Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Rights and Liberties

Despite Overwhelming Evidence, Creationists Cling to Unreality

By Nathan Schneider, AlterNet. Posted July 31, 2008.


Battling creationists will not fix science education. Teaching science will.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The great Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin once wrote -- or, rather, sighed -- that "creationism is an American institution."

As an institution, creationism has crossed social strata as easily as it crosses decades. Despite all that science and secularism can do to explain it away, the crusade against evolution -- the foundation of modern biology -- is as intransigent, and strangely modern in its anti-modernism, as ever. The actor-author-documentarian-presidential speechwriter Ben Stein, with his movie Expelled, has become only the latest in the long line of its media-savvy critics. Today, around half of all Americans prefer creationism, in some form, to the scientific consensus.

Few know this better than Lauri Lebo, author of The Devil in Dover: An Insider's Story of Dogma v. Darwin in Small-Town America. When the trial over intelligent design theory in Dover, Pennsylvania, caught the attention of the world, Lebo was the lead local reporter covering the case. For her, the controversy was personal as well as professional; as the trial unfolded, she struggled to come to terms with the impending death of her Pentacostal father, desperate for assurance that he would see her in the creationist-only hereafter. In The Devil in Dover, Lebo combines the dramas of family and courtroom into an engrossing story, trading illusions of journalistic objectivity for hard-won personal truths.

An American Pastime

The Dover trial followed in the footsteps of its notorious predecessor, the famed Scopes "Monkey Trial" of 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee. Like Dover, Dayton was a set-up, orchestrated by money and interests from far away. The ACLU backed Clarence Darrow, the great freethinking lawyer, against the towering populist politician William Jennings Bryan, who fought, literally, to his death -- he died, exhausted and disgraced, a week after the trial ended. All of it was immortalized by H.L. Mencken of the Baltimore Sun, one of the foremost journalists of his generation. Since then, evolution trials have become a kind of national pastime, with a big one occurring every few decades and smaller ones even more often than that: Arkansas in 1968, the Supreme Court in 1987, and Georgia in 2004, to name a few.

By 2004, members of Dover's school board began working with the Thomas More Law Center, an organization of conservative Christian lawyers ("the sword and shield for people of faith"), to insert alternatives to evolution in the high school biology curriculum. They were joined by the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based group that formed following the 1987 Supreme Court decision against teaching "creation science" in public schools. It has aggressively promoted the theory of "intelligent design," seemingly an even more scientific creationism, which was specifically designed to slip past the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. When word got out about the school board's plans, the ACLU came to Dover looking to stop intelligent design in its tracks.

Dover held its own as courtroom theater. While on the stand, biologist and devout Catholic Ken Miller gave a slideshow that turned Judge John E. Jones III (and Lebo) into transfixed college kids. The defendant school board members bore witness to their Christian faith in the face of humiliation, disgrace, and finally, a lost election. Plaintiff Cyndi Sneath, despite having "no big degrees," pleaded against the indoctrination of her children. Richard Thompson, the lead lawyer from Thomas More, preached a fiery "revolution in evolution" to the press outside the courtroom, while nearly dozing off in court. As in 1925, there were really two trials going on: one carried out in a court of law, and one blasted around the world by camped-out news correspondents.

In 1925, the creationists won in court -- but lost in the papers and public opinion. In 2005, they lost both.

The Devil in Dover details the demise of the school board's case unforgivingly. Nearly from the start, Lebo insists, board members lied about their intentions for introducing intelligent design. Before the lawyers taught them more secular-sounding language, they spoke openly about creationism and Christianity at meetings. "Two thousand years ago someone died on a cross," one challenged. "Won't somebody stand up for him?" Though these remarks were recorded by cameras and newspapers, the board members claimed to have never said them, in order to meet the legal requirement for "secular purpose."

Early on, seeing how the case would go, the Discovery Institute withdrew its support. The board members pressed on, intent on carrying out their religious duty against the demonic religion of Darwinism. Bearing witness in this way, even in hopeless causes, became a badge of merit; worldly defeat could still mean spiritual victory. In her tender portraits, Lebo reveals how creationism fits into the fabric of faith in these men's lives -- the same faith that carries them through personal illness and the "war on terror." After 9/11, Dover parents petitioned to bring back prayer in schools, and six months later, a mural in the high school depicting evolution was destroyed by a janitor. Clearly, the heart of the matter is about more than scientific doctrines. In court, the board members couldn't even summarize the central claims of the intelligent design theory.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: supreme court, evolution, creationism, intelligent design, discovery institute, the devil in dover, thomas more law center, clarence darrow

Nathan Schneider lives in New York City and writes about religion. He blogs at The Row Boat.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Creationists are part of the primordial soup
Posted by: Richard House on Jul 31, 2008 12:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One problem with Creationists is that when they are “exploring the scientific possibility that God had a hand in making us” they don’t use scientific methodology to show how that was supposed to happen. Yet, oddly, they rely on scientific terms and methodology to discredit evolutionary science. They say you can’t “prove” God doesn’t exist. And, of course, this is true because any scientist will be unable to disprove God does not exist. But when you ask the Creationist for proof for the existence of God this logic is conveniently thrown out the window. As Richard Dawkins says, the scientific world is incompatible with supernaturalism.”

All most atheists are saying is that there just isn’t any proof for it and I’m sure they would be gratified if there were. Creationists/Intelligent Design supporters also say Darwinian evolution is all about randomness and chance when it is the very opposite; which shows they don’t understand evolution or have decided to ignore it. Like the author says, we need to get past this funny business and concern ourselves with educating a modern work-force who will be able to compete in the global economy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

religion. stupid.
Posted by: soulrebeljc on Jul 31, 2008 3:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that is all

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: religion. stupid. Posted by: donl51
How abysmal?
Posted by: UnionMac on Jul 31, 2008 3:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Schneider states:

Despite its theatrical appeal, battling creationists will not fix science education. Teaching science will -- with high standards, qualified teachers, and access to lab equipment. If it is necessary to point out how abysmally American students fare compared to those in other countries, so be it.

My question is, Just how abysmal is the current state of scientific knowledge, or lack thereof, of American students in comparison to students of other countries? It would have been helpful if Schneider had provided background for this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How abysmal? Posted by: soulrebeljc
» RE: How abysmal? Posted by: NathanSchneider
Long Live
Posted by: paulaH on Jul 31, 2008 4:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Those who have never heard of Pastafaria should look it up on Wikapedia. Very interesting and very amusing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Long Live Posted by: NathanSchneider
» RE: Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? Posted by: Outsidetheboxlookingin
Too bad creationism further stifles scientific creativities of innovations and inventions.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 31, 2008 4:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's bad enough that for the past 3 decades, science has been privatized. Any new scientific discovery that is perceived as a "threat" against corporate interests even if it is actually a potentially tremendous benefit to society will be red taped with phoney "patents" and/or frivolous lawsuits and we all know which side most courts will favor these days. I guess that's not enough for the religious fundies, is it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Gosh, you're right Posted by: improperly_sedated
» The new ''DARK AGE'' Posted by: donl51
Like nearly every campaign issue, McCain flip-flopped on intelligent design
Posted by: HughScott on Jul 31, 2008 4:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The following was extracted from an article posted by Media Matters on Monday, Oct 30, 2006.

In 2000, McCain declared that the teaching of "intelligent design" was a matter for local school boards to decide, in contrast to then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush's position that creationism should be taught in classrooms.

As the New York Times reported on August 3, 2005, however, McCain expressed more openness to the idea of intelligent design that year, saying that "different schools of thought" about the origins of mankind should be presented to students. The later statement mirrored what President Bush had said just three weeks earlier, when he defended the teaching of intelligent design by saying, "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought."


This year, in another New York Times interview, Flip-Flop McCain again punted on the intelligent design issue:

Q: How do you feel about teaching evolution [and intelligent design] in schools?

McCain: I think, first of all, it's up to the school boards. That's why we have local control over education. So my personal view is that children should be exposed to as much as they possibly can so that they can make their decisions and be the best informed. But I really believe that school boards are elected in order to make a lot of those decisions, and I respect their decisions unless they are unconstitutional in some way or, you know.

Q: If you were on a school board, how would you vote?

McCain: I don't know. I'd have to see the proposal, I'd have to see where it lies in the curriculum, I'd have to - I can't. I'm not running for school board.


I have listed other McCain flip-flops on my new nonprofit Web site: www.UnfitMcCain.com

The home page banner says, "Five reasons why you should not vote for Sen. McCain in 2008."

The last reason -- McCain distorted his POW record and exploited it for political gain -- summarizes my investigation of "Songbird" McCain's behavior as a POW during the Vietnam War and shows that he acted dishonorably. Part of the information is based on my recent communications with a former POW.

If you agree with my findings and love America, please tell your friends and family about UnfitMcCain.com.

Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam veteran, lifelong registered Republican and former McCain supporter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Grow up already Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» Hugh using Bush's tactics... Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: Once again, C-B, Posted by: donl51
» Were you a hall monitor in high school? Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» Is that why you have been ignoring me? Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» You're correct max ! Posted by: donl51
» Is it really? Posted by: Illiteratilumen
If you want to battle creationists, you need to debate theology
Posted by: Jasonix on Jul 31, 2008 5:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Creationists insist that everything was "made" and "designed" by God in a precise, piece-by-piece fashion because that's the way that humans go about building things. We often improve on other people's work, but since God is perfect, he presumably does not need to do this, and gets it all right the first time. Creationists are fighting for their underlying, unstated belief - that God is essentially human in the way he thinks and operates, and that our minds are attuned to understanding God's ways in an intuitive, natural fashion. Human beings need to believe that their intuition is a reliable source of truth. People become deeply afraid when faced with the fact that the way they naturally think can lead them astray.

When you debate a Creationist, it's pointless to debate things like the existence of God or the technical details of evolutionary theory. Their minds are closed against any counter-arguments you have. You need to take the debate straight to its core - the fact that Creationists are presuming to say what God is like, and that they understand how God works. That is a bold, arrogant claim, and one that comes very close to being "idolatry" in the sense that the Creationists are making God in their own image.

When one debates a Creationist, one should aggressively assert that the Creationists are presuming to know what no human being can know. Their own scripture says of God that "my ways are above your ways, my thoughts above your thoughts...as high as the sky is above the earth, so are my ways above your ways." The New Testament later concurs when its says that "we speak with human terms...because of your human limitations," and that "we see through a glass darkly." Whatever the Bible means when it says God "made" the earth in "six days," we cannot be sure - it's God who "makes" in God's "days." What these mean, we can only guess. Those who presume to know such things are arrogant.

Creationists are making God in their own image rather than acknowledging that God is a mystery beyond their comprehension and definition. Those who debate creationists should go straight to the heart of the matter - the creationists attempt to put God in a box.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» in our own image Posted by: susanh
Creationists and socialists are true believers, impervious to rational arguments
Posted by: Libertarian Paternalist on Jul 31, 2008 5:27 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
followers of creationism and Marxism share many of the same views. They are impervious to rational argument. Have absolute faith and are very inclined to conspiracy theories.

They find that a minor flaw in the opponents theory is cause enough to disprove the whole set of theories. They believe that even if their own theory cannot be proved to work, it is still correct.

The idea of hardline creationism as well as hard line communism is as absurd. Intelligent design and socialism is less obvious.

But both in the battle between ID and evolutionism and socialism and market economy evolutionism and market economy is winning by leaps and bounds. However the true believers just keep getting more fanatic. You have only to watch the ravings of Chavez to understand the quality of thought and argument or for that matter the likes of Reverend Phelps.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Writer of the Article Needs Course in Civics
Posted by: monkeyrocketsurgeon on Jul 31, 2008 5:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some strange conclusions drawn in the article:

"pro-evolution science establishment" (um... could anyone find a more vague attempt at a noun? fact is there is no "establishment" with an agenda, that is discounting the "constitution of the USA" and the court system that backs it up. The ACLU takes up the cases simply because the facts dictate that laws are violated.)

"Together they are a recipe for endlessness." "I don't know where the common ground is." and "The note Lebo ends on, for good reason, is impassioned stalemate." (no, the debate has always ended with a court's decision in favor of the constitution separating the state from religion).

Just because one group opposing law, is loud and obnoxious, continually and passionately making noise, doesn't mean that the issue will have any other end... that is unless you consider the reality that tides turn and laws are subject to changes by congress (after all the constitution states plainly that "the income of the people will not be taxed"... until you get down to an amendment.)

with that in mind here are some considerations:

award winning teacher researches public school creation and determines the industrial heads designed it to thwart drive and free thinking (they needed assembly line workers). (search: John Taylor Gatto)

no child left behind directly effects the teaching of critical thinking, science and the arts. (america needs low information workers). (search: no child left behind effects on science)

republican national committee directly employs churches and religious organizations to control politics and affect public discourse (america needs ignorant workers). (search: republican evangelicals funding delay rove)

kansas (like so many americans) continue to vote against their best interests (the efforts above are working) (read: 'what's the matter with kansas' by Thomas Frank).

This progressive site has an article that has conclusions void of civics 101. (i'm beginning to worry).

PLEASE GET OUT AND VOTE in November!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is it really worth the fight?
Posted by: LMNOP on Jul 31, 2008 5:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How pathetic America is. This late in the evolution of scientific knowledge, much of America, about half according to this author, still clings tenaciously to fairy tales as the rest of the developed world moves ahead.

Find a civilized patch of the world with a decent culture and begin there anew. Leave the superstitions to enjoy the fruits of its cherished theocratic state. I can smell the witches burning already. Why continually expend so much energy in an endless and fruitless effort to keep out of your courtrooms and your child's classroom?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Is it really worth the fight? Posted by: pdxlinuxchix
» I agree Posted by: LMNOP
Hard Times for Real Christians...
Posted by: Godfather89 on Jul 31, 2008 6:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is unfortunate that most of these Christians are obsessed with trying to find "physical" signs of God. These Christians cannot admit that that Their Religious texts are not literal truth but rather stories - myths - that hold truths that go beyond the need to prove for some physical existence.

Because, of this tom-foolery propagated by these so-called "Christians," I as well as other Christians I have met are going deeper to understand Christ, God, and where the Divine belongs in the world.

I can assure you though that in my travels of trying to piece together where God is in the world, I can assure you that it has to do more so with psychology and other fields that deal with the improvement of self than with geology and biology.

These Creationist Christians seem more so to do with the literal interpretation of religious texts as well as Right-Wing Christian Fundamentalism in America. To me these types of "Christians" are those who borrowed the name at interest and not bothered to improve themselves, let alone get closer to what God really is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hard Times for Real Christians... Posted by: monkeyrocketsurgeon
» Thank you. Exactly ! Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Thank you. Exactly ! Posted by: Godfather89
Why is the liberal blogosphere filled with Darwin dummies?
Posted by: nemonemini on Jul 31, 2008 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While holding no brief for creationists, the fact remains that the Dover trial was a triumph of Darwin propaganda against the bungling of the creationists. Let us grant the questions of church and state and the inevitability of the ruling on constitutional grounds. But the fact remains that Darwinism is flawed and violent pseudo-theory serving the ideology of powerful establishments and the parents of many children are sick of it being promoted as 'science', especially in the legal system. The judge at the trial did a lot of playing to the gallery and in the commotion a simple point was lost: a team of quibling lawyers such as we saw could just as well expose the flaws in Darwinian selectionist theory, twice before breakfast, but instead were given the chance to throw the whole weight of ridicule onto the creationists. We deserve to have 'Darwin on Trial' and didn't get it.
The liberal blogosphere has been brainwashed here and a little of investigative journalism might help on this issue, to expose the falseness of the Darwinian paradigm domination. Forget the creationists for a moment, and set the house of science in order.
From Darwiniana

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Social Darwinism Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Social Darwinism Posted by: Dboy
Why is the liberal blogosphere filled with Darwin dummies?
Posted by: nemonemini on Jul 31, 2008 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While holding no brief for creationists, the fact remains that the Dover trial was a triumph of Darwin propaganda against the bungling of the creationists. Let us grant the questions of church and state and the inevitability of the ruling on constitutional grounds. But the fact remains that Darwinism is flawed and violent pseudo-theory serving the ideology of powerful establishments and the parents of many children are sick of it being promoted as 'science', especially in the legal system. The judge at the trial did a lot of playing to the gallery and in the commotion a simple point was lost: a team of quibling lawyers such as we saw could just as well expose the flaws in Darwinian selectionist theory, twice before breakfast, but instead were given the chance to throw the whole weight of ridicule onto the creationists. We deserve to have 'Darwin on Trial' and didn't get it.
The liberal blogosphere has been brainwashed here and a little of investigative journalism might help on this issue, to expose the falseness of the Darwinian paradigm domination. Forget the creationists for a moment, and set the house of science in order.
From Darwiniana

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

America needs dumb citizens to sell them propaganda on "WMD", "Islamofascists"
Posted by: PakiBoy on Jul 31, 2008 6:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it any wonder that America imports foreigners to fill graduate schools and run the high-tech and life sciences R&D?

Bill Gates recently claimed that the top 60% of students (graduate schools) in America are foreigners and that US must ease up the immigration rules so that the high-tech and the life science based companies don't have to outsource the work.

To quote your dumb President: Stay the course morons!

ID/creationism is nothing but a way to keep the citizenry dumb and ignorant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The 10,000 Year Old Hypocrisy
Posted by: loxias on Jul 31, 2008 6:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How many anti-science creationists does it take to use a computer to convert analog information to digital form, in order to transmit this data from one location to another at nearly the speed of light? Just one. Using all that science they deny. Then they get in their car, and drive on highways, using LED's, and cell phones, and traffic lights, and gauges, and the conversion of liquid fuel to energy, so that they can use motored-machines to walk on while they bask in the glow of moving images broadcast from boxes of wires. If they have a heart-attack from eating too much irradiated, genetically-modified food-like compounds, they are rushed by an tech-laden emergency vehicle to a building stocked with more technological devices than the space shuttle in order that they may see another day to deny science. Talk about blessed thou art (in your criminal ignorance.) If this were a rational world, all those that denied rational thinking would be denied the use of the results of rational thinking. Wonder how many Christians adore their little Labradoodle. When they say the meek will inherit the earth, they mean the people who were inside studying while the devout were buying guns and burning books.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The 10,000 Year Old Hypocrisy Posted by: SolitonMan
Intelligent Design IS theology (and not science), but...
Posted by: vasumurti on Jul 31, 2008 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Evolution is mostly speculation. The physical evidence from the past is fragmentary; of the one billion species believed to have existed, 99 percent did not leave fossils.

In the deliberate breeding of species, there are limits to the changes one can make. When pushed beyond a limit, species become sterile and die out or revert to their standard design. We can induce changes in existing forms via breeding, but cannot generate new complex structures.

If this cannot happen by man's conscious efforts, why should it happen by blind natural processes? No satisfactory evolutionary models have ever been made.

Darwin's theory is being demolished. Michael Cremo & Richard Thompson's Forbidden Archaeology (1993) is a step in that direction. This controversial book shocked the scientific community and became an underground classic.

The book's premise is that evolutionary prejudices held by powerful groups of scientists act as a "knowledge filter" which has eliminated evidence challenging accepted views, and left us with a radically altered understanding of human origins and antiquity.

Forbidden Archaeology shocked the scientific world with its evidence for extreme human antiquity. It documented hundreds of anomalies in the archaeological record that contradicted the prevailing theory and showed how this massive amount of evidence was systematically "filtered" out. This is how mainstream science reacts (almost like a religion) to any challenge to its deeply held beliefs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» One other thing Posted by: ReallyBearish
RELIGION AND THE MARKETS
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jul 31, 2008 6:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So: buy this house with no money down, borrow on preseumed equity for boats vacation, etc. Real estate always increases. Adjustable rate, don't worry, the house will increase exponentialy in value. You probably won't lose your job or get sick. The economy can't tank. The markets will take care of everything. Suddenly, "God made the world " isn't so far fetched. Just don't push YOUR beliefs on me and it'll be just fine. Strange what some people will believe. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is a question of belief.
Posted by: craigandrew on Jul 31, 2008 6:59 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we truly believed in evolution, then we would let the Neanderthals teach their children whatever they wanted to; more jobs for people who understood science.

If we truly believed in evolution, we would let the environment decide how valid religion is... but therein lies the problem, at this point the environment doesn't seem to care about any of this....yet.

Well, I guess in the end, we will just have to wait for the next famine - for the oceans to rise and the storms to become catastrophic - to see who is better suited to survive.

Have a nice day. C:)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Proof that Scalia is an ignoramous
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Jul 31, 2008 7:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the Supreme Court ruled that creation science was actually religion in disguise, the great mind of Justice Scalia wrote the minority opinion that it wasn't obvious that creation science was religion and not science.

Gary Wills wrote immediately at Scalia was clueless on what constituted a scientific theory-- that science has to be verifiable and testable. NOTHING in creation science is testable or verifiable, and therefore doesn't even meet the minimum standards of a scientific hypothesis, let alone a theory.

In fact, Scalia doesn't even have a grade school understanding of science, like most of the creationists posting here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You missed something Posted by: EvilMessiah
» RE: You missed something Posted by: ReallyBearish
» What a theory is Posted by: LMNOP
ADULT EDUCATION WON'T HELP!
Posted by: drricklippin on Jul 31, 2008 8:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These pathological neuro-tapes are laid down very early in life.Trying to "educate them out" of adults is futile.

We must focus on early childhood edication to make gains against this insanity

See an excellent website organized by David Boulton for some reason for optimism.

Thanks!

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
ralippin@aol.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ADULT EDUCATION WON'T HELP! Posted by: drricklippin
» RE: THANKS logic! Posted by: drricklippin
» RE: ADULT EDUCATION WON'T HELP! Posted by: Old Skeptic
» RE: ADULT EDUCATION WON'T HELP! Posted by: drricklippin
Why must both doctrines be mutually Exclusive?
Posted by: Purple Girl on Jul 31, 2008 8:27 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Asa Long Recovered Catholic, and a Doubting atheist....I've come to realize the irrelevancy of this topic.
Regardless of how we got here- we remain the only species able to manage this Planet.We are the only ones who are capable of taking in information and relating to the future. We are the only ones who can effect the future.
so whether we were Ordained by a God or champions of the 'survival of the fittest'- we can not Be derelict in our Duty.
As ridiculous as worrying about if or when th eworl may come to an end- so is the ludicracy of fretting on how it all began. We should be focusing on OUR current responsiblities to afford this existence to others in thefuture.
We are mere links- and a refusal to recognize and act on this fact is a Sin against Both God & nature!
As for education- it is meant to teach facts, not theroies- unless it is a Philososphy Class. When parents want to pass on their ideas to such Unanswerable or unproveable Ideals, they should get off their lazy asses and teach it at home, or hand that over to their houses of Worship. teaching Creationism is just another way parents slough off their Parental duties on someone else. They should remember there are numerous sects within the 'Christian ' religion- so they may want to handle these inconsistencies at Home!Morals & ethics are part of the responsiblity of having children. The more the 'Creationist' cry they want this duty handed over to teachers- I wonder what other innate responsiblities are they avoiding!Altruism, sense of community, compassion, forgiveness, tolerance, Good citizenship? If they can manage to teach 'In th Beginning' I doubt they can handle the higher level obligations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Creationism on the right; "frankenfood" fearmongers on the left.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jul 31, 2008 8:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Agreed. Too much religion mixed into the scientific process in many parts of the Western hemisphere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blasphemy
Posted by: QQOblivion on Jul 31, 2008 9:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Creationists are committing blasphemy by their beliefs. God, if there is a God, likely wants us to know the TRUTH of His (Her/Its) Creation. That is science. Creationists and other literal-Bible-believers believe only what they want to, despite the evidence, despite the TRUTH of God's Creation. The creationists, therefore, are committing blasphemy. While the scientists, whether they know it or not, respect God's creation for what it really is.
There is no better way to truly honor God's Creation than to study the TRUTH revealed via science. And one of the biggest ways to disrespect God is to deny the TRUTH, and instead bury your mind in the ignorance that you have been believing along with other Creationists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We all need to stop using science in dishonest ways to further some agenda
Posted by: fanny666 on Jul 31, 2008 9:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see the mis-use of science all the time, even in the comments and articles AlterNet. Exaggerations about the link between pollution and Alzheimer's, to further a "corporations are bad" viewpoint. Exaggerations of the idea that MDMA (ecstasy) is harmless, or that marijuana cannot be addictive, to further a "the drug war is stupid" viewpoint. Exaggerations about the lack of value of psych meds to further a "big pharma is evil" argument.

Corporations can be bad and the drug war is stupid and big pharma does some evil things, but we're just as bad as creationists when we cherry-pick scientific findings to suit an agenda.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Want to help shut the liars up for good?
Posted by: SevenStarHand on Jul 31, 2008 10:21 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both groups' opinions are sacred to them and clearly more important than the lives of billions. The time has come to closely examine the veracity and efficacy of both religious and skeptic claims and put an end to these brain-dead battles.

Since I am neither an atheist, skeptic, or a follower of any religion, please don't assume that I am trying to defend any group or its positions. In fact, I'm going to kill all of their sacred cows, so that we can finally have truth, justice, wisdom, and peace.

Open Letter to Religious Leaders

Open Letter to Atheists and Skeptics

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about Andromeda?
Posted by: HughScott on Jul 31, 2008 11:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The most distant object seen with the naked eye at night is the Andromeda Galaxy -- 2.5 million light years from Earth. For creationists who don't believe in scientific observations, that equals the time it took light from Andromeda to reach our planet.

Whoops! I'm sorry. Make that 10,000 years!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What about Andromeda? Posted by: lexicon
HOW ABOUT NOT TRYING TO TELL PEOPLE WHAT TO THINK?!?!?!?!?!
Posted by: magiquarian1969 on Jul 31, 2008 11:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People need to quit bitching and blow all of this smoke to the side. I'm so sick of small minded people trying to tell me what I'm supposed to believe. If I believe in god, that's between me and god. If I believe in science, it's between me and science, that's why they call them PERSONAL beliefs. I don't care what argument anybody has, it's none of your FUCKING BUSINESS!!!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Message for xenocyd... Posted by: ranchero42
everybody has an agenda
Posted by: logic on Jul 31, 2008 11:29 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Actually Malachy and Bernard of Clairveaux wrote the christian bible from old manuscripts they collected, inserting what they wanted and omitting the parts they didn't like. Tinsdale some centuries later inserted his own phrases and oppinions- the lilies of the field- is one of his. Through time various people have added and deleted as their opinion dictated. It was a matter of political convenience to have everyone in chrisendom on the same page.The crusade was called for by Bernard to empty Europe of nobles and able bodies so the clergy would hold the reins of power. The nobles didn't trust the clergy so Bernard set up an impartial party to hold the wealth-the Knights Templar. The clergy burned them alive two centuries later in an overt power grab. This worked so well for them that they began to burn old women for their land even burned their neighbors. The church later threatened to burn Galileo and steal his land if he didn't say the earth was flat. Originally,in the time of the Magi, alchemy and astrology were referred to as wisdom for that is what the Magi practiced. After Bernard, you could be burned for practicing it. Education is not a center where dogma prevails. Education is learning from all things available in nature. The fact that some people still witch hunt and set fire to their neighbors makes evolution appear incorrect. If we are evolving, why do we only use one tenth of our brain. What creature grows an appendage and then finds a use for it. Tolerance is the lesson here!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» NOT that the Earth... Posted by: Bbear41
I thought it was all done and dusted
Posted by: truthlover on Jul 31, 2008 11:34 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until very recently, I was perfectly happy with evolution - micro-, macro-, whatever. I don't have anything to lose or gain psychologically/spiritually by believing or not believing in any part(s) of it.

But then I discovered that the fossil record has HUGE gaps, all over the place. That cellular biology presents a large number of irreducible complexities, some involving 20 components that all had to come together and combine correctly simultaneously with no evidence of a previous use for those components.

Schools should not allow non-science in science classrooms.

Schools also should not treat as taboo or "religious" genuine questions about these and other anomalies that throw doubt on currently accepted hypotheses.

These genuine questions (REGARDLESS of the questionner's totally irrelevant motives) ARE SCIENTIFIC, and therefore SHOULD be encouraged in the science class.

It is perfectly acceptable in science to question an accepted model, including when you don't have a replacement model. It is NOT scientifically acceptable to treat logical, evidence-based questions as taboo or heretical.

That behavior is ANTIscientific, and akin to Inquisitional methods.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I thought it was all done and dusted Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: I thought it was all done and dusted Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: I thought it was all done and dusted Posted by: improperly_sedated
» I am a molecular biologist Posted by: CUnknown
» Theories also evolve Posted by: fanny666
» Read a book Posted by: fanny666
Genesis
Posted by: solrev on Jul 31, 2008 11:38 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in the creation. The story of creation is found in Genesis 1 and 2, and for the Trinity to teach anything else is blasphemy. If one reads the story of the creation in these two books, it becomes obvious real fast that the accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 are not the same. This is the first problem a literalist runs into, how can this be? The first lesson in the religious literature, is that the truth is in the understanding and not in the words. Jesus warned us later on that we should hear more than just parables. The major paradox between the books is this. In 1 God created them and in 2 God created man then woman. Understanding this paradox is crucial to understanding the creation and what comes later and what is yet to come. Early Jewish sects have some great stories about what happened to the first woman. My story is simpler. In the beginning God created men and women equal. This had to change because of the different role men and women would have to play in the creation. Eons later it was foretold, that at the time of the Trinity on earth as it is in heaven, the last shall be made first. All the ground rules of the creation are set forth in Genesis. Speaking of the space-time continuum, ponder this. Who was the first to speak to the master deceiver, who was protected from the master deceiver by a curse, who was the first to testify to the resurrection? The last shall be made first. Science is just a tool for me, the sweat of my brow.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Genesis Posted by: logic
» RE: be happy Posted by: solrev
» RE: be happy Posted by: crashgrab
» RE: Genesis Posted by: wwittman
The fate of the peppered moth
Posted by: ciccio on Jul 31, 2008 12:19 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Darwin's theory basically states adapt to the circumstances or die.
Nowhere is this better demonstrated then in the peppered moths of Manchester. They started off white, this enabled them to avoid predatory birds as they were well camouflaged against the light coloured background of the bark on which they usually rested. In the 18th and 19th century the industrial revolution had one major impact. Soot everywhere. Trees, buildings, the whole town turned black and grimy. The white moths stood out like a sore thumb. Within a few generations they appeared to die out. Actually, they did not die out, they turned brown, the species survived and now that the pollution is diminished, they are turning white again. Google it, it has been written up by a hundred scientist, not one of them a creationist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» the view from a farmer Posted by: zooeyhall
When you consider the process of fossilization
Posted by: Old Skeptic on Jul 31, 2008 12:47 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When you consider the process of fossilization, with a dead animal sinking to the bottom of a body of water, and the spaces between the bone cells gradually becoming mineralized over time and turning to stone, it is no wonder that there are big gaps in evolution history. How could there not be?

I am an agnostic, and I have no problem with the concept of a creator of some sort, perhaps one who started things going and let natural processes take over from there. Perhaps he/she/it tinkers occasionally, or perhaps it is all blind chance and the earth just accidentally happened to stumble onto the secret to creating living things. I certainly don't know the answer. But here's the thing: I don't believe that anyone else does either.

It is obvious that evolution has occurred, and if there is some creative force behind it, so be it, but there is no direct evidence either way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Two types of reason
Posted by: SophiaGartner on Jul 31, 2008 12:58 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think that evolutionary biology and creationism are at odds over the fundamental difference between their ways of reasoning. Science is based on a sort of instrumental reasoning where we want to see how things work and how we can manipulate and change matter while religion is concerned with abstractions such as what is true for all people at all times.
A religious person may sit there detached from the world, wrapped up in their strange communications with the beyond, while a scientist is focused on the world he or she sees before him, not the one hidden away in the mysterious unknown exclusively.
I think a scientist can appreciate the unknown and the sense of awe it inspires, but they don't work with the unknown exclusively. They work with what they see before them.
Science works on the outside world, while religion works on the inside world.
The two approaches to life are so different that the debate is like two people arguing in languages that neither understands.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I can dig it... Posted by: maddasein
New Dark Ages
Posted by: vangogh69 on Jul 31, 2008 1:25 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The teaching of "creationism" (a.k.a. intelligent design) is but more proof that the US is going through a new Dark Ages, where science and logic have to go up against belief and irrational faith...there can be no resolution for this thoroughly reationary argument. Of course, if you wish to check a "creationist" sometime about their ideas on life, remind them of all the immense destruction and murder occuring throughout nature and ask them to explain how their God is allowing it, hell, how he's designing it. That usually shuts them down.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: New Dark Ages Posted by: illit
Part of the problem
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Jul 31, 2008 2:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Each side wants to "prove that God does/does not exist", that's not the question. Science is not a replacement of/for God. The early scientists were men of God - they believed there was a God. What they were trying to prove is that there are laws and processes that allow one to " logically explain the workings of the natural world around us". A way for us to explain to ourselves the "miracles" of the world around us.

Creationists get it wrong from the beginning. They want people to think that science is trying to explain away God. Sometimes things can not be proved nor disproved. That is why it's called FAITH. Faith is something either you have or you don't.

I mean if you or someone in your family becomes seriously ill - you go to the doctor (here is where science gets important) to cure you! At that point you'd like to know that the person working to make you better knows what needs to be done and can help you.

And if you want proof as to where the U.S. ranks in science - go to any hospital in America and look at most of the doctors & nurses most of them come from other countries. That was not a bash against immigration, it is an acknowledgment of the facts. As Americans we have let our science and math programs falter - therefore our children are not learning what they need to know to make us more competitive!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Part of the problem Posted by: crashgrab
» You can't prove a negative Posted by: fanny666
What overwhelming evidence
Posted by: aceriter on Jul 31, 2008 2:46 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The title of this article began with "Despite overwhelming evidence," etc. But after reading the article I have to ask--where is the overwhelming evidence? If the evidence was overwhelming everyone would but into it. But more important, if someone is going to begin an article with "Despite overwhelming evidence..." it might be nice if he threw some in there for us to see.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What overwhelming evidence Posted by: improperly_sedated
» RE: What overwhelming evidence Posted by: daniel1982
Scientists should end the problem --- now
Posted by: rmirman on Jul 31, 2008 3:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The difficulty is that the science community is mishandling the issue, otherwise it would just go away. For a discussion of what to do see blog
randomabsurdities.wordpress.com
and chapter
DOES THE WORD GOD EXIST?
in the book
Our Almost Impossible Universe:
Why the laws of nature make the existence of humans
extraordinarily unlikely
R. Mirman

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who cares what stupid people do or do not believe?
Posted by: blogbooks on Jul 31, 2008 5:28 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you're too stupid to think for yourself, consider the facts, analyze reality, and come to a logical conclusion then why should I care what you think?

If you persist in believing in a giant sky fairy because that's what your parents and preacher told you when you were 5 then I can't help you.

You're too stupid to be worth trying to convince otherwise. What good is someone that stupid, regardless of what they believe?

Worthless either way in my view.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religion
Posted by: improperly_sedated on Jul 31, 2008 7:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Harmless, at best. A vessel for words of wisdom, handed down from some long dead philosopher who was elevated to godhood by overenthusiastic followers.

Remove all the religious mumbo jumbo, and the words of wisdom remain. They do not make the religion, they whitewash it. They lend legitimacy to superstitious nonsense, confidence scams venerated by tradition, anachronistic edicts of ancient kings, and no small amount of outright insanity. Creationism, for example.

Religious people love to claim that their faith is the source of human decency and justice, but this is absurd. A cosmic force for justice, looking out for us, tending that light at the end of the tunnel, if anything encourages moral disengagement. A non believer at least acknowledges his or her own moral agency and understands that no unseen force is going to set things right. That we have to do something to set things right ourselves, not because some invisible man will be pleased, but because there is no invisible man, and if we don't, probably no one will.

And this categorical surrender of moral agency to some corrupt religious leader is supposed to be the good part, the justification for their rejection of any reality-based world view.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's face it, folks
Posted by: willymack on Jul 31, 2008 8:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religion-besotted halfwits are a permanent fixture in human society, and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING will budge them from their silly beliefs or make them one iota more intelligent. They're a force of Nature just as that revolting wad of gum (or worse) you're bound to step on from time to time, is. The good news is that they're easy to bamboozle- or is that the bad news? It's about fifty-fifty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For these people, Darwinism is perfectly ok in other things
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jul 31, 2008 8:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What bugs me about so many of these King James English-spouting creationists is that--while they denounce evolution--they seem to embrace the most ruthless "survival of the fittest" attitudes in so many other things. Many of them are wealthy businesspeople who believe very strongly in "survival of the fittest" when it comes to wealth and economic inequality. They also have the same attitude in international relations and social relations.

This hypocrisy is what really irritates me about these ID phonies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Immutable Evidence Against Creationism - G. W. Bush
Posted by: ungerbn on Aug 1, 2008 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Philosophically, Creationists have no leg to stand on considering that the "missing link" itself has been the U.S. "president" for the past 7.5 years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yeah, and little angels push the electrons around...
Posted by: Freticat on Aug 1, 2008 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...in my computer chips. It`s as good an explanation as science can give (if you`re a creationist).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Amen To That, Bro...
Posted by: ranchero42 on Aug 1, 2008 2:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By the way, aren't you a relative of SpeakerfortheDedd?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's Okay to Be Confused... Posted by: ranchero42
There is proof that Jehovah does not exist
Posted by: nfamous on Aug 1, 2008 3:04 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No one can prove or disprove whether a higher power like a god exists but we can prove whether a particular religious god exists. For example, the Christian God says that God loves everyone equally. That's a patent lie. The Bible through its litany on contradictions and God's own sadistic behavior, especially in the Old Testament, proves beyond a doubt that that God definitely does not exist. Religions are based on the pretense that God cares what happens to humans and that it does not want us to suffer. God clearly either wants us to suffer or doesn't care that we do because we see it everyday. Religious people blow it off as part of God's mysterious ways but there is nothing mysterious about a lie. It's just a lie.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: There is proof that Yahweh... Posted by: ranchero42
THE BURDERN OF EVIDENCE IS SOMETHING THIS AUTHOR HAS NEVER HEARD OF
Posted by: aberdeen on Aug 2, 2008 12:37 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's more than a few problems with the "logic" in this article, among them that the author pretends that all creationists are on the side of some narrow-minded religion, while scientists are overwhelmingly on the side of one would suppose, some weird brand of "reason" that doesn't require any evidence to back up their grand assumptions.

It would seem that more than a few several rather famous scientists, among them Aristotle, DaVinci, Newton, Einstein and the modern Francis Collins, all believed in God. Is this author smarter then them? Maybe, but I doubt it. And then we have the other problem that millions of historical giants, such as Isaiah, Jesus, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, DaVinci, Newton, Einstein, Schweitzer, King, Eleanor Roosevelt, Helen Keller, Cesar Chavez and even the skeptics of skeptics, Samuel Clemens, all believed in God.

The problem with people like Richard Dawkins and others who pretend there is no God, is they are not real scientists. No real scientist would ever say there is no God, because of three very specific scientific reasons noted below. If Dawkins or this author doesn't know if there is a God, then they should say so and otherwise, stop lying to our children and the rest of us.

No real scientist would even remotely insinuate or hint there is no God, as no one from our perspective in the universe could possibly know that; the fact religions are prone to violence and full of malarkey does not prove there is no God, any more than African-American violence in the inner city proves there was no Martin Luther King, Jr. or, that the obvious lies of religious charlatans like Pat Robertson prove Jesus was a conservative fundamentalist (which Jesus hated). All this indicates is that human beings are sinners who make bad choices, just as Jesus said we are.

1) There is no evidence that there is no God, thus it is scientifically irrational to say so.

A scientific position must be based on evidence and can't just be pulled out of thin air and called "science"; after all, the sky is very big and we are very small; just as a microscopic being living within our intestines cannot possibly know there is no human being, no one from our perspective in the universe could possibly or even remotely, have any inkling of assurance or knowledge at all, that there is no Designer or Designers.

2) There is no known evidence that any object or substance has ever come into being by it's own volition, without something else apart from that object or substance, being involved in the process.

3) There is no evidence that anything in motion has ever come to be in motion by itself, without something else first causing it to be put in motion. (Quite obviously, Socrates, Newton and Einstein, who all three believed in God, could argue circles around Dawkins and this author, as can also, any grade school child with half a brain.

Thus, the entire position of modern Darwinists like this author is fundamentally flawed at the core, because there is no evidence that the universe is a product of "unguided natural processes". There is no such thing as "science" that is not based on evidence. To not know if there is a God is simply that, to not know--it is not science any more than calling the earth flat, while possessing modern 21st Century knowledge, is an example of "science".

It is not a 50/50 opinion whether or not their is a God, as many narrow-minded atheists try to pretend. The existing evidence is 100% on the side of there being a Designer and zero percent on the other side. Even if there is no God, no true scientist could possibly say so and remain even marginally in the realm of reason and science, because all of the EVIDENCE indicates there is. Just as noted above, all of our evidence indicates that nothing can be in motion by it's own volition.

(continued below)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CONTINUATION OF ABOVE POST
Posted by: aberdeen on Aug 2, 2008 12:38 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nobody knows exactly who or exactly how, the pyramids in Egypt came to be as we can observe them today. Richard Dawkins, this author (I suppose) and every other scientist, archaeologist and human being with half a brain, just assumes that someone designed and built them. This is because, all known evidence and human experience indicates that someone did.

And much more so, all known evidence and human experience by default, indicates there is a Creator or Creators. Thus, the correct scientific position is, there is a Creator or Creators until someone can prove otherwise, just as A squared plus B squared is true regarding isosceles triangles, until someone can prove otherwise and, just as the pyramids of Egypt are a product of design, until someone can prove otherwise.

Just what has this author or anyone else alive today contributed to the cause of Human Rights that is wiser than what the above listed individuals contributed? Just what philosophy or words of wisdom do they have that can help humanity more than "love your neighbor as yourself", "put away your sword" and "the truth shall make you free". And if they can't come up with anything any better, then they admit by default that Jesus was a whole lot smarter and wiser than they ever hoped to be. And for some strange reason, he seemed very certain there is a God.

Anyone who pretends there is no Creator is a complete liar, an obvious charlatan and a fraud, no matter how many Oxford or other degrees they may or may not honestly possess.

Big Bang

Richard Aberdeen
www.FreedomTracks.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The Creator and Science Posted by: CUnknown
» RE: CONTINUATION OF ABOVE POST Posted by: soulrebeljc
» RE: CONTINUATION OF ABOVE POST Posted by: soulrebeljc
» Simple-minded nonsense Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: CONTINUATION OF ABOVE POST Posted by: pdxlinuxchix
Creationism and Intelligent Design
Posted by: AtheistInsurgency on Aug 3, 2008 4:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PBS NOVA has a page dedicated to an incident where an Intelligent Design textbook was being distributed in public schools called "Of People and Pandas."

It comes out that Intelligent Design (ID) is disguised creationism. We need to simplify our arguments to plant the seeds of truth in the young.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't understand
Posted by: wmholt on Aug 3, 2008 6:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the Bible is not a scientific text, and science books are not religious texts, what is the issue?

Are people really claiming that the Bible teaches Science? Then what grade would the science "students" of the Bible have been in?

Moses may have been a great guy, but in regards to Science, he wasn't even in kinder garden, was he? Most likely not even in pre-school?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Old Ranger
Posted by: merledeboer on Aug 4, 2008 12:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The ridiculous innerant Bible idea is at the root of Intelligent Design and creationism. But if you follow the fundamentalist logic of 6 days, Genesis 1 cuts them off completely. According to the Bible God created light plus day and night on Day One - and then with a Senior moment repeated the same thing on Day Four by creating the "Sun" and day and night. How likely is it for God to make that little error? But the faithless MUST have a book to look at or their faith evaporates, which perhaps proves as much as anything their is NO God. Even if there were a God, his Most Intelligent Design would be evolution.

Even Billy Graham bluntly says the Bible cannot be read literally.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Old Ranger Posted by: Dboy
» RE: Old Ranger Posted by: TheNamelessCity
Despite NO evidence, AlterNet promotes government myth about 9/11
Posted by: LeftWright on Aug 7, 2008 1:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it's way past time this site gave the 9/11 truth movement a chance to set the record straight on the most important issue of our time.

Almost seven years and still no real investigation into the massive crimes of 9/11/01.

Simply amazing.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Intelligent Evolution?
Posted by: wcraigreed on Aug 28, 2008 6:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I always enjoy reading the eloquent arguments proffered about Intelligent Design versus Darwin's Evolution. Both camps staunchly defend black and white positions as if there could be no grey. The world is flat. The world is round. We now know it's neither. We're a bit off-round. The sun circles the earth, no, the earth circles the sun. Now we know that the earth circles the sun, but the sun also circles trillions of other suns...some of which have their own earths (as recently discovered by exoplanet astronomers like Geoff Marcy). While we're slinging arrows at each other, could there be a middle ground? Perhaps man did evolve, over millennia, to the Homo Erectus state, where he stayed for millions of years. But perhaps evolutionists could at least consider that something intelligent started the spark of life here on earth? And perhaps intelligent designers could be so benevolent as to grant God the freedom of taking as long he'd like to create man? Perhaps his 6 days equated to 6 billion years. Has anyone asked Him? Back to the evolutionists, can any one of you explain how, overnight in evolutionist terms, Homo Erectus went from super-dumb to pretty smart--i.e. Homo Sapiens? While you're chewing on that one, how then, again, did Homo Sapiens suddenly, VERY overnight, become brilliant? Complete with language, math, science, biology and civilization in the blink of a cosmic eye? How did we become Homo Sapiens Sapiens (yes, that is the correct term and not a typo)? How did the ancient Sumerians, Mayans, Acadians, etc. know more about astronomy, math, time, etc. than we do today? How did they know the color, location and size of Pluto when we did not even discover that planetoid until 1930? Let's not hide behind science, folks. The so-called scientists of our past thought we should bleed ourselves to get well. And let's not hide behind religion, either. The so-called righteous crucified Christ. Let's all of us begin to open our minds to the evidence. I recently wrote a book titled DNA (search on Amazon.com under DNA-Reed) that explores this evidence from a new perspective and offers startling answers that I encourage you to explore. Perhaps the two camps--Intelligent Design and Darwin's Evolution—are much closer than you think. Perhaps you're both right...but both wrong. If you truly are passionate about this topic, becoming more informed can be exciting and eye opening, not to mention fun. Read the book, then let’s talk.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]