Does Huckabee's view on evolution matter? Hell, yes!

The momentum enjoyed by Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama in Iowa leads some to speculate that these two may face each other in the general election.

Andrew Sullivan, for one, would welcome such a contest:

Huckabee is a conservative whose character appeals to liberals; Obama is a liberal whose temperament appeals to conservatives. Both represent a deep desire to get past the hideous, nasty polarization of the last few years. Obama doesn't despise conservatives the way Clinton does. Huckabee doesn't repell Democrats the way Giuliani and Romney do.

Well, I find it hard to share this enthusiasm.

Let's leave Obama to one side and consider Huckabee. My big problem? That Huckabee doesn't believe in evolution.

Huckabee contends that it doesn't matter, because he is not intending to insist that schools stop teaching evolution. But that really isn't the point.

The reason that his support for intelligent design matters is that it is ridiculous. Who  wants a President of the United States who doesn't accept the basic principles of science, taking refuge instead in a load of mumbo jumbo?

The religious beliefs of a President are a matter of conscience, but intelligent design is not a religious idea. It is, deliberately, put as an alternative scientific theory. But it is, sadly, nonsense.

It is clearly vital that he or she be someone who accepts and understands scientific methods. By rejecting evolution in favour of intelligent design Huckabee illustrates that he does not reach scientific conclusions based on evidence.

This is a serious downside in a President, whatever his other qualities. 

Comments

[David Moss]

"It is clearly vital that he or she be someone who accepts and understands scientific methods ... Huckabee illustrates that he does not reach scientific conclusions based on evidence.

This is a serious downside in a President, whatever his other qualities."

Last time we got involved in a US Presidential election, or at least the Guardian did, we were informed that we all have rotten teeth and told to mind our own business. Quite right, too.

But this issue of being rational, or at least being scientific, affects our politicians, too.

-- What do you think about rationality and the way the UK is governed?
-- I think it would be a very good idea.

Please see this [1] and this [2] and this [3]. We in the UK are governed irrationally. This is a serious downside.

----------
1. http://dooooooom.blogspot.com/2007/11/biometrics-are-not-panacea-for-data.html

2. http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/Mr%20David%20Moss.doc

3. http://dematerialisedid.com/BCSL/Fireworks.html

[Erasmus]

Could you say why intelligent design is nonsense, Mr Finkelstein?

For that matter could you even give a fair definition of what intelligent design actually argues?

[Nicko Cocks]

He's a fruit cake. End of story.

[Mr Hasan]

Daniel,

If you can't support a presidential candidate like Mike Huckabee who does not believe in evolution, then why have you spent the past seven years supporting the current occupant of the White House? After all, in 2000, Governor George W. Bush had this to say: "On the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the Earth."

[sadguy]

its really sad that u comment on a theory(yes its called the "theory of evolution")as if it can be proven completely with facts.just a topic as say the origin of the universe would bring about so many different and even divergent views so much so that you guys may be compared to the different denominations of a religious faith.still none of these can be proved beyond reasonable doubt.just understanding light,the brain/mind interface of man etc is still a problem for you guys.abov all you cannot explain WHY we even exist in the first place.its sad.

[Eddie]

I agree, Mr Finkelstein. A rejection of the evolutionary theory in favour of intelligent design is a rejection of scientific method itself, along with any other system of thinking which relies on the drawing of conclusions from evidence. That includes legal method and reasoned political debate, and someone who rejects those processes should not be in charge of the free world.

[Tim]

The question is not what he believes about how the world began or developed; most of us know very little, and I'm sure that with developing scientific knowledge Darwin will look very dated in 500 years' time. But creationists don't believe by any process of reason; they believe that God has given very simple instructions which override the conclusions of reason. That is what is dangerous.

[Ken Hall]

The USA NEEDS Ron paul, almost as much as the rest of the world does.

[Ken Hall]

As for intelligent design VS Evolution, well it is pretty clear that evolution is very real and happening all the time. True, it does not explain every single change or advance, or lack thereof, in every species, but it is real and happening. However I do not think it should be an either/or situation as evolution is such a wonderful function of life, it must have taken a hell of a genius to invent it!

[nick]

Biblical fundamentalism is no less dangerous than Islamic fundamentalism.
At the heart of "intelligent design" is Genesis Chapter 1 thinly disguised to try and circumvent the US's laws on teaching of religion in state schools.
For a senior politician to condone subverting and circumventing the US constitution raises a major concern as to his fitness to hold an elected office.

[John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada]

Oh, it's not just his views on evolution.

This ridiculous man brought a Bible with him to a Republican debate.

He then made a big show of declaring he believed it was the literal word of God, and he challengedothers to do the same.

Even if you are a Christian, Jesus said you should go to your closet for prayer, not make a public show.

He also whipped the moneychangers out of the temple. That alone would disqualify all the candidates in America.

And Jesus said to care for least of these. Again, an injunction that would disqualify every candidate.

There was that little commandment about doing unto others. Not one of these war mongers would qualify.

[Patrick Legris]

I can't believe this kind of "side show" issue can take so much space in the press during a political campaign. I am sure the debate on evolution and intelligent design is at the top of the list of issues for a poor, single mother working for minimum wage, and who is without health insurance. Perhaps it might be more useful to debate where the human race is going, rather than where it arose. Whether by the hand of God, or through some some primordial ooze, we need to look to the future. I am sure the aforementioned mother would care less if the President secretly studied the entrails of chickens, so long as her lot in life improved significantly.

[Paul]

Danny

Nice try, but I don't think that's the best argument I've ever heard. I don't believe in macro-evolution, and not just for religious reasons. More importantly, there's no evidence that we evolved from apes, or from single-celled amoebas from the primordial soup.

However, even more importantly, there's no way that we can have 'evolved' from some form of 'big bang' without outside, divine intervention. Unless the earth is eternal, then something must have come out of nothing at some stage. To my knowledge that's a scientific impossibility. I'd be interested to hear what you think...

[Simon Stephenson]

I'm not sure how far you can go with this one. As I see it Intelligent Design is no more than creationism dressed up in scientific clothes to attempt to make non-reason more palatable to the undecided. It purports to establish that teleology is consistent with science, but in fact it is able to reach this conclusion only by unilaterally broadening the definition of science to include teleology. There, sorted!

Do you know whether Huckabee's association with ID is genuine, or merely an expediency aimed at winning votes? If the latter, it makes him merely a devious fraud - not good, of course, but no worse than everyone else in the race. But then what else is there for an ambitious politician to do when dealing with an electorate that has the attention-span of a infant and the discernment of a magpie?

[William]

Yes, we need another moment when a TV anchor asks all the candidates (Dem as well as Rep, why not?) whether they really believe that the world began around 4000 years ago (i.e. several millennia after the start of the Sumerian civilisation). It would be interesting to watch Huckabee look sheepishly around the hall for support and then slowly put his hand up.

[tad]

It's amazing how little people know about the scientific method. I've heard Andrew Sullivan time and again get it wrong. Similarly posters on this board get it wrong. Science does not prove theories or hypotheses to be true. Science proves hypotheses to be false. Only mathematics can prove a hypothesis true. Until a hypothesis is proved false, it stands as being the best fit for what is known.

Both the left and the right are highly non-scientific, non-rational groups. The American political discourse is more and more discouraging. It is a choice between dumb and dumber. Huckabee fits in the dumber category.

[James Serra]

Evolution is a theory. There is no substantial evidence that proves it. Non-Christians believe in Intelligent Design, also.

[Jim Armstrong]

Point of Info, Mr Finkelstein.

Do YOU believe in 'Evolution'?

Answer this: "some races are 'more intelligent than others." Right or Wrong?

There are two notable groups, IMO, that really DONT believe in evolution when it comes to humans.

Liberal Humanists and Religious Fundamentalists.
Yet each PARTIALLY hews to the idea of it.. when it concerns 'livestock'. Or crops. Think 'GM' and the activist campaigning against messing with 'Gods work'.. {name your god, of course.}

sorry.. you are wrong. It does NOT matter what Mike Huckabee thinks about it.

[TIMulle]

Spot on Mr Finkelstein! Except why have you been supporting a loopy moron whose beliefs are identical to Huckabee's for so long? Bush/Huckabee are inseperable on this issue (except that at least Huckabee can string a sentence together explaining why he believes his la-la land philosophy).

We must only hope that by November 2008 the US people have realised that we're now in the 21st Century, and the Pilgrim Fathers are all dead.

[Dr Stephen Morris]

Mr Finkelstein, really, what scientific training do you have that qualifies you to pontificate on this subject? Plenty of practising scientists reject Darwinian evolution, and blindly to swallow it (like so many non-scientists seem to) shows a stagnancy of mind which is unbecoming to high office. Huckabee is beginning to look very impressive, especially when we want the president of the US to be a leader and not a mere follower of fashions.

I would echo Erasmus's question and encourage you to read some of the ID literature - Prof. Phillip Johnson's 'Darwin on Trial' is a good place to start.

[Paul Anderson]

It is the Theory of Evolution for the same reason it is the Theory of Intelligent Design, you cannot prove either. There is hard science, and scientists, for and against both theories. My concern is the authors intolerance for someone who supports the opposing view. I believe there are more important issues to be addressed and really doubt his answer on this one question will sqway many voters either way.

[Terry L. Walker]

Hmmm--Mr. Finkelstein wants to disqualify Mr. Huckabee because of Mr. Huckabee's religious beliefs. Because Mr. Huckabee does not believe in the theory of evolution (is there a THE THEORY? My reading shows that troday's scientists generally don't hold to the doctrines of classical Darwinism and tend to be all over the place as to just how evolution works). Just because Mr. Huckabee adheres to a belief in a causation by a higher power doesn't mean he doesn't understnd the scientific method.

So--it seems that we have two choices. In the beginning:

God created

or

Some variant that: Somehow a bowl of primordial soup, containing JUST the right balance of chemicals in JUST the right environment was engergized (perhaps by a bolt of lightning?) and life began.

Either one of these two beliefs are based on faith that it happened like this. The causation of the beginning of life cannot be proved by the scientific method.

Why is believing number one worse than believing number two? Neither has been proved at this point.

[Keith Bentham]

The intelligent secular mind finds the bunch of Christian Americans with arms in the air speaking in tongues as scary as the machete wielding teddy bear burners of Sudan.
They are both the kind of mob composed of simpletons who tore the Greek female mathematician Hypatia to pieces. They did this because she taught myth should be taught as myth and science as knowledge that can be redefined, modified and added to.
The mob should never be allowed to veto scientific thought ever again.
Scientists should follow Dawkins lead and pretty much declare war on religion and its idiocy.
We will however have to offer an alternative world view based on the laws of nature, science, logic, history and common sense.
we'll have outbreed the religious type also with a superior type of logical human. I'm afraid its eugenics time again. That or give the future of the world to the clowns.

[Ray]

The same issue can be raised with Mitt Romney, a Mormon. How can the president of the United States believe a religion founded by a man in the 1830's who says he discovered gold plates buried in the ground that were translated by an angel (with no other witnesses)? Talk about mumbo-jumbo. What kind of a person believes in that?

[Bradley]

As is often the case, this argument fails to distinguish between radical creationism (world created in 6 days a few thousand years ago)and the varied flavours of intelligent design theory (at its base that the universe was influenced by an entity, God for want of a better term; whether humans were planned is a sub-branch).

The former is not scientific, the latter can be. Various stuff from ruminations on the observer effect, to probability of the precise conditions (certain em frequencies for example) for life occurring have all been discussed within the scientific community and possibility of the influence of an outside force remain valid theories, however much militant atheists might like to forget them and kid others that their 'brand of faith' is the only valid one.

[Devil's Advocate]

I am about as Far-Right as one can be.

But, I believe in evolution and understand it enough to teach it.

Nevertheless, I have accepted that there are more important issues.

Evolution is not important, so long as the President believes in limited government, lower taxes, lower regulations, and low spending.

[Andrew Milner]

So does this mean the Flintstones is a documentary? And what about fossils? Creation of the Devil, perhaps? All His minions placing fossils where they will cause the greatest confusion, right?
I used to think those "Stupid Americans" clips on YouTube were all contrived.

[Fernandez]

'Intelligent Design' isn't 'Creationism'! Look up what you're talking about before you go off half-cocked.

Intelligent Design says is that God's invisible hand is behind evolution (rather than it being a random series of events). Lots of people believe in a higher power.

Creationism - that it was a literal 7 day process - is extreme. Since it is religious dogma, it is not taught in schools by Sup. Ct. decree. At any rate, the educational system is controlled by the local government not the federal. Huckabee would have more say over the teaching of evolution if he were to run for governor again than if he were President.

[Christopher Hobe Morrison]

I'm sure that with developing scientific knowledge Darwin will look very dated in 500 years' time. But creationists don't believe by any process of reason; they believe that God has given very simple instructions which override the conclusions of reason. That is what is dangerous.
Tim

I think that Tim has put his finger right on what really matters. During the Scopes trial William Jennings Bryan testified that he believed in many strange religious doctrines, such as the idea that the world was created a few thousand years ago. But even he said that a few thousand years to God might not mean the same thing as a few thousand years to us, so while he accepted the doctrine on faith he didn't rule out an alternative.

The intelligent design people claim to be supporting open-mindedness against materialistic reductionism, but there are all sorts of creation myths around the world and they are only interested in defending their own, which I think any thoughtful person would find lame at best. Does this mean that the universe is governed by pure chance? No! Why not keep an open mind, we live in a universe which is far more complicated than any finite being will ever be able to understand. Then again, this doesn't prevent us from trying, that is human nature. But a certain degree of modesty is called for.

[Paul Owen]

Intelligent Design is a piece of deliberate casuistry designed to give succour to believers who feel threatened by the better arguments of science. It's just a clever lawyers trick which focuses on the word theory. As such it is desperate and says a great deal about the true strength of their faith. And yes, it is not a good way for a president to be thinking.

[AlexG.]

Intelligent Design is an absolute fraud in every way. First, it is utterly ridiculous as a scientific idea. Let's say you were standing in a field a few million years ago. Suddenly, "pooof", out of nowhere a cow appears before you. That's what ID claims: that species were created fully formed with no prior history of existence of that species on this planet. That's the loony tunes part. The lie is that this idiotic type of creationism is cloaked in a new name. Because no-one can teach creationism in the schools, they have to call it something else. Liars, liars, liars.

[Dave Michael]

Amazing how terms like "scientific method" and "conclusions based on evidence" fall so easily from the tongue when it comes to this fairy tale for adults called "evolution". Evolution does happen...on a micro-scale. But too many have taken a religious leap of faith in believing that Darwinism is the explanation for the origin and progression of life. Darwinists, however, attempt to cloak their religion with a lab coat and bandy the term "science" about. For those who think Intelligent Design is nonsense, or unscientific, what do have to offer up other than rhetoric?

[S.E. Karber]

Most western observers are appalled with the mullahs governing in Iran; there is little difference between a mullah and an American preacher. In either case, they are fundamentally ill prepared to govern due to their narrow belief system.

[R. Istbear]

ID is becoming more widely accepted in the light of recent scientific work in relation to genetics and the discovery that differentiation of cellular growth is triggered by a timing mechanism rather than the environment. The world's most famous atheist, Dr. Richard Dawkins, has recently accepted a form of ID suggesting that "something wonderful" was responsible for the Cosmos. Dawkins is reluctant to admit that this "something wonderful" might be God (see Times, 10th May, 2007 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1767506.ece ). We have to remember that Darwin's work is 18th Century and very much theory as no repeatable and observable scientific process can be applied to what may or may not have happened in the distant past.

[Graham Rounce]

It's not Evolution vs Intelligent Design as such, but that by giving any shrift to the latter, he is demonstrating that he is an idiot.

[Dan Murdoch]

Oy Finkelstein: It's the Theory of Evolution, numb nuts, it hasn't been proved by science, and, like the Intelligent Design Theory, it is riddled with holes (the missing link, gaps in fossil records, even Darwin admitted that the complexity of organs like the eye make evolution seem far fetched).
Also, don't confuse believing in Intelligent Design with believing in the Bible, or Christianity, or any other 'mumbo jumbo'.
Can religion and Intelligent Design not be separate?

[Phil Dobson]

What a HOOT! Science? Let's see now, the scientific method is used to observe and record natural phenomena. A hypothesis is formulated using the observations. Predictions are then made from the hypothesis and tested to see if the predicted results occur. If proven true the hypothesis is considered verified. If repeated and continually confirmed it becomes a theory. Over time the theory will become a scientific law.

Evolution doesn't fit this definition in any way shape or form. When was the last time anyone “observed” any living organism produce anything but more of its own kind? You know, the scientific law of biogenesis? This became a scientific law because it is observable and repeatable.

The first two laws of thermodynamics also put a bit of a damper on evolution. Simply put the first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed by natural processes, but can only be converted from one from to another. As Einstein has shown, matter is a form of energy and natural sciences cannot account for the total energy, including matter, in the universe.

The second law basically states that all things in the universe that we know of decay, producing a breakdown of complexity.

Am I amusing you with my ignorance yet?

What about the problem of gene mutation? The fact is that the changes mutations make on a molecular level, such as DNA, are predominantly disruptive and always with a loss, not gain, in information. As Dr. Lee Spetner once wrote, “Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up on volume.” How can losing information promote a more complex result?

Then there’s the problem with irreducible complexity which is way too deep of a subject for your Neanderthal readers whose ancestors were apes.

Dare I even mention matter verses information other then to ask, where did the information in the DNA come from?

The fossil record, which even Darwin questioned, to one of your own, James Shapiro, Molecular Biologist and Evolutionist, who said, "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject-evolution-with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity," make it quite clear that evolution is nothing more then a philosophy.

I use to be one of you until I was asked to show some evidence to support evolution some 20 plus years ago. It was a very interesting and reveling search.

I’m neither supporting nor voting for the Huckster, but get a clue, evolution is no more then wishful thinking at best and in my humble opinion one of the most important questions you’ll have to answer in your lifetime, even if you're a poor, single mother working for minimum wage, and who is without health insurance.

[Ted Hewlett]

Daniel Finklestein, without defining intelligent design or giving us any reason for his statement, asks us to take on faith that intelligent design is nonsense.

Presumably he is either talking to the converted or asking those not already converted to his view to take his word on faith, trusting to his superior intelligence. Could there be a touch of arrogance here?

[Steven Woods]

Intelligent design is nothing more than an idea borne from arrogance; "I'm clever and I can't explain it. It must be God".

For every religion there is a differing viewpoint on how the earth began, at least one of them must be wrong. My personal favourite is the Hmong belief that the first people existed in a drum.

Yes, Darwin postulated a Theory of Evolution much like Newton postulated a theory of gravitation. Are we denying gravity now? Of course not, we can see gravity in action, much like biologists can see evolution taking place.

[Tina]

I'm a liberal American female who is studying the "hard" sciences at my university and I'm a big believer in "whatever floats your boat." You can't convince EVERYONE of your beliefs. I prefer tolerance instead. If you are "right" you should just be content that eventually everyone will come round...

It's interesting 2 studies done on "science literacy" around the world. Only about 15% of Americans are "science literate" (basic working knowledge of science) and an interesting slightly less percentage are scientifically literate in Europe. However the main point of interest is that Americans generally believe in some sort of creationism without "thinking about it" while Europeans generally accept scientific theories without knowing much about it. Just some food for thought.

[Ralph Slicker]

Anyone who believes in a mythical being as creator of everything has to be bordering on self-delusional and so every emanating view deriving from this belief needs to be assessed accordingly - it doesn't mean that sometimes there are some good ideas. So called "Intelligent Design" is a pseudo-scientific view from a bible (don't get me started!) standpoint that is plainly nonsensical - its on a par with Scientology, Christian Science, Islam, Christianity and my imaginary friend, the large talking ear-muff.

[David]

The ignorance Over There about ID is ironical and would be a good belly laugh if some like this author were not so deadly serious about the whole thing. Consider, for example, that Michael Behe, one of the seminal thinkers in the ID movement, is not a bible thumping fundamentalist, believes in common descent, an ancient earth, etc, and is a distinguished microbiologist. His books, contrary to the bleatings of the current version of the medieval cardinals fearing a look through the telescope, are beautiful examples of the scientific method at work. Read his stuff.

[Andrew brown]

What complete rubbish! The Darwinian Myth perpetuated by the majority of the scientific community is just that... a myth. The only reason they perpetuate it is because they find the alternative unacceptable. For those with an open mind there is plenty of evidence out there to discredit Darwinism.

[Steve]

Why do people think that it is a good - even unanswerable - argument to say 'Hah! 500 years ago we thought the sun went round the earth - so in 500 years we'll probably think something completely different to what we do today'.
The critical point missed by such arguments is the invention of the scientific method, and the flowering of the scientific sensibility. The first allowed us to determine what answers were correct, and how reliable that conclusion was. The second meant that scientists would keep after the truth rather than accept a superficial answer.

As a consequence, Darwinism will *not* seem dated in 500 years time, but all the alternatives to it will. Americans of the 26th century will study American history and wonder how competent, intelligent people of our era could have rejected Darwinism simply because they couldn't understand the linguistic difference between the 'theory' that Iraq had WMD in 2002 and the 'theories' of relativity, quantum mechanics, and evolution by natural selection.

[Andrew Ryan]

"Unless the earth is eternal, then something must have come out of nothing at some stage."

That's nothing to do with evolution. And yes there is a mountain of evidence for evolution. There is no evidence for ID, which doesn't even qualify as science.

Sadguy: "yes its called the "theory of evolution""
Not that old chestnut! Evolution is both fact and theory. See also, 'theory of flight'. No-one disputes that things fly, just because we have a theory that explains it.

[Richard]

Einstein believed in a unified theory of everything, i.e. a set of rules which governs the behavior of every particle in the universe. How different is that idea to ID? It's a matter of semantics is it not? One might regard those rules, if they exist, as ID. And, if they do exist, one is inevitably drawn to the question of where did they come from? Was Einstein unscientific then? Or, Mr. F., are you talking a load of mumbo jumbo?

[Gary]

"Evolution doesn't fit this definition in any way shape or form. When was the last time anyone “observed” any living organism produce anything but more of its own kind?"

I think you need to look around you, you dont find poodles in nature because through selective breeding you see a small microcosm of the evolutionary process. All scientific theories are called theories because science welcomes investigation and refinement. ID is a crutch to faith as scripture is disproven by science over time.

Religious people see complexity and it must be god. Scientists see complexity and it must be investigated. I know which I prefer.

[Ken Hall]

"Even if you are a Christian, Jesus said you should go to your closet for prayer, not make a public show.

He also whipped the moneychangers out of the temple. That alone would disqualify all the candidates in America." - John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada

You are almost correct John, but Ron Paul is completely and honestly against the money-changers and the warmongers. He would take power completely out of the hands of the military industrial complex, scrap the federal reserve and give honest money a genuine value again. I think Ron Paul is the candidate that you have been looking for.

I only wish that he is selected to Run by the GOP, as he is the only candidate that can defeat Hillary, or Obama and I only wish that there was a Ron Paul style candidate to pick in Canada, France, Germany, UK and every other country where the warmongering, shielded, state-sponsored corporateocracy rules the Government. We need to take our countries back!

[Chris Holman]

I'm truly staggered by the immense level of stupidity displayed in the comments. From the smug inanity of 'it's only a theory' (n.b. in science, the term theory does not relate to a guess, but to a explanation of how the world works that has stood up to repeated, rigorous, testing. See below for a link to a better explanation. Another one is the theory of gravity, but maybe those on this forum think that it;s just a guess, and we're kept on the ground by angels pressing down on us!), to the stupifying comments of Phil Dobson, trotting out the tired canard of the laws of thermodynamics as if it's never been addressed by scientists about a trillion times before with people like him. I might go into a long description of why he's completely wrong here (and - no - Mr. Dobson, your immense ignorance was not amusing), but it's probably better if he simply reads a suitable book by a real scientist, which explains how the 2nd law refers to entropy in a closed system, which the Earth is most certainly not. They even go to the extent of cherry-picking a comment by Richard Dawkins, and then twisting it around to make out that he believes in a divine first-cause to the universe!! They know no shame.

My main concern is that if the above represents the level of scientific and rational thought capable of the people in the Western world, then there really is no hope for us. The same idiotic statements trotted out, with no attempt to actually learn about evolution.

To address the question. Yes, it is important what the president of the USA believes, as we don't need another twat who goes to war based on what he believes an imaginery sky fairy says in his head, rather than hard evidence, and someone who can bring an objective view to important subjects like abortion, and stem cell research.

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

[Andy Robinson]

I find it quite scary that the potential leader of the free world can hold such a belief. As many have pointed out, both Evolution and ID are theories and neither can be proven. HOWEVER, there is a lot of varifiable, scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution; ID on the other hand depends upon faith, with absolutely no supporting evidence. But then like all religious ideals, no evidence is required, just mindless, unquestioning faith.

PS. Richard Dawkins is MY god

[Tom]

I think the debate over the relative merits of evolution and intelligent design misses the point of Mr. Finkelstein's article. The point (at least as I take it) is that Mr Finkelstein cannot quite comprehend the notion of a president who does not really believe in evolution. This is not, however, so much of an issue for the 60 per cent of Americans that some surveys find do not also believe in creation. Conservative with a small c has very different interpretations here and in the US, where Mike Huckabee's religious views form a big part of this outlook. It may seem strange to you Mr Finkelstein, but to many America voters it does not.

[Ralph Slicker]

Quite a lot of you arguing against evolution are missing the point entirely - why are you so defensive?. Its not what he does not believe/accept that is necessarily important, but rather, it's his belief in 'creationism' and the basis for it that is called into question.

ID is a dumb, nonsensical, pseudo-scientific point of view to appease those who are looking for an argument to keep a god in the logical argument.

[Patrick]

The scary thing about this discussion is all the people who clearly aggree with Kuckabee and think it is reasonable to believe in intelligent design as a scientific theory.
Are there really that many nutters out there?

[Joe McGurk]

Methinks the author is aping the traditional British Imperial line. Mike Huckabee's shot at Royal Society husckster Charles Darwin is right on. I dont know much about Huckabee. But on this he's absolutely right - Darwin's "ideas" were (and remain) propoganda from the core of British Imperial "philosophy". They are not "science." Science ought not exist under a Scientific Dictatorship as Bertrand Russell in his wildest wetdream imagined so, but it does. From Darwin's BS to Al Gore's BS, the British Royal Society has brought humanity nothing but a bag of trouble. Darwin's "ideas" were developed and spouted under the notorious Huxley Family. That same Huxley Crew who also brought the world LSD and "Eugenics" and the "Green Fascism" (World Wildlife Fund African genocide.)
The British Imperial ideology has polluted mankind since the death of Queen Anne.
Early 19th century plagairist Thomas Malthus the main idealogue-fraud of the British Empire ran hand-in-hand with Darwin. Malthus' perverse and killer notions of "population carrying capacity" have been used by the British-Anglo-American Liberals for two centuries and are still in vogue even today: Al Gore's pagan Malthusian Madness for Mother Earth run wild. Racist James Watson's ideas and beliefs about African sub-intelligence have a voice. Not as loud as Arthur Balfour's voice 100 years ago, but loud enough.

The British-Liberals are the enemy of humanity. Have been since the death of Queen Anne and the defeat of the Liebniz circles. Darwin is just part of all their BS> We know that spears were made 600,000 years ago. That's human, not ape.

[andy o'donnell]

The man is an old time religion rainmaker.After Bush he is just what the country deserves for dessert.He is the real thing spreading hometown religion throughout the country playing his geetar and peddling snakeoil wherever he goes.And oh boy the cutzie answers he gives to every question followed up by his Elmer Gantry stomp.( I am just a simple Christian gentleman unlike my opponent the Mormon!)All those born again revivalist bible thumping wonderful first strike christians will flock to his wagon to partake of his lotion in preparation for the second coming, since the first one is coming to an end.
George is dead; long live the new George.

[Rob McGuiness]

As a Biochemist I would like to say that Darwinism is wrong. Darwin knew nothing of genetics or protein etc.
The current working theory that has been derived from Darwin and much more research is more acccurate, I'm not saying its correct.

ID requires a massive 'paradigm shift'. For Scientists to accept such a huge change it is necessary to provide substantial evidence.

Every piece of evidence provided by ID (for example evidence of irreducible complexity) had been refuted very easily and completely, though the explanation is rarely simple and often requires a number of years of study to fully comprehend what is being said.

Phil Dobson made a number of 'classic' ID arguments. They have all been completely addressed elsewhere and hold no water whatso ever. "Let those who have eyes see, let those with internet access google it".

The evidence for evolution more than anywhere else comes from analysis of DNA / Protein sequences.
Unfortunately to fully understand why this information is compelling evidence of a darwinian derived form of evolution rather than ID derived requires several years of study, which all are capable of, but few seem willing to undertake.

[nick]

Re the "theory" of evolution
Would the creationists/intelligent design proponents/anti scientists also like to dispute the "theory" of gravitation?

All a theory is is a set of postulations which are open to proof or disproof, each successive test may confirm or modify a theory but until it is firmly and rigorously proved mathematically it remains a theory rather than a law.

So far the theory of evolution has held firm as successive new facts are discovered, there have been minor changes in views on the mechanisms by which it works but at its base evolution is as close to proven as is possible.

The argument in the original article is not over creationism vs evolution but is whether or not someone who thinks so little of his country's constitution that he will attempt to bypass it is a fit person to hold public office.

[Matthew Powis]

'The intelligent design people claim to be supporting open-mindedness against materialistic reductionism, but there are all sorts of creation myths around the world and they are only interested in defending their own, which I think any thoughtful person would find lame at best. Does this mean that the universe is governed by pure chance? No! Why not keep an open mind, we live in a universe which is far more complicated than any finite being will ever be able to understand. Then again, this doesn't prevent us from trying, that is human nature. But a certain degree of modesty is called for.'
Christopher Hobe Morrison

Perfect, perfect, perfect.
When will people stop the arguments, the fear tactics and the wars?
We are all different... Accept it
Also, don't start an argument/debate if u don't have the proper facts... Its really annoying

[Old Atlantic]

What about those who reject that IQ is partly genetic? Are they disqualified from their positions for rejecting the scientific method?

[Christine--Fremont, NE]

You can't profess to believe in a Creator that made man in his own image, and believe in evolution at the same time. Did you know scientist have never discovered anything in the evolutionary process? And, why are they so worried about melting ice caps harming the polar bears? If, evolution is real, the polar bears will adapt by developing gills and fins. Why are people so gullable as to believe everything scientists tell them. Do some investigating on your own and cut back on the "kool-aid."

[alan]

Someone (Terry L Walker) asks: Why is "believing in creationism" worse than accepting the concept of evolution?
-- Well, creationism is a childish phantasy, based on no evidence whatever, thought up by somebody and seized upon by the "faithful" in a vain attempt to counter the "kill-effect" that Darwin's theory has on religion.
-- Secondly, anyone who is willing to take the trouble to understand "evolution" must admit that it is the most reasonable and obvious explanation of how life on earth is what it is today.
-- Thirdly, and please note this very, very, very carefully:- The process of evolution is a logical attempt to best explain how life on earth "EVOLVED", and NOT how life on earth began. That's remains a mystery, even to the evolutionists.
-- Not so, though, for the believers. They invent all the answers to fit in with their weird beliefs and claim, arrogantly, to know how, and why, life began.
-- It's not necessary to study biochemistry or astrophysics for five years to understand this. Just common sense.

[David Bennington]

Well done, Daniel. At last a commentator who takes science seriously and sees that a politician who shrugs off scientific fact as unimportant is not fit for public office.

[William]

Who are these scientific illiterates who call evolution a "theory" as if that proves it to be false? The whole point about science is that the only theories to be trusted are those that are falsifiable.

[M R C]

Huckabee not rational enough with his beliefs? So, then, why do you support born-again-Bush, David? He also believes in intelligent design as a good Christian, surely.

[Phil Dobson]

Gary, scientific evolutionists DO NOT “welcome investigation” into their theories, period. If you dare question their philosophy you are called arrogant, self-delusional, nonsensical, no scientific sensibility, stupid, dumb, nutter, anti science, looking for an argument, close minded, old time religion rainmaker, refusal to acknowledge the mountain of evidence for evolution, etc. et al. Just read the comments and you’ll see what I mean.

I never advanced ID as the answer. My problem lies with the total lack of evidence for evolution, which many say exists, yet won’t, or better yet can’t, produce.

Several years of study Rob? Or maybe that’s several years of brainwashing. As I clearly said that I too was a victim of the lies until I took a closer look for myself. If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough… So, all my arguments have been completely addressed and hold no water what so ever, eh? Please, do tell, in detail, and I’d be happy to review it again. I guess 20 plus years of studying the lack of evidence is not near long enough to believe the lies.

Nick, evolution is as close to proven as is possible? For all who believe this please answer me one little question: where are the millions (billions?) of intermediary species that MUST have existed for evolution to be true? A simple question, where’s your answer? Either put up or shut up. I’m tired of the lies from the so called scientific establishment and their brainwashed lemmings.

[bob bram]

urban pople don;t like the truth

[bob bram]

urban pople don;t like the truth

[Sacrament]

"I’m neither supporting nor voting for the Huckster, but get a clue, evolution is no more then wishful thinking at best and in my humble opinion one of the most important questions you’ll have to answer in your lifetime, even if you're a poor, single mother working for minimum wage, and who is without health insurance."

"Mr. Dobson":

I can assure you that there are far more pressing issues in the mind of a single Mom, working for minimum wage, who is raising children without health insurance, than whether or not "intelligent design" or Darwin is correct.

To inflate the issue to a more important status than whether a child has adequate health care is irresponsible at best and callous at worst.

[Ted]

Which Jesus are you talking about ?
It is well documented that Jesus of Nazareth was born "yonks" if not centuries after the original.
I say this as a christian.

[Peter Davey]

Darwin's theory of evoltion has only been strengthened by discoveries in genetics, biochemistry, physics and paleontology that would have been unimaginable to Darwin 150 years ago. Nothing has been discovered to invalidate his ideas. He truly was one of the most impressive thinkers of all time, and to dismiss evolution as false is to dismiss the scientific method which has enabled mankind in general to escape from darkness of superstition and ignorance. If you can believe the World was created 4000 years ago and evolution is a lie, then how do you account for cell phones and Mars landings?

[Mark Allen]

A decade or two ago I would have simply laughed at the profound stupidity of Mike Huckabee. Coming forward a few years I would instead have laughed at the gullability of large swathes of mid-western Americans. In the present day, the time for laughing is over. The number of moronic posts on this thread from creationists who obviously like to believe that they have a credible argument is not funny in the slightest. It is incredibly depressing to see that humans in the so-called developed world can be so completely and utterly deluded.

[Stephen Plunkett]

Huckabee has said that behind all matter and all things on earth and in the universe is a loving God. That the world in which we live, was not created by particles colliding together in some random way, but was put together under the authority of God. Whether this took 6 days (which may noit be 6 days in modern terms) or 6 years or 6000 years is not the point, rather this creative force was always under the authority of a single and supreme God. What's the problem with that?

[L. Rorke]

Like many, I am one, who over the past decades has been duped into believing everything our so-called "science" books have shoved down our throats. Anyone can see that there is nothing "scientific" about a huge number of the theories put forward by evolutionists. I am doing more study on evolution and its lies but for now I am simply dumping the mainstream theory of evolution (without denying that there are certain evolutionary processes that have made minor adaptations to life on this earth). I'm sorry that I can't go further and believe that I came from a fish ... or an amoeba ... or something equally ridiculous. How anyone can state that evolution is the most reasonable and obvious explanation of life on earth I don't know? They must be smoking their socks or something equally as damaging! Evolution is Darwin's cranked theory that has been set out to brainwash the world to the exclusion of any other theory. The real problem is that tens of thousands of scientists stand to be ridiculed whenever this theory is exposed for its lies! Therein lies some of the resistance to look at any other theory. Get the lies out of our textbooks now is the best thing we can do to stop further pollution of human brains and intelligence!

[Dr Stephen Morris]

The assertion made by some in this list that, just because someone rejects evolution, their ability for scientific reasoning is somehow flawed, doesn't stand scrutiny. There are plenty of us who make our living as scientists, in industry and academia, and yet reject Darwin's hypothesis because we simply don't think it fits the facts.

This is in contrast with mainstream science (someone mentioned gravitation, for example) where we can do experiments that verify the scientific laws directly, and then once we've done that we can go ahead and apply them for economically useful ends. I've never heard of a useful prediction, much less an economic benefit, which has arisen from Darwinism.

When our children are in science classes in school, there is plenty of economically-relevant, well-founded proper science to teach them, especially in the fields of biology and life-sciences, without taking up time in the curriculum with the idle and largely irrelevant speculations of evolutionists. I'd even go a little further than that, and say that, as Darwinism is primarily a religious view rather than a scientific one, its teaching has no place in a modern secular society.

As this subject has arisen in a political (rather than a scientific or religious) forum, it is maybe worth pointing out that at a time when US and UK students, at least at high school level, seem to be falling behind those of other countries, the obsession with Darwinism among some parts of our educational establishment(s) is clearly not helping. Someone like Prof. Dawkins, whose day-job is a Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, has an important job to do and it's a shame that he squanders so much of his time on this particular side-show.

Actually, it's a shame that I do as well, so now I'm going leave this blog and go and do some proper work...

[nathan]

It has been interesting reading the various comments and arguments on this topic. It would appear that the "Evolutionists" are somewhat more rational in their arguments, and less dogmatic in their thoughts. I especially liked the last post by L. Rourke - substitute creation for evolution, and you have exactly the argument made by some of the more insistent "Evolutionists"...
I am not a scientist, and so my views on evolution are irrelevant. I think this is an important point for the various armchair experts to bear in mind - the Internet does not yet contain the sum of all Human knowledge, just the sum of all idiotic conspiracy theories. A few hours surfing does not an expert make...

[alan]

Dr Morris - you mention an "obsession with Darwinism"?
-- As a scientist with a doctorate you should not require a simple person like me to point out to you, that it is ONLY the believers and the creationists who are obsessed with Darwinism - obsessed with opposing it, that is.
-- Ordinary, simple persons like me are NOT obsessed with Darwinism. We regard it, without great emotion, as the most reasonable and obvious explanation of how life has EVOLVED on earth.
-
-- Doc, do you judge science on its ability to make "useful" predictions and produce "economic benefit"? I ask, because from your comments that's what it sounds like.

[alan]

L Rorke - you must have been smoking too many socks yourself, since you obviously can't read straight. If you look at my post again (from which you are obviously quoting), you will see that I did NOT say evolution was the "most reasonable and obvious explanation" for life on earth.
-- No, what I did say is that evolution is the most reasonable and obvious explanation of HOW LIFE ON EARTH EVOLVED. And so it is.
-- Next time, L., get your facts right. Otherwise you'll give the impression that you've not evolved far enough from that amoeba.

[Greg]

I'd like to see some intermediate fossils before I believe in evolution. Lots of them.

A fossil record showing one species gradually evolving into another would convince me. Yet after 150 years of search this does not exist. Why not?

If they were looking for WMDs in Iraq in 2153 would you not think that WMDs were non existent? I would.

Punctuated equilibrium is far more difficult to believe that creationism.

[Mount]

What do 'Creationists' have to say about the evolution of say for example the MRSA superbug?

Creationists are deluded flat-earthers living in a fantasy land because of an inability to face the often unpleasant facts of existence. Surely that man cannot become President in a country that likes to think of itself as defending the opposite corner to retrograde religious extremism. Evolution and belief in God are in no way exclusive. The problem with Islamism is the inability to extend beyond the confines of a text written in very different times. Why on Earth would Christians ape that?? That way apocalypse lies. And nobody wants that do they?

Grow up, if you have the material luxury to be able to think for yourself, why wouln't you.

[YardOfAle]

The "anti science" arguement is unbelievably hypocritical. You are happy to use electricity and computers (you must be or you couldn't post here!), cars, medicines, DNA fingerprinting and other products of science - while decrying other scientific ideas where there is no obvious benefit to you and you don't want to consider it. "See what you want to see and disregard the rest"

But you can't get two ideas into your skulls

(1) where life came from is a completely different matter from the processes of evolution

(2) In science (apart from maths) there is no such thing as proof.

Repeat

THERE.IS.NO.SUCH.THING.AS.PROOF.

You can't prove theories of electricity, but it doesn't stop you reading this!

So, to make reliable sense of the world there is only the weight of evidence, weight of probability, and how coherent a theory is - the significance of how a theory can predict results, the significance of how wildly different observations point to the same or similar conclusions.

Where the case for observations is very very strong we call that a fact.

So it is a *fact* that this posting is not in your imagination - but I can't *prove* it isn't.

A battery is an accepted fact - that if you put certain chemicals together in a certain structure it will create an electric potential and provide energy. (But that presupposes that you can measure or use electricity, and that you treat the electrical theories valid and electrical observations as fact.)

For evolution, the weight of vast range of evidence, and the coherence of a huge range of unrelated observations is overwhelming.

Most of the the different processes (that contibute to an overall process of evolution) are as much fact and based on facts as electricity, or as the chemistry of a battery.

That there exists an overall *process* of evolution is based on as much observation and more varied observation as electricity.

It would take years just to list all the observations that point to this, and for which there are no coherent alternative explanations. A tiny sample is ask why climate records match up with tree rings and also match up corbon dating of trees and old tree rings which match up unrelated but equivalent oxygen decay observations from ancient antartic ice bands and match up with bands in different rocks all over the world and radioactive composition of rock bands which match up with vast arrays of fossils according to the same patterns of age which match up with rates of erosion and proposed relatednesss of species matches up with relatedness of DNA as relatedness of DNA fingerprinting matches up close relatives . . . as I said it would take years for one person just to list the observations and how they match up, without going into the detail. (So any anti-evolutionist who says they have "studied the evidence" may have read a simplistic book or two.

Of course, people argue about the details of the processes and the coherence, just as they are still refining the theories of electricity.

BUT a completely different problem is where life came from - a completely different matter from the processes of evolution.

The ideas about evolutionary creation are a stongly reasonable and plausible (to some)extrapolation of the undeniable processes of evolution.

BUT the case is NOT overwhelming

There is a lot of very interesting evidence and coherence of observation, and no-one has come up with a better idea.

So go for intelligent design on creation of life - great! that is an unexplained area

If you want to, go for better explanations of the observations of evolution - great!

But don't insist the two are linked without evidence, don't pick and choose what evidence you want and avoid conflicting evidence you can't explain, and, above all, come up with a better explanations than the current ones (and not just "we can't understand the mysterious ways of God")

I'd love to hear a convincing explanation on intelligent design!

[Coel]

Greg, where on earth did you get the idea that there are no transitional fossils? There are many transitions documented in the fossil record. A brief summary of just some of them can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

[Coel]

Stephen Morris writes: "There are plenty of us who make our living as scientists, in industry and academia, and yet reject Darwin's hypothesis because we simply don't think it fits the facts."

Your sentence is four words too long. Admit it, those who reject evolution (long accepted by mainstream science as overwhelmingly proven on copious evidence) do so for religious reasons.

[dissent]

I don't understand. Evolution versus creation is just not that important to a President's work. Who cares what he thinks? We're not electing the chief scientist, we're electing the chief executive. If he's a good administrator and can accomplish some positive goals, his belief in human origins is irrelevant.

[Jackofalltirades]

This is a reply to "John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada who said

"I am sure the aforementioned mother would care less if the President secretly studied the entrails of chickens, so long as her lot in life improved significantly."

I think the point is that a President who got his walking papers from chicken entrails would do quite little to improve the life of a single, destitute mother. He (or she) would more than likely suggest that that person pray. We're talking about the office of one of the most powerful people on the planet; not a televangelist. If someone can't accept carbon dating, global warming, or evolution, I kind of doubt they would have the intellectual wherewithal to guide the United States through what have now become rather treacherous waters.

[Xel]

Evolution is a theory - it says so in my biology textbook and I am OK with that.

But what is written in textbooks is supposed to give kids the pinnacle, the most meritorious account of reality. NONE of the offerings from anti-evolution crowds come close to the level of credibility evolution has attained. SO NO ATTENTION should be given to them until they get something behind it. Children already know what the bible says, and if they want to choose that line of thought then fine - they can be happy and we can be assured they won't get any work as biologists.

Any alternatives to evolution are not intended to teach children skepticism or diversify their perspectives - it is intended to send the message that their parents' religion takes precedence over humanity's long struggle to figure out reality.

[Karen]

Intelligent design is not dumb - the idea that life on earth is so complex that it could not have arisen by chance deserves to be considered.

But it is not science, it is philosophy. Picking at perceived or actual weaknesses in one theory is not the same as offering an alternative theory - and offering God or a "higher power" as an alternative explanation is not the same thing as offering an alternative scientific theory that can be tested.

It's not that everybody must accept the Theory of Evolution wholesale, or else be anti-science. To the contrary, to be scientific, one must NEVER accept a theory wholesale. One can either be satisfied enough with the current level of evidence to accept it as a "working fact", or not. A scientific mind will always be open to the possibility that new evidence will arise that changes something - or even everything - about a theory. But the generally accepted scientific consensus is that evolution is at least part of the answer to how the diversity of species on earth came about. Evolution can be safely presented as "fact" to beginning science students just as much as any other accepted scientific theory.

Inquiry continues - it's not like the fields that provide the testing grounds for the TOE have shut down. Geneticists, geologists, and everyone in between are still looking for - or at least open to - new information related to the TOE - whether it supports it or not.

Of course, this and global warming have the same problem: they have become so politicized that it is nearly impossible (but not impossible) to discern the current status of *scientific* discussion of the theory amid the flurry of laypeople who think they are "experts", partisans on both sides waving old or bad information they've picked up as talking points, and general huffiness.

The problem with Huckabee identifying with ID is that that particular movement has soiled itself insisting that a philosophical musing is the same thing as a scientific theory. While teaching students the principle of constant scientific skepticism is important - and already done - IDers want to bring a non-scientific theory into the science classroom and present it as science. They want to cast unreasonable doubt on a perfectly teachable theory, for religious or philosophical reasons. That is unacceptable, and if Huckabee aligns himself with that movement, I have nothing but scorn for him.

[JordanT]

"What about the problem of gene mutation? The fact is that the changes mutations make on a molecular level, such as DNA, are predominantly disruptive and always with a loss, not gain, in information."

Except when bacteria mutate to prevent antibiotics from being effective. Bad for us, great for the bacteria. It is easier to observe, in real time, mutations in bacteria because of short generation life.

I keep hearing about the ID "proof" but so far nobody has provided it. Darwin's doubts were related to the origin of life, not the evolution of species. Whether or not God had his hand in it is a matter of religion, not science. This is why ID does not belong in schools, since it just claims "God did it" and leaves it at that. Science is here to explain the mechanics of what happened not who did it.

[Spambalaya]

The question of whether a candidate for President of the United States is a creationist or not is all too relevant in this age of global warming. If you don't believe that the earth has been around for billions of years and that the fossil fuels we're burning at an alarming rate are the end product of hundreds of millions of year of carbon capture and fixing through organic activity, then how can you possibly address the problem effectively and realistically? A creationist doesn't believe that the earth was significantly hotter hundreds of millions of years ago because s/he doesn't even believe the earth EXISTED back then, so s/he can't perceive, much less accept, the threat to our climate posed by returning all those millions or years' worth of fossilized carbon into our atmosphere at a rate approximately one million times as rapid as it originally accreted in the ground.

I don't want a faith-healer as my doctor, and I certainly wouldn't want a Biblical fundamentalist as my president for precisely the same reason. I need a rational leader, not an embracer of fairy tales. For seven years now we've seen the dangers of having a willfully ignorant leader who thinks God is on his side holding the highest office in America. We don't need a repeat perfomance, thank you very much.

[Spambalaya]

As for those who insist that intelligent design is somehow a legitimate scientific theory instead of a thinly veiled attempt to disguise Judeo-Christian creationism in the garments of science, here's a question I wish someone would answer: Why is the supposed "intelligent designer" spoken of as a single entity? Why the monotheistic assumption when none is warranted, and in fact coontraindicated? The most intelligent beings on this planet can't create something as small yet sophisticated as an automobile without collaborating and assisting one another, yet ID proponents always postulate "a designer" instead of several, or even a multitude of, "designers.'

If ID were truly in the leastways objective, there would be no reference whatsoever to a single entity being the creative source of the universe—from a scientific standpoint, to favor the belief that a single being could engineer such complexity instead of a multitude of beings simply flies in the face of logic. But then, so too does all of intelligent design, so perhaps my question answers itself.

[Phil Dobson]

“(If) evolution is a lie, then how do you account for cell phones and Mars landings?” - Peter Davey. “I think you need to look around you, you don’t find poodles in nature because through selective breeding you see a small microcosm of the evolutionary process.” – Gary

Well, there you have it. There are cell phones, Mars Landers and poodles so evolution must be true. Even your buddies are squirming in their seats when they hear this type of logic. But alas, this is the type of stupidity that many of those who have been duped into believing evolution postulate. You two must have attended public schools where you were taught what to think instead of how to think.

There are cell phones, Mars Landers and poodles because there was a CREATOR of those things. As far as poodles are concerned, someone with some intelligence and observational skills used selective breeding to produce an animal much different looking then the rest. It’s been done with dogs as well as goldfish, just to name a few, but this is not a “microcosm of the evolutionary process.” Aren’t they still dogs and/or fish?

And Peter, have you not heard the “watch maker” argument? Let me help educate you so you won’t sound so misinformed in the future… You’re walking along in the desert, hundreds of miles from civilization, and you come upon a watch sticking out of the sand. As you pick it up you see that it’s working. Is your first thought, “Wow, over billions of years the sands must have come together and formed this beautiful crystal? The different metals must have done the same, and there must have been a cow that died and its skin formed the band?” Do you see where I’m going with this? You KNOW, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that SOMEONE created the watch, yet the evolutionist looks at a (simple?) single-celled organism and thinks, “Wow, I wonder how this life form evolved.”

“There are many transitions documented in the fossil record.” – Coel. Are there really? Your “brief summary” is nothing more then a complete list of evolutionist’s stipulations. This animal resembles that one so it must have evolved from it. Now that is indeed today’s scientific thought process.

Whenever little is known on a subject or is different from the norm, more speculations arise as to its evolutionary development. Instead of admitting "we do not know," and working towards discovering the unknown, some evolutionary comments are usually made. In other words evolution is believed as settled FACT regardless of the evidence and all problems/questions are researched with this common denominator.

The real problem is that if evolution is not true, what’s the alternative? This, in a nut shell, is the problem for evolutionists. If there is a creator then man is no longer really in charge of his own destiny and many just can’t stomach the thought. They want to believe they are gods.

Sacrament, I’m sure we all believe there are much more pressing issues then whether Darwinism or ID is correct but we’re only on this earth for a short time. Isn’t our eternal destiny much more important then our current situation? Now who’s being callous?

Just remember, if I’m wrong, I lose nothing, but if I’m right, YOU LOSE EVERYTHING! Are you really willing to take that chance without doing your due diligence to find the truth?

[Eats Wombats]

Boris Johnson has a fine article in the Telegraph on the social consequences of innumeracy:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/12/06/do0602.xml

The comments here reveal a similar level of scientific illiteracy. Why is it that people leave school knowing nothing of the scientific method? --That a theory is a falsifiable explanation not a fairy tale to be believed in or not. There's a theory of gravitation. It explains gravity reasonably well. The theory of evolution is not so easily demonstrated but that doesn't make it a matter of belief any more than gravity.

Why are people so neurotically opposed to the idea of live evolving? Whether it does or not says nothing useful about whether there's a God or not.

The bible is not literally true and "intelligent design" is not science. It is junk.

Societies that don't understand science will be outcompeted by those that do.

[Karen]

Phil,

Your comments show a profound ignorance about science, and the Theory of Evolution in particular. I'd recommend a long visit to http://www.talkorigins.org.

Just to name one misconception, you do not seem to understand that the transitional fossil evidence:

1) is far more extensive than skeptics let on

2) is not expected to be complete because of the nature of fossilization

3) is significant not because it SUGGESTS evolution by resemblances, but because the TOE predicts their existence and locations in the strata.

It is not the simple fact that we find transitional fossils - it is that the fossil record, taken as an ever-increasing whole including the various types of transitional fossils, fits the general TOE very well. (As do lab experiments regarding speciation and natural selection, as do genetic studies, etc.)

There are points of contention, of course, but nothing in the fossil record or in any other scientific study actually falsifies any hypothesis of the TOE in general. Theories are not "true", they are "useful" - predictions of Newton's theories of motion turned out not to work at edge conditions (thank you, Einstein) but that doesn't mean that they are no longer useful in the general case.

The theory of evolution keeps making predictions that work. What this suggests to scientists is that, like Newton's laws of motion and the theory of relativity, we might tweak the theory, add things, or even create a new, related theory altogether, but the TOE itself will probably never be completely thrown out the window. It just works too well to be completely wrong.

Of course it's POSSIBLE that we're completely wrong about what the fossil record means - even that a supreme being put it there for reasons mysterious or tricky. But just stating that philosophical possibility is not the same thing as science. You don't throw out predictions that work because you're afraid you're wrong.

"The real problem is that if evolution is not true, what’s the alternative? This, in a nut shell, is the problem for evolutionists. If there is a creator then man is no longer really in charge of his own destiny and many just can’t stomach the thought. They want to believe they are gods."

Your armchair psychology is interesting, but irrelevant. Throwing suspicion onto scientists' motives is not the same thing as falsifying a theory. "What's the alternative" is actually the problem for ANTI-evolution 'scientists' - unless you provide an alternate theory that explains the data as well or better, you're not doing anything useful. And us scientifically literate people will not allow you to taint science education by requiring teachers to pretend that ID is an equally valid "alternative theory", confusing students by suggesting that "valid" is in the eye of the beholder and not at all related to how well the theory fits the facts and how useful its predictions are.

If a politician wants to pervert science to appease cranks, crazies, and contrarians, he doesn't get my vote.

[Chris Holman]

I can only hope that Mr. Dobson is trying to be ironic in his unimaginably dire ramblings. It's like a list of the all the worst arguments against evolution. He's even come up with the Watchmaker gambit !!! Oh, the humanity.

The standard "Show me all the intermediate fossils" ruse is trotted out, as if every organism that dies is preserved in the goelogical strata. Get a grip man !!!

Rather than rant pointlessly (as I know that no amount of evidence will convince someone with the stance of Mr. Dobson and the other 'experts' in this comment), I can only direct them to an excellent web site that deals with the many arguments of creationists. I'm sure that some arguing on this site will claim that they aren't creatonists for discounting evolution, but by what other means than supernatural intervention are they defining for our existence in its place ?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Especially for Mr. Dobson, here is a link to a rebuttal of his spurious claim that there should be billions of transitional fossils.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html

[Richard]

There is a great deal of discussion about regarding proofs, some suggesting that in a scientific context they do not exist, unless it is in terms of mathematical proof. There is an important nuance in relation to this assertion which is that you cannot prove anything in absolute terms, not even using mathematics. In order to make a proof, a context is required. So far, attempts to develop a sensible mathematical field without making at least some assumptions have failed. Assumptions are also made in the physical sciences. Indeed, many experiments are conducted in abstract conditions in order to avoid contamination of results. As has been pointed out, Newton and Einstein do not entirely agree (if we assume 4 dimensions). You can add Maxwell in there as well. Happily, they agree in 11 dimensions, but of course that could not be right now could it. If it was the case, however, multi-dimensional beings would make a mockery of our understanding of physical laws. The point that I am getting to is this. The problem with basing an opinion on the weight of evidence is that you need to know the denominator in that ratio. In this context, that means knowing what we do not know. Of course, if we knew everything we would know the answer, and it has always struck me as being particularly ironic that knowing the answer to The Big Question requires perfect knowledge, a characteristic which is often associated with a deity. In this context, regarding ID versus Evolution, I do not see that these ideas are necessarily mutually exclusive. After all, do we know if the inventor of Monopoly ever actually played the game?

[alan]

Phil Dobson - I'll ignore your ludicrous example of the watch in the desert. Why?
-- Because in your last sentence you gave the game away!!
-- You say: "If I'm wrong I lose nothing, but if I'm right YOU LOSE EVERYTHING." (Pascal's wager)
-- Phil, don't your realise that this exposes your "belief" as sheer opportunism?
-- Pascal's wager is no proof of the existence of creator at all. It is merely a cheap reason for deciding to "believe".
-- You want to take no chances - best be on the safe side for all eventualities.
-- You are obviously fearful of what happens after death. And I understand you. That's the reason why many people think it opportune to "believe".
-- The atheist is intellectually honest enough to say "I can't believe on command, just because some preacher tells me weird stories."
-- Phil, you're making a big mistake. Consider the following:
-- If there is a "creator" who knows everything, he knows that atheists are being honest with themselves in not being able to believe. And if he's full of love and understanding, he'll have more respect for the intellectual honesty of the atheist than for the self-deceit of the opportunistic believer.
-- Think about it, Phil.

[Richard]

Alan - an atheist believes that no god exists. There is (and cannot be) proof, scientific or otherwise, either way. Atheism is simply a religion which has faith in the non-existence of a deity. You can dress up an atheist as intellectually honest if you like, but in the end, it boils down to simple faith. And, there is a great deal to lose either way. An atheist may lose the life ever after whereas somebody who believes in god might lose the only life they will ever have.

[Richard]

Alan - an atheist believes that no god exists. There is (and cannot be) proof, scientific or otherwise, either way. Atheism is simply a religion which has faith in the non-existence of a deity. You can dress up an atheist as intellectually honest if you like, but in the end, it boils down to simple faith. And, there is a great deal to lose either way. An atheist may lose the life ever after whereas somebody who believes in god might lose the only life they will ever have.

[Coel]

Dear Mr Dobson, your watch-in-the-desert argument essentially boils down to "we know that some complex things are intelligently designed, therefore all complex things must be intelligently designed". It is a complete non-sequiter. Your argument doesn't work because we know of another way of producing complexity, namely Darwinian evolution.

On the other hand, your method of explaining complexity is a non-starter: you simply pass the buck one step to something even more complex and mysterious, namely your supposed designer. You haven't explained complexity, you've just taken it as a starting point.

Something else to consider, when you talk about transitional fossils. The chance that an animal will be fossilized after death and then dug up and studied by a scientist is about 1 in 100,000,000,000 (at best!).

Despite that, we have a very good sequence of fossils for many evolutionary transitions. And, more importantly, these sequences fit the same evolutionary pattern that had previously been deduced from comparing the anatomy of today's creatures, and it also fits the same pattern deduced from comparing DNA. As usual with evolution, many lines of evidence all mesh together, mutually supporting each other, to the extent that mainstream science has long accepted evolution as amply proven.

It is only religiously-motivated people who refuse to accept evolution; your post made your religious motivation abundantly clear. Even then, it is only the literalists who reject evolution. The Clergy Letter project is a letter accepting evolution now signed by 11,000 mainstream Christian _clergy_.

[Coel]

Richard writes: "an atheist believes that no god exists. [. . .] Atheism is simply a religion which has faith in the non-existence of a deity."

You are wrong, though your mistake is very common among Christians. Atheism is not a religion and not a faith; it is simply a lack of belief, a lack of faith. We don't say "we know or believe there is no God", we say "We lack belief in God because we find the evidence unconvincing". Might we be wrong? Of course, we don't claim to be infallible or omniscient.

[Richard]

Coel - No I am afraid that you are wrong. First you assume that I am a Christian, which may or may not be true. Secondly, and more importantly, in what way is lacking a belief in god different from a belief, (or faith or whatever semantics that you care to choose), that a god does not exist. What is the alternative position? I suppose one could believe in the null set. An atheist does not know that god does not exist (anyone who does know that for sure might well qualify as a deity themselves). Atheism is a common faith in something, in this case the absence of something, and is in that context a religion. Atheism is a belief, nothing more. Leaning on the lack of evidence is like the man who having jumped off a 30 storey building was asked (not sure by who) as he passed the 3rd floor how things were going. Of course he said, so far so good.