Archive for Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Judge strikes down intelligent design

December 21, 2005


— A federal judge in Pennsylvania on Tuesday ruled that mention of intelligent design in science class is unconstitutional and issued a strongly worded criticism of the ID movement that was behind the adoption of controversial science standards in Kansas.

The question now becomes what effect, if any, will the extinction of intelligent design in Dover, Pa., have in Kansas where a 6-4 majority on the State Board of Education has instituted science standards that were formed by ID advocates and open up evolution to criticism. ID postulates that life's complexity is evidence of a supernatural designer.

Mainstream scientists who support evolution have an idea: Overturn the Kansas standards and reinstate evolution as the foundation of the scientific study of life.

"The message is loud and clear," said Leonard Krishtalka, director of the Biodiversity Institute at Kansas University. "Evolution is science; creationism and intelligent design is not."

Krishtalka said he would ask the education board to reconsider the science standards, which don't take effect until 2007 and are currently mired in copyright problems after leading science organizations refused to let the board use their legally protected language.

"I think the board would go a long way to serving the people of Kansas and its students by rescinding its recommendations on the science curriculum with regard to evolution and supernatural alternatives," he said.

Standards defended

But supporters of the standards said they had no intention of doing such a thing, and that the Dover case won't change anything in Kansas.

"It shouldn't (have any effect)," board chairman Steve Abrams, R-Arkansas City, said of the decision. "We don't have intelligent design in the science standards."

Abrams said he didn't plan on asking the board's attorney for an opinion on whether the Dover case had legal ramifications in Kansas.

But Topeka attorney Pedro Irigonegaray, who represented mainstream scientists in the months-long battle before the education board, said the 139-page judicial opinion from Pennsylvania covered much of the same ground as Kansas' debate.

"Now a federal court recognizes as a matter of law that intelligent design is a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory," Irigonegaray said.

"It is a decision which should be considered by every district in this state that may consider the introduction into the science curriculum of intelligent design," he said.

Other opponents of the Kansas science standards said the Dover decision's impact will be felt politically instead of legally. Five of the six education board members who supported the standards face re-election next year.

"The voters of Kansas will review their decision in November of 2006," said board member Bill Wagnon, D-Topeka, whose district includes Lawrence and who opposes intelligent design. "It's just another black eye in the efforts of the majority of the school board," he said.

ID called religious

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III dissected intelligent design as the latest in a series of movements by Christian groups, cloaked in scientific-sounding names, to try to debunk the theory of evolution formulated by Charles Darwin and replace it with religious doctrine.

"ID's religious nature is evident because it involves a supernatural designer," Jones wrote. It has no business in science class because it violates the separation of church and state, he said.

He noted that intelligent design proponents in Dover focused on "gaps" and "problems" with evolution as part of "creationist, religious strategies that evolved from earlier forms of creationism."

In the Dover case, the previous school board had adopted a policy that required a statement be read in biology classes that evolution had problems and that ID was an alternative explanation of the origins of life. Prior to the judicial ruling, the Dover board that adopted that policy was voted out of office.

"Activist judge"

The Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which pushes intelligent design, blasted Jones.

"The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work," said John West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute.

Anticipating charges that he was an "activist judge," Jones wrote of the case, "this came to us as a result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy."

He blasted the former Dover board members for "breathtaking inanity" and accused several of them of lying during the trial to conceal their true motive, which was religious.

Don Hineman, head of Kansas Alliance for Education, which was formed in part to field candidates to oppose those who voted for the anti-evolution standards, said the Pennsylvania decision sounded "reasonable."

"I would hope the State Board of Education would pay attention to that even though I don't think they will," he said.


Shardwurm 12 years, 2 months ago

It would appear that intelligent design wasn't involved with any of this.

fossilhunter 12 years, 2 months ago

"It shouldn't (have any effect)," board chairman Steve Abrams, R-Arkansas City, said of the decision. "We don't have intelligent design in the science standards."

Yes, but you did have a week long dog and pony show about ID and how it was better than evolution and that was the basis for the new science standards.

Biodude 12 years, 2 months ago

Laws of Nature, Laws of Man, don't matter, Abrams and KSBOE/KS Legislature are on a mission from God!

Since when did the supernatural intelligence in Kansas pay any attention to some left-wing liberal judge from...New York City...oops...Pennsylvania...close nuf!

Our Kansas idiots won't change a thing...note Abrams trying to deny that ID is involved...their bloody leaders testified at their charade!

Someone needs to file a suit against KSBOE at this point. Perhaps KU could do it as they have mud on their face over the Mirecki fiasco...step-up KU!

classclown 12 years, 2 months ago

Do you really think KU would file suit against the state? Even if they did as soon as a couple of people from the legislature started sqauking, they would back down. Probably would denounce evolution as well.

classclown 12 years, 2 months ago

And don't forget all the apology cards they would then have to send out.

fossilhunter 12 years, 2 months ago

KU would have trouble in a suit because the BOE really has no effect on KU -- it's high school and below. It will have to be a parent group suing. It will happen. It will cost the state a lot of legal fees, the state will lose and we'll be right back to where we were in Jan 2005. Hmmmmm legal Darwinism - survival of the fittest theory?

fossilhunter 12 years, 2 months ago

Abrams', Morris', etc inability to keep their personal views out of the media has provided a wonderful list of exhibits for the suit as to the motivation of the change in science standards. That was the basis for the Penn ruling and will be the basis for the Kansas ruling when it happens.

Laura Wilson 12 years, 2 months ago

One of the more important facts in the Pennsylvania case (at least to me who loves to see dissent within the Republican Party)--which I didn't see in the journal world article but read elsewhere--is that the judge who made the decision is not only a Republican but was appointed by Bush!

So for once it's not a liberal left wing activist judge! The religious right has to deal with one of their "own" turning on their views.

wonderhorse 12 years, 2 months ago


You are correct, because intelligent design is a sham based on the belief of a christian god.

LarryFarma 12 years, 2 months ago

From post of wendt, December 21, 2005 at 8:21 a.m. *KU could file suit but will not. Anyone can file suit against the KSBOE.*

Wrong. You have to have standing to sue. Mirecki's statement that the "KU faculty has had enough" just doesn't cut it.

*And the neat thing is that you would win. An obvious First Amendment violation.**

Well, that is what the ID-bashers thought about their lawsuit against the evolution-disclaimer textbook stickers in Cobb County, Georgia, but now it looks like the appeals court is leaning in favor of the stickers.

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

Biodude has himself confused. Nothing but pure drivel from him and wendt whereever they post.

I repeat, evolution is, by definition, not even a science. To qualify as a science, something must be observable, testable or repeatable. Evolutionist claim that evolution is happening all around us. Funny how no one has ever observed it and no one has been able to repeat it. In all of their attempts over the decades, science has not been able to create even one single cell of life.

Evolutionists need a lot of faith to believe in their b.s. "theory". Santa Claus is makes more sense.

LarryFarma 12 years, 2 months ago

Posted by fossilhunter, December 21, 2005 at 8:32 a.m.

Abrams', Morris', etc inability to keep their personal views out of the media has provided a wonderful list of exhibits for the suit as to the motivation of the change in science standards. That was the basis for the Penn ruling and will be the basis for the Kansas ruling when it happens.

The presence or absence of religious motivation should not be a factor in these lawsuits. This is discrimination based on religious belief. The judicial test that makes this motivation a factor, the so-called "Lemon test" (after Lemon v. Kurtzman), has been falling into disfavor.

Biodude 12 years, 2 months ago

What percentage of KU students come from Kansas public schools?

I think those students' civil rights have been violated and they were not provided the education their parents' signed on for when they paid their state taxes.

True the KSBOE are elected representatives, but they are not elected in statewide elections. Why should the folks in Ark City get to tell my teachers what they can and cannot teach? Indeed, this is also a violation of my teachers' civil liberties!

There you go. KU on behalf of the incoming KSBOE-violated students of Kansas. ACLU on behalf of their parents and teachers and the NEA on behalf of the teachers.

Wendt is would be a done deal...probably even an idiot like Abrahms would pull the plug before certain defeat.

Thanks to Judge Jones, the gauntlet has been thrown down...come on KU...get the ball really do owe it to Mirecki, et al., i.e., those of us that saw through your sad charade of greed!

Hemmenway should take a lesson from science...the ends do not ever justify the means! Nevertheless, he could save face by forcing this issue...and, he might since he is a true opportunist and it is a can't loose deal!

fossilhunter 12 years, 2 months ago

Larry -- "The presence or absence of religious motivation should not be a factor in these lawsuits. This is discrimination based on religious belief. The judicial test that makes this motivation a factor, the so-called "Lemon test" (after Lemon v. Kurtzman), has been falling into disfavor."

Absolutely this should be a factor! The motivation of the BoE is not to positively effect eduction, but rather to impose their religious viewpoints on the public school children of Kansas. They have made many public statements that will be used against them. "You are either for God and creationism or evolution. You can't have it both ways." - Abrams

DuQuesne 12 years, 2 months ago

I see now that "activist judge" is one whose decisions offend me. I see now that "science" can only include those matters I can comprehend. I see now that the difference between "cult" and "religion" is the size of the congregation and whether I'm a member. Praise Jeezus, I see now creationists are incapable of evolving. -Schuyler DuQuesne

badger 12 years, 2 months ago


It's not the specific presence or absence of religious motivation. It's the fact that in defending their theory, they allowed that religious motivation to come out and play.

The statement, "There are gaps in the theory of evolution that make it worthwhile to question it as a complete explanation of the origin of species," is defensible and does not in any way violate the separation of church and state if voiced in a public school; neither does an explanation of those gaps.

The statement, "There are gaps in the theory of evolution that make it worthwhile to consider the possibility that an intelligent creator designed the universe," is not defensible without discussing the nature and actions of that intelligent creator, discussion of whose existence doesn't belong in a public school science classroom.

The case in Georgia is coming down to whether or not it's OK to say that evolution is an uproven theory if you don't mention the notion of an intelligent creator, and I think that ultimately that fine line will be drawn there.

You know, if you can teach properly developed criticism of evolutionary theory without bringing in gods, more power to you and go right ahead. Kids who know the holes in a theory are more likely to find out what fills them in. If they're thinking about what isn't known about something, then maybe they'll be intrigued by the mystery of it and go into the science fields looking to solve it.

But the minute someone brings in speculation about the existence of any form of divine being directing it? He doesn't belong in a science classroom, and I'll do whatever I can within the bounds of the law to take his happy little butt out of that classroom.

classclown 12 years, 2 months ago

Before this ruling evolution's standing as a science was not questioned. The argument was "Well ID is a science too." Now that a court ruling has proclaimed that claim to be bogus, all of a sudden we are being told that evolution isn't a science either.

If evolution is not a science, then why did people find it necessary to disguise creationism as a science (ID) in order to try to compete with it?

DuQuesne 12 years, 2 months ago

Wendt: I see one reference to such a "word list" - in a post of yours on 21 November. Is there another reference, somehwere in the wider world out there? -Schuyler DuQuesne

Biodude 12 years, 2 months ago

BigJim put your cranium around a simple concept. Time is continuous...the last period was on a time line with the first during the time it took for me to type them!

When a scientist in a lab (real lab...real scientist...really really happening at this very moment probably somewhere in the world) looks at genomic DNA from some organism, specifically at the sequence for some gene...lets involved in long-term about an enzyme in neurotransmitter synthesis? Anyway, that sequence is observed to have a base change in a subsequent generation. Now you say so what...God did!...I could care less! Next comes the really important part that Darwin got so excited about...this sh_t has been happening, that is little changes during each generation for millions and millions of years...AND...this is the kicker...some of these changes suck for the critter...damn thing dies or can't get it up...whatever...other changes are just the opposite...critter gets a bright color in just the right spot that drives the ladies wild! Make sense to you?

Imagine you keep doing this programmed diversification over millions of years each generation being subjected by the environment to some new, some old, some inbetween factors like heat, lack of food, floods, what have you. Some critters just don't make it...we see a lot of these wierd suckers in old know, like half bird-half reptile things. See...what you see today is a really seriously tested group of critters...including us! T-Rex and his buddies bit the dust because they couldn't get their big asses off the ground...sorry, my speculation...anyway in a nutshell that is how it can do experiments in real time that tell you the mechanism that operated back in Michael J. Fox in the Back to the Future movie...just think of the DNA sequencer as a Delorean and you got it! Peace-out...oh...BTW Larry can you go back to the Farma...I think I hear your Momma?

fossilhunter 12 years, 2 months ago

"Scientists are ignoring the factual record. Why can't we include in science class any explanation that there would be God or a higher power, even if the scientific evidence supports it?" John Bacon - KS BoE.

I love pulling out these quotes in the context of the recent Dover ruling.

Mr_Christopher 12 years, 2 months ago

Have you guys read the Judge's 139 page ruling? Holy cow man it is a wholesale smackdown of intelligent design creationism.

Very good reading!

Daniel Speicher 12 years, 2 months ago

This judgment makes sense to me... Religion takes up where science leaves off. The origin of life is supernatural... It is beyond science and does not belong in a science class. It belongs in a world religions class.

--Danny Speicher

lucid_vein 12 years, 2 months ago

badger wrote: "You know, if you can teach properly developed criticism of evolutionary theory without bringing in gods, more power to you and go right ahead. Kids who know the holes in a theory are more likely to find out what fills them in. If they're thinking about what isn't known about something, then maybe they'll be intrigued by the mystery of it and go into the science fields looking to solve it."

Well said! It isn't as if scientists aren't examining AND TESTING the theory. It's been well-tested for many decades, with no failures (as that would scrap it and somebody'd get a Nobel Prize). All criticisms are welcome, but they have to withstand rigorous critical analysis, and ID has failed. I rather doubt kids are going to fill any so-called "gaps" ... but it's highly unlikely any teachers are hiding from kids that there is more information to find. Unless they are like devobrun or dex or others who've created a personal definition of science.

What some people here don't seem to get is that ID is religious by nature. There is no way to separate the creator out of it, that's an inherent part of the theory. Behe said in Dover, in effect, Only people predisposed to seeing design will see it. And that's absolutely correct. Being silent about that unavoidable aspect of the "theory" doesn't make ID secular or scientific; no amount of casuistry is going to make the designer into an irrelevant side issue -- intelligent design ONLY works for those who presuppose a supernatural designer. It doesn't work at all, none of the "evidence" holds up, without the presupposition of God. The whole point of ID is to demonstrate a supernatural being who performs miracles in a supposedly "inadequate" nature.

lucid_vein 12 years, 2 months ago

"This judgment makes sense to me... Religion takes up where science leaves off. The origin of life is supernatural... It is beyond science and does not belong in a science class. It belongs in a world religions class."

--Danny Speicher

Well, everyone is free to believe in the supernatural. Many scientists do, and they succeed in remaining scientists and not becoming theologians instead because they keep their vocation and their private religious sentiments separate.

The origin of life may very well be supernatural. But evolution doesn't address the origin of life, it only addresses what life does in relation to its environment AFTER it has already originated. The hypotheses about how the first cells originated are part of Abiogenesis -- NOT EVOLUTION. Creationists can't wrap their minds around this distinction because the obsession with God makes it all come down to the one question, "Where'd everything come from?" Other questions, like "What does life propagate and survive?" is neglected in favor of that other question.

Abiogenesis is indeed a work in progress, but still very much belongs in science classes. Evolution is one of science's most robust, thoroughly demonstrated theories. Supernatural origins (like the Genesis myths, and ID's miraculous appearance of biological mechanisms), and the notion that evolution is guided or influenced by the supernatural, belong in religions classes.

lucid_vein 12 years, 2 months ago

I wrote: "Abiogenesis is indeed a work in progress, but still very much belongs in science classes. Evolution is one of science's most robust, thoroughly demonstrated theories."

Bad editing might make it appear that I'm conflating abiogenesis and evolution. Here's what I intended: "Abiogenesis is indeed a work in progress, but still very much belongs in science classes. Evolution is one of science's most robust, thoroughly demonstrated theories, and also belongs in science classes. However, supernatural origins ... et cetera."

gr 12 years, 2 months ago

Function: noun : the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter called also spontaneous generation

n : a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter

hypothetical adj. 1. Of, relating to, or based on a hypothesis 2. a. Suppositional; uncertain. b. Conditional; contingent

science n. 1. a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

Function: noun : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena

scientific method n. The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.


Well, I guess abiogenisis relates to the hypothesis of creation and it does concern the physical world, but I'm having trouble how it can be observed, described, or tested using the scientific method with hope of being validated or modified?

Unlike evolution, (as defined as change of allele frequency over time), which can be observed, demonstrated, and repeated, abiogenisis sounds more like another creation hypothesis which is more suited to a philosophy class than a science class.

gr 12 years, 2 months ago

Gen 2:7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Abiogenisis - "by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter".

MoreThanUltimate 12 years, 2 months ago

Once again I see the ID supporters that have been so vocal in the past are almost invisible now. Guess they can't make any more excuses about ID being science.

The few left to argue against evolution are resorting to the "evolution is not science" tactic. Wow! That's very pathetic, can't formulate any new coherent arguements and all those that were used pre-Dover have been invalidated.

Maybe thier arguements are irreducibly complex now for the rest of us to understand?

Hang on... I'm choking with tears... can't... type... now...


DaREEKKU 12 years, 2 months ago

As an agnostic, your argument using the Bible to prove creationism as fact makes no sense. To prove evolution there is hard evidence on this earth. So....where is this God fellow? Can you prove to me that in a mere seven 24 hour days that the Earth was created, but this God made it look like it was billions of years old just to mess with our heads? Religion and beliefs are best left untampered, inside of a church. Science is best left, in a science classroom. Stop mixing the two in situations where they shouldn't be. I'm not saying God doesn't exist but merely presenting that you cannot use the Bible to prove you are right. The Bible is your opinion and not ALL of it proven to be a fact. Once again, I'm not denouncing God or the Bible, just pointing out the problem one may have doing this. Signed, Not Converted nor Convinced

lucid_vein 12 years, 2 months ago

Posted by gr: "Well, I guess abiogenisis relates to the hypothesis of creation and it does concern the physical world, but I'm having trouble how it can be observed, described, or tested using the scientific method with hope of being validated or modified?

"Unlike evolution, (as defined as change of allele frequency over time), which can be observed, demonstrated, and repeated, abiogenisis sounds more like another creation hypothesis which is more suited to a philosophy class than a science class."

"Gen 2:7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

"Abiogenisis - "by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter"."

You're apparently trying to conflate abiogenesis with creationism. As you've acknowledged that the original life forms on earth have to do with the physical world, then you should recognize that it's a question for science to continue researching. So long as there's no religious content in the hypotheses, there's no legal or ethical problems with presenting them in science classrooms if a teacher chooses to touch on scientific abiogenesis before proceeding to the more solidly demonstrated evolutionary processes.

BigelowBanana 12 years, 2 months ago

Clearly the march of knowledge and scientific progress has evangelical Christians running scared--as anyone should be with an inflexible belief system many centuries old. Thanks in large part to the internet and wholesale sharing of information, we are today well prepared to challenge much of the "magic" (read "miracles" for fundamentalists) readily accepted by 1st century Christians. Thousands of fundamentalist Christian kids in our country are discovering forensic DNA testing from the science classroom and from TV court room drama. The next obvious step is to apply it, hypothetically, to the founder of Christianity reported to have divine paternity (not unique to Christianity). WHAT IF a cheek cell swab of His DNA was processed? Of Jesus' 46 chromosomes 23 were contributed by his mother, but what of the 23 normally provided by the father? Would those 23 chromosomes come back labeled "NON-HUMAN?" Personally I don't believe there has been a single human being in the history of the world that didn't have two human parents.

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

Evolutionists Mythology:

A big firecracker went off without anyone making a firecracker or lighting a firecracker or even making a place for it to go off.

The boom created pond scum, our mother of life.

Pond scum grew gills, then legs, then claws, and then lost claws and gills the became man without anyone or thing making it develop or undevelop. And to prove all of this, we have no fossil evidence. That's why we need teach such a dumb theory in our schools.

Kodiac 12 years, 2 months ago

Ah Bigelow,

Gasp...the sacrilige!

Touching on the Immaculate Conception are you.

I think ye might be burning in hell soon.

But as Devo would say, hey you can't test that so it is only through faith to say that Jesus was the product of 2 human parents.

I guess I might be joining you in the barbecue as well.

A fellow sinner....

hobb2264 12 years, 2 months ago


you said "So long as there's no religious content in the hypotheses, there's no legal or ethical problems with presenting them in science classrooms if a teacher chooses to touch on scientific abiogenesis before proceeding to the more solidly demonstrated evolutionary processes."

A hypothesis about origins based on philosophical naturalism is just as unscientific as a hypothesis based on creationism. The fact that you don't understand that leads me to believe that your understanding of science needs improvement.

DuQuesne 12 years, 2 months ago

for wendt: "...posted in it's entirety ..." Mil gracci. -Schuyler DuQuesne

MoreThanUltimate 12 years, 2 months ago

I bet if we could examine Jesus' DNA we would find 23 chromosomes from a female and 23 from... what? Non-human? yeah, right!

fossilhunter 12 years, 2 months ago

Jim - woah big thinks you do not understand anything of which you speak!

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

A young man stated, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don't believe in God.' The man answered him, 'Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don't know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don't know if you're making correct statements.'

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

Another man said, I don't believe in God because I don't believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can't even be sure of reality.' Another man responded, 'Then how do you know you're really here making this statement?' 'Good point,' he replied. 'What point?' The other man asked. The man looked, smiled, and said, 'Maybe I should go home.' The other man stated, 'Maybe it won't be there.' 'Good point,' the man said. 'What point?' The other man replied.

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

Here's some good reading for you...

The Scientific Case Against Evolution A Review of Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis & Michael J. Behe's Darwin's Black Box by Robert Locke

I AM NOT A CREATIONIST, and must confess that until recently, I treated people who questioned evolution with polite dismissal. But there has recently emerged a major trend in biology that has been suppressed in the mainstream media: evolution is in trouble. More importantly, this has absolutely nothing to do with religion but is due to the fact that the ongoing growth of biological knowledge keeps producing facts that contradict rather than confirm evolution. These two books Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and Michael J. Behe's Darwin's Black Box describe this phenomenon.

The first surprising thing Denton points out is that there has always been a dissident faction of highly distinguished scientists, of impeccable credentials and no religious motivations, who have declined to concede that evolution has been proved. This is inconvenient for evolutionists who would like to dismiss their opponents as Bible-thumping hicks and claim that questioning evolution is tantamount to questioning the value or validity of science. He also points out biologists like Richard Owen, who were prepared to allow that evolution had taken place but thought that other causes were involved in bringing about the origin of species.

badger 12 years, 2 months ago

Um, bigjim, was that supposed to be profound?

Cause if it was, I think I missed either the pro part or the found part.

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

The first big problem with evolution is that the fossil record increasingly does not, honestly viewed, support it, a fact that famous Prof. Steven Jay Gould of Harvard has described as "the trade secret of paleontology." Evolutionary theory claims that there once existed a whole series of successive forms of the various organisms alive today. These supposedly changed by infinitesimal amounts with each generation as they evolved into the present varieties, so the fossil record should show these gradual changes. But it doesn't. Instead, it shows the sudden emergence of new species out of nowhere, fully complete with all their characteristics and not changing over time. It is almost entirely devoid of forms that can plausibly be identified as intermediates between older and newer ones. This is popularly known as the "missing link" problem, and it is massively systematic across different species and time periods. Worse, this problem is getting worse, not better, as more fossils are discovered, as the new fossils just resemble those already found and don't fill in the gaps. In Darwin's day, it was easy to claim that the fossils were there but had not been discovered. Problem is, we now have hundreds of thousands of well-catalogued fossils, from all continents and geologic eras, and we still haven't found these intermediate forms. As Denton puts it,

"Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin."

The quantity, quality, and range of the recovered fossils is impeccable. But the more we dig, the more we keep finding the same forms over and over again, never the intermediates.

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

Another development that has undermined evolution is the spread of computers into evolutionary biology. Basically, computers have shown that the neat evolutionary trees that get drawn up are in fact based on imaginary relations of similarity and difference that owe more to the human mind's tendency to perceive patterns than to the raw biological data. Computers have shown that when the characteristics of different living things are encoded in numerical form and the computer is asked to sort them into sequences based on their similarities and differences, the computer can find any number of ways of doing so that have just as much support in the data as those drawn up by humans to fit an evolutionary tree. The data say "no evolution" just as loudly as they say "evolution"; it's just the pattern-craving human mind that gives prominence to the former way of viewing it. This is known as phenetic analysis. When the computer is constrained to push the data into an evolutionary tree, (this is called cladistic analysis) it tends to generate trees with all species as individual twigs and no species forming the crucial lower branches of the tree that evolution demands. As a result of this, many biologists have in practice stopped using the idea of ancestors and descendants when classifying new species. When the British Museum of Natural History did this a few years ago, they started a small war in scientific circles.

Evolution also suffers from the problem that many putative sequences which look logical based on the progression of one set of anatomical characteristics suddenly look illogical when attention is switched to another set. For example, the lungfish superficially seems to make a good intermediate between fish and amphibian, until one examines the rest of its internal organs, which are not intermediate in character, nor are the ways in which its eggs develop. And if different species have common ancestors, it would be reasonable to expect that similar structures in the different species be specified in similar ways in their DNA and develop in similar ways in their embryos; this is frequently not so. So evolutionary relationships depend upon an arbitrary choice of which characteristics of the organisms in question are considered most important, and different relationships can be "proved" at will.

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

Furthermore, Denton argues, the classic cases printed in biology textbooks to show the evolution of present-day organisms from their supposed ancestors are in fact highly conjectural if not downright false. We read the same examples coming up again and again in textbook after textbook because there are only a few species for which an even remotely plausible fossil genealogy can be propounded out of the 100,000 fossil species known to paleontology. He takes the horse as an example and points out that several of the standard claims about the pattern of equine evolution, such as the gradual reduction of the side toes, are extremely questionable and that the morphological distance covered from the earliest horse to the present horses is so small, compared with the vast changes that evolution must encompass, that it is questionable whether the series, even if true, proves much at all. And even the emergence of one species from another has never been directly observed by science.

Another problem with evolution that continues to worsen is that it remains incapable of explaining how anything could evolve that doesn't make biological sense when incomplete. The wings of birds are the classic example: what good is half of one? Other examples abound. This is a problem that evolutionary theory has promised a solution to for a long time and not delivered. Worse even than visible examples like wings are the complex chemical reactions and molecular structures that living things are made of. This is the principal point of Darwin's Black Box (these micro-processes are the black boxes), a book too technical to be satisfying reading for the layman but that convincingly argues that many of these micro-processes make sense either complete or not at all. There are no plausible accounts of how they could have evolved from other simpler processes because as one hypothesizes back down the hypothetical chain of complexity, one comes to a point at which the process simply won't work if it gets any simpler. At this stage, the process couldn't have evolved from anything else because there is nothing simpler for it to have evolved from. And at this stage, the process is still far too complex to have been thrown together by any known non-living chemical event. At one time, knowledge of the complex processes of living things was limited enough, and hopes for the discovery of intermediate processes that they could have evolved from wide-open enough, that evolutionists could ignore this problem. But as biological research has progressed, this gap too has been filled with more and more inconvenient facts. As in the case of the other problems challenging evolution, the key thing here is the intellectual direction: research is consistently making the problem worse, not better.

Kodiac 12 years, 2 months ago

Hey hobb2264,

You might want to look up philosophical naturalism and find out how that differs from the word nature or the natural world. This is a common misconception by many. What Lucid_Vein was talking about was not philosophical naturalism.

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

Another similar example: one of the things that has happened since evolution was first proposed is that biology has achieved a precise cataloging of the thousands of different proteins that make up organisms. It was hoped that a thorough cross-species comparison of these would reveal the kinds of relationships of graded similarity that evolution implies. But it hasn't. Instead, it has given the same picture of distinct species that examination of gross anatomy does. It's the same old story of a tree with all twigs and no branches! Worse, analysis of the closeness and distance between different species reveals bizarre results. For example, according to the sequence difference matrix of vertebrate hemoglobins in the standard Dayhoff Atlas of Protein Structure and Function, man is as close to a lamprey as are fish! This problem repeats itself with other characteristics of organisms that have been brought within the scope of evolutionary comparison since Darwin's day.

Another problem with evolution that has only gotten worse with increasing biological knowledge is the question of how life initially emerged from dead matter. As recently as the early 50's, it was still possible to hypothesize that discoveries would reveal the existence of entities intermediate between single-celled organisms and complex lifeless molecules. The existence of these intermediates (certain kinds of viruses were candidates for the role) would imply the possibility of an evolutionary transition from dead chemicals to intermediates to life. Unfortunately, the discovery of DNA in 1953 killed this hypothesis in its simplest form, and subsequent discoveries have only made the matter worse. Vast numbers of microorganisms are now known, as are vast numbers of complex molecules, but nothing in between. Furthermore, even the simplest possible cell imaginable within the limits of biology, let alone the simplest actually existing cell, is far too complex to have been thrown together by any known non-living chemical event. So even if evolution has an explanation of how species evolve from one to another, it has no way to "get the ball rolling" by producing the first species from something that is not a species.

lucid_vein 12 years, 2 months ago

hobb2264 said: "A hypothesis about origins based on philosophical naturalism is just as unscientific as a hypothesis based on creationism. The fact that you don't understand that leads me to believe that your understanding of science needs improvement."

That first sentence would be true if there were any scientific hypotheses based on philosophical naturalism ... there isn't any. They're all based on methodological naturalism out of necessity because it's the only stance that gets results. You're conflating a philosophical stance with scientific method.

Biodude 12 years, 2 months ago


You can't read? You missed that part about the millions of want God in Kenneth Miller...lots of neat spots for intervention...but what I really (and I know you're gonna be skeptical...but I'm trying) don't understand is if God is "intelligent" why would it be necessary to intervene? Could God have seen it all turning out just the way it has...and will go?

Am I crazy, Jim...or so sane, I just blew-your-mind? (Appologies to JS)

badger 12 years, 2 months ago

You know, bigjim, instead of posting the article again, what say you link us to the last thread you cut-and-pasted it in?

Y'know, save some electrons and ones and zeroes and stuff.

This post was made entirely from 100% post-consumer recycled electrons. Reduce, reuse, recycle!

Kodiac 12 years, 2 months ago

Good grief Bigjim,

Stop copying your old postings and repasting them. They have already been dealt with and dismissed. No matter how many times you post the above postings, is not going to make them true or change minds. You have nothing to offer Bigjim and your repostings show you to be completely idiotic.

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

Sadly, I guess the best way to avoid the idiots with a evolutionists/atheist agenda is to avoid their classrooms and go to a private school. For this very reason, private schools are more respected and are known to produce higher quality graduates. Obviously the marketplace also believes this as studies show people graduating from private colleges earn substantially more than people graduating from state colleges.

lucid_vein 12 years, 2 months ago

wendt wrote: ""abiogenesis" is a weird one, if you break it down. No-Life-Creation is what it works out for me.

"I'm assuming that it's another name for "Spontaneous Generation", which is another name for Creationism."

The word itself means "life from non-life." God breathing life into clay is abiogenesis.

But in science, the study of abiogenesis is the formulation of testable hypotheses of how life might have originated. We know complex organic molecules are abundant in nature.

Some insights into how it happened on earth may be gained from exploring other planetary bodies in which conditions are similar in some respects to those of the early earth.

It's a real possibility that within a few years we will have synthesed living cells from their chemical precursors in the laboratory. This will demonstrate that life can originate without miraculous intercession, contrary to the claims of creationists. There is no magic "spark of life" which differentiates the chemistry of living organisms from other chemical processes.

wonderhorse 12 years, 2 months ago


I'm not at all surprised that there are missing links in the fossil record. I would be sceptical if there weren't. For starters, conditions have to be just right for a fossil to form. Everytime something died, it wouldn't have formed a fossil. I'll bet only a tiny fraction of the critters that died formed fossils. Also, the earth is a really big place to go digging around in. I'll bet that we haven't even found all of the fossils yet, and probably never will.

hobb2264 12 years, 2 months ago


I have a good understanding of the what philosophical naturalism you? If you believe that the universe is a product of natural processes, then you are a philosphical naturalist. Lucid's argument is that life was generated by natural processes, therefore her argument is from a philosphical naturalist standpoint. How am I wrong?

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

wendt, that is a very simple question. God allows satan to exist to serve him. satan was used to test Adam and Eve and is used to test people today. You are being tested and so am I.

Biodude 12 years, 2 months ago


You got any original thoughts on the subject or are you just going to poorly repeat Behe, Denton, etc.?

Read the 139 pages...particularly about 75-82. Here is the link for you Ayehole!

Dude, if you had a PHD and no ethics and a bunch of wackos with money you could come up with equally impressive bullsh-t!

I think it is pretty clear that Behe and all the other snake-oil peddlers out there are after your money, Jim...why does that make you want to follow them? Why don't you and your buddies concentrate on being good Christians and leave the molecular evolution, etc. to professionals?

You don't have to believe this crap to be a Christian...that's the biggest pile on Larry's Farma!

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

Sorry wendt. It's a very simple question and the Catholic Faith sees it as such. God didn't create evil - it's the only thing he did not create. Evil is the result of free will which God gave to the Angles and us. If we didn't have free will, there would be no evil.

BigelowBanana 12 years, 2 months ago

Millions of years indeed! My heart goes out to the children who have been taught to believe the "young Earth" theory that states the Earth is a mere 5,766 years old-a literal rendering from the Bible allowing "40 years for each generation" beginning with Adam. I wished we all lived closer to the Big Island of Hawaii where it is possible to observe yet another island-the Loihi Seamount-- forming on the sea floor over the stationary "hot spot" that created the entire chain of Hawaiian Islands. The combined processes of successive magma formations, volcano eruptions and growth, and continued movement of the Pacific Plate formed the 6,000 km long Hawaiian Ridge-Emperor Seamount chain over the past 70 million years. This dynamic evolutionary process is observable, measurable and continues today. And concerning the historical charting of the animal kingdom (of which humans are a most curious component), I am confident budding paleontologists will continue to fill in the gaps in the fossil record, much like a magnificent jig-saw puzzle slowly taking shape. On the other hand, I-D proponents would have us believe the panda and the rhinoceros simply dropped, unannounced, out of a cosmic gumball machine one day. Yet I expect they would discount the Kiowa legend that tells us animals entered the world through a hollow log.

wonderhorse 12 years, 2 months ago


evolution DOES NOT equal atheist

lucid_vein 12 years, 2 months ago

hobb2264: "I have a good understanding of the what philosophical naturalism you? If you believe that the universe is a product of natural processes, then you are a philosphical naturalist. Lucid's argument is that life was generated by natural processes, therefore her argument is from a philosphical naturalist standpoint. How am I wrong?"

You're wrong in that you've misunderstood the difference between a metaphysical belief and an epistemological tool. Very simply put, Philosophical Naturalism (PN) says there is only nature and no supernature. Methodological Naturalism (MN) says, in effect, "For the sake of experiment, we'll work only with nature and try to exhaust the possibilities there, and leave supernature aside because we can't test and falsify supernatural hypotheses."

PN is a position regarding nature vs. supernature. MN is not a position for or against either nature or supernature. It's synonymous with the scientific method, and is used by all scientists worldwide, whether believers in the supernatural or not.

Kodiac 12 years, 2 months ago

"God gave to the Angles and us"

Damn I knew all kinds of those angles and I don't ever remember any of them having free will much less be evil....

Kodiac 12 years, 2 months ago

I guess if we were talking about moving furniture then those freaky angles can be quite tricky...

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

wonderhorse, no, but the vast majority of evolutionists are atheists. And I think you will find that the theory of evolution is an attempt by the atheists to justify their unbelief in a creator. If you ever read Darwin's bio, you would see that it was his agenda.

wonderhorse 12 years, 2 months ago

My mind is going, but I distinctly remember reading about a people who believed that the solar system was on the back of a giant turtle swimming through the cosmos. I kinda liked that one. I just wish I could remember where I read it. Oh, well, I'm lucky to remember where I parked my car....

lucid_vein 12 years, 2 months ago

Wendt: "We already have branches of science that study such phenomenon."

Yeah, and one of them is called Abiogenesis. "Abiogenesis is the field of science dedicated to studying how life might have arisen for the first time on the primordial young Earth." Look it up and read some, please:

"You're dancing around the established sciences in an effort to wedge Creationism back into the conversation."

Actually, I'm an evolution supporter who's fought for several years now to increase understanding of evolution's strength and ID creationism's flaws and to expose the anti-science and anti-democracy agenda of the Wedge strategy. I don't know how in the world you've managed to misinterpret my words so absurdly. The point when I first brought up "abiogenesis" was that creationists invariably confuse abiogenesis (as defined in the above link) and evolution because they want to address only "origins" when evolution has more to do with the changes of life forms AFTER their "original origin." They think evolution is weak because we don't know the details just yet how the first cells formed ... but that's not a question of biological evolution anymore than is the "Big Bang."

Get it?

MoreThanUltimate 12 years, 2 months ago

Talk about denial... Oh, Brother!

Dembski: Life after Dover Should be titled "Think I'm Going to Disneyland"

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

When we were in kindergarten they taught us that a frog turning into a prince was a nursery fairy tale. But when we go to public school, we learn that it is actually science! Leave the public/welfare schools and go a school where they teach logical thinking.

Biodude 12 years, 2 months ago

Yeah...I think Bignjim bigbanged his head against a wall at some poiint

MoreThanUltimate 12 years, 2 months ago

An interesting tidbit:

The Discovery Institute filed two legal briefs in the case. During a six-week trial that preceded the judge's ruling, two senior fellows at the Discovery Institute testified on behalf of the school board: Michael Behe, a Lehigh University professor whose own biology department chairman declared his work "simply not science"; and University of Idaho microbiology professor Scott Minnich, whose involvement in the case prompted the university's president to forbid teaching intelligent design in science classes.


MoreThanUltimate 12 years, 2 months ago


Also like the thirty centers created... Thirty centers? He really should have used clubs or interest groups. Just as the article he points to states.

MoreThanUltimate 12 years, 2 months ago

Hey Wendt,

Where are the rest of the ID lunies? Haven't heard from hardly any of them...

lucid_vein 12 years, 2 months ago

wendt idiotically said:

"Lucid_Vein. Your link is a humor page. I love satire as much as the next guy but I'm talking about real science."

Really. Inform yourself the information I provided and that you totally misunderstood, and look more closely at, because it is a pro-science/anti-creationism website and the primary resource for many of us anti-creationist science proponents. Most scientists and scientific laypersons who debate creationists on the net will immediately recognize it as a valuable resource of Real Science, so your failure to recognize what it is tells me something about your knowledge. It'd be better if you were open to new knowledge rather than only confused.

Just because you don't know that there are scientists working in universities on the theory of abiogenesis doesn't make me a liar or creationist. Learn.

classclown 12 years, 2 months ago

Posted by bigjim (anonymous) on December 21, 2005 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry wendt. It's a very simple question and the Catholic Faith sees it as such. God didn't create evil - it's the only thing he did not create. Evil is the result of free will which God gave to the Angles and us. If we didn't have free will, there would be no evil.

Let's see if I have this right...

God created everything. However god did not create evil. Then god gave the angels and man free will so that they may choose. Now since god did not create evil although only he created everything that existed, then evil should never have been on the list of things for angels or men to choose from.

Maybe it was god's evil twin.

Kodiac 12 years, 2 months ago

Ah but classclown where is your logical thinking. You must not have gone to those schools that teach that kind of thing. Logic dictates that free will created evil...

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

Darwin was a real idiot, much like his followers. Look what he though about women and blacks ...

"The racism of evolution theory has been documented well and widely publicized. It is known less widely that many evolutionists, including Charles Darwin, also taught that women are biologically inferior to men. Darwin's ideas, including his view of women, have had a major impact on society. In a telling indication of his attitude about women (just before he married his cousin, Emma Wedgewood), Darwin listed the advantages of marrying, which included: ". . . constant companion, (friend in old age) who will feel interested in one, object to be beloved and played with-better than a dog anyhow-Home, and someone to take care of house . . ." (Darwin, 1958:232,233).

Darwin reasoned that as a married man he would be a "poor slave, . . . worse than a Negro," but then reminisces that, "one cannot live the solitary life, with groggy old age, friendless ... and childless staring in one's face...." Darwin concludes his discussion on the philosophical note, "there is many a happy slave" and shortly thereafter, married (1958:234).

Darwin concluded that adult females of most species resembled the young of both sexes and from this and the other evidence, "reasoned that males are more evolutionarily advanced than females" (Kevles, 1986:8). Many anthropologists contemporary to Darwin concluded that "women's brains were analogous to those of animals," which had "overdeveloped" sense organs "to the detriment of the brain" (Fee, 1979:418). Carl Vogt, a University of Geneva natural history professor who accepted many of "the conclusions of England's great modern naturalist, Charles Darwin," argued that "the child, the female, and the senile white" all had the intellect and nature of the "grown up Negro" (1863:192). Many of Darwin's followers accepted this reasoning, including George Romanes, who concluded that evolution caused females to become, as Kevles postulated:

. . . increasingly less cerebral and more emotional. Romanes . . . shared Darwin's view that females were less highly evolved than males-ideas which he articulated in several books and many articles that influenced a generation of biologists. Romanes apparently saw himself as the guardian of evolution, vested with a responsibility to keep it on the right path. . . . University of Pennsylvania . . . paleontologist Edward Drinker Cope wrote that male animals play a "more active pan in the struggle for existence," and that all females, as mothers, have had to sacrifice growth for emotional strength . . . (Kevles, 1986:8,9).

Kodiac 12 years, 2 months ago

And this means that evolution.... please complete the story bigjim, don't leave me hanging here buddy...

Kodiac 12 years, 2 months ago

God this is awe-inspiring stuff......

lucid_vein 12 years, 2 months ago

Saying is a usenet forum with no contributions from reputable scientists is like calling the NAS a bunch of flat earthers. I came here to argue with ignorant creationists and have ended up arguing with an ignorant non-creationist. If you've been involved with the evo/cre debate in forums on the net for very long, you'll have seen talkorgins linked to more often than any other science site (by the scientists -- including PhD evolutionary biologists).

I'm not sure now where you're coming from. Are you saying abiogenesis is not scientific enough, and that Lynn Margulis and other scientists are wasting their time working on the naturalistic explanation of first life forms? Or are you saying that I'm some kind of "spontaneous appearance" variant of an IDist disguising himself as an evolution-proponent?

Look up abiogenesis at wikipedia or any other source for a brief intro to the science. You're not important to me, but letting lurkers know what the reputable sources are regarding science and science's view on creationism is important. If you don't like creationism, then engaging in misinformation about science resources is not helpful to your own cause.

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

It is also interesting to note that Darwin thought murder, war, and the inialation of nations or races was perfectly good and natural and all part of the evolutionary process. What a freak to follow.

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

Dozens of scholarly articles and at least three books have been penned on the question of Darwin's mental illness. The current conclusion is that Darwin suffered from several serious and incapacitating psychiatric disorders, including agoraphobia. Agoraphobia is characterized by fear of panic attacks (or actual panic attacks) when not in a psychologically safe environment, such as at home. Darwin, as is common among agoraphobiacs, also developed many additional phobias-being in crowds, being alone, or leaving home unless accompanied by his wife (Kaplan and Sadock, 1990, pp. 958-959).

Agoraphobia is also frequently associated with depersonalization (a feeling of being detached from, and outside of, one's own body), a malady that Darwin also suffered (Barloon and Noyes, 1997, p. 138). A study of Darwin's mental condition by Barloon and Noyes concluded that Darwin suffered from anxiety disorders that so severely impaired his functioning that it limited his ability to leave his home, even just to meet with colleagues or other friends. This diagnosis likely explains his very secluded, hermit-like lifestyle (1997, p. 138). It also helps to explain the title of Desmond and Moore's 1991 biography of Darwin: Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist.

Darwin's many psychological or psychologically influenced physical health symptoms included severe depression, insomnia, hysterical crying, dying sensations, shaking, fainting spells, muscle twitches, shortness of breath, trembling, nausea, vomiting, severe anxiety, depersonalization, seeing spots, treading on air and vision, and other visual hallucinations (Barloon and Noyes, 1997, p. 139; Picover, 1998, p. 290; Colp, 1977, p. 97; Bean, 1978, p. 573). The physical symptoms included headaches, cardiac palpitations, ringing in ears (possibly tinnitus), painful flatulence, and gastric upsets-all of which commonly have a psychological origin

Others, including Darwin's own wife, argued that his mental problem stemmed from guilt over his life's goal to refute the argument for God from design (Bean, 1978, p. 574; p. 28; Pasnau, 1990, p. 126). Most of the psychoanalytic studies have argued that his problems were a result of his repressed anger toward his tyrannical father and "the slaying of his heavenly father" by his theory (Pasnau, 1990, p. 122).

wonderhorse 12 years, 2 months ago

And what do Darwin's personal beliefs (which, by the way, in the context of his times were acceptable) have to do with his theory?

lucid_vein 12 years, 2 months ago

"It is also interesting to note that Darwin thought murder, war, and the inialation of nations or races was perfectly good and natural and all part of the evolutionary process. What a freak to follow."

Can you cite any examples to back your allegations? Your argument is worthless if you can't back it up with evidence.

You're blabbering about social darwinism, and so your beef is with a fellow named Spencer, not Darwin. I don't think there's any instance of Darwin engaging in the naturalistic fallacy that is social darwinism.

I'm unaware of any "followers of Darwin" anywhere on planet earth.

fossilhunter 12 years, 2 months ago

Jim - I don't know that anyone here that is opposing the teaching of ID in school would say that they are a "follower" of Darwin. I know that I have observed in the fossil record more than enough evidence to support that older life forms are much more simple that later life forms and that there are ample examples of transition from one species to another. For example...there are snakes and whales with vestigal rear legs and pelvises (pelvi?!) What does that show other than that they used to walk? Would an intelligent designer just add those spare parts?

hobb2264 12 years, 2 months ago


So you are using science to disprove Creationism....I was under the impression that science neither spoke for or against the supernatural. At least you have made your motives blatantly clear....

classclown 12 years, 2 months ago

Kodiak: Ah but classclown where is your logical thinking. You must not have gone to those schools that teach that kind of thing. Logic dictates that free will created evil... ====================================

So if god allowed free will and free will created evil. Which in turn caused some to denounce god and even to hate him as has been suggested. Then logically it should be concluded that god screwed up instead of leaving well enough alone.

So logic dictates that god is a screw up?

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

More great believers in Darwin/evolution ...

A book published in Moscow entitled, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin. "At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist. G. Glurdjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin's, relates: "I began to speak of God, Joseph heard me out, and after a moment's silence, said: "'You know, they are fooling us, there is no God. . . .' "I was astonished at these words, I had never heard anything like it before. "'How can you say such things, Soso?' I exclaimed. "'I'll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,' Joseph said. "'What book is that?' I enquired. "'Darwin. You must read it,' Joseph impressed on me" 1

lucid_vein 12 years, 2 months ago

hobb2264: "So you are using science to disprove Creationism....I was under the impression that science neither spoke for or against the supernatural. At least you have made your motives blatantly clear...."

Science does not speak for or against the supernatural. But as a side-effect of having discovered many things about nature that don't coincide with literal interpretations of ancient myths, it has disproven young earth creationism. The earth is approx. 4.5 billion years old and was not created in 6 days. You can believe in creationism if you wish, you have the constitutional right to do so. But it doesn't mean you're correct; it doesn't mean science can't discover things that don't jibe with your religion.

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago


It has already been stated that Stalin was influenced by the writings of these men. Did this dilute the effect of Darwin on him, or were these men also affected by the same British naturalist? The answer to the second question must be affirmative. Conway Zirkle, Professor of Botany at the University of Pennsylvania, published a book in 1959 entitled, Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene, in which he cites comments made in correspondence between Engels and Marx. As early as December 12, 1859 (only months after The Origin of Species was published), Friedrich Engels wrote to Karl Marx, "Darwin, whom I am just now reading, is splendid." [2] About a year later (December 19, 1860), Marx, the Father of Communism, responded, "During my time of trial, these last few weeks, I have read all sorts of things. Among others, Darwin's book of Natural Selection. Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view." 2 To one Ferdinand Lassalle, he wrote (January 16, 1861), "Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history." [2] Zirkle also indicated that Marx wanted to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin. 2 Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould, an intense and modern spokesman for evolution, corroborates this by reporting that he saw Darwin's copy of Marx's first volume inscribed by Marx--describing himself as a "sincere admirer" of the English naturalist. 3

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

In 1983, Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn, winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize for Literature, gave an address in London in which he attempted to explain why so much evil had befallen his people:

Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened." Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."

lucid_vein 12 years, 2 months ago

wendt wrote: "Lucid_Vein: You can click on my name and see what I've posted on this whole debate. I haven't been silent."

I've read enough to see my mistake. I had gotten the quick impression you were an advocate of science, but you're a politician on a mission and pretending to be a science-advocate.

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

The Vanashing Case for Evolution

No Evolution at Present. The lack of a case for evolution is most clearly recognized by the fact that no one has ever seen it happen.

"Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer." 1

"Horizontal variations" (e.g., the different varieties of dogs) are not real evolution, of course, nor are "mutations," which are always either neutral or harmful, as far as all known mutations are concerned. A process which has never been observed to occur, in all human history, should not be called scientific.

No New Species. Charles Darwin is popularly supposed to have solved the problem of "the origin of species," in his famous 1859 book of that title. However, as the eminent Harvard biologist, Ernst Mayr, one of the nation's top evolutionists, has observed:

"Darwin never really did discuss the origin of species in his On the Origin of Species."2

Not only could Darwin not cite a single example of a new species originating, but neither has anyone else, in all the subsequent century of evolutionary study.

"No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it. . . ." 3

No Known Mechanism of Evolution. It is also a very curious fact that no one understands how evolution works. Evolutionists commonly protest that they know evolution is true, but they can't seem to determine its mechanism.

"Evolution is . . . troubled from within by the troubling complexities of genetic and developmental mechanisms and new questions about the central mystery--speciation itself." 4

One would think that in the 125 years following Darwin, with thousands trained biologists studying the problem and using millions of dollars worth of complex lab equipment, they would have worked it out by now, but the mechanism which originates new species is still "the central mystery."

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

No Fossil Evidence. It used to be claimed that the best evidence for evolution was the fossil record, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils have not yet yielded a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.

"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition. . . ." 5

This ubiquitous absence of intermediate forms is true not only for "major morphologic transitions," but even for most species.

"As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly. . . ." 6

As a result, many modern evolutionists agree with the following assessment:

"In any case, no real evolutionist . . . uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. . . ." 7

No Order in the Fossils. Not only are there no true transitional forms in the fossils; there is not even any general evidence of evolutionary progression in the actual fossil sequences

"The fossil record of evolution is amenable to a wide variety of models ranging from completely deterministic to completely stochastic." 8

"I regard the failure to find a clear "vector of progress" in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. . . . we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it." 9

The superficial appearance of an evolutionary pattern in the fossil record has actually been imposed on it by the fact that the rocks containing the fossils have themselves been "dated" by their fossils.

"And this poses something of a problem: If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?"10

"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?" 11

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

No Evidence That Evolution Is Possible. The basic reason why there is no scientific evidence of evolution in either the present or the past is that the law of increasing entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics, contradicts the very premise of evolution. The evolutionist assumes that the whole universe has evolved upward from a single primeval particle to human beings, but the second law (one of the best-proved laws of science) says that the whole universe is running down into complete disorder.

"How can the forces of biological development and the forces of physical degeneration be operating at cross purposes? It would take, of course, a far greater mind than mine even to attempt to penetrate this riddle. I can only pose the question. . . ." 12

Evolutionists commonly attempt to sidestep this question by asserting that the second law applies only to isolated systems. But this is wrong!

". . . the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not." 13

"Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems." 14

Entropy can be forced to decrease in an open system, if enough organizing energy and information is applied to it from outside the system. This externally introduced complexity would have to be adequate to overcome the normal internal increase in entropy when raw energy is added from outside. However, no such external source of organized and energized information is available to the supposed evolutionary process. Raw solar energy is not organized information!

No Evidence From Similarities. The existence of similarities between organisms--whether in external morphology or internal biochemistry--is easily explained as the Creator's design of similar systems for similar functions, but such similarities are not explicable by common evolutionary descent.

"It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced. 15

The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of an evolutionary series." 16

classclown 12 years, 2 months ago

Good thing god created cut and paste functions huh? Makes it so much easier to flood a post board to attempt to drown out the fact that one has not been able to "win" a discussion based on intellectual merit.

tolawdjk 12 years, 2 months ago

Someone needs to get bigjim a pulpit.

Or a bookmark to

In case anyone forgot their program (you can't know your players if you don't have your program) we've basically gone from the overturning of teaching ID in Dover, to repeats of cut and paste ID support, to Stalin was an atheist because he read Darwin, to Russia is in such a bad spot because Stalin read Darwin.

So, no teaching ID in Russia. Got it?

classclown 12 years, 2 months ago

How about links to all the information you're copying from other websites so we can see their origins bigjim?

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

THE RESIDUAL CASE FOR EVOLUTION In spite of these admissions, all the scientists quoted above continue to believe in evolution. Limited space precludes giving the full context of each quotation, but each point noted is fully warranted in context, and could be further documented from other authorities also. 19

What, then, remains of the case for evolution? Stephen Gould falls back on what he believes are "imperfections" in nature.

"If there were no imperfections, there would be no evidence to favor evolution by natural selection over creation." 20

But this is essentially the same as the old discredited argument from vestigial organs, and merely assumes our present ignorance to be knowledge. Even if there are imperfections in nature (as well as harmful mutations, vestigial organs, extinctions, etc.) such trends are opposite to any imaginary evolutionary progress, so can hardly prove evolution.

There is one final argument, however: Gould's fellow atheist and Marxist at Harvard, geneticist Richard Lewontin, says,

"No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have parents, or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution." 21

That is, if one denies a Creator, the existence of life proves evolution!

But apart from its necessity as a support for atheism or pantheism, there is clearly no scientific evidence for evolution.

The absence of evidence for evolution does not, by itself, prove creation, of course; nevertheless, special creation is clearly the only alternative to evolution.

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence." 22

While we admittedly cannot prove creation, it is important to note that all the above facts offered as evidence against evolution (gaps between kinds, no evolutionary mechanism, increasing entropy, etc.) are actual predictions from the creation "model!"

Creationists prefer the reasonable faith of creationism, which is supported by all the real scientific evidence, to the credulous faith of evolutionism, which is supported by no real scientific evidence. The question remains unanswered (scientifically, at least) as to why evolutionists prefer to believe in evolution.

fossilhunter 12 years, 2 months ago

Jim - sure can use the ol' "Cut and Paste" can't you. All your quotes are laughable. Links to your sources is a better way to argue. That way you can see the context and sources of the info. Some of the quotes look like they are from the creationist websites that talk about dinos on the ark, young earth, blah blah.

Answer the question about snakes and whales with legs, please.

Bob Forer 12 years, 2 months ago

sure is funny that not too many of the hillbillies came out to comment on this.

wonderhorse 12 years, 2 months ago


2 things:

1) And Hitler was a christian. So what is your point about those people who based there beliefs on a misunderstanding of Darwin? Even the Nazi symbol, the swastika, is the backwards symbol that in the east designates a church.

2) Of course one person can't observe the evolution of a new species. Haven't you been paying attention? It takes thousands of years.

Oh, and a third point. The modern theory of evolution is not Darwinism any more than you evolved from a monkey. You and the monkey evolved from a common ancestor.

Kodiac 12 years, 2 months ago

Actually the supernatural has given science nothing, only the natural world has. That doesn't mean that science speaks for or against the supernatural. It just means that the supernatural has yielded nothing for science thus far. Wendt and lucid-vein are actually engaged in an argument that has been around for awhile and represents the diversity of views found within science. It all depends on how you look at science and how you define "nature".

classclown 12 years, 2 months ago

tolawdjk you forgot the evolution of ID is science too towell evolution isn't science either.

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

Creating the Missing Link: A Tale About a Whale

Ever since Darwin the fossil record has been an embarrassment to evolutionists. The predictions concerning what evolutionists expected to find in the fossil record have failed miserably. Not only have they failed to find the many tens of thousands of undoubted transitional forms that are demanded by evolutionary theory, but the number of arguable, let alone demonstrable, transitional forms that have been suggested are few indeed. This has placed evolutionists in a most difficult situation, made even more embarrassing by the fact that the fossil record is remarkably in accord with predictions based on special creation.

Darwin and, for about the first century following Darwin, the Darwinists pleaded the poverty of the fossil record. The claim was made that the transitional forms, or "missing links," as the term became known popularly were really there somewhere but had not yet been found. It was also claimed that many of the links were missing either because conditions had failed to result in their fossilization or that they had been eroded away and destroyed subsequent to fossilization. These arguments have now fallen into disfavor among many Darwinian geologists. An intense search spanning 120 years has produced an immensely rich fossil record but has failed to produce the expected transitional forms, and many geologists now realize the impossibility that a combination of geological processes would have miraculously eliminated all the billions of transitional forms while leaving billions of fossils of the terminal forms intact.

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

How desperate the situation really is was betrayed by Otto Schindewolf, Richard Goldschmidt and others over 40 years ago when they proposed what they themselves called the "hopeful monster" mechanism, which in its most extreme form, as put forth by Schindewolf and Goldschmidt, resulted in the suggestion that the first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.1 They suggested that the major evolutionary advances have taken place in single large steps. They believed that these drastic changes were caused by systemic mutations which affected early embryonic stages, with automatic reconstruction of all later phases in the development of the effected organism. This suggestion was met with open derision by neo-Darwinists (proponents of slow, gradual change). The idea has received support recently, however, from Stephen J. Gould, one of the main spokesmen for evolutionists in the U.S. today. In his 1977 article, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters, "2 Gould not only admits that the fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change, but he also asks the question (asked by creationists ever since Darwin), of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? For these reasons Gould suggested that eventually Goldschmidt would be largely vindicated.

The hopeful monster mechanism is, however, contrary to the science of genetics, as has been suggested by some of its opponents,3 and furthermore, as Goldschmidt himself admitted, no one has ever seen anything like this happen. Commenting on this idea, Sewall Wright has pointed out that he has recorded 100,000 newborn guinea pigs and has seen many hundreds of monsters of diverse sorts, but none were even remotely "hopeful," all having died shortly after birth or before.4

Now gaining popularity is a less drastic suggestion by Gould, Niles Eldredge, Steven Stanley, and others, dubbed the "punctuated equilibrium" mechanism. They have suggested that little or nothing happens in the life of a species for perhaps several million years (the period of stasis, or equilibrium), and then suddenly out on the periphery of the geographical area of the species a few individuals become isolated and undergo rapid evolution to a new species (the punctuation). The new species then proliferates into a large population which once again persists with little change. This produces a fossil record with no transitional forms between species because the transition occurs rapidly in small populations.

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

This notion is merely a new scenario but certainly does not provide a mechanism. Left unexplained is how or why such rapid changes occur. Such rapid changes are in fact contrary to what we know about genetics. Furthermore, this notion does not solve the problem of the missing links. This suggestion is only an attempt to explain the absence of transitional forms between species. That is not the serious problem-the real problem is the big gaps between the higher categories, the systematic absence of transitional forms between families, orders, classes and phyla. These gaps, for example, include those between invertebrates and fishes and between fish and amphibian gaps of 100 and 30 million years or so, respectively, on the evolutionary time scale. The idea of punctuated equilibrium makes no pretense of addressing this problem, let alone providing a solution.

Many evolutionists, not content to explain away the gaps in the fossil record, still persist in hopes of finding missing links. This results in a never-ending series of claims concerning the discovery of transitional forms, sometimes sensational. These claims, with passage of time, generally are discredited by further research, although many persist in textbooks long after they are discredited, since once error gets in it is hard to get out.

Just recently one of these evolutionary stories was headlined in newspaper and magazine articles that appeared all over the world. For example, an Associated Press article of April 15, 1983, appeared in the Detroit Free Press with the headline "Missing Link Fossils Tie Whales to Land Mammals." The article reported that scientists say they have discovered fifty-million year-old fossils of a six-foot long, land-dwelling creature they describe as a "missing link" between whales and land animals. The article went on to say that the fossil remains represent the oldest and most primitive form of a whale yet discovered, an amphibious mammal that lived and bred on land and fed in shallow sea waters. One should be immediately suspicious of the term "whale" being given to such a creature, whatever it was, since whales are totally incapable of living or breeding on land.

Kodiac 12 years, 2 months ago

I.....can't..........quit..............laughing...........BigJim is killing me.................LMAO

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

News of this kind, as tentative and unreliable as it might be, is no doubt most welcome to evolutionists since there is indeed, as is the case with all other mammalian orders, a huge gap between the order Cetacea (this order includes all creatures known inclusively as "whales"-, whales, dolphins and porpoises) and any supposed ancestral creatures. Speaking of whales, Colbert says "These mammals must have had an ancient origin, for no intermediate forms are apparent in the fossil record between the whales and the ancestral Cretaceous placentals. Like the bats, the whales (using the term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications of the basic mammalian structure for a highly specialized mode of life. Indeed, the whales are even more isolated with relation to other mammals than the bats; they stand quite alone."5

But what about the material upon which the newspaper articles were based? Can this material be reasonably interpreted as cetacean? The articles were based on interviews with Dr. Philip Gingerich of the University of Michigan and an article published by Gingerich, Wells, Russell, and Shah in Science.6 The fossil material consists of the posterior portion of the cranium, two fragments of the lower jaw, and isolated upper and lower cheek teeth. The creature this material supposedly represents was named Pakicetus inachus (one can never be certain, of course, that scattered fossil material all belongs to the same species).

This fossil material was found in fluvial red sediments, or river-produced deposits colored by material leached from iron ores. This formation is thus a terrestrial or continental deposit. The fossil remains associated with Pakicetus is dominated by land mammals. Nonmammalian remains include other terrestrial remains such as snails, fishes (particularly catfish), turtles, and crocodiles. This evidence indicates a fluvial and continental rather than a marine environment as would be expected for a whale or whale-like creature.

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

The authors state that the basicranium (only the back portion of the cranium was found) is unequivocally that of a primitive cetacean. On the basis of the brief description given in the article (eight lines of the text) one has no way of knowing whether that is true other than the declaration by the authors. It seems highly significant in that respect, however, that the auditory mechanism of Pakicetus was that of a land mammal rather than that of a whale, since there is no evidence that it could hear directionally under water nor is there any evidence of vascularization of the middle ear to maintain pressure during diving.

The teeth of Pakicetus are said by the authors to resemble those of terrestrial mesonychid Condylarthra and also to be similar to teeth of middle Eocene archeocete Cetacea such as Protocetus and Indocetus. Mesonychids are thought to be terrestrial mammals that were hoofed and possibly fed on carrion, mollusks, or tough vegetable matter.7 The authors mention two other "primitive cetaceans," Gandakasia and Ichthyolestes, known only from teeth, as being found in the same formation with Pakicetus. These have been described by West,8 and had earlier been identified as land mammals (specifically mesonychids). West, however, reassigned them to the order Cetacea.

Not a single fragment of the postcranial skeleton of these creatures has been found, so we have no idea what they really looked like. The fact that their remains were found in a terrestrial fluvial deposit with fossils of many other land animals, their teeth were very similar to known land animals, and their auditory mechanism was obviously not that of a whale, would seem to indicate, to say the very least, that the claim that a missing link between whales and land mammals has been found is premature. We are reminded of the admission of Professor Derek Ager (no friend of creationists) that practically every evolutionary story he had learned as a student has now been debunked.9 We suggest that Pakicetus will eventually join the ranks of the debunked "missing links" which include Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphea, Carruther's Zaphrentis, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Neanderthal Man, and the hominoid collarbone recently identified as a dolphin rib.10

tolawdjk 12 years, 2 months ago

Its like a train wreck. If you post enough, bigjim, it might actually be true. YOu just have to click your mouse button three times real fast and say "There's no place called Dover. There's no place called Dover".

Then it will all magically be true.

classclown 12 years, 2 months ago

Instead of cut and pasting so much from other sites to prevent people from reading what others have to say in an attempt to skim through, why not just type a random jumble of letters and numbers for as many characters as a post will allow? It amounts to the same thing.

Or follow the lead of the immature types in chatrooms and type a period and post it repeatedly?

classclown 12 years, 2 months ago

ps. you can cut and paste the period if you want.

Kodiac 12 years, 2 months ago

Hey Bigjim,

Think about this. Now I am just trying to help you out here. You are essentially being ignored. Noone is reading your posts. You are just mindlessly cutting and pasting from creationism websites on the internet. If you would just post the link....oh what a minute.... maybe bigjim doesn't know how to post the link. Someone please show bigjim how to post the links. Anyway bigjim it would be alot more effective if you kept your messages short to the point and refer to links to support any arguments you are making. Of course I might be just rambling here and maybe noone is reading my post which makes me feel kind of like your know bigjim since I am just sitting here rambling on and on about how to help you out and noone really gives a sh*t so they just stop reading after a certain point and its like ........Damn I just lost my train of thought...........

lucid_vein 12 years, 2 months ago

wendt: "I'm not a politician but I have published from the University of Kansas. In science. Had you reviewed my posts, you would know that."

You have 1126 posts and I am not going to review them. I'm interested in your position so why don't you just clarify it a little and stop hedging and hinting?

wendt: "My take is that you are an Intelligent Design / Creationism advocate who got caught attempting to wedge something from a Usenet satire forum into a legitimate discussion on Intelligent Design v. Evolution. A fake joke science called "abiogenesis"."

You don't have to be a fan of abiogenesis to have understood the point I made when I mentioned it. It is that evolution isn't about how the first cells came into being, I was pointing out that biological evolution has to do with adaptations of life forms to the environment. Do you disagree with that? Spell it out, dumbass.

wendt: "That you declare that you are not an advocate of Intelligent Design / Creationism has not changed the content of your postings, which are almost identical to the contrary. I called you on it and now you're pouting. BooHoo."

Pouting because you're a moronic halfwit who cannot even understand what he reads?

"I can't stop you from doing something stupid but I will call you on it. Especially if you start name calling."

You don't know what you're talking about, dummy, and I'm calling you on it.

hobb2264 12 years, 2 months ago


Why do you think your viewpoint on the origins of life on this earth is any more proveable by science than mine? Because it is based on natural processes? Conditions on earth 2.5 bya can not be replicated today. Even if they could be replicated in a scaled down version (laboratory) there is the time factor....we are talking millions of years (maybe billions), not just a person's lifetime. How then, is your view testable or repeatable? This is the epitomy of philosophic naturalism....

Kodiac 12 years, 2 months ago

He might be dead! Quick someone notify LJW. Bigjim is in trouble.....

Kodiac 12 years, 2 months ago

Whew this silence is just killing me...

Kodiac 12 years, 2 months ago

Hey wendt what do you think about paradise

Kodiac 12 years, 2 months ago

I always thought paradise was a nice place to be. Kind of like heaven in a way....

Biodude 12 years, 2 months ago

That's it! BignJim and the Hillbillies went to paradise...or were always at I get it...creat'n creator...Madman your a genius!

lucid_vein 12 years, 2 months ago

wendt says: "For someone who claims to be a scientist, you sure talk gloomy."

Never claimed to be a scientist. It's a favorite subject. (If you think I'm lying, then quote my claim to be a scientist).

"For someone who claims to be pro-evolution, you sure talk like an Intelligent Designer."

Quote something that sounds vaguely like the talk of an IDer. IDists commonly conflate evolution with abiogenesis. It's discussed often at my more favorite messageboard, in the company of actual working scientists. Creationists/IDists never fail to misunderstand the difference between the two, and it's the difference that I was pointing out. If you're not as stupid as you seem, then you're saying that to "get my goat" and maybe if you "get my goat" you believe you score a point. But you're still wrong. Wouldn't you rather be right?

"For someone who claims that he has something to say, you sure ad hominem alot."

I've ad hominem'd you in this thread, in response to your ridiculous assertions and your repeated refusal to back any of them up. I skimmed some of your posts -- looks like an increasing pile of slash-and-dash ad hominems, with no positive arguments.

You failed to notice that I've invited you to debate your points. Look at my posts in this thread again. Find and pick a target. Make an argument. At IIDB we even have a forum for moderated formal debates, and we can discuss terms for one if you truly have strong opinions about what in biology is science and what is not.

beavisishot 12 years, 2 months ago

wendt, you lost a lot of respect due to your musings on strippers and strip clubs. way to show no respect for women! had you've stuck to the general topic, you might've avoided shedding such an unfavorale, if not sexist, light upon yourself. but i'm sure "taking care" of drunk strippers is enough, in your mind, to make yourself feel better about contributing to the degradation of women.

Densmore 12 years, 2 months ago

Apologies to Jimmy Dean....

Big Jim, Big Jim, Big bad Jim.

He stood 6'6'' and weighed 225, kinda narrow at the hip and nobody gave no lip to Big Jim.

Big Jim. Big Jim. Big bad Jim.


Anyway, as I recall, Big Bad John (Jim) remained at the bottom of the mine. Just like Jim in this thread.

lucid_vein 12 years, 2 months ago

Biodude asked: "Lucid, what is IIDB?"

It's a collection of several moderated forums for science, religion and political discussions. Its primary focus is "a naturalistic worldview" so many members are philosophical naturalists (and most of those are atheists), though we do have many theists of various stripes. The evolution/debate forum is here: Many scientifically informed laypersons, but also several biologists, some chemists and physicists frequent it. Even a few engineers, though they're generally more knowledgeable about science than the ones creeping about in here. As it is an actual message board for informal debates (one is set aside for formal debates) the threads will last for days rather than only the short-lived thing you'll find in the comments section of a news journal, so informative posts are more frequent, more detailed, and responded to with intelligence rather than sniping. Unlike most Christian forums, you're never censored or banned for holding opinion that vary form the moderators' viewpoints. If you like the sort of discussion here, but would like something more informative and intelligent, you're very welcome to visit and post questions or comments.

hobb2264, if you're interested in pursuing your point about philosophical naturalism and the hidden atheistic agenda of science, you'll get VERY detailed responses at the website I'm discussing if you will post your question there. This thread is dying. And this format is too disorganized for a more indepth dialogue on philosophy and science.

lucid_vein 12 years, 2 months ago


I want to argue with people who are mistaken. And yes, I debate ideas a lot.

Criticism from someone who knows so little about both science and its opponent, ID, (and the most important resources on the Net regarding the evo/creo debate), I think your assessment of anything/anyone is worthless. Published from KU in science, eh? Does that mean you've published a peer-reviewed science article or book? You've displayed much ignorance and a refusal to support your statements with anything more than short, vacuous quips.

So I don't believe you; you're a moron, a liar and a rhetorician. In other words, a politician :)

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

Hey all, BigJim is back! Did you have enough time to read what I selected for you? I thought that since you were fed only one side of the story (evolution) in public school, you could expand your minds with alternative reading. I'm sure it hurt but change is hard. Remember that God gave you a brain and logic to use. My guess is that many of you lack a proper upbringing which isn't your fault. But now as adults, you are responsible.

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago


I haven't been to a strip bar. I've had several embarrassing moments when everyone else from the bachelor party went in but me. But, I stood for what I knew to be right.

Not to brag because you don't know me. But just wanted to let you know there are upstanding principled men.

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago


I apologize for wendt. He's got an agenda and a cause without the ability to defend it and it causes him to lash out, just like a wild dog does when it's cornered.

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

Wendt is a nurse. Wow. I've never met a nurse that was also a scientists. Big waste of time arguing with a loser like him. I don't think he has a life outside of these message boards.

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

wendt, just so you know and can get off the stupid statement of "go to school", I have a BS in engineering from Purdue University, a BA in econ from Indiana University and an MBA from Notre Dame. I also do very well financially. But, none of this really matters. What matters is that I haven't fallen for that ridiculous "theory" of evolution that has about a million holes in it.

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

email message I just received from wendt...


The user wendt sent the following message to you via


Just curious.

K-12? Graduate?

1 year of college? 2 years? 3 years? 4 years? Graduate?

You have such issues of ignorance at such an elemental level. I'm not kidding. School is a very appropriate direction for me to point you towards.

Now the loser is jealous. Wendt, you have proved your idiocy and have lost all credibility on this board.

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

wendt, I haven't lied here yet. Tell you what, if I email copies of my diplomas to you, will you leave and never blog on the subject of evolution/id again?

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

Put up or shut up then. Make the bet with me.

ryanjasondesch 12 years, 2 months ago


Evolution has as many holes as engineering, gravity, the round earth theory, and the helio-centric solar system THEORIES. Those holes are not an excuse for someone to go thrusting idiocy into places it doesn't belong. Ya know, there's an alternative theory to engineering. It goes something like this: is 0 prime? Who cares. Jesus made the number 0 just the way it is and as long as he did and some preacher can tell me he did then I don't have to think about it for myself cuz it's easier to think of the world in black and white, strip-clubs bad/me good, God and Satan, evolution and ID, 1's and 0's and quoting other idiots cuz I don't even have anything intelligent to say anyway. Go back to the cutting and pasting, at least it was funny when we didn't have to hear your own ideas about others on here who have valid points.

But wait, Wendt has an agenda, just like everyone who doesn't agree with you has an agenda and is full of bias. Of course you don't right? Too bad for you there are voices of reason in the U.S. court system, and try as they might, Creationists will never get their pathetic 'theories' into public schools. Thank GOD. If you follow the 'God does miracles everyday' idea, this court ruling is the only proof ya need!

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

That's what I thought. I'm going to bed. We'll argue about the "theory" another day.

lucid_vein 12 years, 2 months ago

The exchange with bigjim is ... really dumb.

But, wendt, you can redeem yourself in my eyes if you will acknowledge the mistake you made. I said creationists can't tell the difference between the biochemical events that led to the first life forms (the talk about slime in a mud puddle) and the mechanisms of evolution (natural selection, genetic drift, etc.). They bash evolution by pointing at the paucity of evidence for the first life form, which is a flawed argument.

You saw a word, used by scientists, but didn't understand its current scientific uses: abiogenesis. And you thought I was talking about the discredited theory of spontaneous generation (as in flies from meat) and thought I must be some kind of creationist. You then made a creationist argument: that abiogenesis is not science.

Just say, Yes, I think I must have misunderstood your point. You had a chance to learn something new about biology and rejected the chance. Show that you're open to learning and I'll go back to ignoring you.

a_new_voice 12 years, 2 months ago

Well, boys...this has been an interesting discussion. I enjoyed most of the posts. I am wondering when the "my dad can beat your dad" will enter the posts. I think we're getting very close now.

Truth is, we really don't know. There is far more evidence to support evolution. Creationism points to the bible as it's one source. Evolution has thousands of books. Considering the amount of science that originates from or is printed in Lawrence, KS, ID being taught in KS schools is a contradiction of that science...and an embarrassment.

hobb2264 12 years, 2 months ago

Lucid...what is the definition of science?

hobb2264 12 years, 2 months ago

I'll help you out....

gr summed it up pretty well in his/her 1 pm post (I will let you go back and read). Your retort to gr never dealt with his/her main question....that is how is abiogenesis observable and how can repeatable experiments be performed. Whether abiogenesis is a natural process or not is irrelevant.

lucid_vein 12 years, 2 months ago

Here's a site that will be interesting regarding the debate about what teachers should or shouldn't teach in science classes:

Skip partway down the page, under "The Nature of Science and Scientific Theories" for a brief and simply explained definition of science.

lucid_vein 12 years, 2 months ago

Oops, the link to reference is:

And that post, and this, are addressed to hobb2264's question about "What is Science?" I'll get to abiogenesis here in a minute, now that I see wendt has chimed in with another rhetorical game, bizarre logic, and a lie.

Biodude 12 years, 2 months ago

one word...Hoosier.

One last point. It is true that biologists cannot go back in time and it is really difficult to do a 5 million year experiment. Nevertheless, it is entirely possible and is currently a very hot topic in biology to study molecular control of development as it relates to phylogeny (Evo-Devo). Several of these papers have been published in Science and Nature and are easily available at their websites (on the off-chance that any of you will find the time or interest to really learn some biology). Basically, when you can manipulate expression of a single morphogenic factor and alter the appearence of a major skeletal structure, like the mandibular extension known as a beak; essentially changing the beak from a chick beak to a duck-like beak, it strongly suggests that natural selection could have opperated on such genes to generate strikingly distinct functions. Clearly, some of these changes could have led to reproductively isolated and wildly-different critters! So true, there is some speculation in evolutionary biology, but there are many many assumptions in chemistry and physics and even mathematics. This didn't stop Einstein from using his imagination to change our view of the world. It didn't stop too numerous to mention...but, how about Linus Pauling (he catches a lot of posthumus crap) from speculating how protein structure changes during phylogeny and how those changes can be used (with appropriate mathematic) to chart the descent of critters. And all those AIDS patients and breast-cancer patients and their (certainly quite often Christian) families can (should) be very proud of these and so many other individuals that recognized that natural selection is a scientific truth of nature...the driving force of biology...that requires appreciation in order to manipulate biology and help ordinary folks have better lives, longer lives and a bright future. You can thank Darwin a lot, because say what you must, but he was certainly one of the greatest human minds of all time! The very fact that we are discussing his theory...pretty much as originally presented, save modern synthesis and all-which really has not changed his basic tenets, proves this point! BTW: I certainly do not agree that Jesus could not have had paternal chromosomes that were devine in nature...what does immaculate conception mean at the molecular level...personally, I'm not concerned!

When you get into this kind of discussion it ceases to be science and becomes philosophy or religion.

Good Luck...I think Biodude's work's been done...not here, please don't think that...I've been a ranting maniac...I mean by the good Judge Jones!

So, dare I say...going out with a smile...I was old enuf and (trust me) educated enough...but just not bored enuf!

Also, BigJim...I know I slung a bunch of crap your way, but I am truly thankful for your posts, if not your documentation.

Peace Out,


lucid_vein 12 years, 2 months ago

hobb2264: "Your retort to gr never dealt with his/her main question....that is how is abiogenesis observable and how can repeatable experiments be performed. Whether abiogenesis is a natural process or not is irrelevant."

Abiogenesis itself is not directly observable, nor need it be directly observed to be a subject for science.

Try to understand: None of this is relevant to my point, which all along has been this one thing: I said creationists point at the paucity of evidence for abiogenesis and say "See, evolution is a weak theory." But abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory. It's a question of biochemistry, not of speciation. It's weakness is PRECISELY THE POINT. Do not confuse the "primordial soup" with how species have adapted to their environments through the generations over time. They're different topics. We may never know how the first life forms started, but we DO know what they did once they started reproducing. Evolution stands strong even if there is no substantial theory of abiogenesis yet.

lucid_vein 12 years, 2 months ago

For Wendt (Part One):

"Today the term is primarily used to refer to theories about the chemical origin of life, such as from a primordial soup" is the only relevant portion of the wikipedia article you quoted.

wendt says: "Looks like I had the etymology of the word correct as well as it's history : I knew all that off of the top of my head. It's all that biology training I have. They cover stuff like that in school."

Yes, it's in books too. I'm not even a nurse and knew that, as well as the fact that there's a current and validly scientific research into a topic using the same name, which you seem extremely confused about.

wendt says: "Scientists do not work in areas "long been known to be incorrect". Neither do they work in areas where data can not be collected."

Correct. And irrelevant. There is data about abiogenesis: complex organic molecules throughout nature, even outside earth's orbit. Seeking a natural explanation for the obvious fact of life falls under science's range. We can work on models simulating conditions of early earth and work with probabilities. Science is not strictly limited to "pure" empiricism. You don't have to directly see it, and only then, afterwards, collect data on what you're perceiving, which has been your definition of science in this thread. This is the same kind of either/or thinking creationists engage in.

wendt: "The reductionism of your abiogenesis proposal are indistinguishable from the "irreducible complexity" oxymoron of the Intelligent Design crowd."

My abiogenesis proposal? It's not mine! Science seeks the mechanisms by which nature operates, and that's largely "reductionist" of necessity. There'd be an analogy with IR if I said cells are too complex and that science cannot now and never will be able to explain their origin. My stance is instead that there's no alternative for science but to look for a naturalistic, and reductionist, understanding of the biochemical events that led to life on earth.

lucid_vein 12 years, 2 months ago

For Wendt (Part Two):

wendt: "In short, I've heard the argument before. It has been rejected before."

Which argument? There are a few models for abiogenesis. Rejected by who? Do you never cite anything in your attempts to redefine science, or only make grand proclamations?

wendt: "Why, you ask? For the same reason, the exact same reason, that Intelligent Design / Creationism was rejected. It's not science."

So why is it not science? Because it's not directly observed? Or because you think there's some supernatural aspect in there somewhere? ID was rejected by the court in Dover because it's religious and therefore a breach of CSS. It's rejected by scientists because it involves supernatural assumptions that cannot be observed or modeled, or tested with predictions.

wendt: "Hence my submisssion that you are actually a creationist attempting to rename a subject that has gone through several name changes. Creationism --> Intelligent Design --> abiogenesis"

Maybe it's the new phrase "sudden appearance" that some IDer's are now using that has confused you. You apparently cannot separate the theory of spontaneous generation from the biochemical question about how life first arose on earth. Creationists likewise cannot separate origins from God and posit a miraculous spontaneous generation.

wendt: "As a published biologist, I submit that your charge of ignorance on my part has no basis in fact. I submit the reverse is true."

Even when it's explained to you, you look at sources on the Net only to find a ridiculous strawman caricature of my argument, and fail to look any further to inform yourself better. And you're not a biologist, you're a nurse as you've already said in your exchange with bigjim. So, you're not just ignorant, you're a lying poser.

Bob Forer 12 years, 2 months ago

Now, this is what I really call a "big slap in their fat faces."

lucid_vein 12 years, 2 months ago

Anyone interested should read the whole article to understand how abiogenesis is distinct from both creationism and evolution, but is entirely consonant with the scientific search for natural explanations for our "origins." It's not a rebuttal to supernatural origins, as that would be trampling on religious turf. Of necessity, science wants to exhaust naturalistic explanations first and they're not "exhausted" yet, not by a long shot.

Sorry, but if you make the and unnecessary and impossible demand for peer-reviewed articles only and no other references are allowed, then links on the internet generally will be disappointing to you. The link is for information purposes, not "authoritative proof."

bigjim 12 years, 2 months ago

Good bye (comes from "God be with ye") all. Going home for the holidays (holydays) and I just wanted to wish everyone a merry Christmas (ChristMass).

Believe it or not, I wish everyone the best, even the arses on the dark side. You've all been entertaining and I hope through argument that we came closer to the truth. Cheers!

gr 12 years, 2 months ago

Thanks hobb2264 for stepping in. I finally got through / skipped through some of this big mess and kept wanting to say it, but found you asked it for me.

Lucid: "Abiogenesis itself is not directly observable, nor need it be directly observed to be a subject for science." I think everyone can guess where that statement could lead!

But, you have to admit, that many, if not most evolutionists, make statements such as, evolution is a fact (with moths changing color in mind), therefore why can't you stupid creationists accept we descended from slime.

This is why it is important for both sides to define what they mean with the word, "evolution". And, tell me if I'm wrong, but teaching "evolution" in schools involve abiogenesis. At least we both agree that it is not science in being observable and repeatable.

"Conflating". You must like that word. No, and as was pointed out, I was not mixing abiogenesis with creation - I was, I guess you would say, abstracting the similarity of the arguments. I didn't think that was too big of a jump for everyone to follow.

"It's a real possibility that within a few years we will have synthesed living cells from their chemical precursors in the laboratory. This will demonstrate that life can originate without miraculous intercession, contrary to the claims of creationists. There is no magic "spark of life" which differentiates the chemistry of living organisms from other chemical processes."

Another few years? What if several additional decades pass? Then what?

And for all of you who are saying they don't understand God, therefore He must not exist -- well, that sounds the same as creationists being criticized for saying major changes are too complex to have happened except for being designed.

wonderhorse: "I'm not at all surprised that there are missing links in the fossil record. I would be sceptical if there weren't. For starters, conditions have to be just right for a fossil to form. Everytime something died, it wouldn't have formed a fossil. I'll bet only a tiny fraction of the critters that died formed fossils. Also, the earth is a really big place to go digging around in. I'll bet that we haven't even found all of the fossils yet, and probably never will."

Excellent point. By the way, how do fossils form and can anyone point us to fossils being formed in the last few years / decades?

wonderhorse 12 years, 2 months ago


I wish I could help, but I can't. I just vaguely remember that this same question was asked in one of my HS science classes, and the answer was a broad one about conditions having to be just right, passage of time, etc. For some reason, I never asked, nor heard it asked, in any college classes, but since I was a management/is undergrad, and went to grad school to get my mba, that's probably not too surprising.

gr 12 years, 2 months ago

Speaking of fossils, it sure is hard to keep up with the fossil record. 70 Million, 100 Million - ehh, what's a few million.

gr 12 years, 2 months ago

"There have been less than ten T-Rex skulls found in the world. Not many for the millions that walk the earth 75 million years ago. "

I guess I never new that. So, how do we know there were millions?

"To find one being formed, go to bottom of the river or an oceans. In a few thousand/million years, you will see the fossilization of the specimen."

Since the clock didn't start today, there must be some that died a million years ago and less, so where can we see these partially fossilized ones?

And it mostly happens under water? I know you'll say that the plates uplifted, but where was the water before, where did it go (ocean trenches?), why, and how come? Why isn't it happening today? If the plates uplifted, then we have Oread conditions.

Kodiac 12 years, 2 months ago


I am sure there are some great classes you can take or even some good books to read to answer all of your wonderful questions. I hardly think you will be satisfied with answers given by a number of unknown users on a LJW blog.

gr 12 years, 2 months ago

Most things under water are eaten as much as above water. Or at least chewed on.

But, where are the ones which the millions of years are up next year?

I see gobs and gobs of fossils in rock layers that are far away from the ocean. Not many dead animals last long on the ocean floor.

Speaking of sediments, how long would it take to fill up the gulf?

wonderhorse 12 years, 2 months ago


I don't know--dig up the entire land surface of the world to about 20 ft. and find out. What, too big of a job? Well, then, dig up the entire land surface of Kansas to about 20 ft. and find out. What, too big of a job? Well, how about Douglas county.

Do you begin to see the scope of what you are asking? Why can't we find all of the fossils? The real question is, how did we find so many.

gr 12 years, 2 months ago

Something doesn't seem right about this dog deal. There appears more to the story. It looks like two neighbors don't like each other. Why the city is getting involved in such antics, I don't know.

wonderhorse: surely you make joke, no?

We have prospector suggesting that fossils form so easily and can be found everywhere although, being the exception. Then you say it is too difficult to learn about fossilization and that it's impossible to find any recent and in progress fossils. Is science too difficult to understand as the Intelligent Design people are accused of saying? So therefore, we will hold absolutely to the thought up way of how fossils form because it's too difficult to determine what and how fossilization really happened?

When my pet dies, I try to help it turn into a fossil. Rather than waiting thousands of years for it to be covered through gradual soil depositing on it, I help the process by burying it. Unfortunately, many times something comes along and digs it out. Sometimes they chew into poor fido. I bury it again, but sometimes it's re-dug up. Times that I'm successful, I wait a few years and dig down to see how it's coming. I have a hard time finding even the bones, and all the tissue has disappeared. Lot's of earthworms for some reason. The bones even look a little degraded. You would have thought, with me interfering and helping cover the animal, it would well be on its way of becoming a fossil.

If I threw it in the river and it sunk, there would be less problems with it being dug up, but usually animals float to the surface and get left on a bank where it rots and is picked apart. Even if it does sink and stays there, aquatic creatures start munching on it and there's usuall not much left by the time sediment gradually covers it.

However, there have been found many fossils relatively intact. When you look in limestone layers, you see lots of fossils. These don't just appear in a few spots but in most any limestone around here. While most are aquatic creatures, you still don't find similar things happening in current rivers and lakes. It's like great amounts of preasure is needed to create the fossils, but that just isn't happening today. Maybe in the deep ocean, but if that gradually inches it's way to the high plains of Kansas, I just find it hard to believe there are so many examples of endless layers of highly preserved fossils that survived uplifting plates of millions of years. There's got to be a better explanation of fossilization.

Take a look at for a bloody T. Rex. This is really amazing that scientists could find such tissues in a fossil. Maybe they can clone them? I wonder if the DNA is still intact all these years.

wonderhorse 12 years, 2 months ago


Yes, I make joke. The earth is a big place, and much of it at various times was under water (including most of Kansas). I don't recall reading that prospector said that fossils formed so easily--quite the contrary. And science is not difficult to understand, it just requires study, like anythng else. I have yet to read about one paper published in a peer-reviewed journal supporting ID. I will rethink my conviction about the theory of evolution as soon as this happens.

gr 12 years, 2 months ago

Before I look for one, could you define what Intelligent Design means to you?

wonderhorse 12 years, 2 months ago

Personally? Faux-science meant to introduce creationism, and christian creationism at that, into public schools. It means nothing, except as a point for argumentation. Interestingly enough, my sophomore (HS) son told me that last year his biology teacher did address ID. He said that the teacher told them that there was a movement in the US to replace the theory of evolution with a belief in an intelligent designer. As he, and several of his classmates, prepared to walk out the door, the teacher said that ID was not science, and would not be studied in his classroom.

For a definition of ID, please go to the Discovery Institutes website.

gr 12 years, 2 months ago

From your comments, it sounds like you would not even be interested in reading an article, and if one was presented, you would then say it doesn't count, because: it's not from a journal you had in mind, or it's not from a scientist who doesn't believe in creation doing research showing evidence his beliefs are incorrect, or it doesn't meet your definition of ID.

Just like the word "evolution" means different things to different people, ID means different things to different people. And, unless you are wanting to reserve the "that's not what I mean by it" card to play, wouldn't it make more sense to specify what type of article you are looking for?

But, you aren't looking, are you?

wonderhorse 12 years, 2 months ago

Actually, if it appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, I would read it, and it would "count". The theory of evolution has survived 150 years of criticism by scientists. It changes based on newly discovered data. An article supporting ID has yet to appear in a peer-reviewed journal. It is not science.

By the way, you make a lot of assumptions about me.

gr 12 years, 2 months ago

Well, I sort of have to make assumptions, because you have yet to say what kind of article you are looking for. I can only make the assumption that what you are really saying is, 'An article supporting ID, as I have yet to define it, has yet to appear in a peer-reviewed journal of which I reserve full veto power'.

It's scary to specify what one would require when there may be a possibility of seeing it. Much better to remain vague, so anything presented can be minimalized.

How about this from me: I have yet to see any article that supports evolution. The words, "evolution", "supports", and "article" to be defined by me after I read the article.

Godot 12 years, 1 month ago

"Take a look at for a bloody T. Rex. This is really amazing that scientists could find such tissues in a fossil. Maybe they can clone them?"

If they do, it will probably look like Snuppy.

wonderhorse 12 years, 1 month ago


"Well, I sort of have to make assumptions, because you have yet to say what kind of article you are looking for. I can only make the assumption that what you are really saying is, 'An article supporting ID, as I have yet to define it, has yet to appear in a peer-reviewed journal of which I reserve full veto power'"

No, I don't have veto power, and I never said that. What I am "really saying" is that ID has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Look them up. It can be some fine reading Vague? Maybe I am, but the scientists who study evolution aren't. They are real serious about their profession. Please go beyond the internet and either do some real research, or, as has been suggestd before, take a class.

gr 12 years, 1 month ago

Actually, there are many articles published in paper and on the internet supporting "ID". All I'm saying is, it would be pointless to list them, especially given you are not knowledgeable in the science area. Most likely, you would say, that doesn't count. I'm just asking to be fair and define what the article needs to show before being presented.

By the way, by looking up peer reviewed information, I came across the comment that evolution, as an increase in genetic information, has not been observed nor proved. I owe it to your encouragement. Thanks!

wonderhorse 12 years, 1 month ago

Absolutely correct. The theory of evolution cannot be observed or proved, much like the theory of gravity cannot be observed or proved. That is why they are theories, undergoing constant testing.

Your "many articles" aren't peer-reviewed. Just one, that is all I ask. One article in a peer-reviewed journal.

By the way, I didn't say I was not knowledgeable in the science area, I said I wasn't a trained scientist. And, anybody can post most anything on the internet.

gr 12 years, 1 month ago

So, Umm. What would they need to show about ID?

(Am I repeating myself?)

wonderhorse 12 years, 1 month ago

That it is somehow science. That is what it takes for an article to survive in peer review.

Yes, you are repeating yourself. ID is not science, and so far, nobody has been able to prove that it is.

gr 12 years, 1 month ago

Wait, wait, wait. I keep asking you a direct question and you keep going off on some criticism of what you don't like about ID. Are you unsure what to ask for or afraid of what someone might come up with?

On another post, someone was criticized for listing a creation web site. Not saying you are asking such, but it seems to me, some are asking to see an article published by an atheist which proves creation. But, then again, maybe not so hard.

In case you missed them, I have made reference to links of several articles.

" Is this more of a technical link, although just the abstract, of sedimentation sorting? This might explain how some animals are buried quickly enough to become fossils without being eaten. However, it might bring into question the age of the layers. " I believe "Nature" is a peer-reviewed journal. This article shows the different layers, thought to occur over a long period of time, could be expand through a more rapid process. This same type of experiment was published in a creation journal (peer-reviewed) a decade earlier. Creation scientists do the same worthwhile work as atheist scientists do. The results allow for the possibility of a worldwide flood as outlined in the Bible. The Bible states an Intelligent Designer.

" An example, maybe not a "technical site", of primitive being open to interpretation is "It's no different than if you took a modern-day butterfly and put it under a light microscope." More primitive than thought, but less primitive than current butterflies? " Not peered reviewed, but here is the Journal reference: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B (DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2691)

Butterflies relatively unchanged for millions of years? It all depends upon your presuppositions, but for creationists, this indicates maybe a much shorter time has elapsed for butterflies and dinosaurs than originally thought. Evolutionists will have to come with some other explanation.

gr 12 years, 1 month ago

Another reference I gave was, " One example of what scientists are having to rethink is how fossils have formed: " and fossilhunter was so kind to give the technical reference: ";307/5717/1952 " "Science" is also a very worthy journal and peer-reviewed. Again, for creationists, this is an indication of a much short time and gives support to creation of life in several thousand years rather than billions. However, atheists will have to do some fancy dancing and rewrite a few laws to try to explain some things. If I'm not mistaken, DNA is thought to degrade after several thousand years, let alone blood cells. Now, if you say that they were preserved through the mineralization, etc., etc., then that says we've been told wrong about some things. Which is ok, part of review. Could our origins need to be reviewed? People are holding to the same ideas which were based upon assumptions which have been disproven (a simple cell is not simple). Isn't it about time to use modern knowledge and technology to take a look at past assumptions? However, many, including you, would not want to really do that. It might cause you to lose your faith.

In some of the classes I took, the first thing we were told when reviewing journal articles was to see who wrote them and who they were employed by. This meant, there could be a possibility of bias. I'm not sure if it was on this forum or somewhere else where there was talk of scientists not doing research on some things because grant funding was no longer available for those topics. This caused research to be directed only where funding was and other topics were left un-researched.

Scientists are not some sort of gods. They are human like the rest of us. To take the approach, 'I trust scientists to tell me all I need to know' is a rather limiting viewpoint. Part of what "peer-reviewed" means is you need scientists to check on each other. Does this mean they have a tendency to be slanted? Probably not, but they can be biased. I have read journal articles that reviewed the same literature and came to opposite conclusions. It's all about what they were wanting to prove.

Ever hear of the peppered moth? It was presented in school as a classic evolution proof. Depends on the definition, but it was really only showing selection. No new information was added to the moths. And now, it seems, scientists (or more likely, their sponsors) were trying their best to show something other than the truth. Check out: D.R. Lees & E.R. Creed, Industrial melanism in Biston betularia: the role of selective predation, Journal of Animal Ecology 44:6783, 1975 and a review by Coyne, J.A. (1998). Not black and white. Review of Melanism: Evolution in Action by Michael E.N. Majerus. Nature 396:35-36.

gr 12 years, 1 month ago

So, what are your complaints about those peer-reviewed articles giving support to an Intelligent Designer as outlined in the Bible. I can give you creation journals from scientists with Ph.Ds doing research counted worthy by non-creation journals, but I doubt you would want those.

It's all about the presuppositions you come to the table with. Ask yourself, if God did create us as stated in the Bible; and the devil led Adam and Eve to sin through trusting in the ideas of themselves and deciding they knew more than God; and later, with continual trust in the ideas of man with only 8 being counted as righteous in a world probably only half as populated as ours (and righteousness of those 8 could be questioned, but they did listen to God enough to get on the boat), with the result of their desires to have God to leave them alone and quit bothering them although he continued for 120 more years, a world wide flood resulted, what would you look for?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.