The First Church of Free Speech

Because other churches have commandments prohibiting this kind of thing.

8 March, 2006

Intelligent Design Polls Abound

Filed under: News, Politics and Religion — Damien Sorresso @ 5:41 pm

Today there have been three different polls from Zogby, Gallup and Harris, respectively, about Americans’ views on intelligent design and creationism. They all seem to agree on one thing.

Most Americans are total idiots.

In every poll, a majority of Americans believe that the Biblical creation story is the literal truth about how humans came into existence. And according to the Harris poll, 55% of Americans think that evolution, creationism and intelligent design should all be taught in science classes. According to the Zogby poll, a staggering 88% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 think that intelligent design should receive “equal time” in the classroom. All three polls also showed that the usual suspects are most likely to believe superstitious religious crap over science: Southerners, Republicans, those with no education beyond high school and old people. So if you’re a Southern Republican over 55 with no higher education and you don’t subscribe to creationism or intelligent design, congratulations. You’re a statistical anomoly.

Americans are particularly vulnerable to this “equal time” bullshit because we tend to think everything should be a democratic process and that the will of the people reigns supreme. (Even though our own government is essentially opposed to that notion and for good reason.) But I’ve already ranted at length about intelligent design’s total stupidity, so I won’t repeat myself. Rather, I’ll address a larger question.

Should high school boards of education have any place questioning the work of people who have actually done research and have doctorates? Absolutely not. High school teachers are only supposed to know enough to teach to high school [i]students[/i]. In science, that means the very, very basic fundamentals. And board members don’t even have to know anything about the subject, since they’re elected by a largely scientifically ignorant population, which is worse since, as far as I can tell, they’re the ones making the big push for this bullshit in every case. I’ve never seen anything to indicate that intelligent design is especially popular among actual biology teachers.

But that politicians who spend their time designing curricula for [i]teenagers[/i] think they’re qualified enough to raise doubts about the work of career biologists doing research at [i]universities[/i] is so incredibly arrogant that it almost defies comprehension. And the idea that high school students will be able to reach an informed conclusion after being taught intelligent design as though it has parity with evolution is sheer lunacy. This is a group of people wherein there exists a large proportion who have serious conceptual problems with basic algebra. And we’re supposed to trust them to draw a sound conclusion about the validity of a theory which is the result of spending millions of collective man-hours studying mountains of data? Just how much faith do these intelligent design people have in high school students?

What the intelligent design people are asking is akin to making a high school physics teacher cover all the cases where Newtonian gravity and motion fail and forcing him to go into relativity, which is absurd. And that’s is a case where there [i]is[/i] legitimate opposition to Newtonian mechanics! In biology, the overall theory of evolution is about as rock-solid as you can get in science. Granted, evolution isn’t a perfect theory, but it is an exceedingly good one. There probably are examples of its predictions not coming through here and there, and I know that some biologists are saying that natural selection isn’t the only thing responsible for imposing selective pressure. (Note that none of them are proposing The Hand of God as an alternative mechanism.)

One could draw a lot of parallels between this debate and the current controversy over pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control. (The difference of course, being that the pharmacists are being far more transparent about their motives.) In both cases, people who are grossly unqualified are seeking to supersede the authority of people who are qualified under the guise of Constitutional rights. The pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control are wannabe doctors, just like intelligent design advocates are wannabe biologists. They’re both unsatisfied with being in the position of having to defer to people who know more than they do, so they’re trying to stir up shit. As Bill Maher once said about pharmacists, “Fellas, a pharmacist is not a law-giver, not even a doctor. In the medical pecking order, you rank somewhere in between a chiropractor and a tree surgeon.”

Well, to borrow slightly, high school educators are not scientists. Hell, they’re not even lab assistants. In the scientific pecking order, they rank somewhere between the writers of Star Trek and Mister Wizard.

96 Comments »

  1. Good article.

    I would like to know why pharmacists can refuse to dispense birth control for religious reasons, namely, they don’t like it and think it’s wrong. So then, why couldn’t a Muslim ticket counter at the movie theater refuse to take tickets for offensive movies? Etc etc…

    My suspicion is that sympathetics would claim that birth control is like murder where nobody gets hurt at a movie. Very well. Then how about a Hindu waiter who refuses to take orders or serve beef because cows are considered sacred? Oh. That’s not HUMAN life (that mindnumbing debate asside for the moment)? How about a pacifist police officer who refuses to restrain or assault criminals? It just gets more and more absurd.

    Comment by Drew Yates — 9 March, 2006 @ 11:36 am

  2. Hippies.

    Comment by Jon Thomas — 9 March, 2006 @ 1:38 pm

  3. Great points until you get into economics. The intellectuals with Ph.Ds in econ tend to think Socialism is a great idea. The god fearing masses may be wrong about darwin but their low-tax instincts are a good thing. In other words it could be worse, we could be a nation of atheists that think Marx was on to something. Ideally we’d be pro separation of Church/State and anti-Socialist but that’s a hell of a lot to ask people who don’t want to live without either a big friendly god or a big friendly brother.

    Comment by KirkH — 9 March, 2006 @ 2:02 pm

  4. […] There’s an interesting read over at The First Church of Free Speech about our American distaste for all things Darwin. In every poll, a majority of Americans believe that the Biblical creation story is the literal truth about how humans came into existence. And according to the Harris poll, 55% of Americans think that evolution, creationism and intelligent design should all be taught in science classes. According to the Zogby poll, a staggering 88% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 think that intelligent design should receive “equal time” in the classroom. All three polls also showed that the usual suspects are most likely to believe superstitious religious crap over science: Southerners, Republicans, those with no education beyond high school and old people. So if you’re a Southern Republican over 55 with no higher education and you don’t subscribe to creationism or intelligent design, congratulations. You’re a statistical anomoly. […]

    Pingback by Reasons Unbeknownst » Blog Archive » God, Math, and Darwin — 9 March, 2006 @ 2:29 pm

  5. maybe you should use lower case for ‘god’ in the phrase “The Hand of God” in paragraph #7; line last.

    Comment by dextroz — 9 March, 2006 @ 2:47 pm

  6. “evolution isn’t a perfect theory, but it is an exceedingly good one”

    You’re right about this “equal time” madness. Evolution should be COMPLETELY taken out of schools. Teaching kids fairy tales that say if you flap your arms your descendants will eventually grow wings is absurd.

    I don’t believe in the bible story but I do believe God created everything out of nothing. The burden of proof is on the evolutionists. If your scientists say that there should be millions of fossils of a half-ape/half-human species but they can’t find them BUT they can find a large amount of dinosaur fossils that are much older, then what does that say about the theory’s validity?

    Comment by Abdullah — 9 March, 2006 @ 2:50 pm

  7. I’m not sure if Abdullah’s comment is meant to be funny or if he’s actually serious.

    Comment by Damien Sorresso — 9 March, 2006 @ 3:01 pm

  8. From Abdullah:
    You’re right about this “equal time” madness. Evolution should be COMPLETELY taken out of schools. Teaching kids fairy tales that say if you flap your arms your descendants will eventually grow wings is absurd.

    That’s not evolution. That’s like that story where it was proposed that giraffes evolved long necks because they kept reaching for food on high tree branches. In actuality, the theory of evolution would be saying something more like the fact that long necked giraffes (which arose out of mutation) had a better chance to survive because they were better adapted to reach for food off high branches. So relatives of the giraffes with shorter necks would have eventually died out, and had the trait for shorter necks would have been removed from the gene pool.

    Disclaimer: I am not a biologist! But this is something you get out of high school biology. Perhaps someone who is a biologist or biology major in college can confirm or clarify. But I’m pretty sure that the whole “flapping your arms and your descendents will grow wings” is not what the theory of evolution is implying.

    Comment by wok — 9 March, 2006 @ 3:06 pm

  9. “The intellectuals with Ph.Ds in econ tend to think Socialism is a great idea. ”

    I would make that “The intellectuals WITHOUT Ph.Ds in econ tend to think Socialism is a great idea.” Socialist ideals are far more widespread among people who don’t know how markets work. Most people who study economics get at least a bit of respect for markets.

    If there’s one problem in politics about economics, it’s talking about economics by people who haven’t studied it for a bit.

    Offcourse there are many economists who favor a more ‘equal’ income policy , with more progressive taxes (compared with the current US situation), but that doesn’t mean socialism at all. It could hamper economic growth a little. Maybe you should study the situation in Europe. We have mostly free markets, but higher taxes, more ’social’ regulation, and… lower economic growth. But that doesn’t mean European countries are socialist states.

    Comment by Meryn — 9 March, 2006 @ 3:12 pm

  10. Abdullah is an idiot. Evolution should be taken completely out of schools? Have you ever read something called the constitution? One of the fundamental tenants behind the founding of this country was to separate church and state.

    Also, Abdullah, we have found countless fossils of evolutionary man, with protruding, heavy brows and even teeth designed for chewing and mascerating raw meat. Also, evidence shows if I recall correctly that your modern monkey are not genetic pre-cursors to homo sapien. Humans and apes share only a ’superfamily’ essentially what your iguana and a snake share at best. Humans AREN’T evolved monkeys. Homo erectus, Homo sapiens and apes diverged into separate genetic trees many millions of years ago. We are the only surviving homo species, maybe because of oh, I don’t know, genetic fitness? Additionally, dinosaurs were much more numerous in variety and population, the climate conditions on earth at the time were much more conducive to creating fossils, and homo erectus was smart enough not to step into a tar pit, and was also a lot better at not getting killed in such in-opportune places. We have more than enough evidence to map the evolution of man.
    Oh here’s the kicker, a majority of god fearing bible thumpers believe we co-exsisted on earth with dinosaurs, apparently carbon dating is a bunch of poppycock. After all, god did ‘create’ carbon dating, he just created the molecules that decay in a beautifully and mathmatically proveable cycle.

    Read the article again monkey boy. It says un-educated idiots are much more likely to believe in creationism. Thank your god some people like me went to college. Otherwise ALL of our kids would be idiots instead of the poor children of the un-educated 55%. Go figure.

    -DCGeek

    Comment by DCgeek — 9 March, 2006 @ 3:55 pm

  11. Is it intentional irony or just interesting coincidence that the CS undergrad can have strong opinions on Intelligent Design while saying that people with at least a BS in biology cannot?

    Also, your pharmacists analogy is particularly poor. Pharmacists in the US must have a PharmD (4 years of graduate study, often a residency, and a board-like examination), which is equivalent to an MD. Also, they have legal responsibility for the drugs that they give to patients, often being left responsible for dosages. They are also an important check on drugs behaving badly with each other in a patient, since a patient may be prescribed drugs by a number of doctors.

    Comment by Jon — 9 March, 2006 @ 4:01 pm

  12. If schools have to give equal time to opposing ideas does that mean in history classes we will need to give those who believe the Holocaust is a lie time and resources to further this idea? How about those who think no one has ever landed on the moon? There may even be some “flat-earthers” still left. How about them. What is needed is better education in the scientific method so that citizen can separate the bull-shit from the facts. But maybe in this country, at this time, ignorance is bliss.

    Comment by kathryn — 9 March, 2006 @ 4:16 pm

  13. Hmmm… “so incredibly arrogant that it almost defies comprehension”… yeah, I would say that that phrase describes this article fairly well. In any case, I don’t know that I’m all up for intelligent design being taught in public schools anyway. My reason? I think I’m sufficiently well-equipped to teach my own children about that sort of thing (with the help of my husband) without having to worry about them being taught incorrectly (from a Biblical standpoint). As for the theory of evolution, I don’t especially mind it being taught in high schools (though it should be taught as a theory, and not as proven fact), especially as I plan on homeschooling my children, anyway.

    Comment by Katie K. — 9 March, 2006 @ 4:29 pm

  14. As no one knows for sure and all sides claim that their argument is correct. Maybe ‘equal time’ should be given to these subjects. Personally I believe this theory http://www.venganza.org/ its got just as much factual backup and the response of some of those brainwashed Christians is absolutely terrifying. I feel sorry for the Americans. Good luck.

    Comment by Neil — 9 March, 2006 @ 5:19 pm

  15. Great, just great. Scientific elitism near its clearest.

    I don’t think I could say that I would demand equal time for evolution and creationism in school, mostly because the creationists/ID people have not been working towards any unified theory, so what would you present? However, I’ve been carefully studying the creation/evolution debate for years now, and two facts stick out fairly clearly: 1) Evolution as taught in the schools is a caricature of the current state of the field, and should, rather than presenting any one of the multiple changing lineage trees, focus in detail on the centrality of mutation and its mechanisms in order to explain the increasing information content of life under the evolutionary model. 2) The notion of evolution as ‘a fact’, held because ‘most respected scientists believe it, and much work has been done surrounding it’, is ridiculous. Truth/fact stands on its own… NOT on reputations or ‘years of experience’ or whatnot. For historical examples, take the notion of ‘ether’ or the vast amount of time and focus spent in the middle ages on theology.

    If either creationists OR evolutionists want their respective theories to be taken seriously, they need to be trying to find the cracks in their theory, and treat them seriously. While this occurs more often in the evolutionary camp than in the creationist camp, neither has attained a sufficient degree of self-criticism for me to take their comments at face value, and almost always, the evidence underlying the assertions is subject to far more interpretation than either camp lets on.

    Flame away =)
    -Dave

    Comment by dhogarty — 9 March, 2006 @ 5:26 pm

  16. Interesting how liberals tend to decide what I should think and believe. I believe there is freedom of expression. Are you trying to violate my first admendment rights by telling me what I should believe. Hey, if you throw one idea that is NOT scientifically proven up there (Darwinism), what’s another. After all, science once thought the world was flat. Things change? nu?

    Comment by Locutus — 9 March, 2006 @ 5:36 pm

  17. Is it intentional irony or just interesting coincidence that the CS undergrad can have strong opinions on Intelligent Design while saying that people with at least a BS in biology cannot?

    When the hell did I say that? You can have all the strong opinions you want. They don’t change any of the blatantly unscientific aspects of intelligent design. It’s a ridiculous theory that isn’t even self-consistent. It’s based on the assumption that anything exhibiting order must be the result of some intelligent entity, which is basically a wink-wink-nudge-nudge way of saying “God”. Of course, no one ever stops to think that, if God is intelligent and created the universe, he exhibits the same characteristics as humans do and therefore must have been designed himself.

    Hmmm… “so incredibly arrogant that it almost defies comprehension”… yeah, I would say that that phrase describes this article fairly well. In any case, I don’t know that I’m all up for intelligent design being taught in public schools anyway. My reason? I think I’m sufficiently well-equipped to teach my own children about that sort of thing (with the help of my husband) without having to worry about them being taught incorrectly (from a Biblical standpoint). As for the theory of evolution, I don’t especially mind it being taught in high schools (though it should be taught as a theory, and not as proven fact), especially as I plan on homeschooling my children, anyway.

    Shocking, a home-schooler doesn’t know the difference between a scientific theory and a fact. Theories are based on facts; they do not become facts.

    The notion of evolution as ‘a fact’, held because ‘most respected scientists believe it, and much work has been done surrounding it’, is ridiculous. Truth/fact stands on its own… NOT on reputations or ‘years of experience’ or whatnot. For historical examples, take the notion of ‘ether’ or the vast amount of time and focus spent in the middle ages on theology.

    Evolution is an observed process. If you’re too uninformed to know that, then ask yourself why taking antibiotics too often results in bacterial strains that just happen to be resistant to them. The theory of evolution details the mechanisms behind this process. There’s no question at all in the scientific community as to whether evolution happens. It does. All the time.

    If either creationists OR evolutionists want their respective theories to be taken seriously, they need to be trying to find the cracks in their theory, and treat them seriously. While this occurs more often in the evolutionary camp than in the creationist camp, neither has attained a sufficient degree of self-criticism for me to take their comments at face value, and almost always, the evidence underlying the assertions is subject to far more interpretation than either camp lets on.

    Golden mean bullshit. There is no creationist “theory”. It attributes human existence to an untestable mechanism. One is a scientific theory which serves as the bedrock for the entire field of biology. The other is superstitious nonsense.

    Interesting how liberals tend to decide what I should think and believe. I believe there is freedom of expression. Are you trying to violate my first admendment rights by telling me what I should believe. Hey, if you throw one idea that is NOT scientifically proven up there (Darwinism), what’s another. After all, science once thought the world was flat. Things change? nu?

    You can believe however you want. But freedom of expression does not guarantee your right to have your pet theories presented to children under the guise of a teacher’s authority. Otherwise, we’d be teaching that there’s “credible evidence” that the NASA Moon landing was faked and that “some reputable historians” deny that the Holocaust ever happened.

    Comment by Damien Sorresso — 9 March, 2006 @ 5:54 pm

  18. Haha, I love it….

    “Evolution is an observed process. If you’re too uninformed to know that, then ask yourself why taking antibiotics too often results in bacterial strains that just happen to be resistant to them.”

    Hmm, feels good to be un-informed, why don’t we talk about stickleback fish, they’re popular these days? Or how about the good old peppered moths? Oh yeah, maybe not a good idea to talk about them, no matter.

    Yay for evolution, without which biology never existed, for without it we would all cease to exist! Go evolution!

    Evolution as currently defined (based on which definition you pick, but the most recent I’d read, i.e. any change in the genome distribution of a population) is indisputable, as is the fact that natural selection invariably LESSENS the amount of information in a given population. The central issue, and it’s an unsolved one, is the detailed mechanism for information addition. Yes, there’re mathematical models for the fixation of beneficial genes, etc., but that’s far from understanding the detailed mutation processes and the mechanisms which transform new, changed biological code into new features.

    But of course, since I’m not totally convinced of current evolutionary theory, I’m an ignoramus…. Best to discount everything I say, right? ;)

    -Dave

    Comment by dhogarty — 9 March, 2006 @ 6:19 pm

  19. But of course, since I’m not totally convinced of current evolutionary theory, I’m an ignoramus…. Best to discount everything I say, right?

    Well, it’s a lot when non-psychologists talk in psycho-babble. They really thing they get it because they know a lot of the words and a few of the concepts. It doesn’t mean they understand psychology - in fact it adds an element of danger when they start spouting off about it.

    Reference your journal articles, then I’ll read them, then I’ll listen. Until then I’ll stick with the scientific process

    Comment by Another Dave — 9 March, 2006 @ 6:39 pm

  20. Hmm, feels good to be un-informed, why don’t we talk about stickleback fish, they’re popular these days? Or how about the good old peppered moths? Oh yeah, maybe not a good idea to talk about them, no matter.

    So one somewhat flawed experiment disproves every other experiment? Even though the experiment had flaws, it wasn’t fatally flawed, and its conclusions were actually backed up by numerous other ones. If you’re so “unconvinced” of evolution, I suggest that you stop listening to your doctor’s advice regarding antibiotic dosages and overuse of antibacterial soap. After all, he bases his advice on the well-established evolutionary behaviors of bacteria.

    Evolution as currently defined (based on which definition you pick, but the most recent I’d read, i.e. any change in the genome distribution of a population) is indisputable, as is the fact that natural selection invariably LESSENS the amount of information in a given population.

    But what you’re glossing over is that natural selection gets rid of the bad information. More information does not mean better. Just ask anyone who deals with data compression. And I suppose that it’s just a coincidence that we happen to share 99% of our DNA with primates, and upwards of 50% with lower life forms.

    The central issue, and it’s an unsolved one, is the detailed mechanism for information addition. Yes, there’re mathematical models for the fixation of beneficial genes, etc., but that’s far from understanding the detailed mutation processes and the mechanisms which transform new, changed biological code into new features.

    Appeal to ignorance. Just because we don’t know the mechanism which causes information addition doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen, nor does it mean that God is sitting around putting mutations in everyone’s genes. For years, we were unable to understand how the Sun produced its energy. Did scientists just throw their hands up in the air and say, “Well God must be making the Sun glow!” or “I can’t find a mechanism, so the Sun must not be glowing at all!”

    No, they discovered nuclear fusion. And amazingly enough, that’s how the Sun produces its energy. (Or are you not entirely convinced of that, either?)

    But of course, since I’m not totally convinced of current evolutionary theory, I’m an ignoramus…. Best to discount everything I say, right?

    More or less, yes. Just like people who are “not totally convinced” of the Holocaust are idiots. Some people, and by “some people”, I mean actual biologists, think that natural selection might not be the only mechanism behind evolution. They generate falsifiable hypotheses and perform experiments. People like you cherry-pick from afar, without bothering to do any actual research. You read creationist pamphlets and then think that you have such a complete understanding of evolutionary theory that you can challenge people who have gone to school for years and studied it.

    Comment by Damien Sorresso — 9 March, 2006 @ 6:45 pm

  21. You assume way too much, including ignorance and opposition in my case. Sure, I’m ignorant of a lot, and have a lot to learn as far as origins and biological information is concerned, but your policy of broad assertion doesn’t add anything to the process.

    Currently I’ve been reading and trying to process this (Long, M., Betran, E., Thornton, K. and Wang, W. (2003). “The origin of new genes: glimpses from the young and old.” Nat Rev Genet 4(11): 865-875. PubMed) referenced from this link (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/meyers_hopeless_1.html). I spend far more time reading the talkorigins.org and pandasthumb.org information than creationist literature, although I have read (and am subscribed to) creationist literature.

    You continue to misinterpret my joking attacks on your dogmatism as attacks on evolutionary research, which I am actually very greatful for and actively trying to understand. But of course, ‘people like me’ never bother to do any actual research and think that we have a complete understanding of evolutionary theory… Maybe you’re describing people like you? Hmm… =)

    -Dave

    Comment by dhogarty — 9 March, 2006 @ 7:28 pm

  22. Simple comment: my issue with ID is an epistemological one, i.e., an issue of method. ID delegates the question of why to an unknowable being responsible for this, that or the other (it does not matter). This is a fundamentally unscientific approach, equal to the assumption of a dogma. We don’t need to discuss any of the details of evolutionary theory, the only thing that matters is the tool: the scientific method.

    Comment by marco — 9 March, 2006 @ 8:20 pm

  23. Abdullah commented:

    You’re right about this “equal time” madness. Evolution should be COMPLETELY taken out of schools. Teaching kids fairy tales that say if you flap your arms your descendants will eventually grow wings is absurd.

    Google “Lamarkianism” to learn the name given for the idea in your last sentence. It has been discredited for longer than my parents have been alive. Learn more about evolution before commenting.

    Comment by Stephen Bradley — 9 March, 2006 @ 8:24 pm

  24. Dave,

    If you want to learn about biology, go and read a biology textbook. Journal articles are meant for people in the field, not laymen.

    Whether or not you actually do research, your assertion that both sides are just as bad as each other is simply preposterous golden mean bullshit. You assume that I’m “dogmatically” defending evolution because I argue that creationists are full of crap. The different is that I have the evidence on my side, so it’s not bad for me to stick to my position and make fun of other people too stupid to look at the blatantly one-sided evidence and come to the same conclusion. You may not like my attitude, but that doesn’t address any of my arguments for my position.

    If you don’t want me to think you’re some fence-straddling idiot who actually assigns creationism some sort of credibility, then I suggest you quit playing word games and them smugly declaring any frustration I might have at your stupidity as “dogmatism”. You post a comment and bring up the same, tired creationist arguments about the peppered moth, bullshit about the loss of genetic information, and then you suggest that evolutionary biologists don’t deserve to be taken seriously for the same reason creationists don’t … and I’m supposed to give your intellect the benefit of the doubt? Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way.

    Comment by Damien Sorresso — 9 March, 2006 @ 8:37 pm

  25. Why do you assume that everyone who believes in creation is uninformed? A truly educated person is one who studies all possible options and then chooses the one that is most plausible. How about you? Have you researched all the options?

    Comment by sfrost — 9 March, 2006 @ 9:26 pm

  26. sfrost comments:
    > Why do you assume that everyone who believes in creation is uninformed? A truly educated person is one who
    > studies all possible options and then chooses the one that is most plausible.
    > How about you? Have you researched all the options?

    I’ll answer with an answer: do you admit the possibility that ID can be proven wrong?

    Comment by marco — 9 March, 2006 @ 11:15 pm

  27. One of the reasons the “scientific” community seems so united around evolution is that people with creationist views are not allowed to enter graduate schools in biology. I first heard this back at the University of Michigan, in my freshman biology class. The chair of the biology department, who was teaching the course, stated that he would never accept someone as a graduate student who was not a firm beliver in evolution.

    Outside of biology proper I have spoken with many doctors, engineers, chemists, etc, who are creationists. In fact, I’ve found that the existance of a Creator is really self-evident to most thinking people.

    Comment by Dan — 9 March, 2006 @ 11:42 pm

  28. Ah yes, the random guy from the Internet who says he’s talked to authoritative people who just happen to support his position. Quite a compelling argument.

    Comment by Damien Sorresso — 9 March, 2006 @ 11:50 pm

  29. Dan #27: It’s “existence” not “existance” … and I’ll conclude from that, that you are an idiot. You probably wouldn’t know a thinking person if you thought about it for a second.

    Damien … great post!

    Comment by Andy Dabydeen — 10 March, 2006 @ 12:35 am

  30. Creationists- Please, go to the red sea, bring some divers and a boat. find some golden chariots, horse skeletons, human skeletons wearing armor, etc.. hey look, now you have evidence too! If your ‘theories’ are valid there would be tons of evidence available to support it, all nicely listed and indexed in your ‘textbook’, the bible…….

    Comment by pgarvey — 10 March, 2006 @ 1:23 am

  31. Is it intentional irony or just interesting coincidence that the CS undergrad can have strong opinions on Intelligent Design while saying that people with at least a BS in biology cannot?

    When the hell did I say that?

    Should high school boards of education have any place questioning the work of people who have actually done research and have doctorates? Absolutely not. High school teachers are only supposed to know enough to teach to high school students. In science, that means the very, very basic fundamentals.

    But that politicians who spend their time designing curricula for teenagers think they’re qualified enough to raise doubts about the work of career biologists doing research at universities is so incredibly arrogant that it almost defies comprehension. And the idea that high school students will be able to reach an informed conclusion after being taught intelligent design as though it has parity with evolution is sheer lunacy.

    Apparently you can’t have an informed opinion on ID unless you are doing research on evolution at a university or you have a high school diploma (and are named Damien Sorresso).

    Comment by Jon — 10 March, 2006 @ 9:16 am

  32. I’ve read Denton, Behe, and Johnson… its hard for me to ascribe evolution as the theory behind life’s origins.

    Comment by Golovko — 10 March, 2006 @ 10:58 am

  33. First of all, it is rather absurd to call someone an idiot becuase of their religious beliefs. How fucking stupid are you? Or rather, how fucking ignorant are you? You are a fucking moron. Evolution has absolutely no credibility. It is bullshit spewed out by scientists attempting to rationalize the incredibly improbability of life, the universe and everything in it. It has no evidence supporting it and staggering amounts of evidence which completely contradicts evolution. Let me repeat: you are a fucking moron. You have been totally brainwashed. Congratulations.

    Comment by NotAnIdiot — 10 March, 2006 @ 10:59 am

  34. @ #30 (read sea, etc.) - they did:
    http://www.wyattarchaeology.com/red_sea.htm

    Comment by ruan — 10 March, 2006 @ 10:59 am

  35. “In biology, the overall theory of evolution is about as rock-solid as you can get in science.”

    Well, that pretty much discounted your entire argument to me. I can think of plenty of things that are far more “rock-solid” in science than the theory of evolution. With all the holes they try to skirt over and all the incorrect information they still try to pass off as legitimate, I think it takes far more faith to believe in evolution that in does to believe in “ID”.

    and just to point this out - one man on the internet is interpreting the results of three separate polls and declaring them to be idiots.

    Comment by John — 10 March, 2006 @ 11:07 am

  36. Preach it brother!

    Comment by shannon — 10 March, 2006 @ 11:09 am

  37. Intelligent Desing is Not intelligent at all, and I must be Keep Out of schools, If you want your kids to grow up with this kind of crap teach it at home.

    Comment by Asdrubal — 10 March, 2006 @ 11:09 am

  38. The fact that most people forget is that evolution is not a theory, it is an established FACT. This is a fact because you can prove that DNA changes through mutation, crossover, etc. Creationism therefore is a theory that is wrong. What is a theory however, is natural selection. And here is where the discussion lies. Which is correct? Natural selection, Intelligent design, or some other theory? The only thing that we know now is that, although natural selection explains quite a lot, it does not explain everything (for instance exponential rise in human brain volume). Intelligent design says that there is some “higher being” that guides evolution. It dictates how DNA should evolve. The problem with intelligent design is that it is not a scientific theory. It does not explain anything. For instance, how has the higher being evolved? Where does it come from? Natural selection does not have this problem, as it suggests natural causes for our current state of evolution.

    Comment by Jo Stevens — 10 March, 2006 @ 11:09 am

  39. The lunacy in the American education system is viewed with a mixture of horror and amusement from the other side of the Atlantic. If you want to create a generation with all the scientific savvy of breadmould, please go ahead. We’ll do the research over here and sell the products back to you.

    Comment by Bob Tulloch — 10 March, 2006 @ 11:13 am

  40. jesus H christ if you’re going to make fun of uneducated people, at least spell ‘anomaly’ correctly.

    Comment by dirk — 10 March, 2006 @ 11:13 am

  41. If your scientists say that there should be millions of fossils of a half-ape/half-human species but they can’t find them

    When did they ever say that? To “intelligently design” an argument you have to know something.

    These studies are despressing but no surprise. Fits right in with the 75 percent who believe in angels. WHERE are all of these angels they’re seeing, apparently everyk day?

    I have one comment about proof. The 2 or 3 centuries of science, including medicine, health, have done infinitely more for the suffering of humanity than all the thousands of years of organized religions peddling hearsay, which have created and still create wars, hatred, and ignorance abounding.

    Comment by TJ — 10 March, 2006 @ 11:14 am

  42. Speaking as a Norwegian, who as most Europeans are, pretty darn fed up with the rambles of the USA as of the latest years; I must applaud an American which such a clear sight of what is happening in your country. If only more americans would realize all the shit that you’re put through each day. Also how you in your position as a world power mirror these problems and philosophy on the rest of the world.

    I’m not being critical to the USA as a country in general, just saying that you took some bad turns over the last 50 years! ;) Korean war, Vietnam, McCarthy-ism, the Cold war, Regean, Bush the 1st, Bush the 2nd. You get my idea here…
    Most of these things ends up killing lots of american youth for not so good reasons, and distracting everyday-Joe from the internal affairs of his country.

    Comment by Dag Rune Sneeggen — 10 March, 2006 @ 11:15 am

  43. Evolution Deceit:
    The Audio-Visual Presentation at http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/ it is brilliantly done. Watch it and judge for yourself who the idiot is.

    Comment by Mike — 10 March, 2006 @ 11:15 am

  44. Having a Ph.D doesn’t mean you’re intelligent, it just means you paid a bunch of money to someone for a title. Some of the smartest people in the world are the ones who choose to sit back and enjoy this ride we call life. Enjoy the simple life.

    Comment by jrc — 10 March, 2006 @ 11:19 am

  45. It’s a real problem that people think there’s a scientific debate about ID and evolution — there’s no debate in the scientific community at all. Saying that ID should be taught because it’s an alternative theory to evolution is the same thing as saying that astrology should be taught because it’s an alternative theory to astronomy. Likewise, to argue that “evolution is just a theory” is just like saying that the law of gravity is only a law, and senators can change laws. Scientific theory != non-scientific theory in the same way that scientific law != legal law.

    Sadly, though, these people will win over more and more people and elections because they’re masters at FUD campaigns, when real scientists and well, people guided by rational thought won’t stoop to these levels to attack their viewpoints… This country has a perfect system of soundbites, perceived oppression and that all viewpoints are valid in all arguments. You can’t win a logical debate against someone arguing with faith, because all they have to do is find one problem with your argument, yet you can’t attack theirs because they have ‘faith’. If you’re not right, they they must be. And to make matters worse, you can’t argue against religious theories because that’s sacreligious!

    So… to recap … it’s logic versus faith… Here’s the rules:
    * we don’t have time to hear logic’s argument - stick to soundbites, please…
    * logic has to be airtight, or else faith wins by default
    * faith doesn’t have to actually prove its case - it wins if it can find one flaw in logic’s argument
    * logic can’t attack faith because that’s mean
    * the fight isn’t over until faith wins, so this match will take as many rounds as is necessary

    Get used to this - we’re going to see more and more of the same… it’s sad, and it sucks, but it’s not going to stop.

    Comment by Blake Caldwell — 10 March, 2006 @ 11:26 am

  46. Me thinky that god make the monkees to turn to humens. Teechers shuld tell the kids that.

    Comment by Frank — 10 March, 2006 @ 11:27 am

  47. Your statement on pharmacists is rather an ignorant one. Pharmacist are health-care providers, and as previously mentioned, do require a degree equivalent to a medical degree of a physician. Furthermore, pharmacist that work in the hospital settings are assigned to the dosage schedules (amount to be given, specific time, and even new drug regimes if current is not satisfactory), and to further manage well being of their patients.

    The key difference here is that they cannot perform the diagnosis, but they do- in certain states, with proper licenses- have the authority to write new prescriptions. So long, as both the patient and the physician (the initial diagnostician in the case) agree to give that authority to them. Often physicians do not know, nor should they have to, all about the current new drug usage. Most of non-incumbent (those who have graduated from medical school in the past 10 years) believes that the pharmacist should be more knowledgeable on the different medications. (From a study 2003, by 2 pharmacy professors at the Virginia Commonwealth school of Pharmacy Survey)

    Pharmacists are professionals who should have the right to choose to dispense Plan B medication. Just as physicians and nurses have the right to choose whether to partake in an abortion procedure. Although, I do agree they should not be the sole source of such medication. If they are, they should dispense it, if it would be a significant barrier to the patient and the needed/prescribed medication (eg. Only place in town and no mode of transportation to go somewhere else.) Otherwise, it should be the pharmacist discursion. Many people in the medical community hold this position.

    Comment by Bryan Dodson — 10 March, 2006 @ 11:29 am

  48. Of all the news, that which pertains to the blind acceptance of the any religious text scares me the most. Why are so many people so willing to give up their curiosity and ability to think and reason? Sure there are physicists who push the boundaries of time and space itself and conclude there must be a “God” that kick-started the whole thing b/c they hit a rational wall but that doesn’t mean that a document that purports to be the word of God is fact. Hell, Greek and Roman mythology was the literally-accepted religious doctrine before Jesus was walking around and look where that ended-up. I’m convinced that over 50% of Americans believe that intelligent design should be taught and that the bible is the literal word of God b/c they are horrified to die and b/c their lives lack meaning and fulfillment hence they jump on anything they can to get guidance, feel loved, and assuage their fear of dying. That’s totally fine and the meaning it provides is real, but it’s not all fine when it leads the turning our educational system into a one that de-prioritizes a rational framwowrk for the search for answers to hard questions at increasingly deeper levels as I fear it will.

    Comment by oh my... — 10 March, 2006 @ 11:33 am

  49. […] read more […]

    Pingback by techlog.isoprophlex.com » Three intelligent design polls agree: Most Americans are idiots — 10 March, 2006 @ 11:36 am

  50. Nicely stated. I do disagree with you about your last paragraph. By and large it’s not the educators ie the ones doing the educating that want to include ID. It’s the politicians in control of the educators that want to push this foolishness. Even if they believe strongly in religion, there are few public school biology teachers who want to add ID. Most just want to make sure that the handfull of their students who might be taking the Acheivment Test for Biology score high and you don’t do that by filling their heads full of nonsense.

    Comment by dean — 10 March, 2006 @ 11:37 am

  51. Its really simple, people. This is not about evolution. This is about ID. And, for the reasons that Damien has repeated over and over, ID is not science. It is not observable. It is not testable. There are *no* predictions that can be made based on ID. It makes arguments from ignorance (which, I think you missed, is simply the name in logic of a type of argument. That it is an accurate name that you’re ashamed of is another matter.)

    So tell me. How is ID observable? How is ID testable? What predictions can be made using ID?

    When you tell me that, I will consider ID as a theory. And you’ll have to tell me that in a peer-reviewed way.

    Oh, and by the way, whoever said “science is not infallible, look at the flat earth!”

    First of all, “science” never said the earth was flat. Religion said that, they burned people for saying differently, and in fact, they’re the same group of people who believe in creationism. Secondly, even in those cases where “science” changed its mind and was wrong, I have two points. First, that means that science actually does review its beliefs and change them when new facts come to light. If you’re talking about creationism, you’re talking abouot beliefs that haven’t been changed since 10000 BC. That means that you, not science, are guilty of dogmatism. Second, even without all this, science is very fundamentally different from science back in the day of . We have the scientific method. They didn’t. We have journals and peer review and all sorts of new mathematics and…the list is inconceivable.

    Comment by qkslvrwolf — 10 March, 2006 @ 11:40 am

  52. […] read more | digg story   […]

    Pingback by Generalized Nonsense » Three intelligent design polls agree: Most Americans are idiots — 10 March, 2006 @ 11:44 am

  53. Did it ever occur to you that they are smart and you’re the idiot?

    Comment by Jesse — 10 March, 2006 @ 11:45 am

  54. Neither the THEORY of evolution or the THEORY of intelegent design have been proven scientifically or otherwise. All of these arguments depend fully on where you place your faith. Do you place your faith in man or God. Scientist belive in the books that science has writen. Chirstians or more specifically creationists belive in and place faith in the Bible. In some areas they are not mutually exclusive and in many areas the Bible confirms what we know through science. However, in the discussion of evolution as a means for creation they are mutually exclusive and cannot coexist. As soon as one tries to put the theory of millions of years into the account of creation it flaws not only Genesis but the entire basis of the Bible and salvation. Therefore if the theory of evolution is accurate then there is no Christianity. I am a well educated medical profesional. I am not a Doctor but I have extensive post graduate education in science and medicine. I say that only to say that while I belive and understand the proven theories of science I am not obligated to take on blind faith those unproven theories such as evolution. I choose to belive the Bible in those areas that are at odds with science. I think however that if you look closely you will find that most, if not all PROVEN theories of science also have Biblical backing. Now just as your original post, I have not gone in to the full arugments of this discussion. I have however not chosen to call you an idiot or stupid as you have chosen to do with those who have differnet views and opinions than yours. The website www.answersingenesis.org is an excellent resource and I would invite you and your readers to view it at your convienence.

    Comment by PHR3AKSTORM — 10 March, 2006 @ 11:47 am

  55. Your extremely uninformed opinion on every subject covered does nothing to improve your position. You use foul language to get your point across, indicating to your readers that you have no really good argument, but rather have to resort to swearing in order to make your point. In addition, you claim that only idiots can believe in ID. Unfortunately, the same can be said for you, the Evolutionist. There is no proof for either belief system to exist. For someone to get into such a righteous anger over it is absolutly ridiculous. You, on the ’scientific’ side, of all points of view, should recognize that you hav no more proof for your beliefs than the Intelligent Design promoters. The evidence that you hold up is the exact same evidence that the Intelligent Designers hold up, albeit with a different initial point of view.
    If you have nothing intelligent to say, don’t say it. If you do, present it in a respectable manner.

    Comment by Nick — 10 March, 2006 @ 11:55 am

  56. One more thing, I have to disagree with people who think science says things. Science say’s nothing. It’s merely the descriptive term for a collection of ideas and methods using repeatable observation and logic to help make sense out of the world around us. People say things. Sometimes they’re backed up by evidence collected using scientific method. Sometimes people make complete asshat statements with either no or very flawed logic. But it’s not science that does the talking and assuming so demonstrates your clear misunderstanding of what science is.

    Comment by dean — 10 March, 2006 @ 11:57 am

  57. Just out of curiosity, where did all you people come from? Did someone a lot more popular than me pick up on this post?

    Comment by Damien Sorresso — 10 March, 2006 @ 12:05 pm

  58. I’m astounded at just how weakly the pro-ID crowd is arguing here. They argue that science is “arrogant,” or that bizarre straw-men versions of natural selection are obviously wrong, and think that they’ve scored some kind of point.

    Would an ID believer diagnosed with cancer be content to take advice from an acupuncturist?

    Would an ID believer on trial for murder be content to have as his defense attorney a person who hadn’t been to law school, but who had watched a lot of “Matlock?”

    How many ID believers would be happy to hear that the maintenance work on the airplane they’re about to ride had been done by a crack team of photocopier repairpeople?

    How many ID believers are happy to take advice on how to do their own jobs from someone who has just finished reading a book about it?

    Expertise is a real thing, and it [i]matters[/i]. How is it that ID believers disregard it so easily on this one narrow issue, and also be so blind to the absurdity of what they’re doing?

    Comment by Western Infidels — 10 March, 2006 @ 12:16 pm

  59. Digg

    Comment by jrc — 10 March, 2006 @ 12:26 pm

  60. I’m not suprised at all at some of the responses here, they just show that the current crop of parents are people who need straightening out. In this case, they assume they can throw out Evolution willy nilly, forgetting that throwing it out means throwing out the basis of much of modern biology. One of the intresting things about people is that they love to cherry pick at what they pick to belive, never understand that science is a conclusive whole, a building you might say, where all theories support one another, all based on the few laws. Throwing out Evolution, esspecially if they say the problem is with the entire process, then why don’t they throw out Quantum mechanics? Or Astrophysics? Is it because they bring benefits into their lives? Or just because it dosn’t contradict the Bible? Food for thought.

    Comment by Daniel Goldberg — 10 March, 2006 @ 12:32 pm

  61. Who are the real idiots? The one that thinks that everything evolved from nothing? That humans came from soup and rocks? Contrary to popular belief,
    macro evolution is not an observed process — we have yet to observe the transformation of one species to another species. Sure you’ve can observe variations in fish, moths, dogs, etc. but that does not result in a different species. A dog is still a dog, no matter how long is fur is or how ugly it might be. A fish is still a fish whether it has a pelvic fin or not. A peppered moth is still a moth, no matter what color it is or how many spots are on its wings. Have we observed a fish transition into a dog, a moth to a cat, or a whale to a cow? I would sure like to buy a copy of the video if we have! You evolution zealots have bought into a sham, a philosophy that has no scientific support, especially in this day of scientific understanding. But then again, when I see articles like this sometimes I think maybe evolution is true — this author obviously has the mind of a baboon!!!

    Comment by js — 10 March, 2006 @ 12:53 pm

  62. Entertaining an ID versus evolution debate is dangerous as it lends ID credibility. ID is not a science - if it were, then it would be disregarded as it has arrived at the conclusion it expected to. Science is based on logic, observation and empirical evidence, if this cannot be achieved, then it is not a science. To defend ID and say that it is impossible to prove the unprovable is merely an excuse and is very convenient. Nevertheless, if it cannot fulfil basic scientific requirements, then it is not a science, and should not be taught in a science classroom.

    And regarding the comment made about academics who support socialism not understanding market economics is a rather bizarre one - Socialists have no need to understand a market economy as it would be irrelevant (redundant?) within their system.

    Comment by Tonus — 10 March, 2006 @ 12:55 pm

  63. What a delightfuly accurate and looselipped article. Damien, biologists and reasonable people, one. Creationists, intelligent design and others choosing to place mysticism and theology above science, zero.

    The gullibility of the masses is something I’ve clearly underestimated. A long time ago, some guys wrote a fictional novel called the bible, and since then people have been haplessly following it in search of… well, I don’t even really know what. George Carlin has best described religion. ‘More people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason.’ And of course, my favorite: ‘Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.’ That is what this is all about, after all. More important than what we choose to believe as individuals is what we’re teaching our children. When I was going through elementary school, Canada was in the process of separating itself from the British Commonwealth. I was taken to the principals office every time I refused to sing God Save the Queen and/or The Lords Prayer. I am an athiest, and no school, teacher or other government appointed body is going to be telling me otherwise. And they won’t be telling my children otherwise either.

    The simple fact is that our children deserve the right to choose. Personally, I think that children should take a class on mysticism or theology or the religions of the world, but not until they reach high school - let it be another elective like shop or cooking or band. It should be taught in the premise of ‘these are different things that different religions and cultures believe’. Anyone who wants to teach it as ‘this is how the world came to be, and while you will hear other ideas these mystical and inexplicable ones are definitely the ones you should believe’ needs to be dragged into the street and beaten. As another poster made reference to above, we might as well teach our kids that the moon landing was fake and the earth is flat if we’re going to teach them creationism, as there’s about as much hard evidence and scientific research in favor of each of those.

    Until kids have reached a certain age where maturity begins, their minds should remain free of these kinds of poison. I know my kids, if and when I choose to have any, will have that luxury.

    Comment by William — 10 March, 2006 @ 1:09 pm

  64. The pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control are wannabe doctors, just like intelligent design advocates are wannabe biologists.

    This is simply not true, and displays a gross ignorance of the pharmacy industry and the motives of those are pharmacists or pharmacy students. I don’t want to be a doctor (you’d have to be crazy to want to be a doctor).

    The authority of the two parties is separate. It is the doctor’s job to make a diagnosis and prescribe treatment (though soon pharmacists will be able to prescribe tmt). Not a single pharmacist I know wishes they were a doctor. The job functions are different, as is the education. It is well within a pharmacists’s right to refuse to dispense a medication (though I agree that they should have a damn good reason for it), and saying that they’re wannabes is absurd.

    Pharmacists know more about drugs than doctors do and doctors know more about medical conditions and the tools necessary to make a diagnosis. Much of the education overlaps, but there are key fundamental differences, and saying one is a wannabe of the other is wrong. (Though there are a few, I’m sure, but don’t create stereotypes where none exist.)

    Comment by Rian — 10 March, 2006 @ 1:18 pm

  65. >Who are the real idiots? The one that thinks that everything evolved from nothing?
    >That humans came from soup and rocks?

    Strawman. Evolution explains how existing living forms change. You are confusing it with abiogenesis.

    >Contrary to popular belief, macro evolution is not an observed process — we have
    >yet to observe the transformation of one species to another species.

    Outright lie. Speciation has been observed. I refer to the following link:

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

    >Sure you’ve can observe variations in fish, moths, dogs, etc. but that does not
    >result in a different species. A dog is still a dog, no matter how long is fur is
    >or how ugly it might be. A fish is still a fish whether it has a pelvic fin or
    >not. A peppered moth is still a moth, no matter what color it is or how many spots
    >are on its wings. Have we observed a fish transition into a dog, a moth to a cat,
    >or a whale to a cow? I would sure like to buy a copy of the video if we have!

    Another strawman. No one claims that fish turn directly into cows. The claim is that once a sufficient number of adaptions are accumulated by a distinct population, the ability of its members to produce (viable) offspring with other groups is diminished, and eventually eliminated. Over very great timescales and a great number of adaptions these changes will have led to significant changes in the form of the creatures of that population: small incremental changes from one generation to another. Incidentally, intermediate stages exist: for instance one in ten thousand mules are not, in fact, sterile.

    >You evolution zealots have bought into a sham, a philosophy that has no scientific
    >support, especially in this day of scientific understanding. But then again, when
    >I see articles like this sometimes I think maybe evolution is true — this author
    >obviously has the mind of a baboon!!!

    The irony is staggering. Incidentally, when scientists call something a “theory”, they mean that it is well supported by scientific evidence. This moniker is used in reference to a model that describes an aspect of the world in terms of natural mechanisms. In this regard, evolution is both a theory and an observed fact, much like gravity.

    Comment by Lord Zentei — 10 March, 2006 @ 1:37 pm

  66. Only idiots think science is unlimited, science can explain everything, 2000 year’s science history can explain everything?
    The universe is billions years old.

    U.S. lead the most advanced science and technology research, Newton, Einstein all master minds believe in Intelligent Design, what do you know?

    Comment by Shao Junke — 10 March, 2006 @ 1:59 pm

  67. Only idiots think religion is unlimited, religion can explain everything, 2000 year’s religious history can explain everything?
    The universe is billions years old.

    U.S. lead the most advanced science and technology research, Newton, Einstein could not have beleived in ID, since it is a recent concoction (as opposed to cretinism… err creationism).

    Incidentally, since Newton was of the 17th century and Darwin of the 19th, his lack of beleif in evolution proves nothing. The past 300 years of science have accomplished more than the past 2000 years of religion or the past 20000 years of animism and tribal mumbo jumbo.

    Comment by Lord Zentei — 10 March, 2006 @ 2:10 pm

  68. […] I could go off on that, but it’s actually already handled over at The First Church Of Free Speech: Americans are particularly vulnerable to this “equal time” bullshit because we tend to think everything should be a democratic process and that the will of the people reigns supreme. … What the intelligent design people are asking is akin to making a high school physics teacher cover all the cases where Newtonian gravity and motion fail and forcing him to go into relativity, which is absurd. And that’s is a case where there is legitimate opposition to Newtonian mechanics! In biology, the overall theory of evolution is about as rock-solid as you can get in science. Granted, evolution isn’t a perfect theory, but it is an exceedingly good one. There probably are examples of its predictions not coming through here and there, and I know that some biologists are saying that natural selection isn’t the only thing responsible for imposing selective pressure. (Note that none of them are proposing The Hand of God as an alternative mechanism.) … […]

    Pingback by Homo Sum » Blog Archive » You Have GOT To Be Kidding Me! — 10 March, 2006 @ 2:25 pm

  69. Oh please, I’m so tired of this.

    There is no “God”. It’s all on you. Get over it.

    (There is a “God”. Yeah? Prove it.)

    Comment by Tazu — 10 March, 2006 @ 2:26 pm

  70. A dog is still a dog, no matter how long is fur is or how ugly it might be.

    Place male timber wolf and a female Chihuahua in a cage together. Do they produce fertile offspring? Or do they produce one slightly fatter timber wolf?

    They are supposedly (genetically speaking) the same species. Yet they will not, indeed can not, mate to produce fertile offspring.

    The real problem is with the concept of a species. ID believers like to think that a species is something defined with an ironclad mathematical precision. But the reality is that species are an imperfect human taxonomic construct, crudely imposed on the mind-bendingly complex and messy tree of life. Sometimes animals commonly recognized as distinct species (like horses and donkeys, or lions and tigers) come a lot closer to fulfilling the “fertile offspring” requirement than different varieties of dogs do. The boundaries between one species and another can be fuzzy.

    So discounting any particular example of populations changing over time, just because it hasn’t met your personal, rigid, conveniently-delineated, completely artificial, arbitrary, and changeable standard of crossing a species boundary is very silly. Species aren’t like countries on a map, they’re more like oceans on a globe. They sometimes seem to overlap or run together, no one can say precisely where the boundary is in every case. Except in the case of oceans, the lack of boundaries doesn’t seem to bother anyone.

    When you argue that Chihuahuas and timber wolves are the same species, you’re arguing more about your worthless and broken definition of a species than you are about the dogs.

    Comment by Western Infidels — 10 March, 2006 @ 2:30 pm

  71. Once again, the American people have sucker-punched my faith in humanity. Good job, folks! I love living in a society where it’s considered elitist to think that to give one’s informed opinion, one should first have some actual knowledge of the subject at hand. Well, as Get Your War on said: “If ‘elitist’ just means ‘not the dumbest motherfucker in the room,’ I’ll be an elitist!”

    Comment by Jim — 10 March, 2006 @ 3:15 pm

  72. Quotes where Einstein where he displays an awe in the majesty of universe do not equate to “Whoa, dude, no way! Like, stinkin’ Einstein was like, a ID guy, dude!”

    He was an agnostic if not an aetheist, and he was a scientist. Which means he supports science, not crackpot “creationism in a clown suit”.

    Try telling Einstein gravity is the will of god and see where you get.

    Comment by qkslvrwolf — 10 March, 2006 @ 4:06 pm

  73. Jim, we do that sort of thing a lot. Where do you live? Can you get me a visa? There aren’t any countries except for canada that actually let us come work there. :-(

    Comment by qkslvrwolf — 10 March, 2006 @ 4:07 pm

  74. Actually, Einstein serves as a perfect illustration of why God and science don’t mix. He absolutely refused to believe that quantum mechanics was an accurate model of sub-atomic particle interactions because “God doesn’t play dice with the universe”. He wanted his universe to be deterministic, and in the end, he couldn’t reconcile that desire with the data. Quantum mechanics won out. Most people like quoting Einstein as saying “God doesn’t play dice with the universe”, but no one quotes Neil Boher’s response: “Albert, stop telling God what to do!”

    Even the most respected, intelligent scientist must bow to the data. Einstein was a genius. That he was able to go from “Imagine what it would be like to travel alongside the photon” to one of the most profound and counter-intuitive theories in physics is a testament to that. But he was also wrong about quantum mechanics.

    And even if a biologist does believe in God, they don’t use their god as a valid mechanism in their research. It’s a totally worthless term in the explanation.

    Comment by Damien Sorresso — 10 March, 2006 @ 4:15 pm

  75. Just a few questions. Where do aetheist go when they die? What is that bright light all those people talk about that have “come back” from the dead? Ghosts? Do they exist? Can this be proven? Can Darwinism be proven scientifically? Why not? Is carbon dating accurate? What is the reference material used? Very interesting…?

    One comment.
    Thank God you are not teaching my child!! :)

    Comment by Locutus — 10 March, 2006 @ 6:22 pm

  76. Just a few questions. Where do aetheist go when they die?

    In the ground. Preferably in a cemetery.

    What is that bright light all those people talk about that have “come back” from the dead?

    A delusional episode caused by the brain shutting down. There is such a science as neurology, and they do study things like this. It’s not my job to educate you on every little detail.

    Ghosts? Do they exist? Can this be proven?

    The question is whether or not the existence of ghosts can be disproven. Since the hypothesis that ghosts exist carries no way to falsify itself, it’s a bullshit hypothesis.

    Can Darwinism be proven scientifically? Why not? Is carbon dating accurate? What is the reference material used? Very interesting…?

    What are you, incapable of doing a Google search? Or do you have some sort of “creationist arguments only” filter on your network gateway? Evolution’s predictions have been verified countless times. Read a damned textbook. And the attacks on radio-carbon dating are made by people holding up one flawed example as an indictment of the entire process. They don’t point out any flaws in the underlying test methodology, which rests on the predictable decay rates of Carbon 14.

    One comment.
    Thank God you are not teaching my child!!

    I pity your child. Thankfully, I don’t have to teach him and deal with scientifically illiterate parents like you.

    Comment by Damien Sorresso — 10 March, 2006 @ 6:37 pm

  77. Just to minimize misunderstanding, I’ll quickly clarify my definition of “evolution”, it’s fairly broad, and I hope most people can agree on the definition, if not the legitimacy: Evolution is the theory that DNA, the “code” of life, is mutable, and that mutations can accumulate over time in the DNA that affect the fitness of the carrier of the DNA. As the DNA replicates, and new generations are produced, combinations that lower the fitness of the carrier have a higher chance of being culled, while combinations that raise the fitness of the carrier have a higher chance of surviving long enough to create copies of itself. Extrapolate this pattern over time, and the DNA of reproductively isolated populations begins to diverge from the original population as well as each other. Over time, these isolated populations encounter other populations that have accumulated enough differences so that mating between the two populations is impossible. When this occurs the two populations can be considered different “species”, even if they are both descended from a common ancestor. An important point is that “species” is an amorphous concept that can’t be reliably quantified, and that the specifics of how King Phillip Came Over From Great Spain is still up for debate.
    That said; if you think that evolution doesn’t have much evidence behind it, buy several high school and college-level textbooks on biology, chemistry and mathematics. When you see a theory or piece of evidence in the textbooks that you dispute, check the references section in the back of the book. Then go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi. Look up the relevant study/ies, then follow every single one of those references used in the study. When you find a missing link in the chain, try to reproduce their results. If you can’t, send the report to one several dozen reputable journals. If you are persistent, and your experiment wasn’t a complete Charlie Fox, then it will be published. If you experiment disproves evolution, and presents an alternate theory that explains everything that evolution does *and more*, then you should expect to be short-listed for the Nobel Prize and be hailed as one of the greatest scientists in modern history. If you can’t disprove evolution, and are reduced to pointing out statistically irrelevant outliers as your evidence (i.e. Because John Doe was shot in the head, survived and acquired a nicer personality; firing a bullet in your brain is a healthy pastime) then join the crowd out in the Discovery Institute, they’re begging for someone to take them seriously.
    With that out of the way, I’d like to ask everyone who thinks that evolution is “elitist scientist claptrap” to explain why knowing more about the world is a bad thing. Without evolution, we’d be completely unable to explain why bacteria are suddenly resistant to penicillin, or how AIDS works. Evolution is the unifying of biology, and is probably one of the most important things a potential student of the sciences must learn. The original theory was first proposed through an elegant mixture of logic and evidence. Since Darwin’s paper was published, the theory has been used to predict results*, cure diseases**, explain previously inexplicable similarities*** as well as speed the progress of science****. To summarize: Evolution is important, and should be taught for the same reason that gravity is taught in schools: Because it’s applicable in modern industry, can be reliably observed through experiment, and can be used to predict results. ID has wasted money that could be going to labs. It exists to emotionally manipulate people who want to believe it, and people who have no clue about the topic. In schools, ID could be addressed in the same terms that Lamarckian evolution is discussed; as an alternate theory that was popular with the fringe crowd for a few decades, but died due to it’s utter bankruptcy of evidence.

    *Question: If a reproductively isolated group of Tibetans moves higher into the Himalayas what will happen? Darwin’s answer: Oxygen absorption will increase to compensate for thinner air. Observed result: Children born with a mutation increasing hemoglobin efficiency have a higher likelihood of survival.
    **If you have diabetes, Darwin’s the reason you don’t need sheep to get insulin.
    *** Why does this T-rex have the same blood cell anatomy as this chicken? Why do people from areas with malaria have higher rates of sickle-cell anemia?
    **** The entire field of genetic engineering is based on evolution. In fact, if you live past 65, you can thank Darwin, because there’s a good chance that the discoveries stemming from his theory are why you’re still kicking.

    Comment by Signal — 10 March, 2006 @ 7:24 pm

  78. oh, wow, the astericks thing didn’t work *at all*. well, good luck matching up comment to footnote.

    Comment by Signal — 10 March, 2006 @ 7:28 pm

  79. Welcome to the new dark ages.

    Comment by Ralph Bentley — 10 March, 2006 @ 7:33 pm

  80. I appreciate that DCgeek (#10) is trying to weigh in on the side of science, but a few of his statements need a bit of tweaking, if I may:

    “Also, Abdullah, we have found countless fossils of evolutionary man, with protruding, heavy brows and even teeth designed for chewing and mascerating raw meat.”

    We can’t accruately say “countless”. Hominid fossils are fairly rare, and all the finds to date could be catalogued in a reasonable-sized book. Also, one of the most interesting things about hominids back at least as far as Ardipithecus is how similar the teeth are to ours. Apparently they had an omnivorous diet much like our own, with only a small, but important, reliance on meat.

    “Also, evidence shows if I recall correctly that your modern monkey are not genetic pre-cursors to homo sapien. Humans and apes share only a ’superfamily’ essentially what your iguana and a snake share at best. Humans AREN’T evolved monkeys.”

    True, humans did not evolve from any living species of monkey or ape. Humans and chimps did share a common ancestor probably no more than 6 million years ago, however, and we share about 96% of our DNA with chimps. That’s a lot closer than snakes are to iguanas. Also, the ancestral apes that spawned both chimps and other modern apes and humans probably did themselves evolve from creatures that were also the ancestors of modern monkeys.

    “Homo erectus, Homo sapiens and apes diverged into separate genetic trees many millions of years ago.”

    Our line split from the line leading to chimps about 6 million years ago, based on mitochondrial DNA evidence. Homo erectus was probably a direct ancestor of Homo sapiens, and also a very successful bunch of folks on their own merits.

    “We are the only surviving homo species, maybe because of oh, I don’t know, genetic fitness?”

    Not sure what is “genetic fitness”. Probably our ancestors were more adaptable than related species. Luck likely played a role in their survival, too.

    “Additionally, dinosaurs were much more numerous in variety and population, the climate conditions on earth at the time were much more conducive to creating fossils, and homo erectus was smart enough not to step into a tar pit, and was also a lot better at not getting killed in such in-opportune places.”

    Dinosaurs existed in large numbers for over 100 million years. Homo erectus was around for about 1 million years. Climate had little to do with the creating of lots of dino fossils; on the basis of time alone there should be 100 times more dino fossils.

    “We have more than enough evidence to map the evolution of man.”

    Personally, I think we have just enough to trace a broad outline. Evidence of a whole new species, Homo floresiensis, was published just last year. But the broad outline works for me.

    “Oh here’s the kicker, a majority of god fearing bible thumpers believe we co-exsisted on earth with dinosaurs, apparently carbon dating is a bunch of poppycock. After all, god did ‘create’ carbon dating, he just created the molecules that decay in a beautifully and mathmatically proveable cycle.”

    One last point. Carbon 14 dating only works for organic materials, and only back about 25,000 years or so. Other radioactive dating methods, like potassium-argon, are used for dating in paleontology and anthropology.

    I don’t mean to bash at you DCgeek, but I thought you appreciate some clarification of your statements. If not, flame away. :-)

    Interesting discussion, Damien. You were surprised at the number of responses; all I can tell you is I linked to your site from a webcomic called “Falcon Twin”.

    Comment by Daveo — 10 March, 2006 @ 8:25 pm

  81. Fantastic! Although the language was a little rough, it was great!
    It was like a punch to the stomach! Poignant, full of momentum, and it delivered!
    Congratulations, it was probably the best “rant” I’ve read on this absurd “Evolution and Science are a metter of opinion.”

    Comment by Jeff Williams — 10 March, 2006 @ 10:28 pm

  82. Excellent article. Even if I were a religious person (thankfully I am not) then I would still find your arguments convincing - politicians are really not in a position to act as though they can make an informed decision about this.

    NB spelling error — “And that’s _is_ a case where there is legitimate opposition to Newtonian mechanics!”

    Comment by Master_Gopher — 11 March, 2006 @ 12:22 am

  83. […] […]

    Pingback by sodamncool.com » Blog Archive » — 12 March, 2006 @ 6:55 pm

  84. You’re an idiot. Let’s all follow the humanist cult that dominates our scientific community blindly and refuse to teach a valid scientific theory (ID) in favor of one that’s been disproven hundreds of times over. You’re a journalist for crying out loud. I know facts and objectivity aren’t popular with journalists these days, but give them a try.

    Comment by McDougal — 13 March, 2006 @ 8:36 am

  85. For all those who think that the Founders of this country wanted complete separation of church and state need to go back and re-read the 1st Amendment. It states that Congress (Meaning the Feds) “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” That means that the Feds cannot establish a Church of America (ala the Church of England with the king/queen at the head of both); it DOES NOT mean that religion is not to play any part in politics - that was a single, solitary ruling by a judge who established that, and due to the power of precedence and the use of the judiciary to “pass laws” that cannot be passed through legislative means, that ruling has been allowed to stand and prosper.

    In reality, George Washington anounced a National Day of Prayer to thank God for His belessings once the Constitution was ratified. Abraham Lincoln invoked God on a regular basis. Every President in recent times has held a National Prayer Breakfast - even Bill Clinton who is arguably one of the least religious leaders we’ve had. And on and on it goes. The facts are there for those who wish to actually study history rather than take their history from blogger sites and quasi-news outlets with agendas.

    The attack on religion in public life is part of a larger attack on traditional values that has made this country the envy of the world - a world dominated by despots, dictators and socialists who all want to run your life to enhance their power. Have we made mistakes? Of course, but nothing on the scale of Hitler, Lenin/Stalin, Mugabe, Pol Pat, Mao, Fidel, well the list just goes on an on.

    Read, study, know the facts, and then maybe your postings will actually be of value.

    Comment by Geoff — 13 March, 2006 @ 9:24 am

  86. Don’t forget the catholic church in your list of people that have killed millions.

    Also, go read some Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, or one of the other aethists/agnositcs/deists in ranks of the founding fathers. There were way more freethinkers among the founding fathers than there are among todays govervnment. Hell, you want to know who is being persecuted? Try aetheists. Its the one religious persuasion that is barred from holding office by state constitution in seven states? I’ll give you a hint. It isn’t christians.

    The “attack” on religion in public life is nothing of the sort. Let an aetheist stand up in office and say “I don’t believe in god”, and then you’ll persecution.

    Go study history yourself, without your damn preacher telling you what to think.

    Comment by qkslvrwolf — 14 March, 2006 @ 1:55 pm

  87. OK… u r all very pissed at each other… predictably human and yet terribly frustrating
    I don’t know how many times I wanted to hit the wall with my head reading the above (and maybe some of u’ll say I should’ve).. but anyway:

    Science is something that tries to describe the workings of the world as accurately as possible.
    What is most important is that predictions can be made on it…

    Ok screw points and paragraphs its 10 to 11 i’m sleepy as hell and english is my 3rd language…
    This all reminds me of how a consule of the us made a visit to my school and my class-mates thrashed him with accusations on your foreign policy regarding iraq the cold war and all other things related. The point is they kept on harrassing him and he just shook it all off calmly trying to protect the prestige of his country (it was his job after all), both sides made me sick as hell to listen to… I especially liked the “OIL?! huh?! what oil?!” response but nvm
    So they went on for about 45mins and came to no conclusion (duh)
    It’s human nature to argue and when they meet some form of resistance they just get fueled by it and wanna do it more… until one party gets their head knocked in by solid evidence… or they come to a consensus (yay peace ^_^)
    The problem here is that the IS side does not have ANY PROOF WHAT SO EVER OF ANYTHING THEY SAY
    It’s the same like my mother naged me about ironing clothes, she doidn’t know any reason why people should do it.. she just said that ppl should… that is what is excepted by the majority of the population so that’s why it is so, and other than that there is no justification… no logic behind the argument.. IT SHOULD BE LIKE THIS is answer a teenager/child gets a lot, i think, and well most of us just live with it and don’t bother our minds with asking the questions we once thought were important…
    And actually u should be thankful 2 ppl like that - they are the reason the economy of ur country flourishes like it does: they set goals in life and do smth to achieve, they dont ask why, they dont know why… they just know IT SHOULD BE LIKE THIS… in the end they become a race of specialized narrow mindedworking drones (taxpaying thankfully), so any of the scientists who read this can leave off doing research and tinkering with the giant puzzle that is our world…
    Evolution HAS PROOF to a certain extenet again, one must define the limits of the concept to understand what the concept means (dont you just hate symantecs)… i’m down with the fact that Evolution DOES NOT describe how life started - in fact noone actually states that, it describes how life is…. why and how living beings and viruses evolve and interact amongst each other and with the enviroment
    That’s all that biology does
    To explain how the world came to be THERE IS NO, EVEN REMOTELY VALID CONCEPT, ONE COULD CALL A THEORY
    There all just hopes and dreams of people with their perpetual fear of death and lack of meaning in their lives, something simple that can be understood and accepted by everyone… which then becomes a cure for loneliness, as one can communicate with the people around them based on some fundamental common values…

    Religion is just a bad drug, it makes people feel secure and happy, at a price of neglecting reality
    IT MAKES LIFE SIMPLE

    All of those who trully believe in something that has no logical basis are just too ignorant to be presented with a side of an argument, which proof is too complex to understand…
    So the only logical solution now would be to create some state for people who aren’t afraid of overstressing their brains… say in Antarctica… develop a nuclear program and bomb the rest of the world to bits

    And to those who speak of 2000(!) years of scince, which brought us no enlightenment PLEASE REALISE YOUR OWN INSIGNIFICANCE in this world and the insignificance of our own race and the period of time that we exist

    I don’t know about god, but in my subjective opinion the universe is like a complex computer program with a “perfect” quantum randomizer, and some basic laws which apply to matter and time-space, which form it… the fact that we have not discovered them all yet does not mean that one should shy away from our efforts of doing so, and start believing in something that is more comfortable.

    HUMANITY SHOULD PROGRESS, why you ask… the reason is that U DO ASK: it’s in your nature… it’s will of god if that’s the answer that pleases you… and with dead end thinking like “there is an allmighty force that has created the! fear the!” we might as all just hang ourselves

    and about schools - NO EQUAL F***ING RIGHTS should be given to the effort of our civilization and a fiction story which is admired by so many

    Anyway our sights will be forever limited by the confineds of this universe(ok maybe not, but at this point in time it seems to be the most rational proposition) and one day we might have to accept the existence or lack of god, but that time is far from now, we can’t say anything conclusive so please don’t bother…

    And another thought to all those who hold high thy tourch of faith… if there is a god then
    why is he?
    who created him?

    in the end every logic just comes to a loophole even scince someday will… life is pointless
    that’s why i’m not sorry about wasting some time from it to write the above
    just do what YOU feel more comfortable with… not the people around you not your forfathers, do what as much of YOU

    Comment by Vtiger — 15 March, 2006 @ 4:57 pm

  88. …that you can isolate from the outsde world, tells you to do

    got cut short there, not like there was anything imprortant to say..
    just want to appoloize for long sentences, lack of propper punctuation, contractions, typos misspellings and taking up so many bytes of disk space
    just for refference i’m an 18 yr old russian living in estonia(if you dont know where that it is u probably support IS… well at least this country will never get bombed if ur commander and chieff along with the majority of the population can’t find it, what a relief ^_^)

    Comment by Vtiger — 15 March, 2006 @ 5:07 pm

  89. Here is how dictionary.com defines a theory:
    1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
    2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
    3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
    4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
    5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
    6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

    This is for anyone who has trouble understanding the concept of a theory in the scientific sense.

    Comment by Dan D — 20 March, 2006 @ 1:57 pm

  90. What an interesting article. What I really love about this article is the fact that Damien seems to present himself as an authoritative figure in the vast realm of science. Because some (majority actually) Americans believe that all that we see around us was created by a Higher Intelligence, Damien thinks that he is “wiser” than most people. Its funny that most people think that modern science should trump Christianity, when the “modern” science movement was actually started through the efforts of Christians to better understand the world around us that God made.

    I am a literal Creationist. I am not willing to die over that view (becuase there are more important things in the Christian faith to tend with), but I believe it because all the research, discussions, readings, evidence I have looked at, pondered, and weighed from both sides of the argument has led me to believe that a Higher Intelligence made the physical realm that we know. Science is about about keeping an open and honest mind about the evidence and to willing to investigate all the plausabilities. I was once a non-believing atheist, but science has shed light opun the whole topic. By the way I looked at the evidence before I read a Bible or became a Christian, just so you know. I am open to viewing different theories as they may shed new light, but since we we must arrive at some conclusions, and I have come to this conclusion. I will still keep an honest and open mind but so far the evidence for evolution is not a very convincing one.

    But my charge to Damien and to other “scientists” is to stop being hypocrits and actually look at and weigh the evidence and possibility that a Higher Intelligence may have created this universe. By automatically ruling out that possibility (because one cannot difinitely say that God did not create this world, an argument from a negative position, which one cannot defend) you have made science a mockery and you have disavowed the very thing that you place your faith in. By not allowing Intelligent Design to be discussed and viewed in an open and honest way, science is no longer science, but a dogmatic, fundamentalist, ideology; the very same charge you place on Christians. Shame on you Damien!

    PS - Its not a good idea to write a paper trying to prove your point by calling people idiots. Any descent writer, speaker, or person knows that if you start off with name calling, you wont be taken seriously, just as I haven’t.

    Comment by CJL — 24 March, 2006 @ 10:53 am

  91. What an interesting article. What I really love about this article is the fact that Damien seems to present himself as an authoritative figure in the vast realm of science. Because some (majority actually) Americans believe that all that we see around us was created by a Higher Intelligence, Damien thinks that he is “wiser” than most people. Its funny that most people think that modern science should trump Christianity, when the “modern” science movement was actually started through the efforts of Christians to better understand the world around us that God made.

    Yes, I do have some authority in the realm of science. Know why? Because I have an education in it. That’s one of the advantages of getting education in a field. You can speak authoritatively about it.

    And how do you go from “modern science was started by Christians” to “the Christian God must be involved in all scientific theories” when the methodology of science excludes anyone from using God as an explanatory term? Or didn’t you know that Occam, a theologian, devised his principle of logical parsimony in order to show that God’s existence could not be shown as a logically valid claim and therefore one must take it on pure faith alone? Here’s a hint: Occam’s Razor is a cornerstone of modern science.

    I am a literal Creationist.

    That certainly explains a lot.

    I am not willing to die over that view

    That is certainly unfortunate for the gene pool.

    (becuase there are more important things in the Christian faith to tend with), but I believe it because all the research, discussions, readings, evidence I have looked at, pondered, and weighed from both sides of the argument has led me to believe that a Higher Intelligence made the physical realm that we know. Science is about about keeping an open and honest mind about the evidence and to willing to investigate all the plausabilities.

    Yes, I’m sure you have the requisite qualifications to challenge the conclusions of the entire biological community. Science is about describing the natural universe through natural mechanisms, genius. God is a supernatural mechanism and is therefore excluded by default.

    I was once a non-believing atheist, but science has shed light opun the whole topic. By the way I looked at the evidence before I read a Bible or became a Christian, just so you know. I am open to viewing different theories as they may shed new light, but since we we must arrive at some conclusions, and I have come to this conclusion. I will still keep an honest and open mind but so far the evidence for evolution is not a very convincing one.

    That’s because you’re getting your “evidence” from creationist pamphlets that specialize in distorting what evolution actually is. You could probably take an afternoon, sit down with a biology professor at your local community college and ask him about evolution and have virtually all of your misconceptions and questions cleared up. But you don’t. You prefer to get your information pre-chewed from creationists.

    But my charge to Damien and to other “scientists” is to stop being hypocrits and actually look at and weigh the evidence and possibility that a Higher Intelligence may have created this universe.

    There isn’t any. That’s the whole point. How can a method which describes the universe through natural mechanisms possibly arrive at a conclusion involving a supernatural one? Does any of this even enter your thought processes?

    By automatically ruling out that possibility (because one cannot difinitely say that God did not create this world, an argument from a negative position, which one cannot defend) you have made science a mockery and you have disavowed the very thing that you place your faith in.

    The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim of existence. You claim that God exists and created the universe, so the onus is on you to provide evidence. You and your ilk haven’t done so, yet you bitch and moan when people dismiss your claims as logically invalid.

    By not allowing Intelligent Design to be discussed and viewed in an open and honest way, science is no longer science, but a dogmatic, fundamentalist, ideology; the very same charge you place on Christians. Shame on you Damien!

    A classic case of psychological projection if I’ve ever seen one.

    PS - Its not a good idea to write a paper trying to prove your point by calling people idiots. Any descent writer, speaker, or person knows that if you start off with name calling, you wont be taken seriously, just as I haven’t.

    Oh darn. You mean creationists won’t take me seriously? The people who think the tribal ramblings of primitive cultures are equivalent to hard scientific conclusions? That’s too bad, because I’m obviously dying for the approval of such scientific luminaries. I’ll let you in on something. I make fun of people like you because I don’t give a shit about your approval.

    Comment by Damien Sorresso — 25 March, 2006 @ 3:51 pm

  92. Your arrogance just shows me how close-minded and intolerant you really are. I just laugh everytime I read your response! Your ignorance just amazes me…It is quite evident that you have not even given the other side a glance at all or read anything on it. You just proved my point that science today is not science because you automatically assume that if it is not evolution than it is not science. How ignorant and unscientific is that. You are just showing me more and more that I cannot take your evolutionist’s seriously any more. The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim that there is no Designer as well. I agree that we both need to provide evidence, but the other side (evolutionists) need to at least consider our claims. Also, dont assume that I got all my information from Creationist’s, dont create a straw man, thats not even right. I have an education in science and am well read. Your assumption that you are smarter than me just shows your arrogance, not that smart to do, specially if you want me to take you seriously.
    I will respect you and will listen to your opinion and I will even love you because you are human being created in the image of God (yes, that is my belief). All I ask in return is that you at least weigh the possibility of a Intelligent Designer.
    Have a great day!

    Comment by CJL — 28 March, 2006 @ 2:32 pm

  93. […] Someone had posted his opinion of Americans and their creationistic bent on digg, and, somewhat surprisingly for a digg site, he was getting hammered with commenters. […]

    Pingback by qkslvrwolf.com — 14 April, 2006 @ 6:44 pm

  94. WHY would anyone assume Americans aren’t sheep? These polls only represent the sophistication that the brain washing gurus, language usurpers and social manipulators have achieved. A pliable populace is all they need.

    Religion is pablum, as we know.

    Comment by Lone Wolf — 18 April, 2006 @ 9:26 pm

  95. Like most things in America, everything must fit into one of two categories. Creationism is trying to emerge as the truth by process of deduction. That is, if evolution is not true, then creationism must be. This also eliminates the need for any proof to be presented. Also, to research evolution requires study and knowledge. Not everyone can make any informed opinions concerning evolution. Creationism (intelligent design) requires no lab work, no research, no long nights spent reading books. Creationism requires only a belief in the bible. That is why it has such a wide appeal in America. It’s easy and convenient. Believing in creationism doesn’t require years of study. In only seconds you can proclaim to know the “truth”. This gives American more time for the things they really care about: American Idol, NASCAR, NFL, watching Hollywood celebrities, placing under God in the Pledge, paging thru gun catalogs, attempting to regulate the sex lives of others, hating France, attacking the liberal media, getting drunk on Bud Light, etc. etc.
    I’ve lived in Europe for many years and can say that America is the epitome of a conformist society. To question the herd is not acceptable.

    Comment by Vis — 10 July, 2006 @ 6:38 pm

  96. Are you a scientist? If evolution were true, don’t you think that we would have evolved into something else by now? Have you seen any animal evolve into another animal? Ask a biologist to give you one example of that. They can’t. Ask an evolutionist to tell you where we came from. Know what they’ll say? They will say that we came from nothing. Does that sound logical to you? They will tell you that there was a big bang. Suddenly, one day, for no reason, nothing blew up and we are the end result. Sound scientific? You need to study. Even the scientists are closet ‘intelligent design’ believers. Ever read anything about Einstein?

    Comment by Sheryl — 15 August, 2006 @ 2:06 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.