Archive for Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Evolution debate creates monster

Satirists preach gospel of Flying Spaghetti Monster

August 24, 2005


— From Darwin to intelligent design to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The debate over teaching evolution in Kansas public schools has caught the attention of a cross-country Internet community of satirists.

In the past few weeks, hundreds of followers of the supreme Flying Spaghetti Monster have swamped state education officials with urgent e-mails.

They argue that since the conservative majority of the State Board of Education has blessed classroom science standards at the behest of intelligent design supporters, which criticize evolution, they want the gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster taught.

"I'm sure you realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory," writes Bobby Henderson, a Corvallis, Ore., resident whose Web site,, is part FSM tribute and part job search.

Karl Gehring/Journal-World Illustration

Karl Gehring/Journal-World Illustration

"It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster," he wrote to the education board.

Henderson did not return a telephone call for comment. He says in his letter that it is disrespectful to teach about the FSM without wearing "full pirate regalia."

Board member Bill Wagnon, a Democrat, whose district includes Lawrence, said he has received more than 500 e-mails from supporters of FSM.

"Clearly, these are just supreme satirists. What they are doing is pointing out that there is no more sense to intelligent design than there is to a Flying Spaghetti Monster," Wagnon said.

Intelligent design posits that some aspects of biology are so complex, they point toward an intelligent creator.

ID proponents helped shepherd a report and hearings that have resulted in science standards that criticize evolution and have put Kansas in the middle of international attention on the subject.

John Calvert, of Lake Quivira, the lawyer who was instrumental in writing the science standards that criticize evolution, said he had seen the FSM e-mails, and was not impressed.

"You can only use that misinformation so long," Calvert said. Calvert said the science standards do not promote intelligent design, but show that evolution has its critics.

Wagnon and the three other board members who support evolution have written Henderson back, saying they appreciated the comic relief but that they were saddened that the science standards were being changed to criticize evolution.


clumsyoaf 12 years, 9 months ago


Stumbled in here late and tired, not very intrigued by your post. I will simply say that your statement "afford a pass to secular atheists" seems to make your subsequent claim [In full disclosure I am not a Christian fundamentalist] extremely dubious.

In my experience, ONLY Christian fundamentalists have the unmitigated gall and ignorance to claim that evolutionary supporters in general are "atheists". With that as your starting volley, you lost my respect and my interest.

GreenEyedBlues 12 years, 9 months ago

I can just imagine John 1945 using air quotes as he says scientist. What a yutz. This doesn't even say anything about KU. But hell, might as well bash KU "scientists" because this article happents to appear in the LJWorld.

John1945 12 years, 9 months ago

How kind of the Journal-World to legitimize religious bigotry and intolerance. I don't read German, but somehow I get the feeling that this is what the press must of looked liked in the Third Reich during the early 30's. Will there be a section denouncing the Juden in tomorrow's edition?

Perhaps there could be a new section of the paper devoted to ridiculing various racial and ethinic groups.

At any rate, thanks to silly ad hominem attacks like this KU and Lawrence have once again been shown to be a hotbed of intolerance for anyone who doesn't goose-step to the tune of KU's narrow-minded "scientific" community. But then that's probably why KU's rankings as an academic community continue to decline.

Strange though that no one over there has been able to come up with a rational argument to defend Darwinian theory, only these silly ad hominems. No wonder they can't get any grant money.

Maybe if they could actually get a research grant rather than run around like a pack of clowns they would be taken more seriously.

Hey, did you hear the one about the KU "scientist" who got a research grant? No, well that's because none of them ever got one. Get it? Tee hee hee. Oh boy ain't that a hoot? Get it, none of them ever got one. Third rate institution don't you know. Right below online degree mills. Boy, that's funny, research money at KU. Yeah, you bet, when pigs fly.

jonas 12 years, 9 months ago

john145: Or maybe the school is of lower quality because it sits in this hotbed of superstition and irrationality that is Kansas and the greater midwest. And religious bigotry? Gimme a break! We are allowed to make fun of your religion, and it's not bigotry, anymore than making a joke about blondes. Besides, if you didn't make it so freakn easy for us to do, you wouldn't have to worry about it.

Now tell me what evidence there is that the world was not created by a gigantic spagetti monster.

noodles 12 years, 9 months ago

Local pastafarian, here.

I think FSM is great! Shows how backwards Kansans are. Nice seeing you Flying Spaghetti Monter. ...ramen

majic12 12 years, 9 months ago

One website is offering a $250,000 reward to anyone who can prove that Jesus is not the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. So go ahead, Cotton Mather --- collect your money. Religion is just bad science fiction. Guns don't kill people, religion kills people. Look at all the peace and love being spread around the world by those wonderful Christians, Moslems, and Jews.

It's a load of bunk.

Grammaton 12 years, 9 months ago

I've never met anyone whom could argue their religion logically. Logic is something religion is very uncomfortable with.

...I wonder why that is...

Jeff Barclay 12 years, 9 months ago

Can someone present genuine evidence for evolution? Is it not true that the fossil record presents only animals and plants- some extinct, some not, with fully functioning features? Fossil evidence does not provide transitional forms. If evolution was true should not there be thousands of subtle transitionary features demonstrated in the fossil record? I was intrigued by the mastedon tusk recently uncovered from under rock layers near Wichita. As I recall it was seventeen feet under a new road bed. Not many natural events can account for that. Except maybe a catastrophe, such as a worldwide flood. What book talks about that?

majic12 12 years, 9 months ago

Where do you think antibiotic-resistant bacteria came from? Another one of Satan's tricks?

I don't hate religious people. I just wish they would stop flaunting their lifestyle and trying to recruit children.

laughingatallofu 12 years, 9 months ago

I am quite impressed by all of the "non-bigoted" posters who are getting defensive by the prospect of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Do I sense a touch of insecurity in your position on ID? Fact of the matter is---there is no more "scientific" evidence for the "theory" of the FSM than there is for the "theory" of intelligent design. Why can't you people get it through your thick skulls is that it is possible that an "intelligent being" CREATED evolution? The fact that we don't quite understand all of the gory details doesn't make evolution invalid. You're not giving the Creator enough credit for his work.

If you want to teach ID, fine with me. Just don't do it during science class.

I'm wondering what these narrow-minded folk tell their kids about Santa Claus.

legolas1996 12 years, 9 months ago

If evolution were true, mothers would have three or more arms.

OldEnuf2BYurDad 12 years, 9 months ago


If YOU want to teach evolution, fine with me. Just don't do it during science class.

I'll teach my kids there is no Santa Clause, but I may tell them the story of a man once called Saint Nicolas.

I would like a reaction to this from you anti-religion people: How did a scribe living at the time of Moses have information about the fossil record? How is it that the order of animal life depicted in the early chapters of Genesis turns out to be exactly the same order that the different types of animals appeared on the planet? That is what you see in Genesis, an accurate explanation of how life appeared on earth that is consistent with the fossil record, yet this information was written thousands of years before the development of even the most rudimentary fossil dating system. It's the revelation of one of the earth's greatest mysteries by a person who could not have known this on his own. Unless... the person who created it TOLD HIM about it.

It's a fact: the ancient Hebrew words used there describe (in general terms) the same sort of progression of animal life that the fossil record shows. It's not possible for someone living in a pre-scientific age to have possibly known the things written there unless they had an inspired source. God's book has it right, because God was the creator.

Also, let's not call bacteria "life". Only recently has bacteria been called "life" by some members of the scientific community. Because bacteria sometimes mutate, they have become the poster child for evolution. It's not "life". It doesn't have cells like animals. It doesn't sexually procreate like animals do. It has no DNA. Some call it "life" because it helps them with their agendas... but its apples and oranges. It's bad science, which is, ironically, what you accuse us creationist of doing.

Brian Sandefur 12 years, 9 months ago

There is such a gross lack of understanding of this issue by most people that it is very discouraging (from understanding evolutionary mechanisms, to what is actually going on in Kansas). Just look at majic12's comment about antibiotic-resistance in bacteria. NO ONE is saying evolution doesn't happen, but antibiotic resistance is hardly a compelling observation when we're trying to discover how evolution can produce something completely novel.

It is that sort of superficial thinking, along with ridiculous century old stereotypes that keep this very intriguing debate from becoming that for many people.

Evolutionary theory does not merely have "holes". It has foundational and systemic flaws. The mechanism of variation/selection has abundant empirical support when it comes to producing trivial changes (like antibiotic resistance). But it has virtually no support beyond that. The claims of evolutionary biology far out distance the data.

In addition to a lack of positive data, there is also significant contradictory data that has made skeptics out of many scientists and academics - not all ID supporters mind you. Lynn Margulis (an evolutionary biologist) is great example, for at a recent Darwin conference in the Galapagos she basically said that neo-Darwinian theory is dead, utterly lacking explanatory power.

People need to come to the realization that the scientists advocating ID are not fundamentalists, and their position is not a matter of religious deduction. They infer from biological data that intelligent causation is a better explanation for many features of the biological world.

The irony to me is that it is the sold out defenders of materialistic evolution who are self-proclaimed logicians, intellectuals, and free-thinkers. And yet, for the most part, they can't get past the Inherit the Wind stereotype of this issue (which doesn't characterize it in the least anymore), and therefore resort to fallacious ad hominem and strawman attacks, rather than engaging substance.

Not only ironic, but humorous. And eventually they're going to lose.

OldEnuf2BYurDad 12 years, 9 months ago

Also, John 1945: shut your pie hole. You are not appropriately representing what should be an intelligent discussion on a serious matter by making the rest of us conservatives and pro-creationist looking like idiots with your inappropriate attacks on KU. If I really wrote what I think, I'd get my post yanked, so let me just say "read a book" before you start spouting off like that again.

Brian Sandefur 12 years, 9 months ago

OldEnuf, I don't know if you're serious or not, but I'll bite. Bacteria is life. It is a single celled organism with a full complement of DNA. It responds to stimuli, it reproduces, it metabolizes, it grows. It's life.

By the way though, some bacteria also possess features that seriously challenge material evolutionary explanations.

egress 12 years, 9 months ago

I have to agree with laughingatallofu. This has been my stand for some time. Nobody's right and nobody's wrong...why is everyone so upset about all of this? This has nothing to do with my day-to-day life and the need to put gas in my car and feed my son. I did not see this article as belittling to Christians or offensive in any way.

chrisgladfelter 12 years, 9 months ago

I suppose it will only be a matter of time before Pat Robertson orders a hit on the Flying Spaghetti Monster...

OldEnuf2BYurDad 12 years, 9 months ago

I also must chime in against the LJW on this story. How inappropriate it was to run this garbage. Is it "news" when someone puts some crap in a blog that suggests that a spaghetti monster created the world? What if I blogged that the LJW was created when a giant took a dump after eating a big bowl of chili? Would that be creative enough to garner a story (with a front page graphic to go along with it) on this site? My guess is that my not-so-entertaining blog would not be a story, not even on the slowest of news days; yet a stupid web site has a few idiotic words about a SM and that gets a promininant place on the front page.

Not even close to fair, not anywhere near balanced. Not professional at all.

dirkleisure 12 years, 9 months ago



Next thing you know, the LJ World will be running an illustration portraying Jesus as having dark skin and dark hair!

staff04 12 years, 9 months ago

snort* I think I just inhaled diet coke laughing at this!

Lepanto1571 12 years, 9 months ago


Nor do I hate the adherents of the irreligion of secular nothingness. I just wish they would stop flaunting their lifestyles and recruiting and indoctrination children through a state funded compulsory and monopolized education system.

Seems liberals are not nearly as tolerant, diverse and multi-cultural as they tout with such vigor.

BTW, antibiotic-reistant bacteria is a product of adaptation and micro-evolution, something no one in their right mind has any disagreement with. You can point to tangible examples of micro-evolution all day and you'll have nothing but agreement.

I notice you didn't use a more complex example to contemptuously sneer at the IDers with, such as bipedal hominid descent as postulated by Mr. Darwin (i.e. macro-evolution).

This is the problem in this debate, people have very little understanding of what they even mean by "evolution."

Good to see you again Ultimate 175!


chrisgladfelter 12 years, 9 months ago

The Journal-World is not taking sides. I've read the story several times and still fail to see why some people are getting so upset. I suppose that this story together with the recent foolish rantings of Connie Morris and Pat Robertson have them feeling a bit edgy and defensive.

Brian Sandefur 12 years, 9 months ago

Nice to see you too Lepanto. Reader Reaction is full of too many "sold out to stereotypes" types pretending to be reasonable, tolerant, free thinkers. Too unproductive. Alas this probably is too.

All I want is thoughtful discussion about the real issues. Is that so hard?

Densmore 12 years, 9 months ago


Maybe you are getting too old. Why so upset? The FSM is hilarious. Relax and enjoy the humor.

There are two types of people in this world: 1. Those that know that they don't know everything. 2. Those that don't know that they don't know everything.

When you find a person who is fanatically committed to either evolution or ID, you've found someone who likely fits into category two above.

Brian Sandefur 12 years, 9 months ago

Densmore, I think in general those people who are committed to ID are people who recognize the explanatory power of evolution at certain levels, but think it fails at others. ID is not anti-evolution, it merely seeks to determine the true explanatory domain of it. In other words, what does evolutionary theory ACTUALLY explain, and what are we told it explains based on irresponsible extrapolations of data.

So if anyone is "fanatically committed to ID", they are not saying design is the absolute cause of everything in biology (unlike fanatic evolutionists). They are saying we need to evaluate systems on a case by case basis, and make careful inferences as to what could actually account for it.

Lepanto1571 12 years, 9 months ago


Agree that most are touting some idiot political triumphalism, based on very little knowledge, but there are a few reasonable voices out there. You can pick them out as you read down.

You are not asking for too much.

dawatts 12 years, 9 months ago

Dens: There are three types of people in this world: 1. Those who can count. 2. Those who can't count. lol,lol,lol

Densmore 12 years, 9 months ago

Nicely stated, ultimate175. I hope that your characterization of most ID'ers is accurate.

To me, the most reasonable answer to the question of how we became what we are is "I don't know." One thing that I find curious is that ID'ers seem to take the position that since the theory of evolution does not explain everything and does not answer every question, there must be elements of ID, as if by default. Could it be that we simply do not have a good understanding of evolution and this is why we cannot explain everything with the theory? What does the best available scientific evidence suggest? I would like to believe in ID, but where is the scientific evidence in support of this alternative theory?

Daniel Speicher 12 years, 9 months ago

Coming from a Christian... I'm not so sure our best response wouldn't be just to get a good laugh out of this and move on. The fact that the public schools are even discussing teaching ID is a pretty big victory for the evangelicals out there.

Me, personally, I'm not so sure which way I would vote in this situation. I would like to see a World Religions class offered at the high schools that offered an all-inclusive view of the major religions (and a few of the minor religions) that, in the process, taught their beliefs in creation.

This does not mean that I don't believe in an Intelligent Designer. I definitely do. But, I think until science and religion find a middle ground (which I believe is possible, by the way), perhaps the best way to teach each of their views is in separate classes. Just an opinion... Bash away... I probably won't be back on to read them. ;)

--Danny Speicher

Daniel Speicher 12 years, 9 months ago

Oh, and, by the way... I really like this guy's website. I thought the whole "Pirates to Global Warming" link was hilarious... Not to mention the "Noodly Appendages"... Great stuff. I think it is important to be able to laugh at yourself... Especially when it is done up as well as this particular "theory" is. Anyway, as I said... Bash away... Have a good day, folks!

--Danny Speicher

sixtwelvewest 12 years, 9 months ago

Wow, I think I want to applaud the J-W for putting something as ridiculous as FSM in today. As a Kansas native, I've been nothing but ridiculed by friends nationwide at the idiocy of the "intelligent design" debate. It scares and saddens me that our state continues to regress into these types of issues rather than working on educating students, improving test scores, and providing better learning environments.

I have no problem with religion, and I have no problem with evangelism, but I do agree with that little clause in a little document that helped form this country separating CHURCH and STATE. More and more people seem to forget that morals and politics, beliefs and facts, are two different things. You all are merely breeding intolerance rather than improving society. It shocks me that people continue to be so ignorant.

Lepanto1571 12 years, 9 months ago


Good to hear from you.

As far as science and religion finding middle ground. Well that middle ground has been there for centuries. 800 years ago Thomistic philosophy was given us in the Summa Theologica by Aquinas.

Rediscovering Thomistic philosophy is all that is needed.

Eric Beightel 12 years, 9 months ago

sixtwelvewest - not to rock your boat, but please cite where in the constitution it says "separation of church and state".

Let's keep the facts on the table folks.

FSM is equally as plausible as ID as neither rely on emprical evidence and it is wrong that one theory of how the world was created be given any more time than any other theory. If you want to teach "alternate" theories on the origin of life, you're gonna have to let in all the quack jobs, not just those ID'ers.

Brian Sandefur 12 years, 9 months ago

Densmore, I think you're correct in that the best answer we have to how we got here (scientifically anyway) is "I don't know". Current mainstream science however tells us dogmatically and authoritatively that the answer is material evolution. They don't say that because there is overwhelming data, they say it because of a commitment to materialism.

They have no clue how humans could have evolved. The best they can do is point to a few interesting hominid fossils and DNA comparisons and say, "See?". But that is not an explanation. True knowledge of how humans evolved would entail enormous amounts about HOW humans evolved. Things like detailed explanations for the origin of novel cell types or the emergence of consciousness and mental power. We know none of this stuff.

The presence of earlier fossils and DNA similarities is just as easily evidence of common design (indeed engineering works very much in this way) as it is for evolution. Therefore, it is really not evidence for either by itself.

Moreover, as I said before, the problems with evolutionary theory are more than mere gaps. The bacterial flagellum is one of the oldest known biological systems, and it is (relatively speaking) a simple propeller on certain bacteria. Evolutionary theory has no good explanation of systems like this, which are irreducibly complex. This means that they require all of their parts, or no function obtains. If there is no function, there is no natural selection. In other words there is no gradual pathway for evolution to take from no flagellum to flagellum. What's more, is that we're finding cellular life to be chock full of such systems.

Now if evolutionary theory has severe conceptual problems explaining the lowly flagellum, it makes little sense to just accept it when scientists say everything evolved.

The scientific evidence for ID lies in irreducibly complex systems, and systems which exhibit complex, specified information. Both of these concepts are empirical, not arbitrary (for example irreducible complexity is determined with genetic knock-out experiments). So for irreducibly complex systems, there are two considerations.

The first is that there no good explanations for them via pure material, evolutionary processes - even conceptually or theoretically, much less empirically. Second, for irreducibly complex systems for which we do know their cause (mousetrap is a good example), intelligence is always involved in its creation. We know of no irreducibly complex systems that were created absent intelligence. Intelligence is what they call "causally adequate" to produce the effect in question. Material mechanisms are not causally adequate. Therefore, ID is the best explanation for irreducibly complex systems.

It's important to note too that this claim is falsifiable, and therefore scientific. The production of even one irreducibly complex system via purely material causes would falsify ID.

sixtwelvewest 12 years, 9 months ago

Sorry, am too pre-coffee this morning, you are correct that the exact phrase does not appear in the Constitution, but it IS one of the foundations of what this country was built on. This is a message board on a Web site, not a term paper, so forgive me. However, if I remember correctly, the reason we have no official state religion is because the founders of this country (and many original settlers) came hoping to escape religious intolerance from their governments. Therefore, one of the original tenants of our laws is that they are influenced by the rights of humankind, not the morals of religion.

They do still teach U.S. history in schools, right?

Brian Sandefur 12 years, 9 months ago

Hey sixtwelvewest, do you or your friends actually know what is REALLY on the table for teaching in Kansas? I'm interested in hearing what you find so objectionable, and antithetic to "educating students".

mseybold 12 years, 9 months ago

Maybe someday The Flying Spaghetti Monster's teachings will stick to the wall..

Eric Beightel 12 years, 9 months ago

I just think it is important to keep the facts straight. Nowhere in the constitution does the phrase appear but it was pulled from a letter Jefferson wrote explaining his thought behind the addition of the 1st Amendment.

And I assume that they still teach U.S. History, but they may try to rewrite the history standards to include Adam & Eve and whatnot. I haven't heard yet. . .

sixtwelvewest 12 years, 9 months ago

Ultimate175: IMHO, Kansas is the only state with this debate coming up at all, not to mention more than once? It seems like a waste of resources to continue bringing it up. As I said, why not work on how to improve math and reading scores instead of worrying about where opposable thumbs came from? If people want their kids to learn ID, then teach it at home.

Prydain 12 years, 9 months ago

The above is an interesting article on the origin of flagellum in certain bacteria.

mseybold 12 years, 9 months ago

Everyone who does not believe in the FSM can just stick a fork in it.

sixtwelvewest 12 years, 9 months ago

ebbenji, as I said, I agree and corrected myself, but the First Amendment does state that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I take this to include teaching religious-based theories in public schools.

I have to do some work and cannot debate further, but you all have fun with this. Ramen.

Brian Sandefur 12 years, 9 months ago

sixtwelvewest, I'll just ask it again. Do you actually know what proposals are being made for Kansas science education? Or are you just forming an opinion on stereotype and what you "think" is being proposed? I'll clue you in a little bit, ID is not being proposed. In fact the proposals explicitly prohibit its requirement.

By the way, this has also happened in Ohio, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania. In fact, Ohio adopted science standards two years ago very similar to the ones on the table in Kansas.

Working on math and reading should be done as well, but so should fostering true scientific minds that will skeptically consider all claims made by science, and learn to evaluate arguments by thinking for themselves.

I encourage you to read what is actually being proposed in Kansas either by going to the DOE website or

mseybold 12 years, 9 months ago

although I will admit... the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a difficult deity to grasp.

Brian Sandefur 12 years, 9 months ago

For a detailed repsonse to the article posted by Prydain, see here (this is the first part of a 5 part article).

Prydain, wanna discuss the proposed evolutionary pathway at all? That's what I think needs to happen.

Lepanto1571 12 years, 9 months ago


It seems the church and state statement has been handled above. So, I'll move on.

What specifically is "idiotic" in the intelligent design debate?

Where is this "regression" you are referring to? Specifically what is regressive in this debate?

Perhaps you could provide us some detail on how to specifically "educate students, improve test scores, and provide better learning environments."

Should we work diligently to raise the test scores on comprehensive exams of such intellectual powerhouses of our beloved compulsory education system like "Heather has two Mommies," "Daddy's Roomate," "Doing It," "Rainbow Boys," "Push," or "Choke"?

You assume the education system is worth saving.

Perhaps you are "ridiculed by friends nationwide" because you contemptuously dismiss certain people assuming them dumb, make unsupported statements assuming them the final word, and run for cover.

Prydain 12 years, 9 months ago

I'm not knowledgeable enough to fully discuss the molecular level evolution but I can see how a motile bacterium would be more successful than a non-motile bacterium.

Brian Sandefur 12 years, 9 months ago

Prydain, I can see how a motile bacterium would be more successful too, but identifying a selection pressure like that doesn't mean it could evolve.

The proposal in the article you posted is problematic for a variety of reasons, but I suppose we don't need to get into them.

dhawk 12 years, 9 months ago


"I was intrigued by the mastedon tusk recently uncovered from under rock layers near Wichita. As I recall it was seventeen feet under a new road bed. Not many natural events can account for that."

15,000k yrs of flooding and sediment deposition is generally the culprit. Loess deposition can also bury animal remains to 10s of meters.

Numerous books can explain this to you. I recommend "Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology" by Leopold, Wolman, and Miller.

I'm assuming ID accounts for the roadbed?

Prydain 12 years, 9 months ago

Both articles have issues that are problematic. You can't outright prove evolution is true just as you can't prove ID is correct either.

Brian Sandefur 12 years, 9 months ago

I never said you could prove ID or evolutionary theory. We certainly can't. We are trying to explain unique events in the past that can't be repeated, so all we can do is make inferences to the best explanation.

My point in stating that the article was problematic was that just because an article like that exists, doesn't mean it is an adequate proposal or evolutionary explanation. They must be critically evaluated.

princess 12 years, 9 months ago

Danny Speicher: I fully agree with you. A World Religion class would be a more appropriate way to approach teaching ID in public tax dollar funded schools. Not only would it fulfill the request of the ID lobbyists by teaching their "theory" it might also provide the future generation an understanding of various world religions. Understanding leads to tolerance. Ignorance leads to hate.

Sorry, I know I went all Yoda at the end there.

laughingatallofu 12 years, 9 months ago

I agree will ALL of the comments posted above, and I also disagree with ALL of the comments posted above.

C'mon folks. Your posting isn't going to change anyone's mind. Move on. Most of the kids who will be learning about evolution, ID, FSM, etc. will be too drunk, stoned, or apathetic to remember what they were taught 2 weeks after it's taught. Just look at our politicians and their understanding of this debate (I would LOVE to pick Dubya's feeble mind about what he knows about ANY of these subjects).

princess 12 years, 9 months ago

I meant..."provide the future generation WITH an understanding "

Need more coffee.

Brian Sandefur 12 years, 9 months ago

Princess, to set the record straight. ID "lobbyists" are not asking that ID be taught in schools. This is a common misperception based on media that just can't seem to get it right.

Also, ID is not a religion. It makes no sense to discuss the the possible co-option of the type three secretory system during the evolution of the flagellum in a religion class.

princess 12 years, 9 months ago

To be clear Ultimate, yes lobbying is exactly what is happening here. Perhaps you have become unclear of the definition of the word?

From Webster's, lobbied, lobbying, lobbies 1. To try to influence public officials on behalf of or against (proposed legislation, for example): lobbied the bill through Congress; lobbied the bill to a negative vote. 2. To try to influence (an official) to take a desired action.

If teaching ID in schools can be taught without broaching the subject of religion then please answer the following question: What/whom is the intelligent designer that you speak of?

Brian Sandefur 12 years, 9 months ago

Princess, I understand what lobbying is. My point was that no one is asking that ID be taught in public schools. So if anyone is "lobbying", it is certainly not to have ID taught in schools - including Kansas.

From a scientific standpoint, I have no idea who the designer is. It is possible to detect design in a system and not know who the designer is. For example SETI (the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) looks for indicators of intelligent causes in radio signals. If they ever find one, you can be sure they've detected an intelligent signal whether they know who sent it or not.

People so often confuse religious or philosophical implications with religious premises. ID certainly has those implications (as does evolutionary theory), but it is not religious (nor is evolution). ID is an inference from empirical, biological data that suggest that the origin of certain features are best explained by intelligent action, rather than material processes alone. See my brief discussion of irreducibly complex systems above.

So since you think ID is a religion, which religion is it?

Prydain 12 years, 9 months ago

The problem is some supporters of ID can't seperate the two issues, religion and ID. It is the same with a number evolution supporters. If someone says anything about ID the evolution supporters scream religion. It is hard to approach this issue with a truely scientific perspective. Well maybe ID should be investigated along side of evolution. The purpose of the new science standards was to give the option for other theories and hypothesis to evolution be taught.

Brian Sandefur 12 years, 9 months ago

The purpose of the new standards is to expose students to data that not only supports evolutionary theory (as is currently done), but also to data that presents challenges to it - not for the sake of directing them toward some religion, but for the sake of better science education.

The full spectrum of data (age appropriate of course) should be presented so students can critically evaluate evolutionary explanations rather than being dogmatically told that evolution explains everything with a highly selective presentation of evidence.

Let the children think.

ryanjasondesch 12 years, 9 months ago

I say, "Death to all religions and especially religious people, and John1945, I want your ignorant head first!" Did you drop out of kindergarten? Huh, fella?

clumsyoaf 12 years, 9 months ago


As a geologist, I found your comment among the most amusing of the evening. You state "I was intrigued by the mastedon tusk recently uncovered from under rock layers near Wichita. As I recall it was seventeen feet under a new road bed. Not many natural events can account for that. "

Given that sediment deposition is a constant process, I'm wondering where else you expected this tusk to be found than under strata deposited after the separation of the tusk from its original owner. In a tree top? Encased in lucite in a museum?

Please enlighten me, this should be fascinating.

Densmore 12 years, 9 months ago

I might be mistaken, but ID and religion ultimately are joined at the hip. If we determine that life, or elements of life, result from ID, the next question is obviously "who/what is the source of the intelligence." If we determine that the source was ancient Martians, then we must ask "But who/what created the ancient Martians." Ultimately, this line of questioning brings us to a juncture where we must attribute the intelligent design to something supernatural. Otherwise, the argument is circular.

Brian Sandefur 12 years, 9 months ago

But so what if it leads to something supernatural at some point if it is the most accurate explanation for the reality of nature, and it is based on observations of nature itself, not on a religious doctrine or text? If design is the best explanation for a certain feature in biology, should we discard that explanation just because it might imply something "bigger" is out there?

Is science engaged in most accurately describing nature and it's origin, or is just trying to give us the best explanation it can that is purely material?

Any origins theory has religious implications. There's no way around it. Be they atheistic or theistic, the implications are there. We still should be adhering to the best, most adequate explanation for a given feature, not the explanation that best fits our philosophical wishes.

princess 12 years, 9 months ago

Ultimate said: So since you think ID is a religion, which religion is it?

This is exactly my point. If a child in a classroom asked the question that I asked before (What/whom is the intelligent designer that you speak of?) how would a teacher answer them? God? Allah? Buddha? Him? I don't know Timmy, just trust me on this one?

And what kind of crazy are you trying to sell here, saying that ID will not be taught in Kansas schools now that the science standards have been changed? What exactly will the "criticism" of evolution be then? Just that it is a theory? That is what the standards previously held so why the urgent need for a change? But please, feel free to talk your self in circles. I am done with this. I stand by my thoughts about a World Religions class.

Brian Sandefur 12 years, 9 months ago

Princess, go to the link I posted above and read the Minority Report. The document contains all the changes being proposed in context. Until you've read it, I don't think you should come here and tell me I'm crazy. You'll note that the report explicitly prohibits the requirement of ID. If you really want to be informed about what is on the table, read it. I have my doubts you will.

And if a student asked the teacher that question, the teacher should say "scientifically, the data don't tell us. But for this feature, material processes alone are insufficient to explain its origin, and intelligent causation is. Here's why..."

Brian Sandefur 12 years, 9 months ago

By the way Princess, this comment from you goes a long way toward demonstrating that ID is not religion:

"This is exactly my point. If a child in a classroom asked the question that I asked before (What/whom is the intelligent designer that you speak of?) how would a teacher answer them? God? Allah? Buddha? Him? I don't know Timmy, just trust me on this one?"

If it were religion, one would be able to specify it's doctrine, text, theology, etc. The inference of design is fundamentally different that a deduction from religious doctrine. And once again, ID is NOT based on religious premises. It does not assume as a starting point that a God exists, and then tries to find data to fit that. It merely makes observations of the biological world, and infers the most plausible and adequate explanations based on that.

Densmore 12 years, 9 months ago

I agree with you to some extent, ultimate. The supernatural part is what stymies me. I don't understand how scientific evidence can ever suggest the presence of a supernatural force, which is ultimately requisite for ID. Given something that cannot be explained by natural forces, the scientific answer seems to be "we don't know" as opposed to "likely caused by supernatural forces."

dream 12 years, 9 months ago

Those of you who are interested in the ID debate might want to follow this link:

It formulates the general theory behind ID by ID proponents and responses by the scientific community to ID. Read through these and the evidence becomes quite clear.

Brian Sandefur 12 years, 9 months ago

Densmore, supernatural is different than intelligent. Again, when studying certain biological features, and when we're trying to explain their immediate origin, we have two options. One, material causes (chance, physical/chemical law) are sufficient to explain it. Or two, the arrangement of parts and way it functions requires intelligent causation.

Intelligent causes can do things material causes can't. And based on our knowledge of what each can do, we can discern when an intelligent agent has acted (indeed we do it all the time, including in many sciences). ID does nothing more than detect the effects of intelligent action in biology.

Brian Sandefur 12 years, 9 months ago

It's important to realize that the responses in dream's link have responses of their own (a good example is a critque of Ken Miller's proposal of the co-option of the TTSS for the evolution of the flagellum). I've said before, just because responses to ID assertions exist doesn't mean they're adequate.

princess 12 years, 9 months ago


From your link:
While the testimony presented at the science hearings included many advocates of Intelligent Design, these standards neither mandate nor prohibit teaching about this scientific disagreement.

"nor prohibit"

Lepanto1571 12 years, 9 months ago

It seems to me Ultimate that many have a misconception of what ID really is. I see ID, and correct me if I'm wrong in my analogy, as Critical Theory applied to biology, specifically evolutionary biology.

The gaps in evolution are massive, especially when looking at origins.

Evolution requires us to look at science as no longer science, but in terms of plausibility. "Well, life may have arisen like this (insert innumerable scenarios). To ask for evidence invokes hostility and contempt.

Science requires axioms upon which to build workable hypotheses. The axioms of evolution are not solid. Let's face it one "demonstrates" physics, but one must "believe" evolution.

Biologists (and their devoted lay followers) are the only scientists who are obsessing over religion. I do not see this in the other sciences. The physicist could care less what the religious think.

Seems to me we're dealing with competing religions and evolutionists are just as zealous as they claim the actually religious to be. Like any zealot they fail to see it and cannot take appropriate criticism, which typically invokes contempt and hostility typical of zealotry, when actually asked to provide evidence.

I enjoy your posts regarding ID. Thanks.

Densmore 12 years, 9 months ago


Its been a good discussion and I appreciate your remarks. One final remark by me in response to your last response to me, and then you can have the last word.

From your post "Densmore, supernatural is different than intelligent." I agree. But in this context, because of the circular argument that results without tying supernatural forces to ID, to assert ID is to assert the existence of supernatural forces. So, it boils down to two choices: 1) a natural explanation, or 2) a supernatural explanation. Given something that cannot be explained by natural forces, it is illogical to assert the influence of supernatural forces. Something that cannot be explained by natural forces is simply something that cannot be explained. It does not imply the presence of supernatural forces.

Anyway, I respect and appreciate your comments above. Good luck with your pursuit of the truth.

Brian Sandefur 12 years, 9 months ago

Princess, I said it prohibits the requirement to teach it, which is what you just confirmed. However the intent of the authors is made more clear on page 7 of draft 2 when they state WHY it should not be required - 1) it needs further scientific development (i.e. it is not mature), and 2) it needs further curricular development.

More over, the Discovery Institute (the primary think tank on ID) has said as a matter of public policy the same thing. ID should not be required. In fact, a recent case in Pennsylvania has developed in which a legislator is proposing a bill that WOULD require ID, and the Discovery Institute not only isn't supporting it, it has spoken out against it. It is not seeking equal time alongside evolution.

Brian Sandefur 12 years, 9 months ago

Densmore, it has been a good discussion. Thanks for indulging me on substance.

I don't agree that intelligent requires supernatural, and even if it did, we can still ascertain that intelligence was a requirement based on the characteristics of a given feature. We don't need to explain the supernatural, we just need to show that intelligent causation is the most plausible explanation for system X.

I do agree with you however, that if we grant your tying of intelligent/supernatural, that perhaps the best answer is "we can't explain it". Unfortunately the mainstream biological community is far from that attitude, and indeed insists that everything evolved regardless of their ability to actually provide an explanation for it.

lizbet 12 years, 9 months ago

Hmmmm....I believe that the Intelligent Designer of ID had more motivation from a religious perspective than the desire to enhance the education system by showing the gaps in evolution and our scientific process that has been tested, retested and developed for years. I'm sure one of you knows a little about the founder of ID himself. ID isn't identifying the gaps, it's proposing a possible filler (and also suggesting that there is only one reason that things could be the way they are-ID). If not, then why don't we just say, "hey kids, we're still learning, science is an ongoing learning process." Shouldn't we be more open minded and wait until we actually have evidence of what fills those gaps? Also, I can't believe anyone arguing for IDs sake would criticize evolution for lacking the "how." You're telling me that ID is the most logical how? We're taking people seriously now who come up with explanations for things that aren't in their fields of expertise. Really, if we don't trust the scientists to report what they know in their feild of expertise, what's next? Soon there will be politicians trying to claim they know better than practicing medical experts....wait, that already happened.

clumsyoaf 12 years, 9 months ago

I'm a bit mystified by the offended Christians ranting on here. As I understand it, Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, not a religous one, which makes no assumption about a specific creator. How, then, can it be offensive for the Journal, or the advocates of FSM, to express ideas concerning the creator which differ from your own narrow worldview?

Or - gasp - could it be that ID is just fundamentalist Christian creationism in disguise? Say it ain't so!

Brian Sandefur 12 years, 9 months ago

Lepanto, I tend to agree with you there. Interestingly, there are clear and unavoidable theistic implications to some respected and legitimate theories in cosmology and physics, and yet there we do not see these sorts of ad hominem and straw man attacks.

princess 12 years, 9 months ago

Ultimate said: Princess, I said it prohibits the requirement to teach it, which is what you just confirmed.

NO. Please re-read. In typical government fashion, this sentence was put in to allow a loop hole for teaching ID as an alternative theory.

"While the testimony presented at the science hearings included many advocates of Intelligent Design, these standards neither mandate nor prohibit teaching about this scientific disagreement."

Boiled down...We aren't saying that you HAVE to teach ID, but we also aren't saying that you CAN'T teach ID.

To all of the Science teachers in Kansas....good luck!

Spaghettiman 12 years, 9 months ago

I love this. Telling is retarded and funny. Christians just love tapping into a child's mind. They know all children believe in Santa, flying reindeer, Giant man sized Easter bunnies, Little ferries that break into your house and grab teeth from under your pillow, Boogie men, good priests, magic, lepricons, Jesus, dragons, unicorns, superhero's, Dracula, mermaids, and on and on. The only difference between believing and NOT believing in these things is, sooner or later mommy tells them they aren't real. But....Don't question the existence of God, Jesus, and Heaven. In fact...Don't even think it! Or a red guy with horns and pointy ears and a tail, toting a pitch fork, is gong to toss you in some fire way in the middle of the earth, and do bad things to you for ever and ever! That's so funny. These kids are so petrified that they ignore their curiosity. So brainwashed they learn not to dare think different. Fall into line and shut up! The true hell is right here in Kansas. If there is a heaven, and it's full of all the hypocritical Christians I've met in my lifetime...Please send me to hell. I've spent enough time around these robots. I'll take fire and a hot poker please.

C_hertling 12 years, 9 months ago

Irregardless of one's opinion on evolution and intelligent design, I find it ironic that the people defending this defamation of the Christian faith are the same ones who would be screaming bloody murder and protesting in the streets if a similar article mocked the world-view of Muslims, Wicans or any other minority religion. I guess political correctness only applies to non-Christian institutions. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy???

dirkleisure 12 years, 9 months ago

Anyone who dares to call FSM a defamation of the Christian faith is a blaspheme, and shall be forced to walk the plank.

I defend the flying spaghetti monster because he is my creator. Who created you?

Spaghettiman 12 years, 9 months ago

Dear Mr. C_hertling- Here is some info for ALL the people who are writing comments like yours. The world doesn't revolve around you and your childish beliefs. This whole thing is so people like you keep your Hocas Pocas to yourself. Push it on YOUR OWN friends and family, if they'll take it, but leave me and my children out of it. ATTENTION: NO ONE IS ATTACKING CHRISTIANITY! People like me are attacking the fact that this CRAP has forced its way into our schools. What would the Christians think if they said "you HAVE to teach homosexuality techniques in health class. Because you should be exposed to MANY diffent things. Keep your mind open...RIGHT? Why not? Or does this only apply to YOU and YOUR way. I'll bet you would be crying up a storm if you found out the schools required the teaching of Judism in science class. What about requiring teachers to expose everyone to Satanism? OHHHHHH I bet you GASPED on that one huh? But I bet you wouldnt if you were raised a Satanist. I think the believers in the FSM would be here weather it was Christian, Jewish, Satanic, Muslem, Wicans, or anything else. It just doesnt belong. You are ALL stirring up something that is going to grow out of control. Then you'll wish you never started it in the first place. Whats next? If you dont agree with whatever CRAP forces its way into school "NEXT", just remembe,r all you supporters of "I.D." It was all YOUR fault. Keep it to yourself. Besides, why does everyone NEED to know where we came from? Who cares? Your never going to REALLY know. So quit acting like you do. But I think its the flying spahgetti monster. Why not?

Lepanto1571 12 years, 9 months ago


What you have failed to grasp is that everyone and everything are competing to "tap" [indoctrinate] children's minds today. Seems you want to make sure the parents don't, so modern idiot pop-culture can. Good job genius. You're ready for Congress!

You are delusional, probably due to traces of bong resin and hops, if you think that public education's goal is merely to 'educate' the child. Better they indoctrinate children, instead of those damn parents, huh!

BTW, I am very pleased to hear that modern public education no longer socializes or indoctrinates children into the idiot worldview of secular nothingness though. That's great news.

CirclingBuzzard 12 years, 9 months ago

So, who cares what you believe? Answer: you. Whether you believe in Jesus, God, Allah, FSM, evolution, Dracula, etc. does not matter. The fact that you hold a belief, and that any perceived or real threat to the legitimacy of said belief exists, requires a defensive position on your part, for if said belief is proven wrong, inaccurate, or illegitimate then, in a sense, so are you, your worth, and/or identity.

Teaching both theories in public education systems is the best course of shows how strongly people can hold a belief on the basis of self worth and identity and to what lengths they will go to prove themselves right...even so far as to challenge what is taught.

Claiming someone as intolerant only proves that one is not tolerant to intolerance. Saying another has a closed mind closes one's own mind.

That being said, I'm glad I left Kansas.

dream 12 years, 9 months ago

No hypocrisy here as ID is not a theory that even the Roman Catholic Church buys into. They have no problem with evolution as it stands.

The theory behind ID is flawed from so many angles that it is not being taken seriously by the vast majority of the scientific community. In science, there have always been theories that meet with great resistance until proven. ID cannot nor will it ever be proven. That is what makes the ID theory so ridiculous. Try and prove something that cannot be proven, then it must be true? If ID theory is so good, it would be presented for peer review. Hasn't happened nor will it ever unless the theory involved has scientific merit.

Evolution is the best fit and explains our world so well that even though it does not have all the answers, it does serve us very well in studies that it concerns. ID does not and cannot do the same. It's theories would turn science backwords into the dark ages. It just doesn't fit with what we already know and tries to dissprove the proven by lies and ommisions of fact.

I beleive in G-d, but I don't believe man cannot find answers to questions by saying it is too complex. Everything has an answer, though maybe not today, tomorrow or next week. History has shown that all too well.

I don't believe the Bible is to be taken literally. That is one major problem with some Christian religions and why we are debating this. Time and time again various religions have changed their view when the obvious becomes, well... obvious. The earth is not flat. The sun and moon don't revolve around the earth, etc.

Using highly technical terms to dress up ID as valid does not change the basic fact that ID is a fraud developed to bring creationism to schools. Instead, why not teach a theology course that presents all theories of all religions to everyone? My guess is it scares those that want ID, as it would go against their thinking. That's hypocrisy!

Spaghettiman 12 years, 9 months ago

Lepanto 1571 Thank you for acknowleging that "I" am a genius. Because in fact... yes, I am. By the way I didn't Fail to grasp anything. Parents BETTER tap into their childrens minds. What YOU failed to grasp, is that you are suggesting that PARENTS can't handle it so I guess we better pass off the responsability to the teachers. Right? Cant handle your own kids LEPANTO? If you need the teachers to do your job for you. Send them to a Christian school. Thats what they're there for, retard. OH and who's delusional? Due to the scaring from your christian upbringing. I hate to break it to you LEP, but there is no deep voiced old guy with a beard sitting in a gold chair up in the clouds waiting to make things all happy and cozy for you. And in case no o0ne told you, there isn't a Santa either. Although that story is easier to swallow. An Education IS all I care for teachers to do for my kids. Leave the brainwashing to me and my wife. We can handle that part just fine. Teachers arent parents. But parents ARE teachers. Dont get that mixed up.


hurlehey 12 years, 9 months ago

The image on LJworld is a false idol indeed. What will they do next, name an "arts and culture" section "Pulse" and fill it with religious blather from local kooks (aka dr's from dubious bible colleges) ?

Lepanto1571 12 years, 9 months ago

"I hate to break it to you LEP, but there is no deep voiced old guy with a beard sitting in a gold chair up in the clouds waiting to make things all happy and cozy for you."

Care to prove it professor. Oh, you can't. An unsupported assertion was it? Well, I can see why you believe in evolution then.

Nice try though.

If you're concerned with children actually being educated, then why in the hell would you have them in public school?

The brainwashing you're giving your kids sounds like the type you'd be happy for compulsory public education to reinforce, which it is. If your happy with public education, then your kids are being taught as you desire. You and I have no quarrel then.

I happy for you, your standards are where the government wishes them to be.

Spaghettiman 12 years, 9 months ago

Agreed! While my kids excel with the social skills they have encountered with their "modern idiot pop culture" and friendships created in public schools, Your socially inept, Christian, holier than thou, judgmental, Christian schooled, guilt ridden, children can sweep up my kids offices when they go home. HALELUJA!

Brian Sandefur 12 years, 9 months ago

Dream, Pope Benedict wrote an essay on the imcompatibility of materialistic evolution and Catholocism not two months ago. But regardless, who cares what position the Catholic church takes on evolution? Are you saying that we should accept it because the Catholic church does?

You are terribly mistaken about the status of ID, and I think, the nature of science as well. Certainly it is a minority view within science, but it is being taken very seriously. Scientific explanations, be they evolutionary, ID or ones unrelated to biology need not be held to the level of proof. If a theory must be "proven" before it is labeled scientific, I'm afraid the whole institution of science would collapse. The standard of proof is especially harsh in historical sciences, that are trying to explain unique, unobservable events in the past. Proof is impossible my friend.

Regarding peer review, I can think of three ID articles that have been published in the last few months - one in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, one in Rivista de Biologia (Italian biology journal), and one in Protein Science. If you're interested in them, I'll post links. Let me know.

You think that evolution is the best fit and "explains our world so well". Well let me point out a few foundational problems (not minor holes), and you can respond with your interpretation of how evolution accounts for them:

First is the existence of irreducibly complex systems. This is not a notion originated by ID, but has been discussed in literature for decades. How does evolution explain the emergence of such systems consistently and plausibly, considering cellular life is revealing an abundance of them?

Second is the emergence of 30 some animal PHYLA during a 5 - 10 million year period of the Cambrian. How does evolutionary theory explain this stunning disparity of organisms without record of a history of diversity preceeding it?

How does evolutionary theory explain the pervasive characteristic of stasis in fossil species, when one should see a consistent directional change?

How does evolutionary theory explain the origin of the first replicating molecules and life, or the information content of DNA for that matter?

This list could obviously go on, but you get my point. Materialistic IOUs may be sufficient answers to these questions for you, but in many of these cases I don't think they'll be made good. The problems are just too pervasive and foundational.

You can believe that ID is just trying to get creationism into schools, but you're wrong. First of all, it would be difficult for that to be a goal since many of the leading researchers and thinkers in ID are not Christian (some are Buddist, agnostic, Jewish, etc.), much less fundamentalists. I don't know one that would advocate teaching creationism (defined as literal Genesis) in school, and I know many of them.

J Good Good 12 years, 9 months ago

This is hysterically funny "I find it ironic that the people defending this defamation of the Christian faith are the same ones who would be screaming bloody murder and protesting in the streets if a similar article mocked the world-view of Muslims, Wicans or any other minority religion. I guess political correctness only applies to non-Christian institutions. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy???"

You have NO IDEA what it is like to be part of a minority religion. A good day is having our worldview mocked. A bad day is someone like you or your kids telling my kids they will rot in hell and worship Satan (even though we don't believe in Satan at all). Or having your house or car vandalized, your pet killed, fired from your job or run out of town. Still happens here in the good ol' USA to Pagans (although the flat out urban myths about ritual sacrifice seem to be going away).

If your Christian faith can't withstand a few Harry Potter books and a little teasing, it ain't gonna get you very far anyway.....

I believe that the universe was created with immeasurable love and magic, but I don't think that has anything to do with science. Keep it out of the schools.

nygman 12 years, 9 months ago

ultimate175 - To answer your questions, you only need to go as far as the panda's thumb web site. Very nice, logical, well reasoned critique of ID material. .

However, I think you are missing the point. Who is to say the FSM isn't the I behing ID?? Can you prove to me that the FSM isn't? If you can't, then shouldn't the FSM get equal time too??

pylon25 12 years, 9 months ago

You people are crazy. Religion is nothing but a brainwashing of those not intellectually strong enough to see around it. Back when things couldnt be explained, man created god (not the other way around) to explain all these things he couldnt comprehend. Now that science and technology can explain most of those things, there is no longer a need for this "supreme" being. What real "evidence" do you have for god existing? None. I find religion to be very elietist and exclusionary. Those you dont "pray" to your god are heathens and must be "Saved" or exterminated. Screw god. I'm all about he FSM.

usaschools 12 years, 9 months ago

Ultimate175, you are missing this crucial point: The subjective nature of science exists only at the whim of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (bless its noodley appendage). FSM is just messing with your head! That explains ALL the "gaps" you think exist in evolutionary theory! FSM is messing with you!

Daniel Speicher 12 years, 9 months ago

Can't we all just get along? ;)

--Danny Speicher

pylon25 12 years, 9 months ago

Nope, we cant, because "God" doesnt want us to right? If "god" wanted us to get along, he'd make it so.

pylon25 12 years, 9 months ago

jstevens - i concur whole heartedly. "I cant wrap my mind around that very complicated, technical matter, so god must have done it. There, simple, god did it, thats all i need to know. Now wheres my bible, i got's some beating to do..."

Lepanto1571 12 years, 9 months ago


All I asked you to do was prove your statement that God was a myth. If you can't say you can't. No need to create diversion. Although it is becoming clear as to why you embrace evolution so quickly.

I fail to see how your worldview is any different than that of the Christian. Your secular atheistic worldview is as reliant on unproven axioms as is the Christian's. At least the Christian relies on faith. You're supposed to be able to prove things. You haven't even gotten started.

If I'm wrong, prove me wrong. [Forgive me for asking you to actually prove something again]. If you can't, then we'll consider your anti-religious slander for the bigotry and intolerance typical of secular zealot.

Show us that "genius," we'll believe. We promise. You're just unconvincing.

Lepanto1571 12 years, 9 months ago


Your dissmissive oversimplification does not in any way cover evolution for not actually being able to prove the origin of a damn thing!

With your contemptuous dismissiveness, which normally assumes a solid intellectual grasp of something, perhaps you can prove [not speculate, not wish, not guess] from where bipedal hominids descended. Then perhaps you can demonstrate the transitional line from that single cell that started it all. Go ahead and call the media, becasue if you are successful, you'll be the first!

ID does not cover the gaps with God, but if they did, I would fail to see how evolutionists are considered to be doing something different when they postulate innumerable natural causes to cover the gaps, which remain still unproven after 150 years.

Lepanto1571 12 years, 9 months ago


If religion is the crutch of the "week" mind;

Modern secular atheism is the amputation of it!

Shardwurm 12 years, 9 months ago

Funny thing is that Intelligent Design and Evolution share the same problem - neither can be proven.

Even if you subscribe to Evolution you have to take it on faith that life 'spontaneously began'. No scientist, to my knowledge, has created a single-cell organism in a vacuum.

So...if you believe in Evolution where did the original cells come from? PooF

pylon25 12 years, 9 months ago

Lepanto, You keep demanding proof that the bible is wrong, that god doesnt exist, prove that they do. There is no, and has never been ANY proof WHATSOEVER that god exists. The proof for evolution is there, though it may contain some holes, at least it has a solid foundation. Your reliance on "faith" that god exists has no foundation at all other than a weak minded belief that this couldnt have all happened without some supreme power intervening. Religion is used to create fear in people, fear that if they dont do exactly as their fellow members do they will be punished somehow. Science can be proven at least to a solid point, it may not be 100% absolute, but at least its based on hard evidence, repeated testing, and consistent results. Show me one ounce of hard evidence that there is a god. No, the bible doesnt count. I could write a book about the FSM and it would carry the same weight. In my mind, all the bible is good for is a firestarter, the paper is nice and thin and burns easily.

Daniel Speicher 12 years, 9 months ago

Where's the sense of levity here? I mean, don't get me wrong... This is a good debate, I suppose. But, I guess I don't really find value in nitpicking over the small issues. And, I find ID to be a small issue. Now, I've read through some of these posts... And, I find that many of them don't assume that ID and Judeo-Christian beliefs are intrincially connected. I don't really have time to go into how much that doesn't make sense... So, for those of you who view it that way... This statement isn't for you...

But, just out of curiosity, why is it that we, as Christians, spend our days bickering over this small stuff? Do you honestly believe that we are going to win anyone for Christ by bashing ID over their heads? Let me tell you something... It doesn't happen... At least not often. I'd be lying if I said I didn't used to have that view on things. The view that says, "Well, every little victory won here and there (i.e. ID in schools, homosexuals not able to marry, etc.) is a check in the "Win Column." But, here's the deal folks... People don't need to hear about ID... They need to hear about Christ's love. They don't need to hear about God's judgment... They need to hear about His grace.

Yet, here we (I use we loosely) passing judgment on those who don't believe what we believe. We tell them that they are wrong and that they are going to hell for not believing it. When, I know (as well as all of you do) that if they had just a moment of experiencing Christ's love it would change their lives. Why are we so quick to tell everyone that they HAVE to change what they believe? Was it truly other people telling you that you needed to change that changed your heart? Or was it Christ revealing sin in your life once you had let him in?

I really don't have time to be posting much more. But, here's what I'll say... To Christians: Lighten up. The God we serve is a good God and we are to let His light shine through us. Very few people have been saved over the years through encounters with God's wrath. To Non-Christians: Christ loves you where you're at. Whether you believe the world was created by Him, evolution or the Spaghetti Monster and his noodly appendages... He loves you, even if you don't believe in Him and think that I am just leaning heavily on a crutch. Christianity has nothing to do with man changing man... It has everything to do with God fulfilling man's purpose on this earth.

--Danny Speicher

PS -- Sorry for the soapbox... It happens from time to time.

PPS -- For those of you Christians out there who aren't being impatient and all that... Don't be offended by my remarks. They weren't intended for you.

pylon25 12 years, 9 months ago

"Over 20 eye witness accounts". Well then, if 20 people swore they saw it, it must exist. Hey, i bet i can find thousands of eye witness accounts of bigfoot existing, or aliens, hell, i can find more than 20 "eye witness accounts" of just about anything you want. But since this one was written in a book, lets praise the "creator". Its rediculous. God does not exist people, neither does satan, hell, heaven, angels, nothing. Its all a bunch of fabricated bs. Welcome to reality.

dream 12 years, 9 months ago


The reference to Catholicism was meant to illustrate that as the largest of the Christian denominations, they have no problem with evolution.

Your arguments are all old and have been answered many times before as I can also show you links that technically describe the problems with your arguments. To try and discuss them here would simply be a waste of time and space as they have been shown to be twisted, misinterpreted arguements that makes no sense by any scientist that specializes in the study of evolution. If ID had ANY merit, there would have been serious debate by scientists and some ID theory would be accepted today. This has not occured and will never occur as long as IDers use quack science to prove their theories.

Bottom line, if ID is such a great theory, why does 99% of the scientific community from science teachers to those whose specialty is evolution laugh when the subject is discussed? Time and time again it is picked apart in every serious debate. If you leave G-d or an intelligent being out of the debate as G-d's exsistance or an intelligent being cannot be proven or disproven, all ID arguements become invalid. Remember science tries to solve questions naturally, not by saying an intelligent being did it so I give up. The Theory of Evolution still fits by a long shot from what we do know. ID does not come close to answering what we all want to know... Where did we come from? ID says someone else made us and it's way too complicated to understand so give it up and accept what the bible tells us as the truth. That my friend is not science no matter how you slice it and therefore does not belong in the science classroom. Leave ID in church, theology or science fiction where it belongs.

Lepanto1571 12 years, 9 months ago


I have made no challenge to prove the Bible wrong, but to prove that God is a myth. This is the accusation cast from all atheists (rather dismissively) that have entered this discussion. I say fine, no problem, prove it to be an objective fact. I merely hold atheistic materialists to their own dogmas of observable, testable, measureable, verifiable, repeatable. Any argument you or any of your kind make, must be "proven," otherwise you cannot believe it. That's the rule. There is no room whatsoever for faith to the atheist.

The Christian suffers under no such unreasonable limitations, as he accepts that not everything can be known or explained. He accepts that this is a fact (and an eminently reasonable one by the way). To ask him to prove God empirically is not an axiom of his belief. But unfortunately, it is for the atheist materialist.

Conservativeman covered some of the philological evidence regarding Christ.

As for philosophical proofs of the existence of God, Aquinas' argument from motion would be the single best proof from reason and also rule out the possiblility of an infinite number of universes, or that the universe is infinite. While modern science can reasonably confirm a singularity of creation (aka Big Bang), the burden falls to the atheist to demonstrate how the universe: 1) brought itself into existence and 2) explain where all matter that we observe comes from.

The contempt with which this "myth" hypothesis is cast by the atheist is evident. The dismissiveness of the atheist would usually assume a firm grasp of knowledge in order to dismiss so casually as you, and others have done. Yet this is clearly not present as not a single one of you has, nor can, prove this myth hypothesis, but it is repeatedly made anyway. Completely unreasonable, especially when you rely upon an unproven hypothesis to refute it.

I ask evolutionists to prove that evolution is fact. You must do this, by your own dogmas, in order to believe it. You have not done this, nor can you, therfore it is accepted on faith not objective fact. While one demonstrates physics, one must "believe" evolution.

You have conveniently glossed over the gaping holes in evolution. Micro-evolution is not something anyone could reasonably argue with. Adaptation (micro-evolution) is clearly a mechanism that is observed, even with precision is some cases. However Darwin's claim of eons of time, random mutation, and all species descending from a single ancestor, transitioning over time to higher forms is not even remotely demonstrated. Nothing to support it. As important as this is to evolution, the paleontological record should be littered with this evidence. It is not!

You may call evolution proven to a solid point, I, and many others, disagree based on fact. The gaps are chasms.

ksmattfish 12 years, 9 months ago

Tie everything down. I heard they're going to overrule the theory of gravity next.

Lepanto1571 12 years, 9 months ago


"God does not exist people, neither does satan, hell, heaven, angels, nothing. Its all a bunch of fabricated bs. Welcome to reality."

Please prove this statement. Are you asserting it as fact?

Show us you're objective proof. We're all believers in secularism atheism in waiting.

No objective proof? Then we'll discount your statement for what it is. "A bunch of fabricated BS."

It must be maddening to vainly attempt to disprove a hypothesis, with an unprovable hypothesis!

Daniel Speicher 12 years, 9 months ago

Conservativeman, I certainly understand your view and respect your opinion. However, my view is this... I believe that evolution (as it stands now) is not correct. I do believe that evolution on some level is very true. As a matter of fact it is hard to deny micro-evolution, as we have seen evidence of that within a few generations (i.e. the numbers of molars we have compared to the number of molars our great-grandfathers had.)

I believe evolution is a theory... And, being a product of the public school system, I know it is taught that way. Yes, it is the only theory taught, but it is still a theory. I believe that scientists will continue to study the theory and find that some parts of it were wrong and some were right. But, I believe it should be taught in high school regardless... I believe this for two reasons:

  1. If it does end up being correct... It should be taught. If it ends up being incorrect it will fall by the wayside naturally, on its own.

  2. If the state colleges have it as the "M.O." of science standards around the nation, we definitely need to keep it around, as to take it away would hinder our students (and only our students, mind you) from doing well in that setting.

So, I guess my suggestion would be... If you must fight this fight (which I believe is a quick way to not have to share the Gospel of love with people, because it is easier to condemn than to edify), than you need to begin with colleges and work your way down. Once again, my two cents. Conservativeman, I know this sounded harsh in some areas... But, there are a few topics that you and I DEFINITELY agree on. This just isn't one of them. :)

--Danny Speicher

wisbech 12 years, 9 months ago

Lepanto1571 asked for someone "but to prove that God is a myth."

OK, here is my attempt. The only God I have seen hard documentary evidence for is Hirohito of Japan, who was divine from his ancestry (the sun goddess)

So, he existed. But in 1945, he himself said that he was a myth, and not divine.

So, either he was lying, and actually was still a God. Or he wasn't, and his being a God is/was a myth

Not sure what more proof you want, but that a God himself should admit that he isn't a God would to me be reasonable proof that that God at least is a myth. Or are you going to argue that Hirohito's divinity wasn't a myth, and only political pressure from MacArthur forced him into denying His true nature? Still a fair number of Japanese who would agree with you on that, so not an unpopular line to take.

As for proving other Gods are myths, a bit more difficult. Guess you could argue from analogy. If one God admits they aren't a God, but a myth, then is it reasonable to suppose that the other Gods are/ were lying too?

Spaghettiman 12 years, 9 months ago

Hey Lepanto 1571 I'm back. Now for my proof. Nothing exists if NO ONE has ever seen it. That's a genius' point of view anyway. I've never seen Russia, so...I can't actually prove it exists until I go there. The fact is, maybe I could go there, and prove it to someone. As for God and heaven, no one HAS, nor will they EVER be able to die, go to heaven, and comeback and tell you about it. So it will never exist. See? Is that good enough? I'm sure it isn't. Serious... I don't care if they teach things in school that are theory. Even with no proof. They dont have to buy into it. I just want them to leave religion out of it. Religon has proven to be so damaging. It causes wars, makes sane people defend child molesters, terrorist, thieves and on and on. All in the name of their "GOD" Who, by the way, is so sweet and forgiving. So wonderful that if you were raised different, and don't agree with someone, you might just get yourself killed in a fit of religious rage by some mental moron with, oh so wonderful "FAITH". Then of coarse, the victim who died in the name of the all good GOD, will burn in Hell, because they weren't brainwashed the same as the murderer. I don't want that POISON in my children's brains. Let them watch "fairly odd parents" Last I checked, no one killed anyone over Cosmo and Wanda.

wisbech 12 years, 9 months ago

Just to add - I do think it sad that the Emperor of Japan is no longer a God. It is somehow comforting to know that in living memory - certainly during my parent's lifetime, a God walked amongst us. Even if later he admitted he wasn't

MacArthur was a spoilsport - who was he to insist that the Japanese should no longer regard their emperor as the divine embodiment of the country?

Spaghettiman 12 years, 9 months ago

Whoooow, that's off the subject! And obscure.

Spaghettiman 12 years, 9 months ago

OOps sorry wisbech, I just read above. sorry

imkirok 12 years, 9 months ago

If there were anything intelligent about our design, then mothers would have three arms. What is intelligent about placing your nose, an orifice that regularly drips bacteria filled slime, directly above the place where food goes into your body? If there was any intelligence involved, why would a woman's birth canal be too small to allow a child's head to come out without severe pain and the possiblity of death? What intelligent creature would give us an appendix, an organ that has no useful purpose but can cause death?

But most of all, if there were any intelligence in our design, vegetables would taste better than candy. Or candy would be healthy - either way, our current system sucks.

Now, please excuse me while I don my pirate outfit. It's time to go preach the word of the flying spaghetti monster.

CirclingBuzzard 12 years, 9 months ago

You all realize, don't you, that essentially you're arguing the same thing...and some are getting miffed about it. Relax and have a cold beer. But keep on arguing, it is really entertaining, especially the personal attacks, belief in the invisible man in the sky, and bone-like stuff in the ground. Let's see here, what to believe in....200 million year old bones, or a book written in a dead language 2000 years ago by unknown authors (assigning names to them does not make them known, just like the T-Rex).

phobos 12 years, 9 months ago

google "dominionism"

Why google "dominionism"? Because it and things like it are the reason that people get upset over issues like Intelligent design theory. It falls back on the idea that if you give an inch you'll end up losing a foot and at that point you're one step closer to a fascist regime taking power. While this (hopefully) is unlikely to occurr it's still a valid fear that people such as myself have. How does this tie in to Intelligent Design theory? If Intelligent Design theory is allowed to be taught in a class room, SOME BUT NOT ALL, Christians will take it as a victory and a way to champion other changes that they deem mandatory in the school system. I don't want to see mandatory prayer hours and theological debate classes which are nothing more than a teacher telling children how "correctly" interpret a religious text. These are things for private schools, homes, and churches. But on the flip side of the coin, the status quo isn't perfect. Evolutional theory definitely has its flaws and as a theory is defined thus, "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture." I am more than willing to allow room for Intelligent Design theory as long as it is presented in a manner that is unbiased. By unbiased I mean this, absolutely no labeling or interpretation of who the guiding hand behind Intelligent Design is. I know that the immediate response to this is,"the bible is proof enough". To that I say, well what about "Brahma the creator" from the Hindu religion? At this point if you are unwilling to cede to an unbiased representation of a creator then you are biased and attempting to force your religious viewpoint on others. I am not attempting to attack anyone's viewpoint in these matters. I am merely attempting to say that an issue such as teaching Intelligent Design theory in the classroom runs deeper than a simple yes/no vote and should be gone over to ensure that it is in fact being presented as a theory and not as a religious foothold.

clumsyoaf 12 years, 9 months ago


While openmindedness is all well and good, your definition of theory is not a scientific one, but rather a casual laymans version.

While our information or data may be limited, science puts forth a theory that best explains ALL available data, and uses observation and experiments to test hypotheses and gather more data.

Show me any work in the area of creationism that is experimentally gathering data, or attempting to do anything other than tear down science.

Creationists (whether or not they use the term Intelligent Design, which is purely an attempt to confuse their true motives) are working from an assumption the Bible is literally true. They are trying to convince others to ignore observations, discard any further experimentation, and not worry about hypotheses. The only thing that matters to them is constructing a house of cards that supports their preconceived conclusions.

Intelligent Design is not bad science. It is the antithesis of science. Beliefs in a creator can be held without disregarding the entire foundation of rational thinking and a belief in cause and effect, but belief in intelligent Design requires a purely superstitous view of the natural world. As such, supporters of this theory strike me as stunningly inconsistent in their behavior when they fly, since there seems no reason for them to believe the Bernoulli Effect will keep working, since it could only exist at god's whim and be subject to change.

phatty 12 years, 9 months ago

It's all fairly simple really.

Non-denominational religious/philisophical thought is still religious/philisophical thought.

Our country is founded on prohibiting this agenda in government institutions.

Therefore, it is not only silly but illegal to use ID, regardless of how many religions back it. Having the support of multiple religious leaders makes it, in fact, even MORE exempt from being taught in our schools outside of a religion course.

Remember how many Creationists were upset over the Big Bang, until it was finally equated with "Let there be Light." Now that it can be associated with a creator, it's no longer an issue. Was anyone, as ID zealots are so fond of asking, there to see THAT either? No, of course not. We rely on evidence and hypothesis. However, to accept hypothesis which supports creationism and to reject that which doesn't IS, at heart, a religious statement.

Science may be wrong, and often is. But the science that makes typing on this keyboard and watching it on an LCD screen possible was founded on the same method that gives us evolutionary theory. It's not been overwhelmingly wrong since its inception, unless you don't believe in the validity of the car you drive or the products you buy. In the face of quantum realization, prove to me that YOU exist, for God's sake.

It's easy to think that religion is so much more empowered and 'hip' now. But looking at religious history (unless of course you don't agree with that brand of empirical, observational science either) shows us that people have often resisted what seemed to be terrifying changes which, in reality, were never any danger to the religious arena. In terms of fooling and misleading our youth, tv's, magazines, cars and distilled spirits are all much more dangerous that evolutionary theory. Note: 'theory.' Hence, it doesn't need a sticker to proclaim it fallible.

Smiff 12 years, 9 months ago

"a theory is defined thus, "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."

Only in everyday speech. In science, that is called a hypothesis - an "educated guess based upon observation".

A theory is an "explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers".

ergo, evolution can be a theory (incomplete perhaps, and not a "law" - see link below!). ID is not a theory, its more like a hypothesis. It clearly does not qualify as a theory based on the scientific definition of "theory", as it's not based upon proven hypotheses and it's not verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. (I'm assuming of course, that there is even something to observe with ID, otherwise it's a definite non-starter as a science).

see here and google more.

This misunderstanding is behind much of the disagreement in this debate, i think. People are talking two different languages, and its sad to watch.

On a personal note, can i also agree with the wise persons above who suggested teaching "world religion" as a class, i've thought myself that is the best way to go.

Smiff 12 years, 9 months ago

i see several people made similar points at the same time, but its worth repeating anyway.

there is good discussion on "theory" and what it means here: note this passage: "In science, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven". this applies also to things like gravity, apparently.

also, at risk of inflaming this debate, a quick googling also shows that evolution has now widely moved from being considered "theory" in the scientific community to scientific "fact", with only the details of the mechanism, not the idea itself of evolution, still being theory.

ain't google great :)

Lepanto1571 12 years, 9 months ago


Why do you so quickly afford a pass to secular atheists for embracing something "unproven" with the religious zealotry of what you deem christian fundamentalists guilty of. [In full disclosure I am not a Christian fundamentalist].

I fail to make the connection of your remarks. Have you actually read the comments on this thread from the disciples of macro-evolution? Do you not see the zealotry and dissmissiveness from the other camp? Perhaps you believe as they and find yourself allied in worldviews? Why are you "mystified" by the Christian "ranting." Seems to me there's plenty of that going around on both sides.

Folks like me are simply pointing to the rather obvious fact that to believe in macro-evolution is to accept axioms of it's validity on "faith." The evidence is not there. "Faith" is a requirement. Many as you can tell do not like that fact.

One demonstrate physics, one must believe macro-evolution!

Again, if I'm wrong, I wait your correction.

Lepanto1571 12 years, 9 months ago


I appreciate your attempt to prove God a myth. Your analysis seems to lack the same thing macro-evolutionary theory does...evidence.

And, of course, any semblacne of objective fact.

Other than that, good job! I always appreciate sincere efforts.

Lepanto1571 12 years, 9 months ago


I only take issue with one thing you said in this post...

"Religon has proven to be so damaging. It causes wars, makes sane people defend child molesters, terrorist, thieves and on and on."

Now, as an above average historian (not to the level of "genius" mind you, but I am quite humble), I must disagree that religion is "so damaging" and "causes wars." I ask compared to what?

Secular atheistic regimes have killed more people in the span of a decade than all religious wars of all of human history combined! If you truly are a secular atheist (which BTW, I really do doubt), then you should take a close look at the evils committed (empowered by the thinking/philosophy of Voltaire, Darwin (animalism), Nietzche, Marx, Gramsci, et. al.) by those who think as you may.

The historical evidence is overwhelming and I'd be glad to discuss this in depth with you. It's one of my favorite subjects.

phatty 12 years, 9 months ago


Again, it really doesn't matter. Evidence, shmevidence. Teaching religion in schools (outside of specifically labeled and designated courses) is fundamentally illegal.

I have to wonder though - and I ask this out of confusion, not disrespect or dirision - how do creationists deal with the changes that take place in front of us every day? It is plainly obvious that God didn't make the Golden Retriever for instance - it was bred over thousands of generations, from wolves, until it was adapted to certain specifications. How about variations in the plant world? Or Florida's newly walking catfish? I understand that these are not different SPECIES, but it's fairly obvious that separated breeding populations can give rise to entirely asimilar organisms.

To tell you the truth, without the obvious DNA and historical evidence, I have trouble thinking that the average, unlearned Joe would consider say, a pug to be of the same species as a wolf. Again, dogs are only superficially different, but my point here is that these changes have taken place only over a few thousand years of domestication (most in the last few hundred). Put that on a grand scale, and...

Also, while I understand the...'lack of evidence' on a macroscopic scale, that kind of 'missing link' phenomenon doesn't necessarily occur in smaller, more primordial organisms. For instance, the amount of diversity in species of parasites is amazing, and shows not only a gradual increase in complexity, but extremely tailored living environments. Now, even if the earth IS only 5,000 years old, we have plenty of evidence of massive (though mostly local) ecological changes even in that time period. If all creatures were created by an infallible God, I'm willing to accept that they COULD be tailored, minutely, to their different environs. But considering that those environs change and keep changing, even over thousands of years, it is antithetical for an immutable creator to have to refine his work to suit subtle shifts in climate and pecking order due to the decline of carrier species. 'He' could have prearranged it all, but I have trouble with the idea that a creator would have endowed us with complex, logical and curious minds while expecting us not to use them. Surely He wouldn't reprimand us for using his gifts(?)

Lastly, there's much talk of 'faith' here. However, some (on both sides) seem to think that 'faith' is unquestioning deference to a belief. Isn't true faith believing enough in something to examine alternate realities and conclusions, without fear of undermining? Isn't unquestioning faith analagous to saying, "I have faith that my husband/wife won't cheat on me, but I can't let them out of the house around people of the opposite sex?" Isn't that the POINT? That your faith is unshakable, and can therefor BE subject to query because you believe that it will emerge triumphant?

AGAIN: I'm not fighting you...just wondering.

Spaghettiman 12 years, 9 months ago

Lepanto Now I'm going to be serious. I'm far from a Genius. I just have my opinions. For whatever they're worth. My primary goal in life, and what I hope I make my childrens primary goal, is to be HAPPY. When you die, it doesnt matter how much money you made or how much power you have, just if you had fun on the ride. I grew up Catholic. I was riddled with more guilty feelings than anyone could imagine. Birth to age 19 was anything but fun. When I decided to break away from the flock, and think for myself, life became wonderful. Each day was a step toward forgetting all I learned about God and what a worthless sinner I was. I am so happy with my life now without a GOD. Without worrying what will happen to me if I Think about sex, Or wish some guy would die, because he tortured some innocent child. And I don't have the feeling of Obligation on Sunday, to sit and listen to some high and mighty freak drone on and on between chants about how I need to ask for forgiveness for my sins. Naa, it isnt for me. If my kids decide on their own that thats the path THEY want to follow, I will whole heartedly support that. But I want them to figure it out when they're old enough to make up their own minds. Not when they are young, naive and impressionable. As for you argument over religion causing war, I have to admit defeat. I'm a below average historian. I try to live for today, and history holds no interest for me. That's just me, so i have to take your word. If Kansas wants to teach ID, do it as an elective in college. Then I have no issue.

phatty 12 years, 9 months ago

God makes man.

Man makes internet.

Man argues endlessly over symantics.

God rolls eyes.

phatty 12 years, 9 months ago

Here here. :P

I was also wondering how many people could prove, beyond literature, that their great-great-grandparents existed...

Oh wait, that's right. Mine were monkeys. Nevermind.

thatoneguy 12 years, 9 months ago

I have a serious problem with ID being taught in my childs science classroom. I live in Kansas and am thankfully moving away next month.

Why would I want ID, an idea based upon the "gaping chasm" and misinformation of evolution. So if ID is correct then it sweeps its own base out from underneath it? How does this idea even stand up on its own? Science is not saying, well I don't know, well jsut say someone else made it up.

ID: a theory based on missing information. What a great idea. I swear it! The proof is in the missing information!

Argue whatever you want about ID, you can say its not religous, you can say it doesnt imply God as a creator, but don't say it follows normal scientific procedure. Science doesn't give up....

Lepanto1571 12 years, 9 months ago


I appreciate your post and your candor.

My experience is not unlike yours. 12 years of classical Catholic education, undergrad and graduate study. I went the with the "world" in my thinking,etc. I thought too that I was quite a freethinker. I was empirical in worldview and demanded evidence. With a passing interest in philosophy, I soon rediscovered Thomas Aquinas, and found that faith AND reason was imminently reasonable and not in diametric opposition.

It saw my worldview of the time had really been issued to me by modern academia in my younger days, though I maintained the illusion that I was quite "free." Pop-culture has imposed a number of myths from the Middle Ages being dark and full of superstition believing in a flat earth, to the modern doctrines of separation of Church and State. These are but a few, and lead to the quite common use of: "well, religion starts wars." Empirical facts tells us that the secular state has killed far more people just in the 20th century alone than religion (Inquisitions, Crusades and all), ever thought possible.

I thought that if smart guys like Aquinas, Pascal, Newton, Pasteur, and more recently Mauritain, Gilson, Brownson, and even more recently Chesterton, Waugh, Graham Greene, Tolkien, C.S Lewis, and the Oxford Movement (and numerous others), could reconcile modern thought with the Faith, well, I thought I ought not be presumptuous and at least study what they saw that I no longer did. While studying them, I also read the modernist thinkers from Voltaire to Maggie Sanger and found them to be outright villianous,from the humanist perpsective.

I do not reject evolution outright, but do question the axioms that establish it. While microevolution is not debatable, macroevolution is as empirically speculative as religion may be accused. Philosophically it has been devastating to humanity. I always ask one why they embrace macro evolutionary philosophy and point out that if one accepts it, then they accept it, as does the Christian, on "faith." And "faith" has no quarter in modern naturalist, materialist philosophy; a paradox, and seemingly unsolvable.

As far as "Catholic" education: I mean no offense, but Catholic education has nearly collapsed in the Post Vatican II era, especially in an America fully exhibiting the limits of democracy. Where it once produced Thomistic philosophers and intellectual "crusaders" now it produces effete "intellectuals" who think the Church is a democracy, with dogma debatable and, quite frankly, many doubters. The doubting is justifiable in my view, as children are not taught the Faith with rigor any longer.

Probably more than you ever wanted to know, but there's my honesty for you.

tomsatter 12 years, 9 months ago

If number of eyewitness accounts that have been documented are the measure of reality for a religious figure then it seems that ConservativeMan should be a follower of Muhammad's religion, Islam, correct? Or perhaps one of the newer, modern religions such as Bah'ai where there are many documented eyewitness accounts of the leader performing miracles.

Also, it takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a christian. It is just that the atheist actively BELIEVES that there is no god, while the christian actively believes that there is a god, both sets of beliefs are based on faith. To not know and to say that you don't know (no active beliefs) is Agnosticism.


Lepanto1571 12 years, 9 months ago

Clumsyoaf, since my purpose in life is neither to intrigue you nor gain your interest, I'll simply restate the orginal intent of my post.

If one operates on something other than faith by believing in macro-evolution, I ,again, await your correction.

Because one may be antagonistic towards secular atheism (you'll note I never mentioned individual atheists), that does not necessitate religious fundamentalism (which I hold in near equal contempt as many on this board).

Even Deists acknowledge the benefit and necessity to society of religious philosophy. A cursory reading of the Declaration of Independence, Federalist Papers, the other writings of the founding fathers, as well as the writings of the libertarian philosophers (i.e. John Locke) should suffice to prove this single point.

If I offended you by labeling you an atheist, you have my sincere apology. That is an inappropriate stereotype, developed by repeated exposure to such when discussing evolution in the macro. You are the exception and it is acknowledged.

smallerdemon 12 years, 9 months ago

Ah, argumentation that boils down to a single premise. You believe in God and I don't.

I don't believe in God, and you do. You seem to think I should. I seem to think you shouldn't.

If you remove your own personal God from your arguments, how strongly do you feel about teaching "intelligent design" then?

And oh my, the tragic, terrible religious persecution of xtians in the United States. It's rampant. You can barely find a Christian on the street anymore, and don't even bother trying to find a Christian Church in the US. They've all either been burnt down by immoral atheist or converted in to houses of worship for Pagan Lesbian Bestialitist.

Just try to stop believing in something for a little while. After you get over your addictions you start to see them for what they are. Addiction to belief, be it in God or the absolute truth of some particular and unchangeable theory of evolution, is just that. And as we know, addicts will do nearly anything to keep their habit alive and get their next fix.

Take anyone with firm beliefs and ask them what happens in their mind when they start to consider if what they believe isn't true? Christians love this tactic, actaully, of using a similar type of questioning: "Well, what if there IS a God? Then what mister Clever Dick?" And then we end up discussing eternal punishment. Ah, yes, my entire world view and system of belief is about a very angry non-human thing that insist that if you don't "believe" in him then it's the fires of hell for you for eternity? Nothing else really ends up being the basis of attempting to convert non-xtians in the end except for this.

But what if you do stop believing for an instance? My guess is panic, fear, anger, and an assortment of other symptoms associated with any type of psychological (and physical) addictions. Revising one's mind that the world may not work they way you think it works can be awfully painful, and evolution has actually seen to it that we avoid pain, so why in the world would we want to put ourselves through such pain? That in itself is amusing to me, that whole lot of you are basically doing what you are doing because of the evolution you don't believe in.

Lepanto1571 12 years, 9 months ago

I think I speak for all when I say that we are all just a bit dumber for having read this post.

I award you no points, and may the amorphous universe that brought itself into existence have mercy on your soul!

xagen 12 years, 8 months ago

Religious people are SO dumb.

Evolution is a THEORY, not fact. Nor is it taught to be fact. That's the difference between science (common sense) and religion (fiction). Scientists create scientific theories. Some of them are true. Some of them are not. But they do not preach them as fact. Religious people on the other hand, have a fictional tale they claim is FACT, when in fact, they have NO evidence to support it. That's irony for you.

This is why religion is being criticized. Because of it's dumb followers.

americanidiots 12 years, 1 month ago

as an english bloke i find this creationism stuff hillarious, any scientist who could conclusively prove creationism true (or inteligent design, whatever you want to call it) would jump at the chance, beacause they would make a mint and go down in history as one of the great scientist sever. note that nobody has proved it. evolution theory is as solid as, say, the theory of gravity. as far as i can see all you idiots are doing when you allow ID to be taught in your classrooms is shooting yourselves in the foot, and training a generaition of terible scientists who cant do anything biology related due to not being taught simple concepts like the evolution of bacteria. you guys are retarded, and americas going to burn

BOE 12 years, 1 month ago

Posted by UKidiot

"as an english bloke i find this dentistry stuff hillarious.

as far as i can see, all you idiots are doing when you allow dentistry to be taught in your classrooms is shooting yourselves in the foot, and training a generaition of largely unemployable professionals."


You're quite mad, you know? hahahahahahaha,,591-2078747,00.html The Times March 10, 2006

Creationism to be taught on GCSE science syllabus

rancid 11 years, 4 months ago

the flying spaghetti monster is queer and so are you guys i think you guys are crack heads -rancid

Commenting has been disabled for this item.