How can we be expected to believe that this incredibly complex system happened in nature by dumb, blind chance?

You're not supposed to "believe" this happened by dumb, blind chance. Evolution by way of natural selection has nothing to do with random chance. Have you ever even made an effort to understand evolution ... or do you just memorize talking points put forth by typical science-deniers?

You can believe in an intelligent designer all you wish, you can't however, instill and force your pseudo-sciences upon the masses. You obviously have zero understanding of what evolution is, yet you attack it because you think it contradicts your cherished beliefs. How odd it is that all intelligent design proponents in the states happen to be christian. And, all I.D. proponents in the Arab world just happen to be muslim.

Did I say "odd"? Surely I meant how absolutely predictable.

Instead of "the theory of gravity," maybe we should just call it the "the theory of divine falling"?

This cognitive poison is what's wrong with the country. We are a nation constantly harping about education reform, yet we can't even understand (or except) certain cornerstones of basic science. How sad .... and unfortunate for us, it's only going to get worse.

Yeah, go peddle your fairy tales elsewhere, where talking science here.

You may have gotten on this SCIENCE thread via means of dumb blind chance, cause I can't think of any other reason why such shallow thinking individual as yourself would be here (Sarcasm, I know exactly why a shallow thinking individual would be on a science thread... and it has nothing to do with science!) However, we do know that through natural selection, genetic mutations, and environmental pressures that the mantis shrimp came about. The reason YOU don't know of these things is because you are either ignorant or a liar, but it is EXPECTED of you to be both since it's common for a creationist to have those attributes.

Ah, Intelligent Falling. http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/

You know, there are incredibly complex patterns of dust in the corners of gas station bathrooms too. I fail to see how complexity is in any way a proof of design.

James, my point is that seeing complexity in things such as the eye of a shrimp should at least cause people to be willing to consider that there just might be a designer of the complex things we can observe. However, most people (on both sides of the debate) are completely unwilling to even consider the other side's views. As so often happens, this "discussion" quickly devolved to name calling and personal insults. That's a great way to encourage open discussion – it worked when I was in 2nd grade too!

That article on The Onion was hilarious, thanks for sharing it. Regarding gravity, I remember from my school days that it was called the law of gravity, not the theory of gravity. Comparing acceptance of proven laws to acceptance of unproven theories is comparing apples to oranges. I also recall from school that having a critical view of unproven theories is expected of scientists. Do you think it's okay that people keep trying to prove/disprove Einsteins theories, or should we insult and attack such people as ignorant lying fools?

Dear Wunderkinder

You are completely entitled to your beliefs. Who knows, in a way you may be right. Once the "god particle" is confirmed by the LHC in Switzerland we may see that this mysterious source of life in the universe has an impact beyond the creation of the universe and affects life at all stages of development.

Your vision of a "God" may not be completely accurate and a bit simplistic but if that helps you to put the wonders of the universe in some kind of perspective then I see no harm in it. Please, be my guest. I can certainly see how attractive it would be to explain the complexity and diversity of the universe simply as "God created it all." I equate that to "The Devil Made Me Do It", the old Flip Wilson routine.

Wunderkinder, I encourage you to follow and practice your beliefs, it's called Freedom of Religion, but since we do not ALL believe as you do I don't want you teaching your beliefs to our children in schools.

By the way, if you follow your line of thinking to it's logical conclusion then you have to conclude that "God" made gay people, psychopaths, disease and the "thousand other natural shocks man is heir to."

You should embrace your Gay/Lesbian brothers and sisters as fellow creatures of a benevolent "God".

Oh, I see, "THE DEVIL MADE THEM DO IT!" Gotcha.

Have a nice afterlife.

there's nothing intelligent about intelligent design. It's a petty way to admit you don't understand science and are too afraid to learn about it.

Although I must add, there's nothing wrong about believing in a God and religion, as long as you don't substitute faith for science.

I would have more respect for the bible if it said "this is the tree you need to cut down to make aspirin - it will help with a lot of the pain you will feel." Is it evolution or did God suddenly make Japanese people bigger when they moved to America and started eating more red meat? I am going with Evolution.

Steve

There's actually a beautiful lecture by Nina Jablonski at a TED conference that references evolution and skin color, if you haven't already seen it, it's definitely worth a watch.

Excerpt:

“If only Darwin lived today. If only Darwin had NASA.

What Darwin could not appreciate at the time, is that there was a fundamental relationship between the intensity of ultraviolet radiation and skin pigmentation. And that skin pigmentation itself was a product of evolution. And so when we look at a map of skin color, and predicted skin color, as we know it today, what we see is a beautiful gradient from the darkest skin pigmentations toward the equator, and the lightest ones toward the poles.

What's very very important here is that the earliest humans evolved in high UV environments, in equatorial Africa.

But then we moved. And humans dispersed, not once, but twice. Major moves, outside of our equatorial homeland, from Africa, into other parts of the old world, and most recently, into the New World.

Here we begin to see the evolution of the beautiful sepia rainbow that now characterizes all of humanity. Take your skin color, and celebrate it. You have the evolution of the history of our species, part of it, written in your skin.”

Actually, now that I think about it. What could possibly be an explanation (other than evolution) for the racial diversity we see within the human condition? I would love to hear a biblicalist explain this to me ... I really would.

Wunder, any takers here?

Chad, I think a big problem with many ID proponents (I guess I accidentally included myself in with that lot) is that they feel the Bible has to be the final authority when it comes to scientific matters. The Bible doesn't claim to be a science textbook, but when it touches on scientific subjects, it is accurate (bear with me). ID zealots assert that the Bible states the earth was created in 6 literal days. Of course that is ridiculous, but the Bible does not say that the earth and all life in it was created in 6 literal 24-hour periods. So the problem of ridiculousness in this instance isn't the Bible, it's the fanatics that read their own meaning into it.

Again, I will agree with you on certain aspects of evolution. Of course life evolves; it's been observed. However, I personally have not seen credible evidence to support the idea that reptiles evolved into birds, or that life arose spontaneously from non-living matter.

Chad, I think a big problem with many ID proponents (I guess I accidentally included myself in with that lot) is that they feel the Bible has to be the final authority when it comes to scientific matters. The Bible doesn't claim to be a science textbook, but when it touches on scientific subjects, it is accurate (bear with me).

Where does the bible contain anything that could be mistaken as "scientific"? There is a ton of metaphorical goobly-gook, written in a way as to be consumed as science by people of that timeframe ..... but it is not scientific in nature. Some of it is rather poetically beautiful, but not even remotely based in science.

Wouldn't it be great if it were? For you at least. I mean think of it. If there were one single shred of scientific englightenment. Something about DNA, RNA, germs, microscopic lifeforms, descriptions of distant solar systems, or the simple fact there are solar systems in the first place.

Nope. Nothing. The only thing found in there is "wisdom" you would expect given the contemplatives of the day.

ID zealots assert that the Bible states the earth was created in 6 literal days. Of course that is ridiculous, but the Bible does not say that the earth and all life in it was created in 6 literal 24-hour periods. So the problem of ridiculousness in this instance isn't the Bible, it's the fanatics that read their own meaning into it.

Well, that's a pretty convenient argument for you. But, as a secular individual who enjoys learning about all religions, it's really not all that impressive to me.

Again, I will agree with you on certain aspects of evolution. Of course life evolves; it's been observed. However, I personally have not seen credible evidence to support the idea that reptiles evolved into birds, or that life arose spontaneously from non-living matter.

Okay. Great. We've gone over this before. Please explain what part of the evidence you find troubling? Judging by most of your comments on here ... my original accusation stands. I don't think you even know what the evidence is. I don't think you even bother to try and learn what the evidence is. Instead, I think you enjoy putting forth strawman arguments of what you interpret evolution to be. And then you attack those false arguments to further your agenda.

Now tell me. Am I close?

Not a single commentator here has answered Chad's question: How did these shrimp "evolve" the ability to detect circularly polarized light? Instead they descend to name-calling and ad hominem attacks. So, anyone care to explain? All I hear is shrimp chirping... You can't just fall back on Darwinian "survival of the fittest" in this case, because circularly polarized light is completely undetectable to almost all species on earth. How and why would these shrimp develop this ability, strictly through genetic mutation? What advantage would they gain from it? Just answer the question, please.

Don't get me wrong - I believe in evolution, just as I believe in climate change. The ONLY question is, how extensive is it? For me, it takes a much greater leap of faith to believe in evolution as the origin of species, than to believe in some kind of a Creator. It's just that simple.

K.

I think you've mistaken my posts for someone else's (or we are simply both confused here.)

My position is that people who are attacking evolution, are not providing reasons why. Rather, they are submitting strawman positions and then attacking those false-positions.

This isn't a proper forum for teaching evolution. But, we actually know a great deal about the evolution of the eye. In fact, we can still see various stages of eye development within the natural world (within contemplative creatures) and in various stages of development.

Below is a highly simplified representation:

Pigment Spot
The most primitive type of eye can be found on euglenids, small single-celled organisms found in the greenish scum in water. The euglenid has a bright red structure called an "eyespot" that allows the organism to move in response to light.
Function: A flat piece of light-sensitive cells on the skin helps an organism detect a light source.

Simple Pigment Cup
As a flat piece of light-sensitive cells deepen it forms a simple cup shape like the eye of a flatworm.
Function: A depression in the light-sensitive cells gives the ability to detect objects and the angle light is coming from.

Simple Optic Cup
As the depression increases it forms a simple optic cup like the eyes of abalone shellfish.
Function: The greater the cup shape of a depression the more precisely it can detect the angle of light. Edges shade the light so the angle can be based on what cells are shaded and what cells detect the light.

Pinhole Opening
As the opening becomes even smaller it forms a pinhole opening like the eye of a chambered nautilus.
Function: A smaller pinhole opening produces a sharper image and greatly increases the ability to detect the angle of a light source as less light-sensitive will be activated at a given moment.

Complex Lens Eye
As part of the transparent liquid that fills the eye became denser it formed a lens. Little by little the image became sharper. This type of eye can be found in marine snails and the octopus.
Function: A lens gives a sharper and clearer image.

Mammalian Eye
As the slight and gradual changes continue just a bit more the dense liquid forming the lens also takes shape as the iris and we now have an eye similar to that of land mammals.
Function: The new shape of the lenses gives an even sharper and clearer image still.

For me, it takes a much greater leap of faith to believe in evolution as the origin of species, than to believe in some kind of a Creator. It's just that simple.

The purpose of science isn't to just believe in something that you don't understand.

It's far simpler to say "god did it" to explain how tornadoes form, or how earthquakes happen, or how the earth orbits the sun, than to understand all of the complexity behind those processes as well.

Q.

In Genesis 17:12, God commanded Abraham to circumcise baby boys on the eighth day of their lives. Why day eight? Is there any good, scientific rationale behind such a command?

A. On the eighth day, the amount of prothrombin present actually is elevated above one-hundred percent of normal—and is the only day in the male’s life in which this will be the case under normal conditions. If surgery is to be performed, day eight is the perfect day to do it. Vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak.

Vitamin K, coupled with prothrombin, causes blood coagulation, which is important in any surgical procedure.

pally

That's quite a comical reply you've released upon us.

It amazes me you could believe an all-powerful, all-knowing god is competent enough to ascribe the timeframe in which to cut skin from a small boys genitalia.

But, an all-powerful, all-knowing god isn't competent enough to design the genitalia (in a manner that doesn't require human, surgical intervention) in the first place.

That's quite an odd position?

Think about it, a little baby is born:

"Look at this beautiful work! This beautiful work of the Lord.

Wait a minute. On second thought ... it's not so beautiful. Bring that baby over here so I can saw at his genitals with a sharp stone.

There.

Now god's work has truly been done."

your reply shows your ignorance of the Bible. Circumcism was God's commandment to Abrahm, (Abraham) to keep a covenent. Your silly assertation that God had commanded him to circumcise because of looks is foolish and comical.

As for the reason of my post was to show that God knew when to circumcise a baby boy scientifically, He would know since He is the creator...

And your reply shows how biblical literalism can absolutely destroy critical thinking.

I'm actually quite familiar with the Bible. The Quran as well. Also, a variety of other faiths.

The point being, I like to use my diverse religious education as an eye into the world. Into the human condition and what makes us ... "us".

It's a shame to see someone so blind within their own biases about the nature of reality. Not just here (I've read quite a few of your other posts.) Interesting stuff. It's almost like a window into where this country is going. Why we are falling to dead last among the sciences and education. Sad really

"And your reply shows how biblical literalism can absolutely destroy critical thinking"

so i shouldnt read that part of the bible and interpret it literally? so God didn't mean to actually circumcise on the 8th day? even though we can use science to figure out that there was a good reason for doing it on the 8th day?

So there was a good reason for doing something pointless at a particular time. Big deal. If you look hard enough, you can find unintentional wisdom in any fairytale.

You still totally sidestepped the issue of why the penis is made with something that god wants chopped off of it in the first place. And you're totally off the topic of this article so I'm totally hitting the "unsubscribe" button. It's been real. Real dumb.

so i shouldnt read that part of the bible and interpret it literally?

I don't think you should read any part of the bible literally. Do you kill your neighbors for working on Sunday? Do you stone your children when they talk back to you? Do you not think rape and torture maybe should have been included in the 10 commandments as things (oh, I don't know), maybe we shouldn't do to each other?

The Bible is a book Pally. There are some beautiful things in there and there are some wicked things in there. But it's a book bud ... just a book.

Wunder, scientific theories are composed of facts and laws. Did anyone ever tell you that because that has been explained so many times that I'm starting to think there is a reading comprehension problem in the creationist population. Law of Gravity is a part of the Theory of Gravity like a brick is to a wall.

Chase

I don't think anyone (anywhere) is saying that people "can't" believe in a first-cause creator. That's a perfectly fine position and one I'm sure many scientists share.

The problem is, when man thinks they can somehow quantify such an entity based on zero evidence (or, essentially define something through indefinable terms.) There surely could be a god, but in all our endeavors to find him, all we've seen is that the universe does not need such a variable within the equation in order to work.

In the meantime, you get people like wunder who spend a majority of their time attacking very real science. This rampant problem of anti-intellectualism is a much greater threat then people will admit. That's really the whole point (and why we must take off the kid-gloves when addressing this stuff.)

Sorry, Chad, but how do you know what I spend a majority of my time doing? What science was I attacking, the theory (note - it is still a theory, meaning it remains unproven) of evolution? I am actually a believer in evolution – at least the part that deals with life forms adapting to their environment. I'm just still not convinced that reptiles magically evolved into birds.

And since when is asking a question "anti-intellectualism"?

Wunder

So, evolution is "Just a theory" .... and, "Hasn't been proven yet" huh?

Thanks for proving my point for me

;)

What science was I attacking, the theory (note - it is still a theory, meaning it remains unproven)

Oh damn, I guess gravity isn't doesn't exist either! It's a conspiracy I tell you!

what does gravitational theory have to do with the theory of evolution jeff? how does it support evolution of molecules to man?

pally

The point is that gravity is a scientific theory. Just like evolution.

He is mentioning the irony in that science deniers (such as yourself) enjoy attacking "theories" when they contradict your bias, biblical world views. But when they don't, (like gravity) you have no problem with them. The real irony here is that we actually know more about evolution then we do gravity.

He's just pointing out how funny you guys are .... that's it.

saying that religious folk are all "science deniers" is foolish and ignorant just because they have a different world view than yours. you would be correct in saying that most religeous people are molecules to man evolution deniers though.

would it help if I said you guys are all God deniers who think life is all some fate of chance and there is no meaning to it?

saying that religious folk are all "science deniers" is foolish and ignorant

Wow. Where did that strawman come from?

There are a great deal of scientific thinkers that find room for notions of god within their arguments.

But Pally, please don't flatter yourself. You are not one of them.

Creationists destroy science. You fight with every being of your might to stifle and stagnant science. You create a false-controversy where you know (deep down) one does not exist.

I find the philosophical underpinnings of a god rather beautiful. And, ones I've spent countless hours discussing. But again, that's not the discourse you have on offering my friend.

All you care about is finding (where there is none,) biblical relevance within our current notions of science. When you fail, you simply inject pseudo-sciences into the mix and call it an argument. You're the reason why our children can't learn science today. My analogy of you, is one that takes place all across this once great nation.

The real sad part, is that you use archaic, violent, tribalistic notions of god to define your faith. And in doing so, think you have some right to revelation. Again, the world is much bigger than your book Pally. Please don't ask me to look through the grace of Hubble, and then find truth in your burning bushes and talking snakes. I can assure you ... you will be disappointed.

As far as the meaning of life without a celestial, unalterable father-figure ... Well, if you need me to explain that one to you, then I'm quite sure you enjoy being a serf. And, an explanation would just fall on deaf ears.

I don't believe in god nor do I think there is meaning outside of those that came up with the concept. It's all about an honest perspective. The universe is not meant for us just like the ocean is not meant for a surfer. We simply made use of the many variables that benefit us and continue finding ways of reducing the many variables that harm us via indirect and direct means.

Preferably focus in the 3D polarized field of light like the mantis shrimp!

My friend keeps one in an aquarium it's pretty cool. It will attack a plastic pen with enough force to dent it.

Why don't you just wait for one to evolve?

Ooopsies, Wunderkinder, you've outed yourself. Above you say you believe in Evolution and then here you use it to make a snarky comment about Skepology's humorous and harmless reference to STAR TREK. I had more respect for you when you were simply following the scientific theories of bronze age nomads. You really can't have it both ways and have any intellectual integrity.

Give it up and read your Bible my friend, it will bring you comfort in a complex and often confusing world.

skip, I was merely trying to insert some humor after Skep's personal attack on my character in his earlier comments. Also, I was trying to point out that it makes no sense to believe that a holodeck will appear without someone building it.

Wunder

Also, I was trying to point out that it makes no sense to believe that a holodeck will appear without someone building it.

Funny ... you have no problems with an infinitely more complex notion of "god" simply appearing without someone creating it though? Yeah ... that makes sense I guess.

Wunderkinder,

First of all thank you for the civil and intelligent response, I appreciate it. Ok, attempt at humor noted.

Take care and have a nice day

lolololol

They're cool. Just haters gotta hate, you know? Doesn't even matter what the article is, haters will hate.