This article is wonderful, and finally someone on the left fires back at the liberals who say we need to get religion. ITs also good to see a pro science article, even though it will no doubt upset the luddites.

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

First, I want to make it clear that I am not a Christian, nor a Republican, nor even American. I believe the fact of evolution is so obvious as to be beyond question, and I love useful technology. I agree that your current administration's stance on many "moral" questions is ridiculous and potentially extremely dangerous. But I don't think it is the correct response is to dimiss the (presumably) deeply held religious beliefs of a large proportion of the population out of hand. This is akin to Christian missionaries telling the "heathens" that they will all burn in Hell because they are worshipping false idols. They have their beliefs, you have yours. The problem, as I see it, is not belief in God, but the dogma. Rather than think for themselves they blindly accept what they are told by their religious leaders, which at the moment includes Mr. Bush. They believe the Bible to be the literal words and teachings of God, rather than a collection of writings of often politically motivated humans. Scientific "knowledge" is as much based on theorems, assumptions, and generally accepted understandings as religion is on blind faith. It used to be a scientifically understood fact that the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around it. Can you be sure that some other current fundamental scientific "belief" won't be found similarly ridiculous by future scientists? Both religion and science produce fanatical adherants that refuse to consider any opposing opinion. As you say, "...the unreasonable are certain to be divided by their dogmas". You seem to think your particular dogma gives you the right to dismiss those of people you don't agree with, which seems to be the very thing you are accusing the religious right of. Or have I missed the point?

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

Isn't assuming intelligent design is wrong, because it differs
from one's own philosophy similar to assuming evolution is wrong because it differs from one's religion on the same level? Where can one find intelligent discussion, pro and con, on the arguments of intelligent design? Can
there be a discussion that does not start with the assumption that there is, or is not, some God that is active in the world?

Obviously we have no eyewitness (discounting the likes of
God's testimony in the Bible) of origins of life. I don't think we can ever scientifically be sure of origins - chance evolution or design (by a god, alien, or whatever).


Why should progressives attack ID or creationism? Should not believing in a god-designed creation logically produce a greater concern for treating the earth, the environment, and organisms including people with respect? Making allies with the religious seems a more likely way to
advance progressive agenda.

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

Regarding the statement that "22 percent of Americans believe that Jesus will return in the next 50 years" : I asked a friend of mine why she still believed in the "immenent" return (2000 years. after Jesus had said the THIS generation shall not pass...)

She quoted some passage about how no one knows the time, to which I responded, "How many years would have to go by before you abandoned the idea? 5000? 10,000? 20,000? After 20,000 years would you finally admit that Jesus ain't coming back?"

"I'd never give up my faith," she answered.

That's it in a nutshell. People will believe dumb ass ideas long after the time has passed to recognize that it can't be true.

Evolution is a scientific theory, not a faith. Anyone can watch evolution at work by studying creatures or plants with short life cycles and "selecting" for a certain trait.

Did man descend from apes? It's a THEORY supported by the fact that we share 98 percent of our genes with Chimps. Can someone with AB Negaitve blood be descended from two parents who have O Positive blood? (If I remember my beginning science course correctly the answer is NO.) That's not a theory, that's a fact. Evolution belongs properly in the realm of science. Intelligent Design belongs nowhere, not even in church because "intelligent design" includes the possibility that aliens did it.

And by the way, I'm not committed to my example of the 0 Pos blood. I could be wrong and it wouldn't take much evidence to show me that I am wrong. I would easily abandon it as "truth." That is the beauty of science -- any claim can be tested and disproved.

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

America is becoming a very scary place to live. I am having trouble telling the difference between now and the inquisition. The only difference these days is instead of outright killing the non-believers, they are labled and then scorned by the "God Fearing" idiots.

I stay disgusted most of the time these days. Disgusted at a populace that revels in it's ignorance. In fact, I can't remember a worse time in American history than right now.

And as usual, religion, instead of bringing people together is once again used to keep the masses in line.

This article is right on... and mirrors many of my thoughts and beliefs... If there ever was an Anti-Christ, I would have to say that it is religion.

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

Coming from the least religious nation on the planet (the UK), I find the statistics on religion in the US provided in this article fascinating but, at the same time, baffling and frightening. In the UK, the majority of people have no religious afiliation whatsoever and many, if not most of us feel uncomfortable around overtly religious people. Religious people of all creeds are a small minority in the UK, and religion is seen as a personal and private thing that should not be pushed down other people's throats under any circumstances. Being overtly religious is seen in quite a negative light, and no more so than when the person expressing religious views is a politician. Tony Blair has been advised to play down his own Christianity wherever possible as it is a big turn off for British voters. I would be interested to read any views that people have as to why the current situation in the US is pretty much the opposite to in the UK.

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

Our leaders have taken the dogma of the Christian faith and the faithful and exploited it and built a platform of corrupt policies based upon it. I will not abandon my faith because our president has twisted it to suit his purposes. Isn't that akin to throwing the bath water out with the baby.
Your article insinuates that the faithful are mindless idiots rather than posing the question of why/how all the members of Congress and the weak Democrats (of which I always vote, btw) have allowed him to push these policies upon the American people.
Again, let's glean a lesson from history. There are many examples of despot's who use the religion of their followers and pervert it to their own gain.

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

It's Sputnic all over again. Remember?
I guess not.
When you get the wake up call that no one will hire your kids because they know more about a myth than the reality we live in, what will the US do this time.
Will they start a massive project like Kennedy did to get you back on track or will you just take over the country that has the better technology?
I fear with the present administration it would be the latter.

peter

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

I'm a very religous atheist, ie. I know of no God but I haven't closed my mind on the subject. Why coudn't a God design a world in which evolution plays a role. Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. Was there a designer? When one thinks of the strong anthropic principle: how the Universe appears to be organized to accomodate carbon based life forms, it is not hard for him to wonder if somebody set it up that way. I thnk we're along way from having the answers on this one.

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

After the last two elections, I am firmly convinced that there is NO UNDERESTIMATING THE GENERAL INTELLIGENCE OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

Does that mean the tooth fairy is no longer believable?

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

If so, then we can brand it that way. This makes it explicit as to where these "designs" come from. The underlying basis for Christian intelligent design is faith. Evolution is based upon provable facts, not faith. Therefore Christian intelligent design is not objective, but rather subjective and explicitly religious. Since when is the public forced to teach a specific religion?

Evolution seeks to understand the creation of the universe from the measured beginning of the universe. Christian intelligent design seeks to understand existence and God. The Christian belief of God is that God has no beginning and no end. God is eternal. God predates the universe only because God created the universe. Since God "had" no beginning, it is faith alone and not science that says God exists. Any objective scientist will say that something must have created the universe and that God is as good of an explanation as any, but objectively a scientist has no mechanism to measure God. The scientist doesn't say that God doesn't exist, just that the scientist cannot prove that God does or does not exist.

Two very different things. As such one is saved for factual teaching and the other for religious teaching. The constitution says that the government does not respect the establishment of religion, therefore public schools being a public entity cannot respect the establishment of religion.

However let us say for a moment, that government can respect the establishment of religion. Which religion? To be fair, it would have to be all religions wouldn't it? If so, does the American public wish to have their government teach their children about religion for which they do not believe in? If religion in public schools is to be respected then all religions must be taught. Then we would have to go into the arguments of which religion is valid or not valid. Should the number of religions taught be restricted to a certain number? If so, how many and which religions?

If you are catholic, do you want your kids taught about the creation of the universe through the lens of the God for some other religion?

What about non-christian religions. Should kids be taught about non-christian religions and their creation myth?

Where does it stop? Wars have been fought over "my religion is better than your religion".
effective messaging

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

If we ever needed a national civics lesson in why the Framers were adamant about the establishment of religion, now is the time. Christian "dominionists" mean just that: dominion, and it's over you, me, and everybody else. We're looking down the barrel of a dangerous intolerance of anything outside their twisted moral spectrum, and if there's anything that liberals need to be intolerant of, it's religious and cultural intolerance itself (thank you, Mark Morford and the SF Chronicle).

Unless we all want to be sheep in Doctor Dobson's flock of pseudo-Christian nutcases, we'd better get serious about fighting back before it's too late.

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

Since history gets the short shrift in the country we should be reminded that at one time in the not so distant past science worked in the name of religion. At least in the Protestant dominated nations of northern European, after what Pope Paul VI did to Galileo, from the 17th Cent. onwards scientists worked feverously to understand "the mind of God."

For decades, centuries even, science and religion lived in connubial bliss until Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace reared their ugly heads and posited the theory of evolution. Then the shit hit the fan!

Northern Europeans everywhere could not stand the thought of being descended from apes or any other thing that might remotely resemble black Africans or the Irish, for that matter. The backlash grew especially strong in raciest 19th Cent. America, coming to it's ludicrous conclusion with the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925.

Well, we smugly though, that settles it, the divorce decree is final. Science was proven the aggrieved party, William Jennings Bryant proved that modern man descended from the Neanderthal and religion can go off and console herself with a glass of wine.

But religion proved herself to be a vindictive bitch and bided her time.

Her time came again during the Red Scare of the Nineteen Fifties, that halcyon time that reactionaries born in the Sixties nostalgically pine for. Religion, decked out in all her most intolerant finery, stood as a bulward against Godless, atheistic Communism. Religion was American. To not embrace religion was unthinkable, unAmerican.

Over the decades she has, through her minions, infiltrated every level of civil government. Religion was especially effective in subverting public education, often taking over entire school boards. Religion also infiltrated Hollywood where, for the sake of entertainment, movie producers churned out motion pictures of the supernatural and television executives pushed programs featuring ghosts, goblins, mind readers and spiritualists.

In short, folks, it has taken us nearly fifty years to get to this nadir in our national history. It will take at least that long to undo all this damage.

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

"Intelligent design" is just the old creationist theory dressed up in new packaging, which makes you wonder sometimes if psychopathic serial killers like Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy would be described as "intelligent design."

Good Lord! Give me a break!

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

Actually I am not american (italian by the way), but I can very well understand what you are claiming on with your article.

The raising of religon (better of distorted vision of religion) to policy makers position is a common process in our two countries.
And it is a process we have to stop. Not to be against religion by itself, but to be against a vicious process can will undermine the very basis of democracy as we learned it int all thiese centuires.

You have a (Born again Christian) President that flowers his speech of war with God , and wants to restricts individual liberties and science.
We are in a country that approved the most strict in Europe, and fairly totalitarian, law on assisted reproduction.
It doesn't allow research on stem-cells, it is cruel on men and women seeking to have a child with assisted reproductions, it makes wishes of church (catholic in that cases) law of a state.

More over just a few months ago a referendum to banish this law failed, and the electoral campaign saw the direct involvment od catholic jerarchies (even the new elected Pope) fight for the law, and most politicians from left and right wing using theocratic arguments.

We saw each day the Pope (since a long time the world champion on the authoritarian vision of the traditional dogmatic churc imposing its view all over th world) claiming for a more christian europe, and also asking to put in the new european constituion the christian root of our continent (what a good way to go towards 'clash of civilization'...)

By the way it is quite strange to heard President Bush, and many others, calling all of us to war against Islam, claiming it rules theocratic fascism while inspirng their home policies to home made 'de facto' theocracies....but contractions sometimes can be a western value!

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

I believe in God and I believe in science. My God hates a liar and Albert Einstein said: "My God is bigger than yours. Evolution is no longer a theory as it was when Darwin, (an ordained minister) honestly presented his evidence. Today evolution is a scientific fact. Without evolution the modern sciences would not exist. Religion is a business and as such provides a service. People need a spiritual life but religions have become corporations. The Catholic Church is the oldest corporation in the world. Like the corporation's risk-cost analysis when the CEO estimates that it is more profitable to commit the crime and pay the fines and lawsuits if it enhances the bottom line, organized religion clings to the flat earth dogmas that fired the inquisition.

The ignorance of so many people in a society with universal communication can also be attributed to the corporation control over the universities and the media. Higher education today is relegated to providing engineers and accountants and the arts and humanities have been dropped from the curiculum. Artists are dangerous and expensive and a threat to the corporation domination of the world. Bush's God likes an ignorant humanity but my God hates a liar. The hypocracy of the "christians" who also are war profiteer is obvious. Christ wanted peace and good will and would have been horrified at the rampant slaughter that earns medals for the killers. It would be better for the progressive intellectual to contain her athiesm and support the Sojurners in religion who oppose the domination of Pat Robertson and Orel Roberts.

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

Most of the posts I've seen lately have been vitriole dished out in anger... and this makes me wonder how many ID opponents actually understand what it is (through reading the writings of ID proponents). While it is true that many religious fundies have co-opted the idea, and have tried to misuse it to get religious notions into public schools (and this should be resisted!), most ID proponents DON'T want that, and so ID shouldn't be judged by how it has been mishandled.

Properly, ID is not religion disguised as science: one glance at the Table of Contents of William Dembski's book "The Design Inference" (Cambridge Univ Press) will show that it is not about religion at all, but explanatory reasoning via probability theory, complexity theory, specification measures, etc. This doesn't yet make it science, but a rather a discussion of how science generates conclusions given the data, premises, and so on. And less technical ID theorists are not challenging evolution proper, but the dogmatic NATURALISM beneath evolutionary science, which is not properly part of science at all (nor is it testable, falsifiable, etc.). So at the academic level, the few thinkers involved in this are pushing AGAINST the "religion" of science, rather than pushing FOR some other religion.

Thus, to be uninformed enough to react so viciously against ID as creationism dressed up as science is to give in to the strawman approach that calls it "religion" rather than reading up on and evaluating what ID is actually about.

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

Anyone know more about these polls from whence the stats came? I am curious as to WHO exactly, they were polling. I do believe that fully half the US voting population has ideas that make no firggin sense to the rest of us (as evidenced by the last couple of elections) but somehow find it hard to believe that so many of them are THAT idiotic!

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

Well done, piratemonkey... And this is what the discussion should be all about, actually reading and understanding the issues as ID folks put them forth, and as their opponents critique them. But many bloggers are ignorant about it all, and would prefer to call ID "religion," then sling mud.

NB: I didn't assume that there were no "several extremely comprehensive replies" from the scientific community, nor did my post "equivicat[e]" [sic] the "scientific value of his work to the work thousands of evolutionary biologist in the world." Give me a break, I did no such thing (nor do I think that). I just prefer the dicussion to be substantial and meaningful, which entails talking about ID itself, rather than what some (inappropriately) use it for or what others (uninformedly) take it to be.

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

Thank you for such a refreshing and sensible article. We are so desperately in need of some logic and intellectual thought in these dark times, which are brought on by such an ignorant administration who uses people's fears to misguide them. I was beginning to think there weren't any intelligent people left in the world who had access to the media. Thank goodness there are still people out there who have a brain. Scientists, speak up and be heard.

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

Most people fascinate on one of two fallacies when discrediting ID.

The first is often referred to as "The Divine Fallacy" - if I don't understand how it works, god must have done it. The hole in this reasoning is easy to spot: I don't understand how my telephone works, therefore god must have created it. Alexander Graham Bell might take exception to that conclusion.

The second is a little more subtle. The main thrust of ID is, "Life is just so complex that it couldn't have happened on its own - so god must have created it" On the surface, it looks a lot like the divine fallacy. But it can easily be deconstructed by asking, "Okay, then by the same reasoning, didn't somebody have to create god? And of course, that being is an order of magnitude more complex than that and so who created god's god?" Obviously, this provides no answer - "It's turtles all the way down".

But my favorite rebuttal is to ask, "Okay - why is the intelligent designer such a bad designer?" I mean, really, if he's so smart, why did he use a suspension bridge for the spine rather than a support column? Why do we have an appendix? Why are knees so easy to injure? Why do we have redundant systems for our lungs and kidneys, but not the heart? Why do we use the same passageway for breathing as we do for eating, when this presents an obvious choking hazard? How come the sexual functions use the same organs as the elimination of bodily wastes?

Evolution presents rational explanations for all of these questions, "Intelligent" design does not.

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

This is scary; it is almost beyond belief that so many Americans can be so incredibly ignorant about the universe they live in – and be PROUD of it! Thank goodness the majority do not hold the reins of human progress – otherwise, we'd still be running around in loincloths, and crucifying people for infractions.

Thomas Jefferson believed that democracy depends on an educated and informed populace, and once said: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

If this is true, we're toast. . . .

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

Great article! I think one reason progressives (such as myself) are losing this battle is largely an issue of framing the argument. The fundamental religious are very good at framing arguments, and as we all know, scienctists largely dismiss topics like this because they are not scientific issues nor can be addressed by science (in terms of proving a negative assertion, I mean). Scientists are afraid to engage because that gives some implicit acknowledgement or validity to the absurd, yet silence gives some implicit level of acceptance or inability to debate. Neither are correct.

So progressives who are against pushing faith as science, and are atheist, agnostic, deist, pantheist, transcendalist, etc, might want to consider a new approach of framing the argument for themselves. This article points out the negative connotations derived if you label yourself as an atheist, agnostic, etc. And the other problem of ID not really being science, so can't be addressed as such because it's a religious topic. I think there might be an answer to these kinds of issues -- you have to fight religion with religion, but not a dogmatic religion, a religion that is against the pseudo-science agenda.

Don't know how many of you have heard of it, but I think the Universist movement (NOT Universalist -- this is totally different) might be of some help here. Maybe not, I'm just trying to find some kind of constructive solution to propose as a possibility.

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

For some discussion of this and other ideas relevant to this piece, see my post at Philosophy, Practice, and Politics.

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

Something the theory of evolution doesn't address is the apsect of conciousness in all living entities. Evolution does explain a lot about the nuts and bolts of how evolutionary change might occur. It is my feeling that evolution occurs through conciousness (which may explain a lot about why humans have essentially stopped evolving). The first cells could not have come together to form multicellular organisms without excercising some form of conciousness. An organism can't react to its environment without conciousness.
That evolutionary changes in organisms happen randomly as Darwin postulates is as preposterous as the idea that the earth is only six thousand years old.
Bottom line: Darwin is wrong about a lot, but not as wrong as the creationists and the ID folks. Science is not the truth it is only the the search for the truth. Until the scientific community can see beyond their own dogma they are just as wrong as the religious wackos. Scientists routinely ignore facts that conflict with their pet theories, and those who support conflicting theories no matter how well supported are also ignored. The actual facts on evolution probably support some (not all) of Darwin's theories, but if you think about it conciousness in some form must also play a role...

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

Not the pop-group.

There is no doubt that America and the world at large is heading for hards time if it continues down this path. It is not as dire as as some believe but we have moved and still seem to be moving into the fanatical. Unless we change we will continue this path.
Why does this administration claim to support education and cut funding to education? Why do they shift the tax burden to states and cities and towns? They fear the educated. Why due they seek to frame 'intellectuals' as bad people. Or the 'non-faithful' (not of their faith) as bad people. Awareness has its price. And it tolls the most on the wealthy. As was quoted above without religions the wealthy would be removed.
So we have the wealthy and the religious both seeking to control the lives of the people. Should one trust the rules set up to support those two groups? Rules meant to perpetuate their control? Or should one support the Constitution that seeks to make a country where the power is in the people not the wealthy or religion.
Whether one believes in God or not is a moot point. God exists outside of religion. If no religion existed the Creator would still exist despite what the religious would have you believe. It's all in the ego. To satisfy the ego they must have power, control. Money, followers or both.

I was at church this weekend. I couldn't help thinking the word mythology when certain things were said. As if believing in these extremely far fetched beliefs would guarentee the love of the Creator. That to be included in any reward would require specific beliefs in certain things. That one cannot be a good person, kind, caring, compassionate, loving if one didn't follow specific doctrines.
No offense to the religious. I've known many good religious people. But the warning the author gives is of those who buy too much into belief. Fundamentalists of all religions are a danger to all. These people had nearly pushed me away from faith. Seeing the desctruction and division they cause.
But as one good poster put above, to sacrifice my faith due to what they do is wrong.
Besides, whatever you may believe on how or why we exist, it really seems that our biology and physiology, as it is, does not indicate that we can live peacefully together.

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

And if evolution holds true, we would have to choose to live peacefully together in order for our biology and physiology to catch up and predispose ourselves to those actions. Right now we are not wired that way. Whyever we are here it comes to choices. Become aware and choose a path that supports each other or continue the aggression and ego servitude of win lose thinking.

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

Faith aside, the sooner people realize that religion (especially the organized kind) is, always has been, and always will be a form of government the better off they are going to be.

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

If you can dictate a persons origin myth, you can control their entire world-view. I-D is a vile think tank virus designed to get more of us under the neo-con yoke.

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

there is only one feasible and fair solution to this debate, and it's as obvious and simple as using two hands to pick up two things. ID is not a scientific theory, so don't put it into a science course. ID is a religious tenet, and a worldview, so put it into a philosophy/religion course. Which, oddly enough, is already the case in most schools...so...if it's not broke....

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

This is at the heart of what we need to be talking about... the question is not evolution or "intelligent design" this is not about a either ... or choose,
We need an intelligent voice, another Einstein, who knew there where no accidents in the universe...
Any force worth serious consideration in science or religion is obviously intelligent, evolution is obviously intelligent, the Question is what is the nature of the force of Intelligence, of Evolution, and Science, that Religion, Philosophy, Mystism and Science attempts to understand... what if there is an intelligence that does exist and it is not a person or entity, sitting on a throne somewhere. The question is what is this force... who says we cannot have an evolution that is an intelligent design; actually what else could it be... I am so tired of this discourse being forced into an either or...what if it has no boundaries and this Intelligence, this force is the very essence of ALL that is ... would if it is always creating, evolving, growing...
There is a reason some of the smartest physicists understand that there are forces beyond their comprehension, they understand that no single religion or scientific discovery can capture the totality of this mystery, now if the theory was called the Intelligent Mystery.

When will we evolve enough to understand there is a time for Strict Science, there is a time and place for some for strict religion and then for the rest of us, it is time for a class on poetic wonder, mystery and pure curiosity for discussion about all the mysteries of reality that neither science or religion seem to be able to answer … that there are some of us, who have a longing for everyone else to catch up with our wonder.

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

There are those of us who do not confuse the creator with the created, the mechanics with the mechanic. And we need no further evidence of evil (call it the Devil if you like) than a look outside the wondow.

I'm a believing Christian who finds no conflict with evolution and a Creator. My faith also leads me to progressive views. Equating religious faithfulness with ignorance and reactionary politics is...ignorant and reactionary.

That sort of pompous view is why alleged progressives are geting their butts kicked each election cycle.

Because the overwhelming majority of Americans are offended by the sort of views espoused in this article, and because most of us suspect that liberals care more for their pet feel-good boutique politics than they do the issues that affect the working class: education, unions, health care and the environment.

Peace.

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

A minor point:

George W. Bush actually said, "the VERDICT is still out." He should have said "jury," of course.

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

When times get a little tougher you'll always find that the rich get greedier and the masses get religion.

We will never boycot the largest oil company, see to it that a third party is well represented, insist that our congressmen write the laws themselves, restrict campaign financing methods, or anything else that might actually do some good.

Congress has sold our birthrights to the highest bidders that want to write their own rules. Two parties essentially own our government and each would like to reduce that number. Mainstream media has lost all of it's courage, and the public wants continuous mindless entertainment. We don't want to have to learn anything to understand the problems, let alone find any answers.

No amount of prayer will restore the economy, but it's the first response of many (to just about any type of insecurity). Religion is patently absurd on the face of it, but it offers easy answers and the lie-now-pray-later plan to boot.

And we all know that no atheist will ever get very far in politics.

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

The cartoon strip 'Frank and Earnest' addressed the issue a number of years ago: the two guys are sitting on a bench, and one says to the other, something like, “It’s simple, really—the creationists were created and the evolutionists evolved!” To this do we add: “and the intelligent designers were designed?”
On a more serious note, where is the movement I can join which affirms that the values most important for America and her people are those of compassion, care of those who cannot care for themselves, peaceful resolution of conflict, and that every person matters? Who will be its spearhead and leader?

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

There is one point that everyone is missing. THAT IS….. the spiritual nature of life, to me the main point of Christ Jesus' teachings, besides "Loving Thy Neighbor".

If a Supreme Being that is SPIRIT made us all, then the nature of life must then be spiritual, not physical. If life then is spiritual, then evolution is also spiritual, and again, an attempted recognition of ID is an attempt to recognize that a spiritual intelligence has a part of the evolutionary process, whatever that is, instead of the random "natural selection" theory of Darwin, which postulates an atheistic universe.

By arguing over these points from a materialistic perspective, regardless of which side you are on, it keeps the scientific supporters of conventional evolution from thinking more deeply and questioning, "Is there something deeper to this evolutionary process". If you look at the Darwin finches of the Galapagos Islands, from which Darwin postulated his theory, one can ask, "Did these genetic changes happen over time in 'natural selection'"; in other words, "Were the birds’ genes changed over time with randomness", or, "Is there a spiritual intelligence at work that would change an animal's characteristics (genes), where there is need, on a more rapid basis". For me, observation of the different Darwin finches on the Galapagos poses these questions.

Another question -- is there other scientific proof that would support the postulate of our spiritual nature of life. THERE IS! And that proof is the radical healings that Christ Jesus performed, and his followers, that are today called "miracles". Those healings, obviously, occurred in direct opposition to commonly held biological, physical laws. But if these spiritual healings point to deeper, not understood spiritual laws that are being repeated today, and can be performed on a learned basis, then they point to a spiritual nature of life. Therefore, there is some ID that is governing a spiritual evolution of life in the universe.

What those who promote ID (which IS NOT Creationism) are trying to say is that, "Is there a spiritual, mental influence at work in our genetic makeup that hastens a species change faster than 'Natural Selection' would say.” Instead of arguing, let’s all try to think more deeply about this.

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

First I believe that evolution and creationism can coexist. Who is to say how long onw of the days of Gos is?
Second, the reason religion works so hard against liberals is because liberal politicians want liberals to question God.
They want people to believe that there is absolutely no higher authority that Big Government.
When you remove the belief in God, then communism can really flourish, and communism and liberalism do go hand in hand

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

I strongly believe we need universal health care in this country with requirements for mental health provision to be made a priority.

Look at the facts, Canada, EU and UK especially, have very low levels of religiousity. They do have universal health care systems. They have mandatory public education and provide sufficient sex education to their young. There murder, divorce, sexual rape and abortion rates are dramatically lower than here in the US.

Within the US, the most divorces, murders and rapes and abortions occur in the bible states. The bible states or RED States also have right to work for less laws that eliminate the abilities of unions to organize the workers in their states. Thus they have no contracts providing increased wages or benefits, most importantly, they do not access to health insurance or mental health insurance that workers in BLUE States receive from their work contracts.

I am not trying to tell anyone that people who believe in God are crazy. I am trying to convey that those socieities that provide adequate sufficient access to better education, and sex education, as well as access to appropriate health care, in particular mental health care, exhibit less fundamental extremist hatred, ignorance and tolerance.

Inferior Design is another product of a society that fails to provide its citizens with adequate health care and real education.

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

The stinking pile of dung in the room that nobody wants to talk about is that religion is the problem. Faith is the discounting of facts over beliefs and the acceptance of ignorance over knowledge. The fact remains however that religion is one of the things that lifted our species up from the muck. But, like the violence it engenders, religion threatens to drag us right back down into it.

You can not make religion and science co-exist. They do not, they will not, and most importantly should not.

The idea that things which can not be proven to exist should be taken as more important than those that can is madness. I do not care if I upset people or insult them by calling them ignorant for believing. It is ignorant to believe the claptrap that is religion, and it is abusive to teach children these things. If kids were not taught to believe in big boogeymen in the sky when they were kids, then they would not believe it as adults. The taboo of calling religion bullshit must be overcome.

Just because it makes people feel better does not make it right. Religion is evil. Period.

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

Thank you for acknowledging the distinction between 'real' science and 'unreal' science. I wish you'd extend the same courtesy to religion.

The conflicts between religion and science are history. You need to ask those whose beliefs you scorn whether they value science. My guess is that 100% will answer yes.

However, both troublemakers and journalists who get paid by the word love to provoke a fight. Our mass media unfortunately get fat on violence and conflict. The simple-minds of the citizenry are exceeded only by the single mindedness of journalism: everybody's gotta make a buck, even if its exploitation.

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

Allowing falsehoods based in religious beliefs into the political system is exactly what causes so many of the problems in societies -- look back through history. It is absolutely critical that the truth backed up by extensive factual evidence be loudly and repeatedly espoused to all. The facts hold that evolution is how human beings came to be. Anyone who chooses to believe otherwise is sadly also choosing the faith blindfold (not meant to imply that all who are "faithful" are blinded). Hitler, Saddam -- now, yes, it perpetuates here. It is only a matter of time.

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

The key to this whole debate is the fact that ID is not a science. Instead, it is a philisophical viewpoint and should be given its proper place in a philosophy course. The complexity of life and the structure of being is an interesting debate when put into the framework of philosophy. It would be insaine to parallel science, where theories can be tested and re-tested in controled labratory experiements.

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

What progressives might consider is trying to change the terms of this debate. Remember, we do not have to change the minds of the 44 percent hard-Christian voters. Changing the minds of 2 percent of the electorate would have booted Bush in November.

Why not stress that ID is a belief, not a fact, not even a theory?

Why not stress that life begins at conception is a belief, a religious belief not supported anywhere -- at all -- in the Bible?

Why not stress that virtually all the founding fathers, regardless of personal beliefs, agreed that keeping godism out of the Constitution was a good thing? The Scalia-Thomas originalists might not like that too much but it is a fact that God was kept out of the Constitution deliberately.

Why should progressives keep playing by the rules of the godists? Their arguments are virtually without exception screwed by any logical measure. What is so wrong with calling a kook a kook?

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

In the theory of organic evolution the first living organism developed from nonliving matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said to have changed into different kinds of living things, producing ultimately all forms of life that have ever existed on earth, including humans.

All of this is believed to have been accomplished without intelligent direction, right?

If evolution is to be presented as a fact, then it should be established as such by scientific method.

! Observe what happens (we are here)
2 Based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true
3 Test your theory by further observation and experiments
4 Watch to see if predictions based on the theory are fulfilled.

It has not ever been possible to observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no evidence that it is happening now or that it has ever happened in the past. No humans were around when you evolutionists say it was happening either. No theory regarding evolution has been verified by observation. The gaps in the fossil record are huge as well. No laboratory experiment has been able to repeat it and no predictions based on the theory of evolution have been fulfilled.

So here you are, making fun of Christians and others who believe in creation when in fact you have created a mythology of your own.

You'd have people believe that what, after a long effort, could not be proved to have taken place and is not taking place today had in truth taken place at some time in the primeval past.

That makes your evolution theory fall into the category of scientific religion. It cannot be explained with facts, only through faith. You're no better than the creationists you criticize.

Darwinism and survival of the fittest still doesn't explain where life came from in the beginning. The fittest survive, but where did they come from?

It doesn't explain why humans give birth to humans, lions to lions, sheep to sheep, etc... nor does it explain how there came to be two sexes of every beast, bird and fish that populate our earth. It doesn't explain where the earth came from either for that matter or the sun that sustains our planet or the solar system.


Explain to me now please how Creationist and Intelligent design believers are ignorant and you are so much better than them.

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

Whether faithful or atheist, created or evolved, folks will be folks - unable to 'fess up to their limitations.

For anyone to claim that God created the world in an exact and known (to us) manner has never read the first chapter of Genesis, or chooses to ignore it. There is currently, among Christians of good faith, a debate as to the meaning of Genesis. Some see room for evolution. Some agree with special creation, but understand that time, as we experience it, did not exist at Creation, or the Big Bang. As the debate is unprovable by scientific standards, the debate has no place in science class.

Moreover, the Bible teaches we are fallen creatures - how are we to have perfect insight into the Divine? The mere fact of all the denominations of Christianity is prime facie evidence we err in our interpretation.

Science is the observation and testing of natural events. How can we expect science to provide insight into the Supernatural?

It is one thing, and should not be controversial, to say science cannot observe or 'prove' God. The Bible says as much; "faith is the evidence of things hoped for, the substance of things not seen..."

It is another thing to claim, as a consequence, God does not exist. This is bias, plain and simple, and science,ultimately is supposed to eliminate bias. Science cannot disprove God, either.

Adding to the problem is some scientists play are careless with words, such as the word 'fact.' Forever, it has been a fact that dinosaurs are reptiles. Now science is saying that dinosaurs may be more like birds.

To a layman, 2+2=4 is a fact - unchanging, and not open to dispute.

Science has done a disservice to itself among layman in this manner. Mega-doses of Vitamin E are good for you, then it's not. HRT is good for you; wait a minute, maybe not. Evolution is a steady state event (taught when I was young); evolution proceeds with stops and starts.

I would advise more use of the word theory (and not just with regards to evolution), and less of the word fact.

A little honest humility on both sides of this one would go a long way.

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

Calling I.D. pseudo-science is too kind. It's untestable and unobservable. It stands up to no part of the scientific method.
I think what is scariest about I.D. is that it's just more noise to confuse young people. I'm only 22, but looking back on my childhood in Mississippi, it's really amazing that I believe what I do. I chalk it up to having a family that let the kids believe and learn what they wanted, and that appetite for knowledge and science that was encouraged by that upbringing. But if I had parents and teachers feeding me a lot of garbage about Creationism (which I didn't, despite going to Catholic school), I'm not sure what I'd believe. Kids are incredibly suggestible, and it's important we give them the means to make rational observations, more than giving them absolute explanations.

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

"The Trojan Horse is already well within the inner gates". Wow! So true...so true. It seeme that EVERY advance that humanity has benefitted from has been at the end of an uphill battle against ignoramuses who seldom know what they're talking about, who baldly state opinion as fact, and who never had an original thought enter their nasty little minds. What makes you think it's any different now?

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

The clinching argument is, ultimately, that the evolution model provides explanation for and accommodates faith-devotee humans, versus that the faith-devotion model does NOT provide explanation for and accommodation with evolution-learned humans. Evolution theory contains faith-set mental cases examples, but faith-based behavior does not contain evolution-idea mental cases.

I hesitate with this article for its pedigree: From HuffingtonPost it came to AlterNet. The prior site features celebration comments and the latter site (here) draws arguing-to-disruption comments, (C'est vrai, j'accuse: trolls ! Delegated AlterNet trolls ! )
My bias flavors my criticism of the article for being too soft. Good polemics, bad logic. (In other words: Demeaning or suspending science for argument's sake is not 'sake' enough to set beside science.) There is a solid 'proof' of science, more rigorously worded than the article's call to make it "obvious to everyone" by saying it "emphatically," and the article's deferential allowance for idiomatic 'truth' when "commonplaces of language conceal ... our beliefs," (language alone can 'un-conceal' so do its job, don't do of-a-par 'commonplace').

Science's rigor, and entirety, simply worded: reproducible results. As in: I measure the force of gravity, then you measure it, or when anyone measures it -- all measurements reproduce the same result. Reproducing results does not make the force of gravity REAL, it makes it a FACT. Sufficient for logic, substantive to reason, material in law.

Unmeasureables -- indistinguishable from magic -- can be guessed into being, unmeasured, in the universe. Which does not make the universe REAL, either, nor make the guess a FACT. Only as far as every guess reproduces the same resulting 'unmeasureable' is it a FACT. So far, (in humankind's evolvement), one result reproduced in every guess of 'unmeasureable' existence, is that there is a 'something' there, there is a 'there' there. Some 'unmeasureable' exists, (colloquially) 'everybody' guesses so -- THAT much is a scientific FACT, and only that much.

It's a fact something unmeasureable exists, it's not a fact that it is whatever your idea of it is. Get reproducible results.

[Click on sub-comment to continue.]

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

Martin Luther King was a baptist minister and he did more for peace in this country than any one person before or since, by preaching love and acceptance. The cross can feasibly be used as a symbol of good.

Also : The Reverend Billy Graham said recently that, "without separation of church and state, we would have neither." (no I am not comparing him to MLK, but)

Point: Science is a tool that can either be used for good or not. Similarly, religion can either be used for good or not. We shouldn't completely abandon either one. We just need to learn how to make good use of both religion & science.

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

"Intelligent design" is the religious right's backdoor attempt to sell its so-called "creation science" (an oxymoron as great as "holy war," in my view) by means of the science-related fact that some scientists hold the personal, subjective belief that only a "higher power" could have created the universe, and in particular our planet, as it has evolved. This way of thinking works fine as a personal philosophy, but was never intended by any serious scientist to be a scientific theory.

It is disheartening, to say the least, to see the religious extremists co-opt real scientists' spiritual beliefs to sell their own attempts to undermine evolution, not to mention their phony semantic argument that every "theory" is just as valid as every other by deliberately misusing the word "theory" to mean "guess." The fact is that "intelligent design" is a belief, a matter of faith, while evolution is a scientifically rigorous theory that is borne out by ALL of the objective evidence.

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

now if we could combine the intelligent thoughts here with the intelligent thoughts in the blog next door on the Religious Left Fights Back,
We would have an interesting movement ... Michael Lerner has given voice to something he is calling the Network of Spiritual (consciousness) Progressives. Many of us dropped out in the 60's and 70's to explore our own evolution, these last 30 years, and with the happenings of the last 5 years, I for one am in shock … how did our county get so dumbed down ... just Poss. America needs our voices … maybe it is time for us to come out of our consciousness caves, just possibly we are what is needed... the March of Radical Mystics ... isn’t that where we thought the evolution of consciousness was heading until the fundamental religious of the West and Mid-East went into hypermode ... they are attempting to put the genie back in the bottle, and fighting over who is going to control the lid. The question is not just materialism, the fundamentalist are equally at war with the mystics whether Liberal Theology in the West or Sufi’s in the Middle East, both have been under extreme attack by the fundamentalists on both sides. Or is it true, that the hidden secrets of meditation, yoga, and inquiry into the nature of Reality from the desert and jungle are meant to be kept secret, given how things are going it is hard to say...

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

When we talk about Intellligent Design supporters, we're talking pretty much about the Discovery Institute and it surrogates. They are not a 'scientific' organization with a political agenda ... they are a political organization with an ideological agenda. They love it when opponents try to argue on the merits of the science. Their constituany doesn't understand the evidence and doesn't care.

The Institute enjoys financial and political support from both Old Earth and Young Earth Creationists, as well as Hard Right Corporatists, because they have promised a Wedge Strategy that will eventually "undo the pernicious effects of scientific materialism" -- which is, basically, all the social, economic and political reforms of the past 200 years.

The point being ... as long as we debate Evolution vs Creationism on the evidence ... we lose. The Discovery Institute has taken that into account ... their talking points include the idea that in a complex argument "people will be convinced by the most emotionally attractive position" regardless of its merits.

Actually, every trial lawyer knows this ... utimately the case is about "the Story" -- what the jury wants to believe -- often in spite of the evidence.

The Discovery Institute has made the progress that it has because it has the most appealing Story -- the Universe IS 13.5 billion years old, creatures DO evolve ... but G-d is in charge nonetheless. Isn't that what all Modernists would really like to believe? Science observes ... Faith reveals

The remarkable thing is that so few practicing scientists joined the Institute or endorsed the book Pandas and People.

And the reason is obvious: ID does not advance by offering supportable arguments ... it rallies political support ... and crushes the opposition with persistance and organization -- while biologists try to explain how DNA sequencing proves that " People are descended, not from monkeys, exactly, but from some common ancestor of both Men and Monkey, which isn't mentioned in the Bible, and whose exact identity we're not really certain about -- here just look at the genome map, and do the math"

The President doesn't 'do the math'

But he recognizes a popular sentiment when it offers him a voting demographic.

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

There are a great deal of posts indicting the faithful with being homogeneous, and more likely than others to be biased.

The facts differ.

One fact is, is if you ask 4 Baptists a theological question, you may get 5 different answers. Look at all the different denominations. Homogeneous? Hardly.

Among the 'faithful', there certainly ARE those with a political agenda - just watch Robertson at work. But the fact remains, just as many are right wing, there are many Christians who are liberal or apolitical - just like the rest of the country.

The statement "all Christians are ..." is just as inaccurate, and just as offensive as "all blacks are...".

Moreover, while science is eventually unbiased, scientists can be very biased.

How else to explain some scientists working in the aid of the petroleum or tobacco industries, while others work for Greenpeace or the NIH?

We find it very easy to believe a man of the cloth can desecrate his vows. Why is it not just as easy to believe a man in a lab coat can do the same?

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

Hey CREATIONISTS, consider this. With all of those books out there on creation, there is not one scientific book in the world which supports creation, which has been PEER-REVIEWED by a panel of scientists. Never will be.

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

Much of what is missing in the debate is on the astronomical side. Here also data is shaking things up. Not only are we seeing much more enormous and elegant complexity by our newer abilities to see small things, but our advances in astronomy and physics are also showing an extreme degree of fine tuning in the universe. This is why the hyper-intelligent have tended to believe there was a God on the basis of evidence and reason, although many times reluctantly. The media is very slow to catch up on this, but in the last 6 months many of the smartest people on the planet are starting to say that what they are seeing is beginning to look like the God of the bible. We can call those who have faith idiots if we want but what are you going to do with Newton, Einstein, Hawking (who talks about the mind of God and mentions that if we ever do reduce things to an equation, that it will be so elegant that it would be evident that a creator was behind it), Collins (who heads the human genome project) etc. Its not just complexity in biology that is making many scientists think that 4 billion years isn't enough time, but also an extremely high measure of fine tuning in the universe that is making those without faith in astronomy begin to postulate some ridiculous things in order to get around the obvious. The universe is fine tuned, and had a beginning. In the beginning God created. There's a whole lot more reason, logic and data behind the Christian "faith" than most are aware, but the media is really way behind what's going on in the sciences. It would take a whole lot of faith to believe that the big bang started from nothing. I would love to see an equation attempted by the materialists to show how they cover this extreme leap of faith they have.

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

We're born.
We die.
We know
Not why.

What is it
About us
That makes
Such a fuss?

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

Why have the self-stylized proponents of incorporation of controversy into science education chosen evolution, and only evolution, as the target? There are many scientific theories that have valid criticisms in the scientific literature that are both more firmly rooted in science and less inflammatory than ID. The ID proponents go out of their way to assure people that they have no motivation other than the good of our children and science at heart, why not choose one of those?

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

I just read the article, and am probably the 100th person to say this, but, sweet mother of god. 28%???????????!!!!!!! That's it, I've lost faith in America, thank zeus I am Canadian. The only people here (even in redneck Alberta) who don't beleive in evolution are my grandparents, and only one set of them, the other set believes in evolution as a tool of god. I have my own qualms with evolution (there are a few inconsistencies, but like all theories, it will change as we gather more knowledge), but that does not mean endorsing a theory as far fetched as creationism. Thats like saying "the marble I am dropping on the ground doesn't always hit the same place on the carpet. This must mean Aliens control gravity".

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

Well maybe he is onto something here.....

When you believe in natural selection and surivival of the fittest it is really does seem unlikely that something like him and the other idiots of the far right exist as they really should have been bread out of existance.

So maybe there is some idiotic designer karl rove like figure up there pulling the strings.

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

I agree with much of what Estel said in "My dogma is better than your dogma". The mutual exclusivity of science and faith is nonsense just as Stephen Jay Gould said. Insisting on the atheistic purity of science that you seem to demand will only serve to hasten "intelligent design" into the science classroom where it absolutely does not belong.

I'm glad you smugly think that religious people are stupid (they smugly think you're going to hell, so I guess you're even). But religion is deeply integrated into American culture and it's not going to go away just because you wish it would. It shouldn't have to go away. It is a part of our American heritage. But demanding that the religious sit down and shut up is not only a form of cultural imperialism, it will only get their backs up more and ensure that religious people want to gain a greater hand in places where religion does not belong (such as the White House or the public school classroom).

Liberals are not en masse thumbing through Scripture. Those of us who aren't Christian don't give a damn. But I am neither so arrogant nor so naive as to believe that a person cannot be both faithful and well-grounded in science.

You use the theocratic, fundamentalist desire to merge church and state as if it's some sort of evidence for picking either the religious team or the secular team. For most of us, the world is not so black and white. Someone as well-grounded in science as yourself should have a better grasp of logic than this demonstrates.

If you want the faithful to keep their nose out of government and public schools, then keep your nose out of their religion and stop telling us what we can and can't believe. Science is not a matter of belief, but a matter of empiricism. Therefore what we believe should be of no concern at all to the scientific community.

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

I like the fact that a lot of the anti-IDers are coming out of the woodwork. I'd be happy to speak/email/discuss these issues w/ some of you via wikipedia (or even in person):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:H2oaso

Just to let you know I'm a proponent of ID.

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

I just realized it myself, after posting several responses to some of the respondents.

You're continuing to play their game: you're covering a talking point that is used as propaganda to polarize voters. "Divide and conquer" mean anything to you? Take a look at your comments section and notice how the majority are essentially caught in argument (and most likely, how many will actually engage in future mutual discussion).

Back to the drawing board (not that this pro-ID liberal has any hope for the future of the Dem party, or this country for that matter).

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

I don't know who I have less respect for-- the agnostic/atheist ideologue or the evangelical one. Eight decades after the Scopes Trial, most people still seem unable to discuss this issue. Few seem to listen, retreating to pre-defined positions. Discussion can only work with an open mind, a fair amount of skepticism, and respect for all willing to abide by those precepts.

The chasm between theology and science is great and nowhere more than in the world of Biology. To bridge the gap one must accept that theology is a type of philosophy and is in no way a natural or physical science. Likewise, Biology (general meaning) is not a philosophy or a theology and should not be presented as such. Where they collide is in attempting to seek and explain truth. Biology attempts to describe physical processes that result in actions or effects while Theology attempts to describe why things are based upon a largely different set of observations. To force a philosophy on a scientific argument or a posit of science on a philosophical construct is to attempt to answer a binary question with option 'C'.

My objection is where and when people from every side of this subject attempt to mix their theology and physical science, and this happens on BOTH sides. Many in academia try to use evolutionary theory as a battering ram to advance their personal theological viewpoints in the classroom. Those on the other side are attempting to advance their philosophy in a classroom of science. There is a place for both, but in their proper place.

I also believe that the biological sciences are being held back by their almost theological attachment to evolutionary theory. There are major holes to be filled in modern evolutionary theory, but what avenues are approached is very political. Anything that challenges certain 'sacred' precepts is dismissed out of hand. The 'High Priests' of Evolutionary Theory need to make sure that they are not modern-day Popes punishing a Biological Galileo or Copernicus. Good Science DEMANDS an open mind.

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

I am a moderate. I believe in God and his word(faith). At the same time I believe in science as a method to seek the truth(reason). I do not agree with those that see no God; nor with those that reject science. I believe that God reveals his truth thru his word and thru science-thru faith and thru reason. When science finds the truth - God is there because he is TRUTH. Scientific theories only approximate the truth; faith only allows us to "look thru a glass darkly". Neither are perfect in their revelation of truth.

The true danger is extremism and dogmatism- whether in christians or muslim radicals. Extremism is ignorance and is widespread in our society. Extremism is a byproduct of terrorism and fear and produces more and more violence and ignorance as people turn inward and away from each other. It is only by keeping our moderate majority alive and well educated that our democracy can survive. We must resist extremism and close-mindedness and strive to be balanced between reason and faith.

Consider the fact that only 10% of adults in the u.s. have a college education. Is it any wonder that only 28% of Americans believe in evolution? This lack of belief is based on their ignorance of science. Another sign of their ignorance is the crumbling of our democracy which requires an educated populace to function well.

Are we trying to turn back to the middle ages before the age of reason?Are we becoming like the muslim radicals that are against anything modern? Are we so afraid of the future that we are embracing the past?

As for the author's last point "The spirit of mutual inquiry, which is the foundation of all real science, is the very antithesis of religious faith" I would respond that inquiry is actually equivalent to questioning one's faith-which makes our faith stronger not weaker. Never questioning one's own beliefs-as practiced by conservative christians - is the definition of arrogance and pride which is the sin of the Pharasees that Jesus condemned. Jesus called for us to be humble over and over again in the scriptures.

As for God's " intelligent design" He created man with intellect as well as faith. I dont believe his will is for us to exercise only one of these innate abilities. It is up to us to use both.

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

The right's apparent strategy for controlling the natural sciences is to undermine any public consensus which stands in the way of its goals. Whether the issue is global warming, evolution or any other political or social issue, the strategy appears to be the same, and it's simple: create enough doubt and confusion so that the public can't discover what's true. If a thousand scientists say global warming or evolution is a fact, the right will trot out one scientist who disagrees, and then declare that the prevailing view is too questionable to be acceptable. Moreover, the right then deflects attention from what it's doing by claiming that its people are being attacked when, in fact, they are the ones doing the attacking.

The right has more than enough money, organizations, followers and media control to create a great fog of disinformation. And, the right knows that it's much easier to spread false information and deceptive reasoning than it is to correct them. As a result, that the opposition is kept on the defensive, occupied by scurrying about trying to correct the errors and clean up the mess left behind without ever fully catching up. And that's a major reason why the right has been so successful.

The left will succeed only when it comes up with an equally effective strategy to get ahead of the game and place the right on the defensive.

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

I am a believer in Christ, though very different from the religious kooks running this country.
As a true believer, I have nothing in common with the war mongering, "other" hating, false jesus, worshipping, nationalistic leaders, running the churches, (and our government.)
In fact, I only go to church out of respect, when someone is born, dies, or gets married.
Jesus was a homeless man who loved everyone, especially the despised, and wouldn't have kept his love from a homosexual, a Muslim extremist, or even a liberal.
It's amazing how filled with hate and fear all of our religious and civic leaders are.
As Jesus said, perfect love casts out all fear. And so it would be in all those who would believe in Him.
As far as the argument between Intelligent Design vs Evolution goes, -in their being at odds with each other, -I beg to differ. I believe they co-exist, and that evolution is God's working hand of creation.
As a college educated, liberal, non-religious, believer, I feel they are both correct.

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

Since I had diarrhea of the mind in my previous post I'll throw my nickels worth in here.

Intelligent Design paints black and white that which begs for representation in all imaginable colors and some that have yet to be named. Creation science is just a bad acid trip, or perhaps one too many Krispy Kreme donuts.

The guys that steal suckers form little kids in baby carriages are responsible for this. Bush Sr. can't be too proud of a son that is clearly in absentia from a village in Texas, nor can Karl Roves parents feel giddy about a son that conceivably carries a portrait of Nixon around in his wallet, and perhaps has one with decorative votive candles hanging in the family room. Lots of money and bad background information can convince a great deal of people that the world is flat, or that shopping at Walmart is a sign of wealth. ID is best idea they can buy right now to shove right down our collective gullets

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

Well written, convincing, but unfortunately, misguided. I ask that people in support of the article check this out with an open mind:

http://www.carm.org/evolution.htm

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