Posted by flyboy at 1/7/09 8:39 a.m.

Is it an oxymoron for people to promote intelligent design when they can't tell the difference between historical facts and biblical myths?

Maybe they should research a biblical theory to counter the theory of gravity to explain why Austrailians don't fly off into space.

Posted by SeaDuck79 at 1/7/09 8:53 a.m.

"...But they're lucky Darwin isn't forced on us the way religion has been...".

Has this writer any acquaintance with American Public Schools? Try to find one in which any theory other than Darwin's is not "forced on us". They are few and far between.

Perhaps he, or someone, could also identify the places and means by which religion has been "forced on" so many people, when, at least in Seattle, one sees little, if any, evidence of this. Unless he's talking about the laws based on the Ten Commandments (not stealing, murdering, etc.). How dare we force people to not do those things!

What a condescending, haughty, fop Mr. Steel is to think that only those who agree with him have a brain! Believing that is the first sign that the one without the brain is the one staring back at one in the mirror.

There is plenty of evidence supporting the Bible. I wouldn't "believe" if there weren't. Many other intelligent people agree. And some don't. In neither case was the decision forced on them. Thankfully, Mr. Steel's writing isn't, either.

Posted by Joel Kawahara at 1/7/09 8:57 a.m.

The problem with id is that you can not independently replicate its results. Therefore not science and not the right subject to teach alongside evolution in biology classes. Biology is flexible enough to have created dinosaurs, got rid of them and replaced them with marsupials and mammals. ID leads to only one answer, as things are now and by no transparent or understandable process.

It is great to have faith. It is wonderful to praise the creator of earth and the plants and animals. So why doesn't the Discovery Institute raise serious objections to the extinction of far upriver migrating Columbia River Chinook? No salmon have traversed the Columbia River above Grand Coulee Dam since 1938. No coho salmon swim the Snake River. These salmon (and others) have been lost due to activity of humans. These individual, perfect, irreplaceable salmon have been lost, and no one is around to re-create them. Where the heck is the DiscoInst?

Posted by edpatton at 1/7/09 9:06 a.m.

Why would a god of the whole universe allow his son to crucified? Jesus was the offspring of good ole
Joeseph.Go see "Religulous" by Bill Maher if you need a real good gutteral laugh.

Posted by blip at 1/7/09 9:18 a.m.

To present evolution by natural selection as an "accidental" process is misleading. Creationists like to point out how improbable it is that all the elements of a complex organism would come together by "chance". But the point of Darwin's theory of natural selection is that with each generation, the variants that are best able to reproduce in a given environment are "selected." That is, they leave more descendants than do the variants that are less well adapted. Over time, this continual weeding out and amplifying process "designs" complex organisms.

Critics also like to refer to evolution as a "random" process. The whole point of Darwin's theory of natural selection was to show that it is NOT a random process. Genetic mutations--the ultimate source of new biological variety--are random in the sense that they do not come into being in order to serve the organism's "need." Most are neutral with respect to the organism's adaptation; some are deleterious; and a few may actually help make the organism more fit in a particular environment. Natural selection, working in a population of organisms, and acting each generation over long periods of time, can increase the frequency of genes that result from "useful" mutations and decrease or eliminate the ones that reduce adaptive success. Thus selection works against "randomness" in the evolutionary design of organisms.

Posted by YepYepYep at 1/7/09 9:33 a.m.

It takes just as much "faith", as the author puts it, to believe wholeheartedly in Darwinism/Evolution than it does in ID. Evolution still hasn't explained where the origin of life came from. Evolutionists would rather believe in a series of "accidents", many of which defy natural law (biologically speaking), or Earth being visited by aliens a few billion years ago than submit to a theological explanation. That belief is not based on facts - it's based on faith.

We have to consider a third possibility - that creationists and evolutionists are both wrong, or (perhaps even scarier), both right. Scientists and clergy alike have been eating their words for millennia. Why are we in such a rush to declare a victor - hasn't history shown us (Church - the earth is the center of the universe; Scientists - allowing ne'erdowells to procreate will create a society of idiots) that neither group can separate their own political agenda from the "facts" as they want to present them?

Moral of the story - we're all a little screwed up, drawing black and white lines on "faith".

Posted by SamTheMan at 1/7/09 9:49 a.m.

My Karma Ran Over Your Dogma ...

Posted by Radiofreeseattle at 1/7/09 9:55 a.m.

Some intelligent design advocates are religious. Most are not. It is offensive and wrong to tar an argument by these guilt by association tactics.

The argument in a nutshell is this: Evolution in existing species exists. The vast majority of people agree with this statement and there is good data to prove it. The question is how did these species origninate? Electified pond scum? Organic bubbles? These fanciful theories have no explanation for how complex organisms made the jump from chemical chains to a DNA code. None!

Both at the micro and macro levels, the theories expect a leap of faith. Single cells have 8 distinct processes, all of which must exist simultaneously, or the cell could not live. How could 8 distinct processes randomly be created at the same time to create the first single cell that would then have evolved? Take a leap of faith.

At the macro level, evolution doesn't explain existing organisms. Hearing, for example, is clearly a distinct survival advantage. Those creatures who can hear other creatures sneaking up on them to eat them will have a better chance of survival. The human ear changes sound waves (ear drum) to mechanical energy (small, perfectly "designed" bones) to electrical entergy (cochlea), that is then transfered to the brain. How did such a complex combination of mechanisms that change sound waves to mechanical energy to electrical impulses happen randomly? If creatures had no ear drum, but the ear bones and a cochlea existed, there would be no hearing and they would still die. All three mechanisms had to develop simultaneously, and the chances of this happening randomly are so small that it would be difficult to calculate them. One quote I like is that you can run a tornado through a junk yard as many times as you like but you will never get a 747 (which is far less complex than a human being). Random actions, no matter how numerous, simply cannot create complex mechanisms.

What is most outrageous about the debate is that evolution theorists can simply yell "religion" and then everyone tunes design theory advocates out. The simple, scientific fact, is that evolution as an explanation for the CREATION of life is the theory that requires a leap of faith.

Let's have the discussion. But lets do it with an understanding of the science behind the theories. Name calling is a sign of a person who has nothing intelligent to add to the conversation.

Posted by Cogito, Sum at 1/7/09 10:10 a.m.

Ultimately, I suspect that what creationists really hate is the challenging of their authority. Or for those in power, or deriving economic advantage, the threat to that.

Perhaps “Macroevolution” questions can be researched here. I’ve posted my views on ID previously.

As for "intelligent design" or should I say cdesign proponentsists - (the intermediate "missing link" in the evolution of "creationists" to "design proponents" in Of Pandas and People) I find "intelligent design" poorly designed creationism, bad religion, and certainly not science.

ID is not a theory, it even fails as a valid hypothesis (it is neither testable nor falsifiable).

ID, no matter how it's dressed, is still creationism masquerading as science. It cannot divorce itself from its beginnings or its founders stated purposes, to wedge creationism into science, to have a renewal of science and culture that is simply religious dogma. Its precepts when examined impartially fail, both in the courtroom and the scientific arena. Irreducible complexity is a sham (see Dr. Kenneth Miller‘s article The Flagellum Unspun), or the expert testimony from the Dover trial, even Nova's "Judgment Day - ID on Trial".

As Judge Jones stated in Kitzmiller v Dover:

ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are:

(1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;

(2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and

(3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.

Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 64

Accordingly, the purported positive argument for ID does not satisfy the ground rules of science which require testable hypotheses based upon natural explanations. (3:101-03 (Miller)). ID is reliant upon forces acting outside of the natural world, forces that we cannot see, replicate, control or test, which have
produced changes in this world. While we take no position on whether such forces exist, they are simply not testable by scientific means and therefore cannot qualify as part of the scientific process or as a scientific theory.

Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 82
www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmil
ler_342.pdf

After all, how does intelligent design add to our understanding of the natural universe?

While challenging scientific precepts, within the realm of scientific processes, leads to a better understanding ultimately of the natural world, challenging scientific precepts in the public forum with scientifically rejected hypothesis smells of ulterior motive.

Ultimately intelligent design says it was done by supernatural agencies (and stops looking for causation).

That, by definition, is not science.

Posted by Stardreamer at 1/7/09 10:30 a.m.

I've never had a problem reconciling a creator and evolution. To me evolution IS the intelligent design, the method that God worked into his creation to bring about man. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God because science can only observe and measure this Universe and God by definition exists beyond that.

Intelligent design is a good as a philosophy but as science like creationism it is wrong and teaches our children a bad methodology. Even from a biblical philosphy point its not really a good theory as it assumes God is some back room hobbiest having to constantly tinker with his creation.

God isn't interested in the day to day maintaintence of developing the wings of a fly, he is interested in developing souls.

In the Bible we really only see God doing major manipulations of his creation in two places. The original creation, which from my viewpoint seems to fast forward through the entire big bang, universe formation to get he part God is really interested in, the creation of man. The second is the flood which seems to be a sort of partial reboot of the system after some inital disappointments. After that, all of God's interventions are not to the system itself but to manipulate an individual or group of individuals. Being highly localized and temporary such 'miracles' are almost impossible to document scientifically.

Posted by Radiofreeseattle at 1/7/09 10:43 a.m.

Cogito, Sum, here is your argument:

Anything "supernatural" is not science. Because intelligent design requires a design by something other than natural processes on this planet, it is "supernatural." Therefore, by your definition of "supernatural," intelligent design cannot be science. It truly is a nice little logic loop that you have created. But,

What if: this planet was seeded with life from a neighboring planet. Under your definition, you could not even consider this theory, and it would not be considered "science" because it is "supernatural" as you define the word.

All I can say is that the court, and you, apparently think that the earth is the center of the universe and that nothing exists outside of it. Assume that is true and no one can refute your argument.

Of course most scientists think that there is life beyond this planet (at least somewhere). It doesn't mean that space aliens are abducting us and conducting experiments. But, it does mean that out of the hundreds of billions of stars in the hundreds of billions of galaxies, it would be absurd to asusme that we are the only source of life and that everything else is a void. This is exactly what you assume.

You do not need to involve God to show intelligent design. You do need to be open to the concept that life outside of this planet may have seeded life on this planet. That would rationally and reasonably explain the sudden appearance of life on this planet.

Think of it this way: assume that there are two fields, one with wheat and one that is barren. But you can't see the one field from the other field. Over many years, wheat grows in the barren field. Which is the most likely explanation, that one field seeded the other field, or that wheat spontaneously created itself randomly from chemical compounds in the rocks? Under your definition of "supernatural," you cannot even ask this question because nothing exists outside of the barren field, and to even ask the question is religion and not science.

I firmly suspect that when we are finally able to explore space, all of our "origin" questions will be finally answered. In the meantime, remember: the earth is flat, we are the center of the universe, and there is nothing outside of earth, so don't even bother to look. Anyone who does look outside of the earth is either a religious nut or crazy. Oh, and by the way, at the edge of the known universe, "there be dragons," so don't even dare to look there.

Posted by Cogito, Sum at 1/7/09 11:00 a.m.

I. What if: this planet was seeded with life from a neighboring planet...
---------------

a) How would that not be “natural” (of the natural universe)?
b) How does that negate evolution or Mr. Darwin’s and all subsequent observations?

***********

II. “Cogito, Sum, here is your argument … All I can say is that the court, and you, apparently think that the earth is the center of the universe and that nothing exists outside of it."
--------------------------

Please point out any such statement made.

Posted by 2Pi at 1/7/09 11:03 a.m.

ID is obviously a religious theory. Who exactly is the "intelligent designer"? Gee, I wonder...

ID is a perfectly good topic for a religion or philosophy course. It has no business being taught alongside evolution in a science course.

Posted by Radiofreeseattle at 1/7/09 11:04 a.m.

Cogito, Sum:

So, you concede that life on this planet may have been seeded from elsewhere in the universe as a "natural" process?

Posted by remywokeup at 1/7/09 11:20 a.m.

As a Catholic, I've personally never seen a problem with teaching evolution in public schools. Clearly, people do not send their children to public school to learn theology. If your children come to you asking why the teacher says we evolved from apes, YOU should be prepared to provide an explanation for why you feel differently.

On the other hand, Intelligent Design is a theory that does not get proper representation in the media. There really does exist a great number of traits in the natural world that are hard to explain via natural selection. But I'm not going to argue that it HAS to be taught alongside evolution in public schools.

Posted by Iblisi at 1/7/09 11:47 a.m.

We are NOT born believing in a gawd myth. It is FORCED upon us @ an age when we are the most vunerable, and least able to offer our opinion as to if we want it forced upon us or not.

Given the FACT, that our persona is like a blank chalkboard, religion fails to prove itself is a FACT. No emperical evidence is offered. No physical evidence, no birth chamber of Christ, & no written documentation from the Roman time frame to back up any assertion that gawd or Jebus Christ ever existed.....(by the way, Romans were EXCELLENT record keepers). Only vague references written by Bronze Age Savages who lived in tents.

No, we are told to believe fables and stories from the Hebrews and Christians of 2000 years ago, that only THEIR belief is the true belief. Then they threaten us non-believers, who refuse to buy into these non-proveable stories, with eternal damntion if we question their myth. Isnt that a form of TERRORISM? Believe like I do or burn in hell forever??

Sorry, but Homey dont play that....

Posted by Cogito, Sum at 1/7/09 11:48 a.m.

“… I'm not going to argue it (ID) HAS to be taught alongside evolution in public schools.”
--------------

Referencing my previous post #650987. The issue is that ID is NOT science - it doesn’t belong in any science curriculum.

ID is not a theory, it even fails as a valid hypothesis (it is neither testable nor falsifiable).

Posted by facts&data at 1/7/09 11:53 a.m.

I was taught that science is the study of nature in the quest to understand how the universe works. In this process we might come across a few answers as to why these things work.

I was also taught that engineering is the industrial application of what we learn through science. As generations learn more, and build on the work of previous generations, we can engineer such things as gene splicing, heart defibrilators, DVD players, communication satellites, the internet, Mars rovers and even things we may ultimately reject (hopefully), such as genetically altered foods and fossil fueled vehicles.

Science produces theories which do a good job of explaining the HOW, but not necessarily always the WHY.

Faith, on the other hand, starts with the answer and goes no further. However, those who have faith in creationism can rest easy. Ultimately science will find the answer as to WHY we are here, and creationists just may be happy with the answer.

But until then, unless we want to become a country left in the technological,industrial, academic and economic dust, we better leave Intelligent Design out of our school systems.

Posted by polarbear23503 at 1/7/09 11:54 a.m.

ID is not really a theory...it is a proven fact. Dogs are the result of breeding by man. WOW! what a concept. Somebody actually "designed" dogs from wolves.
Hmmm, sounds like ID to me. And the point here is if WE can do it whats to say that somebody else, by whatever name you want to call him, couldn't do the same? I can't prove that but cats, dogs, many types of plants are ALL the results of ID so it sounds like ID stands.

By the way...ID is also proof that evolution works too because ID uses evolution to achieve its results.
Religion need not enter ito this because although I can't "prove" a God exists....you can't "prove" he doesn't. So, lets just let the facts speak for thenselves.

Posted by TravisB at 1/7/09 11:59 a.m.

"Evolution still hasn't explained where the origin of life came from."

Unlike Intelligent Design, natural selection is not a theory that seeks to explain "where the origin of life came from". Natural selection is a very well supported, very well tested, and very well documented scientific theory that seeks to explain how the complexity and variation of living organisms came about and how organisms change over geological time.

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. It posits an invisible sky ghost as the "Intelligent Designer" responsible for "designing" the variation and complexity of living organisms, and for bringing life into being in the first place. Intelligent Design does not propose life being "seeded" from another planet. Intelligent Design proposes life being designed from the ground up by a Supernatural Intelligent Being.

Science does not have much good evidence to explain "where the origin of life came from". The likely origins of life are so buried in the geological past that there is unlikely to be any surviving evidence of those origins. And while natural selection may provide some hints of how those origins might have come about, natural selection does not preclude extraordinary or supernatural sources for the origin of life.
But then again, neither do the theory of general relativity or the theory of electromagnetism.

In science, the lack of evidence to reject a theory is not taken as support for that theory.

We don't have any good scientific reasons to teach Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. And if ultimately the reasons we do offer to teach it are religious in origin, then we should not teach it in public schools outside of comparative religious studies.

Posted by Cogito, Sum at 1/7/09 12:30 p.m.

Well said TravisB.

Unfortunately we communicate in language, and language can be manipulated or multiple meanings confused.

Posted by markit8 at 1/7/09 12:30 p.m.

Intelligent Design?
are you kidding me?
People are still trying to jam that down kids' throats?

Simpletons

Posted by proudtobealiberal at 1/7/09 12:39 p.m.

"Creationism" -vs- "intelligent design".

It's a distinction without a difference.

Fact -vs- faith.

It's all the difference in the world.

"A believer without organized religion is like a fish without a bicycle".

Posted by SeaDuck79 at 1/7/09 12:52 p.m.

Iblisi, the Bible is the most well-preserved document in history. There are more original manuscripts against which to verify the copies of today than of any other book ever written. Between the myriad eyewitness testimonies, the physical evidence supporting the accounts, and the painstaking level of care taken to preserve the integrity of the documentation of all of those things, most of what the Bible says happened could be proven by the standard of a court of law. Archaeologists used to use it to find places, and pretty much every story of something happening in an ancient city has been proven to have happened.

This includes the miracles, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. After his death, Roman soldiers, who knew that deserting their posts meant their own deaths, did so anyway at Jesus' tomb. After his ressurrection, He presented himself physically to hundreds of people on multiple occasions, and even the Romans knew it to be true, not that they really cared.

That's the highest standard that can be enforced on a historical occurrence, since there is no way to empirically prove everything by interviewing living witnesses, etc. I am considered to be a fairly smart person, and I know many other believers who are as well, and God has proven Himself to be real to us - it's not a matter of faith. No one's forcing you to accept anything you don't want to, though.

And since the other stuff has been "proven" true, I can believe with some confidence that creation is true as well. Not necessarily the 6000 literal years/6 literal days timeline, but the general concept.

Micro-evolution definitely exists - that's provable. Macro-evolution - sorry, that's just a theory with lots of holes in it. Like why would organisms make themselves MORE complex, when nature tends toward becoming more simple and efficient? Why would asexual beings become sexual ones, and how did the male and female genitalia develop (in any species) both simultaneously and complementary to one another? Anyone?

Posted by Radi at 1/7/09 12:54 p.m.

I haven't had time to read fully through the comments, but let me respond to YepYepYep #650927 Posted at 1/7/09 9:33 a.m.

"It takes just as much "faith", as the author puts it, to believe wholeheartedly in Darwinism/Evolution than it does in ID. Evolution still hasn't explained where the origin of life came from. "

YepYepYep, let me enlighten you on two things -
1. Evolution is a scientific theory absolutely perfectly supported by the available evidence. It does not require "faith".

2. Evolution does not define HOW LIFE ORIGINATED - it explains WHAT HAPPENED AFTER LIFE ORIGINATED. Get the difference?

For some reading material, I suggest the absolutely fascinating book "The Ancestor's Tale" by Richard Dawkins. If you are not up to reading that much, it is simple enough to Google up a long list of links that will give you ACCURATE information about evolution - not the crap put out by creationists (by the way, ID supporters also fall into this category).

Posted by jem1 at 1/7/09 1:05 p.m.

There is no god. God was created by Man in Man's image. Nature operates with the only intelligent design found in the Universe. Man is the ultimate parasite on the Blue Marble twisting all functions into serving Man's wishes. When Man has sufficiently threatened the existence of Nature, she will eradicate it like any other parasite. No god will save it.

Posted by spaceagepolymer at 1/7/09 1:10 p.m.

Radiofreeseattle
"Some intelligent design advocates are religious. Most are not. It is offensive and wrong to tar an argument by these guilt by association tactics."

Hu?

Wikipedia is a pretty good place to begin learning about this:

"The term "intelligent design" came into use after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that to require the teaching of "creation science" alongside evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state aid to religion. In the Edwards case, the Supreme Court had also held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."

"ID" was created by religious people who wished to continue pushing their flat-world agenda on our kids in schools. If they weren't religious, why would they bother? Simply put, they've exploited a loophole in the court's decision to further their weird cause.

Posted by Radi at 1/7/09 1:12 p.m.

And oh, by the way, this is directed at the author of this piece - Mark Steel.

Mr. Steel, you said: The founders of intelligent design are nearly all creationists, and one of their books, "Of Pandas and People," is identical to a book used by creationists. Except that, after a ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court that creationism couldn't be taught in schools, the word "creationist" was deleted throughout, and replaced with "intelligent design."

Did you know what tipped off the judge in the Kitzmiller case that ID inept and corrupt team of lawyers (I believe it was the ACLJ) actually provided previous versions of the book "Of Pandas and People" to the court where they had blindly and incorrectly replaced the word "creationists". They probably intended to say "Design Proponents" but instead got "cDesign Proponentists". They underlined the lies and incompetence behind their position - they couldn't even correctly replace one term with another before they handed over the documents in the court to be entered in evidence. HAH!

And everyone who doubts that ID = Creationism in this comment thread - this is not a case of "tar an argument by these guilt by association tactics" as Radiofreeseattle at 1/7/09 9:55 a.m (#650963). It is just fact. If you question someone who defends ID (mostly people who belong to the Discovery Institute, which is headquartered in Seattle, to my chagrin), soon enough you'll get to their definition of the "designer" - inevitably they work down to "God did it". Again, HAH!

Posted by Radi at 1/7/09 1:22 p.m.

Oh, and in my comment above (#651189), I should point out that the team of lawyers representing the ID side in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case was from the ACLJ - another creationist tactic to use an acronym that is very close to an actual and well-known social institution that actually helps people and fights any unconstitutional tactics by government agencies. In this case, the organization they want people to confuse with is the ACLU.

Posted by mtOlympus at 1/7/09 2:01 p.m.

--
Posted by SeaDuck79 at 1/7/09 8:53 a.m.
.........
" Unless he's talking about the laws based on the Ten Commandments (not stealing, murdering, etc.). How dare we force people to not do those things!

What a condescending, haughty, fop Mr. Steel is to think that only those who agree with him have a brain! Believing that is the first sign that the one without the brain is the one staring back at one in the mirror.

There is plenty of evidence supporting the Bible. I wouldn't "believe" if there weren't. Many other intelligent people agree. And some don't. In neither case was the decision forced on them. Thankfully, Mr. Steel's writing isn't, either."
*************************************************

Hey SeaDuck79, speaking of "the mirror" ... do you "believe" this?:
---
---
(King James Version)
Numbers 15
.......
32And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.

33And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.

34And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.

35And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

36And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

37And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
............

40That ye may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God.

41I am the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am the LORD your God.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=20&version=9

Posted by summer_merc at 1/7/09 2:04 p.m.

"Posted by YepYepYep at 1/7/09 9:33 a.m.

It takes just as much "faith", as the author puts it, to believe wholeheartedly in Darwinism/Evolution than it does in ID."

No, it doens't. Faith is a belief in something with the absence of evidence.

The theory of evolution is supported by mountains of independently verified facts, which build into evidence.

It's called Science. It's what gives you medical advances, computers, your iPod and your shiny car. It has extended your life, raised your standard of living, fed more people, healed more people, and sent us to other worlds. It's reality. It's the stuff of the universe. It's *real* as human beings can perceive.

" Evolution still hasn't explained where the origin of life came from."

It may not have, but the mountain of evidence strongly suggests the answer.

That, my friend, is what Science is about. Learn about it a little more and you may see the folly and narrow mindedness of your argument.

Really, there is no crime in ignorance, just the willful continuing of same. The penalty? Only you pay it.

For more reading on the subject of science, I suggest reading "The Demon Haunted World -- Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan -- Scientist.

Posted by mtOlympus at 1/7/09 2:05 p.m.

--
Posted by SeaDuck79 at 1/7/09 12:52 p.m.

"Iblisi, the Bible is the most well-preserved document in history.

**************************************

The Bible is actually a SELECTION from many - many books a few centuries after Jesus is supposed to have lived!

Posted by mtOlympus at 1/7/09 2:22 p.m.

--
--
Posted by SeaDuck79 at 1/7/09 12:52 p.m.

"Iblisi, the Bible is the most well-preserved document in history."

**************************************

Not only has
"the most well-preserved document in history" been revised (modified)
a number of times but it also contains the four SELECTED Gospels that give a NOT identical account of the same story!

Posted by sahulsizer at 1/7/09 3:51 p.m.

ID = mosquitos, malaria, cholera, HIV, war between religious groups claiming power and righteousness from the same "god", nuclear weapons, republicans, President Bush.

Posted by cbmro at 1/7/09 4:04 p.m.

It is very easy to believe in both a "creator" and evolution. The creator designed evolution as the mechanism of the survival and advancement of its creations.