Top that with the fact that religious mythology (of ANY religion), as a means of explaining how reality works, has been debunked and proven false time and again throughout history. One group claiming that their mythology is any more valid than another's on the basis that you have faith in your religion being the "true" religion is like saying a Flying Spaghetti Monster made everything without having any evidence to back it up.

Do you hear that sucking sound? That's the IQ of the residents of the state of Texas. Draining away, draining away...going...going...gone!!

If these textbooks were simply distributed in the state of Texas, I couldnt care less about this. Unfortunately, the decisions made in Texas regarding textbooks have national implications in terms of what versions are printed.

I have a hypothesis. One day, a giant goldfish laid a stringy turd in a fishbowl and BAM!, the big bang occurred. By their logic, we should include this theory in the textbook as well. It has the exact same scientific data supporting it as "Intelligent Design" does - ZILCH.

So true! Nice South Park referrence btw!

.

It would be nice to see these religious "activists" take a flying leap off a cliff to "explore other sides" of the theory of gravity.

I love how evolution is called is still called a 'theory'.

humansmatter --- It will always be called a theory, just like atomic theory or cell theory. In science, the term "theory" is not an intermediate step to anything else. It is an end in itself.

Exactly. Evolution, like the other theories listed, is both a theory and a fact. There's the fact of gravity: you drop a feather and it will fall, and there's the theory of gravity we've developed that explains the mechanism. The same is true of evolution. There's the fact that species change through inheritance over time, and there's the theory we've developed that explains the mechanisms that interact to do so.

Evolution is a theory, as is electromagnetism, gravity and others. There are two primary differences. Evolution has better scientific support than the others and more opposition from non-scientists. A scientific theory can NEVER be proven; it can be supported by evidence. Or, it can be disproved by evidence (see alchemy). The theory of evolution has been slightly modified to better fit the evidence since it was first proposed, but it remains overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.

A religious belief, likewise, can never be proven. Neither can it be disproved. Unlike a scientific theory, a religious belief has no value in predicting what will happen in a given situation. By simply saying, that's the way god (God, GOD, Goddess?) made things, there's no scientific value to it. If something different happens, then you just say "God did it that way." If it makes somebody feel better to have that belief, so be it. But to teach such a belief (Creationism, Hinduism's creation story, those of the American Indians, or anyone else's) as a science is WRONG and counterproductive.

Technically next is law. But a theory is a construct based on its ability to explain and predict the observable evidence and Law is not absolute, so I guess theory and law are basically almost the same. Perhaps law is a long standing theory yet to be modified/disproven

A hypothesis is lower than a theory in that it is essentially an educated guess based on finding correlations in the evidence and looking for a descriptive coefficient.

Creationism is not a theory, it is not even a hypothesis as it makes no mention of new observable evidence and has no predictive value because no coefficient can be defined with such an explanation.

Creationism is merely an idea, something with the same level of support as insisting the world is balanced on the back of an elephant standing atop a tortoise...and that it is turtles all the way down.

Why does Texas want to go back to the dark ages?

...wow

Who cares what evolution is called; just look around you and you know that living things evolve, except of course in Texas, where they're still in the middle ages. It is this archaic thinking that results in our deplorable educational system. Finland has an educational system far superior to ours (they actually put emphasis on THINKING); check and see what they teach.

That's because we're a species that has evolved to look for patterns in everyday life. Belief in fairy tale deities is an unfortunate side-effect of this. It's just how we're hardwired, nothing more.

riley: "things are looking their worst the first place anyones heart goes is out to God.."

That's fine, but it is religion, not science. The debate here is not whether there is a God (although it always ends up there), but a debate over the scientific study oif what actually happened. Whether God had anything to do with it is a totally separate and very non-scientific question.

riley -- what you said proves nothing, and religion and evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It's my understanding the Pope believes in evolution and I would assume he believes in God. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, but there is ample proof of evolution.

Texas needs to secede. They need to be a country into it'self, because it really is not apart of America.

They want to be the State of Ignorance and I say let them. Just don't force it on the rest of Americans.

Science has prove how man evolved and how Earth was formed. Life is not as mysterious as it was in the "Dark Ages"

Hooray form progress. Texas ls a very regressive State. I guess it has earned the name LONE STATE for a reason.

An excellent example on today's MSNBC that shows evolution:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43842054/

From what I've read over the last couple of years, those TX creationism fanatics are very, very scary people. And a couple of years ago, the NY Times ran a story about how the textbooks and the content that's in them that are bought by TX, usually are also sold to other states as well since TX is such a large state, they buy a lot of books and that's what's available. Scary stuff.

Creationists feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but they have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

Robert, for one thing, the orion of life is separate from evolution.

Secondly, we could not create life even if we knew how it was done. Life itself made it impossible for new life to be started. The atmosphere is now full of oygen, the most reactive substance in existence, and if by some miracle the oxygen didn't tear apart any nascent life, the ubiquitous bacteria certainly would.

I don't see what the problem is... People are going to believe what they believe. Its as if someone thinks that these kids will somehow be poisoned by the exposure. Get over it people.

And by the way, scientific theories are called theories because they cannot be proven. The beauty of science is that it incessantly seeks to disprove its own postulates. Evolution has its holes, as do creationist theories.

Here's my question: what does evolution say about our the development of rational thought? That's the thing that distinguishes us from every other species...

First Riley, thank you for your service.

However, I think you somewhat contradict yourself...

You say this about a Marine I presume was one of the atheists you were speaking of:

One of them, bleeding from shrapnel wounds to the mid section, whose lower half was essentially torn apart, started to show signs of peace in his face and told us not to worry because God would take it from here.

Then you say this:

I would rather believe in God and biblical teachings than be wrong when I die then the other way around.

But if your first statement is true -- and that Marine never believed in God, yet died in peace anyway -- what difference does it make if you believe in "biblical teachings"?

That tells me that "biblical teachings" aren't necessary and have nothing to do with spirituality.

Robert

Scientist are growing mice brains in labs that actually respond to stimuli.

When attached to artificial devices they follow commands.

@Bilal

Scientific theories are called theories until they are proven, then they become fact... like gravity.

Robert - The fossil record supports evolutionary theory in all ways. It is only part of the evidence, of course, but it's clincher.

And be careful quoting Darwin. He was wrong about many things, and we have come a long way since then.

Wilberta

Creating mice brains from existing living tissue isn't the issue. It is creating life from non-living matter.

Researcher Hubert P. Yockey, who supports the teaching of evolution, states: “It is impossible that the origin of life was ‘proteins first.’” RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. What if, despite the extremely small odds, both proteins and RNA molecules did appear by chance in the same place at the same time? How likely would it be for them to cooperate to form a self-replicating, self-sustaining type of life?

“The probability of this happening by chance (given a random mixture of proteins and RNA) seems astronomically low,” says Dr. Carol Cleland, a member of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Astrobiology Institute. “Yet,” she continues, “most researchers seem to assume that if they can make sense of the independent production of proteins and RNA under natural primordial conditions, the coordination will somehow take care of itself.” Regarding the current theories of how these building blocks of life could have arisen by chance, she says: “None of them have provided us with a very satisfying story about how this happened.”

For seriously_noreality. Scientific laws and theories are separate and not tiered versions of the same thing. Scientific laws such as Keplar's law of planetary motion describe what is happening and allow you to make predictions of future events based upon current configurations. However, the Theory of Relativity explains why something is the way it is and doesn't just make predictions about the future. Here's another example. Newton's law of gravity makes predictions about the gravitational attraction of objects but doesn't attempt to explain why that's the case. Hence it's a law. Einstein's theory of relativity attempts to explain how gravity is the result of large bodies distorting space and time around them. Hence, a scientific theory.

So, to recap, Theories are explanations of why events occur the way they do. You change a theory if it doesn't fit evidence. As a matter of fact, hypotheses or attempts at theories aren't even given Theory status until they've been tested several times and there is no other hypothesis that better explains the evidence.

Scientific laws are descriptions of events that haven't changed. 2nd Law of thermodynamics states that given a closed system, you cannot decrease the temperature without performing work on the system. There are other ways to state this but I like this one. This law doesn't attempt to explain why this is the case, only that it is the case and no counter example has been given.

If one were to rank scientific hypothesis, law, and theory you'd probably place theory on the top since it does the most important job of giving you explanations of why something occurs which leads to a better understand of the physical space around you as well as new technological advances.

Theory of Relativity explains how you have to study particle accelerators. It explains how your GPS must be adjusted to take into account the time dilation from being further away from the earth. However, scientific laws such as the Law of gravity don't usually go beyond telling you that something will occur again, unless you come up with a Theory of Gravity to explain why the Law of gravity is the way it is.

Most things we will take as fact in science like evolution and gravity are always going to be theories. The idea that all things in science move from hypothesis to theory and then law that people get taught in school does not reflect reality. Scientific "Laws" are mathematically proven rules like Newton's laws of motion that while discovered through empiric observation are subject to mathematical proof. Even then they may require revisions. Theory is any principle in science which has been demonstrated through evidence. Evolution is a theory, as is gravity, as is the circulation of blood through the human body.

Being called a law doesn't even indicate the science supporting it is better, Einstein lead to a lot of that. Calling something a law is less to do with the level of support so much as the role it plays.

Robert - We don't know how life began, OK? But we do know how it evolved.

riley-1759556

Fading into blackness and functioning in life as a talking ape, which everyone is so convinced is a reality would lead a great many to simply throw themselves off a bridge if they knew the true implications of this.

Probably true that a percentage would, some people are insecure and have trouble facing reality alone. But if belief in God is all that is keeping the majority of faithful from ending it, then we certainly have larger problems.

Many people though, live just to live and not in hopes of some ethereal eternal reward.

I take no issue with individuals using religion as a source of hope, or as a community outreach center or even a social club, but we need to recognize its limits when it comes to our understanding of the physical world.

Are you sure that the evidence found in the fossil record is the "clincher" for Evolution?

Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist, states that the fossil record shows, not that there is a gradual accumulation of change, but that for long periods of time, “little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species.”

To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils and billions of small fossils. This vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged.

Based on the fossil record that exists today (that didn't exist in Darwin's day), what would Darwin conclude today?

“If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.” (The Origin of Species, New York, 1902, Part Two, p. 83).

I demand that they spend 1 trillion of taxpayers children and grandchildren's dollars obeying the law. The law clearly states that they must 'explore all sides' of creation arguments. I demand, or I will sue texas into oblivion that they teach every single religion in the world, ending up with Buddhism, Scientology, Tolkienism, Nordic and Celtic beliefs, and finally, the one and only one true truth in our universe, the fact that the universe and all humankind was created by the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster (and not his evil twin satanic brother: The Great Pumpkin). Now if after 20 hours a day for 10 years, they have time to teach anything else, they can spend a few hours on such hedonistic activities like reading, writing, arithmetic, science, trades, business, cooking, farming, etc. ) We'll have plenty of time to do all this becuase nobody in the US will have any marketable skills so they won't have jobs. We'll just all live off of the government because they owe us our religious freedoms. We'll just put a food plate in front of the treasury building and light some incense (Buddha Provide). Long live the government payroll! I love it when they pass laws that we all have to follow or be doomed to eternal hell. Where is hell? Why that's easy. The quickest route into hell is to hire a lawyer for a quick resolution of a moral problem.

Ramen!

Spider, It doesn't take a great mind to open your eyes, look around at the world with modern eyes and see what's going on around you. We can now explain how the Sun and planets were formed, stages in the EVOLUTION of the Earth from primordial to present, how birds evolved from therapod dinosaurs, etc. We are now able to trace an organism's evolution through a vast period of time. We are miles ahead of our ancestors in basic knowledge, and and you can't compare apples and oranges. If an 18th century scientist knew what we know now, and the omnipotent church stays out of the way, no doubt he would come to the same conclusions as modern scientists.

And neither I nor any thinking person could say how life started. We can, however, say how it has evolved,

Thanks for clarifying, I wasn't entirely aware of the differences between law and theory.

However, I am aware that a theory is a theory because it is testible, a hypothesis is an educated guess based on the evidence but has not been tested.

Now, as for Texas. Until scientists are allowed to teach children evolutionary theory in Church, I'd say that Church has no business trying to inject its teachings into a science course

religion ≠ science

Let's leave religion to a religion course, and give equal weight to ALL major world religions and their beliefs rather than this pathetic attempt at trying make Christiainity more credible to young and impressionable minds by putting its exclusive spin on existence in a science course.

@ riley-1759556

Fear of death is a powerful motivator to want to believe that one doesn't really cease to live when they are approaching expiring. It is not proof of a higher power.

There's more supporting evidence for evolution then almost any other scientific "theory" - which means something totally different then what the doubters think it means. Someone show me hard data that the earth revolves around the sun! That gravity exists! How about atoms - sure can't see those! If you truly believe in a God then you're going to look at everything as though God exists. It's called confirmational bias. The thing about science is that it must stand up to the test of time and data. Sometimes I wonder about this world - but I have faith in Darwin!!!!

Robert-3780389

Citation is needed on your post.

Who are these researchers, where did they come from, and where did they get their education?

Improbable =/= impossible.

No self respecting statistcian would equate these as being the same because they AREN'T!

Life is not being created spontaneously, it is coming from these chemicals. All chemicals are nonliving, theses chemicals are composed of elements, all elements are nonliving. You are composed of the same elements, everything is composed of elements. Life is based on interactions these elements have with each other resulting in compounds and alternated energy states. Over millenia of interactions, they grow more complex and developed and have come to be defined as life.

Science is "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions." No form of religion qualifies as science because it is faith base (it can not be tested!) The fact that some individuals try and qualify their believes as scientific doesn't surprise me as it has been occuring as long as documented history, but it is an insult to science in the developed world of knowledge we live in today.

Oh this is just plain embarrassing in the 21st century. Enough of these moronic creationists deciding anything for anybody---

Robert: "Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist, states that the fossil record shows, not that there is a gradual accumulation of change, but that for long periods of time, “little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species.”

Did you ever wonder why Eldredge would still be a staunch evolutionist after saying that? Did you consider that maybe you didn't understand what he was trying to say? He meant simply that widespread species tend to be morphologically stable over long periods, and that most morphological change happens occurs in the relatively brief transitional periods. That is entirely consistent with everything else we know about evolution.

Easy, Robert:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Robert, you need to look up the punctuated equilibrium model. You're also misunderstanding the theory of evolution. First, animal species didn't remain unchanged, groups remained unchanged in certain respects because certain traits were beneficial to have. Why would a beneficial trait that is removed in a mutation give an organism a breeding advantage? It wouldn't. Hence certain sections remain the same due to the fact that a change in that section results in the death or sterility of the organism.

Now, for why these events occurred early. You have to remember that the term "early" is early in the geological sense. Not the "few years ago early" sense that you're used to. The term "suddenly" used by archeologist is actually a very very long period in number of years. We're talking 70-80 million years of the Cambrian explosion. Several ideas have been proposed to explain this ranging from massive changes in the earth atmosphere (Oxygen pollution) causing much of the biomass to die thereby freeing up niches for different forms of life. Another idea is that a genetic complexity was reached which allowed far more changes to the intra-cellular and extra-cellular functions.

Now, to answer why you haven't seen it since. Mutations that allow an organism to be better adapted to a particular niche removes competition for resources. If there are many many niches available, then mutations that normally wouldn't do much suddenly become very very useful to have because you have all these new niches to fill up. But today, most niches are already taken up by current residents. Hence, mutations that occur now or after the Cambrian explosion don't often give an organism a far better shot at reproduction then say the ability to start breathing oxygen because the good one (breathing oxygen) is done by everyone.

Robert: "You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite a century of research that shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new."

You really don't understand what evolution is, do you? We have seen evolution occur (through mutation and/or natural selection) every bit as fast as anything evolved in the fossil record. Macroevolution is just microevolution over a much longer time scale. No organism ever gave birth to a diferent species.

Robert: "despite a fossil record that strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time."

That is absolutely false. Most of the evolutionary sequences are obvious.

NOTICE!! Just wanted everyone here to know that not everyone in Texas is a bible thumping nitwit. I live in Austin and it at least it is populated by realists with a brain. Of course it does have its fair share of Texicans that subscribe to the Catholic persuasion but it ain't like a real religion anyway. It allows you to drink, smoke and fool with your neighbor as long as you sit in the little 'I'm Sorry' booth and spill your beans to the dude in a dress next door. And Texicans are great to party with! Plus their doobs are killer!

Anyway, what were we discussing? Oh yeah....the 'evolution' thingy. There is no doubt in my mind that we humans and apes have a common ancestor. Have you ever heard of 'gene jumping'? It's when a long dormant gene all of a sudden comes back alive from the past and a baby comes out 'just not quite right' like a human baby that clearly shows characteristics of an ape. It happens quite often in Texas....we call them Governors.

Also Robert, from a genetics perspective, the chance that life generated from multiple instances vs one common ancestor has already been researched.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor

Universal common ancestor 10^2860 better chance when compared to multiple ancestors.

Better explaining the evidence we have is the whole point of science....accepting something without any evidence towards it or accepting it with evidence to the contrary is the whole point of religion.

Robert - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703559004575256470152341984.html This is not a complete new life form but it is a huge step in the process. They did inject an engineered genome into a bacterium that took over the cell. There has been results in regards to lipid organization that has been very successful, which is the basis of the outer membrane of the cell. Although this is not a complete new bacterium cell, the microbiologist are seriously close to acheiving this goal.

There are some who will vehemently deny this will happen but let's put it in perspective. A certain type of genetic treatment uses the housing of a virus, called a phlage, with engineered DNA to attack the cancerous DNA. People may want to believe in creationism or not believe in evolution, but if they have a terminal disease, then the theories of evolutionary biology will be used to try to heal you from this disease.

The issue of the origin of life needs to be removed from public schools altogether. There's too much controversy over it, and teaching it doesn't serve any useful purpose, anyway. The practical application of biology only comes from what we can observe presently.

I wouldn't want a public school teacher presenting creationism to my child when that is my task to begin with; and the theory of evolution ran into insurmountable problems at the molecular level over 10 years ago. Apparently, many people are ignorant of that, or they are in denial:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC16343/

Please notice that the above website presents an NAS paper published in 1999; it is not a theological website.

Robert-3780389, thank you for being the first to present some real evidence. In addition to what you have mentioned, there is also the puzzling mysteries of orphan genes and the existence of meiosis, just to name a few.

Robert: So you believe that Cain and his mom got jiggy to further the human race?

Steve: "and the theory of evolution ran into insurmountable problems at the molecular level over 10 years ago."

Um.... no. Please enlighten us. The article you cite certainly does nothing of the kind. Besides, it is about the origin of life, not its evolution.

I don't think anything about the origin of life is very often taught in schools. We don;t know how it happened, so all we could do was discuss some of the hypotheses, and there are more important things to cover.

Citations as requested:

The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.

A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.

Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”—(New York, 1980), p. 29.

Robert, we could have ZERO fossils, and still the theory of evolution would be recognizable as fact. Fossilization takes very specific geological conditions and is very rare. We're lucky to have ANY fossils, much less the plethora we have today.

Robert - First of all, quotes are not scientific evidence, especially when taken out of context.

You are talking about punctuated equilibrium again. In the first 2 quotes they are talking only about the varying rates of evolution, not whether it occurred. And I have heard Stephen Gould talk about how angry he gets when dishonest dimwits take that quote out of context to imply something agaonst evolution.

The next to quotes are about the "Cambrian explosion" which we now know to not be so abrupt as we thought. We HAVE found those earlier fossils.

The last quote is potentially true, but consistency is not proof. Whether or not a designer had a hand in evoution is not a testable scientific hypothesis.

One of the things that I always find fascinating about creationists in general is how ardently they stick to the one-God model. In general its ok to question science (after all, that's what scientists are SUPPOSED TO DO), but don't EVER question religion!

Everything in nature is in multitude, be it sub atomic particles or galaxies and quite possibly multiple universes. Why the heck would thereonly be one friggin god?

Oh yeah! I remember! It was that wierdo from a few thousand years ago who cut his own penis with a rock and tried to kill his son because the voices in his head told him to! Or was it the spoiled adopted son of an Egyptian Pharoah with a speech impediment and a whole lot of time on his hands on a mountain somewhere chipping messages into rocks? Either way, why would they be wrong?

Those Bronze Age shepherds racked with syphilis and epilepsy knew more about the world then than we do now! Why shouldn't we just arbitrarily take their beliefs literally and apply them today.

Now who's up for stoning some adulterers, I just got over my tennis elbow!

It is amusing how the uneducated call evolution fact when nearly no evidence supports it. The athiests want to believe live just evolved from non-life when all evidence shows that is impossible. Prominent scientists have concluded that Darwin was wrong and have proved it, yet the athiests want to ignore the truth while continuing to perpetuate lies in textbooks, afraid to see any views except their own presented in classrooms.

Theory does NOT become fact! T-H-E-O-R-Y does NOT become fact! Theories do not become facts! A fact was not once a Theory! Fact is not a step up from Theory! There is a bunch of facts and laws that go into a running car engine and all those collected facts and laws are the Theory in which your car engine is suppose to run. If I had a garage (Theory) I would put a bunch of stuff in it like bike (hypothesis) mower (facts) and cars (laws). I would even be able to modify my garage to accommodate other stuff. However, I would never turn my bike, mower, or car into a garage. Nor would I try to ride my garage into town. If this has not been made clear to you, religious or not, I would suggest 1st grade science. That's because we learn this stuff when we are introduced ito the scientific method in lower grades.

Robert That was so slimy of you to use that quote from Sagan. You pulled one sentence out of a paragraph where he argues that the idea of a creator is a fallacy. That paragraph argues that our fossil record might show evidence of a creator if you believed a creator would make as many starts and dead ends and creatures that he ended up killing off etc. He concludes the paragraph by saying that indeed our fossil record is not consistent with a creator. It should be a felony level crime to knowingly quote out of context like that!

Evolution is both a theory and a fact, just as gravity is both a theory and a fact.

There's the fact of evolution, that species develop over time through inherited traits, and there's the theory of evolution that we've figured out that explains the process. There's the fact of gravity, that a bowling ball falls to the ground, and there's the theory of gravity that explains the process.

Bob you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Some of Darwins original hypothesis has been discarded but the overall theory of evolution has not. You are just spouting what some creationist has told you. Now let the big boys discuss this while you move on to a discussion more suited to your anecdotes and false facts. Try a article about politics.

The Theory of Intelligent Design and the fact it incorporates Evolution in it's position...SURPRISE!!!! That is what makes it a 100 % different from biblical creationism......one is science and the other is religion. So simple that even a Cave Ma.......oops, an atheist can comprehend it.

RogueAmerican...what you say is that evolution and the big bang require something to start the process and suggest that that's who you envision as the creator, but you fail to answer the obvious question...how did your creator get there?

Does anyone know why Riley's comment was collapsed????

RogueAmerican- There are at least four very big assumptions in that very short statement. If you're wrong on any of them you are out of luck.

RogueAmerican - if you're never wrong then you're question to me is merely a test since you must know the answer. I don't like to be tested like that since you must just be toying with me with you're all knowing intellect.

The next person who says there is no scientific evidence for evolution should be slapped (figuratively. of course). If you don't have a decent education, at least don't pretend that you do.

Rogue American, I would say the "Pagan's" are in a huff due to creationists and proponents of intelligent design forcing religious faith into empirical science. And why are there only two sides, as you say? Why do you have a "my belief vs. your belief" mentality? Wouldn't it be better to have a "my facts vs. your facts vs. myriad facts"? Your kind of dichotomous BS is what stifles not only science, but also culture, politics, and just about everything else in American life. There are many sides to explaining the hows and whys of life...and sorry, but it doesn't boil down to Christian vs. non-Christian, especially since science will still be around long after your religion has gone the way of other mythologies.

Ok Darwinists. Show us how live evolved from non life. All the evidence points toward intelligent design. Explain the Cambrian explosion, lifes "big bang," 550 million years ago when all of the higher forms of life came about in a few million years with absolutley no fossils ever found showing any evolution of them prior to that time prior to that time. The only life shown to exist before that was simple and not related to the jump.

Miller,

The obvious question is something that will never be answered. There is not even a theory as to how the universe popped into existence from nothing, except intelligence creating it.

There is a book called Case for a Creator that is based entirely on science from experts in microbiology, astrophysics, and more with more degrees than most will ever have that will destroy your belief in Darwinism, if you have the guts to read it objectively and follow up on the sources it provides. Nearly all of the doctors interviewed were like you at one time - atheist or agnostic, including the author. Why they were originally disbelievers was because of the bs taught in their early school years. Now they are the experts and are believers in a creator-intelligent design, because that is where all science is pointing.

Miller, the obvious question that you can't answer, nor anyone else thru any kind of science is how the universe was created from nothing and how life was created from non-life. Read the book, get educated. You are not there yet because you keep believing in bs that is a dead end.

Btw, I was an atheist for over 50 years. The books you read in school were selected by a committee and forced on you by teachers following a curriculum selected by a committee that didn't bother to look further than themselves, and did us all a disservice. It is past time that changes.

The way Robert takes quotes from scientists reminds me of someone taking passages out of the Bible to bolster their own moral arguments. Context... the Bible is an interpretive piece of a cultures folk lore about a hero's quest. There are many hero quests exactly like the bible, the bible just became politicized.

Do I believe there is something larger than what a human being can perceive or know. Absolutely! If creationists can't get behind evolution what the hell are they gonna do with Quantum Physics when it becomes more main stream. Holographic theory, many worlds theory, the big bang, dimensional theory. Are these in dispute to? The universe is much larger than any book has written down and mankind has been around much longer than 12,000 years.

I suggest everyone go and see the new Herzog movie - Cave of Forgotten Dreams. Truly inspirational, a glimpse into the minds of our ancient ancestors and the spirit that has always been present in humans to know more and connect with our environment. This understanding and connection should evolve into a deeper humanistic and environmental world view. We progress as a race by accepting new ideas, as opposed to denying fact and clinging to the ideals of a more primitive epoch in our history.

RogueAmerican - I most certainly can't tell you where everything came from, however that does not mean therefore that a supernatural creator did create everything. I couldn't tell you the exact process how my cheerios get soggy in milk, but does that mean a god made them soggy? Science does not claim to know everything...it just claims to want to hypothesize, test, learn, re-hypothesize, test again until it gets a viable working Theory based on observation and the facts. That alone is more than religion ever would try to do. Religious people say..."I know for a fact that it was a creator for no other reasons than A...my book says so and B. Because I made someone who believes in science say that they don't know everything. Science says it's ok to not know until the facts and observation lead you to a reason to suggest an answer. Is that a problem with you? Religious people see that as a weakness, but the reasonable people see that as a strength.

So...to answer your question of "...can you tell me where everything came from?" I say yes I can! A giant walking evergreen tree with beer cans for pine cones created the universe 200 years ago. Oh you say that's silly and that there is no proof of that?! I say...show me the proof of your "him" god, that is in "heaven" waiting to automatically let you in as you say in your sentence "I'll let you know as soon as I get to Heaven to talk to him." You have exactly zero more proof of your god as I do for my beer canned evergreen tree. Maybe you should check out the website of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Bob: "Show us how live evolved from non life"

That isn't evolution. It's a different question. we do not know how life got started, but we DO know how it evolved once it did.

"with absolutley no fossils ever found showing any evolution of them prior to that time prior to that time"

This isn't true anymore Bob.

And none of this has any relations to God or atheism. Evolution is simply a scientific observation. The eistence of God is a completely independent debate.

Rogue you do realize that Pagans are those who believe in multiple gods?

Bob - I have read Strobel's "Case for a Creator". I found it completely unconvincing especially given the fact that all of his "scientists" are intelligent design believers and he is the pastor of an evangelical megachurch. Do you seriously believe that Strobel didn't have an agenda when writing that book??! There is nothing neutral about Strobel's book. I direct you to:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/creator.html

RogueAmerican: "Does anyone believe that current creationists don't agree with evolution?"

Some might, but most don't. I'm sure there are many that have a sophisticated merging of both, but your average fundamentalist clearly does not.

come on people, why did you collapse Riley?

so,he was a bit off topic, but he wasn't offensive, even with the implied (and wrong) statement that somehow faith equaled creationism.( it doesn't)

I actually find it annoying when people collapse comments simply because they diagree.

please, just collapse the truly offensive comments?

danwill - I totally agree. I didn't agree with anything Riley said, but it wasn't offensive by any stretch.

Perhaps, because of the threat to U.S. minds learning logical analysis, Intelligent Design SHOULD be taught in schools, and teaching it properly should include the following:

(a) Sociological aspects: Discussion of how certain subgroups of society feel threatened by radical advances in scientific knowledge and/or perspectives, e.g. the idea that the earth is not flat, e.g. the idea that the Earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa, e.g. the idea that diseases are caused by bacteria & viruses, and that birth defects are caused by gene disorders. Discussion of the length of years that it takes for revolutionary ideas to become widely accepted by almost everyone in a culture's population.

(b) Discussion of the differences between science and religion, how for human cultures science and religion address two different worlds of issues.

(c) Clear statements about 2 versions of "Creationism/Intelligent Design". Version #1: God created the world at some stage, totally unencumbered by laws of physics. Realization that if one accepts such unencumbered intervention in nature, then no proposal can be regarded as impossible: it would be just as possible that "God created everything we see & experience yesterday and God implanted a sense of memories & a sense of years past into our brains, and God implanted fossils & human graveyards & carbon-14 all around the globe when conducting this creation yesterday". Version #2: Some Intelligent Being(s) created the Earth's many species in the not-so-distant past. Science would still then analyze the question of the origin of this/these Intelligent Being(s), perhaps conjecturing that such a Being was Itself created by some other pre-existing Intelligent Being(s). Etc.

(d) Recognition that if one adheres to the mindset that God has radically intervened in the history of the cosmos by creating misleading appearances that include concocted apparent evidence of reality pre-existing before the beginning of time at the moment of such divine intervention, then the nature of science is significantly altered to be analysis of what appears to have been history without any secure knowledge that yesterday ever existed. Indeed, we must recognize that in this mindset there's chance that the planets & sun & stars don't truly exist since God might just be projecting images of them to us.

(e) Recognition that if one adheres to the mindset that things are as they appear to be, then a scheme of cosmic evolution and, on earth, a scheme of bio-evolution, are the most reasonable theories of the past currently available. Teaching should include that scientific theories themselves evolve, open to being re-framed and expanded or revised in the light of newly learned evidence of thought. So current bio-evolution theory is viewed as a framework of coherent analysis that is likely to be modified, but appears to be quite reliable in its broad brushstrokes.

@ Susi-Oh wrote

the Pope believes in evolution and I would assume he believes in God.

This quote highlights a problem with the English language that can affect people's thinking and contribute confusion to the evolution--Intelligent Design conversation. "Believe" means two radically different things in its two uses here. Belief in evolution (or calculus, etc.) is an analytical evaluation that the body of thought is logically reasonable, sufficiently likely, & sufficiently consistent with observation. Belief in God is an issue of the heart, relational, somewhat akin to believing in one's spouse or believing in one's children. It might be better to change vocabulary from "believe in some theory" to "accept some theory as reasonably logical, reasonably likely, and reasonably consistent with evidence". Science & religion can co-exist.

@ Robert wrote:

The chances that such an event could happen are so astronomically improbable that statisticians agree that the odds make this impossible?

Well, for a believer in God, the fact that in some minds evolution seems impossible would make it all the more marvelous for God to have orchestrated evolution happening!

@ King Dave wrote

Creationists feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but they have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

IMO this is a VERY strong point. Just because we evolved from some primordial slime eons ago doesn't mean that God's "hand" wasn't in it throughout, infusing evolution with God's infinite love. It seems that a fear of evolutionary theory is the potential implication that if humans are close family members in the "extended family" of our entire biosphere, then perhaps other species have access to heaven too. If God can see clearly into the hearts of humans, then it seems reasonable that Infinite Loving God could also see into the hearts of other species to judge them as God sees fit. I don't find it objectionable to think that my pet dog will enjoy God's love in heaven. With God, all things are possible.

Bob, most Darwinists don't know how the universe was created. They just object when people like you demand that it just must be intelligent design even though you also have no proof of it. And they also get tired of of attempts by people who will demand that their biblical explanation (but never, say, a pagan or buddist one) isn't given right along with it.

If you are so convinced in ID then you should be quite willing to allow, say, Hindus to demand their own theories on the origin of life. But I've noticed that most people who insist on ID or Creationism never do. What they want is usually the Christian Biblical version.

RogueAmerican - No vitriol here. I use synthetic oil in my car. Also, thanks for the FYI regarding the Cheerios and sogginess.

" I do however believe an honest discussion exposes all possibilities. Especially with teaching. I was 6 when I asked my parents where everything came from. It's just a natural curiosity." There is a very, very distinct problem with this idea and that is what I intended to make evident with my story of the beer/jack daniels swilling evergreen tree. What makes up all possibilities? That being decided which of them belong in a discussion in a science class vs. a religion discussion? Clearly ID is for the religion class as it makes the massive assumption of a supernatural read religion based creator. If you think all possibilities would you welcome our children wasting time on Alchemy? Astrology? Numerology? Flat-Earth? Moon-Hoax? Tarot cards? Would US christians allow their kids to hear the genesis beliefs of all other religions? I seriously doubt that. ID believers are christians and they want that version of ID taught. They aren't going to be open to Colonel Sanders believers. And science teachers shouldn't be forced to teach things like ID that are not based in fact and who premises have been refuted by science repeatedly.

When they mutate an ape into a human, then I'll start taking evolution seriously. Until then its just as much a fairy-tale as anything else.

RogueAmerican - Where is "Universe > Light > Earth > seasons > plants/birds/creatures > Man/Woman" the " accepted scientific evidence of the universe, earth and lifes creation?" Is that a scientific Theory that I am unaware of? Direct me somewhere to read up on that please.

RogueAmerican - The evolution teacher probably wouldn't be the one teaching where "everything came from". That teacher would be a cosmologist/astrophysicist. In regard to that large of a question...why wouldn't you answer with the truth? You tell the kids that the prevailing scientific theory is the Big Bang and you tell them that we don't know the complete chain of events yet. Is it unacceptable to be honest with children and set the example that you are better off understanding that some things aren't known yet or are do you think it is better to lead them down a path of baseless assumptions? I would go ahead and just say "It remains a scientific unknown that you may be the one to solve one day if you choose to study hard, listen to the facts, apply observation, and avoid baseless assumptions."

When they ask about gravity I teach them the science of gravity. I tell them of the Theory of Gravity where two bodies attract to each other with a force proportional to their mass.

What do you tell them when they ask about god? And they ask why they should "just believe" when you get to that inevitable point since there is no proof?

RogueAmerican - Are you just not ok with not knowing everything? You know it is acceptable to not have some answers and to be waiting for the facts to be revealed by continued observation and hypothesis. Why do you insist instead on jumping to an assumptive conclusion, i.e. higher power?

God, I hate ignorance.

RogueAmerican - "...then plants, birds and animals finally led to mans evolution is wrong" That part is wrong. Those things did not lead to man being created. Man is not the pinnacle of evolution and it is not a linear progression as your example suggests. There is no end-point as you suggest either. We are no more an endpoint of evolution than the highest form of a cow is, so yes...that is wrong.

RogueAmerican - Who said that Genesis was accurate? You could take the history of the universe and bundle it into any seven categories you like and come out with "accurate" as compared to any arbitrary list you already have in your head. I bet you could do it in six and make it sound just as convincing. Plus as I said in my previous post it is already wrong since you assume that man is the end-point of the chain which is not the scientific case at all.

RogueAmerican - Define "continue to evolve above". What does above mean in that context? Can you fly without a plane like a bird? I'd say that puts birds above us in that category. Can you swim thousands of feet deep like a whale without a sub? I'd say that puts whales above us in that category. Can you survive all night out in below zero temps like a wolverine? etc...etc....etc...

Is it really that much of a stretch to think that maybe God was an alien life form with seriously advanced technology, rather than supernatural? Given today's technology, anyone could take a bit of c-4, a remote detonator, and a megaphone with a boulder to hide behind and claim to be God to Moses. Or maybe that is more of the difference between my beliefs and Judeo-Christian faith.

RogueAmerican - Also if you admit that man isn't the end-point ("I never said that's the endpoint"), then you admit there there could be a next step which means the seven step genesis comparison would be wrong.

StMiller I hate to do this but your question of "just believe"? That's exactly what they want. They don't like people questioning things or the very idea of randomness.

Jon, if someone could mutate an ape into a human he would probably be chased out of town on suspicion of witchcraft. Thus killing two birds with one stone. Not only can you not prove a theory with your suggustion but if you actually can you're seen as a servant of the devil.

C123 - Your name suggests a robotic being of a higher intelligence and your reason supports that suggestion, so I won't question you. Plus, you're definitely right about some people not wanting to question things and just being more comfortable with just believing. Its definitely requires more work to head down the rabbit hole and find all of the answers and to be ok with not knowing sometimes.

Seriously Rouge, are you trying to say the Earth, and everything on it, was created it six days?

Didn't you know? I'm Brent's god. Or goddess or whatever.

RogueAmerican - I would suggest then that that is proof that the Creator did a pretty crappy job and shouldn't have any illusions that it's an all powerful being. Therefore, as it would necessarily just be a semi-powerful creator being I don't believe it warrants my affections or allegiance. I mean why would you create something that is going to end up destroying all of your work including itself anyway?

I have a question for all of you non-believers: Why do you think science can answer everything? All prominent physicists, quantum theorists, astrophysicists and more agree that shrinking the universe back down it the instant of the big bang breaks all the laws of science that exist. They all agree that there is no explanation for the existence of life coming out of the heat created after the bang. If you believe in evolution, which is not inconsistent with theism, then you must question the science that life came from something that could not have been life during the big bang.

The big bang is nothing less than a miracle, as is all life.

As I said before, I was an atheist for more than a half century before I realised that the only viable explanation is intelligent design. The young don't want to believe so they can make up the rules as they go. They refuse to see anything they don't want to that may interrupt their perceived self importance. The would rather spend time wasting their lives playing video games, texting, partying and trying to get laid than actually learning something instead of being told to believe by a bureaucracy that wants them to be good little sheep to the same.

Read that one little book "Case for a Creator." It is not about religion or any bible but pure, unbiased science based entirely on reason. What have you got to lose if you do? If your mind is that closed, then you are can't really say that you are objective in your thinking.

jock59801

The article I posted a link for does describe an insurmountable problem, even though you claim it does not. You would realize that if you had at least read the abstract and the conclusion, but there is much more to lead to that conclusion derived by just skimming the rest of the text. In the conclusion, the author suggests that an explanation of the origin of life might lie with some of the more recent and radical theories...... theories which until yet have demonstrated no credibility. Here is the link again:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC16343/

If life cannot get started from non-life, then evolution cannot proceed. I find it very eye-opening that some here have taken the position that the origin of life is just some mystery, but that evolution is a fact anyway. Apparently, evolutionists have really changed their defensive mode in recent decades. Previously, they were rather confident about the origin of life because of the Miller-Urey experiment back in the 1950's. If one cannot demonstrate reasonable evidence of the origin of life, then the so-called evidence of evolutionary progression becomes even more suspect of arbitrary interpretation than it already is:

1.) A lining up of skulls that seem to show a structural progression does not prove that they are all related; it has not been demonstrated that they were not separate species. But there are many variations within modern man that could fool many an evolutionist if they did not know the actual age of the skull. Ever see Russian boxer Nikolai Valuev? He's not the only person with a seemingly more primitive skull: criminal Rodney Rhines of Ohio, British singer Amy Winehouse, Bill Nye of Cornell University..there are others. But indeed many evolutionist have noticed these people, and without any supporting evidence, they take the position that they are throwbacks to Neanderthals, allegedly pre-historic.

2.) Radio-metric dating is based on many assumptions which can never be solidly ascertained for each item that is dated. That is just one problem referred to in the following link. There are many more:

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#The Radiometric Dating Game

3.) The huge percentage of similarity in DNA between species does not prove evolution. At best, it only proves similarity in function and/or structure. The people who think that it proves evolution seem to be assuming that if there was a creator, that he would not used this degree of DNA similarity in his design....how do they know? If there really is no creator, then how can one make any assumptions about what he would or wouldn't do?

This is just a few of the problems with the so-called evidence.

Bob: "Why do you think science can answer everything?"

We don't. That is Scientism, not science. Science can answer what science can answer, which is a lot. It cannot answer questions of religion or whether God exists. But evolution is a scientific observation, and has nothing to do with religion or God.

RogueAmerican - The book of genesis' accuracy is not irrefutable. The fact that you have to bend the words of it to be 7 metaphorical days instead of 7 actual days is already irrefutable proof that it is inaccurate. Direct me to the quote in the bible that says those days are metaphorical days and not 24 hour periods please.

The 7 day work week was just an arbitrary reflection of the prevailing power or religion's views. The Romans had an 8 day week until christianity became the religion of choice. Aztecs had a 13 day week. Egyptians 10 days...some Chinese dynasties 10 days...etc.

"If life cannot get started from non-life, then evolution cannot proceed."

That is illogical. What you mean is ""If life cannot get started, then evolution cannot proceed."

It doesn't matter HOW it got started. Clearly life DID get started, so therefore evolution could proceed. And evolution is simply a scientific observation of what happened AFTER life got started.

I recommend you take Bob's suggestion and read "Case for a Creator". You will see that he is completely wrong about it when he says..."It is not about religion or any bible but pure, unbiased science based entirely on reason." That is entirely incorrect. It was written by an evangelist wherein he interviews believers in intelligent design without ever getting an opposing viewpoint from real scientists.

Rogue, there are people out there who really DO belive in the 6 days creation and a 1 day rest. You may see it as metaphorical but they don't. Enough so they they claim humans lived with dinosaurs (and somehow can't explain how Adam and Eve didn't engage in incest to expand the human race).

Steve, the proof is in the details. The vast number and variety of details, all consistent with evolution and sometimes only with evolution. I can;t think of any one observation that proves evolution by itself (although I can thing of some that come close). But we do not have just one observation; we have many millions.

Your examples are too simplistic. You raise good questions, but you don't allow for the fact that scientists have asked and answered those questions many times. Often it just requires looking closer at the details, in order to eliminate the alternative hypotheses such as you bring up. What do you think tens of thousands of biologists have been doing for the last 150 years?

Steve - For an actual science based analysis of radio-metric dating please read this Cal Tech professor's discussion of it's accuracy.

http://www.fsteiger.com/radioact.html

Also, DNA evidence has helped bolster the case of evolution mainly because it matches the fossil record so accurately. Not the other way around as you suggest.

Bob why do you think religion, the one you've picked, can answer everything? Most scientists don't have that delusion. Some may. It's irritating but not very common.

StMiller

"I recommend you take Bob's suggestion and read "Case for a Creator". You will see that he is completely wrong about it when he says..."It is not about religion or any bible but pure, unbiased science based entirely on reason." That is entirely incorrect. It was written by an evangelist wherein he interviews believers in intelligent design without ever getting an opposing viewpoint from real scientists."

Yes, it was written by an evangelist who, was an athiest based up what he fed in school. Then he sought others who are all scientists, most who were also atheists until they found that what they were fed in school was wrong.

There are also oppsing viewpoints in the book by atheist scientists that can't let themselves see what the evidence shows. You may have looked at the book but you really didn't read it.

jock59801,

With a few exceptions, most people here who believe in evolution take the position that there was no creator god involved. Even if some believe that life here began somewhere else other than Earth, they must assume at that at some point that the first life arose from the non-living. No other position is possible. That is the idea that I was addressing when I said "If life cannot get started from non-life, then evolution cannot proceed." The evolutionist cannot continue to ignore the issue of the origin of life; a backward tracing of their alleged progressions will not logically permit it, and they know that.

Bob - I have read it and I am pushing it for you.

Please folks. Read Case for a Creator. If you go in reading it with a focus on getting the truth you will interpret it my way. If you just want to hear what you want to hear, then you will interpret it Bob's way. I am all for reading both sides of an argument. Although ignore Lee's mention of whether or not animal's have souls because that is clearly outside the science realm or what Bob understands to be the underpinning of what science constitutes. Clearly, that is not the stuff of science, and if as Bob says this is a book about science then it has no place in there.

Also ignore quotes like these that will probably give you a bad idea of whose viewpoint prevails in the book regardless of Bob's insistence that it's impartial...

"Let me put it this way," he said. "If Darwin's right, we're just sophisticated monkeys. The Bible is wrong. There is no God. And without God, there's no right or wrong. We can just make up our morals as we go. The basis for all we believe is destroyed. And that's why this country is headed to hell in a handbasket. Is Darwin responsible? I'll say this: people have to choose between science and faith, between evolution and the Bible, between the Ten Commandments and make-'em-up-as-you-go ethics. We've made our choice - and we're not budging."

Steve-564412 -

View 1. Evolution believer - You say "The evolutionist cannot continue to ignore the issue of the origin of life; a backward tracing of their alleged progressions will not logically permit it, and they know that."

View 2. Creation believer - I say "The creationist has to answer "How did your creator get created?" Steve you can't continue to ignore the issue of the origin of the creator; a backward tracing of it's alleged progression will not logically permit it, and you know that"

BTW, I read your site and disagree with the critic. So, what does that mean? It means that an athiest will never take the word of a thiest on this topic. What good would the book be if Strobel just interviewed deniers? Would that prove anything?

If everything is here because of chance, then nothing really matters because there is no purpose. Live, die and repeat the cycle. For what? Nothing.

What do you disagree with Bob?

And my guess is that a creationist is never going to take the word of a scientist. Or how the book you believe in has any number of translations that even theologists disagree on.

Steve, you don't seem to get what I am saying.

Even if I were to concede that life could not come from non-life without the help of God, it still could have evolved form there. In fact, all scientific evidence points to that it DID evolve from there. There is no logical backward or forward. We have evidence for evolution. What happened BEFORE evolution, not so much.

Bob: "If everything is here because of chance, then nothing really matters because there is no purpose"

Even if that were true, which I do not concede, it is not a scientific argument. There is scientific evidence for evolution. It does not disappear just because it depresses you.

WHAT ABOUT THE FOSSIL RECORD? LET'S EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE:

Many scientists point to the fossil record as support for the idea that life emerged from a common origin. They argue, for example, that the fossil record documents the notion that fish became amphibians and reptiles became mammals. What, though, does the fossil evidence really show?“

Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”

Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” by David M. Raup, January 1979, p. 23.

THE ORIGIN OF LIFE WAS ABRUPT AND NOT GRADUAL. LET'S EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE

The relatively sudden appearance of these diverse life forms is causing some evolutionary researchers to question the traditional version of Darwin’s theory.

For example, in an interview in 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain the sudden appearance of novel forms of life.

He said: “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.”

Archaeology, “The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual,” by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008, (www.archaeology.org/online/ interviews/newman.html), accessed 2/23/2009.

Robert-3780389 - Thank you for showing an understanding, somewhat, of how the scientific method works. Theories change and grow to accommodate observational data. However, what you quote in no ways disproves the Theory of Evolution. It just shows you that sciences just like life evolves, pun intended.

PROBLEMS WITH THE “PROOF". LET'S EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE

What, though, of the fossils that are used to show fish changing into amphibians, and reptiles into mammals? Do they provide solid proof of evolution in action? Upon closer inspection, several problems become obvious.

First, the comparative size of the creatures placed in the reptile-to-mammal sequence is sometimes misrepresented in textbooks. Rather than being similar in size, some creatures in the series are huge, while others are small.

A second, more serious challenge is the lack of proof that those creatures are somehow related. Specimens placed in the series are often separated by what researchers estimate to be millions of years.

Regarding the time spans that separate many of these fossils, zoologist Henry Gee says: “The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.”

In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, 1999, p. 23.

Robert, all you are talking about is the debate over the varying rates of evolution, and the relative importance of the known mechanisms. Obviously none of those people conclude that evolution didn't actually happen.

Robert, Creationists have been taking many of these same quotes out of context for decades. We have seen it all before. Anyone who understands biology and reads the entire work would know what these are saying, as you obviously do not.

"the creatures placed in the reptile-to-mammal sequence is sometimes misrepresented in textbooks."

Perhaps, but that hardly negates evolution. Most pictures in textbooks are only eamples anyway.

It is interesting that you mention the reptile-to-mammal sequence, since this involves one of the most exquisite series of transitional fossils we have. The evolution of the jaw articulation is so well seen that we actually have one species that had both the reptilian AND the mamalian jaw articulation.

What view does the fossil record support?

Darwin himself acknowledged: “If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.” (The Origin of Species, New York, 1902, Part Two, p. 83)

Perhaps science needs to "evolve" to scientifically examine the evidence that is set in stone (pun intended).

Does the evidence in the fossil record indicate that species came into "sudden existence" or does it point to "gradual evolution"?

StMiller,

Whether one believes in the big bang and evolution or creationism, one must logically conclude that something has always existed. Creationist maintain that the creator of the universe has existed from eternity past. The so-called problem of "where did God come from" has never been a problem at all.

To the several posters who tout the complexity the universe as evidence that it could not have arisen out of randomness does not take into the fact that we can only observe its complexity because things worked out. This is called the survivorship fallacy. I could use religion as an example, Judeo-Christian monotheism is not a widely held belief because it is true, but because of a complex series of cause and effect that resulted in the death of other religions. Cogito ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am"), so to speak. We can only speak of our existence because of the fact that we exist. Moving on though.

Speciation has been observed a number of times, so I don't know why people still would like to believe there is no evidence of new species arising. A general example is plant polyploidy, where a mutation results in a doubling (or more) of chromosomes. The result is that the polyploid is usually unable to interbreed with the species it arose from. The birds of the Galapagos are a classic example as well. If you think there is no evidence for speciation, you are delusional.

If you wish to believe that out of nothing, comes nothing, so be it, but what of the creator?

Jaw Articulation

Why are not all biologists impressed by "the most exquisite series of transitional fossils"?

Commenting on the fossils of fish and amphibians, biologist Malcolm S. Gordon states that the fossils found represent only a small, “possibly quite unrepresentative, sample of the biodiversity that existed in these groups at those times.”

He further says: “There is no way of knowing to what extent, if at all, those specific organisms were relevant to later developments, or what their relationships might have been to each other.”

Biology and Philosophy, p. 340.

"Does the evidence in the fossil record indicate that species came into "sudden existence" or does it point to "gradual evolution"?

A little of both, actually, but you have to understand the scale involved. The transitions between species are still gradual, in the sense that no species ever gave birth to a different species; but the many thousands of generations needed for the transition is still an eye blink on the scale of the fossil record, and not likely to be preserved. And even if it was preserved, it would look like just a normal species of organism, which it is. The only difference is that it wouldn't continue in the fossil record for as long as the more stable widespread species do. Widespread species do not evolve very fast because they can't - any local change gets swamped by genes from other populations (developmental channelization is involved too, but let's not get into that.)

"why are not all biologists impressed by "the most exquisite series of transitional fossils"?

They are; the quotes you copied were talking about a different kind of transitional fossil, on a much smaller scale.

And yes, fossilization is an extremely rare event, and would only happen to a very small fraction of species, and then we would actually find only a tiny fraction of that.

Steve, if you can say the creator always existed, then you can just as easily say the universe always existed, and then the question of origins would be moot. You can't have it both ways.

Rogue, my guess is the unions used the 7 day work week cause it was already established. Or in the case of my mom, a Catholic who grew up in the 30s and 40s, a 6 day work week. Sunday was the day of rest when they would all go to church.

The 7 day week was probably ordained by the church. What church? In Christian countries I say a combo of Catholic and Protestant. And since the US is mostly a combo of just that we observe a 7 day week.

Please do not think that just "cause" the US and most of the rest of the world observes a 7 day week that this is somehow biblically ordained. There are other countries/cultures that don't accept our calender. Including our own. Sometime around the mid 1500s Pope Gregory the whatever decided to change the calendar from 10 month to 12.

You make the case that "thousands of generations are needed for transition" (e.g. evolution), but you feel that these were not preserved in the fossil record.

However, if evolution is true, we would see "thousands of generations" of these transitional organisms alive today. Where are these mythical creatures?

"we would see "thousands of generations" of these transitional organisms alive today. Where are these mythical creatures?"

Well, obviously thousands of generations can't all be alove at once, but if you mean there should be transitional forms alive today, there are many. We have thousands of examples of species so similar that we aren't even sure of they are separate species yet. That is because there is such a continuum of relatedness that there is no one definitive place we can say "yes, there it just became a new species." It is too gradual for that. No species has ever given birth to a different species.

Steve... I find it funny that could ask science to answer the question with proof about what happened before the big bang, such that you make the basis for their professed system to require some sort of factual based evidence....however when I question you about who created your creator your answer is a simple...he was always there, so we don't have to worry about that. Wow...wow! You dont see the flaw in your line of reasoning huh?

@Robert-3780389:

Perhaps try citing research from, oh, I don't know... the past 25 years? That would be lovely.

1. Since 1979 we have discovered thousands of transitional fossils. Even a cursory search in Google will show you pictures, where the fossils were discovered, etc. The transitional fossils in hominids are now so vast that paleontologists have a difficult time tell where one form ends and another beings.

2. The Cambrian Explosion is the firstuncontested appearance in the fossil record of modern multicellular life. It does not represent the first appearance of modern multicellular life on Earth.

3. Ah, more dated science. In 1989 Stephen Jay Gould, concerning the earliest life, said there is a
rich Precambrian record, all discovered in the past thirty years. Our Precambrian record now stretches back to the earliest rocks that could contain life... morphological remains are... as old as they could possibly
be. Both stromatolites (mats of sediment trapped and bound by bacteria and blue-green algae) and actual cells have been found in the earth's oldest unmetamorphosed sediments, dating to 3.5-3.6 billion years in Africa and Australia... The Precambrian record does contain one fauna of multicellular animals preceding the Cambrian explosion, the Ediacara fauna, named for a locality in Australia but now known from rocks throughout the world. But this fauna... is barely Precambrian in age. These animals are found exclusively in rocks just predating the explosion, probably no more than 700 million years old and perhaps younger... the Ediacara creatures are soft-bodied, and they are not confined to some odd enclave stuck away in a peculiar Australian environment; they represent a world-wide fauna.

In short, quote RECENT science, and not theories from 1959, if you expect to be taken seriously.

4. Again, this is prior to all the work done in the late 90s and early 2000s. And, even if it were true, you are positing a "sudden creation" event in 'one' localized area of the world involving largely invertebrates. Exactly 'which god' are you assuming this description would apply to?

5. Quote-mining at its finest. Carl was an outspoken atheist, rejector of a personal god, and you damn well know it. What you failed to provide is the rest of the quote:

"... But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made; should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer (although not with a Designer of a more remote and indirect temperament)."

— The COMPLETE Sagan quote, 1980; page 29-30.

This is what bugs me the most about creationists like yourself: You blatantly lie, quote-mine, and dig up invalid data in the attempt to sway the gullible.

Take your nonsense somewhere else.

Robert. Fruit flies.

@Steve:

Whether one believes in the big bang and evolution or creationism, one must logically conclude that something has always existed. Creationist maintain that the creator of the universe has existed from eternity past. The so-called problem of "where did God come from" has never been a problem at all.

So, you can believe that the most complex, well-'designed' entity in all of the universe (and beyond) can exist forever without cause, but the void cannot.

You're correct, however: It's never been a problem, simply because creationists cannot reason the issue through to the point where it becomes one.

You posit that a supreme being was literally hanging about for eternity upon eternity, then decided to create everything -- an act that requires the pre-existence of time, as creation of "anything", including something from "nothing", requires time.

Think it through. See if you can find the flaw.

Given the sum total energy of the universe is 'zero', and total chaos abounds within it, the evidence for a 'supreme designer' is all but nil.

My time is too precious for polemics with the mentally-impaired by atheism and liberalism! I will say this: Evolution is intelligent design by the Creator! The parents of Judeo-Christians have the right that this no-impossible theory be not hidden from view by the atheists in the school system!

Wow StMiller and jock, you guys stuck it out a lot longer than I ever could, I for one applaud your attempt at educating the people like Robert and Bob. It may not have helped them, but I bet there are a lot of other people that walked away with a better understanding of evolution because of your efforts.

I think some people just don't have the ability to properly weight the source of the "information" they use as the basis for their knowledge, otherwise how could "one evangelical pastor" somehow have more weight than hundreds of thousands of trained scientists over the last hundred years. I think in their minds, it makes perfect sense because they have brought up that way, they say things like "The bible is the word of god. Why?, Well because it says so right in there." Normal people can see why that last statement is nuts, but the religious types are wondering why we just don't understand, "It says so right here, let me show you."

I worry that people that refuse to listen to reason and deny evidence are "instilling" those same "values" in their children (hell they are trying to instill them in ours too), and sometimes with more vigor than even they had. They think they are doing the right thing by their kids, but what they really are doing is creating an army of ignorant intolerant people that can't be reasoned with. Now where else have I seen a religious group of ignorant intolerant people that can't be reasoned with? Talidesingist, Intelliban, well I know the name was something like that.

Robert-3780389

Please quit quoting books you have not read. And when you do finally read them use the quotes in context and in the manner they were made. No one here is seriously suggesting that you are not allowed to have faith in what ever you would like but religion does not belong in school period end of story.We have enough problems with our kids falling behind the world in academic achievement without wasting money printing books that promote one religious theory over any other and it is not science to teach an unsupported theory.

RogueAmerican and StMiller: For what it's worth, both Neil deGrass Tyson and Steven Hawking have posited that everything came from nothing. It happens all the time in quantum physics and there's no point denying it. Now I know you are going to ask me to explain it so to that I say...

The teacher that has a kid ask her where everything came from should respond - "I don't understand the math". The answer is out there, but I can't explain it to you anymore than I could explain how t make a iPhone, but they are there.

Just because EVERYBODY doesn't know something doesn't mean it's not true. Are you telling me you should be able to walk up to ANYBODY in the WORLD and ask them how to make puff pastry and if they don't know, puff pastry will cease to exist? What a horrible world we would live in if it were determined by what EVERYBODY knows. Not everybody knows everything. Einstein couldn't cook. deGrass Tyson can't sing. That doesn't mean music doesn't exist.

[Redacted]

So many on this thread that I just can't settle on one. First, creationists like to target Darwin. Newsflash -- Evolution biology is so much more advanced than anything that Darwin could have imagined. In Darwin's time they were just beginning to see into the microscopic world and genetics didn't exist. So if you want to slam evolution, read a book on evolutionary biology first.

Next, the creation of the universe is a different beast. It is accepted that the universe is expanding and from that fact, it was extrapolated that the universe was smaller when it began. The math takes it back to a singularity, which means, it reached a point where the mathematics became undefined. Astronomers have been able to see back to within a couple of hundred thousands year of inlation starting. To fully explain the process and some of the competing ideas, you will need an understanding of differential calculus, guage theory, supersymmetry and some basics in particle physics. It is correct to say that everyday physics falls apart in the first millionth of a second because the 4 fundamental forces were combined into one force. And one theory has the universe starting as a 1-dimensional space. All current physics is based on 3-dimensional mathematics, which is our observable universe.

Here's a question where did the elements come from? All of those different atoms? The first fully formed atoms were Hydrogen and Helium. How were the rest made? STARS. The other elements are formed through the fusion process in stars, all the way up to Iron. When a star reaches the Iron stage, it would be a red giant and when it reaches a specific amount the star explodes. The pressure wave from the exploding star fuses the dust and gas into the heavier elements above Iron. The process is well observed and predictable.

Desert Voice, if your time is so precious what are you doing here? And if Judeo-Christian parents wish to teach their kids ID then they should do it in church or in a private, religious school. Why should Judeo-Christians have their theories elevated beyond other religious beliefs in a public school?

-Jon- post 1.87

That's Pokemon... Not Evolution Theory. Can you explain the difference of the two? If you can't I'll just assume you get your science education from children's Saterday cartoons.

Look, Theory is just a general headline to a defined piece of research. Like Toasty McGrouth does a good job pointing out. When someone says Theory of Evolutions what they did was referred to every single fact, all hypothesis being researched into, and roles it plays in other fields of study without going into detail of everything about it. So it's a sum of all we know about, and all we want to know about it.

BTW my 1.56 post was for -Jon-'s 1.86 post. Not the 1.87.

Yes, and it was on the ark with EVERY other species that exist now, the ones that haven't changed since they were created 6000 yrs ago (circa 6000, of course)

I was thinking the same thing. self awareness is a burden for the ones that cannot face reality.

have fun now cause their aint nothing else

No, they don't teach about the Easter bunny. That's why it so ludicrous to teach about a theory so absurd and unproven as evolution.

Timothy1Mil

No, they don't teach about the Easter bunny. That's why it so ludicrous to teach about a theory so absurd and unproven as evolution.

As opposed to teaching what ... creation mythology? Do you have any idea how many creation myths from how many religions are out there? Suppose we should teach them all? ... or only YOUR truth?

When they show you who they are...believe them!

Uh, you do realize that evolution is a scientific fact, Tim... With overwhelming evidence supporting it and absolutely none disputing it.

It's only unproven if you deliberately ignore such evidence as the fossil record, C-14 dating, genetic mapping of various species, the Galapagos Islands, or the microevolution that takes place in bacteria all the time.

Timothy, there is more SCIENTIFIC evidence to support evolution than any other theory of origin. It is the ONLY theory of origin that is scientifically valid. Also, of course you can't scientifically "PROVE" evolution. You can't scientifically "PROVE" ANY theory of the origin of life and the earth as scientific "PROOF" requires one to be able to repeat the experiment and record the observations. To say one cannot scientifically "PROVE" it is ludicrous and a fallacy. You don't need to SCIENTIFICALLY "PROVE" something in order for it to be considered valid. You can establish validity by the amount of evidence that something occured. You can't scientifically prove Julius Caesar was dictator of Rome, but enough evidence exists that to say so is a valid statement. It is the same with evolution. By the way, I am a Christian and am very active in my Church. However, my church is NOT a fundaMENTAList Church and we do not place one very literal interpetation of a portion of the Bible ahead of valid science. We are also intelligent enough to know that it would be ludicrous to take various portions of the Bible literally. Science and religion need not be in conflict. They answer different questions. Science answers "What" and "How" religion answers "Who" and "Why." This is a scientific, not a religious question. The origin of life (what) is best explained by the process of evolution (how). This is the 21st century, but unfortunately, many churches and individuals insist upon living in the Dark Ages and reject science and realit. Sad but true.

Uh, Tim what's your opinion about the absurd and unproven theory of gravity?

And we wonder why our nation is in decline when this is even a topic of conversation?

When the religious crazies stop trying to ruin our childrens' already-stunted science education.

If I'm not mistaken, evolution, while a really good theory, is still just that, a theory. There are still certain leaps that can't be proven. Maybe one day they will and then we can settle the debate once and for all, but until then, why can't we limit ourselves to just the parts we actually know? No one's quite certain how we got here, there are a lot of theories but none have been proven but here's what we do know. THis would seem to me to be the wiser course to take- lets base it ALL on fact and leave speculation out of our curriculum.

The same people that deny climate change is occurring are the same people that deny evolution.

It's a lost cause. And you wonder why America is falling behind in science and math year after year.

It's good to remember that at least three republican presidential candidates would be just fine with the teaching of creationism in our nation's public schools. Maybe more. Let's see there's Bachmann, Santorum, Perry, and you can probably throw in Cain. Palin probably can't tell you one feature of evolution, doesn't know what it is. Two of these are considered serious candidates. OMFG what the hell is happening to our country? Why do we seem to be going backwards??

So Suzy, I'll ask you the same question I asked Tim. What's your opinion on gravity? Fact or theory??

Suzy -- That is indeed just what scientists do. We don't know everything about evolution and do not claim to. We know that evolution occurred though; that debate was settled long ago. And we know a tremendous amount of the details as well. Just because we don't know everything, doesn't mean we shouldn't teach what we DO know.

Richard-1515565: "Teach both, whats the harm in that?"

Both what? If there were multiple scientific theories, we should indeed teach about that. But neither creationism nor ID are scientific theories. Evolution is the only scientific theory we have that explains all of the evidence.

Suzy, evolution, like the other theories listed, is both a theory and a fact. There's the fact of gravity: you drop a feather and it will fall, and there's the theory of gravity we've developed that explains the mechanism. The same is true of evolution. There's the fact that species change through inheritance over time, and there's the theory we've developed that explains the mechanisms that interact to do so.

Suzy, while its true there are, and will always be parts of evolution that will never be proven (because we are after all, humans limited by our intelligence and life span), there are many parts of it based on cold hard science that have been, to the extent possible, proven. Now, the people that support creationism, or "intelligent design, please show me one iota of proof to support it, other than allegorical stories written thousands of years ago by people who believed the earth was flat, that the stars were like a curtain over the earth, that the garden of eden was the center of the universe and had no clue that dinosaurs or any life forms other than those around them, ever existed. Basing an explanation of human existence on that is like asking a five year old in Iowa to explain the workings of of Disney World. He too would think it was pretty miraculous, having no clue on how it came about, but would have some interesting, and amusing, explanations.

Maybe one day ... we can settle the debate once and for all, but until then, why can't we limit ourselves to just the parts we actually know?

Isn't that what we're doing? Last I saw, science classes weren't teaching as fact any crackpot notions about "how we got here." They are teaching what we do know, all of which completely debunks religious mythology. Do you have in mind any unproven hypotheses that are being taught as fact in public schools?

No one's quite certain how we got here, there are a lot of theories

No there aren't. There are a lot of hypotheses, and a bunch more conjecture, but the only actual scientific theory that even touches on the subject is evolution through natural selection.

Teach both, [what's] the harm in that?

Both what? Evolution and the Universe Rides on the Back of the Giant Turtle Theory? Or are you proposing to single out some other specific religious belief?

My point, which I apparently didn't make well, is lets leave out the parts that are merely speculation. We know that man has evolved over time. We know that flora and fauna have adapted similarly. This has been proven time and time again. So teach it. Teach it until you're blue in the face. What we don't know is that the same speck of dust evolved into both man, a tree or the ocean, stars, etc. This is where evolution can't make the leap from theory to fact. Maybe some day it will, maybe it will remain one of the greatest questions man never managed to answer, who knows, but it seems we waste a lot of time debating which unproven theory we should teach and somewhere along the way we forget to teach the kids how to read, write and comprehend even the most basic math in the process.

Suzy, I think you are confusing lots of different questions with evolution. Biological evolution is simply the study of how life evolved after it got started. It is not about stars or Big Bangs or anything else.

Uh, what parts, Suzy?

After publishing his observations on gravity, Newton was asked just what gravity was. His answer was "Regarding gravity I fain no hypothesis." You see even though he could formulate the laws of gravity, even though he could mathematically describe gravity, he really had no idea what gravity WAS. What caused gravity to BE. We now are fairly sure, thanks to Dr. Einstein that gravity is the warping of time/space, but are still unsure about many features of gravity.So we push ahead with more theories to try to explain the fact!

So Suzy, in an attempt to read your rather confusing paragraph about stars, dust, humans, and plants, I believe what you're trying to say is something to the tune of "we don't know that humans and plants evolved from a common ancestor". Or, maybe you're trying to say something like "they came from completely different things". It's hard to tell because your paragraph jumps around to talk about the Big Bang. That's a theory in physics and astronomy, not biology. So the teaching of the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the original Big Bang.

Now to address the other possible point you were trying to make about relating plants to humans. We do actually know that there was a universal common ancestor linking all life studied on this planet. They've done statistical testing on the DNA recovered from eukaryotic organisms to demonstrate a very high degree of identical segments. It's so overwhelmingly similar that the universal common ancestor model is vastly more likely when compared to the multiple generations model. So, once again, all evidence available strongly supports the Theory of Evolution and the common ancestor model.

Even evolution can't explain Texans.

Just follow the constitution or get out we cannot teach all religions and would be wise to follow writers of our constitution ideas and keep religion separate from our state run schools.

I think what Suzy is saying is... yes there is Evolution, but there is also something else that Scientists can't figure out, can't measure because we are still too primitive (yes, we are stupid and primitive, we still burn oil and can't figure out when an earthquake will occur). The fear of Death makes fundamentalists cling to the Bible as an explanation. Scientists do their thing classifying, digging deeper into the math and technology. Creating reproducible facts. But there does seem to be an aspect of Mankind and a connection to the universe that we are not able to understand scientifically. We all die and the thought of that makes us do some really crazy things.

Most people will know and accept the thought that nothing goes faster than the speed of light. But wait a minute. Scientists have been able to measure particles which seem to communicate faster than the speed of light. Or, a new thought, maybe right now nothing can move faster than the speed of light but closer to the time of the big bang, that speed was much much faster. So in theory, the current speed of light we measure is not the absolute speed over time. It has fluctuated. We are always expanding our understanding. In my opinion these quantum physicists are closer to God than most reborn Christians, but they don't know where to put this in their humanity. Our spirituality is an essential brain function. It connects us to other people and our environment. If we know how to use it.

Teach the possibilities... creative thinking.... divergent thinking.

It is the ultimate egotism that we demand the origins of life. Because we are so special, we must have a creator, who watches over us and guides us so that we may join him in his perfect world.

You've got to be some special brand of stupid or arrogant to believe that some all powerful being would give a crap about you or your life. You're mostly not that special. Neither am I, and I'm more special than most.

Teach creationism and intelligent design., it's ok, go right ahead... all the kids in Japan, China, India, etc will be happy to fill the jobs that require actual, factual, working knowledge and critical thinking that will be created in the next 20 years. Your children can help out at bake sales.

BoundedReality,

The truth does not change. The truth is that God created the earth, and everything in it. He has power over everything. Remember, Satan is the master deceiver. "Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the animals that the LORD God had made." (Genisis 3:1)

Creationism, as you say it, is not an "alternative" to evolution ---- it is the truth. God created the world. Just because today the discussion has evolved into what it is ---- that does not, nor will it ever change the truth.

hungrymongoose

But that is your religion, and does not belong in science class.

The truth does not change. The truth is that God created the earth, and everything in it. He has power over everything. Remember, Satan is the master deceiver. "Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the animals that the LORD God had made." (Genisis 3:1)

And you are free to believe that ... teach that in your Sunday School ... in your home but NOT in my kid's science class! (Of course YOUR kids will be very confused.)

What has happened to society? Why are the religious right trying to force creationism through the back door of schools?! When I was in school, we learned about math, history, english and SCIENCE. If I wanted to learn about God, there was the church on Sunday. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! The GOP Christian evangelicals are always touting about the Constitution, love for their country and the founding fathers. When did they decide we can forget about what the founding fathers had in mind when they made that credo?

Look Jock, your problem is that You blind yourself in your belief, if you accuse creasionism of been a religion, EVOLUTION is as much a religion TOO. First it is a theory, (please go to the dicctionary and find out what a theory is) In Second place is the terminology that plagues the theory of evolution with word like, "WE BELIVE THAT" "WE THINK THAT", WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHEN, BUT.." With the first frase all your theory is dump in the vase of a religion. Evolution has prove NOTHING, I will say the ever changing evolution, because you do not have facts only IMAGINATION from inteligent Godless minds.

YOU EXPLAIN LIFE. AND ITS COMPLEXITIES. EVOLUTION IS ONLY A NICE FAIRY TALE. A RELIGION NOT PROVED.

Uh, Leon? Evolution is a scientific fact. You know, with evidence and data. Basically all the things that no religions have.

TOASTY, You have been brainwashed, with irrelevant, imaginary THEORY'S. We ALL had a chance to study Your Evolution theory IN HIGH SCHOOL AND UNIVERSITY, have you ever study creationism? probably not, then you are not able to compare in an intelligent way, because you are one sided. Do you know that are hundred's of scientist that they were evolucionist and they theached the theory in universities, but not anymore? they discover that there is more complexities that the childish theory of the evolution religion CANNOT EXPLAIN.

Yes Leon, I've taken a whole class on creationism in comparison with science. Not a single argument for creationism held water. None. Not a single one.

No so fast my friend, do not upgrade a theory, is a theory because has not been able to be proved yet, ( besides there are so many theories of evolution, that you have to chose witch one to follow and they contradict each other)

Do not call science a THEORY, that is not more that a religious Believe.

If in science you use the sentence, WE BELIEVED THAT, then is not a science, please open your book of evolution and see how many times you find this sentence, thats why I said that your thing is a religion NOT a REAL science.

Uh, Leon? Theories and facts are two different things, not just rungs on an accuracy ladder. There's the fact of evolution, that species change over time, and there's the theory of evolution, which explains the mechanisms governing the fact.

Just like gravity. There's the fact of gravity, that we can see by dropping a bowling ball, and there's the theory of gravity that explains the mechanisms that govern that fact.

The true difference between science and religion is that science is built on DISPROVING while religion is built on whatever anyone so feels inclined to believe in (faith). For science, everything is still always treated as a "theory" (even those we misnomer as scientific "laws") because all it takes is one negative conclusion to require further refinement/reassessment of the theory. Thus, science is actually not about "proof" at all, but rather about "disproof". Those theories which have withstood every attempt to disprove that we have thus far imagined are called "laws" while those which still have questionable gaps tend to keep the "theory" name. One thing is for sure, though, when a result from a scientific theory fails to emerge, that theory is debunked and goes back to be researched/restated/reinterpreted.

On the other hand, when religion (and it doesn't matter which one) encounters an unexpected/contradictory answer or even an outright opposite reaction, the answer always seems to come down to a deity tricking or testing the faith of its creation. It goes back to Descartes's own musings about what the original "fact" to start from could be. There is no solution to the "trickster god" issue. If the "trickster god" is going to falsify/is capable of falsifying our very thought processes, then there is not a single cause/effect reaction that can exist. "Because my deity willed it" is nothing more than the collective conscious version of "because I said so", so unless you accept the latter in all your everyday interactions from any and every source, you should not be promoting the former in response to contradictory evidence.

The only two brands of creationism I ever found convincing involved either aliens or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Then Occam's Razor took care of them both.

@Leon: if you say belief involves religion, then let me ask you this: if you see someone slip and fall, would you believe it happened? If someone told you something that you agree with, and you think it's true, does that constitute belief?

Toasty McGrath,

What about when God cooled the fire for the three men. "But these three fell, bound, into the midst of the white-hot furnace. They walked about in the flames, singing to God and blessing the Lord." (Daniel 3:23,24) Remember, God has power over everything.

As far as gravity goes, what about when Jesus walked on the water. "When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and coming near the boat, and they began to be afraid." (John 6:19)

Remember people, God has complete control and power over everything. If you really want to understand science, all science to it's fullest, then you need to understand and realize this. This is the truth.

And remember, Jesus said, "... "Did I not tell you that if you believe you will see the glory of God?"" (John 11:40)

Let's not forget that the Bible was written by men long after the events supposedly happened. Anyone who could have confirmed or denied anything was long gone. Ancient people had a tendency to exaggerate things, so if somebody had lots of followers, people are likely to say they were born on a certain day, such and such happened on their 20th birthday, etc.

For the sake of argument, let's assume (probably incorrectly) that miracles and otherwise unexplainable things really did happen. What makes you think that those performing the miracles really had supernatural powers? If I salvaged some alien tech and figured out how to work it, should I be considered a god, seeing that you haven't the slightest clue as to how it works? Or, if I were an alien with technology far beyond your ability to comprehend, and you've never even seen people do science before, you're likely to think I'm some sort of god, because I'm that much more powerful than you are.

Science does not recognize the existence of the supernatural. Not unless somebody is able to prove it reliably and repeatedly, anyways.

Interesting thing about Genesis. I always had trouble with that talking snake. Then, came the part about Cain and Abel. Anyone care to figure out how that wasn't incest if Eve was the only female and presumably the rest of us are their descendents?

Most Americans tolerate Texas government because we try to overlook their antiquated ideas. Until they start their bullying. That's where the line in the sand is drawn. Most Americans have a distinct distaste for bullying of any kind: religious, political or scientific.

Perry's no fool. He knows if he could inject his religious bias into textbooks, his and only his state has a lockhold on the spread of that misguided fundamentalism. Which wouldn't be so bad if they'd own up to the hoochie kooing at Gilly's.

@ ewent- Yes, there was some incest involved. Eve wasn't the only woman. The Bible says that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters. Incest is not all that uncommon, even though I think it is gross, it was used by royalty to preserve royal blood up until just a few generations back.

@Spartan- Have you ever researched who wrote the Bible and when? Matthew, Mark, and John were written by Matthew, Mark, and John through first hand experience of living with and following Jesus. Luke and Acts were written by Luke, who was a scientist and doctor. He was a friend of Paul who, after seeing how passionatly his friend went around sharing the Gospel, wanted to research this change in Paul. All of his books were written off of this research and eye witness testimony. Moses wrote the first 5 books, which a big part of was about him, his experiences, and his life. King David wrote most of Psalms, King Solomon wrote the Song of Solomon, etc.

Splinter - Where does it say that Luke was a scientist? Everything I have read calls him a physician or a doctor. Source?

Ewent

Your comments about Incest, you do not understand evolution well do you?

Ewent--Yes good post...

Eagle- Huh????

Bluelake

You understand evolution and the process?

You understand life didn't start with everything having a penis or vagina do you Eagle? In fact asexual self fertalizing was the way to go, which wouldn't be incest rather a budding of one self into another seperate form. Gender has a common ancestor as well.

sorry eagle, but your reference to understanding evolution with respect to a hypothetical adam and eve and the unavoidable incest with their hypothetical offspring is ..well...obscure.

Danwill

And I bet You are a MIND reader right? Jedi?? so tell me what part of Mitochodrial Eve is from the dreaded Bible? you so Fear??

None of it was from the bible. Mitochodrial Eve was from Africa, didn't speak "slithern", was not the only female, and had no care or knowledge of bible god and his fear of eating apples.

Skep

So tell me what part of Meiosis did evolution use, and what % of mutations are accepted as evolutionary positives, and since you dread mitochodrial eve as others do, care to show me where in the BIBLE the dreaded Book, it says that " eating apples causes death" warning " Ignorance IS Deadly!!!"

Hey, now that's an interesting point -- I like it!

God keeps modifying the one and only strain of flu into different variations because he hates infants and the elderly

intelligently_designed_drugs

Well, God did make a baby suffer for a week before killing it (2 Sam 12:15 - 18).

Maybe the truth doesn't need to stand up to criticism and experimental process, ever think of that?

Timothy1Mil: The meaning of your life is in the term: Sheeple.

Truth (as you interpret it) IS a philosophical concept, so there you go. No points this round.

If it can't be substantiated by the scientific process, it's clearly not true.

Obviously you're not listening. It simply means that, as a philosophy, true or not, it should not be taught in science class. Your beliefs close your mind.

Timothy, if what you said were valid is COULD stand up to the critical process. To say it doesn't need to do so leads to a circular argument. "Our church says creationism is true, therefore creationism is true because our church said it was and if it wasn't true then our church wouldn't have said it. Therefore, you shouldn't try to prove it scientifically, because it is true - our church said so." This argument applied to the Church's teaching that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun (and all other bodies) rotated around it. It was a truth that didn't need to be subjected to the critical process. Unfortunately for you, when it was subjected to the critical process it failed miserably. So, you can continue to live in the Dark Ages and believe that evolution is false and that the sun revolves around the earth, or you can live in REALITY and accept that basic scientific evidence says otherwise.

If a subject, once subjected to rigorous scrutiny, is proven to be false, then it is not true. The stories in the Bible, if presented as literal word-for-word facts, most often are proven false when subjected to rigorous scrutiny. Rigorous scrutiny doesn't mean that you look for something to be false until you have found falsity even when truth is present. Rigorous scrutiny means that you look for what is there, and whether you find truth or falsity you will find what is there, and that is real truth.

BL, do you have anything more to contribute than just habitually disagreeing with anyone and everyone who posts?

Timothy1Mil "Maybe the truth doesn't need to stand up to criticism and experimental process, ever think of that?"

Scientific truth does. Religious "truth" does not.

Exactly it is the difference between knowing something, having a real understanding, and beleiveing something, having faith in something you don't understand. Faith and knowledge are two separate things. Kids should go to public school for knowledge they should go to sunday school for faith.

Intelligent design belongs in neither philosophy nor science, both disciplines work to make sure what they do reflects reality. Save intelligent design and creation for the literature department and religious studies.

This is Texas folks. It really isn't about evolution versus creationism. It is not about interpretation of theory to fact. It is about support of one of that states largest industries. Religion. Especially televangelism. Additionally, Texas educates many, if not most, seminary degreed protestant clergy in the US. No state can match the particular religious lobbying interests present in Texas. Religion is exceptionally big money in Texas.

MacForrestor...With Tots and Tiara's as the big second industry...roflmao. How those parents aren't accused of child abuse for forcing a 2 year old to look like some pedophile's dream is beyond rationality.

ewent : You're right. They sure carry this to high extremes, especially with the little girls from prominate families. While there are many all over the country, Texas seems to believe such is their social "rite" and responsibility as Texans. I think many Texans crave external valadation of self worth and this is part of it. Regards

ewent--Good point! It has to be a form of pedophilia Two words: Jonbenet Ramsey...

JOCK You have a religion that is call EVOLUTION, please do not upgrade your believes to science, becAuse is not. lOOK, THIS COUNTRY since it was established, it teach creationism, and in the 1900 the public schools start to teach the darwiniam theory. We are not going forward... starting with a man created to be the crown of creation on earth, ending up with the APE as a step of what you are now. Show me one monkey in the process of evolution and you're theory may be validated.

Vertical evoution has proven nothing-it is not even a science, as you said-it is a religion. There has never been found a fossil of a "penguisaurus rex", for example. Thank you Leon-3780800 for elaborating upon this. God Bless!

Uh, Leon? Evolution isn't a religion, it's just a scientific fact.

And if you want to see a monkey in the process of evolving, just look at any monkey. Evolution is a process that doesn't stop.

"Exploring all sides" should include EVERY SINGLE CREATION STORY - the Earth riding on a turtle carried on the back of an elephant, coyotes coming from the underworld, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and my own personal insistence that the entire universe was instantly brought into existence as a result of a sneeze by the Great Squink, an eternal and infinite-dimensional purple pig.

But seriously folks: SimpleHeart, please take a basic science class so you can understand some chemistry and biology. Nowhere does evolution require the existence of a penguinsaurus or a guineapigsaurus or any other such "morphological ancestor", any more than there had to be a trilobite (you can look it up) that resembled a Tyrannosaur.

Leon, you're still clinging to the 19th-century misinterpretation that evolution describes a single-stemmed tree running from amphibian to reptile to bird to mammal, culminating with humans at the top. DNA analysis(*) has shown that the so-called tree of life has many branches and that each one has a current top end but that further branching and top-ends will be inevitable. Investigations long ago debunked the argument that "evolution can't be true because it says we're descended from lower apes but chimps and gorillas are still alive today". The rate of DNA change has been measured and allows us to conclude that humans and other apes have a common ancestor some 6 or 7 million years ago; i.e. we're not the offspring of chimps but rather their evolutionary cousins. We're at the high end of our branch of the tree while chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and so on are each at the high ends of theirs - at least for now.

(*) You DO "believe" in DNA even though you haven't seen it, don't you? If you don't, why do you need a different flu shot every year? And where did all of those double-helix models come from?

Ok Mr webster, DNA is NOT a theory like evolution is a FACT. And there you go, any thing that the evolutionist CANNOT explain they will ad ZEROS, millions of years, OK PROVE IT.

Now, you are not allowed to use the word believe in you explanation, the moment you do, youre theory falls in the category of a religion. And you CANNOT explain evolution without the word BELIEVE.

THATS WHY I SAY THAT EVOLUTION IS A FAIRY TALE, it never was true it never will.

I hope that one day you theory will continue to evolve ( becouse youre theory keeps evolving) to the point that you recognize that everything was CREATED perfect and with a purpose by one GOD

Evolution says chimps, etc. are our cousins. Number of chromosomes states otherwise. Chimps and tobacco have 48 of them and we have 46. Does this mean chimps and tobacco are evolutionary cousins? How about opossums, redwoods and kidney beans-all of them have 22 chromosomes.

By which "God" Leon?

Allah? Yahweh? Vishnu? Odin? Zeus? Cronus? The Great Spirit? Quetzalcoatl?

Why should any one creation myth (and for these purposes I will even allow "evolution" to be considered a creation myth) to be given precedence over any other? Will you accept all these other creation myths to be taught as well as your particular brand? If not, then why not just limit it to the single version for which the POSSIBILITY of disproof exists (evolution) rather than all the versions which simply state "because my diety wills it so" when data/results don't match up?

One problem is that the proudly ill educated confuse the everyday English use of the word "theory" with the scientific use of the word, which means something else altogether.

@childlikeheart

Great question on chromosome numbers. The reason why chimps having one more pair of chromosomes more than humans (but still somehow evolved from them) is found within chromosome #2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

The question wasn't even answered or addressed decently till about twenty years ago, which was then tested, gone over, and improved or refined by others over the next ten years before it became workable knowledge (solid and accepted enough that no one needs to cite it anymore).

@Leon: I think you're confusing evolution with metamorphosis. Evolution is an ongoing process that depends on environmental factors, and it takes many generations for each change to occur. Metamorphosis, on the other hand, is somewhat similar to Pokemon-style evolution in which an individual transforms into something quite different within a relatively short frame of time. For example, caterpillars go through metamorphosis, during which they turn into butterflies. It's nowhere near as spectacular as in Pokemon.

Childlikeheart, it seems to me you may be bumping up against the idea that related morphology (shapes / formations) implies a close biological relationship. It's a natural idea whose formal expression dates back at least to the ancient Greeks; the only problem is that it leads to conclusions such as worms and snakes being closely related or that cetaceans (dolphins, whales, etc.) are variations on fish, both of which were believed by the Greeks. It's also a natural extension that micro-level similarities must imply an even closer relationship because they're at a more fundamental biological level.

The Greeks' macro-level relationships were discarded after closer examination (e.g. dissections and so on) showed that while many animals have developed similar shapes and behaviors in response to their environments they're actually anatomically quite dissimilar and in fact may only be distantly related. As thull pointed out, DNA analysis has demonstrated that micro-level similarities can actually be distinct and conversely that supposed dissimilarities can be closely related.

Some of these concepts can be very tough to get your head around but please keep asking great questions and giving it a try.

childlikeheart post 6.6

Wait, wait, wait. You're going to tell me that you believe in what scientist say when they talk about numbering chromosomes, but you are not going to believe the SAME scientist that found our two chromosomes fused together. Why?

I hope that one day you theory will continue to evolve ( becouse youre theory keeps evolving) to the point that you recognize that everything was CREATED perfect and with a purpose by one GOD

now that IS delusional self-importance, the guy considers himself perfect

Unless the cons are quoting scientists for the sake of profit, scientists, to them are just presenting hoaxes.

This from people who are believe repugnicrites should lead the planet.

Prove it.

Agreed. The Flying Spaghetti Monster did create it all, but the elitists won't allow an open debate.

Teach the pasta-versy!

"First Cause"

That is correct. Allah created all things.

Actually, our ancestors evolved to believe in supreme beings - it is a natural progression from total ignorance through superstition and finally evolving into rational human beings (at last for those of us who are smart enough to drop these fanciful notions of celestial dictators).

Brian has spoken. Mind closed.

By Odins beard, you are right! Zeus praises your intelligence, and Brahma smiles upon you.

Brian--your religion is a belief. Nothing more; nothing less.

Paul, you are an infidel! I insist that the universe was created by the Great Purple Squink and I urge all Squinkians to rally for the cause!

Unless of course there are any objections from the elephant on whose back the turtle stands.

Exactly. Equal time for Creationism, FSMism, and fact-based science. Teach the controversy and let the students decide.

AND the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Let's be fair. You can't just teach one side of this, pasta-boy!

Heretic! BURN HIM!

You can't forget Greek mythology, the version in the Koran (slightly different from Genesis now aint it?), the Hindu creation myth, native American myths and the several hundred African tribal myths hanging about and basically any extremist crackpot out there as well.... You can'tforget Mrs. Garrison's theory that states we are the retarded offspring of a bunch of monkey fish frogs having butt sex with a squirrel!

Stop talking about the Flying Spaghetti Monster your making me hungry!!

Yet more proof of his existence. It is a thing of beauty, is it not?

FSM RULES!

I have been a Pastafarian for the last four years. I have to say that I've been perplexed over the belief that some have which states that we were created by his noodley appendages prior to the sprinkling of parmesan cheese. I don't understand why this serious question is not debated more in the Texas schools. Where are their priorities?

I also have to say that it’s mighty presumptuous of so many of you to assume that modern day scientists know more than some nomadic people living in the deserts of the Middle East thousands of years ago. Furthermore, I once believed that I witnessed evolution in my garden by cross breading some flowers and seeing the differences in their offspring. I later was informed that The Flying Spaghetti Monster comes down and paints the flowers different colors to make it appear like evolution is real. I do believe that the Texas schools will do the right thing. It seems apparent that they have meatballs making the decisions already.

Good one.

However, what about an intelligent debate based on the facts instead of ridicule . . .

Richard Lewontin, an influential evolutionist, candidly wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

In this regard, sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities, “the religious people keep their mouths shut.”

If you are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite a century of research that shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new.

You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite a fossil record that strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on facts or on myths?

Really, belief in evolution is an act of “faith.”

No, belief in evolution is based on evidence. The reason that creationism is met with ridicule is because it tries to present itself as science with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

I would say the fossil record is some pretty strong evidence, or don't you believe the fossil record either?

Uh, Robert? The fossil record is one of the best examples supporting the fact of evolution. Despite what you said, it illustrates beautifully the transition of life from earlier forms.

Robert, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of science if you are a 'Creationist.'

"despite a fossil record that strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time."

Absolutely positively a false statement. In fact, backwards. The fossil evidence CLEARLY shows the evolution of species over time.

What I never understand is why people can't see that evolution could quite possibly be the way that God "creates". I mean, what is a "day" to a supreme being that is infinite? Why MUST it be 24 hours?

Religious beliefs are based on -0- evidence. And people who believe them will defend the baseless beliefs to the end.

Know what they did to the guy who first proved that the earth rotated around the sun instead of the other way around as was the RELIGIOUS belief of the time? Into jail he went.

And not a thing has changed with this type of mentality for the centuries since that happened. This mentality is simply NOT evolving.

Know what they did to the guy who first proved that the earth rotated around the sun instead of the other way around as was the RELIGIOUS belief of the time? Into jail he went

Not only that, but the religious institution continued to consider him a heretic for almost 300 more years after one of their own darling pet scientists put forth the exact same belief. It might also be noted that it was actually a religious MONK that actually laid the vast majority of the basic groundwork for evolution by describing the process involved in inheriting traits and mutations...so evolution has its very roots in religion...but of course Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents can ignore that because Mendel was simply being "tricked" by God into doing His will to foment discord to "test" the faithful.

The only two Creationist ideas that are possibly valid involve either aliens (who are highly advanced--but this wouldn't explain anything outside of Earth) or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (who deliberately plants evidence to lead us away from Creationism). Occam's razor dictates that the simplest explanation, i.e. evolution, is the most valid one.

it is like teaching Transubstantiation.

Lol. That I would love to see them take a crack at.

Genuflect Genuflect Genuflect!!!

Come on damnit, work!

The power of Christ compels me...to have a sammich

It's okay to talk about creationism in a mythology or anthropology class, but it has no place in science, not unless there's solid evidence for it anyways. Which there won't be.

There's a reason why scientists don't believe in the supernatural. It's because nobody ever reliably demonstrated its existence. As a scientist I believe we should always be open to new ideas, but every new idea must be met with appropriate skepticism. A new idea must be reliably validated before it can be accepted.

If I'm not mistaken and if my memory serves me correctly, the belief in Transubstantiation was only re-confirmed by the Catholics during the Council of Trent where they tried to sort of re-structure their some of their beliefs/teachings due to the strong and ever growing popularity of the protestantism belief. Among the other things that were re-affirmed during this event was the church's belief in the Holy trinity. One GOD, three beings. (god the father, son, and spirit) And also the divinity of Christ. This last one is really very controversial because when the final votes came in, those who agreed to re-affirm their belief in Christ's divinity just won by a very narrow margin. By just one vote! And yes, all these beliefs that most Catholics/Christians are believing in now were because of some sort of election that was held about 200 years after Christ's death on the cross.

Seriously? No... Really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f72CTDe4-0

I don't think there are a few states to drop. Maybe Mississippi.

51st; Perry won't be satisfied with "just" 50th ...

Just wait till he tries for gold on a global scale. He might start burning women at the stake to keep ahead of the Middle East.

If 50 million people say a stupid thing, it remains a stupid thing.

This plague of course only targets the stupid. It was intelligently designed by a scientist in a lab :)

Wait. Creationism was designed in a church, not a laboratory.

The road to truth is long, hard and lined the entire way with annoying b@stards.

The poll is incomplete. It should have also reported the average education level of those 40% who believe the creation myth and compared it to the education level of those who understand the importance of evolution in the study of biology.

Said the blind man to himself.

Really Tim? That's it? No reasoned argument to reply with?

They really should have a Mythology 101. That way, they could teach Christian, Muslim, Jewish mythology, et al.

That's the exact name of the class I took in high school Tim W, and Christianity was hands-down the most boring creation story out of the class. I've always been more partial to the Greek myths.

Excellent post Toasty!

I agree with you Toasty.

I also believe that if you choose to discredit science based on a book that was decimated by men at the Nicene Council to keep the peons ignorant then you do not deserve to benefit from that very science you choose to discredit.

JA!!J A!!JA EVOLUTION IS A SCIENCE, that is a good JOKE

More than just science, it's an undisputed fact.

Evolution is a theory, based in facts. Creationism is fantasy.

Have you ever realized that If evolution has facts then it will not be a theory any more, but...still a theory.

Science is based on theories. You weren't there 200 million years ago, you didn't document every change that happened. Evolution is simply the most likely way things went. It doesn't conflict with any known facts or logical inferences, so it's widely accepted.

The brand of Creationism that's highly controversial, on the other hand, is something based on the supernatural and unexplainable. It's full of self-contradictory points. The only two Creationist theories that don't conflict with known facts are aliens (their technology must have been extremely advanced, however that wouldn't explain the origin of anything but life on Earth) and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (who deliberately planted evidence to stop us from believing in Creationism).

or the whole thing just over 6k years old

brainwashing at it best.

I know some trees that are older but not alive

Yup, much better to believe that a big rock existed from all time and exploded from an unknown source and created everything in the universe in the explosion included round celestial objects that stay balanced so perfectly that the atomic clock is set by them. Yep, that's much better.

Especially when you consider that everything else is existence is created, including you, you kids, you watch, you car, your...

Tim I assume you are going with the giant invisible man in the sky theory?

It's possible. Obviously, you've never seen "Bewitched"...!

Uh, clearly it is, Tim, because we have all the evidence we need to support that theory.

Yes Tim, its much better to say "I don't know, so a god must have done it". Thats why the Romans believed Apollo pulled the sun across the sky in his chariot. How else could it happen? And thats why there were gods of wind, sky, sea, etc..etc...how else could those things do what they do? I call it the religion of ignorance, and saying "how else would all of this come to be if not from god" is the same as claiming Apollo or Neptune or Odin did them. There are many thing in life I can't explain, but I don't claim they come from god because of that.

Tim, not to pile on but I must clarify: your argument is "Creationism must be true because I'm too stupid to understand the math"?

That's not a great argument. I'm not sure you'll get very far with it.

Tim I know this is kind of a personal question but have you ever seen the inside of a high school?

The English word 'day' is often used in the Bible to refer to a period of unspecified time (though it is more commonly used synonymously with our understanding of day). I doubt the original author of Genesis intended it to be used the same way that we use it.

It also makes sense to me that the term 'in the beginning' refers to this earth specifically, and not everything in the known universe.

I, for one, believe in evolution and creationism, and I respect the right of others to believe in whatever they wish to believe.

If it was me, and I was a going to create a simulation of our galaxy, I would start by defining all of the laws that would govern this galaxy. For example, I would define the density of rock, plants, water, and air. I would create rules that defined how strong gravity pulled on an object based upon it's mass and rotation. I would define how cellular biology worked, and how life would be allowed to propagate throughout these creations. I would create a self governing system, so that instead of focusing on how many cells I stuck in some lizards abdomen, I could take care of more important things that needed my attention. If a new world needed to be created, I already have all of the rules in place to do so. Following the prescribed laws may take longer than an instant, but all things would be in order and easily maintained.

...of course I'd probably add cheat codes too, but hey, that's just me.

There is something that my evolutionary friends need to understand. The bible doesn't teach you how everything was created, only states the fact that WAS GOD THAT CREATED everything.

Evolution comes from something that existed before, that rock ( that the theory of the size has evolve so much that THE ROCK from thousands of miles wide WENT to one inch and then to NOTHING, THE NEW THING is that NOTHING EXPLODE creating the Big BANG, and from there the UNIVERSE appear) ( by the way do you know that THE word UNIVERSE means SPOKEN WORD.?

Please do not be romantically attached to your theory of evolution, study biology, and ask the hard questions, and do not take as an answer words like, WE BELIEVE THAT, WE THINK THAT, WE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT, THAT MAY BE DID THIS OR THAT. And you found out that you will have very little to show with your THEORY.

TimNil, ask yourself for a minute what an infinite, all-knowing, all-seeing deity would do about creating a planet and a universe. Wouldn't such an omnipotent force have better things to do with His (Her/Its) existence than to create a universe hundreds of millions of light-years across, populate it with possibly trillions of stars, then concentrate all of His/Her/Its efforts on one tiny little blip of rock and water orbiting a comparatively mundane star 3/4 of the way out one arm of a similarly mundane galaxy? Somehow it seems to me that such a being would get bored with our little rubbish-heap and go out across that incredible universe doing many other wonderful things while taking a lot longer than 6000 years to do it.

What will you do if and when we finally find some other planet with life on IT? And just suppose that Gene Roddenberry or Carl Sagan were actually right in some of their speculations, and that those life-forms turn out to be at least as - or maybe a lot more - intelligent than we are? Beyond that what if they have their own fervently-held views about how their world was created? Where will that leave those of you who are convinced your beliefs (not hypotheses, theories, or laws, but beliefs) are utterly unbreakable?

Just wondering. It seems to me that it might be as disconcerting as an appendicitis attack is to a believer in faith-healing, but I could be wrong.

So evolution states that an organism evolved into a fish and a fish one day looked out and decided to flop out of the water and grew legs. Then it became a dinosaur, and then hundreds of thousands of other fish followed suit and became various animals one being a monkey and then slowly became a man. What happened to the other fish? I guess they just weren't smart enough to become men. Why do we have gorillas and monkeys today? Why didn't they evolve? I guess I just don't understand. Why did the initial explosion create an organism, I thought explosions destroy things! Please someone explain! Even if this all took billions of years, didn't the floppy fish have to mate or did he do it all by himself. What are the odds of one freak finding another freak and how does a fish learn to breath air and why don't all the fish do that today? Where are the dinosaurs? How did a small organism become so big, or did they start out really big? A really big organism becomes a really big dinosaur and then becomes a dog? I still don't get it!!!!

Lots of crap on here tonight. Yawn.

Evolution is a fact, fact, fact. Get it through your thick skulls now. Evolution is a FACT. Nothing anyone can say will change that. Don't believe me?

Do yourselves a favor - get together with some friends tonight and go to the middle of a field. Have everyone in the field scream repeatedly at the tops of their lungs ,"The sky is red." Do this all night long. In the morning, tell me what color the sky is.

That in a nutshell is all religion.

It does not matter how many screamers you have, or how loudly they scream - they cannot change a fact of nature.

The sky is blue - Evolution is a fact. The sky is not red - all creation myths are lies.

@Cathy: good to see that you're asking questions instead of obnoxiously insisting that everything must have been created supernaturally. So I'll do my best to clear things up.

The Big Bang did not create life directly. Nothing could be that dense forever, so eventually it couldn't hold itself together anymore and it exploded. Lots of things were created from fundamental particles in a fraction of a second. Time passed and things cooled down. On Earth, oceans were formed from vast quantities of water. Molecules combined and created the first plant. Later, similar things happened in the ocean and the first fish were formed.

One day, a fish flopped out of water. It flopped back in because it wasn't so nice outside (fish can't breathe air). Fish being fish however, the next fish came along and decided to do the same thing. (Remember that unintelligent animals cannot communicate complex ideas.) This sort of thing happened fairly frequently, and every so often there came a fish that was slightly different from the rest, one that can stay out there just a little longer. Eventually the fish that frequently went ashore had descendants that grew legs. As time passed, they eventually had descendants that could breathe air. So they settled on land and spread out. They went to lots of places, so eventually their kids developed different characteristics to suit their environment, such as fur, sharp teeth, tail spikes, etc.

These animals came to be known as dinosaurs. In the meantime, plenty of fish in the sea, perhaps those which lived far from the shore, developed sharp teeth, fins, and tails so that they can swim faster. On land, some animals developed into warm-blooded mammals instead of reptiles. Some dinosaurs took to the skies and some even became birds.

One day a massive meteor crashed into the ocean, shaking the entire planet and killing many animals during the ensuing climate disaster. Those which were small and smart enough to survive did. Many of them were mammals. Time passed, and some evolved into apes, some into mammoth elephants, some into sabre-tooth tigers, etc.

A million years passed. Animals that chose to hunt with speed and teeth became tigers and wolves. Some apes that settled in caves were forced to hunt for generations. They evolved into the first cavemen. Those who felt more at home in the treetops became monkeys. Apes that didn't bother to hunt intelligently became gorillas. More time passed, and modern humans came into existence. Those who lived comfortably ever since they settled into the treetops remained monkeys, having no need for further intelligence. Humans, on the other hand, developed an intelligence unmatched by anything else on the planet, and even now many of us feel the need for more intelligence. We captured some tigers and wolves along the way, their descendants eventually turned into cats and dogs and became domesticated.

Does this answer your questions?

Correction: single-cell organisms came long before plants and fish. My bad.

Did God create Man, or did Man create God?

Personally, I'm going with the latter.

Leon: The best way to make your case is NOT to spout incoherent nonsense. Quantum physics has things appearing and disappearing into nothing all the time. Just because you don't understand the math doesn't make it less true.

And UNIVERSE doesn't mean SPOKEN WORD. It means literally, "turned into one". uni- (one) + versus (past participle of vertere "to turn" or "to turn into"). We are on the Internet for cryin' out loud, look some of this stuff up before posting. We are all dumber for having read that.

We are all dumber for having read that.

my "stupidity overload fuses" blew before the second sentence of leon's post

I agree. And we should also teach "Intelligent Delivery" as an alternative to the sexual theory of human reproduction. Just as long as they make sure to never imply that the "intelligent deliverer" bringing babies to our doorsteps is the Stork, it should be taught as a competing scientific theory.

Please explain to me how you remove religion from "intelligent design". What consciousness would/could be behind "intelligent design" if not one of those 'gods' worshiped by any of the various religions?

The problem with "exploration" of anything involving intelligent design is that teachers who (rightly) demonstrate to their students that the scientific evidence does not support belief in intelligent design, which is a thinly veiled attempt to bring creationism into the classroom, the teacher will be vilified and likely fired because of the outrage from parents on the religious right (wrong).

Chaos - Sounds ok - But again to philosophical to be taught as science. There's no physical evidence or mathematical models regarding your theory. It has as much merit as the "clay and rib" theory of our existence.

Aliens. LOL

Ah, but who designed the aliens?

And if we're going to discuss how the solar system came into existence, a discussion of the Moon requires equal time for the Green Cheese hypothesis.

@Dominus: aliens are actually a more sensible explanation that what the Creationists insist, since they're based on highly advanced science rather than something supernatural.

Honestly, the way some of these bible nuts have posted their insanity here in clear view of others is powerful evidence of an unintelligent designer.

Interesting replies.

The assumption that I am a Bible Thumper is laughable.

Panspermia is a viable scientific hypothesys, under study of several prominent scientists around the world, and is not in any way religious. I re-specify, for those of you whose objectivity suffers from ego and intolerance: There is nothing wrong with asking questions and exploring those questions in a science classroom, unless one begins to use that exploration to indocrinate students with religious dogma.

Apart from that, since when did questions about the origins of the universe have no place in a science classroom? Seems to me that denying children the right to question the world around them is tantamount to the same foul intolerance displayed by religious bigots hell-bent on censure and hatred. Those who outright reject a scientific hypothesys with rancor and hatred are no better than the twelth-century-minded idiots who would burn us at the stake if they thought they could get away with it.

And try actually understanding what I said in my previous post, would you? I know how difficult interpretation and actual thought is for some of you, but honestly, some of you are just as bad as the religious nutjobs one can find here.

Thank you.

Chaos

Well said Bravo!!!

"millions of other inhabitable planets within the known universe" Nuts for NUTS , nuts anyone?

The thing about Texas is that you have all this religion but you can't find three wise men or a virgin.

If there were truly intelligent design there wouldn't be reality TV shows and I wouldn't be going bald.

Those critical of Texas, religious activists, and God fearing folks are the truly sad people. Because they do nnot subscribe to the same ideas and theories you do (Thank God) hardly makes them wrong. Whether you agree with the ideas purported by the religious right or not makes little difference. Unfortunately for your contention most of Genesis can by synthesized with science. Take Lunatic - what possible intellectual advancement did you make with that bit of tripe. Please finish school before committing your life to ignorance.

Here's the version that I believe in: the Flying Spaghetti Monster got drunk off of his beer volcano and created Earth. He manipulated the particles to make things look older than they actually are. And lots of people are BLITHERING IDIOTS because the FSM was drunk and wasn't very smart to begin with. See? No discrepancies!

I live in Texas so you might think I am biased. But I am also 14. For all the people "hating" on Texas, you guys are sad. Before you hate on Texas and Texans why don't you try to grow up and say well I am biased because I don't live in Texas.

Alot of liberals hate Texas because we are a conservative success story. Let you guys find a liberal state success story.

Texans are actually quite smart. Admittingly rural folk are less "educated", same for mexicans. But that doesn't make us all dumb. I can tell you that there is probably an equal number of dumb people in liberal states as their is in Texas. The main difference there is that we don't let them run are lifes.

The choice by the board is the smart one. Stay off the issue. We aren't going to try to "force" are ideals upon others. Unlike liberals.

We are content if you people stay out of our states business and try to run your own. Thank you.

i'm glad i don't have to live anywhere close to you VERY SMART texas "god fearing" "folks" if you didn't spend all your time fearing something that's not even there, maybe you could learn to think for yourselves.

Kid -

I am sorry if anyone on here offended you. I think they're just joking, so try not to be too hard on them.

You seem to be a mature kid, and ready for a small debate. Now about your post -

"A lot of liberals hate Texas because we are a conservative success story. Let you guys find a liberal state success story."

Texas is not a conservative success story - as you yourself pointed out, stereotyping all Texans is wrong. Texas is made up of more than just farmers, or oilmen, or Mexicans, or conservatives. There are a lot of liberals in Texas as well, and a lot of very smart people. So if you consider Texas a "success story", that success could not have come from only Mexicans or farmers or conservatives. In other words, what makes Texas great is its diversity - it cannot be a "conservative" success story. The same logic applies equally to what you might call a "liberal" state (like Maryland or New York).

I've met some very intelligent Texans in my life, and I agree with your third paragraph, but only up to a point. You made this statement -

"The main difference there is that we don't let them run are lifes."

I honestly think that perhaps you are as guilty as these liberal posters here. It is not right for them to stereotype Texans and it is not right for you to stereotype liberals. I can't think of a single place where liberals "run the lives" of others. And I also can't think of a single liberal who has ever tried to "force" their ideals upon others.

Keep posting - share your views with others.

Our point here is to debate the merits of evolution vs. creationism. I'm sorry if you've been offended, kid, but the purpose was never to rip on Texans. It just so happens that this particular article is about an ongoing event in Texas. Some of us expanded the argument, but what we really wanted was to have a debate about which theory is better.

Oh come on, you guys aren't really sorry about your opinions just because a kid walked into the room.

BreakingGlass: They didn't apologize for talking. They said they didn't mean to offend anyone, they were only poking fun.

Akid: New York and Washington (state) are pretty successful as liberal states. There are others as well. You can't honestly believe that Texas is the only "successful" state, do you? Or that only the conservative states are "successful"?

No less than you do, Craig!