It just happened to me again. I carefully composed a response to your excellent piece… and trouble with expiration of the “captcha” caused me to lose all my work.
I can’t tell you how enraging this is. I will never again attempt to engage in any dialogue on this website. I’m done with it… and if you care about your audience, you should be done with it too.
Get a blog somewhere else… where the programmers have respect for the users.

Absolutely right. I think there is a great danger in linking these things together, since they are all very different and it creates the wrong impression about individual groups that may oppose one or the other on separate grounds. However, there is some common thread among the topics, in that their opponents often share the feeling of being forced “outside” the circle of discussion. So it may just be good politics to unite them in an effort to “overthrow” part of the establishment, even if for different motivations.

Over in the Jesus Creed blog they had a thread about global warming and evolution.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/12/conspiracy-belief-evolution-an.html
It stuck me as really odd there and I don’t think it is a good trend that it is spreading.

Rabbi Brad Hirschfield wrote: “There is room for debate about evolution, global warming and cloning.”
Rabbi, what do you mean that there is room for debate about evolution? There isn’t room for debate — in the sense of REASONABLE debate — about whether evolution has occurred. I recommend Ernst Mayr’s book What Evolution Is. Here is a quote from the book:
“Astronomical and geophysical evidence indicate that the Earth originated about 4.6 billion years ago. At first the young Earth was not suitable for life, owing to the heat and exposure to radiation. Astronomers estimate that it became liveable about 3.8 billion years ago, and life apparently originated about that time, but we do not know what the first life looked like. Undoubtedly, it consisted of aggregates of macromolecules able to derive substance and energy from surrounding inanimate molecules and from the sun’s energy. Life may well have originated repeatedly at this early stage, but we know nothing about this. If there have been several origins of life, the other forms have since become extinct. Life as it now exists on Earth, including the simplest bacteria, was obviously derived from a single origin. This is indicated by the genetic code, which is the same for all organisms, including the simplest ones, as well as by many aspects of cells, including microbial cells. The earliest fossil life was found in strata about 3.5 billion years old. These earliest fossils are bacterialike, indeed they are remarkably similar to some blue-green bacteria and other bacteria that are still living” (p. 40).

Smug creationist David Klinghoffer hates science not in the name of God, but of the authoritarian Christian evangelical think-tank known as the Discovery Institute.
Or, more accurately, since the DI “knows” the mind of God, it- and therefore Christophile Klinghoffer- has no problem speaking in the voice of the Deity.

Forget about Klinghoffer- his buddy, Marc Thiessen, has been up to much worse things that desecrate the name of God: “In recent weeks, former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen has been on a public relations campaign defending the efficacy of waterboarding, going so far as to say that the torture technique sanctioned by the Bush administration is not only safe, but is in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

Wes –
Ernst Mayr is no more authoratative
than anyone else — he was not present at creation
and his statements are simply interpretations of the evidence.
Even those who
SUBSCRIBE to “evolution” admit that it had
to occur in “jumps” and that there is no evidence of
a specific species “evolving” into another. The fact that
there is genetic similarity between all forms of “life” simply
means that all forms of life originated (or were created)
under [more or less] similar “conditions”…
People can CHOOSE to accept a theory such as evolution and
not believe in G-d at all OR they can choose to believe that
the “jumps” in evolution were actually the “steps” by which
G-d created life OR they can choose to state that we simply
do not KNOW how G-d created the world and the physical evidence
in fron of us gives us a *model* of hwo life “came to be” since
“creation” is a totally non-scientific process.
Similarly, in the case of the age of the world, one can choose to believe
that the world is og a certain age — as based upon the physical evidence
and dismiss G-d form the picture OR one can accept the age of the world based
upon the scientific evidence but note that there are Midrashic opinoins that
our world was “built upon” the “ruins” of earlier worlds OR one can state that
we are not in a position to properly interpret the evidence because the “flood”
was NOT merely a flood of water but a cosmic event when the earth stopped
rotating on its axis — leadig to cataclysmic changes [The Talmud states that
during the "flood" there was neither day nornight nor the passing of the seasons
-- taken literally, this would mean that the Earth stopped in its orbit AND
was not rotating on its axis].
I do not believe that one view can be PROVEN superior to any other.

@Steve – when the CAPTCHA expires, you see big red letters below the box. Personally, I always type my responses in text editors like TextEdit, metapad and NotePad, before pasting them into the comment forms (not just here, elsewhere too).

pompous Zvi:
you ol’ shaygetz, you! In this context, it is “God” vice “G-d”.
As you may or may not know, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, z’l, was the definitive decisor for Orthodox Jewry in the 20th century. If anything, his rulings learn toward the more stringent. He has ruled that, except when quoting texts verbatim from scripture or liturgy which contain the Tetragrammaton, the proper HALACHIC usage is the plenary rendering ‘God.’ Please note this for the future.
Heaven knows, there is already far too much superstition and faux piety circulating these days masquerading as religosity; there is no need to add to it through the promiscuous and supererogatory usage of ‘G-d’ for the divine.
Also, note that in English, it is the ‘dirty/curse words’ that are spelled defectively in print – e.g., s–t, f–k, etc.; since when is ‘God’ to be considered a dirty word?

in addition to Klinghoffer and Thiessen, another right-wing dipstick
out to discredit science is uber-nerd columnist George Will.
But Will, at least, has an excuse: his autism- it is clear that Will suffers from Asperger’s Syndrome, about which he is either in denial or in the closet.

Steve, after losing several carefully composed blog comments on this site, I know copy my post to my clipboard before I try and post it. That’s one way to get around the stupid catchpa.

I wonder how these people would like living back in the days when The Church had the power to forbid scientific inquiry, and could sentence Galileo to death for reporting that the earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa. Most evolution-deniers are Christians of the evangelical born-again variety, who typically view the Roman Catholic Church as evil incarnate. Yet they apparently want to emulate the Catholic Church at its worst and suppress human progress in the name of Jesus Christ.
While I do not consider Jesus as anything other than a wise Jewish teacher, I believe strongly that if he were reincarnated today these people would make him want to puke.

Dr. PAUL K FAUTECK : Unless your just talkin’ hypothetically, using the preterite subjective rather than the indicative, …which in the case of the English verb ‘can’ are identical,… may it be known to you that the Church never sentenced Galileo to death. It could, but couldn’t, mainly because it honestly knew that he was simply confirming what ecclesiastical science (yes, there was an ecclesiastical ‘science’) had recently suspected. Fearful that his emphasis on the apparent incongruities between materialistic observation and trans-materialistic reflection would traumatically confuse its believers, the Church simply wanted him to temper his subsequent publications with respect for the spiritual status quo. The superficial criticality of a poorly educated public was something to be feared, especially by a church seeking simultaneously to evolve while maintaining its integrity. It was principally of the belief that a medicine of inevitable change, …as strong medicine therefore,… should be taken gradually, not all at once. They already had one schism. They didn’t need another. By the way, the scientist in question was sentenced to house arrest. Of course, this doesn’t absolve said church of the sins of its earlier Inquisition.

The thing that links opposition to Darwinism and opposition to global warming activism is that both Darwinism and global warming activism are motivated by collectivism. Evolutionary theory is science. The importance ascribed to evolutionary theory is political. Some aspects of the study of the effects of human activity on climate are scientific. The promotion of an exaggerated sense of certainty regarding these effects and of particular public policy responses thereto is political. People who oppose collectivism are wise to confront collectivists wherever they seek to promote their agenda. It is also wise to show that the underlying agenda is constant and stands quite apart from science.

testing

Zvi I Weiss wrote: “Wes — Ernst Mayr is no more authoritative than anyone else — he was not present at creation and his statements are simply interpretations of the evidence.”
Mayr is one of the greatest authorities to ever live on whether evolution has occurred. He knows the data that would help one know whether evolution has occurred better than almost any human to ever live.
However, that he claims that evolution has occurred is not sufficient for me to know that evolution has occurred. For experts often are wrong. However, you can find some of the kinds of data that has helped many people know that evolution has occurred by googling “Common Descent Douglas Theobold.” You can read the first link that comes up.
Also, that no person has witnessed an alleged event is irrelevant to whether I know that it is has occurred. For instance, no person has witnessed a living T-Rex. And I’m sure that T-Rexes lived on earth. No person has witnessed 100 meters below the surface of the moon, and I’m sure that moon is not made of cream-cheese. So, that no person has witnessed bacteria evolve into elephants is irrelevant to whether I know that bacteria has evolved into elephants.
(continued)

(continued)
Zvi I Weiss wrote: “Even those who SUBSCRIBE to ‘evolution’ admit that it had to occur in ‘jumps’ and that there is no evidence of a specific species ‘evolving’ into another.”
What do you mean by “jumps?” Many people who believe that evolution has occurred don’t believe that there were jumps in the sense of one organism giving birth to another organism that is radically different than it. Moreover, it took tens of millions of years for a population of reptiles to evolve into full blown mammals. This is known through the fossil record. Specifically, the oldest known reptile fossils are about 300 million years old, whereas the oldest known mammal fossils are about 200 million years old.
Zvi I Weiss wrote: “The fact that there is genetic similarity between all forms of ‘life’ simply means that all forms of life originated (or were created) under [more or less] similar ‘conditions.’”
That all organisms on earth have the DNA molecule — except for those viruses that have the RNA molecules instead — is not sufficient for me to know that all organisms on earth are biologically related. However, it is relevant. For instance, it is not as if humans have a completely different molecule of inheritance than do all other organisms. Furthermore, although the genetic similarity of all organisms on earth is not sufficient for me to know that all organisms on earth are biologically related, it is not the only data available to me. I provided a link to some of the other kinds of data that has helped some people know that all organisms that have lived on earth are biologically related. For instance, the fossil data has helped many people know that all organisms to live on earth are biologically related. Nearly every known organism is very similar anatomically to at least one known organism that is older than it and relatively close in age to it, and this traces all the way back to bacteria that is 3.5 billion years old. See, for instance, the sequence of specimens from less complex bacteria to more complex bacteria, from fish to amphibians, from amphibians to reptiles, from reptiles to mammals, from apes to humans, and from land mammals to whales. Moreover, no known organism is hugely different anatomically than every known organism that is older than it, for instance, no one has discovered a rabbit that is one billion years old. The pattern of the fossil record helps me determine that bacteria evolved into all the complex organisms to have lived on earth, because we observe that when organisms reproduce the offspring always is fairly similar (though not identical) to its parent(s).
Zvi I Weiss wrote: “People can CHOOSE to accept a theory such as evolution and not believe in G-d at all OR they can choose to believe that the ‘jumps’ in evolution were actually the ‘steps’ by which G-d created life OR they can choose to state that we simply do not KNOW how G-d created the world and the physical evidence in fron of us gives us a *model* of how life ‘came to be’ since ‘creation’ is a totally non-scientific process.”
That someone chooses to believe something is not important to whether I know or am warranted in inferring that it is true. For instance, some people choose to believe that the earth is flat. Moreover, if they choose to believe that evolution is not true, they are wrong. Please see the above link.
Also, many people believe that (1) one or more Gods exist AND believe (2) that evolution has occurred. I think the Pope is an example. And the two beliefs are logically consistent. They have different meanings.
I don’t believe in God. I’m atheist. But millions of people believe that evolution has occurred and believe that God exists.
In addition, I don’t know what you mean when you say “’creation’ is a totally non-scientific process.” Evolution has occurred, and many people know that it has occurred. Please see the article by Theobold to which I have referred.
(continued)

(continued)
Zvi I Weiss wrote: “Similarly, in the case of the age of the world, one can choose to believe that the world is og a certain age — as based upon the physical evidence and dismiss G-d form the picture OR one can accept the age of the world based upon the scientific evidence but note that there are Midrashic opinoins that our world was ‘built upon’ the ‘ruins’ of earlier worlds OR one can state that we are not in a position to properly interpret the evidence because the ‘flood’ was NOT merely a flood of water but a cosmic event when the earth stopped rotating on its axis — leading to cataclysmic changes [The Talmud states that during the ‘flood’ there was neither day nor night nor the passing of the seasons -- taken literally, this would mean that the Earth stopped in its orbit AND was not rotating on its axis]. I do not believe that one view can be PROVEN superior to any other.”
Planet earth is about 4.6 billion years old. This is known partly through radiometric dating. Here is a link:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/3/l_033_01.html
You can click on the quicktime or real player to see a helpful video.
Also, the known universe is about 13.7 billion years old. This is known partly because it is known how fast light travels. Here is a link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/science/space/09cosmos.html

For your own defense watch: “Shadow Government” http://snardfarker.ning.com/profiles/blogs/videos-shadow-government-full?xg_source=msg_mes_network

Accompany Rely,length fight assessment reasonable control forest no-one also game tape opinion method library better along race hit why election help size like supply aim duty moment presence serve both belong dry considerable spirit check strategy normal everybody agree onto hang war requirement afterwards send hard employ present family pass only advice bus discussion leaf crime red so service weak whereas impact acid reflect number smile solicitor foundation circumstance balance involve long interesting over circumstance severe unit game evening effectively improve asset train condition alone question motion possibly

blog.beliefnet.com is great! Payday loans are basically small loans and you normally take this loan with the intention of meeting emergency epenses such as dealing with family emergency where you have to travel immediately to be with your family members due to some

Unless someone was present at the creation of the World and the various species, nobody can “know” what happened. they can look at the evidence and draw conclusions. One then CHOOSES to BELIEVE a certain way. One can — of course — claim to KNOW but that is really fooling one’s self.
A perfect example of this is when Wes states “Evolution occurred”. That is a statement of BELIEF but it is used to delegitimize anyone who disagrees. The simple fact is that IF creation took place, it WAS a non-scientific process and would NOT be amenable to scientific methodology. Regardless of what actually took place, the “evidence” as interpreted by humans who have not been “exposed” to the act of cration would (and probably only COULD) be interpreted in certain ways.
People who believe that G-d created the world do nto deny the evidence. Nor do they say that G-d is trying to “paly tricks” on people. Rather, the assertion is that since “Creation” is not subject to scientific verification or investigation (and, in fact, would likely violate some fundamental scientific laws), there is no way for Creation to be disproven. Ultimately, it boils down to belief — and, what one “knows” is then understood in light of that basic belief.
People who believe that G-d created the world do not question the constancy of the speed of light; they do not question the use of Carbon dating (as limited as it might be); they do not question the “Big Bang” radiation; All that they point out is that it is not difficult to accept that evidence and still maintain that there was a Deity who created the world — and who did so in such a way as to provide freedom of choice whether to believe or not.
It is unfortunate that those people who “know” that evolution has “occurred” are unwilling to allow equal time to those who “know” that it did not. Such “unwillingness” may CLAIM to be based upon “science” — in reality, it is just as intolerant as some creationists.

High quality post. Thank for sharing. fxtmeitgonzibeyahgsskyahaaqizzonukc
Mr. Payday Easy Loans Inc.

Very useful article. Myself & my neighbor were preparing to do some research about that. We got a good book on that matter from our local library and most books were not as descriptive as your information. I am very glad to see such information which I was searching for a long time.

Great concepts on this website. It’s rare these days to find websites with data you are seeking. I am happy I chanced on this webpage. I will certainly bookmark it or even register for your rss feeds simply to be updated on your new posts. Keep up the nice job and I’m sure some other folks researching valued information will actually stop by and benefit from your website for resources.

Thanks for good news! Your site is very useful for me. I bookmarked your site!

Well, the submit is actually the sweetest on this deserving topic. I agree with your conclusions and will eagerly look forward to your incoming updates. Just saying thanks will not just be adequate, for the superb clarity in your writing. I will at once grab your rss feed to stay informed of any updates. Superb work and much success in your business endeavors!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Take care.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Take care.

I’m happy to have found your exceptionally decent article! I agree with some of your readers and will eagerly look forward to your coming updates. Just saying thanks will not just be adequate, for the wonderful lucidity in your writing. I will instantly grab your rss feed to stay privy of any updates. Perfect work and much success in your business efforts.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Take care.

Pretty decent post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts. Any way I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you publish again soon.

Usually I do not write on blogs, but I would like to say that this article really convinced me to do so! Congratulations, exceptionally nice submit.

This article gives the light in which we can observe the reality. This is quite nice one and gives in-depth information. Thanks for this nice article

This internet site is a complete net resource for this. You’ll find all you wanted or needed to know, here.

This website is the most reliable online site. sxscrzdw

I am looking for free college football online radio. How can I find it?

Thanks for the info about Hating Science in the Name of God
- Windows & Doors

Your post about Hating Science in the Name of God
- Windows & Doors rocks!

Unfogettable post about Hating Science in the Name of God
- Windows & Doors!

Very very nice post about Hating Science in the Name of God
- Windows & Doors!

Excellent read about Hating Science in the Name of God
- Windows & Doors!

Hello there! Do you use Twitter? I’d like to follow you if that would be okay. I’m definitely enjoying your blog and look forward to new updates.