Get Schooled

By Jeff

December 15, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this

Have BOTH theories taught WITH EQUAL TIME in the same book maybe…

Intelligent Design is a credible scientific theory… the only ones who don’t admit that are evolutionists that are running scared, afraid that their monopoly on origins of life in the classroom is about to be toppled.

Yes, “evolution” actually covers two COMPLETELY separate things: Origins of Life and “changes over time”. No one doubts “changes over time”, it is abundantly clear. Origins of Life is a separate issue though, and one for which there are competing ideas.

Oh, and do the math people. The chances of the “Origins of Life” story that evolution puts forward, that proteins were ramdomly formed and happened to come together to form molucules, is very next to impossible. To be (somewhat) exact: The chance that it happened like that is a 1 in a 1 with SIXTY 0’s behind it. You have a better chance of being shot in the left eyeball while being struck by lightning in a 747 that is being hijacked AND shot down ALL at the exact same moment!

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

December 15, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

I guess without the computer story, they had to use something to show they are incompetent in many other areas. The taxpayers in Cobb should start a revolution. It goes to show that incompetent administrators are not unique to Atlanta, Fulton, Gwinnett, Dekalb and Clayton. Who’s next?

By high school teacher

December 15, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

I wonder how much of our tax dollars are being spent on court costs for cases such as these? No wonder teachers don’t get a cost of living increase.

In my English class, I teach students how to write a thesis and how to back up their thesis with support. Why can’t both theories be presented as what they are (theories), and let students research the facts, and come to their own conclusion? They can even write a research paper with a thesis on which theory they believe. I am a firm believer in Creationism, but even I want to know about the theory of Evolution (how do I know what to refute?). Kids need exposure; that’s what education is all about.

By BlindHogHomer

December 15, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this

Jeff - “Intelligent Design is a credible scientific theory” may be your opinion but it isn’t well supported by the facts. Intelligent design would more appropriately be called a hypothesis, credible scientific theories are ones that have not been disproved after repeated experimentation and research. Intelligent design has not been subjected to those rigors. And I believe the cause you give for the controversy is convoluted. It’s being caused by the religious right and their sycophants wanting to force established science and scientific methods to give additional consideration for their very unscientific beliefs. Not one organized religion on Earth tells its followers to closely examine and consider all the evidence and the facts and you’ll conclude Jesus did walk on water. Instead they all tell their followers to just have faith.

By science fan

December 15, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

I am so tired of this. Evolution is a testable scientific theory that has indeed been tested over and over again. The research overwhelmingly supports it. “Intelligent Design” can’t even be considered a hypothesis since it isn’t based on any real scientific research and it can’t be tested. At best it is only wishful thinking and warmed over religious creationism. Include it in the social studies curriculum if you want to, because it is apparently a widespread social phenomenon that should be studied in that context, but keep it out of the science classroom. To say that science shouldn’t be scientific is a tragedy for our children.

By HB

December 15, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

“Why can’t both theories be presented as what they are (theories), and let students research the facts, and come to their own conclusion?”

Because they are not both scientific theories. A scientific theory is generally considered to be true by the scientific community based on evidence discovered through research and testing. Theory in everyday language just means what someone proposes may be an answer; ID is more along the lines of a hypothesis in science-speak.

ID is NOT scientific theory. There is currently no clear scientific evidence pointing to an intelligent being having created life on Earth. People who believe God created life (myself included) do so based on faith, not on scientific tests and research. That’s fine, but it does not belong in a science class. Discuss ID in philosophy, religion, or theology class, but students absolutely should not be taught that the two “theories” are held in similar regard from a scientific point of view.

By V for Vendetta

December 15, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

I believe that there is a God, and that in some way He created the origins of the universe. That being said, since none of it can be proven in the least, I think evolution should be taught. Jeff, you talk about the odds of something like that happening, but I don’t think you are quite realizing just how long it took. Yes, it would be a 1 with a LOT of zeros behind it, but the Earth is over 4 BILLION years old! For a long time there was no water, no life, no NOTHING. We simply cant fathom things taking place on that vast of a scale. Imagine the odds of the atmosphere forming just right. It’s adaptation at its finest. When plants began to grow and spew out Oxygen it was bad for life, Oxygen is a corrosive gas, but eventually things fell back into balance. Maybe the hand of a higher power helped to guide it, but we cant prove that, and we shouldn’t be teaching what we cant prove. Not unless you let your class read books by L. Ron Hubbard.

By V for Vendetta

December 15, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

These discussions by the way are way other states laugh at us. I’m a born and raised Southerner, I’ve lived here all my life, but this crap is ridiculous.

By SUZAN

December 15, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

Yes here we are again
Please go to the following, http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/846 Here are a couple of quotes to pic your interest:

: The famous philosopher of science Karl Popper wrote that all scientific theories must be falsifiable. In order for a theory to be held tentatively and have an empirical basis, Popper argued that it must be subject to falsification and it must be able to be subjected to meaningful tests: …There will be well-testable theories, hardly testable theories, and non-testable theories. Those which are non-testable are of no interest to empirical scientists. They may be described as metaphysical. 1 While today, many philosophers of science disagree with Popper and argue that demarcation criteria (criteria which distinguish science from non-science) are unuseful for defining science (see, for example, the writings of Larry Lauden2), falsifiability is still an important aspect of understanding the epistemological strength of a scientific theory.

In fact, many critics of intelligent design, such as the National Academy of Sciences, have argued that creationist ideas do not qualify as science because they are “not subjectable to meaningful texts, which require predicting plausible results and then checking these results through observation and experimentation3â€? or “are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.3” Yet, in the same breath, these critics argue that, “[s]cientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science [previously defined to refer to young earth creationism, old earth creationism, and intelligent design] and rejected them because of a lack of evidence.3” Two questions must now be asked:

1) How can a theory be unfalsifiable, and therefore supposedly unscientific, and yet be falsified by scientific evidence? and 2) Does evolution itself qualify as a scientific theory which can be falsified by scientific evidence?

Also: In The Methodological Equivalence of Design & Descent: Can There Be a Scientific “Theory of Creation”?, philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer frames this question as “design versus descent,” in a competition of which best qualify as strong scientific theories. Meyer uses the term “descent” to refer to all theories of origins which uphold the claim that all-life arose from non-life and is interrelated through ancestry through a purely unbroken naturalistic chain of events (one example is Darwinian evolution). Meyer finds that any argument used against design to disqualify it as a scientific theory can also be used against descent, or some other scientific theory and concludes that a consistent philosophy of science must allow design as a scientific theory, or else allow for the exclusion of other theories currently considered scientific—including descent!

Meyer finds that fields studying “design” or “descent” are really historical sciences, such as those which investigate the origins of life, are not able to establish their claims as solidly as many fields of science which test their theories in the present. Most claims from such fields of historical science limit their claims to “inferences” about the past, and can rarely use deductive logic to strongly establish claims through experiment. In other words, it is more difficult to infer the events of the past than to investigate the causes of the present.

Meyer concludes that “design” and “descent” are actually epistemological equals: both are equally qualified as bona fide scientific theories: …intelligent design and naturalistic descent are methodologically equivalent—that is, that design and descent prove equally scientific or equally unscientific depending upon the criteria used to adjudicate their scientific status and provided metaphysically neutral criteria are selected to make such assessments4 Yet, common descent also makes predictions which are mutually exclusive with the predictions of design. In other words, descent often predicts the exact opposite of what one would expect from design:

Table 3. Predictions of Descent 1. High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will NOT be found.9, 27, 31, 32, 33 2. Forms will appear in the fossil record as a gradual progression with transitional series.34 3. Genes and functional parts will reflect those inherited through ancestry, and are only shared by related organisms.

Each of the predictions of design will now be tested against the predictions of descent. While the complexities of these issues might warrant much deeper discussions, the purpose of this document is to outline the evidence as it plays out in the debate over design and descent. For deeper discussions of some of these claims, please see documents linked from appropriate sections.

Just for fun… Suz

By HSTeach

December 15, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this

INTELLIGENT DESIGN HAS NO BASIS IN SCIENCE…SCIENCE STUDIES HOW TO ANALYZE AND TEST PROBLEMS…THE BASIS OF SCIENCE IS TESTING IDEAS (YOU KNOW, EXPERIMENTS…) YOU CANNOT TEST THE PRESENCE OF AN OMNIPOTENT BEING…IT’S MORE PHILOSOPHY THAN ANYTHING ELSE, AND IN THE BIBLE BELT, IT’S CALLED THEOLOGY….NOT SCIENCE END OF STORY…

By reeves

December 15, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

I am glad that some people understand the difference between a theory and a scientific theory, but the religious folk are just too stupid to realise they sound like ignorant morons.

These are the same Christian idiots who can’t be bothered to pick up a book and figure out that their entire religion is just recycled paganism.

Read some history and science books you fools. You Make me sick.

By Jeff

December 15, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

“Irreducible Complexity”. The FACT that there are elements of life at the cellular and molecular level or below that CAN NOT be further simplified. The central theory of Intelligent Design. Even Darwin himself acknowledged in his original Origins paper that if irreducible complexity could be found, his theories were shot.

As far as religoin not telling one to follow the evidence: You’re Wrong. Christianity does. Name one thing that the Bible claims and that history has uncovered where the Bible is wrong. (And I’m not even talking about the miraculous here. I’m talking details, such as Luke’s desctiption of Bethlehem in circa 0 AD. Or Xerxes’s conquest of much of the middle east. Or the rise of the babylonians. Or even the weapons the people of Palestine had after the Isrealites escaped Egypt and went in to conquer Palestine.) I’m telling you, I’ve read many of the journals, and it can’t be done.

And back to the original topic: 101 pages on evolution isn’t teaching. It’s indoctrination. I’ve seen COLLEGE LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY books that only deal with HOMOSEXUALITY for TWO PAGES. I’ve analyzed some HS texts, and most have around 900 pages divided into roughly 30 chapters. 101 pages on evolution - what the Cobb text has, according to an AJC article -, particularly with no mention of other theories, is RIDICULOUS!

By BlindHogHomer

December 15, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this

It’s already solved Patti. Weren’t several of the school board members that initiated this disgrace removed in the last election?

By BlindHogHomer

December 15, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

Jeff - None of the alleged or real historical events you refer to constitute religious tenets, they’re merely evidence that the Bible is a blend of history and fiction. The religion part is god being on the side of the Israelites and parting the Red Sea so they could escape, not the Israelites leaving Egypt. For my one thing obviously false I choose the age of the earth at approximately 6000 years. This is what those foolish enough to literally interpret this collaborative and often rewritten and translated work as factual believe. My evidence that this can’t be true is that I actually have socks older than that!

By Jeff

December 15, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this

HSTeach,

Name ONE study that proves “Origins” scientifically.

Oh wait… “Origins” isn’t testable, as it involves millions of years!

That puts it and Intelligent Design in the same category!

By Jeff

December 15, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

Nowhere in the Bible does it state the Earth’s age. Try again.

By T Smith

December 15, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

I am not so concerned with unverifiable since the term is self explanatory. Thus the term “Theory” is used to describe a set of concepts which describe an event or series of events which can be tested against known information and predict the verifiable knowledge which subsequently is varified. The Atomic Theory and Theory of Gravitation remain theories in the sense that there are things yet to be uncovered in several areas and exactly how these “work.” MANY predictions have been made about these theories have been proposed that were unverifiable by means at hand, but they were subsequently found to be accurate when means were developed to test these predictions. For example, several subatomic particles were predicted but there was no machine available that could generate enough energy to test the prediction. As methos improved those predictions were shown to be accurate. If they were not shown to be accurate the WHOLE theory is seldom done away with but adapatations of the previous THEORY are made to fit the verifiable experiments. In the THEORY of EVOLUTION there were said to be many “missing links” that evolutionary theory predicted should be there. When better analytical techniques were developed and a continuing Search for Truth was encouraged, many of the predicted types of fossils have been uncovered. By defiinition “Intelligent Design” requires the bypassing of scientific continuity of well established and tested concepts. If a gap exists the ASSUMPTION is made that an Intelligence intefered with the normal progression of scientific events. There is no way to prove that the interference was not real, but there are ways to test predictions made by science that eventually narrow the gap. It is understood that we will probably never close the gaps in our knowledge but that may mean we have not developed the kind of tools to test the evidence. Intelligent Design would indicate that some gaps will never be narowed because we cannot test “SUPERNATURAL FORCES” I believe that phrase was introduced into the official definition for schools in Kansas. Science, the study of natural events that can be tested, would lose all of its predicatbility if SUPERnatural forces are introduced that are by definition above natural testing.

I STRONGLY agree that Intelligent Design be discussed in schools, but within the Social Sciences, Political Sciences, etc. which have incorporated the term Sciences to extend more validity to their fields of study, than the term Studies. Obviously, some “Theories” in these areas are used as predictors and some of these predictions have proved accurate. However, the precision and the inclusion of some untestable influences lead to the recognition these are not taught in the “Natural Sciences.”

By reeves

December 15, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

Attention morons who believe the bible is true and original.

Google these phrases and actually learn something.

“Pagan origins of Christ” “Bible errors” “Proof against Christianity”

Since you base your entire existence on your fairy tale, you may want to actually learn about it.

Like the fact that there were plenty of sons of God who were sacrificed, had virgin birth, died for our sins, etc … well before Christianity was even a thought.

Read morons, READ!!

By T Hopkins

December 15, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

Look up the difference between a SCIENTIFIC THEORY and your everyday run-of-the-mill generic “theory.” They’re not the same.

The overwhelming majority of scientists, along with the college-educated scientifically literate, understand Evolution is a fact. That’s why it is given the highest distinction of being a Theory (a SCIENTIFIC THEORY). That is also why many advanced biology textbooks talk about the “Fact of Evolution” rather than simply the “Theory of…” in order to distinguish the scientific from the ordinary and make this distinction stand out. The Federal Appeals Court erred by missing or ignoring this point entirely.

ID is simply wishful thinking - more along the lines of providing a simple explanation for simple minds. (The psychoanalysis of ID adherents must be fascinating.) ID is certainly not scientifically rigourous and certainly is NOT a theory (in the scientific sense). Its proponents only seem able to offer logical fallicies rather than anything substantive, and never provide testable hypotheses.

As a non-fanatical nor right-wing, southern Christian, I posit as well as accept that religion can and should provide the “Why,” but only the rigorous application of the scientific method can provide the “How.”

Render unto Caesar what is Casear’s….

By C.R.H.

December 15, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

Yeah, Yeah, whatever…the bible and “faith” issues belong in church! I am still angry that I had to use several hours of my pre planning to put those stupid stickers in those books! Hey Jeff…which version of “intelligent design” would you like taught? Your version or the versions of the various other “religious fanatics”? On second thought…I am a SCIENCE TEACHER, so maybe I’ll just teach SCIENCE!

By TinaTeach

December 15, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

Well we seem to be running around in circles.. again. Here is a hypo for you guys. Let’s just say for one instance that intelligent design is taught in schools along side evolution. What sort of intelligent design are we going to talk about? A simple “The Earth and it’s creatures were created/helped along by a higher power,” or the more specific “God created the word in six days then rested on the seventh,”? I believe that this question makes all the difference in how we approach it. If we teach the latter then it infringes on the right of Pagan and Wiccan children (believe me they are out there) as well as the children of Hindus and Buddhistes. If we teach the former I think it might be more accepted in school but only in a Social Science setting. What are your ideas on this guys?

By DB

December 15, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

Jeff: You are just so inaccurate in saying ID is scientific and evolution is about the origin of life. Evolution claims absolutely nothing about the origin of life. And ID is untestable and therefore outside science. You need to take a refresher course in both science and biology.

People: Do we really need to go through all this again?

By DB

December 15, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

People: Please look up the definition of an ordinary theory as compared to a scientific theory.

Here’s the point. Science education is so weak that very few people even know what they’re talking about in this blog when it comes to scientific theory and evolution. That is the exact reason why this is an issue.

By DB

December 15, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this

SUZAN: Your logic makes little sense, and you need to get up to date on your DNA knowledge. Useless DNA is not so useless as we once thought.

By reeves

December 15, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

We don’t ned to go through this all again. It is time we stop giving people who choose not to use their brains a free pass because it is their “Faith”.

Faith is stupid and so are the people who make all sorts of stupid claims and say they are true because they have “Faith”.

Faith is defined as belief without proof, also known as being a church going tard.

By DB

December 15, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

Jeff: You are so misinformed, I don’t even know where to start. You spout out all this inaccurate information as if it’s fact. And, sorry, Jeff, but Irreducible Complexity does not hold water.

By G

December 15, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

Intelligent Design is a matter of personal bias and preconceptions. I agree with the possibility of the basic ideas of intelligent design, and my own biases head in that direction, but IT IS NOT CREDIBLE SCIENCE. Some of you folks need to learn the difference between the two.

By Jeff

December 15, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

Tina,

Your original posing of the question is how ID looks at it.

As for everyone else: You claim that I’m blinded, but that is the very claim the blind make of those that can see.

I weep when I read your comments. Not because of your misguidedness, but because of your blindness.

You claim Christianity has it all backwards, and I’ll agree with you: in your eyes, we do. But I know what I believe, and I know that much of it is scientifically verifiable, if only you have a true dedication to following the evidence, WHEREVER it leads.

I have a standing policy in regards to debating, and one which I will now employ: I make my case 3 times and leave the rest to God. I am not commanded to change our minds or your hearts. I am commanded to present the evidence and trust Him.

I have presented my case, and I am now leaving. You will be in my prayers.

If I am wrong, I’ve lived to help people and lose nothing in death. But if I’m right, I’ve lived to help people and I gain everything in death.

The choice is yours. Jeff

By BlindHogHomer

December 15, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this

Genesis will get you from the creation of the earth to the flight from Egypt, all you have to do is a little adding Jeff. And that only adds up to somewhere around 2000 years in real round numbers, even allowing Moses to live to be 950! That old testament taken literally is so outlandish even the only meaningful Christian religion doesn’t support or teach it. It’s ridiculous to try and make a stand on the factual accuracy of the bible, particularly the old testament. Now my logic only gets metaphysics to two possibilities, either something came from nothing (Big Bang?) or something always was (god?). Believe what you will there as there isn’t too much evidence for either possibility (I don’t think Hawking addressed what if anything there was before the Big Bang), but Christianity and the bible are logically untenable, so leve them where they belong, in church and your home, not in public school.

By BlindHogHomer

December 15, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Genesis will get you from the creation of the earth to the flight from Egypt, all you have to do is a little adding Jeff. And it only adds up to somewhere around 2000 years in real round numbers, even allowing Moses to live to be 950! That old testament taken literally is so outlandish even the only meaningful Christian religion doesn’t support or teach it. It’s ridiculous to try and make a stand on the factual accuracy of the bible, particularly the old testament. So believe what you want but leave that stuff where it belongs, in church and your home, not in public school.

By A Modest Proposal

December 15, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this

What say we compromise a bit on both sides, folks. Not much talk of that, eh? The biggest objection to Intelligent Design is the name itself since that was clearly proposed by religious groups, and there is no evidence that the Intelligent Designer was either.

Frankly, if Man was the best an ID could do, then the ID could not have been terribly intelligent, if you ask me. (Alas, Man is too full of pride and hubris to admit how lowly we are.)

So, I say we compromise. Let’s placate the evolution opponents by allowing another theory to be taught, and let’s placate the scientists by letting them name it. I propose “Magic Purple Fairy”. Everywhere someone wants to say ID, just insert MPF. Lest you think I jest, I challenge y’all to come up with a better compromise that has something on which both sides can agree, and something on which both sides can not agree. That is the nature of compromise my friends, and we would be well served to be intelligent about how we design our solution to this issue.

By BlindHogHomer

December 15, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this

No fun without Jeff. I went to cathecism class for about four years. I think when we were about 7 the nun asked us to draw a picture of something we had learned during the year. Jeff, who was sitting next to me, drew a picture of an airplane with three seats in the back and one up front. The nun asked him what it was supposed to be. Jeff said, “it’s the flight into Egypt and the three seats are for Mary, Joseph, and baby Jesus”. She asked him about the seat up front. Jeff said, “that’s for Pontius, the pilot!” If there’s any hope for the future it’s that you teachers engage our children in the acquisition of knowledge, the search for truth, and the transmission of intellectual values.
Merry Christmas to you all.

By NotMyProblem

December 15, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

Wow, Reeves. You have some serious anger issues and unresolved hostility towards people who believe in God. Even though I’m sure you’re on the fast-track to hell, I’ll pray for you tonight. Maybe God will have mercy and grant you some of the spiritual wisdom you so desperately need. Oh, and have a very Merry Christmas. Jesus loves you.

By Al

December 15, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this

There was an interview with the chair of the school of theology of UNC Chapel Hill on the origins of the bible on Fresh Air this morning (Sirius NPR Talk.) He has a book titled Misquoting Jesus that chronicles the history of the bible, and the influence that scribes and the church had in the early centuries of its existence. Many of the basic tenets (the trinity) of today’s Christian sects (i.e. Catholics) were added by the churches as the book was being published. They didn’t even exist in the original manuscripts. If publishers didn’t add what the church wanted them to, the publishers would be accused of heresy. I can’t believe so many people are willing to base their entire lives on a book that was written with the intent of making them believe what is says is true, with no critical thought or self examination. Oh, I like the reference to L. Ron Hubbard. If he were around 2007 years ago we’d have the Hubbardians insisting that extraterrestrial insertion stickers be placed in all the textbooks.

By David200

December 15, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

guys I read this, and I want to cry. Here are some facts:

SOURCES: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Survey of Public Attitudes Toward and Understanding of Science and Technology, 2001; and European Commission, Eurobarometer 55.2 survey and standard report, Europeans, Science and Technology, December 2001.
25 percent of USA citizens believe the Sun goes around the Earth. Of the 75 percent who actually know that the Earth goes around the sun, only 54 percent know that it takes a year for it to happen. 52 percent believe electrons are about the size of atoms. 49 percent believe that antiBIOTICS kill viruses.

Guys, very few of us are competent to be telling science teachers about thier subjects.

By SWC

December 15, 2005 05:10 PM | Link to this

I am not a member of the “religious right”, I’m not even a Southerner, but I believe that Intelligent Design should be taught as a theory. What are people so afraid of???

The idea that global warming is caused by man is a theory, but I bet my bottom dollar that those of you who vehemently oppose any alternative to the theory of evolution being offered, are totally tied to the idea that bad men destroy the earth, completely excluding the influence that nature has had and will always have on the earth’s climate.

I do not have too much faith in “science” Most so-called science turns out to be “junk science”. Olive oil is bad for you. Oh wait, its good for you. Coffee is bad for you. Oh wait, its good for you. Wine is bad for you. Oh wait, its good for you.

And it was “science” that The Belgians used in Rwanda to separate the Tutsis from the Hutus and look where those crackpot theories got us.

By Dr. Derwinkle

December 15, 2005 05:40 PM | Link to this

Can science prove there is a God? Can science prove there isn’t? No, and no. And furthermore, it doesn’t care. Science is the study of natural and material phenomena. It concerns itself not at all with God. All scientific facts and theories, including evolution, exclude God right from the start. And that’s fine, just as long as it’s made clear. But I think science is happy if people don’t really think too much about that, because scientists’ prestige and power is enhanced thereby. There seems to be no shortage of people who believe that evolutionary theory “proves” that God doesn’t exist, and that all the big questions about the origins and development of life have been answered by science. Richard Dawkins comes to mind here. Some people (e.g., Charles Krauthammer) will accept the possibility that maybe God created things to start, but then a blind, random, unguided process took over, producing what we see today. The point is, science provides an answer about the origin and development of life, but it may or may not have anything to do with the truth, because science will not and cannot consider anything outside of its pre-set boundaries. And the truth may just lie, in part or in whole, outside those boundaries. It is amusing, though, to see the howling uproar of those on the left, the supposedly tolerant and open-minded ones, when anyone dares to raise a question about evolution. What are they so afraid of? Read the statement that went into the textbooks. How on earth could anyone construe that as promoting religion? And by the way, Al, anyone who relies on NPR for their information on Christianity is likely to be sadly misinformed. You might as well ask Saddam Hussein what he thinks of President Bush.

By craig

December 16, 2005 08:15 AM | Link to this

I have never heard from anyone that supports the theory of evolution how science can justify the contradiction of evolution and the laws of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics states energy or matter can neither be created or destroyed, and the second law states the universe exists in a state of atrophy, the tendency to degrade over time. How can the same scientists that accept the laws of thermodynamics as fact, vehemently support a theory that is diametrically opposite? The evolutionists cannot answer any questions about the origin of life with scientific accuracy.

By V for Vendetta

December 16, 2005 08:15 AM | Link to this

4,000 years ago the ancient Egyptions believed that there were many gods. A thousand years after that, the Greeks and the Romans continued that belief, but with “different” gods. Then came the Christian/Muslim/Jewish sect that believed in ONE god. 2,000 years from now, people will look back on us and laugh. They will laugh that we actually sat around and argued about this stuff. Or maybe they will look back on us with pity, as we pity those who went to war thousands of years ago to “reclaim” the holy land and how silly they were to fight over religion. Oh, wait, that makes them EXACTLY like us. Whether you’re talking jihads or what goes in school textbooks. Personally, I think there is a God, but I don’t think He is something we can possibly understand. I agree with what someone said earlier, most religious texts are nothing more than nice bedtime stories, similar to stories of Hercules, Zeus, Mars, Jupiter, Imhotep, Achilles, Ra, etc. People read them, listen to them, study them to feel better about their own lives. If they give people peace and meaning that’s wonderful, but they are NOT TRUE. Adam and Eve- Nope. Great Flood- Nope. Hercules- Nope. The best suggestion anyone has had so far is leaving the science to science class and leaving the religious/creationism/origin stories to Theology class. Then maybe people will stop laughing at us.

By luvs2teach

December 16, 2005 08:36 AM | Link to this

I am a science teacher, and like Jeff, I believe both theories should be taught…before you all start criticizing, you need to understand why I feel this way. Unlike Jeff, it’s not because I feel ID deserves “equal time” as a valid theory (actually, I don’t think it should be given equal time at all). Rather it’s because by understanding what science IS, it becomes obvious that ID/creationism ISN’T.

I like to look at my favorite scientist, Alfred Wegener. In 1910, he proposed the idea of continental drift - an idea widely accepted today. At the time, the prevailing theory about what shaped the continents and moved the mountains was the “shrinking earth” theory - that the earth was shrinking as it cooled and wrinkling like a raisin, thus forming mountain ranges and ocean basins. Because Wegener couldn’t explain a force strong enough to move the continents, he was widely ridiculed and discredited.

But…fast-forward through time…new technologies and new discoveries cause us to change our ideas. Now a better understanding of the inner earth has given rise to a new theory - plate tectonics. It is believed that convection currents within the mantle are moving the plates that the continents sit on. Wegener WAS right (or pretty close to it). Do we know for SURE? No, but the evidence strongly suggests it. New info = new theory.

I could go on with other stories (the formation of the moon, the extinction of the dinosaurs, etc), but the point is that when enough new evidence arises that contradicts a theory, the theory is changed. Creationism is an attempt to make the evidence fit the theory. That’s not what science is. And when you can teach both, and compare and contrast both, then it’s very easy to understand.

There are unanswered questions, of course, and faith doesn’t need to be excluded from your world view. For me, “The universe was created in a Big Bang” and “God said, ‘Let there be light’ and there was” are not mutually exclusive. I highly recommend “Finding Darwin’s God” to those of you interested readers out there.

Jeff and BlindHogHomer - 6,000 year old earth: This idea was proposed by Bishop Ussher (as well as John Lightfoot, but Ussher got the credit) in 1650. He figured it out by averaging the age at which people might begin “begetting” as it were, and added up all the generations mentioned in the Bible. So, the 6,000 year Earth is not specifically in the Bible, but rather extrapolated from it.

Jeff - even die-hard, young earth creationists generally acknowledge the idea of “micro-evolution” particularly as seen in antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria.

T. Smith - well-said!

DB - regarding your comment on weakness of science education - exactly why it should be taught in a science class as an example of what science ISN’T.

A Modest Proposal - I’m all for the Purple Fairy if it will help my kids do better on the CRCT, ha ha! Seriously, though, your comment about our Intelligent Designer perhaps not being so intelligent - I have read several articles lately on how ID may actually be BAD for religion.

Here’s an interesting link:

http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/20051016evolutionblogarchive.html

AI - absolutely! As religion has been changed (and often corrupted) by Man, how are we to know that this book, which some interpret literally, is what God meant to be written at all? Weren’t books of it written originally in Greek, then translated to Hebrew, Latin, and finally English? Anyone ever play the telephone game? Could parts of the message, literally, be “lost in translation?”

SWC - it’s not science you should have a problem with - it’s the media and their penchant for bite-size science tidbits that make good headlines. I learned in college it’s best to go to the source - the peer-reviewed article outlining the experiment to understand what it really showed. Too many of us don’t have the science knowledge to critically consider the “facts” presented to us on a daily basis. Your mention of global warming is a perfect example - it’s not that the theory is man created global warming; it’s that man is accelerating global warming - that’s the part that gets lost. As you mentioned, the earth has had numerous periods of heating and cooling in the past that we had nothing to do with - the question is what impact are we having now? One small experiment or an analysis of data gives us part of the answer, but the earth is a dynamic system - hard to study, hard to predict. A big asteroid hits us from outer space and it will all be a moot point anyway!

As high school teacher said, “How do I know what to refute?” In that light, here are two interesting links:

http://www.discovery.org/csc/ The Discovery Institute, pro-ID, discussions of “peer-reviewed” work (something scientists really LIKE)

http://www.natcenscied.org/ National Center for Science Education, pro-evolution, their tagline is “Defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools”

Sorry to be such a blog hog, but this is one of my favorite topics! And, for those of you concerned - I wrote this novel at home in my own time, and then cut and pasted in the blog in the morning - before my students arrived. Add to that a pre-emptive apology for any spelling and grammar errors that may have occurred.

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Happy Hanukkah, Blessed Be on the Solstice, etc, etc, etc - Peace out!

By modest

December 16, 2005 08:48 AM | Link to this

V for Vendetta I agree with almost everthing you say at the end of your message. But the begining of it makes you look like you dont know what you are talking about. Pope Urban called on all Christans to go fight in what is now the Middle East to keep Islam from spreading into Europe. It was a defensive move. I dont know if you did this or not but people should not watch Hollywood movies to get their history lessons. Also I beleive that you are ignorant if you do not believe in Evolution. Why should school kids be thought Creationism (which ID is) in school? Is that not the State promoting one religion over the other? Which is a against the law. Merry Christmas!

By Devils Advocate

December 16, 2005 09:03 AM | Link to this

Maybe Adam and Eve were a lot “hairier” than we envisioned.

Food for thought…..

By high school teacher

December 16, 2005 09:09 AM | Link to this

Blond Hog Homer,

Here’s a thought…

God didn’t create many things “new.” He created Adam and Eve as adults. He created the “non-mammal” animals as mature animals, not in eggs waiting to be hatched (birds of the air, for example). What if He created the Earth with mountain ranges, valleys, lakes, and rivers in a mature stage as well? Maybe He created the Earth mature like He created everything else, which would explain the discrepancy in the timeline and the Earth’s age. This has been a very interesting post! I do wish that we could cease with the name calling, though!

By high school teacher

December 16, 2005 09:22 AM | Link to this

I also wanted to clarify two points to all:

1) Not all Christian religions discredit the Old Testament. I firmly believe every story in the Bible. I don’t pick what to believe and what not to believe; the Bible is an “all-or-nothing” book. 2)Not all Christians believe in Intelligent Design. I believe that God created the Earth in six days; ID is much more vague than that, and it is not completely substantiated by the Bible.

One caution to Christians: because I didn’t believe in the Evolution theory I learned in science class, I was hesitant to believe anything else that was presented in science. We need to be careful how we approach this issue with our children so that we don’t turn them off to science in general.

By SUZAN

December 16, 2005 09:24 AM | Link to this

Here are a few interesting quotes: Henry Margenau:

Known as the former editor of the American Journal to Science. He was a professor of psychics for 40 years at Harvard, received 8 doctorate degrees, and was a visiting profession at 12 universities. When asked why there is such hostility to religion, he replied that it was common among scientists with a mild training In the field, such as high school teachers, those who have made major contributions are, in reality, religious in their beliefs.

(Dr. D. James Kennedy, Great Scientists And The Bible)

The Bible Is Not a Science Textbook

One principle that some overzealous Christian apologists sometimes forget is that, while the Bible makes no scientific mistakes, neither is it a science textbook. It does not speak in technical scientific terms nor with precision. It uses round numbers. It employs observational, rather than astronomical, language. The Bible only affirms partial truths in the various areas of science. It does not teach much geometry, any algebra, or trigonometry. One cannot assume conflicts without taking these factors into consideration.

The Bible Is Not a Science Textbook

One principle that some overzealous Christian apologists sometimes forget is that, while the Bible makes no scientific mistakes, neither is it a science textbook. It does not speak in technical scientific terms nor with precision. It uses round numbers. It employs observational, rather than astronomical, language. The Bible only affirms partial truths in the various areas of science. It does not teach much geometry, any algebra, or trigonometry. One cannot assume conflicts without taking these factors into consideration.

The Bible Is Not a Science Textbook

One principle that some overzealous Christian apologists sometimes forget is that, while the Bible makes no scientific mistakes, neither is it a science textbook. It does not speak in technical scientific terms nor with precision. It uses round numbers. It employs observational, rather than astronomical, language. The Bible only affirms partial truths in the various areas of science. It does not teach much geometry, any algebra, or trigonometry. One cannot assume conflicts without taking these factors into consideration.

Im justg saying maybe we should all open our mids to each others points of view and explore THE POSSIBLITIES THAT THERE CAN BE MORE THAN JUST THESE TWO THEORIES AND THERE JUST MAYBE SOMETHING ELSE THAT COMES TO LIGHT IN THE NEXT 100 YEARS THAT BLOWS ALL OF THIS OUT OF THE WATER. So lets not close our minds off in any direction. The Bible does not say how old the earth is. but it is much more than just a fairy tale (reeve) perhaps it would be good to explore the truths that are there and see where they lead you. After all this is what Isaac Newton did.

By SUZAN

December 16, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this

For example, 100 years ago it was emphatically stated that the atom could not be split. Yet, we know all too well, as do the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that it can be split, and with powerful consequences! No, the Bible is not a science textbook—it is a narrative of God’s reaching out to a lost world by redeeming it. However, whatever the Bible says about science, history, geography, or anything else, it is true—precisely because its Author is God. It is our job to be able to explain that to the skeptics who come our way.

THE INNUMERABLE STARS:

For centuries, scholars taught that the stars were very limited in number and could be counted without a great deal of trouble. Hiparchus, in 150 B.C., said that there were less than 3,000 stars. Ptolemy, the famed astronomer of Egypt in 150 A.D., said he had counted precisely 1,056 stars. Yet Jeremiah 33:22—which was written 2,600 years ago—told us that “the host of heaven cannot be numbered.” It was not until Galileo invented the telescope that he realized the stars were innumerable (in 1608 A.D.)

A WATERY EARTH:

In 1000 B.C. Solomon said that the earth had at one time been under water, yet vast numbers of scientists believed that to be absolutely untrue until modern times. In 1885 geologists first found evidence that all land surfaces had been under water—and it is clear now that even the oldest and highest mountains show traces of sedimentary origin.

CHANNELS IN THE SEA:

In 2000 B.C. the Bible first said that there are channels in the oceans (Job 38:16), but science didn’t know that for thousands of years. They thought the floor of the ocean was made up of flat sandy beds like the desert. It wasn’t until 1873, when the British ship Challenger examined the sea bottom, that scientists discovered there were vast channels and recesses—some as much as 5 1/2 miles deep and greater than the Grand Canyon—at the bottom of the sea.

SPRINGS IN THE DEEP:

God asks Job (Job 38) if he had entered into the “springs of the sea.” Why, such things were unheard of! Yet Moses confirms their existence 500 years later. Science didn’t confirm it until 1930, when deepsea diving equipment allowed them to discover underground rivers and in 1945, when huge springs were discovered in the depths of the oceans.

WHAT CAUSES RAIN?:

Job 38:25-27 reveals that lightening causes rain! But science didn’t agree until 4,000 years later when, in 1964, it was discovered that the discharge of lightening, particularly bolts that travel from the earth up to the clouds, changed the electrical polarity of rain droplets, causing them to coalesce as raindrops and fall to the earth. Tests show that without this electrical charge, these droplets simply ricochet off one another harmlessly.

THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS:

The Bible teaches that all creation ended after the 6th day (Genesis 2:1-2; Hebrews 4:3). That means there was no more matter, energy, heavens, or earth being created after that time. However, through the centuries various writers and scientists contradicted that concept until the 1840’s, when Robert Mayer formulated the Law of Mass and Energy Conservation—known as the first Law of Thermodynamics. It states that the total of all mass and energy in the universe remains constant. One form of energy or mass may be changed into another, but the total cannot be increased or decreased. This was an incredible discovery that once and for all confirmed what the Bible said 1,450 years before Christ. Shortly after that, they realized that though mass and energy remain constant, they are constantly decaying. The Bible states this in Isaiah 51:6, Psalms 102:26, and Hebrews 1:1. But it was not until the 1800’s that the Second Law of Thermodynamics—the Law of Entropy—confirmed it with science. It was found that there is a constant amount of energy in the universe, but in all kinds of energy transferences there is a loss of useful energy. For example, in creating heat, the sun is diminishing at the rate of 4,600,000 tons per second! And it is not just the sun; the Law of Entropy says all things are growing older, wearing out, running down, and decaying. The Bible knew that thousands of years ago.

By SUZAN

December 16, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this

These are just a few quotes I found to be interesting. Let’s all keep and open mind. Newton believed that ancient civilazations possesed more knowledge that we do and that much of it has been lost with the rise and fall many peoples, cities and goverments. Perhaps there is a great deal more to be discovered that we cant even think of yet. I think we MUST keep our minds open to all possiblities and to try and pigeon hole young minds into just ID or evolution may indeed limit thier imagination. Students need to learn everything they can from every possible source.

By SUZAN

December 16, 2005 09:47 AM | Link to this

and there shall be weeping and nashing of teeth

hugs to all Suz

By jim dumond

December 16, 2005 10:05 AM | Link to this

Teaching ID as science?

I think not.

However,I would have little problem teaching it in a historical context.

The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was “wrong� and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.

“Intelligent design isn’t science even though it pretends to be,� the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. “If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.�

I concur with the Rev. George Coyne. Let us by all means teach ID, just not as science.

By V for Vendetta

December 16, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this

Suzan, while I totally disagree with you, I find the endings of your entries to be very humorous. “Hugs to all”. That’s awesome. My how angry you must make some people (as, I am sure, do I).

Modest, no I did not watch a Hollywood movie for my knowledge of history and the Crusades. If you will notice, I never said anything about offensive or defensive moves, and I never specified a side. Sorry, never saw “Kingdom of Heaven” if that’s what you are alluding to. Sorry, maybe I should have picked a word other than “reclaim”.

By Randy

December 16, 2005 10:18 AM | Link to this

Macro-evolution is a joke. Get over it and get right with the creator!!!

By Robert

December 16, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this

I cannot believe that people so very unfamiliar with science even try to influence it. Why is it that everyone suddenly considers themselves an “expert” on any topic?

The confusion is really the definition of the science word “theory” is not understood by the general population. In order for anything to be considered a “theory” it must be truely evaluated by scientists through a process called “scientific method”. Just any cannot say that they have a real “theory” because they think it is so…… that is called a “hypothesis.”

Evolution is a real “theory” because it has gone through the science rigours required. Intelligent design is not a real “theory” because it has not gone through this process. Intelligent design is a “hypothesis”.

In the classrooms, we do not teach “hypothesis” and this is simply because anyone and everyone may have a “hypothesis” that may never hold through the scientific process. Why teach something that may never hold water?

By Robert

December 16, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this

This has nothing to do with religon nor how religous a scientist or teacher may or may not be. This has everything to do with science - plain and simple.

A scientist or teacher may be very very religous.

By SUZAN

December 16, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this

Thanks V. I cant say I really want ID taught in schools, Im just saying that as theories go Evolution is just whats in vogue right now. (humm I think that may cause a little more nashing of teeth) I really only want people to keep a really open mind to learning. I do not really expect ID to ever be taught in Schools What I do want is for minds to be opened to all knowledge. The Bible has many strong areas that could open a mind to science. Issac Newton was able to read chemical(alchemy) recipies out of fables and poems that are just being tested and proven accurate in the last 2 years. When any science decides that they are the only true answer to a problem, it appears to me it then becomes more of a religion than a truth and the science of the moment becomes the god. If you say this is the only way something can be then that is a clsed mind. Science as we understand it today may look like a kids chemstry set in another 100 to 200 years. I dont think people should be so rude or smug about thier beliefs in an ever changing area. Christianty does not change and thats as it shouldf be science should be open to change. Okay Im off my doap box. Hey V. Im sure lots of people dont like what I have to say, but thats okay. I like to stir people up to debate.

By Randy

December 16, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this

To me evolution is irrevelant, if we have the same ancestor as a Chimp or not, still doesn’t eliminate the fact that the universe didn’t create itself in the beginning, as things don’t appear out of thin air, without some kind of help. So there is a creator and logically it would follow, that he would make himself known. So you evolutionists need to quit being so sure your theory gives you what you want. Specificially, you being able to play God, instead of following the real God.

By chuck

December 16, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

To say that “evolution” is not about the origin of life is disingenuous at best, but more likely an outright lie. I’ve looked through dozens of high school biology textbooks and all but one begin the chapter on evolution with a section on the origin of life. I have a Holt “Modern Biology” textbook in my hand right now and it certainly addresses the origin of life issue with their discussion of evolution. Sure they are quick to point out that they can’t “prove” it, but then they start trying to show evidence for it.

Evolution is a scientific house of cards. They determined what happened, it was “logical” to them and then fabricated “evidence” to make it look plausible. The so-called experiments that they like to trot out every time this issue comes up are nothing more than a series of observations that could have a number of explanations besides evolution.

There are not just missing fossils in the “logical” order of evolution, there are “evolved” fossils in geological layers that are older than the fossils of creatures that they supposedly evolved from. Evolutionists try to explain these away, but these explanations require significant leaps of faith as well as leaps of logic.

Do this experiment. Go out into your back yard and turn the hose on just a trickle on a bare section of your yard. Leave it on for an hour or so and see what kind of path the water takes and how much soil it removes. The in another similar area of your yard, take the hose and put your foot on it and turn it on full blast on the ground for 5 seconds. Which one removes more soil?

The point? Geologists and evolutionists explain the grand canyon as a “little” water over a long period of time. Creationists explain it as a “Lot” of water (the Biblical Flood) over a short period of time. Can both of these events explain the grand canyon? CERTAINLY. But, not according to the evolutionists. They have completely closed minds. They are not interested in INQUIRY unless it matches the conclusion they have already drawn.

By Randy

December 16, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this

Their is a show on TV (interview with the Screen Actors Guild) or something like that. At the end of the show the guy interviewing the celebrities asked them this question. If heaven exists what do you want God to say to you at the pearly gates. Thats the question I think we need to ask ourselves here, are we helping lead someone to God, or did we lead them and maybe ourselves in the wrong direction? I don’t think God is going to be real happy, with a response of “I thought evolution sounded good”. A little selfish and selfcentered???

By HB

December 16, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

“I am not a member of the “religious rightâ€?, I’m not even a Southerner, but I believe that Intelligent Design should be taught as a theory. What are people so afraid of???”

Personally, SWC, I’m afraid of having an entire generation of students who are not science literate. ID is NOT a scientific theory and absolutely should not be taught as such! If someone can figure out to to scientifically test ID and proceed to prove it likely to be true (thus making it a scientific theory), then by all means teach it. Until then, keep it out of biology class!

As for junk science, the fact that we hear contradictory science statements (somthing is good for us today, but not tomorrow) does not mean that most science is junk. The headlines and conflicting findings that pop up are based on individual studies and are, in fact, evidence of good science — repeated testing and research being conducted in order to arrive someday at the most likely answer.

By SUZAN

December 16, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this

Randy, I think you must be a deeply commited believer of Christ as am I. I would propose that we always be ready to give a reason for the joy that lives witnin us with gentlenss and respect. always speak in love and remember sometimes we are only the planter of the seed. It may take many years for the harvest. be patient with you fellow humans, they need your love.

Peace and love Suz

By me

December 16, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

These blogs use to be informative and enjoyable. Now it seems there is a new rage - “Blog Rage”. Be nice people!!!

By thats funny

December 16, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

Y’ll ned to get a room

By Dave

December 16, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

“Name one thing that the Bible claims and that history has uncovered where the Bible is wrong.”

The classic, “You can’t prove it wrong” argument. You can’t prove I didn’t camp out on Mars last night, either.

OK, I’ll play, but only one example?

How is it that Kangaroos and Koalas only exist in Australia? How did they get to and from the Ark? If the answer is that they were divinely plucked and placed, why use Noah and the Ark in the first place?

By BlindHogHomer

December 16, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this

High School Teacher - Catholics of course only consider the New Testament and they were around from the beginning if you count Peter as a Catholic, although it more properly formalized around 325 AD. What’s incredible to me is someone like say a Southern Baptist, meaning his sect derives from the pro-slavery branch of a sect that started about 1600 years after the life of Christ, can stand up on Sunday in front of his neighbor’s and profess to know the word and will of god. I’m reasonably certain god didn’t write a single word of the Old or New Testaments, men did. And somewhere along the line, perhaps at Nicaea, the early Christians made major changes to the bible eliminating some of the more incredulous parts, including perhaps the gospel of Thomas, which mentioned going to the tomb and removing the body. Hard to have a billion followers without the main event!

By Chris

December 16, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this

If we can teach other ideas in biology that are not scientific I want to see other religions given equal time and respect in Sunday Schools.

ID is NOT science…Evolution is. The basic biochemical compounds we in fact recreated in a lab under much the same conditions that life began.

Science class is where we learn science, not somebody’s idea they really like. If we teach ID then we should also teach the idea that humans evolved from echinoderms (starfish and kin) based on the fast our neurological systems are very similar. We should also teach that space aliens are using us as a class project. Neither can be proven, but why not toss ‘em in there. We should also teach conflicts with our beliefs in history. Like why not teach the idea held by some that the holocaust is a lie. Whether it can be proven or not it IS a differing idea.

Let science be taught in science and religion taught in church.

By Where the bible's wrong

December 16, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this

As I read the New Testament I find the first contradiction in the very first verse, of the very first chapter, of the very first book of the New Testament.

In Matthew 1: verse 1, I read. — “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” And after that verse comes a long line of “begats” until we come to verse 16, that reads: “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.”

Now if Joseph was not the natural father of Jesus, but only the husband of Mary, as Matthew 1:16 says, then Matthew 1, 1 to 16, is not, cannot be, “the origin of Jesus Christ,” as is stated in the first chapter, first verse of Matthew.

But if Joseph is the natural father of Jesus, as is implied in other verses of the Bible, then the story of Jesus being born of a virgin is the contradiction. That legend is in Matthew 1:18 and reads: “Now the origin of Christ was in this wise. When Mary his mother had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.”

Also, and most important, if Jesus were born of a virgin and was not the descendant of David, then the words of Peter in Acts 2:29-30 are false. In Acts 2:29-30 Peter says: “Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day. (30) therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;”

Now we have a pretty kettle of fish. If Jesus is the son of God through the “Holy Spirit,” as is stated in Matthew 1:18-20, then either he is not the Christ, or God has “sworn with an oath” a lie to David. Or else, Jesus is the son of Joseph, son of David, son of Abraham, and thus might be the “Christ”; but then he cannot be the son of God by the Holy Spirit, and could not have been born of a virgin.

I could spend the entire day going through the apparent contradictions in the New Testament. But as we are speaking of a book that is said to be the word of God, we need only one contradiction, anywhere in the Bible to prove it is not the word and work of God.

By From another planet

December 16, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this

I also want to include Alien Design “theory” in textbooks. Just take the Intelligent Design “logic” and substitute “alien” in place of “creator”. It makes just as much sense and also can’t be disproved.

By the way, if schools are required to teach a faith-based theory, shouldn’t churches be required to teach evolution?

By chuck

December 16, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this

HB hit the nail on the head. He talks about scientific “Literacy” in one breath and in the next, proves his own lack of knowledge on the subject. He said:

…the fact that we hear contradictory science statements (somthing is good for us today, but not tomorrow) does not mean that most science is junk. The headlines and conflicting findings that pop up are based on individual studies and are, in fact, evidence of good science — repeated testing and research being conducted in order to arrive someday at the most likely answer.

That is absolutely the OPPOSITE of science. If something is proven scientifically, you can do the experiment over a thousand times and you should expect to get EXACTLY THE SAME RESULTS EVERY TIME. If you get different results one OR both of the studies are FLAWED. That is the FACT of science. It is called replication. If you replicate a study and get different results then the study IS NOT VALID.

That is also EXACTLY why you cannot trust the “science” surrounding evolution. When the researcher is biased at the start of the study, they WILL almost always slant the findings to fit their own beliefs.

By SUZAN

December 16, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

Excuse me where’s but lineage and jewishness is passedd from the mother to the child. Mary is the more direct dencendent from David and Joseph was indeed her cousin. Thats how it was done then and how in many places it’s still done marriages happen in the same family through cousins

By leave us not forget

December 16, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

The “noodly appendage” of the Flying Spaghetti Monster need to be introduced as well.

By chuck

December 16, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this

“WHERE”

Your long-winded “contradiction” was pointless. Any novice Christian can blow that one out of the water. You made the mistake that many scientists make. You started out with the ASSUMPTION that it was a contradiction because you lacked the historical background knowledge that you needed to understand the passage. Scientists don’t understand God OR how He works in the world, so they assume all of these things had a natural explanation and that is all that they looked for.

By SUZAN

December 16, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this

Would this seem to answer the question -

Who is Joseph’s father? In Matthew 1:16 we read, “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Yeshua, who is called Messiah.” However, Luke 3:23 records, “…Yeshua himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli…” Have we caught the inspired writers in a point of contradiction?

RESPONSE:

I believe the careful Bible student is likely to conclude that Matthew and Luke present two different genealogies. Following through the genealogies, one will notice that there are some names which are common to both, but also, a great number of differences. Matthew begins at the patriarch Abraham, and works his way to Yeshua the Messiah. Luke begins at Yeshua, and works his way back to Adam. There are two genealogies, with two distinct purposes. Matthew, it appears reveals the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke, presents the genealogy of Mary.

Matthew, penning his gospel with the Jews in mind, sets out to establish Yeshua’s qualifications to be the Messiah through Joseph’s genealogy. Thus, beginning with Abraham, he maps the Lord’s genealogy through David, and the kings which followed. He presents Jesus’ royal lineage (through the males) through “…Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Yeshua…”

Luke, writes to the Gentiles with a view toward the humanity of Messiah. The concept of one being both God and man would seem strange and foreign to those accustomed to Greek and Roman gods. Thus, Luke begins at Yeshua, and follows the genealogy of Mary, passing through the patriarchs, ending with the very first man, Adam.

If Luke is tracing the genealogy of Mary, why does he cite Joseph’s name? Today, it would be politically incorrect to map a woman’s genealogy through her husband, however, in Luke’s day, it was proper and correct. Luke follows Mary’s genealogy, beginning with the name of Joseph, her husband, Heli’s son-in-law (in legal terms, his son by marriage).

How can Yeshua have a genealogy without having a biological father? Very simply, in legal terms, Joseph was Yeshua’s father (look at it as a step-son who has all the rights and privileges of an adopted son). Thus, the genealogy of Joseph was legally applied to Yeshua.

There is no contradiction.

By Scuse me

December 16, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this

There are several problems with this explanation. Although Joseph was from the house of David (Luke 1:27, 2:4), Mary appears to have been from the house of Judah since her cousin Elizabeth (Luke 1:36) was a daughter of Aaron, i.e. from the house of Judah (Luke 1:5). Moreover, Mary’s name is never mentioned in the genealogy of Luke 3, and only arises incidentally in that of Matthew 1. Both genealogies clearly pertain to Joseph. Both clearly trace the descent of Joseph, not Mary. In fact, none of the genealogies in either the Old or New Testament trace the lineage of a woman. Women are never given a position of such importance in the Bible as to merit a genealogy, and there is no evidence Luke 3 provides an exception. The superiority granted men in the Bible would forestall any possibility of women being considered as equals.

By Dave

December 16, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this

high school teacher - “God didn’t create many things “new.â€? He created Adam and Eve as adults. He created the “non-mammalâ€? animals as mature animals, not in eggs waiting to be hatched (birds of the air, for example). What if He created the Earth with mountain ranges, valleys, lakes, and rivers in a mature stage as well? Maybe He created the Earth mature like He created everything else, which would explain the discrepancy in the timeline and the Earth’s age.”

Why would God do that? A painstaking and extravagant ruse to test our faith? Why create the universe as if it were old? Why, indeed, put craters on the far side of the moon?

One thing about ID - what’s so intelligent about the human design? Ear hair, male nipples, things that flap when we run, and no cup holders. What’s so intelligent about that?

By SUZAN

December 16, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this

Please refer to this site scuse me and see what you think I may stand corrected, but I await yourresponse.

http://wespatterson.com/Biblical/adamtojesus.html

By Scuse me

December 16, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this

bad link.

By Scuse me

December 16, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

Another problem.

the Bible repeatedly says nothing pure can come from woman (Job 25:4, 14:4, Job 15:14 NIV), and anyone touching a woman within seven days after she has menstruated (Lev. 15:19) is impure. Mary had to be purified (Luke 2:22-24) according to the Old Testament law (Lev. 12:8), and it’s difficult to see how Jesus could have avoided touching her during these periods. Mary was under the curse of Original Sin, like all of us, and thus was no purer than anyone else. Realizing the problem an impure Mary presents, Catholics tried to resolve this difficulty by proclaiming the Immaculate Conception in 1854. They alleged that Mary herself was conceived apart from sin: she was pure. But that does not resolve the problem; it’s only removed one step. If this were true, how could Mary’s sinful parents produce a pure daughter? Moreover, if Mary were sinless, like Jesus, then why would she say in Luke 1:47: “And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.” If Mary had been sinless, holy, and the mother of God, why did she need a Saviour? According to Christianity, only sinners need saviours.

By SUZAN

December 16, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

Scuse Me try this

http://wespatterson.com/Biblical/adamtojesus.html

thx suz

By Scuse me

December 16, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

Suz,

God must be keeping me from accessing the link

By SUZAN

December 16, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this

Scue Me I tried this link from here and it did not work…

http://wespatterson.com/Biblical/adamtojesus.html

By Scuse me

December 16, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this

Suz, God must be jammining the internet, still won’t open

By Canada

December 16, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this

It is becoming quite apparent that Pandit Nehru was right when he suggested that “religion and politics are obsolete and should be replaced with science and spiritality”. The idea that “opinion” (judgement short of proof) is equal to “fact” (a verifiable event)is beyong my comprehension. A belief in a supreme being is just that: a belief.

By chuck

December 16, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

This is the correct url:

http://wespatterson.com/Biblical/adamtojesus.html

There are underscores between adam and to and between to and Jesus

By SUZAN

December 16, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this

scuse me, that was really cute! ;0)

Thanks Chuck.

Suz

By chuck

December 16, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this

For some reason the underscores don’t show up on this blog. Got to www.wespatterson.com

click “geneology”

on the left side click “Bible/Royalty”

Click Adam to Jesus.

Yo will eventually get there.

By chuck

December 16, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this

You are WELCOME Suz.

Merry Christmas to all and to all a Good Day!

Chuck

By dave

December 16, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

Scuse me - “Realizing the problem an impure Mary presents, Catholics tried to resolve this difficulty by proclaiming the Immaculate Conception in 1854.”

Another “theory” is that the virgin birth was simply dreamed up to counter the Roman rulers’ claims to be decendents of their gods.

By Scuse me

December 16, 2005 01:03 PM | Link to this

Well, besides these major problems, there are also several difficulties related to the Virgin Birth. If Joseph was the natural father of Jesus, as some previously-mentioned verses allege, then Jesus was illegitimate, a bastard, since Joseph and Mary were engaged, not married. Luke 2:5 proves the latter quite clearly in the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New American Standard Version (NAS), and the New International (NI) Version. Moreover, Jesus couldn’t claim the throne of David. To quote the fundamentalists: “…if Jesus had been sired by Joseph, He would not have been able to claim the legal rights to the throne of David. According to the prophecy of Jeremiah 22:28-30, there could be no king in Israel who was a Descendant of King Jeconiah, and Matthew 1:12 relates that Joseph was from the line of Jeconiah. If Jesus had been fathered by Joseph, He could not rightly inherit the throne of David, since he was a relative of the cursed line.” Secondly, several other figures in the Old Testament also had miraculous births. Issac was born to an aged woman, Sarah, who no longer menstruated (Gen. 18:10-11), and Samuel was born to a woman, Hannah, whose womb had been closed by the lord (1 Sam. 1:5, 2:21). And thirdly, it’s difficult to believe that the scruples of Jesus were far from those of his ancestors. Was his morality really that different from theirs? Abraham married his sister and seduced herhandmaiden; Judah committed incest with his daughter-in-law; David was a polygamist, an adulter, a robber, and a murderer; Solomon had a thousand wives and concubines; and Rehoboam, Abijam, Joram, Ahaziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Manasseh, Amon, and Jehoiachin were all described as purveyors of iniquity. Only four women are mentioned in Jesus’ ancestry, besides Mary, and yet each was morally deficient. Tamar seduced the father of her late husband; Rahab was a common prostitute; Ruth went to bed with one of her cousins instead of marrying another cousin; and Bathsheba was involved in adultery. Despite this litany, apologists ask the world to believe these unprincipled malefactors gave rise to a perfectly sinless being, God himself.

By SUZAN

December 16, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this

Okay scuse me, In an effort not to bore all here I am giving you another web site for this very debate with in the church. It is very good reading and I hope you enjoy it.

thanks

Suz

http://www.athmaprakashini.com/virginbirth4.htm

By Scuse me

December 16, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this

thanks Suz.

By SWC

December 16, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this

As someone who is a Christian (Episopalian), but entirely objective on the subject, I have to say to those of you who are rabidly anti-Christian and refer to us as “idiots”, “morons” and worse, I am none too impressed with what we are to infer is your superior intelligence. What I see is just another form of bigotry, characterized by extreme intolerance, with an irrational fear that including I.D. in our children’s curriculum is the road to a theocratic state.

Even Darwinists admit that evolution does not explain everything and depend on some future discovery to provide the final explanation. One does not have to take the Bible literally to believe in God or Intelligent Design, so all this “gotcha” kind of nitpicking is of little or no consequence to the debate. And as I recall, Einstein the “scientist” was a “believer” so it is not necessary to be an aetheist to be a scientist. Why this insistence that science and faith are incompatible?

If anyone cares, I just found a great website: www.discovery.org. I don’t think that you can describe the writers here as “idiots” by any means - on the contrary there is much erudition here.

By HB

December 16, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

I don’t necessarily fear that including ID in curriculum will lead to a theocratic state, but I do believe if it is taught as science, then that diminishes the quality of a student’s science education. To me, it’s like teaching students in a history class that the holocaust did not occur because a few “historians” hold that theory while the vast majority of history scholars say it did happen and have the research to back it up.

I do think that discussion of ID could have a place in a school in a nonscience debate setting, an objectively taught religion class, or maybe even a current events course, but it cannot be taught as a scientific theory simply because it’s not one. And I say this as a Christian who believes God created evolution, but since I don’t have the science to back up my belief, I won’t attempt to teach it in a biology class.

By MMM

December 16, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

I would recomend the following book:

Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution —by Kenneth R. Miller

The author is a biology professor AND devout Catholic. He treats with respect and takes to their logical conclusion the typical arguments of both sides and after he has ripped everything (both “evolution as God” and “God as evolution”)to logical garbage, he reconstucts a personal argument—that he admits is his belief— that “God is God” and “evolution is evolution” with God having plenty of space to work behind the curtain of the Hiensberg uncertainty principal and current chaos theory to do His will. And he relates this to the theological requirements necessary to allow free will. This creates a much more awesume view of both the mystery of our origins and the power of God.

This is an excellent book for its easy to understand explainations of evolutionary theory, scientific method, theology, change over time, free will, probability, and the history of this whole debate.

By Scuse me

December 16, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

Bottom line is that faith requies no scientific documentation. Otherwise it wouldn’t be faith.

Think about that before introducing ID into the school curriculum.

By SWC

December 16, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

HB - Your points are well taken, but isn’t evolution flawed science? It just seems to me that science does not need to exclude faith, and it certainly should not deny it.

MMM - Thanks for the book tip - sounds reasonable to me!

By high school teacher

December 16, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this

Dave,

I can’t answer your question. I don’t know why God chose to create things this way. I do know that God made man in his own image. That’s as good as I can do.

It’s funny; I am inquisitive by nature, yet I have never doubted the story of Creation, the Immaculate Conception, or the Resurrection of Christ. I accept it as true. I believe in God, that Christ was His Son, that He died and rose again for the forgiveness of our sins. I have questions, like anyone (why bad things happen to good people, that sort of thing), but I never question the very reality of God, and that He created the world.

By Jack O'Neal

December 16, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

All hallowed are the Or-Eye… or something like that… Seems to me it doesn’t matter who is wrong and who is right. If we all live from day to day, believe what makes us happy, and try to be nice to eacn other. the world will be a better place..

By V for Vendetta

December 16, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

To me, after reading all these entries, the point seems to be a moot one. We can teach evolution as far back as any high schooler needs to understand without coming across any deep philisophical dilemmas. However, we can not even THINK about introducing ID into the science classes without causing an enormous uproar. Not from the people who don’t buy into it, but from people who somehow feel offended by it or left out from it. Let’s face it, we spend enough time making every other aspect of our educational system PC to the point of absurdity, why waste time with one more? Especially when we KNOW what the outcome will be. Personally I think all schools should offer a few religious courses, and ID would fit perfectly into those classes. I’m sick of students walking around trying to “convert” people or witness to them and having no freaking idea what it is they are talking about. Religion classes (assuming there is equal representation for various religions) would encourage students not only to learn more about their own faith, but about the faith of others. Maybe they would actually start making up their own minds instead of regurgitating whatever their parents tell them. Of course people would freak out (church and state, blah blah blah), but as long as there is no woshipping going on then there shouldn’t be a problem. Of course, now I’m contradicting myself because that wont happen either. The school systems would never make a decision that actually requires some balls.

By ColonelJack

December 16, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this

Um, Jeff … not to nitpick or anything, but there was no year 0 A.D. or 0 B.C. When the modern calendar was devised in the fourth century, the year it started — supposedly Christ’s birth — was A.D. 1, and the year before it 1 B.C.

The Colonel

By Woodman

December 16, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

So you teach Creationism and a 14 year old kid asks “But what about the dinosaurs? There aren’t any dinosaurs in the Bible”. Now the teacher has to try and explain away something that the kids can look at and verify. So we’ve made the teacher a liar. So why would our children be inclined to buy into their education? We should trust our Founding Fathers a little more. They separated Church and State for a reason. You want your kids to learn about Jesus? Take them to church. That’s what I do. This is about lazy parents who want their kids to learn something but not take the time to teach them.

By Tony

December 16, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

This raging debate will never be settled. As a former science teacher, all I ever asked for was that open discussion open differences be allowed. But, the emotional factors FROM BOTH SIDES prevent this kind of discussion. Students should be encouraged to approach any scientific theory with an open mind and critical thinking. We will not have future discoveries and advancements if we do not! That’s what science is all about. There are gaps between relativity and quantum theory, but, of course, these are not controversial topics and we are free to discuss the flaws.

PC does intrude into the public school arena with great detriment at times.

By SUZAN

December 16, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

nO WOODMAN IT IS NOT. This is about people feeling that thier belief systems are being invalidated with in the school systems. I may be wrong about this but I believe this is the basis for all the furor. As far as dinosaurs are concerned Woodman, How do you know man and dino did not cohabitate in the same eras.

By dee

December 16, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

My theory is that if parents instill the values they want their children to have and spend time with them and watch over them, then whatever the school teaches won’t have an effect on the kids. God wants us to spread his word, not legislate it.

By SUZAN

December 16, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

after all lets not forget nessie, bigfoot and the dragons of wales…..;0)

merry Christmas or happy holidays to all here.
have a wonderful safe weekend and thanks for the fun and mind candy for the day suz

By Robert

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

Please! Let churches teach religion and let science classrooms teach science!!! If there is real evidence that supports ID, let them come forth and have the evidence properly scrutinized by real scientists. Until then, it is only a hypothesis and NOT a theory!!!!

By Robert

December 16, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this

SWC, Evolution is not flawed science!! What are you talking about??

Evolution means that things change over time, period! Everything is evolving. Your human body is evolving over time as it ages - your skin begins to sag, your eye sight gets worse, etc. Plants evolve - that is one way that we get different and new colors of roses. Why is this offensive to anyone? Why would this theory be contrary to any belief system?

I simply do not get the controversy here! I think that the controversy stems from ill advised people listening to idiots that don’t know what they are talking about.

By BlindHogHomer

December 16, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this

SWC - Evolution is only ‘flawed science’ in that science itself is evolving. That’s the whole point, to engage in the search for truth and go forward, not back to the days when the Inquisition made Galileo recant his belief that the sun revolved around the earth because the church maintained that the earth was the center of the universe. SUZAN - the answer to your valid comment is that’s what Marist and Holy Innocents et al are for. We don’t want our children inundated with your religious beliefs in public school. You can home school or use a parochial school of your denomination for that purpose. If you can’t readily identify where comments belong on the range from FACT to THEORY to HYPOTHESIS to BELIEF, you won’t ‘get’ science, and you’ll wind up saying things like how do you know man and dino didn’t exist in the same era. So Suzan the difference has to do with lots of evidence for the law of gravity (FACT), less for the THEORY of evolution, still less for the HYPOTHESIS of ID, and none for your BELIEF in the resurrection of jesus.

By Dave

December 16, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

Suz - “How do you know man and dino did not cohabitate in the same eras.”

The radiometric dating of dinosaur fossils convincingly indicates that the “dinosaurs” all died out millions of years ago - except for those that evolved into birds. There are an abundance, by the way, of “missing link” examples in this lineage.

Of course, YECs (Young Earth Creationists) argue that the radioactive decay rates have been manipulated over time by God to create the appearance of things being very old and are really only a few thousand years old. Those that want to believe this are free to do so - just don’t introduce that as “science” because it is not. (Radioactive decay rates are as constant as the speed of light, but that’s another God created ruse - making the universe appear much larger than it really is.) Had the decay rates been manipulated to be faster for a while (to cause the false ages), the resulting radiation levels on the planet would have been so high as to kill off most creatures.

By Dave

December 16, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

BlindHogHomer - “HYPOTHESIS of ID”

“Things are so complicated I can’t explain them” does not constitute a hypothesis. :)

By Randy

December 16, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

I do believe in the resurrection of Jesus. If he didn’t do that, the Roman and Jewish leaders of that time would have uncovered every rock to find his body. None did. Scientists haven’t found any remains, I’m sure millions are spent each year trying to find his remains, none have. Some people wouldn’t believe in Jesus if he came down from heaven and performed miracles in front of them(Oh, I forgot, he already did).

By Dave

December 16, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

“Your human body is evolving over time as it ages - your skin begins to sag, your eye sight gets worse, etc.”

Robert, that’s not evolution, that’s aging.

But it raises a good point.

If we were designed by such an all knowing Divinity, why do we get old? Why do some of us need glasses? Why is my hair falling out? Why does cancer exist?

Why such a poor design?

By Dave

December 16, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

Randy - “Roman and Jewish leaders of that time would have uncovered every rock to find his body. None did.”

How do you know?

How do you know they didn’t and the story was just written (a long while later) to make it look like they didn’t?

By Randy

December 16, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Historical evidence, read Lee Strobel’s book “The case for Christ”. There he showed just how quickly the information was done with Jesus. There are many more reasons Jesus is the Messiah. That’s just one. Of the 12 disciples(Paul replacing Judas) all but one died horrible deaths and all they had to do was to renounce Jesus to be spared.

By chuck

December 16, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

Colonel, you out rank me, I’m just a private in the Lord’s Army, but you are still like some of these others who make assumptions that are simply not true. The Bible does indeed talk about dinosaurs in a number of places. Before you folks start talking about what the Bible does or doesn’t say, MAYBE YOU SHOULD READ IT FIRST!!!!!!

By Elron

December 16, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

This stuff about “both theories” really offends me. Why does the media perpetuate this myth that there are only 2 sides to this question? I’ve studied both of these so-called “theories” and neither one of them stands up to scrutiny the way the science of Dianetics does. Of the 3, Dianetics is the only one that is internally consistent and truly explains the science of life and how we came to be on this earth. While I’d prefer that only Dianetics be taught, at the very least all 3 theories should receive equal time in the classroom.

By James

December 16, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE. Keep your religion. Let me have my science.

GO BACK TO YOUR SANCTIMONIOUS CAVES AND KEEP YOUR MYTHOLOGY TO YOURSELVES.

By SUZAN

December 16, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this

Dave Dave Dave

lighten up already I was joking

hugs suz

By DB

December 16, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

chuck: I’m still waiting for your TESTABLE, SPECIFIC hypothesis for Intelligent Design that will survive scientific scrutiny. Don’t think I forgot about the last blogs from long ago. You still haven’t defended ID from a scientific standpoint.

By SUZAN

December 16, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this

HI DB I found a new web site for you

http://www.ideacenter.org/resources/articles.php

have fun suz

By DB

December 16, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

luvs2teach:

I do use ID as an example of what’s not science in my class. Also, there is nothing to teach other than “things are a result of something intelligent” since ID really has no specific tenets other than that. I just can’t believe it has gotten this much attention. Actually, I do, but it is absolutely sad.

I don’t dedicate more than a few minutes to it since there are many, more important things to teach, like the BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES with emphasis on molecular biology and evolution. And no, I’m not anti-Christian or whatever. I’m only anti-ID(or anti-pseudoscience), but it is funny how people think those against ID are against Christianity when, supposedly, ID isn’t promoting Christianity.

I don’t know if you were part of it, but I practically wrote a novel defending science on the last couple blogs on this. Chuck and all those guys were quite silenced, but I see they have a second wind, in which I don’t care to get too much involved. Oh, chuck, you never did get back to me about Ensatina and the other example of macroevolution. What happened?

If people can’t see that science and faith are in no way threatening each other, then that’s their problem. But when the beliefs of a few make people inhibit the progress of science, there’s where I have a problem. Let the scientists worry about science and the preachers worry about religion. I don’t go telling professors what to teach in Theology class because some of it disagrees with science.

By C.R.H.

December 16, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

I find it interesting that people bring in some lifted quotes from other sites…nice misuse of research. Science is and ALWAYS has been about finding answers. If anyone actually thinks we will ever have ALL the answers, they are kidding themselves. And as a high school biology teacher with 2 degrees in SCIENCE, I hardly think anyone would consider me to be “mildy educated on the subject”…Intelligent design has NOOOOO EVIDENCE. The bible is a nice read, but could hardly be considered factual in any sense of the word. Does anyone here have proof that Noah lived 900+ years, oh yeah, that sounds real likely, so I should believe it because the bible says its true. All those in favor of teaching ID, please show me the experiments and evidence that backs up your claims. Please believe there is substantually more evidence supporting the thery of evolution than there is for ID. Where did god come from? Nice try on the laws of thermodynamics, you forgot one thing…there proposed idea of ID also violates all aspects of the laws of thermodynamics!

By C.R.H.

December 16, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this

Almost forgot…Kenneth Miller was the co-author of the science text that Cobb County uses (the same ones with the lovely stickers). Interesting that someone who wants ID in schools didn’t read his text book!

By DB

December 16, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this

SUZ: I looked at that site. What a joke! Evolution does not claim to explain anything about the ORIGIN OF LIFE! And the evolution explanation on it is a bit vague. Also, I see absolutely no part of it that explains anything in detail. Here is an excerpt from http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/education/entries/2005/12/15/evolutionagain.html:

Darwinists believe natural selection did the “designing” but intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer notes, “in all cases where we know the causal origin of ‘high information content,’ experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role.”

What do they mean by “experience” in this case? Who wrote this, a third grader? The punctuation is sub par. Also, these CSI’s are quite easily explained by evolution; you just have to know a little bit more than about biology than the average person to understand molecular biology.

More:

CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.

Conclusion: The definition of CSI and Intelligent Design is purposely vague, inspecific, and untestable which doesn’t have any scientific validity whatsoever.

That whole page is GARBAGE! If you want to keep filling your brain with nonsense, go ahead.

Evolution, if anything, supports the existence of what many call God.

By ColonelJack

December 16, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

Chuck, you have me mixed up with another poster. I only pointed out that there was no year zero. I have read the Bible; I didn’t offer any commentary on it.

The Colonel

By DB

December 16, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this

C.R.H. - I’m with you all the way!

By DB

December 16, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this

Intelligent Design = Most plausible explanation for biodiversity for those that don’t understand science or biology and tend to be quite religious and against science in the first place.

By DB

December 16, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this

Oh, and Suz, when a site refers to people as “Darwinists”, I assume the site is biased toward ID, and the author knows very little about science and the theory of evolution.

By Karen Armsby

December 19, 2005 08:31 AM | Link to this

I believe in God and in evolution.

Evolution as explained by Science explains WHAT IS, and HOW IT WORKS, and NOT WHO MADE IT. Yes, I am shouting! Evolution observes and explains the process of change, not who or what created all of it! You can believe that GOD created the world and still believe in evolution, because evolution just explains what GOD made and how it all works! Yes, I am repeating myself!

Evolution is not GOD, and doesn’t negate or replace GOD. GOD gave us the intelligence to figure out what GOD made and how it works and how it changes over time. Life is dynamic, it changes, it doesn’t stand still. Evolution is an explanation of that dynamic process.

By Dave

December 19, 2005 09:02 AM | Link to this

Suz - “Dave Dave Dave

lighten up already I was joking

hugs suz”

She was referring to my response to her question, “How do you know man and dino did not cohabitate in the same eras?”

Fair enough, Suz. Glad to see you’re not serious about that - but, unfortunately, many are. Somewhere in the US (Kansas?) somebody recently opened a “museum” depicting how dinosaurs and humans cohabitated. I swear I am not making this up. I guess if you’re a Young Earth Creationist, this belief is unavoidable - or you argue that radioactive decay rates have been manipulated over time to make things appear older than they really are. Which idea is worse?

Dave

By Jason

December 19, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

Evolution is just a way for non-believers to justify their sinful ways. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is man’s only hope at finding Truth.

By SUZAN

December 19, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

Hey Dave,

You know…. they havent found proof positive that Nessie does not exist. Now being of the Scott decent, I most curious about Selkies as well.

DB, I just love you. It is soooo easy to get you going. You absolutley cant stand the idea that someone has the audacity not to believe in evolution. Well, I have to admit. I do believe that God created all and that the things like evolution that you understand was a part of his plan. I do not think that we have even come close to understanding the world (both seen and unseen) around us, nor do I believe that we will for the next 100 years. This universe is so very complex that we have really only taken baby steps in our understading of knowledge. I do know that man is most inquisitive and will continue to research and study his world around him. Thats wonderful. I just do not choose to think that it all fits into a little box called evolution, I really believe it’s much deeper than this, much more complex and that in the next 100 to 200 years man will look back and have a good laugh at our psedo-science.

DB lighten up some, No matter what science goes on and so does faith in God. Neither are going to go out of business any time soon

Hugs Suz

By BamaBoy

December 19, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this

I’m with you Karen. I think the key word you used was “intelligence”. Those who have a problem with evolution are confusing science and faith. The Bible is a book of faith, which is fine, but it is not a source for science and explaining the “how”s in our universe. Taking the Old Testament literally and counting “begats” to determine the age of the earth is not what I would call intelligent. That’s just being lazy. Let the Bible feed the soul and Darwin feed the mind!

By Dave

December 19, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this

Back to the original question posed as the topic for this discussion:

“Any theories on how this issue could be resolved?”

The issue being the stickers in the textbooks.

The appeals court judges’ questions and comments (as reported in the AJC) seem to be heading towards overturning the earlier court decision to remove the stickers - thus allowing their return and undoubtedly another court challenge.

Judge Ed Carnes, who dominated the questioning, said the three-sentence disclaimer seemed to him to be “literally accurate.”

I personally have to disagree with the judge. To explain, first here’s the disclaimer:

“This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”

I assume that no one will quibble with the first and last sentences. But there’s nothing accurate - much less literally - with the middle sentence.

In scientific parlance, evolution is a theory, but not a “theory” in the everyday use of the word, which amounts to a guess. A theory in science is an acknowledged fact based on the scientific evidence, until further evidence comes along to change it.

So to say “Evolution is a theory, not a fact…” in the language of science is non-sensical. It cannot be “literally accurate.”

The second half of the second senttence, “…regarding the origin of living things” is also not literally accurate. Evolution has little to do with the “origin” of living things - it’s predominately concerned with their changes over time.

I propose a way to resolve this is to allow “evolved” stickers to appear in science textbooks. They could say something like this:

“This textbook contains material on evolution. As with any subject matter, this material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered. Some may find their beliefs to be contrary with the scientific examination of evolution and how life on Earth changed over time. This does not necessarily mean that either the science of evolution nor contrary beliefs are invalidated.”

Dave

By SUZAN

December 19, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this

Dave, I like it suz

By Dave

December 19, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

Anyone interested in reading about matters of evolution and intelligent design, should consider the following books: A Short History of Nearly Everything, by Bill Bryson, and The Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel. Bryson’s book is well written and speaks intelligently about the improbabilities of life having originated on its own. One phrase I recall reading said that the development of DNA bordered on being a miracle. Strobel, who was an aethist, but became a Christian, examines evidence for a creator in his book, which is also well written.

To an open minded person, Christian or not, both books will be interesting.

Dave

By The original Dave

December 19, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this

For clarification, the “Dave” posting December 19, 2005 12:35 PM is NOT the same Dave posting all previous posts in the discussion.

The original (in this discussion) Dave

By luvs2teach

December 19, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

Db - thanks for acknowledging my post - with SWC posting a link and MMM referring to a book that I had mentioned in my earlier post, I was beginning to feel ignored, LOL!

I think you and agree, but first a little background: when I was getting my undergrad in CA, I was required to take a basic biology course. In that course, we were exposed to 4 (yup, FOUR) ideas about the origin and development of life on our planet. Traditonal creationism, the ancient astronaut theory (for all you L. Ron Hubbard fans), spontaneous generation, and evolution (sorry, no purple fairy or spaghetti monster).

We spent about a day on the first three and three days on the last. We talked about the evidence for each (weak for the first three) and the science behind each (also weak for the first three). Did it mean that evolution held all the answers? Absolutely not. Did it mean that evolution was the best supported SCIENTIFIC explanation? Yes, with our CURRENT knowledge, discoveries and understandings, YES.

One thing I notice in these postings is that we are talking about more than two, simple, clear cut things. We have traditional Creationism (with a young Earth) - the Bible is the literal truth. We have Creationism with God creating everything as is now, but God’s time is not necessarily our time, so a 4.5 billion year Earth is possible. We have ID, with an “Intelligent Designer” (God or someone else) designing everything we see - an old Earth is possible, as well as some changes over time.

We are also confusing adaptation within a lifetime (your muscles getting stronger when you lift weights is an example) with adaption of a species to adapt through generations (anti-biotic resistance), and macro- vs. micro-evolution.

We also have the four DIFFERENT issues of the formation of the universe, the age of the Earth, the origin of life, and Darwinian changes over time (so-called “survial of the fittest”).

Some peoples’ arguments against science is evidence that their science knowledge and understanding of what science is is weak at best.

Sceince is defined as both a body of knowledge as well a a process for exploring questions about the world. Sometimes science isn’t as much about answers as it is about those questions. It’s OK for experiments to have different results - that just poses another question to test, and that is, “Why?”

When an experiment consistently leads to the same results then we have the strongest item in science, a LAW. When a lot of evidence points to a certain conclusion, we have a theory. Further testing or new discoveries can change a theory to a LAW or discredit it. When we are experimenting, we are testing a HYPOTHESIS, the predicted outcome of that experiment. I never teach that a hypothesis is an “educated guess” - that definition I leave for the term INFERENCE.

My problem with the stickers was always the line about “not a fact, but a theory” because it used the common definition, and not the scientific one, which only causes more confusion.

I would rather the stickers be put in, than the pages torn out, which is what Cobb was doing as recently as 10 years ago.

My two cents! Peace out, all!

By CW

December 21, 2005 04:56 PM | Link to this

I believe that it is a fact that out of all living creatures that have ever inhabited this planet we call Earth, less than 1% are in existance today. For those of you promoting ID, it seems your “intellegent” designer has a 99% failure rate…….that doesn’t sound very intellegent to me.

By CW

December 21, 2005 05:07 PM | Link to this

Many of you who support ID want to make this an opinion process……it is not! Evolution is an observable and understandable fact……and many new lines of science and technology have come from it that have improved all of our lives.

Math is also an understadable science. Having studied math, I understand that 2 plus 2 equals 4. Now there may be some out there that will argue based on some biblical teaching that 2 plus two equals 5….they are wrong. They may convince 99% of the poplulation that they are right and that anyone who says otherwise will go to hell…….they may even burn me at the stake, but I’ll still be right. They may even bring to a vote at some board meeting to include in school textbooks that 2 plus 2 equals 5…….but they can never prove that, and they will always be wrong!

Point being…..just because some of you haven’t put in the time or effort to study and understand evolution, doesn’t make it wrong….you just don’t understand it. That’s no reason to promote ignorance to the rest of us who do and are capable of greater understanding.

By CW

December 22, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

I just asked one of my co-workers if she could tell me what made her computer monitor work and if she knew how to make one……she told me no, that it was way to complex for her. “Me to!” I said. Well if it’s way to complex for both of us to understand, then obviously an Intelligent Designer (God) had to have made it……she agreed. We both think that this new theory should be taught and given equal time with computer science theories that are taught to students today. Just think of all the great advances that teaching our theory can produce. I mean, what will God think of creating next.

By scuse me

December 22, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

Just wait till Saturday evening and ask all the parents attempting to assemble toys

By Brian Curtis

December 22, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

CW: Good points. Despite our democratic impulses, science really isn’t subject to a popular vote. What’s true is true, regardless of what you hear in church or prefer to believe.

If your religion or holy book contradicts what science has determined… well, then your religion is simply wrong. And it was foolish to poke its nose into a non-religious area to begin with. The Bible works just fine as a guide to moral and ethical living; as a history or science text, it’s riddled with errors.

The sooner people quit trying to shove religion into areas where it doesn’t belong (“It’s a math book! It’s a biology book! It’s a cookbook!”), the sooner we can put this silliness behind us and rejoin the rest of the civilized world.