Unintelligent views on intelligent design

Andrew Sullivan takes up my post on Governor Huckabee and adds a video where the candidate defends himself on evolution.

He does just fine for the first minute and a half or so, eliding his support for the theory of intelligent design and his belief in God.

Even then he's a bit confused. He says he doesn't know how we were created ("I wasn't there") just that God created us. In fact, intelligent design says the opposite. It says we do know how we were created, but not by who. But let that pass.

For around the two minute mark he goes further. He slips into "for goodness sake let's not have this guy's finger on the trigger" territory. Here's what he says:

But you know, if anyone wants to believe that they are the descendents of a primate they are certainly welcome to do it. I don't know how far they will march that back.

Erm, well I certainly want to believe that I am the descendant of a primate. My mother and father for instance.

Comments

[Richard]

Meh. It's a dumb view, poorly articulated. But if this is the defining issue in Huckerbee's nomination race, it's a pretty poor state of affairs. Lincoln certainly believed in "intelligent design", but it didn't make him a poor president, nor did his views on "God's will" prevent him from challenging the status quo regarding slavery. The current incumbent's religious views - allied to his simplicity - worry me rather more...

[Tony Francis]

This is interesting to a point. But why are these questions limited to the Republican side? What are Hillary's and Barack's position on the subject? Would they say they believe in evolution while also believing in the Bible, the Quran, and all other major and minor religious tracts, including atheism? We don't know 'cause no one has bothered to ask them. It just isn't considered an important issue to the press if you are a Democrat. All that is necessary is to support unfettered abortion. For the Demo's- 'nuff said about religion.

[Jimbo]

Its so blatantly obvious that Huckabee plays to his majority constituents: The Ignorant, UnEducated Majority, because that's how to get elected in a democracy. He would be crucified in any college level forum in which these issues were discussed, and then laughed off the stage.
The debate reminds me of Jody Foster being dragged across the coals in `Contact' for similar reasons.
He thinks he's running for Pastor, not President, and is an embarassment to free-thinking, intelligent American voters.

[rob mchardy]

In a democracy where many religions co-exist and where many people don't believe in either a God figure, after life or organised religion we must have a seperation of church from state.
Personal religeous freedoms must be respected but the imposition of another mans belief onto his neighbour is undemocratic.
The human race cannot reconcile its competitive and spiritual natures. We are too bloody stupid.

[A.Rosser]

"The imposition of another Man's belief onto his neighbour is undemocratic". Evolutionists please take note.

[Jay]

When you chuck Mr. Huckerbee off because of his views on intelligent design you are really dismissing him based on your anti religioun, anti God, and anti Christian views. I say this because intelligent design is overwhelmingly defendable based on recent information about DNA structure and basic mathematical reasoning. A Phd isnt’ a pass for you to reject truth for some outdated theory that everything came from nothing. That just doesn’t make sense and you don’t care, because you like your control.

[donquixotesrocket]

the majority of comments above remind me of how my country has come to the place it now finds itself, and why I try to limit my contact with my fellow citizens.
I'm always amused when someone cites "recent discoveries" in this that or the other but cannot post even a brief summary of what those discoveries are or what they entail or failing that a citation to where information about these discoveries might be found.

[Eddie]

I don't see any inconsistency between intelligent design and evolution - what's wrong with the view that God or some such created the universe, and that evolution is the mechanism by which life on earth has changed? You only run into unavoidable arguments if you take the remarkable view that the earth was created in a mature state far more recently than the evidence suggests, or in other words that God 'planted evidence' for some reason.

It appears that proponents of ID and evolution alike are guilty of conflating two completely separate issues.

[Matt M]

"intelligent design is overwhelmingly defendable based on recent information about DNA structure and basic mathematical reasoning"

Do you have a link?

ID is unscientific because it puts forward an untestable proposition - namely that something is so complex that it could ONLY have been created by an intelligent being.

You'd need to establish the exact limits of evolution in order to do that (maybe even the exact nature of all physical laws), and not even the most arrogant supporter of evolutionary theory claims to have that knowledge.

If you simply want to claim that something is so complex that modern evolutionary theory can't accommodate it (which is testable), then knock yourself out - but that's a far cry from establishing the existence of any designer, intelligent or otherwise.

[Franco Annan]

We share 75% of DNA with bananas, 98% with mice and 99% with Chimpanzees; that in my opinion and scientifically makes it difficult to maintain the view that because humans have a large similarity in DNA with various animals, they therefore evolved from them.

Most serious evidence also posits that earth as we know it would not be a sustainable entity for an infinite amount of time (i.e. forever) and therefore had to have a start, a beginning. The earth, as research suggests, would not be able to be sustained for the billions and millions of years that is suggested.

Alternative ideas should be suggested I suppose, and that's a society of free speech.

[michael]

do any of the people defending creationism actually understand evolution? no-one's saying evolution implicity rules out the possibility of a god (the former pope accepted it for christ's sake!), but creationism explicitly rules out mountains of scientific evidence.
there may indeed be a god; i don't know or honestly care. but he certainly didn't create us as we are now

[Edro]

Everyone is entitled to freedom of speech and freedom of thought. Unless they don't believe in evolution; in which case they are poisonous manipulators of the One Truth seeking to subvert the world with their oppressive...

Neither argument can be proven beyond shadow of doubt. Science and Christianity are not irreconcilable because they are about different things (Science - how, Bible - why).

There are many viewpoints. Be decent enough to respect others' views, and we'll all get along nicely. How hard can that be?

[nick]

Intelligent Design was invented in America as a way to sneak religion onto the school curriculum despite the teaching of any religion in schools being specifically prohibited in the US constitution.

This has led to the recent "equal time" court cases in the US which have overwhelmingly come down against ID for just this reason.

There is no harm in anyone believing in ID personally but there is a legitimate concern when a senior politician considers circumventing and subverting his countries constitution acceptable.

[Bob Ericson]

Like one or two of the previous columnists I see no obvious dilemma in linking intelligent design with the theory of evolution. Intelligent design invites a debate that can provide a philosophical dimension to what could otherwise become a reductionist set of scientific maxims. Creationism invites no such debate, but postulates a relatively rigid belief system, based on the literal reading of a series of ancient documents written thousands of years before any serious scientific exploration of this planet's origins and our part in its story. Evolution, as such, invites no rigid explanation of a Godless, and by inference, purposeless universe, either; it is a mechanism, not always understood by us, but equally capable of purpose. Literal interpretation of the Old Testament also led (and could lead) to a 'flat earth'; few people, in the light of scientific proof would believe this. As a born-again Chriatian, I have no problem with 'intelligent design', or the theory of evolution. I would even argue that Jesus was a vital element in our evolution as spiritual beings, beyond merely creatures.I would have severe doubts about the doctrine of a literal creationism, as I think it comes largely from a reaction to scientific discovery, and the assumptions that some have drawn from it. Why American Presidents, and would-be Presidents hold to a 'creationist' view, in the light of scientific evidence I find mystifying, unless they are trying to tune in to a particular section of their voting population. And of course, they are entitled to their view.Remember that ultra-Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Muslims hold similar views about 'creationism' to the Christian Right. Whether this could be seen as a good thing or not I don't know.

[mike]

For a stranger like me (Montreal, Ca.), the paradox is that the US is the most scientifically advanced country in the world, with the very best Universities, and some of the world's most prominent biologists and evolutionists. Yet, it seems that half the population still does not believe in the theory of evolution. From my point of view, this is very strange, and somewhat scary. Good government should be based (at least in part) on good science. In Canada or Europe, Mr Huckabee wouldn't stand a chance.

[Ben]

'By who [sic]'?? The author's grasp of elementary English grammar is evidently as formidable as Mr. Huckabee's understanding of evolutionary biology.

[alan]

I have a different theory. I think the universe was designed by a think-tank. The members failed to agree on how exactly to design it.
There was intense infighting about whether the ebola virus was worthy of being created. And the volcanoes managed somehow to get a majority, as did tse-tse flies and tapeworms.
In spite of a lot of opposition, leukemia and diphtheria were allowed, as well as the bubonic plague.
Freezing temperatures and droughts had a difficult passage too, but in the end they got by.
There was much squabbling about whether humans should have discs that are slippable and appendixes that can burst. But after a lot of dithering, the committee finally decided that a bit of suffering and a few tragedies were justifiable.
But when they decided that a sexual urge might be a good thing, they failed miserably to foresee that it might lead to - well, shall I say, abuse?
What's happened to the team since it completed its work about six thousand years ago, I really don't know. Perhaps they're still squabbling somewhere about whether it was worth all their trouble.

[Chas]

Somehow the idea that God created the world, hung around for a few billion years and created life, and then waited another billion years for his special creation, Man, seems quite ludicrous.

The disconnect between the architect of the universe and the control freak who cares whether you have sex outside marriage or break your favorite taboo is total.

So IMHO you can accept the evidence of geology, paleontology, and most of the hard sciences for evolution, or you can ignore all of these and believe the Abramic stories. I cannot see how you can do both in an intellectually honest manner.

Of course the "impossibly complex" argument touched on above is intellectually bankrupt - "because I can't understand how it can be true it must be false" is one of the very worst arguments, a combination of ignorance and arrogance in equal parts.

So Gov Huckabee may have a consistent position, but it is not a view of science which qualifies him to lead this country.

[God]

Why do all blog moderators P*** off to the pub at 4:59 pm ??????????????????????????????????

[Wm Knapp]

Based on Huckabees musings he was clearly created by[......design]

[Dr Stephen Morris]

I'm in the US at the moment, and perhaps the most striking thing is that while this subject seems to make headlines in the UK, no-one here seems to bat an eyelid. Indeed, the main news re. Huckabee today is that (at least according to Rasmussen - see rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll) he's overtaken Giuliani as the leading GOP candidate and is neck-and-neck in the polls with Mrs. Clinton.

It just shows how out-of-step we are in the UK.

I saw the video and thought that Huckabee answered the question very competently. Though confessedly a non-scientist, he holds views on a particular scientific topic in common with a substantial minority of practising scientists on both sides of the Atlantic. OK, so it's a minority, but science is supposed to be based on objective evaluation of facts and not on democratic consensus. The man shows a capacity to think for himself, and that at least is welcome. He believes that schoolchildren should be encouraged to think for themselves, which is even more welcome. That aside, quite how this all has any bearing on his fitness for public office I have no idea.

[Hermann Burchard]

A quote from my own maths philosophy paper [Found.Sc. June 2005]: "..a distaste for reality outside the confines of a man-made world. A great example of this is the wide- spread hostility to Darwinism or theory of evolution. I really doubt that many people don't believe this is a true theory, but they are so very averse to it that they conspire to deny it. And, by the way, how many of us really are PROUD to have acorn worms among their ancestors, even if it was 500 M years ago?"

[Steve, Adelaide]

At last, someone who makes George W Bush look intelligent. I didn't think it was possible. Thank God (in whatever incarnation happens to be policically correct today) there's a Democratic Party

[Kim B]

Remember that the "theory" of evolution is just that...a theory. A theory is organized knowledge based on a system of "assumption." I have always been taught that assumption is the lowest form of knowledge. When my middle school science teacher (who never once mentioned "creationism") taught on evolution and the "Big Bang" theory I stumped him with the question, "Where did the rocks come from that caused the "Big Bang?" He never could explain that. That sold me right then and there that God was and He liked to create. It was years later before I had a divine encounter with God and received Jesus as my Lord and Savior, but I knew from science class in Middle School that He existed all along...

[James]

No-one is suggesting that humans evolved from bananas, or mice, or chimpanzees. The theory is that humans and chimps had (long ago) a common ancestor that was neither a human nor a chimp, humans and mice have a common ancestor (further back) and humans and bananas have a common ancestor (a very long way back).

It's one of the oldest and cheapest tricks in rhetoric to accuse your opponents of untenable views that they do not in fact hold, and then to demolish them.

[J Wood]

...and people are clapping him... I despair, I really do.

[Nol]

"Alternative ideas should be suggested I suppose, and that's a society of free speech."

Ideas should not be suggested, but be defended. Only suggesting an idea is too easy. People should question their own ideas first, before they suggest those ideas themselve. Or, in other words, good questions leads to knowledge, bad questions are a waste of time.

[Monty]

Issues such as intelligent design, born again christianity and invisible friends don't require debate, they require doctors. America certainly is in a bad way isn't it. Freedom of speach is one thing, perpetuating a massive lie, that is gods, religions and absurd notions of creators, as truth as quite another.

[Rob]

I looked into evolution thinking the evidence would be more substantive than it was but it was a joke.

They found a knee joint
and decided its owner was smart

They found Lucy
and drew this wonderful picture from bones of < 50% of skeletal remains and of course no soft tissue:

Evolution theory would never stack up in CSI
It is more like a comedy show.

4 billion years ago the earth would have been inside the sun.
Macro evolution has never been demonstrated - the best they can do is bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant or a black moth getting white specs.
With all our clever science - we are yet to repeat the so called accident that created life.
Evolution is a religion
Rob

[Ian Kemmish]

The scariest thing about ID is the proposition that the creator is actually so stupid it designed human lungs that drain fluid from the top and not from the bottom.

[Martin Jones]

As I understand it, Intelligent Design (so called and if taken as a sincere hypothesis) attempts to explain how complex entities arise within the limited life time of the universe. It suggests that the complexity of certain entities is too great to have arisen by natural processes within the time available and therefore must have been created by an ‘Intelligent Designer’ – complex entities can not be ‘self made’.
Suppose that an organism, Fred, is the least complex entity that could not have evolved by natural processes. Let us say that another entity (the intelligent designer of Fred) called Ian did in fact design Fred. Great, we have explained Fred, but what of Ian? Is Ian more or less complex than Fred? If Ian is less complex than Fred, then he could have arisen purely by natural causes. Perhaps Ian actually represents a team of low complexity designers able to create the more complex Fred and the conclusion is the same.

If, however Ian is more complex than Fred, then we need to propose that Arthur made Ian and Doris made Arthur and so on, with each designer being more complex than the designee and ultimately we require infinitely complex designers, which of course cannot exist in reality.

What would make me question Evolutionary theory is the corroborated discovery of, say, a red squirrel’s skeleton in rock that had been dated over 500 million years old.

Evolutionary theory is also the wrong target for creationists to go after. What really would put the wind up the scientific community is incontrovertible evidence (i.e. not “it’s in this book, therefore it must be true”) that a deity had travelled back in time at any stage or had been able to break the second law of thermodynamics. Do that, get it peer reviewed and then I’ll be a scientific apostate for the rest of my life.

[David Chandler]

Dan! It's 'whom' for Chrissake.
Pardon my pedantry.

[eddie reader]

First and foremaost who the Americans have as politicians should only serve to remind us that the future for manking patently resides in Europe.
That anyone should doubt evolution with the wealth of evidence there is and adhere to a creationist/intelligent design view devoid of any evidence whatsoever is simply astonishing. Astonishing that is until you realise that many (perhaps most) people cannot handle the conclusion behind it. We are temporary, we come and we go and we don't return. It's a one-off.
We have two fundamentalist religious groups (the US and the Islamists) that are hell-bent on destoying each other. The fact that one (the US) is more benign than the other does not really detract from the fact that the world is in danger as they seek to serve their 'God' and in so doing gain access to 'paradise'.
Only Europe, with its profound intellectual capacity, secular attitude and its tortured history is in a position to comprehend the true beauty of the beautiful accident that is life on earth and how easily it can be made terrible.
If you seek an after-life, it is what you pass on (and not financially) to those (normally children) that come after you.

[James]

... and those who deny the theory that living creatures share bonds of genealogical descent (which is what evolution actually means) might like to ponder how I am typing this using bones that a bat uses to fly and a dolphin to swim.

How it all started is a separate question and evolution doesn't claim to answer it.

Incidentally gravity is 'only' a theory too.

[Sergio]

Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered. So how does ID deal with this fact?

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.

[Sarah]

Firstly, it has never been argued that we are descended from apes! It is argued that human and apes are descended from the same creature, known as the missing link. In effect that humans and apes are cousins rather than ancestors and desendants. And we share 40% of our DNA with bananas, not 75%.
I think James is the only one with any sense here!

[Ken Leyland]

It is a measure of the pernicious effect of brainwashing the young,that a man as clearly intelligent as Governor Huckabee cannot shake-off the nonsense of Creationism. Ethics and morals have place in children's upbringing; Religion does not.

[Mattias]

Kim B: The same question you asked your teacher should then be applied to religion, where did god come from?

And it's no just based on "assupmtions", it does actually have a couple of tons of geological evidence.

Rob:perhaps you should look a bit harder, that's hardly how the theory of evolution is defined.

Microevolution + microevolution etc = Macroevolution seems logical.

Please read more indepth about evolution before you try and debate it. It's a bit more to it than Kim and Rob makes it out to be.

And finally, just because you try and poke holes in evolution, that doesn't mean your belief is the right one. And remember that there are no evidence whatsoever for the exitence of god.

[jimiraj]

I am one who also believes in intelligent design, considering first of all if evolution is true? It leaves a lot of stuff for chance? After all it's by chance that our planet is in just the right place in the solar system, not too hot and not too cold.
That we have unlike Mars a magnetic field that helps protect us from solar storms.
What was the purpose of single cell cretures in which we where supposed to have come from? To devolpe into what we have become? But by chance?

[alan]

Jmiraj,
you've got things the wrong way round.
Can't you understand that the earth's position in the solar system and the earth's magnetic field are not the way they are because of us.
No. We are here because they are the way they are.
Is this too complicated?

[John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada]

America's Gomer Pyle candidate.

What on earth does evolution have to do with running for president?

Does the country want a national leader or a national pastor?

Hasn't Bush's ugly mob allowed enough dangerous creeping of religious beliefs into politics and government?

Thomas Jefferson would have called Huckabee an idiot.

Jefferson called Patrick Henry, a Christian and a bombastic orator, "an emotional volcano with little guiding intelligence."

Yuch.

[John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada]

To the first poster, Lincoln was a skeptic, indeed, a laughing skeptic in private.

He only started using expressions like Providence during the horrors of the Civil War.

[DPM]

It's best not to try to argue with IDers - it's a lost cause, their whole worldview isn't based around logic and empiricism, rather blind faith in an ancient text. They trot the same old canards out, time after time, no matter how often they are shown to be fallacious.

A good example is the ``evolution is just a theory" line of reasoning. Not only does this demonstrate a profound ignorance of the philosophy of science (``theory" is a term or art), but presumably the mouth-breathers are also unaware that ``gravity" is also ``just a theory".

Are we to take it that these sorts will demonstrate the same distrust of modern biology when the time comes that they need medication and hospital treatment? I think not. Hypocrites, to a man.

[Will Holden]

I suppose we should start a discussion on belief in gravity next. Or that the earth really is flat! Astonishing really that somewhat intelligent people cant accept certain facts, while also believing absolutely in words in a book? As I said before, astonishing.

PS. I do believe in God but come on!

[Greg]

Bob McHardy said:
"The imposition of another Man's belief onto his neighbour is undemocratic". Evolutionists please take note.

The nice thing about science is that scientists don't have to impose their beliefs on other people: Mother Nature does it for us. If you really want to know how life works, and you spend some time and effort, evolution will be the obvious answer.

Ultimately, people believe in science because it works.

People who don't really want to know how the world works often believe something else.

[Eddie]

Religion

Catholic terrorists in Northern Ireland.
Christian terrorists in the White House/10 Downing Street
Jewish terrorists in Palestine
Muslim terrorists everywhere

Some design

[Jonathan Price]

Is it just me- or is anyone else able to extrapolate data from the posts and comments above that suggests there is a distinct relationship between belief in Intelligent Design and a person's IQ? I propose that the lower a person's IQ is, the higher their ability is to cast all logic out the window and believe blindly in creationism and ID.

Please don't argue with my theory- it is based on carefully researched data- I used special mathematical equations that counted and weighed the number of typos, poor grammar and brilliant belief-founding questions like 'Where did the rocks come from the made the Big Bang?'' The result is clear- if you're dumb and dumber- you are more likely to believe crud.

Ok- so my post is toungue-in-cheek but I'm truly astounded. ''Evolution theory would never stack up in CSI''. Are you for real?

[Guy Atkinson]

Rob Mchardy | 6 Dec 2007 15:11:15, wrote,

"The imposition of another Man's belief onto his neighbour is undemocratic". Evolutionists please take note.

The whole point is that science I.e. evolution. Is not a belief it is the facts as we understand them currently. Therefore teaching evolution is not imposing a belief on one's neighbours as Mr McHardy seems to infer.

Also. ID is fundamentally scientifically flawed whilst evolution isn't. There are gaps in knowledge for sure. But teaching US kids about those gaps and criticisms of evolution is also in the interest of science and should be encouraged. It's not as if teaching evolution precludes other explanations so there is still room the the belief in a creator god. The only thing that need be taught as well as evolution is that there are other significant viewpoints.

Besides Christians and others should feel no threat from the teaching of evolution as to believe in a creator, omnipitant god is inherently illogical. It can't be disproved or proved logically either way. This being so it is impossible to undermine fundamental christian beliefs about the creation by teaching evolution, because you have already abandoned logic. It is only the battle for the minds of the undecided, which includes children not yet able to decide for themselves that christians and Governor Huckabee are worried about. They are only worried that they are not able to indoctrinate American citizens into unquestioning faith.

In supporting intelligent design the only result is a more poorly educated and easily swayed American public in 30 years time. They should just put it to rest before it gets the US and therefore the world into a dogmatic and undemocratic nightmare.

[Jonathan]

As a mechanical engineer who uses scientific principles daily, my first objection to most of the above comments is something that even many evolutionists admit. Evolutionary theory is not only irreconcilable with the Bible, it is irreconcilable with science. Despite the plethora of assertions in countless publications of the historicity of evolution (most of which contradict each other by the way) the entire idea is completely outside of the realm of science and fails at every level when it is scrutinized by the scientific method.

With that aside, here is the main scientific problem: DARWINIAN THEORY BREAKS EVERY KNOWN LAW OF SCIENCE! I do not have time to go through them all, but there are massively insurmountable problems in every field of science. The field of mathematics, alone, render this idea to realm of fantasy.

With that said, it must also be noted that there is NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE FOR DARWINIAN THEORY! If you examine the supposed evidence objectively, you will find (as literally thousands of scientists have) that the opposite is true. The observable universe fits much more easily with the Biblical model.

I understand that I have offered no evidence or proof of my comments, but I strongly urge the reader to undertake a sincerely objective look at this matter with an open mind rather than blindly accepting the opinions of others. You'll be surprised what you find out.

[Ernst]

"Steve, Adelaide" said:

'Remember that the "theory" of evolution is just that...a theory. A theory is organized knowledge based on a system of "assumption." I have always been taught that assumption is the lowest form of knowledge. '

Hmm ... Not that I'm picking on you, in particular, but you just happen to utter one of those grossly incompetent arguments (assuming you are sincere) that creationists/ID proponents spew out all of the time.

Please consider the fact that "gravity" is a theory. It is not a "fact" (in your terminology). It is also based on some assumptions.

You primary mistake, among others many others, is that you assume that at some point, there are enough facts or other things to "prove" that a theory is, in fact, absolutely correct. Until then, theories are absolutely uncertain.

Given this standard, which no reasonable member of the scientific community uses, nothing is ever proven absolutely correct. Every conjecture will simply remain just that, a guess.

But clearly that is not the standard by which we use scientific knowledge. We have certain levels of confidence. Evolution, like gravity, as a general concept, enjoys a high level of confidence among scientists.

I understand that people like you find the idea of being descended from ape-like creatures totally distasteful because it ruins that "special status" that you were hoping that humans enjoy, but your personal desires has nothing to do with science.

The only reason why there is even a conflict is because at some point, the philosophies of some religions lost their mystical (and probably political) powers to those who would dare explain nature through purely mechanical means.

"Science" as a brand name, seemed to command more respect than "religion" as a brand name.

In reaction to this, many religious splinter groups "evolved" their religion to make it sound more like science. Creationism and ID are just steps in this evolution.

You have to step back and look at some of the steps in this evolution of religion (the Dover case did) and realize that "your people" (whatever that means) are just trying to save your religion's brand name, now that a new brand name has become so much more powerful.

[Ernst]

'Rob McHardy' wrote:

'"The imposition of another Man's belief onto his neighbour is undemocratic". Evolutionists please take note.'

Hmm ... yet another standard pro-religion argument. Scientists are now transformed into "evolutionist" as though "evolutionism" were some great religious movement.

Nice try.

Many scientists also believe in God (of various forms), so it's difficult to reconcile just exactly what this "religion" is that you are referring to.

I personally know of several strict Christians who always refer to Christians of other sects as non-Christians, but at least they acknowledge that there are other variants and that my friends are not necessary more "right" than those other people.

It's interesting what happens when you come face to face with someone and they have to defend their absolute position. Suddenly, they become very reasonable and concilatory.

[Ernst]

'Guy Atkinson' said:

'DARWINIAN THEORY BREAKS EVERY KNOWN LAW OF SCIENCE! I do not have time to go through them all, but there are massively insurmountable problems in every field of science.'

Okay ... I'll bite ...

"Guy Atkinson is a known pedophile, a terrorist and money launderer!!! I have no time to get into the massive, insurmountable evidence, but every law enforcement official I know says he is public enemy number one!!!"

Nice try, blow hard.

Did it ever occur to you that the reason why there are no pro-creationism or pro-Biblical-literalist or pro-I.D. papers published in scientific journals is because none of the theories being pushed by "your people" are scientifically sound?

Once again, I really wonder how effective a conspiracy can be that over 200,000 people world wide from all different walks of life can cleanly suppress what you consider objective interpretation of the evidence?

Please point to some published papers (and where they are published) that actually state that the paper supports some aspect of creationism or I.D.

Put up or shut up.

[Ernst]

For those who (like Guy Atkinson) think that mathematics somehow "disproves" evolution ...

I work in the storage industry. The error rate is less than 1 in 10^^-12 to 10^^-15.

Surely this is so "impossible" that there is no need for error correction? Right?

I'm sure Mr. Atkinson would gladly trust his most valuable data to a storage device that insists that no error correction is needed in such a situation.

Most of the rest of us who think that even such a small number is still non-zero, and therefore, significant in some manner, know how to use that number to make rational decisions about how much "trust" we can place in such a device, and when we must compensate.

Please be careful pretending to know math! It could make you say stupid things!

[Ernst]

One more thing to the pro-I.D. people:

Do you know where your theory might lead you?

Your "creator" or "creators" might be little green men.

Are you ready for that outcome?

Funny that you insist that it must be the God of the Bible (and must necessarily be the NT version ...). You have so little evidence, so few "papers" published, and yet you are quite sure it is a character from one specific myth over thousands of others ...

How did you reach this spectacular conclusion? I'm all ears ...

[ICONOCLAST]

Please let me know what you have "engineered", so I can stay as far aways as is possible.

[Mike Weisman]

"…you are really dismissing him based on your anti religioun, anti God, and anti Christian views.…" Whoa. All the world's major religions, including the Pope, adhere to the theory of evolution as a scientific verity. Only small fringe cult-like sects discuss creationism. From Darwin to Einstein and Robert Oppenheimer, to Dr. Albert Schweizer and others all are both scientists and religious people. None are anti-God or anti-spiritual. Huckabee and his ilk are a menace to be sure. But his opponents are not anti-religion; Huckabee is anti-religion, except for his own.

[Ken Denny]

I enjoyed Guy Atkinson's comment "With that aside, here is the main scientific problem: DARWINIAN THEORY BREAKS EVERY KNOWN LAW OF SCIENCE!"

But millions of plants and animals just suddenly appearing out of nowhere is perfectly in line with all known scientific knowledge.

So tell me Mr. Atkinson, when was the last time anyone observed a new "kind" being created?

New species evolving has been observed both in the laboratory and in the wild.

[Ken Denny]

Apologies to Guy Atkinson. The post I was refering to was posted by Jonathan.

[The Real DPM]

Well, it is certain that that there are many opinions, insults and claims being aired in this forum. There is no doubt that the evidence of the truth has been revealed. To some it will set free yet others will seek denial and comfort in vain imaginations. What you believe does matter. So apes or people...seems the intelligent ones are the apes...they have no trouble in knowing what they are about or doing. Now go have a banana and feel better if that's your heritage...there is no future for you to look forward to.

[Eric]

I agree with Eddie. Simply put, Evolution and Intelligent Design are not mutually exclusive concepts. While the latter deals with the true origin of species, evolution is only applicable to specific time periods subsequent to creation.

[HM]

To Hermann Burchard: hey, what do you have against acorn worms, anyway? I love those little buggers, and I'm indeed proud to be one of their descendants ... and that goes double for bananas!

But seriously, a person's emotional reactions to a proposition don't change its validity or applicability. Lots of people don't like thinking of themselves as being related to vegetables or creepy-crawly things, but that says nothing about whether that relatedness is or isn't the case. I don't happen to like George W. Bush, but that hasn't prevented him from existing and being my president.

Using the power of reasoning and the rigorous examination of evidence are the ways to determine the validity and applicability of a proposition, and when we do this, we sometimes find ourselves discovering something that we don't like. At that moment, we have a choice: we can reject the evidence and throw away the reasoned conclusions, or we can choose to live with our emotional discomfort and accept what we have learned.

ID can be compatible with the scientific method summarized above as long as we keep things as vague as possible: that it can't be rejected outright that the universe as we know it might have been created by some sort of entity in the unspecified past, and that what we have learned from science explains how the universe has changed and developed since then. To many people, that conclusion probably doesn't bring much more satisfaction than the idea that everything just evolved without any intelligent agent being the cause, but using the powers of reasoning and examining the evidence, that's pretty much the best we can come up with, ID-wise.

It may not feel good to acknowledge this, but there you have it.

A person who uses "it feels good" or "it seems right" or "it's just gotta be this way" as their guiding principle is not someone I trust in a managerial position for a country of some 300 million people in the increasingly complex world of the 21st century. I want someone who will embrace the powers of reasoning and who will rigorously examine all the evidence before making decisions in his or her leadership role. Among other things, Mike Huckabee's statement about "primates" shows me that he abandons logic when it leads to something that doesn't make him feel good. That alone makes me doubt his ability to be a good President of the United States.

[DAC]

Interesting and amusing comments. Full marks to Jonathan Price for spotting the correlation between bad grammar/spelling and ID-advocates. Their logic is also way off beam.
"Where did the rocks come from that caused the "Big Bang?" Amazing....I am not aware that any rocks caused it, but fair play to the poster in that scientists can't explain what came before the Big Bang, so say nothing did. However, to deduce that a deity caused our Universe to come into being, and also hence that one should believe in Christianity as opposed to any other religion......as I say, amazing.
As for intelligent design, others pointed out some poor aspects but here's another...surely a fatal design flaw that we only have one heart. And worse, many don't have even that.

[blerfton]

There was a time in history when logic was not considered the trump card it is today; those who would debate with anyone whose argument is based upon hardcore religious belief need to realize that they are simply not adhering to a belief system that you did not realize you had: the belief that things can be proven, that things happen because of a cause, that a thing that has always a happened a certain way will continue to happen the same way unless it has some compelling reason not to. Despite many people’s opinions to the contrary, this is not necessarily the natural way for humans to think. If we are told that something happens, by someone we trust, we will likely believe it without thought to why it would happen that way, or any prior knowledge we have and how this new information meshes with that. If someone were to suggest, in the dark ages, or an ancient tribe, that everything happens for a reason, they would likely be considered a little silly. However, in cases where things directly affect our lives, we want to know why things happen, this is the reason for the invention of religion, an attempt to explain things that could not be explained without the aid of modern science. Or still cannot be explained with it, or at least not to our satisfaction.
This is understandable. It is very hard to watch people die around you and not try to come up with some way that you yourself can avoid their deaths. Without knowing the cause of a sickness, you might just make something up. The problem is clinging to the belief that whatever you have come up with (staying in well lit rooms, prayer, wearing red, whatever you have decided works) when something that actually does work is demonstrated, such as functional antibiotics. This is much the case with creationism and evolution. We have a theory that explained everything to everyone’s satisfaction, and a newer one that is clearly correct, but is different then the old one. It is unfortunately hard to dissuade people from this view, in part because it does not play a major role in most people’s lives, and in part because it is very difficult to prove the new theory, and blatantly impossible to disprove the old one (you might think otherwise, but if it hasn’t been proven to everyone’s satisfaction yet, it never will be). However, in the interests of correctness, and the advancement of scientific knowledge in all fields, it would be in our interest to correct these people.

[Andrew Corr]

Hey, I've got nothing against either argument, but the way I see it, we've got enough to worry about with wars and the environment. There are other creatures on this planet, why don't we put this debate on their shoulders? We should let the rabbits decide.

[Gunnar]

The man believes in God. And, yes, he did botch the question somewhat. But the overriding nature of your condescension, Mr. Sullivan, is entirely misplaced.

[Sergio]

Here's one little example of evolution: dog, cat and even cattle breeding.

Poodles, St Bernards, Siamese, Holsteins, you name it. They were all created by a process that is explained in the "theory" of evolution: selective breeding. They didn't exist 500 years ago but they do now and this has been thanks to our using of natural phenomenons, much like a mechanical engineer would create a pendulum by taking advantage of the law of gravity. To create new animal breeds we do the same by taking advantage of the law of evolution.

I would never vote for a candidate that doesn't seem to be smart enough to understand this.

[pharago]

where is Occam's razor in all of this, imo god is a creation of humans, an attempt to make us seem more 'divine' as in animals that happen to have a link with, no more and no less, the almighty creator of the universe, c'mon, bible? LOL
long live the almighty spaghetty monster - ramen.

[Theremin]

Predictably, many of the above defenders of Intelligent Design don't understand Intelligent Design! (...which is one point of the original article about Huckleby.) One postulates that we could have been created, then evolution set in motion. But I.D. says that, no, the development of something as complex as an eye requires design. That's not evolution.

Another asks why a theory such as I.D. shouldn't be accepted in science classes. But it's not a "theory." Most folks have no clue what a "theory" is. I.D. is a "speculation." A theory is a unified way of explaining something based on a preponderence of observable facts.

Finally, one contributor posits that Jesus could be a catalyst in a major progression of human thought. Does he or she mean the legend of Jesus or the actual minor historical personalities who formed the germinal basis for the legend?

[Stijn Ceulemans]

Jonathan,
Have you ever read Genesis? There is not one, but two versions of the story, published the one after the other. Which is the real one?

You cannot just ignore evidence, I could prove the moon was made of ice cream if I wanted to, just by ignoring the fact that it is made of rock.

P.S. did dinosaurs stroll along the garden of Eden? or are all those fossils fake?
P.P.S. does someone who mentions facts, please mention where they get it from?

[Jerry of Florida]

The blog as degenerated from addressing the importance of a canidate's belief system into a debate of ID versus science. Back to the original question...

The importance is one of a potential leader's methodology of making decisions. Do you prefer to leave the control of such vast importance to a person that takes things "on faith" or a person that insists on hard facts?

Consider the current Bush administration and the "Intelligence Data" that was used to support the Iraq invasion, and that it is now known the primary source of WMD's was not a person qualified to be called a reliable source (a mis-guided Iraqi looking for attention and a way out of his predicament). But his information was "believed" because it "fit" the administration's agenda and limited belief system. Had the CIA been forced to investigate the veracity of the source prior to issuing advisory bulletins, rather than 5 years later, the invasion would never occurred.

Look to the history of conflict. The greed for power, the greed for possesions of territory, etc., and the justifications used to mount those aggressions. How many are motivated or supported by religous "faith" or the "belief" in a form of government?

The only wars started by science exist in the creative minds of fiction writers. Never in history has a group of, or singular scientist, started a physical war.

Give me rational thought and rational leaders.

[norman saunders]

If God really did create us, then surely she was havng a bad day at the office. Who in their right mind would choose to create such as vicious, desructive, parasitic creature as a human being and then let it escape from the lab, like a bad case of foot and mouth, to inflict its lunacy on the rest of the planets inhabitants.
Intelligent design, my arse! Sure, Darwins evolution is just a theory, but there's a lot more evidence supporting his views, than there is evidence of Gods existence; that why it's called ("blind) faith".
If God really did inflict us on the world I'd rather place what little faith in the future I have left, in somebody else.
Having faith in God, seems just about as sensible as believing in fairies, the bogey man or trusting George Bush, et al, to lead the world to a brighter future.

[Steve Rollheiser]

...remind me to avoid driving across any bridge you may have helped design. The evidence supporting the FACT of evolution, and the Theory of Descent with Modification ('Natural Selection' wasn't Darwin's choice) is overwhelming, and comes from several lines of robust scientific inquiry- genetic, geologic (not just fossils but magnetographic),cladistic and archeologic, to name some. The Bible lacks any scientific validity, and reading it as literal bespeaks of a wilful ignorance; that is- a deliberate choice to ignore multiple lines of oft-verified scientific evidence that completely support the concept of evolution, and which lay out the most sensible mechanisms by which evolution takes place. The vast, vast majority of scientists support evolution, not because they 'believe' in it, but because it is the only explanation that fits the OBSERVED FACTS. If a better one comes along, that fits better, real scientists will adopt it. That is one of the fundamental differences between scientific opinion and religious belief.

[Jeffrey Edwards]

Intelligent Design is merely Creationism dressed up in a cheap suit and unfortunately America is the only developed country that seems to buy into it (at least to some extend). Europeans nations as well as Britain, Japan and Australia cannot understand how it is an "issue" in America as scientists have accepted Evolution as fact since the 1890's.

Ever since the dawn of civilisation almost all communities around the world have invented their own creation stories such as the Australian Aboriginals, American Indians and yes, also the Abrahamic monotheistic religions.

I think it is important whether or not a Presidential candidate accepts Evolution because if they don't it shows how gullible and intellectually vacant they are. Chimpanzees don't share 99.4% of our D.N.A. by coincidence.

I hope that in time, America becomes more like other developed countries by accepting facts as being real and rejecting cultural mythology as being a 'real' history of the world (And by the way, all of the Democratic nominees believe in facts and consequently evolution while among the Republican candidates it's only Huckabee and Romney who are propagating the 'hillbilly' mindset).

[Alexandra]

Daniel Finkelstein: "It says we do know how we were created, but not by who."(sic) By "who"? By "WHO"? for a direct object? In The Times, no less!

[The Mighty Quinn]

Hell is full of the brightest of us! See you on the other side where you will be free to tell God your evolutionary theories to His face. Probably going to be a humbling experience for a few of you.

[JohnW]

I always find it hard to take people seriously who insist that an unproved theory must be right.

Darwins original theory was proven to be wrong when genetics were discovered and that organisms are based on a blueprint which normally doesn't change beyond set limits.

The theory was amended proposing that random genetic mutations caused the evolutionary changes.

The problem with the theory is exempliflied by the fact that even with 6 billion people walking around at the moment, not one of them is showing any sign of a mutation leading to a beneficial evolutionary step forward. How many people does it take before an evolutionary step occurs? Hundred s of billions? Trillions? These numbers are absurd.

How many cavemen where there before the hundreds if not thousands of mutations necesary occured to lead to modern humans?

This is the rationale that Dawkins and Finklestein are defending. It doesn't add up and common sense recognises it as nonsense.

Only microbes have been observed as mutating in any thing like a benficial way.

The updated theory of evolution is still only a theory and it has many real difficulties.

So how can a scientist claim that anyone who doesn't agree with a theory must be anti reason?

Lets start being honest, this is not about science, it is about culture and world view. If there was a predetermined design then many people would be judged as failing to live up to it. That is what this argument is really about.

Dawkins and Finklestein are not defending reason, the facts are inconclusive, they are really attacking the very concepts of right and wrong.

[JohnW]

A further question to supporters of the theory of Evolution, I simply do not know the answer to this question and therfore ask it honestly.

What predated fertilisation in living organisms. How do you explain the step that took place between organisms that simply split to reproduce, and organisms that required genetic material from another creature to produce young.

How did this first mingling of DNA come about and why did it succeed given that it had not happened before and yet reproduction had taken placesatsifactorily?

If I asummed that it did succeed why whould the (female) animal, require what would have necessarily been very simple piece of DNA to reproduce?

[Scott]

I don't think ID believers or creationists "descended" from apes. It's much more likely (probable even) they descend from something which had regressed backwards in time from apes into some sort of pre-ape species, something much less advanced in intelligence than our common evolutionary ancester, and then began the evolutionary descent all over again so that, now, their subspecies is now several hundreds-of-thousands, if not millions of years behind modern intelligent rational man in cerebral development. I didn't know evolution worked backwards, but apparently it does since there is ample present-day evidence to support this hypothesis in the form of multiple modern-day low-IQ ID adherents themselves. Simply reading their comments and discerning the illogic of their supposed arguments provides indisputable corroborating evidence.

Or perhaps the low-IQ ID group is simply a subspecie of modern human that expresses a gene coding for systemic ignorance.

In either case, an appropriate name for this species would be Homo IDiotus.

[c montagne]

Stunningly scary low level of debate, calibre of politician (sic: actor) and an embarrassing understanding of human, animal and the natural worlds. This man should be laughed off stage - we can only hope this style of politics and religious cross-over does not infiltrate our country.

[alan]

The anti-evolutionist, JOHNW,states there are 6 billion people around and not one of them is showing signs of a mutation leading to a beneficial evolutionary step forward. How has he checked this?
And anyway, mutation means change, and a change doesn't always produce "beneficial" results, not even in evolution, although only the "successful" mutations survive.
No, A mutation might well lead to an evolutionary step backward (as far as logical thinking is concerned) and I see much evidence for this sort of mutation amongst certain contributors to this site.

[Tina]

he can belive in the flying spaghetti monster for all I care, what he should not be able to do is prevent a girl who is pregnant as a result of being raped by her stepfather from getting an abortion, despite it being legal for her to do so.

You don't need to look at what he believes, you need to look at his actions and the man is basically a, insert the rudest word that denegrates another human being you can think of.

[Jeff]

Link: http://www.geraldschroeder.com/

[Paul]

Interesting reading.

The Mighty Quinn

I'm no expert (I'm a marketing person, not a scientist) but I was always under the impression that the theory/fact of evolution was not based on or reliant on observing instances of genetic mutation occuring within an individual, but rather that individual animals displaying physical/mental characteristics beneficial to their specific environment were more likely to breed successfully and pass these attributes to subsequent generations.

It is highly probable therefore, that the reason that humans have not evolved further than we have, is simply that we have no need to. If evolution is a response to stimulae within an environment, (eg. the finches on the Galapagos Islands developed longer/stronger beaks over time to crack the tougher nuts available as a food source on the islands - the ones with weak beaks couldn't eat the nuts and so died out, the ones with stronger beaks survived and bred, thus passing the characteristic of a strong beak to its offspring).

Regarding humans - we are different because we adapt the environment to suit ourselves, rather than have the environment adapt us. For example when the temperature dropped during ice ages it wasn't just the hairy or stocky humans that survived, because the less hairy or skinnier humans wouldn't die the way another animal would, they'd just put another fur on and sit a bit closer to the fire.

[Ben Horner]

It's amazing to me that so many people feel the need to attack this man's views. Since when did scientist change evolution from a theory in to a law??? I must have missed this enormous development while in Europe recently. The fact that this is even a core part of the debate here and not in Europe doesn't show that Europeans are smarter or more advanced. Someone already pointed out that the United States spends more on R and D than all of Europe combined. Our universities are desired by students from all corners. The only thing this debate shows is the large role religion plays in the life of americans, compared to the decline of religious values and ideas in Europe. How far Europe has changed! Need I remind Europeans on this site that it was your people who came up with many of the leading Christian ideas of their day. It was Europeans who first attempted to disprove Darwinism. I can only say that it is an absolute shame that so many people feel the need to attack Mr. Huckabee because of his religious beliefs. That scares me more than anything. It is only the beginnings of an idea of banning religious dialogue in the public forum. Those who preach free speech and democracy need to be more tolerant themselves.

[Scott]

Dear Ben Horner,

You glossed over one important point. For all intents and purposes, a Scientific Theory has the force, effect, and explanatory powers ascribed to a Scientific Law, except that unlike a law, a scientific theory always and forever remains subject to being disproven by a single counterexample, no matter how unlikely that may be.

So you have committed the common error of confusing the scientific definition of "Theory," which is along the lines of a "plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena" with the ordinary meaning of the word as used by the ID crowd, which is "an unproved assumption; a conjecture." There is a chasm of difference between the two, and it demands your attention.

A scientific Theory is a framework of hypotheses, laws, and principles which have been rigorously tested and refined together through application of the scientific method and shown to be so adept and accurate in predicting and explaining observed phenomena, that for all intents and purposes the entire framework is accepted as a basis of fact and its principles treated as law. This is the case with evolutionary theory. And although literally thousands upon thousands of experiments have been conducted over the course of more than a century in attempts to disprove the predictive capabilities of the evolutionary theory of Descent with Modification, not one single experiment has ever demonstrated a result at odds with the basic evolutionary mechanisms or created substantial doubts about evolution's underlying principles.

On the other hand, ID adherents and biblical literalists attempt to confuse this issue among the scientifically illiterate, by an stated appeal to the more familiar definition of "theory," as used in common parlance, which is an "unproved assumption." This indistinction intentionally confuses the scientific definition with one which means that perhaps something is possible but by no means certain, in order to backhandedly call into question the results of more than a century of painstaking scientific investigation. This tacit assertion of equivalence between usages is fallacious.
`
So you see, scientists never did change Evolution from a theory into a law. They didn't have to because the overwhelming collective body of evidence in support of descent with modification took care of that for them. Thus, the Scientific Theory of evolution embodied in descent with modification is accepted as fact, second only to the Theory of Quantum Mechanics proposed by N.Bohr et al. in terms of its successful predictive powers and resistance to challenge.

So that's what you have missed, and just to let you know, it happened a bit before you went to Europe.

Meanwhile, ID adherents intentionally make no claims which are at all testable and by that fact alone, establish ID to be entirely without scientific basis or merit.

I agree that debate should remain open, for that is at the very heart of the scientific method and scientific inquiry, although it is not the scientifically-minded, but the minority of religious fanatics who would attempt to shut it down. The fanatics have far much more to gain by squelching rational debate.

[JohnW]

To Paul

No the theory that suggested animals continually changed in line with the more successful reproducers was proved wrong with the advent of genetics.

The only mechanism we know of which might possibly drive evolution is mutation and this would be random.

Each mutation would have to be so blindingly successful that it out reproduced all the other previously successful breeders, eg caveman to human, how likely is that? Surely the mutation would be successively diluted with each generation, half cast, quarter cast etc.

Then each of these hundreds of beenificial mutations would have to out reproduce the previous one.

Given that the observed rate of beneficial mutations per million people (zero) how long would it take for 100s mutations to significantly change a caveman into a modern human?

The maths dont add up. Thew reality doesn't add up. This theory might satisfy the gullable but where is the rigourous analysis?

All those who have poured scorn on the Americans as being in some way intellectually inferior should perhps take a look at themselves instead.

[Herbert Thornton]

The universe is vast. I don't know whether it's infinitely vast, but measured on our own tiny scale it's size is certainly very close to being infinite. Also, going the opposite way down the scale, it consists of particles and effects that are infinitely small.

So who or what created all that, and all the effects it produces? Some people (e.g. I think, Stephen Hawking) say that the question is, in itself, meaningless. But if the question is valid & there is an answer, can there be any other answer than "God"?

If the answer is indeed God, then why do we have to argue about whether God had to later fiddle with what he created so that it would produce us? Couldn't God have created the Universe so that it would automatically, in certain circumstances, produce us? And wouldn't that be evolution - i.e. a phenomenon devised by God?

On the other hand, if the universe wasn't created by God, then what is God all about - what has God got to do with anything? We then have to look on life as being an inherent property of the universe itself - don't we? And that has to include evolution, doesn't it?

Doesn't it all boil down to the more fundamental question of whether or not God exists?

[Kiley]

Huckabee represents the small, vociferous minority that seeks to take secularism out of the state in favour of a Christian ideology. This is what we should be outraged about, not the fact the poor man still doesn't believe in evolution (because it's a 'theory' etc). If the Christian right manages to elect a suitable puppet, we're certain to lose hard won battles like Roe vs Wade. I do not want to see my tax dollars spent to pay for more churches either when it could go towards (non-faith based) schools.
Keep religion out of government!

[wm.yar]

By definition, evolution should still be occuring now, since it is explained by present processes. There is no evidence whatsoever that evolution is occurring today-that is true vertical evolution from some simpler form to a more complex form. No one has ever obsereved a star evolve from hydrogen, life evolve from chemicals, a higher species evolve from a lower species, a man from an ape, or anything else of this sort. Not only has no one ever observed true evolution in action, no one has ever observed how it might work. Since no one has ever seen it happen (despite thousands of experiments that have tried) and no one has come up with a workable mechanism to explain it, iot would seem that it has to be falsified. The evolutionist should recognize that this means thier theory is not scientific, since it is not observable.
Since there are no present processes, what about the past? Actually, there is no evidence that evolution took place in the past either. In all recorded history extending back nearly 7,000 years, no one has ever recorded the natural evolution of any kind of creature (living or non-living) into a more complex kind. Furthermore, all known vertical changes seem to go in the wrong direction. No new species have evolved during that time. Stars explode, comets and meterorites deteriorate, life deteriorates, and eventually everything dies, so far as all historical observations go. Nothing has ever evolved into a higher complexity.
What about pre-historic changes? The only real records we have of the prehistoric periods are presumably to be found in the sedimentary rocks of the earth's crust, where billions of fossils of former living creatures have been preserved for our observation. Again, however, the story is one of extinction not evolution. Numerous kinds of extinct animals are found (e.g., dinosaurs) but never, in all these numberless fossils, is a truly incipient or transitional form found. No fossils have ever been found with half-scales, half-feathers, half-legs, half-wings, or any other such thing (unless you count the occasional "scientific" article published in "The Enquirer").
If evolution were true, there should be millions of transitional types among these multiplied numberless fossils. In fact, everything should show transitional features. But they do not! If one were to rely strictly on the observed evidence, one would have to agree that past evolution has also been falsified. No matter what the evolutionist believes, it is accepted by faith, not fact.
If evolution did not occur in the past and does not occur in the present, then it is entirely imaginary. This leaves only creation as the necessary explanation of origins. This fact is also confirmed by the best proved laws of science-- the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.
The first law notes that nothing is being created or is evolving by present processes. Matter and/or energy are remaining constant, even though they are frequently changing form. "Like begets like" -dogs are always dogs, though they may occur in many varieties.
The second law notes that the quality of any system-its usefulness, its complexity, its information value-always tends to decrease. In living organisms, trus vertical changes go down not up. Mutations cause deteriorations, individuals die, species become extinct, such laws drive us to the logical necessity of a primal creation- a creation that was accomplished not by present natural processes, but by past supernatural processes.
This implies that there is a Creator. Bieng the Creator of the infinitlely complex, highly organized, highly energized cosmos, that Creator must be omniscient and omnipotent. Having created life, as well human personalities, He must also be a living Person. No effect can be greater than its cause.
We look at a building and we know that there is a builder, we see a painting and know that there was a painter, but some want to look at creation and say "Well it just happened".
I realize that the implications of recognizing a higher power are too much for alot of people (eternal responsibilty for one), but every needs to take an openminded approach to reviewing as much avaiolable data as possible before blindly following the religion of evolution.
Oh and by the way most creation scientists have at one time or another bought into the evolution angle but with further study of the facts (I know, "don't confuse us with facts") came to know their Higher Power. also for the record my IQ is 129.

WHERE DID ID EVOLVE FROM ?????

I remember a thing we did at school as young kids, at one end of the class room someone would whisper a story to the person next to him/her then he /she would pass it on, by the time it arrived thru many people to the other end of the room the story was totaly different to the one which started. Now given the fact that the bible a collection of storys was put together so many years after the event, one could see the irony here!! Has religon evolved ?

As a child, when the whispered story came to me i believed what i was hearing was the truth, until when the game had finished and then realised that it was only a part of the truth. I wonder if the bible is a bit like that ?

All things change all the time .
Change and evolving are the same.

Once i was young now i am old
before i was thin now i am fat

Rick

[Ellis Jardine]

What I, finally, find hard to comprehend about the notion of intelligent design is where its adherents discern any intelligence in the design? And if there is any, it's taken the scientists to prove it. So, what are the ID-ers bellyaching about about science hasn't done for them? Have none of the ID-ers ever had a tooth-ache, for instance?

Ellis J.

[Andrew D Hutton]

So what has this got to do with whether he would make a good president or not? You might argue that it shows a lack of intelligence to believe in intelligent design or the Genesis account of creation. Can we seriously consider either is possible. Surely evolution,in other words: Something created out of nothing by no-one (my defenition), is a far more believable theory than either of the alternatives.

[Paul]

Forget science, philosophy has the answer.

"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is stoned to death." - Joan D. Vinge

[alan]

WM.YAR -
You believe in ID? There's little evidence for it.
Your IQ is 129? There's little evidence for it ...
... in your comment.

[Scott, Durham, NC]

Dear WM.Yar:

You fail to account for the fact that the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics requires a closed system in order for entropy to increase. However, the Earth is not a closed system since it receives energy input directly from the Sun. In fact, it's a hugely open system, so Thermo's Second Law cannot be applied as you indicate.

Secondly, we see evolution occurring right in front of us. In fact, there was an article posted just yesterday on the Times illustrating how mankind is presently evolving (see the link). Also, you probably never experimented with Drosophila Melanogaster, aka Fruit Flies, as part of a biology lab. Fruit flies breed quickly and mutations occur so rapidly which are then passed on to offspring such that the effects of mutations can be seen in real time. Evolutionary theory meets observation extremely well in these experiments. (But you're not a fruit fly, you'd claim. Are you sure?)

Third, your point about "no one has ever have observed" a particular physical process occurring somehow proves that the process must never have occurred is fallacious. This implies that a lack of observation of an act thereby prohibits an act from occurring. Not only is that a most arrogant statement for a human to make, it immediately places restrictions on the power of God by restricting God to operate within the limits of only what humans can observe. If that's the case, then God is no longer omnipotent and we do not exist since the creation could never have happened because humans were not around at the time to observe it. Congratulations, you just disproved exactly what you're attempting to prove! You'll have to explain all of this to St. Peter one day, I guess. That promises to be an interesting conversation. Brilliant!

And you know, Quantum Mechanics would say the something of the opposite: that observation of an event inherently places limits on the possible outcomes of that event; not observing the event leaves all possible outcomes possible. QM seems much more in line with the perceived power of God, don't you think?

Your ideas are certainly most entertaining even if they're not grounded in all that much reality!!

-Scott

If Huckabee can't reconcile himself with rational thought and non-supernatural explanation, then he is not a person we need in the Presidency when we already have enough trouble teacing math and science to young students.

Even tacit support of ID or creationism by a President displays an institutional acceptance of ignorance at the Nation's highest level and opens the door to that much more to the dumbing down of America's youths while doing nothing to solve America's education gap. Nations compete in the modern world upon their grasp of math, science, finance, and engineering, not religion. That's why Huckabee needs to explain himself quickly.

[Michael]

Why does it have to be either ID or Evolution? Why can't it be both? Frankly, I think its a pretty intelligent design that we have DNA that is able to undergo mutations, taking in the beneficial genes, throwing out the bad ones, being able to adjust to all sorts of climates, having the ability to grow and evolve- sounds like a pretty perfect system to me! The imperfect system would be to just create one set design, and when global warming comes around, everyone just dies! So perhaps we were created to be able to evolve!

As well, I heard an interesting theory a little while back. It involves the fact that we treat God as though 1 day to him is the same to us. But what if He were travelling at the speed of light? (Don't movies often portray God as a beam of light?) Then, according to Einstein's relativity, 1 day in his frame of reference could be billions of years in our frame of reference. So the Bible says he created plants, and then created animals and humans. Still plausible, the Bible just doesn't include all the details in between.

Frankly, Evolution is generally accepted as truth for all biologists. So whoever says that it's just a theory hasn't learned much. Just because Kim B.'s middle school science teacher can't explain the big bang, doesn't mean we should all throw scientific fact out the window. The evidence that we evolved from a common ancestor, (heck, the evidence we evolved from a common single-celled organism) is extremely convincing. Take a basic biology class in university.

[Jonathan]

This is a response to several of the questions/comments above.

1. Yes, I failed to give any evidence for what I believed. I simply stated my position and recommended a further look at the matter. (I don't have much time to write these comments.)

2. The two accounts given Genesis are, I believe, a topical arrangement by the Author. Chapter one is generic while chapter two backs up and gets more specific. I don't see any contradictions.

3. As for Dinosaurs, I'm one of those fringe people who thinks there are could be few left in the jungles of Africa or South America. Many ancient cultures (the Chinese for example)as well as early Native Americans describe animals that resemble dinosaurs as though they were living animals.

4. I doubt that you will find many favorable reference to or articles about Creationism in any of the main scientific Journals for the simple reason that the scientific community has a history of being slow to accept new ideas that are contrary to the current consensus. They're human and it's hard to endorse an new theory when it means reevaluating many of your presuppositions.

5. If someone is looking for an actual scientific defense for ID/creationism (as opposed to my opinions), check out "The Creator Beyond Time And Space" by Dr. Chuck Missler and Dr. Mark Eastman. Another Good book is "In Six Days." It's a collection of essays by former proponents of evolution who later discovered that the evidence in their own field of study was not consistent with evolution.

-Jonathan

[Coel]

Jonathan writes: "I doubt that you will find many favorable reference to or articles about Creationism in any of the main scientific Journals for the simple reason that the scientific community has a history of being slow to accept new ideas that are contrary to the current consensus."

However, ID/creationism is not a new theory, it is the old, pre-Darwin theory. For example William Paley said it all in 1860 in his "Natural Theology: Or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity".

"Another Good book is "In Six Days." It's a collection of essays by former proponents of evolution who later discovered that the evidence in their own field of study was not consistent with evolution."

That is not true, the essayists are not "former proponents of evolution", they are merely religious people with PhDs who believe in Genesis.

As usual, dissent from evolution results from religious faith, not from scientific evidence.

[JohnW]

To Scott

On fruit flies, the research I read was about Fruit flies having a gene thought to be responsible for sight being removed. Then after a short period their sight came back automatically. I dont think this proves evolution, it only proves that our understanding of genetics is very limited. Their was no evidence of fuit flies turning into anything other than fruit flies.

The fact is, if there was any evidence for evolution there would be hundreds if not thousands of case studies done by eminent scientists all over the place ,our text books would be full of examples. Doctors would have many examples of people who had new characteristics which enabled them to do things no one else could.

But there are no case studies other than an odd observation about fruit flies which claims evolution happened in a couple of months. why is this not happening everywhere or even anywhere else? Where is the rigourous proof? Why are we not flooded with such evidence from every quarter.

Instead we have zero evidence to back up a theory which is now well over a hundred years old. All this talk of evolutionary mutations happening all around shows absolutely no evidence of benefit to living creatures. There is no evidence that new species are being created. No one disputes that mutations happen, but the rate and results are being hugely misrepresented.

All this underlines that what is at issue here is not the facts but world view and culture. Its really about what people want to believe because it supports their lifestyle.

[Coel]

JohnW writes: "The fact is, if there was any evidence for evolution there would be hundreds if not thousands of case studies done by eminent scientists all over the place ,our text books would be full of examples."

There are indeed hundreds and thousands of such studies reported in the scientific literature. I suspect you are simply unaware of it.

"Doctors would have many examples of people who had new characteristics which enabled them to do things no one else could."

No, you are misunderstanding the timescales. Human evolution proceeds on a timescale of hundreds of thousands to millions of years. We do not expect significant change in a hundred years.

"Where is the rigourous proof? Why are we not flooded with such evidence from every quarter."

The scientific literature is indeed flooded with proof of evolution!

"There is no evidence that new species are being created."

There are dozens of documented examples of new species arising. See, for example, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

[Mark Llewellyn]

Though a life-long atheist who enjoys the debate, I think we are acting like media-aware politicians and are not answering the question inferred: Should a politician's primary quality be rational thought or moral (and by inference religious) motivation?
And yes, I know rationality and morality are not mutually exclusive.

Despite the branding, most countries are not true democracies. They actually have elected oligarchies (Senates; Parliaments) or elected monarchies (Presidents; Prime Ministers). The voters have to select these representatives on predicted behaviour. This assessment should be aided by manifestos, but these are now more aspirational than prescriptive and are usually ignored once the election is won. Which is when the fire-fighting starts and the need for competent leadership becomes paramount.

George Bush seems a more moral (or less immoral) leader than Bill Clinton, but who is more desirable as president?

Even as an atheist I accept that rationality is a double-edged sword.
When choosing a lawyer, I want someone who is on the verge of being struck-off rather than a Legal-Ethics professor. But should a mother (with other dependents and still able to bear offspring) let her child drown as they might both perish in the rescue? I’d still call her a bad mother even though she would probably make an excellent national leader.

[JohnW]

To Coel

As usual in this debate we get told that there are many exampples of evolution happening all around us, be we are never given actual axamples. The reason is that they would very quickly be shown to be bogus.

Where are these identifiable new species you speak of?

As I said earlier the only identifiable beneficial mutation that have been identified are in microbes.

The evolution you speak of are simply mutations. Where so called new species are claimed they are inavariably a reduction in the gene pool, eg the elimination of black coloured birds and the flourishing of brown birds. This is not evolution it is partial extinction. If your definition of evolution is partial extinction I will accept that this type of evolution exists.

As for the time scales, this is the old smoke and mirrors arguement, if we make the timescales long enough people will just accept it. Not really a precise mechanism, just vague ideas.

A low population of animals would have a low incedance of mutations so the chances of a beneficial effect would be low (non observed) Yet it is in low populations that evolutionist claim that evolution happens. They have to claim this because in large populations mutations would be diluted and the species is successful anyway.

In large populations there would be a much larger incedence of mutation (no beneficial ones observed) but it would be swamped by already thriving genes, the fittest would survive no better that the also very fit, especially as there would be only one fittest with offspring having diluted genes.

So we see that there really isn't a viable mechanism here. If we only had a few thousand cavemen, there is no way the mutation mechanism could successively change them into modern humans. Beneficial mutations are just too rare - non observed in the current population of 6 billion people.

[JohnW]

Once more to Coel

Well I read your reference. It reinforces everything I have been saying. Firstly it is entirely about speciation and says nothing about new genetic patterns.

The basic idea is that if we killed of all dogs except Great danes and pekenese, we would then have two new species because these two breeds cant interbreed.

Surely this is a totally bogus argument. This is not the evolution that turned a cavemen into a man. Hense the elusive missing link, Did they all die of too. How many missing links died and left no evidence? As far as I can see all of them must have if we are to beleive the theory.

As far as the plethora of evidence, quoted below is the artical writers own view of the evidence:

"The literature on observed speciations events is not well organized. I found only a few papers that had an observation of a speciation event as the author's main point (e.g. Weinberg, et al. 1992). In addition, I found only one review that was specifically on this topic (Callaghan 1987). This review cited only four examples of speciation events. Why is there such a seeming lack of interest in reporting observations of speciation events?"

I would ask you to reread this article from a scepticle view point.

This really isn't evidence.

If you can show me a bonafide evolutionary event then I will gladly accept it. I would be quite prepared to beleive in a God who works through processes, such as the weather, these are not miracle.

But the problem is that the theory of evolution is its self a religion, and not very convincing when you look at the evidence.

A rational response to the theory of evolution based on the evidence is scepticism. People choose to believe because it suits them.

[Coel]

JohnW writes: "Where are these identifiable new species you speak of?"

As I said, there is a compilation at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

"Beneficial mutations are just too rare - non observed in the current population of 6 billion people."

I think this is the root of your misunderstanding. How exactly do you know the above, that there are no beneficial mutations on 6 billion people?

I suspect you have a completely false idea of a beneficial mutation. Perhaps you think it is something so obvious and major that it would be unmistakeable, perhaps an extra arm or a second heart.

But that isn't what evolution suggests! Beneficial mutations have slight effects (that then accumulate over time). So a mutation might make someone 1% more intelligent or 1% faster or 1% less likely to get cancer.

So your claim is "In 6 billion people there are no mutations that make the person 1% more intelligent or 1% faster, etc". Is that your claim? In which case I ask you, how on earth do you know that?

Do you know, for example, how many of those 6 billion people have had their DNA completely mapped? The answer is one (Craig Venter). So how on earth do you know how many beneficial mutations there are in the 6 billion?

Your post is all empty assertion based on a completely false understanding of what a mutation would amount to and how evolution works.

[Coel]

JohnW writes: "Well I read your reference. It reinforces everything I have been saying. Firstly it is entirely about speciation and says nothing about new genetic patterns."

But you _asked_ about speciation! So I gave you a cite of evidence about speciation. And then, like a typical creationist, you just dismiss the evidence and ask for something else.

"Hense the elusive missing link, Did they all die of too. How many missing links died and left no evidence?"

Well, vast numbers. The probability of being fossilised is indeed very low (one in a million at best).

But we have now found ample fossils along the line leading to man. We have a very good, gradual progression from ape-like A. afarensis to gradually more human-like H. ergaster to H. erectus to H. heidelbergensis and on to H. sapiens.

"I would be quite prepared to beleive in a God who . . ."

Oh, you're religious; what a surprise. As usual, the dissent from evolution is nothing to do with science, but is the product of your religious faith.

"This really isn't evidence."

Meaning you just dismiss any evidence that doesn't fit your religion. You claimed there was no evidence for speciation. So I gave you plenty. Instead of updating your opinion you just dismiss and ignore the evidence.

To Coel

Just a couple of points. Surely as we are discussing Evolution it is up to the evolutionists to prove a positive, not me to prove a negative.

I note that just as I have not personally examined every person on the planet and cannot prove evolution is not happening, all the doctors