its yet another plan to benefit the very rich.

Adam and Eve are space aliens sent to this planet by a divine order who will soon return to Earth to recover their seed worth saving

Any wagers that this blog will be 100 pages long in a few days?

Skip--I'll do the best I can--speaking from three different POV's

Distantless Journey

Be not deceived
by illusions of despair.
Doubt along the way
will come and go,
to go and come again.

Forget not
once this journey is begun,
the end is certain.
No one can fail to do
what is appointed for them to do.
When you walk with him,
with his word upon your heart,
behind each illusion
is the reality of God.

Travel an instant further
on the road where all illusions end.
Now! You are just a step away
from that ancient door
that leads beyond the world
to the Holy of Holies.

Charles Darwin died believing that there was a great plan, a creator, a force behind nature. I had occasion to study evolution in college and have no doubt that we have evolved and are evolving along with all of animal life. I did not find it any kind or thoughtful process where needs produce solutions. Rather it is process where when needs or adaptations fail to be met in a most random and uncaring phenomena, then that species survival is threatened. Change keeps happening with some things being useful or helpful but most is not. I believe there is reality in it all, however. To simply say that some of it doesn't fit with something in Genesis so kick it out of the schools I find to be most unwise.

Throughout history there have been those who have concluded that something about science didn't fit with their faith so throw it out. When the bible was written it was believed that the sun, as one example, rotated around the earth. How many early astronomers were dealt with severely for teaching otherwise?

No serious contemporary discussion of creation can disavow the latest discoveries in quantum physics:

Everything is Everything

Everything is everything, anything is everything.

Nothing is nothing.

It’s a holographic universe.

Everything is a little bit of everything;

there is a slice of everything in everything there is.

It’s quantum physics, and for us, it’s cutting edge stuff.

We’re just finding out what God’s made of,

his scope and majesty spread through everything.

Scientists are realizing this is reality,

As a matter of fact: Matter isn’t matter, it’s energy.

Everything is energy; it’s high or low, fast or slow.

Everything!

How large and, at the same time, small, this concept is,

it’s a self-contained miracle as far as the mind can see,

in all directions…Infinity…

Be still and listen to the truth, God’s joy and happiness are ours because,

nothing is nothing,

and everything is everything.

Why this has even come up at this time is that the ultra religious extremists think they can now get their way. EGO is the main culprit I would guess, most of us like to think we have the right answers but when some of us think we are the only one with the right answer we have lost our reasoning ability.

My personal belief has no problem with evolution or the Biblical account of creation. My science book is for intellectual learning and understanding of how my world works and my Bible is for the edification of my faith, the pattern to live a decent life harming no one and uplifting my soul.

When fanatical religious leaders want to use the Bible as a text book to push and agenda they demean my Creator God and His word.

Mad, Did you ever consider that it might be demeaning to your Creator to be cast aside as "Creator" of the man made in His image to be replaced by a theory that we climbed up out of the mud or some other such thing?

Vicky, That's assuming there is a creator. Frankly, I'm not going to worry about it. I'll find out what it's all about soon enough, assuming there is a higher being. If there isn't, I will never know about it. All that fire and brimstone stuff is the same old fear tactics that has been used to manipulate people since the beginning of time.

Skip, I was responding to Mad's post where he was commenting on his belief that there is a Creator. Not that I don't have a few thoughts of my own! ;-) But then you know that, don't you?

I find it "interesting" in this so-called day of diversity that we allow evolution to be taught as fact but are not allowed to teach that there might be another way to look at life--including Intelligent Design - even if you don't want to include God in this equation. (Feb 7,2005 issue of Newsweek has an article, "Doubting Darwin" which is interesting.)

Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, made this statement, "To suppose that the eye with all
its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

And Darwin didn't know nearly as much as we do now about the sophistication of the signal processing from the eye and the nose and so much more!

In life we pretty much hear what we want to hear and turn a deaf ear to what we don't want to hear. We also see what we want to see and turn a blind eye to what we don't want to see. Generally speaking, we believe what we want to believe, what we are most comfortable with, and what we choose to believe.

It's true that none of us has ever seen God and many use this as an excuse not to believe in him. We can't see electrons either, but every time we turn on a light switch, we see the evidence of electrons in action. We can't see radio waves or TV signals that come from satellites, or the wind, but we see and hear the evidence of their existence continually.

The fact is if we want to "see" God, we will because the evidence of his existence is everywhere we look. But if we don't want to see him, we won't.

Very True I think,

We get our electricity from electrons.
And, We get our morality from morons.

To Skip - you say you'll find out soon enough and if there isn't you'll have nothing to worry about and if...IF....there is, then what Skip?

To Truth Seaker - are you talking about the morons who can't spell?

To Mad - your post is nothing but one big contradiction.

Do we all believe that jen would would make quite a judge? She is most skilful when it comes to recognizing the failings of others.

Jen--what do any of the people of your planet really know about electricity--and what is this thing you call love? There seems to be a lot of danger surrounding that concept for your species

For the record, Mad is female -- her name is Madalyn, she lives in Kansas, and she called in my show on Sunday. It is her state that is allowing religion to replace science in the classroom.

And I see no contradiction in her post whatsoever.

Do any of you really think of the Bible as a science book? I consider it a book of morality, poetry, religion, spirituality, law, great stories, and, to some extent, history. But there's a big difference between parable and science.

Do any of y'all believe the story of Adam and Eve is literally true? Rather than being a great moral lesson (actually it's one of my favorite moral lessones...and one I've based my life on to some extent...)

Aw shucks, Mark, golly gee, I do wish you wouldn't have gone and done said that, but heck,yeah, I believe in the literal account of creation. I believe that the story of Adam and Eve is literally true, I believe that Noah built a literal ark and directed two of each kind of animal onto that ark and I believe in the literal whale that God had swallow Jonah.

Mark, I believe the Bible is God's Word to mankind and I believe that His word tells us the reverence of God is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge. Apart from God, I don't believe in any "true" science. There is no truth apart from him. All that we have and all that we know comes from him.

You claim that Mad doesn't want the state of KS teaching religion in place of "science"? State schools have taught evolution as a fact for years and evolution is not a fact...and therefore is not science! It isn't teaching "religion" per se to teach the creation account. Since I believe that God is the Creator of all things, I don't think it's true science apart from him.

So--nobody believes in space aliens? That makes my job a lot easier--to create a race of telekinetic lizard-men

Well, Vicky, all I can say is I really think you'll want to listen to tomorrow's show then and hear both of my guests. I don't know if you have trouble getting the live shows on computer or not, but it would be even better if you'd call in. (I've lessened the bit rate on live shows to make them easier to hear on dial up. Let me know if you have trouble with today's show (Debate Tuesday)). If you can't call in, rest assured I will pose the toughest questions you place on the blog to my evolutionary biologist and I will have the President of the Creation Science Association defending your point of view.

By the way, I've studied the Book of Jonah in its original Hebrew. The Hebrew says "big fish" (Dag Gadol). I thought, since you take the Bible literally, you might want to know that. A whale, as you know, is a mammal, not a fish.

Honestly, I don't know what the largest fish is in the world. I'll have to ask a marine biologist.

It was a damn sturgeon--all right?

First let me say that when it comes to religion taught in schools ask yourself this? Who's religion? What denomination? Do you have a problem with anothers religious views versus your own, do their particular doctrine follow what your church mandates or not?

I can see religion taught in school as a firestorm waiting to happen, each of us belongs or not to a particular church for their teachings, teachings that agree with what we view as the correct interpretation of our beliefs in what the Bible is trying to convey to us as individual practices of faith. Well common sense tells us that we are a nation of how many different churchs with a diverse difference of views then who's will be the one chosen across the land the one to be the end all to be taught in our public (did I say public) schools! Isn't that what we have private schools for?

So maybe it will be the Catholic version, or the Baptist version, the Morman version, Jewish, Methodist etc... or even the Islamic or some other so who decides this question?

When your little Johnny goes to school and comes home with his teachers idea of religion in his head instead of yours will you be happy about that? I doubt it I know I wouldn't be. My childs religous beliefs are taught to him or her in my home, my church not in the school system!

You're right Mark - on that fish story. I've had proper teaching on that. Thanks for clarifying that. I give you a lot of credit for all your study and research in so many areas.

I will definitely listen; most likely it will be after the fact. I've still got yesterday's show to listen to.

To be honest, I feel that I am an open-minded person about many things; this issue is not one of them. It's not that I haven't looked at and compared both sides - I have. I just cannot buy the evolution theory; not only does it go against what I believe to be the Truth of Scripture, it just does not make sense to me. It's like people are reaching for any explanation other than..."In the beginning, GOD...." Sometimes the simplicity of something is what gives it the most appeal and believability. My thoughts, my feelings, my convictions. A conviction is different than an opinion. I have a conviction on this subject, much like I do on the abortion issue.

I appreciate you doing a show on this topic - it was one I had also thought about when I suggested the one on the homeless.

Hi Mad,

You can't condone teaching evolution to the public school children, can you? That whole teaching is a religion in and of it's own, right?

I know what you're saying about teachers with various beliefs teaching our kids how to think etc and I agree with you.

How do you all feel about putting both ideas and thoughts before our children and telling them to talk about it with their parents. Even if you leave God out, there's the "Intelligent Design" teaching that more and more scientists seem to be coming to believe in.

I have no problem of evolution being taught in public schools. see definition of EVOLUTION according the the dictionary:

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: "e-v&-'lü-sh&n, "E-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations
5 : the extraction of a mathematical root
6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

This might clarify what I am talking about, if not I doubt Vicky that you and I will ever agree about much and so be it! I do believe that things change due to lots of reasons and that I would attibute to the the science of how things work and in my belief this takes nothing away from my belief in God as the Creator if anything science proves God but don't try to sidewind by calling it Intelligent Design just call it what it has been called in the past Creationism!

I believe this blog could provoke to thought!

Jen,

The big IF. Well if God is a born again Southern Babtist God, I'm screwed. Just like 6 billion other people on this planet. That will be one massive inquisition when the few "special" ones are saved while us low lifes suffer. I see most of this modern day religion as a massive amount of arrogance mixed in with fear, an explosive combination. The NFL football player praying that his and only his team will win the super bowl is the same thing.

Vicky,

But an electron's actions can be measured. Measurement is the basis of science.

If we are going to be fair about teaching religion as an equal to science in schools, lets also teach Scientology theology. Better yet, lets teach Rev Moon's theology since he's a good buddy of the Bush family and is the self proclaimed Messiah. What would you do if the administration said that evolution is to be replaced with Rev Moon's teachings. You would be against it? Since the Bush family says that government should be run like a business, why not religion too? Moon would be a perfect roll model since he is so successful.

Actually many believe Adam and Eve were prototype people seeded on this regenerated planet after the dead civilization of Prince Caligastia.

Many wonder if the civilization of the Sons of Adam will go the way of Caligastia's world...

And then the Earth (or Urantia)will regenerate again--and try the charm of a third time

Creationists cling to theories about the start of their civilization--when it is to the depths of the universes of universes where they should look for the origin of creation. A mind's imagination is a terrible thing to stunt.

Certainly our problems will not be solved with minds that were used to create them

First of all, every theory is not a fact and never will become one. I may theorize that a ball dropped off the empire state building will fall toward the earth but this theory is not a fact. The observation that the last twenty million balls dropped from this building did fall toward the earth is an example of a fact supporting my theory that balls fall.

The minute someone makes a statement such as “evolution is only a theory and not a fact” they reveal their ignorance of what science is. Science is a study that follows a process – the “scientific process”. Facts support a theory.

Overwhelming amounts of data support evolution and the question of its existence is not even contested in the scientific community. In fact it can be shown that it is impossible to constrain an organism to the degree necessary to stop its evolution. The only debate is over which of the many theories best supports the available data.

The same cannot be said for the oxymoronic “Creation Science”. There has been no observation of spontaneous creation in any scientific laboratory. No data is available providing support for the theory. Yet we are told to teach this as if it were science.

Mixing religion and science spoils both.

Bob--so what happens when the scientific method becomes a religion? All knowledge must follow a process--all reason must be carefully encapsulated within finite decorum--observations--hypotheses--theories--what if fact is what mankind cannot comprehend, is what is outside the box of man's meager reasoning cabability--what if fact is entirely unreasonable? Or purposely duplicious as in the case of the newfound schizophrenic nature of quasars?

Is faith in science--still valid? Or is faith in a microcosm of the amorphous a possibility, too?--can faith in possibilities be valid? Isn't that what the infinite is--how is infinity measured or observed--except in the imagination?

Some people are content with thinking they know the nature of electricity--others strive to harnesss electro-magnetic, harmonic resonant, anti-gravity, self-propulsion.

Bob--get those balls to float--or better yet, travel at any desired altitude at zero to 600 mph--and then talk about the scientific method

We believe that God transcends time - which means he experiences far into the eternal past, yesterday, today, tommorow and far into the future at any one given moment. We, on the other hand, are bound by time. Nevertheless, His Creation was not some sort of afterthought.
When we say we are created in the image of God, this does not mean that bodily we look just like him. It means that we take on certain attributes from God that animals and plants don't.

The basic debate is whether we were created by an external, eternal being or a product of eternal matter. When scientists look back into time at a converging universe, an external, being is suggested - thus, the scientific basis of Intelligent design. The assumption of eternal matter has problems in that it does not correspond well to current scientific models.

This question also has moral implications - a designer has the right to set the moral rules. If there is no designer, we come up with our own moral rules.

Yeah, Dave that's why so many don't want to think about The Designer - they don't want to think about their accountability. Ok here's my "scoop".

Okay, so here was this atom sitting around in the middle of nowhere, getting bored, and he decides to explode on his own with no outside source of energy or catalyst. And just so happens that he forms millions of other atoms which magically bond together to form some kind of animal, the common ancestor of all life. This creature has eyes, ears and a nose even though the incredible complexity of these features have only recently been able to be even REMOTELY accurately copied and artificially built by scientists. And this idea that some atom could create everything out of nothing makes more sense to you than the findings of science? Listen closely.....evolution is make-believe, get it? There are no eternal atoms, there never have been; they don't exist outside of your head. Get a grip on reality, and stop trying to drag the world back into the Dark Ages.

Would you concede that the gathering of letters into the words and sentences that comprise this blog were the product of random chance?

Once, my husband and I were sitting around bored, and suddenly had the idea to DO something to stop the boredom. With secret ingredients and a tried and true recipe, nine (actually, nine and a half) months later, a little boy appeared who looked just like his father. There WAS sort of a big bang, and out of practically nothing, suddenly there was new life. We didn't actually say 'let us make man in our image...' but it sure did turn out that way. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. It's so true, if we could figure out God, He wouldn't be God. He never said to try to figure Him out, He said to love Him, and our neighbor as our self.

Nicolei,

A theory that does not explains all known phenomenon is an incomplete theory. This is how science works. It can deal with unknowns. We start with the assumption that we do not know the answer. Theories must provide consistency and scope – those that explain the most observational data in the simplest fashion are declared the best.

In contrast, Creationism starts with the assumption that God did everything and then tries to reason why. It is the opposite of science.

I have no problem with belief systems as long as they are not mistaken for science. If every time one is confronted with un unknown they use God as an excuse for their ignorance then why even start? Why is the sky blue? – God made it blue. Why is the sun so bright? – God made it bright. Why is water clear? – God made it clear. How is man on this earth? – God created us. Is this science? You cannot hope to discover much of anything with such a simplistic attitude. God is always the answer and thinking stops. It is the hole theory -- wherever a hole exists it is filled with God. One is left wondering how to explain God. No learning is achived.

Science does not work like this. Holes are left empty until they can be filled with a theory that explains the widest scope of data in the simplest fashion.

Bob, Do you really believe what you just wrote? Simplistic describes your description of why people believe what they do about God. We might explain that the "sky is blue, because God made the sky blue" to a 3 yr old, but don't sit there and insult us and the many many degreed scientists who are CREATIONISTS.

The only "holes left empty" are going to be in the mind of the evolutionary scientists who claim evolution as a science and in fact, their evolution is as much a religion as they are claiming that Creation and/or Intelligent Design is.

Note to "MAD" and your haughty comment about "sidewinding" concerning calling Creation Intelligent Design - there are scientists who believe in "intelligent design" who aren't the Christian Creationists.

Note to Skip - You can breathe a sigh of relief - God is NOT a Southern Baptist - God is not into denominations as such. (Boy do I agree with your comment about football players praying that their team wins the SB....so he answered the Patriots prayers but not the prayers of the Eagles, huh?...Yeah that's not too cool.)

But, let's say what IF - ok - you can say it's a big IF - still - what IF - us crazy Christians are right? You think we're jumping with glee because "we're right, you're wrong - too bad?" No.

Consider this - any challenge to Darwinism is by definition religious. Now, imagine applying this logic to any other area. Suppose your state passed a law against murder, and the ACLU went to court, claiming it was an endorsement of religion. After all, the Ten Commandments prohibit murder! Or imagine someone suing a town over its zoning laws. The Bible tells us to put a
fence on our roof so that no one will fall off. Are building codes, therefore, religious? If the courts approached conflicts over other laws the way they do over biology, we'd soon have no laws left at all -- except maybe not showing your underwear...but then again...

What are the findings of science? Show them to me please? None have been proven, least of all evolution. Not a single transitional species has been found. In fact, scientists have operated completely in reverse - they dreamed up a theory, evolution, and twisted evidence to support it. Single bones interpolated into the necessary monkey-to-man links, forgetting that not a single such man existed, let alone a race of such beings to get from one species to another. Question my faith, you may, but I'll answer you with eyewitness testimony of the Creator himself. Where is your evidence?

I will make one concession. Unless I am misunderstanding the theories of the mind, I have a very hard time accepting that all of my creativity, intuition, and feelings are simply a result of a bunch of chemical reactions and electrical impulses in the brain. I think these types of things are infinitely too complex to be understood intellectually. Intellect is good at creating reductionist models of our world from which predictions can be made. But I find that some scientists appear to think of these models as the actual reality. They are not as far as I’m concerned. I'm not coming from a religious point of view either. I think a totally new science will have to be discovered or created in order to make a major jump in our understanding of all these things.

Believing things "on authority" only means believing them because you have been told them by someone you think trustworthy. Ninety-nine percent of the things you believe are believed on authority. I believe there is such a place as
New York. I could not prove by abstract reasoning that there is such a place. I believe it because reliable people have told me so. The ordinary person believes in the solar system, atoms, and the circulation of the blood on authority--
because the scientists say so. Every historical statement is believed on authority. None of us has seen the Norman Conquest or the defeat of the Spanish Armada. But we believe them simply because people who did see them have left writings that tell us about them; in fact, on authority. A person who balked at authority in other things, as some people do in religion, would have to be content to know nothing all his life. ~ C.S. Lewis

(Or fabricate his own little make believe world.)

Well, the evolutionists/atheists have spoken their piece. And the Christians have responded with their pieces. And now here we sit. Not one step closer to actually knowing the truth. Yes, we are here, typing our opinions with our opposable thumbs on our hi-tech devices, as we ride on a spinning planet in a sea of stars. The best of the best minds have done the same thing with lower-tech devices for thousands of years. And in all this time, there remains only silence from God. Oh, but you say, God has spoken! He has left his Bible to show us the way. No, that's not true, says another. The Bible is full of scientific errors and mythology. We argue and argue all of our lives and then we die and the next generation picks up the torches and continues to argue. Meanwhile, the universe is silent. Well I say I'm sick of it all. Why don't all the religious leaders gather together like Elijah of old did? Remember that story in I Kings chapter 18? Elijah said, "Why waste your lives debating this issue. If Baal is God, let's worship Baal. But if God is God, let's worship God." Why can't we do the same thing? Any takers? Let's get all the people of faith and all the atheists out on some mountain, build the altars, and the God who brings fire down from heaven to consume the sacrifice, that is the God we shall worship. Agreed? There. Settled.

The constitutional argument is phony. Honest observers quickly realize that the debate here over life's origins is not one of science versus religion, but of science versus science. Take the work of biochemist Michael Behe, a professor at
Lehigh University. Initially, Behe accepted Darwinist teachings. But then he began reading articles questioning evolutionary theories. He found the arguments compelling. So he began to do research of his own.

In his book published ten years ago, DARWIN'S BLACK BOX, he introduced a concept he calls "irreducible complexity." He argues that complex structures like proteins cannot be assembled piecemeal, with gradual improvement of function. Instead, like a mousetrap, all the parts -- catch, spring, hammer, and so forth -- must be assembled simultaneously, or the protein doesn't work.

Soon after the book was published, its thesis was challenged by the leading expert in America on cell structure, Dr. Russell Doolittle at the University of California. He cited a scientific study supposedly disproving irreducible complexity. Behe immediately researched it and found it proved just the opposite: It confirmed him. So Behe went back to Dolittle. In a phone
conversation, Doolittle admitted he was wrong, but he has never made a public retraction.

This is the strategy of Darwinists: to simply deny what they know to be true.
Look, nobody was around at the time of the creation with a video camera.
Naturalism requires at least as much faith as intelligent design. And then science has to be objectively examined, but Darwinists won't do this. So, when judges rule scientific ideas out of bounds, well, it's time to expose all of
this for what it is: know-nothingness of the worst kind, willful blindness.

The watch you wear on your wrist - a simple example - one you may have heard used many times - but do you suppose that watch just happened to come together - without a "watch maker"?

What are the chances?

What are the chances that this intricate and complex universe just kind of evolved or just happened? I think it takes more faith to believe that than to believe in the Intelligent Design - our universe - our world - the many variety of trees, flowers, birds, animals, and man - look at the complexity of a human's hand.

No offense to any of you evolutionists but for "as smart as you all are, you sure are stupid."

I had actually gone to bed and had to get back up and post something that came to mind from my nurses training.

An individual cell was once thought to be relatively crude or a simple structure. It is now understood to be vastly complex and many structures within this living cell involve an entire system of interacting parts all working together.

If one part were to evolve in isolation, the entire system of interacting parts would stop functioning. Since, according to Darwinism, natural selection preserves the forms that function better than their rivals, the nonfunctioning system would be eliminated by natural selection.

Therefore, there is no possible Darwinian explanation of how irreducibly complex structures and systems came into existense. It's not nearly as simple as once thought, but incredibly complex.

"“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”–Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

It's broke Charles - now we just need to get your followers up to speed!

Mad - Are you claiming to believe that both evolution and creation are true? I came across the following and thought it may be of interst to you and the others on this blog. I find the idea very confusing.

There’s a name for this line of reasoning: theistic evolution. The idea that perhaps evolution was directed by God appears to be an attractive solution and one frequently embraced by Christian students trying to reconcile their faith with the teachings of their science teachers.

Evolution’s basic premise makes this approach inherently flawed, however. Imagining that evolutionary theory allows for a Creator—that evolution could be a God-guided process—is exactly what establishment scientists do not allow.

Prominent Darwinists from Stephen Gould to Richard Dawkins to John Maynard Smith insist that evolution is unguided and purposeless. As Phillip Johnson puts it in Defeating Darwinism, “The Darwinian theory doesn’t just say that God created slowly [over millions of years]. It says that naturalistic evolution is the creator—and God had nothing to do with it.”

Evolution in the Darwinian sense is both mindless and godless. As the famous evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson put it, “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.”

Darwinists cannot afford to abandon this claim, Johnson says, because their whole approach is founded on naturalism, the doctrine that nature is all there is. Darwinian evolution tries to explain how nature did this without any assistance from a supernatural entity. Thus, an attempt to reconcile Darwinian evolution theories with creation “is an evasion of the conflict, not a resolution to it,” Johnson warns.

People are kidding themselves when they think they can believe in both creation and evolution. What’s at stake is not merely the details of evolution versus the details of Genesis in the Bible. Rather, the issue is the stark, fundamental claim that life is the product of impersonal forces versus the claim that it is the creation of an intelligent Designer.

I'm curious as to why Judy H. has chosen only atheists to quote. Given the wide acceptance of evolution by various religious groups, it's almost as if she's biased against evolution.

For those with a teensy bit more of an open mind, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/collins.html

BCH

Tracie,

How do you know God isn't a Southern Baptist? It’s that type of arrogance that creates religions in the first place. If God isn't into denominations, are you saying that all views of God, as long as they are not scientific, are correct and not contradictory? If that's the case, how did all these different religions come into being? Why isn't there a single worldwide religion? Watch out, we may have one soon with the Messiah, Rev Moon.

If there is any spiritual value in the Bible, I think it can only be found by directly reading the original Hebrew text. The King James Bible is an interpreted and truncated version of the original. Are you saying that the King James interpreters are as holy as the ones that wrote the original book? I would also like to know what’s in the portion that was cut out around 600 AD and why was it cut out?

Skip, Do you intentionally look for offense in anything I post? My statement that God is not a Southern Baptist was NOT meant to offend whatsoever - it was meant as the complete opposite. (I would think Gordon would be the first to agree with me that God is not "Southern Baptist." I am thinking he sees beyond the denominational lines - probably further than I do!) (Gordon, are you offended?)

My view of Christianity, of God, is from the Holy Bible - I am not going to argue "versions" with you because it's kind of obvious that you have a closed mind and aren't really open to the truth, as I understand and believe. That's your right Skip. I'm not trying to force that down your throat or on anyone.

But no, I am NOT saying that all views of God are correct. What kind of faith would that be to me personally if I actually believed that? But I have the right to believe what I feel to be the truth, just as you do, just as anyone does and each of us has the right to share our views. (Without fear of being killed or without the desire to kill someone who doesn't.)
I personally don't understand how a person can claim to have "faith" and still claim that whatever someone wants to believe is fine and none of it matters. I guess the way I think, if it doesn't matter I wouldn't bother with it at all.

So while I cannot agree with the teaching of Islam, in some ways I can understand their total belief in their religion. I don't happen to think that we are to go around and KILL all those who don't believe in their version of God, which, yes, I believe has been perverted.

I believe in the truths of the Scriptures - the Holy Bible - whether I use the KJV, the NIV or another version.

And if you are able to read the original Hebrew text, good for you. I am not capable of doing that and I'm grateful for my translations that I can read.

Try to look at this from a different viewpoint - sometimes people who aren't believers in the historic Christian faith - they come across as "pushy" - sometimes they (we) are. It's not out of hate, arrogance or a desire to make all conform to our way of thinking - what we believe is so real and so important to us, that we feel we must share - to us, Christianity is GOOD NEWS. We don't want to keep it to ourselves and we feel that what the Bible teaches about an accountability for each individual is true and we don't desire for any man to be eternally separated from the God of the Bible that we believe in. It's a shame that our "fervency" comes across as being pushy when I believe that for the most part, it's because people truly CARE about their fellow man. WE are still imperfect and make mistakes.

As far as your thoughts on a one world religion, yes I believe that is coming - it is predicted in Scripture. The "leader" of this one world religion is called the Anti Christ - we have no sure way of knowing but there are signs to watch and look for - there have been many types of "anti-christs" over the years - many claiming to be the messiah. This will happen - but his rule and reign on planet earth will be of short duration.

Then the True Messiah of Scripture will rule and reign on this earth for 1000 years.

Again, Skip, I apologize if you think I was being arrogant about the denominational thing or anything I post on here.

More thoughts and questions:

Deism, a god may have once existed and may have set some things in motion but obviously that god died or moved on. I believe this was the thinking of Washington, Jefferson, Madison and a good number of our founding fathers.

Those who argue that the elaborate complexity of a functioning eye (or even a watch) demonstrates the need for a creator. Some extend that logic asking would not that creator be far more complex
then the creations and therefore could not have just happened. Have we not, by this same logic, proved the need for a super god (and no one may question how super god came about).

Some may wonder where is the god that is suppose to be watching over Iraq or Semalia. We can only
hope there are others here who can readily provide answers to such.
Some wonder in this random, unguided evolutionary
phenomena, if the missing link between the great apes and civilized man, might it be us?
We wonder, we question, we continue to explore.

Tracie, etc...

Why do you tell your three year old "the sky is blue because God made it blue"? And when you do this do you consider this to be the teaching of science? You may dress up Creationism as much as you like but it is still equivalent to what you are doing with your three year old. You are replacing science with religion.

It does not matter if God created man. This solution is not acceptable in science because it is not derived from the scientific process. We must seek another solution EVEN IF IT IS WRONG. Anything else is not science. By its very definition, science can NEVER use God as the solution to a question. When you do this you have left the realm of science....and that is ok.

So...go ahead and tell your three year old about how God created the sky blue and man and whatever else you want. Just stop calling it science!

To C.S. Lewis Fan--perhaps knowing nothing will be a good first step in knowing God

To Bob--science just calls God, x, y, or infinity--science is just the religion of the reasoning of a finite mind--it has no concept of something called spirit--perhaps a very real intangible that affects the equation

The Scream of Death

Stripped naked and sweating in a snowstorm,

sitting in the lotus position, just outside my Tibetan cave,

I contemplate the koan that keeps my mind captured within the core of chaos,

a conundrum of wonder that embroils me,

the quandary of seeing my image in a mirror reflecting into another mirror into a myriad number of mirrors,

bouncing my image out to the big beyond and constricting it to the tiny world within,

to the horizons of my comprehension,
in all directions,

soaking me in the heat of refracted light.

I sweat, steam rising from my body,
falling snowflakes melt as they touch my skin.

I hear the sound of one-hand-clapping,
it’s like many excited crickets chirping,

but it’s not crickets chirping,
it’s the music bed of the Universe that’s always everywhere,
that we hear when we have the ears,

the sound that many people will grow old and die and never hear.

I hear the scream of the falling tree as it dies alone.

I sweat in the snowstorm and smile a shit-eating grin.

My questioning is over.

I breathe deeply from my diaphragm, taking in all the air I can,

then I exhale joy,

in the sound of my scream of death,

aiyEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

The scream of life.

Science couninues to erode my significance and you think that doesn't piss me off.

Great Pumpkin don't be sad--you are still high in beta-carotene

Tracie--I think it is good that you see the inclusive nature of God that transcends religion and beckons to all of us who are thoughts of God

May I make inquiry to literalist friends here:

Do you believe the earth to have been created in 6 days as we know days?
Do you believe the sun rotates around the earth?
Do you believe that god, seeing it to be good, created Adam, and seeing Adam to be good but lonley; did god then remove a rib from Adam. did he then pick up some dirt, spit into it and so created Eve?
Do you accept literaly the comand that we must put to death all witches? (ex- 22:18).
Do some of you literaly take the bible literaly?
Do you believe there to be no evidence that there were real cave men (homoerectous)?
Do some believe all this and so much more?

A friend of mine made some very sage comments on another list, and I'm going to plagiarize them shamelessly.

It is not meaningful to teach the controversy regarding a scientific theory because a scientific theory is not an idea. It's merit is not decided on the basis of it's moral, intellectual, or aesthetic appeal; rather, it's merit is decided on the basis of how well it models nature and what we observe in the world around us.

This is why it is misleading to simply say that a theory is an explanation, because for many people, God is sufficient explanation for any phenomenon. But for no one is God a testable model of how nature works. That's why God and explanations that require His involvement cannot be scientific: they are not testable.

Put another way, science is not tested in the "marketplace of ideas." Science is tested against nature by trained, practiced people as the referees. Those theories that are the most useful for explaining and predicting observations from the observable and measurable world are advanced as science.

Science is assuredly not a supermarket in which people find explanations that are the most colorful and pleasing.

BCH

Bob, couldn't have said it better myself.

Science and scientific theories should be taught in science class. Religion should be taught in religion classes.

So much of the dignity of man is lost in the evolution fallacy and I believe in the dignity of human beings.

What do you "Science" worshippers do with a bonafide Scientist who graduated with the same degrees from the same schools as your evolutionary scientists but who after their years of study comes to the conclusion that the Creation account is indeed true and they consider themselves Creation Scientists. They don't have a problem with the Biblical account being unscientific.

The real debate is between two creation narratives: between one that says, "In the beginning were the particles," and one that says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; all things were made through him."

The debate is not a clash between science and religion, or between reason and faith. It is a clash between two religions—Christianity and naturalism—and two definitions of science—evolution and intelligent design.

Caught between church and state

By SUSAN JACOBY

Shortly after the 1925 Scopes ''monkey trial,'' the usually astute historian Frederick Lewis Allen concluded that fundamentalism had been permanently discredited by the prosecution in Dayton, Tenn., of John T. Scopes, who had taught his biology students about Darwin's theory of evolution. ''Legislators might go on passing anti-evolution laws,'' Allen wrote, ''and in the hinterlands the pious might still keep their religion locked in a science-proof compartment of their minds; but civilized opinion everywhere had regarded the Dayton trial with amazement and amusement, and the slow drift away from fundamentalist certainty continued.''

This was a serious historical misjudgment, as most recently demonstrated by the renewed determination of anti-evolution crusaders — buoyed by conservative gains in state and local elections — to force public school science classes to give equal time to religiously based speculation about the origins of life. These challenges to evolution range from old-time biblical literalism, insisting that the universe and man were created in seven days, to the newer ''intelligent design,'' which maintains that if evolution occurred at all it could never be explained by Darwinian natural selection and could only have been directed at every stage by an omniscient creator.

Kansas, where evolution opponents regained control of the state board of education in November, is likely to be the first battleground. Proposals to modify the state's recommended science curriculum with alternatives to Darwinian evolution will be an issue at statewide public hearings scheduled in February. In Georgia this month, a federal judge ordered a suburban Atlanta school board to remove stickers labeling evolution ''a theory, not a fact'' from high school biology textbooks, but an appeal seems likely. Other states where the teaching of evolution is on the 2005 legislative or judicial calendar include Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and South Carolina.

Many liberals mistakenly believe that these controversies are largely a product of the post-1980 politicization of the Christian right. In fact, the elected anti-evolutionists on local and state school boards today are the heirs of eight decades of fundamentalist campaigning against Darwinism through back-door pressure on textbook publishers and school officials. Even efforts to cloak creationism with the words ''science'' and ''scientific'' — as in ''creation science'' — is an old tactic, reminiscent of the Soviet Union's boasting about ''scientific communism.''

More sophisticated proponents of intelligent design, those who are religiously conservative but not insistent on literal adherence to the biblical creation story, use anti-Darwinist arguments from a tiny minority of scientists to bolster their case for a creator. Last month, a group of parents in Dover, Penn., filed the first lawsuit to address the issue, challenging the local school board's contention that ''intelligent design'' is a scientific rather than a religious theory and, therefore, does not violate the separation of church and state.

At the beginning of the 20th century, however, America was well on its way to an accommodation between science and mainstream religion, now a fait accompli in the rest of the developed world, that pleases neither atheists nor theocrats manques but works for almost everyone else. A growing number of Americans accepted both evolution and religion but considered it the responsibility of the church, not public schools, to sort out the role of God. This view was expressed in 1904 by Maynard M. Metcalf, a zoologist and a liberal Christian, who praised the move to exclude religious speculation from the teaching of life sciences.

The Scopes trial changed all that. Instead of being the nail in the coffin of creationism as many believe, the trial undermined the emerging accommodation between religion and science by intensifying the fundamentalists' conviction that acceptance of evolution would inevitably weaken any type of faith.

When the 24-year-old Scopes was charged with violating a state law forbidding the teaching of evolution, his conviction by a jury (later overturned on a technicality) was a foregone conclusion. Clarence Darrow, the nation's most famous lawyer and most famous agnostic, turned a jury defeat into a public relations victory (at least among scientists and intellectuals) by goading William Jennings Bryan, who was assisting the prosecution, into taking the stand as an expert witness on the Bible.

Bryan, in the view of the Northern press, made a fool of himself. Opponents of evolution, however, lauded Bryan, and the press's ridicule of their hero helped to create the enduring fundamentalist resentment of secular science and secular government that has become such a conspicuous feature of our culture.

Between the Scopes trial and the early 1930s, ''science-proof'' fundamentalists pressured publishers into excising discussions of evolution — and often the word itself — from biology textbooks. The nature of that success is literally illustrated by a change between the 1921 first edition of ''Biology for Beginners,'' a standard text by Truman Moon, and the second edition, published in 1926. The 1921 edition appeared with a portrait of Darwin on the frontispiece. Five years later, Darwin had been replaced by a drawing of the human digestive tract.

Texas, then as now one of the largest textbook purchasers, led the drive to extirpate evolution. ''I am a Christian mother,'' said Gov. Miriam Ferguson of Texas. ''And I am not going to let that kind of rot go into Texas textbooks.'' Ferguson personally censored textbooks while presiding over the statehouse from 1924 to 1926. Censorship was soon institutionalized in a state commission that scrutinized all potential textbooks.

The caution inspired by such pressure extended beyond the Bible Belt and persisted for decades. In 1959, the Harvard University paleontologist George G. Simpson (a bete noire on creationist Web sites today) noted that most American high school science texts relegated evolution to a separate, optional section.

Perhaps the most insidious effect of the campaign against evolution has been avoidance of the subject by teachers, who, whatever their convictions, want to forestall trouble with fundamentalist parents. Recent surveys of high school biology teachers have found that avoidance of evolution is common among instructors throughout the nation.

The singular achievement of the fundamentalist minority has been to render evolution controversial enough to silence many teachers who know better. Only now, when the religious right is no longer satisfied with avoidance but is demanding that schools add anti-Darwinist intelligent design to the curriculum, are defenders of evolution fighting back against the intimidation that has worked so well since the premature declaration of the death of fundamentalism in the 1920s.

Susan Jacoby, director of the Center for Inquiry-Metro New York, is the author of ''Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism.'' This article first appeared in The New York Times.

Bridge Seller,

There's a scripture that says a 1000 years is like one day with the Lord, so as far as the actual 6 days as we know them...??? (Good question for Mark to ask his guest, Rachel Robson.)

But to be brief, I literally believe the literal account in Scriptures. The reference to killing witches is an OT scripture. The NT changed alot of the legalism of the OT.

As to the evidence of real cavemen, I believe! I see them around every day!

Vicky, the last time you traveled in a plane, you were just fine with the idea that the engineers were ignoring any possible contributions to lift by angels when they designed the airplane wings. The insulin you took this morning (maybe?) was tested ignoring any possible influences by demons in the lab animals.

It is a common creationist canard to blame "naturalism" for that which ails society. But it is restriction on testable "natural" theories that brought us out of the dark ages. And it's what led to insulin and airplanes.

It is obvious why biology is being singled out for criticism for it's "naturalism": you don't like evolution.

BCH

Do you think those of us who believe in the Creation account should sit back and let the public schools tell our kids what we believe to be an outrageous lie?

To all you who want to believe and are proud that YOUR (not mine) ancestors are butt sniffing monkeys, have at it. That's your problem.

We don't like evolution - you're right Burt! It is a big lie and we won't be forced to swallow it.
You "believers" have drank all the KoolAid.

hey mark, how come you have two guests plus yourself on the evolution "side" and one guest for the creationist side?

Daniel, both Mike Miles and Celtie Johnson are anti-evolution.

Rachel Robson is pro-evolution

Vicky and Daniel, neither of you are required to believe anything. Also, you are free to believe whatever you wish. As a proponent of the first amendment and for personal choice, I hold these freedoms sacred and I would fight to prevent anyone from forcing you to believe anything.

If you think that evolution is a lie, then you don't have to believe it. But you don't have the right to prevent scientists from teaching children what has been demonstrated to be a reliable model.

However, I have a few comments coming from a Christian perspective. The first is that Daniel is arguing from vanity. He appears to withold his assent of evolution based on the fact that he finds any "butt-sniffing monkey" ancestor distasteful. There is nothing Christian about vanity and I would challenge you to re-examine your beliefs in the light of the possibility that God might have used that very mechanism to put us here. And who are you to tell God what he cannot do.

For Vicky, I would caution you against religious arrogance. It is true that Paul said "Let God be true and every man be a liar." This is not that. And for you to sit there and write, in earnest, that every single scientist who has endorsed evolution is a liar... That's got to be arrogance. You're right and all the data in the world be damned. That can't be virtuous and I think you're missing what is right.

There's many reasons to not assent to evolution, chief among them fear, vanity, and arrogance. Be careful about your true motivations.

BCH

All religions are theories, evolution is a theory.

You need faith to accept any theory!!

It is true that science has certain metaphysical underpinnings. For one, it assumes that our senses are capable of investigating the world around us reliably. For another, it assumes that the world does operate according to a method or methods that one can possibly determine. Etc.

I think it's for this reason that movies like the Matrix and Total Recall are so popular. Despite the findings of science, it shows us that we really don't *know* anything.

But given the modest and reasonable assumptions on which science is based - stuff like I've described above - evolution eventually proceeds. So I don't think it requires any more "faith" or "belief" than, say, gravity or solid state mechanics. And it is disingenuous to imply that it does.

BCH

Im sorry this is a little late but i felt i had to reply.

This was stated in a message above:
"It is her state that is allowing religion to replace science in the classroom."

You say religion is trying to replace science?
Religion (at least the Christian "religion") is based on Faith, and Faith is "belief in things not seen"
Tell me... How many times have you seen a fish turn into a lizard?
How many times have you seen a Ape turn into a man? (Yeah you can say "man and apes have common ancestores" etc etc the only problem is Darwin believed apes turned into man, he did not believe they had common ancestores.)
You can also say "well it takes millions of years so theres no way we could see it"
Ok so we should find it in the fossil record.... nope only thing we find in the fossil record is Fish, Bears, apes, humans etc. We do not find any variations between the species.

So if you must say Creation is a religion, you must also say that Evolution is a religion. To believe in Evolution you must believe in things you can not see.

Mark - check to see if your streeming. Probably blocked again at this end. It usualy depends on which Patfriot Act storm trooper assigned on any given day.

IS MEDIA PLAYER WORKING?

Stream is not working right now.

But if you saw a fish turn into a lizard in one generation, that would be against what evolution would predict! That would be undeniable proof of evolution's failure! Why would you expect evolution to show something like that?

Think of it this way. Imagine you're traveling down a road and you see blue signs all the same shade. But as you travel further down the road - miles further - you figure out that the shade is changing. In subtle fashion, very subtle, the color eventually changes to yellow. Yet the difference between any two signs is all but imperceptible.

That's the sort of change evolution generally works with. (Yes, I'm aware of punk eek, but the writer was confused about gradualism.)

BCH

I just don't see why we cannot believe evolution and creation at the same time as they are not mutually exclusive of each other. I tend to believe the evolutionary theory more than the creation theory especially in light of recent scientific discoveries and exploration of other planets in our solar system. It just makes logical sense that living creatures would adapt and change to the environment over millions of years. Now the question of how life started at the very beginning is a very good question for how creation fits, but this is the only part of the discussion that makes logical sense to include creation in the timeline of life on this planet.

Rob Greenlee
WebTalk World Radio Show
http://www.webtalkradio.com

Now it is working, Mark. My guess is that you have got their attention and these troopers invade any site and change settings at will. It's the way our new government does things.

Complexity has just as much to do with specialization as it does with the ascent of new structures. All cells process waste, but the liver and kidney are simply specialized to that end.

BCH

It is not sufficient that something be logical in order to be taught in science. There is nothing illogical about the geocentric theory. It's just not as useful as the heliocentric theory for explaining and predicting observations in the natural world.

BCH

Read Angels & Demons by Dan Brown. They talk about this very topic on creationism. Very thought provoking and makes you question your beliefs. Ever hear of antimatter? It is the opposite of matter and is REAL. Has more power than nuclear technology. The lab is in Geneva, Switzerland. The Bible was written NOT to be taken literally but God gave us our brains to question and probe. Is it possible in this day and age to have a virgin birth??? THINK PEOPLE

You just heard it. Celtie said that science is the search for reality. For her, for something to not be scientific is tantamount to it not being real.

Isn't it odd how both atheists and creationists hold that there should be scientific proof for God in order to justify belief? They only disagree with the conclusion.

BCH

When Albert Einstein published his theories on relatively, he also stated that he has no ability to prove his theories, now nearly half a century later we are proving his theories, but we are slowly making progress in proving it. Just because Darwin said no proof does not mean we would not later find and proof his theory after nearly 150 years later.

The journal that published the Sternberg writeup has apologized for the article. The journal itself dealt with boring taxonomy. Suddenly, it published a review article on ID by Meyers - sort of like seeing a football game on the Wimbeldon courts.

This has been written up at http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000786.html

BCH

I LOVE THIS SHOW!

I don't believe I've ever heard such good debates on these controversial issues. LEVINE AIN'T AFRAID TO TALK ABOUT ANYTHING!

Godspeed, my bruthah!

But enzyme systems can be an increase in complexity. When exposed to PCBs, bacteria formed new enzyme systems to detoxify them. That *is* an increase in complexity.

What fixation is it to require structural changes to acknowledge an increase in complexity? Nevertheless, placentas have developed in fishes. That's a structure and that's new. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:qoOXKkq2PYIJ:intl.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/298/5595/1018%3Fck%3Dnck+fish+placenta

BCH

Burt - Why do you and others continually accuse myself and others with similar beliefs as "arrogant"? Do you find it threatening or disconcerting that there are people who feel so secure and sure of our faith that we are being arrogant?

I'm not an arrogant person and it gets very tiring trying to explain that when I give my views; they are from a grateful heart and it's not a pride or an arrogance from which I speak.

Jesus also cured a blind man by spitting in mud and rubbing it on the patient's eyes. But if an opthamologist tried to do that today, he'd get sued.

Just because people back in the Bible thought a particular way doesn't mean that we have to think that way today. You have to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Don't seek to walk in the footsteps of the wise. Go where they were headed.

BCH

It is arrogant to hold a particular metaphysic that requires every scientist to be a liar. You said that every scientist was a liar, or words to that effect. That is arrogant and wrong.

BCH

Steven Jay Gould spent the better part of his life debunking the falsity of creationism. If Mr. Myles' intent by citing Steven Jay Gould was that the lack of a fossil record was sufficient to justify the refusal to assent to evolution, then he's being deceitful.

BCH

Rachel, You are either lying outright or are seriously deluded in making your outrageous claim that most Christian churches are pro- evolution.

Proving that something can happen doesn't prove that it did happen.

Vicky, I've met Rachel and I am getting to know her well. I've seen her react to people with whom she disagrees and she does so humbly and with respect. You, on the other hand, have accused Rachel of lying or cognitive deficits.

You're arrogant and wrong.

BCH

I said no such thing that every scientist was a liar - go back and read more carefully. You know what I do think - I think that scientists who think there are answers outside of God are the arrogant ones.

Jesus wasn't just another opthamologist.

Genesis also contains evidence that the earth is flat and covered by the dome sky...a Sumarian description of the earth adapted by Abraham.

How can one say that "in the beginning" is scientific. This kind of nonesense that I was raised with is why I left the church when I finally started reading stuff outside my cultural circle.

Genesis show who created the universe; the theory of evolution shows how it was done. Is it chance? Who knows how God designed the method, but say that He broke His own natural laws when creating the earth, is nuts. Why are the right wingers trying to create another religious wedge issue?

Racheal asked why have'nt we posted any evidence against Evolution and claim the $200,000.00
Well in that case:
Polystrate trees.
A polystrate is a tree buried and turned to rock with no roots and no branches. The catch is these are going straight up and down, going through millions of years of layers of rocks.
How did these trees stand up for millions of years without roting away? Oh by the way these are not rare occurances there our hundreds of thousands of these.
Heres a link to a good "paper" about it:
http://groups.msn.com/EvolutionBloopersVSGodCreates/importantfacts.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=739&LastModified=4675471566151569955

Sooooo.... about the money. hehe

Nathan, you're forgetting that evolution has been shown to be useful and reliable for explaining and predicting observations. And nothing else has.

Philosophically speaking, I would agree that showing something can happen doesn't mean that something did. But where the rubber meets the road, we've got an explanation that makes sense and is useful. There's no scientific reason to withhold your assent at this point.

BCH

IIRC, carbon dating is unreliable for stuff from recent geological record. Better to use isotopes that decay faster or find other evidences in support of age for recent geological things.

BCH

"you're forgetting that evolution has been shown to be useful and reliable for explaining and predicting observations. And nothing else has."

Where has Evolution been useful and reliable for explaining and predicting observations???
Only thing I have seen from Evolution is theroys that have been proven false are still in text books, and ideas that have been proven wrong are still being taught to kids in the classroom.

Tons of times.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

BCH

Also Racheal keeps saying 99.9% scientist don't believe Creation. Well if your criteria for a scientist is that they have to believe in Evolution then you can say just about anything you want.

If all the churches in the world believe in Evolution does that make it true? Of course not.
And by the way, my church does not believe Evolution.

Evolution does not set up any hierarchies. Both tapeworms and humans are well adapted for their environments.

No higher. No lower. Just adapted or not.

BCH

Mark,

That post with my name and email calling Rachel a liar - I did NOT post that!!! I know that there are Christian churches that believe in evolution.

Thank you for an interesting show, Mark.

Pandas of People was not written by Johnthan Wells.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?p=1013824&item_no=513400
It was written by: Percival Davis & Dean H. Kenyon

Sorry i ment "Of Pandas and People"

I would very sincerely like to apologize for something I said toward the end of the program. "Of Pandas and People" was NOT written by Jonathan Wells. I had confused "Pandas" with another book, "Icons of Evolution," to which "Pandas" owes much. It is the case that Dr. Wells wrote "Icons" to promote the Unification Church, and it is the case that "Pandas" borrows heavily from arguments made in "Icons." This is why I think I confused the two. But "Pandas" was NOT, to my knowledge, written to promote Moonieism.

I deeply regret the error and thank Blue-_-Dot for pointing it out.

I am so sorry I was unable to hear the entire program as I was out of town but I did catch the last few moments in the extended time.

Personally as a Christian I have stated I have no problem with evolution being taught in schools. My only problem with Intelligent Design/creationism is that it gets out of the scientific realm into religion taught in school and this is what I believe is their actual push behind this movement, the neo-con's want religion in public schools. They want their brand of religion taught in public schools and this is a foothold into that arena, private schools are not enough for this group of fanatical people and arguing for or against evolution has been a tool they have used now for many years. Spending time on this debate diverts the people from more serious problems in our country such as the defict, health care, war in Iraq, jobs more wars on the horizen that are being proposed etc...

As we watch our democracy erode on a daily basis due to the fear factor that is unleashed on us daily through some of our media hacks, our civil rights ceded in the name of security this makes a nice divisive topic, one among several I might add to further polarize us as me against you, us against them and as long as we the public get suckered into this we all lose.

So as you can see I am skeptical of the motives for this movement as I see no problem with my Christian belief versus evolution. I can not prove God but I do believe He is my Creator and That is called faith!

MAD,

Those "fanatical" people have to pay public school taxes and have a right to protest teaching that they believe to be false and unproven. Private schools "aren't enough" because after we pay the taxes for the public school system, we don't have enough $$ left over to send our kids to public schools.

Just because you personally don't have a problem with your Christian beliefs vs evolution, doesn't mean that others share that viewpoint.

MAD,

You can always download this and listen to it later. It was a good show - I missed the first 15 minutes or so and what I did hear live was not a smooth stream - so I'm going to listen to it again - take notes etc.

I had my 2 1/2 year old grandson here at the time and wasn't able to fully concentrate on it.

Mark,I think all three of your guests were very interesting, but especially enjoyed Celtie and Rachel.

a few things from the founding fathers (from a Thom Hartmann article):

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On Washinton:

President George Washington supervised the language of a treaty with African Muslims that explicitly stated that the United States was a secular nation. The Treaty With Tripoli, worked out under Washington's guidance and then signed into law by John Adams in 1797, reads: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On T. Jefferson:

Thomas Jefferson was perhaps the most outspoken of the Founders who saw religious leaders seizing political power as a naked threat to American democracy. One of his most well known quotes is carved into the stone of the awe-inspiring Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny imposed upon the mind of man." Modern religious leaders who aspire to political power often cite it as proof that Jefferson was a Bible-thumping Christian.

What's missing from the Jefferson memorial (and almost all who cite the quote), however, is the context of that statement, the letter and circumstance from which it came.

When Jefferson was Vice President, just two months before the election of 1800 in which he would become President, he wrote to his good friend, the physician Benjamin Rush, who started out as an orthodox Christian and ended up, later in his life, a Deist and Unitarian. Here, in a most surprising context, we find the true basis of one of Jefferson's most famous quotes:

"DEAR SIR, - ... I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten," Jefferson wrote, noting that he knew to discuss the topic would add fuel to the fires of electoral politics swirling all around him. "I do not know that it would reconcile the genus irritabile vatum [the angry poets] who are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened.

"The delusion ...on the clause of the Constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists.

"The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, and they [the preachers] believe that any portion of power confided to me [such as his being elected President], will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough too in their opinion."

Thus began a long and thoughtful correspondence - mostly about religion - between Jefferson and Dr. Rush. In later years, Jefferson would put together what is now called "The Jefferson Bible," in which he deleted all the miracles from the New Testament and presented Jesus to readers as an inspired philosopher. His Jefferson Bible is still in print, and well received, if amazon.com sales and readers' comments are any indication.

Someone has committed what I consider to be an extremely serious offense. They have posted on this blog and pretended to be someone else. I am now doing my best to determine who this was. If I find out who it was, that person will be permanently banned from this site.

It's all fine to have aliases and cutesy names. Sometimes they're quite amusing. As long as you list a valid email address, I don't care. In fact, you can even post anonymously as long as you're on topic and not insulting.

But I absolutely will not tolerate posting an entry and naming it someone else here. If I have to -- and I don't want to -- I will require everyone to register before posting on the blog. I would sincerely like to avoid that.

Whoever did it, do NOT do it again. It is not only unfair to the person whose "identity theft" you have stolen, it is inimical to the entire nature of free speech and debate. If you can't know to whom you're speaking, the entire discussion descends into anarchy.

I have some theories as to who may be doing this. There are some who want to sabotage this radio show and its spirit of free inquiry. I will investigate the matter fully before reporting my findings.

mark I do hope you find out who would do such a despicable act like using someone elses name to post something not their own. That type of stupid mentality is not to be tolerated.

Vicky, we all pay taxes for different government programs, some of the expenditures our government undertakes I don't particularly approve of myself so that argument is moot to me. I do like to drive on highways paid by our taxes, I like to have clean water, air etc...I like the protection my tax dollars pay for with our armed service personel. I like that we have public schools to educate even the poorest among us and would not with hold one penny for the support of education. But I do not want to support someone elses religion with tax dollars and don't expect the government to support mine because when it does it can tell me what to believe. I love our country that offers freedom from religious interference in our lives and pray that it it will stay that way as so many of our pioneers fled religious persecution in their far off countries of birth where they could not have just what we have today. That is what concerns me!

Several gigantic errors were sustained during this "debate," largely because every time Mike got one sentence into a valid point, he was interrupted so we could hear Miss Rachel drone for five minutes. In this post, I will mention only a pair of such grotesque errors that stood unquestioned:
1. Evolution is real science.
2. Evol is such good science that they have made very generous Big Money Offer to opponents of evolution. (see conclusions at end).

The two were related in the debate. 1. The false notion that evolution is a scientific theory and 2. It is such good science that its superhonest supporters have a standing offer of $200,000 to someone who can design an experiment to prove the theory false.

Fact: Evolution is not a scientific theory, and one key proof that it is not science is that no experiment CAN be designed to prove it false.
Allow me to explain with some examples:
1. The 3rd Law of Motion IS a scientific theory where anyone can design an experiment to prove it false, simply find an action force that does NOT have an equal and opposite reaction force, then the theory has been falsified. The reason we accept it as law is that, while many have tried, no experiments have ever falsified it. But, anyone can design experiments to test it. Pieces of pipe with gunpowder in them can be made by any schoolchild.

Evolution, however is not such a theory in ANY OF ITS MAJOR PROPOSITIONS.
Evolution theory 1: Origin of LIFE.
Taught to every child as "science", holds that life happened hundreds of millions of years ago in a prebiotic soup, or a sheltered cave, or a deep hole. These conditions can be easily simulated in the laboratory and have been for 400 years, with 100% experimental failure. Do we stop teaching evolution from a prebiotic soup? NO! Because evolutionists will not accept any experimental results as falsification of their belief. They can always blithely declare, "Well it took millions of years." That is a cute argument to be discussed in a philosophy or religion class, easily recognized by many students to be nonsense, like most "philosophy." But, evolutionists insist they must be permitted to teach it as "science." In so doing, they have helped proselyte for their religion, and polluted science, but done nothing to enhance the truth of their religion.

Evolution theory 2: Origin KINDS.
Evolutionists have obfuscated so vociferously and long on this as to make it almost impossible to discuss. Rachel the mighty "microbiologist christian evolutionist" reduced this discussion to "antibiotic resistance. We have seen it happen in bacteria, evolution is a fact."

Nonsense. The ability of creatures to adapt to their environment can easily be interpreted as a wise provision of of an intelligent creator. Miss Rachel will undoubtedly think this easy to refute by pointing out that some of these creatures are harmful, so a "loving God" would not do that. Again, nonsense. This loving God has programmed death into the entire living world to force us to face an end, and hopefully consider his claims on us. The notion he would not design very complex methods of bringing about death, is interesting philosophy, but irrelevant to a discussion of the God of the Bible, who has made clear that he has produced death and decay in such a way that man's technology can not overcome them.

But, the pathetic fact is that evolution is not verified by "antibiotic resistance" nor by Miss Rachel's claim that evolution "predicted" antibiotic resistence. To be science, evolution requires, as Mike tried several times to point out, new biological structures, and evolution fails to provide them. We have at least 6000 years of animal and plant husbandry with man trying to modify life, with 100% experimental failure to produce a single new biological structure (leg, organ, etc.) Just as in origin of life experiments, evolution experiments fail at the unique rate of 100%. This is unheard of in any real science, where a single experimental failure results in rejection or serious modification of a theory.
But, after millions of failed experiments, do evolutionists reject their theory. No, they simply apologise for it, which is easy to do with myth. "Well, the chemical conditions were not just right." "Well, it took evolution a billion years, we have only had a few years. Just give us your money and we'll eventually figure it all out. Meanwhile, also give us your money and your kids to proselyte for our faith, because, you see, our faith does not require a god, therefore it is science!" The whole thing is very cute. But, some of us are not deceived. And, boy do they hate us!

My Points?
1. Evolutionists claim Evolution is real science:
Evolution is NOT a scientific theory, it is a religious belief about the past, a myth , or more accurately, a complete system of mythology. It does not belong in the science class at all. Antibiotic resistence, mutations, jumping genes, are science and belong in the science class. Evolution is religious mythology clothed in the garb of science and sustained by obfuscation like "antibiotic resistence."

2. Evolutionist Claim their science is so good they have made a Big Money Offer.
Miss Rachel's claim that real scientists have offered a large dollar reward for scientific evidence against evolution, a claim echoed by many of her faith, is pure deceit... a plain lie. Evolution, being a religious myth about the past, does not lend itself to experimental falsification (as real science always does). The failure of any experiment, and there have been countless evolutionist failures, can always be "explained" by arm-waving, or, simply ignored, which is generally the case. Therefore, the "offer of a reward" is, plain and simple, a lie designed to obfuscate the fact that falsification only applies to scientific theories. Evolution is not a scientific theory, therefore, it cannot be experimentally falsified! Evolution is a religious belief about the past. The fact that Miss Rachel attaches the name of Christianity to her belief, and claims support from many others does not make her religion either science or Christian.
Of course her belief is popular among people SHE calls "christians." Jesus made it plain that "Not everyone who says to Me, Lord! Lord! shall enter the kingdom of Heaven."
Att 7:21. He also made clear that the vast majority will go through the the "wide gate... Which leads to destruction." Matt 7:13. Anybody who reads the Bible as much as Rachel claims should know that Jesus said that Christians are those who benefit from Jesus's prayer in John 17:17 "Sanctify them through Your truth. Your Word is truth." I fail to find a single sentence that endorses learning the multi-billion year history of earth and life through experiments in microbiology, or the mythology of uniformitarian geology. I agree that evolution is consistent with Rachel's religion. I do not agree that her religion is Christianity. But, I have only scratched the surface on this absurd claim of hers. The Lord willing, and my faithfullness sustained, more on that later.

I would also like to point out that one of the authors of "Of pandas and people" Dean H. Kenyon used to be a Evolutionist, athiest. Now he is a Christian Creationist.

Also i would like to ask Racheal how "Pandas" got so much of its information from "Icons" if "Pandas" was published in 1993 and "Icons" in 2000??

It should go without saying that my comments were directed to whoever truly posted that garbage and not to the real listener "Vicky." I regret any offense the real "Vicky" might have taken.

BCH

Tom,

You say: "The ability of creatures to adapt to their environment can easily be interpreted as a wise provision of of an intelligent creator."

You also say: "This loving God has programmed death into the entire living world to force us to face an end, and hopefully consider his claims on us."

But doesn't that argument prove too much and therefore nothing at all?

I remember once a friend telling me as a child that "anything could happen." When I challenged him -- anything? -- he said "Yes. Anything can happen because God as all-powerful and can make anything happen."

Kind of hard to argue with the logic, but still not very useful in everyday life. As Burt pointed out, I'd rather trust my airplane to the laws of aerodynamics than to angels' wings.

Assuming anything and everything is caused by God, isn't it possible God uses "natural selection" (i.e. the theory of evolution) to work His will?

I believe Tom is trying to point out that creatures changing according to the environment does not give evidance to Evolution.

-

And another point on Racheal's post:
I do not know if she is right about Dr Wells writing "Icons" to promot the Unification Church (but since all her other claims were far from accurate i would not be very sure about this one). But the fact of the matter is what he is promoting is entirerly irrelevant if his science is good. If he presents good scientific arguments it really does not matter who hes promoting.

Mark--tell that to the Angels in an ice-storm

Embracing the Real

Closer to love we all want to be,
but when we stray so far,
it’s not so easy
to find the way
hidden by pangs of fear and doubt,
and faith in disaster, lurking
with disappointment waiting
to claim us for a fate
forgotten and alone,
away from the arms of redemption.

Yet, recognition of love
is just a thought away,
attained so easily
from the Universal smile,
and comforted
by the soft fluttering of angels’ wings
giving deep realization
that death has no sting
beyond what our minds would give it,
as time collapses
in the face of life’s impending miracles,
releasing us to audacious, new beginnings.

I didn't say, Gordon, I wouldn't pray to the angels as the plane went down...:-D

Only that I think a Boeing 747 is a surer way to fly to Hawaii than on an angel's wing...

IT'S MIND BOGGLING
Here is Steven Pinker of M.I.T. discussing the evolutionary development of the human brain in the "Mind's Big Bang" segment of the evolution series aired on PBS a few years ago.
"Chances are there were lots and lots of mutations over a span of tens, maybe even hundreds of thousands of years that fined tuned and sculpted the brain to give it the magnificent powers that it has today. The actual organization of behavior goes on at the level of the individual nerve cells and their connections.
We have a hundred billion nerve cells - probably a hundred trillion connections. It's just mind boggling to think of all the different ways in which they are arranged, and a lot of our evolution consisted not in just getting more of this stuff, but in wiring it in precise ways to support intelligence."
The first thing that jumped out at me were the words "fine tuned, sculpted and precise. Why is it that evolutionists, while denying design, are compelled to use a vocabulary normally used only in the context of design in every day parlance?
What really caught my attention was the "probably a hundred trillion connections" precisely made in hundreds of thousands of years. I am not confirming Pinker's numbers; it is enough that he is comfortable with them. Usung one million years, which is approximately 31.5 trillion seconds, one would have to believe that natural selection was able to achieve a rough average of 3.2 precise wirings per second.
Perhaps the devotees of Darwinism would argue that Steven Pinker's numbers meant 100 trillion precise wirings minus those already made during previous ages. If we go back 7 million years to the time man and chimpanzee supposedly branced off from a common ancestor, it would have been necessay to average some 27.4 precise wirings per minute. Hopefully evolutionists would not insist that we go back any further than the beginning of the Cambrian period at about 600 million years ago. In this case, averaging roughly 19.2 precise wirings per hour would get the job done.
However, none of this takes into account also providing the additional neurons, skeletal framework, organs, muscles, ligaments, enzymes, hormones etc. without which those 100 trillion wirings would have no reason to be. Natural selection has certainly had its hands full. In order for it to be up to the task, one might be tempted to ascribe to natural selection the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence.
When I tried to present this to Rachel Robson she said Pinker would not agree with my interpretation. There was no interpretation. I quoted him verbatim and applied simple math to his claims. Any of you can do the same. She ducked the issue. She knows that there is a quantitative and qualitative difference between these claims and evidence that bacteria can vary within its kind, sometimes producing antibiotic resistant stains. She has no data to show that this is possible.

I have never herd those statistics before, Mike. That IS very mind boggling.
I personally thought you did a great job in the time you were given. If they had stoped interrupting you I think you might have been able to get this across on the air.

Tom said:

"Evolution is not a scientific theory, therefore, it cannot be experimentally falsified!"

I'm not going to argue with Tom. I just want to point out that statements like this expose an apparent misunderstanding of the meaning of "scientific theory." In general, scientific theories are difficult to falsify because they are so widely supported by interconnected lines of evidence.

Once a scientific idea reaches the level of evidential support that it is regarded as a "theory," it usually requires a major shift in scientific thinking or a revolutionary scientific discovery to overturn it. This is not because of scientific dogmatism, it is because of the overwhelming amount of evidence explained by the theory and the lack of a viable competing explanation.

Evolutionary theory could someday be falsified, but it would take an amazing array of well-documented observations for this to happen. For instance, if we were to someday discover a population of organisms that can come into existence by some method other than "birth," that would cast serious doubt upon the theory of common descent. If we were to discover an authentic whale fossil in Cambrian strata, that would cast doubt on the current evolutionary story of the history of life. So far, observations like these have not occurred. Why not? Maybe it's because evolutionary theory accurately describes reality.

Tom also called evolution a "myth" and a "religious idea about the past." Interesting. What other "myth" allows us to make testable predictions? Try this. Go out and look at a local rock outcropping. By looking at the types of fossils contained in that outcropping, geologists can determine when the rocks were likely deposited. Based on this information, geologists can predict what other types of fossils you will and will not find in the layers above and below the outcropping. Such a prediction is based on the idea that living things have changed over time in a pattern consistent with the theory of common descent. I challenge anyone to name a "myth" that allows you to make that kind of prediction (btw, "flood geology" is a failed scientific explanation, not a "myth").

Evolutionary theory can also be used to make predictions about the future. On the show, Rachel mentioned the prediction of antibiotic resistance based on evolutionary theory. This prediction has since been confirmed by direct observation. What other "religious belief about the past" would have allowed us to do that?

Finally, Tom said:

"The fact that Miss Rachel attaches the name of Christianity to her belief, and claims support from many others does not make her religion either science or Christian. Of course her belief is popular among people SHE calls "christians." Jesus made it plain that "Not everyone who says to Me, Lord! Lord! shall enter the kingdom of Heaven."

AND

"I agree that evolution is consistent with Rachel's religion. I do not agree that her religion is Christianity."

Ouch. Nothing like quoting scripture to try to prove your point that others who sincerely profess their Christian beliefs are not really Christians. I recall a relevant Bible verse:

"Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;" Luke 6:37

Mike, a few comments.

First, Stephen Pinker would not agree with your creationist position. That is plainly evident from this interview here, found after 0.5 seconds worth of searching on Google. ("steven pinker evolution" was my search term.) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/2/l_072_03.html

Second, you seem to boggle over the number of connections in the nervous system. But in medical school, we learn how a nerve connects to others: it's via a process of "listening" for other nearby nerves, keeping the connections that work well, and pruning the connections that don't work well. Put a bunch of nerves together and you've got a bunch of connections. As the organism develops, the ones that are useful are kept and the ones that aren't are pruned away. We actually have more connections when we are firstborn or soon thereafter than we have as an adult or mature child.

You boggle at the sheer number of connections. What's there to boggle over? Consciousness, maybe. Higher functions, maybe. But the sheer number of connections or possible connections at any one time? Who cares?!?!? That's not specificity. That's not complexity. It's gibberish until the brain can prune itself. And remarkably like how the immune system selects antibodies against an invader, the nervous system prunes itself via a process of natural selection.

Finally, you're considering the evolution of the nervous system and the evolution of other systems as separate events. This is in keeping with the creationist canards of a tornado going through a junkyard, producing a 747 all in one go with no intermediate stages. In reality, the brain evolved along with the immune system, the muscles, the ligaments, and every