“By their fruits you will know them.”
That’s a quote from a guy that didn’t go to college. And I don’t think Matthew finished school either.
Since Charles Darwin fits the definition of an antichrist per John (1 John), why do you defend him and elevate him to such a place as an Apostle or Prophet? Evolution as key to the scriptures? Per Darwin’s Origins book.
And once again, you (BioLogos) are doing that. Why does Darwin need to be a hero to Christians? Per John, he is an extreme opposite to that.
1 John:
Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son. 23No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
24See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. 25And this is what he promised us—even eternal life.
26I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray.
///
Now, evolution IS social darwinism. Even the garden-variety atheists you have cruising the comments here prove that. Evolution IS used to destroy Christian truth. It is used to insert and implement and justify and even redefine horror on society.
That is not an ad hom on Chucky D., it is just reality of what Darwinism “is.” Your ignoring reality on that is kind of odd.
It would be nice to see you decry social darwinism which IS humanism, liberalism and progressive-ism (we’ll leave the older version Nazi’s alone this time) staining the halls of The Church. Real people are really being destroyed by the sickness brought about by godless evolution and its Christless society.
Now certainly, you B-L guys are theistic evolutionists, but, what is so troubling is that you willingly yoke yourselves to unbleivers and preach a “darwinism” so utterly incompatible with the Gospel. Per John, by the way, not just me.
There’s a big difference in the Christian charity of tolerating evil people, and working with them to further the goals of satainic powers. Evolution IS USED in our schools to ATTACK and DISPROVE Christian truth. I mean c’mon, CURRENT society testifies to that. Again, a basic model atheist uses evolution as their sword, mocking, hautiness, and hubris as salt on the wounds they love to make.
You should be applauding Ray Comfort for trying to rescue college age people from the vices and violence of living like a new version Bonobo. Where is your preaching about the sexual promiscuity explosion in the progressive idiocy (though satanic joy) of co-ed dorms.
Visit a morgue sometime, a juvenile hall, or mental health social services program and see WHO evolutionary ethics (darwinism’s fruit) and morality HAS DESTROYED. And I mean look at the UNDER THIRTY crowd. The under twenty crowd. The UNDER TEN crowd.
And there will be a crowd.
Why do you B-L guys preach against creationists so loudly and ignore the shattered humans evolutionary morality has critically injured and murdered?
Evolution? OK. Whoopdeedoo. We were once apes. Certainly liberalism proves that a fact. Darwinism? That’s satanic. Stand up for the life forms that came after Adam and stop preaching the importance of our animal nature. And once again, I appeal to evidence.
Why can’t we hear (or see rather) a far more effective presentation on Homo Divinus?
Remember that on the BioLogos webpage?
Ray Comfort has not forgotten.

Has anyone seen Rays blog, atheist central?
He thinks he is disproving atheism by coming up with these lame arguments against evolution. hundreds of commenters are alowed to post refuting everything he says, yet he keeps grinding the same stuff out day after day, rarely adressing their points.
Almost makes me wonder if he really is anti antichristian posing as a christian to make evangelicals look really bad!
I won’t say I know that , i don’t want to play judge on people like a couple of other commenters here like to do, but i can’t help at least thinkin’ it! Hopefully people that get the RC version of Origin will read the whole thing and relize that though Darwin is no god or perfect in his thinking by any means, he is not the evil antichrist that fundies make him out to be either!

If Comfort had published “Origin” unedited – if he hadn’t excised whole chapters – then it wouldn’t have been nearly as annoying. Darwin was a very clear writer who knew how to make a case… and he anticipated and addressed basically all of Comfort’s “case”. But Comfort decided to present a strawman, incomplete version of his opponent’s argument – and that’s just wrong.

Mere_Christian,
You can’t judge the modern theory of evolution by the Character of Darwin any more than you can judge Christian Protestanism by the views of Martin Luther. Even if every lie said about Darwin were true, he would still not be half as bad as the father of our own faith tradition.
Mr. saved-by-grace-alone, Martin Luther, in his book “On the Jews and their Lies” advocated the following 8-part plan to deal with the Jews. These are direct (translated into English) quotes from his pamphlet — you can read the entire thing online.
“First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. …”
“Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed.”
“Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.”
“Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb.”
“Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews.”
“Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them.”
“Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow.”
(8) “If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews’ blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country” and “we must drive them out like mad dogs.”
You would be hard-pressed to catch any member of the SS back in Hitler’s Germany with a copy of Origins, but Luther’s pamphlet was widely circulated. Christians, especially Protestants, should avoid making these type of “guilt-by-association” arguments when it comes do Darwin and Hitler. We’ve got enough of our own baggage to answer for.

Gordon,
How do you know what Luther wrote is wrong or bad?
Christian-wise?
You appeal to the Gospel and NT writings. It is clear that Luther is presenting his hostility in direct conflict with scripture.
BioLogos is hailing Darwin as important to the Gospel. Chucky D. as someone Christians must hold as a role model. I have proven, that Darwin IS an anti Christ.
BioLogos should be yoked to an antichrist? These B-L guys preach that evolution is a means to salvation. I don’t care how many people say they aren’t, this blog entry yet again points that out.
Or are you claiming two wrongs somehow make a right? Now of course, evolution to the B-L guys is not a wrong, so we’ll excuse that. But, connecting Darwin to the Gospel is absolutely wrong. Just like the opinion of Luther about the wrong he wants done to the anti Christian Jews that JESUS exonerated.
Ever read the Gospel?
Test all things and hold fast to the truth. B-L guys are claiming that evolution is truth. I am claiming that Darwin is an antichrist.
According to the New Testament, which one of us is correct?
If B-L guys want to present Christian reality, they have to expect to answer basic questions.
Hitler and his actions created great highways and several good products. We wouldn’t be flying jets or have gone to the moon with German products. Is Hitler a good role model for Christians that hold to the Apostolic witness? (That meaning the Gospel as well?)
An answer please?
And, we ARE allowed to judge anything and anyone. BUT, we are to expect to be judged “in the samw way.”
I’ll step into that light anytime you ask.
Why won’t any of the B-L guys?

Mere_Christian: Violence has been decreasing globally for at least the past thousand years. Even in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Your ‘crowd’ is smaller today than at any point in history.

Mere_Christian,
You say things that are so absurd, I can’t tell if you’re being serious or you have a chemical imbalance. In all the time you’ve spent commenting here, I have yet to see anything substantive from you. I guess the B-L webmasters are much more patient than I am. I would have banned you and your childish comments weeks ago. Take a cue from Martin and Daniel if you want to know what the faithful opposition should look like.

The irony is that evolution is attacked because it supposedly leads to immoral results, all the while using a host of faulty and dishonest (I don’t care how ignorant Mere Christian and Ray are, they have an obligation to learn) “arguments.” At the same time, they wish to use the government to propagate these incorrect and unscientific views in the science class.
Meanwhile, the desire not just to have their apologetics take over part of the science classroom, but all of it appears in this example:

If a theory claims to be able to explain some phenomenon but does not generate even an attempt at an explanation, then it should be banished. Despite comparing sequences, molecular evolution has never addressed the question of how complex structures came to be. In effect, the theory of Darwinian molecular evolution has not published, and so it should perish.
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idfrombiochemistry.htm

Aside from the obvious fact that it is ID that has published no explanation (only naming an amorphous “design”), while evolutionary scientists continue to add to the explanations that have been made, Behe’s desire to censor science is rather obvious there. That’s a typical totalitarian impulse. By the way, when I tried to post a respectful comment on the Expelled blog including that quote, my comment was censored.
No, it’s the attempts to force acceptance of bogus science that is an immoral act, not the normal practices of science.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Sigh… yet another good thread hijacked by mere_christian.
m_c is either seriously disturbed or is a prankster. m_c, PLEASE take your meds!
Now back on topic: I’m glad the NCSE was ready for Ray Comfort and his campaign. He is such a liar.

Let me just address the relationship between Hitler and Darwinian naturalism:
1. Naturalism provides no basis for moral absolutes. Consequently, atheist Arthur Leff, Duke School of Law, wrote,
“The so-called death of God wasn’t just His funeral, but was the elimination of any coherent ethical or legal system…As it stands now, everything is up for grabs…Napalming babies is bad, starving the poor wicked, buying and selling people is depraved—but, ‘Sez who?’ God help us.”
2. Naturalism must resort to pragmatic reasoning to justify moral behavior. However, pragmatism can and does often lead to abominations. Also, there is a much greater reluctance to put one’s head on the ethical chopping-block for the sake of pragmatism.
3. To fill the vacuum created by the rejection of moral absolutes, naturalism must find its only meaning within the physical world. Consequently, promoting the survival-of-the-fittest (Social Darwinism) individuals or races becomes a likely candidate to fill this vacuum. In “Psychiatrists: The Men Behind Hitler,” Roder, Kubillus, and Burwell wrote:
“Bluntly stated, Social Darwinism was perhaps the central theoretical foundation of German Nazi ideology. Very soon after Darwin, dangerous new ideas began to emerge, among them the concept of ‘social hygiene’ the brainchild of German philosopher Wilhem Schallmayer, and, as we will see later, a recurrent theme in Nazi ideology and practice…Darwin’s influence on Hitler’s and his accomplices perverse world view is undeniable…In Darwin, who contributed so greatly to the formation of the Nazi philosophy, we should see a warning sign…We have seen throughout history, as we see with Darwinian theory and Nazism, that science can be a cover under which immorality, misanthropy and murder can prosper.” (15-16)

Gordon,
What’s absurd?
You placed Luther’s unniceness against Jews, for some wierd reason and I countered that with a very sensible Biblical AND historical reply.
Would you mind refuting what I said. Especially, since I and the B-L guys claim to be repping the same movement, we have the same New Testament to do so.
Ray Comfort and I, are out in the real world dealing with the outcomes of social darwinism. And, I must assert, it is very satanic what is happening to people buying into darwinian evolution as a moral stance.
I’m not unexcited about BioLogos, but their (its) insistance that Darwin be a role model is may I repeat IS, inappropriate. Darwin IS an antichrist. How is that absurd to write? He renounced his faith in Christ. Facts are facts.
“Judge” me by what ALL Christians (and non-Christians and anti-Christians) are to be judged by in terms of a Biblical worldview.
That way you can keep your conscience clear and show where BioLogos can equate darwinism with the importance of the writings of the Apsotles and Disciples.
I should be silenced for having a position? Asking questions? Making accusations?
How absurd Gordon.
The most judgmental people on earth are these “new” atheists. Listen to them.
Here’s another article with an attack on an anti-evolutionist Christian by defending Charles Darwin.
Shouldn’t B-L guys be defending evolution and defending Comfort’s disapproval of darwinism?
You can insult me and my questions and accusations all you want to, but BioLogos will have to prove their case Church after Church, Christian after Christian, in places where voices and questions such as mine cannot be silenced as easily as blocking access to a website.
You may want to see how well Soulforce has done in that department.
There is truth and there is a lie.
Like I wrote before, I am up to being tested.
Yet the incredibly educated highly elite B-L guys can’t?
You may want to read what James says about teachers.

Sooo, as long as the ad hom is against Christians . . .
it’s OK?
Beaglelady
November 19, 2009 12:21 PM
Sigh… yet another good thread hijacked by mere_christian.
m_c is either seriously disturbed or is a prankster. m_c, PLEASE take your meds!
Now back on topic: I’m glad the NCSE was ready for Ray Comfort and his campaign. He is such a liar
///
Ray Comfort is preaching the Gospel TO the lost.
Th Apostles were liars too?
Oh, and Jesus (it’s reported) was quite the fire and brimstone preacher out there in the streets tryng to save souls.
Liar?

It seems that not only are three whole chapters missing from Ray Comfort’s edition, but that Comfort has re-numbered the Chapters to make it seem as if the book is complete.
This does not seem to be very honest and belies a terribly underhanded attempt to make it seem as if he is doing us a favor. It also makes it seem as if Mr. Comfort has an agenda that is afraid of the whole truth.

Mere_Christian
What exactly are you trying to argue in your posts? Nobody at Biologos is arguing that Darwin is a “role model” for Christians or that “evolution is a means to salvation.” They simply trying to promote a dialogue on the issue of evolution as a well-supported scientific theory (not as an ideology or a model for social policy) and that’s it.

It’s ironic that “mere Christian” handle is taken from C. S. Lewis who accepted the scientific basis for evolution.
For those reading this blog who are inquiring into Christanity or who are pondering their own doubts about religion and Chritianity’s role in this world, please keep in mind that amy large group of people will unavoidably include a few who are way off the reservation.
Plese don’t let the appearance of one of those people influence your own considerations on these issues. “Mere Christian” is serously theologically misguided or a “Poe.” Safely discount anything he says. He is not exhibiting Christian behavior, appears igorant of basic priciples of orthodox Christan theology and is obviously unaware of basic science.

I’m curious about who is putting this book out. Does anyone know who the publisher is, where the funding for the book came from, who are the volunteers who are distributing it, etc?

Description of Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
The Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief is a fallacy that comes in the following patterns:
1. X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences.
2. X is false because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences.
3. X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences.
4. X is false because accepting that X is false has positive consequences.
This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because the consequences of a belief have no bearing on whether the belief is true or false. For example, if someone were to say “If sixteen-headed purple unicorns don’t exist, then I would be miserable, so they must exist” it would be clear that this would not be a good line of reasoning. It is important to note that the consequences in question are the consequences that stem from the belief. It is important to distinguish between a rational reason to believe (RRB) (evidence) and a prudential reason to believe (PRB) (motivation). A RRB is evidence that objectively and logically supports the claim. A PRB is a reason to accept the belief because of some external factor (such as fear, a threat, or a benefit or harm that may stem from the belief) that is relevant to what a person values but is not relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim.
The nature of the fallacy is especially clear in the case of Wishful thinking. Obviously, merely wishing that something is true does not make it true. This fallacy differs from the Appeal to Belief fallacy in that the Appeal to Belief involves taking a claim that most people believe that X is true to be evidence for X being true.
Examples of Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
1. “Evolution could lead to social Darwinism… which is terrible… therefore evolution must not have happened”
2. “It can never happen to me. If I believed it could, I could never sleep soundly at night.”
3. “I don’t think that there will be a nuclear war. If I believed that, I wouldn’t be able to get up in the morning. I mean, how depressing.”

Mr Bailey. It does none of us any good to attack someone else’s claims by saying that it is wrong when you yourself haven’t done the research. While it is correct to say that that there are a different number of chapters compared to contemporary releases of the book, you will see that what RC put out there (after his own intro) was word for word the original release of the book. Here is a link to a scanned copy of the original edition at Cambridge.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/pdf/1859_Origin_F373.pdf
It would seem that you are being dishonest or at the least misinformed with your response here.

Dan,
By incessantly defending Charles Darwin’s version of evolution, BioLogos looks more like a wing of the liberal/secularist wing of religiosity than they do anything resembling an outreach to the lost.
There are more than enough BioLogos articles that portray creationism as keeping people from becoming Christians.
THAT IS evolution as a key to salvation. Teaching otherwise is making people reject God. There’s no way around that, just because some people think I am a mean guy towards atheists and the elite leadership at BioLogos. Or that I am somehow not up to asking questions of BioLogos writers or accusing them of what I certainly have the evidence to accuse them of. Here’s another piece going after an anti-darwinian Christian. Ray Comfort is a good guy. A very good guy. If he is a liar, then so is Peter and Paul and Jesus too.
Why is “Saving Darwin” even remotely important? Darwin is meaningless to preaching the Gospel. He made his anti-Christian choices and that’s the end of it. He renounced Jesus. There is no way this guy can be mentioned as anything remotely healthy for believers to waste anytime studying. Evolution? Yes, you have to to pass certain classes in school and Darwin is virtually worshipped by certain kinds of people that make you fit through those hoops. And hey, you make more money with a college degree. But when it comes to presenting Darwin as anything other than just a scientist, that’s where the yoking gets unhitched. And BioLogos sure holds this man rather high in the necessary-to-salvation equation.
He (Darwin) was just one of many people that believed in evolution. That B-L guys make such a big deal of going after creationists like they do is something to be concerned about. I believe they have a shoe to drop no differently than any typical liberal/progressive/emergent/secularised religious org. Usually once you make friends with the world, you become it and not the other way around.
Example if Jesus is an evolved ape, than that needs to be highlighted. And there is no way that BioLogos is saying anything different with evolutionary evangelism:
The Word was with God waiting to evolve and the Word was God.
That sounds rather blasphemous to me. But, that IS evolutionary evangelism. Why we need to care about what came before Adam is something to ponder and discard. Evolution is doing nothing to save the lost.
If there is no difference between BioLogos and any other garden variety political correctness/liberal Christian group, than they need to be put in that light. Where is anything resembling orthodoxy in their preaching?
Like I’ve written many times, “evolution?” OK. Now get on with it. It is meaningless to the Gospel. A war against people like Ray Comfort, whom Jesus would consider a disciple as far as we can “judge” using the Gospel, is where the line should be drawn.
What “is” the goal of BioLogos? It sure looks like they are desiring to write Darwin’s works into a preface for the next Bibles. The NEV The New Evolutionary Version.
I’d rather it be Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. In any version.
I can only “judge” them from what they are saying and doing.
Now, if I saw Peter Kreeft writing a BioLogos piece, I would be much more at ease with their ulterior motives.

I found the Ray Comfort introduction to be quite poorly done in my opinion. The arguments he made were as flimsy as his attempt to soil the good name of the theory of evolution by using quotes from Hitler. I have heard some say that he is trying to inspire commentary on the issue of evolution, but it would appear that his main goal is to try to pick at the scientific theory with what barely qualifies as scientific reasoning. I guess if he was actually a truly scientific thinker, he wouldn’t be trying to prove religious ideas. It’s absolutely appalling to see someone try to be “scientific” by simply using scientific terminology that the average bible thumper isn’t familiar with, so they lack the foundational knowledge to see through his guise. I would have used some quotes from his introduction to further prove my point and his idiocy, but I have fixed the problem with the book by tearing out his stupid intro and have burned it. Hitler also did that Ray.

Unaplogetic Catholic
November 19, 2009 2:16 PM
It’s ironic that “mere Christian” handle is taken from C. S. Lewis who accepted the scientific basis for evolution.
///
I accept the “scientific basis for evolution.”
Up to Adam.
Then it becomes meaningless to the Gospel.
Clive would disagree with my position how? Why?

M_C – I skipped your comments.
Hi Daniel,
Define what you mean by “Darwinian naturalism”. I’ve never seen that term come up in writing or in any serious discussion about science or theology. Where did you hear it? Did you make it up yourself?
When it comes to social darwinism consider this: it is a scientific fact that some species have larger litters than the parents have resources to care for. In some cases, siblings are allowed to fight to the death and the strongest inherits the right to live and reproduce. In other cases, the mother will eat or kill one or more of her offspring. The fact that we can observe this behavior doesn’t in any way mean it should serve as a basis for human society.
And if a group of derranged maniacs did create a society based on these “facts” of nature, their insane behavior wouldn’t make the facts any less true. Moreover, what fool would argue that we shouldn’t accept the idea that some animals eat their young just becuase a partiuclar group of psychopaths advocates this practice?
Evolution is no different. I hope you at least have enough objectivity to see this. If evolution is wrong, then let’s examine the scientific data that shows it can’t be so. But trying to taint it by showing what can happen when it wronfully becomes basis for human conduct is intellectually lazy at best, and dishonest at worst.
Are these the kind of arguments you feed your students?

Mere Christian,
Just so you know CS Lewis accepted the scientific basis of common decent (he didn’t stop at Adam). In The Problem of Pain he seems to indicate that he doesn’t believe that Adam and Eve were historical, but metaphorical. It is very ironic that Lewis seems to be your hero, but he believed the very thing that you are condemning us for believing. Also, please stop dishonestly saying that theistic evolutionists say you have to believe in evolution to be saved. No one has said that, it is dishonest to say otherwise.
To “Your Name” at 2:24 pm
Comfort was going to cut out several of The Origin’s chapters origionally. He actually took out several chapters in the first printing. He changed his mind after he got a lot of criticism for it, and now says that the book won’t be missing chapters. We’ll see.
Biologos,
Thanks for this great post. I especially liked Ken Miller’s pamphlet. It was a good, succinct rebuttle to Comfort’s anti-scientific claims. I’d encourage everyone to read it.

Gordon J. Glover
November 19, 2009 3:12 PM
http://www.beyondthefirmament.com
M_C – I skipped your comments.
///
Free will sir.
G. Glover: “When it comes to social darwinism consider this: it is a scientific fact that some species have larger litters than the parents have resources to care for.
In some cases, siblings are allowed to fight to the death and the strongest inherits the right to live and reproduce. In other cases, the mother will eat or kill one or more of her offspring.
The fact that we can observe this behavior doesn’t in any way mean it should serve as a basis for human society. ”
Why not?
There is no murder in evolutionary morality.

The BioLogos Foundation hopes that all young Christians, not just a lucky few, can see the beautiful harmony of science and faith. It may seem a daunting task.
Yet it is also a necessary one.
- http://blog.beliefnet.com/scienceandthesacred/2009/10/a-middle-ground.html
///
Dan
November 19, 2009 3:47 PM
Mere Christian,
Just so you know CS Lewis accepted the scientific basis of common decent (he didn’t stop at Adam). In The Problem of Pain he seems to indicate that he doesn’t believe that Adam and Eve were historical, but metaphorical. It is very ironic that Lewis seems to be your hero, but he believed the very thing that you are condemning us for believing. Also, please stop dishonestly saying that theistic evolutionists say you have to believe in evolution to be saved.
No one has said that, it is dishonest to say otherwise.
///
You were saying?

The reports I am reading from students who got this book seem to indicate some some of the books handed out have several chapters removed, while some haven’t. I have read some students say that there are 12 Chapters in the book, and others have 14. So it appears that, despite what Ray Comfort promised, a lot of the books being handed out ARE missing chapters. This despite the fact that Comfort told the NCSE’s Genie Scott that he would only pass out the unabridged edition.
Students are also saying that the introduction is in large, easy to read type, while Darwin’s words are printed so small it is hard to read. Thats funny, pass out a book that only the introduction is easy to read! I have to hand it to Comfort, this probably won’t change anyone’s idea on evolution, but he will get a lot more fame and money for himself due to this publicity stunt.

Mere Christian,
A dishonest quote-mine either shows that you have poor reading comprehension, or that you are dishonest. The quote, in context, does NOT say that you have to believe in evolution to be saved. If fact, we have all said repeatedly that you can believe in evolution or creationism and still be saved. In fact, many of us (including me) were saved long before we saw the evidence for evolution. Your quote mine is not evidence, it is a joke. Please stop bearing false witness.
You were saying?

Dan,
I am saying, that BioLogos appears to be a ministry designed to promote evolution as key to the scriptures. Including the path to salvation.
That would be the science of it.
Reality talking.

Now, evolution IS social darwinism. – Mere_Christian
This is a bare-faced lie. Evolution is a natural process, the reality of which tells us nothing about how we should behave, individually or collectively. Social Darwinism is a socio-political belief system, rejected by the vast majority of those who accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

Visit a morgue sometime, a juvenile hall, or mental health social services program and see WHO evolutionary ethics (darwinism’s fruit) and morality HAS DESTROYED. – Mere_Christian
The rich country where the largest proportion of the population rejects evolution – and where the largest proportion declare themselves Christian (the USA) has far higher levels of violence, imprisonment, drug addiction, mental illness and other social ills than other rich countries, where evolution is far more widely accepted, and Christianity is far less predominant. Levels of such social ills are particularly low in Japan, which has very few Christians, and Scandianavia, which has among the highest levels of non-religious people.

I’ll be brief; if anyone wants to understand why ‘Social Darwinism’ is not “the” obligatory conclusion of evolutionary thinking, see here:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/07/the_natural_basis_for_inequali.php
It thoroughly illustrates why the ‘naturalistic fallacy’ is indeed a fallacy.

The United States is a secular nation.
Per you atheists and the founders and the constitution you use to support that fact.
Scandinavia: Norway, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and Iceland. The population is appx 23,003,500.
………..Norway …Denmark.. Finland.. Sweden… Iceland
Population 4.350.000 5.300.000 5.000.000 8.855.000 265.000
Japan: In 2009, Japan has ranked 10th on the most populated countries in the World with approximately 127-million people living in japan currently.
USA: 300-million
Two times larger in DIVERSE population of varying cultures than Japan and Scandanavia.
///
Now K-Goats,
America is made up of a vast array of different cultures and ideologies supposedly living in the harmony of tolerance and “diversity.”
Ain’t working huh? As your figures prove.
What you have shown is that unity of culture is successful. Now, if the US breaks into different geographical areas where peoples of unified beliefs keep to themselves, well, it looks like we’ll fit in just fine.
Now wait a minute. . . , Scandanavia and Japan, BEFORE being influenced by Christians and Christian morality were a far more violent and warring peoples.
Hmmmm, maybe there is yet hope for the secular nation (founded as such with its resulting history) of the United States of America to be so influenced by Christianity after all.
And K-G, do we have legalized animal brothels yet in the United States like they do in Scandanavia?

Mere_Christian,
The United States is a secular nation.
It is legally secular, but levels of Christian belief, and of rejection of evolution, are uniquely high among rich countries. Christianity has never been important in Japan, and Scandinavia’s reputation for peace and tolerance has continued to grow as Christianity has declined there. If you were right, the reverse would have happened. Your wriggling does not change the clear facts: higher levels of Christianity, and of rejection of evolution, do not promote social welfare according to the evidence.
I’m interested to see that you appear to support theocracy, the destruction of the USA, and a form of religious apartheid.
And K-G, do we have legalized animal brothels yet in the United States like they do in Scandanavia?
So far as I can discover (I’d never heard of this), this is true only in Denmark: there are no specific laws against bestiality there, only against causing animal suffering. Are you claiming that bestiality is a major social problem? If not, how is this bizarre piece of information relevant? Incidentally, Sweden and Norway have actually made it illegal to pay for sex with people, which may or may not be a good idea (so far the evidence seems to favour it), but in any case rather undermines the picture of Scandinavia as a place of unbridled sexual licence.

Scandanavian history was one of violence and tribalism before they became Christian nations.
That their secularism is parroting Christian morality at its highest levels of morality is to be expected.
Japan as well, had warring factions all the way up to WWII. After Japan was crushed by secular American Imperialism our Judeo-Christian ethics were put into place after our secular war was over.
And Japan has thrived ever since.
Just acting like good Christians leads to wellness.
South Korea anyone?

Scandanavian history was one of violence and tribalism before they became Christian nations.
It remained pretty violent long afterwards. War was more or less constant in medieval and early modern Europe, Scandinavia included, and very brutal: it was quite routine for the common soldiers on the losing side of a battle to be slaughtered wholesale after capture, for example, and for armies to “live off the land” i.e. take what they wanted from the civilian population.
Japan as well, had warring factions all the way up to WWII. – Mere_Christian
No it didn’t. It had a long period of domestic and foreign peace after the Tokugawa shoguns expelled Christian missionaries and largely suppressed Christianity in the early 17th century; and as I said, Christianity has never been an important influence there: what has taken route since WWII has been democracy and a degree of socio-economic egalitarianism. The major enemy in WWII, of course, was Germany, where almost all the population were believing Christians.
our Judeo-Christian ethics were put into place
Given the 2000 year history of Christian antisemitism, the phrase “Judeo-Christian ethics” is one of the most ignorant ever invented. Christianity was long compatible not only with a vicious antisemitism, but with slavery, serfdom, aggressive war, racism and misogyny. These things have come to be seen as unacceptable precisely during the period when Christianity has been in decline.

I wish I’d been able to get my hands on one of these copies. I know that the text of The Origin and Ray’s intro are freely available online, but I like to have books like this on my shelf.
I was very disappointed that Ray and his folks decided to to the distribution a day early. From his blog it is clear that this was a strategic decision to thwart those that would have handed out the NCSE’s book marks and Ken Miller’s pamphlets. I am also disappointed in the deliberate use of bait-and-switch tactics. As a former YWAMer and Campus Crusader, I know all too well how evangelists will use many forms of trickery to get people to hear their message. There are tracts that fold up to look like a dropped $100 bill, tracts that look like comic books, missionarys that have medical clinics on the same location as churches implying that receiving one requires going to the other, and the good old fashioned using hot girls to get boys into church. Using deceit to spread the Gospel is not modeled by Christ or Paul or any of the founders of the church. Truth will prevail in the end. If you believe something is true, you should not need to use lies to make your point.

Part of my continuing complaint about the Creation point of view is that it in no way seems to address astrophysics. Space and time are forever intertwined, and dismissing one eliminates the other. Also the Creation perspective does not allow our ancestors enough creativity to accept the first Genesis story as a poetic sense of what has become known as the evolutionary process. In addition, Creation thinking is so linear that there is no understanding of the wider aspects of the process of evolution. Finally – and ironically – the Creation thinking is so radically humanist (arrogantly centered on humanity) that they diminish the rest of Creation as of lesser value.
Trying to counter Darwin’s theory with their own revisions is not a new strategy. The Pope insisted on having the preface to Bishop Kopernig’s (a.k.a. Copernicus) book on his astronomical observations, as a way to refute the Bishop’s conclusions. Notice we remember the scientist/Bishop but not the pope.

RE: The Comfort “fair play” version:
The creationist commentary is in large font and the Darwin text is small font and redacted (several chapters missing).
Having said that – this is a tempest in a teapot. Anyone with the slightest interest in science will find current popular science that explains the modern synthesis. Anyone looking for a creationist polemic will not want to carry around Comforts screed pre-pended to text they will never read anyway.

People should at least read the complete “The Origin of Species” before attempting to debate against it. People like “Mere Christian” obviously are just arguing from ignorance. Why not enlighten yourself instead of going down the same path that Ray Comfort has.

THIS IS TO KNOCKGOATS…KEEP IN MIND JEWS WERE ALSO HATING ON CHRISTIANS…HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE CHRIST HIMSELF WH0 BRIDGED THE GAP SO TO SPEAK…ELITIST JEWS WOULD DISCRIMINATE OPENLY AS THEN LIKE THEIR CONDESENTION TO SAMARITIANS AND OTHER NON JEWS…THEY ALSO TRIED TO KILL JESUS EVEN THOUGH HE WAS ONE OF THEIR OWN..JEW…REMEMBER MOSES TOLD THEM OF THE PROPHET TO COME YET THEY REJECTED HIM…THOUGH NOT ALL REMEMBER NICODEMUS…WHO WENT TO JESUS BY NIGHT FOR FEAR OF PEER PRESSURE…AND WAS CONVERTED…SO SOME RECEIVED HIM..AND STILL DO TODAY..YET THE PHARASEE, SANHEDREN, AND SCRIBES MOSTLY HATED JESUS AND HIS FOLLOWERS AND TRIED TO KILL HIM…THEY ALSO HELD SLAVES..AND COMMITTED ATROCITIES…YET THE ANGEL IN TALKING TO JOHN ON THE ISLE OF PATMOS IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION 3:9 TOLD JOHN OF JEWS HIDING BEHIND JUDIASM AND REALLY WERE ‘OF THE SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN’…THO THOSE WERE CLEARLY NOT THE POINT I’M MAKING FOR KNOCKGOATS IS THAT JEWS ALSO HATED CHRISTIANS AND TRIED TO ERADICATE THEM…THO MOSES TOLD THEM OF THE PROPHET (JESUS) WHO WAS TO COME…FOR THEM TO HEAR AND RECEIVE HIM…

J.M. Stewart,
Thank you for so amply proving my point. Putting it in all caps made it so much more convincing, too.

Darwin’s Finches from the Galapagos was once thought of as 31 different species. In our current science, they are listed as 13 species belonging to 5 separate Genus. However, all 13 species are capable of, and have been observed to, interbreed and produce healthy offspring. Peter Grant is well aware of this fact and has spearheaded a movement to redefine ‘species’ as simply having differing physical traits, which in my mind is a vague concept that would only preserve the illusion that Darwinian evolution has somehow occurred, and let the readers assume this justifies belief that all creatures share a common ancestry, and this is an example new genetic information genetic information arising of which of course it most certainly does not.
It is noteworthy that blood tests performed on the Galapagos finches indicate a common ancestry from a single pair of Finches going back about 600 years ago.
The Best way to explain the physical differences in Darwins Finches, is not Darwin’s Theory of evolution, but by Gregor Mendell’s Theory known as Mendellian Genetics. All traits observed in the all Finches today were contained in the inital pair of finches of 600 years ago, which radiated into the 13 basic physical finch types observed today on the Galapagos. The cause of the radiation was the expression of those existing traits (i.e. radiation) best suited to adapting to each type of ecological niche throughout those islands. The Grants also recorded that allele frequencies can change rapidly. For instance, during a drought, small beak finches had offspring with long beaks in just two years.
Therefore Darwin’s Finches do not support Darwins’ Theory of the Origin of Species. For Darwin’s Theory to be true, new kinds of useful genetic information must evolve in the DNA. Charles Darwin thought that all physical traits in offspring that differs from their parents was new information. He adopted the ancient theory of Pangenes to explain how this new information comes into existence. Pangenesis has been proven wrong and Mendellian Genetics adequately explains physical differences in offspring as arising from an enormous quantity of latent genetic information pre-existing in the genes, as determined by Natural Selection as well as feedback mechanisms that will also trigger the expression of latent traits best suited for or changing environments.
Natural Slection never produces new information in a species, it can only select information already existing information. In my mind, science has not revealed any legitimate means for new Genetic information to evolve into existence. And I believe this fact supports the premise that it takes a superior intelligence to put boundary conditions on the Laws of Physics and chance to build each basic body types of differing creatures with latent information to allow for adaptation, and thereby, increasing the chances of survival of all types of living creatures.
If a few astronauts landed on a planet and saw a mountain similar to Mt. Mckinly, they would know that the Laws of physics and chance are responsible for this mountain. If they travel east and come upon a mountain similar to our Mt. Rushmore, and see the four faces carved on that mountain, they would not conclude that natural causes are responsible for the Faces existence, but rather, they would know that it took intelligence to place boundary condtions on the Laws of Physics and chance to cause the likeness of those faces to be on Mt. Rushmore. How much more so for the specified complex workings of the various numerous forms of life on earth formed by different DNA strands that encodes each body type of creature to be produced allowing for billions of variations allowing for a enormous radiation of adaptive events to increase chances of survival in diverse ecologies.

Arthur Biele,
Why are you arguing against what Darwin believed, instead of modern evolutionary theory (which certainly includes genetics)? That would be like me trying to argue against particle physics by showing how ignorant Isaac Newton was on the structure of the atom. Biologists don’t religiously follow Darwin, they follow the evidence. EVERY evolutionist will freely admit that Darwin was ignorant on genetics and said a few things that turned out not to be true. That is why modern evolutionary theory is different than Darwin’s ideas. Modern evolutionary theory is has much more evidence and is much more complete than in Darwin’s time.
General biology classes discuss the idea of a species. There are many definitions, so you accusing Peter Grant of trying to redefine species is just silly. There are many definitions of exactly what a species should be. The most common definitions usually discuss that the populations do not naturally interbreed (not that it would be impossible for them to interbreed, as you seem to think).
I find it very amusing that you say Mendelian genetics explains the finches, not Darwin’s natural selection. Do you really not know that modern evolution is based on the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, which combined Mendelian genetics and natural selection (and modern genetics, which is much more complicated than Mendelian)?
You wrote, “Natural Slection never produces new information in a species, it can only select information already existing information. In my mind, science has not revealed any legitimate means for new Genetic information to evolve into existence.”
No evolutionist ever said that natural selection does produce new information. Just because you don’t know of any means that “increase information” does not mean that it doesn’t happen. Scientists have known of mechanisms for decades, just so you know. Dr. Ohno thoroughly documented one specific mechanism about 40 years ago! Daniel Mann made this same charge in the “More Than a Question of Numbers” blog on this site. I replied with about 8 papers that show specific examples of naturally occurring instances of genetic information increasing. There are literally hundreds of other papers, if you care to search for them. If you are interested in the papers just go to that Biologos post, and see my references in my post on Nov 15 at 6:01 am. You can also look up any of the papers on gene duplication and evolution by Dr. Susumu Ohno.
Here are two short general papers that explain how genetic information can increase, and you can look at their reference sections for dozens more papers that will help you understand this issue:
“The Origin of New Genes” by Long, Betrán, Thornton, et al in Nature Reviews Genetics, v 4 Nov 2003, pages 865-873.
“Evolution by gene duplication: an update” by Jianzhi Zhang in Trends in Ecology and Evolution, V 18(6) June 2003, pages 292-298.
Hope you spend some time to actually read the papers. You also might want to read an introductory college biology textbook to see how species are defined. Also, you should probably read up on genetics and how it has been incorporated into evolution, since you seam to have the very puzzling belief that the theory of genetics and the theory of evolution are at odds (even though genetics has validated and greatly strengthened evolution).
By the way, are you the same Arthur that said earlier that you earned 4 separate bachelors of art degrees in 5 years (including in physics)? And are you the same Arthur who said that evolution violated the second law? And gave me examples of two physicists that you said also agreed that evolution violated the second law, even though when I researched those two I found that one physicist fully accepted the evidence for evolution, and the other said he believed in common decent, never even mentioned the 2nd Law, and only discussed fossils? If you are, will you admit that you where wrong about that? I’m just curious, I called an Arthur out on this humorous claim a while ago, and he basically stopped posting. If you are the same guy, welcome back!

Arthur,
You wrote, “It is noteworthy that blood tests performed on the Galapagos finches indicate a common ancestry from a single pair of Finches going back about 600 years ago.”
And if this is true it is perfectly compatable with natural selection, and in fact just shows how fast speciation can happen. It’s puzzling that you would post this, since it is powerful evidence for evolution by natural selection, which you obviously don’t believe. Thanks for making the case for evolution even stronger!

Not so fast Dan. Your claim of victory for evolution in this matter is quite unwarranted.
Darwin was mistaken about his use ‘natural selection’, Natural Selection can only select genetic information that already exist, it plays no role in causing new traits to evolve into existence.
The concept of `natural selection’ was formulated by Creationists.
Creationist William Paley published argument for selection processes as a natural conservative force by which nature removes unfit individuals from populations, thereby preserving the integrity of a species by limiting any sustained drift toward increasingly inferior offspring (William Paley, ‘Natural Theology’, 1803). Darwin had read Paley’s book and was very impressed by it. Others made mention of ‘natural selection’ also (two papers before the Royal Society in 1813, and another one in 1831).
Creationist Edward Blyth also wrote several articles on natural selection (‘Magazine of Natural History’, 1836), a periodical to which Darwin subscribed to and he read Blyth’s article one year before he ‘thought’ of HIS idea of ‘natural selection’.
Blyth wrote with respect to food:
“… the one best organized must always obtain the greatest quantity; and must, therefore become physically strongest and be thus enabled, by routing its opponents, to transmit its superior qualities to a greater number of its offspring.”
Darwin read Blyth’s article before he thought of “HIS IDEA” on survival of the fittest in the struggle for existance. Darwin was a plagiarist. Famed Darwin biographer and evolutionist Loren Eisely wrote that Darwin failed to give Blyth the credit due him for his ideas on natural selection.
However Darwin did acknowledge that half of his theory came from the mind of his mentor, “Charles Lyell”. Darwin wrote that he saw his theory through the eyes of Charles Lyell. Charles Lyell is the one who plotted and executed a scheme to overthrow the Biblical Mosaic Flood and worked behind the scenes with Darwin, Huxley, and others to overthrow the Biblical. Lyell’s Theory of Uniformatarian Geology has been totally discredited and discarded by modern geologists and paleontologists.
Stephen Jay Gould points out in his article ‘Darwinism and the Expansion of the Evolution Theory’ (Science, 216, April 13, 1982, page 380):
“Darwinians cannot simply claim that natural selection operates since everyone, including Paley and the natural theologians, advocated selection as a device for removing unfit individuals at both extremes and preserving intact and forever, the created type. … The Reverend William Paley’s classic work ‘Natural Theology’, published in 1803, also contain many references to selective elimination.”
In creation theory, natural selection acts as a conservative force for preserving a created kind, i.e. a baramin, and maintaining its fitness. Natural selection works with an organisms ability to change, within genetic limits, so that plants and animals can multiply and adapt to many different ecological niches of the earth with variations of traits expressed that are best suited for each type of ecological niche they inhabit, and this by design of an intelligent Creator, and the existence of this intelligent Creator is fully accepted by all Christians.
For instance, Adam and Eve’s offspring would be free of genetic
defects (as harmful mutations to the DNA would not have yet occurred) and they contained all the genetic information necessary to produce all the known human characteristics we observe today in the human races (minus the defects. Thus it was permissible for brothers to marry sisters). Today we know all to well what happens in places where there is inbreeding, and in giving the Mosaic Covenant, God banned inbreeding.

Let’s make this perfectly clear: Gregor Mendell is the Father of the Science of Genetics, and is considered to be the first geneticist.
Charles Darwin’s mechanism for genetic variation for his theory of evolution was an idea going to back to Hippocrates (460-377 BC), it was called pangenesis. The concept of pangenesis allows for plasticity of the species, this concept is central to Darwin’s whole Theory of the origin of all species from an assumed initial progenote.
Pangenesis is a theory in which gemmules containing hereditary information from every part of the body coalesce in the gonads and are incorporated into the reproductive cells.
Pangenesis is a A theory of heredity proposed by Charles Darwin in his 1868 update of his book “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” Just like his Theory of evolution, Charles Darwin’s explanation on how small beneficial genetic changes accumulated and passed on from offsrping to offspring proved to be totally wrong. Charles Darwin never had a clue about Genetics. He knew before he published ‘Pangenesis’ as his mechanism that it did not work as he thought it would, third generation offspring often had physical traits of their grandparents but were lacking in their parents. This left Darwin scratching his head, if the traits are missing i the parents, how could they have been passed down? But he published his ‘Pangenesis’ mechanism anyway, as it was the only theory he had for passing new traits to the offspring.
Mendel’s observations from his pea experiments can be summarized in two principles that hold true today:
The Principle of Segregation
The Principle of Independent Assortment
Mendel came to four important conclusions from these experimental results:
1. The inheritance of each trait is determined by “units” or “factors” (now called genes) that are passed on to descendents unchanged.
2. An individual inherits one such unit from each parent for each trait.
3. A trait may not show up in an individual but can still be passed on to the next generation.
4. The genes for each trait segregate themselves during gamete production.
The General idea promoted by Charles Darwin and friends was that the Species were not genetically fixed, that species were constantly accumulating new novel genetic characteristics and passing them on to their offspring via Pangenesis. Thus they viewed the species as having plasticity.As anyone could see, offspring were physically similar to their parents, but also had physical traits that were different somewhat from their parents. That over a very long period of time, these small variations from generation to generation would accumulate into major morphogical changes, so much so that the distant offpring will be enormously physically different. An ancient amphibian would have a human as their very distant future offspring. Thus the species were variable and fluid over time, and not fixed.
Mendel’s ideas on heredity and evolution were diametrically opposed to those of Darwin and his followers. As Mendellian Genetics became known to be the true mechanism for genetic variation, it quickly became clear that Darwin was wrong about pangenesis and plasticity of the species. Mendellian Genetics re-established the fixity of the species.
This was clearly seen as a devastating blow to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by the co-founder of Darwin’s Theory. Alfred Russel Wallace:
From Monroe W. Strickberger, Genetics, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1976), p. 812.
Alfred Russel Wallace, who independently proposed the theory of organic evolution slightly before Charles Darwin, was opposed to Mendel’s laws of genetics. Wallace knew Mendel’s experiments showed that the general characteristics of an organism remained within distinct boundaries, that variation was limited to the information existing in the genes. In a letter to Dr. Archdall Reid on 28 December 1909, Wallace wrote:
“But on the general relation of Mendelism to Evolution I have come to a very definite conclusion. This is, that it has no relation whatever to the evolution of species or higher groups, but is really antagonistic to such evolution! The essential basis of evolution, involving as it does the most minute and all-pervading adaptation to the whole environment, is extreme and ever-present plasticity, as a condition of survival and adaptation. But the essence of Mendelian characters is their rigidity. They are transmitted without variation, and therefore, except by the rarest of accidents, can never become adapted to ever varying conditions.” James Marchant, Letters and Reminiscences (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1916), p. 340.
Once discovered and popularized, Mendellian Genetics became a cause of concern for the Darwiian evolutionists, and a few tried to discredit Mendel throughout the 20th century, others ignored the negative implications it had for Darwin’s Theory of evolution. To this day, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is poor science fiction masquerading as Science.
For more information:
http://www.weloennig.de/mendel02.htm
JOHANN GREGOR MENDEL: WHY HIS DISCOVERIES WERE IGNORED FOR 35 (72) YEARS

Arthur Biele,
Once discovered and popularized, Mendellian Genetics became a cause of concern for the Darwiian evolutionists, and a few tried to discredit Mendel throughout the 20th century, others ignored the negative implications it had for Darwin’s Theory of evolution.
You are either lying, or extremely ignorant. My guess is the latter. The outstanding advance of first half of the 20th century in biology was precisely the integration of the theory of natural selection with Mendelian genetics by Fisher, Haldane, Wright and others, in the 1920s and 30s. Directly contrary to what you say, Darwin’s belief in “blending” inheritance was in fact a serious handicap for his theory – it was pointed out with justice that this would have largely eliminated the variation on which selection acts within a few generations. Hence, while Darwin’s evidence for the occurrence of evolution was almost universally accepted by biologists by the end of the 19th century, the theory that natural selection was the main mechanism responsible was not. The rediscovery of Mendelian genetics led directly to the triumph of this theory, more than half a century after the Origin was published.
Do you really think that a quote from a book published in 1916, when DNA was unknown, tells us anything of use? Sadly, I suspect you really are ignorant enough to do so.

Fisher, Haldane, and Wright were evolutionists who understood the threat that Mendellian Genetics presented to Darwinian evolution. They worked hard ona mathematic model that would reinterpret Mendellian Genetics to fit in with Darwinian evolution. They came up with a math model called Population Genetics. However, their Population Genetics model was blown away by three independant peer reviewed science papers issued by evolutionists Lewinton, Speiss and Roughgarden that debunked Population Genetics as being totally irrelevant to evolutionary theory. Any college course that teaches Population Genetics as relevant to evolution theory is deceiving their students, and I did debate a college Professor who does teach his students ‘population genetics’ and he saw the light. Can you?
Knockgoats writes: “Do you really think that a quote from a book published in 1916, when DNA was unknown, tells us anything of use? Sadly, I suspect you really are ignorant enough to do so.”
By your own words you just shot yourself in the foot with this not-too-well thought out statement of yours, which I will simply hand back to you:
DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT A BOOK PUBLISHED IN 1859, WHEN DNA WAS UNKNOWN, TELLS US ANYTHING OF USE?
The fact is that Darwin’s Pangenesis has been shot down and Mendellian Genetics explains variations from generation to generation without any appeal to evolution, except for mutations that corrupt the Genetic code such as the mutations that cause Hemophilia, Gay Tsachs disease, and Sickle Cell Anemia.
Then there are molecules like Hemoglobin. Hemglobin roughly consist of 450 amino acid molecules, wherein only a dozen or so of the 20 types of amino acids found in proteins in living creatures may be replaced at their loci with another amino acid without destroying the function of the Hemoglobin molecule. Do you really think that Hemoglobin can come into existence by the Laws of physics and chance alone?
It takes intelligence to place the boundary conditions on the laws of physics and chance to form a functional hemoglobin molecule. As a Christian, I know that source of Intelligence that formed the diverse life that we see in our world.
I once discussed this with an evolutionary scientist who was an atheist, and he agreed that a divine eternal intelligence (God) would be the best explanation for life as we know it, but that he does not see any evidence for such a God.

their Population Genetics model was blown away by three independant peer reviewed science papers issued by evolutionists Lewinton, Speiss and Roughgarden
You have managed to get two of the three names wrong, so it’s clear you haven’t read any of these papers, the latest of which dates from 1981 – science has progressed considerably since then. Nor did they claim what you say they claim. You can read about the matter here .
DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT A BOOK PUBLISHED IN 1859, WHEN DNA WAS UNKNOWN, TELLS US ANYTHING OF USE?
Origin of Species is of great historical interest, but entirely irrelevant to current research in evolutionary biology. That you don’t understand this is just another proof of your complete ignorance.
Do you really think that Hemoglobin can come into existence by the Laws of physics and chance alone?
You once again show that you simply don’t know what you are talking about. Natural selection is neither a law of physics, nor chance.
Mendellian Genetics explains variations from generation to generation without any appeal to evolution, except for mutations that corrupt the Genetic code such as the mutations that cause Hemophilia, Gay Tsachs disease, and Sickle Cell Anemia. Arthur Biele
You’re simply displaying your ignorance once again. First it’s “Tay-Sachs Disease”. That you can get something so simple wrong shows clearly that you are just copy-pasting without understanding. Second, sickle-cell anemia is an excellent example of evolution by natural selection in action. Heterozygotes for the allele that causes it show enhanced resistance to malaria – which is why it is most common in areas where dangerous strains of malaria are a serious problem. That you would choose this as your example confirms your complete ignorance. Hemoglobin provides an excellent example of longer-term evolution: the hemoglobin molecule found in humans and most other vertebrates is made up of alpha and beta hemoglobin molecules, while lampreys have a simpler molecule. It is evident to experts that the genes for alpha and beta hemoglobin have resulted from an event of gene duplication and subsequent divergence. You can start your education by reading about this. Come back when you have something worth saying.

Arthur,
Again, if you really think that genetics was, or is, a challenge to evolution than you are sadly mistake. Please do some research on the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, which incorporated genetics with evolution. I think that genetics has provided the strongest evidence for evolution yet. When I was a creationist I didn’t understand genetics at all, but when I actually started studying evolution for myself one of the things that really changed my mind was the genetic evidence for evolution.
Again, you are arguing against Darwin, not modern evolutionary theory. Darwin could have thought that storks brought down babies from heaven, or he could have thought that a purple space alien named Zork zapped creatures with new traits, and it wouldn’t invalidate modern evolutionary theory. (Just to be clear, Darwin didn’t believe those things, based on your posts illogic I am worried that you might think I am saying Darwin really believed those things).
Even if Darwin did steal the idea of Natural Selection (which you falsely charge), that has no bearing on if it is true or not. Also, just so you know, even Answers in Genesis says that the argument that Darwin stole the idea of natural selection is a dishonest argument that creationists shouldn’t use.
To say that Mendelian genetics reestablishes the fixity of species is laughable balderdash! First, fossil evidence and even direct observation has shown that species aren’t fixed, so if you bizarre misunderstanding of Mendelian genetics was true than direct observation contradicted that idea. Second, modern genetics is very different than Medals rudimentary understanding of genetics. I’m not trying to take anything away from Mendel, his observations are incredibly important and I admire his discovery, but our understanding of genetics has progressed a huge amount since him. We now understand the role that mutation, transposable elements, polyploidy, polygenic loci, and gene duplication play in evolution and genetics.
You should probably be aware that the theory of inheritance that was commonly believed in Darwin’s day was the blending hypothesis. Darwin freely admitted in The Origin that blending was a problem for his theory of natural selection. In fact, the current understanding of inheritance was one of the major arguments that Darwin’s critics used against him! Mendelian genetics would have been a HUGE help to Darwin’s theory. Supposedly Darwin actually had a copy of Mendel’s book, but hadn’t read it. This might just be a folk tale, but the reason this story is passed on is because everyone who understand evolution sees the irony that if Darwin HAD read the book and understood genetics it would have helped him immensely in making his case for evolution! Your argument really just shows that you don’t understand Darwin, science history, modern genetics, modern evolutionary theory, or Mendelian genetics.
You wrote “For instance, Adam and Eve’s offspring would be free of genetic defects (as harmful mutations to the DNA would not have yet occurred) and they contained all the genetic information necessary to produce all the known human characteristics we observe today in the human races (minus the defects.”
Wow. I’ll just say that if you think that in a few thousand years was enough time for all the genetic variety that we see in humans to have evolved, then you believe that evolution can happen at a much faster rate than I can. Genetics absolutely refutes the idea that all known genetic variability was contained in two people a few thousand years ago. A huge amount of beneficial mutation and natural selection would have had to have taken place for you wild hypothesis to be correct. It’s ironic that you are saying genetics falsifies evolution, when in reality genetics falsifies your belief that all present genetic variation was in two people a few thousand years ago! That impossible based on our understanding of genetics.
You wrote, “Darwin was mistaken about his use ‘natural selection’, Natural Selection can only select genetic information that already exist, it plays no role in causing new traits to evolve into existence.”
Did you read the articles I pointed you too that show unequivocal mechanisms for how new beneficial genes and traits arise in population? It’s almost like you are arguing with me without even bothering to look up references that prove you wrong. I told you that Dr. Ohno’s work 40 years ago explained how new information could come about. I also told you that NO evolutionary biologist says that natural selection increases information. The mechanisms are in the articles I referenced.
Also, are you or are you not the Arthur that said he earned 4 separate BA degrees in 5 years (including in physics) and then said that the 2nd law overturns evolution? Are you the same Arthur that gave me two examples of physicists you said used the 2nd Law argument against evolution, even though one guy really said he fully accepted evolution, and the other guy accepted common decent and never mentioned the 2nd Law? Why are you dodging the question?
Again, Darwin was certainly wrong on several things, but that has NO bearing on if MODERN evolutionary theory is correct. You might as well try to use Newton’s ignorance of atoms to disprove particle physics. That would be just as “logical” as your arguemnt.

I just wanted to say that claiming to bridge a gap between Christianity and science is just plainly blasphemous. To even suggest that between what God says happened and what happened is foolishness, even to the point of either calling God a liar or the Bible not the word of God. No arguments were presented here, just statements that Ray Comfort is wrong. I understand that the reason he is handing out the book to University students is to stop darwin being presented in a romantic light. There are many cut down versions of the book available, so it’s only fair to present both sides of the argument (clearly evolution is the only view being taught although arguably we should start teaching alchemy too as it has similar scientific validity). Here in Australia we have the secular media pumping out Idas (remember the lemur like creature that was exposed as the missing link) pop up almost every three months, but what happens when they are exposed as a fraud? The media stays strangely quiet. There are many scientists who write against evolution. I would suggest that they are as equal woth of attention as Ray, perhaps more so because Ray see his mission as bringing the gospel to people. Rather than to argue evolution. So on that basis as ‘beliefnet’ shouldn’t you be pleased for Ray to be bringing the good news to people?

No arguments were presented here, – Andrew Lacey
Andrew Lacey, you are a liar. What puzzles me is why you tell a lie which anyone can identify as such, just by reading the post and the thread. I guess you must also be extremely stupid.

MediaCurves.com conducted a study among 304 viewers of a news clip discussing a new introduction to Charles Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species”. Results found that viewer support for teaching creationism in schools declined after watching the video. Furthermore, the majority of viewers (65%) indicated that they would read the original version of “On the Origin of Species”, while fewer viewers (60%) indicated that they would read the new introduction. More in depth results can be seen at: http://www.mediacurves.com/Religion/Darwin%20Additions/Index.cfm
Thanks,
Ben