Future speaker, intelligent design believer

You knew the overwhelming support of Florida's proposed new science standards - especially the part about requiring evolution as a key "big idea" that kids must understand to grasp science - couldn't last for long.

First, several Polk County School Board members voiced their opposition. The grassroots foes soon started to speak more loudly, too. Then came the big news that Donna Callaway, a State Board of Education, shared the view that evolution needs some balance in schools.

Now comes state Rep. Will Weatherford, the Wesley Chapel Republican who's already lined up enough votes to become House speaker in 2011. Asked if he supported the evolution-only approach, Weatherford told the Gradebook, ""I'm not a big fan of that."

"I'm not a scientist, but I will tell you in general evolution is one of the theories. To show it from just one perspective and say this is more important or more accurate than the rest, I'm not so sure I'm in favor of that," Weatherford said.

He continued on to state he believes students should learn about all the major theories and be allowed to decide for themselves.

"Intelligent design is something I'm personally a fan of, and something I personally believe in," he said. "But I don't want to see that jammed down their throats, either. It shouldn't be slanted one way or the other."

Comments

[FSM]

The divine noodle of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is at work. Praise be!

[Jaws]

"I'm not a scientist, but I will tell you in general evolution is one of the theories. To show it from just one perspective and say this is more important or more accurate than the rest, I'm not so sure I'm in favor of that,"

That's tantamount to saying, "I'm not a doctor or anything but I feel that they should teach Kabala in Medical School."

[Dennis]

Evolution is not "one" of the theories. It is the ONLY theory. ID/creationism/FSMism/Giant Invisible Pink Unicornism/ and any other infinite such "isms" that people can invent, are NOT theories. They are wild speculations devoid of evidence. There is NO other theory that has any scientific basis, evidence, or validity. Every shred of evidence, and every diverse field of biology from genetics to histology to ecology to developmental biology and on and on, plus other sciences such as geology and paleontology, ALL converge onto the same conclusion...evolution. There is no field of science that runs counter to evolutionary theory. Rep. Weatherford admits he's not a scientist, and proves it clearly in his statements. He should think about deferring to people who actually understand the topic.

[Mencken Jr]

It's another opportunity for the obnoxiously religious to embarrass themselves.

[Brandon]

I welcome you to visit the Florida Citizens for Science website http://www.flascience.org and consider joining our organization if sound science education in Florida matters to you.

We had broken the Callaway story a few days ago: http://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=331
Keep an eye on our blog for similar updates!

[Jaws]

Dennis, you obviously haven't felt the awe-inspiring presence of the FSM. He weeps for you with his two googley eyes.

[Brendan]

Well put Dennis. Bravo.

[j]

We all know the world is flat. I say burn the scientists that say otherwise! Or maybe feed them to the lions.

Btw. According to most modern day religions, its ok to hate gays, but promote child molesters.

I believe in god, but not corporate/power hungry religions.

[Tim N.]

Scientific evidence has all but proved that Darwin’s theory of evolution is just plain wrong. Fossil records contain only complete and fully-formed species. There are no fossils or any other evidence of partially-evolved species that indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed (created. The universe from the vastness of space to the sequencing of DNA is just too complicated to have been an accident. God is awesome!

[politicalspectator]

All hail theocratic hypocrisy!

How come Adam and Eve didn't have a car?

[Jaws]

Tim N. is totally correct. Jesus and God just karate-chopped the universe into being.

Then Chuck Norris smiled and all was right with the world. Kool-aid anyone?

[j]

Don't confuse God and religion.

[(Mr) Bill]

I wonder whether Rep. Weatherford (in whose district I reside) is "a fan of" the gravity-only approach to falling objects, the round-planets-only approach to astronomy, or the germ-theory-only approach to infectious disease.

God save us all.

[Dave]

There ARE no other scientific theories.

I cannot believe we let people this ignorant in places of public trust.

Can we PLEASE raise the level of scientific education in this country? This is embarrassing.

If you don't believe in evolution, you're WRONG. It's that simple. The debate is OVER in the scientific community. The only people who don't believe in it are people who put their faith in an old book over THE REAL WORLD.

That's scary.

[Ryan]

I always laugh at extremists on both ends. Good examples here by Dave and Tim N. who both believe the exact opposite (and are both wrong)

[Ryan]

Maybe either of them would be so kind as to cite some kind of proof though (probably not).

[Jason Phillips]

You intelligent evolution supporters that think you all are doctorates of both evolution vs. creationism, I am here to inform you of that I believe the last time I checked in the Webster's dictionary for the meaning of THEORY, it means that it might NOT be true either?? A THEORY is a HYPOTHESIS, which is an educated GUESS??? HMMM?? I guess you all forget that meaning..Then, I know what some of your replies are going to be, well, it takes an education to believe in evolution?? Check your science out, and if you even knew the meaning of the "Second Law of Thermodynamics," You would know that materials don't go from worse to better, evolution being true is like a tornado going through a junkyard and miracuously building a Boeing 747.
But, I forgot, you all are educated about science.

[Tim N.]

Charles Darwin was actually trained in theology, not science. Kind of like the blind leading the blind.
The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. (Psalms 19:1-3 NIV) If you want proof of God just look around.

[Nate]

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20070514.gif

[Reed]

Keep your religion out of my classroom, and I will keep my science out of your church!

[JLO]

Tim N: "Scientific evidence has all but proved that Darwin’s theory of evolution is just plain wrong."

No, all the related scientific evidence confirms the theories of Natural Selection and Common Descent.

The only one who is consistently proven wrong is you.

Jason Phillips: "You intelligent evolution supporters that think you all are doctorates of both evolution vs. creationism, I am here to inform you of that I believe the last time I checked in the Webster's dictionary for the meaning of THEORY, it means that it might NOT be true either??"

Wow, your ignorance speaks so loudly that I can hardly hear what you're trying to say.

However, if you'd like to know more about how a scientific theory and a hypothesis differ, take a basic science class.

[paul]

We are now living in the 1950's. Welcome to Florida, home of the ignorant, less educated, regressive government and citizens. Forget science and math, let's cater to the bibles of a few and put ourselves behind the rest of the country in education and culture. Now only if they could figure out how to get the gay people out of here, it would be a mecca for the bible thumpers. This is absolutely pathetic. First Rhonda Storms and her fanatical anit-bikini bar, county ordinances against gays, religion focused tactics and now govt officials proposing how science is taught. Unreal. Completely shameful to push your religious agendas on others. Govt needs to shut up and lower my property taxes and insurance. Not be king of the land and tell me where I came from.

[FLBobcat]

Nice to see all the evolutionists emerging from their caves today . . . all hail to Xenu!

[Tim N]

Reed, The problem with your assertion is my point exactly. Evolution is NOT science. It never has and never will be. I'm just looking for a little balance. If you want to teach Anti-God (Evolution) in school you should also teach Pro-God (Creation). I'm not talking about teaching Christianity or any other religion in school. I'm talking about the concept of creationism.

[Mike]

Oh boy ... Jason Phillips: What does The Second Law of Thermodynamics have to do with a theory that attempts to explain organization of matter? Your rebuttal would have some credence if you had instead referenced the Law of Conservation of Matter, which states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed (i.e., mass remains constant) within a closed system, although it can be rearranged. Seeing that the earth is a closed system, and that evolution is nothing more than an increasingly adaptive rearranging of matter, I would suggest you hammer out your details a bit better. You speak of entropy and the creation of heat in any energy transaction; evolution deals strictly with organization of matter from single-celled organisms through the complex multi-celled organisms that exist today. Energy is dealt with in ecology and the processes of photosynthesis and the food chain. But thanks for playing! You win a copy of The Origin of Species.

[Mike]

Oh boy ...

Jason Phillips: What does The Second Law of Thermodynamics have to do with a theory that attempts to explain organization of matter? Your rebuttal would have some credence if you had instead referenced the Law of Conservation of Matter, which states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed (i.e., mass remains constant) within a closed system, although it can be rearranged. Seeing that the earth is a closed system, and that evolution is nothing more than an increasingly adaptive rearranging of extant matter, I would still suggest you hammer out your details a bit better.

You speak of entropy and the creation of heat in any transaction from high-quality to low-quality energy; evolution deals strictly with organization of matter from single-celled organisms through the complex multi-celled organisms that exist today. Energy is dealt with in ecology and the processes of photosynthesis and the food chain. But thanks for playing! You win a copy of The Origin of Species.

[Dennis]

Tim N.: Evolution is most certainly science. It underlays all of biology. It is supported by all of biology. It uses the scientific method. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it not science. I've studied and worked in science for many years, including a graduate degree in biology. I've also read lots of books on evolution, and lots of the tripe put out there by the creationist/ID crowd.

By the way, evolution is NOT anti-god. It may be anti-YOUR chosen view of how your god operates, but it certainly is not anti-god. Many millions of Christians and other religious people understand this very obvious point and accept the fact of evolution.

[Dennis]

Jason Phillips:

Learn what a theory means in science. It can be found in any elementary level science book.

[Dave]

See what happens when you dont exercise your right to vote? You get an idiot like THIS elected. Wow... Religion is NOT science. There are various types of theories which currently exist regarding how the universe was created and as long as they are ALL based on science and NOT the supernatural, they should be taught in the classroom. Yes, I believe in God, but like it or not, he is STILL a supernatural being. Leave religion and fantasy at the Temple, Church, or wherever you practice your faith and please leave REAL science where it belongs, in the classroom, lab, etc... PS Why is it that its ONLY the Christians supporting this ID concept? You never find fellow Jews standing on their "soap box" screaming about how ID should be taught in the science classrooms! Whats even funnier is that ID is based on OUR book, The Torah, or as Christians call it, The Old Testament as opposed to their book, the NEW Testament... Weird. Thank you, now move along...

[colleen]

ok, darwins theory of the evolutionary tree? who created the tree?

[JLO]

Irony Alert!

FLBobcat: "Nice to see all the evolutionists emerging from their caves today . . . all hail to Xenu!"

If religious people would just stay in their caves they wouldn't have the opportunity to attack the valid scientific process.

Oh, but it was science and applied scientific theories that brought us out of caves.

And as for "all hail anything" - that sounds pretty religious to me.

All hail to the invisible man who lives in the sky and is watching you!

[Dennis]

Colleen:

What do you mean who created the tree? The "tree" is nothing more than a graphical depiction of how life branched. WE created the tree as a tool to describe visually how life evolved.

[JLO]

I just can't stop myself. It's too funny.

Irony Alert!

colleen: "ok, darwins theory of the evolutionary tree? who created the tree?"

Ok, intelligent design's intelligent designer? who designed the designer?

[Chris W]

Tim N and Jason Phillips are just regurgitating stuff they've memorized without understanding it. Forgive them, for they know not of what they speak.

[Dave]

How stupid does a person have to be to not even understand the scientific meaning of the word "Theory?"

You just show off your ignorance and refuse to learn why you're wrong.

Sad, stupid people. Just keep praying that maybe one day the evil scientists will go away and the world can live in ignorance forever!

Idiots. I am embarrassed to be an American. We are the laughingstock of the world, because of ignorant fundamentalists who refuse to learn science (see the guy above who refuses to learn what a "scientific theory" means).

You are sad, shameful, ignorant fools.

[Jigsaw]

Who created God?

If the world is so damn complex that someone had to create it, who created the creator?

It's just the same logic. What's the answer?

[Rob Holiday]

These religious people crack me up. Every religion just hand picks what they want to believe/follow from another religion. Sure, OK, religions had to have a beginning, but from then on, it was "adjusted" to fit the times. Where is the consistency?

One of the stupidest, most simple minded comments: "If you want proof of God just look around." Just because you can't understand something, doesn't mean it comes from the super-natural. If you could take any modern devices or medical cures back 2000 years, you would be considered a god. Only because people from that time can not comprehend what you take for granted. That is what people still do today about things they don't understand.

[Ms. Galore]

The best thing about this "discussion" is that those of us who reject "creationism" and the various leaps of faith (and ignoring of logic) required to subscribe to the belief that some benevolent "God" "created" our planet and all life on it are no longer social pariahs. Used to be that we of little or no faith were scapegoated and scorned. Finally, the tide is turning (because of gravitational forces, perhaps) and the God Squad is becoming less and less influential.

[Florida Native]

You asked:

Who created God? If the world is so damn complex that someone had to create it, who created the creator?

Mark Twain said (and I agree):

God created man in his own image, and man, being a gentleman, returned the compliment.

[Dave]

If ID should be taught in the classroom, then I believe that the theory that Aliens conducted a biological experiment fusing their DNA with chimps should be taught in the classroom as well. Look, anybody in the past that maintained superior technology was ALWAYS considered "Gods" by inferior humans. Take for example, The Spanish Conquistadors vs. the Mayans. So why would the theory that Aliens created humans, placed us in this "Ant Farm" of sorts, and from time to time decided to descend in their "chariots of fire" for SCIENTIFIC observations be so freakin loony? Is it as loony as ID? Faith is faith, right? Science belongs in the classroom. Religion belongs at your place of worship. Nuff Said

[Jinfla]

First thanks for the entertainment, some witty remarks kept me reading all the comments today.
Thanks to all the educated contributors, they make me feel a little easier driving on our public highways.
I guess I should also thank the more religious of the ID contributors; hopefully they all have those pretty fish on the back of their SUVs so I can keep a safe enough distance away from them.

[Fred]

Please, for the love of your "God", please read this link explaining what a "Scientific Theory" is.
www.astronomynotes.com/scimethd/s2.htm
"ID" is not a scientific theory.

[Fred]

Here, I'll make it simple:
Rule #1: A scientific theory must be testable. It must be possible in principle to prove it wrong.
That eliminates "Intelligent Design" as a scientific theory.

[Disgusted]

In response to the converse, I think we need a concerted effort to inject science into the church. As a start, how about requiring laboratory analysis of any wine claimed to have been turned to blood, and any bread claimed to have been turned to flesh? Or requiring the preaching of evolution alongside Genesis since the two (or three) accounts are, apparently, equally valid?

Dear God, please fly me north or west.

[Dave]

Hey disgusted, how about the "miracles", such as the Virgin Mary's "appearance" in Clearwater back in the day? We should DEFINITELY teach our students about miracles in Science class! Dont you agree? Come on! Forget natural phenomena, we have works of "G-d" going on here. Forget the lab analysis! You CANT question G-D's miracles man....

[anotherdmbblonde]

I love that we are able to have our own opinions. And since none of us were there at the creation of the world, and have been unable to re-create it, the scientific theory really can't be proved. Yes there is evidence, but nothing can be proven really. Choice is always a good thing, right? Why not have it in the schools, pro-choice folks?

I personally believe that the Christians should leave their God-bubble and instead of studying to be pastors, should study science, and then come out with their conclusions. We might all be blown away! :)

[Fred]

"Why not have it in the schools, pro-choice folks?"
If that's the case, shouldn't we teach all theories in school?
Why is ID the other one?
I belong to "The Church of the SubGenius".
www.subgenius.com/slaq.htm#manifesto
Anotherdmbblonde, do you also support my beliefs being be taught in public school?

[Tom]

Do ANY - and I mean ANY - of these ID boosters in our state government even bother to check the Constitutional rulings handed down by the Supreme Court or other federal courts before they even bother to propose these inane ideas?

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epperson_v._Arkansas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_v._New_Lenox_School_District
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloza_v._Capistrano_School_District
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Oh, and it's not just here...

Here's a European ruling...
http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta07/ERES1580.htm

Again, building on yesterday's blog...

There are established scientific processes and theories. Evolution (and genetics) are backed by more than 100 years of research. No, there is no half chimp-half human fossil out there holding a banana in one hand and a briefcase in the other. That's now how evolution works nor is it described that way. It's accepted around the world as the standard. Water runs downhill because the evidence says so. That's what happens with evolution.

So, you wanna teach creation/ID in school? WHOSE creation story will you use? Hindu? Sikh? Buddhist? Shinto? Native American? Norse? Greek? Roman?

NO. They want the Judeau-Christian creation story told. Why? Because in their self-centered, selfish interpretation of their faith, anyone who doesn't believe their way is going to hell. And, if they can 'save the souls' of Florida's school children by pushing their agenda down the kids' throats, they win.

If they want to teach people about their beliefs and value systems, volunteer at your own church/mosque/temple/whatever on your own time. Tell them whatever you want to. But, keep our public school tax dollars from violating the establishment clause of our Constitution. God knows, we have much more important funding priorities than this.

If the state wants to continue to push this nonsense just to 'make their moral point,' please consider that Florida is in the middle of a HUGE budget crisis. From Key West to Pensacola, money is tight and it's only getting tighter. I certainly hope that these fundamentalist lawmakers and officials are passing the hat do pay the legal fees to defend their beliefs in the court system, because the evidence is pointing to their creationist/ID rot being thrown out by the courts - at GREAT expense.

I don't want dime one of my tax money going to promote their own personal beliefs.

[Marc]

Yes, miracles should definitely be tought in schools as well, not just the virgin Mary showing up on the Clearwater office building but don't forget the pancake last week that had both Jesus and the Virgin Mary on it as well. That should definitely also be added to Science textbooks next to in-Intelligent Design.

[Mark]

I'm a fan of Led Zeppelin. Should that be taught in the schools, too?

Or, maybe students should study science, rather than what some politician is a fan of.

[Andy]

Let the voters decide. Creationists err Intelligent Designers win this round.

[jl]

This has been so entertaining during this break in my day, yet sad at the same time that there are so many uneducated out there. As a supporter of teaching "science" in the science classroom, I only have one complaint. For those of you who are blaming FL or the south for the ignorant, let me tell you that I fled the great state of Connecticut 10 years ago and have never looked back. I was not raised there, but moved as an adult and thought I was on another planet. What a bunch of backwoods, xenophobic, arrogant, close-minded people. How it got to be a blue state is beyond me. They have a lot of people fooled. Moral of the story - ignorance is everywhere education is not.

[Kay]

You don't have to be religious to believe in intelligent design. I put a rolex in a box in a zillion pieces and no matter how hard I shook the box, jumped on it and slammed it against the wall, that rolex never became whole. Sorry, I just can't believe that something so complex was the result of an explosion. It makes no sense to me at all. Which is why they should teach all theories in school because if they just teach evolution, many will lose interest because they just can't believe it.
Majical

[jl]

Nice try Kay, that old watch in pieces in a box story has been around longer than time - no pun intended. I had a professor use that as an example back in 1957. It is a great story, but you should not have called it your own. Plus, who would believe a rolex?

Kay, put the pipe down.

...no, really. That's the most amazing analogy I've ever heard.

[IfitstaxexemptIbelieve]

I read through all the comments thinking I would learn more about G.I.P.U.. If they're invisible how do you know they're pink? Is that where the "faith" part comes in? Are we talking "Mary Kay" pink, or are shades of red ok? And the size thing, does "Giant" mean the biggest, or is this just a relative term? Has invisibility even been proven yet or is it just a theory? I believe we deserve answers to these and many more questions before allowing G.I.P.U. to be taught in our schools. Maybe someone could drop off a phamplet with more info.?

[Rugburn]

I love it when armchair scientists dismiss one hundred years of concerted research with one sentence. Why not question relativity? Isn't it equally outrageous that displacement in space affects the passage time? Madness to think so! The point is that much science is beyond those without years of study behind them. Let the scientists do their research and teach science, and go bother Hollywood instead.

[Tom]

Here are some interesting articles from Cecil Adams at the Straight Dope. You don't have to like his snarky attitude, but his research is top notch..

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mevolution.html
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbigbangmyth.html
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mmicromacroev.html
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mevolutionreply.html
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/061110.html

[tom]

All of those benevolent religious zealots who would love nothing more than a state religion... Ahh, yes, the memories flood back...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_persecution

Even Soviet Russia which banned all religion substituted the State as religion and persecuted all heretics.

That's why I am proud to live in the land of the free. Don't take that away from me because your belief system demands otherwise.

[Dennis]

Good links Tom.

Here's another of my favorites. Scientific American addresses the 15 most common creationist/ID nonsense questions/positions. The creationist/IDers use these same tired old, debunked arguments so often that we could just refer to them by their number! "Bubba just used a #1 again!"

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=3&catID=2

[kjw]

When I was in grade school I was taught that evolution was one of the theories to explain the existance of life on earth. There were and are other theories, non of which, including evolution, have been proven. I don't think that it is wise to teach only one theory as an absolute truth. Science IS following curiousity to prove a fact, is it not? How can we foster creative thinking in our children if we tell them just one story without asking them to explore other options. It is possible that there is a little truth in all theories. None should be taught as absolute truth, and teachers should not be afraid to explore other possibilities.

[Florida Native]

"The point is that much science is beyond those without years of study behind them."

No! All you need to understand is scientific method. If it's not testable, it's not science.

"How can we foster creative thinking in our children if we tell them just one story without asking them to explore other options."

No! Science is not about "creative thinking." It's about hypothesizing, testing, theorizing, testing some more. Science is not and should not be force-feeding "facts" to kids. It should be about teaching scientific method and showing how the method is applied by scientists to use facts and evidence---not creative thinking---to add to our understanding of the world and the universe.

Jeez...apparently they haven't been teaching science correctly since I learned the scientific method from Miss Walder in high school biology.

[taxmemorethentakemyhome]

I believe if we threw more money at teachers they would teach better. Just a theory.

[kjw]

Excuse me, Florida Native, can you define hypothesis? Without creative thinking there wouldn't be any!

[Rugburn]

"No! All you need to understand is scientific method. If it's not testable, it's not science."

One cannot effectively hypothesize without knowledge of one's subject. If it's not testable it's not science: correct. If it IS testable...it still MAY NOT be science.

[Randy Goggin]

Here is a list of scientists who no longer believe in neo-Darwinian evolution:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Here is a another list of doctors who have dissented from new-Darwinian dogma:
http://www.pssiinternational.com/list.pdf

These men and women are not stupid; nor are they ignorant of the evidence. While I do believe that creationists have arguments that they could present in the classroom, such as the question of the reliability of radiometric dating methods, catastrophic interpretations of certain geological features, etc., intelligent design seeks to focus only on the question of design and the arguments against evolution. Can evolution explain how irreducibly complex information, structures, and systems are created in the biological world? Where are the thousands of intermediate links between the major animal groups and within those groups? Is the belief that chemicals formed into irreducibly complex lifeforms even plausible?

[Tim N.]

To all the haters,

A perfect example of the decline of American society is how we can't seem to carry on a dialogue without it being riddled with immature insults and personal attacks. Many of the previous comments and I’m sure there are more to come, display a bitterness and coldness of heart that saddens me. You may not want to hear this but I will pray for each of you.

[John]

No matter what you believe here's what will happen. Two or three morons with eyes on higher office will throw a bone to the religious conservatives by supporting I.D.

That's fine.

The only problem is this bone will result in the state spending enormous amounts of cash in legal fees as the situation is wrangled through the courts and ultimately decided as it always is. There is so much case law supporting evolution only education, there is no judge in the state who likes their judicial record relatively overturn free would say otherwise.

All this discussion will do is cost a bunch of money and time to end up right back where we are now.

I look forward to seeing you all on the flip-side.

[Rugburn]

That list is as meagre as it is pathetic. Mathematicians? Engineers? Doctors? They know as little about evolution as the layman.

Irreducible complexity is a philosophical argument in much the same vein as "what came before the big bang?" You can only argue that something appears to complex and irreducible; you cannot prove or test it.

Such "arguments" have no place in science. It does not matter what came before the big bang to science, nor should it. This is true for any similar topics that are, and always will be, highly speculative.

[Randy Goggin]

Here is a good link in which Johnathan Sarfati, Ph.D. responds to the Scientific American article that attacks creationism and intelligent design:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp

[Dennis]

Randy...your side first has to prove that there is such a thing as an irreducibly complex system or structure. They use the phrase, but that doesn't mean there is such a thing. Thus far Behe's pet examples have been disproven as being irreducibly complex.

So how about this. Get the ID/creationism movement to actually do science (crazy thought, I know) and then use the science.

As for your list of scientists, it's a tiny fraction of scientists worldwide, and it includes a number of fundamentalists who are basing their view not on the science, but on their beliefs, including many who are NOT biologists and don't know much biology.

[Dennis]

Tim...the "bitterness" comes from having attempts at patently unscientific ideas being forced into science and science education. Keep it to yourself, and no one will attack you. By virtue of trying to force the nonsense upon others, you are attacking them first.

[Tom]

Tim -

Pray away.

Is it wrong to - when one sees religious fundamentalists trying to subterfuge science and establish their beliefs into the public schools - stand up for what's right?

You are feeling attacked because we don't want to be subject to your interpretation of faith?

Would you be singing a different tune if fundamentalist Muslims were subjecting our students to their strict religious beliefs and passing them off as objective science?

I love living in this country because, Tim, we can disagree and both have the right to do so. And, as I go to bed tonight, I'll thank God that we can do so without the threat of being imprisoned because of our personal beliefs....

[Dennis]

Randy...Safarti is a joke and a disgrace. His writings display an utter lack of understanding of developmental biology. Just because he has a Ph.D in chemistry doesn't mean he knows much about biology, and he's demonstrated that clearly. Additionally, the fact that in his writings he has used the silly "evolution defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics" argument automatically disqualifies him from any serious debate. What's shocking is that since thermodynamics plays a role in chemistry, you'd think he knows better.

[Dave]

An alien came down from the sky last night, gave me an anl probe, and told me first hand that they created us from monkies. We need to teach the Alien theory in schools people. Its the only accurate theory out there. Also, the early Sumarians and the early Jews called them angles. The big Kahuna was called Yahweh. Get it straight or get it gone!

[Rugburn]

If this kind of vague, qualitative application of the 2nd law were correct, we would not see any kind of spontaneous organization in nature, including -- hurricanes. The fact that such organization DOES occur shows that the 2nd law cannot be used in any way, shape or form to refute the idea that life organized itself.

[Tim N.]

Randy,

In my opinion standing up for what you beleive is right is as American as apple pie. But standing up for what you believe and calling people ignorant and stupid because you happen to disagree are two different things.

[tom]

An excellent primer on evolution.

Worth a read:

http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/appendix.html

[tom]

Another great read - this will do a good job spelling out the 'missing' evidence that creationists/id folks point to:

*snip*
Some creationists cite what they say is an incomplete fossil record as evidence for the failure of evolutionary theory. The fossil record was incomplete in Darwin's time, but many of the important gaps that existed then have been filled by subsequent paleontological research. Perhaps the most persuasive fossil evidence for evolution is the consistency of the sequence of fossils from early to recent.

Nowhere on Earth do we find, for example, mammals in Devonian (the age of fishes) strata, or human fossils coexisting with dinosaur remains. Undisturbed strata with simple unicellular organisms predate those with multicellular organisms, and invertebrates precede vertebrates; nowhere has this sequence been found inverted. Fossils from adjacent strata are more similar than fossils from temporally distant strata. The most reasonable scientific conclusion that can be drawn from the fossil record is that descent with modification has taken place as stated in evolutionary theory.

Special creationists argue that "no one has seen evolution occur." This misses the point about how science tests hypotheses. We don't see Earth going around the sun or the atoms that make up matter. We "see" their consequences. Scientists infer that atoms exist and Earth revolves because they have tested predictions derived from these concepts by extensive observation and experimentation.

[Andy]

I am still holding on to the theory that the world is flat. I have seen a map. All of you globalists are going to die in a lake of fire. My faith is much too fragile to believe the world is round or that God took longer than seven days to create us.

[Randy Goggin]

"Irreducible complexity is a philosophical argument in much the same vein as "what came before the big bang?" You can only argue that something appears to complex and irreducible; you cannot prove or test it."

You cannot prove or test that evolution occurred in the past. You can look at the fossil evidence, and you can observe the types of changes that occur in living things in the present.

Evolutionists often use the argument that antibiotic resistance is proof of evolution. But opponents of evolution don't argue that mutations occur or that changes can occur within living things. The problem is the need for new information. Life supposedly came from single-celled organisms, which supposedly arose from chemicals. Where did all the information come from to create all of the complexity and diversity in the biological world? "In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new information." (Sarfati, Ph.D.)
"Macro evolution needs new genes." Without these new genes, this new information, where did everything come from in the biological world, from complex eyes, blood clotting systems, feathers, scales, etc.? Even in the cases when mutations dump junk into the DNA; this junk is not an increase in functional genetic information. (Sarfati) We don't observe evolution; we observe mutations.

Opponents of evolution argue that mutations cannot create irreducibly complex information, and it cannot create the complex biological systems found throughout the biological world. Evolutionists believe that mutations can miraculously create complex information. Opponents have pointed out that the fossil record does not have the long chains of transitional species that drawings of evolutionary trees in textbooks suggest do exist in the record. Even Stephen Jay Gould admitted that "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches, the rest is inference, not the evidence of fossils."

Evolution cannot explain how irreducibly complex systems found throughout the biological world came into existence. When we come across complex information in the world (letters, books, etc.), we know that it came from intelligence. Only intelligence can create complex information. Only an intelligent agent can create complex machines and mechanisms, like what we find in cells and in the biological world.

Many scientists are coming out of the closet to oppose evolution. They are met with persecution, legal action, ad hominem attacks, strawmen, etc. Lets stop pretending that they don't have intelligence, a knowledge of the evidence and interpretations of the evidence, and arguments to back up their own claims.

[Andy B]

The vitriol & anger posted from both sides in this blog is a lot of wasted energy. If you feel this strongly about one side or the other, then do something about it. The decision on what gets taught in the schools will be made by our elected and/or appointed officials. Contact them at whatever level & make sure they know where you stand on the subject. Make sure they know your vote will be affected by their decision here. Encourage those around you to do the same. I don't live in Polk County, or I would call Rep Weatherford's office and tell him how disappointed I was in his position. Elected officials want to remain in office, they should respond. If they don't, use your vote to elect someone else next time. Talk to people you know and trust you and convince them to do the same.

But the democratic process is imperfect (although the best we have). After all that, what is taught in our schools may still not satisfy you. But education is not the responsbility of the state alone. Take the initiative to help educate children yourself (whether they be yours, someone elses or your grandchildren). If this subject is as important to you as the emotion in these blogs indicates, then it is well worth the investment in your time to do so. If you beleive in evolution as I do, buy books on the subject and pass on the knowledge. Take them to Lowry Park Zoo and give them real life examples of natural selection and evolution at work. Go to MOSI to expose them to science and the scientific method in general. Take advantage of the excellent library there. But hurling insults at strangers over the internet from the safety of an anonymous blog is wasted energy.

[Science Teacher]

I look to the immune system to demonstrate evolution. If I spray Chemical X on my crops in 2007, then 99 % of the insects will die. The remaining 1 % reproduce, and the next year that I spray Chemical X more insects survive, and my crops are eaten by insects. The insect population has evolved or developed a resistance to Chemical X. This is just an example of how evolution may have worked. It is why there are more virulent strains diseases.

The reason why evolution should be taught in schools is simple. It is so important for us to understand how the world formed and how we came to this point in time. It doesn't disprove the existence of God. If I wanted to find and argument against the existence of God, then I wouldn't look to science. I would look to atrocities committed by the people created in his image (many times in the name of God). Discovery and science are not a sin.

Theory: God is everywhere

Hypothesis: God is in my coffee cup.

Experiment: None

Conclusion: Science cannot intelligently design : ) an experiment that proves or disproves my hypothesis.

There is no reason to fear the discoveries we make. In my humble opinion, fear is the reason why people fight so hard against the evidence that evolution is the most likely path we took to get here.

[NoMonkey'sUncle]

If man evolved from apes, why do we still have apes?!

[NoMonkey'sUncle]

If man evolved from apes, why do we still have apes?!

[Annie Social]

Evolution is not a theory. Evolution was a well-established fact long before Darwin. Simple observation proves it.

Darwin's theory was that Natural Selection was the mechanism by which evolution works. There were other theories, but all were shown incorrect or lacking in someway.

Yes, there is still debate over the details of Natural Selection, such as the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium, but evolution remains a fact and Natural Selection the only theory that explains the observable facts.

[j]

1) The earth is flat.
2) The earth is the center of the universe, and if you say anything different you get burned in the center of town.
3) Gay people are evil, but priest pedophiles get promoted and moved around so they can molest more children.
4) Do not judge others... but tell them they are wrong and that they are going to hell.
5) Everyone who doesn't believe and worship exactly as our religion does is going to hell.
6) Am I missing any other hypcritical, baseless ideas that have been espoused by christian religious zealots???

I am tired of religious zealot, nut-bags trying to control free thinking people. Don't get me wrong. I believe in god, but organized religion is the main evil I see in this world.

QUIT FORCING EVERYONE TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE!

[Jigsaw]

Do you know why you never see a list of biologists that BELIEVE in evolution?

Because it runs in the countless thousands.

The few nutjobs that claim to be biologists and not believe in evolution are frauds, and represent about .000001% of all biologists.

Yet the retarded creationists, who refuse to learn evolution, keep parrotting the same lies and misconceptions over and over, without ever bothering to learn why they are saying faulty things.

"If we were evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"

Sir, do you have ANY UNDERSTANDING AT ALL of how evolutionary theory works? I would guess not, because if you did, you'd realize why that is a stupid question. But like all creationists, you'll refuse to learn why that is a stupid question, and continue to wallow in your ignorance like a Dark Ages nitwit.

Congratulations. You choose to be stupid and ignorant. How does that feel? Does that make Jesus proud of you, refusing to use your brain to learn new things?

[tom]

Hey, no monkey, thanks for the double post...

Read this...

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mevolution.html
If man is descended from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?

It's a really interesting rebuff of this (at least) nine year old error in logic...

You wiseguy! ;-)

[Tom]

Henry Drummon - Inherit the wind (1960)

Can't you understand? That if you take a law like evolution and you make it a crime to teach it in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools? And tomorrow you may make it a crime to read about it. And soon you may ban books and newspapers. And then you may turn Catholic against Protestant, and Protestant against Protestant, and try to foist your own religion upon the mind of man. If you can do one, you can do the other. Because fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy, and needs feeding. And soon, your Honor, with banners flying and with drums beating we'll be marching backward, BACKWARD, through the glorious ages of that Sixteenth Century when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind!

[tom]

Henry Drummond: Yes. The individual human mind. In a child's power to master the multiplication table, there is more sanctity than in all your shouted "amens" and "holy holies" and "hosannas." An idea is a greater monument than a cathedral. And the advance of man's knowledge is a greater miracle than all the sticks turned to snakes or the parting of the waters.

WHAT a great movie!

[MonkeyBoy]

Those who really benefit from conservative politics (the very rich, large corporations, mega church leaders and televangelists, etc.), really prefer that their sheep cannot reason. That way they will believe anything with enough repetition. Particularly if you can scare them.

If you can get people to believe that ID is just as good a theory as Natural selection, then they can believe that laws that give windfalls to the very rich and large corporations, actually help those who make less than 50k.

The conservative message machine was so effective that long after 9/11 like 70% of the US believed that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.

Conservative sheep have been made so scared of traditional media (a "liberal brainwashing conspiracy")that they get all of their news from FOX and right-wing / religious websites where they truly wind up brainwashed and get no exposure to less wingnutty positions. The only way the know to discuss things with someone outside of their sphere is just to recite talking points or to change the subject.

I have never gotten a creationist/IDer to reply to this question:

"There are around 40 species of kangaroos. If each was separately created then why are all of them found only in the Australia region?"

Evolution easily explains this as common descent from an ancestor species. How does ID/creationism explain this?

I have never gotten a response to this question I presume because ID is not enough of a theory to say anything relevant about anything that evolution explains.

[MonkeyBoy]

Here is some decent scientific information on kangaroos. Wikipedia [1] is fairly good.

This journal article, "Intergeneric Relationships Among Macropodoidea (Metatheria: Diprotodontia) and The Chronicle of Kangaroo Evolution" [2], fills out the evolution of kangaroos using genetic difference metrics to conclude that "Divergence times were estimated using 12S rRNA, tRNA-valine, and 16S rRNA transversions and suggest that kangaroos separated from a possum-like ancestor approximately 38–44 million years ago. Hypsiprymnodon diverged from other macropodoids approximately 34 to 38 million years ago."

Then from creationist/ID camp they throw in a lot of nonsense. [2][3][4] with fake missing fossil arguments.

Some creationists/IDers say that (in modern language) that there are not separate kangaroo species but they are all just slight subspecies.

I severely doubt that all can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

Given that the "Journal of Mammalian Evolution" [2] article says two kangaroo branches split off 34-38 million years ago, while the human-chimp split may be just 3 million years ago, claiming that all kangaroos are the same species while humans and chimps are different species just seems like wishful thinking. To really understand this you need to know that a metric of genetic difference is used (corroborated with fossil evidence) to estimate the age of the least common ancestor of two or more species. If you don’t like estimating ancestor age then you can at least respect measuring the genetic difference.

Genetically chimps and humans are much closer to each other than some species of kangaroos are to each other.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macropodidae
[2] http://www.springerlink.com/content/v2h426714759483j/
[3]http://objectiveministries.org/creation/kangaroo.html
[4] http://www.conservapedia.com/Kangaroo
[5] http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-kangaroos.html

[Rex]

Might be time to put the house on the market and move back north.

[Dennis]

Randy Goggin:

I noticed you once again post nonsense from Safarti and talk about the imaginary "irreducible complexity". As I said before, Safarti is a widely discredited hack. He is a chemist who has attempted to write anti-evolution books yet has been absolutely wrong in his understanding of biology. The actual biologists who deal directly with the topics he addresses such as developmental biology, cell bio, and genetics have quite clearly stated that Safarti is just plain wrong in his assertions. These are the people who actually work in those specific fields, unlike Safarti. Safarti also uses the silly 2nd Law of Thermodynamics argument, which is so ridiculous that some creationist/ID organizations warn their disciples against using it. In absolutely no way does thermodynamics preclude evolution. Any physicist...or high school physics student, can tell you that. Thermodynamics also plays a big role in chemistry, so it's rather appalling and shocking that Safarti would not understand the very basics of the topic. So the question is whether he is utterly incompetent in the sciences in which he claims expertise, or he is lying. Either one is unacceptable.

As for irreducible complexity, again, it's nothing more than a catch phrase. No example of IR has ever been demonstrated. Behe's pet examples have all been clearly debunked, again by the people who specifically work in the subsets of biology which deal with the examples he gave. IR amounts to nothing more than saying "gee, this is really complex. I sure can't figure it out, so it must be designed". That same sort of thinking had people believing that disease was caused by bad spirits and lightning was thrown by the gods, back in the good old days that you seem to want us to return to.

[Andrew]

@"Mike" - If the Earth was a closed system (thermodynamically speaking) then how does life even survive? I suggest you look at that bright object in the daytime sky for the answer (but not for too long).

The fact is that the 2nd "law" of thermodynamics or the "law" of conservation of energy (Newton's little brainchild - and very useful too) applies to systems where there are no external inputs. However, Earth has a star called Sol pumping immense energy into our local system. That is why you are alive. We currently spend less energy than is poured in by the Sun.

Simple yes?

[Tom]

Shesh... this has been going on for a few years...

"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider God-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, wrongly believing that he has the Gods on his side."

–Aristotle, Politica bk v (ca. 340 BCE)

[frokeefe]

Fl. Science Standards Committee ( www.flasciencestandards.org ) offers the opportunity to participate in strengthening the proposed science standards. People who want to do something constructive - please look the site over and contact the committee.

[frokeefe]

As to Creationism, ID and the rest of bible-based "facts", this tidbit:
“Were we allowed to read the Bible as we do all other books, we would admire its beauties, treasure its worthy thoughts, and account for all its absurd, grotesque and cruel things, by saying that its authors lived in rude, barbaric times. But we are told that it was written by inspired men; that it contains the will of God; that it is perfect, pure, and true in all its parts; the source and standard of all moral and religious truth; that it is the star and anchor of all human hope; the only guide for man, the only torch in Nature's night. These claims are so at variance with every known recorded fact, so palpably absurd, that every free, unbiased soul is forced to raise the standard of revolt.”
Robert Ingersoll (The most acclaimed US orator of the 19th Century)

[frokeefe]

As to Creationism, ID and the rest of bible-based "facts", this tidbit:
“Were we allowed to read the Bible as we do all other books, we would admire its beauties, treasure its worthy thoughts, and account for all its absurd, grotesque and cruel things, by saying that its authors lived in rude, barbaric times. But we are told that it was written by inspired men; that it contains the will of God; that it is perfect, pure, and true in all its parts; the source and standard of all moral and religious truth; that it is the star and anchor of all human hope; the only guide for man, the only torch in Nature's night. These claims are so at variance with every known recorded fact, so palpably absurd, that every free, unbiased soul is forced to raise the standard of revolt.”
Robert Ingersoll (The most acclaimed US orator of the 19th Century)

[Elias]

What to know how to shut ID proponents up? Ask them to present evidence of their theory. FYI - The *assumption* that complex things were designed is not evidence.

So for all you ID proponents out there, please provide actual evidence of design or evidence of a designer.

Still waiting...

[Karl]

Evolutionists are bluffing when they say their beliefs are scientific. Be sure to look at the list of evolutionists who refuse the debate challenge from Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo. See the list at http://www.lifescienceprize.org/

[Tom]

Karl -

Uhh, perhaps the reason they refuse to debate is that there is NOTHING TO DEBATE!

Evolution isn't science? What are biologists and anthropologists across the world doing today? Research. Digging at fossil sites. Carbon dating remains. They are doing science.

What are creationsists doing today? Looking through their bibles to find new passages to support their claim?

I love the rules of this debate...

1. The evolutionist puts $10,000 in escrow with the judge.
2. The creationist, Joseph Mastropaolo, puts $10,000 in escrow with the judge.
3. If the evolutionist proves evolution is science and creation is religion, then the evolutionist is awarded the $20,000.
4. If the creationist proves creation is science and evolution is religion, then the creationist is awarded the $20,000.
5. Evidence must be scientific, that is, objective, valid, reliable and calibrated.
6. The preponderance of evidence prevails.
7. At the end of the trial, the judge hands the prevailing party both checks.
8. The judge is a superior court judge.
9. The venue is a courthouse.
10. Court costs will be paid by the prevailing party.

I think the judges have spoken already...

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epperson_v._Arkansas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_v._New_Lenox_School_District
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloza_v._Capistrano_School_District
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

I love this little gem from one of the judges...

After the trial, there were calls for the defendants accused of not presenting their case honestly to be put on trial for committing perjury. "Witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions," (Judge John E.) Jones wrote. "The inescapable truth is that both [Alan] Bonsell and [William] Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions. … Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner. … Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony." An editorial in the York Daily Record described their behaviour as both ironic and sinful, saying that the "unintelligent designers of this fiasco should not walk away unscathed". Other discussions concluded that for various reasons it was unlikely that prosecutions would proceed.

Oh, and Jones was appointed to the bench by Bush - a conservative Christian...

[Tom]

Karl -

Uhh, perhaps the reason they refuse to debate is that there is NOTHING TO DEBATE!

Evolution isn't science? What are biologists and anthropologists across the world doing today? Research. Digging at fossil sites. Carbon dating remains. They are doing science.

What are creationsists doing today? Looking through their bibles to find new passages to support their claim?

I love the rules of this debate...

1. The evolutionist puts $10,000 in escrow with the judge.
2. The creationist, Joseph Mastropaolo, puts $10,000 in escrow with the judge.
3. If the evolutionist proves evolution is science and creation is religion, then the evolutionist is awarded the $20,000.
4. If the creationist proves creation is science and evolution is religion, then the creationist is awarded the $20,000.
5. Evidence must be scientific, that is, objective, valid, reliable and calibrated.
6. The preponderance of evidence prevails.
7. At the end of the trial, the judge hands the prevailing party both checks.
8. The judge is a superior court judge.
9. The venue is a courthouse.
10. Court costs will be paid by the prevailing party.

I think the judges have spoken already...

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

I love this little gem from one of the judges...

After the trial, there were calls for the defendants accused of not presenting their case honestly to be put on trial for committing perjury. "Witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions," (Judge John E.) Jones wrote. "The inescapable truth is that both [Alan] Bonsell and [William] Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions. … Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner. … Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony." An editorial in the York Daily Record described their behaviour as both ironic and sinful, saying that the "unintelligent designers of this fiasco should not walk away unscathed". Other discussions concluded that for various reasons it was unlikely that prosecutions would proceed.

Oh, and Jones was appointed to the bench by Bush - a conservative Christian...

I wonder if there is anyone out there who believes in evolution who has actually looked at any of the reams of evidence for a creator? One book I would recommend would be THE CASE FOR A CREATOR by Lee Strobel, an award-winning legal editor of the Chicago Tribune and spiritual skeptic who became a believer in creation by attempting to disprove it. This, I believe, is what will happen to any honest skeptic who examines the facts.

[GeneG]

Someone once said, "Sin makes a person stupid." I think that pretty well describes the motive behind evolution. It is accepted by millions out of a desire to eliminate God as, if there is no God and no creator, there is no need to answer to God for sin. Sadly, most don't realize that while it is true that "the wages of sin is death," it is also true that "the gift of God is eternal life." (Romans 6:23). Fewer people would have a problem with accepting creation if they realized that their sin has already been paid for, by Jesus. One simply must believe in Christ (believe = to trust, depend or rely upon, to place confidence in") in order to receive the forgiveness of sins (Acts 13:38-39). To accept evolution as anything but a theory and to reject the creator is a far more serious issue than winning or losing an argument. Argue all you want against creationism; one day you will die, regret having rejected the Creator and it will be too late then to face the facts and change your mind. Romans tells us that it is the fools who worships the creation rather than the creator. Everyone would do well to heed the admonition of Ecclesiastes 12:1 "Remember now your Creator in the days of your youth, before the dificult days come and the years draw near when you say, 'I have no pleaseure in them.'"

[Al]

How in the world does the essential concept of ecosystems, and their fragility through centuries or eons of EVOLUTION by the animals and plants that live and depend on each other if we can't teach evolution, the process by which each generation of animal changes in minute degrees based on interaction of genes, environment, and other living things--time moving forward in an ecosystem. The ramifications of not teaching evolution are people with a stunted, impotent understanding of the world around us, a world we are obligated, at this point, to protect after damaging it so much.

[Tom]

GeneG -

That's your take on creation. I'm sure there are nearly a billion Buddhists that have a different take on things.

But, of course, you know they are wrong. So any buddhist teachings should be eliminated from schools.

Because that differs from what you and those in your congregation believe.

So, because you and the members of your congregation believe that, anyone who disagrees is going to Hell.

I'm glad you believe that. Here, in this country, you have the RIGHT to believe it, because our Constitution says so. That's a very important document. It prevents the government from TELLING you what to believe.

Unlike Saudi Arabia, where the government says you have to worship one way and one way only.

That's what you get when you have an official state religion - a theocracy with NO tolerance for other views.

Now, you might be thinking that the Theory of Evolution requires you to believe only one way. But, that's not true. Evolution is science. You can see evidence of how live evolved through the years. No one is threatening you to go to hell because you don't believe in Evolution.

But, you believe I'm condemned to hell because I believe otherwise.

Why? Because creation requires faith. And, if you pull faith out of the mix, then the entire creation theory falls apart.

I'll take my chances. You know why? Because a God who loves us so deeply to send his only son to save us from sin wouldn't condemn more than two thirds of the worlds population to hell. That's my belief.

[Al]

Tom,

You got it. That's the crux of my decision as well. There's no way around it, and I've done a lot of reading. Thanks for explicating that for everyone.

[GeneG]

Tom and Al. You both have decided to take your chances and that, of course, is your decision. Taking chances can be fun, of course, but one should always evaluate the risk involved. In this case, I think the evidence is clear that we will all one day die. Sure, it hasn't happened to either of us yet but it has happened to enough people that we can believe it will someday happen to us. What then? Just because you reason that a God of love won't allow 2/3rds of the population to go to hell doesn't mean you are correct. You see, the "whole" world was already condemned; that is why Jesus came - to seek and save the lost (John 3:16-18 and Luke 19:10). It certainly isn't that God is condemning people because they believe in the "theory" of evolution but he is offering everyone the gift of salvation by believing in His Son and the payment He made on the cross for all of mankind. Truth is, based on what you say, you don't understand the word "faith." Study Hebrews 11:1, including the meanings of those words, and you will get an entirely different picture. It is you who must exercise faith in order to believe in evolution, as you have never seen it, nor any evidence of it. Didn't you ever think it strange that man has looked so long for the missing link when they ought to be able to easily find a giant chain of missing links if evolution were true, that is unless the whole human race just evolved in one giant leap from ape to human. There should be millions of links, more so than the beginning and end products. That aside, what are you putting your faith in as you prepare to step into eternity some day? It will happen. Why take your chances when you don't have to? You've been offered a gift worth far more than a few million dollars -- eternal life is a gift and it is free. If you were dying of thirst and I offered you a glass of water, would you refuse it because you didn't have the scientific tools to adequately evaluate it? Please know I'm not saying you are headed for hell because you believe in evolution. My guess is, however, by what you don't say, is that you are not trusting in Jesus Christ alone for your salvation and it is for that reason that you are still condemned (just as you were the day you were born). The teaching of evolution won't send you to hell; it might, however, just keep you from believing the message of the bible and thereby prevent you from trusting in Christ. Yes, it is sad that millions of Buddhists are headed for hell. They are trusting in a dead teacher, not a risen Saviour. Only Jesus rose from the grave. By the way, have you read THE CASE FOR A CREATOR by Lee Strobel? or Evidences That Demand A Verdict by Josh McDowell. I would be quite surprised if you had. Have you read any work on creationism? If so, what? Take your chances if you will, but keep your eyes, and perhaps your mind, open -- for your sake and those that love you. By the way, I'm extremely thankful for our Constitution and wish that your Congress would adhere to it, and force our president to do so as well. Have a great day and thanks for the dialog.

[Tom]

OK, GeneG - based on your scripture study I'm taking a huge chance and I need to mend my ways to have any chance of being saved. (A bold statement, being that you know nothing of me and my life or my personal beliefs)

This truly isn't a theological debate - but, since it's morphing into one, I've been dying to throw this one out. I take issue with fundamentalists in any religion. And, at my work, I am SURROUNDED by folks who are fundamentalists who have very narrow viewpoints about the world.

Let's call this the Gandhi conundrum.

You know who the Mahatma was. If not, rent the movie Gandhi. Great flick.

Now, the Mahatma spent his entire life fighting for justice and to throw off the yoke of oppression for himself and his entire nation (of about 800,000,000 folks at the time). By 'fight', I mean he relied solely on non-violence. He told those who followed his teachings to take the blows and not fight back - ever. He was so dedicated to the cause of non-violence that he nearly starved himself to death several times to quell widespread rioting.

The Christian British commanders and government officials, however, had a totally different viewpoint. In fact, in some instances, the Christian British commanders decided things would be better served by just shooting into crowds of non-violent Indian demonstrators - even women and children.

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

Gandhi was so inspirational, that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. used his play book to the letter when he conducted the civil rights movement in the United States.

Now, according to your strict fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, the most Christ-like figure of the 20th century is going to hell, and the commanders who obviously violated every tenant of Christianity are on the express elevator to the pearly gates.

Growing up in my Catholic church (a religion well know for its rules and regulations), the priests told me that what Christ had done was die on the cross for all humanity. Even the Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, and everyone else.

Guess your interpretation is more of a country-club approach.

One day, God spoke to me through my dad. I was questioning what happened to Buddhists, Hindus, Shintos, etc. Rather than tell me that those sinners are going straight to hell, he pointed up to the porch light and asked me what I saw.

"The light."

He moved across the porch and asked me what he saw.

"The light"

He stepped off the porch and into the yard. What did he see then?

"The light."

By not reading the literal interpretation of the Bible, maybe one day you might see the possibility that the same God may have revealed himself to everyone.

It's just that maybe through the centuries, we imperfect humans have perverted the message so badly in our own created 'religions' to the point where we can conduct crusades, burn 'heretics' at the stake or fly passenger jets into buildings for the love of the almighty....

Or, look at the clear evidence that the theory of evolution isn't an affront to God.

Tom, I appreciate your response. Thanks for taking the time.

I think you possibly have misinterpreted what I've said to you and I say that because you bring up the point, "OK, GeneG - based on your scripture study I'm taking a huge chance and I need to mend my ways to have any chance of being saved. (A bold statement, being that you know nothing of me and my life or my personal beliefs)"

You are quite correct in that I know nothing (well, almost nothing) of you, your life, or your personal beliefs. I know some things of your beliefs as you have shared them with me. As for your life, there isn't anything I need to know to share with you what I have shared. I have not told you that you have to "mend your ways" for I know nothing of your "ways" and furthermore, your ways (regardless of what they might be) have nothing to do with what I've talked about. Salvation is not based upon our righteousness, for if it were, none of us could be saved. The only hope we can have is to stand before God someday with Christ's own righteousness imputed to our account. I know you probably think this is getting off course and not the subject at hand but in reality, it is the one that really counts.

I have watched the movie Gandhi and thought it was a great but sad movie. Who wouldn't be very impressed with Gandhi? He was a great man. I've no d