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

[Chris W]

Jason Phillips sayeth:

"

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."

Jason, it would be nice if *you* were educated about science. Your misunderstanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be disproven by anybody who has ever planted a seed and grown a whole plant from it. The plant is larger and more complex than the seed, and that progression happens just fine with the input of energy and nutrients.

The whole "tornado and 747 in a junkyard" simile is misplaced, as well. A much more accurate simile would involve enzymes with active sites of specific geometries, or metal catalysts that organize random molecules for reactions.

[Chris W]

Er, that should be "livelihood" instead of "likelihood". Mea culpa.

[Chris W]

Folks:

So far, we have had the old creationist chestnuts ("no transitional forms" is the funniest one and the out-of-context Gould quotes are just plain silly), some people (GeneG) who are well-intentioned but let the cat out of the bag on what's *really* behind "intelligent design". Surprise! you shouldn't accept the fact of evolution and the theory that explains it because it prevents you from a literal wholistic reading of the Bible and the acceptance of Jesus.

The problem with Biblical literalism is simple and insoluble: having to believe the whole Bible obligates you to conjure elaborate explanations for bad (and even callous and evil) behavior shown by characters in the Bible - Jesus causing a pigherder's flock to drown itself and deprive the herder of a likelihood, God faking out Abraham into almost sacrificing his son, God and Satan pulling a "Trading Places" with Job and the like, and God condemning most of the world He created to a Hell that He also created.

An agnostic like me can look at the Bible and see that it's filled with good pithy advice (Proverbs), historical records of the Hebrews (most of the Old Testament), the story of a reformer and his persecution and death (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), and seemingly mushroom-induced political excoriation aimed at the Roman Empire. There are nuggets of gold to be found there, but you have to hunt for them and actually *think* about them. But the work is worth it, because it helps you learn what parts you can take literally, which ones you have to ignore and which ones you have to interpret for yourself.

You Biblical literalists are stuck with the indefensible parts of the Bible along with the good parts, and it plays havoc with your critical sense. You can't habitually turn off your BS filter in one area of your life and keep it running in the other areas. Sorry, it can't be done.

[magga]

I am frightened to see the state of the greatest superpower in the world currently. It is certainly disheartening that no more than about 40% of it's population believes in evolution. Let's hope REAL science will prevail in the future.

[Tom]

GeneG -

Thank you for replying to my post in a very articulate manner. While our beliefs may be different, I am glad to have heard from you.

[GeneG]

As I would think you would suspect, not all who believe in creationism would agree on this topic, or perhaps any other topic. I can only speak for one - myself.

First, to set the record straight, I have no desire to have the schools teach my faith. What I would like to see is for the schools to teach that there are some who believe in one of the many theories of evolution (as there are many) and some believe in creation by an Almighty Being called God. For many years the textbooks have taught evolution as a fact, even though they might use the word "theory," they deemphasize its meaning. These textbooks imply that evolution is science and creation is faith. This, of course, is false. There are many scientists who believe in and teach creation. I would like the textbooks to be honest in presenting how weak the evidence is for evolution and how that often, models have been built upon a hoax and yet remain in the textbooks today.

Quite frankly, I don't necessarily agree that evolution should even be taught at all, and if it is, it ought to be taught for what it is -- a far fetched theory of the origins of life that disregards a Creator.

[b^3]

A reference style list of creationist claims and appropriate rebutals.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html

[123]

I'm going to ask a dumb question here. Correct any assumptions that are wrong.

Can a pro-ID/creationism tell me this:
You are wanting to have your faith taught in schools. Correct? That is where creationism stems from. Correct? Why are you not also pushing for other faiths to be taught if this is about making sure the students of this state are well educated in all "theories" of life?

[GeneG]

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 doubt that if salvation were based upon a man's works, or his influence for good, he would have made it into heaven. Of course, if salvation could have come by "being good enough," God would not have had to send His son to pay for our sins. Romans 10:4 (just one of many such verses) says, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." Galatians 2:21 says "If righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain." and Galatians 3:21 adds "For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteosness would have been by the law." The bible is clear on this point: "There is none righteous, no not one" and that certainly included Gandhi (as good a man as he was).

God, nor the bible, can be blamed for man's perversion of the message. Let's face it, "Religion Stinks." (I had a TV show by that name for years.) The message of religion is that man can somehow by his works, merit God's salvation. That is hogwash. Salvation can only come by faith and only be received as a free gift.

Now, back to our subject at hand. While it is true that there are many who profess to be christians who believe in evolution, it is also true that it is a contradiction to say you believe the bible (which says God created it all in six days) and that was about 6,000 years ago, yet say you don't believe what it says about creation. Either God created it or He didn't. If the bible is not correct here, it isn't even a good book. What confidence can you, or anyone, have in a book that claims to be the word of God, yet begins with a lie?

When you close by saying "look at the clear evidence that the theory of evolution isn't an affront to God," what "clear evidence" do you have to make this point? Certainly, there is much evidence to the contrary. (By the way, you failed to answer my question regarding "Have you read any work on creationism?" By that, I mean of course, have you read any book that was written to support creationism? I mentioned two great ones.

I am not against you personally for as you say, I don't know you. I do believe that you have been blinded, as have billions, from accepting the gift of salvation. I'm making an assumption and recognize that I could be wrong. I just find it unlikely that you would be a believer in the bible and its message and also be a believer in evolution. You may correct me on that if you like.

What I suspect you cannot begin to correct me on, however, is that I say there are no evidences that prove the theory of evolution. You, yourself, are evidence of Intelligent Design, as is the entire universe. I've got dozens of books on both evolution and creation in my library of more than 6,000 books. I'm amazed that some books on evolution teach that "nothing exploded" during the Big Bang and walla, here we are billions of years later -- from nothing, or that life evolved from a rock. I'm also amazed when I read page after page of evidence that demands a creator, how that anyone could ignore those facts and deny such.

In closing, the most important issue is it is true that the teaching of evolution is contrary to God's word and thereby undercuts or does away entirely with the authority of God's word in the minds of its believers. If you don't believe the bible to be God's Holy Word, why would you place your faith in the person of Jesus Christ and depend upon Him for your salvation? Consequently, if you cannot do this, you will one day die with your own righteousness to your account, which no matter how good you've been, the bible compares it to "filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6). The Catholic Church cannot save you, nor can any other church. Only Jesus can; He is the saviour. John 3:18 clearly divides the world into two classifications (believers in Christ are not condemned and those who do not believe are condemed because they were already condemned). Which category are you in? That's what I care about.

And, by the way, the millions in our schools who are being taught only (or even) the theory of evolution are others I care about. I spoke to a principal once who wondered why the children had become so unruly and disorderly. I asked him why would children who are taught that they evolved and had no creator to answer to feel compelled to obey others who also simply evolved? He understood and agreed with my point.

I wish you well Tom. We may never meet, and probably will not. What you think of me is unimportant. What you think of God, His word, his Son Jesus Christ, and most importantly, the gospel message, is extremely important. One day you will stand before God and recall this conversation. I hope you can recall it with good memories.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.'"

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.

[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...

[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...

[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/

[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...

[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)

[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.

[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)

[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?

[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.

[Rex]

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

[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

[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.

[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!

[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]

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! ;-)

[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?

[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!

[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.

[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?!

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[tom]

An excellent primer on evolution.

Worth a read:

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

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.