Get Schooled

By Karen Armsby

September 30, 2005 10:05 AM | Link to this

Yes Cobbb County looked silly for bowing to the creationists. I think the creationists are sincere in their beliefs but that they misunderstand evolution.

I am Catholic and my undergrad degree is in biology. I see no conflict between my belief that God created the Universe and accepting the theory of evolution. My view is that evolution explains the process of development of and change in living organisms over the millions and billions of years we think the universe has been in existence. Evolution shows the history or evidence of the ongoing interaction of the laws of physics and chemistry and natural history. Evolution does not explain what or who created the universe.

IMHO God made the ball, got the ball rolling,created the rules for how it would roll, then let the game begin. As the ball rolled along it developed and changed, and that is evolution.

By DB

September 30, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

This is going to be a fun one!

I, too, am a biologist, and I teach biology. I’m so tired of it all! I’m not going to argue my side as it’s practically useless. I spent a whole summer debating with creationists who won’t accept that a scientific theory must be testable and specific in order to be scientific(therefore Intelligent Design or any other claim is not scientific and therefore does not deserve to take up time in a science classroom). And also, I just wish more could be like Karen and realize that science and religion are separate and cannot be mutually exclusive since religion is based on faith and cryptic information and science is based on evidence and specific information. All I’m going to say is that you can believe in whatever you want, but science will continue to move on and save lives. One example is that bacteria are currently evolving into strains that are resistant to most or all antibiotics(see recent deadly Staph infections), and knowing about the mechanisms of evolution help scientists combat that problem by possibly “alternating” antibiotic use through government policy(sort of controlling natural selection). Also, knowing about human evolution can help extinguish much of the ignorance that is responsible for racism, and it can also lead to many possible cures in cancer, genetic disorders, and other diseases. It goes on and on.

Also, for those of you that haven’t had a biology class in years, today’s DNA technology has pretty much confirmed every aspect of the theory of evolution. Whether or not people want to accept that is their own business, but by going to the doctor, you’re automatically stating that you have faith in PURE science.

And when kids in a biology class are not taught evolution or confused by Intelligent Design(not science in any shape or form), I have a serious problem with it. If we’re going to accept this in our science classrooms, we must also accept the Aborigine Dreamtime, Hindu explanations, and many other explanations. I think not. Evolution and DNA are what connect all living things, and it’s the driving force of the existence of all species.

Science is not religion, and it in no way threatens religion. If you ask me, science only confirms the fact that there is some type of incomprehensible “God” or entity. The complexity of biology is astounding. Science only threatens those that are fearful that they must abandon all their beliefs in order to accept it.

It is sad to say the least.

By DB

September 30, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this

It’s ironic to me how “scientifically ignorant” we have become. While we’re arguing about evolution and whatnot and trying to deface science, we’re suffering the consequences of ignoring science. We have a city like New Orleans that was warned for years from scientists that devastion was inevitable. Scientists have warned about global warming possibly increasing the likelyhood of devastating storms in the future, and no one listens. Scientists know hurricane activity runs in cycles, and we’re just beginning a new one, and this one may be more powerful because of global warming. Energy released by hurricanes has increased 70% in the past 20 years or so. The CDC states that 90% of the water supply in New Orleans is contaminated with human and animal feces, diesel, other petroleum products, and many other toxic chemicals, yet we send people back by the droves.

The complacency just boggles my mind!

By TruthHurts

September 30, 2005 11:41 AM | Link to this

While Cobb BOE has not helped its image locally and beyond, it has company on with stupid-school-board- tricks bus. The Fulton school board has had its share of dumb moves, yet it remains off the radar screen.

How else do you explain the fact that Fulton has had four superintendents and three interim superintendents in the past 3 year, and that doesn’t seem to be news? Or the fact that Fulton is currently being investigated by the US Attorney’s office and is under supoena for financial documents related to its second SPLOST, and its not news?

If Cobb were being investigated by the Justice Department, it would be above the fold in a red letter edition with four inch headlines…

By Becca

September 30, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this

I don’t think it says anything negative about the schools in Cobb or any school. Open mindedness is neccesary for learning. Public schools are often afflicted with tunnel vision and I think that is a very negative thing for education.

By Waylon

September 30, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this

Am I the only one who found this comment richly ironic, when defending yourself against being considered one of the “Islands of Ignorance?”

… said Cobb school board Chairwoman Kathie Johnstone, with a laugh. “Maybe they’re not clear in their geography. None of the places they’re listing are islands.”

Ahem. Prosecution rests its case.

To answer the question posed - no it probably didn’t hurt (Cobb County schools) reputation amongst most people, because most people don’t understand why teaching evolution is important - or what the fuss is about.

By Amy

September 30, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this

I think it is interesting how frightened scientist who believe in evolution are of the mere mention of intelligent design. In the case of the Cobb stickers, they didn’t even say evolution was wrong, just that it was a theory not a fact. It is in fact a theory because the macro-evolution theory is not repeatable since it supposedly happens over millions of years. It is not a theory in the same vein as gravity because gravity is a testable, repeatable theory.
I would think science teachers would welcome the chance to have a discussion with students about the two theories as opposed to having students told at home that their teachers are just plain wrong. I do not believe that the Cobb Co decision has hurt their reputation among most adults. Fortunately, we live in America and if someone doesn’t like what Cobb Co is teaching they have the total freedom to move anywhere else in the US and to educate their children in whatever way they choose. Perhaps the evolutionist parents should consider homeschooling.

By Sherrie

September 30, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

As a Christian I do not believe that creationism/ intelligent design, etc should be taught in our schools.

But if you insist…(from http://www.venganza.org/ )

I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

By DB

September 30, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

Oh, I didn’t answer the question. It not only hurts the reputation of Cobb County, but it hurts the reputation of Georgia and the United States as a whole.

Introducing non-scientific explanations is not about openmindedness; it’s about closemindedness and scientific ignorance. If openmindedness were the issue, we’d have to mention about 100 other “stories” of creation created by 100’s of tribes and cultures all over the world. That’s simply not the motivation here!

So, people can package it any way they like, but the fact remains that all these alternative explanations(NOT SCIENTIFIC THEORIES) are simply unscientific.

It’s embarrassing!

By DB

September 30, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

Exactly Amy: They should teach their creationism at home or at church! Now, here’s a question for you. How do you test “God created all living things…” as a hypothesis and call that science? Therein lies my point. You obviously don’t understand. And, Amy, there’s a lot of difference between a scientific theory and what you call a theory. And no scientist accepts anything as fact. In fact, skepticism is what keeps science accurate. So, in essence, any scientific information is accepted as the best possible explanation at any given time, but as soon as it is disproven, it is no longer accepted. And then another explanation will be accepted due to the process that disproved it.

By DB

September 30, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

Oh, and scietists aren’t frightened. They’re frustrated.

By DB

September 30, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this

Forgot the “n”.

By RF

September 30, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

Sherrie—hee, hee, hee!! I’m glad some folks have a sense of humor!!

For those who want creationism taught at school, TEACH IT AT HOME. If you take your kids to church and live the life, then they will too. School isn’t the place for pushing our Judao-christian beliefs. That’s what I do!

By DB

September 30, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

Most of all, it hurts our students, who will be confused about science in the long run.

By RF

September 30, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this

Absolutely- school isn’t the place to handle the battle between science/faith. It’s funny- I don’t remember this ever being an issue when I was a kid. I knew the science and I knew my faith. They were separate, and looking back I think that was simpler.

By KABA

September 30, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

Amy, Scientists are not frightened by creationists, we are dumfounded by their ignorance. There is no need to relive the billion years of evolution to test the theory because evolution is observable and provable today on the small scale in the ongoing mutation of the common cold and the various flu virus strains. The genetic recombination that underlies mutation is a dynamic and evolving process. We currently are threatened by the possible emergence of a global human killer strain of avian flu that is mutating (i.e. evolving) as we speak!

All living things have developed (evolved) defenses to invasion and destruction by parasities, bacteria and diseases. When successful, the invader is repelled or destroyed. When the organism does not develop (evolve) defenses quickly enough to fight off the newly mutated bug, then mortality increases and sometimes the organism or an entire species can be wiped out.

Evolution is just an observable process, not a false or non-god as creationists propose. Evolution is like observing the process of baking a cake or cookies. You mix all of the elements (flour sugar butter eggs nuts etc.) together, subject them to the pressures of mixing, infuse them with air by whipping, heat by baking or cool by refrigerating and oila` you have a completely different product than you started with.

The history of organisms is the same as baking, from the very first cells in the primoridal soup exposed to chemicals, heat, light, cooling, physical forces, pressures, etc. and over a very long long long time many organisms formed and developed and changed or evolved into many more.

We people are organisms whose origins are rooted in that primordial soup. If we believe in God, then we know at one point He or She put a soul into one of them and our higher consiousness and reasonable thinking minded man was created. God does interact in mysterious and unkown ways in the universe HE or SHE created. The scientific study of evolution only documents and reveals what we can see and test, not what is unknowable (yet) to us.

By Robert

September 30, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

In many circles, Cobb was already a national laughing stock due to Newt. The sticker only made it worse.

House prices are not a measure of this issue. It is stupid to propose so.

By Jennifer

September 30, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this

Amy, Gravity is a law not a theory. Try a different analogy; you’re comparing apples to oranges (no pun intended).

By Jennifer

September 30, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

Robert,

House prices are driven, in part, by the quality of the schools in an area. If you have any doubt, look at the costs of a resale home in Sprayberry’s district and compare it with comps. in Walton—big price difference, even though both are in E. Cobb.

By Jennifer

September 30, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this

As a transplant, I can’t help but shake my head at so much of what the state of Georgia does re: education. Cobb’s ignorant label is well earned, esp. after the evolution sticker fiasco & its lack of judgement re: the laptop plan.

Although I plan to put my kids in private school, I did move to East Cobb as a back-up. If I do HAVE to put my kids in a public school, I’d much prefer being in a district that averages over 1000 on the old SAT (my previous home in another part of Cobb was in a district that averaged somewhere in the low to mid 800s). Plus, I figure I can combat the ignorance of the district at home; it’s much simpler to fight ignorance than the effects of an unmotivated student population.

By John

September 30, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

Robert is right, Cobb has a rich history of showing it’s ignorance. The evolution frenzy in Cobb county is just one more reason to roll your eyes.

By Bradley Tihinen-Acwoth

September 30, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

The issue of evolution vs. creation/intelligent design in the public schools is an important issue for all of us. Unfortunately, I believe the issue is wrongly debated. The issue debated should be science vs. religion and not evolution vs. creation. It is the discipline of science that we must bring back before our students in the classroom. I am confident many will agree. Lets start with what is science. According to Webster’s collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, Science is 1: the state of knowing; knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding 2a; a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b; something that may be studied or learned like systemized knowledge 3a; knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method b; such knowledge or such system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena: NATURAL SCIENCE 4; a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws.

Unfortunately our tax supported schools are not teaching science as it pertains to Evolution. Most thinking people will agree that: 1-A highly ordered universe exists. 2-At least one planet (probably only one) in this complex universe contains an amazing variety of life forms. 3. Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet

Known Options:

Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being:

1-The universe was created by God. 2-The universe always existed. 3-The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.

Students in tax supported schools are being taught that evolution is a fact. Evolution is in fact a religion masquerading as science and should not be part of any science curriculum. It has nothing to do with the subject of science. There are at least six different and unrelated meanings to the word “evolution”. Students are being deceived into thinking all six types of evolution below have been proven because evidence is given for minor variations called Microevolution.

1-Cosmic evolution-the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang. 2-Chemical evolution-the origin of higher elements from hydrogen. 3-Stellar and planetary evolution-Origin of stars and planets. 4-Organic Evolution-Origin of life from inanimate matter. 5-Macroevolution-Changing from one kind into another kind. 6-Microevolution-Variations within kinds. Only this one has been observed.

This deception is a classic bait and switch. One definition of evolution is given, and the others are assumed to be true by association. The first five meanings are believed by faith and are religious. Only the last one is scientific. People do not know that evolution is true, yet they believe it. While beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair, nor legal, to force on the students in our public school system the teaching of one belief at the tax payers expense.

The evidence for evolution is altogether missing:

1-We see NO evolution at present….we only observe variations within kinds. 2-We see NO new Species. In fact the opposite is observed. We see species becoming extinct at an alarming rate. 3-There is NO known mechanism of evolution. 4-There is NO fossil evidence for evolution….with all the kinds of plants and animals we should see thousands, perhaps millions of transition fossils. There are none 5-No recapitulation or vestigial organs

The general theory of evolution is based on several faulty assumptions. The common denominator being “Given enough Time”. The evolutionist would have us believe that:

1-the universe is billions of years old. 2-life spontaneously arose from non-living minerals. 3-mutations create or improve species. 4-natural selection has creative power.

The evolutionist will tell us that over billions of years life developed on the earth. The problem is how do they know the earth is billions of years old?

There is no evidence to support an old earth. In fact, the opposite is true. Science supports a young earth. For example:

Evidence from Space:

1-The shrinking sun limits the earth-sun relationship to fewer than “billions of years”. The sun is losing mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance for life to survive. 2-The 1/2 inch layer of cosmic dust on the moon indicates the moon has not been accumulating dust for billions of years. 3-The existence of short-period comets indicates the universe is less than billions of years old. 4-Fossil meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth. This indicates that the layers were not exposed for millions of years as is currently being taught in the textbooks. 5-The moon is receding a few inches each year. Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding the continents quickly. It would have difficult if not impossible for complex life to have existed.

Evidence from Earth:

1-The decaying magnetic field limits earth’s age to less than billions of years. 2-The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14 million years, destroying all the old fossils. 3-Topsoil rates indicate only a few thousand years of age. 4-The size of the Mississippi river delta, divided by the rate mud is being deposited, gives supports an age of less than 30,000 years old. How come the Gulf of Mexico is not filled up with mud? 4-The slowing of the earth’s spin limits its age to less than the “billions of years” called for by the theory of evolution. To look at it another way, last year the earth was spinning faster. If the earth were billions or millions of years old, nothing could remain on the planets surface least of all living organisms. 5-A relatively small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. 6-The Sahara desert is expanding . It is about 4,000 years old. This is calculated by working the rate of growth backwards in time. What existed prior to the desert? 7-The oceans are getting saltier. If they were billions of years old, they would be much saltier than they are now.

Evidence from Biology:

1-The oldest living coral reef is less than 4,200 years old. 2-The oldest living tree in the world is about 4,300 years old. 3-Numbers of chromosomes: Humans have 46, tobacco 48, fern 480, carp 100, chimp 48. If evolution is true, why do we not see a logical progression of chromosomes from the simplest life forms to the most complex?

Evidence from history:

1-The oldest historical records are less than 6,000 years old. 2-Many ancient cultures have stories of an original creation and worldwide flood in the recent past. Nearly 300 of these flood legends are now known.

Those who believe the earth is billions of years old will typically try to discredit one or two of these evidences and then mistakenly think that they have successfully proven the entire list wrong. This is not logical, of course. Each evidence stands independently. It only takes one to prove the earth is young. The burden of proof is on the evolutionists if they expect all taxpayers to fund the teaching of their religion in the school system.

A few questions for those that support the religion of evolution in our public schools:

1-Where did the space for the universe come from? 2-Where did matter come from? 3-If the big bang is true, what blew up? Did nothing explode to create our universe? 4-How did matter get organized? 5-Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing? 6-When, where and how did life come from non-living matter? 7-When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself? 8-With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? 9-How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining the English letters will never produce Chinese books.) 10-Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove they had a common designer instead of a common ancestor? If there was a VW Beetle, a Lexus sedan, a Ford pickup truck and Peterbilt semi tractor in a parking lot, would we assume the semi-tractor evolved from the VW Beetle? 11- Which evolved first (how and how long, did it work without the others)? —-the digestive system? —-the lungs? —-the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, muscles to move the bones? 12-When , where, why and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution. 13- Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

There are many more questions for sure. Can evolution provide answers to these questions within the framework of science? The answer is NO. If it cannot be proven scientifically it is a belief, a theory, a religion.

Please thoughtfully consider the following questions:

Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?: —It is all they have been taught? —They are too proud to admit they are wrong? —They are compelled to support the theory for fear of losing their job, peer status, or grade point average?

Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we do not have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs etc.)

and lastly

Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in the public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious world view!!

Sincerely

Bradley Tihinen

Acworth, GA

By DB

September 30, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

This is for those of you that have a sense of humor. My regards to the Spaghetti monster:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

By Booyah

September 30, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

Little too much time on your hands Bradley?

Also Pope in Cobb County is even more highly regarded than Walton. We ern more money and can speek gooder.

By jakesdad

September 30, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this

this issue hits close to home (pardon pun) for me. we recently moved to east cobb (Mt. Bethel/Dickerson/Walton) after 8 yrs in Sandy Springs (Heards/?/Riverwood) when our 2nd was born. it came down to #s: for the cost of putting 2 through a good private school (ex. Holy Innocents ~ $15K/yr/kid) it made more sense to cross the river into a decent public district. culturally I’d much rather be back in Sandy Springs but accept what we did & why. personally I’m far more concerned about Cobb’s propensity for homophobia and kids wrapping cars around trees then blaming the guy who’s house they were vandalizing than “evolution is a theory” stickers. I’m pretty sure my two will be smart enough not to be confused by that. if not then they may be better off back in Fulton…

By DB

September 30, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

Bradley: The key in the definition is “system” and “systematic”, which you are completely ignoring. Many of your scientific “assumptions” that you portray as facts are completely wrong, and they are supposedly dependent upon science, which you are obviously trying to dismiss. And many are outdated. As for your chromosomals questions, you obviously have no idea how sexual reproduction works(or why it even takes place). And by the way, ferns vary in number up to even 1250 chromosomes. It’s called polyploidy, and I think you should read up on it because, in fact, it, just like sexual reproduction, creates variations that make the ferns more likely to adapt to differing environments, i.e., more likely to EVOLVE. And that’s why there are more than 10,000 species of ferns alone, and are found all over the world!

Also, you might want to keep up to date on your science if you’re going to quote facts that are from the 1930’s and well outdated. Science doesn’t continue to use outdated evidence, such as Piltdown, in fact it is one of the biggest hoaxes of all time, yet it doesn’t put any holes in the theory of evolution.

You have some serious misconceptions about science and evolution. Since when did evolution state that something came from nothing? Evolution doesn’t even begin to explain the origin of life. It simply explains how we ended up with all the different species we have. How do you explain that every living thing has DNA and similar genes and that we can trace genes, i.e., humans have some common genes with organisms as simple as bacteria?

Also, no one is afraid of Creationism. It simply has no scientific validity. And, in many cases it’s not all people are taught. I went to Catholic school , and let me tell you, evolution was not taught. Evolution isn’t either/or with religion. There are many devout Christians that TEACH evolution!

Should I say Churches are afraid that science will take away their jobs or income? I think not. I’m not that disrespectful.

Anyway, I’m done with this. I know better than to get into an endless discussion as I have fallen into it so many times before.

Call evolution a religion if you want, but that’s the whole problem I mentioned in the first place. You need to separate the two.

By DB

September 30, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

Also, teaching evolution in no way threatens anyone. You don’t have to believe it if you don’t want to, and if the scientific community overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution, you bet it will be taught in a science classroom. So what’s the problem? If we take evolution out, then we must also take out all other theories and laws in all other scientific subjects, such as Physics, Chemistry, Geology, etc.

By KABA

September 30, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

Bradley, Evolution is NOT a theory of ‘how things came into being.’ Your entire premise is WRONG. Evolution is the observation for a process of change over time. You don’t need a clear lineage of species lines to show it (the gaps are due to extinction of less successful lines). All you need to prove continuity of life and evidence of evolution is the genetic code that defines each organism on earth.

By HSTeach

September 30, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this

Hey bradley, why didn’t you just tell us to go to http://atheism.about.com/b/a/094353.htm??? Nice way to share “your” thoughts bradley…

By HSTeach

September 30, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

once again…the reason I think religion should NOT be in schools….. most people who blindly believe in religion also cannot think for themselves…. see my previous post..

By Deletion is not addition

September 30, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this

So, how is it that all these mutations, which having been studied are the DELETION OF INFORMATION, supposedly add up to NEW information? Also, having studied cell theory and structure, how can you possibly imagine that a bunch of inorganic chemicals came together in a “primordial soup” and assembled into proteins, which require DNA for their assembly? There are too many organelles and chemicals necessary for ONE cell to function correctly from the VERY BEGINNING for me to even begin to believe that the humanist, secular, common idea of evolution can explain the origin of a grass plant, much less the human animal!

By KABA

September 30, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

To Deletion is Not Addition: Genetic recombination is the key. And it didn’t happen overnight, but took billions of years.

By Deletion is not addition

September 30, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this

To KABA 1)Once the genetic information is lost, it is lost…forever 2)Where are the “transitional” forms and their fossils to show that it takes millions of years? 3) Cells only reproduce themselves based on the available information (DNA), so where’d the DNA come from? 4) The Miller/Urey experiment was a set-up and designed specifically to produce the results they expected. That’s not scientific inquiry, that’s falsifying evidence to prove your prior assumptions.

By Jake

September 30, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this

I remember when only the LDS guys on the bikes would actively try to go out and convert the masses to their beliefs. Over the last couple of decades we have been steadily moving toward religious conservatives as a whole trying to impact public policy. Now we have gotten to the point of St Bradley and his pseudo science, merely extensions of the intelligent design concept. Keep faith in your home and in your church, and science in the public schools.

By Lucinda

September 30, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

HSTeach: Good catch!
DB: You go, boy!!

Bradley: Plagarism is an ugly thing. In all that time you could have been out saving souls or doing some good instead of trying to get over on folks.

By KABA

September 30, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this

Dear Deletion: Form and function act according to genetic instructions that are often found on mutliple alleles. Therefore if some genetic material is deleted another allele may actually be turned on to express that phenotypic form, cellular function, etc. that was previously expressed by the deleted allele. Or another gene may express itself in a more successful form or function that takes over for the lost material, hence evolution. Recombination and Redundancy in nature save the day : )

By Deletion is not addition

September 30, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this

Kaba, they don’t save the day, b/c you still haven’t explained how the genetic information or instructions came to be in the first place?

By duke

September 30, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this

Berkeley Law Professor Phillip Johnson, who is perhaps the leading critic of evolution, says,“Might not God have created the world through evolution? That is a boring question. Of course He could have. But is there any evidence that He actually did so? There is none. There is not one shred of evidence that any species has ever evolved from any other species.� Neither evolution nor intelligent design can be proved or disproved by scientific method. But we can adduce certain evidence and draw inferences from that evidence, and intelligent design is by far the more likely explanation for this evidence. The whole debate should really be moved into the philosophy department. We are talking about the evidence for and against the existence of God. There is no reason why high school students should not hear this debate, if it is conducted with intellectual rigor and parliamentary decorum. We do not have here a religious council excluding evolution. We have here a secular council excluding all hypotheses except evolution. The National Academy of Science has persuaded the Supreme Court that scientific method assumes everything has a scientific explanation. That argument assumes, without investigation or discussion, the very point which is at issue. It is the only way evolution can avoid being laughed out of court. The probability is on this order, that a tornado blew through a junkyard and assembled by chance a Boeing 747.

By Deletion is not addition

September 30, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this

DNA, RNA, and protein must all be present for multi-cellular organisms to reproduce themselves. The chemicals within these complex structures will react with other substances in the environment, given the chance, without ever becoming DNA, RNA, and protein. Basic chemistry can teach you that much! Therefore, how can you possible think that chance and time will create something as complex as a bacterium, much less a human being?????

By KABA

September 30, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this

Deletion, Here’s what I believe, that there is a God, that God created the universe and all of the matter and energy and laws that govern how they behave and interact. I believe that once God set all of this into motion, that many wondrous and inexplicable organisms developed and scientists have show factually hou you can trace the development and evolution from the most simple to the most complex through the genetic code. Evolution is not a force, just the name we give to the process of change whereby all these living things developed and changed over more time than you or I can imagine.

By luvs2teach

September 30, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this

Waht’s being lost in the attention towards the stickers is that fact that 3 years ago, before the textbook adoption that prompted the use of the stickers, Cobb science teachers couldn’t mention evolution or Creationism at all - not within the course and not in response to questions ask by students.

I was disappointed that the positives of the relaxed policy were lost in the sticker madness that ensued.

I felt that the stickers were a decent attempt by the board to try to appease the very vocal and politically active members of the community - it was certainly preferable to tearing pages out of books.

Having learned about both in my college biology classes, I don’t understand the hoopla about discussing both within the context of what makes “good science.”

Theories are well-tested and well-supported by much experimentation, and only change with new discoveries or new technologies.

If you realize that there is a difference between making the facts fit the theory and making the theory fit the facts, then there’s no question about what’s good science and what’s science fiction.

By luvs2teach

September 30, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

Oh, Sherrie, that was terrific…noodly appendages…I was laughing so hard…

How about the Ancient Astronaut Theory? It was very popular in the spacey 70s AND briefly mentioned (and of course summarily dismissed) in my college class. It was the thought that man was brought here on ancient aircraft…

hee hee…noodly appendages…oh, that’s funny…

By KABA

September 30, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this

Deletion, God has all the time in the world, in the universe, in fact God is infinite. With God, ALL things are possible including chance and what you may think is improbable. I am not able to give you answers for all of those possibilities you want answers to. But I do understand the evidence that animals, plants, bacteria, viruses insects,fishes and all living things have evolved from simpler organisms to more complex organisms and sometimes back to simpler organisms.

By DB

September 30, 2005 05:04 PM | Link to this

Deletion and others: Instead of me wasting all my time answering your questions, I’ll just point you to any modern biology book. You will find answers to all your questions there. Miller and Urey? Come on. You’d better come up with something better than that! Scientists have long abandoned the idea that things are that simple. Also, you may want to read about introns, i.e., bad genes don’t necessarily go away. Also, it sure is funny how this guy in Australia turned on a gene making birds have teeath. Hmm… Where did that gene come from? Also, deletion mutations are single base pairs. Again, just read any modern AP or College Biology Text, preferebly anything by Campbell and Reece.

By DB

October 3, 2005 08:11 AM | Link to this

For the birds with teeth:

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/06/04/teeth.birds/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-3-702376,00.html

By DB

October 3, 2005 08:12 AM | Link to this

There are always going to be people like “duke” who cling to being able to quote a LAWYER as a leading critic of evolution who claim there is absolutely no evidence of speciation(macroevolution). Hmm… Must be he forgot about or conveniently left out the Ensatina salamander, many species of plants and insects(stickbugs, grasshoppers, blackflies, cucurlionid beetles, and fruit flies). And the really really funny part is saying the theory of evolution is analogous to a tornado blowing through a junkyard to make a 747! It amazes me how confident people can be when talking purely out of their behind when they obviously have no actual knowledge of the theory of evolution, let alone the scientific method! Their point must be to exploit impressionable people by sounding as if they know what they’re talking about when the opposite is the truth. Wow!!!!!!

Just how similar is evolution to a tornado assembling a 747? Well, not at all. In fact, anyone who would make that analogy obviously knows absolutely nothing about the theory of evolution and has just made broad assumptions and conclusions based merely on inaccurate hearsay. I noticed the new buzz phrase in Creationists is the question of how organisms are a result from random chance! Well, it does. But the political pundits have taken that a little overboard in their misunderstanding of it and obviously don’t even understand what they’re stating. In fact, life uses energy to create order out of disorder, i.e., it’s negentropic. Life simply takes advantage of chance mutations and/or variations created by sexual reproduction in order to adapt to most changing environments. When the environmental change is too great over a short period of time, species go extinct. Only those that can survive do. And if groups of the same species are isolated long enough, they will eventually become so different they can no longer reproduce with each other, and that’s called speciation(macroevolution), and it happened to every species that exists. To call that similar to a tornado assembling a 747 is absolutely ridiculous!

Also, for evidence of speciation, just look all around you!

Really, people, you’d be surprised if you knew how much biology has advanced in recent years because of DNA technology, and the evidence in support of evolution is absolutely overwhelming. However, many people choose to stay in the dark ages and rely on inaccuracies from 50 years ago.

You see, creationists used to claim natural selection doesn’t occur, and then science showed it did(and many realized they couldn’t argue against it). They accepted that because the evidence was overwhelming. Now, the attack is through the denial of macroevolution, i.e., the formation of new species, which is also observed. It is tougher to see examples of macroevolution since most cases take a long time, but with DNA technology and observations in the last 200 years, we do know of several examples. And they also try this cute little argument called “Irreducible Complexity” which is logically flawed and isn’t even an argument. Intelligent Design and Creationism proponents keep clinging to anything they can to “prove” science wrong, but in their attempts, they have to keep changing their attacks. It’s really getting old. I just wish people could realize science does not threaten religious beliefs so they can quit wasting their own time and everyone elses time?

By Mike

October 3, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this

One needs to go back to the year 1996 and the fiasco with Cobb County and the Summer Olympics to see when all the national attention, the late night jokes by Leno and Letterman in regards to Cobb County, started to surface. This is about the time the true nature of Cobb County began to come together and we all witnessed what Cobb County wanted to be. A county of white heterosexual over zealous wannabe religious people,positioned far to the right who intended to bite down hard on a narrow minded view of the world and not let go and impose that single minded view on the residents there. If you didn’t like it then get out. There’s some comical irony in the fact that this intended straight white enclave of the metro area has one of the fastest growing population of Hispanic workers, and oh lord…even a gay bar. Why would anyone with an ounce of gray matter be surprised at the stickers on school books there about evolution. Evolution…what evolution. Cobb has evolved? Into what?

By Tony

October 3, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this

Personally, I believe it is time for everyone to acknowledge that beliefs shape our ways of thinking and we cannot divorce ourselves from what we believe. Teachers are no different. Teaching evolution must be part of any comprehensive science curriculum. Further, schools should allow open discussion of other viewpoints regarding evolution. To declare that religion and science must be separate is to deny the entire scientific process of learning about the universe.

By DB

October 3, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

Tony: Science curriculum should teach science and waste no time with religion. However, having discussions as to how Intelligent Design, Creationism, or other viewpoints are NOT scientific could be used to reinforce knowledge of the scientific method. It shouldn’t be required in any curriculum to mention “non-scientific” information. And, you must not mix science with religion as religion does not deal with opinions and beliefs. The scientific process does not deal with religion, and it is therefore separate by definition. It only deals with that which can be supported by physical evidence, and therefore it does not even attempt to prove or disprove any religios notions since they are not testable.

By DB

October 3, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

I guess a better way to put it is that people should not view science as a religion, and they shouldn’t view it as if it threatens their beliefs. It’s nothing more than refined logic. Science can in no way threaten faith since faith is not testable, and science only deals with natural phenomena that is testable. Most Gods and religions fall outside that bubble, so they are “safe” in a sense.

They shouldn’t be mutually exclusive. Long ago in the Darwin days, science was thought as an attack to the religious leaders when it is nothing more than a method of explaining how things work. There are still sects that believe science is trying to attack religion, and it’s simply not the case. And those same sects are attacking science at all costs while the members use science and technology daily in everything from their cars to their hospitals. That’s about as hypocritical as it gets.

At the end of the day, all the skeptics are great because they keep science as accurate as possible.

By Lucinda

October 3, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

Mike: Cobb has evolved into an ear of corn. Seriously, think about it. Those folks are that narrow, like to be in neat little rows, are all the same color…and are hard as heck at the core. Let’s send some cows there and see what happens!!

By SET

October 3, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this

Evolution is “science” and it is taught in Science Classes.

Does the community want science classes or not?

Creationism belongs in the mosques.

By duke

October 3, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

In an amicus brief about evolution, the National Academy of Science told the U.S. Supreme Court that scientific method assumes everything has a scientific explanation. When I was attending high school in rural Georgia too many years ago, that answer would have earned a failing grade from any competent science teacher. Scientific method accepts nothing by assumption. It tests everything. Therefore it limits itself to hypotheses which can be tested. If I reproduce your experiment in my laboratory, I can verify your results. When scientific truth is defined in that way, it is rightly regarded as being more reliable than other types of truth. But the kinds of hypotheses which can be tested in that manner fall into a very narrow and limited category. Evolution and Intelligent Design are not among them, for several reasons. If it were possible to prove the theory of evolution with a scientific experiment, this debate would be over.

That is the key for undecided readers to make sense out of this, to know which experts you should believe. If the National Academy of Science cannot define scientific method, then we should not take them seriously when they claim to have a scientific proof of evolution- or of the law of gravity, for that matter. They do not know what they are talking about. That is true across the board today, whenever science intersects with public policy. When scientists say that a thing is scientifially proven, we cannot trust their statement. They do not know what it means to prove a thing scientifically.

Random chance and intelligent design are two of the very few possible answers to the very few ultimate questions which philosophers have pondered for thousands of years. We are not going to resolve it any time soon. The opinions of scientists will continue to be divided, just like the opinions of philosophers and ordinary laymen. But any scientist who thinks that he has scientific proof of evolution is incompetent at his own profession.

The Kansas Board of Education conducted hearings on this topic in a professional manner. Each side had three days to present its evidence. No interruptions were allowed during testimony, a crucial stipulation in our poisonous political atmosphere; but all witnesses were subject to cross-examination. Advocates of intelligent design presented over a dozen witnesses. Most had PhD’s. Five were college professors. Included among our advocates are prominent professors of biology who are able to address the most complex issues with thorough expertise. The evolutionists did not show up. In a disciplined forum against intellectually competent opponents, their argument cannot survive cross-examination; and they know it.

Serious investigators should read “Darwin on Trial”, by Phillip Johnson; “Icons of Evolution”, by Jonathan Wells; “Darwin’s Black Box”, by Michael Behe; and “The Design Inference”, by William Demski.

Internet links: www.iconsofevolution.com; www.thedesigninference.com; www.discovery.org

Cobb County’s disclaimer said that evolution is only a theory. In the strict terminology of science, everything is only a theory. We begin with an hypothesis which we proceed to test. (If it cannot be tested, it is not an hypothesis of science.) If it survives a few tests, it becomes a theory. If it survives many tests, it becomes a law. But even a law, like the law of gravity, might be disproved on the next test.

Another school board insisted on this disclaimer: “No human being was present at the beginning of the universe.” They took a lot of derision from the peanut-brained gallery, to the effect that they were stating the obvious; but the most obvious truths are often the most profound, and are the most often overlooked: without a human witness to a repeatable experiment, there can be no scientific proof.

Cobb County is on the right side of this question, but they have not demonstrated an intellectual mastery of the scientific, philosophical, or legal issues involved. I can understand why the judge ruled against them. We might hope that they have constructed their appeal under the influence of more competent advice. We might hope so, but we should not be optimistic. If Georgia School Boards are anything like what they were when I was still alive, they are not about to take any advice from pointy-headed intellectuals. We ought to be thankful for the Christian religion. By appealing on those terms, we can sometimes ameliorate the worst of their ham-handed interventions.

The state of California spends $10,000 per pupil on education. California state senator Tom McClintock says he could do the job with $6,000, if all of it went into the classroom. Using prices currently available of the market, he could rent luxury office space for classrooms, hire college professors for teachers, buy new textbooks every year with each student’s name engraved in gold, and give each student membership in a luxury health spa (for gym class). That would still leave enough for a class trip to Paris.

Nevertheless, McClintock say he will leave that other $4,000 in the budget to pay the salaries of administrative bureaucrats, so long as they promise to stay away from the classroom.

By DB

October 4, 2005 08:13 AM | Link to this

duke: Scientists don’t know what they’re talking about? And where did you here that Science claims to PROVE anything? I can’t find any proof the National Academy of Science said there is a scientific explanation to everything. If they did, they were absolutely wrong, and most every scientist would agree. It’s a given that science can only deal with that which is able to be tested and supported by the physical world. It is inherent in scientific thinking that nothing can be absolutely proven. Things can only be disproven and therefore all scientific information is the best explanation where the chance it’s wrong is minimized as much as possible. Yes, there’s always that chance where something can be wrong, and that’s an integral part of the scientific method. That’s what keeps it so accurate. Yes, the Law of Gravity has been supported billions of times, and the theory of evolution has been supported hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of times, not only in experimentation but observation just the same. And yes, scientists disagree with each other, but that’s not saying you should get rid of science! That disagreement is exactly what keeps science so accurate. Laws like Gravity and Theories like Evolution may be disproven, but the likelyhood is very small. You can’t take the admission by scientists that it may be disproven and say science is invalid. You’re missing the whole point. If the scientific community of millions of scientists throughout the world agrees that evolution is valid, then, according to science, you can say it’s valid. Therefore it will be taught in a science classroom. However, to come in as a philosopher and tell the scientific community it is wrong without any evidence to support your claim, it is not going to fly. Who’s right and whose wrong doesn’t matter. The point is that ID, Creationism, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Aboriginal Dreamtime, etc. should not be part of a science curriculum that is already falling behind because of all the new advancements in DNA technology. Evolution is the foundation of biology!

If science proved the theory of evolution, there would be no debate? Are you kidding me? What if I say there is still debate since the CREATIONISTS or INTELLIGENT DESIGN proponents can’t prove their explanations? There will always we debate in every scientific theory, but since the “E” word doesn’t line up with the literal translation(impossible by the way) of the story of Creation, there will be people that argue against it for personal or religious reasons, not scientific reasons.

To sit in front of a computer screen and say scientists don’t know what they’re talking about is absolutely ridiculous! How do you think the keyboard, the monitor, the hard drive, the memory chips, the fan, and the internet server were invented? Do you go to the doctor? Have you ever used antibiotics? (And have you noticed many are resistant to antibiotics?) Have you ever had surgery? Have you realized that most of us are still alive today because of science? Almost everything we use is a result of science in one way or another.

It’s not like a bunch of scientists around the world got together one day and said, “Let’s disprove the Bible and show the world that all organisms evolved from other organisms.”. Interested people simply asked questions about biodiversity, and they sought answers through science and ended up with the theory of evolution?

Why do we reproduce? Why don’t we just clone ourselves or live forever? Why do all organisms have DNA, and why do all organisms share some genes, and why to related organisms share all but a small percentage of genes? Why such biodiversity?

Also, science will never find the absolute truth, and science doesn’t claim it will. It simply finds explanations for how things work in the universe.

So, if you think evolution is wrong, I suggest you study biology as much as you can and set up some experiments and get working on it. That is what science needs, pure skeptics trying to prove it wrong.

Oh, and it’s a good chance that scientists didn’t show up for the meetings because they had better things to do than to defend themselves against a bunch of people who don’t even understand science. Call it wisdom. They know no matter what they say, they will not be heard. And I’m getting that feeling right now. So this is it. Even the highly educated scientists and mathematicians were not biologists. You see, science is highly specialized, and most chemists, for example, don’t know a lot about biology, and so forth.

Let the biologists determine what should be taught in biology class, and let the preachers preach what they think is right, and let the lawyers practice law. It’d be like me protesting the string theory when I’m not even a physicist and don’t understand it completely.

Oh, and by the way, those few NON-RELIGIOUS scientists that think Darwin’s theory falls short in some areas usually aren’t promoting Intelligent Design. They’re simply stating that there may be a yet undiscovered scientific explanation for biodiversity.

Thank you for the discussion. There’s little point in continuing this. I’m tired. Best wishes to all.

By chuck

October 4, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this

So KABA, I guess I’m going to show my “ignorance” here as a Creationist. Could you please tell me WHEN and WHERE you observed the following events as stated exactly in your post?

The history of organisms is the same as baking, from the very first cells in the primoridal soup exposed to chemicals, heat, light, cooling, physical forces, pressures, etc. and over a very long long long time many organisms formed and developed and changed or evolved into many more.

First, could you tell me where those chemicals came from? Second, could you tell me where the chemicals, heat and light came from? THEN, please tell me WHEN AND WHERE these processes have been replicated in the laboratory to create life?

I know as an all-seeing and all-knowing scientist, you can tell me the dates and times of these replications. Consider it your part in educating a poor old ignorant Creationist.

It is very easy to cast stones, but most people who will read this blog are ignorant of what we as Creationists believe. In every instance where you mentioned “observed” instances of evolution, you used examples of MICRO evolution OR what we used to call ADAPTATION. What has NOT been observed is the evolution from one distinct species to another.

By chuck

October 4, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this

One other thing KABA, you said,

I believe that once God set all of this into motion, that many wondrous and inexplicable organisms developed and scientists have show factually hou you can trace the development and evolution from the most simple to the most complex through the genetic code.

I’m just wondering HOW this God you believe in is SO POWERFUL that He can do those marvelous things you spoke of, but is unable to create a living organism. I’m wondering how a God who can’t even control His own MESSAGE to the humans He created (THE BIBLE), could possibly have done the things you outlined. Either God is the God of the Bible OR HE IS NOT GOD. If HE IS GOD, then HE has the ability to control HIS OWN WORD. If He has the ability to create the universe from NOTHING, then HE has the ability to write HIS word THROUGH MEN, using them as instruments of HIS WILL. If He can’t even do that, why would you believe HE could do ANYTHING? Your argument is then pointless and inane.

Bottom line: Either God did it the way HE said He did, or there is no God. You cannot reconcile God to science by putting Him in your little God box.

This is WHAT GOD SAID ABOUT CREATION IN COLLOSIANS 1:

12Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

13Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

14In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

19For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

By DB

October 5, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

chuck: Science can’t yet answer many of the questions you ask, but it doesn’t mean evolution is wrong. If you read my post(may or may not have), you’d know there are examples of macroevolution. Some examples are the Ensatina salamander, many species of plants and insects(stickbugs, grasshoppers, blackflies, cucurlionid beetles, and fruit flies), which have already been observed. Also, there are many examples of species “in transition” speciation like Donkeys, Horses, Zebras, and Dogs, Wolves, and Coyotes etc. In several thousands of years many of the above will not be able to reproduce. For example, a donkey and a horse can reproduce to make a mule(which is sterile). Some “dogs” are further along in this process. Later on down the road, it’s likely they will not be able to reproduce because they will too different from a chromosomal(loci of genes) standpoint.

By DB

October 5, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this

It takes a lot of time to notice macroevolution, but since we’ve been studying biology for hundreds of years and have the ability to analyze DNA, a few examples have been observable. In the future, I would predict that there will be many more examples that are observed. However, many will deny this for as long as possible.

By DB

October 5, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this

chuck: Your logical argument against KABA’s belief in a God falls apart if you assume she or he was talking about the “Biblical” God. By saying “God”, she may not have been referring to God as you understand it from the Bible. The God he/she is talking about obviously didn’t send a MESSAGE in the form of the Bible to humans in that he/she believes a God simply created and started the universe long ago(about 15 billion years ago for the universe) and was “hands off” after that.

By KABA

October 6, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

DB, Thanks, and let me add that the Bible is the word of God as spoken through and written by man and interpreted and reinterpreted in many languages and forms. You might say the word of God has evolved under the influences of the indivdual interprters’ social, ethnic, political and language influences. Just as biological organisms evolve, so do the written words of man attempting to interpret what exactly God said to those first writers.

By DB

October 7, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this

KABA: I totally agree, but I didn’t want to put words in your mouth. People seem to forget that PEOPLE wrote the Bible based on their perceptions, and translation upon perception upon translation upon perception creates a bit of ambiguity, not to mention the fact that it was written in a totally different time. It’s no wonder to me that those who take the Bible literally have such a tough time defending it.

By KABA

October 7, 2005 10:33 AM | Link to this

DB, I didn’t think you were putting words in my mouth, rather you were presenting the range of possible interptetations of what God may mean to me or to anyone. It is interesting that many of those who defend the literal meaning of today’s Bible(s) are unaware of how the literal meanings have changed over the history of the many versions of the Bible. And there are a number of omitted Gospels and teachings once thought to be part of the collection of writings comprising the Bible. For enlightenment about the lost Gospels of Thomas, I recommend Elaine Pagel’s book ‘Beyond Belief.’ And for the evolution debate I recommend Laurie Godfreys’s book, ‘Scientists Confront Creationism.’