Science be taught in the science classes of our schools as a regular part of the science curriculum (given, as it were, equal time with Darwinian theories)?

This essay focuses upon the latter question and proposes the following answer: No, Creationism or Creation Science should not be taught in the science curriculum, not because it isn't true but because it isn't science. This answer, one should note, leaves open the question of whether or not the Biblical account of creation should be taught elsewhere in the school curriculum.

In the process of outlining an argument for the above answer, this paper hopes to establish, as I say, some clarity, so that those who do not agree with the conclusions will at least take away from the paper a clearer understanding of the problem and of some of the ways in which debates on this issue are routinely sabotaged.

Some Terminology

The first essential step in framing any contribution to the debate (or in understanding other people's positions) is to understand clearly what they mean by the key terms (imprecision is often rampant here). So, by way of clarifying the rest of this essay, let me define as explicitly as I can what I mean by the words fundamental to the arguments.

Evolution in its root biological sense means simply the development of forms of animal and plant life out of forms significantly different from them (e.g., birds from reptiles, human beings from higher apes). It makes no claims about how this process occurs. This simple definition refers only to the event (however it occurs). Hence (as I shall point out) one can be an evolutionist (i.e., believe in evolution) without being a Darwinian (history provides many examples of such people). To understand what follows in this paper, readers should not immediately conflate the two terms evolution and Darwinism (as is routinely done, especially by scientists): the two terms define separate things.

The doctrine opposite to evolution is called Fixity of Species. It maintains that species (animal and plant types) are fixed, stable, and permanent. There may be some variation from one individual to another within the same species (an obvious fact), and some species are clearly quite similar to others (e.g., dogs and wolves). But under this doctrine, species arise independently of one another. Again, this doctrine carries with it no single explanation of how these species arose—except that they arose independently of each other and have not changed.

In between these two there are a number of intermediate positions, what I call Limited Evolution, the claim that some species arise out of species closely related to them, but that such a form of speciation is limited. So, for example, different species of fish may have developed by evolution out of one or more common fish ancestors. However, Limited Evolution would deny the possibility of evolution from one major group to another (e.g., from fish to birds).

Creationism, as used in this essay (and generally), refers to the belief that the development of species, the variety of plants and animals, occurred as described in the Book of Genesis, as a special creation by God. Hence, Creationism holds to the doctrine of Fixity of Species (no evolution) and accounts for the variety of life by invoking separate divine acts of creation. Those Creationists who hold to the literal truth of the Genesis account (especially to the order and time of the stages of creation) are often called Fundamentalists. Various other Creationists maintain the truth of the Genesis account but read that account allegorically (e.g., each day in the Genesis account is not really a day but a stage of creation lasting a very long time). Creation Science (a term frequently used interchangeably with Creationism) refers to a faith in Creationism, together with a claim that this belief has scientific status and hence should be seen as a scientific alternative to modern evolutionary theories. Thus, it is possible to be a Creationist (i.e., believe in the Genesis account) without being a Creation Scientist (i.e., without claiming scientific status for that account).

The term Darwinism (again, as used in this essay) refers to a theory developed by Charles Darwin and much modified by modern biologists which endorses evolution and which provides an account of how evolution occurs (through Natural Selection and other mechanisms). The key element of Darwinism that separates it from other evolutionary theories is this: Darwinian theory maintains that at the heart of the mechanism of evolution lies a random mechanical process, without any intelligent sense of purpose (more about that later). These random variations in animals and plants will sometimes provide the individual plant or animal an advantage which will enable it to complete better than other members of its species. Over time such cumulative advantageous variations will bring about significant changes which will lead to the creation of a new species out of the old one.

Finally, a crucial term in this debate is the word science. Without going into a long discussion of this complex issue, while at the same time acknowledging that a precise definition of science is a contentious question, let me propose that science is a way of explaining natural phenomena with physical models and theories which generate predictions which can be tested publicly and repeatedly by observation (please note here the emphasis on observing the results of the predictions, not on observing the actual process upon which the prediction is based). Such models and theories must be physical (e.g., matter in motion, forces, collisions, physical reactions) and rational (preferably mathematical). As soon as one appeals to non-natural forces, magic, metaphysical factors, some inexplicable change in the regular working of the laws of physics, divine intervention, and so on, one is ceasing to be a scientist. (For a much fuller discussion of some basic principles of science please consult the following link Understanding Science).

The Strong Case for Evolution

On the basis of the above definitions, it is possible to make a very strong case for the scientific validity of evolution. Consider the following facts, all of which have been confirmed overwhelmingly by the established processes of science:

1. There is enormous variety in the plant and animal kingdoms. Some species of plants and animals have much more complex organic structures than other species.

2. All living things must come from at least one living parent (i.e., life does not arise spontaneously out of non-life).

3. The simplest forms of plant and animal life were on earth long before the more complex forms (as confirmed by the geological succession of fossils).

If (please note this word) the above statements are scientifically valid, then there is no reasonable conclusion one can reach other than the obvious one: the complex forms of life must have somehow arisen from the less complex forms of life. In other words, the complex animals evolved out of the less complex animals (which are no longer very much like them). To refuse to accept this conclusion is unreasonable and unscientific. One is at liberty to refuse to accept the conclusion, of course, but not to claim that that is a rational scientific procedure.

Of course, if one of the above claims is wrong, then this strong case for evolution collapses immediately. So the challenge to those who would dismiss the validity of evolution (as defined in this essay) as a scientific theory is clear: Which of those three claims is false? The first one is self-evidently true. The second has never been falsified (except in fiction like Frankenstein). And the third has been repeatedly confirmed every time anyone observes the succession of fossils in the geological record (e.g., the layers of the Grand Canyon or any other fossilized strata available for inspection).

It makes no difference to this case to raise some question about the origin of life (the First Cause argument which indicates that if we trace the chain of mechanical causes back in time we logically require a non-mechanical starting point, something beyond scientific explanation). That sort of explanation for the origin of the process lies outside of science (which is why scientists are not interested in it) and, in any case, it has nothing to do with the continuing development of life once established on earth.

One popular answer to the case for evolution sketched out above proposed by anti-evolutionists is the argument that geological features like the Grand Canyon were created by divine intervention in a matter of days, so that we have no right to infer that the fossils in the higher layers were not also created at the same time as those in the lower layers. That, of course, may be true, but such a claim, which appeals to miraculous metaphysical intervention or some unspecified physical process (in violation of the known laws of physics) rather than to known physical processes, is not scientific.

Dealing with the strong case for evolution with an appeal to Limited Evolution (as defined above) runs into the same difficulties. To concede evolution within major groups, like, say, fish, may account for material evidence in the fossil record. But to deny evolution from one group to the next (say, from fish to reptiles) leaves open the question: Where then did the reptiles come from? To affirm that they were specially created by God after the fish is, once again, an appeal to non-scientific reasons which generate no predictions.

The Anti-Evolutionist's Most Common Response

In practice, and for understandable reasons, those hostile to evolution rarely tackle the above case directly (by seeking to disprove one of the three claims upon which it rests). Instead they focus almost all their energies into pointing out potential and real difficulties in Darwinian theory. Anyone who consults the many Internet pages devoted to advancing Creation Science will quickly enough realize that the major thrust of almost every article is not an attempt to establish the scientific truth of Genesis or to challenge the strong case for evolution (made above), but to direct our attention to limitations in Darwinian theory.

Now, many of these limitations may be substantial, but calling attention to them in this way does little to advance the cause of Creationism (except among those who are already persuaded or who do not attend to the logical deficiencies of the basic argument). Let me outline why such attacks (though often rhetorically effective) are logically unpersuasive.

Firstly, any perceived deficiency in Darwinian theory does no harm whatsoever to the case for evolution outlined above. That case would be equally strong if no one had ever heard of Darwinian theory (which is an attempt, not to prove the validity of evolutionary theory, but to account for how evolution proceeds). Even if there were absolutely compelling evidence that Darwinian theory was totally wrong about the mechanisms of the evolutionary process, the case for evolution would remain as strong as ever. If one wants to discredit the very concept of evolution, then calling particular issues in Darwinian theory to account is a gigantic red herring.

Secondly, discrediting Darwinian theory as an explanation for the evolutionary process provides no special support for any other rival theory of species, certainly not for Creationism. The idea that it does is a clear case of a basic logical flaw called False Dilemma. And this logical flaw is the most frequent rhetorical ploy used by Creation Scientists to advance their theories. Their case goes something like this:

1. There are only two possible explanations for the development of species, the Genesis account and the Darwinian account.

2. But there are many, many difficulties with the Darwinian account.

3. Therefore the Genesis account must be correct (or preferable or equally deserving of attention in our schools).

The flaw here is obvious. The first claim is manifestly false, since there are literally hundreds of narrative accounts of how species came to be formed. Virtually every culture has developed its own, and within science itself there have been competing theories. Discarding or discrediting any particular one does not especially privilege any of the others (just as, if we have twenty equally good suspects in a murder case, proving that one of them could not have done the crime doesn't enable us to state conclusively that a particular one of the remaining nineteen did).

The Nature of Scientific Claims and Disagreements About Those Claims

In addition to the logical problems mentioned above, a good deal of Creation Science's case against Darwinian theory exploits (sometimes very skillfully) a general ignorance about the nature of scientific enquiry. In the process, those attacking Darwin not only reveal their failure (deliberate or otherwise) to understand what science is (or how science is carried out) but also unwittingly invoke principles which would sink their own preferred theory in a minute.

For instance, the case is often made that since evolution cannot be observed in action, it is therefore not a valid scientific theory, for all scientific theories (so it is alleged) have to be confirmed by direct observation of the process under investigation. Of course, this is not the case. Many scientific hypothetical models simply cannot be observed directly (e.g., molecular interactions, expansion at the edge of the universe, and so on). The essence of many scientific procedures is making predictions based on a hypothetical model of a physical phenomenon (without having direct observational evidence of the reality which that model is designed to explain) and then testing the prediction. What characterizes such a process as scientific is that the prediction can be repeatedly and publicly checked by anyone in some quantifiable manner. Most of the work of science consists of carrying out such tests of predictions and then confirming aspects of the theoretical model or discovering errors, anomalies, inconsistencies, and so on.

By that procedure, evolution is clearly scientific, since every detailed study of fossilized strata is, in effect, a test of the theory. If someone were to locate a complex life form in the very oldest rock levels, evolutionary theory would be in difficulty, since such a finding would flatly contradict its predictions. The fact that such an observation has never occurred provides some of the best evidence for the validity of the theory.

One of the gravest scientific objections to the Creation Scientist's account of the creation of species is precisely this point. Not only can the story of how God created the world and everything in it never be observed (in that respect it is even more deficient than the theory of evolution), but the Genesis narrative generates virtually no testable predictions, other than one which has been so repeatedly falsified that it has no scientific validity whatsoever (namely, that if all the species were formed at the same time, we should find all types at all levels of the fossilized strata).

In the same way, pointing out difficulties with Darwinian theory does not automatically discredit the theory. Scientists themselves argue all the time about details of the theory—there are rival interpretations for all sorts of things within it (like the rate of change, the importance of natural selection in comparison with other agents of change, like genetic drift, the lack of intermediate types, the lengths of time involved, and so on).

Creation Scientists who spend so much time pointing out problems with Darwinian theory sometimes seem to assume that if a scientific theory cannot explain everything to everyone's satisfaction, if some of the predictions of the theory are questionable, if anomalies exist, then the total theory must be incorrect. But that is not how science proceeds. Scientific theories of any interest always contain problems which scientists argue about. They may accept the basic assumptions of the theory but disagree about many of the details and discuss essential adjustments to the basic model. Nowhere is that more true today than among biologists—almost all of whom accept Darwinian theory as the basic explanatory framework but who have often very fierce disputes about particular details and problems within that framework.

In fact, once a theory ceases to generate these sorts of arguments, once all the details get worked out to everyone's satisfaction, then scientists tend to lose interest in the theory (for it presents no interesting problems to investigate). That area of scientific enquiry is then handed over in its entirety to the technicians, and the scientists move on to more problematic areas.

In addition, even if there are natural phenomena which a theory cannot explain fully or which apparently contradict what that theory predicts, often the theory will be retained for its explanatory value in other areas. Newton's theories do not hold, for example, at the level of atomic particles. But that does not mean we discard his theories in those areas where they are still valid. When we send men and women out into space, we still use Newton's equations.

It may be worth remembering that in Darwin's own day there were three major scientific objections to his theory. The first was the lack of transitional types, fossils intermediate between species. The second was Darwin's theory of inheritance (the concept of "blending" of material from the two parents made Darwin's theory mathematically impossible). And the third was the estimated age of the earth (according to the most eminent physicists the decreasing heat of the earth indicated that it could not possibly be old enough for Darwin's theory to be correct). The second two objections were taken care of by future discoveries (Mendelian genetics and nuclear fusion), and the first objection has been partially dealt with by the discovery of thousands of transitional types (even if the number is not enough to satisfy everyone). Those who like to argue that Darwin's theory is scientifically impossible might like to consider the history of these first serious objections.

The point is that no one can deny that Darwinian theory generates problems, has difficulty answering many objections, and cannot account for certain observations (at least not yet). To point these things out is a valuable reminder of some important scientific questions still urgently requiring answers and might well be a useful challenge to some science teachers to curb their frequently reductive confidence. The greatest contribution Creation scientists make to the ongoing arguments is to call attention repeatedly to these problems and to give a jolt to the complacent assumptions of many science teachers. However, such issues do not necessarily disqualify the theory—and they certainly add nothing to make Creationism more credible as a scientific theory.

Allegorizing Genesis

Some Creationists concede that Genesis is not a literal account of the creation of species but an allegorical depiction of the stages through which life appeared on earth under the creative hand of God. The sequence, so the claim goes, corresponds with the fossil evidence. We simply have to read the days of Genesis as much more extensive time periods. There is no evolution of one species into another. God simply created all the species at different times.

Such an argumentative move naturally destroys the fundamentalists' position (that Genesis is a literal account) and permits us to see the succession of animal and plant types as a gradual matter over many millions of years (as the scientific evidence suggests), rather than as one creative act. But the tactic does nothing to improve the scientific status of creationism, since it still requires an appeal to non-physical divine interventions as an explanatory cause and does nothing to encourage the formation of precisely testable predictions.

Adjusting a theoretical framework to account for the facts is a standard practice in science, but a theory is not infinitely adjustable. If the Genesis account can be allegorized and re-allegorized to fit whatever science turns up (by appealing to the miraculous powers of God), then the theory is scientifically empty, because inventive allegory can account for anything (a standard criticism of Marxist and Freudian theories as unscientific).

Allegorizing Genesis provides no help in arriving a material, physical (i.e., scientific) explanation for new discoveries (a standard requirement for any scientific theory). If some new species is discovered, all Genesis has to offer by way of an explanation is that God created it in that place at that time for His own purposes. From a scientific point of view, such an explanation is empty of significant content (i.e., it offers nothing by way of a scientific explanation and generates no predictions to test). Evolution, by contrast, encourages us to trace (or construct) a narrative history of material change which links this new species with other known species, thus providing a material explanation for its existence, which becomes the basis for certain predictions which we can test with our observations.

The Argument from Intelligent Design

One of the oldest, most persistent, and most interesting arguments raised by Creation Scientists against Darwinian theory is the so-called Design Argument or, to use its modern name, the Argument from Intelligent Design. Simply put, this claim states that the enormous complexity of some organs (the human eye is a favorite example) simply could not have arisen as the result of a large number of small random changes, each one selected for its survival advantage (What would be the use, for example, of one percent of the eye?). Allied to this objection is the potentially damaging claim that expecting small random mutations to produce something as complex as an eye by chance, even given a long length of time, is statistically impossible (rather like expecting monkeys trained to hit typewriter keys to produce a speech from Shakespeare).

The existence of very complex organs like the eye and the fact that many organic structures are a complex interlocking of different systems of nerves, bones, muscles, blood vessels, and so on (in which a significant random change in any one element would affect the entire organism for the worse) have led people (including many biologists) to infer the existence of a divine designer, a supreme intelligence, God, who created such marvelous organs. How else are we to account for such astonishingly complicated design of such a well-functioning organ? And from the effective functioning of such organs one might further infer (and many thinkers have inferred) the benevolence of God, who designs such structures for the assistance of His created beings.

The Design Argument is a very important concept both in the History of Science and in the present arguments because it enables the person who invokes it to link scientific fact (like the structure of the eye) with divine presence (God as the supreme designer). In fact, this argument was for a long time one of the most persuasive ways devoutly religious men, like Robert Boyle or Isaac Newton, urged that the study of science was a great service to religion. At the level of common sense, too, the Argument from Intelligent Design sounds plausible, especially if we undertake to understand the full complexity of an organic system in an animal. It is hard to accept that that could have been produced by a series of random changes, no matter how much time is involved.

The Design Argument, however, is not logically compelling simply because (as Immanuel Kant pointed out over two hundred years ago), one cannot conclude anything firm about non-physical beings (like God) on the basis of physical evidence. This would be (to use a trivial modern example) rather like making firm conclusions about a stranger's character on the basis of the numbers in his credit card. Even if we have trouble accepting the fact that random changes could produce something like the human eye, the complexity of that structure is not a sufficient reason for making conclusions about metaphysical things.

That said, one has to concede that many scientific activities routinely lead some people to religious or spiritual insight. It's probably no accident that many great modern physicists have had profoundly mystical or religious sensibilities and have seen in the wonderfully eloquent and complex designs revealed by their scientific investigations encouragements for a leap of faith. But such mystical experience requires that leap of faith—it does not arise logically and compellingly out of the scientific design, nor is its validity logically confirmed by the existence of such design.

Theistic Evolution

Of course, the basic principles of the Argument from Intelligent Design do not specially privilege the Genesis account of the creation of species. For the Design Argument can easily be reconciled with evolution. All we have to do is see God as the force guiding evolution according to His purposes (which He may or may not have made known to us). In that sense, evolution is quite compatible with Theism—a faith in God. One might even go to the extent of arguing that the randomness in Darwinism—the perceived lack of any intelligent design—is simply apparent, a function of our human inability to know God's purposes (or a convenient model we adopt for its explanatory value).

However, at that point one is no longer being a scientist, since the moment one moves from the world of physical models, predictions, observable testing, and so on, into the realm of God's purposes one is moving outside of science, which explicitly confines itself to a way of understanding the physical realm in terms of physical processes and which, therefore, by definition, has nothing to reveal to us about God.

Reconciling Science and Religion

The above paragraphs have been stressing the key point in this paper: a faith in God is based upon a belief in non-physical or metaphysical powers; whereas, science limits itself to explanations of physical events in terms of natural physical processes. Hence, it would seem, the two forms of understanding the world and our place in it are fundamentally incompatible.

Does this mean that there is no way we can reconcile science and religion or Darwinian biology with Creationism? The short answer is no and yes. No, because, as mentioned above, the two forms of explanation are radically different in what counts as a valid reason. Yes, because there are different ways in which we might arrive at a shared understanding of both science and religion as complementary forms of knowledge.

For example, it is possible to adopt the view that the privileged explanation is, indeed, the account in Genesis, that that account is, as it were, the truth and, at the same time, to accept science as a useful or interesting thought experiment, something that provides a different account which we pursue, not because it is true, but because it serves some human purpose (satisfying our imaginations, helping us to deal with certain problems in life).

Here the analogy of a game might help. Obviously I can be a devout Fundamentalist and a soccer player. When I play soccer, certain rules define my activities, tell me what I can and cannot do, and evaluate my success (the rule book is my authority for how to proceed). And I can use this game in all sorts of ways—for exercise, recreation, or (if I am very good) profit. But at no time do I mistake soccer for the truth: it is a game I play for various reasons. If the game demands that I do something which violates my faith (e.g., play on Sunday), then I know where my priority lies. This stance towards science is logically consistent and, indeed, quite common among prominent scientists who were also devout Christians like Copernicus (who was Catholic monk), Descartes, and countless others--who presented their materialistic hypotheses as interesting and useful thought experiments, not as the truth of things.

By an extension of the same form of thinking, I could accept the randomness at the heart of Darwinian theory (the source of so much difficulty for anyone who wants life driven and shaped by a sense of creative purpose) as either an interesting hypothesis or as a temporary appearance, something which does not correspond with the truth of things, but which is something the human mind in its limited condition must accept in order to construct a useful historical understanding of nature.

Alternatively, of course, someone who wishes to reconcile Darwinian science and religious belief might want to subsume the religious belief under Darwinian theory and explain it away as a survival mechanism. Since a religious faith (one could argue) is a great asset in the struggle for life (giving hope in hard times, enabling a person to survive where another might fail), then the refusal to accept the atheistic implications of Darwinian theory is perfectly understandable in terms of that theory (especially if we accept that something like a predisposition to religious belief is a heritable trait). There is thus a plausible Darwinian explanation for the widespread refusal to accept Darwinian theory. While such a stance would hardly (one would think) encourage the scientist to a religious frame of mind, it might well make him more tolerant of religious belief and less inclined to the sort of frustrated irritation and ridicule which hard-core Darwinists sometimes manifest in the face of Creationism.

In either case, however, the separation between religion and science is clear. We can give one precedence over the other, or we can see them as two separate aspects of the way we know the world, but we cannot identify them as comparable activities, because as ways of knowing they focus on different areas of experience and proceed by different rules. To assert this is not to declare one method superior to the other as a way of understanding our experience or to assess one or the other as closer to the truth of things (whatever that means exactly).

But it is to assert that the two activities do not belong together under the same descriptive label unique to one of them, any more that we can assert that two different games, say, soccer and tennis, can both be adequately described either as soccer or tennis. Soccer has rules; to be a soccer player is to follow those rules. Ditto for tennis. Someone who demands the right to bring a tennis racquet onto the soccer pitch and to hit a tennis ball into the soccer goal in order to score would be missing the point of the game—just as someone who demands the right in a tennis match to kick or head the ball over the net would be missing the point of the tennis game. The demand of Creation Scientists to teach Genesis in science classes is no different. Why should something which is not science be taught in a science class?

Some Final Thoughts

None of the above argument seeks to establish any relative evaluation of the truth or the value of the Creationist account or the Darwinian account of the origin of species, nor about the importance of having the Genesis account of creation included in or barred from the school curriculum. From the start, as I explained in the Introduction, the point has been to insist that Creationism does not belong in the science curriculum (any more than German strong verbs belong in French class).

I can think of all sorts of reasons why it might be really important for school students to have a more than passing acquaintance with the Book of Genesis and with some of the more obvious points of argument within Darwinian theory. But the former belongs in some non-scientific class (Comparative Religion, Great Books), not as an essential part of the treatment of the latter in science class. And the latter can be taken care of (and should be taken care of) within the context of the scientific debates about Darwinism.

If the aim of Creationists is to encourage a wider and closer familiarity with the Biblical accounts of creation in our schools, one wonders why they keep tilting at the windmill of the science curriculum. Why try to sell the Genesis account as science when it so obviously is not—when it is valuable precisely because it is not science? Why not try to persuade people by focusing on what the Genesis account really is: a fascinating and enormously important cultural story, which for many stands at the centre of their religious understanding of the world?

Perhaps the answer to these questions has something to do with the fact that our public school system bars the teaching of religious doctrines, so that if Genesis is to get into the curriculum anywhere it will have to be disguised and smuggled into the science curriculum. But that tactic will never work, so long as we insist (reasonably enough) that the science curriculum should concern itself with science and nothing else.

[justforfun000]

Some particular quotes out of this that are worth mentioning:

Evolution in its root biological sense means simply the development of forms of animal and plant life out of forms significantly different from them (e.g., birds from reptiles, human beings from higher apes). It makes no claims about how this process occurs. This simple definition refers only to the event (however it occurs). Hence (as I shall point out) one can be an evolutionist (i.e., believe in evolution) without being a Darwinian (history provides many examples of such people). To understand what follows in this paper, readers should not immediately conflate the two terms evolution and Darwinism (as is routinely done, especially by scientists): the two terms define separate things.

The doctrine opposite to evolution is called Fixity of Species. It maintains that species (animal and plant types) are fixed, stable, and permanent. There may be some variation from one individual to another within the same species (an obvious fact), and some species are clearly quite similar to others (e.g., dogs and wolves). But under this doctrine, species arise independently of one another. Again, this doctrine carries with it no single explanation of how these species arose—except that they arose independently of each other and have not changed.

In between these two there are a number of intermediate positions, what I call Limited Evolution, the claim that some species arise out of species closely related to them, but that such a form of speciation is limited. So, for example, different species of fish may have developed by evolution out of one or more common fish ancestors. However, Limited Evolution would deny the possibility of evolution from one major group to another (e.g., from fish to birds).

[justforfun000]

You know, after reading that entire piece through carefully, I see a complete answer to all sides here. He even specifically countered and delivered on many things you have said Aineo in regards to "proof" of evolution, darwinism, and seeing it in action.

I don't know how anyone could possibly put up a further argument based on this very comprehensive and very accurate summation, but I'll be eager to see if someone does.

[Aineo]

Although I agree that "creation science" is an oxymoron the main debate is not between science and religion. The main debate is that our children are required to take classes in the sciences but not required to take classes in philosophy where the subject of the origin of life can be taught.

This is a Christian message board where we can discuss religion and science. Here we can bring up the fact that the Cambrian explosion can indeed indicate that higher life forms did not evolve from one-celled animals. We can discuss the fact that the age of fossils are dated by the rocks they are found in and that rocks are dated by the fossils found in them. This is circular reasoning.

Biology does not teach the problems found in evolution; biology teaches evolution is a fact.

Joe Meert, tiggy, and Yehren et. al. did not come here to discuss science they came here to debate philosophy. They could care less about balancing faith and science they are only interested in trying to show that intelligent design is not a part of science. So what? Intelligent design can be seen in science by those with an open mind. So why oppose this concept? The only logical reason is intelligent design is a balance to the atheism found in Darwinian evolution.

Intelligent design is not a science; intelligent design is a concept that can be found by taking all scientific disciplines together. Our new group of posters want to concentrate on peer reviewed scientific journals well this is not a science message board it is a Christian message board with a science forum where if they would participate without opposing a socio-political agenda that is the exact opposite of the socio-political agenda of Darwin, Lylle, and Huxley to which they don't seem to object could benefit us all.

Scientists seem to want to control religion, which can be demonstrated by the editorial Tommy J posted. An editorial by a scientist written in rebuttal to what was taught in a Sunday school class not a secular school.

Questioning the "icons" of science is blasphemy to Meert et. al. but invading and trying to control a science forum on a Christian message board is within their rights? If we want to discuss the problems with a theory who is being harmed? Not there precious god of science that is a certainty.

[justforfun000]

The main debate is that our children are required to take classes in the sciences but not required to take classes in philosophy where the subject of the origin of life can be taught.

Well I guess the reasoning behind this is that science is demonstrably useful as it deals with our material world, and everyone has no CHOICE but to interact with it, at least while living.

Philosophy is dealing with belief systems, so they can be argued to be less important. It's semantics however.

Here we can bring up the fact that the Cambrian explosion can indeed indicate that higher life forms did not evolve from one-celled animals. We can discuss the fact that the age of fossils are dated by the rocks they are found in and that rocks are dated by the fossils found in them. This is circular reasoning.

I'm assuming this is more specific points that someone is postulating as opposition to evolution? I may research it out of curiosity....I'll let you know if I do and what the info is out there from my search.

Biology does not teach the problems found in evolution; biology teaches evolution is a fact.

But you see, by the standards of Science, evolution IS fact. The theory has enough support, in fact MORE than enough support to be considered indisputable.

Ask yourself this and be very honest. Do you know ANY scientists out there that are arguing against evolution without suggesting in ANY WAY, an alternate theory of "God" being involved? Think very carefully about this and point out anyone if you can. If there is not even one single scientist that is simply disagreeing (with verifiable opposing evidence) against evolution without it consequently leading to a statement from them suggesting an untestable term like God, supernatural, or even just magic, then I dare to say that there is a thread of bias running through these people that links them together.

From what I have read, you have been disagreeing with evolution because you want to hold science to a higher standard of "proof". I think it would be helpful for you to lay out what you consider to be the litmus test for proof. I suspect you are probably falling into the trap of Solipsism. If you go THAT far, then absolutely NOTHING can be proven and anything you say is just as unverifiable. So then how do you get people to believe you?

Scientists seem to want to control religion, which can be demonstrated by the editorial Tommy J posted.

Scientists generally just want religion kept OUT of science because it has no place. Other than that, when religion stomps into science areas and gives wildy contrary beliefs to what is actually known to be very different than theories that have been tested and observed, then they understandably debunk the false beliefs. This IS sensible.

Other than this, I pretty well agree with the rest of what you said. I would like to see the other side stop playing games and discuss the details of science more than focusing on the motives behind each.

I briefly did above, but it's a LOT more specific as a question, and it would be statistically damning if there were NO scientists questioning the actual HEART of evolution theory without the creation aspect introduced as the next "best thing"

[Aineo]

By the standards of science evolution is a scientific fact and I agree that what we refer to as microevolution is indisputable.

Also the father of science is in fact philsophy but our modern culture has tossed out the baby with the bath water by emphasizing this one aspect of philosophy over all others. Philosophy deals with a lot more concepts than religion.

[J-dog]

This is a Christian message board where we can discuss religion and science. Here we can bring up the fact that the Cambrian explosion can indeed indicate that higher life forms did not evolve from one-celled animals.

OK, let's. How exactly does the 10-million+ year Cambrian 'explosion' (not to mention the 20-30 million year pre-Cambrian) do this?

We can discuss the fact that the age of fossils are dated by the rocks they are found in and that rocks are dated by the fossils found in them. This is circular reasoning.

If what you say were true, you would have a point. That is hardly what is done when using index fossils.
The circularity only comes in when you forget to mention the entry into the supposed circle.
Old fossils cannot be directly dated. they are relatively dated by dating layers of rock above and or below them. So, for example, if a fossil is below a layer of ash that dates to 10 million years ago, the fossil is at least 10 million years old. If that fossil has not been found in any other layers, it can be used as an index fossil. So, if that fossil shows up in an area lacking a datable layer above it, it can be assumed that it is in the same age range.
There really is no circular reasoning involved.

Biology does not teach the problems found in evolution; biology teaches evolution is a fact.

Does physics teach the problems found in quantum mechanics? Does history teach the problems in subjective interpretation of events?

Intelligent design can be seen in science by those with an open mind.

Perhaps you can tell us what parts of ID are scientific.

[Aineo]

Does physics teach the problems found in quantum physics? Yep. Are students taught to understand that history is subjective and written by those in control? Yep. But when it comes to science the rules are changed to favor the socio-political-atheistic agenda of Darwin, Huxley, and Lylle.

[J-dog]

Does physics teach the problems found in quantum physics? Yep. Are students taught to understand that history is subjective and written by those in control? Yep. But when it comes to science the rules are changed to favor the socio-political-atheistic agenda of Darwin, Huxley, and Lylle.

I graduated high school in 1984. I took required history and physics courses in college from 1989-1992.
I do not recall a single instance in any of htese classes in which such things were discussed.


Would you like to discuss the use of index fossils?

[Aineo]

Now you are being laughable again. Science is not going to discuss the socio-political agenda of one group vs. another that is in the domain of history and sociology. However, when scientists oppose pointing out that evolution from reptiles to mammals is based only on speculation then the socio-political agenda of atheists has superceded truth. Also when scientists appeal to a socio-political agenda by some while ignoring the socio-political agenda of the founder of their favorite myth then those "scientists" are nothing more hypocrits.

As to index fossils; you can interpret fossils almost anyway you please. Similarities in physiology do not mean Darinian evolution is a proven fact.

[Evilutionist]

This is a Christian message board where we can discuss religion and science. Here we can bring up the fact that the Cambrian explosion can indeed indicate that higher life forms did not evolve from one-celled animals.

Ok, good topic. Exactly what evidence leads you to this conclusion? In fact, what evidence led you to conclude that ANYONE examining the Cambrian explosion has ever said that the Cambrian explosion resulted directly from one-celled organisms. This comes as news to me and I've been studying the Cambrian explosion for more than 12 years. Furthermore, you do realize that many scientists are in great disagreement over the 'explosiveness' of the Cambrian radiation. Many, including myself argue that the 'explosion' is really a slow burn.

-E

[Aineo]

Well, Evilusitonist if all life did not evolve from a one celled organism where did the first multi-cell organism come from? As to the Cambrian explosion; it shows that prior to that period the diversity of life was not as extensive as after the Cambrian explosion. In other words there are no transitional fossils that can explain the sudden appearence of almost every modern phylum in the Cambrian layer.

The "Cambrian explosion" has been referred to as the "explosion" of diverse life forms without prior evidence of those life forms in the fossils of prior strata.

No as a geologist I guess you are concerned as to how the rocks were formed; but as an evolutionist can you explain the lack of fossil evidence for the explosion of late fossild without any prior evidence they existed?

[J-dog]

Now you are being laughable again.

Thanks for your continued insults. WWJD?

Science is not going to discuss the socio-political agenda of one group vs. another that is in the domain of history and sociology.

I see. and yet you wrote:

"Does physics teach the problems found in quantum physics? Yep. Are students taught to understand that history is subjective and written by those in control? Yep. But when it comes to science the rules are changed to favor the socio-political-atheistic agenda of Darwin, Huxley, and Lylle."

So which is it? You have directly contradicted yourself.

However, when scientists oppose pointing out that evolution from reptiles to mammals is based only on speculation then the socio-political agenda of atheists has superceded truth.

They are right to oppose such a claim for it is false. labeling somethig you disdain 'speculation' does not make it so.

Also when scientists appeal to a socio-political agenda by some while ignoring the socio-political agenda of the founder of their favorite myth then those "scientists" are nothing more hypocrits.

Darwin is not trying to legislate his theory. He is not labeling his opponants as 'anti-God' and the like. He is, of course, long dead. The socio-political agenda of the proponants of ID and similar notions is relevant because that is all they have to offer. Even the major proponants of ID acknowledge that it should not be in schools yet becuase it is not 'ready'.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6470259/


What do you know that they do not?

As to index fossils; you can interpret fossils almost anyway you please. Similarities in physiology do not mean Darinian evolution is a proven fact.

And so I accept your concession re: circularity in index fossil use.

[Aineo]

J-dog, how much do you know about the Bible? Jesus was not the simpering Casper Milktoast so many people like to view Him as being. He was a forceful teacher who called the Pharissees and scribes "hypocrites and white-washed tombs". Jesus was blunt.

Actually, J-dog I am not contradicting myself. The role of science is not socio-political yet you "scientists" who have invaded this board in an attempt to prove ID is nothing more than a socio-political agenda refuse to accept that Darwin, Huxley, and Lylle had a socio-political agenda.

For a group that disparages "quote mining" you sure like to engage in "quote mining".

They are right to oppose such a claim for it is false. labeling somethig you disdain 'speculation' does not make it so.

On the other hand labeling something "truth" does not make it truth.

And so I accept your concession re: circularity in index fossil use.

And I also accept your concession that the circularity in the index fossils does not establish Darwinian evolution as solid science or even proof that mammals evolved from reptiles.

[Evilutionist]

:D Well, Evilusitonist if all life did not evolve from a one celled organism where did the first multi-cell organism come from?

Two separate issues here. The first is whether or not the Cambrian explosion marks the transition from one-celled organisms to multi-cellular organisms. It most certainly does not as multi-cellular organisms were present prior to the Cambrian explosion. Second, how did multi-cellular life arise is a good and interesting question. At present, there is no single answer, but there are tantalizing clues. The amoeba dictyostelium is a single-celled organism that undergoes a unique change during environmental stress. Essentially, the organism becomes a multi-cellular fruiting body. Here is a small excerpt on this type of organism from a paper by A. Fortunato et al., 2004.

The social amoeba, Dictyostelium discoideum, is an organism that can form multicellular chimeras through aggregation (Strassmann et al. 2000). It is a haploid amoeba frequently found in the soil of deciduous forests in the temperate zone (Bonner 1967; Raper 1984; Landolt &
Stephenson 1990). Molecular biologists have extensively studied D. discoideum and employ it as a model organism,for example, in the study of cell signalling and differentiation (Kessin 2001). The life cycle of D. discoideum is characterized by a vegetative phase during which unicellular
amoebae feed on bacteria and reproduce asexually. When starving, the amoebae initiate aggregation, with the emission of cAMP regulating this process (Konijn et al. 1967;Barkley 1969). From these aggregations, there emergesa multicellular pseudoplasmodium or ‘slug’ capable of movement. During the multicellular phase the amoebae differentiate allowing the pseudoplasmodium to form a fruiting body or sorocarp consisting of two principle cell types: the spore and the stalk cells (Bonner 1967; Raper
1984; Williams 1997; Kessin 2001). The spores are found in a sorus, a globular structure at the apex of a thin stalk that attaches to the substrate by a disc of cells (Raper 1984). Formation of the fruiting body probably guarantees better survival and dispersion of the spores but requires the
death of the cells that differentiate into the stalk and the basal disc. Altogether, approximately 20% of the cells that initially comprise the pseudoplasmodium die in the for- mation of the stalk and the basal disc (Raper 1984). The dramatic differences in the destinies of the cells that come together in forming a pseudoplasmodium offer the opportunity to study conflict between the cells that aggregate, particularly if amoebae of different genotypes join to form pseudoplasmodia (Buss 1982; Armstrong 1984; DeAngelo et al. 1990; Matsuda & Harada 1990; Gadagkar & Bonner
1994; Strassmann et al. 2000; Hudson et al. 2002; Foster et al.
2002; Queller et al. in press). In this case the pseudoplasmodium represents not only a multicellular organism, but also a society of unicellular organisms. As in a colony of social insects in which the workers do not reproduce but rather labour on behalf of their colony, the stalk cells of D. discoideum altruistically sacrifice their own reproduction in order to aid the success of the cells that become the spores.

-E

[Aineo]

First of all I did not post that the "Cambrian explosion marks the transition from one-celled organisms to multi-cellular organism".

And second the ultimate question for evolution is how single celled organisms evolved into complex animals. The social amoeba, Dictyostelium discoideum does nothing but beg the ultimate question.

And BTW, you need to reread our Forum rules. Posting any copy righted material must be linked to if it is on the Internet or footnoted if it is not.

[Evilutionist]

First of all I did not post that the "Cambrian explosion marks the transition from one-celled organisms to multi-cellular organism".

Good, because it doesn't. So then what exactly is your problem with the Cambrian explosion and HOW do yo you explain it in your scientific view? Merely pointing out a perceived problem in evolution does not mean that your alternative is scientifically more viable. How could we test your alternative explanation? What information, if it became available would refute your explanation.?

And second the ultimate question for evolution is how single celled organisms evolved into complex animals. The social amoeba, Dictyostelium discoideum does nothing but beg the ultimate question.

You like using the term 'beg the question', but it's quite out of context here. You asked how is it that single-celled organisms evolved into complex animals? I gave you an excellent example of a single-celled organism that becomes multicellular in order to survive environmental stress. One answer is that single-celled organisms became multicellular in order to further their chances of survival (as does this amoeba). The excerpt explains how this is accomlished as does a wealth of genetic and cellular biological articles on the organism.

And BTW, you need to reread our Forum rules. Posting any copy righted material must be linked to if it is on the Internet or footnoted if it is not.

Given that you know the subject of the article, the author of the article and the year it was published, finding it is trivial.

-E

[Aineo]

You gave me an example of diversification of an amoeba, you did not show that an amoeba evolved into a more complex genus of animal.

2. TAXONOMIC DESCRIPTION
The name amoeba refers to members of the genus Amoeba as well as other Protozoa with pseudopodia. Most amoebae lack any flagellate stage, although some eventually have a transient flagellate phase. The majority of these microorganisms are uninucleate and many produce resting cysts rather then spores or fruiting bodies. They have no fixed shape, reproduce by binary fission, and use a psuedopod, or "false foot" to move. This is done by extending the psuedopod from the body and using that to drag itself. The pseudopod also helps the microbe to take in food. The typical ameoba is basically an envelope that contains protoplasm and a nucleus. The protoplasm consists of a cytoplasm, granular endoplasm, and ectoplasm.
http://soils1.cses.vt.edu/ch/biol_4684/ ... moeba.html

Not all "ameoba's are one-celled.

As to copyright laws, information pulled off an Internet site and posted on another Internet site can be considered infringement of that sites copyright. I am not going to debate our Forum Rules, either abide by them or your posts are subject to being edited or deleted. Continued infractions of our Forum Rules will result in your account being terminated.

The "Cambrian explosion" has been referred to as the "explosion" of diverse life forms without prior evidence of those life forms in the fossils of prior strata.

Trilobites are found in pre and post Cambrian strata. However, the vast diversity of life forms (phylum) found in the Cambrian explosion cannot be explained by fossil evidence.

[Evilutionist]

You gave me an example of diversification of an amoeba, you did not show that an amoeba evolved into a more complex genus of animal.

What I gave you was an interesting behavior of a UNICELLULAR amoeba (I never said all amoeba were single-cell, but this one is, read the excerpt). I did not claim this was HOW a single-cell evolved into multi-cellular organism. I did note that the question you asked was a good one, but not currently answered by science. THis organism is being studied precisely because it sometimes behaves as a uni-cellular organism and sometimes as a multicellular organism. Furthermore, this change is forced by environmental factors and is triggered by a biochemical pathway. Thus, there may be useful information regarding the question you had. Science is about learning, it's not about having all the answers.

Not all "ameoba's are one-celled.

I never said they were. I said these particular amoebas are both!

I am not going to debate our Forum Rules,

Nor am I, it's a boring subject

Trilobites are found in pre and post Cambrian strata. However, the vast diversity of life forms (phylum) found in the Cambrian explosion cannot be explained by fossil evidence.

Why not? This is simply a statement of your personal belief. Please refer back to my original questions and one other...(1) Is it your contention that a good scientific theory must explain everything? (2) What is your preferred explanation for the Cambrian explosion? (3) What sort of tests can be applied to your explanation for the Cambrian explosion? (4) What evidence would lead you to conclude that your explanation for the Cambrian explosion is incorrect?

-E

[Green]

I wonder if someone might venture an opinion as to whether slime molds are unicellular or multicellular, and the basis upon which they made that decision.

That would certainly be a step in resolving the question as to whether or not multicellularity was evolved.

[Aineo]

It is my contention that a "good" scientific theory is testable. Darwinian evolution is not testable in the same sense gravity is testable.

Then, between about 570 and 530 million years ago, another burst of diversification occurred, with the eventual appearance of the lineages of almost all animals living today. This stunning and unique evolutionary flowering is termed the "Cambrian explosion," taking the name of the geological age in whose early part it occurred. But it was not as rapid as an explosion: the changes seems to have happened in a range of about 30 million years, and some stages took 5 to 10 million years. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... 34_02.html

The sudden and unexplained "diversification" during the Cambrian cannot be explained by the pre-Cambrian fossil record. The above speaks to years but how many generations does it take for a species to evolve from a genus to evolve from a family to evolve from an order to evolve from a phylum? Now convert the proposed 30 million years to generations and then tell me if there is enough time for Darwinian evolution to have produced the enourmous diversity found in the "Cambrian explosion".

[Evilutionist]

The sudden and unexplained "diversification" during the Cambrian cannot be explained by the pre-Cambrian fossil record. The above speaks to years but how many generations does it take for a species to evolve from a genus to evolve from a family to evolve from an order to evolve from a phylum? Now convert the proposed 30 million years to generations and then tell me if there is enough time for Darwinian evolution to have produced the enourmous diversity found in the "Cambrian explosion".

Yes, I got your opinion from your previous post. Could you now answer my questions given that you don't think evolution is adequate. Here they are:

.(1) Is it your contention that a good scientific theory must explain everything? (2) What is your preferred explanation for the Cambrian explosion? (3) What sort of tests can be applied to your explanation for the Cambrian explosion? (4) What evidence would lead you to conclude that your explanation for the Cambrian explosion is incorrect?

-E

[Aineo]

I answered your questions in a non-technical manner. Now, if you as a scientist cannot comprehend a non-scientific answer we are at an impasse.

[Evilutionist]

I answered your questions in a non-technical manner. Now, if you as a scientist cannot comprehend a non-scientific answer we are at an impasse.

I saw many questions about evolution and none about your preferred explanation. Forgive me for being so dense, but what do YOU think is responsible for what we call the Cambrian explosion? What would constitute a good test of YOUR idea? What evidence would disprove YOUR idea? I mean, let's say I accept your argument that evolution does not work, I want to know what you offer in lieu of evolution to explain the evidence we see. Can you help me?

-E

[Green]

There was a great diversity of life before the Cambrian, with many complex life forms, including many of the phyla that were previously thought to have appeared out of nowhere in the Cambrian.

Take a look at this, and tell us what you think it looks like:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/spriggina.gif

[Aineo]

I don't have a "preferred scientific explanation". I have many questions concerning Darwinian evolution being taught as a scientific fact based on assumptions that cannot be tested. You see Evilutionist I don't have a problem with the Big Bang being the best explanation for the origins of the universe(s) but the Big Bang is taught as the best explanation for the origin of the universe and that although it is the best explanation the Big Bang has some unexplained difficulties. This disclaimer is not included with the teaching of evolution.

Green, the picture of the spriggina fossil has the appearance of a fish or other marine animal or a worm (marine or terrestrial). So what is your point?

[Evilutionist]

I don't have a "preferred scientific explanation". I have many questions concerning Darwinian evolution being taught as a scientific fact based on assumptions that cannot be tested. You see Evilutionist I don't have a problem with the Big Bang being the best explanation for the origins of the universe(s) but the Big Bang is taught as the best explanation for the origin of the universe and that although it is the best explanation the Big Bang has some unexplained difficulties. This disclaimer is not included with the teaching of evolution.

Let's stick with one item. The Big Bang, while interesting is irrelevant at the moment. It's ok to criticize what you perceive as a weakness, but in the absence of an alternative, science cannot move forward. Surely, there must be some explanation for the Cambrian explosion that appeals to your intellect more than evolution? Even if you cannot elaborate on the details, there must be something. Heck anyone can poo-poo any idea, but in the absence of an alternative nothing will happen. So if evolution cannot explain the CE in your opinion, what can?

-E

[Aineo]

"In the beginning God created."

Now I know this is not a scientific answer and I posted why I object to evolution being taught as scientific fact without a disclaimer similar to what is taught concerning the Big Bang. And I am well aware that until a better theory is proposed and tested science textbooks will not change.

[Green]

Green, the picture of the spriggina fossil has the appearance of a fish or other marine animal or a worm (marine or terrestrial). So what is your point?

Precambrian metazoan, either an annelid, or possibly a primitive arthropod. Both of which were once thought to have appeared in the Cambrian.

As we learn more about the history of life, the evidence shows that the Cambrian was just a rapid increase in something that was going on long before.