News

THERE IS A NEW DISCIPLINE COMINNG TO TEXAS:

The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately dethrone the unprofitable Darwinian view.


The backbone of Darwinism is not biological evolution per se, but electronic interpretation, the tenet that all physical, chemical, and biological processes result from a change in the electron structure of the atom which, in turn, may be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics, as outlined in quantum mechanics. A few of the supporting theories are: degrading stars, neutron stars, black holes, extraterrestrial water, antimatter, the absolute dating systems, and the big bang, the explosion of a singularity infinitely smaller than the dot of an “i” from which space, time, and the massive stellar bodies supposedly sprang into being.


The philosophy rejects any divine intervention. Therefore, let the philosophy of Darwinism be judged on these specifics: electron interpretation and quantum mechanics. Conversely, the view that God is both responsible for and rules all the phenomena of the universe will stand or fall when the facts are applied. The view will not hinge on faith alone, but will be tested by the weightier principle of verifiable truths – the new discipline.

The Quest for Right is not only better at explaining natural phenomena, but also may be verified through testing. As a consequence, the material in the several volumes will not violate the so-called constitutional separation of church and state. Physical science, the old science of cause and effect, will have a long-term sustainability, replacing irresponsible doctrines based on whim. Teachers and students will rejoice in the simplicity of earthly phenomena when entertained by the new discipline.

The Quest for Right is not only an academic resource designed for the public schools, but also contains a wealth of information on pertinent subjects that seminarians need to know to be effective: geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and in-depth Biblical studies. The nuggets from the pages of Biblical history alone will give seminarians literally hundreds of fresh ideas for sermons and teachings. The ministry resources contained in The Quest for Right serve as invaluable aids that will enrich graduates beyond their highest expectations.

Note: Some 550 review copies of Volume 1 are slated to be shipped to Texas school board members and other concerned citizens the week of Mar 23rd. You will not want to miss the adventure of a lifetime which awaits you in Volume 1 of The Quest for Right.

Visit the official website for additional information and to purchase a copy: http://questforright.com/

“A book that will change the world.” – Wayne Lin, Editor, Tate Publishing LLC

Comment by C. David Parsons — March 19, 2008 @ 06:30PM

The discovery of "Lucy" was never offered as a "missing link", a term created by journalists rather scientists. The discoverer of the Lucy fossil states that Lucy is separated from the earliest forms of the "homo" genera by at least two million years, what he calls a "black hole" in the evolutionary development of humans. Another black hole exists between certain fossils found in Egypt and Lucy. These lapses in the evolutionary record must be resolved before there is any legitimate talk of missing links.

Comment by Bob Warner — March 19, 2008 @ 09:50PM

For an article purporting answers to creationist's arguments against evolution, the counter-arguments provided by darwinists were very allusive and weak. The counter-argument to Lucy was scientifically absent, and presents a picture that scientists can clasify an entire species even with 55% of the fossils missing. This is the problem with evolution... this why Ernst Haekel wrote in 1909:

"a small portion of my embryo-pictures (possibly 6 or 8 in a hundred) are really (in Dr Brass’s sense of the word) “falsified” — all those, namely, in which the disclosed material for inspection is so incomplete or insufficient that one is compelled in a restoration of a connected development series to fill up the gaps through hypotheses, and to reconstruct the missing members through comparative syntheses. What difficulties this task encounters, and how easily the draughts- man may blunder in it, the embryologist alone can judge" -- quote from haekel can be found in his literature, as well as wikipedia provides this paragraph.

When the laws of Evolutionary science have been made a fact within the scientific community, any logical argument presented against evolution is knocked down with a "Oh its true because we know it is" argument.

Look at the counter-argument to Ernst Haekel's deception. When his drawings were presented to the scientific community, everyone "believed" it was a fact. Scientists and commoners believed that this presented a strong evolutionary link with all living things. It took 35 years for the entire scientific community to refute his research. Then to make matters worse, throughout the 1900s to 1980s (8 decades), science textbooks continued to showcase Haekel's drawings as fact. Isn't that Intellectually dishonest...????

Every counter-argument to creationism can be counter-argumented back. Darwinists can't provide an absolute answer, but they can provide a theory... which has neither been tested fully or proven... its just speculation. Just like Lucy's bones and Haekel's drawings. No matter what point was being made, their was an actual act to persuade the masses that evolution was a fact... Piltdown Man is another example of how "scientists" (I use theat term loosely for this case), faked a skull as a human ancestor. It was at first hailed as a benchmark fact, but immediately within weeks the truth came out, and these so-called scientists were ridiculed at their attempt to fake research.

Conclusion: All those who subscribe to Evolution as fact, are in fact subscribing to another religious ideal... which evolution is derived from (Pagan ideals of human and animals being descendants). There is no truth in this matter, just a belief. In fact, one could say this is a religious ideal hidden inder the guise of scientific methods. This is a perversion of science. Science should always be in the business of attempting to disprove itself. Neo-Darwinian science is exactly in the opposite business of endlessly trying to rationalize itself - and reprove itself that it's right without any kind of test.

Comment by Alex — March 20, 2008 @ 12:40PM

Belief in purported scientific theories without a factual basis is more akin to faith than science!

Comment by Alex — March 20, 2008 @ 01:05PM

A reasonable article by the author explaining the emptiness of the arguments that creationists use against the facts of evolution. However the article significantly underplays the evidence against creationist assertions.

Every time we see this type of debate going on in US media many of us simoly shake our heads in disblelief that the US education system can be so backward that there are still so many fundamentalist christians in the US who believe in creationist mythology. It speaks very poorly of US education and US culture that there are so many ill-educated fundamentalists in the US.

The FACTS of Evolution are so well established ( by literally thousands and thouusands of separate pieces of cross supporting evidence) that the FACT of Evolution is no more in doubt than the FACT of gravity.

Gravity is a fact - you fall down. Evolution is a FACT because 200 years of fossil discovery and the findings of genetics, biochemistry, geology, astronomy, radioactive dating etc etc all consistently evidence an old earth and the development of life over the eons of the earths existence.

As with gravity the next step is to EXPLAIN the FACTS. Newton made the first succesfull attempt to do this with his THEORY of gravity - which was tested and proved to be consistent with the facts and the limits of experiment at that stage. Darwin explained the FACTS of evolution by proposing an overriding theory of natural selection.

Newtons Theory was later found not to be entirely accurate as further detailed evidence was discovered and was later revised and improved by Einstein - who's Theory is probably not itself the last word on the matter.

Darwins Theory was subsequently revised and improved in what is known as the "Modern Synthesis" following the discovery of the genetic mechanisms for inheritance etc.

All Theories are refined and improved over time - that is science. What remains constant is the observed FACT of gravity and the observed FACT that Evolution has occurred.

Some of your correspondents really should have tried to stay awake and pay attention during their basic science classes.

Comment by Bunc — March 20, 2008 @ 02:49PM

Thats a lot of bunk. As the ever growing debate about evolution continues, proponents for evolution consistently use Newtons Theorem on Gravity as a basis for their "belief" in evolution as a stated fact. The relationship between gravity and evolution are two entirely different approaches to scientific inquiry. Darwinists fail in this argument for evolution, because Newton's theorem (which was later advanced by Einstein) suggests that the force acting upon us on Earth is that which can be measurable. Emperically, we see the current effects of gravity. Darwinists, especially fundamentalist darwinists, will argue that the effects of evolution can be seen. But there has been NO facts or evidence to support the notion that a group of species have transformed into another species. The chances of that happening are not realistic. And to base the entire idea that cells that mutate is in fact a sign that evolution is a fact, is intellectually dishonest. Darwin himself, had no idea what a cell was. He based his ideas on watching birds. What Darwin saw on the Galapagos Island on his voyage on the Beagle, was not random mutations or evolution at work, but rather adaptability of the birds to the climate. For example; study a human who lives in the rural South of America. If you allow that person to live a healthy part of their life there, and then transplant them to Northern America... you will witness this human attempt to adapt to his environment (change clothes, food, etc...). Sociological studies have proven results of cases where homeless children who grew up on the streets, change their social mores and attitudes when transplanted into an economically viable setting. I believe the article can be found with Psychology Today... however I urge you to research it yourself and not just take my word for it... like so many darwinists do. The simplest creatures learn to familiarize themselves with their environment, this is not proof of life existing millions of years ago as an amoeba crawling from a primordial soup.

In no way, does evolution propose to improve or measure the current phenomenon of our current human life (Newton). In fact, it speculates that live has existed millions of years ago and that through some sort of vat (known as the primordial soup), life oozed itself by chance and natural selection (a contradiction that Darwinists continually fail to address) and we are what we are today. That explanation for life's early beginnings is mythological non-sense for modern day people.

What is incredible, is that darwinists have been pushing this untested theory on our children for over 10 decades on our American children. No wonder American children are stupid, we have these atheistic darwinists proposing that life is just a bunch of chance... and the child can't even question why!!! Science is a benefit to mankind, it needs to be taught in schools. But this particular aspect of science known as evolution, is just ridiculous. Scientific methods, lab work, and other training sessions taught in natural science curriculum can still be taught without introducing evolution to children.

There is no emperical evidence that supports the belief of darwinists. We continue to hear supporters of evolution state that their are dozens if not thousands of "FACTS" that support evolution, yet no one really lists them.

Comment by Alex — March 20, 2008 @ 04:33PM

The perceived "problems" or "criticisms" of evolution prove nothing whatsoever about creationism or intelligent design. What is the proof of creationism? Why don't we see things being created today? When was the last time anything was created? What is the proof for intelligent design? What facts are known about the "intelligence?" What facts are known about the process of design? If problems with evolutionary theory somehow prove creationism or ID, then you have two things to prove: prove creationism itself, and prove that there is no other theory of the origin of species.
I'm really worried about our country.

Comment by RedPolygon — March 20, 2008 @ 08:48PM

Some of the comments below leave me wondering if these people actually read the article above.

Responding to the poster named Alex...here we go:

"For an article purporting answers to creationist's arguments against evolution, the counter-arguments provided by darwinists were very allusive and weak."

I actually agree that the points above were not very detailed or well-thought out. Regardless, one writer's article does little to either validate or invalidate evolutionary theory.

"When the laws of Evolutionary science have been made a fact within the scientific community, any logical argument presented against evolution is knocked down with a "Oh its true because we know it is" argument."

I don't know which scientists you've been communicating with (if any), but the majority of scientists would GLADLY spend a few moments of their time explaining evolution and the evidences for it. If you would spend a few moments with Google, you'd see this to be true. I don't know a single scientist who has ever said or acted in the manner you describe above.

"Every counter-argument to creationism can be counter-argumented back."

Ok. Show us.

"Darwinists can't provide an absolute answer, but they can provide a theory... which has neither been tested fully or proven... its just speculation."

As with many other things in science, it is being continually tested (and continually being proven to be correct, might I add). It is not "just speculation" as you say. It is based on TONS of evidence from many scientific fields.

"Science should always be in the business of attempting to disprove itself. Neo-Darwinian science is exactly in the opposite business of endlessly trying to rationalize itself - and reprove itself that it's right without any kind of test."

Let me repeat--there are many parts to evolution that are continually being researched, tested, etc.

As far as science being in the business to disprove itself--that is ridiculous. Science is in the business of answering questions and trying to understand how things work, how things happen, etc. If by the scientific method they happen to disprove themselves, then hey, that's great. But that is not the "business" that science is in. Intelligent Design proponents don't want to use the scientific method at all, in my opinion. Instead of doing research, presenting it, defending it, publishing it, and letting it go through a process of peer review, they want to try to circumvent all of that by appealing to legislatures and state boards of education to get their ideas published in textbooks. That's not scientific at all.

"Belief in purported scientific theories without a factual basis is more akin to faith than science!"

There is a huge factual basis. Saying there isn't does not make it true.

"Darwinists, especially fundamentalist darwinists, will argue that the effects of evolution can be seen. But there has been NO facts or evidence to support the notion that a group of species have transformed into another species. The chances of that happening are not realistic. And to base the entire idea that cells that mutate is in fact a sign that evolution is a fact, is intellectually dishonest. Darwin himself, had no idea what a cell was. He based his ideas on watching birds."

Please educate yourself. Start here at Talk Origins with "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution": http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The fact that Darwin had no knowledge of the inner workings of a cell and had no idea about DNA and how it works makes evolutionary theory all the more remarkable, in my opinion. This man came up with these ideas a long time ago, not having the privilege of the information we have today, and modern science is confirming them.

"however I urge you to research it yourself and not just take my word for it"

You need to take your own advice.

"What is incredible, is that darwinists have been pushing this untested theory on our children for over 10 decades on our American children. No wonder American children are stupid, we have these atheistic darwinists proposing that life is just a bunch of chance... and the child can't even question why!!!"

I hope you don't tell your own children that.

Saying that American children are stupid implies that children in other countries are more intelligent, does it not? And is creationism/intelligent design taught in those other countries?

Hmm...probably not.

Comment by Holly — March 21, 2008 @ 12:34PM

I have to strongly agree about the worrying nature of this whole debate. As an immigrant to this great country with an engineering degree and a formal seminary education, I have a good understanding of both the scientific method and religion in general, along with the grounding to treat them appropriately. I continue to be utterly amazed with Americans' inability to grasp mathematical timescales and plain English, without mixing it into some biblical soup version of reality that's completely at odds with the actual 21st century planet we live on. How often do scientists have to explain that their theories are not hunches or guesses as used in crime novels, but the overall framework or system that best explain the facts as directly observed, and then repeatedly tested, over and over and over again? Of what's left open to discussion in biology, and there's plenty, certainly doesn't include the mysterious hand of an unexplained, unexplainable 'intelligence' in the answers. By definition science simply cannot include that sort of answer, period, end of discussion. How often will they have to equate the success of a probe being launched millions of miles away on a distant planet due to our understanding of gravitational theory to finding a cure for some debilitating human disease because of our understanding of evolutionary theory? How often do they have to mention that evolution is right up there with quantum mechanics, as people surf the web looking for any old 18th century anti-Darwinian smut they can find, ironically on laptops running semiconductors whose very operation we owe to that particular theory? What on earth is wrong with you??!!! What will it take to knock some sense into the multitude of idiots who seemingly can't read, listen, count or critically analyze anything in this country??!!!!! Gullible sheeple are being led down a path using the same sort of vitriolic spin that earned Darwin-award poster child Bush the White House election, twice, and which similarly has catastrophic implications for this country. If it comes to pass that this nonsense gets included into the science curriculum, I will reluctantly leave this once-great country for somewhere civilized and leave the idiots to their 1st century BC ruminations on the nature of their 6000 yr old universe.

Comment by Denis — March 21, 2008 @ 02:21PM

It's so funny to read the level of authority on both sides of this issue when neither person has been on earth more that 100 years. What arrogance.

Comment by Ray — March 21, 2008 @ 03:12PM

Eyes that see nowhere near as well in the dark as most predators due to lack of rods and cones, playground far to close to the sewers, and minimal redundancy on most of our most important organs.

Intelligent Design, my ass.

Comment by Trey — March 21, 2008 @ 05:37PM

Ray stated: "It's so funny to read the level of authority on both sides of this issue when neither person has been on earth more that 100 years. What arrogance."

When I get sick and go to the doctor, I'm going to trust their authority of medicine (and...gasp! science) to treat me. And they've all been on earth less than 100 years.

Your ad hominem attack on posters on either side of the issue is weak. If you have something valuable to add to the debate, please do so. Otherwise, why are you here?

Comment by Holly — March 22, 2008 @ 11:06AM

The stunningly willful ignorance of humans even in this day and age is nothing short of amazing. We have grown adults trying to pawn off texts thousands of years old as the one and only truth for all in the universe. It's just silly.

Comment by Barton H. — March 25, 2008 @ 01:15PM

I would appreciate people on any side of this debate (and there are many sides) expalining to me two things: What was there before the 'beginning', before either the creation or the big bang (and don't say a void, because the 'void' had to have come about somehow also)? How did the 'spark of life' get 'struck', and why is it not still being 'struck'?

Two more caveats:

One for the big bang - don't explain that there was a cycle of the universe expanding and contracting. I want to know what there was before, and how things could have started originally.

One for the intelligent design - Explain if the 'void' already existed, or was it designed? If the void already existed, where did the void come from?

I do not know the answers, but certainly enjoy the positive and thoughtful comments I have seen and heard on debates on these issues. Dismissing anybody's points out-of-hand does not serve any of us well. Differences will always exists, and no one of us completely understands the complete picture.

Comment by Ken — March 27, 2008 @ 09:16AM

I am a professional consulting scientist and writer, an evolutionary scientist, and president of Texas Citizens for Science. I have opposed organized Creationism in Texas since 1980. I am familiar with all their arguments and their refutations. Jesse Hyde's article "Battle Against Teaching Evolution in Texas Begins" in the Dallas Observer is a good one, but it contained several relatively minor errors that I corrected in a message to him (no reply) which I will post on the TCS website at http://www.texscience.org/.

I just found this sidebar "Arguments Creationists Make to Counter Evolution" on the web. It also contains some errors that I will correct here and post later. Then I'm going to reply to some of the comments here.

Creationist anti-evolution arguments are always wrong, but they vary from ignorant and misguided to deliberately illogical, specious, misrepresentations and untruths. Let's go through these.

"Biological structures are too complex to have arisen by chance."

True, but the statement has a false premise. Scientists don't say and have never said biological complexity arose by chance. Mutations are due to chance, but that is only part of evolution. Natural selection, the most important evolutionary process. It is a determinative, mechanistic, non-chance process. The Scientific American reply is accurate.

"Random mutations can only eliminate traits; they cannot create new ones."

True again, but again the statement has a false premise. Scientists have never said random mutations create new traits. New traits are created by the co-working of a number of natural, mechanistic processes, the most important of which is natural selection, the specific process that actually drives random genetic variation to ultimately express itself as new phenotypic traits. Unfortunately, the reply by Kevin Fisher is not clear or accurate. He is correct about the variety of mutations, but he didn't clearly state that natural selection is what drives beneficial mutations to become more prevalent in a population genome. Also, "individuals with those genes will become the most dominant in the population" is not necessarily true. That may or may not happen for a variety of reasons. But in either case, new traits appear.

"The Cambrian explosion, which scientists believe occurred 500 million years ago, actually happened in an instant, in which all the major phyla appeared at once."

This is one of my favorite Creationist distortions, since I am an evolutonary paleontologist and I understand this topic better than most scientists. Again, unfortunately, Kevin Fisher did not give an accurate answer ("counter-argument") to this question. The Cambrian Period (not Era) was 52-54 million years long (not 22 my). The Cambrian Explosion did not happen in an instant, but over a period of 20-60 million years, depending on when a paleontologist wishes to indentify the fossil precursors (ancestors or common ancestors) of the phyla that did appear. Most, but not all, of the major phyla appeared first in the Cambrian over 500 my ago. One of these phyla was the Chordate Phylum, which includes vertebrates. However, the Cambrian chordates were non-vertebrate chordates very similar to Amphioxus (lancelet) that is living today. True fish appeared immediately after the Cambrian in the Ordovician. Fisher's answer about various vetebrate clases not appearing the Cambrian is irrelevant, since he is wrong to state that Creationists claim that all major animals appeared in the Cambrian. I don't know any Creationist who claims this. They claim that for phyla, and it is true for almost all major phyla.

"The study of peppered moths, which showed changes in coloration linked to environment that support the idea of natural selection, was false."

This Creationist statement is untrue. It is a deliberate distortion, since the facts about the perfectly valid peppered moth studies are well known and completely accepted by scientists. The reply contains an inaccuracy: initial moth experiments released the moths during the day, but subsequent ones released them during the night. The reply is correct that the "peppered moth story has been well established" and that it has been conclusively demonstrated that peppered moths change color with polllution in many sites on two continents. This demonstrates the occurrence of natural selection.

"Haekel's Embryo, drawings of human embryos that purported to support evolution, were faked."

Yes and no. Haeckel exaggerated several of his embryo drawings to support his mistaken evolutionary hypothesis that ontogency recapitulates phylogeny. It is correct to say these few drawings were "faked." However, the close similarity of vertebrate embryos among all vertebrate classes is a powerful example of evidence for evoluton: that there exists an underlying developmental similarity in closely-related species. Another good example is that human embryos have a notochord and pharyngeal pouches and slits, which soon disappear during development, that tie humans to very primitive chordates which still have these features. In fish, pharyngeal slits develop into gill slits, and primitive chordates, such as Amphioxus, still have their notochords as adults. Fisher's answer is again unfortunate, since it is erroneous. Haeckel did not fake all his drawings, only a few. Biology textbooks did not delete those drawings "decades" ago; biology texts as recently as 2003 contained those drawings. I criticized them then. Fisher's main point, "that the human embryo goes through different evolutionary stages—-that was refuted years ago," is not precisely correct. Vertebrate embryos DO go through stages that superficially match evolutonary stages; I described the presence of a notochord and pharyngeal slits in early human embryos, for example, which is outstanding evidence for evolution. Haeckel believed that vertebrate embryos went through EXACT evolutionary stages, which is known from early in the 20th century not to be the case.

"Lucy, the supposed "missing link," was more plaster of Paris than actual skeleton."

This is nonsense, of course. The Lucy fossil is incomplete, but it is one of the best early hominid fossil skeletons we have, and it is more than sufficient for drawing evolutionary conclusions. Also, today we have many thousands of pre-human hominid fossils, some of which are more complete than Lucy, that represent over a dozen hominid species that show the transition from an ape-like ancestor to modern humans. Creationist arguments like the above one are so absurd that they would only be convincing to impossibly ignorant persons.

"Life is 'irreducibly complex'— if you take away one part of even a simple biological structure, like bacteria flagellum, the entire thing will not work, therefore it could not have arisen without a creator."

This Creationist argument is from the new Intelligent Design Creationism. As with all their arguments, it is false. The counter-argument reply is good. Intermediate forms in evolutionary transitions have fitness which is favored by natural selection. This has been demonstrated by laboratory experiments, field experiments, and repeated observations.

Now to the comments.

No. 1 is from David Parsons, a Creationist textbook writer who writes books for Biblical literalists home-schoolers. His comments are quotes from the advertising on his website homepage. He's using this forum to advertise and sell his books, which are filled with Creationist pseudoscience and are valueless!

No. 2. Lucy IS a missing link. Scientists sometimes use this term, but it is not a good one. Scientists have found dozens of "missing links" documented by thousands of hominid fossils. For every missing link one finds, that creates space for two more missing links, so the term is not a good one because it suggests that as you discover more fossil information, you have more unknowns, which is backwards from the true situation. Scientists evaluate the data they have to reach conclusions, not bemoan the missing data. The "lapses in the evolutionary record" the comment refers to since Lucy have each been filled with several new hominids, and we can continue to expect more. Since Lucy, scientists have discovered much, much more fossil information about human ancestors that confirms our basic evolutionary conclusions.

Nos. 3-4, and 6 by raving Creationist Alex starts well: I agree that most of the counter-arguments were weak. I hope he likes mine better. Then it's all downhill. Contrary to Alex, having 45% of a fossil is great; paleontologists are used to working with partial fossil data; that's more than enough to describe a new species. As for Haeckel, developmental biologists recognized immediately that Haeckel was wrong; it didn't take 35 years. However, his fudged drawings WERE used in introductory biology textbooks for decades as illustrations of evolution, and that was unfortunate. Alex misuses the term "theory." A scientific theory is the most accurate, truthful, and reliable knowledge humans have about anything. A theory is totally based on evidence, reliable knowledge, and logical reasoning, unlike most of what passes for knowledge among humans. "Scientists" didn't fake Piltdown Man, and it was scientists who exposed the fraud. Etc.

Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13. I endorse everything written by Bunc, RedPolygon, Denis, Barton, and especially Holly. Thank you.

No. 10. This is troll talk. Ray, do you believe that George Washington was a real person? Do you believe dinosaurs existed millions of years ago? I claim, with a colossal level of authority, that they did. Am I arrogant?

No. 11. Good for you, Trey. I often use the same arguments. Evolution provides good answers to all these poor design features of the human body. There are many others (lower back ailments, cardiac arteries clogging, choking on swallowed food, etc.). God was a very incompetent civil engineer because he designed our waste water and sewage disposal outlets to run right through a major recreation area.

No. 14. Ken, there was no "before." Time began when the universe began. As for why is there something rather than nothing, I don't know. I am skeptical of people who have answers to this question, and you should be too.

Comment by Steven Schafersman — March 27, 2008 @ 04:03PM

Which creation story are we talking about here? Oh...the Judeo-Christian one, that's right.

Comment by Wes — April 1, 2008 @ 01:55PM

Evolution happened. It's happening right now. It's been proven.

I am a spiritual, but I severely look down on those Christians that feel that because they are "Christian" they MUST disagree with science in general.

Why can't Spiritual people come to grips with the fact that living beings evolve and change to adapt to their surroundings? It boggles the mind! The evidence is ALL AROUND us!

Some Christians automatically snap into defense mode when people mention "evolution", and the same goes vise-versa for scientists.

I personally find enormous reconciliation between science and faith when I think about the two.

To me, science proves that there is a God, in that our world is so complex. Similarly, my faith in God proves that the secrets our world has to offer are amazing... and not always expected.

I really have to say that the worst representatives of Christianity are... Christians; especially the ones that don't educate themselves for fear of finding themselves at odds with their faith.

I say to those folks: Your faith must not be very strong if you think LEARNING might challenge it.

Please start reading books other than the Bible for a change... you might learn something.

Comment by Matt — April 3, 2008 @ 02:25PM

Intelligent design fails as an explanation for life on this planet for one reason only, that is simply because of the complete and utter imperfection of the design of humans and other animals. Animals - and plants - are very complex but are far from being perfect machines, and no self respecting designer would ever create such a thing as a human being in our current form, with all of its built-in problems, both physical and mental, and with all of it's weaknesses, to the environment, to other life forms, and to a wide range of toxins and infectious agents. Stupid design is probably closer to the truth. And God cannot be stupid - right? If not stupid design then why cancer, heart disease, malaria, scizophrenia, along with the multitude of inefficiencies involved in our basic metabolic function? I would counter intelligent design simply by stating that only a completely random association of mistakes over a long period of time could have produced life forms as we know them today. Our physical form is far inferior to what it could be if it had been designed intelligently. There is no reason logically to assume that we didn't arise totally by accident, regardless of what your preferred mythology states as an article of faith.

Comment by Pete — April 3, 2008 @ 02:53PM

I must congratulate Mr. Hyde for the article. The Intelligent Design argument adds nothing to the scientific discussion, except ignorance about Theology and Science.

Intelligent design has no workable theory, is not even a proto-theory or a testable hypothesis. And, most the most important thing... It has no research program.

Haven't we learn from the past: The world is not flat afterall.

Comment by E. Beck — April 8, 2008 @ 07:12PM