Why do so many Christians not believe in evolution?? To believe that evolution and the "Big Bang Theory" conflict with the Bible reveals a severe misunderstanding. The Big Bang Theory leaves an important point out . . . origins. Traditional Christianity leaves out the origins of God. Both are argued as having always been there. No matter which viewpoint you take, there has been an eternity before us. There was an infinitely long wait before we could exist. We must go by the point of Creation or the "Big Bang." It's the only way for us to understand a starting point. What I'm trying to say is that if God created the universe and is omnipotent, why would we limit him so much as to believe he did so by just "poofing" things into existence. He is far more imaginative that that (C'mon, he's omniscient). He could have created the Big Bang. Oh, and don't try to quote Genesis here to prove me wrong, especially if you're talking about "on the third day . . . ." What is a day? A day of the revolution of the Earth . . . a galaxy? What?? Also, "A day in the Lord is a thousand years with man." Is even this a figure of speech?? Probably.

The same point works for evolution, too. Is it silly to suggest that God used it as a means of creating man?? What's more impressive: physically lifting up the pool balls and placing them in the pockets or throwing/shooting an individual ball at them to cause them to all fall into pockets??

Basically, Creation makes no argument against evolution. Evolution certainly makes no argument against "Creationism." Creation is a theory of origins. Evolution and The Big Bang are theories of progression of events. The problem is, both sides frantically try to prove the other wrong, and both sides succeed, in their own minds. Neither stops to consider (for real), and neither realizes what they are trying to prove. In case I wasn't explicit enough, I'm a Christian, and yes, I believe that God created the universe, probably with a really Big Bang (still checking on evidence, though) and followed it up with a very logical process called evolution (which makes so much sense, how could you not see? It's traits are exhibited time and time again in so many different things. It can even be seen in organisms for real. Take the thinning of plants for instance, and bacterial immunity to antibiotics, especially.). Bible study is infinitely important to an understanding of the Bible (duh!), so I strongly recommend taking a Bible course (at least) at an accredited liberal arts college if you're going to pursue this kind of debate in a professional environment. Philosophy and even psychology are important to a more complete understanding.

Be careful, though. It may be that theoretically, we have no "free will" (in its purest sense, anyways). I will not address this in depth, here. Suffice it to say that we do control our actions, in all practicality. Don't fool yourself into thinking you are not accountable. The Matrix (as embarrassed as I am to mention this) made a serious point when the Oracle said that Neo already made his choices and is only there to understand why. I say again, please be careful. Partial understanding of something like this is extremely dangerous. While that may have sounded cliche, I've made my point.

P.S. Thanks for the compliment to Creationists there Rona.

Sorry, but no. The jury is still out... last I heard, it was still the THEORY of Evolution, yes? So how is saying that there are holes in the theory, or even that it's still only a theory make somebody anti-science?

There are huge holes in evolution, can we at least concede to that point?

In my experience, the type of people who say "the jury is still out" on evolutiona re the same type of people who tink the follwoing things;

1: That there are WMDs in Iraq.
2: Sarah Jessica Parker actually shops at the Gap.
3: The Dixie Chicks are anti-American.

So you can udnerstand why I'm disinclined to listen to them.

I udnerstand that it's not necessary to ridicule people who tink differing views of evolutiona than you.

So many Christians are total hypocrites who want to impose their beliefs on others, but don't want to abide by their Christian beliefs for themselves. An example: doesn't the bible say "Thou shall not kill". How many have been put to death in the electric chair while Bush was Governor of Texas. Apparently, his beliefs weren't deep enough for him to want to save any lives. Putting retarted inmates to death is an easy decision for Bush.

Aren't Christians supposed to "love their neigbors"? I see very little of this. Look at all the vitriolic hatred "Christians" spew towards gay people. Nice to see people with such love in their hearts. Don't even get me started with Christian behavoir during the Holocaust when their religious bigotries lead them to murder Jews, gays, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.

But I can't say I have a beef with the majority of Christians. As with most Jews, Muslims, Buddists, Hindus, etc., I believe most people are fundamentally decent (inspite of religions that encourage hatred towards other beliefs and non-believers). It's just that the politically right-wing religious have given Christianity a bad name for many. Jerry Falwell says anyone with principles will vote for Bush. Really? The rest of his time he regularly spends offending all sorts of people; Muslims ("Mohammed was a terrorist"), Jews ( he's awaiting armagedon and the second coming of his savior in the holy land, of course the Jews are to be wiped out in this scenario), women (his desire to ban abortion), gays (his attempts to ban same-sex marriages), and on and on. So many people see nothing but hate coming from Christians. Of course, it's unfair, but more Christians should denouce bigots such as Falwell.

Debating evolution is senseless. It makes sense, and ample evidence exists in the form of fossil records. Of course, Christians say fossils are the remains from Noah's flood. Oh well, no wonder Europeans laugh at the American religious right.!

Dude is very wise. Listen to him.

Zarm Rkeeg: Sorry, but no. The jury is still out...
Luigi Novi: No, it is not. The phrase "the jury is still out" means that a consensus has not yet been reached in the field. This is not the case with evolution, for there is most certainly a consensus that evolution is a fact of nature. The jury is not "out" simply because there are those who are ignorant of how evolution works in particular, or science in general.

Zarm Rkeeg:last I heard, it was still the THEORY of Evolution, yes?
Luigi Novi: No. The theory of evolution is now considered a fact. The issue of how "theory" and "fact" are not antonymous, and how a theory can be a fact, has already been discussed at length on this site, as has the fact that evolution is considered as much a scientific fact as heliocentricity, the germ theory of infection, plate tectonics, etc.

Zarm Rkeeg:So how is saying that there are holes in the theory, or even that it's still only a theory make somebody anti-science?
Luigi Novi: Because it's not true. And when you ignore the fact that evolution has been proven through all manner of various independent lines of evidence, that that evidence has been tested over and over, that it has survived the Peer Review Process and is not part of the scientific consensus, and refuse to argue evolution on that basis, you are attacking science and its most basic methodologies.

Derrick Vargo: There are huge holes in evolution, can we at least concede to that point?
Luigi Novi: No. The only "holes" are myths and distortions argued with logical fallacies in an a priori manner by creationsists.

No, the specific biblical prohibition (original Hebrew, IIRC) is "Thou shalt not murder" (emphasis mine).

Actually there are "holes" in the theory of evolution just as there are holes in every scientific theory. This is an artifact of the difference between a model of a phenomenon and the phenomenon itself. The holes are considered to be small and inconsequential for everyday consideration, but it is by examining those holes that the science grows.

It was by considering certain holes in Newtonian mechanics, especially the failure of the Micheson-Moreley experiment that Einstein developed Relativity.

But part of the validity of Relativity is that it explained the "holes" in Newtonian mechanics without invalidating it. Under normal conditions Newtonian Mechanics and Relativity give the same answers (within an acceptable degree of precision).

Evolution as a scientific theory has been validated, but, yes, there are holes. And those holes have led to refinements of the theory, not to the invalidating it.

Having responded, I once again suggest that since this discussion has been almost exclusively EvC for almost a month, we move over to RM if we intend to continue it.

"Europeans laugh at the American religious right"

That's good evidence that the Right is doing something right. I don't care what the French think of America. They're all antiAmerican bigots anyway.

Dan: Really? I thought they only hated the dumb arrogant ones. At least that's the impression I got when me and all my Liberal Gore-voting friends were treated like kings in Paris. They were saying thing slike "You must be so ashamed," and "Don't worry, we know you didn't vote for that chimp."

I've actually been told that the kind of anti-american attitued that you always hear about in France only exists in big tourist cities where some of our less enlightened countrymen have ruined it of us by having the kind of "ugly American" attitude that makes us all look bad.

Anonymous American tourists aren't the prime example of an "ugly American". The worst offender is sitting in the White House.

"Debating evolution is senseless. It makes sense, and ample evidence exists in the form of fossil records." -Rona F.

Hmmm... you know, most people accuse Creationists of being ignorant of basic scientific facts. So let me ask you this: Which acount do fossils seem to support more: Species 'producing after their own kind' a la the Bible, or the evolution of a species and slow change over time? (Where ARE those missing links?)
Secondarily, why is it that most fossils seem to indicate a sudden, high pressure and rapid fossilization, and many of the fossils such as clams appear to have been fossilized while still alive?
For that matter, Evolution's view of fossilization is the slow silt covering of drowned animals, I believe. The last figure i read in a textbook was somewhere in the area of an inch of silt a year.
So let me ask you this... what is it about pre-historic times that would have made them so different than our modern times that the carcass wouldn't have rotted away or been eaten in a fraction of that time? Is there some magical factor about being covered by an inch (heck, let's be generous... how about a foot) of silt a year that somehow slows the decaying process and drives off scavengers?

And all this from a self-proclaimed layman... is it so silly based on questions like these to conclude that the fossil evidence supports a world-wide flood and a biblical account far more than it does an evolutionary origin theory?


"Don't even get me started with Christian behavoir during the Holocaust when their religious bigotries lead them to murder Jews, gays, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc." -Rona F.

What the...? I don't know what kind of slanderous trash you've been reading, but as I recall, that was the Nazis. Frankly, such outrageous insults to Christianity are demonstrative of a hate-filled bias that exceeds rational thinking and historical truth... so just out of curiosity, where DID you recieve such a load of hooey?


"Jews ( he's awaiting armagedon and the second coming of his savior in the holy land, of course the Jews are to be wiped out in this scenario)," -Rona F

Yes, the Bible says that there is going to be persecution of the Jews in the end times... but wiped out? Far from it... according to the Bible, they are God's chosen people. (On a side note, if you believed that a book that predicted- among other things- the Holocaust, was true, does that make you a Jew-hater? Come on now... Christians are NOT anti-Jew.)


"women (his desire to ban abortion)," -Rona F.


Oh, please. How does the desire to save the life of an unborn child equal hating/offending women?
Seriously, this whole 'abortion rights' thing has gotten SO incredibly out of hand... it's gotten to the point where a group trying to prevent what they believe to be murder (and what at least is undeniably the ending of a life, whether you believe it's sentient or not,) are seen as hating women.
Let me re-phrase that... trying to save the life of a woman's baby is seen as hating the woman, if the woman doesn't believe that her baby is really alive. Why do I feel like America as a whole has stepped through the looking glass?


I'm out of time for today, but this thread is rife with insulting, inflamatory, and ignorant statements for re-dressing. I can only hope that they are intended as some sort of sick joke, and not the genuine intentions of the poster.

Rona, do you have anything non-hateful to say? Ever?

Unfortunately, Zarm, people are most certainly capable of saying such things genuinely. I've learned not to be too shocked at what people on the Net will come up with.

Zarm, what book of geology have you been reading? The one shown on the news that claims the Grand Canyon (and its many layers of fossils) is only a few thousand years old (that Noah's Ark thing again). Evidence for evolution is shown for horses, man, whales, and on and on. You really should pick up one of those things called a science text. They're full of fascinating things. Of course, I'm not really up on stories of an invisible spirit who knows all and regularly creates 'miracles'for hate spewing bigots such as Jimmy Swaggart. I mention Swaggart because one week, his program featured an indepth attack on evolution (his program used to be on while I was getting ready for middle school). His evidence for creation was nonexistant, and his "evidence" against evolution was the most pathetic example of scientific ignorance I have ever seen.

As for "Net" posters, I thought most posters at NitCentral were Star Trek fans. I thought most Star Trek fans were generally supportive of scientific principles. I guess I was wrong.

Aside from having nothing to do with the topic, I think many Star Trek fans have religious/Creationist views; I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive.

The Chief included to use a rather obvious example here.

Wow, Rona... you really ARE incapable of a completely civil post...

Once again, in the field of evidence, my challenge stands. Instead of answering my questions with accusations of Christian scientific ignorance and insults to Christianity, why don't you answer the question?

(P.S. Maybe I am miss-interpreting... I didn't understand what you said before 'You really should pick up...')

As to your 'net users' comment, not only does it make no sense... is that supposed to be a response to the Holocaust thing, or an unrelated statement?

(P.S. Again... I am, obviously, a strong believer in Creationism and a Christian. Can you give me the plot of any TOS, TNG, DS9, and possibly VOY episode from the title? I can. Do you know what the DS9 promenade directory reads? I do. Did you try to write a Star Trek novel when you were 10? I did- and it was awful.
So yeah, I'm a Star Trek fan too. And no, I didn't mean that as arrogantly as it probably sounds... but the best thing I could thing of to prove that I was a fan was an ODN relay... and with the tech manuals, that really doesn't mean much anymore.)

Zarm, I'm not going to argue with your contention that Christians weren't responsible for the Holocaust. Nazism, and the Holocaust, were deeply linked with Christian ideas, symbolism, and hate. Christians have been massacring Jews for hundreds of years. Crusades, massacres, Inquisitions, anti-Semitism; they're all an undeniable part of Christian history. Naturally, we now a Christian President who's leading a "crusade" against terrorism. I'm sure that ignorant leader was also unaware how offesnsive the term "crusade" is to Muslims.

I have more than a slight interest in evolution. Geology and Paleontology used to be a passion of mine (in college, the geology club I was a part of used to organise trips to hunt for fossils). Not only geology is in conflict with biblical ideas of creation. So is astromony. A basic understanding of the speed of light and the nature of the universe makes it obvious that the universe is billions of years old. Using the bible as some sort of "scientific" guide to the universe is truly pathetic in the 21st century. That book, that suppposedly is the answer for everything, never predicted computers,space travel, modern medicine, and a million other things. So to try to say that it is relevant in areas where it totally lacks any mention (let alone understanding), is disingenuous.

Don't confuse religion with ignorance. Although Israel is officially a Jewish state, most of the people are secular and believe in evolution.

Yes, those things are a part of Christian history, but EVERYTHING, including Islam, the Jewish faith, and the sciences have black sheep in their closets. We don't dismiss things or denounce things because of how they have been misused in the past. I also question your usage of the Holocaust as apparently some sort of analogy between that and modern day Christians. Like Bush/Hitler comparisons, I find it asinine, foolish, and offensive.

I'll let one of your fellow Christians explain: James Carroll wrote a column in Teusday's paper on "A new anti-Semitism":

"The original sin of the Christian church, and the culture that derives from it, is contempt for Jews, a disorder that continues to infect religious belief and popular attitudes."

Anyone who saw that disgusting film (out of curiousity) "the Passion of the Christ" would have to agree with Mr. Carroll. Bush said he loved the film. That figures.

I completely disagree. I found The Passion neither disgusting nor anti-Semitic. While I find anti-Semitism to be a problem in the Christian church as it is in many places, it is not accurate to describe Christian culture as anti-Semitic.

"Naturally, we now a Christian President who's leading a "crusade" against terrorism. I'm sure that ignorant leader was also unaware how offesnsive the term "crusade" is to Muslims." -Rona

Yes, and I'm sure that those terrorists have no idea how offensive their killing people is.
If that term is targeted at the terrorists, however, the rest of the populice shouldn't take offense... just like the rest of us apparently shouldn't take offense at the term "Nazi" being thrown around all the time. (Which I blame on Seinfeld and the "Soup Nazi." But still... how many people do you think will stop to consider the term's offensiveness, vs. how many people will just use the term frequesntly because it's become a cultural/slang habit?)


"Nazism, and the Holocaust, were deeply linked with Christian ideas, symbolism, and hate." -Rona

Good Lord! Is this really the twisted worldview that the left has? No wonder they hate Christianity!
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a single Christian who has anything but revulsion for the Holocaust, and the Nazis in general.
And can you give me a single (good) example (A.K.A. not 'they both believe in the supernatural' or some such) of common Nazi/Christian beliefs? The 2 are about as polar opposite as you can get!
And perhaps I can make one other statement for the record... Christians do not hate Jews! I'm really tired of hearing that... if you'll look in the Bible, 99 percent of the book is about Jews! Jesus was born on Earth... as a Jew! The Jews are called 'God's Chosen People.'
And despite a bunch of people that want to drag up the crusades and the inquisition over and over, (by the way... I've never met any Christians that participated in- or even agreed with- either of those campaigns. Have you?) I'm telling you that there is not some Anti-Jew bigotry involved in Christianity. If there are any Christians that are anti-Jew, that's their own personal feelings CONFLICTING with their Christian beliefs, not working in concert with them.

Now, to tell you the truth (and I'd love for you to change my mind on this), statements and opinions like "The Nazis were very simillar to the Christians," and other similar sentiments leads me to wonder who is truly the intolerant, angry, hate-filled group here.


"I have more than a slight interest in evolution. Geology and Paleontology used to be a passion of mine (in college, the geology club I was a part of used to organise trips to hunt for fossils)." -Rona


Excellent. Then you should be able to answer the FIRST BASIC question that I raised against the theory of Evolution.
(Come on... if you're going to demand prove every time a Creationist opens their mouth, you should be willing to give some in return...)


"That book, that suppposedly is the answer for everything, never predicted computers,space travel, modern medicine, and a million other things." -Rona


Um... so what? The U.S. constitution doesn't predict any of those things either.
The Bible is about what happened, what God did, how we should live our lives, and what God's word is.
There are several books on prophecy, and they don't mention those things. So what? Hw is that any challenge to it's validity?
If a book prophecying world War II had described the locations, battles, factions, and strategies of Hitler and his allies, but failed to mention the Bomb specifically, and didn't reference the equipment used to fight the war by make and model number, would that destroy the book's credibillity?
Saying 'The Bible must be untrue because it doesn't mention the Nuclear age' is about the most ridiculous attack I can think of... the Bible had more important things to spend it's time on than a detailed history and technology of the future. (Heck, half the time it doesn't even describe in detail the weapons and implements they used back then, either. It's not a factual error... it's a focus on the events, not the tools. Sheesh.)


"Don't confuse religion with ignorance." -Rona

I believe that's your assertion, not mine. I would say the exact opposite.
However, don't confuse 'not agreeing with your precept' and 'ignorance.'


""The original sin of the Christian church, and the culture that derives from it, is contempt for Jews, a disorder that continues to infect religious belief and popular attitudes."" -James Carroll, via Rona


Once again, it's easy to post a quote... but that doesn't make it true. While I can't claim to speak for all Christians, I've never met an Anti-semitic Christian.


"Anyone who saw that disgusting film (out of curiousity) "the Passion of the Christ" would have to agree with Mr. Carroll. Bush said he loved the film. That figures." -Rona


Um, Hello... that film is a depiction of the historical events described in the Bible, and the non-supernatural events have even been confirmed by historians and writings of the time.
(By the way... how come no one ever claims that "Life is Beautiful" or "Saving Private Ryan" are anti-German, or that "Pearl Harbor" is anti-Japanese? Historical events depicted accurately (or in some of those cases, rather inacurately) never recieve hate-criticism when they deal with war... why is this different?)

Now then... aside from the historical elements, the Passion is about Jesus and the suffering He went through for us. I understand that non-believers see it as pointless violence. While I am also disturbed by the violence and pain depicted on-screen, it also serves as a powerful reminder of what Jesus went through for me (and you too, Rona... in fact, well... for everyone.) That's the message of "The Passion." But you know what makes it even more powerful to Christians? The idea that, as the Son of God, with all the power of God, and able, should He wish, to stop all of it at any time, He went through it willingly for us. (And it's the power of that message, the reminder of how much Jesus did for us, that makes many Christians, including the President, like the movie.)
So the idea that Christians hate the Jews for what they did to Christ (P.S. From my viewing of the film, only Judas, the Religious leaders, and the Romans recieved anything that could be considered blame at all), is rather ludicrous...
Only a few ignorant individuals who represent the exception, not the rule, believe that the Jews are any more responsible than any of us for the death of Christ.
So let's can the "Passion is Anti-semitic" argument once and for all, shall we? It's just not true.

Actually on the evolution vs creation board Luigi has gone into exhostive textbook style postings on answering those questions and the creationists always come back with a form of "that doesn't make sense to me so it must not be true."

I don't know about anti-Semtisim, but in terms of methodology, creationists and Holocaust deniers often use similiar if not flat out identical methods of reasoning to reach their conclusions. Michael Shermer covers this in his book Why Do people Believe Wierd Things.

From Page 132 of the Revised and Expanded Edition;

1. Holocaust deniers find errors in the scholarship of hisotrians and then imply that therefore their conclusions are wrong, as if historians never make mistakes. Evolution deniers (a more appropriate title than creationists) find errors in science and imply that all of science is wrong, as if scientists never make mistakes.

2. Holocaust deniers are fond of quoting, usually out of context, leading Nazis, Jews, and Holocause scholars to make it sound like they are supporting Holocause deniers' claims. Evolution deniers are fond of quoting leading scientists like Stephen Jay Gould and Ernst Mayr out of context and implying that they are cagily denying the reality of evolution.

3. Holocause deniers contend that genuine and honest debate between Holocaust scholars means they themselves doubt the Holocaust or cannot get their stories straight. Evolution deniers argue that genuine and honest debate between scientists means even they doubt evolution or cannot get their science straight.

The irony of this analogy is that the Holocaust deniers can at least be partially right (the best estimate of the number of Jews killed at Auschwitz, for example, has changed), whereas the evolution deniers cannot even be partially right -- once you allow divine intervention into the scientific process, all assumptions about natural law go out the window, and with them science.

Why not compare creationists to Nazis? We're already halfway there anyway...

Seriously, was that last comparison necessary? There are a lot of ways to say you find Creationism faulty; comparing it to Holocaust-deniers is tacky and offensive.

MikeC: I (and Shermer) are not making that comparison at all. I suggest you re-read the post. I (and Shermer) are talking about METHODOLOGY. C'mon Mike, we've known each other, what 7 or 8 years? I'd like to think you know me better than that?

Why couldn't Shermer (and you) just critique the methodology of Creationists, by pointing out usages of out of context quotes or treatment of scientific errors? There is no reason to compare them to Holocaust deniers aside from being inflammatory.

Yes, there is actually. Here, let me give you what comes before that list in the book;

Of all the claims we have investgiated at Skeptic [BW Note: the magazine Shermer founded], I have found only one that I could compare to creationism for the ease and certainty with which it asks us to ignore or dismiss so much exisitng knowledge. That is Holocaust denial. Further, the similarities betwen the two in their methods of reasoning are startling;

And then the list starts. To me Mike, the key phrase here is the ease and certainty with which it asks us to ignore or dismiss so much exisitng knowledge. To you, and probably to people like Zarm and Derrick, the key phrase would be the similarities betwen the two, ignoring the part about reasoning. Neither he nor I are comparing the two gorups in terms of IDEOLOGY. In fact, I made that fairly clear in my initial posting.

I don't know about anti-Semtisim, but in terms of methodology, creationists and Holocaust deniers often use similiar if not flat out identical methods of reasoning to reach their conclusions.

In retrospect I shouldn't have used the word "identical," but apart from that faux pas, it's obvious what I'm saying here. And besides, what other group could I possibly have used? Mr. Shermer is absolutely right, I don't know of ANY group who can compare with creationists in the realm of ignoring the conflagration(sp?) evidence except for the Holocause deniers. I am not saying that all creationists are anti-Semitic. Hell, I'm not even suggesting that most of them are. That's SO not the point. The only person who is suggesting that is you Mike.

I stand by my (Michael Shermer's) arguments.

Listen to these absurd arguments. Are creationists anti-Semitic. How come no one complains when one poster (Rona) posts venomously anti-Christian krap. The only hate I see comes from liberals, not conservatives or Christians.

Sounds like you're describing your own irrational self. Liberal loser.

See what I mean? I've said it before, I'll say it again; we're being punk'd.

Now Brian, That article is most definatly straight up comparing Creationists with People that Deny the murder of Millions of Jews. Why else even bring it in there, there is no other point i can tell from that article than to slam people who dont beleive the "truth" of evolution. It starts out trying to set creationists dead against science and evolution by calling them evolition Deniers, when in reality we only deny Macro evolution. The vast majority of the Christian scientists do agree that MICROevolution does occur and we are not denying it. WE just happen to see that most mutations are detrimental and harmful to the survival of the speciecs. WE thus look at current scientiic data and conclude that it would be unlikely and most definatly impossible for evolution to even take place. Take the complexity of even sexual reproduction, all those processes came about by mere chance and accidents? I'm sorry, with just that 1 process i find it nearly impossible for any sort of macro evolution to take place.

Anyway, that was off topic. But good try to compare yet another person/group of people you dont like to NAzi's Brian.

No, Brian, your explanation doesn't hold water to me. I understand the part about methodology, but you could have found other things to compare it to. Hell, you don't even need to compare it to anything. Instead, a very inflammatory comparison was made.

For instance, if I made the comparison "Nazi-like efficiency," well, I'm not actually comparing to a Nazi right, I'm just saying that they're very efficient, right? Well, what do you think? This was simply an inflammatory comparison, regardless of how it's tried to be spun.

I just wish everyone could look at the Creationism vs Evolution debate in a broader sense. It looks like a replay of the Church vs Galileo debate. People in the future will think it was very silly.

Brian, there's no "Do" in the title of Shermer's book.

MikeC: Why couldn't Shermer (and you) just critique the methodology of Creationists, by pointing out usages of out of context quotes or treatment of scientific errors?
Luigi Novi: He did. Read the book. Shermer's arguments are never inflammatory; in fact, they're quite fair and calm. Brian seemed to quote him accurately.

MikeC:There is no reason to compare them to Holocaust deniers aside from being inflammatory.
Luigi Novi: No one compared the two. What Shermer pointed out was how their arguments are similar, and illustrated this with examples. Both creationists and Holocaust deniers argue their positions on an a priori basis.

Rene: Listen to these absurd arguments. Are creationists anti-Semitic.
Luigi Novi: No one said that.

Rene: How come no one complains when one poster (Rona) posts venomously anti-Christian krap.
Luigi Novi: Many on these boards have criticized Rona for some of the offensive things she has said about on a range of subjects.

Derrick Vargo: WE just happen to see that most mutations are detrimental and harmful to the survival of the speciecs.
Luigi Novi: Most mutations are either harmful or neutral.

Derrick Vargo: Take the complexity of even sexual reproduction, all those processes came about by mere chance and accidents?
Luigi Novi: No. This is a creationist Straw Man. Evolution is not based on chance and accident, and no one ever said it was. This is simply a distorted concept of creationists' own invention.

Rona: I just wish everyone could look at the Creationism vs Evolution debate in a broader sense. It looks like a replay of the Church vs Galileo debate.
Luigi Novi: The difference being that the Church accepts evolution as a fact of nature.

Luigi, I admit I haven't read the book and am going by purely what Brian has quoted: Despite what you have said, I just don't buy it. I understand that you are not comparing Creationists to Holocaust Deniers per se; you are comparing their methodology. I repeat, though, is there any reason why you have to use a comparison in the first place? Shermer may have entirely valid points, but there is no doubt in my mind that he deliberately chose something inflammatory to make a comparison with.

Example:

"Creationists use quotes out of context and twist evidence. This is wrong."

"Creationists use quotes out of context and twist evidence. This is wrong and is very similar to the methodology of Holocaust deniers."

There is no difference in what the sentences are really saying. The CONNOTATION, however, is entirely different. Regardless of what the sentence is saying, it creates the connotation that Creationists are like Holocaust deniers.

And Rona said that Christians (Creationists) were anti-Semitic.

Brian, there's no "Do" in the title of Shermer's book.

Whoops. P.S. I finished that book yesterday. I really liked it.

He did. Read the book. Shermer's arguments are never inflammatory; in fact, they're quite fair and calm. Brian seemed to quote him accurately.

Well, there was a spelling error in there but that was MY fault.

Shermer may have entirely valid points, but there is no doubt in my mind that he deliberately chose something inflammatory to make a comparison with.

Mike, I don't like what this argument is doing to you. You're usually more rational than that. The reason Shermer mentioned them in the book is because several chapters later he devotes roughly 1/6th of the entire book to debunking Holocaust deniers (not all of whom are Christians I might add).

Okay, you could have mentioned that several posts ago. I admit I haven't read the book. I still think it's an unfair comparison, even to methodologies, but that does clarify things. Sorry.

"By Dan on Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 03:40 pm:


Listen to these absurd arguments. Are creationists anti-Semitic. How come no one complains when one poster (Rona) posts venomously anti-Christian krap. The only hate I see comes from liberals, not conservatives or Christians.

By Brian Webber on Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 04:18 pm:


Rona, just relax. Isn't it obvious that Dan is just a character created by a teenager with too much free time on his hands who needs to stop reading The Young Sparticist? "


While Dan may be a bit over the top (or more than a bit)... are you denying that Rona is constantly posting hateful and anti-Christian things?


"I just wish everyone could look at the Creationism vs Evolution debate in a broader sense. It looks like a replay of the Church vs Galileo debate. People in the future will think it was very silly." -Rona


I agree... the people looking back from Heaven are going to find it very silly indeed... :-)

Seriously... you haven't been able to answer the first SCIENTIFIC challenge to the theory of Evolution off the top of my head... how can you continue to deny and ridicule the Creationists trying to argue this on a scientific basis as ignorant, unscientific, or holding on to a silly and disproven theory when you can't answer the first basic question about your own theory?


"The reason Shermer mentioned them in the book is because several chapters later he devotes roughly 1/6th of the entire book to debunking Holocaust deniers (not all of whom are Christians I might add)." -Brian Webber


Actually... I haven't heard of a single Christian (or a single individual with any brain cells for that matter...) that has ever denied that the holocaust happened.


"Derrick Vargo: Take the complexity of even sexual reproduction, all those processes came about by mere chance and accidents?
Luigi Novi: No. This is a creationist Straw Man. Evolution is not based on chance and accident, and no one ever said it was. "

Well, what is it based on then? Was there supposed to be some intelligent design or pattern behind the mutations occurring? If so, that's news to me.
And just how do entire species evolve via mutation anyways? You just said that most mutations were harmful or neutral... so how could the amoeba get any better than it was, much less become a significantly more advanced and complex species?


Anyhow, perhaps all of the negative reactions to the Shermer book are due to Rona's statements about Christians being responsible or identical in mindset to those responsible for the holocaust. After that kind of attack, with such a simillar subject, the nerves are probably still a bit raw.

MikeC: Luigi, I admit I haven't read the book and am going by purely what Brian has quoted: Despite what you have said, I just don't buy it. I understand that you are not comparing Creationists to Holocaust Deniers per se; you are comparing their methodology. I repeat, though, is there any reason why you have to use a comparison in the first place? Shermer may have entirely valid points, but there is no doubt in my mind that he deliberately chose something inflammatory to make a comparison with.

Example:

"Creationists use quotes out of context and twist evidence. This is wrong."

"Creationists use quotes out of context and twist evidence. This is wrong and is very similar to the methodology of Holocaust deniers."

There is no difference in what the sentences are really saying. The CONNOTATION, however, is entirely different. Regardless of what the sentence is saying, it creates the connotation that Creationists are like Holocaust deniers.
Luigi Novi: Shermer is quite clear in his theses, and the adept manner in which he illustrates him. These “examples” are your examples, not his. Shermer makes it quite clear that he is talking about the parallels in how fringe groups operate in order to move into the mainstream. THAT is the thesis. Not comparisons of moral character for the purpose of insult. On pages 206-207 (Chapter 13: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened, and Why Do They Say It?), Shermer elaborates on this phenomenon:

The Core and the Lunatic Fringe of Holocaust Denial

The development of the Holocaust denial movement has striking parallels with the development other fringe movements. Since deniers are not consciously modeling themselves after, for example, the creationists, we may be tracking an ideological pattern common to fringe groups trying to move into the mainstream.

1. Early on, the movement includes a wide diversity of thought and members representing the extreme fringes of society, and it has little success in entering the mainstream (creationism in the 1950s; denial in the 1970s).

2. As the movement grows and evolves, some members attempt to disassociate themselves and their movement from the radical fringe and try to establish scientific or scholarly credentials (creationism in the 1970s when it became “creation science”; denial in the 1970s with the founding of the IHR).

3. During this drive toward acceptability, emphasis moves away from antiestablishment rhetoric and toward a more positive statement of beliefs (creationists abandoned the antievolution tactic and adopted “equal time” arguments; IHR has broken with [Willis] Carto and generally deniers are trying to shed their racist, antisemitic reputation).

4. To enter public institutions such as schools, the movement will use the First Amendment and claim that its “freedom of speech” is being violated when its views are not allowed to be heard (creationists legislated equal-time laws in several states in the 1970s and 1980s; [Ernst] Zundel’s Canadian “free speech” trials [see figure 19]; and Bradley Smith’s advertisements in college newspapers).

5. To get the public’s attention, the movement tries to shift the burden of proof from itself to the establishment, demanding just one proof” (creationists ask for “just one fossil” that proves transitional forms exist; deniers demand “just one proof” that Jews were killed in gas chambers).

Shermer’s prose is restrained, skilled in its application of logic and observation, and devoid of ideological rhetoric or invective. Unlike Brian Weber’s continued insistence on comparing Bush to Hitler, which is devoid of any intelligent point, and serves only as a medium for vitriol, Shermer is describing an actual phenomenon, and using examples to illustrate it, and there is not a trace of insult detected in his matter-of-fact explanation of it, and to dismiss it as merely “inflammatory” is a disservice to Shermer’s work.

Zarm Rkeeg: how can you continue to deny and ridicule the Creationists trying to argue this on a scientific basis as ignorant, unscientific…
Luigi Novi: The creationists do not argue evolution on a scientific basis. Once you introduce the Scientific Method and the Peer Review Process into it, creationism/ID crumbles into a pile of logical fallacies.

Brian Webber: The reason Shermer mentioned them in the book is because several chapters later he devotes roughly 1/6th of the entire book to debunking Holocaust deniers (not all of whom are Christians I might add).

Zarm Rkeeg: Actually... I haven't heard of a single Christian (or a single individual with any brain cells for that matter...) that has ever denied that the holocaust happened.
Luigi Novi: But would you deny that a large number of Holocaust deniers (perhaps even most) might be Christians?

Luigi Novi: No. This is a creationist Straw Man. Evolution is not based on chance and accident, and no one ever said it was.

Zarm Rkeeg: Well, what is it based on then?
Luigi Novi: Try READING about it. (And from books not written from a creationist viewpoint.)

Zarm Rkeeg: Was there supposed to be some intelligent design or pattern behind the mutations occurring? If so, that's news to me.
Luigi Novi: You’re asking me if Intelligent Design is part of evolution? Yeah, it would be news, since this is a distorted concept of your own invention, not evolution’s. Mutations are natural occurrences stemming from genetic variation.

Zarm Rkeeg: And just how do entire species evolve via mutation anyways? You just said that most mutations were harmful or neutral... so how could the amoeba get any better than it was, much less become a significantly more advanced and complex species?
Luigi Novi: What, you don’t understand what the word “most” means?

Yes, most are either harmful or neutral. However, there are instances of genetic mutation that can be beneficial to the survival of an organism. Natural selective pressures (predators, competition for resources, climate changes, etc.) cause the disproportionately high number of deaths of organisms that are less-well-adapted to their environment than other, better-adapted organisms. In this way, beneficial traits are passed on. Those traits are therefore, more effective for the conditions. Over millions of years, successive generations of genetic variations (which give survival enhancements) bring about new species. The original variety of the species may or may not continue to survive. Even in the absence of selective pressures, genetic sampling errors in small populations can bring about physical change.

Zarm Rkeeg: Well, what is it based on then?
Luigi Novi: Try READING about it. (And from books not written from a creationist viewpoint.)

I highly recomend Richard Dawkins.

To make Scott happy, while I will continue to remain off topic, I will tell a joke before-hand. Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz have died. Clinton ends up in a room with a raging gorilla. A voice says "Bill Clinton, you have sinned and you will spend eternity with this gorilla." Bush ends up in a room with a man-eating lion. A voice says "George Bush, you have sinned, and you will spend eternity with this lion." Wolfowitz ends up in a room with Jennifer Lopez. A voice says "Jennifer Lopez, you have sinned..."

Okay, moving on:

Luigi:

1. Yeah, they were my examples. I apologize if you thought I was trying to pawn them off as Shermer's. Again, I repeat I do not have the book at my disposal, so I was basing my comments on the short passage that Brian had quoted. It is clearer to me now what Shermer had in mind (thanks for the passages), so I apologize. I'm still not sure why Shermer, out of all the "fringe groups," chose Creationists for his comparison of methodologies (he did say it was the only one that truly matched Holocaust deniers, but I'm not sure about that).

2. Yeah, probably a lot of so-called Christians are Holocaust deniers, the anti-Semitic kind of "Christian."

Well, yeah, that was the point of that passage; that there are parallels between how the two groups promote their ideologies. You can currently get a used copy of the book at amazon.com for only $7.86.

Although it really can't be considered a joke, some of the 'political' coverage on local news is becoming ridiculous. Tonight, on my local NBC affiliate news, a teaser was given for an upcoming story: "Coming up, Jon Stewart was involved in a heated political debate on live tv". After the commercial, footage was run of this 'heated political debate': on CNN, Stewart criticised Tucker Carlson's tie (for being theatrical). This isn't really a political story, but in general, I feel political coverage is getting worse and worse each year. Stories are now often reduced to soundbites and trivial issues. I read that 20 years ago on the evening network news, the average report lasted over four minutes. Now, it's less than ninety seconds. I think many voters really are poorly informed about political canidates (that would explain all the support for Bush).

If quick soundbites are now considered an important way (by both campaigns) to instill ideas in voters' heads, let me offer a few of my own soundbites to remember before the election.

Soundbite # 1:
"In the marketplace of ideas, the Republican Party has only rotten produce to sell"

"Zarm Rkeeg: Actually... I haven't heard of a single Christian (or a single individual with any brain cells for that matter...) that has ever denied that the holocaust happened.
Luigi Novi: But would you deny that a large number of Holocaust deniers (perhaps even most) might be Christians?"

No clue. I a;ways thought that "Holocaust deniers" were someone's idea of a bad joke, or something. As I said, I've never heard of anyone, either in Christian of Atheist circles that I've met/know of deny that the Holocaust happened. (So maybe I'm a Holocaust Denier Denier?)
If there are Christian Holocaust deniers, then they're certainly not denying it based on anything to do with their faith or religious beliefs... at least not any Christian beliefs that I've ever heard of. (Come to think of it... why WOULD anyone deny that it happened, anyway?)


"Zarm Rkeeg: Well, what is it based on then?
Luigi Novi: Try READING about it. (And from books not written from a creationist viewpoint.)"

Well thank you for that informative answer, professor.
I HAVE read about it, from many different sources, and I've seen nothing to indicate that Evolution is based on anything other than random mutations. Are there some orderly and well-reasoned mutations that I've missed in my reading?


"Zarm Rkeeg: Was there supposed to be some intelligent design or pattern behind the mutations occurring? If so, that's news to me.
Luigi Novi: You’re asking me if Intelligent Design is part of evolution? Yeah, it would be news, since this is a distorted concept of your own invention, not evolution’s. Mutations are natural occurrences stemming from genetic variation."


I wasn't saying that... I was asking if this was your suggestion. If there is no pattern or intelligent design, then what would make you say that the mutations aren't random?


"Zarm Rkeeg: And just how do entire species evolve via mutation anyways? You just said that most mutations were harmful or neutral... so how could the amoeba get any better than it was, much less become a significantly more advanced and complex species?
Luigi Novi: What, you don’t understand what the word “most” means?

Yes, most are either harmful or neutral. However, there are instances of genetic mutation that can be beneficial to the survival of an organism. Natural selective pressures (predators, competition for resources, climate changes, etc.) cause the disproportionately high number of deaths of organisms that are less-well-adapted to their environment than other, better-adapted organisms. In this way, beneficial traits are passed on. Those traits are therefore, more effective for the conditions. Over millions of years, successive generations of genetic variations (which give survival enhancements) bring about new species. The original variety of the species may or may not continue to survive. Even in the absence of selective pressures, genetic sampling errors in small populations can bring about physical change."


Yes... your repeated attempts to inject ignorance/simplistic conclusions into my quotes nonwithstanding, have you ever stopped to consider how unlikely, and in some cases (going from water breathing to air breathing) some of these 'in between' mutations would be? Or how incredibly statistically unlikely it is for the tiny percentage of positive mutations to produce even ONE viable (and distinctly separate) species, much less the variety we see today?

No, of course this isn't a scientific proof. Nor did I intend it to be. But to go along stating that everyone who sees this highly unlikely scenario as implausible at best is ignorant seems highly naive.
People who don't worship science as the be-all, know-all of life (and let's face it, science just doesn't know all... maybe someday it will, maybe not. But saying we understand the unverse completely is about as realistic as an ant claiming to understand the inner workings of Wall Street.), start to look elsewhere. Oftentimes, for people like me, that viewpoint (not already biased into thinking that Evolution is predeterminite and undeniable fact) start to take a look at the scientific evidence and start to realise that not only do the facts not support evolution, but many of them support Creationism. And once again, deny it as you may, I'm talking about looking at Creationism in a SCIENTIFIC manner.

*(Though I think that may be a source of much confusion... see below.)


I think one of the largest sources of mistunderstanding is rooted in just what Creaionists are trying to prove.
Ask any Creationist and you're likely to recieve the same answer: No, there is no scientific way to prove that God created the Earth in 7 days. It just isn't scientificaly proveable. (Though for man to say 'I can't prove it... so it didn't happen' seems just a little absurd... but that's neither here nor there.)

What Creationists are looking for is evidence that supports the Biblical account of history. However, by it's very nature, most of the pre-existing conditions of the Earth were wiped out in Noah's flood anyway, essentially re-setting the surface of the Earth in the process.
So what Creationists are researching are:
A: Evidence of the Biblical flood
and
B: Evidence that, before the flood (in the fossil record), creatures have "reproduced according to their own kind" as the Bible states, as opposed to evolving through many changes and mutations such as Evolution states.

However, based on the term "Creationist," I assume that Evolutionists are demanding a litteral scientific proof that God created the Earth in 7 days, as per the Bible, before Creationists can be taken seriously.

Well, I'm here to tell you that it can't be done. Based on the actuall "Theory" of Creationism, that evidence just wouldn't exist.

However, what Creationists argue is that there is overwhelming evidence to support the parts of the 'theory' that CAN be proved- and most of the evidence flies in the face of Evolution.

So, from that perspective (which is the perspective Creationistas are working from,) Creationism (so much as it can be proven based on the very nature of the concept) is eminently proveable, and they are endevoring to do so in the scientific field.

Well thank you for that informative answer, professor.
I HAVE read about it, from many different sources, and I've seen nothing to indicate that Evolution is based on anything other than random mutations. Are there some orderly and well-reasoned mutations that I've missed in my reading?

"Well-reasoned" mutations? Mutations are not people - they are natural processes defined by biochemistry, probability theory, and mathematics. They are entirely orderly.

Perhaps you should check out the article on "Evolution and Chance" at Talkorigins.

I wasn't saying that... I was asking if this was your suggestion. If there is no pattern or intelligent design, then what would make you say that the mutations aren't random?

Patterns do not presuppose "intelligent design," and, in the case of genetic mutations, there are most certainly patterns. What do you think genetic science is all about?

Yes... your repeated attempts to inject ignorance/simplistic conclusions into my quotes nonwithstanding, have you ever stopped to consider how unlikely, and in some cases (going from water breathing to air breathing) some of these 'in between' mutations would be?

How do you know how "unlikely" it is? The "likelihood" of a particular event is a precisely defined quality with quantities defined only when certain statistical assumptions have been met.

Or how incredibly statistically unlikely it is for the tiny percentage of positive mutations to produce even ONE viable (and distinctly separate) species, much less the variety we see today?

Evolution has occurred over a period of hundreds of millions of years and millions and millions of generations. Most of the initial variety in life occurred at the microscopic or near microscopic level over a few billion years. Only in the past ~400-500m years has the variety of life really exploded.

Again you are using phrases like "statistically unlikely" completely carelessly. I would submit that there is simply no way to calculate such a probability of "successful mutations."

No, of course this isn't a scientific proof. Nor did I intend it to be. But to go along stating that everyone who sees this highly unlikely scenario as implausible at best is ignorant seems highly naive.

There's no such thing as a scientific "proof." Proofs are the domain of mathematics and logic. Science relies on observable evidence and theories of causation unpinned by both deductive and inductive logic.

Perhaps I'll rephrase that sentence: "Everyone who sees this scenario as 'highly unlikely' or 'implausible' does not have a good grasp of either statistical methodology, probability theory, or natural science."

People who don't worship science as the be-all, know-all of life (and let's face it, science just doesn't know all... maybe someday it will, maybe not. But saying we understand the unverse completely is about as realistic as an ant claiming to understand the inner workings of Wall Street.), start to look elsewhere.

Since when do any scientists in any field claim to understand the universe completely? This is simply a straw man - if we understood the universe "completely," why do people still do research?

Oftentimes, for people like me, that viewpoint (not already biased into thinking that Evolution is predeterminite and undeniable fact) start to take a look at the scientific evidence and start to realise that not only do the facts not support evolution, but many of them support Creationism. And once again, deny it as you may, I'm talking about looking at Creationism in a SCIENTIFIC manner.

The facts do not support Creationism. Not by a long shot. You are guilty of the same thing you accuse of others who are "biased into thinking that Evolution is a predeterminate and undeniable fact." Are you suggesting that you do not believe that Creation is an undeniable fact? The entire premise of Creation "science" is to search for evidence that supposedly verifies a preconceived belief in God. This is no way scientific. Essentially, Creation cannot be approached in a scientific manner precisely because it depends on a belief in God, a premise which is unprovable logically and can certainly not be validly inferred from evidence.

What Creationists are looking for is evidence that supports the Biblical account of history. However, by it's very nature, most of the pre-existing conditions of the Earth were wiped out in Noah's flood anyway, essentially re-setting the surface of the Earth in the process.

How very convenient. When was the flood exactly, by the way? After the last ice age? Last time I checked, no valid geological history of the Earth correlates with the Bible.

So what Creationists are researching are:
A: Evidence of the Biblical flood
and
B: Evidence that, before the flood (in the fossil record), creatures have "reproduced according to their own kind" as the Bible states, as opposed to evolving through many changes and mutations such as Evolution states.

How would ever obtain such evidence?

However, based on the term "Creationist," I assume that Evolutionists are demanding a litteral scientific proof that God created the Earth in 7 days, as per the Bible, before Creationists can be taken seriously.

Creationists can never be taken seriously as scientists. Sorry.

However, what Creationists argue is that there is overwhelming evidence to support the parts of the 'theory' that CAN be proved- and most of the evidence flies in the face of Evolution.

If you cannot prove the existence of God, logically or observationally, then NO part of Creation "theory" is supportable. Show me a convincing proof for God's existence, then w'll talk.

So, from that perspective (which is the perspective Creationistas are working from,) Creationism (so much as it can be proven based on the very nature of the concept) is eminently proveable, and they are endevoring to do so in the scientific field.

Creationism is not science. Period.

Zarm Rkeeg: (So maybe I'm a Holocaust Denier Denier?)
Luigi Novi: I think you’re totally wrong. So I guess I’m a Holocaust Denier Denier Denier.

Zarm Rkeeg: I HAVE read about it, from many different sources, and I've seen nothing to indicate that Evolution is based on anything other than random mutations. Are there some orderly and well-reasoned mutations that I've missed in my reading?
Luigi Novi: Correct me if my memory is wrong, but didn’t you indicate on the Evolution/Creationism board that you had only read about it from creationist literature? If my memory is wrong, and you’ve read about it from sources that answer the creationists’ common arguments, then why does everything you say here indicate otherwise? Why are you unaware of the advantage positive mutations have over negative ones? Why are you unaware of the definition and criteria for science, and how creationists’ endeavors do not fit them? Can you name some of these “sources” that you’ve read?

Zarm Rkeeg: I was asking if this was your suggestion.
Luigi Novi: Why would it be mine? Why would I be suggesting that mutation is guided by a creationist God, when I’m not a creationist, and when there is no evidence of the existence of God?

Zarm Rkeeg: If there is no pattern or intelligent design, then what would make you say that the mutations aren't random?
Luigi Novi: Again, if you actually read information that answers this question, you wouldn’t have to ask it again. The fact that you ask it shows that the only material on it you’ve read is from creationist literature, which typically does not argue objectively, or treat the information fairly. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Zarm Rkeeg: Have you ever stopped to consider how unlikely, and in some cases (going from water breathing to air breathing) some of these 'in between' mutations would be? Or how incredibly statistically unlikely it is for the tiny percentage of positive mutations to produce even ONE viable (and distinctly separate) species, much less the variety we see today?
Luigi Novi: It’s quite likely, actually. Mutations that are “positive,” by their very nature, allow the organism(s) to keep on reproducing, and therefore, accumulate. “Negative” ones by definition, hinder reproductive success compared to the general population, and therefore are differentially selected against, and do not accumulate. Given enough time, speciation does occur, and we know this for the simple reason that it has.

Zarm Rkeeg: No, of course this isn't a scientific proof. Nor did I intend it to be. But to go along stating that everyone who sees this highly unlikely scenario as implausible at best is ignorant seems highly naive.
Luigi Novi: Anyone who sees it as implausible obviously is ignorant, since the simple logic with which I answered it shows how it does not hold up. Rather than thinking it through to see how positive mutations, by their very nature, accumulate, and negative ones do not, or by looking it up in the literature when the question comes up, creationists do not raise legitimate questions, but merely parrot one another, and ignore the answer when it’s given to them.

Zarm Rkeeg: People who don't worship science as the be-all, know-all of life (and let's face it, science just doesn't know all... maybe someday it will, maybe not. But saying we understand the unverse completely is about as realistic as an ant claiming to understand the inner workings of Wall Street.), start to look elsewhere.
Luigi Novi: Given that no one worships science as such, or says such ridiculous things as that they “understand the universe completely,” this is just your Straw Man argument.

Zarm Rkeeg: Oftentimes, for people like me, that viewpoint (not already biased into thinking that Evolution is predeterminite and undeniable fact) start to take a look at the scientific evidence and start to realise that not only do the facts not support evolution, but many of them support Creationism. And once again, deny it as you may, I'm talking about looking at Creationism in a SCIENTIFIC manner.
Luigi Novi: Part of looking at something in a scientific manner means genuinely looking for answers to questions that you might have. It does not mean arguing a pre-determined position on an a priori basis and ignoring the answers when they’re given to you, as creationists do, and as you yourself have. It is creationists who treat their position in an predetermined manner, and who distort and misreport what they call “facts,” not evolutionists.

Zarm Rkeeg: Ask any Creationist and you're likely to recieve the same answer: No, there is no scientific way to prove that God created the Earth in 7 days. It just isn't scientificaly proveable. (Though for man to say 'I can't prove it... so it didn't happen' seems just a little absurd... but that's neither here nor there.)
Luigi Novi: Evidence shows that the Earth was not created in six days.

Zarm Rkeeg: What Creationists are looking for is evidence that supports the Biblical account of history.
Luigi Novi: See here is where your profound ignorance of what science is and how it works is again revealed. You insist, over and over again, that you are talking about “looking at creationism in a scientific manner,” but then you talk about looking for evidence that supports the Biblical account. True science means looking for evidence that supports ANY explanation, and accepting not only confirmation of a given theory by way of the evidence, but REJECTION of it as well. True science means that you do not steer your search in one direction only, and accept only what confirms what you want to believe, while rejecting evidence that does not. But this is precisely what creationists do. They are not genuinely interested in searching for scientific explanations of speciation. They are only interested in looking for evidence that may confirm ONE IDEA IN PARTICULAR THAT THEY ADHERE TO IN AN A PRIORI MANNER. In science, you try to disprove your own theory too. Creationists do not do this. This is not how science works, and your words show that you are trying to adhere to a completely made-up definition of science that does not hold. You want to keep insisting that you are not ignorant of what science is, but you keep referring to the process incorrectly.

Zarm Rkeeg: Come to think of it... why WOULD anyone deny that it happened, anyway?
Luigi Novi: Forgot to answer this one above. Michael Shermer delves into this in Why People Believe Weird Things, and gives the topics its own book (along with co-author Alex Grobman) in Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened, and Why Do They Say It?

The whole issue of Creationism being discussed as if it was some kind of pseudoscience would be funny, if it wasn't so serious. And it is serious. October's Wired magazine features a cover article on the victory of Creationists convincing the Ohio Board of Education to allow Creationism to be taught in public schools. This is an absolutely disgusting intrusion of Church into state matters. Where's the separation of Church and State our Constitution demands?

Rona: The whole issue of Creationism being discussed as if it was some kind of pseudoscience...
Luigi Novi: Creationism is pseudoscience. Did you mean to say, "science"?

Okay, first off, in a few days I'll try to answer all of this in the E vs. C board, since we've hijacked this poor thread long enough. (Or maybe I'll find some debating partners with a sense of humor, a capacity to understand sarcasm and metaphor, and a lack of inate disdain and immediate dissmissal of any and all points their opponent makes.)

But, while I have just a moment, I'd like to adress Rona's statement... I DEFY you to find me mention of the separation of Church and State in the Constitution, and even further to explain how this is relevant in the case mentioned.
Religion is a set of beliefs, and saying that that set of beliefs is banned from school grounds seems closer to a violation of the "or prohibiting the free practice thereof" part of the constitution. (The quote, of course, is (approximately) "Congress shall make no law governing the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free practice thereof." It seems a ridiculous and gross distortion of this to try to ban all religious ideas from government inolved areas based ion the idea that it's somehow establishing a religion. And if it's simply because it's a statement of the ideas expressed in a previously existing religion, then trying to deny and/or ban them from a school seems to be "Prohibiting the practice thereof.")


Anyhow, I'll try to get enough free time for one of them 2-page omni-posts in the next day or two.

Ah, but using the government to force your religious views on me is prohibiting *MY* free exercise thereof.

Theoretically, almost any law violates someone's free exercise of religion. But I understand your point.

We all know that the religious right has learned from their past defeats. They now try to pass Creationism off as "Intelligent Design". Is there anyone who thinks intelligent design isn't religion based?

Zarm Rkeeg: Religion is a set of beliefs, and saying that that set of beliefs is banned from school grounds seems closer to a violation of the "or prohibiting the free practice thereof" part of the constitution.
Luigi Novi: No one has banned any beliefs from schools. They have merely banned organized recitations of those beliefs on the part of the school staff when the school is a public one.

I think Zarm was referring to the teaching of Creationism or Intelligent Design in schools, which you are correct, has not been banned. I personally don't find anything wrong in educating students on the belief in intelligent design, but a proper context has to be established. And it should be up to the school.