"The Creation Story!"

I feel bad for you Snake. It must be tough to look at the world every day and see constant reminders of a process you despise so much.

Every bird, every tree, and even we, bear the unmistakable marks of evolution. Our whole world was build by it. And the sad part is that all you see are your fears and misconceptions embodied in a process you don't even understand.

Why do you despise evolution so much? It's just a process which has allowed biology to increase in complexity. The mere fact that evolution exists as a part of the natural world says great things about the Universe itself. Why despise that?

There are four things the average person needs to know about evolution:

1. It's junk science, which has been massively disproven over the last century.

2. As junk science goes, it's dangerous junk science. It was the major philosophical corner stone of naziism, communism, and the various eugenics programs in western countries.

3. It is utterly incompatible with Christianity or any other meaningful religion.

4. It is part and parcel of certain agendas which may or may not be of any use to you; individual mileage may vary.

Ok, I now see why you despise it...


Ignorance.


Blame.


Fear.


Paranoia.

Ignorance, Blame, Fear and Paranoia are not a good foundation from which to build knowledge, or from which to enjoy life. I wish you good luck, you're gonna need it.

I suggest you never bring this again. Certainly some of teh most hypocritical garbage that can be spewed. Thousands of people die each year at the hands of certain agendas formulated by religion which you support.

Well, in all fairness to Michael Behe. So far as I'm aware he's merely come to an opinion out of ignorance, being a biochemist who has never studied evolution and is thus unaware that most of the "problems" he suggests were solved decades ago by researchers in the field.

Yes he clearly didn't correctly research his opinion before publishing it, yet I suspect that he's not deliberately conning people or coming to his beliefs from religion. He's just commenting outside his field of expertise (a slightly foolish mistake but hardly a cardinal sin or anything).

P.S. There's a cardinal whose last name is sin, thus his name is cardinal sin. I laughed so hard when I first heard about him.

Obviously don't know Michael Behe's most inner thoughts, but I do know that his conclusions have been roundly criticized by a wide range of scientists, and their arguments are pretty conclusive. Michael Behe has read these arguments and countered with some pretty convuluted defense. So convoluted in fact, that I have my doubts about his sincerity in bringing them.

Denying factual evidence doesnt make you a thinker either gunga. Youre just another of a dying breed of science luddites.
You can grasp onto a theory or a hypothesis, if , you first consider what the others have to offer. Those of us who accept evolution as a fact have looked over the alternative that you profess, and all I see is a lot of hate and closed mindedness with absolutely no evidence.
See ya in Dover Pa. a lot of your Creation" heroes" will be present.

You realize that your two different "Creationist"camps have rent a major schism in your once unified approach.
THINK ABOUT THIS-- If a Supreme Court decision does wind up favoring Intel Design, then standard Creationist bull poop will still be disallowed from science classes because the Supreme Court has already decided that CREATIONISM IS RELIGION NOT SCIENCE. So , isnt that a cunundrum.

By the way--Intelligent Design people generally all stipulate to the processes of evolution. They agree to all the minor distinctions between what macro and microevolution hold. They admit that the earth is at least 4.4 BY old. In other words, unless you havent thought this through, your entire precious creedo will be inadmissable as evidence. WHY/ because the US SUpreme court has already ruled in 1987 that CREATIONISM IS RELIGIOUS IN ORIGIN, and under the "establishment" clause of the 1st Amendment, it cannot be substituted for "real" science , which is observable, fact derived, subject to the scientific method, and in which ALL evidence supports.

So,no matter what you blabber, half of your kind accepts that macroevolution is occuring and visible in formation of taxa higher than species level.Even Dr Behe. Duane Gish is probably gonna be pissing himself if this goes to court. He wont survive, no matter what the outcome, and he cant support Intelligent Design because it negates everything that the ICR ties to peddle. HMMMMMMM


Just thought Id bring that point up for your deliberation.

Even a significant number of Creationists now believe that evolution is a fact. Quick, you better go find some knock-off Phd who will buy into your creeds and be able to lie under oath.

(I wrote this at 5:30 am this day and forgot to post it where itd do the most good)

Thats why Im gonna love the Dover Pa case. Its setting up the Creation school for a final legal test , except this time they feel that having Creationism "put on a lab coat" will make its lies more believable. Where the ID people screwed up is when theyve stipulated to standard evolutionary theory. Now they dont even have their silly science like a "young earth" to lean on any more. This will cause a schism bigger than Martin Luther's

Hear me out. if, and it could, happen that the ID point gets through the court and the USSC upholds it as worthy of consideration,(I say this from having listend to a bunch of lawyers who have no idea about science-debate this issue) then, I know that Pa is going to have to mention Intelligent Design as a possible explanation for "orogins only". Ive heard today that, instead of comparing it to natural selection and explaining the weakness of the theory of evolution. Pa will, instead, adopt a policy that states

"We are required to present this material as a possible explanation for the origins of life. However , lets go through the scientific method and discuss how the preponderance of evidence favors natural selection and no evidence, save a few passages in a religious text, underpinns Intelligent Design."

Gunga, Aparently you failed to notice that most wars, famines, and pestilences are countenanced, aided when necessary, and started by people who have confused demonstrable facts with imaginary fictions.

God is good-- Aids, Starvation, drought, and natural disasters.

God is great-- WWI, WW2, The Mosaic Wars, The Papal Wars.

God I thank you for my food--Soybean rust, corn blight, ergot.

God loves me-- I'm so glad. I quail to think of what life would be like if he took a notion to dislike me. Natural selection is challenge enough for me.

It would be nice to stick to facts. I'll provide a couple for an example.

Some people are crazy. Scientists are people. Conclusion-- Some scientists are crazy. Result from our conclusion. Corroborate all evidence. Life style change as a result of our conclusion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Gunga, I am not necessarily attempting to pick on you. The "Big Bangers" and the "Creationists" have a lot in common. More than either congregation would care to admit. Regrettably, perhaps but also human.

We must do the best we can with what we have to work with. The writers of Genisis did so. So did the creators of the "Big Bang theory".
Both are rather long on hypothesis and short on facts.

Perhaps. But bear in mind that once people make a stand on an issue they often have trouble admitting that they're wrong. Even to themselves. Their mind will come up with a thousand arguments to prove themselves right, rather than question an initial assumption.

... Who knows? Honestly I have no idea whether he's just intellectually dishonest or a con artist. In fact, I'm not even sure which would be worse.



Don't go knocking Ergot, it contains LSA, a near-analogue of LSD. Quite a useful little parasite



*Shudder* You're putting the bible and the big bang theory in the same category.... Errrrggg. Right or wrong, the big bang theory is the development of hardworking scientists attempting to interpret the astronomical data that we have through scientific method, physics and mathematics.

I sincerely hope you were just humouring Gunga and attempting to be polite, the alternatives are too horrible to contemplate.

The Big Bang theory is, in my opinion, still pretty vague.

A little abstract maybe? Is there really a defined and clear line between science and religion?

Hello Antibudda,

There are several alternative scenarios to the "Big Bang". Not all of them require that one be horrified.

But where the "BB" and the "Creation" both assume a beginning there are still several more that don't.

Infinite--Steady State--Plasma--Evolving--Rebounding--String--etc.. Those are all theories purporting to explain how we came about. "The Ultimate Question" to some of us.

IMO the evidence that there ever was a beginning is kind of shakey.

The "BB" and "Creation" both attempt to explain an event that may never have happened. Without showing the necessity for the event there is simply an "assumption" that it must have happened and then comes the quest for evidence that supports that assumption.

For instance---

The CMBR can be explained several ways. It is either "the echoes" of the "Big Bang", The light remaining from the "Divine Creation" (let there be light) or the light from beyond "Our Observable Universe" red shifted to the "Microwave Spectrum", or light "red shifted" by the expansion of space itself.

These ambiguities renders it mostly a matter of "faith" in the system that you "believe in".

Damned if I know, but I am not telling you that I do know. But I will say that there is very little unambiguous evidence on either side, but both the "BB" and the "Creation" require a certain "leap of faith" whether they like it or not :wink: .

cyracuz,

When "push comes to shove" in regard to "Ultimate Questions" there is not as much difference between "Science" and "Religion" as either group would be pleased to admit.

Science calls most of their "revelations" theories, and usually invites criticisms, at least among a peer group.

Religion calls most of its "theories" revelations and seldom invites criticisms, particularly from a peer group. I suspect that this is because they take the attitude that there can be no peer groups discussing personal revelations. (experiences in the light of ones imaginations cannot be argued)

Once a person "Knows" something it becomes difficult to point out inconsistencies

I'll be honest with you Mechsmith. I'm a simple creature. When it comes to the big bang I don't think in terms of cosmic background radiation or quantum mechanics. I'm more of a newtonian motion sort of fellow. There's something reassuringly physical about balls of matter moving through space that you just don't get from 11th dimentional quantum mechanics.

The objects in the visible sky are all moving away from a central point. Seems logical that they all came from there. Infinite doesn't really explain astrological motion. Rebounding is more or less identical with a different prologue...

As for creation. Pffft. If I want the opinion of stone age shamans on advanced cosmology rest assured I'll ask. "Yeah, some big human thing did it." <scoff> That people take it seriously is a sign of the sad state of modern humanity. But then I've got to remind myself that most people still believe in astrology.

I have no opinion on the advanced parts of the big bang theory. That's for physicists and astronomers to determine, I am really not qualified in the least. Yet if you ask me where did the stars come from, I'm quite happy to point in the direction of origin and say, "that way".

What happened to them over there and why they came from there is another issue. But that they came from there seems pretty certain just from basic newtonian motion. Since they're all moving out with a great deal of force clearly there was some kind of "explosion" (in its loosest meaning as an outward moving force) over there.

Beyond that <shrug> ask Stephen Hawking, cause I don't have a chance of telling you.

So yeah, I'm with you on the agnosticism bit, but to believe in biblical creation tales is to ignore common sense, logic and science. That however, is another discussion.

It's incomplete; the singularity period is hard to fathom and before the bang, we pretty much don't quite know what's happening (was there another big bang? etc) at least to my knowledge.

I think there is a clear line between science and religion. Scientific theories are falsifiable and requires both empirical datas and rational reasoning (like in the form of math).

I'm chiming in here late and read the first few pages, then skimmed the rest, so if my two cents worth here has already been said, I apologize.

There are two Creation stores in Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis. According to modern scholars who have devoted a lifetime to developing a clear and scientific exegesis of the ancient texts, the second chapter was written many hundreds of years before the first. The first chapter of Genesis in fact is one of the most recent writings in the Old Testatment.

The order of creation as depicted in both Creation stories will not conform to the order understood by modern science.

A side by side comparison of the two reveals very different approaches and contradictions in the order in which the 'events of Creation' occurred. The first chapter is an orderly, scholarly theological statement showing that everything--all creation--comes from God. It was not written by men of science and it is not intended to be a scientific or historical document. It is a theological statement.

The second Genesis story (chapter 2) now has God interacting directly with the created beings Adam and Eve. Again most scholars do not believe this writing was intended to be either a historical or scientific document but the purpose is to show humankind's relationship to God. As the story continues we see sin enter the world, we see the consequences for sin, and we see sin spread from the first sin (Adam & Eve) into the family, then the community, then the world. And we see God rescueing humankind from the consequences of sin in a repetitious theme of Creation, Sin, Judgment, Redemption.

The scholars have spent generations discerning the 'teaching passages' or theological statements (the Creation stories) from the wisdom writings (counsel), poetry/songs, and the actual history contained in the Old Testament. Yes there are also allegorical stories (myths) used to teach a lesson or illustrate a teaching.

When the Bible is approached in this manner, the inconsistencies become understandable and are no longer problematic.

very good summary foxfyre

Thanks Farmerman. One does not have to be a 'believer' to appreciate the literature.

How do you know that the world wasn't created by God about half an hour ago and all the fossils and written records,including this,and our memories and everything else created with it?God can do anything I've been told.What He is supposed to have created out of nothing in 4004 BC(?) was a pretty complex outfit and no mistake.If He could do that doing the other would hardly have taxed his powers.

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

Design for Living

By MICHAEL J. BEHE

Published: February 7, 2005

ethlehem, Pa. — IN the wake of the recent lawsuits over the teaching of Darwinian evolution, there has been a rush to debate the merits of the rival theory of intelligent design. As one of the scientists who have proposed design as an explanation for biological systems, I have found widespread confusion about what intelligent design is and what it is not.

First, what it isn't: the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea, even though devout people opposed to the teaching of evolution cite it in their arguments. For example, a critic recently caricatured intelligent design as the belief that if evolution occurred at all it could never be explained by Darwinian natural selection and could only have been directed at every stage by an omniscient creator. That's misleading. Intelligent design proponents do question whether random mutation and natural selection completely explain the deep structure of life. But they do not doubt that evolution occurred. And intelligent design itself says nothing about the religious concept of a creator.

Rather, the contemporary argument for intelligent design is based on physical evidence and a straightforward application of logic. The argument for it consists of four linked claims. The first claim is uncontroversial: we can often recognize the effects of design in nature. For example, unintelligent physical forces like plate tectonics and erosion seem quite sufficient to account for the origin of the Rocky Mountains. Yet they are not enough to explain Mount Rushmore.

Of course, we know who is responsible for Mount Rushmore, but even someone who had never heard of the monument could recognize it as designed. Which leads to the second claim of the intelligent design argument: the physical marks of design are visible in aspects of biology. This is uncontroversial, too. The 18th-century clergyman William Paley likened living things to a watch, arguing that the workings of both point to intelligent design. Modern Darwinists disagree with Paley that the perceived design is real, but they do agree that life overwhelms us with the appearance of design.

For example, Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, once wrote that biologists must constantly remind themselves that what they see was not designed but evolved. (Imagine a scientist repeating through clenched teeth: "It wasn't really designed. Not really.")

The resemblance of parts of life to engineered mechanisms like a watch is enormously stronger than what Reverend Paley imagined. In the past 50 years modern science has shown that the cell, the very foundation of life, is run by machines made of molecules. There are little molecular trucks in the cell to ferry supplies, little outboard motors to push a cell through liquid.

In 1998 an issue of the journal Cell was devoted to molecular machines, with articles like "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines" and "Mechanical Devices of the Spliceosome: Motors, Clocks, Springs and Things." Referring to his student days in the 1960's, Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote that "the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered." In fact, Dr. Alberts remarked, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory with an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. He emphasized that the term machine was not some fuzzy analogy; it was meant literally.

The next claim in the argument for design is that we have no good explanation for the foundation of life that doesn't involve intelligence. Here is where thoughtful people part company. Darwinists assert that their theory can explain the appearance of design in life as the result of random mutation and natural selection acting over immense stretches of time. Some scientists, however, think the Darwinists' confidence is unjustified. They note that although natural selection can explain some aspects of biology, there are no research studies indicating that Darwinian processes can make molecular machines of the complexity we find in the cell.

Scientists skeptical of Darwinian claims include many who have no truck with ideas of intelligent design, like those who advocate an idea called complexity theory, which envisions life self-organizing in roughly the same way that a hurricane does, and ones who think organisms in some sense can design themselves.

The fourth claim in the design argument is also controversial: in the absence of any convincing non-design explanation, we are justified in thinking that real intelligent design was involved in life. To evaluate this claim, it's important to keep in mind that it is the profound appearance of design in life that everyone is laboring to explain, not the appearance of natural selection or the appearance of self-organization.

The strong appearance of design allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck. Design should not be overlooked simply because it's so obvious.

Still, some critics claim that science by definition can't accept design, while others argue that science should keep looking for another explanation in case one is out there. But we can't settle questions about reality with definitions, nor does it seem useful to search relentlessly for a non-design explanation of Mount Rushmore. Besides, whatever special restrictions scientists adopt for themselves don't bind the public, which polls show, overwhelmingly, and sensibly, thinks that life was designed. And so do many scientists who see roles for both the messiness of evolution and the elegance of design.



Michael J. Behe, a professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University and a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, is the author of "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution."