Missing Links in Darwin Day Poll

Yes, allow academic freedom to respectfully air facts, experimental results, and different theories and interpretations to explain them. We are Americans. We can handle the truth, in all its intricacies and nebulosities, if only we're allowed to hear from ALL sides, not just those politically acceptable as correct.

I think we need to come up with a new word for "theory." Somehow people have gotten the word "theory" confused with "hypothesis." That is to say, people think of theories as being an idea that may be sort of rooted in make believe. I suppose this probably comes from things like physics where we learn that an object in motion will stay in motion unless it is stopped. We know that is theoretically true, but then you throw a ball and don't stop it, and fail to consider that something else did.

Thus we should not be surprised when people start saying, "well, it's just a theory."

The problem is that a scientific theory is the explanation for a phenomenon that is developed from all existing scientific evidence and is not contradicted by any scientific evidence. Someone who understands what a theory is would immediately see statement B as problematic: it says right in the statement that evolution is a THEORY, but then suggests that there is scientific evidence against it. If there were scientific evidence against it, then it would not be a theory.

Now I understand that some strict creationists have a big problem with all of that. That's fine. They are welcome to say that science is flawed/evil/whatever. It's the people who are trying to PROVE that there is a God that really get to me. Anyone who is religious knows that belief in God is a matter of faith. If you could prove that God existed, there would be no need for faith, would there? It's possible to be religious and still believe in science, though you might have to reconsider strict interpretation of Genesis.

The more I look at Charles Darwin, the more I am convinced that he descended from apes. Why do not we agree that that everything living and non-living was created and try to discover the art, wonder, mechanics and intelligence in the creation? Let us be not arrogant with our little knowledge that is a drop in a ocean compared to what we know not, and feel humble at God’s, Allah or the Greatest Scientist, if you wish to call Him with a new name To think that people will give up religion because of modernism and atheist and materialism lewdness is foolish. My religion makes me and billions of its adherents happy, and so does Christianity, whether religion provides order, discipline, community life or the promise of immortality. So, instead of bashing Islam, which drives its adherents away from the rest of the world, let’s accept its excellence, its magnificent ancient civilization, and its immense contribution to science and support their efforts to create a modern Islamic society ahead in the life-here-after.

Atheists might assert that they don’t acknowledge the existence of God, but the view of some Christians and all Muslims is that at some level even a die-hard atheist wishes for God’s presence and His hand around him. The innate but neglected awareness of God typically surfaces in Atheist consciousness only in times of severe hardship, acute illness, incurable disease, mental depression of tired of living.
The discoveries of Newton in the sphere of matter and those of Darwin in the sphere of natural history discover a mechanism working from beyond time zero. All problems, it was believed were really the problem of Physics, Energy, micro Biology, physiology and atoms with the properties self-existing in them, could explain everything including life itself, thought, will and feeling. The concept of science and mechanism is a purely physical concept claimed to be the all-embracing explanation of Nature but not true. Powerful telescopes, electron microscopes, laser beams are not the end of that can see and exists in the universe but the Reality will remain beyond the reach of ‘man’ imagination and knowledge, and that is the demarcation line between human achievement and his limitation of acquired knowledge.

We are born and meant to discover the forces that exist and lives in the universe and lives inside and functions in our bodies, in organic life, and use it for the good of mankind and not for its destruction. The question, then, is whether the passage to Reality through the revelations of sense perception necessarily leads to a view of Reality essentially opposed to the view that religion And the battle for and against mechanism is still being fiercely fought in the domain of biology. Takes of its ultimate character. Is Natural science finally committed to materialism?”

Francis Bacon has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God.

“Life’s greatest tragedy is to lose God and not to miss him.”--F.W. Norwood
Even in the middle of the night, they say an atheist believes in God. Surrounded by lions, wolves, crocodiles and hungry wolves in a jungle even an atheist, I am sure would pray, “If there was a God to help me.”
"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. . CS Lewis,."
On a battlefield when smart bombs, cruise misslies and shells are falling all around him, and in a foxhole, there is no atheist; on a death row, on a hang man's rope and on the electric chair facing execution, there are no atheists and they all wish that they believed in God and beg for His mercy in the life -here - after from further punishment.

An atheist looks at a beautiful building and thinks of it’s architect; at a painting and thinks of it’s painter but when he looks at his beautiful body and its miraculous anatomical, biological and physiological functions, he denies it’s Creator and believes that it evolved at random and by accident. Surrounded by a world of synchronous complexities, we as mankind cannot even assemble the wing of a gnat. And yet the entire the Universe exists in a perfect order obeying laws of physics.

Look at the eye which is similar to a camera but far more advanced in the way it takes flawless pictures in hundreds of a second, focussing from short to long distances, has its own light and moisture controls and can take 800,000 picture a day without costing a penny. I can go on the marvels of other parts of the body equally miraculous, fascinating and par-excellent and wonders of billions of cells that compose the body with diverse functions.

As well order and organization, we observe beauty and harmony in Allah’s (God’s) tahkleeq (creation) from the beautiful birds of paradise, inspirational feathers of a peacock or the wings of a butterfly to the awe-inspiring landscape of mountains, valleys and the vast sky above. Charles Darwin failed in his theory and said it often that looking at the magnificent feathers of a peacock made him feel ridiculous. Darwinism is used by the materialistic scientists and western government to crush religion, exploit masses, perpetuate immorality and use science for the manufacture of WMDS for death and destruction of mankind.

Materialists, atheists and agnostics consider evolutionary theory to be scientific basis of their ideology and get some intellectual satisfaction from its nonsense. Darwin never underwent any formal education in Biology but was very interested in the study of nature and living things. After his five years of expedition on the HMS Beagle, he developed this idea that since variety of living species in different regions has differences and similarities; they must have originated from a common ancestor. The materialist scientists delude themselves by supporting and teaching this theory and refuse to accept that the complexity of life that exists in the Universe functions in miraculous harmony and order and not by mechanism of chance. It is calculated that a DNA chain small enough to fill a teaspoon has the capacity to store all the information contained in all the books ever written. If we were to write down the information in the DNA, it would take up approximately a million pages and still we would not be sure if it was correct: such is the infinite mystery. This is equal to an encyclopaedia forty times bigger than Encyclopaedia Britannica but this incredible information is contained in the tiny nucleus of billions of our cells. Our body is made up of trillions of cells and each cell functions according to its programme contained in its DNA, and has been doing it for God knows since Adam was created or even before "Time Zero'. Heart cells, brain cells, lungs cells, liver cells, digestive tract cells, eye cells, ear cells and etc etc function as directed and programmed by their Creator to make sure that we carry on living as easily as possible.

"Soon we will show them our signs in the (farthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?" [Al-Quran 41:53]

Well if the idea is to teach the scientific evidence against Darwin's theory, that would certainly leave out "intelligent design", now wouldn't it?

Somehow I don't think that's what they were trying to prove, though.

Honestly though, I think that the intelligent design people should talk all they want and try to convince people, but stay the hell out of science classes because they are religion, not science.

If we want our country to go forward and train the next generation of scientists, doctors and engineers, we need to give our children quality education, and not be hobbled by this junk in our science classes.

I'm not sure whose idealogical bias they used for such misleading questions. It does show how clever those who advance ID are at public relations. They just have no research or evidence to backup Intelligent Design.

If you ask most Americans is it good to teach "strengths and weaknesses", to have "academic freedom" "Are apple pie and motherhood good?" most people will naturally answer in the affirmative.

What is intentionally obscured by the Discovery Institute is that strengths and weaknesses within evolution are already and have always been taught. The speed at which evolution progresses and where species branched off from each other are obvious examples.

Last time I checked, in order to pass a biology test, students were required to LEARN Darwin's theory. On the other hand, BELIEVING in Darwin's theory is definitely not an academic requirement. If a student (or his family / friends / next door neighbor) is not satisfied by the information presented in the classroom, there is nothing in this world that would prevent him/her from picking up a book (in this case it will most likely be the Holy Bible) to look for an alternative explanation.
Basically, as long as you don't want a career in the field of evolutionary biology, your beliefs about the origin of life are between you, God, and maybe your priest.

I would rather not hear from a "side" that is going to lie to my children, thanks. Over and over again, the intelligent design arguments have been shown to be falsehoods: at best, they base their arguments on carefully-cherrypicked areas of research where there are just enough lacunae in our current understanding to shoehorn in unwarranted doubt, or offer up a false dilemma. At worst, they flat-out lie about what the science says and slander hardworking scientists.

Any education that would give "equal time" to the two does a massive disservice to the student.

I believe in God, I am a practicing Catholic and I trust the evidence of evolution.

Now, people are lying on the side of intelligent design and this is poll is just one more example of their moral and intellectual dishonesty. So let them put their money where their mouth is.

1. If you want to teach the controversy, then let's be sure that we teach courses on comparative religions and textual analysis of the Bible (including those parts left out by different religions) You want religion in my science classes? I want science in your religion.

2. For those people who firmly believe that all creation occured in those first 6 days, fine. Please file a form with both your doctor, your hospital and your insurance company stating that for religious beliefs, you will only take penicillin.

Penicillin was a proven effective antibiotic. If there's no evolution, there's no such thing as a drug resistant bug. The rest of us are just making it up.

The reason the Discovery Institute can push this nonsense, which sets back true scientific study in our schools and puts us at a global disadvantage, is because stupidity is no longer fatal in this culture. People who believe in science and reason carry the stupid and purposefully ignorant on our backs.

My faith does not require me to give up reason. Especially when only reason enables us to support 6 billion people on this planet.

The stated goals of the Discovery Institute indicate that the whole "academic freedom" concept is a hoax. It's not about any flaws in the natural selection hypothesis. If evidence indicated some other process, and science adopted that hypothesis, creationists would probably fight just as hard against it.

"I would rather not hear from a 'side' that is going to lie to my children, thanks."

Their agenda is broader than that - ultimately they want to convert your children and mine to their religion.

If the American people want Intelligent Design or Creationism taught in the public schools as a science it is because Evolution has been missing in our school curriculum for 50 years, leaving a deep well of ignorance regarding the facts. The extreme right wing religious groups have prevented this vital information from being taught by taking over local school boards. Evolution is the foundation for every progressive bit of technology that exists in our culture. It is the foundation for all understanding and advances in medicine, electronics, knowledge of space, history, and every aspect of science vital in modern life. Religion is not science, it cannot be tested or proved, it is not a theory, it is faith, period. It does not belong in our schools and is banned by the clause in the Constitution that states 'there shall be a separation of church and state'. This poll only affirms that the science of evolution requires greater emphasis in our general education.

Personally, I think the Orwellian Fundie abuse of words like 'Freedom' and 'Patriot' are a disgustingly-tacky legacy to leave our descendants to learn about in history class. Assuming *that* isn't too 'heretical' for them.

Maybe we need to ask: What is the psychological need that causes people to deny reality, i.e., the scientific evidence of evolution.

771979 wrote:

"Atheists might assert that they don’t acknowledge the existence of God, but the view of some Christians and all Muslims is that at some level even a die-hard atheist wishes for God’s presence and His hand around him. The innate but neglected awareness of God typically surfaces in Atheist consciousness only in times of severe hardship, acute illness, incurable disease, mental depression of tired of living."

So the Holocaust inspires one to believe in god. Or, to paraphrase an old--and entirely false saying--there are no atheists guarding the gas chambers.

"The discoveries of Newton in the sphere of matter and those of Darwin in the sphere of natural history discover a mechanism working from beyond time zero."

This is a nonsensical conclusion for which you offer no support. You assume god exists, and then claim that science thus proves god exists.

"On a battlefield when smart bombs, cruise misslies and shells are falling all around him, and in a foxhole, there is no atheist..."

This is false. Pat Tilman was an atheist. His atheist values made him walk away from a multi-million dollar salary to join the Army and defend his country. His christian colleagues stayed behind to worship the almighty dollar. And there are plenty of other atheists in foxholes, in combat, in battle. That's why we have the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (http://www.maaf.info/). That's why christians in the military persecute them. If they ain't there, why go after them?

Saying someone you dislike does not exist is the ultimate justification for killing them. You do not exist. Thus, killing you is no crime.

The Koran, like the Bible, is a collection of fairy tales for which there is no proof.

771979 wrote:
"Look at the eye which is similar to a camera but far more advanced in the way it takes flawless pictures in hundreds of a second, focussing from short to long distances, has its own light and moisture controls and can take 800,000 picture a day without costing a penny. I can go on the marvels of other parts of the body equally miraculous, fascinating and par-excellent and wonders of billions of cells that compose the body with diverse functions."

Can you go on about the fact that our eyes (all vertebrate eyes actually) are really put together rather badly with the blood vessels in front of the light-sensing cells. Mine also do not take flawless pictures because I have to wear glasses. And why are we saddled with things like an appendix and wisdom teeth that often cause more problems than they solve? And why aren't our spines really built properly for walking upright, and why does our reproductive system look like it was built by Rube Goldberg, and...

I'm not saying that any of this proves that we weren't created by God -- that would be presumptuous. But it does suggest that if He did it, He did a rather bad job of it. Or maybe He subcontracted out to a lesser deity. :)

Since when does "requiring" anything amount to "freedom"?

Here are the main weaknesses for those who don't want to be ingorant:

Origin of Life Weaknesses.

Fossil Record Weaknesses.

Presently Observed Nature Weaknesses.

Obviously you can find more information on these weaknesses if you are interested on being informed.

Now, who here didn't know how Dawkins would respond. Next time, you might want to ask someone who isn't the most pronounced atheist/darwinist in the world. It would be much more interesting.

Obviosly the question could have been asked in different ways but the polls continue to show that people don't want their kids indoctrinated with Darwinism. All theories have strong and week points and they always should be given. That should be obvious to any scientist.

Even when people are asked if creationism should be taught, over 50% say they want it. And we are looking at Intelligent Design which does not use religion in any way to prove anything. Just admit that is what people want. That is all the Discovery Institue is showing.

"the view of some Christians and all Muslims is that at some level even a die-hard atheist wishes for God’s presence and His hand around him. The innate but neglected awareness of God typically surfaces in Atheist consciousness only in times of severe hardship, acute illness, incurable disease, mental depression of tired of living."

There are several baseless assumptions there. First is the assumption that supernatural life would involve a single god, as opposed to many gods or animal spirits or some other varieties. Second, whatever the "awareness" phenomenon is, we cannot assume that it would be caused by such a being. Deists believe in gods without any such phenomenon. Third, we cannot assume that the presence of a god would be a good thing - it may be a bad thing or it may be neutral. It's possible for gods to exist that are indifferent to human existence.

To Kert1, the first commenter: you ask why Waters would contact Dawkins for his comment, given that Dawkins is "the most pronounced atheist/darwinist in the world" (your words in quotation marks).

Hmmmm...the subject here is teaching evolution in science classrooms vs. teaching religion, the controversy is debated by scientists/secularists and religious adherents, Dawkins is one of the best known person to occupy the scientist/secularist position, AND he's a world-class expert on Darwin and evolution. You've convinced me! I can't think of any reason why Dawkins' opinion would be valuable! You really got us there, Kert1! It would be WAY more valuable to contact someone who doesn't have any idea of what's going on in science and/or the science vs. intelligent design debate. Maybe that would be you...

And, as for intelligent design not being about religion, ask yourself this: who IS the designer, anyway? Could it be an ancient computer that's been manipulating the universe for eons, a kid in an alternate universe doing a science experiment, or would it be...God. Hmmmmmm.......

There is no scientific evidence against evolution. The Supreme Court already ruled that only science can be taught in our schools. Thousands of papers have been written on evolution and none have ever found any reason to change it.
Why do these ID creationists think the spirit world belongs in a classroom? The Discovery Institute has no theory or anything else. The only thing they do is twist science around to support their position. They sure wouldn't get very far using the bible. The bible has no mention of how anything was created let alone man. Because when it was written men didn't know anything. The bible has been changed to support the power of the church many times and the church was never worried about how anything was created until Darwin came along. Why would someone want to live in the Dark Ages at a time when we have all this knowledge. We know how the Universe was created. Our world today is filled with scientific discoveries.
Religion and science are two different subjects, we still have churchs and we still have schools and thats the way it should be.

Rationalista,
As for Dawkins, I think their are plenty of other "experts" he could have cited. My point is we all knew what he was going to say and he wasn't going to persuade anyone at this point.

I'll give an example. I think it is like having a hotly debated piece of legislation up for vote in congress. You obviously have people on both side who agree or disagree in different degrees. Why would ask the Author and Sponsor of the Bill what he thinks of it. You already know the answer. Go ask someone else that had to think about might have something more interesting to say.

Dawkins practically wrote the book for Darwinists. He is very devisive and it's doubtful he persuades anyone anymore. He has even fallen out of favor with other Atheists because of lack of respect for people. I'm sure he can find someone else that supports him that at least give a decent argument. But that is his loss. It just seems like this guy is Dawkins disciple.

As for the identity of the designer, I'm afraid that is beyond the reach of science or ID. Of course I could be wrong but I find it unlikely science will show us who is behind the curtain. That is why Science isn't all encompassing and we have other disciplines like religion to answer these questions.

I'm glad you ask who is behind it all. I believe this is a very good question. Personally I do believe God is behind it all. Of course, science didn't show me this but it does confirm it. I pray you will seek out these answers too.

Science teachers should teach science and only science.

If you want your kids to be brainwashed into believing superstition and mythology in place of science, send them to a religious school.

On your dime.

Evolution is one of scientists strongest theories and perhaps the most important theory in all Biology. It has gotten stronger with time and is the basis for our understanding of how all life evolves on this planet.

It would be terribly easy to disprove, just show an "advanced' organism appearing in the fossil record prior to a "less advanced organism." If anyone could find this, then done, Evolution would be disproved.

But the main point here is that, by definition, there can be no evidence "against" a scientific theory, bcause a scientific theory must take into account all available evidence. All evidence must support a theory, and there can be no evidence that does not support it, or the theory will be modified or discarded.

It's a pity people in the U.S. are so ignorant about the basics of science.

You "religious" folk can believe anything you want. It's a freedom you have that you want to take away from others. Go pose, pretend, primp, pray, posture and pimp poor old Jesus with your own on Sunday, but stop trying to shove your head-in-the-sand "creationism" down the throats of school children as if America were your own private theocratic nightmare. We've had enough of this during the eight years of Cheney's Jesuslandia.

Another science tid-bit for those who believe woman was made out of a rib-bone.

Intelligent Design and creationism can NEVER be taught in a science classroom.

Why?

Because anything taught as science has to be DISPROVABLE.

There is no test that can be performed that could tell us whether ID or Creatiionsism is true or not. Therefore, these fictions can never be taught as science. Period.

As noted below, it would be terribly easy to disprove Evolution, and anyway all available evidence collected over the past 150 years strongly supports the theory of Evolution, and there is no evidence that does not.

Of course, this continues to frustrate and chagrin Religious types, who just can't get their heads around what "Science" "facts" and "knowledge" really means.

Academic freedom is besides the point in this case. Science teachers can't teach what the Discovery Institute wants them to because it just isn't true. It's like the Indiana Pi Bill, which tried to legislate a value of 3.2 for pi. Neither instance is a matter of opinion - there is a clear right answer and wrong answer, which is very apparent to people involved in the field.

The issue has nothing to do with the validity of religion.

The mechanism of evolution exists. The theory of this mechanism addresses it, and thus becomes "the theory of evolution.” The manufactured religious-based controversy over the theory of evolution goes away by properly defining the word "theory." This word "theory" means "the best explanation of all the facts." Hence, the word "theory" does not involve guesswork, emotion, notional beliefs, the supernatural, and suchlike, as part of its definition. Instead, a theory brings related factual material and information under one explanation. In turn, a theory, by its definition, does not address the non-factual. A discussion of evolution theory involves reason as applied to facts using various thought processes: logical, rational, and analytic. Religious assertions and alternatives regarding the theory of evolution have no place in this rigorous circle of factual discussion. Furthermore, the approach of strict materialism suffices to bring knowledge and understanding to the mechanism of evolution.

Beliefs in the origin of life and the belief in natural selection are two different issues. Despite gaps in the fossil record, the general trend of more complex fossils lying in newer rocks is well recorded. However, the theories of chemical evolution of life are speculation.

Not a believer in a big sky god touching Adam's finger, just a well trained scientific skeptic noting that the evidence is extremely thin for abiogenisis. It isn't science. For myself, I'm more attuned to the idea of panspermia, but that ain't science either.

I’m not against biology teachers to explain the weaknesses of the evolution theory. It will take a teacher no more than 30 seconds to say that there is no scientific weakness about the central theory because evolution is a proven fact. Then the rest of the course will be dedicated to teach biology as they teach it today.

Also I’m all for the idea that biology teachers should teach ID and cover all the scientific aspects of the bible that support this theory. That will be a hell of enriching single course for students. Think about your children been requested to work in the following projects:

- Chemical components of a fruit that was intelligently designed to kill humans but only makes them to be aware of good/evil behaviors and to discover nakedness.
- Development phases of a female body from a male rib.
- Biological impact and statistical chances that a human body survive within a whale’s mouth.
- Evaluation of the interaction of all existing species at a given moment in a single vessel. Include a chapter on the incidence that a single environment can have on species from different climatic regions. Another chapter on how the interbreeding laws can be suspended for the descendant of the living creatures in the vessel.
- Propose a reasonable explanation on how kangaroos migrated from Mount Ararat to Australia without leaving fossil traces. Include a chapter on kangaroo’s long haul swimming abilities. An optional topic in this project could be the evaluation of the Australian Olympic gold medalists as descendant from kangaroos.
- Identification of new species that appeared as a result of the earth turning from flat to round.

Peace to all and best wishes,

JAC

Dawkins is correct. If there is scientific evidence *against* evolution then yes, most people think it should not be suppressed. But though the Discovery 'Institute' says such evidence exists, they do not publish it. Waving hands and pointing out discrepancies is not science. If scientific evidence exists against the evolutionary theory, then let them bring it forward in publications where their findings can be scrutinized. Fat chance.

But that is not really the question people should be thinking about. If the Discovery 'Institute' gets its way, along with evolution will be taught religion. Who wants a biology teacher teaching their children religion? Consider that the biology teacher might be christian, buddist, atheist, hindu, muslim, etc. This is why we do not have religion in public schools, unless you want your child's hindu teacher explaining to your christian son their idea of creation, or visa versa. I swear, the stupidity of these fundamentalist christians is scary. Reminds me of other crazy people who believe of having 37 virgins in paradise if they only blow up infidels in a suicide mission. Nuts one and all.

Just to give you an idea of what intelligent design is, this is from the Discovery Institute website:
----
Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
----
Ok, let me try to step you though the illogic of the above statement. The only thing they get right is the "scientific method". But using the scientific method alone is not how one creates a theory. A theory is developed by reviewing a lot of evidence from the scientific method. A hypothesis is developed and then tested by making predictions. After the hypothesis successfully making predictions, it becomes a theory. For example, anatomical studies show humans are closely related to apes. Studies of blood proteins show common proteins. Evolution says humans and apes are closely related and DNA evidence should show the close relationship, which in the last decade it has.

They say that ID theory "hypothesize" that designed systems will have a lot of "CSI". Now remember, they admit that this is a hypothesis. So, with no information other than a hypothesis, an idea, they select what they are looking for, CSI. They then look at structures for CSI. When they determine a structure has CSI they deem it designed. So no theory was ever developed based on observation and evidence, just this hypothesis. No predictions are made, such as humans being unrelated to all animals, or an animal created appearing in the fossil record.

What they are doing is circular logic and they even ignore their own definitions. For example, ID proponents often point to the eye as proof of a designer. I guess it has CSI. However it is far from perfect. The lens will continue to grow but retain its shape, until you get older and it can no longer maintain its shape as it continually thickens. I guess they also ignore the number of people who need glasses or contacts. And you will go blind if you live old enough. Also, the back of the eye collects the nerves into a bundle on the surface near the center of the retina, where it forms the optic nerve and leads out the back of the eye to the brain. This is a major design flaw since by having this structure on the surface of the eye it produces a blind spot. We all have it, our brain ignores it, but it is there and we do not see everything that is in front of us. Why would such a nicely designed eye have such a flaw, especially when some bird eyes have a different design which does not create a blind spot? But my guess is that this major design flaw and the other flaws did not enter into the the determination of CSI.

One should teach in chemistry classes two theories of the nature of matter, one with electrons, one without them. There is abundant evidence against electrons. No one has actually seen, let alone spoken to, an electron. Neither the bible, the Quran, nor any religious book mentions them.

"Do we want biology teachers to teach science or religion or both?"

Biology teachers should teach science only, not wasting one second talking about childish religious ideas like intelligent design magic.

Since nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, evolution should be major part of all biology lessons.

JAC,
You forgot to mention that the first time (and second, and third, and fourth...) that each of the predators had a meal after stepping off the ark, a species was made extinct.

If we're going to teach I.D. alongside evolution, we should also teach astrology alongside astronomy, alchemy alongside chemistry, witchcraft alongside medicine, and flat Earth theory alongside geology.

Kert1:

Please! Dawkins is cited by Waters because Dawkins is a leading expert in this area. When you say you want to see someone cited who has "something interesting" to say, I have the feeling you mean "someone who agrees with me."

Make no mistake about it, Dawkins is very popular with atheists, scientists and free-thinkers across the globe. He makes cogent arguments about the inability of religion to accurately describe or explain the natural world, and for this, the religious intolerants dislike him. So, because he won't bow down and give legitimacy to religious "truth," you feel he's not "showing respect for people"? Have you read Dawkins?? A more genial and enlightened person is hard to find. And as for Waters being a "disciple" of Dawkins? Have you read Waters much? It seems unlikely that you have. (And one more thing, while I'm on the subject--Dawkins didn't "write the book on Darwin," Darwin wrote the book that allows Dawkins to do the scientific work that he does. Darwinism is not a religion in which Dawkins is an adherent. That's ridiculous. Evolution is science. Dawkins is a scientist. Enough with the "science is just another religion" nonsense.)

And finally, the reason the identity of the "designer" is "beyond the reach of science and ID" (as you say) is because there is no designer. Period. There is only nature and natural processes. Religion is a terrible alternative when it comes to serious consideration of how the universe began and why we exist in this precious biosphere of ours. It's time to leave the stone age and admit that there is no god who created the world. I hope that you'll leave the shadows and enter the light of rational thought soon.

Just science, please. There is ZERO scientific support for intelligent design other than at perhaps Liberty and Oral Roberts "universities." Let them teach it in church, along with Jonah and the whale and the parting of the seas, virgin birth, dead arising, etc. This is all just religious hucksters peddling their wares that has been bought by the feeble of mind. We have no reason to kow tow to morons. Teach science in schools and chant superstition in churches and keep the two completely seperate.

Reviewing these comments underlines the importance of 'teaching the controversy' - a lot of posturing here but not much weight. In Britain, Dawkins is increasingly labeled an 'atheist fundamentalist' (now there is a thought to chew on...!) because of his tendency to build a 'straw man' of selected religious beliefs which are easy to knock down. He chooses the shallow and irrational beliefs (which, incidentally, you find among scientists too) and of course easily blows them away. However he studiously ignores the far deeper and more sophisticated beliefs and principles honed over hundreds of years. A good start, for those interested in looking beyond their comfortable posturing, might be Alister McGrath's small book, 'The Dawkins Delusion'.

If we are going to have a controversy, let's have a genuinely informed one.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN: BEEN THERE, DONE THAT!

This whole idea of intelligent design explaining what we can't yet explain is nothing new. In fact, it is the oldest technique that humanity has ever used for explaining the natural world. Supernatural explanations, using deities to explain what humanity could not understand, have been around for thousands of years and have been woefully unproductive in advancing civilization through understanding and knowledge about nature. Look at the results of thousands of years of intelligent design (a.k.a. religious) methodology to the results of the last few decades that scientific methodology (a.k.a. naturalism) has been explaining the world. Intelligent design has taken us from hunter-gatherers to horse-drawn carts over thousands of years. Science has taken us from horse-drawn carts to man on the moon and exploring the outer reaches of the universe in just a couple of centuries. What more really needs to be said?
Intelligent design answers have shackled human intellect for thousands of years with dead-end explanations. Intelligent design explanations offer nothing; no way of predicting what the future may hold based on evidence, no ability to recognize patterns in nature that could be used for explanations or further investigation. Intelligent design is the knowledge killer not an answer. It is time that we crushed this horrible antiquated movement to keep human intellect in the dark ages of ignorance, fear and superstition. The credulity in vast numbers of our populace, in this anti-science movement is a real threat to the very foundation of our civilization. Remember: never underestimate the power of large numbers of ignorant people. Carl Sagan once mentioned that the greatest danger facing humanity is to have the technology of an advanced civilization being directed by the superstitions of an ancient philosophy. All it would take is a few very religiously motivated individuals in positions of absolute power to bring about a self-fulfilling prophecy of doomsday.
The only way to prevent what has already happened several times in human history (e.g. ancient Greece, Mesopotamia etc.), the demise of intellectual advances in civilization by superstitiously ignorant masses, is to promote the vigorous and complete education in the natural sciences of all young people. Science is the most objective endeavor for knowledge and understanding of the natural world that humanity has ever developed. It is without question the most profound way to develop skills of critical thinking in each and every citizen, skills that are so important for being able to make informed decisions on policies that affect the direction our country and our lives take each and every day.
Keep intelligent design where it belongs; in the history books of bad ideas based on ignorance, fear, superstition and credulity.

Political correctness has nothing to do with any of this. We're talking about science, and science education, so we strive for scientific correctness. Creationism and ID have no scientific merit; asking us to teach them is like demanding that we teach about phlogiston in chemistry classes. When the creationists come up with NEW evidence, rather than the same old Paleyism, they can publish it in real scientific journals, let other people test it, and hope that it appears in the textbooks someday.

Secondly, as Doonesbury noted, the Discovery Institute is not a think tank, it is a belief tank. A bigger bunch of liars would be hard to find.

I find it somewhat disappointing how these comments have turned into a platform for atheists to bash anyone with religious beliefs. I think the point of the discussion is that there are holes in Darwin's theory and many people want to discuss it in a rational, non-judgmental manner. I see nothing wrong with teaching students about the weaknesses in Darwin's theory - even he pointed out that it had flaws.

skealh wrote: "However he [Dawkins] studiously ignores the far deeper and more sophisticated beliefs and principles honed over hundreds of years."

Dawkins has made a challenge asking what ethics or morals *require* a belief in God. One example he gives is the Good Samaritan. Presumably this Samaritan was not christian since Christianity did not exist at the time. He was certainly not a Hebrew since the Hebrews hated the Samaritans. Yet this Samaritan did what today we would call a "christian thing". Funny how morals and ethics are collected and branded as being from a religion when they exist in all men naturally. How many christian acts did you read about as the Sechuan earthquake stories started to be told? The flaw in most religions is that they appoint themselves as the source and guardians of goodness in an evil world, ignoring that goodness has always been in the hearts of all men. And while some will argue that Christianity makes people better morally, they ignore that prisons are filled with christians, more as a percentage of population than atheists.

skealh wrote: "If we are going to have a controversy, let's have a genuinely informed one."

Oh I agree. But, before we have a controversy let each side present their arguments. The side that knows the truth of evolution and evolutionary theory has 150 years of research, successful discoveries and testing of the theory. The ID side has a website.

Amused8 wrote: "I find it somewhat disappointing how these comments have turned into a platform for atheists to bash anyone with religious beliefs."

When a belief is being presented as a truth and reality is painted as wrong, well, it gets rationally thinking people a little upset, especially when this drivel is going to be presented to our children by the authority of teachers. Personally I think religion is fine. Most people are not fundamentalist about their religion. They go to a hospital when sick instead of a church for example.

Amused8 wrote: "I think the point of the discussion is that there are holes in Darwin's theory and many people want to discuss it in a rational, non-judgmental manner."

First of all, there are no holes in the theory of evolution. There are unknowns, missing information, but that does not shed doubt on the theory. The evidence for evolution is as obvious as gravity and the theory has held up under thousands of predictions and tests. What predictions does ID make that have been discovered to be true? Their whole argument is that evolution cannot explain the development of the flagella, or the perfect nature of the eye, yet a careful examination of these structures and these structures in other animals shows a clear line of evolutionary development. They also obfuscate information, for example saying that random mutation cannot lead from single cells to organisms as complex as humans, but evolution does not rely on random mutation alone and anyone who read an introductory book on evolution would understand that. The source for this attempt to cast doubt on a sound scientific theory is clear, religious fundamentalism, the same type that causes people in some countries to keep girls out of schools and women at home or veiled against all evidence that women are equal to men when it comes to school and work.

Amused8 wrote: "I see nothing wrong with teaching students about the weaknesses in Darwin's theory - even he pointed out that it had flaws."

Yes, but 150 years ago he did not have the information we have today, the years of fossil collection and study, the discovery of DNA and most recently its sequencing, all of which support his theory and helped enhance it. Nothing discovered contradicts evoution or the theory as to how it happened. Certainly there are some mysteries, but that is due to an absense of evidence, such as the form of the earliest life. Absense of evidence is not proof of anything.

Of course, who could disagree that evolutionary theory, adaptive biological changes, and related history should be taught in science class? This would include the overall power of the theory to explain what it purports to explain, and how evolutional thinking today has penetrated almost every aspect of life.

Religious traditions should also be taught at the secondary level - for example, in a course entitled 'The Academic Study of Religion'. Utilizing a comparative teaching strategy, various of the world religions could be compared and contrasted as historical, societal and cultural inventions.

The institution of religion is a human creation, and shares much in common with every other institutional complex - whether referring to either modern or primitive cultures.

This objective insight pertains to a multiplicity of religious structures, functions, similarities, differences, and even their origins via the cross-cultural fertilization process. Yes, even religions evolve, although there is a mightly resistance to those inevitable changes!

This is the sensible way to approach the subject of religion - the Discovery Institute and their ilk are interested in selling religion, and Christianity in particular. Mixing apples and oranges is of no educational value whatsoever, other than to confuse and conflate.

Real and ongoing education with regard to religion in the USA would have a considerable 'leveling' effect as to the overall influence of religion, particularly in political and civil matters.

The fact is, religion needs to be studied 'scientifically' in order to gain a true and accurate understanding of it's real nature and place in the scheme of things.

Darwin the agnostic would agree, I have no doubt.

Please don't be surprised that they were conducting a dishonest poll. They need to use dishonesty so it LOOKS like people agree with them.

The issue of evolution versus creationism isn't really about whether gods exist. That's partly because many believers in gods accept natural selection, including some in this thread. The issue is really about the myth of human specialness. It's the myth that the earth and the universe were not merely created, but created specifically for us.

Darwin has enslaved many a people's mind and caused it to be idiotic. For how can a thinking person escape the fact that nature is full of INTELLIGENCE in it?

How stupid can these people get? I can't imagine. These people are SO DUMB.

Natural selection is the process by which FAVORABLE heritable TRAITS become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms.

According to one survey, atheists are 5 times more likely to watch pornography.

Since watching pornography is NOT a favorable trait, does it mean atheists will be gone in succeeding generations? I never thought Darwin's theory is discriminating againsts atheists like himself.

I'd like to see how accurate Darwin's theory is. Maybe the guy has a point afterall if he actually knows the "traits" he was talking about.

spidermean2 pondered: "According to one survey, atheists are 5 times more likely to watch pornography."

That's because, as we've all seen, fundamentalist christians will lie about their sexual daliances. You do not conduct science based on surveys. The information needs to be more concrete. Your ignorance of scientific methods is showing again.

spidermean2 pondered: "Since watching pornography is NOT a favorable trait, does it mean atheists will be gone in succeeding generations? I never thought Darwin's theory is discriminating againsts atheists like himself."

Who says watching pornography is not a favorable trait? Seems to be a favorable trait among fundamnetalist ministers! And considering America is a "christian nation", one has to wonder why pornography is a major industry here compared with other nations of different religions.

spidermean2 pondered: "I'd like to see how accurate Darwin's theory is. Maybe the guy has a point after all if he actually knows the "traits" he was talking about"

You know spidey, doctors say that exercise will help you to live longer. That would be a favorable outcome. But when we look at those who exercise we notice some common traits. They wear athletic shoes and they sweat. Which of these do you consider the reason for the benefit of exercise?

Rationalista,
I said Dawkins wasn't interesting because he doesn't produce an argument. His arguements aren't very good and are critisized by his fellow atheists. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/06/news/atheist.php

I don't read Dawkins because I don't waste time with him. There are many other smart Atheists with respect to other opinions. They come up with real integligent opinions and argue them well. Dawkins to me is just an angry cheerleader for his cause. Not really saying much intelligent but fun to watch if you support him. He is definitely losing support from others who inteligently support atheism.

As for Waters, I know very little of him, but the article wasn't very good. I can only guess his affiliations from the article. If he wants more respect from me he can right something with a better arguement.

As for a designer, you seem very dogmatic in your answer. I would expect to have some more facts to support such an overwhelming claim. I would really like to hear your reasoning behind it.

Honestly, I think there are many good reasons for believing in God. Our pastor has been going over his views of this and there are many reasons that have to do with Science and nothing to do with religion.

As for resources I would point you to "The Good Life" by Chuck Colson. It goes through his reasons for believing in God and why he sees this as the only way. I would also point you to C.S. Lewis books. He was an atheist who turned Christian. I have never read another auther who so clearly describes good reasons for believing in God.

All of these comments remind me of a question a fundamentalist preacher asked an atheist (it may have been Dawkins) that I saw on TV years ago. The preacher asked the atheist which he would be more afraid of when walking on a dark street at night: two big men carrying prayer books, or two big men not carrying prayer books. The idea being that christian men are not to be feared. The atheist responded that his answer would have to depend on whether he was gay or not.

A common mistake made by many religious people AND many atheists is to treat the issue is "God or no God," as if monotheism was the default religious position. In reality, the supernaturalist claims by all religions are alike in terms of factual accuracy - they're all possible but they're all unlikely. If one believes in, say, the Hindu gods, one should be expected to offer arguments against the existence of the Abrahamic god or the Native American spirits or the Shintoist ancestors.

For the sake of discussion, let's forget about the Bible and let's just talk about real science.

All animals like bees are scientific creations. A bee won't be able to move or fly if it defies a single scientific law like any law of physics, chemistry, etc.

A computer won't function if a single equation defying science is added to it. Only a perfect science makes things work, whether it's man made or how animals functions.

INTELLIGENCE is the root cause why these plants and animals work perfectly. No complex system which works perfectly can exist without a guiding INTELLIGENCE behind it.

IDIOTS CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS.

Im just wasting my time for these people and I hope these people start knocking their heads to fix them.

bevjims wrote "Who says watching pornography is not a favorable trait? "

That explains why atheists are 5 times more likely to watch pornography. They consider it as NORMAL like eating food whereas, evangelicals consider it as poison food.

I'd be happy if they'd just teach it more honestly, such as covering the Cambrian period, and showing how 60+ phyla appeared in a very short geological time frame, and how that number has dwindled down to about 30 at the current time. It's a pattern that is the diametric opposite of what purely natural evolution would call for.

The other problem that should be taught is the lack of transitional forms. There shouldn't even be distinct lines between species...the progression should be continuous, not broken. When asked to show examples of transitional forms, there are literally a handful of so-called examples, when there should be millions.

I'm a Christian who believes in an old earth, common descent and natural selection, but a casual observation of the facts suggests there are other forces at work beside purely natural ones. Explaining speciation is hugely problematic, and highly suggests something else is at work. Being able to identify these other forces may fall outside the realms of science, but the problems, and ALL the evidence, should be taught.

Just show the facts...all of them...in a scientific way, without forcing dogmatic explanations upon them. How students choose to view the facts is up to them. I like what one science teacher told some of his Biblically-conservative students about evolution: "I'm not asking you to accept it. I'm simply asking you to understand it as its being taught."

As for the comments about people trying to "prove" God, I don't believe the argument can, or should be, made with evolution as the starting point. Cosmologists note that whatever forces gave rise to the Universe aren't knowable through scientific discovery. As we back up in time to a moment just after the Big Bang, science is of no use in predicting what brought about that singularity as the laws of science break down. The cause of the Universe is unknown. Being able to study the workings of it doesn't disprove God, but not knowing the cause doesn't somehow prove Him, either. It just shows that whichever point of view you choose, you must accept it on faith. Naturalism cannot prove itself without proving how it all started. Any claims to the contrary are circular reasoning.

When the naturalist insists that being able to study the Universe and understand how it works somehow proves naturalism is true, they're implying that they know what a supernaturally-created Universe would look like and how it would operate. That's an audacious claim, and a silly one as well.

In the end, both positions, Creation vs. Natural Origins, start from a point that's unknowable through scientific discovery. We're all moving forward on faith. Either way, for me, the science remains the same.

The biggest strength of evolution according to Darwin and Wallace is that constantly new evidence is coming to light proving the theory true.

The big weakness is actually our weakness--all of us--which is to say we are not really prepared for genetics really getting at the similarities and differences between people. We can acknowledge that there are genetic diseases or that homosexuality has a genetic basis, but when it comes down to examining differences between men and women and between races we break down. In fact it seems we select what we wish to see to "prove" all is right, that there are really no differences to speak of.

Are we sure about that, or are we superimposing Christian sayings that all are equal before God or socialistic leanings on increasing evidence of differences and similarities? That is a question which will be answered whether we like it or not. And we will find out the true strength of Darwin and Wallace's theory only by having strength ourselves, seeing our similarities and differences and somehow living with such, which is to say despite differences we get along, remain moral human beings.

There are no holes in evolution. If there were any holes in it, they would be taught as part of evolution.

Intelligent Design is not a science and has no generally agreed upon theory that describes it, certainly not amoung scientists and also, not amoung religious people. Each person has their own personal take on Intelligent Design. There is no consensus of opinion, and there is no recognized system of thought that can form a consensus of opinion.

If laws are passed requiring Intelligent Design to be taught in school, who is going to teach it, and who is going to dream up the curriculum? Certainly not science teachers, because it is not science.

The state legislature would have to map out the course content, from thin air, or else put it to the school boards to do so. And then if science teachers cannot be compelled to teach it, maybe someone from a local church could be persuaded to do so.

Anyway you look at it, evolution is settled science without controversy amoung scientists, and Intelligent Design is what is poliically correct among the unsophisticated religious elite.

Teaching Intelligent Design as science would be a train wreck.

I would be willing to see it, actually.

Kert1:

You haven't read Dawkins, have you? This is apparent when you say he "doesn't make an argument." What is your evidence for this? How does he fail to make an argument? Do you mean to say that you don't agree with the argument he makes in texts like God Delusion and Unweaving the Rainbow? Because, very obviously, he makes arguments in these texts. You should read them.

And so what if other atheists criticize Dawkins' approach? This is healthy. At least, as free-thinkers, they are able and willing to disagree with ideas and texts. I'll bet you can't do the same with regards to the Bible. (I'm interested: who are the "intelligent" atheists you've read?)

You say, "As for a designer, you seem very dogmatic in your answer. I would expect to have some more facts to support such an overwhelming claim. I would really like to hear your reasoning behind it." Well, my friend, the onus is really on YOU, isn't it? You're making the huge claim in this debate: that god exists, when there is no evidence of this at all. To procure some evidence, you would have to take your potentially disprovable hypothesis (that god exists), and run an experiment that is repeatable and verifiable, thus yielding data either for or against the existence of god. But religious folks have produced nothing in this area, because there is no empirical evidence to get. And no, evidence can't consist of "I have a feeling/wish/personal revelation that god exists," because that throws us into Flying Spaghetti Monster territory which makes Pastafarians of us all.

You say there are some good reasons for believing in god. Some point to the comfort of deluding oneself into believing one will survive one's own death. Others, more pragmatically, point to positive community values of supporting the poor and downtrodden, and getting to know people at church, thus not feeling so alone, etc. These may be positive (although, in the first example, illusory) outcomes of believing in god, but these reasons in no way support the assertion that god exists. The fact that I'd like my own life to continue in some far away perfect place after I'm dead does not, in the least, prove the existence of a deity that would make that possible.

I'd be interested in hearing how your pastor attempts to prove the existence of god using science. Why does he feel compelled to enter into this fruitless endeavor? Faith, after all, is the ability to believe in something in the absence of evidence. Why is his faith not enough for him? Why does he seek to legitimize his god with science? It's an interesting question, isn't it? Why is relgious faith alone not enough for him? Maybe he's on the path to admitting the scientific legitimacy of Darwin. One would hope so.