Quote :

"In a controversial new satirical documentary, author, former presidential speechwriter, economist, lawyer and actor Ben Stein travels the world, looking to some of the best scientific minds of our generation for the answer to the biggest question facing all Americans today: Are we still free to disagree about the meaning of life? Or has the whole issue already been decided... while most of us weren't looking? The freedom to legitimately challenge 'Big Science's' orthodoxy without persecution. The debate over evolution is confusing and to some, bewildering: 'Wasn't this all settled years ago?' The answer to that question is equally troubling: 'Yes and no.' The truth is that a staggering amount of new scientific evidence has emerged since Darwin's 150-year-old theory of life's origins. Darwin had no concept of DNA, microbiology, The Big Bang, Einstein's Theory of Relativity or of the human genome. Each of these discoveries has, in one way or another, led a growing number of scientists to reconsider the simple view espoused by Darwin that life is a random, purposeless, chance occurrence. The universe, and life itself - is turning out to be far more complex and mysterious - than Darwin could possibly have imagined."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/home.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxGyMn_-J3c&feature=related

I haven't seen this documentary, so I can't properly critique it. I have no problem, however, accepting the concepts of "Big Science" and liberal academics that take it upon themselves to decide for us all this issue or that has been settled.

Despite what some of you may think, I do not support teaching religious dogma in science classrooms or other inappropriate settings. My concern is more about the incessant push that God and science are mutually exclusive.

In any event, I'm sure that this film will spark heated discussions here and elsewhere.

[Edited on December 18, 2007 at 2:11 PM. Reason : .]

12/18/2007 1:52:11 PM

Quote :

"When you see the word 'evolution.' You should ask yourself, 'Which of the three definitions is being used?' Because arguments and evidence supporting #1 do not support #2 or #3!"

They don't?

12/18/2007 1:56:28 PM

I love it when non-scientists decide to wade into the "evolution" debate and tell scientists how evolution is "scientifically defined," right down to the facile notion that scientists are still working from the exact same Origin of Species playbook. Population dynamics? Punctuated equilibrium? Advanced study of genetics? Nah - it's all still Darwinism.

It's as much of a strawman argument as saying that physicists still speculate about the "ether" theory. Easy to defeat, but about 150 years too late.

12/18/2007 1:57:23 PM

It really just shows how f***ed up society is today that we can't have an honest debate. That's why our country is unfortunately going to eventually fail. We don't know how to disagree politely, and our society and our government is worse run because of it.

I'm sitting on the sidelines, waiting for the two bickering sides in every dumb discussion to pull out guns and kill each other. Whether it be Democrats and Republicans, "we came from monkeys" and "the earth is 6000 years old", "global warming" and "pollution and smog are good for you", etc. When they're all dead, the world will be a better place.

12/18/2007 1:58:32 PM

^^ Well, Darwin is still highly regarded by scientists.

12/18/2007 1:59:55 PM

Yeah, I'm not saying he isn't. Newton's still highly regarded too. But it's not like we pretend physics stopped in the 17th century, and then use it as an argument as to why God is responsible for gravity...

12/18/2007 2:02:53 PM

Quote :

"I have no problem, however, accepting the concepts of "Big Science" and liberal academics that take it upon themselves to decide for us all this issue or that has been settled."

It's the liberal conspiracy to discredit christianity and grow support for Scientology.

12/18/2007 2:03:32 PM

Is the quoted bit suggesting that evolution stops at the artificially created species line? That organisms evolve, but never enough to become what we would call new species?

12/18/2007 2:05:26 PM

^^ If you have nothing meaningful to add--and it appears that you don't--GTFO.

^ That's just a synopsis from the link--I don't even know who wrote it. I was just trying to give a brief description of the documentary.

[Edited on December 18, 2007 at 2:07 PM. Reason : .]

12/18/2007 2:05:44 PM

you people are silly

12/18/2007 2:07:24 PM

Quote :

"^ If you have nothing meaningful to add--and it appears that you don't--GTFO."

12/18/2007 2:10:06 PM

so silly

12/18/2007 2:13:30 PM

Quote :

"Is the quoted bit suggesting that evolution stops at the artificially created species line? That organisms evolve, but never enough to become what we would call new species?"

I would say that's what they are trying to say.

But I tell you what, why don't we wait a million years and see what happens. Wait... Jesus may come back before then and end this world. Crap, that would mess it all up. Then we'll never know!

I would like to see this documentary though. I agree that Darwin's theory holds some merit, but I don't think other views should be silenced just because they differ or challenge Darwin's views. Especially in America.




[Edited on December 18, 2007 at 2:23 PM. Reason : just a thought]

12/18/2007 2:16:37 PM

Quote :

"The truth is that a staggering amount of new scientific evidence has emerged since Darwin's 150-year-old theory of life's origins. Darwin had no concept of DNA, microbiology, The Big Bang, Einstein's Theory of Relativity or of the human genome Each of these discoveries has, in one way or another, led a growing number of scientists to reconsider the simple view espoused by Darwin that life is a random, purposeless, chance occurrence."

Stupid, all those discoveries have supported Darwin and pretty much proven evolutionary theory correct. Darwin never said life was random, purposeless, or a chance occurence. Nor did Darwin ever try to explain the orgin of life... jeeze.

12/18/2007 2:18:19 PM

since when did evolution become a partisan issue. is hooksaw asserting that no liberal are christian or that all republicans go to church on sunday.

I agree with you bud that evolution and god do not have to be mutually exclusive. however, only science should be left for the science classroom and religious dogma for the church. I would not expect to hear a surmon on technial analysis of the Big Bang surmon one sunday while attending mass with grandma

12/18/2007 2:27:16 PM

i like how he put the Theory of Relativity in there

like that has anything to do with anything here

12/18/2007 2:30:15 PM

for as smart as Ben Stein comes off in his movies and TV shows in the 80s and 90s, he's really an idiot. just find the video of him and Bill O'Reilly sucking each other off and gossiping like little girls (can't find the video myself - youtube blocked at my office)

Quote :

"Darwin had no concept of DNA, microbiology, The Big Bang, Einstein's Theory of Relativity or of the human genome."

anyway, this quote is just ridiculous
1) Darwin had no concept of DNA. this is true. This also makes his theories that much more prescient and incredible when DNA was discovered 100 years later and everything we have learned about it validates most of the original theory, not discredits it. This is like saying that one cannot make an observation like "the sun is hot" without know the exact nuclear mechanics that make it so.

2) no concept of microbiology...... point? He probably didn't have much of a concept of electromagnitism or physics either. Furthermore, this is again kind of like #1. Microbiology as a scientific field was only being discovered/formed in the mid-1800's, the same time Darwin was doing his work. Once again, this is like saying since Copernicus wasn't aware of either Newtonion physics or Einstein's Theories of Relativity, his observation that the earth orbited the sun by some force was irrelevant.

3) The Big Bang has nothing to do with biology or human evolution

4) The Theory of Relativity has nothing to do with biology or human evolution. By the way, Darwin probably wasn't aware of String Theory either. Does that help discredit his observations and theories?

5) The Human Genome was an outcome of the discovery of DNA. See #1

12/18/2007 2:47:29 PM

^ its all science. u missed my point.

and even if you want to relate it to the religious debate the big bang has religious implications. Even more fascinating special relativity could be used by science oriented christians to rationalize the "world was created in seven days" dogma.

[Edited on December 18, 2007 at 2:58 PM. Reason : a]

12/18/2007 2:57:46 PM

Quote :

"accepting the concepts of "Big Science" and liberal academics that take it upon themselves to decide for us all this issue or that has been settled."

I didn't know only liberals were atheists.

12/18/2007 3:17:46 PM

^^ i wasn't responding to your point. i hadn't even read it yet. I was responding directly to the quote from the original post.

12/18/2007 3:40:08 PM

Quote :

"My concern is more about the incessant push that God and science are mutually exclusive."

Hay when you provide evidence that a god exists than maybe they can be together

until then gtfo

12/18/2007 4:02:24 PM

So, being an evil evolutionist and all, I figured it was time for me to finally read the entirety of Origin of Species and Descent of Man. I've read chunks of both and books about them and Darwin himself, but the actual combination of the two is a pretty hefty tome. My second biggest surprise is how totally readable Darwin is. For a book published in England in 1859, the language is very modern and not difficult at all, Darwin speaks intelligibly and provides great examples and descriptions, and he's even funny in some cases.

My biggest surprise so far (keeping in mind I'm only about 60 pages into Origin) is highlighted in this snippet below... until a while after Origin was published and evolution started to be accepted, even DOMESTICATED species were thought to have each come from an ancestor exactly or almost exactly like them. I wonder if that won't become the most telling thing I find here - that creationism was so rampant pre-Darwin that people didn't even believe that their cattle, rabbits, wheat, and corn came from an ancestor quite different from the current species, even though they existed in their current forms only because of human-driven selective breeding.

That just tells you how far we've come. It gives me hope. The passage is below or read the chapter at this URL:

Quote :

"I have discussed the probable origin of domestic pigeons at some, yet quite insufficient, length; because when I first kept pigeons and watched the several kinds, knowing well how true they bred, I felt fully as much difficulty in believing that they could ever have descended from a common parent, as any naturalist could in coming to a similar conclusion in regard to the many species of finches, or other large groups of birds, in nature. One circumstance has struck me much; namely, that all the breeders of the various domestic animals and the cultivators of plants, with whom I have ever conversed, or whose treatises I have read, are firmly convinced that the several breeds to which each has attended, are descended from so many aboriginally distinct species. Ask, as I have asked, a celebrated raiser of Hereford cattle, whether his cattle might not have descended from long horns, and he will laugh you to scorn. I have never met a pigeon, or poultry, or duck, or rabbit fancier, who was not fully convinced that each main breed was descended from a distinct species. Van Mons, in his treatise on pears and apples, shows how utterly he disbelieves that the several sorts, for instance a Ribston-pippin or Codlin-apple, could ever have proceeded from the seeds of the same tree. Innumerable other examples could be given. The explanation, I think, is simple: from long-continued study they are strongly impressed with the differences between the several races; and though they well know that each race varies slightly, for they win their prizes by selecting such slight differences, yet they ignore all general arguments, and refuse to sum up in their minds slight differences accumulated during many successive generations. May not those naturalists who, knowing far less of the laws of inheritance than does the breeder, and knowing no more than he does of the intermediate links in the long lines of descent, yet admit that many of our domestic races have descended from the same parents may they not learn a lesson of caution, when they deride the idea of species in a state of nature being lineal descendants of other species?"

Read the whole book online here
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/index.html

Also useful
http://www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/squashed/darwin.htm
The Condensed Edition of
Charles Darwin's
On The Origin of Species
by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
...in 9,387 words

[Edited on December 18, 2007 at 4:39 PM. Reason : l]

12/18/2007 4:38:11 PM

Quote :

"For a book published in England in 1859, the language is very modern and not difficult at all, Darwin speaks intelligibly and provides great examples and descriptions, and he's even funny in some cases."

along the same lines, I would like to note that Einstein is amazingly readable too. His Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity are both only ~60-70 pages long, and are mostly full of fairly easy and straight forward reading, using lots of examples from real life (using trains a lot, as they were prevalent then. the same examples would be easier to imagine today using something like rockets or space shuttles)

here's both of those papers in one book
http://books.google.com/books?id=JeLZd9bXaSEC

12/18/2007 4:51:52 PM

Very true.

So I guess my question is, if you don't believe in evolution due to natural selection, do you believe that our domesticated species are products of human-induced evolution? Do you believe that corn used to have tiny little grains and that cows are descended from long-horned, wild, more feral species? Do you believe that modern dogs are descended from wolves?

12/18/2007 4:56:26 PM

^ let me anticipate the answer:
of course "adaptations" have occurred and are still occurring. But, you know.... those are very small changes. The "big changes" just don't make sense, mostly because I cannot comprehend time on the scale of billions of years in my feeble little brain.

12/18/2007 5:02:22 PM

^^ I believe that blasians are descended from a black and asian couple. So yes, I agree with you. But, I wouldn't necessarily call it a product of human-induced evolution.

^ perfect! Almost perfect. You need to add the disclaimer for those on the other side: "Mostly because I cannot comprehend a creator in this realm of reality in my feeble little brain."

[Edited on December 18, 2007 at 5:07 PM. Reason : ]

12/18/2007 5:03:24 PM

Microevolution really isn't up for debate. There's simply too much evidence supporting that.

Macroevolution is. I've met a decent cadre of non-religious scientists who feel that there are gaps in that theory. However, because of the turtling by the scientific community in battling the creationists, any attack on the evolutionary orthodoxy gets you labeled as heretical creationist, so those who do have doubts about macroevolution tend to stay silent on the subject. And no, I'm not saying that these scientists are intelligent design folks either.

As said before:

Quote :

"But it's not like we pretend physics stopped in the 17th century, and then use it as an argument as to why God is responsible for gravity..."

It's a shame really. Darwin played an important role in advancing our knowledge of biology, but that doesn't mean that he's the end all, be all. Pity that the political environment doesn't allow for further discussion on the matter.

[Edited on December 18, 2007 at 5:11 PM. Reason : .]

12/18/2007 5:10:05 PM

I would personally call the change from wolf to dachshund/Labrador/pomeranian pretty significant

not to mention the change from teosinte to corn



^ find me a scientist who says darwin is the be all, end all. just one. every biologist in the modern age will and does point out the mistakes he made, not to mention that he took alot of stabs in the dark (always noted by him in the books, by the way) since he didn't have any knowledge of dna.

Quote :

"any attack on the evolutionary orthodoxy gets you labeled as heretical creationist"

also patently false. just recently it was discovered that RNA plays a very important role in carrying traits to offspring, and that what we used to think was "junk" in our DNA is probably all actually quite important. These discoveries were, as all discoveries are by the wider scientific community, met with experimentation and discussion, not witch burnings. That's what religions do, not science.

It is unfortunate that some people in the scientific community act that way, but for the most part, it's not a response you'll see coming from journals, academia, etc.

[Edited on December 18, 2007 at 5:18 PM. Reason : .]

12/18/2007 5:13:45 PM

It seems to me that this film is being made in response to intelligent design and other related theories not being taken seriously by the scientific community at large. But science is not rejecting ID out of some sort of elitist intolerance, it's rejecting ID because ID proponents refuse to forward any compelling evidence. All of the ID claims are easily addressed and explained away, and half of the time any experiments run by ID "scientists" are not falsifiable or repeatable, or their results are otherwise biased, statistically meaningless, or nonsensical.

The other half of the time they resort to intellectually dishonest tactics; blatant lies, manipulation/forging of data, distorting an opponent's position, twisting the wording of an argument out of context, etc. Some will even publish their work in intelligent design magazines and journals and then claim that their work is gaining mainstream acceptance, but refuse to submit that same work for scrutiny from actual scientific journals. Most creationists wouldn't dare submit their work to the scientific community because they know that they'll get torn to pieces in an instant. That won't stop a couple from doing it, however; once they become a laughing stock, they'll point fingers and say "see? They're close-minded and won't take my work seriously!"

Scientists are not trying to maintain a conspiracy of silence. Science is always open to new ideas and new interpretations. That's why the scientific process works; it allows our views to change with the times. When new compelling data comes along, it gets assimilated and our views expand to accommodate that new data. But it first has to meet certain conditions, among them that the process by which the data was obtained be repeatable by anybody and that the data be objectively quantifiable. To date, no creationist claim has been able to meet any of these necessary conditions (let alone all of them), and so no one should be all that surprised that the claims are not taken seriously.

In short, ID and creationists want approval for their ideas without having to do any of the intellectual work to go about proving their ideas. It doesn't matter if their ideas (or the implications of their ideas) conflict with observations of the known universe, what matters is winning the argument. Because as everyone knows, whoever wins the argument must be right. Some may genuinely believe that ID can be scientifically proven, but I think that deep down, most ID-ers know that they'll never be able to logically defend their beliefs. The next step is to do things such as attack the scientific community and accuse them of being close-minded. They can also make this movie, which creates confusion and generates controversy where logically there shouldn't be any.

Ben Stein complains that you're not allowed to argue in favor of creationism, that it's important to examine both sides of the issue. But considering that creationism never seems to have a leg to stand on, there isn't really an issue to examine. But I'll bet you anything that, were the situation reversed, he wouldn't say one word about not being allowed to talk about evolution. In fact, I'm sure he'd be among the ones leading for its silence.

[/rant]

12/18/2007 6:45:58 PM

It only makes sense that when one religion attacks another, a pissing match ensues. It's just that this time, one of the religions refuses to admit that it's a religion.

12/18/2007 6:49:38 PM

Find me a religion which actually purports to follow the scientific method and which only holds up falsifiable theories as part of a coherent worldview, and then we'll have your pissing match. Otherwise, shut up.

12/18/2007 6:52:41 PM

^^Please explain to me how science is a religion. Please clarify for me how the two are even remotely the same thing.

12/18/2007 6:59:45 PM

^ don't even start with him. He has shown in other threads that he clearly lacks the understanding of the difference between Faith and Trust. He will not even admit to believing in the most basic of scientific rational: that seeing (and doing) is believing. i.e. he won't admit that seeing, explaining, sharing and reproducing a phenomenon is enough to admit that that phenomenon exists.

12/18/2007 7:10:56 PM

I've discussed this ad nauseum before in TSB, and the religious zealots from the Church of Science always seem to get their panties in a wad when I do.

But, I'll get you started on the proof: religions don't necessarily have to have gods.

^ One of the science zealots.

12/18/2007 7:12:28 PM

^^I'll humor him for a little bit.

^Explain, or at least provide an example.

12/18/2007 7:13:26 PM

For an example, do you want an established religion, or do you want things are religion without being an established one (like with a church and a preacher and whatnot)? Generally, science zealots are intellectually dishonest when they define "religion," because they want to shape the definition to rule out the possibility that science is a religion.

12/18/2007 7:24:48 PM

What separates an established religion from a non-established one? It seems to me that the only difference would be that one is popular while the other is not.

And while you're at it, why don't you define what "religion" means?

[Edited on December 18, 2007 at 7:31 PM. Reason : blah]

12/18/2007 7:28:30 PM

I'd say the main difference between an "established" religion and a non-established one as I was putting it is that one has an explicit name. The other type might not.

12/18/2007 7:43:46 PM

What does that have to do with anything? How does that make science a religion?

Just how exactly do you define religion? What are some requirements that have to be met before you can call something a religion?

12/18/2007 7:58:00 PM

Quote :

"Find me a religion which actually purports to follow the scientific method and which only holds up falsifiable theories as part of a coherent worldview, and then we'll have your pissing match. Otherwise, shut up."

12/18/2007 8:39:12 PM

I believe in Russell's teapot

12/18/2007 9:12:08 PM

^^ thanks for intellectually dishonest definition.

12/18/2007 9:49:55 PM

12/18/2007 9:52:05 PM

http://www.starstryder.com/2007/05/16/between-the-romans-and-the-lions/

Quote :

"The other day I had an Astronomy Cast fan send me an email asking where I fall on the Dawkin’s Continuum. He was referring to the belief scale that Richard Dawkins laid out in his new book, The God Delusion. Within this system, individuals are divided by their level of belief that God does or does not exist. On his scale of 1 to 7, a person who is a strong theist, with 100% certainty that God exists, rates a 1. A person who is a firm atheist, who knows with 100% certainty that there is no God, rates a 7. Discussion of both this book and this scale are currently popular within skeptics circles and on atheist websites. Faced with this listener question, I have to admit to being a bit scared, because to many there is a “right answer.” This is a problem both when I deal both with scientists and with theologians (however the correct answer depends on the grader). Over the years, I have encountered more than one scientist who expressed a belief that anyone with a functional brain can not believe in God. I have had loud tall men get in my face, informing me from uncomfortably close proximity that a belief in a God, especially a Christian God, meant a person had failed at learning reason, at learning logic, and at learning every other skill necessary to be a good scientist. “How can a good astronomer possibly believe in a God?” he asked me in a loud and incredulous voice. This person, and every other evangelical atheist who has ever attacked someone who failed to not believe fervently enough, was a 7 on the Dawkins scale. Over my life, I have encountered more than one Christian who expressed a belief that anyone with an observant eye can not help but believe in God. I have had fiery matrons get in my personal space, informing me with uncomfortable passion that failing to believe in God, especially a Christian God, meant a person had failed to notice all the improbabilities that defy science, had failed to notice all the times an unnamed need was fulfilled in the 11th hour, and had failed to notice the strength of prayer to change lives. “How can a person truly be observant and fail to believe in God?” these people have asked in a 1000 different forms. These incredulous believers are 1s on the Dawkins scale. Those 7s had looked at a cross I used to wear around my neck, and they had gone on the attack. I never really got it until one of my kind office mates, after watching me get harassed, asked me why I wore something that was such a symbol of hate. I had never thought of it that way, but… But those 1s had looked at my love of astronomy and science and had seen me as an enemy without ever asking, “What do you believe?” How often has that happened? How many scientists have been attacked just for stating the principles of science in the wrong company? Both that cross I used to wear (before realizing some saw it as a symbol of hate) and my constant promotion of science make me an enemy in certain circles. So, when faced with this listener question, I paused, didn’t answer real fast, and eventually responded, “I’m a 2, why do you ask?” And I have to wonder, why does anyone ask within the context of science? I am a strong proponent of the scientific method. For something to be called good science, it must explain past observations, and make unique predications that add something to our understanding of the universe. In order for me to say with certainty that something is true and real, it needs to be observable, repeatable, and documentable. I’m a skeptic. But, I believe there is room in the universe for a God. And this is an uncomfortable place to be. Between the Romans and Daniel’s lions, I wonder who I should fear more? This is one of my concerns with the current skeptic’s movement. Just as the Christian’s look at me and assume by my vocation that I need saved (really, I don’t), I fear that many skeptics assume that everyone in their midst is a 6 or a 7 on the Dawkin’s scale. In the land of “I don’t know,” it is a dangerous thing to assume any absolutes. Even Dawkin’s, a self proclaimed 6, leaves room for God. The facts are out, and as a Skeptic, I can say “I believe there is room for a God, and I choose to fall on the ‘I think the odds are more in favor of God than against’ side of the betting pool.” I’m calling odds without having a test for my theory. That’s not science, it’s belief. There are also people who believe in string theory. I suspect that there are even people who believe in string theory and in a God or Gods. It is in the land of absolute’s where we get ourselves into trouble when discussing non-testable, or not yet tested, theories. This is a tricky dance. I am perfectly comfortable saying with 100% certainty that my human husband can not have his head cut off and survive. (Note, I love him a lot. He just has a head cold and wishes someone would cut his head off). This is a statement based on (someone else’s) past observations and a lot of medical knowledge regarding how the brain and heart must be attached for a person to live. I am not comfortable saying with absolute certainty that if a crazed individual sneaks into our house and cuts off my husband’s head, his ghost won’t periodically race up the stairs after me. I don’t think it will happen, but I leave room for doubt and testing. James Randi style testing. And despite knowing my house is old enough that at some point someone must have died in it, I never worry about what is creaking. There is a place and a time for absolutes. And there is a time to say, the statistics based on prior null results are so far against you that it is close to certain there is nothing there, but there is room to be wrong because we may not have done the right tests (it is just really unlikely!). Of course statements like this, which leave room for ghosts, drive some skeptics crazy. But, can we say for certain there aren’t? All we can really say is we have no reason to believe there are: no facts, no tests, and no theories that require them, the way the hard to find neutrino was required. And there are middle grounds where we are a test away from certainty, but those tests, like so many Mythbusters episodes, aren’t believed in the face of Urban Legends that just must be true. For instance, I am allowed to say with certainty that a slotted spoon holds no broth but can catch the potato.* That is a statement based on past data, and a predictive theory with sound science behind it (including some scary fluid mechanics). To say with absolute certainty that the well wishes I have for the sick while making the soup effects the healing powers of the soup is, well, stupid. This is because there is no research showing that if I make soup with well wishes and a specific recipe, and you make soup with hate and the same recipe (and same everything else), that we are effecting the soups ability to aid the human immune system. There are no documented studies on which to base this prediction. (Urban Legends aren’t data.) It would be neat if someone tested it and emotions did effect the soup. I’d even make soup (with warm positive emotions) for any team who carries out this experiment in a well documented statistically significant kind of way that passes peer review and proves the emotions of the chef effect the immune response. It would be hard to maintain warm fuzzy thoughts that long, but I’d do it Although chicken isn’t cheap this year, I’m not worried about having to pay out. And that just ticked off some ghost believers, some soul believers. But I believe in equally annoying the absolute believers. What can I say - I’m a skeptic. I’m a skeptic who would love to be proven wrong. And yes, I’m a skeptic who believes in God. I’m a 2. Why must you ask?"

12/18/2007 11:17:14 PM

Hay guys....

whatch'all talkin about?

12/19/2007 12:39:21 AM

Quote :

"Hay when you provide evidence that a god exists than maybe they can be together until then gtfo"

God

What a dumbass. Your position is an argumentum ad ignorantiam logical fallacy--and it works the other way, too. Try again.

12/19/2007 12:36:30 PM

You know what the best part about every evolution debate is? How it always turns into a religious debate.

But I'm sure that has nothing to do with Intelligent Design being a religious theory, rather a than scientific one, right?

12/19/2007 1:01:25 PM

^ Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I am not advocating the teachings of any specific religion in schools or elsewhere. It does seem, however, that Christians are often the focus of "special" treatment in a number of arenas--and special isn't good in this context.

Again, my position is this:

Quote :

"My concern is more about the incessant push that God and science are mutually exclusive."

Some seem to believe schools should teach that science can explain not only the origin of life but of existence itself. I find this to be preposterous.

12/19/2007 1:20:43 PM

i'll agree with taht ^

12/19/2007 1:55:49 PM

^ GASP?!

12/19/2007 1:58:01 PM