I don’t think the history of science is at all riddled with cases where theories were discarded by scientists because an idea from a religious text promoted by those who believe in it on faith proved to have more observational evidence behind it than the theories developed by actually studying the world in a scientific manner. In fact, I’m not sure if there is even one such case.

It is also a mistake to characterize evolution as “unguided”, since this is only true in the sense of an anthropomorphic personification. However, the surrounding environmental conditions contributes to steering (or guiding) the course, as a rock will steer the flow of a river.
More centrally, the question is not that criticism of evolution is impermissible; the problem is that it must be SCIENTIFIC critique (as noted by the court) if it is to be included in science classes. This means it must be fundamentally founded on measurable evidence, and that candidate hypotheses must be competitively tested against each other (either experimentally, or for conciseness of data induction, depending on one’s philosophical preference). At present, there are no alternative candidate hypotheses that are competitive with Evolution for describing the diversification of life between the late Hadean and the present Anthropocene epochs. The controversy is entirely theological and political, not scientific.
No evidence, no science, no cookie.

Jay Sekulow wrote: It is unfortunate that Barry implies that Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, and the millions of other Americans who believe that a creator designed human life, are anti-science while those who believe that human life randomly evolved from non-living chemicals through unguided, blind chance are “pro-science.”
Jay Sekulow, it’s obvious you don’t know what you’re talking about. Natural selection is not blind chance. Also, anyone who believes in the Christian magical creation myth, like yourself for example, is most definitely anti-science, and also very uneducated in science.
Believe in your medieval magical creation myth if you want, but the idiocy of magic will never be allowed in America’s science education.
Let me translate this for you: “Many who questioned those theories were criticized by the scientific establishment of their day just as intelligent design theorists are ridiculed and blacklisted today.”
Many who questioned those theories were criticized by the scientific establishment of their day just as MAGIC theorists are ridiculed and blacklisted today.
MAGIC theorists are ridiculed because of their hopeless stupidity and their desire to destroy science education. They are ridiculed because that’s what they deserve.

Here’s the problem. Evolution is a theory, but it’s taught as fact. Intelligent Design is also a theory, but is not taught at all. In fact, it’s frowned upon. Why? Don’t the majority of Americans believe in a Creator of some sort? Then why is Intelligent Design so outlawed?
There is plenty of evidence supporting Intelligent Design. One main piece is the extreme complexity of the human body. Extreme. How did blood clotting evolve? What about protein folding? What about a flagellum? What happened before the Big Bang? Evolution cannot possibly answer these questions. It’s a theory for a reason. Even Darwin himself stated that if fossil records didn’t ‘fill in ‘ the large gaps back in his day, his theory would be negated. Over 150 years later, those records still have enormous gaps.
I don’t get why people are so threatened by a Creator. If that really is the truth, we should be honored to be created after the image of our Creator. Needless to say, it’s quite unscientific to teach evolution as fact.

Jay is missing an important point here: The theory of evolution may not answer all the questions we have, but this fact in no way means that the answer is to look to some sort of supernatural being as the cause of specific events in the development of life.
Mankind, in fear of the unknown and out of the need to understand the world, has always used a deity to comfort itself.
When the Norse could not understand the source of thunder, they created Thor and his hammer to explain it. When the Greeks could not understand the source of suffering they created Pandora’s Box, just as the Hebrews created a punishing, vengeful god and the story of Adam and Eve.
The Christian Right only brings up evolution’s imperfections as a wedge to get its agenda pushed through our secular society. Their motivation is not to address the imperfect nature of the theory of evolution, it is their need to inject religion into the lives of others.
The fact that evolution is not perfect does not mean that the answer lies in “intelligent design.” The two are unrelated.

“There is plenty of evidence supporting Intelligent Design. One main piece is the extreme complexity of the human body.”
This is not evidence to support intelligent design. The fact that mankind cannot understand a thing does not automatically mean that a creator must have done it.
In fact, using this “leap of faith” type of evidence, one can just as easily say that because the human body is so flawed and vulnerable to injury and death that there could not possibly be an intelligent creator. That’s the curse of using your faith to explain the physical world: your faith is exactly as valid as mine. Unless you believe that all men are NOT created equal…
Again, you’re doing what mankind has always done: using god to explain what he cannot understand. The Greeks said the sun was a golden chariot. Christians almost burned Galileo for saying the sun was the center of the solar system. The bible may speak to you on a spiritual plane, but it is a poor source of knowledge of the physical world. It is full of people trying to explain the outer world without the benefit of systematic observation. It was written by people looking inward to explain the physical world rather than at the physical world. Use it to map out your heart if you wish, but please not to map out the planet.

Doesn’t Intelligent Design theory make no claim about the nature or identity of the designer? So, according to ID we could all be here as part of ET’s science fair project. I like it! Let’s hope he wins the competition so that we don’t end up in the dumpster on the way out of the exhibition hall. :-/
Seriously though, for ID to be considered a science doesn’t it have to explain with some type of evidence the mechanism that the designer uses to create the various species that inhabit the earth? Simply saying something like “the designer willed it” would get you an F in any science class that I’ve ever taken.

Science is not the study of finding “truth in nature”. Science doesn’t deal with truths but theories and eliminating what is false. Theories are established by the use of what is called the scientific method ( a staple of science); a rigorous research tool which the concept of God cannot be subjected to because it can never be proven false. The concept of God is not science and doesn’t belong in a science class.
Evolution is not random. It works through natural selection; the selection of certain traits due to environmental pressure.

One tends to forget that Darwin was a Christian and never denied that God created the universe, you only found scientific was to explain it. Also, the “Father of Modern Biology” was Albert Magnus, a Dominican Priest.
As I went to Catholic School it was explained to me the God is the Creator but the six day, 24 hour creation story does not deny science but simplifies it for a people whose limited abilities could not comprehend the complexity of reality.
If you beleive in a God of Order and Design, then you can grasp that the Universe is not Chaos but that every thing in it is by design, we can only wonder how masterfully it works. My father, a chemical engineer once told me that the more he learned through science, the more he believed in God. To deny God in science is as blind as to deny science in God.
He would refer to the six day creationist as “Flat Earthers” and I concur.

Jay Sekulow is purportedly a lawyer. Presumably, this means he knows something about the Constitution, and the intellectual climate in which it was drafted. The founding fathers of this nation were men steeped in the ideas of the Age of Reason. They deliberately did not use language promoting a Christian faith; and creationism, almost entirely associated with fundamentalist Christianity, is an affront both to the rationality of the founding fathers (ignoring the scientific evidence in favor of a dogmatic insistence on scriptural inerrancy) and also to the nondenominational nontheocratic ideals that gave birth to this nation.

“The history of science is riddled with examples of theories that were supported by a majority of scientists only to be discarded later as new evidence emerged.” But ID has few intelligent supporters, has NO evidence to back it up, and no supporting evidence emerging.
“Many who questioned those theories were criticized by the scientific establishment of their day just as intelligent design theorists are ridiculed and blacklisted today.” If you want to promote absurdities as valid theories, you deserve to be ridiculed.
“Governor Palin simply stated that debate is important on the issue of evolution and we should not be afraid to discuss information that challenges the orthodox view.” Information, yes, but not mythology. Big difference.
“[w]e do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. . . . [T]eaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.” Point here is that ID is NOT and has never been SCIENTIFIC critique. It remains purely religious conjecture with no scientific foundation.
“The Declaration of Independence states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”"
MY creator is a double helix of deoxyribonucleic acid. What’s your point? The DoI doesn’t say “god”, “Christ” or any other specific agent, in fact it is deliberately murky, using phrases like “divine providence”, to dissuade who would claim Christian sovereignty based on ambiguous phrases.

Science is the process of asking questions about the material universe and finding answers to those questions that refer only to the material universe. “God”, by anyone’s definition, is not part of the material universe, and therefore answering any question about the material universe with reference to “God” (including his codename “Intelligent Designer”) cannot be considered science.
This also means that science can’t be used to ask or answer questions about “God” (including “Does God exist?”). The existence or non-existence of God is wholly irrelevant to the issue of teaching evolution or ID/Creationism in science class.

Jay said: It is unfortunate that Barry implies that Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, and the millions of other Americans who believe that a creator designed human life, are anti-science while those who believe that human life randomly evolved from non-living chemicals through unguided, blind chance are “pro-science.”
Boris says: Bible believers have denied every scientific discovery ever made ever since there was a Bible – even the ones made by other Christians. So this anti-evolution stance is just more of the same old nonsense from the same old anti-science cult. Nothing new at all here. The theory of evolution doesn’t state that human life evolved from non-living chemicals through unguided blind chance. There are many patterns of self-organization observed in biological systems that are also present in non-living systems. Jay should read up on just a little elementary reductionist physics before just parroting creationist propaganda.
Jay said: Science is supposed to be a search for truth about nature but, on the issue of evolution, has become more of a politicized establishment where the favored viewpoint is protected from scrutiny. Virtually any criticism of Darwinian evolution, no matter how well-researched and supported, is labeled as an impermissible religious viewpoint unfit for discussion, let alone acceptance.
Boris says: No avenue of human endeavor is more open to scrutiny than science. The ID hoaxers failed miserably to make their case scientifically so they took it to the public in an organized propaganda campaign which distorts science in order to confuse an ill-informed public about the validity of evolution. It is the creationists that made science political. It isn’t just Darwinian evolution that fundamentalist Christians are criticizing either. They are criticizing cosmology, geology, oceanography, anthropology, physics, chemistry and the rest of science as well. The focus on evolution is a charade to take the public’s focus off the fundamentalist’s anti-science agenda. The fundamentalists actually believe if they could just sway public opinion about evolution they could then completely rewrite public school textbooks and essentially kill scientific enterprise in this country.
Jay said: The history of science is riddled with examples of theories that were supported by a majority of scientists only to be discarded later as new evidence emerged. Many who questioned those theories were criticized by the scientific establishment of their day just as intelligent design theorists are ridiculed and blacklisted today.
Boris says: History records a 2000 year long Christian war on science. When has science ever had to back off one of its theories in the face of Christian religious claims? Never. It’s always the Bible believers who have to back off their claims and then engage in apologetics to cover the mistakes and inaccuracies in the Bible and the lies they had to tell to defend their anti-science rhetoric.
Jay said: Governor Palin simply stated that debate is important on the issue of evolution and we should not be afraid to discuss information that challenges the orthodox view. Students should be free to question theories that are presented in class;
Boris says: Baylor, SMU, Notre Dame, Stanford, Brigham Young, TCU and every other CHRISTIAN college and university in the world that has a real science department teaches evolution and common descent – and many of them for over 100 years now. The Christian academic community itself has totally rejected creationism and ID as unscientific dogma. The idea that these things have any validity scientifically is ludicrous in the first place and the fact that they aren’t taught in Christian universities really should tell us something about the motives of the creationists.
Jay said: It is clear that our nation’s founders disagreed with Barry’s view. The Declaration of Independence states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Barry, should public schools be forced to remove this language from history or government textbooks too?
Boris says: Just because our founders believed in a Creator doesn’t mean there is one and besides the Creator they believed in wasn’t the Christian God but rather the God of Nature – the God of the deist.

Calling the theory of evolution “dogma” makes about as much sense as calling the theory of gravity “dogma”. You fundies are full of laughs.

James wrote: “Here’s the problem. Evolution is a theory, but it’s taught as fact. Intelligent Design is also a theory, but is not taught at all.”
James, the problem is you misunderstand what science is, and you don’t know what a scientific theory is.
First let’s be honest about what intelligent design is. It’s not a scientific theory. It has absolutely nothing to do with science. In fact it’s anti-science. Intelligent design means “I don’t understand this problem, and nobody else alive or not born yet will ever understand this problem, therefore I invoke God’s Magic to explain it.” No scientist would ever do that, no matter how religious he is. God, or whatever code name you want to use for God, has absolutely nothing to do with science.
In science a theory is the highest level of understanding, higher than an hypothesis, higher than a law, even higher than a fact. A scientific theory is an explanation of facts, it’s used to make predictions, and to be a scientific theory it must be widely accepted and supported by massive evidence. The theory of evolution is an explanation of the many facts of evolution. Those facts, including the fact that people and chimps share an ancestor, are supported by evidence from many branches of science. Newer evidence from molecular biology and genetics has shown beyond any doubt our close evolutionary relationship with the other ape species. These evolutionary relationships are as certain as our planet’s orbit around the sun. That’s why evolution is taught as fact.
Intelligent design magic is a religious idea, not a scientific idea. Magic has no evidence, and no respectable scientist in the world would invoke intelligent design magic for anything.
Intelligent design magic used to be called creation science. The name change was made in a failed attempt to make magic look scientific and sneak it into science education. A federal court in 2005 said the same thing about intelligent design magic as the Supreme Court said about creation science in 1987. It’s not science, it’s religious, and it can’t be taught in a science class. Also, every single competent scientist in the world agrees intelligent design magic is a childish idiotic false idea.
“Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage — good teaching — than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?” — Stephen Jay Gould

James said “Even Darwin himself stated that if fossil records didn’t ‘fill in’ the large gaps back in his day, his theory would be negated. Over 150 years later, those records still have enormous gaps.”
James, if you tried to keep up with modern scientific discoveries you would know those gaps are rapidly disappearing. For example the fossil record that describes the transition from land animals to whales can be called complete. If you spent your time studying science instead of complaining about it, you would also know the evidence from molecular biology and genetics, which is growing every single day, is many thousands of times more powerful than the evidence from fossils.
Biologists will be forever learning more about the almost 4 billion year history of life. That doesn’t mean evolution has problems. There are no problems with evolution at all because the evidence shows beyond any doubt all life evolved. What biologists don’t know yet are called research opportunities or points for future understanding. Future research opportunities are most certainly NOT problems with evolution.
“Darwin anticipated problems with his theory. Modern science has answered them. Evolution by Natural Selection has been triumphantly vindicated as fact.” — Richard Dawkins

All of the Intelligent Design hoaxers are evangelical Christians who also all believe in angels, Satan, demons, witches, heaven, hell, talking animals and all the rest of the absurd nonsense in the Bible. How does ID explain Satan and angels I wonder? Of course it can’t. The ID hoaxers try to make it look like all they believe in is a God. But that is part of their hoax. They think that if they can fool people into buying their design hoax people will easily believe in all of the Christian God’s invisible boogy friends and magical enemies too. Not happening fundies. It takes a special kind of ignorance to but into that nonsense. Christian ignorance.

It is unfortunate that people don’t see how creatively designed we are. The heart and lung and all organs have to be alive and kicking with blood for us to sustain life. How unfortunate people don’t realize that it is impossible to have this be a product of random circumstance or a product of evolved apes. It is a citizens right to have the opinion to question any theory of anything. Why would any school system try to keep out the idea of a God who loves us and makes us all unique individuals which can only be sustained through him? Well, I guess that would make us a society that would choose self instead of Him. We are so designed, it is not even funny.
Cara

Cara Floyd wrote: “It is unfortunate that people don’t see how creatively designed we are. The heart and lung and all organs have to be alive and kicking with blood for us to sustain life. How unfortunate people don’t realize that it is impossible to have this be a product of random circumstance or a product of evolved apes. It is a citizens right to have the opinion to question any theory of anything. Why would any school system try to keep out the idea of a God who loves us and makes us all unique individuals which can only be sustained through him? Well, I guess that would make us a society that would choose self instead of Him. We are so designed, it is not even funny.”
Translation: It is unfortunate that people don’t see how MAGICALLY CREATED we are. The heart and lung and all organs have to be alive and kicking with blood for us to sustain life. How unfortunate people don’t realize that it is impossible to have this be a product of NATURAL SELECTION OF FAVORABLE MUTATIONS. It is a citizens right to have the opinion to question any theory of anything. Why would any school system try to keep out the idea of MY INVISIBLE FRIEND who loves us and makes us all unique individuals which can only be sustained through him? Well, I guess that would make us a society that would choose self instead of MY MAGIC MAN. We are so MAGICALLY CREATED, it is not even funny.
Question for you Cara Floyd: Did you bother to read my previous comments? I doubt it. You are a willfully ignorant creationist and you are no better than a flat-earther.

The paragraph:
“The history of science is riddled with examples of theories that were supported by a majority of scientists only to be discarded later as new evidence emerged. Many who questioned those theories were criticized by the scientific establishment of their day just as intelligent design theorists are ridiculed and blacklisted today.”
Obscures a major difference between the argument over intelligent design and its forerunner scientific creationism, and truly scientific debates. When Einstein wanted to make a major revision to Newton’s laws of physics, he didn’t wage a campaign to change the way physics was taught in high school. He published his ideas in peer reviewed scientific journals were they could be evaluated (and yes criticised) by people with the expertise to evaluate them. The same can be said for biologists like Lynn Margulis, who proposed a radical new theory for the evolution of the eukoryatic cell and Carl Woese who proposed a majore revision in the evolutionary tree of life. These scientists were all attacked within the scientific community for their bold ideas, but they all realized that it was within the scientific communitiy that they needed to make their case, because they were interested in promoting scientific ideas, not in making sure children were taught “science” in a way that would leave them more receptive to certain religious ideas.

Is it thought that Palin is truly as ignorant of basic science as she is presenting herself? Or could it just be a pandering ploy to attract the votes of the scientific dunces of the religious right? I find it very difficult to believe anyone with more than a third grade education could believe the typical creationist tripe, but I suppose stranger things have happened!

Ok Bobxxxx, show me your proof of evolution, evolution says that in order for us as humanas to be here on earth then the apes would all have to be gone sence we evolved from them, and I’m pretty sure that there are still apes of all sorts here on earth still unless that is all a hoax to.
Now lets get this right a theroy can not be higher than a fact because a fact is something that is proven where as a theroy is just that an idea that someone is trying to prove to make it a FACT.
Obviously you have not been keeping up with the times and what the Supreme Court has said about the Bible as to it’s use as history and science that it is an excellent source for both of these.
If you will get completely honest with yourself and think about it for more than a second and without your usual sarcastic remarks you will see that it takes alot more faith to believe in the BBT that all this is just one big accident than it does to believe that this world in which we live was created by someone and that it was not magic or a trick. If you will do your research from all venues you will also find that the Big Bang Therorists cant even put a number on the chance that all this is an accident because we don’t have a number that goes that high. My hope is that you will look at all the proof from all sources and not just ones that agree with you point of view your mind and life will be changed. God Bless you

Robert said: Ok Bobxxxx, show me your proof of evolution, evolution says that in order for us as humanas to be here on earth then the apes would all have to be gone sence we evolved from them, and I’m pretty sure that there are still apes of all sorts here on earth still unless that is all a hoax to.
Boris says: Wow! It’s hard to believe this still exists in the world and really discouraging that it only exists in the country I live in. Evolution does NOT state that humans are descended from apes. Common descent shows that humans, apes and chimps share common ancestry, they are cousins. They are all descended from the ape-human transitional species Australopithecus. That is why there are still apes – something you should have learned in elementary school.
Robert said: Now lets get this right a theroy can not be higher than a fact because a fact is something that is proven where as a theroy is just that an idea that someone is trying to prove to make it a FACT.
Obviously you have not been keeping up with the times and what the Supreme Court has said about the Bible as to it’s use as history and science that it is an excellent source for both of these.
Boris says: First the Supreme Court is not a bunch of critical Bible scholars. Their opinion about the Bible means absolutely nothing not to mention the fact that it is dead wrong. Plus I don’t believe they ever said this anyway. Provide your source material please. The Bible is no more historical than Homer.
Robert said: If you will get completely honest with yourself and think about it for more than a second and without your usual sarcastic remarks you will see that it takes alot more faith to believe in the BBT that all this is just one big accident than it does to believe that this world in which we live was created by someone and that it was not magic or a trick.
Boris says: That could only be said by someone who knows nothing about science. There are very plausible and convincing explanations for the universe and everything in it including life itself.
Robert said: If you will do your research from all venues you will also find that the Big Bang Therorists cant even put a number on the chance that all this is an accident because we don’t have a number that goes that high.
Boris says: You have no understanding than physics. The question really boils down to ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ Science shows that something is more likely than nothing. Therefore the odds actually were that all this would come about quite naturally.
The proof is that it did.
Robert said: My hope is that you will look at all the proof from all sources and not just ones that agree with you point of view your mind and life will be changed. God Bless you
Boris says: Why don’t YOU try reading what real scientists say and write about science instead of the pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo from creationists.

Critics argue that if these design failures are the deliberate products of an intelligent designer, then the designer must be either inept or sadistic. Or possibly there was a large number of designers, as in the old joke that “a camel is a horse designed by a committee”.
Observe!!
The human reproductive system includes the following:
In the human female, a fertilized egg can implant into the fallopian tube, cervix or ovary rather than the uterus causing an ectopic pregnancy.. The existence of a cavity between the ovary and the fallopian tube could indicate a flawed design in the female reproductive system. Prior to modern surgery, ectopic pregnancy invariably caused the deaths of both mother and baby. Even in modern times, in almost all cases, the pregnancy must be aborted to save the life of the mother.
In the human female, the birth canal passes through the pelvis. The prenatal skull will deform to a surprising extent. However, if the baby’s head is significantly larger than the pelvic opening, the baby cannot be born naturally. Prior to the development of modern surgery (caesarean section), such a complication would lead to the death of the mother, the baby or both. Other birthing complications such as breech birth are worsened by this position of the birth canal.
In the human male, testes develop initially within the abdomen. Later during gestation, they migrate through the abdominal wall into the scrotum. This causes two weak points in the abdominal wall where hernias can later form. Prior to modern surgical techniques, complications from hernias including intestinal blockage, gangrene, etc., usually resulted in death.
Barely used nerves and muscles, such as the plantaris muscle of the foot, that are missing in part of the human population and are routinely harvested as spare parts if needed during operations. Another example is the muscles that move the ears, which some people can learn to control to a degree, but serve no purpose in any case
The pointless existence of the appendix in humans, also the corresponding potentially fatal condition of appendicitis. The appendix, which is highly developed in herbivores, is meant to aid in the bacterial digestion of cellulose. Since people use fire and heat to cook now the appendix has become useless. (It has also been proposed that the appendix is involved in development of the immune system within the first year after birth, but subsequently has no function. However some people have congenital absence of their appendix without any reports of impaired immune system function.)
The route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is such that it travels from the brain to the larynx by looping around the aortic arch. This same configuration holds true for many animals, in the case of the giraffe this results in about twenty feet of extra nerve.
The prevalence of congenital diseases and genetic disorders such as Huntington’s Disease.
The common malformation of the human spinal column, leading to scoliosis, sciatica and congenital misalignment of the vertebrae.
The existence of the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and respiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of choking.
The structure of humans’ (as well as all mammals’) eyes. The retina is ‘inside out’. The nerves and blood vessels lie on the surface of the retina instead of behind it as is the case in many invertebrate species. This arrangement forces a number of complex adaptations and gives mammals a blind spot. (See Evolution of the eye).. Six muscles move the eye when three would suffice. [4]
Crowded teeth and poor sinus drainage, as human faces are significantly flatter than those of other primates and humans share the same tooth set. This results in a number of problems, most notably with wisdom teeth.
Almost all animals and plants synthesize their own vitamin C, but humans cannot because the gene for this enzyme is defective (Pseudogene ØGULO). Lack of vitamin C results in scurvy and eventually death. Defective vitamin synthesis pathways are a hallmark of “higher” animals — of which many are predators — because the prey accumulates vitamins that stems either from the eaten plants or are self-synthesized in the captured individual. Thus, higher animals are mostly unable to return to a purely “vegetarian” lifestyle; while conservation of such pathway genes is of no apparent cost to the animal.

Robert wrote: “Ok Bobxxxx, show me your proof of evolution, evolution says that in order for us as humans to be here on earth then the apes would all have to be gone since we evolved from them, and I’m pretty sure that there are still apes of all sorts here on earth still unless that is all a hoax too.”
Right Robert. There are currently five different species of apes living today. Those ape species include chimpanzee apes, bonobo apes, human apes, gorilla apes, and orangutan apes. All five species of modern apes evolved from common ancient ape-like ancestors.
We are most closely related to the chimps but we did not evolve from chimps. The modern chimp apes and the modern human apes evolved separately from the same ancient ancestor species. Our ancestors and the ancestors of chimps split apart about 5 or 6 million years ago. We evolved differently from the way chimps evolved because we lived in different environments.
It’s very important to understand that not only did we evolve from ancient apes, the humans are still an ape species. We are different from the other modern ape species but we are still apes. People are apes. Human apes. Creationists don’t understand this important fact. All living people are members of the human ape species. This means everyone is an ape, including Jesus, which means Christians worship a dead ape. Isn’t that interesting?
The proof you want is found in the DNA of those five living ape species. When biologists compare DNA sequences of living creatures they can determine evolutionary relationships with 100% accuracy. Our relationship with the other ape species is as much as a fact as our planet’s orbit around the sun.
Robert also wrote: “Now lets get this right a theory can not be higher than a fact because a fact is something that is proven where as a theory is just that an idea that someone is trying to prove to make it a FACT.”
Most people think of a theory has a hunch or a guess. In science the word theory has a much different meaning. Here’s a dictionary definition of a scientific theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
A theory is the highest level of understanding in science. A theory is higher than laws, higher than an hypothesis, higher than facts. If you don’t believe me, visit a science blog and ask any scientist.
The theory of evolution explains the facts of evolution. Biologists completely accept the basic facts of evolution because the evidence is overwhelming. If you don’t understand why evolution is accepted by the entire scientific community, you need to get to work and do some serious studying.
Robert, you also talked about the Big Bang. You need to understand that cosmology has nothing to do with evolutionary biology.

Bobxxxx again you as well as everyone else are still saying you can have one without the other if you don’t accept the BBT the the whole evolutionary argument goes out the window, And no they can not trace the DNA to a 100% accuracy they cant even trace the native americans back to northern Asia with 100% accuracy but they are at least getting close with 99%. The modern up to date scientific evidence that is out now says that the human body make up alone is so complex that there is no way it was an accident, like you and most all of the scientific world would like for us to believe.
Bobxxxx wrote:Most people think of a theory has a hunch or a guess. In science the word theory has a much different meaning. Here’s a dictionary definition of a scientific theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Well that just goes to prove that the science worl is backward you can not take a fact and try to prove your theory orin other words your idea about how or why something works, it has to work the other way around or it just remains that an idea about how something works.
People had a theory of how flight works, so they started to work and thru much trail and error and lives lost they showed how it works now it is no longer a theory it is a fact.
Bobxxxx and Boris and to all the BBT and evolutionists you charge us christians with being closed minded to anything outside our beliefs, remember when yuou point that finger at us there are three more pointing back at you.

“you charge us christians with being closed minded to anything outside our beliefs”
I could also charge you with being willfully ignorant. Try thinking. It won’t kill you.

Robert said: Well that just goes to prove that the science worl is backward you can not take a fact and try to prove your theory orin other words your idea about how or why something works, it has to work the other way around or it just remains that an idea about how something works.
Boris says: Huh? Only a person whose world has been turned upside down by Christian religious delusions could claim that the science world is backward! Wow. Fundamentalists are the funniest people which is so ironic since they are completely devoid of a sense of humor. Science works for EVERYONE whether they believe in it or not. Religion works for NO ONE whether they believe in it or not.

“And no they can not trace the DNA to a 100% accuracy they cant even trace the native americans back to northern Asia with 100% accuracy but they are at least getting close with 99%. The modern up to date scientific evidence that is out now says that the human body make up alone is so complex that there is no way it was an accident, like you and most all of the scientific world would like for us to believe.”
I love this convoluted thinking.
You disparage the proof for evolution in support of a myth that has absolutetly NO supporting evidence.
You call the most modern up to date scientific evidence something that is not held by most of the scientific world.
Good news: I have 100% faith that Intelligent Design is wrong. You can stop believing in it now because I have met you standard of proof.

There’s some editing of comments going on here and I don’t much care for it. It’s censorship and it’s disgraceful. It’s also immoral to take somebody’s comments and delete part of it. People who love censorship should live in a theocracy like Iran. Censorship does not belong in America.

Robert said: The modern up to date scientific evidence that is out now says that the human body make up alone is so complex that there is no way it was an accident,
Boris says: Can we have the source material for this statement please? What exactly is this evidence and where can we find a description of it? I have news for you Robert. The Bible, which is what you are really talking about here, is not the most “modern up to date scientific evidence.” The truth is of course, that the complexity human body is the result of four billion years of evolution. Creationists look at an example of modern life and marvel at how complex it is and then claim, and rightfully so, that such complexity couldn’t have just popped into existence. It didn’t of course. It took four billion years to evolve. The human mind really cannot grasp the concept of that amount of time nor can it imagine in any way what could possible occur in nature over that amount of time. That is why we have known facts to work with and science. There is no way the imagination of humans comes up with the kind of naturalistic explanations we have for things. They had to be discovered through hard work. The human imagination alone seems only able conjure up magical beings to explain things.

Jay, you point out that scientific theories are frequently proved false after a number of years. That’s true. But until they are proved false, through use of evidence, they help us explain and understand the world around us. So far, the theory of gravity seems to be working. So far, we believe the earth moves around the sun… although at the time that theory was proposed, the churches did their level best to keep it from seeing the light of day. So with the theory of evolution. It has been tested many times and has held true. If at some future time we learn that evolution doesn’t explain all the phenomena we thought it did, then the theory will be modified or discarded entirely.
Now, intelligent design has its own answers for the phenomena we see around us, but it cannot be tested. In fact, how can anyone test for the presence of an intelligent designer who creates out of nothing?
You seem to think that scientists know everything there is to know right now, at the present moment, in 2008 C.E., and that nothing new will ever be discovered. I, on the other hand, am confident that in the years to come science will find out more about the origins of the earth. But intelligent design blocks that inquiry. Evolution does not.

Mary Lee,
Have you ever heard Jay Sekulow describe his conversion experience? I have on Christian television. Jay said he went to church with his future wife and had an emotional experience that made him accept Jesus and convert to Christianity. By his own admission he never did any research into the critical study of the Bible or of the true Christian origins. He just accepted this superstition based on pure emotion without thinking about it at all.
Anyone who has looked into the ACLJ’s actual record in fighting freedom can easily see that Jay never does his homework regarding dissenting opinions. His narrow-minded uncritical worldview is reflected in his dismal performance as an attorney and trial lawyer. I wouldn’t hire this guy to fight a traffic ticket. The ACLJ is the Cincinnati Bengals of legal teams. They’re a joke. Look at this Regent law School Jay teaches at. Regent is a tier 4 school and is the lowest rated law school in the country. It has cranked out over 150 graduates that were so stupid only the Bush administration would give any of them a job. The fact that Pat Robertson influenced Bush to hire these incompetents is one of the well-kept secrets guarded by the supposedly ‘liberal media.’

I’ve noticed with great interest the repeated use of the word “accident.”
For instance: “The modern up to date scientific evidence that is out now says that the human body make up alone is so complex that there is no way it was an accident, like you and most all of the scientific world would like for us to believe.”
The last time I checked, evolution never implied ‘accidents’ made progress. The theory of evolution explains that ‘survival of the fittest’ and ‘gradual adaptation to the changing environments’ caused changes in lifeforms, i.e. evolution. There’s not many accidents involved there, just natural selection and the need to survive.
Also let’s clear up the meaning of the word “theory”.
the·o·ry –noun
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein’s theory of relativity.
—Synonyms 1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena. Ex: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth. Ex: This idea is only a hypothesis.
Far too many people have it backwards. The Theory of Evolution is exactly that, a theory. It is NOT a hypothesis.

Ok here it goes one more time, you can not have it both ways. Both the theroys of gravity and relativity have been proven, so therefore they are no longer theroys they are facts.
Perhaps they should be refering to evolution as the hypothesis of evolution.
Mr. Sekulow is a very good lawyer just because he and his firm takes on cases where a persons personnel freedoms are being undermined or an attept is being made to take them away does not make him a bad lawyer. If you need proof of this just check out aclj.org and you can see all the cases they have won.

Robert incorrectly stated: Ok here it goes one more time, you can not have it both ways. Both the theroys of gravity and relativity have been proven, so therefore they are no longer theroys they are facts.
Boris says: Robert as usual you have no idea what you are talking about. First a theory is something that can never be proved. Second a theory is an explanation of known facts and cannot itself ever become a fact. Third the Gravitational Theory and the Theory of Relativity have never been proved – they are theories. The true underlying reason why all objects in the universe attract to each other is, to this day, a baffling enigma. Einstein showed that massive objects distort space-time and produce gravitational effect. But why do massive objects distort space time? Such questions are still unanswered, and they are by no means addressed by saying “It’s just the law of gravity” or “theroys of gravity” have been proved.
Robert said: Perhaps they should be refering to evolution as the hypothesis of evolution.
Boris says: That is pure Christian wish-thinking at its most absurd – coupled with a typical fundamentalist hijacking of our language. Again scientists use the term “theory” (theroy for creationists) to mean “explanation.” We have Cell Theory, which explains the structure and function of living cells. No scientist doubts that cells exist. We have Atomic Theory, which explains the behavior of atoms. Scientists cannot see atoms but no scientist doubts that atoms exist. We have Gravitational Theory, which explains somewhat how celestial objects are attracted to each other, but not completely. We can’t see gravity but no scientist doubts gravity is real. Evolutionary Theory explains the subtleties and processes of evolution. Science considers evolution as undeniable as cells, atoms or gravitation and the evidence is just as solid.
Robert when in the last 2000 years has science ever had to revise one of its theories in the face of Christian religious claims? Bible believers have tried to deny every scientific discovery and theory ever made was since there was a Bible. Do you think we’ve had enough of this and your “The end is near” little boy who cried wolf nonsense and fear mongering? We have. No one is taking your whimpering seriously anymore. Look at the way you people are mocked on this blog.
Robert said: Mr. Sekulow is a very good lawyer just because he and his firm takes on cases where a persons personnel freedoms are being undermined or an attept is being made to take them away does not make him a bad lawyer. If you need proof of this just check out aclj.org and you can see all the cases they have won.
Boris says: Here’s something I found on the Internet about that:
It has been my observation that the ACLJ doesn’t like to report or document lost court cases on its website. Try finding a single press release on the ACLJ website that admits defeat – good luck. For a more objective, up-to-date look at what the ACLJ is up to, I recommend the Internet Infidel’s News Wire’s Eye on the Right.

Boris said it all for me.
Except for the lawyer stuff, that’s not my arena.

God has given us feelings that are a good. Have you ever been in a situation and felt something bad was about to happen? This feeling you had turned you away from the danger of that situation. Such as walking near a growling dog. You don’t understand it, but it was a feeling to warn you. A feeling toward someone you have met, good or bad. The person you married or are involved with. The good feeling you have when you are around them. You don’t know where it came from but you know it makes you feel good, therefore the attraction is there. Get my meaning? Feeling have a lot to do with decisions we make every day. I feel sick, I can’t go to work. At a party I feel happy. At the birth of my child I feel joy. I feel a pull toward God, I receive Jesus as my Lord. Feeling? The great joy is undiscribable.
Unless you have done this you have no idea what happens to you. It is the simple man that will put the proud man to shame. How does this happen? Think about it.

On September 7, 2008, at 9:43 PM, Robert wrote: “Ok here it goes one more time, you can not have it both ways. Both the theroys of gravity and relativity have been proven, so therefore they are no longer theroys they are facts.”
This statement is blatantly false, Robert. Please learn a little about how science actually works before trying to argue it.
1. We do not prove things in science. We disprove things. Nothing in science is ever proven 100%. It’s just not how we do things. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or is ignorant about how science works.
2. In so much as point 1 is accurate, we (scientists) have NOT proven either the theory of gravity OR the theory of relatively.
3. Scientific theories do NOT change into facts after repeated testing. This is a complete misunderstanding of how science works. Facts are observations. Theories are erected to explain observations. A theory will never ever change into a fact. With respect to evolution, it is a fact (an observation with associated error) that life has changed over the course of geologic time. This is one of the facts of evolution. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains this observation. That’s how it works.

October 25th, 2008
By MICHAEL STICKINGS, Assistant Editor
Believe it or not, Sarah Palin gave a “policy” speech yesterday in support of (and in support of full government funding of) the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
In her speech, Palin stressed that “the most valuable thing of all is information” and that “[e]arly identification of a cognitive or other disorder, especially autism, can make a life-changing difference.” However, she also criticized certain “pet projects,” such as fruit-fly research, that are funded through earmarks and that, according to her, are utterly pointless:
Where does a lot of that earmark money end up anyway? […] You’ve heard about some of these pet projects they really don’t make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not.
No, she kids us not. In her view, such research is a joke and, needless to say, shouldn’t be funded. It’s all a big waste, government largesse at its worst.
But is she right about the research? No.
I’ll let an expert, PZ Myers of Pharyngula, explain — brilliantly, I might add:
I am appalled.
This idiot woman, this blind, shortsighted ignoramus, this pretentious clod, mocks basic research and the international research community. You damn well better believe that there is research going on in animal models — what does she expect, that scientists should mutagenize human mothers and chop up baby brains for this work? — and countries like France and Germany and England and Canada and China and India and others are all respected participants in these efforts.
Yes, scientists work on fruit flies. Some of the most powerful tools in genetics and molecular biology are available in fruit flies, and these are animals that are particularly amenable to experimentation. Molecular genetics has revealed that humans share key molecules, the basic developmental toolkit, with all other animals, thanks to our shared evolutionary heritage (something else the wackaloon from Wasilla denies), and that we can use these other organisms to probe the fundamental mechanisms that underlie core processes in the formation of the nervous system — precisely the phenomena Palin claims are so important.
This is where the Republican party has ended up: supporting an ignorant buffoon who believes in the End Times and speaking in tongues while deriding some of the best and most successful strategies for scientific research. In this next election, we’ve got to choose between the 21st century rationalism and Dark Age inanity. It ought to be an easy choice.
What can I add to that? His language is harsh, but Myers is exactly right. The Republican Party has become — and has been for some time — the party of darkness, an anti-Enlightenment party beholden to a base of theocratic Christian fundamentalism, a party that has positioned itself in opposition to science.
However unpopular generally, Sarah Palin has become, to many, the mascot and cheerleader of this movement, a leader of the darkest wing of her party.
In ridiculing the very scientific research that would support her “policy,” she was just being a good Republican.
(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)

http://discoveringjesusfishing.net
Evolution is a THEORY and has never been proven, just like intelligent design is a THEORY. Although my religious beliefs lead me to accept the theory of intelligent design, neither of these two theories are sound enough to be held up in a court of law.
If a scientific fact is well accepted by the scientific community, the fact does not have to be proven in a court of law but is automatically accepted as evidence. If both theories were offered as evidence in a court of law, both would have to be proven because neither of the two are accepted by the majority in the scientific community.
That said, intelligent design is an equally valid theory to evolution (and even more so from a scientific perspective since evolution goes against many scientific principles) and should be taught in the public schools.