Science Professors Blast Ouster At Tea

[FirefightnRick]

http://www.star-telegram.com/state_news/story/355504.html

Posted on Wed, Dec. 12, 2007reprint or license print email Digg it del.icio.us AIM Science professors blast ouster at TEA

By JOHN AUSTIN

Star-Telegram Staff Writer

More than 120 Texas science professors have signed a letter to the state education commissioner saying that forcing out the Texas Education Agency's science curriculum director for failing to remain neutral about intelligent design was wrong.

What is intelligent design?

Intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.

The backstory

Last month, science curriculum director Chris Comer resigned under pressure, after a senior member of the TEA pushed to fire her for forwarding an e-mail that appeared to criticize intelligent design. The e-mail Comer forwarded announced a presentation by the author of Creationism's Trojan Horse. In the book, author Barbara Forrest says creationist politics are behind the movement to have intelligent design taught in public schools. Comer sent the e-mail to several individuals and a few online communities.

The TEA put Comer on 30 days' paid administrative leave in late October, resulting in what she called a forced resignation in November.

Lizzette Reynolds pushed to fire Comer over the e-mail, according to published reports. An announcement Tuesday about staff changes at the TEA noted that Reynolds will continue to serve as a deputy commissioner with oversight of curriculum, assessment, accountability and state initiatives.

Who is protesting

The protest letter dated Monday originated with Dan Bolnick, assistant professor of integrative biology at the University of Texas at Austin, according to a spokesman for UT's College of Natural Sciences. More than 120 professors of biology, anthropology, paleontology and pharmacology from the faculties of UT, Texas A&M, Rice, Baylor, the University of Houston, Texas Tech, the University of North Texas and the University of Texas at Arlington signed the letter to state Education Commissioner Robert Scott.

The letter expressed "deep" concern that Comer was supposed to be neutral on the topics of evolution and intelligent design.

"Intelligent design is a religious view, not science," Rebecca Dickstein, professor of biological sciences at NT, said Tuesday. "Science isn't about what you believe. Science is about what you know.

"Evolution is a theory, like gravity," Dickstein said. "Both are very well tested."

Dickstein, who signed the letter, said that if all living things hadn't started from a single living organism, there would be no validity to testing drugs on anything besides people.

UT-Arlington biology professor James Grover also signed the letter. "A great biologist once said nothing makes sense except in light of evolution," he said Tuesday. "Those of us who are responsible really can't be neutral on the question of what is science. Ms. Comer was unjustly fired for doing what she was supposed to do."

What the letter said

"It is inappropriate to expect the TEA's director of science curriculum to 'remain neutral' on this subject, any more than astronomy teachers should 'remain neutral' about whether the Earth goes around the sun. In the world of science, evolution is equally well-supported and accepted as heliocentrism. Far from remaining neutral, it is the clear duty of the science staff at TEA and all other Texas educators to speak out unequivocally: Evolution is a central pillar in any modern science education, while 'intelligent design' is a religious idea that deserves no place in the science classroom at all ...

"There can be no neutrality on an issue that is scientifically and legally clear-cut: Evolution should be taught at the K-12 level in the same fashion that we teach it in universities, an accepted and rigorous science, not juxtaposed with a religious idea, however politically popular. The agency should work to bolster evolution education in Texas rather than undermining it."

This report contains material from the Star-Telegram archives and The Associated Press.

Online: www.tea.state.tx.us

www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org

JOHN AUSTIN, 817-548-5418

jaustin@star-telegram.com

Edited December 15, 2007 by FirefightnRick

[Mean Green 93-98]

"Evolution is a theory, like gravity," Dickstein said. "Both are very well tested."

Ummm, no. Gravity is a law, not a theory. The Darwinian concept of evolution, i.e., one species evolving into another species, has never been observed--thus, more a hypothesis than a theory. Actually, the law of biogenesis (life begets life), demands that the "single living organism" either have some preceding life to beget it, or to be eternal it(Him?)self.

[emmitt01]

At the risk of drawing the ire of many I am in wholehearted agreement with the professors on this one. Even the most steadfast Christian would have to admit that Creationism is a matter of faith. Evolution, on the other hand, is theory and should therefore be taught in schools just like any other theory. MG 93-98 you are right to point out that gravity is a law unlike evolution...gravity is universally accepted. Just as relativity is a theory so too is evolution. Teaching it to public school children does not mean they are forced to believe it, nor does it preclude them from having deep rooted religious beliefs. Teaching creationism (which at its heart is a Biblical concept) does necessarily bring religion into the classroom.

Now, of course, the entire scientific community has yet to come up with an explanation for the inconsistency between the whole law that "matter can neither be created nor destroyed" and the idea that, sans a higher power, the universe just one day was.

[eulesseagle]

Yep:

gravity is law.

darwinism is theory.....even darwin said he was "wrong" years later on his theory of evolution.

creationism................just ask the big guy in the sky. Gen 1:1 says, In the beginning God created....! the greek/hebrew word for the use of this particular word, created, means to "create out of nothing" which is only used two or three other times in the Bible. so now, God, created out of nothing the heavens, earth and universe. i am afraid it is just that simple.....

[Travis]

At the risk of drawing the ire of many I am in wholehearted agreement with the professors on this one. Even the most steadfast Christian would have to admit that Creationism is a matter of faith. Evolution, on the other hand, is theory and should therefore be taught in schools just like any other theory. MG 93-98 you are right to point out that gravity is a law unlike evolution...gravity is universally accepted. Just as relativity is a theory so too is evolution. Teaching it to public school children does not mean they are forced to believe it, nor does it preclude them from having deep rooted religious beliefs. Teaching creationism (which at its heart is a Biblical concept) does necessarily bring religion into the classroom.

Now, of course, the entire scientific community has yet to come up with an explanation for the inconsistency between the whole law that "matter can neither be created nor destroyed" and the idea that, sans a higher power, the universe just one day was.

it takes just as much "faith" to trust evolution is correct as it does the faith in intelligent design. I think that when explaining possibilities of the origins that both sides should be mentioned regardless. They are both theories. Here is a bright idea... instead of teaching us what we should think... how about teaching us HOW to think and put the evidence and theories all out on the table and let the individual use their own mind and decision making abilities. I think science can do that with both.

Furthermore, science (as it is now) doesn't explain everything as most scientist think... and niether does faith in God. Science only explains the things observed by the five senses as it is doesn't explain why we have this moral law, a universal standard, the conscious, neither does it answer the question of why we are here, and what gives us meaning.

Faith and science can and should be intertwined... Just ask the chief scientist of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins.

Edited December 15, 2007 by Travis

[ADLER]

I think that we should teach intelligent design in our schools.

That way, in case anyone disagrees with us, we can justify flying planes into their buildings.

[UNTflyer]

Actually there is some debate about gravity being a theory or law. A "law" must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. Some scientists believe gravity should fall under theory because we still are unsure how it works or if it is universal or absolute.

That being said, I can't believe a scientist would say: "Science isn't about what you believe. Science is about what you know."

All that we know about science started with what a scientist believed. And science, by its very nature, should explore all possibilities.

Do I believe in intelligent design? Nope. But I do look at a lot of things in the universe, scratch my head and think that there must have been someone smart behind it: Fibonacci numbers in nature, or the mathematical patterns in proteins and other biological organisms.

[Mean Green 93-98]

I think that we should teach intelligent design in our schools.

That way, in case anyone disagrees with us, we can justify flying planes into their buildings.

Well, that post looks to be just out of the primordial ooze. Zero logic going on there.

Travis hit it on the nose. Yes, those who are in favor of teaching intelligent design in schools are almost universally religiously motivated. But what do you think led to Darwinian evolution's immediate acceptance? Those who were grasping at any straw they could find to explain the universe without God. Obviously, it wasn't because Darwinian evolution was proven true--the true Darwinian model has been thoroughly rejected by the science community. The theory of evolution has continuously evolved itself, because various aspects of it continue to be refuted.

While those of us who are people of faith are religiously motivated, hopefully we came to that faith by what you might call "the scientific method." Like Flyer, you scratch your head about the remarkable order that can be found. You wonder why man's technology can only go so far with prosthetics to make a vastly inferior hand to that which "chance and time" produced--not to mention the eye?!? God doesn't want anyone to accept anything by "blind faith"; He tells us to "Prove all things: hold fast that which is good." He basically tells us to test, then reject or accept--that's the scientific method.

Since there is scientific law that is far better explained by intelligent design than by any evolutionary model, I do now know why it wouldn't be taught in public schools. That does not mean that you teach Who is the Designer. But why not point out what the evidence obviously indicates?

[ADLER]

And science, by its very nature, should explore all possibilities.

That is why scientist do this thing called research; that way they can quickly eliminate elves, gnomes, angels, vampires, unicorns, Jedi warriors, and Great Pumkins form the equation. There is no scientific evidence to support these entities, that is why they are referred to as faith based.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with believing in what may or not be fictional characters. This is America and you are pretty much allowed to believe in anything as long as you're not violating any laws and keep current with your taxes. This doesn't mean that your particular beliefs should be imposed on anyone else, not on someone elses children, and possibly not even on your own.

[3XNTGRAD]

As one of the UNT biologists who also signed that letter, I have to respond to some of the comments on this thread.

First, although I am not a physicist, I have to say that Newton's Law of Gravitation is a mathematical formula that explains and predicts the effect of gravitational forces between objects. However, to my knowledge, the exact mechanisms/forces that cause gravity are still not fully understood (hence the "theory of gravity"). So, there is nothing wrong in calling our understanding of gravity a theory. However, that also lessens nothing about gravity or the understanding of this phenomenon in science because a THEORY in science is defined as a concept that is strongly supported by evidence. There are actually few LAWS in biology. Germ theory (that diseases can be caused by microorganisms), cell theory (all organisms are composed of cells), etc. are all on equal footing with the theory of natural selection (Darwin did not conceive the idea of evolution, he identified a mechanisms by which it could occur, natural selection). All are strongly supported by evidence, and in the cases I just mentioned, I would have to say they are overwhelmingly supported by evidence and are soundly accepted in the scientific community. That does not mean they are "perfect" or "final" in any sense, because they can and will be modified if evidence is found that warrants a change (theories are tweaked all the time in science as new information becomes available).

In biology, there is no controversy about evolution (change over time), nor on the concept of common descent (all organisms share a common ancestor). The fossil record clearly shows progressions of species over time and numerous transitional types (fish to amphibian, land mammal to whale, etc), though anti-evolutionists will often say there are "gaps" (no matter how small) in the fossil record, as if that means everything else should be ignored. Fossil evidence continues to grow and support the evolution of speciec. In molecular biology, DNA sequence and protein sequence comparisons show divergence of proteins over time among species. Phylogeny (the study of the evolutionary relationships among organisms) can use the changes at the molecular level to draw phylogenetic trees (you can think of these sort of like family trees of species) showing how organisms relate to one another. In fact, phylogenetic study provides exceptional evidence for another theory, the endosymbiotic theory (that some parts of the eukaryotic cell -- we are eukaryotic by the way -- arose from bacterial ancestors). Phylogenetic studies of mitochondria (the "powerhouse" of eukaryotic cells) show that this part of the cell actually is genetically related to bacteria.

One poster said there is a "law of biogenesis" that "demands" that no life can originate without life. That is incorrect. There is a THEORY of biogenesis that states "life arises from life" and basically refutes the idea of spontaneous generation which said that life OFTEN arose from non-living sources (this idea was actually not fully disproven until the 18th century through the work of Pasteur). The theory of biogenesis does not attempt to answer the question of where that first cell came from, but simply says that all current cells have come from a previously existing cell. If you wish to talk about that very first cell, then you are getting into origin of life research, which is another robust research field that obviously has great implications for the study of cellular life and evolution. However, just because we cannot describe exactly how that first cell came into being (though there are numerous hypotheses on different abiotic conditions that could have led to this development that are being rigorously studied by scientists throughout the world), does not cast any more doubt on the process of evolution than our not knowing the exact mechanism of gravity does on gravitation.

When you see reports of "scientists" who support ideas like intelligent design, look carefully at their credentials. They are almost never biologists, and the reported numbers are usually ridiculously small (for every 100 "scientists" who support intelligent design, I could find thousands of biologists who think it is pseudoscience, for a tongue-in-cheek example of this, look at "Project Steve". To call the dissent of a few on the fringe a "controversy" about evolution would mean there is also a controversy about the Earth not being flat, or that the sun goes around the Earth, simply because a few odd people say it is so.

Evolution is a scientific concept. It makes no claims one way or the other on religious beliefs. Intelligent design (aka creationism) IS a religious concept that has not been supported by the scientific evidence. There are a lot of "claims" made by creationist websites that say they refute evolution, but I challenge you to critically analyze those claims against the scientific evidence. It doesn't take much work to see through the smoke and mirrors.

The bottom line:

Biological research has overwhelmingly found evidence of evolution.

Creationism is a religious concept which cannot legally be taught in public school science classrooms.

Intelligent design is an attempt to put science sounding terminology on creationism and to introduce a religious concept into public school teaching (a strategy soundly denounced by the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case in Pennsylvania in 2005).

Lee Hughes

Ph.D with a major in Microbiology, UNT 1998

[FirefightnRick]

I'll have to take credit and say that in the how ever many years I have been posting on this board this may very well be the best thread I have ever started. Thanks for the great reads. ADLER, how dare you denounce the Great Pumpkin? Just wait till next year!

I'm very proud of our university, it's teachers and it's alumni, and that goes for you to 3X. Thank you for the great insight sir.

Rick

[Mean Green 93-98]

Dr. Hughes, it is interesting that you make accusations of "smoke and mirrors." You tell us to examine the evidence without providing one shread of evidence against intelligent design other than appealing to an argumentum ad popularum.

Though I must disagree with your statement that the evidence "soundly supports" evolution, you are correct that it is widely supported among the sientific community. As far as "no controversy" among biologists with regard to evolution, that is true among the orthodox establishment. But what would happen to a biologist who rejected your orthodox position? He would be branded a heretic, and excommunicated.

It is just as easily arguable that evolution is an effort to introduce a religious concept into the classroom. John Dewey, "the father of the American public school system," strove to further his religious beliefs, defined as secular humanism. Evolution is a wonderful tool of indoctrination to persuade young minds away from coming to a belief in God. I invite you to read this article, Evolution is Religion, Not Science.

If evolution is true, how can it be that we have inter-dependent systems within our body? That is, how did we form lungs (upon which we depend for life--can't live long without them) that depend upon a cardiovascular system that depends upon a nervous system? You've heard the saying, "Like a fish out of water." I've never seen a fish survive too long out of the water, have you? Yet evolutionists have concocted a scheme based entirely on various forms of "fish out of water" surviving and thriving.

If you are so confident in your position, would you be willing to debate it against a biologist who believes in intelligent design? I don't believe you would, because you are not nearly as confident in it as you try to put on.

Lee Moses

Honest seeker of Truth

[meangreendork]

to persuade young minds away from coming to a belief in God.

That's based upon a statement of your own faith, which is something that not everyone shares. I don't believe that a public school is the place to convert youth to Christianity. Same as the way no one would want their tax dollars to teach about Islam or Buddhism (outside of teaching in historical contexts), there's no reason that Christianity should be in schools.

There's no problem in criticizing intelligent design, same way that there's nothing wrong with taking a stab at evolution. To those that don't subscribe to any particular faith, or those that subscribe to one that doesn't involve a variation of intelligent design, they're both theories and should be treated that way. And yes, that means evolution still has holes in it and still requires research, just like any other theory.

Edited December 15, 2007 by meangreendork

[Mean Green 93-98]

That's based upon a statement of your own faith, which is something that not everyone shares. I don't believe that a public school is the place to convert youth to Christianity. Same as the way no one would want their tax dollars to teach about Islam or Buddhism (outside of teaching in historical contexts), there's no reason that Christianity should be in schools.

There's no problem in criticizing intelligent design, same way that there's nothing wrong with taking a stab at evolution. To those that don't subscribe to any particular faith, or those that subscribe to one that doesn't involve a variation of intelligent design, they're both theories and should be treated that way. And yes, that means evolution still has holes in it and still requires research, just like any other theory.

I am not sure in what way what I said was a statement of my faith--it's a simple statement of fact.

As for your second paragraph, I agree whole-heartedly. Let's invite the debate. Let's not just throw out perjorative terms like "preposterous, narrow-minded, backwards, right-wing conspiracy," etc. and consider the discussion closed. That's not science.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

I am partly copying what I said on another thread, some is new:

---- Religious Extremists have done this extreme separation of church and state to themselves.... I have heard devotions over the intercom (I taught in public schools 30 years). l that I thought went way too far and tried to advance the beliefs of their particular Church---- trust me, not all Christian Churches believe the same at all. That is THE problem. A local Catholic Church sells beer at a fall festival... meanwhile a few blocks away the Baptist and Church of Christ try to absolutely forbid it.

---I have had students want to discuss "their religion" or in class instead of doing their assignment [most were close to failing]. School is school and church is church... that doesn't mean you can't be a Christian at school.... just not a "preacher". I had no problem with a kid having Bible in class ..just reading it when he needed to be doing his/her math. After they were finished doing what was required.. who cares..READ (not Preach) what you want.

Oh yes -- I do attend a Christian church regularly and my wife is currently teaching at a School founded by the Episcopal Church. We belong to a different mainstream denomination, however.

The oil fields of West Texas bases their income on geological facts which not no doubt irritate some religious groups. This is how they find oil and yawl have gasoline to use.

Edited December 15, 2007 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[FirefightnRick]

Dr. Hughes, it is interesting that you make accusations of "smoke and mirrors." You tell us to examine the evidence without providing one shread of evidence against intelligent design other than appealing to an argumentum ad popularum.

I'm just curious Mr. Moses, are you a biologist?

Rick

[FirefightnRick]

The oil fields of West Texas bases their income on geological facts which not no doubt irritate some religious groups. This is how they find oil and yawl have gasoline to use.

To hell you say. You damn well know that Water Witching with a divining rod is the only way?

Rick

Edited December 15, 2007 by FirefightnRick

[JayDub]

I think that we should teach intelligent design in our schools.

That way, in case anyone disagrees with us, we can justify flying planes into their buildings.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

[Mean Green 93-98]

I'm just curious Mr. Moses, are you a biologist?

Rick

No--as you might be able to guess from my posts, I am a Gospel preacher. I am not sure what you are getting at, but I have examined fairly closely the cases for either side, and have been convinced the evidence favors design.

[3XNTGRAD]

(in response to Mean Green 93-98's earlier post)

I don't understand why there is an assumption that biologists "fear" intelligent design or that publicly stating our support for a scientific theory somehow means we have a weak case and little evidence. The only thing I fear is that our public school children will be fed a pseudoscientific religious position in the guise of science. I am obviously willing to stake my professional credibility on this issue as shown by my willingness to post here in a very public forum and to have my name listed on a letter that has received national media attention. Science is not decided by "debates" or popular votes, but rather by a body of work that supports or disproves stated hypotheses. Although debating the issue doesn't prove anything, I have no problem discussing the scientific evidence for evolution with anyone. I would like to see the body of evidence that stands behind intelligent design, because there really isn't any (the intelligent design/creation proponents have put out lots of information that tries to poke holes in evolution, but have not contributed new scientific evidence to support their own position). And, I would counter your "orthodox" argument by stating that the peer-review process in science is quite rigorous. Only evidence and hypotheses that pass muster through critical review are going to survive to become established. Intelligent design has the same opportunity to provide evidence as any other hypothesis in biology. It has not done so to date. There is no conspiracy against intelligent design, there just is not a convincing case of supporting scientific evidence.

One of the big pillars stated as proof for evidence of intelligent design is the concept of "irreducibly complex". This is basically the idea that a complex structure in biology could not have arisen except by design because it fails to work if any one part is removed. Thus it must all have been created as a unit, since natural selection should seemingly not be able to produce the whole at one time. The popular example the intelligent design movement tries to uses is the bacterial flagellum. However, research has shown that parts of the flagellum could have evolved independent of a complete whole, since these individual parts could have had other functions in the cell (for the scientifically-minded, this article on evolution of the bacterial flagellum from Nature Reviews Microbiology in 2006 notes the components of the flagellum that have been found to be comparable to other proteins having different functions in the cell). These data support the evolutionary origin of flagellum, and refute that example of the intelligent design concept of "irreducibly complex".

As to your comments about fish, you really are grasping at straws. Evidence of transitional fossils show that intermediate forms existed between fish and animals that can live on land. Of course you cannot take a fish that is fully adapted to live in water and place it on land and expect it to live. However, a fish that has the ability to live for some time out of water might have offspring who are a little better at doing that (or at surviving to reproduce because they gain an advantage by being able to do so). Eventually after many generations of natural selection working with the available natural variation in the population, new species can emerge. This takes incredibly long times in most organisms because of the times between generations, but can be seen in the fossil record. Although I am not a fish biologist, I have looked at several examples in the scientific literature relating to this topic. One example of a transitional fossil is an organism called Acanthostega that is an amphibian with internal gills and lungs (later fossils of amphibians do not have gills, only lungs).

Science examines the natural world and tries to understand it. This is not a religious agenda, and the study of evolution is no more a religion than is heliocentrism (remember that dangerous idea, the one that got Galileo in so much trouble with the Catholic Church -- the theory that the sun was the center of the solar system). I don't see many people today giving up their religion because science showed that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Why should evolution and common descent of organisms be any more dangerous to someone's faith than heliocentrism is in today's world?

One other thing: It is common to see people caught in the middle of this issue to say "what is the harm in teaching both sides?". Well, that would be true if there were actually two sides of scientifically-supported concepts that were in opposition here. But that is not true. Evolution is a strongly-supported theory with tremendous amounts of corroborating data from diverse scientific approaches (fossils, molecular sequences, developmental patterns, ecological studies, etc.). Intelligent design is a hypothesis with little support outside of a small group with a stated religious agenda (do a little research and look up the "Wedge" document from the intelligent design folks). There is a real danger is supplanting science with pseudoscience, so the "equal time" argument is not really a good way to approach this issue.

[eulesseagle]

I will have to take exception to what 3xntgrad has to say. Love your knowledge of your specific subject matter but there is another explanation to what you say.

1. You state that the fossil record shows progression of species over time and transitional types. Well, you are wrong. If you have two species, let us say a horse, with both having many similarities in structure, and one is 30 million years old and another that is 20 million years old...based upon your "theory/assumption/guess you hight assume/guess addional theories on how how any influences of differing characterists over 10 million years might have influenced their change. In "reality" you have NO testable or any observable evidence to determine what really happened. In "reality" you can not accurately test your guess/assumption. The only thing you can really do is to give your hypothesis (guess/assumption) any substantal credance is to say that it is true, even if it is a wild guess or just "test tube" collections of educated hypothesis about evolutionary change.....or in that manner any four or five fancy words strung together to make a statement sound profound. Again, looking at Bird, The Origin of the Species Revisited Vol 1, Bird, "reveals anomalies showing amphibians and reptiles to be more distant in an evolutionary sense than a bird & a fish, a mammal & a fish or a mammal & an insect. Besides, there is no known method to determine how old something that may be 20 or 30 million years is anyway. Geologists say to make that determination carbon dating is used and you "MUST" know how old the starting point is before you can get the conclusion to your study. Even carbon dating is a guess and any geologist will tell you that....anything else is just a guess/assumption. That is why time references always change depending who you read.

2. You mention Phylum. It is my understanding that it means "kind." Horses are a kind. Monkeys are a kind. Dogs are a kind. Sheep are a kind. In Genesis God made animals in their own "kind." Phylum, so to say. There is no way you can evolve a fish into dog into a chicken into a bird or into a man. Unfortunately, I have read where some sick guys have tried to mate with sheep and have produced offsprings that lived, unfortunately, for a short period of time...days or hours & I can not remember which. To say that something crawled out of the sea onto land and finally evolved into man is, to say the least, streching it and would make a nice campfire story to some youngsters. I hope you are not confusing "phylum" with mutations because mutation, IMHO, is not the cause of evolutionary change. FWIW and again IMHO, no one has ever produced a new species by natural selection......not that I have read about....not unless it is some "black ops" project with the government....Area 51.

3. You say that evolution is a scientific concept......3xntgrad......evolution is a "THEORY." Theory = speculation/guess/assumption. That is like saying 3+3=15. I will have to admit that this debate will only end with the tribulation. However, the real debate is, How did "IT" get from nothing to something?" My answer is either by "FAITH" or by "SPECULATION." If you sign onto the "theory" side of this argument then I would have to say that "speculation" is unscientific even though scientific methods are used to try to understand the unexplainable. In the Bible, God was talking to Job when He said, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? "Declare, if you have any understanding." Biologist Edwin Conklin said of evolution, "The probability of life originating by accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary originating from an explosion in a print shop." There is NO UNANIMOUS

ACCEPTANCE to evolution even by scientists....you know that ..... we know that ..... you stating that does not make it true.

4. You say that Intelligent Design is a religious concept that has not been surported by scientific evidence. hahahhahahaha. that is laughable and totally incoeherant. Scientists have been using the Bible to find archiological sites for years. How do you explain God giving Abraham the knowledge of math and him taking it to the Egyptians and then the Egyptians building the pyramids (it is in the history books). Egyptian history will tell you about the plagues of Moses and the parting of the Red Sea. Also the Bible will tell you about that too. The list of other countries historical facts about the facts of the Bible are continous and supportive. And that goes along with all the various "eye witness" accounts of the miricles of the New Testiment. One only has to go to the history of Rome to corraborate most of this since the Roman were meticulous record keeper.

5. You say Biological research has overwhelmingly found evidence of evolution. I have covered that....Evolution = speculation/guess/assumption. What you are really saying is that you have found some other people who like to speculate, guess and assume and have come to the same conclusions.

6. You say that kids will be fed a pseudoscientific religious position in the guise of science. Unfortunately kids are being fed a pseudoscientific position on the "theory" of evolution and having this theory stated as fact without having an alternative view of creationism. Evolutionists want an alternitive view out of the schools. IMHO, that is a bit one sided. It is like saying my view or nothing or I will tell you what to think.

7. Your say that there is no evidence on intelligent design.......I would like to see some hardcore scientific evidence on evolution. Produce those transitional species.....i want to know why there are no transitional species in the "gap theory".....where are these half monkey half men people....what happened to all these transitional species...why did all this evolutionary process stop all of a sudden.....if evolution was still occuring would there not be 1/4 monkey & 3/4 humanoids? 50-50 monkey/humanoids and everything else immaginable including all sorts of half fish half mammals in "all" sorts of development?? What happened to all this evolutionary development???

I reject evolution because it rejects God and it rejects His revelation.

The theory of evolution will never bridge the gap between nothing and something.

ahhhhhhhhhh......i should have written another faux post like Sgt. York. BTW, I only do faux posts once a year on future NT players.

3xntgrad....i respect your opion but unfortunately I disagree with it.

best regards.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Ummm, no. Gravity is a law, not a theory. The Darwinian concept of evolution, i.e., one species evolving into another species, has never been observed--thus, more a hypothesis than a theory. Actually, the law of biogenesis (life begets life), demands that the "single living organism" either have some preceding life to beget it, or to be eternal it(Him?)self.

First don't even start to claim that I am claiming than man came from a monkey...I am not....... And don't claim I am some Godless pagan... I am not.

----Evolution absolutely exists... Some of it has been controlled.... the Aggie Agriculture department among many others (also Tech and many in other colleges elsewhere) changes plants all the time... The corn we produce today bears little resemblance to the original corn plant that the Indians had when Europe began to settle in America. Agricultural scientists have controlled many plants such as wheat so that 99% of the plants are the same height so that they can be easier harvested. at one time it was taller with a wider variety of heights. Cotton plants today look a great deal different than they did 100 years ago.... Now they are shorter plants with "less plant" and more "cotton". Granted this is not "natural" evolution but never less it is a type of evolution. Viruses change constantly so that we are able to eliminate one a different appears (evolves) . Change of "germs" appear as one disease is nearly wiped out another similar version appears. There are varieties of dogs now that never existed several years ago. Again the result of controled breeding (evolution of a sort).. Because of these germ and virus changes new medicines must be developed to fight the "nearly same" disease...

--I suppose some will claim changing plants and animals isn't evolution...well if it isn't, what is it?? Some is natural change (viruses for example) some isn't.... new animals appear (somewhat, especially domestic animals) and many have disappeared. Evolution in general is not a theory... the evolution of man somewhat is..... but we have changed somewhat as well, in size, heigth, and appearance some..[ examine bodies in tombs 100's of years old and military records ( and uniforms) of soldiers through the years regarding size of men.

Edited December 16, 2007 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[JayDub]

No--as you might be able to guess from my posts, I am a Gospel preacher. I am not sure what you are getting at, but I have examined fairly closely the cases for either side, and have been convinced the evidence favors design.

Don't kid yourself. It's easy to be convinced toward one conclusion when you already have a faith-based bias towards one of the conclusions going into your examination.

[UNTFan23]

Bacteria is developing resistance to weaker forms of penicillin. A good question to ask is why did it develop this resistance and also how?

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---The Pope once declared the word was flat.... His believe was based a biblical passage referring to "the four corners of the Earth". When Galileo made claims about the Solar system and that the Earth revolved around the sun he was excommunicated and would have been executed had re had recounted his claims but he was very well know.. The Babylonians had claimed 1000's of years earlier had said the earth was round and had measured it fairly accurately.... Oh yes... There is 360 degrees in a cicle because of them... which meant the Earth traveled aabout one degree per day around the sun. The Pope also believed that God would have made man the CENTER of the universe asnd that Galileo claims were absurb. It almost cost him his life to say othr wise.

--- I don't get why some religious people have such a problem with people of science... they need and like doctors, drive cars, use electricity, and enjoy the modern world because of scientific developements. Personally I don't see that much conflict betwen the areas... Most believe in a devine being.... just not on some of the details..... like the Pope's declaration that the world is flat.... or even that the people that disagreed with the Church in Puritan New England (Salem) were witches and deserved to be hung...... and were.

Edited December 16, 2007 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66