Who Was More Important: Lincoln or Darwin?

NEWSWEEK

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: GregCislo @ 07/02/2008 6:17:25 PM

    The NAS (National Academy of Sciences??? Science, Evolution, and Creationism) misrepresents irreducible complexity and the flagellum.[44]
    By: Casey Luskin Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center January 15, 2008
    ...
    "The NAS accurately defines irreducible complexity ??? ???If one component is missing or changed, the device will fail to operate properly??????but then promotes a false test of irreducible complexity, wrongly claiming that if one part of the flagellum can perform some other function, then irreducible complexity is refuted.

    The NAS claims that the fact that some flagellar components can function as a needle-nosed pump???the Type III Secretory System (T3SS)???shows that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex. However, a number of biologists have concluded that that the T3SS was not a precursor to the flagellum.[45] Moreover, microbiologist Scott Minnich explained during the Kitzmiller trial that the fact that some sub-components of the flagellum can perform other functions is not sufficient to demonstrate a Darwinian explanation for the origin of the flagellum because there is still a huge leap in complexity from a the needle-nosed pump to a flagellum. The unresolved challenge that the irreducible complexity of the flagellum continues to pose for Darwinian evolution is summarized by William Dembski:
    ???At best the TTSS represents one possible step in the indirect Darwinian evolution of the bacterial flagellum. But that still wouldn???t constitute a solution to the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. What???s needed is a complete evolutionary path and not merely a possible oasis along the way. To claim otherwise is like saying we can travel by foot from Los Angeles to Tokyo because we???ve discovered the Hawaiian Islands. Evolutionary biology needs to do better than that.???[46]
    link: http://www.discovery.org/a/4405

    • Posted By: student/teacher @ 07/02/2008 6:28:30 PM

      Yes, because if scientists can't immediately answer every question that mankind has about our existence then we're obviously wrong about everything. OF COURSE THERE ARE GAPS! Evolution took millions of years, but we should be able to explain how it all works in less than 50. Gaps don't make a theory wrong, and every time we fill in one of those gaps it supports the validity of the original theory. So far, every time someone tried to fill a gap, it supports evolution, Lack of evidence is not evidence.

      • Posted By: GregCislo @ 07/02/2008 6:53:42 PM

        What is your best (and I mean the very best) example of sequential fossils demonstrating gradual change (or the closest thing to it), i.e., transitional forms?
        Please send me a link to an on-line article with photographs of the fossils (not an artist depiction please) and I will review with an open mind.
        Thanks Teach.

        • Posted By: student/teacher @ 07/02/2008 7:26:06 PM

          Ok, here's a good summary of many transitional series that have been studied so far and how the provide evidence for evolutionary theory.

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

          This next website goes over the importance of the discovery of Tiktaalik and includes diagrams and pictures of the orignal fossils. Now I am the first to admit alot of these fossils don't look like much to me, but I'm not the expert on this, my friend Jules would be better able to explain it, but the basic importance of this discovery is that Tiktaalik fit right in where scientists had already determined it should be. There was also a discovery of an early marine mammal/ hippo ancestor that filled the gap exactly as it was supposed to.

          • Posted By: student/teacher @ 07/02/2008 7:29:40 PM

            http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://afarensis.blogsome.com/images/T1b.JPG&imgrefurl=http://afarensis.blogsome.com/category/vertebrates/amphibians/&h=628&w=497&sz=67&hl=en&start=9&um=1&tbnid=o_T6zLB5M-HboM:&tbnh=137&tbnw=108&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtransition%2Bfossils%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

            Forgot to attach the site, behold a scientist admitting a mistake!

            • Posted By: GregCislo @ 07/03/2008 9:21:15 AM

              Thanks Teach!
              Pretty impressive.
              The best site for fossil photos I could find were located at:
              http://animalpicturesarchive.com/view.php?tid=2&did=20186
              Tiktaalik roseae is clearly the "darling of evolutionists" as it apparently represents the missing link between fish and amphibians.
              The critical scientific analysis of this fossil is obviously of much importance. The media's analysis is, in general, untrustworthy - mostly hype.
              One article that you may want to read that seems to provide an objective analysis can be found at:
              http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/04/one_step_forward_two_steps_bac.html
              One thing's for sure, if we want to know the objective truth, the facts, and gain a broad perspective, we have to do the research (ourselves) and draw our onw conclusions.

            • Posted By: Metastasio @ 07/02/2008 8:44:59 PM

              Thanks for the link, Teach. Since you're in the field maybe you can discuss the content of this analysis of the information: http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/technical-issues/tiktaalik-roseae/

        • Posted By: Metastasio @ 07/02/2008 7:06:08 PM

          My guess is you won't get an answer on this one. I've been trying all day, just waiting for my textbook advice and I'll go on my merry way. It's exhausting misinforming people all day [sarcasm].

          • Posted By: student/teacher @ 07/02/2008 7:27:20 PM

            I'm so sorry I took the time and effort to look up that information for you then.

      • Posted By: Theoryevolution-scientificallybankrupt @ 07/03/2008 1:36:12 AM

        Student/Teacher: Most of your input has been well articulated however you are stating theory as if it is fact. Your conclusion that millions of years has contributed to another conclusion you made is not a solid foundation because you are putting your support on something that is scientifically bankrupt. You may boast and brag about your 20 or more years and your 8+ years of study but it really doesn't classify as the expert you are so proud of yourself as. There are learned people who walk beside you both before and will walk after you who will refute your claims as a BIAS when the real answer is that you DON'T KNOW. Lack of evidence is very important too and no one is saying that if you can not answer all the questions, that it means you have to forfeit what has already been tested and true. Scripture supports science and vice versa. There is no evidence demonstrating that species originated from a lower order and then "improved" to what we have today other than that God formed man of the dust of the ground. And for those who continue to ascribe a hatred to bow down to Almighty God, take into consideration that all have sinned and there are NO PEOPLE who are pleasing to God. God who is merciful is able to forgive and what is wrong with admitting our own mistakes and then trying to live correctly? Forgiveness is NOT a matter of "asking Jesus into your heart" and manipulating or obligating Him to do any saving. We are only forgiven when God chooses to have mercy on us because NONE of us DESERVES to be in heaven. That is how bad sin is. See Psalm 5:5, 7:11, Romans 3:10, 3:23, Romans 9:11,13-16.

    • Posted By: Rev. BigDumbChimp @ 07/02/2008 6:20:01 PM

      Casey Luskin said: SQEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEk!!

      You have no idea how funny it is seeing someone quote Luskin here as some sort of expert. He is the epitome of the Dunning Kruger effect. Hilarious.

  • Posted By: Cates @ 07/03/2008 9:05:24 AM

    Speaking as a scientist, i can assure you that there are NO credidble scientists of any merit that do not believe in evolution. We only question the mechanisms of evolution. Put simply, evolution is an unquestioned fact in the same way gravity is a fact, even if we still don't know the details of how each works. As far as god goes . . . I would like to believe, but am not sure that Odin really exists.

  • Posted By: Rev. BigDumbChimp @ 07/02/2008 2:38:06 PM

    To all the creationists. Lenski.

    Look him up.

    • Posted By: simonorman @ 07/02/2008 6:22:09 PM

      Adaption is not Evolution, a common mis-conception.

      • Posted By: Rev. BigDumbChimp @ 07/02/2008 6:52:19 PM

        Wow that is so wrong. That is a common canard the creationist throw out, but adaptation is a result and a mechanism in the process of natural selection. Things like genetic drift can also explain changes through evolution but adaptation does for sure.

        • Posted By: simonorman @ 07/02/2008 8:33:29 PM

          So when your ass gets too close to the fire and begins to feel warm, then, natural selection states it has evolved? You play as though you've heard that response before, and I'm sure you have. Thing is, that's merely my perception of having read Lenski. My entire point is that Evolution is a theory, which you seem to be convinced you are more educated in phrasing, but miss the idea entirely. Scientific theory is based on a testable formula, and I state that it is ignorant (your other favorite argument) to claim that this testable formula is proof, when it is consistently being contradicted by margin of error. I.e., Darwinism/Evolution is non-formulaic, as it has many steps uncovered. That's super-fine, and so it remains a "theory". Educate yourself on that one, because I think you have far too much faith in what a THEORY is yourself. Therefore, any rational scientist (being one schooled within a doctorate of philosophy) knows that this margin of error, which always exists in hypotheses (and in fact most studies until a paradigm shift causes a re-calibration within the theory) leaves the theory susceptible to criticism, debacle, and other theories present. Without solid proof, Creationism is just another theory, sure. But there is as much evidence (not proof, mind you, evidence...) for both, and ideally when something is not fact, but is theory (I know, you think it's representative of fact because it is merely missing simple points and so many progressive scientific conclusions can be derived from such theories) that it can and should be opposed by other theories. I think it would shatter the very fabric of your reality, much more than a Christian, to find that your theory of evolution has been debunked. That is very unscientific, as well as extraordinarily pretentious, such as your arguments against most people (calling them ignorant and uneducated without clarifying more than what you have been exposed to) seem to be.

          • Posted By: Rev. BigDumbChimp @ 07/02/2008 8:50:42 PM

            I repeat that you don not understand the strength of the term Theory in science.

            Read this http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html. And you not getting your ass burned is a ridiculous analogy to 20 years of generation of E coli evolving to be able to thrive on Cit+.
            And no i am open to any evidence that survives the scientific process. If some where to arrive that debunked evolution or any theory for that matter, then fine. Move forward. That has not happened. forgive the typos if there are any as forf some reason The comment box does not resize to ffit the whole comment

            • Posted By: simonorman @ 07/02/2008 9:06:26 PM

              Yeah I've found that you have to press the down key to move the page... but it doesn't let you read in the middle if you're going super-long.

              Listen, I appreciate your arguments, I really do. I have read the link you pasted and again, understand exactly the looseness in the term "theory". The point is I DO believe that there is a difference between Fact, loose fact, and theory, and that Evolution is still very much in theory. My argument is to urge you to read Thomas Kuhn. Nothing to do with Creationism, but to do with Scientific understanding.

              • Posted By: simonorman @ 07/02/2008 9:21:42 PM

                One more quick thing: My problem with Evolution is that it is non-formulaic. It's division, not addition. If you told me that 2+2=4, I would believe you. You are instead saying 2x'X'=4, so 'X' must be '2' as 4/2=2. There is no collaborative evidence to produce a consistent result, it is an assumption game that can be deduced. I am not saying, therefore it is false. I am saying it is quickly becoming a Common World View without the scientific PROOF to back it up. Just as the world was flat. I am saying that yes, 20 years of adaption for E coli could allow it to thrive in any environment. Just as my ass could eventually become so chapped it doesn't burn anymore.

                • Posted By: Rev. BigDumbChimp @ 07/03/2008 7:41:10 AM

                  One more thing. The 20 years of E C coli is tens of thousands of generations. Around generation 20, 000 is when the mutation became apparent that showed E coli's adaptation allowing it to thrive on Cit+. Your posterior being chapped is not the same kind of adaptation. Evolution acts on populations, not on individuals. If there was a genetic adaptation that allowed your ass to better withstand heat that you passed along to your decedents and then passed along to theirs etc.. over multiple generations that would be an adaptation along the lines of the E coli Cit+ trait. If the population survived better because of ass-heartiness and your dependents ass of steel traits were spread across the population to where they eventually came to dominate the species, then that is more on line. Secondly trying to boil Evolution, an incredibly complex biological process to a simple equation doesn't really translate well. It just doesn't work that way. Anyway I'm off for the 4th. Have a wonderful weekend.

                • Posted By: Rev. BigDumbChimp @ 07/02/2008 9:44:46 PM

                  What are you expecting for a "consistent result"?

              • Posted By: Rev. BigDumbChimp @ 07/02/2008 9:19:32 PM

                Anything in particular from Kuhn? I'm always open to new things to add to the list.

                • Posted By: simonorman @ 07/02/2008 9:23:21 PM

                  Unfortunately I can't recall the name of the book in particular. I thought it was "The History of Science" but could not find it available anywhere.

                  • Posted By: Rev. BigDumbChimp @ 07/02/2008 9:47:36 PM

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

                    I don't see one that matches up with history of science but there are a few there that look interesting.

              • Posted By: Rev. BigDumbChimp @ 07/02/2008 9:24:01 PM

                The prevailing consensus in the scientific community is that Evolution is fact. The Theory of Evolution is the explanation of that fact, and yes it is a theory but one of the best supported in science. That however, as you've noted, does not mean it is not open to modification. As is any scientific theory. As others have said there is plenty of debate on the mechanism of evolution but little to no debate on whether evolution is real. (Hey look the down arrow does work!). I'll be ordering some Kuhn to read after my July 4th trip to the NC mountains fro 3 long days of golf, Photography, and family. I'll check back for the book recommendation.

                • Posted By: simonorman @ 07/02/2008 9:41:24 PM

                  Oh man, that sounds peaceful. Enjoy your break!

    • Posted By: mrstan @ 07/02/2008 2:58:06 PM

      Lenski formed a ill-documented effort to form transfiormation in e-coli bacteria to be able to absorb citri+. This was not proven properly or shown as any form of evolution. This man's ability to prove any transformation is refuted by all practical scientists, creationists or evolutionists it is the same.
      End result, there is still no proof or evidence shown for evolution... period.

      • Posted By: Rev. BigDumbChimp @ 07/02/2008 3:04:16 PM

        You seem to be ill informed. Show me where "all practical" scientists refute this.

  • Posted By: mpallen @ 07/03/2008 4:40:02 AM

    This Darwin-Lincoln common birthday stuff is old news, going all the way back to 1894! Check out what Ingersoll
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Ingersoll
    had to say:
    http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/on_abraham_lincoln.html
    On the 12th of February, 1809, two babes were born -- one in
    the woods of Kentucky, amid the hardships and poverty of pioneers;
    one in England, surrounded by wealth and culture. One was educated
    in the University of Nature, the other at Cambridge.

    One associated his name with the enfranchisement of labor,
    with the emancipation of millions, with the salvation of the
    Republic. He is known to us as Abraham Lincoln.

    The other broke the chains of superstition and filled the
    world with intellectual light, and he is known as Charles Darwin.

    Nothing is grander than to break chains from the bodies of men
    -- nothing nobler than to destroy the phantoms of the soul.

    Because of these two men the nineteenth century is
    illustrious.

  • Posted By: SEAS004 @ 07/03/2008 4:31:14 AM

    How can we compare two men who offered such different contributions in different fields. As we know: One was a politican and the other a scientist. Science and Politics butt heads constantly. Indeed most things in life intersect but wow this is a stretch. They both contributed wonderfully DIFFERENT things to the world.

  • Posted By: Metastasio @ 07/02/2008 5:16:08 PM

    ???In some ways, grown-up scientists are just as prone to wishful thinking as little boys like Calvin [from the comic strip Calvin & Hobbes]. For example, centuries ago it was though that insects and other small animals arose directly from spoiled food. This was easy to believe, because small animals were thought to be very simple (before the invention of the microscope, naturalists thought that insects had no internal organs.) But as biology progressed and careful experiments showed that protected food did not breed life, the theory of spontaneous generation retreated to the limits beyond which science could not detect what was really happening. In the nineteenth century that meant the cell. When beer, milk, or urine were allowed to sit for several days in containers, even closed ones, they always because could from something growing in them??? The key to persuading people was the portrayal of cells as ???simple.??? One of the chief advocates of the theory of spontaneous generation during the middle of the nineteenth century was Ernst Haeckel [now most famous for his fabricated embryonic drawings], a great admirer of Darwin??????

    From ???Darwin???s Black Box???- Behe
    With the same increase in knowledge that disproved the above mentioned theories, Behe shows how an random mutative process cannot produce complicated systems. In systems such as human blood clotting, either all the components are there or they???re not. Mutation of any of the components in either way is fatal for the organism. Too much clotting or too little compromise the life of the organism (see wikipedia for blood clotting diseases). So you???re left with the conclusion that the whole system evolved simultaneously which is statistically impossible.

    • Posted By: student/teacher @ 07/02/2008 5:22:13 PM

      And again it comes back to educating yourself, go take a class on genetic evolution. They use this exact example and explain why this argument is completely wrong, but I don't have the time or energy to spend several weeks to months explaining it all to you. Reading a book or two by authors whos ideas YOU AGREE WITH does not make you enough of an expert on the subject to recognize when you are being completely hoodwinked!

      • Posted By: Metastasio @ 07/02/2008 5:30:49 PM

        It's very common for an evolutionist to exclaim that "the argument is completely wrong." Maybe you didn't read the post where I encourage others to read the evolutionists' books and perspectives. This argument Behe made is a simple, short argument. If it is "completely wrong" then you could easily dismiss it here and now once and for all. Please do, since you've apparently attended the class that you suppose I missed.

        • Posted By: student/teacher @ 07/02/2008 5:41:13 PM

          Here's a good summary:

          Molecular evolutionary data counter a recent proposition called "intelligent design theory." Proponents of this idea argue that structural complexity is proof of the direct hand of God in specially creating organisms as they are today. These arguments echo those of the 18th century cleric William Paley who held that the vertebrate eye, because of its intricate organization, had been specially designed in its present form by an omnipotent Creator. Modern-day intelligent design proponents argue that molecular structures such as DNA, or molecular processes such as the many steps that blood goes through when it clots, are so irreducibly complex that they can function only if all the components are operative at once. Thus, proponents of intelligent design say that these structures and processes could not have evolved in the stepwise mode characteristic of natural selection.

          However, structures and processes that are claimed to be "irreducibly" complex typically are not on closer inspection. For example, it is incorrect to assume that a complex structure or biochemical process can function only if all its components are present and functioning as we see them today. Complex biochemical systems can be built up from simpler systems through natural selection. Thus, the "history" of a protein can be traced through simpler organisms. Jawless fish have a simpler hemoglobin than do jawed fish, which in turn have a simpler hemoglobin than mammals.

          The evolution of complex molecular systems can occur in several ways. Natural selection can bring together parts of a system for one function at one time and then, at a later time, recombine those parts with other systems of components to produce a system that has a different function. Genes can be duplicated, altered, and then amplified through natural selection. The complex biochemical cascade resulting in blood clotting has been explained in this fashion.

          As I said earlier, I don't have the time or energy to write you a treatise on this subject and in truth I'm not a molecular biologist, nor do I really care what you think, I just don't want you further misinforming and confusing other people on this subject.

          • Posted By: Metastasio @ 07/02/2008 6:19:05 PM

            Reading 1-0-1
            The opening paragraph is a fair assessment of the argument at hand.

            "However, structures and processes that are claimed to be "irreducibly" complex typically are not on closer inspection."
            --Example?
            "For example,"
            --Good!
            " it is incorrect to assume that a complex structure or biochemical process can function only if all its components are present and functioning as we see them today."
            --OK? Where's my example? OK, so show me why it's incorrect to assume this, that irreducibly complex systems are not so. Maybe there's a system that assumed to be irreducibly complex and is not. Or perhaps some systems are irreducibly complex and others are not.
            "Complex biochemical systems can be built up from simpler systems through natural selection."
            --Answer my questions! OK then, give me an example of a complex biochemical system being built up from a simpler system through natural selection, please.
            "Thus, the "history" of a protein can be traced through simpler organisms. Jawless fish have a simpler hemoglobin than do jawed fish, which in turn have a simpler hemoglobin than mammals."
            --Um, did I miss something. Is this my example? Let???s examine this. What comprises "simpler?" And how are these independent systems not irreducibly complex? Has someone shown a precise mechanism for the development between these species or are they connected by a hypothetical common ancestor? That what you???ve said. So how did it happen?
            "The evolution of complex molecular systems can occur in several ways. Natural selection can bring together parts of a system for one function at one time and then, at a later time, recombine those parts with other systems of components to produce a system that has a different function."
            --So maybe nature would bring together the parts for an arm, and at a later time, turn it into a fin. OK, how. Doesn???t sound scientific or testable to me.
            "Genes can be duplicated, altered, and then amplified through natural selection. The complex biochemical cascade resulting in blood clotting has been explained in this fashion.???
            --We know genes are duplicated. Mutation (which is negative) shows alteration. What is this process of ???amplification???? Oh, I see. Blood clotting has been explained in THIS fashion. Sorry for misinforming and confusing other people on this subject.

            • Posted By: student/teacher @ 07/02/2008 6:38:38 PM

              And as I've said I can't condense 20 years in to a sound bite, if that's what you want then you want the impossible (not altogether suprising). As far as how do we test it, you can't in the traditional sense, any more than you can "prove" the existence of gravity. But you can use the theory to make a hypothesis and then you can test your hypothesis to see if it matches what the theory would predict. For example, if marine mammals evolved from land mammals, then there should be evidence in the fossil record of intermmediate species, there is. If gravity exists then when I drop a ball it should hit the earth, it does. Could god have placed the fossils there to confuse us, sure. Could invisible men be pulling the ball to the ground, sure. I can't disprove either, but I can explain both without having to use God or the Boogeyman.

              • Posted By: Nor-Cal for Obama @ 07/03/2008 4:08:10 AM

                The ending argument right here. Bravo Student/Teacher.

                /me goes to bed, a sold evolutionist. ;)

              • Posted By: Metastasio @ 07/02/2008 6:57:08 PM

                Please don't assume I'm a creationist. I understand this reasoning and I sympathize with your frustration of summing up 20 years of scientific discovery into a two paragraph board post. The difference with gravity (despite the fact we have not figured out exactly how it works (I'm told)) and evolution is we see gravity in evidence. We do not see before our eyes the change from one species to another. You lock a dog up in a cage it will die a dog. If you put male in female dogs in a cage, for as long as we've been watching, there wil only be dogs in the cage. What your saying is that because we've carbon dated marine life before land animals, and there are no evident outside causes, the land animals MUST have come from the marine animals. I don't disagree with that reasoning and that's what makes Darwin so attractive. But, I find it problematic when we look at the process closer. Animals can't appear out of thin air- we could agree. I would argue that structures can't either. I would be happy with no solution if it would quiet the philosophical rants of evolutions who try to explain how evolution is "compassionate" in the wake of Darwin based racism and genocide.

                • Posted By: student/teacher @ 07/02/2008 7:40:00 PM

                  Ok, I don't know who your talking to that they're saying evolution is compassionate, there's nothing compassionate about evolution. Natural selection is inherently without a moral code, that's sort of the point. There's no good or bad, there's just what works in one situation. Sure, being pale and blond is fine (maybe even better) in northern climes, but that doesn't make it superior, just try vacationing in the tropics without sunblock!

    • Posted By: ChrisRosendin @ 07/02/2008 5:26:44 PM

      Behe's "science" was completely discredited by the Kitzmiller vs. Dover court decision. Bark all you want, ID = Creation Science = Creationism = Old Testament = bronze age ramblings of desert wanderers that can be forgiven for simply not knowing any better. Today we do.

      • Posted By: Metastasio @ 07/02/2008 5:36:15 PM

        A court of law or a legislature doesn't decide science! The slave owners won a decision with Dred Scott, does it mean anything? Over time if ID is what it seems to be, Kitzmiller vs, Dover will be another Dred Scott ruling. I'll let science settle the argument while you go around bullying thinkers with the court.

        • Posted By: Rev. BigDumbChimp @ 07/02/2008 6:22:08 PM

          Nope you are correct. Science decides science and so far the ID crowd has yet to produce ANYTHING of value. Behe was shown for the fool he is during that trial. Evolution of the immune system anyone?

        • Posted By: ChrisRosendin @ 07/02/2008 5:43:45 PM

          I didn't bully anyone and nor did the court. The court simply stated the obvious that ID doesn't qualify as science. It's religion and therefore cannot be taught in secular public schools. Courts do make bad decisions and are fallible but this isn't one of those times.

  • Posted By: sayitboldly @ 06/29/2008 1:14:45 PM

    The answer is darwin...Darwin evolution is responsible for intellectually killing God nd a direct result in Stalin killing 100 million and China killing 100 million and Hitler killing 10 million. If its survival of the fittest and we are just apes, a political despot can easily kill those who make no financial sense and are a burden like Hitler and Mao. In America today we have bad economy and needy governments depndent on budget forecasts and falling real estateprices for revenue when shortfalls continue ...we will see how many get slaughtered. The environmentalists say world can only hold 500 million people and they are ones who are controlling energy debate on ANWR a barren land as it is. They want us dead and probably look at evolution as their right to destroy 5.5 billion people. EVen CJacque Coustea said the world needs to shed 350k people on regular basis. Their wisdom is based in Evolutionary thought, and they are the mental giants that are angling to kill us all off.

    • Posted By: Pevesh @ 07/03/2008 1:47:58 AM

      The Church also said that Copernicus and Galileo were intellectually killing God. You may have also noticed how more and more people these days are able to accept both science and religion in their lives. Funny how the world hasn't ended.

    • Posted By: sayitboldly @ 06/29/2008 1:22:45 PM

      of course mans wisdom and Gods wisdom are two different things in fact when man was killing off God in a non scientific manner since evolution is completely non scientific (its unduplicatable and non observable and you cannot even test hypothesis so it falls short of being a theory) we started to go through the Golden Age of Archaelogy in last 150 years which has yet to help darwinism. So, like God says if you try to keep silence the stones will cry out and that is what happens the fossil record has proven the bible with its findings and brought millions into kingdom of God.

      • Posted By: bri255 @ 06/29/2008 9:21:45 PM

        omg, ur a pinhead. archaeology has less than nothing to do with evolution. try paleontology. better yet, try reading a book. maybe even a biology book, lol!

        • Posted By: sayitboldly @ 07/01/2008 7:27:28 PM

          A biology book that forces evolution into our minds as facts despite it not even qualifying as a scientific theory NO THANKS You are hopeless evolution is destroying America ...excusing its sin and creating genreation after generation of selfish brainwashed people who are easily fooled by SATAN.

          • Posted By: bri255 @ 07/02/2008 9:23:03 AM

            satan does not exist. neither does god. it is the likes of you who are destroying america with your dogged insistence on keeping the neolithic fairy tales of a nomadic desert-peoples' god alive. i am not about the diversion. i am about the facts, and the fact is: my dog's better than your god. i'll leave it up to you to decide whether i'm dyslexic.

            • Posted By: MorsDei @ 07/02/2008 3:49:50 PM

              nice play on words, and very good point

        • Posted By: sayitboldly @ 07/01/2008 7:34:11 PM

          Whatever you want to call it....is fine...You are all about diversion - this is typical! How about dealing with real problem: evolution is still a lie and so eagerly adopted by so called scientists as Huxley himself put it to satisfy their problem of sexual mores. Einstien said similarly that If facts get in the way of a cherished enough theory the facts are disgarded. People wanted to believe evolution because it both gave them a job and a career 500 doctorates were written on Piltdown man and they did not have to be responsible to God

    • Posted By: TrollKiller @ 07/01/2008 1:16:00 PM

      ATTENTION! DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS

      • Posted By: sayitboldly @ 07/01/2008 7:28:31 PM

        Typical ad hominem attack how boring...

        • Posted By: menefreghista @ 07/02/2008 1:52:14 PM

          Darwin intellectually killed God? Doesn't say much for how powerful this God of yours is, now does it?

      • Posted By: Yuseff @ 07/02/2008 1:19:13 PM

        I feed trolls all the time and in return they do my bidding!

    • Posted By: rjkardo @ 06/29/2008 7:36:45 PM

      This is utter nonsense. Stalin and communist USSR did not accept Darwin. Look up Lysenkoism.
      The rest of your post may 'sayitboldly', but that does not mean it is any less wrong. This is why creationist continue to lose court case after court case...because as much as they believe in what they are doing, they have their facts wrong.Time after time, continuously, they are told lies and nonsense by their leaders...they go to court, and lose. Costing their state or district lots of money. Learn to check out your facts and you will understand why. Of course, I won't hold by breath waiting for this to happen.

  • Posted By: Toni Kamau @ 07/03/2008 1:04:01 AM

    Just 150 years have passed since Darwin went public with the first outline of the evolution of life on earth.
    That it took humanity such a long time to get a rough picture of life's history is amazing, especially due to the fact, that there was nothing existing before beyond some static religious myths.

    When reading the comments below it becomes obvious that people still refuse to accept our past.
    Why do people close their eyes?
    Is it the simple fact that nature and with it the inevitable consequence of our death is a part of human life?

  • Posted By: sayitboldly @ 07/02/2008 8:40:41 PM

    Jeremiah 25:33 (King James Version)
    King James Version (KJV)
    Public Domain



    jeremiah 25 33
    And the slain of the LORD shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth: they shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried; they shall be dung upon the ground.

    • Posted By: ChrisRosendin @ 07/03/2008 12:53:31 AM

      Sounds like a nice guy! I think I'll worship Him for His glory. Baal, right? I want to make sure I get His name right on the t-shirt. Or was it Alah? Anubis? Amon Ra? Apollo? Flying Spaghetti Monster (praise be upon His noodley appendages) Krishna? Oh LORD, please tell me how to spell your currently fashionable name so I don't get smited! OR... maybe all of these are imaginary.

    • Posted By: Rev. BigDumbChimp @ 07/02/2008 9:18:23 PM

      Red fish, blue fish. One fish, two fish.

      One Fish, Two fish. Dr. Seuss. 1960.

  • Posted By: jim6584 @ 07/02/2008 8:02:05 PM

    A quick story to make a point...

    A preacher is the last remaining person left in his curch as the flood water rises. He is forced to climb up on the roof. A rescue boat comes 3 times for him. Everytime he tells them "I love God and God loves me. I am a soilder for God and he would never let anything bad happen to me". Get gets washed away and drowns. The preacher gets to heaven and he ask God "why? Why, would you let me die!?" God's response is I sent the boat 3 times.

    All bio-medical and genitic research being done in this country and around the world, like it or not, it is all based on evolution. Evolution is the corner stone of modern bilology - Bush's top science adviser said this along with ID is not science.. The United States is also going to need a new group of children that have a strong foundation in science to continue with this research that we all benifit from. If we want to stop pandemics and develop ways to feed all the mouths on this planet we need science.

    We can't pray for new cures and advancement in medical treatments and then want to eliminate the very thing that all of this research is based on. Unless you're more interested in keeping your old 2000 year old text book valid to prompt your flavor of God and willing to forgo the next generation and potential life saving technologies. Seem kind of selfish to me and I can't imagine how God would approve or bless it?

    Just be careful for what you want. I don't believe for a second any creationist wants to teach ID besides evolution. They want to completely elimintate evolution from the science rooms and any other science that may have any kind of way of attacking your bible and your religion. They want to teach the childern how to think and what to think based on their way of seeing the will of God. .

    Back to my story, I hope your childern or your grand childern never find themself one day crying and asking God why did you take may beautiful baby? And his answer could be well I gave you the blue print and manual for how I created life on Earth - Evolution but you rejected my gift.

    BTW - There is no such thing as micro-evolution. You believe in evolution or you don't. There is no special case or card that can be played called micro-evolution. You can't apply it when you want to and not when it isn't convient. Science doesn't understand everything about evolution but you don't need every peice of a jig-saw puzzle sometimes to see how the picture fits together. But you can't look at just one piece of a jig-saw puzzle and claim to konw what the picture is.

    • Posted By: ChrisRosendin @ 07/03/2008 12:44:09 AM

      One more thing to the macro/micro point. Only creationists use the term Macro Evolution which they trot out to illustrate how they've never seen a lizard turn into a bird. It's a classic straw man, attacking a position that biologists don't actually take.

    • Posted By: ChrisRosendin @ 07/03/2008 12:40:18 AM

      Very nice post but if I may correct one point, lay person though I am. I believe you may have intended to say that there is no such thing as MACRO evolution rather than micro. As I understand it, biologists don't really talk about macro/micro but if you HAVE to say something, you say micro whereas macro is the accumulation of small (micro) evolutionary steps. I hope I stated that right.

  • Posted By: mojave11 @ 07/02/2008 3:00:33 PM

    To compare these men is ludicrous. On one hand, we have a secular scientist who did not prove his theory. On the other hand, we have a great leader who had a deep faith in God and prayed continuously for God's guidance. The secular left is simply trying sway humanity into giving credence to Darwin by trumpeting his unproven theories. There is no contest here.

    • Posted By: AZeus @ 07/02/2008 3:50:06 PM

      "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." Abraham Lincoln

      ss

      • Posted By: Avenger442 @ 07/02/2008 4:31:27 PM

        The quote you use is from early in his life. I believe it was 1846.
        This one more applies to the mature Lincoln. "Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him, who has never yet forsaken his favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty." 1861
        What you find in Lincoln is a concrete faith in an reliance on God.

        • Posted By: AZeus @ 07/02/2008 11:11:13 PM

          The quote I supplied was given after Willie died in 1862.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/02/2008 8:26:31 PM

    All genes are immutable. There is no mutation. Genes were all made unchangeable in the same seven days that earth was made. Nothing is infinite. Everything is static. Words were only invented to print the bible. LIfe is just a theory. Sin is here only to find out who goes to hell. Virginity was created only to let god have a son. It has no other sensible use. Darwin was born only to test our faith. There is only one path to heaven. And there is not an S.O.B. on earth who will ever qualify to walk it. If you wish to indulge with a virgin, then you need to go to the muslim church and commit suicide against the enemy of the day, after which you can have 92 virgins until you are too exhausted to enjoy any more. There are other religions, too, that you can join if you want any other peculiar things out of life and death. Science is just something to make you miserable in school until you are old enough to quit and go to work flipping hamburgers. There are plenty of charlatans waiting to help you with all of these theories as soon as you make enough money flipping hamburgers to pay them to tell you whatever crackpot idea makes them the most money for the least effort while shouting at you and threatening you with eternal damnation. If you are too lazy to go their place to hear these things, then you can tune them in on your TV and send them the money through the internet. Good luck in your worships. Don't worry about either evolution or creationism. They are just feed another silly argument for idle people to make. If you just keep your eyes and ears open and live a sensible life, all these things will become clear to you in time. Good luck.

    • Posted By: Nins @ 07/02/2008 10:21:53 PM

      Great comments in the ironic vein, OlderWiser. Alas, all too true. Double that for the moron who posted just below me, pretending to be the Reverened of the burger flippers.

      • Posted By: Rev. BigDumbChimp @ 07/02/2008 10:32:23 PM

        Ah yes the drive by commenter who just agrees. So do you find all of science to be "something to make you miserable in school"?

    • Posted By: Rev. BigDumbChimp @ 07/02/2008 8:30:33 PM

      Well that sure was a whole lot of nothing. Thanks! I'll go back to flipping burgers now... /sigh

  • Posted By: Nins @ 07/02/2008 10:23:09 PM

    It has been the stated goal of the religious right to appoint conservative judges to overturn Roe vs. Wade for years. Bush is on board with this plan. Every single judge that Bush appointed to every single Federal bench that came open during his tenure was a right wing Christian conservative. The Democrats were stymied when the GOP controlled congress, and Bush got to appoint two right wing Supreme Court Justices.

    First Bush appointed John Roberts to replace Sandra Day O'Connor when she stepped down. When Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist died in 2005, Bush appointed Roberts as Chief Justice, and then filled O'Connor's empty chair with Samuel Alito. Both Roberts and Alito are Catholic, and both are outspoken against abortion.

    Bush has appointed two of the nine Justices, including the Chief Justice. The current Supreme Court has been sharply divided on a number of high profile issues, including abortion rights, affirmative action, eminent domain, gay rights, the separation of church and state, sovereign immunity, and states' rights. The number of close votes in cases involving these areas suggests that a change of one or two key justices could completely shift the thinking of the Court on such issues.

    Right now there are four Justices who are elderly and will soon either retire or die. The next President will get to appoint at least two new Justices. If the next President is McCain, those two will both be conservative right wing Christians. McCain has publicly PROMISED to do this, and explicitly said that his goal is to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

    Most Americans, even most Republicans, value the separation of church and state. That clause is in our Constitution to protect us from exactly what is going on in America today! Allowing any religious group (especially a radical one) to control the interpretation and application of our laws in the highest court in the land is NOT democratic. Nor is it wise.


    I don't care if you are a disappointed Hillary supporter or an undecided Independent or a life-long Republican or are pro-Obama. ANYONE, regardless of stripe, needs to vote against a candidate who had declared his intention of appointing partisan judges. Judges are supposed to be impartial. That is the basis of our legal system. Without that, you might as well live in a dictatorship, without recourse to law.

  • Posted By: Metastasio @ 07/02/2008 7:00:16 PM

    For the record, what's the definitive evolutionary biology textbook we need to read to be brought out of the bronze age (as one poster put it)? Maybe a scientist that knows could post a link to a syllabus too. I would be happy to read more.

    • Posted By: student/teacher @ 07/02/2008 7:45:47 PM

      Copying from below again:
      As for some lite reading I have a couple of suggestions:

      Abusing Science by Philip Kitcher, a little old but a good summary of most creationist arguments in their various forms and an explantion of their inaccuracies.

      Evolutionary Biology by Futuyma is a good general text on modern evolutionary theory and reserach.

      Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution by Dan Graur and Wen-Hsiung Li has a whole section on the evolution of the globin family of molecules and the molecular evidence that supports it.

      • Posted By: Rev. BigDumbChimp @ 07/02/2008 7:51:57 PM

        Yep. Those are much better and more in depth technically. The Zimmer book is a good overview. So you have some good choices now!

        • Posted By: Metastasio @ 07/02/2008 8:48:49 PM

          Thanks, to you both. I will put these on my "to read" list. It's been fun today...

          • Posted By: Rev. BigDumbChimp @ 07/02/2008 9:03:01 PM

            Cheers! Have a great night!

    • Posted By: Rev. BigDumbChimp @ 07/02/2008 7:33:35 PM

      There is no "Definitive" book. There are very many. One good place to start is "Evolution: The Triumph of andIdea" by Carl Zimmer. It is an overview. If you want to get more technical then you'd want to get into college level Biology and evolution book. Ken Miller (a Catholic) and his writing partner Levine have a great series of text books published by Prentice Hall.

      • Posted By: Rev. BigDumbChimp @ 07/02/2008 7:35:01 PM

        "The Triumph of an Idea". i fat finger type :)

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/02/2008 8:52:27 PM

    Jeremiah was a bullfrog.

  • Posted By: student/teacher @ 07/02/2008 8:02:44 PM

    Ok, I'm out, I have dinner to attend to and I need to put the pile of textbooks back where they go now.

  • Posted By: toddnunya @ 07/02/2008 7:49:28 PM

    I enjoyed the article, but I have no idea why it was written. Just because they were born on the same day is no reason to compare the two. It's as it the writer was told to come up with something by x/x deadline and this is the result. Or maybe a story to catch the publics eye to reach the ultimate goal; sell advertisements...

    Malcolm Jones (the writer); I'd love to read a detailed story about Darwin. The Beagle, his father, wife, schooling, time on the islands. Maybe more of his personality, childhood, passions. I think Darwin???s work is amazing and I'd be glued to the story. And no, I do not wish to read an entire book on the man, I simply don't have the time or patience, but a 3-5 page story would be welcomed.

  • Posted By: matt2373 @ 07/02/2008 4:00:06 PM

    To think the human eye came about by natural selection is I freely confess absurd in the highest
    degree. - Darwins Origin of Species.
    Sounds to me like Darwin had second thoughts.

    • Posted By: Enterprise-E @ 07/02/2008 4:03:38 PM

      That doesn't make it truth or fiction- it merely means that darwin had some second thoughts.

      • Posted By: Rev. BigDumbChimp @ 07/02/2008 7:20:41 PM

        No because you aren't getting the full meaning from what he was saying.

      • Posted By: matt2373 @ 07/02/2008 4:07:01 PM

        It is just amusing that a lot of people seem to believe in evolution more than Darwin apparantley did.

    • Posted By: Karey43 @ 07/02/2008 5:00:39 PM

      To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

      Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.
      ???Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

      Quit lying, liar.

    • Posted By: Rev. BigDumbChimp @ 07/02/2008 4:25:59 PM

      Quote mining. That quote is without context and not full repeated here. Please try and educate yourself and stop parroting everything you here. I answered that quote below.

  • Posted By: Metastasio @ 07/02/2008 5:47:17 PM

    Typical exchange between and ID scientist an and evolutionist:
    IDS: If science corrects its mistakes through time, why can't we discard Darwin's theory of common ancestry if no mechanism is shown to be possible or even plausible through an accumulation of scientific evidence?
    EVO: It's possible, in fact we have many examples!
    IDS: Where?
    EVO: Backwards cave dweller- get yourself to class and study, I don't have time to explain this to knuckle-draggers such as yourself!
    IDS: I've been to class, and studied a lot...
    EVO: Slimy creationist! All you talk about is faith- you want to replace our textbooks with the Bible.
    IDS: I NEVER said that, in fact I love science and exploration.
    EVO: Liar. I KNOW what you're up to.

    • Posted By: student/teacher @ 07/02/2008 5:54:22 PM

      Wow, except you're the one ignoring my response in which I referenced a summary of the arguments. I'm sorry that I have a life outside of this discussion and can't summarize 20 years worth of reasearch for you RIGHT NOW but that's really not my problem. There is plenty of evidence. If you're not willing to spend the time to read all of it yourself, I can't do anything about that, but I can correct your misconceptions since guess what, I have spent the time learning about this and have studied the work. Do you question whether the computer programmer knows more about computers than you do? Why is it then ok to assume that you know more about a subject than someone who has spent their entire life studying it?

      • Posted By: Metastasio @ 07/02/2008 6:33:57 PM

        Thanks for the snippet- I responded. If you could direct me to some scientific journal articles I would most appreciate it- perhaps discussing the hemoglobin comparison that your excerpt mentions. I believe the computer programmer in so much as he is provable. If he comes to my office to fix my computer over and over and it's not fixed, then I question his authority on the subject. Incidently, student/teacher do you believe that someone can read the books on computer programming and be just as knowledgable as a person with a degree? I'm curious about your opinion on this.

        • Posted By: Metastasio @ 07/02/2008 6:43:02 PM

          knowledgeable, oops. Anyway, "entire life studying" computer program? I've been reading both side of the theory of evolution now for 25 years. Does that count for anything? If you remember the appendix was a vestigal organ, left there by evolution. Now scientists say it is not, as it is there with an evolutionary purpose. Whatever did happen to vestigal organs? Perhaps there prancing in flowery fields with the undiscovered common ancestors. The lack of vestigal organs is yet another weakness of evolution that has yet to be explained.

          • Posted By: student/teacher @ 07/02/2008 7:10:41 PM

            An example of exaptation, astounding! Doesn't refute evolutionary theory at all, in fact it supports. Another example of how the "purpose" of structures changes over time based on need, since originally the appendix was used for helping us digest roughage.

            As for some lite reading I have a couple of suggestions:

            Abusing Science by Philip Kitcher, a little old but a good summary of most creationist arguments in their various forms and an explantion of their inaccuracies.

            Evolutionary Biology by Futuyma is a good general text on modern evolutionary theory and reserach.

            Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution by Dan Graur and Wen-Hsiung Li has a whole section on the evolution of the globin family of molecules and the molecular evidence that supports it.

    • Posted By: ChrisRosendin @ 07/02/2008 5:51:01 PM

      And this proves what? That some people that don't believe in the creation story are abrasive? Hmm, I bet all the creationists are sweetness and light.

      • Posted By: student/teacher @ 07/02/2008 6:21:20 PM

        Well obviously I should be thrilled that I have to constatly defend something which I have spent years and thousands of dollars in student loans to become an expert on to every person who's taken 10th grade science and read a few books on the subject. It's ok though, we biologist no longer have to suffer alone. I'm already hearing lots of rumors of creationist attacks on big bang, geologic theories and every other scientific theory that contradicts Genesis so it looks like everybody's in for fun times! Pretty soon we'll be on a flat planet again!

    • Posted By: Objectivisor @ 07/02/2008 6:06:23 PM

      I for one do not think that you are a cave dweller.

  • Posted By: lobsternooberg @ 07/02/2008 4:37:31 PM

    I think Darwin wins hands down. Lincoln and the American civil war was not fought to free the slaves and this conversation has nothing to do with god.

    Didn't the south have a right to rule themselves how they saw fit? Didn't lincoln violate the constitution, concept of democracy, and plunge the entire nation into the bloodiest war it has ever seen?

    Darwin changed the philosophical and scientific paradigm of the whole world, not just america

    • Posted By: Avenger442 @ 07/02/2008 5:10:55 PM

      What you think has many flaws in it. Please read the two books suggested above.
      In the end who is correct is what counts. Darwin's theory concerning man has not been proven correct but Lincoln's understanding of freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution were correct.
      One of the things that I love most about science is how many times it can prove itself wrong. The paradigms can shift at anytime. However the freedom, that is an inalienable right, never shifts.

      • Posted By: jim6584 @ 07/02/2008 7:09:01 PM

        Avenger442 - What are you talking about with "However the freedom, that is an inalienable right, never shifts".

        How about the right to vote in this country. You're not really free until you have a voice. If your voice can't be heard then your not really free.

        It started out with only land holding white men, then on to all white men, then on to black men after they were freed from slavery, (btw - slavery is a bad thing for freedom), then we made it impossilble for black men to vote, then women had to fight to be able to vote, then black american had to fight like crazy to be able to vote freely and fairly.

        Freedom is a function of our rights. When we have the right to do or choose something then we are free. When we lose the right to do or have something then we lose our freedom. It is always shifting.

        I have the right to say I think the only reason you are against Darwin is because you want to protect you religion and feel Darwinism attack religion and the existence of God. To me it is the only logical reason that religion has attacked evoloution and not the other throries of science like Gravity or atomic theory. I say that because the books you recommend are religious based books and not based on current science research.

        The ID movement is trying to bypass science and trying to inject their religion into the minds of the children of this country in the Science class room by casting doubt on science.

        With regards to the theory not being proven correct I know someone like youself will never ever no matter how much evidence is presented ever accept Darwinism. It is okay. I understand you are free to believe in what ever God or religous bliefs you want. But save that for the religion classroom and leave science for actually hard science. All modern biology and genics is based on evolouion or as you may refer to is eviloution but it is yeilding great and wonderful results and it helps all of us stay alive. I would like the next generation of childern to learn about it and I woul like this country to remain at the top of this feild forever.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse