"We Jews... tend to get a bit crazed when The First Amendment is under attack; and Intelligent Design is just another attack on it."

Intelligent Jews don't attack intelligent design.

Only crazed Jews do that.

And Intelligent Design has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

Intelligent Jews want to learn more about any theory.

here we go again. i have no problem learning about intelligent design, except it isnt a theory.

it is a rather simplistic philosophy that explains evrything to an invisible and undetectable "designer"

the cause of everything cant be tested so there is no theory and certainly no basis to discuss it in science class.

Why don't elephants spew venom and why don't cobras have trunks?

Answer that billy, and I'll ask several hundred million more questions.

I'm sure you can answer each one of them.

"evolution" doesn't begin to answer these questions.

Evolution doesn't begin to answer these questions?

If that's that case neither does intelligent design. Why? Because there is absolutely not one single ounce of credibal research to back up intelligent design. Just the bible.

And I'm confused, in the Bible there are actually two stories on how this world came about, which one is true? Answer me that and I'll let you teach intelligent design in public schools!

Evolution doesn't begin to answer these questions?

"If that's that case neither does intelligent design"

Good. We are making progress.

But Intelligent Design doesn't rely on the Bible.

Why do opponents of ID have to rely on kicking the Bible around to avoid addressing intelligent questions?

Intelligent questions? What exactly is an intelligent question? Is it "no question is a dumb question" or is it "how many quarters make up a dollar?"

And in case anyone is wondering why an elephant has a trunk and why shakes have venom really should pick up a science book instead of copping out and saying I don't have to learn this stuff because it was all made by God.

One last question, if you believe in intelligent design than you would have to believe in martians, right?

Stop making excuses and learn something!

Because Intelligent Design states that something "out there" made us with a purpose. So God is a martian, right?

But that would contradict what you believe and that is that human life is the only life in the universe.

Answer that billy, and I'll ask several hundred million more questions.


how would you asking me absurd questions detached from reality, raise id to the level of a theory?

let me simply state that if Intelligent Design could be quantified and studied as evolution has been, I might think it acceptable to teach in public schools.


But it hasn't been, and so I can't accept it.

Thought about the crazed Jew remark and I have to thank Abe. I come from a long line of crazed Jews.

Yes intelligent Jews want to learn any theory that has substance; any intelligent person does of any race, ethnic and and/or religious group.

I was stating that William Safire and I tend not to agree on most issues, but usually do on First Amendment issues, and Intelligent Design is a First Amendment issue. I wouldn't want any kid I know to be taught it as equal to Evolution, or even less than.

Let me repeat this because I have learned to: William Safire (once Nixon's numero uno speech writer) and I tend not to agree on issues other than First Amendment ones.

Intelligent Design is most certainly a First Amendment issue

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Intelligent Design is most certainly a First Amendment issue.

How so?

Comment 8 posted by pia savage

"let me simply state that if Intelligent Design could be quantified and studied as evolution has been, I might think it acceptable to teach in public schools."

Evoluton is being questioned by Intelligent Design.

And with sufficient cause.

Why is it being turned into something else?

"Intelligent design" is theology, not science.

Intelligent Design is questioning the "theory" of evolution.

If you have no questions -- you are being satisfied by a "theory" full of holes.

You can't see the holes -- but many can.

Gaps in science require more science to fill them. Not theology dishonestly masquerading as science.

What theology?

Why don't elephants spew venom and why don't cobras have trunks?

This is not theology.

"evolution" doesn't begin to answer these questions.

Every question you pose has one answer: "God made it that way." Clearly, ABE, this is the only reason you believe "intelligent design" has something more to say on the matter than evolutionary biology does.

This makes all of your questions theological questions, not scientific questions.

Intelligent design is a perfectly adequate subject for theology students to learn. It has no place in any biology class.

Intelligent design is a way to allow students to question the current "theory" in a biology class.

What you appear to fear is students understanding the holes in what is presently being taught.

No one is suggesting that we that teach "God made it that way."

You fear students learning to think for themselves, without turning to the self-appointed authority of a religious leader to learn the answers to every perplexing question.

If you put "intelligent design" into biology classes, "God made it that way" is exactly what you are teaching the students. The phrase has no other meaningful interpretation.

Science is a method for investigating the universe without the theological disputes which have always muddied the inquiry into reality in the past.

You are connecting points that have not been made here,

I can see why you are content with the current "theory."

Hmm. What have I overlooked? Perhaps you really believe the "intelligent designer" behind the current state of affairs in the universe wasn't God after all, but was actually Cooter from the old television series The Dukes of Hazzard.

Actually that might explain a lot. Who else but Crazy Cooter could come up with the platypus and call it an intelligent design?

No, your claim that "intelligent design" has nothing to do with theology is far more of a strain to any credibility you might have had than any of the so-called holes you imagine you have found in the science of evolutionary biology.

the·ol·o·gy

"the study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions. A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary
A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions"
___

No one is proposing that biology include "the study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions" or any of the rest of "theology".

Intelligent Design is "the study of the nature of evolution and scientific findings; rational inquiry into questions dealing with the holes and gaps in the "theory" of evolution.

Oooh, argument by dictionary definition. Sign of the amateur debater every time.

Tell us, ABE, what are your answers to these questions you have posed about cobra trunks and elephant venom?

Surely your scientific analysis must have come up with something really good by now, being so intelligent and everything.

I resort to the dictionary only when it is necessary to educate someone.

Oh! I am slain by your rapier wit! You want to educate me, why don't you answer my question about who the Intelligent Designer really is, if you want us to believe it's not God you're talking about here?

Or answer your own questions about why cobras and elephants are the way they are. Share your vast scientific knowledge with us.

Go ahead. Educate us.

That is what I have been trying to do without success.

Prove it. Answer the questions.

I raised questions which should be addressed.

If I had the answers I would not raise the questions.

Get it?

So, you've got nothing. Got it. Way to educate.

I believe in GOD: Good Old Darwinism. I also believe in the Laws of Nature. Does that make me religious? Or intelligent?

I'm not sure what to believe from the Bible. Too much multiple choice:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

If I were a believer, I'd pray ta God that we could be done with this Intelligent Design bullshit.

It doesn't even deserve to be debated.

Gotta run! (I'm working on my next record-setting Blogcritics essay, "The Top 100 Guitarists Ponder Intelligent Design at Work in the Propaganda of Cindy Sheehan -- Who Once Considered an Abortion Beformed by a Gay Married Couple")

Victor Plenty comment 18"turning to the self-appointed authority of a religious leader to learn the answers to every perplexing question."

turning to the self-appointed authority of a scientist to learn the answers to every perplexing question.

Do you want to discuss the philosophy of Authority versus Empericism? In order for an individual to "scientifically" know something, that individual must personally both obtain the primary data and process it into a reasonable conclusion for themselves. IF you just read science in a book, or take it from a teacher, you are doing the same thing intellectually as someone who reads religion in a Bible or takes it from a preacher. You are relying on Authority, not empirical science.

If you choose to make those who are empircial scientists your Authority, that is a valid decision. So is the decision to make traditions and texts which outdate your science by thousands of years an Authority equally valid. You can discuss the merits of the science and the merits of the religious traditions, but PLEASE don't act like one is superior to the other without discussing the details of why.

Bunny: "You can discuss the merits of the science and the merits of the religious traditions, but PLEASE don't act like one is superior to the other without discussing the details of why."

Next time a religious tradition comes up with some new technology or a testable hypothesis, give us a call.

PS Siwwy wabbit. Sematic tricks are for kids.

By the way Victor Plenty, I am not going to deny that many many people on the side of Intelligent Design ARE Creationists who are trying to bend the rules by changing the words. However, TRUE Intellegent Design theorists postulate that "intelligence" is present in the universe, to some degree or another, and shaped both the laws of physics, to some degree or another, and the process of life - be it evolution or otherwise - to some degree or another.

That is it. The concept of a "who" surrounding the "intelligence" would be a matter for religious debate. But that is not the concern of the science of Intelligent Design. The conern for Intelligent Design is the "evidence" of the "intelligence". Hell, it could be 482,234,323,232 Intelligences as far as anyone knows. Or none.

Intelligence in the universe could be as simple and impersonal as gravity. Or it could be as personal as "God". Or something in between. Or not there at all. But from a scientific approach, there is NO reason to not have the debate, and not seek for evidence. Galileo once had a hypothesis that was disregarded as lunacy, too.

Bunny: "...Do you want to discuss the philosophy of Authority versus Empericism [sic]?"

Um, not with you.

Now go back to your cage and do what evolution intended: breed more silly wabbits.

Hey Shark, we didn't need scientists for Thou shall not kill.

I'm surprised that someone with your view of species would want me to breed...

Bunny: "Intelligence in the universe could be as simple and impersonal as gravity."

Kinda bending the definition of "Intelligence", ain't cha?

Bunny, the big challenge appears to be finding some evidence of intelligence in your comments!

Bunny: "Hey Shark, we didn't need scientists for Thou shall not kill."

...Which -- as we all know -- is an immutable scientific law.

...except in the hands of Pat Roberson!

by impersonal, Shark, I was referring to the religious impulse to attach emotional motives, such as love and hate, to some personal "god" entity. The presence of design reflects the presence of intelligence (possibly). But the presence of intelligence does not in anyway suggest the presence of personality. Or in your case, the presence of a comment does not suggest the presence either intelligence or personality.

Thou shall not kill is not an immutable scientific law. If it were, then science would be in a lot of trouble.

Like Pat Roberson

Bunny, I'm guessing that the I.D. movement is cringing at the fact that you're on "their side".

You're really not a worthy opponent -- and the fact that you exist brings into question BOTH intelligent design AND evolution.

Shark, I think you've really gotten off the argument here. What I saw in this thread was an attempt to deny access to Intelligent Design. All I am arguing is that such an attempt is legally without grounds since the actual theory of Intelligent Design is not a religious theory at all. Various religions could adopt the theory, but even some Christians have adopted Evolution since Darwin proposed it. So the idea that Intelligent Design is a violation of the First Ammendment is an insult to both our Constitution and to science.

I'm not sure that my individual usefulness to the continuation of the species has anything to do with the discussion.

By the way Shark, I don't know where you were educated in the area of debate, but calling your opponent unworthy is not a valid debate point...

Well, have a good and blessed day. I am off to CHURCH to WORSHIP my GOD, in whom I place my hopefully everlasting faith and trust. May God bless you, and give you an ounce more of that impersonal intelligence...

My post showed that Intelligent Design has not been able to be tested; the only people who seemed to able to postulate in any way were the people from the Discovery Institute.

If you can only test something on faith, it's not testable.

Abe if people were suggesting that ID be taught as theology I would be fine with that. But they're not; they're suggesting that it is an alternative to Evolution.

While there may be "holes" in evolution, ID can't be inserted to fix those holes. The world's not a neat place. Things don't happen just because we need answers to fix things.

Galileo lived in a very different time. To bring him up is to grasp at straws.

If people want to test ID fine--but no public money should be used--because the tests are based on faith.

I participated in a research study that attempted to quantify emotions and feelings such as happiness. It could only be done by using concrete methods. Such as how a person felt on different days, weeks, and months and how others perceived their moods on those same days.

How can you possibly quantifiy faith? I'm open to suggestions. You can test a person's openness to faith; you can even test how "faith" has helped a person or many people. But you can't test "faith" itself; again let me know if you can figure that one out

The truth is no "true" ID theorist has used the rules of gravity in their hyothesis, questions or scales. I always thought the existance of God was the great mystery of life. If anybody can postultate a theory that finds empirical evidence that God exists--you'll win every award from the McCarthur to the Nobel Prize

It's nice to tell me that I'm not looking for holes, when anybody who reads my writing on a regular basis or who knows me knows that I look for holes in everything

Actually I do believe in the theory of Evolution. We're just beginning to be at a place where we can understand more through new scientific methods; but this will get lost because our president supports Intelligent Design.

You know I can almost take everything else, but when the government supports a theory that can only be postulated on faith, then I have a very good reason to question our government

Keep on going back to William Safire because we disagree on so many things. But we agree on this issue.

Why? To repeat myself: ID is a First Amendment issue, therefore it could possibly affect every school kid.

I can easily see a new clause to the No Kid Left Behind Act: in order to get to the good stuff; ID must be taught as an alternative to Evolution or even as "fixing the holes."

This belongs in the same category as Frist (I believe, sometimes get him confused with Dobson) talking about Santa Clause teaching kids the difference between right and wrong, and without Santa Clause they wouldn't know.

Abe this is the state of affairs in the USA today. It's implying and inferring that kids who never believed in Santa Clause can't know the difference between right or wrong.

Of course we know that kids who were taught the Torah, or who never had any religious training know right and wrong, perhaps better.

Since Santa Clause isn't a religious symbol but symbol of abundance, Frist's argument has really big holes.

Why did I bring that up in an argument about ID? Because it's all tied together

The Christian Religious Right and our government wants everything tied in one easily to digest package.

And anybody who suggests that ID should be taught is falling into that trap.

Keep on coming back to Abe as he said that "intelligent Jews want to understand everything," or something to that affect.

Yes I do, but for the last time--when something is postulated as a theory, and then can't be tested because it's based on faith; it's not an acceptable theory to be taught in public schools or to be tested with using public dollars. But as my post showed it can't be tested so it should be a non issue

And a president is not supposed to influence a country with his religious beliefs. Jimmy Carter didn't; nor did Kennedy.

Religion and government don't mix. Simple

The ancestry of sharks dates back more than 200 million years before the earliest known dinosaur. The dinosaurs are long gone now.

Because the rate of evolutionary change in sharks is very slow and gradual, it can be very difficult to determine where one species stops and another begins. There is no evidence of sudden jumps in form in the shark fossil record. Without sharp discontinuities, boundaries between named species are often made rather arbitrarily along a continuum of variation. Thus distinctions among some fossil sharks may best be considered forms within an evolving lineage rather than biologically discrete species.

Someone forgot to tell sharks how to evolve.

ABE: "Someone forgot to tell sharks how to evolve."

We reached perfection early on -- and there's no place left to go.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -- The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Not one person has explained how Intelligent Design--a theory based on faith falls within The First Amendment.
Bunny I see you insulting me and every person who doesn't fit your belief system but I don't see you giving a good answer. How am I insulting both the Constitution and science when ID has been shown not to be a scientific theory?

Yes some Christian denominations believe in Evolution--which has been tested many many times. ID can't be tested, and science can't be based on faith. Feel like a broken record, but...

However Shark, I'm not big on insulting people's intelligence. People are entitled to opinions even when they flaunt scientific knowledge

Abe, you implied in your first comment that you're open to people's ideas and theories. By resorting to this last comment you're clearly not open to anything that you don't believe in.

If somebody could show me how ID is a true scientific theory and should be taught with tax dollars, or researched with tax dollars I'm all ears.

Let me add one question. Why should government dollars go to ID but not to stem cell research?

Evolution within species is obvious; small horses changed into large horses, I am taller than my father, who was taller than his father. However, the link between species is not obvious and is certainly not "proven". Yet, there are some who want to make this connection with very little evidence. They rely solely on their "faith" in their theory.

Natural selection only works when the genetic information is available and tends only to keep a species stable.

There is no explanation for the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true.

Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?

How can mutations -- recombining of the genetic code -- create any new and improved varieties?

Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.

Intelligent Design explores the "when, where, why, and how of science, attempting to address such questions, and many others.

Why are "thinking people" opposed to addressing unanswered questions?

Distrust of "religion" is not an adequate answer.

I am including a link to an article in today's New York Times.

"PRESIDENT BUSH, announcing this month that he was in favor of teaching about "intelligent design" in the schools, said, "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought." A couple of weeks later, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, made the same point. Teaching both intelligent design and evolution "doesn't force any particular theory on anyone," Mr. Frist said. "I think in a pluralistic society that is the fairest way to go about education and training people for the future."
"With evolution, however, it is different. The fundamental scientific idea of evolution by natural selection is not just mind-boggling; natural selection, by executing God's traditional task of designing and creating all creatures great and small, also seems to deny one of the best reasons we have for believing in God. So there is plenty of motivation for resisting the assurances of the biologists. Nobody is immune to wishful thinking. It takes scientific discipline to protTake the development of the eye, which has been one of the favorite challenges of creationists. How on earth, they ask, could that engineering marvel be produced by a series of small, unplanned steps? Only an intelligent designer could have created such a brilliant arrangement of a shape-shifting lens, an aperture-adjusting iris, a light-sensitive image surface of exquisite sensitivity, all housed in a sphere that can shift its aim in a hundredth of a second and send megabytes of information to the visual cortex every second for years on end.

ect ourselves from our own credulity, but we've also found ingenious ways to fool ourselves and others. Some of the methods used to exploit these urges are easy to analyze; others take a little more unpacking."
But as we learn more and more about the history of the genes involved, and how they work - all the way back to their predecessor genes in the sightless bacteria from which multicelled animals evolved more than a half-billion years ago - we can begin to tell the story of how photosensitive spots gradually turned into light-sensitive craters that could detect the rough direction from which light came, and then gradually acquired their lenses, improving their information-gathering capacities all the while."

Please read it. Anybody can join the New York Times; articles remain free for a week. This is one of the more fascinating articles that I have read recently and one that I wish I had the ablilty to write.

My training is as a social science researcher not in the hard sciences. But all research adheres to several strict standards--with the biggest one being: Is it testable?

I'm sorry if this goes against your religious beliefs, or your thinking that every idea should be examined. Examining an idea and testing an idea are not the same. Examining belongs in philosphy or in a scattered debate (ie: any family dinner); testing belongs in the sciences

Therefore, while I personally might be entranced by the idea of ID, I can't support its examination being paid for by tax dollars, no matter how much Bush and Frist believe in it

Did the universe appear out of nowhere?
Was matter created out of nothing?
How did matter evolve from the initial electron?
Was gravity a gratuitous gift (because without it nothing would exist)?
Why did gravity not evolve?
Are there laws governing the universe?
How did laws governing the universe come about?
What is the source of energy in the universe?
How and why did life appear out of inert chemicals?
How and why did life begin to reproduce itself?

And on, and on, and on,...

If nothing exists, does creation have to occur?

Pia says, "Therefore, while I personally might be entranced by the idea of ID, I can't support its examination being paid for by tax dollars, no matter how much Bush and Frist believe in it"

Using animosity toward Bush and Frist to avoid these questions is shallow.

Pia: Shark, I'm not big on insulting people's intelligence."

Um, would you consider these insults?

ABE: Intelligent Jews don't attack intelligent design. Only crazed Jews do that.

ABE: Why are "thinking people" opposed to addressing unanswered questions?

ABE: You are connecting points that have not been made here.. I can see why you are content with the current "theory."

=======

You don't have to answer. Unlike abe, I only pose questions to which I already know the answers.

xxoo
Shark [magnificently evolved]

Pia says: "Examining belongs in philosphy or in a scattered debate (ie: any family dinner); testing belongs in the sciences".

But to EXAMINE is to carefully and critically inspect all the evidence -- not selecting which evidence just to support a position.

Evolutionists have taken a stand where they will not inspect all the evidence -- just that which supports their position

And to TEST is to develop comprehensive procedures to determine the truth of something.

Evolutionists do not have comprehensive tests proving their "theory". And they are unable to repeat something which happened long before recorded history.

All they can do is ASSUME what they want to believe.

Now that is true FAITH.

BTW, Pia, in Bunny, you're "debating" someone who got all huffy and stomped off saying, "Well, have a good and blessed day. [editor's note: a christianized "Fuck You] ...I am off to CHURCH to WORSHIP my GOD, in whom I place my hopefully everlasting faith and trust."

So mi pia ~ Good luck!

~ Have fun!

... and more patience that me.

abe: "Evolutionists have taken a stand where they will not inspect all the evidence..."

Abe, babe, seriously: you're insane -- and I mean that as a compliment!

Evidence comprises anything helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.

Ignoring ALL the evidence results in forming poor conclusions or judgments.

As the great BC critic Gonzo Marx has pointed out about a million times in the million other Blogcritics entries on "Intelligent Design" -- the Science Team gets to spin their wheels trying to teach a basic junior high school level of understanding of the word, function, goal, and processes of SCIENCE to the I.D. [Creationism] Team.

Whereas the I.D. [Creationism] Team is actually pushing a form of METAPHYSICS and EPISTIMOLOGY (I'm really bein' nice here) -- which are NOT considered "science" under any definition in any dictionary or any sane person's mind.

Dig?


Thanks for playing.

Now let's shut this futile fucker down.

Epistimology: the study of the nature of knowledge for folks who can't spell.

'How do you know so much about everything?' was asked of a wise and intelligent man; and the answer was -- "by never being afraid or ashamed to ask questions as to anything of which I was ignorant"

There is still hope for those who are ashamed to admit they do not know all there is to know about our existence and its source.

"We don't know one-millionth of one percent about anything."

-- Thomas Edison

Abe I agree with you. I don't want tax money or any money that might come from the government spent on it.

It is a religious answer or addendum to Evolution, and as such should not be financed by the government.

Pia:

I don't want tax money or any money that might come from the government spent on teaching kids a "theory" full of holes and gaps -- without presenting the gaps and holes.

My concern is not religious. Evolution as it is currently defined and taught is incomplete.

Based on many comments here, it seems that religion is the primary concern, not the completeness and veracity of a school subject.

Intelligent Design can be taught without mentioning religion.

Shark I answered Abe's insults in prior comments. I got it the first time thank you. Yes I understood Bunny's fuck you's.

Don't assume--you know that old chestnut--when you do...

As I have stated and stated, I am not against examining ID; as it is purely faith based, despite your arguments (Shark and Abe especially) it can't be studied as a science. The only studies on record are by The Discovery Center.

If it were a real possiblity wouldn't scientists be running to test it? Of course they would.

And I don't only ask questions that I know the answer to. Life would be very boring without learning new concepts.

So yes I want it studied. But I don't want it taught in public schools and I don't want government money used on studying it for the reason I have made clearer than clear.

Abe, let me quote from the New York Times article I linked to in a prior comment
"George Gilder,a long time affiliate of The Discovery Center has it is: 'Intelligent Design itself does not have any content.' Since there is not content, there is no controvesy" to teach about in biolgy class. But here is a good topic for a high school course on current events and politicsL Is Intelligent Design a hoax? And if so how was it perpetratuted?"

Intelligent Designers haven't produced one experiment that add to or challenge Evolution. It really should be a non-subject and I am suprised by the reaction.

Many people seem to have a very emotional, almost visceral reaction to ID. That's an observation.

Pia:

Amending what is currently taught to focus on the holes and gaps in "the theory of evolution", rather than dogmatically avoiding these issues, is what is needed.

Intelligent Design can be accommodated by presenting what we don't know -- and which we would have to know -- to accurately cover the subject.

For those who say that the "theory of evolution" is science...

Is a "theory" science?

No.

A rock suddenly appears on an asteroid.

(How -- we do not know).

There are no other rocks on the asteroid.

At a later time, another rock appears elsewhere on the asteroid.

The "theory of evolution" concludes that the first rock must have evolved into the second rock.

Is that science?

Is that theory suitable to be taught in schools?

Abe a good teacher will always try to teach kids to think critically. That includes learning about what we don't know in every subject, but especially science

One of the big things that science is about, is the thrill of discovery. Teachers try to impart that. But what is ID? How do you teach something without substance?

You teach kids that there are unknowns; you teach them that there are many variables.

Hopefully a good teacher will help kids understand that there are things beyond our knowledge now. That doesn't mean it won't be explainable sometime in the future. And it might not be explainable in the person's lifetime or his great great grandchildren's life time. But someday it will be able to be explained.

That's what I believe faith to be.

Abe did you read any of the links that I supplied?

Evolution has been tested over and over again. And has been proven as we learn new things. DNA for one very big example.

Let me again quote from the article in The Times because it's so well written and supports my ideas.

"Evolutionary biology certainly hsn't explained everything that perplexes biologiss. But Intelligent Design hasn't yet tried to explain anything."

I feel as if today has been a marathon Seinfeld episode. Much discussion about nothing

Pia:

You have more faith in what is being taught than I have.

Some teachers are not going to do what you expect, unless directed to do so.

Relying on good teachers is not going to impart the questions that are required.

How many teachers tell students that a 'theory" is not science.

Teaching that the "theory of evolution" has more deficiencies than fact, has substance.

Unless teachers have a curriculum including teaching that there are unknowns in the "theory of evolution" and unless teachers have a curriculum including teaching that there are many unanswered variables, it will not be done.

Pia -- you say: "Hopefully a good teacher will help kids understand that there are things beyond our knowledge now."

That requires more faith than I have in the school system

The known is finite, the unknown infinite; intellectually we stand on an island in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability. Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land.

-- T.H. Huxley

Intelligent Design is not a theory.
Is the Easter Bunny a theory?
Is Santa Clause a theory?
No , and neither is intelligent design.

To put a curriculum in public schools to which there is no way to do a empirical study or even begin to gather evidence it ridiculous.

Students can not have classes that question every other class or scientific theory. If brought up in a nurturing way and hopefully having learned critical thinking skills these students will question things on their own and in their own way.

We do not teach religion in public schools and we should not teach intelligent design in public schools. It would be a travesty to our system of public education to do so.

If you want to teach your children that there is some big intelligent designer in the sky you should be free to do so, at home, or at your church, or in your basement but leave the schools for real education or send your child to a privately funded school.

Intelligent Design is not in any peer-reviewed journals, because the evolutionists control those journals and know that if an intelligent design article does get published in a peer-reviewed jounal that it would be a watershed event. I thought it was liberals who hate blacklisting and censorship.

Yes all scientist are Liberal Evolutionists with total control over the journals.

If ID was testable, for the last time, it would be a watershed event and written about everywhere.

Even Liberal Evolutionists might like the idea of a divine touch being proven

Sharks have stopped evolving... they're not perfect.

This is documented and video exists.

Orca's will shred a shark (a Great White, off the Catalina Islands), bust them in half, snatch the liver out, eat it without breaking stride.

It takes about 1 second.

Biology should teach what is "known" -- not what is "theory".

And what is not known about the sources and progression of life -- far surpasses what is known.

We should teach what is known -- as well as what is not known, and not a "theory" that enables overlooking what is not known.

If "evolution theory" is to be taught -- let it be in a course on "Evolution theory and its Unknowns".

Abe
What's left to say? Most people, even kids, understand that there are gaps in our knowledge.

things that makes life wonderful: there will always be something new to discover
somethings may never be discovered throughout humankind.

Life's a mystery; then we die. There were certain deaths I couldn't accept until I understood that most things aren't certainties; and the world goes on anyway. Then I began to be able to accept my own mortality.

I say this all for a reason but I'll leave you to figure that out

Stephen Stills: 'I thought it was liberals who hate blacklisting and censorship."

Stills -- you also said, "If ya cain't be with the one you love, love the one yer with."

So EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS SUSPECT.

Pia:

"What's left to say?"

Let's spend more time ensuring that kids understand the gaps in our knowledge.

I believe many kids believe erroneously that the "theory of evolution" is the final word on the matter.

"Some things may never be discovered throughout humankind."

But let's be sure that we don't confuse what we have discovered with what we haven't discovered.

Shark that was the first thing that made me laugh in this whole thread, including me. I just couldn't write the comments funny. Thanks

Abe, you want to discuss the Scopes trial? That's in my realm and I can but won't comment on it.

Your last comments have been beautifully written but totally out of the realm of my post, and my many comments citing today's Times article, which I presented a link too, and is aptly called "Show me the science."

Pia, I can be funny, but you gots to get your mind right.

BTW: I admire your stamina on this dance floor, but question your choice of tune, steps, and partners.

PS: The NY Times article sorta said it all -- and if you were paying attention, SO DID I in comment #59.

There's nothing left to say after that. Seriously.

xxoo
S

I misused a "too," which means that I'm tired. My post is on how ID and The First Amendment don't mix. Everything I added, except for the overly poetic comment on how somethings might never be discovered, just backs my post up.

Abe what have you said that's meaningful to adding or taking from my argument? Don't see anything; just many clever comments.

Snake you're too clever for me. That's not a compliment; it's from a kids book.

You're right the Times article did say it all. There's nothing,absolutely nothing that can be taught about ID.

So where's the evidence?

"Contemporary biology has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt: that natural selection - the process in which reproducing entities must compete for finite resources and thereby engage in a tournament of blind trial and error from which improvements automatically emerge - has the POWER to generate breathtakingly ingenious designs."

New York Times -- 08/28/05
___

Interesting statement.

Where did the POWER come from?

The "law of the conservation of energy " precludes POWER coming out of nowhere.

Snake you know I read comment 58 rather than 50 which I had read before, and have been saying for about the past I don't know how many comments that this is an exercise in nothingness.

Really don't know,Abe, and really don't care right now.

Not going to get into energy flow or the laws of physics so why don't we leave it as one of the sweet mysteries of life that might or might not be fully explained one day

"First, imagine how easy it would be for a determined band of naysayers to shake the world's confidence in quantum physics - how weird it is! - or Einsteinian relativity.

New York Times -- 08/28/05
___

Comparing quantum physics - or Einsteinian relativity with the true solution to answering how any species came about is like comparing a mouse trap to a rocket ship.

Evolution of the eye:

Once upon a time... the eye developed in a miraculous way...

As reported by the New York Times -- 08/28/05

"As we learn more and more about the history of the genes involved, and how they work - all the way back to their predecessor genes in the sightless bacteria from which multi-celled animals evolved more than a half-billion years ago - WE CAN BEGIN TO TELL THE STORY [BELIEVE IT OR NOT] of how photosensitive spots gradually turned into light-sensitive craters that could detect the rough direction from which light came, and then gradually acquired their lenses, improving their information-gathering capacities all the while.

BEGIN TO TELL THE STORY? YES, AND IT IS QUITE A TALE.

"We can't yet say what all the details of this process were, but real eyes representative of all the intermediate stages can be found, dotted around the animal kingdom, and we have DETAILED COMPUTER MODELS to demonstrate that the creative process works just as the theory says."

DETAILED COMPUTER MODELS? GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT.

"All it takes is a RARE ACCIDENT [read MIRACLE] that gives one lucky animal a mutation that improves its vision over that of its siblings; if this helps it have more offspring than its rivals, this gives evolution an opportunity [ANOTHER MIRACLE] to raise the bar and ratchet up the design of the eye by one mindless step. And since these lucky improvements accumulate [MORE MIRACLES] - this was Darwin's insight - eyes can automatically get better and better and better, without any intelligent designer."

All it takes is MANY MIRACLES...

Now that is TRUE FAITH!

Abe
How many times did I quote from that article?

I purposely didn't quote that part because I linked to the article, and wanted people who cared to read that for themselves. Don't appreciate your editorializing in the quote--parantheses and all caps don't cut it.

Don't understand where you're going. Never once said I don't believe in faith. I said or maybe more precisely implied that it can't be quantified at this time therefore can't be studied at this time and shouldn't be taught in a science class. You said "theology" I agreed.

I said that we might not never formulate an answer for certain things during or after our lifetimes--that's taking things on faith to me.

Are you not satisfied until I say "miracles happen and should be taught along with the theory of Evolution," because that's bogus, and you yourself said belong in theology.

Good night

The "theory of evolution" is replete with "miracles".

Miracles are based on Faith.

When we teach the "theory of evolution" we are teaching a Faith.

Yet, few are willing to admit this truth.

That is what I find amazing!

"Evolutionary biology certainly hasn't explained everything that perplexes biologists:"

New York Times -- 08/28/05
___

Their "missing links" are right under their noses.

Each "evolutionary change" has "intelligence" in it.

Purely random changes would not have produced the ordered universe as we know it.

Intelligent Design pervades the entire universe.

I rest my case.

Nothing like wading into an argument that's already over, but I'll put in my 2 cents worth since I've taken the time to read all the comments here.

Abe says:

"Intelligent Design pervades the entire universe.

I rest my case"

How can you rest your case when you haven't even given your opening arguments? Pia has asked you - several times - to tell us what new facts "Intelligent Design" has provided. And you haven't given us one single example, not one.

Sure, there are some gaps in the fossil record. But rather than imploring us to work harder to close those gaps, "Intelligent Design"-ers would have us give up and accept that it was obviously all taken care of by a "higher power".

Gaps or not, the concept of evolution is so incredibly well supported by the evidence we do have, that it is accepted as fact by almost every person (scientist or not) who has bothered to look at that evidence.

Likewise, there is not a single shred of evidence that disproves evolution. [This is your cue, Abe - come on, let us have it!]

"Intelligent Design", on the other hand, lacks evidential support. And, one might argue, there is ample evidence to refute "Intelligent Design". Let's look close to home for one example: the human genome.

Abe - have you ever looked at the sequence of the human genome? No, I didn't think so. No-one who has ever studied the human genome (or the genome of any species, for that matter) in any detail has ever used the words "intelligent" or "design" to describe it. It's a bloody mess, I tell ya.

So, as Pia has eloquently pointed out, "Intelligent Design" has contributed absolutely nothing to our understanding of life, the universe, or anything. As soon as "Intelligent Design"-ers come up with some evidence for their theory, then - and only then - they can stake a claim to have it taught in schools.

Finally, Abe, I'm glad you quoted T. H. Huxley above (although I'm still perplexed as to why you chose the quote you did, because it supports our cause more than it does yours), because it was he who proclaimed, on finishing Darwin's "Origin of Species":

"How stupid of me not to have thought of that."

Thanks Greg
Don't know you but love you. Thanks for the eloquent remark. If nothing else I can say nothing at least 200 eloquent ways.

This was the single longest argument I had over nothing; actually it might have been the only one.

Kept on coming back to it, because I was perplexed and fascinated by somebody who raised no salient points, as I overly pointed out, that supported his arguments but bolstered mine.

Abe quoted the Times article to change the points raised to make it fit his opinion

Trouble was it didn't. And I had stated (ad nusueum) that there's a lot about life we don't know and might never know--but take on blind faith which is in its own way a miracle.

But since I never used the word "miracle" itself--I think--am not going to reread the comments now--he wouldn't agree.

The Huxley remark would have left me perplexed but I couldn't have cared less by then.

Intelligent Design doesn't pervade the universe; there are only things that we're not capable of understanding, yet, and might never be capable of understanding

When you bring faith and miracles into an argument, you bring The First Amendment into it. and we have way better uses for our tax dollars--like teaching kids to think critically and question everything

Then they might be able to afford to move to the Upper West Side of Manhattan, where I live and, argue about nothing, when the weather is horrible.

But we seem to want to raise a nation of sheep--no offense meant to Dolly.

I really can be a sarcastic bully--ask any one of a number of people who have come to my Bring it on! team political blog, but I prefer to play it nice when first on a site for various reasons best left unstated.

Abe's next question: "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

~ stay tuned

That was recently quantified by the Discovery Institute.

It will be their grand follow-up, but not appear in peer reviewed lit because only liberals can have their scientific discoveries peer reviewed

Greg:

"Nothing like wading into an argument that's already over...

Mistake #1. It's not over.

"How can you rest your case when you haven't even given your opening arguments? Pia has asked you - several times - to tell us what new facts "Intelligent Design" has provided."

There are no NEW facts, the facts have always been there.

"Sure, there are some gaps in the fossil record."

The gaps are filled with "intelligent design".

"But rather than imploring us to work harder to close those gaps, "Intelligent Design"-ers would have us give up and accept that it was obviously all taken care of by a "higher power".

Don't give up, just don't say you have the answer until you come up with a better "theory".

"Gaps or not, the concept of evolution is so incredibly well supported by the evidence we do have, that it is accepted as fact by almost every person (scientist or not) who has bothered to look at that evidence. "

"When everyone thinks alike, everyone is likely to be wrong."
-- Bernard Baruch

It's called "the herd mentality".

"Likewise, there is not a single shred of evidence that disproves evolution."

There is not a shred of evidence that the gaps and holes in the "theory" of evolution can be filled by "evolutionists".

"Intelligent Design", on the other hand, lacks evidential support."

The evidence is that there is more missing in the "evolution theory" than there is substance. A list of fossils do not a theory make. The fossil story does not hang together.

"Intelligent Design" is as valid a "theory" as "gaps and holes evolution theory". Evolution is not disputed as long as it is describing changes within a species.

Explaining away the "missing links" with glib excuses defies reason and logic.

"No-one who has ever studied the human genome (or the genome of any species, for that matter) in any detail has ever used the words "intelligent" or "design" to describe it. It's a bloody mess, I tell ya."

On the contrary, the human genome (or any other genome) illustrates both complexity and order, which are unlikely to have come about without "intelligence".

"So, as Pia has eloquently pointed out, "Intelligent Design" has contributed absolutely nothing to our understanding of life, the universe, or anything.'

Actually, "Intelligent Design" provides an answer to the holes and gaps in "evolution theory".

"As soon as "Intelligent Design"-ers come up with some evidence for their theory, then - and only then - they can stake a claim to have it taught in schools."

What is presently taught in schools is misleading kids into believing that "evolution theory" is more than it is. Introducing "Intelligent Design" into schools will help them consider each "theory" and enable them to draw their conclusions. Of course, this is what scares the hell out of "evolutionists".

"Finally, Abe, I'm glad you quoted T. H. Huxley above (although I'm still perplexed as to why you chose the quote you did, because it supports our cause more than it does yours), because it was he who proclaimed, on finishing Darwin's "Origin of Species": "How stupid of me not to have thought of that."

The Huxley quote was appropriate -- read it again . Like many quotes, it can be taken more than one way. But it would have been "stupid" for Huxley to have thought it.

Pia:

"Abe quoted the Times article to change the points raised to make it fit his opinion."

No, I introduced objections to the writer's opinions.

"...there's a lot about life we don't know and might never know--but take on blind faith which is in its own way a miracle."

Good point. "Evolutionists" take on "blind faith" that the holes and gaps in their comprehensive theory will be filled with what satisfies them.

That is really blind faith.

"But since I never used the word "miracle" itself--I think--am not going to reread the comments now--he wouldn't agree."

I would agree that re-reading the comments is worthwhile.

'Intelligent Design doesn't pervade the universe; there are only things that we're not capable of understanding, yet, and might never be capable of understanding.'

We are capable of understanding the universe better if we look past fossils and other decayed matter and use reason and logic. We will never find enough fossils and decayed matter to replace our ability to rationally conclude that the gaps and holes in "evolution theory" must lead to a conclusion other than the current simple-minded "theory of evolution".

"When you bring faith and miracles into an argument, you bring The First Amendment into it. and we have way better uses for our tax dollars--like teaching kids to think critically and question everything."

The faith and miracles being brought into the argument are what "evolutionists" are proposing. Since their gaps and holes have no real proof, their "theory" relies on "miracles".

"Then they might be able to afford to move to the Upper West Side of Manhattan, where I live and, argue about nothing, when the weather is horrible."

What leads Pia to think that some of us do not already live there?

"But we seem to want to raise a nation of sheep--no offense meant to Dolly."

The sheep belong to the "evolutionists". They are the ones who accept a "theory" full of gaps and holes.

Abe: for the last time
ID says what? Nothing. Quantify nothing all you want and you come up with nothing. I asked you many times for specifics on ID--all you have said is that it fills the gaps.

Evolution is testable, stood the test of time and has been expanded on; when I mentioned Dolly, the sheep; how was she made?

Yes there are gaps that will be filled or not.

Almost everything in life can be taken more than one way.

I'm giving you the Seinfeld Award. Enjoy it; it's rarely given and very secret.

Sort of like ID--the people who say they understand how it works and how it adds to our knowledge of the universe refuse to share that info.

Again thanks Greg. Shark feel free to say anything!

Pia:

You are right.

You have your fossils and decayed matter.

What I have is reason and logic.

You hang on to your bones and fossils.

I will hang onto reason and logic as well as your fossils and decayed matter.

Just realize that "miracles" fill the gaps and holes in the dreams of "evolutionists."

And realize that the same "miracles" fit both the "evolutionist theory" and "Intelligent Design."

There really is no difference except that "evolutionists" have an agenda and do not want to admit that the holes and gaps are "miracles" -- i.e. have imbedded "intelligence".

Abe really for the last time
Did I say you didn't live in the UWS? No I said "kids" as in school kids and that was clear

Hint: if you're questioning something in an article, let the people who are reading what you're writing in on it.It read as if you were inserting your own points. Editor's questions would be in bold with a frigging question mark.

I happened to love that article perhaps more because of your holding it up to ridicule or question, take your pick.

You're intent on being mysterious, wise and oh so much more intellectual than the rest of us.

You're not. Your so called reason and logic hasn't helped fill the gaps and holes

Don't like evolution. That's your right

Want ID to be taken seriously? You would have to come up with specifics, not the sound of one hand clapping.

Somebady asked me if you were a man or a woman. Good question as most men would have dropped this 40 or so comments ago

Usually only women, and yes I am, would have given you a forum where you were intent on not giving specifics.

this isn't a Talmudic study group, nor a theology class in any religion, nor a sociolgy or philosphy class

Abstractions don't belong in this argument

Pia:

I agree.

"Abstractions don't belong in this argument".

And "evolution theory" is an abstraction.

It is an abstraction because of the gaps and holes.

It takes "evolutionist imagination" to fill the gaps and holes.

"Intelligence" fills the gaps and holes.

Do you prefer to fill the holes with "imagination" or "intelligence"?

Based on everything else we know about the universe, reason and logic point to "intelligence".

Without the gaps and holes, "evolution" would be worthy of being called a "theory".

But it isn't even a "theory".

With its gaps and holes, it is an abstraction.

I think that ABE's comments on this post have done a great service in showing the shallowness and failure of ID to explain anything.

Intelligent Design is not a new issue it was the de facto theory before science even reared it's head. From the beginning of recorded history brilliant men of logic such as ABE have used ID to cover gaps in knowledge that was beyond their current level of understanding. At one time it was an intelligent "God" that rode the sun across the sky every day, then we discovered gravity. Time and time again what was once though of as an Intelligent creators display of power have been found to be nothing but the basic innerworkings of physics manifesting themselves in nature.

You have to admire their dogged determination (clearly displayed in this thread). Despite the fact that their "theory" has been batted around by great minds for thousands of years they have yet to come up with one single fact, proof, or shred of evidence to support their claim.

As time progresses we have an easier and easier time defending science as it fills in most of the large, obvious voids in our knowledge. Yesterday the question was "Why doesn't the sun fall to the earth by gravity?". Today it is "How exactly did the eye evolve?". Tomorrow it will be "How do you explain the quantum fluctuations in the middle of a seven dimensional Einsteinian vacuum?". Despite the controversy science will prosper and more gaps will be filled. The ABE's of the world will be relegated to the dustbin of history with only a small footnote marking their resistance to progress.

Thanks. I appreciate it, and that was the real reason I let it go on so long. At Bring it on! (my team political blog) I, uh, have conducted experiments sometimes without letting anybody on the team know until I have proven my point.

This point was simple: ID is not a science and therefore shouldn't be studied as one. I don't know how many times I stated that in comments.

People who believe in Evolution have nothing to prove as our knowledge will continue to grow--thanks for stating that so beautifully.

Abe can go on forever because ID isn't a science, has never been able to be tested etc etc etc.

This did become tiresome some time ago, and I very much appreciate your summary

RedTard:

"I think that ABE's comments on this post have done a great service in showing the shallowness and failure of ID to explain anything. "

That explains it all. Thanks,

"At one time it was an intelligent "God" that rode the sun across the sky every day..."

Actually, it was "imagination" that brought people to believe it.

"then we discovered gravity."

Now that fully explains how the gaps and holes in the "evolution abstraction" will be discovered, doesn't it?

"Time and time again what was once though of as an Intelligent creators display of power have been found to be nothing but the basic innerworkings of physics manifesting themselves in nature."

Does a passing comment on "the basic innerworkings of physics" shed any light on the "evolutionist abstraction".?

"You have to admire their dogged determination (clearly displayed in this thread).

Thank you. I take that as a compliment.

It took Thomas Edison 10,000 tries to find the right mixture of materials to develop the incandescent light bulb.

But I would like to believe that if Edison had used only his "imagination" and did not use his intelligence he would not have succeeded.

"Despite the fact that their "theory" has been batted around by great minds for thousands of years they have yet to come up with one single fact, proof, or shred of evidence to support their claim. "

The proof is there -- you can't see it. Gravity can't be seen. It takes reason and logic to perceive it. We don't just "imagine" gravity -- as "evolutionists" imagine their "abstraction".

"As time progresses we have an easier and easier time defending science as it fills in most of the large, obvious voids in our knowledge."

Relying on "as time progresses", to support the "evolutionist abstraction" is like relying on developing a crystal ball to locate the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

"Yesterday the question was "Why doesn't the sun fall to the earth by gravity?".

That was your question yesterday.

It wasn't relevant then, and it isn't now.

"Today it is "How exactly did the eye evolve?".

Yes.

"Tomorrow it will be "How do you explain the quantum fluctuations in the middle of a seven dimensional Einsteinian vacuum?".

Some are good at telling what will happen tomorrow. Do you have any insight into the stock market or lottery numbers?

"Despite the controversy science will prosper and more gaps will be filled."

That is a pithy conclusion.

"The ABE's of the world will be relegated to the dustbin of history with only a small footnote marking their resistance to progress."

Some are very, very good at telling the rest of us what will happen in the future.

Confucius say "man who use crystal ball -- end up eating broken glass".

Pia:

"ID is not a science and therefore shouldn't be studied as one."

Neither is "evolutionist theory" a science.

If you can't reproduce it and it has gaps and holes, it isn't science.

"Evolutionist beliefs" simply glue fragments of fossils and decayed matter with their imagination.

And what wonderful pictures they paint!

ID falls into the category of "theory" -- "evolutionist beliefs" fall into the category of "abstractions".

"People who believe in Evolution have nothing to prove as our knowledge will continue to grow..."

It is obvious that there has to be an answer to the GAPS AND HOLES in "evolutionist's' beliefs before it can be said that "people who believe in Evolution have nothing to prove".

"Abe can go on forever because ID isn't a science, has never been able to be tested etc etc etc."

If we are going to present facts to kids -- let's not hide the facts that "evolutionists" don't like to face.

ID falls into the category of "theory" -- "evolutionist beliefs" fall into the category of "abstractions".


what planet are you living on?

evolution has been science and tested and proved for the last 100 years. that is why it is taught in school.

id is mere fantasy, not provable, never provable, and has nothing ot do with evolution.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO BILLY

"ID falls into the category of "theory" -- "evolutionist beliefs" fall into the category of "abstractions". what planet are you living on? evolution has been science and tested and proved for the last 100 years. that is why it is taught in school. id is mere fantasy, not provable, never provable, and has nothing ot do with evolution."

That covers the issue.

Don't you wish.

"Some are very, very good at telling the rest of us what will happen in the future."

Yes, they're called scientists. They discover patterns like the seasons and forecast the weather. They discover the causes and practical solutions to things like disease. Thanks to scientists we have time to evacuate before a hurricane, we can immunize against disease, and purify our drinking water. If it were up to ID proponents we would still be crossing our fingers and sacrificing goats.

Abe I do have to thank you--have never had so many comments

However I agree with Billy that Evolution is not an abstraction, and would like to ask you exactly what you are trying to say

I can quote from Chinese fortune cookies also; I can quote and paraphrase Einstein. I can also tell you about bloggers who believe that Einstein was "subpar" because he couldn't learn to tie his shoelaces properly or something.

The point is that you and I have very different takes on this. While I might personally believe that all of life is a miracle, I don't want kids believing in Santa Clause because Pat Robertson thinks that they won't be able to tell right from wrong if they don't have him to believe in.

The radical Christian Right funds the Discovery Institute; I don't want them becoming mainstream and our tax dollars going to fund them

I don't want kids I know who attend public school to learn radical Christian right dogma, and letting ID in the door is a first step whether or not you see it as a religious issue.

Separation of Church and State is a fundamental right, and The First Amendment is first for a reason.

I wrote this post in part because I had taken the summer off from Bring it on! and wanted to remind myself about the very real threats to our Constitution.

Very selfishly I don't want the USA going from a country where most people are Christian to becoming a legally Christian country

So argue in the abstract all you want about ID, but how do you feel about having The First Amendment watered down?

RedTard:

"Some are very, very good at telling the rest of us what will happen in the future." Yes, they're called scientists."

But scientists -- who put their pants on one leg at a time like the rest of us -- cannot predict that some random event like a lottery number will occur.

And they cannot predict what the stock market will do tomorrow -- although it is almost certain that it will either go up or down.

Most scientific breakthroughs are obtained by trial and error.

How do you propose using trial and error to prove your "evolutionist abstraction".

Please let the world know.

Don't confuse predicting such things as the weather, which relies on simple day-to-day historical data -- with predicting an event such as finding the "missing links" to prove your "evolutionist theory".

"evolutionist abstraction".

try digging up bones for hundreds of years and never finding a skeleton that refuted evolution.

try watching a virus evolve in a petri dish in minutes right before your eyes.

try actually reading a book that isnt the bible.

or are those science books just "evolutionist abstractions"

ABE, we already have very good explanations for gaps in the fossil record: (1) fossilisation is an extremely chancy process - almost every animal that has ever lived and died has not been fossilised; (2) many of those fossils that did form have been erased by well-established geological processes (of course, our knowledge of these processes is based on good science, so you probably won't believe it).

See, no faith. That's why we can teach it in schools.

To explain the gaps with "God did it" is facile, an extreme perversion of logic, and 100% faith-based. That's shy it should be kept out of schools.

"When everyone thinks alike, everyone is likely to be wrong."

Once again, you said it, not me.

Pia:

"I don't want kids believing in Santa Clause because Pat Robertson thinks that they won't be able to tell right from wrong if they don't have him to believe in."

Pat Robertson is not the issue. And don't hang him on me.

I don't rely on him to tell me that "evolutionary theory" is a fiction.

"The radical Christian Right funds the Discovery Institute"

I don't have any animosity toward the Christian Right or the Discovery Institute.

Do you?

"I don't want kids I know who attend public school to learn radical Christian right dogma, and letting ID in the door is a first step whether or not you see it as a religious issue."

What is it in this dogma relating to "evolutionary theory" that you object to?

"Separation of Church and State is a fundamental right, and The First Amendment is first for a reason."

I didn't know that presenting the "holes and gaps" in "evolutionary theory" -- violates the First Amendment.

"I wrote this post in part because I had taken the summer off from Bring it on! and wanted to remind myself about the very real threats to our Constitution."

The real threat to our Constitution consists of groups grabbing the microphone and telling others they have no right to be heard.

The real threat to our Constitution consists of groups saying they have truth on their side, and that is the end of discussion.

"Very selfishly I don't want the USA going from a country where most people are Christian to becoming a legally Christian country."

You have nothing to fear but fear itself.

"So argue in the abstract all you want about ID, but how do you feel about having The
First Amendment watered down?"

The First Amendment will be watered down when people are denied the right to present their argument.

Especially when the opposing argument is full of holes,

"The First Amendment will be watered down when people are denied the right to present their argument. "


you keep rambling about this but you have never presented any argument whatsoever that could ever be tested.

saying evolution has a "hole" in it is pointless unless you have a theory to fill it. you dont.

how can we take you seriously?

Abe are you for real? You find something wrong with every frigging word that I write but you haven't presented one piece of evidence to make your case

Yes I fear the radical Christian right. You like to comment on blogs? I can give you a list of radical Christian right blogs that will keep you occupied. I can give you the names of many other publications at my team blog, Bring it on!

"When people are denied the right to make their argument." Are you aware of the growing anti-ACLU movement?

Or is the ACLU, a commie org to you, and the people they represent don't deserve to be heard. Too many people believe this.

Billy:

"The First Amendment will be watered down when people are denied the right to present their argument. you keep rambling about this but you have never presented any argument whatsoever that could ever be tested."

So, what argument has been tested by "evolution theorists".

There are none.

I'm not talking about "evolution within species".

Show me proof of "evolution between species" without holes and gaps.

Until you show me that, how can you be taken seriously?

How do you get First Amendment rights to present what is unproven and which consists of an incredibly large number of holes and gaps.

And then deny the theory, based on reason and logic that where intelligence is obvious, intelligence is the best answer.

Pia:

"Abe are you for real? You find something wrong with every frigging word that I write but you haven't presented one piece of evidence to make your case."

Sorry about finding something wrong with every frigging word you write.

I have presented an argument that states -- "reason and logic" trump an abstraction based on the gaps and holes in "evolutionist theory."

Is that so hard to understand?

"Yes I fear the radical Christian right."

But you haven't said why.

Fear without reason is hearing footsteps in the dark when no one is there.

"You like to comment on blogs? I can give you a list of radical Christian right blogs that will keep you occupied. I can give you the names of many other publications at my team blog, Bring it on!"

Thanks for the offer, but I find my own diversions..

"When people are denied the right to make their argument." Are you aware of the growing anti-ACLU movement?"

What is the position of the ACLU on "intelligent design"?

"Or is the ACLU, a commie org to you, and the people they represent don't deserve to be heard. Too many people believe this."

The ACLU does some good, but they are not always right. (not a pun).

Billy:

"try digging up bones for hundreds of years and never finding a skeleton that refuted evolution."

How does a skeleton tell you that the "gaps and holes" in "evolutionist theory" are filled by something other than by "intelligent design".

"try watching a virus evolve in a petri dish in minutes right before your eyes."

How does watching a virus evolve in a petri dish in minutes right before your eyes. tell you that the "gaps and holes" in "evolutionist theory" are filled by something other than by "intelligent design".

Do you want me to use my imagination?

Or do you want me to use reason and logic?

"try actually reading a book that isnt the bible."

I have.

"or are those science books just "evolutionist abstractions"

The science books I read are based on fact, not imagination.

Greg:

"ABE, we already have very good explanations for gaps in the fossil record: (1) fossilisation is an extremely chancy process - almost every animal that has ever lived and died has not been fossilised; (2) many of those fossils that did form have been erased by well-established geological processes (of course, our knowledge of these processes is based on good science, so you probably won't believe it)."

Explanations (excuses) for lack of records and evidence is no reason to come up with a defective and premature conclusion.

PROSECUTOR: Sorry judge, the evidence was erased or we just couldn't find it -- but we know what happened. So just take our word -- that if we could have found the evidence, we know what the evidence would tell us. Our knowledge is based on good police work, but you probably won't believe it.

JUDGE: You're right. I don't believe it.

JUDGE: Case dismissed.

"See, no faith. That's why we can teach it [what is it?] in schools."

I would expect that what is being taught is limited to "evolution within species" -- where it is evident, and not teaching what is unproven. That is where the controversy resides.

"To explain the gaps with "God did it" is facile, an extreme perversion of logic, and 100% faith-based. That's shy it should be kept out of schools.

Not once have I presented what you said here. Why do you inject spurious comment?

"When everyone thinks alike, everyone is likely to be wrong." Once again, you said it, not me."

I was just commenting on what you said in #94.
___

Comment 94 posted by Greg

"Gaps or not, the concept of evolution is so incredibly well supported by the evidence we do have, that it is accepted as fact by almost every person (scientist or not) who has bothered to look at that evidence."

I'm still confused. What are these "gaps and holes" in "evolutionist theory" you speak of, ABE?

Evolution is a slow process - it has occurred over a timescale of thousands, millions, billions of years. We have evidence of evolution occurring on a small scale right before our eyes; we have fossil evidence of evolution having occurred at a much larger scale over much longer times.

All of the evidence we have points to evolution as the correct explanation for how life as we know it arose. Much of this evidence has been accrued during my lifetime.

There is no evidential support for any other explanation of how life arose.

That you and your fundamentalist cronies can't incorporate solid scientific evidence into your world view, and instead rely on writings which predate practically all of our knowledge about the world/universe around us, speaks volumes about the power of religious indoctrination and the influence it has on young (and even old) minds. THAT is why we oppose your nonsense being taught in schools.

Abe
Did you actually read my post? You know the thing that preceded this thread of absurd comments,

I have written many posts at my team political blog Bring it on! about the radical right; so has the rest of the team. Don't want to go there? Go to my personal blog,Courting Destiny; go to the rest of the teams personal blogs

You can dissect every word we have written.
But you still have not given one reason why government money should be spent on ID

I was just about to give reasons why I dislike the radical right and their influence in this country but that's really not the point

The point--and I did write the post--is that ID isn't a science or anything--and spending government money on it is a clear violation of separation of church and state

Your arguments have only furthered my belief in my stance

Your self-grandizing superiority has turned more than a few people off--and they went to my blog, and liked it. So thanks for getting me new readers

Oh yeah I will say that the radical Christian right has influenced our government greatly.

Terri? Stem cell research?

Minor things to you I'm sure Abe. Sure nobody in your family has Parkinsons, Alzheimers, macula degeneration or a host of other conditions that could be or could have had its progression slowed or have been cured. And don't tell me I don't know what I'm saying; I could whip out the degrees, licenses and certifications quicker than you could say the word "holes."

Really was going to better than this, but you seem to have a fondness for taking each word I say and mocking it.

Don't take that well. I would really call it a night. Many people will tell you that I play nicely at first.

You think you're so wise and wonderful yet what have you said?

What reason and logic have you been using? ID must be true to explain you

Greg:

"I'm still confused. What are these "gaps and holes" in "evolutionist theory" you speak of, ABE?"

The gaps and holes involve several fundamental questions which "evolutionist theory" cannot prove.

1.How did life on earth come about?

2. Where are the fossils of in-between forms?

3. How did complex body parts came into existence?

Without answers to these questions, "evolutionist theory" fails.

Evolutionists claim that the formation of life and complex body parts happened by chance, but there is no proof or precedent for making this claim. These claims are not supported by any science.

BTW -- these issues were not addressed by Darwin. The assumption that life was spontaneously created by chance was added by his followers.

"Evolution is a slow process - it has occurred over a timescale of thousands, millions, billions of years. We have evidence of evolution occurring on a small scale right before our eyes; we have fossil evidence of evolution having occurred at a much larger scal