How Huckabee thinks kangaroos were created

Mike Huckabee, the wannabee President, says that he doesn't believe in evolution. This leads on to an important question. How does he think kangaroos were created?

In case it comes up on the hustings in New Hampshire, I thought I would provide a helpful guide. But how to work out the line to take?

Conservapedia to the rescue!

Here's your debate prep briefing on the origins of the kangaroo, Governor Huckabee, and glad to be of service:

According to the origins theory model used by young earth creation scientists, modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood. It has not yet been determined by baraminologists whether kangaroos form a holobaramin with the wallaby, tree-kangaroo, wallaroo, pademelon and quokka, or if all these species are in fact apobaraminic or polybaraminic.

After the Flood, these kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land with lower sea levels during the post-flood ice age, or before the supercontinent of Pangea broke apart. The idea that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there is considered by most creation researchers to be contra-Biblical.

Other views on kangaroo origins include the belief of some Australian Aborigines that kangaroos were sung into existence by their ancestors during the "Dreamtime" and the evolutionary view that kangaroos and the other marsupials evolved from a common marsupial ancestor which lived hundreds of millions of years ago.

In accordance with their worldviews, a majority of biologists regard evolution as the most likely explanation for the origin of species including the kangaroo.

Need more help, Governor? If the roo questions become insistent try this site - How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia?

Difficulties in our ability to explain every single situation in detail result from our limited understanding. We cannot go back in a time machine to check what has happened, and our mental reconstructions of what the world was like after the Flood will inevitably be deficient.

Because of this, the patterns of post-Flood animal migration present some problems and research challenges for the biblical creation model.

Brilliant stuff. Make that Huckabee man President, that's what I say.

(Hat Tip: Chris Smith)

Comments

[Richard]

This again. Well, Bush believes in the end times and Blair must have thought there was a good reason to go to war in 2003 (other than WMDs, coz he knew there weren't any). On balance - and I say this as no great lover of Huckerbee and a mocker of creationists - I'd rather have a US president who believed in Noah's Ark than one who thought democracy could land fully-fledged somewhere like Iraq.

[Scott Benowitz]

Okay, allright- I'm kind of embarrassed to be an American sometimes--

[Oliver Kamm]

The comment above this one is not sensible. Ronald Reagan also believed in a literal Armageddon, and there is strong circumstantial evidence (see Beth Fischer's book The Reagan Reversal) that this prompted him to cool down the rhetoric with the Soviet Union at exactly the right time, i.e. after the USSR completely misunderstood Nato's Able Archer exercise and before Gorbachev took power.

I note, however, that the commenter is more tolerant of biblical creationism than of Blairite foreign policy.

[jimmy]

Just for completeness you should add how evolution theory explains the origins of the kangaroo. Is it any more testable / verifiable than the above?

[Dan Katz]

I assume Huckabee hasn't endorsed the 'conservapedia' site or their postings on kangaroos. I also assume Huckabee isn't on the board/staff at Answers In Genesis.

I wish reporters could actually try to add the substance. Huckabee noted that his position was that he didn't believe in an unguided process of evolution without purpose and without a guiding hand involve. At most, that would make Huckabee a theistic evolutionist (prominent ID theorist Michael Behe labels himself a "theistic evolutionist"). Reading this article, I think many would conclude he's probably a young earth creationist, tho I see no evidence to back up such an assertion.

Check the current polls of Americans (and others around the world). The great majority of Americans are rooted firmly in the same camp as Huckabee on these issues. VERY few Americans support the idea that there was an unplanned, unguided evolutionary arms race that resulted in rocket scientists. So, he would (if elected) be leading a nation full of people who agree with his views on the subject.

In the end, the post you wrote before says Huckabee put his support behind the idea of intelligent design. Which makes me wonder- why on earth would this post link to (thus implying support) for a young earth creationist group?

[Coel]

Jimmy writes: "Just for completeness you should add how evolution theory explains the origins of the kangaroo. Is it any more testable / verifiable than the above."

Yes it is. There is an ample fossil record for kangeroos, and this is corroborated by other evidence, such as DNA evidence.

[AlexR]

I disagree with the notion of intelligent design/creationism and it is somewhat worrisome that so many people ignore or warp the scientific evidence. In agreement with JIMMY, there appears to be no link between Huckabee and any of the references quoted. Had Huckabee made comments and discussed the origins of kangaroos, then the story would have been worthy of it's title.

[R C]

Well, if you want to reason and make sense, here's another question: CAN YOU ANSWER IT?

How did the Galapagos Land Tortise (all 300 lbs of him) get to the Galapagos islands? They are formed of igneous rock, > 300 Miles from the coast of South America.

If you believe in evolution, the you must believe a seagoing ancestor crawled from the ocean and evolved right there on that tiny island into -- a land tortise. The only problem with that is this - elsewhere (Africa) a similar tortise evolved that is identical in all respects....so random mutation produced the same animal around the same time in two different places?
Clearly the tortise can't swim, and people didn't bring the tortise there (from Africa).

So, now, explain how the tortise got to the Galopagos????

About as good a example as kangaroos in austraila.

[Lee Jakeman]

This is the usual smart-arsed, scoffing article that usually gets written about anyone questioning the holy grail of "evolution". Like most people, I haven't got the faintest clue how the kangaroo was created or evolved. All that I DO know is that we human beings are creative and use our inelligence to design things. Therefore I am not at liberty to say that there is "no creator" because WE are creators. Nor am I at liberty to say that Intelligent Design is "rubbish" because WE are intelligent designers. In fact, WE are the best evidence that there is that not everything proceeds by a process of evolution and natural selection. Otherwise it would have taken us ten million years to develop my laptop computer instead of just ten.

[R. Smith]

Canada's current Minister of Public Safety, one Stockwell Day, believes the world is 6000 years old, and that humans cohabited with dinosaurs. This is the man in charge of protecting all Canadians from Al Queda, etc. The Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, is more than likely a closet creationist, given that he is a fundementalist Christian. It's not just right wing American politicians who are wingnuts.

[Craig]

I'm still trying to figure out how roughly 1,600 different species of termite didn't eat that boat right out from under ol'Noah.

[tom]

good work, dr. chris and daniel. keep it up!

[Bill Gemmell]

Actually, and not many people realise this, God created the world and all that is in it, including fossil records, creationists and sceptics, and Mike Huckabee, and all you others together with your thoughts and memories, on the day before I was born. He did this entirely for my amusement, and because he is playing a clever trick on me. I know this to be absolutely true, because He is actually quite droll in an omnipotent and omnipresent kind of way, and anyway, I had a dream.

[John Small]

"Huckabee put his support behind the idea of intelligent design. Which makes me wonder- why on earth would this post link to (thus implying support) for a young earth creationist group"

Is it really necessary to make fine distinctions between different grades of stupidity? They're all dumb.

[zoe]

what crap!

[Coel]

R C rites: "Clearly the tortise can't swim [. . .] So, now, explain how the tortise got to the Galopagos????"

While Galapogas tortoises do not exactly swim, they do float well enough, and they can survive long periods without food and water. Most likely the first tortoises on the Galapogas islands floated there on ocean currents. This is an improbable journey, yes, but it only needs to have happened once (a pregnant female) in a few millions years. And these tortoises were likely normal sized; they then evolved to the giant size we currently see.

[Dave]

Surely the strongest arguments against intelligent design are why would an intelligent designer:
a) design a kangaroo pouch without a zipper
b) design Mike Huckabee

[Andrew Milner]

And I used to think those "Stupid American" clips on YouTube were all contrived.

[Mark Allen]

Yet another article wich tempts people to post messages demonstrating that (although they act perfectly rationally in most areas of their lives) when it comes to anything that dares to challenge the ludicrous claims of their superstition, they throw away any semblance of intelligence and proudly proclaim their abject stupidity to the world.

Is someone keeping a list of these idiots in case any of them ever decide to run for public office?

[Jean Booth]

Well I have heard it said that a country gets the leader it deserves.... so go on America, vote for Huckabee! No more enemies to shoot at once he's in power - they'll all have laughed themselves into early graves!

[Andrew Milner]

Couple of kangaroos loose in the top paddock.

[Jean Booth]

Well I have heard it said that a country gets the leader it deserves.... so go on America, vote for Huckabee! No more enemies to shoot at once he's in power - they'll all have laughed themselves into early graves!

[Joe]

Well I thought the article was funny! It's entirely justified to reduce Huckerbee's beliefs to absurdity.

My point would be this – young earth creationists are simply thick. They just have to have lower intelligence than average. How else to explain it?

They used to call the Conservatives in Britain "the stupid party". Should that now apply to the Republicans?

Oh, and a word of advice to commentators, people who blog in UPPER CASE come across as nuts.

[Mount]

As I understand Mr Katz's description of the theory of Intelligent Design, it involves evolution but overseen by a higher force. Reasonable and inoffensive. If this is so, why the fuss about it all. Surely it just involves one extra sentence in the dreaded schools that teach ID? "And it was all God's idea and the bits we don't understand yet where directly His doing". Mr Katz says most of America believes this, fine.

The fear surely is that Americans are denying self-evident observations (how can you deny evolution when you see MRSA and rats that evolve resistance to poisons??) They are placing their personal (or more scarily, preached) faith above the honest considered opinions of many many intelligent people who have spent their lives researching these things.

All delusions are dangerous as one never knows where they end but if it's all just a matter of 'theistic evolutionism' then that's saying the watchmaker is called Jehovah, and is partially sighted. If Mr Katz is right there is nothing new there. Methinks the journalists are inciting again. If on the other hand a majority of Americans deny the integrity or brainpower of their own scientists, yet are happy to live in a technological man-made world, then it's a disturbing time to live.

[democritus]

Well done Danny, you seemed to have flushed out a lot of wierd americanos, and it's so much fun reading their confused ramblings. it's a bit scary though.
Are they all like this??What kind of schools do they have?

[Edro]

It's a good job that creation/evolution is the most important issue in this election and we can base our decisions on something that is, at least, a 6,000 year old story. Now we don't have to concern ourselves with outrageous frippery like international security, economic development, Iraq & Afghanistan, climate change and pollution...

When was the last time ANYONE on this board had a serious issue affecting their daily life that was the result of the US President's opinion on creation?

[Richard]

Oliver Kamm: "I note, however, that the commenter is more tolerant of biblical creationism than of Blairite foreign policy."

Biblical creationism and the famed "ethical foreign policy"? Hmm, one is a harmless fantasy and the other is a... (oh, you get the joke...)

But seriously - do you really think that it's fine to have a president who sincerely believes in a biblical prophesy of global annihilation but not one that believes the literal truth of a biblical allegory? And would you really vote for a politician whose policies are worse than their rival's because their approach to evolution was Darwinist and not biblical? Voters should focus on what really matters: policies...

[donquijotesrocket]

Speaking literally from the heart of the merikan heartland(nebraska) there are only a couple things here that get the collective knickers of the merikan body politic in a larger knot than evolution, those being religion in general, the religion of Islam in particular, gun control, global climate change and Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize.

[Andy Clarke]

So where is this "fossil" and DNA evidence you claim to have?

Most so called fossil evidence does nothing more than confirm the flakiness of the THEORY of evolution.

Not a single person can provide undeniable evidence of one species changing into another...even the infamous Dawkins!....yet everyone still talks of proof....lets see it.

By the way do you prefer to vote for someone who doesn't think for himself and who says everything was created from nothing and blind chance was the archetect of life the universe and laws of nature? ....a bit like looking at a beatiful building and saying the building itself is not proof of a builder - whether you know of, or can "prove" it had a builder!

Look at the Pyramids - are they proof of a builder - even today nobody can be certain who or how they were built - but no-one denies they had a designer and builder(s).

Come on....lets have less fantasy and a little thinking.....this is "THE Times" after all!!

P.S. Lets have a PROPER answer rather than the usual abuse.

[Andy Clarke]

Question for Joe who wrote...

(how can you deny evolution when you see MRSA and rats that evolve resistance to poisons??)

You've done wht so many do....see evolution where it doesn't exist.

Even though MRSA ADAPTS it is still MRSA....it doens't change into a whale, the a land mammal then a whale again.

By teh way - talking of Kangarros. Attneborough claimed on one of his programmes that the kangaroo pouch was essential for their survival and took a million years to develop!!

Anyone seen a million year old kangaroo...?

Come on Joe believe what you like but lets have some REASON here and not parrot fashion statements against those with a religious view simply because you seem to have such a dislike of them.

[Carolyn (an American living in London)]

Idiot bible-thumpers like Mike Huckabee make me embarassed to be an American.

[Shnakepup]

"Even though MRSA ADAPTS it is still MRSA....it doens't change into a whale, the a land mammal then a whale again."

You're mistaken. Staph didn't "adapt" to become MRSA, it evolved. That's the problem with you creationists...you deny that evolution occurs, and when you're presented with a definitive example that evolution HAS occurred (i.e. Staph to MRSA), you simply hand-wave it away as an "adaptation".

Here's the deal. If Staph simply adapted to become MRSA, then by your example whales simply "adapted" to become land animals, and then "adapted" back to whales.

[Coel]

Andy Clark writes: "So where is this "fossil" and DNA evidence you claim to have?"

Amply documented in large quantities in the scientific literature. Literally dozens of papers get written very month adding to the already-copious evidence for evolution.

"Most so called fossil evidence does nothing more than confirm the flakiness of the THEORY of evolution."

Sigh, yet another creationist who doesn't even know the scientific meaning of "theory". Yet these people who know nothing of science feel free to opinionate on the evidence for evolution!

"Not a single person can provide undeniable evidence of one species changing into another"

You think not? Have you read all the papers cited in http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

"Look at the Pyramids - are they proof of a builder"

So your argument is that one thing was designed therefore everything was designed? Unfortunately for you, we know of another way by which complex things come about, namely Darwinian evolution.

"Come on....lets have less fantasy and a little thinking.....this is "THE Times" after all!!"

Thinking is exactly what scientists do, along with accumulating evidence. Sadly for you, both thinking and evidence support evolution.

[Blewyn]

Andy, it's believed that buildings are man-made, because there's copious evidence that people do make buildings, and no-one has ever reported seeing one made by anyone or anything else.

Let's hear your reasons for believing the fossil record actually undermines the theory of evolution...

[Coel]

Andy Clark says: "Attneborough claimed on one of his programmes that the kangaroo pouch was essential for their survival and took a million years to develop!! Anyone seen a million year old kangaroo...?"

He meant, of course, that a feature that evolved over a million years is _now_ essential to their survival. And, yes, there is a large fossil record on kangeroos, documenting how they evolved over millions of years.

[Blewyn]

Andy, MRSA has adapted and this is a clear contemporary example of natural selection. It is not conclusive proof of mutation (no-one can show that the adapted strain did not already exist), but it certainly isn't evidence for design.

[Stuart]

America,

Please please please vote for a secularist before the idiots you have now, kill the world.

[Frank Upton]

The sensible parts of the Christian Church have evolved in response to external stress by accepting that we, as animals, are the products of evloution but that, as spiritual beings, we are designed by God. It's a neat idea, if somewhat opportunistic.

[doug george]

If God did create the world then he/she has a funny sense of humour when you consider that everything on our earth consumes everything else to live. You would have thought that this is at the very least wasteful if not down right goulish.

[Simon]

Somebody wrote:
"wierd americanos...Are they all like this??What kind of schools do they have?"

I think I have the answer. In the USA they have a system called "No Child Left Behind", and how it works is this: when any pupil starts showing signs of getting left behind all the others wait for him to catch up.....

[Mono Ape]

"Most so called fossil evidence does nothing more than confirm the flakiness of the THEORY of evolution."

lol. Amazing it took so many comments before one of the religious rolled out this old chestnut about the 'theory' of evolution.

Andy Clarke, you're mistaking your deep ignorance of the theory (the scientific meaning of this word is very different to your confused understanding) of evolution with the fact and reality of it. Do yourself and the rest of the interweb a favour and read a book that's not several hundred years old.

The creationist / I.D. method: we have all the answers in our old book, so let's try and find evidence to support it and dismiss anything that contradicts it.

The scientific method: let's investigate, research, measure, peer review, then look at what we've got and reach a conclusion.

Regardless of what Huckabee thinks of kangaroo origin, he's another one of the deeply deluded, irrational, superstitious religious ... and we've seen the result of having one of those in the Whitehouse these past 7 years.

[Mono Ape]

"Most so called fossil evidence does nothing more than confirm the flakiness of the THEORY of evolution."

lol. Amazing it took so many comments before one of the religious rolled out this old chestnut about the 'theory' of evolution.

Andy Clarke, you're mistaking your deep ignorance of the theory (the scientific meaning of this word is very different to your confused understanding) of evolution with the fact and reality of it. Do yourself and the rest of the interweb a favour and read a book that's not several hundred years old.

The creationist / I.D. method: we have all the answers in our old book, so let's try and find evidence to support it and dismiss anything that contradicts it.

The scientific method: let's investigate, research, measure, peer review, then look at what we've got and reach a conclusion.

Regardless of what Huckabee thinks of kangaroo origin, he's another one of the deeply deluded, irrational, superstitious religious ... and we've seen the result of having one of those in the Whitehouse these past 7 years.

[Ben]

Andy Clarke, you clearly don't understand evolution. It is the GENES that are passed down over millions of years, not ancient kangaroos, and determine characterisics. Evolution is not chance, and there ARE conclusive fossil records. Until you understand, shut up.

Anyone else think that we should ban religious people from holding the top jobs in the world?

[S.W. Massil]

What Mr Huckabee needs to realise is that America (nor Australia, for that matter) is not indicated in the Bible - so he has no right to comment on such matters. If he wishes to 'interpret' the Bible to explain the presence of America, then he can interpret the Bible to explain anything but taken literally the Bible has nothing to say about America whatsoever
Sincerely
S.W. Massil

[Les]

Doug -
You make a reasonable point superficially.
However the Bible clearly teaches that everything was initially made 'very good'.
Man's rebellion 'disturbed' this. If man wants to live without the Creator in charge of His own creation then he must expect it to break down.
And in a place where one's own will is the determinor then violence between creatures is inevitable. Don't blame God!

[James]

Imagine being so perfect that you can design not only an entire universe, but also create the light from dead stars and position its starting point the exact distance from the earth needed to fool humans into thinking that these stars died millions of years ago. BRILLIANT STUFF !!!

I'm totally converted now. In fact, I'm off to buy a copy of a bible or Quran or whatever. Maybe on the way back, I'll stone some homosexuals.

[Edward Eck, Boston, MA]

As I understand Mr Katz's description of the theory of Intelligent Design, it involves evolution but overseen by a higher force. Reasonable and inoffensive. If this is so, why the fuss about it all. Surely it just involves one extra sentence in the dreaded schools that teach ID? "

The fallacy of ID is that the proponents of ID claim that ID is a science. ID is not and cannot be a science. A "science" is a study of observations of the physical world, leading to testible predictions about the physical world. There are no observable facts to support ID; even Behe's ideas about irreducible complexity have been shown to be untrue. Of course, should observations show that whatever vitalism underlies ID does indeed affect the physical world, ID would be considered a science. Such observations are lacking.
ID is therefore not a science but a branch of philosophy and has been held in the Dover case to be specifically a theology--a religious doctrine. As a philosophy, ID can be classed and taught as, not a science, but a study similar to palm reading or diagnosing by bumps on the head or on a parity with the pseudoscience of astrolgy
This also shows the statement that "Science is atheistic" is untrue. Science has no bias toward or against religion; science only studies the material world and is not concerned with immaterial objects or forces. Science is not atheistic but nonthestic.

[Sean]

"You would have thought that this is at the very least wasteful if not down right goulish."

No, it is efficient. A self sustaining world makes sense. Would you rather God spent his time spoon feeding you manna?

BTW, when did it become fashionable to bash another persons belief system? From these posts you would think England had been over run by mindless adolescents.

[Dave]

Andy Clarke says "Not a single person can provide undeniable evidence of one species changing into another...even the infamous Dawkins!....yet everyone still talks of proof....lets see it"...

Andy you are in and of yourself a (non) divine revelation. You are the missing link somewhere between a sentient cerebral human being and primordial pond sludge.

Erring towards the pond sludge end.

[Murrin]

Just one question to all Believers; how did two of each in Noah's Ark create today's populations without birth defects caused by inbreeding? Same question as to Adam and Eve, by the way. Or did God do his Miracle thing again? Wish He waved his wand more often - today's world could use it!

[Mishery]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

[Nick Ellis]

I'm sure i'm not the only one who's scared witless by the revelation (no pun intended) that evolution deniers are in the running for the most powerful job on earth! What else do they believe in? We're stuffed.

[Richard]

I would like to ask a question. For the purposes of argument I will make the following definitions. Intelligent Design (=) God, A:={God Exists}, the event that God exists, and P(A):=Probability of A where 0<=P(A)<=1. My question is as follows. Would any ‘non-believers’ be prepared to agree with the statement; 0<=P(A)<1? Perhaps you might. You don’t know what the probability that God exists is, but you do not think it is 1. But, then logically you cannot disagree with the statement; P(A)=.99. For the record, and I mean no disrespect whatsoever, I have never met an atheist/non-believer who would be prepared to agree with the latter statement. I am happy to be humbled.

Why did I ask this question? Well, in order to be able to disagree with the statement, P(A)=.99, based on a logical argument, you must have at least an idea of what P(A) is likely to be. Logically, you cannot say what something isn’t if you don’t know any of its defining characteristics. There must have been a calculation of an expected value for P(A). So, if somebody is prepared to disagree on a scientific basis, this is indeed wonderful news and I would be very excited to hear about it. Specifically, I would like to know what testable (and by that I mean measurable) hypotheses was formulated. What data was collected and analysed and what assumptions were made. And, there must have been some, even if it was just in relation to the nature of the underlying uncertainty, which, is of course necessary to be able to compute the expectation.

As an aside, this latter assumption is technical but has an interesting link with creation vs. evolution. I have seen many posts arguing that these two concepts do not fit well together. Why? What is the basis for that statement? Mathematical models used in the social and physical sciences have assumed the coexistence of deterministic and random components for hundreds of years. Such processes which also have the characteristics of stationary and independent increments are called Levy Processes. They are a fundamental tool used the mathematical modelling of 'evolutionary' processes and often relax the assumption of continuity which, incidentally, blows the doors off the Central Limit Theorem and renders the applied biologists’ favourite friend, the Students t-test, essentially useless. I wonder how applied biologists model events like meteors hitting the earth. Anyway, back to the plot.

Now I am going out on a limb here, but I am guessing that such an experiment has not been conducted. At the very least, I shall not be holding my breath waiting for the post (even if you want me too). So what does that mean? It’s very simple. Anyone who disagrees with the statement P(A)=.99 is doing so on the basis of information which has been metaphorically pulled from a hat. There is no scientific or rational process here. I know I am just a simple bean counter and I do not understand long words and words that end in “ism”, but, if was a sceptical person I would be thinking that all that verbal diarrhoea is just designed for one reason. To mask and confuse the underlying issue which is basically very simple. We do not know the answer.

The implication of this is as follows. Anybody who insists on referring to ‘believers’ as ‘wacko’ on the basis that their beliefs have no scientific or rational basis are implicitly declaring themselves to be just as ‘wacko’. Why? Because their views are no more scientific than those they accused of being ‘wacko’. I do not believe that a Father Christmas exists. Why? Because I am Father Christmas, so I know. The corollary is that in order to know that a God does not exist; I will have to be God. And, I know that I am not. Therefore, I cannot logically deny that a God exists or even postulate on what the prior probability that a God exists might be.

Personally, I am not be prepared to call somebody a ‘wacko’ in any case, but certainly not because of an affirmative belief in a perfectly possible event, the probability of which happening to be true is not even vaguely calculable. I believe that someday my beloved Black Cats will defeat Manchester United. I don’t know that will happen and frankly do not have the first clue about how to calculate the probability. I suspect many football fans would be regard me as a ‘wacko’ for supporting Sunderland in the first place, but I don’t suppose their view is based on a scientific foundation.

Am I just trying to wind you all up? No I am not. Nor am I trying to be offensive. I still live in a country where freedom of speech is respected, even if on a somewhat diminished basis of late, so I am just saying what I think. Why do I think this is important? To answer that question we must leave the realms of logic. I do believe, although to be perfectly honest, I do not know what it is that I believe in. Perhaps that is why I am so interested in these pages. It is just that somehow, deep inside I cannot bring myself to believe that there is not more to our existence. Shut your eyes and pretend it is for the last time. It’s not easy. I held my father as he took his last breath. It is not irrational but it is a matter of faith.

But it’s more than that. I am of the opinion that our world would be a much worse place if it was not for the spirituality of mankind. And I know the retort that will come back at me is that religions have been responsible for so much death and carnage over the years, but I do not see it that way. That is like saying cars are responsible for road deaths. Of course they are not, the drivers are. And religions have been just as susceptible to being hijacked by one or other group to propagate a particular self interest as anything else. In fact, that is what is happening on these pages. Without spirituality, in my view, mankind has nowhere to go. Star Trek is a dream. Science can rationalize anything, including genocide. Why not? It is a legitimate exercise under certain assumptions and we know that it has happened before. Science does not know the difference between right and wrong. But of course the response will be that we have democracy and laws. Well, not everywhere and increasingly not where I live. And those laws are made by men and women (and scientists).

I will finish by telling you this. If having a President of the USA or a Prime Minister in the UK who believes in fairies reduces the probability of further needless war, suffering and destruction, I am all in favour. There are far worse things to believe in. But we won’t go there. My humble advice, for what it is worth, is as follows. Let science look at the questions that it has at least some chance of answering and stop wasting time trying to apply science where it is totally impotent and largely irrelevant. Science and faith mix like oil and water. Believe what you want to believe, uphold that right for others and treat others with the dignity and respect that you would like to be treated with yourself. It’s not exactly what Moses said, but perhaps he wasn’t so stupid after all. I offer you the seasons greetings and a wish for a peaceful 2008.

[Coel]

Dear Richard, wow, what a post!

"Would any ‘non-believers’ be prepared to agree with the statement; 0<=P(A)<1?"

Yes; obviously.

"But, then logically you cannot disagree with the statement; P(A)=.99"

Oh yes we can; there is plenty of evidence that bears on the probability of a god-like being.

"So, if somebody is prepared to disagree on a scientific basis, this is indeed wonderful news and I would be very excited to hear about it."

Try, for example, the chapter of Dawkins's "God delusion" entitled "Why there is almost certainly no God".

Let me outline it briefly. All the evidence we have tells us that very complex, intelligent things are the product of a long process of evolution. They are dependent products of an old universe. The earlier we look into the universe (the evidence tells us) the simpler and less complex it is, while there are fewer and fewer signs of intelligence.

This reasoning is not fully conclusive, but it is evidence.

"There is no scientific or rational process here."

Just because you're not aware of the scientific and rational reasons for ignoring the probability of a god doesn't mean there aren't any.

For a start Occam's razor is at the heart of science and says we should ignore things for which there is no evidence. That applies to invisible unicorns, gods and the flying spaghetti monster.

"We do not know the answer."

You're right, ultimately we don't. But where there is no evidence for something we ignore it. For example, take the possibility that an invisible alien invasion fleet is currently hiding behind the
moon and poised to attack. Do we prepare for attack, or do we ignore a possibility for which we have no evidence? The latter, obviously. And the same applies to invisible unicorns and gods.

"Anybody who insists on referring to ‘believers’ as ‘wacko’ on the basis that their beliefs have no scientific or rational basis are implicitly declaring themselves to be just as ‘wacko’."

Here you are simply wrong. Compare:

"I believe there is an alien invasion fleet behind the moon; I believe this even though there is no evidence for it." with "Well, yeah, I guess there just about might be an alien invasion fleet but absent any evidence I won't worry".

Surely the first belief is indeed "wacko" and not at all comparable to the latter attitude.

"It is just that somehow, deep inside I cannot bring myself to believe that there is not more to our existence."

Thanks for the honesty; so your whole approach is based on wishful thinking. OK, but don't pretend your criticisms of atheists are reason-based.

[Richard]

Hello Coel
“Oh yes we can; there is plenty of evidence that bears on the probability of a god-like being.”

Oh no you can’t because then you would need to agree with a statement like 0<=P(A)< delta, where delta is some number less than 1, in your case presumably quite a small number. Where does delta come from? I am aware of Dawkins arguments, and he doesn’t explain it either. And I did not dispute that there might be evidence to support ignoring the probability of a God doesn't exist. I simply asked for you to produce it in a scientifically testable form. I am not suggesting that you should not ignore the same, but again, that doesn’t make it a fact. I am not anti-science, indeed I am a scientist, and I believe we know enough to discount the alien invasion, but I admit that is based primarily on a guess, hopefully a good one. And the 14th century Occam’s razor does not say that. It says accept the simplest explanation for observed facts or make as few assumptions as possible. What is the simplest explanation and what assumptions are you making? I am not making any. And is the view of what is the simplest explanation based on fact or magic from a hat? My disagreement with the rest of your points follows directly. You last comment, however, is a simple misunderstanding. My criticism of atheism, if you wish to call it that, was based purely on logic. My view is that the only opinion that one can rationally maintain on this subject is based solely on faith. Your faith just happens to be opposite to mine.

[Peter Smith]

Forget kangaroos, I'm more curious how the impressively wide variety of human races came about from *two* human beings through repetitive inbreeding, many of these races very distinctly separated by geographical borders and some thousands of miles apart from the original epicenter.

If the earth was actually 6000 years old there couldn't be more than 200-300 generations to accomplish this.

[Richard]

Peter - I did not say that I deny evolution or that the earth was created in 7 days. There is pervasive evidence that some form of evolutionary process exists. It is not however, proven in any shape or form that such a process is unique. For pity’s sake, the last time I looked scientist could’t agree on whether its cars or cow farts that is causing the world to overheat let alone on the secrets pertaining to the creation of the universe.

[Chris]

Having read the comments so far, There seems to be some serious hostility and intolerance in the attitudes of allegedly well educated and reasoned proponants of evolution, towards those who choose (as is their right) to express a different view/belief. Just as well I don't have a teddy bear called 'Creationism' I shudder to think of the consequences I might face! Surely there is room in society for respect for different people's views or maybe not?

[Coel]

Richard writes: "0<=P(A)< delta [...] Where does delta come from?"

It comes from an evaluation of the evidence, such as the evidence I pointed to over the occurrence of complex, intelligent entities.

"Occam’s razor [...] says accept the simplest explanation for observed facts or make as few assumptions as possible."

Exactly, which means discount gods, alien invasion fleets and other things for which there is no evidence.

"My view is that the only opinion that one can rationally maintain on this subject is based solely on faith. Your faith just happens to be opposite to mine."

Again, let's consider the very similar hypotheses "there is a God" and "there is a hidden alien invasion fleet poised to attack".

Science (using Occam's razor) discounts both owing to lack of evidence.

If someone then said they believed in either of those, despite the lack of evidence, that could fairly be described as a "faith position" (and if they further suggested radical changes of our behaviour in consequence they could fairly be described as `wacko').

But to discount these possibilities owing to the absence of evidence is not a "faith", it is just common sense, it is what we all do all the time about vast numbers of possibilities for which there is no evidence.

You can see this easily enough (I take it) in the case of the alien invasion fleet, but you shy away from that conclusion in the case of God owing (as you have more or less admitted) to your emotional committment to the idea of God.

Please tell me why you discount the idea of an alien invasion fleet but do not discount the idea of God. Be honest, it is just wishful thinking.

[tmz]

to me the worrying thing is not that a presedential candidate believes in id( or claims to for political reasons) the worrying thing is that so many people seem to think their candidates views on this subject are even relevant, what has it to do with the state of the nation how life came about, how can such nonsense be a serious political matter to so many people?

[Lesley Chambers]

I am more amazed, not by the fact that Australian marsupials are an isolated evolutionary group, but rather that there are no examples of such a pronounced deviation in non-antipodean species. I feel that animal species largely pre-date the geological and ocean divisions that we know today; that the great flood described in every ancient mythology was some kind of disruptive climate change, and that Australian wildlife is uniquely isolated and independent from common global patterns of development. Why do scientists take this derisive attitude about ancient recorded wisdom such as the Bible? The scriptures are mystical texts. A day does not literally mean a day. Scientists must learn to embrace symbolic and linguistic patterns of thinking. The creation myths have one great strength over the conceit of the scientific community: they honour the wondrous and harmonious intent of that which is unfathomably greater than man.

[Shnakepup]

Hehehe...Richard's posts reminds me of #73 on the "Therefore God Exists" list:

"#73 - ARGUMENT FROM EXHAUSTION (abridged)
(1) Do you agree with the utterly trivial proposition X?
(2) Atheist: of course.
(3) How about the slightly modified proposition X'?
(4) Atheist: Um, no, not really.
(5) Good. Since we agree, how about Y? Is that true?
(6) Atheist: No! And I didn't agree with X'!
(7) With the truths of these clearly established, surely you agree that Z is true as well?
(8) Atheist: No. So far I have only agreed with X! Where is this going, anyway?
(9) I'm glad we all agree.....
....
(37) So now we have used propositions X, X', Y, Y', Z, Z', P, P', Q and Q' to arrive at the obviously valid point R. Agreed?
(38) Atheist: Like I said, so far I've only agreed with X. Where is this going?
....
(81) So we now conclude from this that propositions L'', L''' and J'' are true. Agreed?
(82) I HAVEN'T AGREED WITH ANYTHING YOU'VE SAID SINCE X! WHERE IS THIS GOING?
....
(177) ...and it follows that proposition HRV, SHQ'' and BTU' are all obviously valid. Agreed?
(178) [Atheist either faints from overwork or leaves in disgust.]
(179) Therefore, God exists."

Check out the whole list here: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

[Paul Owen]

Richard, all you are doing with your elaborate and lengthy argument is the same as those who invented ID were doing. You are trying to make something pseudo scientific about your belief. The fact of the matter is you can't because your position is based purely on faith and nothing else. It's a conjurors trick and not a very good one.

It is not for atheists to prove anything. You are the ones who believe in something that cannot be seen, felt or verified in any way. In the absence of such evidence it is safe to assume that it doesn't exist. That is logic.

Atheism has developed as we as humans have learnt more and more about the world and have ceased to need supernatural explanations for things. Evolution was part of that process of explaining away what was previously explained by silly stories no more plausible than the Just So stories about how animals came about.

Ours is not a faith position however much you may like to convince yourself of this. That is just another part of your conjurors trick. We have a rational alternative explanation for our existence. You have a belief in something for which there is no evidence whatsoever, indeed there is a great deal of evidence which actually disproves what you believe hence why your lot makes so much fuss about evolution and needs to dream up such drivel as ID. Doesn't say much for your faith though does it?

And ask yourself this question. If you need to come up with such ridiculously contrived logic to justify your faith then how strong is your faith in the first place?

[Les]

Peter:
Some species have large variability e.g. dogs. Why should humans not have more or less variability? Genetic weaknesses are (clearly?) disturbances to a good system - not a system somehow working towards perfection.

James:"create the light from dead stars and position its starting point the exact distance from the earth needed to fool humans into thinking that these stars died millions of years ago."

Read 'Starlight and Time' by Dr Russell Humphreys - a highly accredited scientist - if you are really open-minded. I imagine that Richard would be very interested in this book.
You would need a fair degree of understanding of general relativity.

[Les]

RICHARD:
The existence of 'God' has a high degree of proof/probability in the tremendous complexity of life. The tiny amount (relatively) which the combined brains of mankind over many years have discovered about life makes man's refusal of a higher 'Being' somewhat ridiculous.
The size and complexity points to infinity of power and intelligence.
"Because what is known of God is manifest among them, for God has manifested [it] to them, for from [the] world`s creation the invisible things of him are perceived, being apprehended by the mind through the things that are made, both his eternal power and divinity, -- so as to render them inexcusable. Romans chapter 1.

[Tony L.]

A recent AP article shed some light on an idea in the evolutionary community that evolution (at least in humans) might not have taken as long as some believe (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316375,00.html). It would be intellectually dishonest to completely dismiss the possibility that we are, in fact, created beings, and that evolutionary theory itself doesn't explain everything. I hold to the fact that neither the evolutionist nor the creationist has all the answers. There is quite a mystery to the whole thing, really. Even Antony Flew, the British atheist, has changed his views from atheism to deism, the belief in a creator. When asked why he changed his mind, he stated that biological organisms are too complex and sophisticated to have just happened by accident. He noted that it has been recent advances in technology that have exposed the extreme complexity in biological matter. It should also be noted that no one has ever deemed Antony Flew a weak mind. He is only one of many who have turned from evolutionary atheism to at least a belief in a creator. Good day.

[Terry]

The thing is, having two of anything is unsustainable, that's why there's no Yeti, Abominable Snowman, Big Foot, or Nessie, and as a single man, no Santa Clause.

But you can believe in the tooth fairy if you want.

[Dave]

Sean says “when did it become fashionable to bash another persons belief system?”

I have no interest in bashing another persons belief system, as long as they keep their quaint stories and notions to themselves. They can believe in any god they so choose, they can believe the world was created Tuesday last week out of cheese for all I care….just as long as they don’t think that their views and beliefs have any dominion whatsoever over me, or any other person.

But the trouble is that most (but not all) cannot leave me alone. They actually believe they are right, they believe they must interfere, and they want to save me. They want to tell the world to stop using condoms, or to stone homosexuals, or to teach fairy tales as fact to my son.

When such bizarre notions are held by those who think themselves suitable to hold the levers of power then it behoves us all to query and challenge them.

[John Delano]

Forget the Huckster. Go Ron Paul!

[Richard]

Coel – If you want to convince me of the rationality of your position, which perhaps you do not, you must do one of two things. Either you need to use the assumption that a God exists to negate the probability that a God exists is unity. Good luck with that. Or, you must go the empirical route, which appears to be your wont, and provide evidence in support of your statement that the probability that a God exists is less than a very small number.

Your analogies are amusing, even to me, but they are poorly constructed and do not constitute proof. In fact, after a moments scientific thought they actually support my case. If I recall you have referred to a bloke on a bridge, being bitten by a lion and an alien invasion. In each case I can formulate testable hypotheses. In relation to Mr. Smith on the bridge, I know the surface area of the bridge; I know the surface area of the planet. I can estimate how many people are on the planet and the number of Mr. Smiths and their approximate size. I am done. As regards being bitten by a lion, I can estimate the number of people and the number of lions in the proximity of New York and generate a reasonable upper bound on the probability of being bitten. Once again, I am done. The alien case is trickier and I admit that it is more of a guess than the other two. But, nevertheless, I know the area hidden to me by the moon and I can approximate the size of our solar system and generate another reasonable upper bound. Of course if I base my estimate on a larger portion of the universe then, well, you know the answer. Add to that the number of telescopes and various odds and sods of monitoring equipment pointing at the sky and the fact that, if NASA is to be believed, they have had chaps up there, admittedly not recently, and I am comfortable.

If you follow science, you will notice a common thread. In each case I am able to assume a reasonable measure space on which to base my calculation of the prior probability. I know an omega. None are bullet proof, but I would accept estimates on this basis, as grounds beyond ‘reasonable’ doubt. However, as I have pointed out before, you will no doubt be aware that there is no such formulation possible in the case of the Big Question at hand. At least I am not aware of one and you have so far failed to enlighten me. As a scientist, I do not accept facts on faith.

Moving on, I will also not accept any form of argument which is a dressed up version of “I haven’t seen a pig fly past the window lately”. Black swans do exist, so end of story there. Nor will I accept various negations of outlandish claims from the scriptures or evidence that at least some form of evolution has existed. None of the above form anything remotely resembling empirical proof than no form of intelligent designer exists. And nor does pointing to the writings of your favorite acclaimed scientist. There is absolutely no consensus on this issue, I suspect because the majority of serious scientists would not give the issue the time of day; precisely because there is no point in the sense that nothing can be proved. And there are a great many scientists who do hold faith in various forms, indeed I am one of them and work with more of them every day.

Now since you seem to like a story, I will oblige. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I will begin. Once upon a time there was a peasant farmer called Bob. He worked an acre of land in middle England during the 14th Century. Bob spent his days with his horse and plough walking his acre of land. It was a bit dull, and despite our modern day MGM image of 14th Century folk, he was quite intelligent and his mind began to wander. He noticed that from whatever vantage point that he observed the horizon in his field, it appeared to be a straight line. He even pressed his cheek against the damp earth to verify his first scientific conclusion. His field was flat!

Now Bob was a sociable sort of fellow and liked a jar or two of ale and was often found in the local inn of an evening. He would get chatting with the other farmers in the village and one night he plucked up enough courage and told them of his revelation. They in turn checked their fields the following day and, lo and behold, came to the same conclusion. They collectively decided the land surrounding the village was indeed flat.

Occasionally, travelers would pass through the village with goods to sell at the market. None came from as far as the coast, so those in the village were blissfully unaware that there were any other countries in the world, or indeed that a world existed. Nevertheless, they did have fields and of course they were flat too. Now in the next village to Bob, there lived a man called Mr. Occam. He was a bit bright and said that Bob could use his discovery to make a scientific theory. Since all the fields that Bob have ever heard of were flat, the simplest explanation was that the whole of middle England was flat.

However, at that point some bloke called John, who everyone suspected had consumed a few too many jars, said wait a minute, are you sure? Might there not be some places that we don’t know about. But the elder of the village who had lost his voice add could only communicate via a chalk board, etched that John was silly. It was obvious from the evidence that Middle England was flat. So convinced was he of his view that he wrote a rather interesting book on the subject which happily sold lots of copies (in the village).

A while later, one fine morning Bob rose and got ready for work. He sighed satisfactorily at his signed copy of ‘The Round World Delusion’ which perched proudly on his mantelpiece. He sat down to eat his organic corn flakes and glanced at the front page of Ye Old Tymes. He was horrified. He couldn’t believe it. Front page news. Man sails a boat round the world. His world was shattered. He was a broken man. He had no idea what a boat was.

Now we arrive at the question. Was Bob a bad scientist? After all he diligently collated the evidence, applied Occam’s razor and came to scientifically robust conclusion. He was not his fault that he did not know what a boat was or indeed that there were other countries in the world. (Incidentally, he was very happy; because it turned out he quite liked bananas on his cornflakes.) But the answer is that he was a very bad scientist. Why?

He made two glaring mistakes. First, he assumed that by adding together enough fields he would be able to draw a conclusion in general. Second, and from my perspective a worse mistake, he assumed that by taking the union of his own measure space (i.e. his acre of land) and those of the other farmers; he would form a larger measure space upon which he could formulate views about the probability of events occurring. He was tragically wrong. In mathematical parlance, the union of a collection of sigma fields is not, in general, a sigma field. He had no right whatsoever to draw a conclusion about the general case from his special cases.

And that, my fiend Coel, is exactly what you and the eminent Hawkins (who a skeptic might regard as just selling books) and the rest of the Atheist revolution are doing. You are adding together a lot of flat fields and coming to the conclusion that the universe is flat, at least metaphorically speaking. Proving a bunch of special cases does not represent a proof of the general case. That is simply bad science.

Nevertheless, let’s take this story a tad further. Einstein and Newton do not agree, at least not entirely. The Laws of gravity and relativity work well enough. If I drop a ball it will hit my foot. If I send an atomic clock into space I can verify that time will travel slower in the spaceship. This is wonderful. If I use these Laws within the confines of the assumptions upon which there were created, life is a bowl of cherries. However, I should, as a scientist, be rather concerned that there are circumstances under which the Laws do not agree, at least not in 4 dimensions. That is a worry. It certainly worried Einstein.

The good news is that if we assume higher dimensions, Einstein and Newton elope into a perfect harmony. But that cannot be right, can it? But what if it was, things might look rather different. Multi-dimensional beings would probably look rather strange to us. Perhaps even supernatural. You might see one of these beings float through a wall. You would only partially see the being since only the bits that fit into our dimensions would be visible. It might appear to float across the room without touching the floor or having any visible means of generating motion. It might sit on your lap, fall thought it and the chair and the floor and pop up in Shanghai. If true, this would blow the doors off our current understanding of physical laws. It might be possible to travel huge distances instantly. Time travel may also be possible. The meaning that we derive from scratching over the bones of a 2 million year old kangaroo might well be changed. But it’s all mumbo jumbo right. There is no evidence to support it, so we can ignore it, right? Just like Bob did.

Bob’s mistake was not that he incorrectly interpreted his observations. His mistake was that he drew the wrong conclusions. If he had stayed in his field, his conclusion that the world was flat would have been perfectly adequate. He could have walked up and down his field all day long without out fears or concerns. His mistake was to believe that a lot of fields added together would also be flat. He was wrong. You may be wrong too or you might be right. But the critical point is that you do not know that you are right. You are, sadly, deluding yourself. Just as honest Bob was. He didn’t know it either.

[Coel]

Chris writes: "There seems to be some serious hostility and intolerance in the attitudes of allegedly well educated and reasoned proponants of evolution [...] Surely there is room in society for respect for different people's views".

Don't confuse tolerance and respect Chris. We're not intolerant, people have a right to their views; but we have a right to respect or disrespect those views as we see fit. And creationism that pretends to be scientific is not worthy of respect.

[Coel]

Lesley Chambers says: "I feel that animal species largely pre-date the geological and ocean divisions that we know today"

Indeed so, owing to continental drift. Australia used to be part of a larger continent, which is how the animals got there. They then diverged owing to the geographical isolation.

"Why do scientists take this derisive attitude about ancient recorded wisdom such as the Bible?"

They don't; they are only derisive towards Biblical literalists.

"Scientists must learn to embrace symbolic and linguistic patterns of thinking."

They learnt that long, long ago.

[Coel]

Tony writes: "It should also be noted that no one has ever deemed Antony Flew a weak mind."

Sorry, he is a weak mind now; he is suffering from old-age dementia. The recent book that bears his name was not written by him but written for him by two evangelical Christians.

[Coel]

Richard writes: "Or, you must go the empirical route and provide evidence in support of your statement that the probability that a God exists is less than a very small number."

I have not stated that Richard!

All I've stated is that science and Occam's razor and common sense all lead us to ignore possibilities for which there is no evidence.

The possibility of an alien invasion fleet poised to attack is a good example. I don't worry about that possibility, nor the possibility of God, since the evidence for either (i.e. none) is not sufficient for me to take an interest.

Nor do I go around calculating probabilities for all sorts of weird possibilities (such as the thousands of different gods of various religions) for which there is no evidence.

That's common sense: we ignore possibilities _until_ there is evidence; we don't produce an infinite list of mere possibilities and start calculating.

"[On alien invasion fleets] Add to that the number of telescopes and various odds and sods of monitoring equipment pointing at the sky"

But any self-respecting alien invasion fleet has pretty damn good cloaking technology! Don't you know anything about alien invasion fleets? :-)

[Coel]

Les writes: "The existence of 'God' has a high degree of proof/probability in the tremendous complexity of life."

Try this for an argument: the immense wealth of Bill Gates is strong proof that his parents are infinitely wealthy. How else could he get so rich unless he inherited it from richer parents?

Answer: we know of ways of starting off poor and _becoming_ rich. Similarly we know of ways of starting with simple things and developing to complex things. That process which produces complexity is called Darwinian evolution.

Given Darwian evolution any argument "complexity can only have come from something more complex" is as nonsensical as "wealth can only come from richer parents".

"man's refusal of a higher 'Being' [is] somewhat ridiculous."

Refusing to accept that Bill Gates's parents must have been infinitely wealthy is equally "ridiculous".

"The size and complexity points to infinity of power and intelligence."

Just like Bill Gates's wealth points to infinitely wealthy parents?

Sorry, the complexity of life today points to a process that _produces_ complexity, namely Darwinian evolution.

[The Defender]

I cannot belive how stupid some of these creationst arguements are. Are they really that daft? No matter, we've got the fossils, we win.

[Richard]

And, to put the record straight, I have never denied that my views regarding the existence of some form of intelligent designer are based on faith. Indeed, I have openly accepted that from the beginning. If it makes you feel better or more secure in your world, call it wishful thinking. I have been deliberately vague about the form of an intelligent designer. It may well turn out to be just a few beautiful mathematical rules which govern the behavior of everything. If I am not mistaken, that is what Einstein believed. However, I have to admit, that, as a scientist, I might be a tad interested in where those rules came from. My problem is that although you have been able to provide no proof whatsoever of your claim that the probability that an intelligent designer exists is negligible, you insist on legitimizing your faith in the same on some pseudo science. What is more worrying, is that some individuals who hold the same views as you, use the same badly formed arguments to batter those who do admit to having a faith. Of course, some who hold faith sadly do the same. So come on Coel, admit the truth, you do not actually know an intelligent designer does not exist (and I know you don't) so your views are based on faith.

[Richard]

Paul Owen - Read my previous posts to answer most of your points. But the fact is I am not trying to justify my faith with pseudo science at all. I am making no assumptions whatsoever. You are. I am prepared to accept that I simply do not know. I do not then take the further step of asserting that I do know. You do. I accept my faith. You don't!

[Tony]

It seems to me that throughout history man has tried to explain the unknown by the means of religion. The sun, fire, the weather and the oceans have all been the subject of religious worship and man has always tried to hedge his bets by appeasing the god/s with some form of ritual be it sacrifices, donations or prayers. Religion has also been used as a means of controlling the population by setting the boundries for appropriate behaviour. This has not always been a bad thing and someone looking for a blueprint for their life could do a lot worse than to have the 10 Commandments as a starting point. However, in these supposedly enlightened times, the idea that the denial of evolution is a vote winner in the US is a very scary thought indeed. The scariest aspect of this is that it might indicate that Huckerbee has the same type of self righteous god given ignorance as the current president - and look at where his belief in doing gods work has got the world.

[Dr Stephen Morris]

Richard, apart from the fact that you probably meant Dawkins not Hawkins, you are on the right track. I'd go a little futher and say that the Coel/Dawkins brand of neo-Darwinism (if that's what they're calling it this week) is not just bad science but anti-science. It abandons any pretence of building an understanding of the way the universe works based on observation and experiment, and indeed runs clean contrary to what we have been able to verify experimentally (for example, it's always good value listening to Prof. Dawkins trying to deal with the second law of thermodynamics). It brings no economic benefit (except possibly for selling books) and equates "science" in many people's minds with "metaphysical nonsense" which, to me as someone who makes my living in science, is worrying.

Quite why Mr. Finkelstein is obsessed by this topic puzzles me. One expects journalists in the Guardian or the BBC to sneer at things they clearly don't understand but which they know it's fashionable to sneer at; but one expects better from the Times.

[Jarrad Wilkes]

Bill Hicks nailed this.

"They always say "Fossils were put here by God to test our faith". Is it just me or is anyone else worried by the idea of a prankster God?"

And how big was that Ark? Or has someone been intelligently designing millions of species since then? Was it built by a bearded guy and his sons? Did they have nails? How long did it take?

Utter bunkum.

[God]

Look I'm sorry for all the confusion I've created. The Big Bang was never supposed to happen - well not like it did anyway. I got a bit cross with someone who just wouldnt believe who I was. He dared me to do something big to prove who I was and, well I'm afraid I rather lost my temper and before I knew it - well there it was. Blinding flash, Universe created along with all the physical laws. Sorry about quantum mechanics, I never quite got time to finish it off.

Anyway the point I want to make is that I am here. That's the good news. The trouble is that being here rather precludes me from being there with you lot. In fact I shouldnt be talking with you at all. I'm only in the neighbourhood because I heard Led Zeppelin had got back together again.

Anyway where was I? Oh yes, you see there are just loads of these things you call the Universe and they're all a dreadful lot of trouble. It really takes all our time to keep them all from sort of colliding back together again.

In fact some of us think it's really not worth the effort and to just let it happen, but so far they've been outvoted.

Anyway I just wanted to let you know that I'm thinking of you and sending you my best wishes - but I'm afraid that's all I can do for you. I'd like to help really I would, as I do feel rather responsible for you. But it's no good me fiddling - something about interfering directly being inconsistent with the basic rules of the Universe. You-cant-touch-it-once-you-have-created-it sort of thing. It's rather sad really.

Anyway good luck and if you meet soemeone who says he knows me or what I'm thinking, then take it from me he's a nutter.

[CLAIRE]

I think the point that everyone is making is religion should be kept out of politics. Religious people tend to make decisions based on emotion rather that cold hard facts and logic and that is worrying, especially if they have their finger on the button. And as for tolerance, lets see a little coming the other way from Christians and Muslims. Both have fanatics that are notoriously bigotted. And we are utterly sick of pandering to you touchy religious folk. A point: if your faith is strong then nothing should bother it.

[Kate]

Simon @ 12 Dec 2007 18:57:11

>>I think I have the answer. In the USA they have a system called "No Child Left Behind", and how it works is this: when any pupil starts showing signs of getting left behind all the others wait for him to catch up.....<<

Not quite right ... they put the slowest child in front so that he keeps the others from exceeding his pace (see Goldratt's The Goal for scientific reasoning behind this).

[D4dd10]

ad hominem attacks are the refuge of the weak minded.

I see most of the vile ridicule coming out of the "godless existentialist" crowd today. They call those who believe differently "stupid" for having differing beliefs.

How many of you blathering about the fossil record have actually seen this fossil record? How many of you have any idea how carbon-14 dating is actually done?

You accept the word of scientists as your gospel. Well, some scientists are charlatans. While honest scientists are quick to point out that we know very little about our world, and especially in biology, some like to elevate their theories to canonical status. Unfortuanately these "scientists" are often the loud ones and the charlatans.

Some of these charlatans have gone to great and improbable lengths to "prove" that faith in a god figure is some sort of mental illness or evolutionary hangover.

My advice you faithful followers of the "scientists": Get a better understanding of the limits of our understanding as a species. You might have a better appreciation of your position.

In the meantime stop calling names.

[Patrick Legris]

This is right up there with the discussion between Graham Greene's Bishop of Mtopo and Monsignor Quixote about whether or not a dog -- or even a kangaroo -- could have an embryo soul.

Why not ask Skippy where he came from?

[Alan in Sydney]

Well, he has the talking points for the Kangaroo but what about all the other species in Australia? Were they all stuffed into the Ark? Was this Ark the size 10 Queen Mary's just to carry the Australian species?

Even as a five year old in Australia I realized the world was very old. We were 40 kilometers from the ocean and 200 meters in elevation. We used to dig down about 10 inches and there were tons of sea shells. Even as a 5 year old I just knew that a long time ago this area was ocean and that time was longer than 6000 years ago.

Still, it must be so much more pleasant for Americans to debate evolution rather than their Federal Budget Deficit. If they debated that it might mean they have to take action on something real. How much more pleasant it must be to debate the existence of God and his Almighty Branding than figure out a way for a successful outcome in Iraq.

I doubt that the Almighty cares about their trade deficit with China.

[Fred]

Never mind the kangaroos, what about the Polar Bears?

[shorehamview]

Is it my imagination, or are the majority of Americans supporting Mr HuckleberryHound as mad as geese on stilts? Yep, thought so.

[shorehamview]

Is it my imagination, or are the majority of Americans supporting Mr HuckleberryHound as mad as geese on stilts? Yep, thought so.

[Coel]

Richard writes: "My problem is that although you have been able to provide no proof whatsoever of your claim that the probability that an intelligent designer exists is negligible [...]"

Richard, stop lying about me! I have not make that claim, and I have told you repeatedly that I have not made that claim!

What I have said is that I discount possibilities for which there is no evidence. That is common sense (and scientific). Given that there are an infinite number of possibilities, it is ludicrous to say I have to consider them all and assign probabilities to them. Instead, we ignore things until they cross an evidence-threshold of deserving to be taken seriously.

"So come on Coel, admit the truth, you do not actually know an intelligent designer does not exist"

Richard, have you really not noticed that I have stated that to you repeatedly? Here it is again: I do not have proof of the non-existence of unicorns, gods or alien invasion fleets. I am not even asserting the non-existence of unicorns, gods or alien invasion fleets -- for all I know they could indeed be real. However, in my daily life, I do discount the possibilities of unicorns, gods and alien invasion fleets, since I have not encountered evidence for any of these. Clear yet?

"[...] so your views are based on faith."

No they are not. You repeately ascribe to me a view I have NOT stated and do NOT hold, and then assert that I hold it on faith. I do not. Please, please, try to pay some attention to what I actually say.

[Coel]

Stephen Morris writes: "I'd go a little futher and say that the Coel/Dawkins brand of neo-Darwinism (if that's what they're calling it this week)"

The term has been in settled use since the 1930s.

"It abandons any pretence of building an understanding of the way the universe works based on observation and experiment, [...]"

As usual, your claims about evolution are the very opposite of the truth.

"and indeed runs clean contrary to what we have been able to verify experimentally"

Nothing in evolution runs counter to experiment -- you are just making empty assertions because it doesn't fit with your religion.

"for example, it's always good value listening to Prof. Dawkins trying to deal with the second law of thermodynamics"

Ahh, so you're yet another collosally ignorant creationist who doesn't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you did you'd know that nothing in the 2nd law present the slightest difficulty for evolution.

"to me as someone who makes my living in science"

So what do you do in science Stephen?

"One expects journalists in the Guardian or the BBC to sneer at things they clearly don't understand"

Like you and your fellow creationists sneer at evolution while understanding nothing about it?

[Murrin, the Netherlands]

I see quite a few reactions posted here demanding respect. But what about respect for someone without a religion? In my country one of the Christian Democrat Party actually said that if you have no faith you have no norms; recently the pope said something quite similar. Also from the various religious groups you get the same message time and again. Either you are from the devil or they simply pronounce you to be pathetic and to be pitied, because you do not understand the Truth yet. At the same time we are made to accept all their ideas and notions based on their sectarian books through laws and regulations.... and if we want to do it diferently simply because we do not believe in their Messages from God they call us immoral.
Respect is a two-way street, something that religion most definitely does not teach its disciples, no matter what belief they adhere to.
As to norms, I think non-believers have a much stronger sense of what is right and wrong, simply because we had to think about our place in society and what our role ought to be, instead of mindlessly swallowing a set of pre-chewed outdated rules forced upon you by our parents.

[Simon Stephenson]

What's helped me to understand why we have an unresolvable disagreement between creationists and evolutionists has been to go beneath the arguments themselves, and look at the mindsets of the protagonists. I think that what distinguishes one group from the other is whether or not there is a necessity to construct ones existence around certainty.

Lets state from the outset that science, reason, rationality isn't about certainty. It's about probability, and it's about logical conclusions being made to certain hypotheses. Proof, in the scientific sense, is about saying "If this, then that" not merely "that".

So those who are non-creationist have decided that they are prepared to live their lives, and to construct their worldview, around a series of beliefs that they KNOW are probabilities, not certainties. They respect the fact that they MAY BE wrong, but they accept this because they are unconvinced that there is any more appropriate way of developing a worldview.

Creationists, on the other hand, are profoundly unhappy with the concept of building their worldview around something that has the potential of being proved wrong. Science develops all the time, and, in theory at least, what's true today may be nonsense tomorrow. What there is however, outside science, reason and rationality is faith. It's immensely reassuring to them to base their worldview on something that CAN'T BE PROVED WRONG. So they have, in faith, the certainty that they cannot get from science. They're really not interested in probabilities or likelihoods - this isn't what their belief system is based on - it's based on something they can continue to hold onto all their lives, in the sure and certain knowledge that it will never be disproved.

So the rift is all about personal belief building. If one requires certainty, one MUST have faith, whereas if one is prepared to accept probability one CAN live without faith. To some non-certaintists, faith is still OK - it's a possibility after all, no matter how remote, and it is socially cohesive to go along with it to a certain extent.

I think it's not really any more complicated than this.

[Bill]

You can tell people who misunderstand Darwin because they still think in terms of species and how everything hinges on explaining the current state of affairs in terms of species. Evolutionary theory explains how inherited differences between animals can lead to the physical make-up of organisms diverging to such an extent that after millions of years they appear sufficiently different for us humans to give them different names. It simply explains the mechanism by which this takes place, it does not attempt to explain the actual events that took place for one particular species to come into existence. If you want evidence for evolution then you can start with DNA if you like and take it from there. Of course you can deny DNA exists, you can deny the existence of genes, you can deny how animal behavior fits so neatly into what evolution implies. But unless you can come up with a better theory to explain these observed phenomena, and support it with more substantial evidence, then you might as well deny the holocaust.

[Steven]

The best part about all this is the vitriol aimed at anyone who argues from a religious standpoint. So instead of trying to argue rationally against it, what occurs is abuse and "stoopid americans voting for a religious nut again". Unfortunately secularists dont have a fantastic record on political sanity . Neither do i, as someone who does have a faith have to resort to name calling people who i dont agree with. If science is the sole repository of knowledge then argue from that point and dont resort to the idiotic, infantile nonsense which is articulated here.

[alan]

Richard - look:-
<(B)I+L"G"/E< is proof of god's existence. Can you deny this?
Trouble is it also proves the existence of the devil, Santa Claus, the pink unicorn, Jack Frost and the FSM too.
In fact, like any similar formula, it can prove the existence of anything - or more correctly, nothing at all.
The same goes for the other formula:-
RU/BB(IxSH)= Zeus exists, sorry, corrrection: GOD EXISTS. Hallelujah!!

[Les]

Coel:
"... Similarly we know of ways of starting with simple things and developing to complex things. That process which produces complexity is called Darwinian evolution.
... Given Darwian evolution ... a process that _produces_ complexity, namely Darwinian evolution. "

Sorry, this is more circular reasoning, this is just the point you are taking as a given that which is NOT proven.
Please excuse me I think I have contributed all that I feel needful to this discussion - all the best Coel, Les.

[Allan]

Every Australian knows that kangaroos can jump. Obviously the two kangaroos from Noah's Arc each took a long jump from the Middle East and landed in Australia. That is why kangaroos are only found in Australia.
The difficult question is how did the world's two dumbess people (Bush and Huckabee) get to the USA.

[John Woo]

It's the people who practise religion that are weak - Religion itself isn't a problem, it's the practitioner's of it who go to war in the name of G**/A****/whatever - Human's are all the same - we'll be the one's that kill ourselves in the end. Planet Earth will still be here long after we're gone. And probably the Kangaroo's as well...