Wait, who doesn't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster????

May his noodly appendage correct their ways...

All hail, FSM!

Arrrr!

Blashpemers shall feel the wrath of his fiery alfredo sauce and brimstone...
and lo....he shall smite them with a lovely pecorino romano cheese!

But I thought that EVERYBODY knew that all of the higher elements were delivered to Earth via His/Her Supreme Meatballs??

YYYYYAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY. Somehow it makes me feel like we're taking positive steps towards enlightment. At some point these bible thumpers will have to admit they were wrong.........or will they ever?

Isn't one of his best anthems the highly spiritual -- "On Top of Spaghetti, All Covered with Cheesse..."?

I pray that you come to realize we aren't "thumping" our Bibles at you. We'd just like an equal chance and to not be "mandated" out of every decision made regarding what our kids can learn and what they cannot. We did not ask that evolution NOT be taught, only that creationism be given the same chance. In the end, it doesn't matter if we ever admit we are "wrong". And, if I am wrong, you can come and say "I told you so" from wherever it is you believe you are going. But, my prayer for you is that you come to "enlightenment" and come to me and say "thank you for not giving up." Also, if you don't want me to "thump" my Bible at you, please stop "thumping" your enlightenment guide at me.

Kids can be taught creationism at home or in church. Creationism is faith-based and, not to mention, unfair to force on everybody since it's pretty much always the Christian version. Would it be okay with you if we taught kids Hinduism and Buddhism? You'd probably think not, which would make you a hypocrite.

Simply put, creationism is a religious belief, not a scientific theory. Only *science* belongs in *science classrooms.* Religion belongs at home, in church or in religion classrooms.

Learn it in Sunday school then. You can teach them any myth you want there!

The problem with the theory of evolution is that is has had so many holes poked in it over the last century that it just wont hold water, whether you believe in God or not, and it is a disputed theory even in the scientific community if you can read anything more than comic books. Micro evolution yes, but Macro-evolution would still require a miracle to work.

If I thought that society could survive by using the Bible as a textbook then we would be no better off than those in some Islamic schools with their Quran.

The biggest threat to religious belief is not evolution but those who percieve this knowledge as dangerous. Teach all the creationist thought you want in church, just keep it out of schools. The Bible is not filled with scientific thought, those who wrote it thought the earth was flat so let's don't go there.

There is a time and place for everything, and teaching creationism in public school is not the place. The constitution clearly states that church and state are to be seperate entities. If your faith states that the world was created by a supreme being and that evolution and everything that comes with it is false, it seems quite simple that one ought to just take it with a grain of salt and move on. Creationism is a faith based belief however and supplies no academic merit whatsoever.

I don't believe in alfredo sauce. It's marinara or die a horrible death.

BTW, why are y'all so hung up on religion? Get a life. If you can't find one, you can rent one at your local Rent A Center.

@skrekk

Thanks for Trying to keep it light, but you had to know where they would take it. Those who chose to ignore the FSM will spend eternity in a lake of boiling marinara.

How can the bible thumpers ever admit that they were wrong when they have a perfectly good story book to back them up?

P Mays, I am sorry that some of my fellow evolution-supporters are being rude and childish to you and your beliefs. If I may, I would like a chance to explain why I believe that evolution should be taught and creationism (including intelligent design) should not. While the idea of "teaching the controversy" sounds good on paper, the devil is in the details. First of all, it's just not true that there are only two sides to this issue. There are many evolutionists that also believe in God (biologist Ken Miller being among the most well known). Teaching children they must choose between evolution and religious faith is not fair to the many religious people that DO accept the evidence for evolution. In fact, there is an amazing diversity of beliefs with respect to the relationship between God and evolution. To be fair to all of them would require that a VERY substantial portion of the school year be devoted to comparative religion which is obviously not what we want science class to be.

Ultimately, though, I believe that the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that I think it fair to say that it has been proven beyond any REASONABLE doubt and I just don't want our children being taught things that are simply not true. I know you don't agree, but I would encourage you to check out http://www.talkorigins.org and spend some time checking out the scientific evidence. In particular, I would encourage you to read this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I don't want, for example, for my son to hear the oft-repeated creationist claim that there are no transitional fossils because, as you can see from the following links, it's just NOT TRUE:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

That this is even an issue is beyond belief. This silliness (intelligent design etc) does not bode well for the future intellectual success of any state ignorant enough to comply with the dictates of the bible thumping morons.

The concept of God any God is an archaic concept created by man to control man in a time of man's ignorance of the sciences. It has been perpetuated throughout time by brutal force and intimidation. It now is perpetuated because it has become a multi-million dollar business. Man was ignorant and couldn't explain thunder & lightning. Man as one former poster stated thought the earth was flat at the time most religions were established.

wow really. Evolution is not proved or provable either. To scientifically prove one must observe and guess what no one saw evolution. I have to have faith in one thing, a God, you on the other hand must assume initial matter and energy, That it could magically explode and create a perfectly balanced universe, that the evolutionary process could then unfold through the intuition of the little critters knowing who would live the longest, etc. Therefore I require far less faith than you do and you declare it to be superior scientifically. Read Evidence that demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell before you talk out your butt on a topic of your own ignorance.

Orbust, wrote: "The problem with evolutionist is there will always be a piece of the puzzle missing never to be explained by only one source, God."

Well, I would say that's exactly the problem with CREATIONISM. You could apply that same "God of the gaps" argument to *ANYTHING* that we haven't yet figured out. It's just not rational to go from "We don't yet know how that happens" to "GOD must have done it!"

Without meaning to, you have pointed out another reason why creationism doesn't belong in science classes. Science, by its very nature, investigates NATURAL phenomena. Science doesn't say that the supernatural doesn't exist -- it just says "we can't use scientific methods to investigate supernatural phenomena". A supernatural phenomenon -- by DEFINITION -- is one that defies the very natural laws that scientists study.

When you look at an observable phenomenon and say "God must have miraculously done that!" -- you can no longer investigate that issue scientifically. If you are going to do science, you must be willing to say, at least for the sake of argument, that the phenomenon you are interested in MIGHT have a natural explanation that is discoverable through experimentation and careful observation. If, from the very start, you reject even the possibility of a natural explanation then science can't happen. You are perfectly free to say "God did it" every time you see something in nature you can't explain -- just don't tell my children that you're doing science when you do that.

Thank you, MGinRochester, for that very thoughtful, considerate and mature post. Although the talk of the FSM is quite entertaining, it is also unnecessarily inflammatory in this context. Painting all Christians or religious people with the same broad brush is insulting to those people who are rational, scientifically minded who also believe that there is a higher power out there -- the two concepts are in no way inherently mutually exclusive. And those that beileve it is are just as close minded as those who believe that a belief in God necessitates ignoring all the evidence of the natural world before their eyes.

Two wrongs doesn't make a right

But 3 lefts do.

saddened, thanks for the kind words. I don't like the practice of painting all creationists as ignorant and stupid. Many of the big name creationists are absolutely brilliant people. I think some folks (some of them VERY smart and well educated) just find the IDEA of having nonhuman ancestors to be so incredibly distasteful that they simply cannot give evolution a fair shot in their minds. I guess the idea doesn't bother me because, however hairy and dumb my ancestors may have been, I'm still human. :)

Rejecting a good idea because we don't like it is a mistake that we ALL make. I've done that myself far too many times to start feeling superior to creationists. :)

Dear All,

I enjoyed the references to FSM and am quite proud of what the FSM's creator did to the Kansas Text book folks. Nicely done.

But you are missing the harbinger of something far more serious here. It was reported in NEWSWEEK this week and you should read the article.

What Pmayes and the others are expressing is one of the main tenets of "Christian Exceptionalism" That they are "persecuted" for their beliefs and denied a voice because they are "Christians". The "Christian Exceptionalism" (or Christian Fascism as I like to call it) combines Nationalism and Christian religion into a powerful political tool. Basically stated America is Exceptional because God selected America to be a shining inspiration to the rest of the world. America is God's country, so chosen and anointed by the Supreme being.

You're going to seeing and hearing a lot more about this in the next couple of years. If you aren't for them then you are a "Commie" or a "Socialist" and look for them to be a rising power in American politics. Glenn Beck is their prophet and their spokeman.

Wake up folks, it's the beginning of the Dark Ages.

MG, excellent posts.

There is no need to put controversy toward evolution in text books because there is only one group that believes different with no scientific fact. The definition of theory is instilled at an early age saying it is the most probable explanation for empirical data based on observations, meaning to appease creationalists if you can come up with empirical data to negate the excepted scientific data then the theory will change. Not to mention it is science class not bible class. Private school can teach as they wish so enroll your children there where they are more then welcome to preach creationalism. Even to appease these parents have a voluntary afterschool program that teaches the beliefs of Creationalists. Since Darwinism is the building block of biology then lets do away with that asinine subject while we are at it.

saddened-1829725

Although the talk of the FSM is quite entertaining, it is also unnecessarily inflammatory in this context.

Injecting the FSM into a conversation about a science textbook is no more inflammatory than injecting any other imaginary invisible friend. In fact, the FSM is quite relevant to this discussion - read this letter to the Kansas state school board:

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

@al1338

The problem with the theory of evolution is that is has had so many holes poked in it over the last century that it just wont hold water

That's absurd. Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

Micro evolution yes, but Macro-evolution would still require a miracle to work.

This is akin to saying a man can walk 10 feet because you can see it; however, a man certainly can't walk 1000 miles. If you can't define a limiting factor that excludes Macro-evolution your simply blowing smoke by saying it can't happen. BTW, if you consider the evolution of a new species as the meaning of "Macro-evolution" then you might be surprised to find there have been numerous instances of observed speciation. Additionally, here are 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

P Mayes

We did not ask that evolution NOT be taught, only that creationism be given the same chance.

Once you can propose a testable, falsifiable hypothesis and an experiment to test your hypothesis, perform the test and publish the results in a legitimate peer-reviewed journal, then we'll talk. Until then, please keep your religious bunk out of my child's science texts.

If you want to have your religious beliefs discussed in a public school, please do it in a comparative religion class where my belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Fred's belief in Vishnu are given equal time.

There is no point shrekk, I’m willing to bet P Mayes doesn't even know what evolution is. All he's been told by his Priest/Pastor etc etc is for him not to believe in it. It's easier to deny fact then question ones faith.

The only argument you get from people like P Mayes is regurgitation of nonsensical gibberish like, It's just a theory, or there is no evidence to support or it can never be proven etc etc. I've just conceded to the fact that you can't have a reasonable debate with someone who lacks reason.

The problem with the theory of evolution is that is has had so many holes poked in it over the last century that it just wont hold water, whether you believe in God or not, and it is a disputed theory even in the scientific community if you can read anything more than comic books. Micro evolution yes, but Macro-evolution would still require a miracle to work.

You're statement confuses me, because micro-evolution is exactly the mechanism that, over millions of years, creates new species (macro-evolution).

Let me put it to you this way-- Wolves are vicious predators and pack animals. They hunt deer and eat little red riding hood. Now, some 20,000 years ago, a human civilization (probably many) took wolves and domesticated them. Now, in just 20,000 years we have created, through selective breeding or "Micro-evolution," miniature dachshunds (wiener dogs), chihuahuas, and toy poodles. These animals are visually distinct from wolves, yet we know biologically that wolves were the original "dog." Furthermore, I would be surprised to learn that a dachshund or chihuahua could still successfully mate with a wolf--in the wild they would be more likely to be eaten as prey.

Never at any time were there wild packs of dachshunds roaming the Serengeti. This is one of the most powerful proofs for evolution that I can describe simply because it has taken place during the historical rise of man and clearly indicates that natural selection occurs and can create profound variation. Now, obviously in this case the results were modified by the influence of man breeding specific characteristics, but this is exactly what Darwin described in the origin of the species but in place of man, natural environmental factors create the changes (the specific example I remember was an island where a wind storm swept all the small seeds from it, leaving only heavier seeds behind. The birds on that island who had large beaks and could easily eat these seeds lived and passed on their genes for larger beaks, while birds of the same species who had smaller beaks died for lack of nutrition, leaving only large-beaked birds on the island).

wow really. Evolution is not proved or provable either. To scientifically prove one must observe and guess what no one saw evolution.

Science is based on observation, either direct, or by the effects of otherwise unobservable phenomena. Evolution is based on both kinds of observation, and the theory was formulated to explain the diverse yet inter-related species he came across. Evolution also makes certain predictions, and those predictions have been supported by observation and the fossil record in terms of speciation, as well as geology and the universe in terms of the millions of years needed.

We aren't time travellers, we haven't gone back to the early earth nor watched species develop over the millenia, but we have observed fossils, and we have observed the diversity of life on earth, both fully support Evolution. Hey, we've even seen speciation in progress, and even Darwin noted ways in which new species could arise.

On the other hand, none of the religious writers were around to observe the "Creation", there was no human eyewitness, they simply wrote down their religous mythology - and that is true of many different religions, with wildly different "creation" stories. Nor is the Biblical "Creation" account supported by existing observable evidence, fossil or living. So Creationism isn't scientific, by your own standards. Sorry, but "Intelligent design" is not scientific, either, it is saying "We don't know how it happened, therefore God did it".

I have to have faith in one thing, a God, you on the other hand must assume initial matter and energy, That it could magically explode and create a perfectly balanced universe, that the evolutionary process could then unfold through the intuition of the little critters knowing who would live the longest, etc. Therefore I require far less faith than you do and you declare it to be superior scientifically.

You've confused Cosmogenesis and "Origin of life" theories with Evolution, but Evolution doesn't postulate either one, it starts with existing life and explains the origin of new species from that life. Unlike Evolution, we don't have complete theories on Cosmogenesis or the Origin of Life. Of course, that doesn't mean that we won't someday figure out the explanation to those things, too.

Consider that at one time, we didn't know what lightning was or what caused it. The religious used to consider it the "Wrath of God" and they'd ring church bells when thunderstorms approached to avert God's Wrath. Unfortunately, lightning tends to strike the highest object around which in most towns was the church steeple. Lots of righteous bellringers were zapped. In the Italian town of Brescia, they were so convinced of the sanctity of the Church that they stored several tons of gunpowder in the church cellar, and when lightning struck it destroyed half the town.

But then Benjamin Franklin formulated his "Electrical theory of lightning" and tested it with a very risky experiment. It passed. His theory not only explained the nature of lightning, but also gave a method of reducing the risk by dissipating electrical charge with a pointed rod, and with a sufficiently conductive path even a direct lightning strike will cause little or no damage. When Franklin announced his theory to the world, it was promptly denounced by pulpits far and wide as heretical. "Avert God's Wrath with a pointed iron rod? Absurd!" But the evidence was overwhelming, especially since taverns and bordellos protected by lightning rods avoided the "Divine Wrath" while unprotected church steeples continued to be demolished. Nowdays, nobody in their right mind questions the "Electrical theory of Lightning", and almost every church steeple is now protected by a lightning rod, sometimes disguised as a cross.

College student - actually, we can observe evolution every winter when we have to get a different flu shot. You just have to know what you're looking at, and I'm not sure that's taught in your college. I would, however, like for my children to learn and not end up in that position.

The biggest problem with the controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution, is that opponents are not well grounded in what the theory of evolution actually states. The problem is compounded by atheist scientists who insist on coupling their own religious beliefs with science, when neither actually addresses the other.

The theory of evolutionary theory explains in scientific fashion how life evolved and continues to evolve on Earth, much the same as meteorology explains how preciptiation occurs. Neither evolution nor meteorology relies on the presence of God to explain the mechanisms at work, but it is also true that neither precludes the existence of God.

I agree completely, except that to me, the whole of existence is a miracle, no matter the mechanism by which it was brought about. The 'slow' Creation that unfolded over eons is no less miraculous (and maybe even more so) than the molding of clay taking up part of a day.

Why has no believer ever considered that their Gods 'day' was eons long in which evolutionary changes happened for the secular world to interpret?

I don't think of this as an explaination for why God is imaginary. For me, this is the most lame argument against God. Maybe I'm biased, though. I work with kids (13-18) with "hand differences," and, it's kind of hard to put into words, but they're fine. I know a guy with no hands that can throw a perfect spiral. I know people who can rock climb without fingers on both hands. I see kids that become stronger people, more accepting of everybody, and thankful for what they've been through because they have these differences. They play guitars, piano, and drums. One of my favorite kids ever sang a song with the words, "this ain't no handicap, this is God's gift to me." I'm not advocating God or lack of God. I'm merely saying that this is my least favorite argument against God, because I know so many people without limbs that are happy and healthy, and thankful for the life they've had.

I look at it this way.

If what Christianity teaches is correct, we only get one chance and each of us have our crosses to bare. Some people are given enormously large crosses and others are given ones that are easily shrugged off.

Why the difference?

If we (our souls) are here only once, why do some have to overcome things seemingly insurmountable and for others a trial that is no more of an annoyance than a fly?

Does the person with the bigger cross get a bigger reward? If so, then why wasn't the person with the smaller cross given the same opportunity to achieve the greater reward?

If the reward is equal then why does a person deserve a greater challenge to achieve the same reward?

Now I do realize the argument can be made that "God" will only give us challenges that we can overcome. but that begs the question of "why are some souls weaker than others". The weaker soul will be given a smaller challenge but will only grow in proportion to the challenge given thus perpetuating the inequality.

So, either "once chance" tenet is false, the Christian God is a god of "randomness and chaos", or god does not exist in the sense that religions teach.

Going on an assumption that there is more to life than just this mortal existence, the first and last choices coupled together make the most logical sense where the second is an accurate description of the Christian God when one references the many stories from the Bible.

Everything I just presented is merely speculation based on logic and observation. So, please do not make the request for proof when you know full well none can be given. I have made no claim that this is the way things are.

I also know that using logic to answer a philosophical question can be considered a fools errand.

You either didn't go to the site shadow16nh referenced and read any of it, or you obviously missed the whole point it was trying to make.

My response was sparked by Tarals comment not by shadow or the site he/she linked to. It was meant as an expansion to the conversation not an affirmation nor rebuttal to any particular posting.

Intelligent Falling. ...Priceless.

:)

"It's disappointing that the Theory of Gravity, which has all sorts of problems and inconsistencies,"

I'd never though I'd see the day where someone would claim that gravity isn't real.

I hope your ignorance floats away with you.

psst, Jeff ... I think carl w meant this to be satire.

Carl W, I've seen that reference before ... "theory of intelligent falling" ... but it always gets a laugh out of me.

Hey Carl W...please feel free to explain those inconsistencies with the Theory of Gravity. We are all waiting. Thanks.

I honestly misread that post..... My bad :O

Jeff, that's the problem with these forums sometimes ... we read in a hurry with our hackles already up, looking for controversy ... and sarcasm when written is sometimes easy to miss.

Anyway for all I know, Carl W doesn't believe in the theory of gravity and it was my misread ... see if he comes back to comment.

But I don't think someone who can invent the Theory of Intelligent Falling could be all that serious.

Oh brother, open a book will ya and not your bible.

Will someone PLEASE invent a SARCASM font already????

Jeez....

Okay I'll be the one to do it. There are discrepencies with gravity. If you can explain dark flow, dark energy, or dark matter, then by all means provide us with the answers we seek, but there is still much to learn about gravity. Carl said nothing that would lead me to believe he "doesn't believe in gravity", he simply said there are "problems and inconsistencies". And I for one agree with that assessment. I believe in gravity. I want to know everything I can about it. Newton was a genius and he didn't fully understand gravity.

Once dumped a girl for saying "gravity is fine but evolution is all wrong." I think I picked something up, dropped it, and said "Sweety, you don't have a choice," before walking out.

John Christ, is that a true story? Please say that's a true story. Damn that's like some movie $#!t.

Theory of gravity? Try standing on something spinning at 24,000 miles per hour to test that theory.

Oh!! You already are.

Xpelledangel: well, no: 24,000 miles per day. At the equator.

Ok, somewhere slightly north or south of the equator, since the Earth is 24,900 miles around at the Equator. Let's see, at a latitude of X, where 24,000/24,900 = cosine(X), so X is slightly less than 16 degrees north or south latitude. Maybe in Vanuatu, or Guatemala.

The thing about science is that by it's very founding principles, new evidence can and will eventually alter or flat out change some of the currently accepted theories. The current theory of gravity works extremely well for nearly all of humankind's purposes, but there does appear to be some small irregularities with it that are most evident with the trajectories of space probes like Pioneer 10/11 and Voyager 1/2. Their predicted positions versus their actual positions is very minute, but it is there. However, there's also the possibility that something else might eventually explain it. Science, by it's very nature, is becoming ever more complex and sophisticated.

Religion on the other hand, is deathly afraid of any kind of change, and deathly afraid of any kind of increasing interconnected complexities, no matter how much evidence stacks up against it's primitive simpleton viewpoint.

Humankind will not really be able to make another evolutionary step until religion itself, the source of ALL of this world's problems, dies out.

I can't decide what's funnier. Carl's original post, or all the "free thinkers" that can't believe he would doubt the "Theory of Gravity"....

This is great.

Here's one I like:

How Science Saved My Soul (Video)… | Disinformation
www.disinfo.com

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I don't think I have every enjoyed reading a series of comments as much as I have the retorts to Carl's original missive.

Allow me to contribute the explanation of the Scientific Process also known as Pixology:

Pixology

2010-08-01

Pixology is the study of perception thresholds.

Pixology is to history, science, biology, politics, economics, and sociology what calculus is to algebra.

Pixology as a science has not been previously and properly recognized much like the people who still “can’t see the trees for the forest.” In fact, Pixology is the study of that specific point in one’s perception when you can’t see the trees for the forest.

The significance of Pixology is that it doesn't ask "Can you see the trees for the forest?" but rather asks "At what point did you notice that the trees have disappeared?" And “What is the relationship of the size of the trees to the size of the forest?" However Pixology is just as relevant for people with a technical, or anal–retentive, disposition in that it allows them to determine at what point they can’t see the forest for the trees. (Note: it does not concern itself as to whether “anal-retentive” is hyphenated or not hyphenated.)

Pixology has also existed in literature such as Shakespeare’s "Midsummer’s Nights Dream" where he wrote, "The poets eye... gives airy nothingness a local habitation and a name." Giving airy nothingness a "local habitation and a name" is the process of Pixology as well as the history of the humans as a species.

Or instead of asking "the numbers of angels that can dance on the head of a pin" Pixology asks "At what point did you start envisioning images of angels?"

Or instead of asking "the number of monkeys needed to change a light bulb" it asks "When did you realize that changing light bulbs was not part of the monkey's pay grade?"

Pixology as a science has always existed much in the way that gravity existed before Newton applied math and definitions to it. (Mrs. Newton’s assessment, however, was "Speaking of apples, could you get some for me. We have company coming for dinner, and I need to bake a pie.")

It also studies societies' abhorrence of out-breeding (bastards) versus in-breeding, despite the tendency for in-breeding to produce people who act like social bastards and out-breeding to produce individuals that frequently have a very significant and positive impact on society. And it asks how much of a bastard are those individual, and at what point was their bastardy noticed by the rest of society.

Pixology not only asks what caused the evolution of animals into two types of biological systems (cold blooded and warm blooded animals) but asks why the 80/20 ratio typical of herbivores to carnivores for cold-blooded animals differs from the 95/5 ratio typical of herbivores to carnivorous for warm-blooded animals?

Pixology also recognizes that most answers as to the 80/20 ratio and perception thresholds are as obvious as your hand in front of your face. However, if you are like most people, you haven't noticed the obvious that you are likely to have four fingers and one thumb which is an 80/20 ratio. Or that when you put only your thumb in your eye it still doesn't hurt as much as doing it with all of your other fingers and toes which is a 95/5 ratio.

Limits to Pixology

Because of Pixology, there is also now an explanation for sometimes being too smart. Those people who are too smart have always been a problem for societies. For example, 100 years ago Bill Gates would have been institutionalized for his Asperger's syndrome, and Steve Jobs would have been jailed for fathering a child out of wedlock. (Ironically, the name of Job’s out-of-wedlock daughter was the origin of the name for his ill-fated "Lisa" computer).

An even worse fate for someone gifted in Pixology, or just too smart for their own good, was not what happened to Copernicus, but rather what happened to one of his disciples Giordano Bruno. (Bruno was burned at the stake for his heresy.)

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

Pixology not only studies the threshold for being too smart, it even allows you to calculate the threshold for being too smart as that threshold changes. The thresholds for those processes of being too smart are usually defined as going from being regarded as a smart-ass, to being regarded as humorous, to being regarded as profound.

Famous Pixology Cats

Pixology also explains the types of cats foisted on famous scientist who have investigated the Laws of Physics.

"Schrödinger’s cat" resulted from the Quantum Mechanics concept because his cat was trapped in a box and he was uncertain as to whether the cat was alive or dead until he opened up the box. Mathematically, until he opened up the box, the cat was simultaneously both alive AND dead. Schrödinger’s cat was called Enigma.

"Heisenberg's cat" resulted from his physics concept whereby observing an event changes that event due to changes in either the energy or momentum used in the observation process. However, the process of observing Heisenberg's cat changes the behavior of the cat because it requires dissection, resulting in the difficulty that, by observing his cat, you effectively kill the cat. It is why 90% of the key to solving any problem is the proper definition of that problem in that by properly defining a problem, you tend to kill it as a problem. Heisenberg’s cat was called Entropy.

Isaac "Newton’s cat” was called Inertia, but every time he let go of it, it dropped to the ground.

Einstein, however, was allergic to cats, which is possibly why he failed to understand or believe in Quantum Mechanics and string theory. Instead Einstein had a dog named Dice which he mistakenly thought was God.

And finally, Stephen “Hawking's cat” is called Pixel. He communicates with it only by computer. The problem with Pixel is that every time as you try to look at it and get too close, it disappears. It also explains why most people don't understand Hawking's cat, and why Stephen Hawking doesn't like cats.

What about the socalled "Germ Theory"? Creationism was obviously thought up by someone who didn't wash his hands before meals.

Wash your Hands & Say your Prayers

Because germs & Jesus are everywhere

religion itself, the source of ALL of this world's problems

I had no idea religion caused cancer. Thanks for the enlightenment.

But what will become of Scientology! You can't take away their precious tax-exempt status! You'll ruin their whole scheme...

A belief system will, inevitably, become a fact to a person if they believe it enough. You can't stop that. Whether it's a religion or a family tradition or tying your shoes - you do it enough, you think that's the way it should be and have trouble understanding why everyone else is wrong or just wierd. Religions have kept people together and working for a common goal, along with love, money, geography, etc. over the years. Just because you find the Christians annoying doesn't mean they can't assert their opinion.

It is as big a mistake to blame religion for all wars as it is to say that no wars have been fought over religion.

Science should be based on science alone, and religion should take science into account, but that does not mean there is an irreconcilable conflict between the two. Many great scientists have been men and women of faith.

Actually, I disagree that religion has caused any wars. It has been used as justification for many, many wars, but ultimately, wars are caused by greed. It's all about someone wanting something that they don't currently possess, and wanting it bad enough to kill someone for it. When someone else questions the aggressor, they have to rig up an excuse such as "oh - they were communists" or "oh - they were heretics" or some such deal. Even wars that were based on so-called principles (like the American Civil War) really had the first roots in economics.

That being said, I believe very strongly that religion is used by many people for the purpose of dividing "us" and "them". And the bad thing about religion is that if you disagree with someone's statement of belief, you suddenly become one of "them". Which I guess for me is not so bad.

mob_barley, don't forget they shaped a world where we are supposed to dehumanize women, kill in the name of our faith and kill all those who disobey or worship a different religion. Oh did I mention divine monarchies and genocide in the name of god.

Im so happy that the modern world isn't shaped by those anti-evolutionists.

Supernatural force, Mob, different from the four mundane natural forces. And unfortunately, intelligent design seems to be more prevalent amongst scientists, than religious folks. I think he was lumping the two groups into one, which makes sense. All Intelligent Design seems to be is Creationism 2.0

Well, there is of course the yet to be disproven "Ancient Astronaut/Alien" theorists...

Those Ancient Astronaut "theorists" definitely do not need to be disproven as they do not have sufficient evidence. They have a few paintings, cave-scrawlings and bone fragments with which they try to fill in other unexplained inconsistencies. There is no hard evidence. Maybe it is true but there is not sufficient evidence for anything other than speculation.

Generally speaking, religious folks tend to use words like "GOD created the Earth", I don't hear them say "super intelligent beings". so, is there some segment of people that think the world was designed by intelligent beings (other than God).

“Super intelligent being” is just a way for the Jesus freaks to get around the fact that they aren’t allowed to say “God” in school. They say intelligent design but they mean divine creation.

What I want to know is just how intelligent they think this being is? After all it did take a few billion years to go from slimy ooze to more complex life forms. Did this “intelligent being” take a three billion year vacation or something?

So, are these anti-evolution activists NOT bible thumpers? Generally speaking, religious folks tend to use words like "GOD created the Earth", I don't hear them say "super intelligent beings". so, is there some segment of people that think the world was designed by intelligent beings (other than God).

Mob_barley, I can explain that to you. Back in the day the christians had a real problem with evolution because it contradicts everything their beloved bible tells them. They spent decades trying to convince everyone that evolution was completely false because in their minds it just HAD to be. God created man in his own image and god isn't an amoeba, so we had to be created as we are now. They didn't have anything to support their idea except the bible. Decades later and the bible argument just wasn't working. The evidence for evolution was so overwhelming that the rest of the world just couldn't get past it. So a group of people decided that the creationist model just couldn't work in a society that has unlimited access to actual knowledge (as opposed to centeries before when societies were very limited in what they could learn). So they got together and decided to take the basic model of evolution and tweak it just a tiny bit by throwing in "there must be an intelligent designer behind it all" but leave out the term god because we're not going to listen if the word god is even used. Of course this is only what they say in public to society, but to other christians they continue with the creationist model because christians don't want to believe in evolution at all. So basically it's a palor trick. If you ask the majority of the lay people christians they will believe that "intelligent design" is exactly the same as "creationism" but if they really looked at the intelligent design hypothosis they would be offended and deny intelligent design altogether.

Hey, well said, DrNeuron! However, I feel compelled to say that I graduated from H.S. in Louisiana in 1989, and we were NEVER taught creationism in Biology and Chemistry classes at L.C.B.!

I was subjected to prayers in homeroom though, and was sent to the Vice Principal's office when I mouthed off about it. The teacher was told to leave me alone after I pointed out to the V.P. the obvious legalities they were possibly subjecting themselves to! Of course, I didn't put it as concisely as I did just now. I'm fairly certain that I was a typical rude, surly, insubordinate teenager!

Too bad that good sense isn't breaking out all over just yet!

Not to mention that more than 90% of the species that have lived on this planet have gone extinct over the millenium. Who designed them? And where did they go?

Ask a fundamentalist Moslem about evolution, just for a laugh.

That's right, Dancer. And what about the fact that more than 90% of the species that have lived on this planet are now extinct? Where did they come from? Where did they go? It's evolution, plain and simple.

Gee, doncha know those animals never really existed? God just put all those fossils there to test our faith. Ya know, sort of a pass/fail kind of test. if we believe in the fossil record we're going straight to Hell.

I think that if children are going to be subjected to the theory of evolution they should have the same right to be subjected to creationism...that way they can make their own minds up on what they believe!!!!

No one has a "right" to be "subjected" to anything! Your words look like a tossed salad...

They do get "subjected" to creationism. They get it from their minister/priest, mommy/daddy, Sunday school... That is where it should be taught, not in a public school.

hexdragon

The irony is that when they get crap "science " from their minister/priest it blows the credibility of the minister/priest.

The economic boom in Ireland occurred when the majority of the overwhelmingly Catholic population lost faith in the Church because of the pedophilia and financial misdoings. Unfortunately, they got conned by the real estate and banking "priests" but then again so did everyone here after the repeal of Graham-Steagall.

When priests or politicians or bankers lie (or are stupid like Bush #43 now claims to be regarding "Weapons of Mass Destruction") we all lose.

Evolution is just as much a "religion" as buddhism, islam, hinduism, or christianity. It is based on the belief that started with the Big Bang which says (this next part is what it will say at the beginning of your children's science book in the evolution section) there was a vast expanse with nothing, and from this nothingness, particles began to spin rapidly and expand. And then goes on to explain how simple celled organisms eventually involved into the people we see today. Oh yeah, and this all happened in like 16 Billion years or something. It's funny, cuz the only way to explain any possibility of this even being a logical thought is that it had to have happened over BILLIONS of years. We have around 4000 years of recorded history, and no where in this time does evolution have any factual evidence. It actually has material to disprove it if anything. Like the fact that humans used to be much larger and stronger than we are today, natural selection would only point to us being bigger and better than that, right? Not the case though. Yeah, Darwin saw birds on one island and birds on another island that had different shaped beaks and different characteristics...but they were still birds. NOT EVOLUTION! Guess what my dad has black hair and I have brown hair...but we are both still humans! Think about this...how did the organisms that developed after the "Big Bang" eat, reproduce, sustain life? When was the first species change? NONE of this is known or has any factual evidence to prove it happened. It is strictly a BELIEF that it happened! I believe that would categorize it as a religion, not a science. Now if you want to discuss adaption or changes that occur within kinds of creatures, I'm all ears, but my guess is that lizard will be lizards still, and dogs will be dogs. A small dog and a big dog, a wolf or a coyote, still the same kind of animal. All I am saying is that if intelligent design can't be taught because it is considered religious, than evolution shouldn't be taught either.

Sugguy, you have a lot of misconception concerning evolution. So I thought I’d help you out.

First, evolution and the Big Bang theory are two separate, unconnected theories that explain two separate natural phenomena’s. Evolution is not based off the Big Bang theory or vice versus.

Second, evolution did happen over billions of years. This is because the process basically starts at the molecular level with a mutation in the DNA of an individual. These mutations take an immense amount of time to compile and become severe enough to cause a visible change in an entire species. Also, to say that there is no evidence of evolution within the written history humans have collected is incorrect. What about all the new species humans have discovered and documented. New species of single celled organisms are found all the time. Speaking of, a prime example of evolution taking place today is the rapid number of antibiotic resistant bacteria evolving. The bacteria are adapting, or evolving, to fight off the medicine used to kill them.

Next, evolution is not a conscious process with the goal to make the perfect species in mind. Evolution is the accumulation of natural phenomenon changing a species as a result to a changing environment. Having cleared up that misconception, I would like too address two points made. Concerning humans the fossil record actually proves the exact opposite of what you said is true. Humans have actually gotten much larger, especially height wise, over the extent of our evolutionary development. Concerning Darwin’s experiment, I would first like to point out that evolution is not solely the process in which new species arise, more commonly it’s the process in which a species, due to environmental factors, evolves to better survive within that environment. The birds Darwin observed where originally the same species, but because some had become isolated in a particular environment the groups diverged in their evolutionary development. Even though they were the same species to begin with, different characteristics were observed after some amount of time. This is another prime example of evolution.

Lastly, I would like to point out that belief and faith are different from thinking. People think evolution is an accurate explanation of what happened and evidence so far has unequivocally backs this up. The holes people are speaking in the current evidence for evolution are non-existent. We may not know everything at this particular time, but more and more evidence backing up evolution is complied everyday, and eventually we will be able to answer the questions that at this time we cannot. Faith and belief are separate from thinking. Faith and belief is, without any evidence or logic, believing something is right. People need faith to believe that religion is an accurate representation of reality. I have evidence to back up that I think evolution and a secular world view are accurate representation. It’s a really quite a large difference when you think about it objectively.

So where are the roots of evolution it it is not in the big bang theory? You can't cut out the beginning of evolutionary belief and expect a logical person to believe it. And your second point doesn't prove evolution at all. It proves a difference within the same kind of animal. This is where science has it all wrong. They classify each diffenent type of bird as a different species. Why aren't humans all classified as different species then? There are many different characteristics within the human population, yet we are all considered the same species. There are many gaps in the THEORY and will always be. Just as there are gaps in Creationism. Quick fact for you...scientists say that it takes millions of years for stalactites and stalagmites to form, something like a million years per inch...did you know below the Lincoln memorial foundation, built less than 100 years ago, there are stalactites around 5-10 feet long? Not sure where you're info comes from on humans being bigger today (and not heavier), but I haven't found any info stating that.

The Big Bang theory and evolution are complementary theories, yes, but that does not make them apart of one theory or mean that they are the same thing. The Big Bang theory is an explanation of the origin of life, and that's all. Evolution explains the process by which organisms became the way we know them today. As two separate theories they fit nicely together. The Big Bang occurred, which originated life, and after which evolution took hold and through processes such as natural selection resulted in the organisms we can see today. Its a major misconception that people mistaken the way these two theories fit together as them being one in the same.

And your second point doesn't prove evolution at all.

Antibiotic resistant bacteria is one of the newest examples of evolution today. Years ago penicillin used to be the most effective antibiotic humans had developed against bacteria-caused diseases, but now almost all bacteria have evolved mechanisms to resist the effects of the antibiotic. The overuse and misuse of antibiotics have placed selective pressures onto the bacteria which caused a mutation to occur in an individual organism that enable the bacteria to resist, and even reproduce, in the presence of antibiotics. Because the bacteria was more able to survive and reproduce in its environment the species as a whole was changed. This is an excellent example of not only natural selection at work but evolution because it took place in an amount of time that was short enough to be extremely noticeable by humans.

It proves a difference within the same kind of animal. This is where science has it all wrong. They classify each diffenent type of bird as a different species.

So you think, because different types of birds should not be considered different species, an eagle and lets say a parrot should be classified as the same species? and a tiger, lion, and tabby cat should also be classified as one species because their all felines? That’s completely nonsensical. Based off DNA sequencing and other characteristics animals are carefully placed into a hierarchy. The hierarchy of biological classifications has eight major taxonomic ranks, which get more precise as one moves down the ranks. Birds, as a group, are classified as class Aves, but as one moves from class to order to family to genus to species that whole group is divided. This is a means to organize organisms into categories with other organisms that they share distinct genetic characteristics with. This is also a means to be precise, so there is no confusion as to which distinct species of bird, or some other organism, one is referring to.

There are many gaps in the THEORY and will always be.

I believe the all caps is an attempt to drive the point home that evolution is just a theory and therefore not accepted as fact. If this is true, you do not understand the meaning of theory is science. The word theory in science actually denotes to the most powerful status that an explanation can attain. Key word, explanation. A rational, accurate and predictive description or explanation of why and how things happen is always classified as a theory, and never a law. The word law is used only for an analytic statement that relays a formula of some sort to tell us what certain things will do.

Just as there are gaps in Creationism.

Creationism doesn't have gaps in its theory or in its evidence backing that theory up. Creationism merely has no evidence whatsoever to indicate that it is an accurate or predictive explanation for the natural world.

Not sure where you're info comes from on humans being bigger today (and not heavier), but I haven't found any info stating that.

To be completely precise the height change over human's evolutionary development has not been consistent. For example, in the timeline H. Erectus was ranged from 4 ft 9 in to 6 ft 1, then H. Habilis ranged between 3 ft 4 to 4 ft 5, then H. Neanderthalensis average male height was 5 ft 5 in, slightly slighter then our average height today. I started with the first Homo and went in chronological order, and I did skip some species, (mainly species where the only available number was based off estimation from one particular individual) but the irregular pattern holds throughout. Some were much shorter, and some were taller. This is because throughout our evolutionary path the environment in which humans lived in changed, which over hundreds of thousands of years, effected the height which was most suited for survival. Also, I didn't say nothing to indicate I though humans weight has not changed throughout history and our evolution, I merely pointed out that the changed was much more documented and obvious when comparing heights. (Information from the Smithsonian Institution's Human Orgins Program)

Sugguy, I'm not going to explain the points of evolution to you as AC has done a great job of that already, but I do want to address something he didn't. When I read your comment about stalactites under the Lincoln Memorial you really peaked my interest. I had never heard of these 5 foot long stalactites there, and considering how long they take to grow I had to find out what on earth this was all about. I did a google search for "stalactites under Lincoln Memorial" and noticed right away the majority of hits all come from creationists websites. Even though I usually see that and immedietly disregard it if I can't see on the front page an actual respectable site listed, I decided to continue to research. It only took another minute before I was able to fully understand why they are there, and why it's actually not an argument against evolution at all. It's just another example of christians telling half truths and bold faced lies to get people to believe them. What I learned is that stalactites take a very very long time to form, UNLESS they are on concrete. (The following is taken from wiki)

Stalactites can also form on concrete, and on plumbing where there is a slow leak and limestone (or other minerals) is in the water supply, although they form much more rapidly there than in the natural cave environment (description and experiments see literature).

The way stalactites form on concrete is due to different chemistry than those that form naturally in limestone caves and is the result of the presence of calcium oxide in concrete. This calcium oxide reacts with any rainwater that penetrates the concrete and forms a solution of calcium hydroxide. The chemical formula for this is:^[2]

CaO(s) + H₂O(l) → Ca(OH)₂(aq)

Over time this calcium hydroxide solution reaches the edge of the concrete and, if the concrete is suspended in the air, for example, in a ceiling or a beam, then this will drip down from the edge. When this happens the solution comes into contact with air and another chemical reaction takes place. The solution reacts with carbon dioxide in the air and precipitates calcium carbonate.^[2]

Hopefully that will help you to stop spreading false information that can be refuted in a mere 30 seconds.

I am glad someone is actually paying attention. I had read this on a creationist site as well, and it sparked my interest. I researched it just as you did and found out the same thing...I figured it wasn't right either based on the mere fact that concrete is mainly composed of Lime (CaO) and that when water is added, and then removed (by evaporation), a deposit of material is left in place. What I also did was research some of the caves that contain these "million year old" stalactites and found that the material located above the caves was largely composed of Lime...my point is that creationists' can point to the Lincoln Memorial and say it didn't take millions of years, and evolutionists can point to the caves and say it took millions of years, and unless you take a neutral stance when looking at the science, you can be swayed either way pretty easily.

sugguy -

and unless you take a neutral stance when looking at the science, ...

Science, by definition, takes a neutral position. Any scientist around the globe can challenge a theory, unless you're proposing a world-wide conspiracy.

...you can be swayed either way pretty easily.

Not if you follow the scientific method and have it peer-reviewed.

That's actually a simple one to answer. In order for someone to believe in the bible, or most religions for that matter, they have to be able to put aside most reasoning and critical thinking. That's actually pretty easy to do when everyone around them is telling them that what they think is correct. The problem comes when things like scientific facts come around that completely contridicts their thinking. These things are a lot harder to ignore and can't be so easily dismissed with the pre-requiste "because god did it" answer. Since these scientific facts are just about down right impossible to rectify with the religious beliefs they hold so dear, the only way to come to terms with it all is to just deny the scientific facts altogether. I mean really, whats a few pesky facts anyway when it comes to the death grip one has on this crutch they call religion.

This country (and world) are full of the problems that are being discussed here. Since the dark ages religion has been responsible for all of the bigotry, racism, and all of the wars that have ever been fought. Religion, in that sense, is better kept to ones' self.

The funny thing is, most of the people who hold creationism so dear, have been using Artificial selection for years. I am referring to horse, cattle, and dog breeding, not to mention farming.

We breed these animals to bring out certain characteristics and then turn around and say it can't happen without someone watching...

Or we cross pollinate crops to make them more disease resistant, or to bear larger fruit...

I would think that "artificial selection" would back the intelligent design theory more than "natural selection."

I would think that "artificial selection" would back the intelligent design theory more than "natural selection."

Not at all, but that's the way Cretinists do think. Artificial selection is just another environmental pressure which impacts the evolutionary process.

ignorance is one of the things thats always bigger in Texas

It's from all the concussions they get from High School Football and riding the mechanical bull at the bar...

I think it is ridiculous how many people are so close-minded and extremely stereotypical when it comes to Christians and their beliefs.

It's because people like you give Christians a bad name.

I am not extremely learned on the theory of evolution

Agreed.

Thinking critically is an important part of life. Many theories have been proven false because of critical thinking.

Agreed again. You might want to learn why falsifiability is a critical part of the scientific process. It's also why Cretinism isn't science.

How did i give Christianity a bad name? And you said nothing. The only thing I can interpret from your post is, "Yes, I am close minded." If I am not learned in evolution, then you must be because you know that I am not from my posting. Explain to me how evolution is unequivocally correct instead of posting gibberish.

You can't disprove creationism, just like I can't disprove evolution. I am only saying that why can't a theory (creationism) that millions of people believe including scientists be put alongside evolution in a textbook. If we teach people how to think critically, then they will decide which one they want to believe after thinking critically about it.

Since you started with a quote from me (at least I think I'm the only one who used the term "bible-thumpers") I will take this opportunity to clarify what that term means, since it has clearly been taken the wrong way. I am a christian, in fact (some of you know this already) my fist name is actually Christian. I have spent my whole life "thinking critically" about my namesake. I do indeed have a personal relationship with God. I won't get into my religious beliefs to deeply in this forum as I feel it's the wrong place for such things, even though the topic was brought up organically. What I will say though is this, when I say Bible Thumpers I am NOT speaking in generalities. I am speaking specifically of people who use the Bible and the beliefs to argue, degrade, and otherwise pollute the communication process with closed-mindedness. You know the ones I mean. There are people out there who feel passionately about their religious views, and we all have the right to say what we will. We have the right to be closed-minded. But when I label someone "bible-thumper" or speak about "bible-thumpers" it is not a reference to Christians, or any other religious group as a whole. I am speaking about those individuals who use their knowledge of the Bible for what many would construe as a negative end. But, I can understand why someone might think I was speaking broadly of a general group, so I see where you are coming from laxbro.

I'm sorry I spoke hastily. I was more or less replying to everyone's posts as the general view was a close minded view of Christians. I also dislike the Christians who give Christianity a bad rep because they degrade others (i.e. protesters at gay soldiers' funeral services).

You can't disprove creationism, just like I can't disprove evolution.

Wrong, and wrong in a very important way. Evolution could be disproved if you were to test a hypothesis whose experimental results contradicted evolution in some key manner. While that's very unlikely to happen, the important point is it could happen - the falsifiability of any hypothesis is a critical part of science, and it's how theories are developed. In contrast, Cretinism doesn't permit falsifiability - there is no experiment or test which could falsify Cretinism, and its proponents (like yourself) aren't open to their belief being falsified.

I am only saying that why can't a theory (creationism) that millions of people believe including scientists be put alongside evolution in a textbook.

Because Cretinism isn't even a theory - it's mindless speculation, and it's irrelevant how many people belive it. There is absolutely no observational data to support it. It isn't falsifiable, and most importantly it explains nothing - it simply says that beyond a certain point everything is magic, and provides no mechanism for that magic much less any evidence of it. Thus, it has no predictive ability about what we might observe in nature (unlike evolution, which has been a very productive theory). It's also a homunculus argument at its core, and conveniently ignores the resulting recursion problem. Cretinism has no more value than saying that the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it.

How did i give Christianity a bad name?

By confusing irrational belief with observational science. Not all Christians make that mistake.

Hi Laxbro,
here's the rub; Its in the context of science. Its not a popularity contest. Doesn't matter what millions of people believe, it only matters what can be proven. Faith is impossible to prove and you never, never prove a negative (-- that means you don't claim faith is real, stand back and expect everyone to prove its not. And if they can't then you are right --that's just not how science works)

It was popular to believe the Earth was the center of the Universe. It was popular to believe the Earth was flat. It was popular to believe that a person with the flu was possessed by an evil spirit.

But to your point, science is a universal language. Are you really going to be able to put a "creationsim-like" theory in a book and expect to cover all the faiths? You believe in one god, but many believe in several. You believe your super natural entity is not of this world, whereas others believe its very much a physical form(think Hindu and cows). See my point?

2 + 2 = 4, no matter if you live in India, Japan, Russia or the US. And the scientific process is as universal as 2 + 2 = 4, THAT is what Evolution is based on. Which is why only scientific theories should be taught in schools, leave the unscientific ideas for parents to teach their kids.

Laxbro - Uhhhh... Where to start... Your understanding of the theory of evolution is very... limited. If I'm interpretting what you wrote correctly, you think that the theory of evolution would require everything to evolve to the same species, so you would end up with a 100% homogoneous species on a given planet. That would be a very (VERY) incorrect understanding of the theory. So to "answer" your question about why ladybugs and people would exist at the same time - Why wouldn't they? Ladybugs feed on smaller insects (mites, scales, etc.). People eat a variety of things, plants, animals, etc. If anything there are some synergies between people and ladybugs (people cultivate plants, ladybugs eat plant parasites that eat those plants) - therefore, (unless we are killing them with insecticides) ladybugs and humans are actually mutually beneficial to each other / help select each other for continued existence.

I'm not sure if the above makes sense to you or not, but if there is one thing that I could do to modify your interpretation of the theory of evolution it would be to encourage you to understand that evolution isn't about one animal becoming a different animal. Rather it is a tendency for a group of animals to diversify into similar, but reproductively incompatible animals (I'm simplifying folks). Don't assume that the original animal type won't be around any more - it might be, it might not be. Evolution tends to diversify and create more types of animals - not less!

Shrekk your over use of the word "cretinism" gives Shrek a bad name. But hey we all have opinions. And maybe I'm mistaking an inability to spell with an attempted insult. I could be wrong.

laxbro

There is much more evidence for micro-evolution than macro-evolution.

Just an FYI, laxbro - the phrases "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" are not technical terms, and have no specific meaning in biology. Both small-scale change and large-scale change are representative of the exact same underlying mechanisms, although "macro-evolution" is most commonly used when reproductive incompatibility has occurred. While you'll find a few biologists using those phrases in lay discussions, it's mostly Cretinists who use them and imagine that they have distinct meanings.....but they don't. Another FYI - reproductive incompatibility can occur with a single mutation. You also might want to learn about ring species.

Cretinists like the phrase "macro-evolution" because they think it corresponds to their imaginary concept of "kinds", but they're usually unaware that it has no real meaning.

mob_barley

And maybe I'm mistaking an inability to spell with an attempted insult.

You're correct - Cretinism is a descriptive insult. If Cretinists want to be given respect, they should propose a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. Until then Cretinism is just religious bunk, no different from the "earth atop giant elephants atop giant turtle" Hindu myth. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has as much validity as Cretinism.

Where to start! Ok, lets just start at the beginning of your post. You called us closed minded and eager to "throw a blanket" on all christians. The majority of non-believers are the exact opposite of closed minded. The majority of us reached our conclusions on religion by being very opened minded and taking a real close look at our own religion and of those religions around us, as well as a good look at the scientific facts out there that contradicted our own religious beliefs. When we were done we came to the same conclusion: there is no evidence that supports the "intelligent design/creationism" hypothosis while simultaniously finding that the evidence does support the theory of evolution. And just a little to throw in a little lesson for those who don't grasp the difference between a hypothosis and a theory, a hypothosis is basically an unproven idea, while a theory in science is an accepted, hypothesis or model that is supported by evidence. It's that supported by evidence part creationists like to completely ignore.

The part about gravity I thought was a bit idiotic and was only meant to draw a parallel, but I'll still address it. At one time no one even knew gravity existed. Then Newton came along and taught us that gravity is this amazing unknown force that pulls everything to it. That is what the world believed for a long time until Einstein came along and proved that no, gravity doesn't pull at all. Earth actually warps time and space around it and space actually pushes down, causing things to fall. Took a while for everyone to believe that one, but experiment after experiment proved Einstein was right. Einstein didn't change his theory to appease the rest of the world, instead he proved it with scientific experiments and with that the world followed. To that I would say, prove it, and we will believe. If you're not willing to prove it, then it really doesn't mean anything and should be completely disregarded.

Now you said that many scientists believe in intelligent design. Biologists are scientists that study, well, biology, but also evolution. Do you know what percent of scientists believe in intelligent design? I do, it's 0.15%. So that's less than 1/6th of 1%. I bet more scientists believe in bigfoot than intelligent design. So really in truth the only debate about evolution going on is the creationists whining in public. The actual scientists accepted it as fact and moved on. I should also point out that those who scream to include intelligent design while simultaniously saying that evolution completely false needs to read more on the difference between intelligent design and creationism. Since they really believe in creationism (the hypothosis that god created man whole as in the bible) and not intelligent design (the hypothosis that evolution is true but that an intelligent being decided how each thing would evolve)

Micro vs Macro evolution. This one is easy. Lets say micro=1 and macro =100,000. A butterfly makes a micro evolution(+1=1). 100 years later a butterfly makes a micro evolution (+1=2) 100 years later a butterfly makes a micro evolution (+1=3) . Now keep doing that every 100 years for 1 million years and viola, you've reached macro, and a whole new species, congrats!

As for your "natural selection" comment, you're putting the idea of an intelligent being behind natural selection and then mocking it. I know how easy that must have been to mock it, since the idea of an intelligent being being behind the scenes and "decideing" how something should evolve is so laughable. So lets take out the intelligence behind it part and take a look at reality. Lots of people call it survival of the fittest, so that may make it easier to grasp. A cheetah can run so fast that no predetor can catch it, and it survives. The dodo bird on the other hand just walked right up to people, and now it's extinct. When a "micro" evolution happens, the animal either survives and that evolution carries on to the next generation, or it doesn't, and that evolution doesn't continue. Now I don't want to leave out the other form of evolution, and that's mating between two species, such as just happened in the north pole, when a full grown polar bear was hunted and killed, only to discover that it was a polar/grizzly hybrid. Had that bear survived who knows what kind of bear it's offspring would have been 1000 years from now.

"For the close minded people who think religion and science should be separate, you need to read up on your history a little better. The first scientists were people who wanted to understand how God created the world! The reason they did science was because of their religion!"

Hahaha, I don't know what you're point here was, but you're reasoning behind what you said is so rediculous I almost don't want to address it, but I will say that I decided to play the game of disc golf for the first time because I wanted to get laid, so therefore disc golf is a sexual activity. Oh, and that most of those first scientists you speak of where either persecuted until they recanted their findings or were executed for being heratics by the church.

Theories are always changing because they are not proven without a doubt. An example would be Newtonian mechanics to quantum mechanics (of course Newtonian mechanics are still very good approximations for macro objects, but the equations are still approximations of what is really happening on the quantum level).

I don't know anything about Newtonian mechanics or quantum mechanics so I can't even fathom what that part meant. But theories change on occasion to better reflect the scientific data collected by experiments. I will repeat that. Theories change on occasion to better reflect the scientific data collected by experiments. They don't change because a group of religious people say they don't like the theory, they don't change to better reflect what we think it should be, they change because the science indicates that they NEED to be changed. They only need to be changed when evidence shows a problem with a theory, not because a bunch of dumbasses decides THEY have a problem with it.

And evolution could be correct, but everything was set in motion by God. He set everything in motion with simple physical laws that explain how the universe works.

Scientists have proved evolution is correct, if you want to say god was behind it (remember that laughable scenario before) then prove it.

The fact is, is that we don't know which theory is the correct one, but there are differing popular theories.

No, there is only one theory and thats evolution, and then there is a half baked hypothosis with no supporting evidence of any kind. If you want to turn your hypothosis into a theory, I expect to see some evidence, supporting data (scripture and peoples personal testimonies don't qualify), and recreatable experiments.

If you limit every child to one theory every time, you never teach them to think critically. Thinking critically is an important part of life. Many theories have been proven false because of critical thinking.

Yes and no. You are correct in that thinking critically is very important, but just because we want our children to think critically and for themselves, it doesn't mean we have to subject them to crazy ideas and present them as facts to do it. If that were the case then we would have to include every crazy idea anyone could think of.

I'm trying to be civil and give you something to think about. I think it is ridiculous how many people are so close-minded and extremely stereotypical when it comes to Christians and their beliefs.

I'm trying to be civil and give you something to think about. I think it is ridiculous how many christionss are so close-minded and extremely stereotypical when it comes to evolution and those that believe it.

Great post!!!

Cockroaches evolved into what they are today. They evolved to the top of their species. That is obvious given their longevity. They need not evolve any further. And they finished their evolution eons ago. In their present form they do what they do Best. There is no need for further evolution where the cockroach is concerned. They already got it right. Where evolution is concerned, people have no conception of the time that is involved in evolution. People tend to think of time as dealing in generations and such. People have only existed for four or five seconds in time when compared to the age of the earth, itself. It has been shown, scientifically, that in excess of 90% of the various species that have lived on this planet are now extinct. Where did they come from? Where did they go? They are not here any more because of evolution. Nothing more. Nothing less. Human beings do not appreciate time for what it actually is and it's a lot bigger than humanity is ever going to be. We've only been here for a couple of tick-tocks where time is concerned and evolution does, and will continue. Time is what human beings do not comprehend.

Laxbro, you make a pretty good point, and I haven;t read all the replies, but I do want to say something on the subject of critical thinking. I have travelled a long road in my spiritual exploration and found at one point that the Gospell resonated pretty well with me. Or should I say, the theory of the Gospell. Through critical thinking and observation I found something that seemed to explain some of the things that can't be answered entirely by science. I myself used to say that science explains HOW God did it, and that the one thing that science will never be able to explain is WHY.

But in the last year I found myself questioning the form that modern evangelical Christianity has taken. It seems the emphasis is more on who Jesus was without considering what He taught while He was here, which, if He was who we say, should be of supreme importance. I see lots of folks that have the worship thing down real well, but don't really have much of a clue what it means to follow Jesus. For example, the whole love your neighbor as yourself thing and loving your enemies. Didn't say you had to like them, just love them. What I have seen is a zealous acceptance of the dogma, the blind acceptance and belief of the material written in the Bible and a shunning of any other information which might lean to the contrary. The "if it's in the bible than there's no question about it" frame of mind. If it's in there, I believe it. Blessed is he who believes without proof. Maybe there's a little Thomas in me.

The mind that God gave me is given to contemplation. He would probably be upset with me if I didn't use it to the best of the ability He gave me. One of the things I've been pondering is how Jesus said that there will come a day when many will say "Lord, Lord" (the whole worship thing) and Jesus will say "I never knew ya" (you didn't follow what I tried to teach you). And I think those folks are the ones that get the loudest over the subject of evolution. It conflicts with the dogma. Why can't the science be How God did it?

"And evolution could be correct, but everything was set in motion by God. He set everything in motion with simple physical laws that explain how the universe works."

Prove it.

redlion- prove it wasnt. i believe in God and i believe that he created the earth and all the scientific laws that govern how nature operates and then stood back and let everything unfold on its own. just because you believe in God doesnt mean you have to believe that He has a hand in every single thing that has ever happened. Thats why when people say they can prove God doesnt exist because people get murdered and bad stuff happens makes me angry, people have free will. We can do whatever we want, we wouldnt want to live where our decisions were made by someone else for us. I agree that I dont like people who go around with their bibles and tell everyone else they're going to hell if they dont believe exactly what they do and always stand out on street corners handing out flyers saying the only way to salvation is through Jesus. I think that as long as you're a good person and try to go good things you'll be fine. But I also hate athiests that go around preaching their beliefs (or lack thereof) and attack religious people based on their beliefs, they're doing the same thing that the over the top Bible people are doing! Most religious people follow their religion because the overall theme in all religions is to be a good person, treat people with respect and not murder eachother (do some people twist the words of religion to make it suit their needs to kill or start wars? yes, but that is man using his free will). There is probably some sort of middle ground on how we all got here and how everything got to the way it was. I personally think religion is trying to answer the question of "why" and science is trying to answer th question of "how" and that doesnt meant they have to be at odds with eachother all the time. and most of these comments seem to be coming from ignorant people who think that all religion is inherently bad and that they are 100% correct. its the theory of evolution, not the law of evolution, because it hasnt been proven 100%, maybe the % that's missing is the part where God got everything started. Also, with gravity, obviously we all know it exists but its how it works which is what scientists are still trying to figure out. Its easy to say something with huge mass attracts other objects, but why does that happen?

Laxbro stated-For the close minded people who think religion and science should be separate, you need to read up on your history a little better. The first scientists were people who wanted to understand how God created the world! The reason they did science was because of their religion!

Science has been used and believed since before God was accepted. Before God there were many Gods. Seems funny how anyone would be so literate, but so foolhearty. Do you rememeber the Dark Ages? Maybe you could go to the local library and ask for a book that you won't believe anyway. The Vatican made it Herasy punishable by death if anyone was caught having anything to do with science. Please say I am wrong...you can't. The reason for religion is to gather power over others and to collect monies legally for faith of well being in the afterlife.

Is the God you worship telling you to ignore facts over fiction? Does it mean I can run around and claim God said that Hindu or Druid or any other is wrong just because they don't dispell science? What you are trying to say is that God and religion are the reason for the beginning and continuation of science...that is just plain ignorant and you know that science is proving item after item as myth and old wives tales written in a book. I can pick up a book and claim it has been written by God even though I know that it was written by common people who are just authors. I guess back 2000yrs ago if someone had the ability to write, they were put on a pedastal.

What about the ancient Chinese? They didn't subscribe to your religion and they worshipped but did not make so many scientific discoveries for religion. Why not go do some real research that doesn't center around the bible? There are other books out there to read. How about 'Horton Hears A Who"...just as real as your Spaghetti Moster God Theory.

Dear skrekk

I don't have much more to add to these posts other than the pleasure of having other people who understand reality and evolution verbalize those truths.

However, your use of the term "Cretinism" is brilliant and I wanted to point that out and thank you for your alliterative insight.

You seem slightly confused as to what Scientific Theory means. A scientific theory is proven fact and does not mean the same as the normal defination of the word theory.

taken from wikipedia

"In the sciences, a scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.^[1]

A scientific theory is a type of inductive theory, in that its content (i.e. empirical data) could be expressed within some formal system of logic whose elementary rules (i.e. scientific laws) are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.^[2]

In the humanities, one finds theories whose subject matter does not (only) concern empirical data, but rather ideas. Such theories are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. A philosophical theory is not necessarily scientifically testable through experiment."

Even cockroaches have more than one species. The reason(s) for this are best explained by the study of Ecology.

mike-2776097

redlion- prove it wasnt. i believe in God and i believe that he created the earth and all the scientific laws that govern how nature operates and then stood back and let everything unfold on its own.

That's what separates blind faith from science - that latter requires that you test your hypotheses, and modify your theory based on the results of that test. Cretinists are unwilling to even offer a testable and falsifiable hypothesis, much less modify their beliefs based on any experimental results.

If you want to make the extraordinary claim that your imaginary friend did it, the burden of proof is on you.

Sugguy, go watch David Attenborough's "Life on Earth" series. Sit down and think about it for a while. Then re-read your post. And blush at your own ignorance.

Hey Rural Washington... I couldn't have summed things up any better than you did. From the scientific point of view, which i sunscribe to totally, I have a harder and harder time subscribing to the higher power point of view. I seem to subscribe more to the carbon atom point of view and all of the nasty little things that carbon is undoubtably responsible for. I, you, and the rest of us are, after all, almost completely carbon and water and will, one day, become carbon and water again; to be used for other earthly concoctions. Where people have trouble with evolution, it is because of their failure to uderstand time. They think in generations; not in eons. People have only existed for four or five seconds on the Earths' clock and the masses have no way to comprehend that fact. Fact: More than 90% of the species that have existed on this planey are now extinct; many for the above mentioned eons. Where did they come from? Where did they go? If they hadn't "gone", we wouldn't be here now. Ah, riddles... And dangling participles?

One thing I've observed over the years is that there is some kind of magic in the human experience. That there is some kind of motive force that became life out of those carbon atoms. And it's here that I agree with Rural Washington, that it's a combination that goes hand in hand. Science can't explain to me why I have ideals I can't live up to, or why there is something instead of nothing. Is this not part of the spark that leads to Science?

Not soon enough, though.

So what about us that believe in a creator but cant afford to send our children to a christian school. I dont believe in evolution and would prefer that it not be forced on my children but because of decisions like that in Loisiana im stuck with it. My kids are in public school and they are forced to study evolution. Isn't that your argument, not to force something on us that we dont believe. Maybe i wouldn't have such a problem with it if it were taught as a theory but its not, its taught as a fact. Last i heard it wasn't the law of evolution. As far as religion goes most of these people on here have science as their religion, they have made it into their GOD weather they admit to it or not. They are all as closed minded about my views as they claim i am tword theirs.

I don't know what religion you are but your church has certainly recieved enough of you and your parishioners money to open a school instead of paying for the preachers cars and homes

No, Nate66, evolution is not taught as a fact, it's taught as a theory. The problem is that you want creationism to be taught as a theory, and it's not. The difference is this, a theory can be proven, and evolution has been proven thousands of times, and will continue to be proven. You see, Nate, to "prove" means to test. That's how a theory is developed. Creationism is not a theory because it cannot be tested; it is conjecture. We object to creationism being taught in science classes, not because it is religion, but because it is not science. This isn't a separation of church and state issue, as much as you want to couch it as such. This is a separation of science and not-science issue. How can we compete as a nation if, in their science classes, our kids are not taught the difference between theory and speculation. I don't want to insult you, but your ignorance of the difference between the two is kind of the whole point, here.

science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I agree with just about everything you've said Laxbro, but why would anyone want the two topics in one textbook. Aren't Creationism and Evolutionism mutually exclusive? And to some extent things can be shown to evolve. I'm not familiar enough with what is taught in creationism to know what it can or can't show, but I would guess that there is more teachable "classroom science" in evolution. I can't help but bring up fruit flies. When you want to see what happens over many generations you typically jump to studying fruit flies, do you not? I am not sure how creationism would handle such things so if anyone can clear that up for me I'd be appreciative.

Lax --

The scientists that are creationists are religiously biased. It's as simple as that. Show me one who doesn't ascribe to creationism AND christianity and you would have a point. But you can't. On the flipside, scientists who accept evolution are simply not biased (or, choose not to let their personal beliefs/dogmas get in the way of the scientific method.) Case in point would be Francis Collins. He's a devout christian and writes frequently about your shared "god", yet he's one of the most brilliant scientists of our time and a key proponent of evolution. He actually fights against the ignorance and lack of understanding regarding evolution and the vile attempts to extract it from our classrooms.

I can only imagine a day in which our children cease to learn/understand evolution within our classrooms. Imagine ... and pity the youth of such a generation.

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive by any means. But scientific theory should be taught in science class, and religious theory should be taught in your place of worship or, if done in an inclusive way, in a comparative religions class.

Lax -

I commented on a previous post before reading the above. I think when you say something like "If putting the theory of creationism in textbooks is me forcing my beliefs on you, then I say stop forcing your beliefs of evolution on me by putting them in textbooks." you fail to understand the difference between belief and science/mathematics.

You BELIEVE in Creationism - Why? I would assume because your gut tells you things can't exist without having been created - and you assume there must have been a force guiding it all because everything is so magnificent that it can't be attributable to chance. You have no proof, it just seems like the most reliable answer to you. The version of creationism you subscribe to (i assume that would be biblical) is directly attributable to the culture you grew up in. Unsurprisingly, if you were a creationist from India, you'd probably tend to believe in an entirely different version of "intelligent creation." (Should we include that version in our textbooks too?)

Let's compare that to "believing" in mathematics. I can demonstrate that 2 apples plus 2 apples is 4 apples. Similarly, I can demonstrate the validity of logarythms and other aspecst of mathematics. If I take Hydrogen gas and Oxygen gas and add an ignition spark, I get water - that's science. Belief really doesn't come into it. I would struggle in proving gravity - there is a great deal of complexity, but it is a logical progression of mathematics and science. The same is true of evolution - the science is logical and mathematically consistent - it isn't a matter of belief for me - I don't subscribe to it as a reasonable theory because someone told me to - I subscribe to it because of the mathematics more than anything else - odds, probabilities, etc. The theory is VERY logically consistent. Creationism has zero relation to science or mathematics - it is a belief structure - it tosses out science, it tosses out mathematics - therefore it has no place in a science textbook. By comparison, evolution is a logical progression when combining biology and mathematics. Within science, it is the best (and basically only) theory explaining the origin of species, thus it is only logical to put it into a science textbook.

People aren't forcing their "beliefs" down your throat when they put evolution in a textbook- they are stating the best science available to us regarding the biology of our planet in the hopes of helping our children approach the world logically.

If putting the theory of creationism in textbooks is me forcing my beliefs on you, then I say stop forcing your beliefs of evolution on me by putting them in textbooks.

There is no scientific "theory of creationism", creationism is a religious belief. Scientific theories are based on observations, evidence and experimentation. Religion is based on faith alone, there is no proof of God nor will there ever be, but the lack of evidence does not prove that God doesn't exist. Just because a religious belief proposes an alternate "theory" to evolution does not make it science, even if you can find a handful of scientists to support it, especially when those scientists are in unrelated fields. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor evolution and those scientists who are in related fields overwhelmingly are in agreement with the theory of evolution.

I do agree with you that science and God are not mutually exclusive. However, I am not so presumptuous to believe that I or current religious leaders or even those who wrote and rewrote the Bible over hundreds of years knew Gods intentions, what things he did or how he did them. Should we still believe that the earth is the center of the universe and that everything else revolves around the earth? Should we still believe that the earth is flat? The scientists that proposed those theories were considered religious heretics however those theories are now accepted as true and people have adjusted their religious beliefs accordingly with no loss of faith. To that end I also choose to reinterpret the Bible as man learns more. That doesn't mean changing the Bible, it means changing my understanding of what it means. In the case of evolution, I choose to believe that God created man by creating the evolutionary process. I also believe that God gave us the gift of intelligence to learn and use science to better understand the world around us and to deny what we find is to turn our back on his gift.

You claim to believe in science but to deny all of the evidence in favor of the beautifully elegant process of evolution is, as previous commenter's said, like denying the theory of gravity. We already know we can breed dogs, horses, farm animals, etc to change the traits of a species. We already rely on genetic testing to identify lineage. These are everyday processes that are applications of the evolutionary process. Not meaning to be condescending but think with your head and believe with your heart.

Very well done.

Jay, very beautifully put and probably one of the best replies I've read from a believer.

I do however have one question. At one point of scientific understanding do you call your religion out for what it is. A cultural inheritance that (if you were born elsewhere) would "believe" in a different version. Can you think of anything that we could learn that would make you put away the bible completely? That's not to say that you would stop believing in god .... but simply realizing man's religions are just that ... of man.

We have in this country, a viable alternative that can somewhat alleviate this boggle. I am speaking of Private schools. The public school system in the United States is, by design, there to teach the "public". The "public" includes children of all ethnicities and belief systems. It would be unfair, and I think mean spirited, to ask someone of a differing belief to pay, through their tax dollars, for a program that cavitates to a specific defined group. These private schools exist as a alternative for those families who feel the public system does not adequately address their educational needs. Have a heart and stop all this silliness. Send you children to private school.

Side Note; I sent my son to Catholic school to avoid the deplorable conditions at my local public school even though a am Buddhist (raised Roman Catholic). I took the time to teach him at home and ultimately left the decision as to what faith and beliefs he wished to embrace up to him. He wanted to be baptised a Catholic, but by age eighteen he gravitated to Buddhism. My point is that you cannot force others to believe what you believe. Science is not a matter of faith, it's a matter a fact. I am reminded of the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank WHAT?".

I really do not "support" evolution - I have studied it to an extent, taking biology classes and reading articles, but to me it just doesn't make sense and doesn't explain nearly enough. For instance, why do zebras have stripes? I ask this question and usually get something about millions of years and environmental pressures, etc. But this is not PROOF! For all any of us know, zebras have always had stripes. And I guess that's my problem with evolution. I feel the theory makes alot of assumptions, and then goes looking for evidence, and then says "wow, this evidence fits our conclusions." I know you're not SUPPOSED to do it that way, but it happens. All that stuff about "falsifiable" and "verifiable" doesn't matter if you're breaking your own rules to begin with, about being objective. Case in point: "natural selection." Evolution talks about natural selection as if it's a separate entity, choosing this life form over that, etc. - kind of like "intelligent design" to me. In fact, I can only accept evolution IF I throw out the words "natural selection" and replace them with "GOD." Then it all makes sense. So I guess that makes me an intelligent design advocate, and I really don't see the harm in asking students to THINK CRITICALLY about the theory of evolution. Isn't thinking what you WANT them to do, as opposed to just memorizing a section of text because someone TOLD them to??? Nor do I believe the phrase "think critically" is in any way teaching Christianity. If you were honest, you'd admit that it isn't. But instead, evolutionists act like paranoid people, going to Court to stop any competing theory from stepping into their turf. How can you expect me to believe you WOULD honestly evaluate any competing theory when you act like THAT???

You people are unbelievable....the theory of evolution is just as faith based as creationism....was anyone there for the Bang?...how about the oozing?...if your ancestors swung from trees then why are there still some around? I believe in a Bang theory.....God said it, & BANG...it was so. By the way....what was it that Darwin recanted before he died?...oh yeah...his own theory!

No proof for a bang. Bang (in that explosive or colliding way) creates chaos...not order. Did the twin towers become an orderly set of buildings? Get real!

You want proof....explain how a giraffe evolved. When it went to a watering hole and the pressure from the blood flow blew it's head apart the instant it bent down to drink....where did that valve that it needs to overcome that problem come from?...not evolution! You can't procreate when your head explodes. Better yet....how about DNA? One cell in it contains more information on the mechanics of the body its in than you could process in a day. Did a Bang create that intricate info system?

You are so sucked into evolution because you were given that only option in school....that now you can't even realize that the argument is about the beginning!!!....the start of it all!!!....which is why both sides are Faith-Based arguments. NO HUMAN WAS THERE!!!!!

BTW....When Thomas Jefferson wrote the "church & state" line....he was talking about how England forced one religion on the people...Jefferson didn't want this country to continue in that practice since it was one of the reasons people came here. Oh....but the religion of evolution is not challenged in our school textbooks....sounds like the cramming of one religion!!

Pointless to listen to one close-minded individual argue with another....& another....etc.

Have any of you tried to prove the Bible wrong? You ask for proof....

Dead Sea Scrolls....How did a man named Isaiah give a detailed account of Christ's birth, life, & death over 300 years before it happened? DETAILED!! Down to the nails! How can you say something as stupid as "you believe it because you read it in a book(Bible)".....guess what....you believe a book too!!.....NO HUMAN WAS THERE!!!

You want answers?.....research reliable sources yourself....not someone elses biased opinion.

Hey all you critical thinkers....How about that lightning bug!!...research the evolution of that one!

If you don't believe in evolution, try explaining how bacteria become antibiotic-resistant.

The evolution-based explanation is that if an antibiotic wipes out 99.9% of bacteria, the remaining 0.1% are likely genetically resistant. These reproduce into a new population with a higher percentage of resistant bacteria. Expose this population to the antibiotic and the non-resistant bacteria are killed favoring the resistant bacteria. After many generations and doses of antibiotic, you have "created" a new strain of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Yes, we are gods.

T Bourlon

I feel the theory makes alot of assumptions, and then goes looking for evidence, and then says "wow, this evidence fits our conclusions." I know you're not SUPPOSED to do it that way, but it happens.

Actually, that is exactly how scientific inquiry works. In hypothesis testing, first a question must be asked, and a falsifiable hypothesis, or an educated guess based on earlier experimentation or observations, must be constructed. An experiment is then carefully designed and carried out. The entire reason for experimentation is to either discover evidence to support or dismiss the hypothesis, or as you say assumptions.

Evolution talks about natural selection as if it's a separate entity, choosing this life form over that, etc. - kind of like "intelligent design" to me.

Untrue, but a common misconception. Those who lack a true understanding of the fundamentals of evolution often mistaken evolution, and by extension natural selection, as a somehow conscious process with a set goal in mind. When actually, scientists attempt to make clear that evolution is the accumulation of numerous natural processes that take place in an organism or a species as the result of a change in environment. There is no conscious thought or motive behind natural selection that drives evolution. There is not goal to create the perfect species. There is also obviously no entity behind the processes either, or species would be born perfect without the need to adaptation.

Isn't thinking what you WANT them to do, as opposed to just memorizing a section of text because someone TOLD them to???

This is just to priceless. A religious individual attempting to say that science forces people to just learn and believe in something because they say so. Really? The entire religious population existence mainly because adults indoctrinate children into the belief. From a young age they're told there is a god, and do not question this or you will spend an eternity burning in hell.

And today in math class, if you had five loaves of bread and two fishes, how many mouths can you feed ?

a) 4000

b) 5000

I guess the answer depends on which gospel you believe in.

"This is just to priceless. A religious individual attempting to say that science forces people to just learn and believe in something because they say so. Really? The entire religious population existence mainly because adults indoctrinate children into the belief. From a young age they're told there is a god, and do not question this or you will spend an eternity burning in hell."

Yep, that's what I said. That's what you accuse ME of doing - indoctrinating children into my belief system, yet evolutionists do the same thing: "Read this, this is the truth, TRUST ME, I'm a scientist! And if anyone says different, we'll sue to keep them out of schools!"

So answer the question. What is so horrible about asking kids to THINK CRITICALLY about this evolution you're teaching them??? And how are the words "Think Critically" teaching Christianity? I'll make it easy for you - the answer is there's NOTHING wrong with asking them to "Think Critically" about evolution, and YOU KNOW IT!!!

Yep, that's what I said. That's what you accuse ME of doing - indoctrinating children into my belief system, yet evolutionists do the same thing: "Read this, this is the truth, TRUST ME, I'm a scientist! And if anyone says different, we'll sue to keep them out of schools!"

No credible scientist has ever or will ever say that. Science isn't about trust, or belief, or about promoting what you believe is true. Its about finding rational, logical explanations for the natural world. Scientists remain skeptical about everything brought forth to the science community until sufficient evidence has been accumulated to indicate its validity, and even after sufficient evidence is accumulated the theory is still tested over and over again to ensure its accurate. This is how science works. This is how science prevents incorrect hypothesizes with no basis in reality from being accepted without evidence. Evolution has an immense amount of evidence that proves its an accurate explanation for what we observe in the natural world. So, when people relay the evidence supporting evolution its not indoctrination, its teaching about a fundamental scientific theory that is the basis for much of our understanding of the natural world. Evolutionists are gathering evidence and knowledge about the world around us, and are simply trying to convey that knowledge to others. Don't try to say that that is what religious people are doing. There is no evidence supporting religion, or the existence of a god. Religion gets people to believe through fear and manipulation of impressionable youth. Science convinces people of the truth through undisputable facts.

So answer the question. What is so horrible about asking kids to THINK CRITICALLY about this evolution you're teaching them??? And how are the words "Think Critically" teaching Christianity? I'll make it easy for you - the answer is there's NOTHING wrong with asking them to "Think Critically" about evolution, and YOU KNOW IT!!!

There is absolutely nothing wrong with kids thinking critically about evolution. The existence of critical thinkers not accepting anything in blind faith is exactly why evolution continues to be tested, and more and more evidence continues to be added to the supporting pile. Now, I think you would find a problem with people thinking critically about religion, because as we both agree critical thinkers do not just accept, they question, and demand those questions to be answered. Questions concerning religion's validity cannot be answered, because there is no evidence to even suggest that religion is correct or that a god even exists.

I am a fan of Darwin. I have two biology degrees, and I wrote several papers in college extolling the virtures of the theiory of natural selection. However evolution can't explain the reason inanmate chemicals "decided" to combine into enzymes, proteins, and later life. Science in general can't explain the cause or reason for the "Big Bang". And despite the discovery of up to 700 exoplanets, none of them are suitable for any form of life we can imagine. In other words don't be too smug. Possibly science will solve these mysteries. I am especially interested in any studies regarding the origin of life. However, they too require a "leap of faith" even in scientific terms.

Evolution is based on the premise that the universe spontaneously manifested itself out of nothing. There is no scientific means to prove when or how occurred since its not observable and can't be recreated.

Evolutionist have to take it on faith. They take it on faith that they are descendents of rocks.

Christians take it on faith that God created the Universe.

With that said, evolution is no less a religion than Christianity, muslim, hindu, etc.

If you want to keep religion out of text books, then so be it. You'll just have to remove everything about evolution.

If the text books would present evolution as a hypothesis instead of demonstratable fact, that would be one thing. But that's not the case.

Evolution is based on the premise that the universe spontaneously manifested itself out of nothing.

With that laughable statement, you've clearly demonstrated that you know absolutely nothing about evolution.

Evolutionist have to take it on faith. They take it on faith that they are descendents of rocks.

Ok, are you being serious or sarcastic now?

Christians take it on faith that God created the Universe.

Which is why it's not fact or considered scientifically valid, unlike evolution.

evolution is no less a religion than Christianity, muslim, hindu, etc.

ROTFLMAO! Stop. You're killing me! lol

You'll just have to remove everything about evolution

Evoultion is a valid and accepted SCIENTIFIC theory and field of research. Religion is not. There is a difference!

If the text books would present evolution as a hypothesis instead of demonstratable fact, that would be one thing. But that's not the case.

Evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis. Methinks you need to go back to school, preferably one with a real science program.