Critics of Intelligent Design Are A Confused Bunch


I’ve noticed that people who criticize Intelligent Design are often enough very confused or ignorant about the theory.

They might point out that many features seem very un-intelligently designed – for example the blind spot in the human eye, or how bees die from stinging even once. What a foolish and unwise Designer!

They might point out the imperfections in life forms – for example cancer and aging and mutations. What a shortsighted and careless Designer!

They might point out the cruelty and horrificness of certain features – for example the sting of a parasitoid wasp that depoists an egg inside a caterpillar, which eventually hatches into a worm that eats the caterpillar alive from the inside out. What an evil and malevolent Designer!

From remarks such as these, I deduce that these critics are confusing Intelligent Design with Christianity.

Intelligent Design doesn’t require an all-surpassingly intelligent Designer – just one intelligent enough to put together the remarkably complex, detailed construct that is life.

Intelligent Design doesn’t require a perfect and infallible Designer – just one who eventually succeeds in designing life.

Intelligent Design doesn’t require that the Designer be good, kind and benevolent and make only cuddly creatures – just that the Designer is intelligent. It ain’t called Friendly Design Theory, if you’ve noticed, duh!

Christianity is the one which requires an omnipotent, omniscient, all-wise, perfect, good and living Creator (i.e. God)… Not Intelligent Design.

Now, many proponents of Intelligent Design may indeed be practising Christians – but that doesn’t make the two one and the same.

After all, most of Lenin’s, Stalin’s, Mao’s and Pol Pot’s communist butchers were atheists, but that doesn’t mean that godless atheism – where man is the supreme moral decider and is not accountable to any higher moral authority – had anything to do with… Oh, wait. Never mind.

So get your facts and heads on straight, you dizzy ignoramuses.

PS. And by the way, if you want to chip in and object that the blind spots, mutations and waspy-chestbursters prove that the Christian God is not perfect and smart and loving – already prepared for ya.


Tags: , , ,

96 Responses to “Critics of Intelligent Design Are A Confused Bunch”

  1. hutchrun Says:

    I was debating an ACLU attorney at Christmas on an NPR station. I pulled out a Xerox copy of The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States and said to her: “Until you answer this book, the ACLU can’t make a case against America’s Christian founding.” She was shocked when she saw it. She asked where I had gotten it. The only thing that gave her relief was the fact that the book was not in print. But now it is.”

    “Be afraid ACLU. Be very afraid. Morris packs The Christian Life and Character with page after page of original source material making the case that America was founded as a Christian nation. The evidence is unanswerable and irrefutable. This 1000-page book will astound you and send enemies of Christianity into shock. Keep in mind that it was published in 1864 and has been out of print for more than a century. It has been newly typeset using a very readable font and added subheads. A new Foreword written by my long-time friend Dr. Archie Jones describes the background of the book and provides a brief biography of the author.” –Gary DeMar (Hardback, 1060 pages)
    http://www.americanvision.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=1770

  2. bobcu Says:

    Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It’s an idiotic childish religious belief. It should be renamed to magical creation. It’s nutty and only bible thumpers believe in it.

    Biological evolution has been accepted by scientists for more than a century. With today’s new powerful molecular evidence for evolutionary relationships, it has become impossible for an educated sane person to deny the facts of evolution.

    hutchrun, your Christian religion is a collection of myths for gullible people who are too cowardly to grow up and face facts. The USA has a secular government. If you have a problem with that, then get out of my country and go live in theocracy like Iran.

  3. Scott Thong Says:

    Oh, scientific fact like spontaneous generation? Or the nonexistence of tectonic plate movements? Maybe you mean like the phlogiston theory of heat or the existence of the luminiferous aether? Or perhaps the four humours understanding of health?

    Oh oh, I know – you must mean ‘debate is over scientific consensus’ like global warming!

    Yup, it wouldn’t do to ever question the accepted facts of science. Only religious imbeciles do that.

  4. Copache Says:

    Must say, this is filled with.. erm.. fecal matter.

    Intelligent design says that life — all of it — was too complex to have arisen by chance and random mutations. That means that the intelligent designer wasn’t evolved and always existed. Does that ring any bells? Any?

    …Any?

    Regardless, even if the “designer” weren’t god, we’d have to study him/her/it. The whole purpose of science is to study things. How do we study the designer itself? If you can answer that — and not say studying his creation is the same as studying him — I’ll give you my commendation and alert the press that it isn’t just a psychotic attempt at getting god in class…

    Even so, how do we test intelligent design? Behe’s commentary that we should grow bacteria in a lab for 10,000 generations to see if it grows a flagellar motor only works to the opposite effect: that would disprove evolution (if you could figure out what the circumstances and conditions were under which the flagellar motor evolved). What we need is something that would prove ID, not disprove evolution.

    You can’t say “evolution doesn’t work, so it must have a designer”, you must say how you know there’s a designer. Did he put a line of text that says “sup -Designer” in our genes? Proof must be provided. This is the same as the creation science goddidit ideas: evolution doesn’t work, so god made it.

    That’s not science, that’s an incredibly ignorant negative argument.

    Respond to all that and don’t evade it like a creationist fringe case, and you’ll have my respect. If not, you’re another creationist shill.

    This, by the way, is all basic information any high school student should know.

  5. Scott Thong Says:

    First up, I personally do not consider Intelligent Design to be hard science – yet. It’s just a theory. But that’s only because it’s still a very young theory, and if people would develop it more in depth instead of trying to push it in/out of classrooms, we might get somewhere.

    ——————————-

    That means that the intelligent designer wasn’t evolved and always existed. Does that ring any bells? Any?

    Hmm, sounds like Cthulhu to me! And everyone knows Lovecraftian Elder Gods are uber evil and slimily mean.

    My point? Similarities aside, Intelligent Design is not synomymous with Christianity.

    ———————————-

    Regardless, even if the “designer” weren’t god, we’d have to study him/her/it. The whole purpose of science is to study things. How do we study the designer itself? If you can answer that — and not say studying his creation is the same as studying him…

    You neglect to consider that we study evolution not by observing it actually happening, but merely studying what it is claimed to have produced – fossils.

    We also study the Big Bang and black holes not by observing them, but merely studying what they produce.

    Yet all of these things are considered hard science. So if that term can be so loosely applied, why not to Intelligent Design where we also can only study what the Designer has produced?

    ———————————-

    What we need is something that would prove ID, not disprove evolution.

    Disproving evolution would be a start, because with evolutionists so firmly entrenched in their view of what constitutes ‘undebatably proven science’, no other theories are even permitted to be discussed.

    And as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said through the character of Sherlock Holmes: “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

    That’s one side of the scientific method coin – disproving certain hypotheses. Is that not how spontaneous generation, luminiferous aether, descent by homunculus and Lamarckian evolution fell out of favour, thereby clearing the way for more suitable theories?

    ———————————

    Related to that, and to the Big Bang/black holes bit, the hyper-intelligent physicists apparently also have to fall back on the ‘God of the gaps’ (your ‘goddidit’ ) argument.

    Physicists Believe in God (Or At Least a Creator or Designer): A Collection of Quotes

    Atheists, agnostics, and lots of PhDs and respect in the scientific community. Care to call them creationist shills too?

    ————————–

    So, un-shill enough for you?

    Why can’t people just accept the valid objections raised by ID – that evolution is not an airtight, rock solid science with most of its holes yet plugged?

  6. Copache Says:

    Hmm, sounds like Cthulhu to me! And everyone knows Lovecraftian Elder Gods are uber evil and slimily mean.

    My point? Similarities aside, Intelligent Design is not synomymous with Christianity.

    ———————————–

    I never said Christianity. I was implying that the designer must be a god. In other words the creator can’t be a physical being and is thus unprovable. If the designer isn’t provable, ID falls apart.

    ———————————–

    You neglect to consider that we study evolution not by observing it actually happening, but merely studying what it is claimed to have produced – fossils.

    ———————————–

    What about the evolution of microbes in the lab? What about the evolution of influenza? What about the evolution of other infectious diseases like H5N1? We can observe that happening.

    Similarly, we can observe the transitional forms in the fossil record. That should be good enough as it shows that there are transitions in nature. Unless you want to claim that god made all animals with transitional forms… Ever heard of Archaeopteryx?

    ————————————

    We also study the Big Bang and black holes not by observing them, but merely studying what they produce.

    ————————————

    Oh my yes! Because the big bang left a huge x-ray afterglow, and there are objects revolving around nothing in space… It must’ve been the designer creating the universe and the designer’s metaphysical trillion testicles influencing the stars and gas that revolve around… nothing.

    ————————————

    Yet all of these things are considered hard science. So if that term can be so loosely applied, why not to Intelligent Design where we also can only study what the Designer has produced?

    ————————————

    Because science only allows natural explanations. A creator certainly isn’t natural. You can’t find this creator in nature. You can’t see him or her, you can’t find it in space somewhere.

    See, the difference is that these predictions are testable occurrences of things that happen in nature. Black holes are physical objects. Evolution makes physical changes in physical objects. Intelligent design says a metaphysical creator made physical things. That’s not science.

    ————————————

    Disproving evolution would be a start, because with evolutionists so firmly entrenched in their view of what constitutes ‘undebatably proven science’, no other theories are even permitted to be discussed.

    ————————————

    Ken Miller himself said no scientific theory is ever proven. He said this during the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial. This is 100% true. Just because evolution is the corner-stone of modern biology, has stood up to 150 years of scrutiny, been tested in countless ways and proven over and over, has applications in modern medicine, etc. doesn’t make it proven. Yeah, no. You’re being intellectually dishonest and you know it.

    Also: there are no other theories to how life got here except evolution by natural selection because there is no other mechanism that can be proven. In fact, ID is probably the only alternative, and that’s not even science. So your assertion is lame, sir.

    ————————————

    And as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said through the character of Sherlock Holmes: “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

    ————————————

    Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, though indeed intelligent, wasn’t a scientist. Therefore, it would be safe to assume he wasn’t speaking of the scientific method. I could say that about murderers and it would be true (which Sherlock Holmes would’ve specialized in), but yet when you shift to science or physics it can sometimes be the opposite. In theoretical physics, some things seem completely impossible, but are possible — theoretically.

    ————————————

    That’s one side of the scientific method coin – disproving certain hypotheses. Is that not how spontaneous generation, luminiferous aether, descent by homunculus and Lamarckian evolution fell out of favour, thereby clearing the way for more suitable theories?

    ————————————

    The thing you’re missing is that if evolution were dispersed tomorrow, ID wouldn’t be the “scientific” alternative. There would be other scientific theories that would step up to take its place and ID would be forgotten… again… because it tells us nothing about what the creator did, how he did it, why he did it, who he is, etc. Science seeks to answer those questions. If you can’t answer those questions this very second, it’s not science.

    You could argue the same for black holes, if it weren’t for the fact that we have good ideals of what, when, how, and why. We have none of that in ID.

    ————————————

    Related to that, and to the Big Bang/black holes bit, the hyper-intelligent physicists apparently also have to fall back on the ‘God of the gaps’ (your ‘goddidit’ ) argument.

    ————————————

    I fail to see how. If certain scientists can’t answer the questions, they should continue trying or hand them off to someone else.

    Explain more on this, please.

    ————————————

    Physicists Believe in God (Or At Least a Creator or Designer): A Collection of Quotes

    Atheists, agnostics, and lots of PhDs and respect in the scientific community. Care to call them creationist shills too?

    ————————————

    What personal beliefs people within the scientific community have is irrelevant: as long as they do science. Ken Miller is a Roman Catholic who often tells the story that the red sox won in 2004 because God wanted them to. He next says you’d be surprised how many people in his area think that’s true — and it may be — but that doesn’t make it science because you can’t test it. Therefore it’s best to assume that their skill and prowess helped them get there and not God. Even though it could, in fact, be true that goddidit.

    Creationism and science aren’t contradictory. Unless you see evolution and the big bang as threats to your person. In which case: WHY IS GOD TRICKING US WITH THIS FALSE EVIDENCE?

    ————————————

    So, un-shill enough for you?

    Why can’t people just accept the valid objections raised by ID – that evolution is not an airtight, rock solid science with most of its holes yet plugged?

    ————————————

    Not un-shill enough for me. In fact, you did exactly the creationist shilling I’d expect!

    The objections raised by ID may, in some cases, be true. There are holes and gaps in evolutionary theory. This is completely undeniable. We’ll never find all the fossils, we’ll never completely decode our genes (or at least to the extent where we would know every detail of human evolution), etc. etc. etc.

    But I think it’s safe to say that the aforementioned 150 years of evolution undergoing scrutiny definitely makes it a rock solid scientific theory. Unless you’d care to explain the evolution of H5N1, influenza, etc. under controlled conditions. Actually, explain why eugenics actually would work! It would, I believe the ancient Greeks were the first to get eugenics going. Far before the time of Hitler. Not only that, but we see its application in farming as well. You breed to get the best, that’s YOU doing the job that NATURAL SELECTION would otherwise do. What about the domesticated dog? Chihuahua dogs have the same ancestor as German Shepherds: the mighty wolves. Yet they look NOTHING like the wolves. Why is this? That’s evolution.

    Finally, as a scientist, you should know never to say “just a theory.”

    Proving once and for all you are a creationist shill, theory is the highest order of science because theories are the method to explain facts. You could say just a theory for many years and no one would care, but it’s time to speak out. Nothing is ever just a theory. In fact, ID is not a theory at all because it doesn’t explain anything. It just says goddidit.

    You flunk your biology class. Ben Stein will be waiting for you in the principal office — you guys are gonna get it!

  7. chillinatthecabstand Says:

    1. There’s no proof for ID
    2. You say it doesn’t need to be an all-intelligent being. It’s called “Intelligent Design.”

  8. Jamie Says:

    But it’s not called “All-intelligent Design”.

  9. C. David Parsons Says:

    THERE IS A NEW DISCIPLINE:

    The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately dethrone the unprofitable Darwinian view.

    The backbone of Darwinism is not biological evolution per se, but electronic interpretation, the tenet that all physical, chemical, and biological processes result from a change in the electron structure of the atom which, in turn, may be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics, as outlined in quantum mechanics. A few of the supporting theories are: degrading stars, neutron stars, black holes, extraterrestrial water, antimatter, the absolute dating systems, and the big bang, the explosion of a singularity infinitely smaller than the dot of an “i” from which space, time, and the massive stellar bodies supposedly sprang into being.

    The philosophy rejects any divine intervention. Therefore, let the philosophy of Darwinism be judged on these specifics: electron interpretation and quantum mechanics. Conversely, the view that God is both responsible for and rules all the phenomena of the universe will stand or fall when the facts are applied. The view will not hinge on faith alone, but will be tested by the weightier principle of verifiable truths – the new discipline.

    The Quest for Right is not only better at explaining natural phenomena, but also may be verified through testing. As a consequence, the material in the several volumes will not violate the so-called constitutional separation of church and state. Physical science, the old science of cause and effect, will have a long-term sustainability, replacing irresponsible doctrines based on whim. Teachers and students will rejoice in the simplicity of earthly phenomena when entertained by the new discipline.

    The Quest for Right is not only an academic resource designed for the public schools, but also contains a wealth of information on pertinent subjects that seminarians need to know to be effective: geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and in-depth Biblical studies. The nuggets from the pages of Biblical history alone will give seminarians literally hundreds of fresh ideas for sermons and teachings. The ministry resources contained in The Quest for Right serve as invaluable aids that will enrich graduates beyond their highest expectations.

    You will not want to miss the adventure of a lifetime which awaits you in Volume 1 of The Quest for Right.

    Visit the official website for additional information: http://questforright.com

    Purchase the book at one of these fine stores: Barnesandnoble.com, Target.com, Borders.com, Booksamillion.com, Tatepublishing.com, and many others. Hardback. In stock.

  10. bobcu Says:

    C. David Parsons = SPAM.

    ID equals god-did-it. It nutty to invoke god because that’s a lazy excuse to not think. ID was invented to make god-did-it look scientific. Some gullible Christians willing to believe anything to justify their belief in supernatural magic accepted intelligent design creationism, but the biologists were not impressed. Real scientists do not like pseudoscience and they were disgusted by the dishonesty of the ID proponents who try to pretend who the designer is doesn’t matter.

    Science is all about disproving things. If a scientist could disprove biological evolution he would instantly become famous. It’s never going to happen. Evolution has been tested for 150 years and it’s now stronger than ever. Only uneducated people think evolution might have problems. Biologists will continue to learn more about the history of life forever. The minor details of evolution will be modified but it’s fair to say the basic facts of evolution will never be disproved, for the same reason the idea that the earth orbits the sun will never be disproved. The evidence for the idea that all life evolved from common ancestors really is overwhelming, and the molecular evidence is extremely powerful.

  11. Scott Thong Says:

    So call me uneducated, and educate me on the following:

    1) How did life arise from non-living chemicals within the too-brief time span from the cooling of the Earth to the date of the first fossils?

    2) How does evolution explain the burst of various, disparate life forms that appeared during the Cambrian Explosion?

    3) How did complex organs that require every single part in order to function evolve gradually by random mutation, when growing just one part would produce no effect and instead waste precious resources – leading to death and loss of that gene?

    4) Why, if bacteria grow and divide at an astonishing pace, has evolution of bacteria into a wholly different life form not yet been demonstrated or even attempted by serious evolutionists?

    5) Why are there so few fossils of transitionary life forms whereas thousands of fossils of boneless, soft-bodied creatures like jellyfish and bacteria have been found?

    6) What molecular evidence is there, apart from your unquoted, unlinked, unexplained references, that clearly shows that evolution actually took place – and not, say, merely shows that certain genetic codes just happen to seem similar?

    I am soooooo uneducated, please rescue me!

    And look, these people are even more uneducated then me. They must be, they ask sooooooo many dumb questions!

  12. Scott Thong Says:

    What about the evolution of microbes in the lab? What about the evolution of influenza? What about the evolution of other infectious diseases like H5N1? We can observe that happening.

    That is merely micro-evolution. All that is happening is pre-existing genes and DNA sequences get reshuffled. The microbes are still microbes – they still have not evolved into the multicellular organisms evolution says they once did.

    How comes evolution into new Classes only seems to be able to happen once and never again in the history of the Earth?

    Similarly, we can observe the transitional forms in the fossil record. That should be good enough as it shows that there are transitions in nature. Unless you want to claim that god made all animals with transitional forms… Ever heard of Archaeopteryx?

    Archaeopteryx? Are you serious?

    Lowe (1935) and Thulborn (1984) questioned whether Archaeopteryx truly was the first bird. They suggested that Archaeopteryx was a dinosaur that was no more closely related to birds than were other dinosaur groups. Kurzanov (1987) suggested that Avimimus was more likely to be the ancestor of all birds than Archaeopteryx. Barsbold (1983) and Zweers and Vanden Berge (1998 ) noted that many maniraptoran lineages are extremely birdlike, and suggested that different groups of birds may have descended from different dinosaur ancestors.Wikipedia, with quotations

    So where are all the transitional fossils? You’d think with the thousands of fossils of soft-bodied creatures like jellyfish, there’d be more. And you’d think with the huuuuuuuge public demand for transitional fossils, museums would put up a display of them or something.

    Unlike that episode of the Simpsons, no such display of countless transitional fossils exists.

    I mean, have you actually ever seen any for yourself?

    The situation is in fact so dire, that evolutionists have to come up with stopgap theories like punctuated equilibrium to explain the noted lack of transitionals. Sounds just like a non-theist ‘god of the gaps’ argument to me.

    Oh my yes! Because the big bang left a huge x-ray afterglow, and there are objects revolving around nothing in space… It must’ve been the designer creating the universe and the designer’s metaphysical trillion testicles influencing the stars and gas that revolve around… nothing.

    You ignored and avoided my point – that we study the huge x-ray afterglow, and not the Big Bang itself. From the afterglow (or rather, the red shifting of the afterglow), we can deduce that such thing as the Big Bang happened and the universe is constantly expanding.

    So why is it any different to study the incredibly intricate thing called life and deduce that it is the afterglow of intentional design?

    Because science only allows natural explanations.

    You confuse science with naturalism – the philosophy that nothing outside of nature exists.

    If you wanted proper science, you would investigate whether naturalism is correct before assuming and believing it to be so.

    See, the difference is that these predictions are testable occurrences of things that happen in nature. Black holes are physical objects. Evolution makes physical changes in physical objects. Intelligent design says a metaphysical creator made physical things. That’s not science.

    ID is testable – it can be disproved merely by demonstrating (or heck, even proposing) a method by which random mutations can result in functional DNA, cells, organs and organisms.

    Just because evolution is the corner-stone of modern biology, has stood up to 150 years of scrutiny, been tested in countless ways and proven over and over, has applications in modern medicine, etc. doesn’t make it proven. Yeah, no. You’re being intellectually dishonest and you know it.

    FYI, I have a BSc in Biology and was once a staunch believer of evolution for decades – until I actually looked at the evidence and holes for myself, instead of taking it for granted that it was undebatably proven.

    I have no philosophical or religious problems with evolution at all. It simply has insufficient proof for me to accept it again yet.

    You claim it is proven over and over – how has it been ever demonstrated?

    Applied in medicine? How does bacteria descending into bacteria demonstrate that bacteria must have once descended into multicellular Eukaryotes – or that it is even possible?

    You can keep thinking I am a moron, or you can try and start explaining specifically why you are convinced by the evidence for evolution. I’ve gone through it all before, and I lost my convincedness from it.

    The thing you’re missing is that if evolution were dispersed tomorrow, ID wouldn’t be the “scientific” alternative. There would be other scientific theories that would step up to take its place and ID would be forgotten.

    Yes! That is exactly why I want evolution to be questioned. Who cares if ID gets thrown out the window? As long as nothing is considered a ‘sacred cow’ where all alternatives and dissent arepersecuted like some Inquisition, then science will be furthered.

    And maybe then evolutionists will feel pressured to start answering some of the objections that they’ve been contentedly ignoring in their hallowed comfy cubbyholes of public acceptance.

    I mean, come on. It’s been 149 years since Darwin’s book and 36 years since Punctuated Equilibrium, and the lack of transitionals is still a problem for evolution? Tea break is over, gentlemen!!!

    I fail to see how. If certain scientists can’t answer the questions, they should continue trying or hand them off to someone else.

    Evolutionists still haven’t explained the problems of how life arose or how complex organs can evolve, but it seems that they’ve just let it slide as if there’s no problem whatsoever.

    These physicists I quoted are by no means lazy morons – they deduce from the evidence that the universe’s parameters are too infinitely precise and improbable to have randomly occured. In others words, they hint at the idea of Intelligent Design for the universe.

    Stephen Hawkins included.

    Creationism and science aren’t contradictory. Unless you see evolution and the big bang as threats to your person. In which case: WHY IS GOD TRICKING US WITH THIS FALSE EVIDENCE?

    Agreed. They can actually be complementary, as I theologically conjectured in The Sin Theory of Evolution.

    But really, what false evidence?

    What about the domesticated dog? Chihuahua dogs have the same ancestor as German Shepherds: the mighty wolves. Yet they look NOTHING like the wolves. Why is this? That’s evolution.

    Correction, that’s micro-evolution. They are still the same bloody species!!! All dogs can still interbreed! Even wolves and dogs can interbreed.

    How does that demonstrate how life forms can evolve into wholly separate species that can’t interbreed?

    In fact, ID is not a theory at all because it doesn’t explain anything. It just says goddidit.

    Evolution says that the complexities if biological life arose from random chance. ID says it arose from intentional design.

    What’s so untestable about that? Just pit the two against each other and see whether life can arise from random chance. If not, evolution is disproven.

    Then see whether life cannot possibly arise other than by intentional design (which means systematically disproving all other methods). If so, then ID is proven.

    Personally, I don’t need to see ID taught in the classroom. It would be dishonest, however, if evolution is taught to students as if it were 100% flawless and proven when it is not.

    The least that one could do is to present a chapter on the yet-unanswered conundrums that evolution still faces.

    Evolution is an elegant theory, one which I admire and have long admired. But currently, I am simply unconvinced of its provenness. That doesn’t mean I am convinced of Intelligent Design either, merely that I also consider it an interesting idea.

    On a side note: What do you think about anthropogenic global warming?

  13. Copache Says:

    This is, sadly, where it ends. The reason lies within one quote which proves once and for all you’ve nothing scientific to back your nonsense:

    Evolutionists still haven’t explained the how life arose or how complex organs can evolve, but it seems that they’ve just let it slide as if there’s no problem whatsoever.

    How life came about isn’t evolution’s job. Evolution tells us that life changed over time. I, again, accuse you of intellectual dishonesty. All the education in the world can’t make you right if you don’t use it properly. Ever seen public debates where Michael Behe is completely destroyed on issues of evolutionary biology because he knows nothing about it? That should be some sort of clue.

    Also, in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case of 2005, Behe complained about there being a lack of evidence on how the immune system evolved. In front of him was placed a stack of 10 to 15 full books, he was asked if he had read them all (he said he hadn’t any of them), and why the explanations presented weren’t good enough for him. That’s ignoring evidence.

    You’re either a good troll, or a bad scientist. You’re being skeptical of the wrong thing.

    …and yes, I’ve personally seen a ton of transitional fossils…

    AT THE MUSEUM! All I had to do was ask where they were and the guide was more than happy to show me where they were. There were several sections, but that day I saw in the range of 50 transitional fossils, including four for one species (that scientists had almost gotten into a fist fight when naming).

  14. Scott Thong Says:

    How life came about isn’t evolution’s job. Evolution tells us that life changed over time. I, again, accuse you of intellectual dishonesty.

    Very well. So where does evolution begin? At the very first life form? Which is what, a single strand of RNA? Too difficult to therorize how that could evolve into anything without any functional mechanisms for adaptation?

    Or would it be at the first cell? That’s easier, right?

    Take evolution further and further back in time, and eventually it has to answer the question of how something with NO capability or mechanism to evolve ever evolved the capability in the first place.

    Not addressing the origin of life is a cop-out for evolution. It allows evolutionists to choose to start at a suitable level of organization where it is easier for random chance to result in complexity, thereby avoiding having to defend more difficult positions such as when random chance can achieve nothing.

    And neither does that excuse the problem of Irreducible Complexity. Which has yet to be addressed. The tea has gone cold, sirs!

    Ever seen public debates where Michael Behe is completely destroyed on issues of evolutionary biology because he knows nothing about it? That should be some sort of clue.

    That Behe was overconfident and under-read? Yes, that’s a big clue there.

    That my own objections are unfounded? Not so much.

    AT THE MUSEUM! All I had to do was ask where they were and the guide was more than happy to show me where they were. There were several sections, but that day I saw in the range of 50 transitional fossils, including four for one species (that scientists had almost gotten into a fist fight when naming).

    Really? Cool. Describe them to us… What features were indicative of their transitional nature?

  15. psiloiordinary Says:

    Science and creationism are not contradictory?

    Well ice-cream and washing machines are not contradictory either, but they are not the same things.

    Creationism is not contradictory with anything at all because god can do anything at all can’t he?

    This is why creationism is not falsifiable and is, in fact, the very antithesis of science.

    Regards,

    Psi

  16. bobcu Says:

    Scott Thong, all your complaints about biological evolution can be translated to this: “I don’t understand therefore god-did-it.”

    If you really were interested in the answers to your questions, you would have done your own research a long time ago. There is science information available for anyone to study on the internet. Perhaps you don’t know where to begin. I often recommend the website below. It’s the biologist Ken Miller explaining evolution at the Dover trial. He’s easy to understand and he makes evolution interesting and exciting. He’s also a Catholic, so perhaps he’s easier for a theist to trust, not that he’s any more honest than an atheist scientist. I have found scientists to be extremely honest. I suppose they have to be honest because all their work is peer-reviewed, but it’s obvious to me they are people who want to be trusted. However, I trust nobody. I study evidence before I accept anything. Here it is. It’s a lot to read, but education can be very rewarding.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day1am2.html

    My time is limited but I would at least like to respond to this:

    “Evolution says that the complexities if biological life arose from random chance. ID says it arose from intentional design.”

    ID says it arose from magical creation. That’s a more honest way of saying it. Magic is a nutty way to explain anything.

    Your “random chance” is incorrect and it’s a very common misconception that creationists have repeated thousands of times before. If evolution depended entirely on random chance, I would doubt it myself. But there’s nothing random about natural selection. Genetics mutations are random and occur with every generation. Some are neutral. Some are harmful and they get eliminated when the animal is unable to reproduce. The beneficial mutations are likely to accumulate because the animal is more likely to survive long enough to reproduce and pass its genes to the next generation. The non-random natural selection of random mutations is what makes evolution work. Small changes accumulate and over vast periods of time will very gradually make a species so different from its ancient ancestor that it can be called a new species. Also, when two groups of animals become separated their descendants many millions of years later are likely to become different species because they evolved differently. Humans and chimps is an example. Anyway, there’s nothing random about natural selection and I wish creationists would stop repeating the “random chance” misconception.

    I hope you and others reading this will take the time to read Ken Miller in the above website, and do some more research. The history of life is a fascinating story, and I have found the more I learn about it, the more I want to learn more.

  17. bobcu Says:

    Fossils help scientists learn how life evolved. The fossils tell a story. Like which features developed first on a transitional species. The creationists have no idea how massive the fossil record is. My favorite fossils are the tiktaalik roseae found on a Canadian island near the Arctic circle. Even more amazing than the fossils was the ability of the scientists to predict the location of these fossils and then find exactly what they were looking for in the exact place they predicted they would be found. It was perhaps one of the most successful scientific discoveries in history. Google “Tiktaalik roseae” for more information. This is your ancestor from 375 million years ago!

    Another thing the creationists don’t understand is the fossils, as impressive as they are, are not even necessary to show evolution is a fact. Even if every fossil disappeared scientists would still have much more powerful evidence for evolutionary relationships in the DNA of living animals including the human ape species. For an example of this massive and extremely powerful evidence google “Endogenous RetroViruses” (ERVs). When identical ERVs are found in the exact same place of the genome of two different species, the only possible explanation is the ERVs were inherited from a common ancestor species. It’s unreasonable to believe a god would magically insert identical ERVs in the exact same place in the genome of two different species to deceive scientists. This lead-pipe molecular evidence makes it impossible for a person who understands this evidence to deny the common ancestry of different species. For example, there can be no doubt that the human apes and chimpanzee apes are distant cousins.

  18. scripto Says:

    “That is merely micro-evolution. All that is happening is pre-existing genes and DNA sequences get reshuffled.”

    And recombined to create novel functions? So what. Where is the dividing line between micro and macro?

    “How comes evolution into new Classes only seems to be able to happen once and never again in the history of the Earth?”

    When was this? This is wrong on so many levels that I can’t believe you are using the same classification system as the rest of the world.

    “You confuse science with naturalism – the philosophy that nothing outside of nature exists.”

    The scientific method employs methodological naturalism. Science is limited to what it does and more importantly it works. What is your alternative?


    ID is testable – it can be disproved merely by demonstrating (or heck, even proposing) a method by which random mutations can result in functional DNA, cells, organs and organisms.”

    Can we use mutation and selection? Consider it disproven then. How about the nylase enzyme?

    “FYI, I have a BSc in Biology… “

    Demand your tuition money back. It didn’t do you any good.

  19. Kierra Says:

    I suggest you take a look at Kevin Padian testimony from Kitzmiller v. Dover for a very good overview of transitional fossils.

    http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/kpslides.html

    “Correction, that’s micro-evolution. They are still the same bloody species!!! All dogs can still interbreed! Even wolves and dogs can interbreed.

    How does that demonstrate how life forms can evolve into wholly separate species that can’t interbreed?”

    Check out “ring species” for a rather dramatic illustration of how animals can evolve to the point where they are unable to interbreed.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

  20. simon thong Says:

    bobcu: name-calling and hubris are unbecoming of someone who implies that he is ‘an educated sane person’. You wrote: it has become impossible for an educated sane person to deny the fact of evolution. Please don’t write things you don’t understand. Are you educated? Not the impression I get from the way you insult the other side of a discussion. You may have been enchanted by the magic of evolutionary theory, and, now its slave, you are unable to see how the leap of faith has taken you from micro-evolution to macro-evolution. The vehicle of that magical transport? The same magical evolutionary theory, the god invoked by name-calling, arrogant so-called educated sane persons. In the process, you may have lost your good manners.

    bobcu: ID equals god-did-it. It nutty to invoke god because that’s a lazy excuse to not think. Let me turn it on its head: It’s nutty to invoke evolution because you are too lazy to think, merely accepting the traditions handed down over the years.

    copache:equally insulting, with the manners of someone in a low-class bar, ever ready to throw the first insult/punch. Your words, “filled with..erm..fecal matter”… And, “This, by the way, is all basic information any high school student should know” are inexplicably crass. High school students? The ones I know, and I have taught enough of them, are unremarkably dumb (and ill-mannered, lacking in social graces). University students? When they come across evolution, they get sucked in so deep they become..erm..almost impossible to free from their arrogant ignorance. Perhaps a large dose of the philosophy of science might save them from impaling themselves repeatedly at the altar of evolution.

    copache, you flunked your etiquette class.

    scripto: Where is the dividing line between micro and macro?

    It is there: micro is within species; macro is across species. Don’t know your definitions? Philo 101, sir. Novel functions? Novel functions do not equal novel species. Confused?

  21. simon thong Says:

    “Critics of………..are a CONFUSED…….” How appropriate.

  22. bobcu Says:

    simon thong, you should pay less attention to my disdain for creationists and more attention to what I said and others here said. Creationists are often called willfully ignorant. You have done nothing to make me think that’s not true.

    I noticed that creationists are a complete waste of time. You have done nothing to prove me wrong.

  23. bobcu Says:

    simon thong, you’re the one who is doing all the insulting here. When you deny the facts of biological evolution, and completely ignore what everyone says here, you are insulting us, and you are insulting the hard work and integrity of tens of thousands of scientists.

    Did you google “Endogenous RetroViruses”?

    Did you google “Tiktaalik roseae”?

    I didn’t think so. Please tell us why you shouldn’t be called lazy and willfully ignorant?

    I think you’re afraid of science. What other explanation could there be for your refusal to study it?

    You know what? You insult the God you believe in. I can’t imagine any gods, but if there was a god I bet it would be as disgusted with your laziness and ignorance as I am.

  24. bobcu Says:

    “copache, you flunked your etiquette class.”

    That’s funny coming from you. You flunked “thinking”. Grammar school students have a better understanding of science than you do. You’re a flat-earther, mister, a disgrace to your country, and a disgrace to your religion.

    flat-earther: One who stubbornly adheres to outmoded or discredited ideas.

  25. bobcu Says:

    “It’s nutty to invoke evolution because you are too lazy to think, merely accepting the traditions handed down over the years.”

    Traditions? Traditions?

    I accept EVIDENCE. You don’t even know what evidence is. Disgusting. Repulsive.

    Creationists are cowards who refuse to grow up and face facts.

  26. Scott Thong Says:

    Scott Thong, all your complaints about biological evolution can be translated to this: “I don’t understand therefore god-did-it.”

    You mistakenly assume I myself am a believer in ID. I am agnostic when it comes to the origin of life and its development.

    My position could more accurately be called: Evolution doesn’t explain everything I require it to, therefore evolution (at its current level of development) did NOT do it.

    My favorite fossils are the tiktaalik roseae found on a Canadian island near the Arctic circle.

    I have raised this objection on my blog before. There is not a series of fossils showing the fish that preceded tiktaalik roseae leading up to it, nor a series of fossils

    It’s just one fossilized organism. How do we know it was not a mutation like the one-eyed kitten or the two-faced human? If aliens dug up just that fossil, they might assume cats evolved from cyclopean mammals.

    How do we know tiktaalik roseae wasn’t a totally independent organism that did not evolve from fish and did not evolve into amphibians?

    That’s one way I have decided I will be firmly convinced of evolution (as I once was) – if the fossil record demonstrates clearly the line of evolution from one Class of life forms to another. No gaps of a hundred million years, no similar features but jumps of ten metres in size.

    When identical ERVs are found in the exact same place of the genome of two different species, the only possible explanation is the ERVs were inherited from a common ancestor species.

    What, you mean the 0.08% of the human genome that happens to look similar to a sequence from a chimpanzee? That’s pretty massive evidence right there, uh huh.

    beneficial mutations are likely to accumulate because the animal is more likely to survive long enough to reproduce and pass its genes to the next generation. The non-random natural selection of random mutations is what makes evolution work. Small changes accumulate and over vast periods of time will very gradually make a species so different from its ancient ancestor that it can be called a new species.

    But that is what Irreducible Complexity objects to. By mutating the genes for producing just a cornea or just a lens, the resulting organism will spend resources growing a non-functional organ. This would be a considered a detrimental mutation and help the creature bearing it to die out.

    It’s unlikely enough that a cornea would ‘non’ randomly evolve and persist long enough to spread to a sizeable enough population. What more the odds of every required part of an eye evolving simultaneously and persisting?

    flat-earther: One who stubbornly adheres to outmoded or discredited ideas.

    No, a Flat Earther is one who believes the Earth is a flat disc.

    By accusing your opponents of being Flat Earthers, you are attempting to portray them as extremely ignorant and stubborn.

    Evolution is not equivalent to the shape of the planet. One can view photographs of the spherical Earth in real time, but after 149 years no one has yet viewed evolution into new life forms happening.

    If evolutionists persist in inaccurately calling Creationists/ID proponents Flat Earthers, then I must respond in kind… You spontaneous generation fanatic.

    Btw, for all your education, you sure don’t have much class. Name calling and condescension as a first resort something Survival of the Fittest dictates too?

    simon thong, you’re the one who is doing all the insulting here. When you deny the facts of biological evolution, and completely ignore what everyone says here, you are insulting us, and you are insulting the hard work and integrity of tens of thousands of scientists.

    One is free to believe what one wishes, last time I checked. That’s why Communist sympathizing groups can exist within a democracy (but seldom vice versa).

    Or are we not free to choose to be idiots?

    Whether one insults ‘tens of thousands of scientists’ is really up to them to object to. Whereas you, bobcu, have been directly attacking me and simon with epithets.

    Not being convinced of evolution, versus calling someone ‘coward, disgusting, repulsive, a disgrace, a flate earther, lazy, ignorant’. Even a elementary school kid can tell which will land you in the principal’s office.

    So and so may be ignorant, and that’s his or her fault. But it’s totally your pregorative whether to call him or her a moronic imbecile.

  27. Scott Thong Says:

    “How comes evolution into new Classes only seems to be able to happen once and never again in the history of the Earth?”

    When was this? This is wrong on so many levels that I can’t believe you are using the same classification system as the rest of the world.

    By this I mean, single-celled organisms were supposed to have evolved into multi-cellular organisms some time in the distant past. Fish were supposed to have evolved into amphibians.

    Why is it then, when we still have single-celled organisms and fish today, that we cannot see them in the process of evolving into new organisms? Did macro-evolution cease some time in the past?

    And with the by-the-minute rate of bacterial reproduction, don’t tell me that a proper lab experiment can’t be run for long enough (over decades) to demonstrate that happening.

    (That would be good evidence for me, btw.)

    And by macro/micro, I mean this: Micro evolution is adaptations within a species. Macro is the transition to a totally new species, one recognizably different as perhaps even a whole new Class (example: Poriphera and Cnidaria).

    And dogs are still dogs. Weird huh, even with man’s Intelligence attempting to speed up the process of evolution?

  28. Scott Thong Says:

    I suppose I can summarize my views like this: What you may consider solid proof of evolution, I consider as liquid circumstancial evidence.

    What would convince me of evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt is either:

    A) Fossil record showing clearly the transitions between two Classes of life, for example fish–>amphibian. Just one lone fossil with no peers (e.g. Archaeopteryx) won’t do – I could dismiss it as a fluke, perhaps an organism that resembles dinos and birds but is descendant/ancestor to neitehr

    B) A modern demonstration of evolution into a new life form in progress, for example single-celled bacteria evolving into multicellular life. Throw in radiation and carcinogens too, for all I care, just make those things evolve!

    If my requirements don’t match your expectations, well, so be it. It’s not the edge of the world and all of Western civilization. What does my ignorance affect in practical life, anyway?

    I will still take my whole prescription of antibiotics to avoid adaptation of the bacteria. I will still explain the theory of evolution if asked, even if I don’t believe it (just as how I can explain Greek mythology to you but not be a worshipper of Zeus).

    WHY the outrage, the indignance, the religious fervor over my views? You’re acting like I’m some sort of heretic or infidel or blasphemer. Since when did it become idolatry punishable by stoning to not bow down and worship evolution?

    Honestly, the Crusaderish, Jihad-against-the-unbelievers attitude you guys are demonstrating… I can only find a comparable level of witch hunting from the global warming Grand Inquisitors.

  29. ruyom Says:

    UMNO Boleh Masuk Kubur – DAP!
    http://forum.mykmu.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=16899&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

    Strategi peminggiran orang melayu oleh orang cina
    http://forum.mykmu.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=16736&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

    PECAHBELAHKAN DAP!
    http://forum.mykmu.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=16847&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

    MCA PN DH SENADA DGN DAP? X RESPECT KETUANAN MELAYU?
    http://forum.mykmu.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=16832&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

    mari MENGENAL ASAL-USUL KAUM CINA (DAP)
    http://forum.mykmu.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=16933&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

  30. Scott Thong Says:

    Eh ruyom, I think you missed the post you might have wanted to comment on:

    Malaysian Politics Motivational Poste

  31. Ramachandran Says:

    Haha you got a BN troll here looks like advertsing its silliness. I read Terry`s books, apparently trolls can only think a wee bit better when it is very cold. Antarctica is best I would say.

  32. wits0 Says:

    These UMNOputra mindless trolls are like viagra/cialis/fake watch spammers. They don’t care where they defecate.

  33. scripto Says:

    “It is there: micro is within species; macro is across species. Don’t know your definitions? Philo 101, sir. Novel functions? Novel functions do not equal novel species. Confused?

    Yep. That would be a great definition if there was an agreed upon definition of species rather than defining it as a group of reproductively isolated organisms for classification purposes. Then there is the problem of the paleontological evidence which shows quite different groups of species 10, 50 or a 100 million years ago. Go back 65 million years and all placental mammals looked like shrews. Either somebody decided to created entire new groups of species every million years or so or we are looking at descent with modification.

    Novel functions and changes in regulatory genes could, over time, cause speciation in populations isolated either ecologically or geographically from the parent population. What’s to stop it?

  34. scripto Says:

    “A modern demonstration of evolution into a new life form in progress, for example single-celled bacteria evolving into multicellular life

    You want fries with that?

  35. simon thong Says:

    bobcu: Oh ho, feel insulted, do you? Don’t like it when the boot is on the other foot? Then learn to think with your brain and write AFTER connecting brain to hand, and you won’t sound as if you have foot-in-the-mouth disease. It would make your arguments less unpalatable. Also, don’t be presumptuous. Apply labels to yourself. I am neither ‘creationist’ nor ‘evolutionist’. But I detest arrogance, which is unforgivable even in the best scientists. “A little knowledge is dangerous but a great deal of knowledge makes for arrogance.”

    scripto: “That would be a great definition if there was an agreed upon definition of species rather than defining it as a group of reproductive isolated organisms for classification purposes.” Did you just shoot yourself in the foot? Isn’t “a group of……..purposes” an agreed upon definition? If scientists did not have an agreed upon definition of species, how have we managed to come this far? Especially in this debate where arguments are convoluted and emotional detachment a rare commodity.

    Don’t splash boiling hot oil on yourself when you’re frying the potato chips.

  36. Scott Thong Says:

    I’ll admit this much: Apart from evolution, there are no other processes that have been validly proposed as a method by which life arose and reached its present diversity.

    If Not Evolution, Then What Alternative For God Creating Life?

    Just because I am not convinced (yet) of the proof for evolution, doesn’t mean I’m so closed minded as to discount it outright. Nor does it mean I am some fanatic who rejects the truth just because I personally don’t like it.

  37. scripto Says:

    Simon,

    The point being that the term species is a matter of convenience for classification and there is debate about what the term entails. Special creation or Intelligent Design has to account for the historical fossil record. What possible alternative is there to descent with modification? The majority of organisms that have ever existed are now extinct. What was that, practice?

  38. simon thong Says:

    Scripto, while there is some truth in the term “species” being a matter of convenience, it is probably more accurate to consider it a functional definition, very much a case of “it is as it does (for scientists)”. A consequence of that is that there is general agreement as to its meaning. Put succinctly, it functions as a definition. I suspect, when the dust clears, we may see that we agree in this.

    “The majority of organisms that have ever existed are now extinct. What was that, practice?” I won’t answer that. Not being a believer in creationism, I don’t presume to argue its case.

    I affirm that “God created the heavens and the earth”. That is a statement of faith, a theological statement. It is argued that if it is true that God is Creator of the universe, there ought to be evidence of this. OUGHT TO BE. That is not a factual statement but an imperative statement. God, if he is creator, ought to…That, of course is presumptuous of us. That’s why I am not a creationist. In scientific method, I’m agnostic.

    As for evolution, there is the adaptation of species. More interesting to me is the adaptation of man, through the use of culture and specifically, through technology. Man ADAPTS HIS environment to himself. Other species ADAPT TO their environment, and if they make changes, these are infinitesimally insignificant when put in the light of man’s massive changes.

    Back to evolution. It is the only view that fits all the evidence for changes within species. Such changes occur within species, micro-evolution. I have no qualms about that. However, I have grappled with macro-evolution for 4 decades. The theory of evolution was examined as a philosophical theory for its postulation that the simplest organism eventually became the most complex, man. Today, it is known as evolutionism. This, I not so much reject as find little sympathy for. But being scientifically agnostic, I am open to persuasion (yes, persuasion). Your last three postings are of this category, and thus, find resonance in my thoughts.

    Check this out: I am someone who affirms that God is Creator, finds Creationism unappealing, accepts micro-evolution but am unsympathetic to evolutionism. Holding these seemingly conflicting views, I am not in conflict within myself. I have been told that I ought to be internally fragmented. Ought to be again. Sigh………..What appeals to me is persuasive reasoning, not obfuscating criticism, especially the ad hominem kind. So, persuade me, reason with me. No blunt instruments like hammers and bludgeons. Try a scalpel for precision and depth. For wounding to the core, I may add. 🙂

  39. scripto Says:

    Simon,

    “The majority of organisms that have ever existed are now extinct. What was that, practice?” I won’t answer that. Not being a believer in creationism, I don’t presume to argue its case.

    I think it still deserves an answer, at least an alternate theory to descent with modification. If species are not immutable then micro-evolution as defined has no meaning and evolution is just evolution. If they are not, any alternate theory must account for the vast number of extinct species and the apparent progression in the fossil record.

    I don’t know if we are the most complex life form that has ever existed on the planet but we certainly are unique. I think you are on to something regarding our ability to lift ourselves off wheel of life and away from the brutal forces of selection. Sometimes I’m proud to be human. Sometimes not.

  40. wits0 Says:

    Simon Thong:
    “The theory of evolution was examined as a philosophical theory for its postulation that the simplest organism eventually became the most complex, man. Today, it is known as evolutionism. This, I not so much reject as find little sympathy for.”

    I share your rejection on this. It’s a theory postulated in the mold of Jules Verne’s SF, ‘Journey to the Moon”, where a giant gun can fire your (giant bullet)spacecraft to the Moon!

    Among other things, the age of Science in the era of starched beards had severe limitation. Why do people sometimes still cling to such ‘milestone’ which actually is a millstone? The answer is quite obvious.

  41. Simon Thong Says:

    Yea, Scripto, am alternate theory is long overdue but I don’t expect to live long enough to see it. Nothing over the horizon…….

    We all need our psychological crutches, witsO, and evolutionists are as human as any other person. Remember Linus’ security blanket in the Peanuts cartoon strip? Evolutionists need security, too. Starched beards cling onto their milestones/security blankets.

    My Philosophy professor, in 1973, confessed to me that logic could carry her only so far. On lonely nights, logic was no comfort but it was all she had then. A very thin security blanket.

  42. C. David Parsons Says:

    Darwin was a HOMOSEXUAL, so that makes EVOLUTION a HOMOSEXUAL theory, is that really what you want taught to your kids?

  43. Simon Thong Says:

    Please substantiate your statement, “Darwin was a HOMOSEXUAL”. Any link you could refer me to?

  44. moriahbethany Says:

    Here is the thing, if you are going to try and poke holes in something that has evidence backing it you need to come up with better evidence. Here is more fodder for you. During the federal trial that decided whether or not intelligent design should be taught in science classes along side evolution the judge( previous proponent of intelligent design) became convinced that intelligent design and creationism are the same and should not be taught in schools. Here is why. Intelligent design “scientists” could not convince the judge that intelligent design IS science. The defense also managed to get a hold of paperwork from the company that introduced the concept of intelligent design that had changed the word creationism to intelligent design. Even they didn’t believe it. As one scientist put it” these theories are not things I came up with in my head after too much coffee,they require evidence. Evolution requires evidence, intelligent design doesn’t. So it isn’t science. Sorry but the right to free speech doesn’t mean that all opinions are equal.😉

  45. Scott Thong Says:

    Then how come global warming is deciding policy worth trillions? ;P

    I don’t argue that Intelligent Design should be taught as a science or even that it is not Creationism. I’m merely pointing out that one can be a non-JudeoChristian and believe in Intelligent Design.

    So yes, you have a good argument, but one that doesn’t address my post at all.

  46. moriahbethany Says:

    Ok, fine.not the same as creationism. You appear to be describing theism except for your last P.S. paragraph which says verbatum ” If you want to chip in and object that the blind spots, mutations, and waspy chest-bursters prove that the CHRISTIAN God is not perfect, smart, and loving, already prepared for ya. I object. Obviously this is religious for you. Fine. I can’t prove that there isn’t an intelligent creator, but I have seen evidence (fossil records, genetic information) that has convinced me that evolution works. I wouldn’t choose to argue semantics with you about whether or not God is a good guy. Rather, if intelligent design is not a faith based argument for you I would ask that you properly research evolution then place the two side by side and compare the evidence. Complexity, is not evidence. It is the same way you get genetic information from your parents, if you happen to develope a mutation that is benificial to your survival, you will have more offspring and pass the trait along. A white moth lives in a forest, if a mutation occurs and some moths are born black they can better fit into the surroundings. It’s a simple concept with fossil records to show the progression. Also, before you decide to go there. Don’t worry, you didn’t come from a monkey. Monkies and humans share common ancestors. I have made it a point to go out and research evidence and opinions of those opposite of mine, including intelligent design. But there isn’t enough evidence for it, so as an old friend used to say, “I don’t wear the T-shirt”. The exciting thing about evolution and science in general is that there are reasons for everything, to me it makes life more special not less to know how everything happened. Your answer is to a different question entirely, you want to know why.

  47. moriahbethany Says:

    I read back on some of your previous posts and I’m starting to think you’re playing devils advocate a little bit. Check out “Becoming Human” on NOVA or OPB. It’s fascinating.

  48. Ron Says:

    Hey, I agree with you Scott. By all means, let’s expose students to the Intelligent Design theory.

    Instructor: An Intelligent (albeit slightly less than perfect) Designer Did It! Any questions?

    Student: Wow!! Great!! That’s easy. When’s recess?

    Instructor: Not so fast. We still have a lot of ground to cover. When I said ‘albeit slightly less than perfect’ I really meant he messed up… BADLY!! The first semester will highlight man’s achievements in fixing up some of his mistakes, and the second will review all the areas we’re still working on. So buckle up — this will be an intense course with lots of homework.

    Class (groans in unison): God, I hate this class!!!

  49. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Robert..and Ron, I would like to confirm with you a simple question about Darwin’s Evolution. In Evolution process, many things keep evolving or developing to their more modern variations or shapes, new species/ creatures.. over times. Is it true ? TQ

  50. Simon Thong Says:

    Correction:
    Instructor:The first semester will highlight man’s attempts to correct his OWN mistakes. And the second will focus on what has happened ever since scientists played god.

  51. Scott Thong Says:

    Obviously this is religious for you. Fine. I can’t prove that there isn’t an intelligent creator, but I have seen evidence (fossil records, genetic information) that has convinced me that evolution works. – moriahbethany

    For the, the fossil record was unconvincing. However, the DNA evidence is quite satisfactory.

    A white moth lives in a forest, if a mutation occurs and some moths are born black they can better fit into the surroundings. It’s a simple concept with fossil records to show the progression.

    But how does a flying insect arise from a flightless insect? How did the wings evolve stage by stage and part by part? Or the process by which the cocoon is spun or the larva metamorphosizes into the imago? How would an individual that only evolved one part of the process but not the others – say, only the weaving cocoon part but not the escaping from the cocoon part – survive to pass on its different genetic information?

    That is irreducible complexity’s question.

  52. Scott Thong Says:

    Instructor: Not so fast. We still have a lot of ground to cover. When I said ‘albeit slightly less than perfect’ I really meant he messed up… BADLY!! The first semester will highlight man’s achievements in fixing up some of his mistakes, and the second will review all the areas we’re still working on. So buckle up — this will be an intense course with lots of homework. – Ron

    https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/11/22/the-sin-theory-of-evolution-reconciling-evolution-creationism-and-intelligent-design/

    Which basically expands on what Simon said.

  53. Scott Thong Says:

    Btw, WordPress filter sucks. Apart from holding perfectly innocuous words for moderation because a$$ is in them, it also okayed a comment which used the uncensored N-word – although I specifically included that word as a flag.

  54. Ron Says:

    Scott Thong Says:

    https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/11/22/the-sin-theory-of-evolution-reconciling-evolution-creationism-and-intelligent-design/

    “Which basically expands on what Simon said.”

    Sorry Scott, a religious defense is not permitted. Remember what you wrote? To whit:

    “Now, many proponents of Intelligent Design may indeed be practising Christians – but that doesn’t make the two one and the same.”

    Furthermore, the doctrine of “original sin” is rejected by Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, and several Christian denominations.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

  55. Ron Says:

    Scott Thong Says:

    “But how does a flying insect arise from a flightless insect? How did the wings evolve stage by stage and part by part? Or the process by which the cocoon is spun or the larva metamorphosizes into the imago? How would an individual that only evolved one part of the process but not the others – say, only the weaving cocoon part but not the escaping from the cocoon part – survive to pass on its different genetic information?”

    Science journals on lepidoptera would be your best bet for finding the answers to these questions.

  56. Simon Thong Says:

    Science journals miss the point or, more likely, avoid the issue. Where are ALL the in-betweens, the many unsuccessful versions? And there should be fossils in their MILLIONS.

  57. Ron Says:

    GIYF. A quick search yields several peer-reviewed journals addressing exactly those issues. Seek and ye shall find.

  58. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Ron, If you have time, PLEASE visit Chicago Natural Museum to find out something. I visited the said Museum in 1994 and was suprised over the very evidences. One, the palm leaf found in a cross-cut of a solid rick. The other, a so-called “primitive” fishbone, also found in the other solid rock. These two things..actually look EXACTLY THE SAME with today’s palm leaf we have in our ‘backward’ today ..NO DIFFERENT AT ALL ! You know how old are those fossils the labels said ? – Seventy millions years old! Therefore, evidently..NO CHANGES whatsoever took place in 70 millions yrs old..?? No, changes, no evolvements, no nothing ! I have the photo taken myself (untill now I keep it with me). Pls. go and watch it yourself Ron, Robert..

    But the probalble lies in “evolution” stories would definitely go on. “Err..”evolution would take turn, take place NOT in every 70 millions yrs, but 71 millioons (prabably that you’ll hear later. Or..every 1 trillion years ??

    Just imagine..not 70 yrs, not 1 million yrs..but 70 million yrs..nothing has changed indeed.

    I don’t think mammoth was the ‘forefathers’ of the current elephants. They are the different species ! Mammoth had extinct, like dinosaurs.

    The flying insects..you probably mistaken it friends, some of they TRULY turned wingless at certain stage, and then (EXACTLY the same insect) then ‘developes’ to be with wings – NOT ‘evolution’ but their developmets stages I think. You may check it with an entomologist. Don’t be mistaken..we have this insects in our environment, in Malaysia and maybe many other places as well.

    Muslims believe in evolution. DNA or genes also. But ALL are made by God, God’s things, NOT evolution ‘by itself’ per se.

  59. mamut Says:

    Woolly Mammoth DNA Reveals Elephant Family Tree

    December 20, 2005

    Geneticists have sketched out the woolly mammoth’s family tree using ancient DNA found preserved in Siberia.

    The extinct beasts are more closely related to Asian elephants than to African elephants, the researchers found, and the three species diverged within a surprisingly short period of time.
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1220_051220_mammoth.html

  60. Scott Thong Says:

    Sorry Scott, a religious defense is not permitted. Remember what you wrote? To whit:

    “Now, many proponents of Intelligent Design may indeed be practising Christians – but that doesn’t make the two one and the same.”

    Do not follow ur logicses.

    Not all ID proponents are practising Christians, but some are, and I happen to be one of them. So why shouldn’t I have my own theory syncretizing creationism, ID and evolution?

    Furthermore, the doctrine of “original sin” is rejected by Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, and several Christian denominations.

    So call me a cultist. I’m a stray brethren to the Roman Catholics anyway.

  61. Ron Says:

    Scott Thong Says:

    “Do not follow ur logicses.

    Not all ID proponents are practising Christians, but some are, and I happen to be one of them. So why shouldn’t I have my own theory syncretizing creationism, ID and evolution?”

    You can conjure up any theory you like, but religious dogma isn’t allowed in the classroom on account of rules regarding separation of church and state.

  62. Ron Says:

    Nasaei, your questions about transitional fossils are so common that there’s an entire FAQ devoted to the topic:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

  63. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Ron, Robert. Let us check with a scientist..the issue of the existence of the first ever creature billion of yrs ago..I mean is it CONFIRMED by modern science..anything could appear from nothingness ? Or..an non life can suddenly turn, or become a life creature ? Ever proven in the labs or so ?

    Related to the same topic, last time I did ask our freiends here also about the origin of gene/ DNA/ RNA. Let us think:

    1—2—3—4 descendants of any living things that contains DNA. Of course we say 4 gets his DNA from his parent 3; 3 gets it from 2, and 2 from 1. Imagine 1 was the FIRST EVER CRETURE some billion of years ago. Where did it get its DNA from ?

    We (theists) believe 1 (and its chemical components) was created, made vailable by God, definitely. We believe in DNA like you do..

    I wonder also..thinking that the mass weight of the planet East is so large..extremely big, huge. Until today.. Earth is ‘hanging’ in the air (atmosphere/space). The amount of matters, water, soil, rock etc in it..

    Not to mention how big is palanet Antares (some hundreds time bigger than Earth, Sun AND…million og other planets/ stars. We should be confirmed of their origin before the all ‘sprang into existence long, long tiime ago. From where those huge amount og mass/matter originate..before they stop, exist at where they are now..if not created by
    by the Creator.

    Again.. CAN ITSELF (anything) CREATES ITSELF before itself used to be availabe (exists) first ??

    I agree, we of course do not have all the answers,, but can you please check with scientist..like Stephen Hawkings for instance..to confirm them ?

    This is for all of us here to try to understand/ learn. TQ

  64. Scott Thong Says:

    GIYF. A quick search yields several peer-reviewed journals addressing exactly those issues. Seek and ye shall find. – Ron

    But then what would all my commentors be for?

  65. Scott Thong Says:

    You can conjure up any theory you like, but religious dogma isn’t allowed in the classroom on account of rules regarding separation of church and state. – Ron

    So can we kick global warming out of the curriculum now?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/oxfordshire/8339652.stm

    Or do we have to wait till Son of Kyoto-Copenhagen has leeched ten trillion out of the world economies, CO2 levels are double what they are today anyway, the term Climategate is affixed to sixty separate locations, and the Winter Olympics are being held in Honolulu?

  66. Ron Says:

    How does global warming factor into a discussion on ID? Seems to be a non sequitur to me.

    “But then what would all my commentors be for?”

    I hope you’re being facetious. The likelihood of someone with real expertise about the topic stumbling across your blog and becoming motivated enough to actually respond is slim to none. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting.

  67. Ron Says:

    Nasaei, the theory of how life originated on earth is called abiogenesis:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

    Regrettably, I am unable to answer your questions because I am just a scientific layman. A proper response would require in-depth knowledge of many fields, such as: astronomy, physics, paleontology, biology, chemistry, archeology, oceanography, and geology — just to name a few.

    My recommendation is to visit websites which delve further into those topics.

  68. Scott Thong Says:

    I know a webcomic on that:

    https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/autobot-atheist/

    On commentors, I meant that they provide me with all sorts of useful facts and links that I often never knew existed.

    FACT: A commentor bashing Ann Coulter on some blog is what introduced me to her writings.

  69. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Thanks for the concise reply Ron. Hopefully we will continue serching for the clearer or absolute answers (from the scientists, and religious scholars) ..and at this point, we should not yet say: ‘God is not the creator’ ..untill we knew better.

    I guess we are living in ‘shroud of mysteries’ – from the beginning of our existence long, long time ago..till now. As far as I’m concerned, religions definitely deal with reality, AND with mysteries (Quran called it the “unseen” that you may not believe..and unxplained by physics/ science). God knows best !

  70. Simon Thong Says:

    “A quick search yields several peer-reviewed journals addressing exactly those issues.” You must be easily satisfied, a surprise considering how you wish to come across as rigorous in scientific method, scientific layman that you are. As for one of the people with real expertise stumbling upon this blog..would he “condescend to leave his ivory tower and mix with the “unwashed masses” since we are no longer in awe of him? Would we take his word for it, he being a scientist, when we question scientists as to their objectivity and logical reasoning? Especially when they mix philosophy with science (evolutionists) or climate and business (global warming alarmists)?

  71. Simon Thong Says:

    I studied biology, physics and chemistry from 1965. Loved biology due to an excellent teacher in high school, a humble man who was both christian and scientist. Went on to university to study philosophy, focussing on the philosophy of the natural sciences. Studied sociology, and taught it, with emphasis on the philosophy of the social sciences. Haven’t been impressed by scientists’ claims since. If they showed reasonable proof, good for them but hidden agendas abounded then, and more so today, with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake in the case of global warming alarmism. Peer reviews? Sorry, not to be taken at face value. Peers have sometimes turned out to be in cahoots, sharing the loot.

  72. hahahaha Says:

    “religions definitely deal with reality, AND with mysteries”

    Father & Son


  73. Simon Thong Says:

    and atheists should never mess around with such…

  74. hahahaha Says:

    Don`t believe in that crap

  75. hahahaha Says:

    Djinn or Djinnee
    http://www.logoschristian.org/jinn.html

  76. Simon Thong Says:

    whether you believe in it or not doesn’t matter..it’s not as certain as gravity but it’s real enough in its consequences..

  77. hahahaha Says:

    Good for those who believe in it hence “real enough in its consequences” which is why many have been put to death as the other side “believes”.

  78. hahahaha Says:

    The only hell is on earth where “believers” work hard to show the “truth”

  79. Ron Says:

    Scott Thong Says:

    “On commentors, I meant that they provide me with all sorts of useful facts and links that I often never knew existed.

    FACT: A commentor bashing Ann Coulter on some blog is what introduced me to her writings.”

    Scott, it’s called “Faux News” for a good reason.
    I’d seek out more reliable sources.

  80. merci bluez Says:

    “I’d seek out more reliable sources.”

    Heck, Al Jazeera most reliable

  81. merci bluez Says:

    News Corp chief Rupert Murdoch announced on Tuesday that the Gulf emirate of Abu Dhabi is to become the headquarters of his global media empire in the Middle East.

  82. merci bluez Says:

    Hezbullah accuses the United States embassy in Beirut of running a state within a state.

    Following the publication of an item in the Lebanese daily Al-Safir stating that the U.S. Embassy in Beirut had asked elements in Lebanon to give it information about Lebanon’s communications network, MP Nawaf Al-Musawi, from Hizbullah, said that the embassy was operating as a state within a state, and was maintaining private militias.

    Hashem Safi Al-Din, chairman of Hizbullah’s executive council, said that the American intelligence and security infiltration was more dangerous for Lebanon security than Israel.

    I guess Big Satan is still more dangerous than Little Satan.

  83. Ron Says:

    Yes Simon, I’m just a simple layman. I’m willing to acknowledge my limitations and admit that I don’t possess all the answers. Would you rather I pretend otherwise? Which is why I advised you to search out the sources for yourself. The information is readily available to anyone who’s open-minded enough to look for it.

    My comment about stumbling across the site had nothing to do with condescension. The simple reality is that experts in any discipline aren’t inclined to scour the net looking for questions, concerns, or inaccuracies posted on blog sites. Doing so would be time-consuming and counterproductive.

    And whoever told you that scientists are unbiased? They’re human and subject to the same foibles and irrational impulses as anyone else, Which is precisely why the peer-review process exists — to weed out the charlatans, frauds and glory-seekers. Is it perfect? Hell no! What is? However it’s a start, and the papers are open to review by anyone who wishes to challenge them. Can the same be said of religious texts?

  84. Simon Thong Says:

    Methinks we agree in many things. But there isn’t anything new or decisive from scientists about the lack of evidence from fossils. It’s the same thing rehashed.

  85. Scott Thong Says:

    Scott, it’s called “Faux News” for a good reason.
    I’d seek out more reliable sources. – Ron

    Oh? And here I was under the impression that the George Mason University Centre for Media and Public Affairs found Fox the most balanced, Public Policy Polling found it the most trusted, and Center for Media and Public Affairs found it (again) the most balanced.

    But thanks for setting me straight!

  86. Ron Says:

    From the wikipedia link:

    CMPA founder, Dr. S. Robert Lichter, once held a chair in mass communications at the American Enterprise Institute and was a Fox News contributor.

    So the man who runs the CMPA and works for Fox News conducted a survey which concluded Fox News was the most balanced.

    Nah, no conflict of interest there.

  87. Scott Thong Says:

    Heard that one before. Know the saying ‘The one eyed man is king in the land of the blind?

    Well, the network that criticizes Obama semi-regularly is fair and balanced in the land of the land of Obama-worshipping networks.

  88. Ron Says:

    If that’s your sole criterion for measuring standards of excellence in journalism, then perhaps it’s time you raised the bar a little.

    Sadly, your viewpoint reflects the norm.

    America has become a land of bread and circuses. Serious news reporting has been replaced with a steady pablum of celebrity gossip, useless trivia, and pre-packaged sound bites. Nothing of importance is ever discussed in-depth. Viewpoints are polarized along party lines. Debate and analysis is presented as a stage performance in which political opponents try to outscore each other with their talking points. And of course everything is condensed to fit in between commercial breaks.

    As I see it, American civilization is in a state of decline and the Democrat vs. Republican dichotomy represents little more than two sides of a devalued social currency.

    Meanwhile, Nero fiddles while Rome burns.

  89. Scott Thong Says:

    If that’s your sole criterion for measuring standards of excellence in journalism, then perhaps it’s time you raised the bar a little. – Ron

    So Ron, would you care to share with us why you consider Fox News to be inaccurate, misleading or etc.?

    As I see it, American civilization is in a state of decline and the Democrat vs. Republican dichotomy represents little more than two sides of a devalued social currency.

    What would your solution be? Whether practical or impractical at this current time.

  90. Ron Says:

    Scott Thong Says:

    “So Ron, would you care to share with us why you consider Fox News to be inaccurate, misleading or etc.?”

    Did you miss the long paragraph I wrote starting with the word America? That observation applies to all MSM, not just Fox in particular. But if you want specific examples of blatant bias on Fox, watch O’Reilly, Hannity, and Beck.

    “What would your solution be? Whether practical or impractical at this current time.”

    Benjamin Franklin is quoted to have said that the Founding Fathers had given us “a republic, if you can keep it.”

    Well, we haven’t. The only way that America can regain that vision is if its citizens abandon the mistaken notion that big government is the solution to all of life’s problems.

  91. Scott Thong Says:

    But if you want specific examples of blatant bias on Fox, watch O’Reilly, Hannity, and Beck. – Ron

    If you’re citing talk show hosts, then there are plenty of far-left ones on the other networks like Matthews, Olbermann and The View ladies. Audiences are expected to know that talk shows are highly opinionated. (Quick test method: Tea Partiers never refer to themselves as ‘Teabaggers’ which is condescending and somewhat lewd, if the host is calling them that, you know that he’s rabidly opposed to them.)

    But how about the ‘real news’? Audiences expect that ‘real news’ is fair, unbiased and accurate. How does Fox measure up to that standard, especially when compared to incidents like MSNBC cropping out the race of the guy with an assault weapon in order to push their angle of ‘racism’ at Tea Parties, and the non-coverage of news items that go against the narrative (e.g. Climategate and Van Jones) until long after the fact.

    If you want to extend the discussion to print media, you have things like Time’s 16 Obama covers in 2008:

    https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/time-magazines-2008-obama-worship/

    The totally different measuring rods used for Bush and Obama on the same things:

    https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/presidential-double-standards-bush-and-obama-given-different-treatment-on-same-issues/

    And the media intentionally omitting the Obama/socialist/Democratic leanings of George Sodini, Amy Bishop and Joe Stack, etc. In fact, the in-thing today is to somehow link the murderer’s actions to the Tea Parties by any stretch, plausible or otherwise. (Do you need citations?)

    There’s even a game we have. Whenever a politician is involved in a scandal, does his affiliation appear in the news article? If it doesn’t, chances are he’s a Democrat! Even if it’s listed as (R), he may still actually be a Democrat! (e.g. Rangel, Spitzer)

    https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/name-that-party-msm-almost-always-omits-mention-democrat-party-affiliation-of-convicted-politicians/

    Can I say this? Liberals feel Fox is unbalanced and biased because it carries criticisms of Obama and Democrats. They do not notice any bias in CNN, MSNBC or other networks because these do not carry attacks on Obama and the Democrats. Even unhinged hosting or reporting on Bush, Palin or Tea Parties goes unnoticed because it matches the liberal audience’s preconceived notions, and is therefore ‘accurate’.

    By the same token, Conservatives are the only ones who notice the bias on CNN et al because the attacks are aimed at Conservative values and personalities.

    Well, we haven’t. The only way that America can regain that vision is if its citizens abandon the mistaken notion that big government is the solution to all of life’s problems.

    Wait, just to be clear… You support small government?

  92. Ron Says:

    “Wait, just to be clear… You support small government?”

    I advocate for a free market economy with limited government.

    Details here:

    http://mises.org/etexts/classical.asp

  93. Simon Thong Says:

    Peanut Butter, The Atheist’s Nightmare!
    http://www.youtube.com

  94. Simon Thong Says:

    Peanut Butter, The Atheist’s Nightmare!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

  95. Zack T Says:

    I would like to submit to you that you can’t prove that Intelligence exist in the first place. You can’t see/touch/feel/smell it, nor prove its existence… but yet you can measure intelligence, through subjective questions and answers quizzes and such…

    I also submit that you can’t prove the existence of a person’s sense of humor. You can’t slice any piece out and then examine it under a microscope…
    yet we know we all have some level of sense of humor…

    You also can’t prove the existence of Mathematics… Yet still, we all believe Mathematics are real, nevertheless, and we use maths in almost every aspects of our lives.

    And yet here, from some of the comments, we are to believe that Intelligent Design theory is not scientific, cause you can’t prove it. Right~~….

    I thought science is about observing a repeatable experiment? How is Big Bang repeatable? How is macro-evolution repeatable?

    And speaking of such, even if you finally manage to achieve macro-evolution in a controlled experiment, that exactly proves Intelligent Design theory, that intelligence was needed to cause such a happening.

    The failure of evolutionist is that they can’t explain the origin of information (that is needed in order for a non-life to actually become life) and thus, leaves very little possibility that Intelligence was never behind the origin of any life in this world in the first place.

    You can argue all you like about how Intelligent Design is ‘unprovable’ or ‘unscientific’, but that doesn’t mean it’s untrue, just as how the existence of Maths, sense of humor, or even intelligence are unprovable or unscientific and yet are undeniably true.

  96. arthuriandaily Says:

    Scientific proof of The Virgin Birth is taught in public schools:

    http://arthuriandaily.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/scientific-proof-of-the-virgin-birth/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: