Should Creationism/Intelligent Design Be Taught in the Science Classroom?

[KashmiriStairway]

Some "Christians" are just in name. They only say that to be part of an identifiable group; rather than actually follow the tenets.

[Nathan]

No it should not. What about people who aren't Christian? Should kids learn about the Hindu creationist theory too?

Exactly.

Then again, I dont see why evolution is so incredibly important to teach kids. It doesn't really help them with life. How about dropping bullshit like that and making them take a class they'll actually use every day of their life like Personal Finance?

Because of the class. Biology is a required subject. It also is very much a subject that is based almost completely on Evolution. What you learn in Biology is taught on the basis of Evolution. So in Biology class, kids kind of have to learn about Evolution. Otherwise the class won't make any sense.

I've been saying creationism has been dishonest from the beginning as are aspects of what is taught as science. You don't have a problem with my views of creationism, in fact you support them. It's my view of the so called infalliable scientists & their agendas that bothers you.

I know. And I do apologize for coming across so fanatical before, but I have a reason.

I can't entirely understand why you are dismissing scientists in such a way, assuming for example, that they "have an agenda"? Now, I can understand why you might think someone like Evolutionary Biologist Dr. Richard Dawkins has an agenda (and I purposefully did not recommend you read his book "The Greatest Show on Earth" for that very reason, although I do highly recommend it), however, he doesn't keep his agenda a secret. He became an outspoken advocate of Evolution when, back when he was teaching he Biology, he came up against students who vocally contested his teaching of Evolution as the basis of Biology (which it was back in the 60's and 70's and is now). He wanted to find out where this opposition was coming from, and when he did find out, he realized being "meek" and "mild" about it would get nowhere. His agenda is simply to educate the masses and to show why the Young-Earth Creationists (and their Intelligent Design disguise) are completely, 100% wrong.

I don't know who said it (I don't think it was Dawkins), but I think it was a brilliant observation that (unfortunately I'm paraphrasing, here... I don't recall the exact quote) "to argue with a fundamentalist, one must sometimes become a fundamentalist".

However, I think lumping all scientists in with outspoken advocates of Evolution such as Dawkins (who I do think has a very good reason to be outspoken about it) is a mistake. Most scientists don't, in fact, have an agenda. They are simply gathering the evidence, proposing hypotheses, and testing those hypotheses. Most will be disproven, but some will become Scientific Theories. Darwin examined the evidence and proposed his Hypothesis, Evolution (by Natural Selection), in his work "On the Origins of the Species". In the last 150 years (since its publication), his hypothesis has been tested and retested. Evidence that Darwin lamented not having (such as transitional fossils, of which there are now at least hundreds) has been found. After the last 150 years of gathering evidence and testing the hypothesis, done by hundreds of different biologists, there really is no other conclusion. Evolution is the conclusion that must be made. There is, quite simply, nothing else that fits.

I must admit, it saddens me that you honestly think scientists have "created their own language for their own purposes" (assuming you mean that they do so to distort language to push their own views), because that simply is not the way it works. Science truly does have its own language because that is required. I'll say it this way: if you ever meet a scientist who tells you that Gravity is an undisputed, completely known fact, slap him and call him out for lying: he is not a real scientist. A real scientist will tell you that Gravity is a theory that explains the fact that when you drop something, it falls (again, I'm oversimplifying and limiting only to our planet, but you get the idea).

Evolution, by comparison, is a theory that explains facts such as why the fossil record shows transitions within the animal kingdom (between species, although that's an extremely oversimplified way of putting it and does lend itself to misinterpretation), why [humans have tail-bones (the coccyx)], why all species on this planet share genes, some sharing more then others, etc. So saying Evolution is both a fact and a theory is indeed quite accurate.

And it can be falsified very easily. If the fossilized skeleton of a (preferably modern) rabbit is found in the Precambrian, the Theory of Evolution must be thrown out the window completely. That deceptively insignificant find would, in fact, be significant enough to utterly and completely destroy the Theory of Evolution. Yet such a thing has never been found, and there is enough evidence to suggest that the probability of finding such a thing is incredibly small (indeed, small enough to be considered null).

The "agenda" of Evolutionists (scientists, as you call them, but we're speaking strictly about the outspoken ones) is very clear: to educate the ignorant and shut up the Creationists who want this taught in our science classes.

Read the following link:

Revisionaries: How a group of Texas conservatives is rewriting your kids' textbooks.

That scares me. It scares me in ways I can't even begin to explain. The education system in America is bad enough, and now this.

I do accept Evolution as a fact in this way, and this way alone:

I have examined all the evidence put forward. I have read Darwin's "On the Origin of the Species" (which you can do, by the way, for free online; I'd be glad to post the link if you're interested), I have read Dawkins's "The Greatest Show on Earth". I have read the transcripts of the Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al trial. I have read Kenneth Miller's "Only a Theory". I have spent days meticulously reading through the site Talk origins.org, and have been on numerous other sites discussing Evolution (some, like Talk Origins, discussing the supposed "controversy"). I have also looked at, just as meticulously, the claims of the Intelligent Design Movement (with no biases). I have read Stephen C. Meyer's "Signature in the Cell". I have read Philip E. Johnson's books "Darwin on Trial", "Reason in the Balance", "The Wedge of Truth", and "The Right Questions". I have meticulously read much of everything on the Discovery Institute's site. I have given both sides equal attention, and have come to one conclusion:

There is only one logical conclusion from the evidence: Evolution. There really can be no other conclusion. It is, in my personal opinion, too obvious.

I have not simply taken the word of scientists or the outspoken evolutionists. I have honestly poured over the evidence presented myself, and made my conclusions from that evidence. I simply see no other logical conclusion. So I have not accepted anything on "faith"... in fact, I am not a very big fan of faith, preferring instead to only "believe in" things that can be shown, proven, etc.

[pagemccartney95]

How's this:

1) If the school is better off, offer two different classes: one based on creationism, and another based on evolutionism. The student can choose which he wishes to learn.

2) If the school is poorer, get textbooks that present both sides of the argument or show no bias at all.

Let's try this on for size.

[Nathan]

How's this:

1) If the school is better off, offer two different classes: one based on creationism, and another based on evolutionism. The student can choose which he wishes to learn.

Creationism is not science and should not be taught in a science class. It can be taught in a theology/religion class, and if it's in that context, then fine. But it should not be taught as science.

2) If the school is poorer, get textbooks that present both sides of the argument or show no bias at all.

Let's try this on for size.

Evolution is not a "bias". It's Biology.

[lead ballon]

We've seen everybodies opinions towards the Young Earth creationism, but what does everyone have to say about Old Earth creationism?

[Nathan]

We've seen everybodies opinions towards the Young Earth creationism, but what does everyone have to say about Old Earth creationism?

Which one? Gap Creationism or Progressive Creationism?

Gap Creationism says that in 6 days, God created everything we see as it is at the same time as YEC's say, but on an Older Earth (so life as we know it is 6000 years old, but the Earth is 4.6 billion years old or such).

Still not science.

Progressive Creationism "is the religious belief that God created new forms of life gradually, over a period of hundreds of millions of years. As a form of Old Earth creationism, it accepts mainstream geological and cosmological estimates for the age of the Earth, but posits that the new "kinds" of plants and animals that have appeared successively over the planet's history represent instances of God directly intervening to create those new types by means outside the realm of science."

http://en.wikipedia....ive_creationism

This seems like Theistic Evolution, just with more interference from God.

I can live with Theistic Evolution because the Theory of Evolution itself does not disprove the existence of any God, and I myself held that view for, basically, 21.5 years (I turned 22 on May 22, 2009... obviously, I included being born and such, so it's not an accurate time-span, but I was always taught Evolution was true, even at the Catholic Sunday School I attended).

However, Progressive Creationism has the one caveat of direct interference of God in various points within the process, sometimes making separate species (of which I assume human beings are one of those "separate species"). Again, this is not scientific, and does not aptly explain why God (being perfect) gave us such things as a tail-bone (we don't have tails), pseudogenes (dormant/useless genes), pre-gills (otherwise known as pharyngeal arches) when we are fetuses in our mothers' uteruses, the strange and rather extreme detour of the laryngeal nerve, etc.

So I would still say that Progressive Creationism, while basically accepting science, is still not scientific and should in itself not be taught in the science classroom.

I think, when teaching Biblical creationism in the theology/religion class, both Young-Earth and Old-Earth should be taught.

But Old-Earth Creationism, like Young-Earth Creationism, should stay out of the science classroom.

[The Zeppelin]

Yes.

If they will teach evolution which is a non proven theory than they should also teach the non proven theory which is creationism.

The problem with evolution is that everything in the world is too complex to have evolved a step at a time.

Take for example blood clotting. 16 different steps must happen to ensure blood clots. If one step is skipped blood wont clot and you will most certainly die from the smallest cut.

If evolution was true than no multicelllular blood carrying organzism would have lived past a few months because evolution does not allow for such a rapid change like bloood clotting.

Also my problem with it is it is teached as fact. If you want a greta example than take Lucy. Taught forever as being the missing link (in fact in my biology college book it is shown as missing link) but now the new ardipetjicus skeleton is being called the missing link. So they asserted a truth in Lucy which was not truth and not even proven. Scientists are salivating to prove this theory theyv been making fake missing link skeletons for years.

Also one of evolutions base principles is the fight for survivial. Now you hear stories about people who jeapordize their lives to save a fellow stranger human being. That is a complete defiance to that rule. If it were true than all humans would not be doing those random heroic acts of kindness.

Evolution is so fake its funny. A great quote i read says "Evolution is the atheist's religion".

Please ignore my typos. Im tired lol

[Atlas]

I believe in intelligent design and evolution. I don't see the conflict. What I don't believe in is the Bible. Heil Odin!

[Nathan]

Yes.

If they will teach evolution which is a non proven theory than they should also teach the non proven theory which is creationism.

So neither evolved nor created. So then what's your hypothesis? Is reality as we know it a computer simulation or something?

The problem with evolution is that everything in the world is too complex to have evolved a step at a time. Take for example blood clotting. 16 different steps must happen to ensure blood clots. If one step is skipped blood wont clot and you will most certainly die from the smallest cut.

If evolution was true than no multicelllular blood carrying organzism would have lived past a few months because evolution does not allow for such a rapid change like bloood clotting.

You should check out Talk Origins sometime.

Like this page, for example:

http://www.talkorigi...CB/CB200_2.html

Claim:

The biochemistry of blood clotting is irreducibly complex, indicating that it must have been designed.

Source:

Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press, pp. 74-97.

Response:

1. The blood clotting systems appears to be put together by using whatever long polymeric bridges are handy. There are many examples of complicated systems made from components that have useful but completely different roles in different components. There is also evidence that the genes for blood clotting (indeed, the whole genome) duplicated twice in the course of its evolution (Davidson et al. 2003). The duplication of parts and co-opting of parts with different functions gets around the "challenge" of irreducible complexity evolving gradually.
2. Blood clotting is not irreducibly complex. Some animals -- dolphins, for example -- get along fine without the Hagemann factor (Robinson et al. 1969), a component of the human blood clotting system which Behe includes in its "irreducible" complexity (Behe 1996, 84). Doolittle and Feng (1987) predicted that "lower" vertebrates would lack the "contact pathway" of blood clotting. Work on the genomes of the puffer fish and zebra fish have confirmed this (Yong and Doolittle 2003).
3. Irreducible complexity is not an obstacle to evolution and doesn't imply design.

Links:

Acton, George, 1997. Behe and the blood clotting cascade. http://www.talkorigi...onth/feb97.html

Behe, M. and K. Miller. 2002. Transcript: American Museum of Natural History April 23, 2002 (Part 7). http://www.ncseweb.o..._10_31_2002.asp

Dunkelberg, Pete, 2003. Irreducible complexity demystified. http://www.talkdesig...st/ICDmyst.html

EvoWiki, 2004. Blood clotting. http://www.evowiki.o...=Blood_clotting

Musgrave, Ian, 2005. Clotted rot for rotten clots. http://www.pandasthu...ves/000884.html

References:

1. Davidson, C. J., E. G. Tuddenham, and J. H. McVey. 2003. 450 million years of hemostasis. Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis 1: 1478-1497.
2. Robinson, A. J., M. Kropatkin, and P. M. Aggeler. 1969. Hagemann factor (factor XII) deficiency in marine mammals. Science 166: 1420-1422.

Further Reading:

Doolittle, Russell F., 1997. A delicate balance. Boston Review (Feb./Mar.), http://bostonreview..../doolittle.html

Ussery, David, 1999. A biochemist's response to "The biochemical challenge to evolution". Bios 70: 40-45. http://www.cbs.dtu.d.../dave/Behe.html

And this one:

http://www.talkorigi...onth/feb97.html

I re-read Behe's presentation of clotting a few days ago, and found it even more irritating than the first time. It breaks down into(1) a presentation of the clotting mechanism, (2) a critique of along quote from Doolittle, and (3) a conclusion. If you try to explain the clotting system to people unfamiliar with it, you begin with something like:

contact factors | XII ---> XIIa | XI ---> XIa EXTRINSIC PATHWAY | IX ----> IXa, V, VIII VII + TF (tissue factor) \ / \ / X -----------------> Xa prothr. ---------> thrombin | fibrinogen -----> fibrin

This leaves out many important facts, but it shows that the essence of the system is a sequence of protease reactions. It reflects what happens in vitro in the two common clinical assays the "PT" which measures the extrinsic pathway, and the "PTT" which measures the intrinsic pathway.The components of the "intrinsic pathway" are all in plasma; the extinsic pathway requires TF = "tissue factor" which is extravascular.

A more current view of the physiology emphasizes the importance ofTF in initiating the cascade (Furie & Furie, NEJM 326:801, 1992). This makes sense, because traumatic rupture of a blood vessel exposes the plasma to tissue factor.

TF T | XI ---> XIa VII ---> VIIa ---------------- VIII ---> VIIIa | | V ---> Va XIa | | | | | IX ---------> IXa + VIIIa | | | X -----------------> Xa + Va | prothrombin ---------> thrombin (T) | fibrinogen -----> fibrin

Note that in this scheme, there is a single cascade of 4 or 5 serine protease enzymes, two non-protease cofactors (VIII and V) homologous with each other and the final substrate, fibrinogen. The only complications are that Factor VII may act downstream to activate X, and thrombin acts to activate 3 earlier factors. A low basal level of activated thrombin keeps the system primed for exposure to TF.

In this view, 3 factors included in the older scheme (Factor XII =Hageman, prekallikrein and HMK) are now excluded, since deficiencies donot cause clinical disease, although they are associated with long clotting times in vitro. The role of XI isn't clear, since deficieny isn't invariably associated with disease.

The current scheme of the clotting system raises questions about Behe's concept of an "irreducibly complex system", which obviously rests on a reliably objective way to define the "system". Yet Behe flatly declares that the clotting system is irreducibly complex. One wonders *which*"clotting system" he's talking about.

Behe's approach of using the earlier nomenclature for the clotting factors is gratuitously forbidding to people unfamiliar with the subject. It has the effect of telling them that a moderately complex system is totally impenetrable, rather than that it is approachable and comprehensible. It's as annoying as watching someone try to present arithmetic to schoolchildren using Roman numeral notation.

The NEJM review has schematics of the factors, showing the many homologies of domains. The 5 proteases are each composed of a single peptide chain which is almost exactly the same length in all, and the point at which the chain is cut in the activation process is in exactly the same relative position in all 5. Eight defined domains or motifs, e.g.the serine protease domain, are located in exactly the same positions in4 of the 5 protease factors. In other words, at this low level ofdetail all four are 100% homologous.

This immediately suggests to someone with an exposure to introductory molecular biology an explanatory mechanism (gene duplication) and this inturn predicts a huge number of other homologies. Some known or predicted homologies include:

(1) neutral point mutations at the level of sequence data,

(2) arrangement of domains,

(3) 3D shape from crystallographic data,

(4) intron-exon organization of the genes,

(5) conserved chromosomal location of the genes in related species,

(6) homologies to related proteins outside the clotting system,

e.g. serine proteases,

serine protease inhibitors,

proteins modified by vitamin K-dependant enzymes.

The evolutionary hypothesis is highly restrictive and parsimonious in what the data must show. For instance, each and every mammalian sequence for each and every gene in the system must fit into a cladistic tree, and the tree must be the same for all the genes. The homologous genes must fit into a tree based on the four reduplication events that gave rise to them.In other words, of all the possible sequences we might find, only a tiny proportion can occur. An unexplained deviation from these sequence predictions has the same significance as an unexplained human footprint in the Jurassic.

Behe incorrectly implies that the homologies are few in number and confined to primary structure. He dismisses the vast amount of homology data by saying that it has to be meaningless, since the system is obviously"irreducibly complex" and that homology data is useless for telling us how the system arose. This is really no different from a Creationist rejecting all sequence homology data for evolution on the a priori grounds that it's illegitimate to compare different "kinds".

Note the brittleness of Behe's position. Once it is admitted that gene duplication, recombination and specialization can explain one elaboration of the system -- say two sequential proteases -- it's difficult not to apply them to others, like the obvious similarities between Factor Vand Factor VIII. There's no rational place to draw the line and say that we've reduced the complexity of the system to an irreducible level.

It's puzzling why Behe leaves out the obvious homology with the serine protease digestive enzymes. Standard texts such as that of Lubert Stryer have stressed this point. Surely someone with Behe'sacademic credentials knows about this material. The effect of Behe's presentation after using Stryer is like reading a discussion of the Shroud of Turin that totally omits any mention of the radiocarbon dating studies.

His use of the Doolittle quote is inappropriate. Doolittle was sketching a scheme by which the inhibitory components of the clotting system could evolve in parallel with the cascade.When he said that something "arose", he meant "arose by a process of gene duplicaton and specialization", but Behe implies that this means "arose ex vacuo". The effect and intent is the same as the Darwin quote on the eye so beloved of Creationists.

His conclusion that "nobody knows how it arose" is highly reminiscent of the standard ending of a tabloid piece on sensational "discoveries". The ending is never that a new theory of space-time dislocation is being developed to explain the B-52 on the moon. It's that "scientists are baffled". It's reasonable to suppose that Behe is writing for a National Enquirer audience,since he's left behind anyone who knows something about the details of the clotting system or what Doolittle is talking about. It's highly disingenuous of him to violate norms of presentation to a scientific audience and protest when serious scientists reject his work. In one admittedly personal view, it is doing a deep disservice to a National Enquirer audience to write an account of science for them that encourages National Enquirer attitudes,and that is what Behe has done.

This isn't a respectable performance. The only question I had after reading it was whether Behe really believes that the clotting system offers support for "irreducible complexity" and is kidding himself, or whether it was a deliberate effort to ignore and distort the evidence. And on the latter assumption,if he wants to promote an ideology or sell copies of his book and increase his speaking fees. With Johnson I think it's conscious dishonesty and a mixture of commercial and ideological motives. But I didn't read enough of Behe to be able to decide.

Also my problem with it is it is teached as fact. If you want a greta example than take Lucy. Taught forever as being the missing link (in fact in my biology college book it is shown as missing link) but now the new ardipetjicus skeleton is being called the missing link. So they asserted a truth in Lucy which was not truth and not even proven. Scientists are salivating to prove this theory theyv been making fake missing link skeletons for years.

"Missing link" is actually a rather stupid idea.

http://www.talkorigi...om/momevol.html

"Mysterious Origins of Man" briefly touched on the subject of human evolution. This file discusses the dishonest treatment it received.The quoted statements are transcribed from the show.

Charlton Heston

: "In the model of the evolutionary tree, man and ape are said to share a common ancestor. However, evidence of that common ancestor is highly contested. That is why it is still called the missing link."

This show aggravates the general confusion over the term "missing link".By the above definition, there was only ever one missing link. It would be very difficult to confidently identify which species was the common ancestor without a much better fossil record than we have. And that ancestor, even if we knew which species it was, would not be a convincing ape-human intermediate because it would have been very ape-like; there may not have been anything obviously "human" about it.More often, "missing link" refers to something intermediate between apes and humans: either apes with some human features, or humans with primitive features. These could be either direct human ancestors, or just more closely related to us than to modern apes. (None of these creatures would be the "common ancestor" of apes and humans; they would have lived after it.) If evolution occurred, there would have been many"missing links" fitting this definition, and, sure enough, many of them have been found.

Richard Milton

, author of Shattering the Myths of Evolution:"Darwinists have promised us a missing link. So they've got to deliver. They have got to come up with one. Any missing link will do, it seems. Every so often a skeleton is found in Africa. Its discoverers describe it as being the missing link, the headlines comes and go. And then, later on, that skeleton, those bones, are reclassified either as human or ape. And so far the missing link is still missing."

Milton adds to the confusion. Some of these sentences only make sense using one of the above definitions of "missing link", some only make sense using the other (and some don't make sense using either definition). Many fossils have been classified as ape-men. The "reclassified as human or ape" refers only to the creationist tactic of trying to decide whether fossils are most like an ape or a human, and then pigeon-holing them that way. Most of the fossils which have been classified as hominid by scientists are still classified that way. Examples areA ustralopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, and Homoerectus, none of which MOM saw fit to discuss.

Most hominid fossils, including the two discussed by MOM (Lucy and Java Man), have never been claimed to be the "missing link" in the sense of a common ancestor of apes and humans. They have been, and still are, considered to be ancestors or close relatives of modern humans.

"Mysterious Origins" then moved on to discuss Java Man:

One of the most classic examples of this [reclassification] is the story of Java Man, discovered by Eugene Dubois in 1892.

Richard Thompson

, co-author of

Forbidden Archaeology

: "Dubois discovered a very primitive looking ape-like skullcap. And, he discovered this thigh bone about 40 feet away. He said, "Well, obviously they must belong to the same creature and that creature walked erect like a human being and had an ape-like skull". So that must be a missing link, the Pithecanthropus ape-man. So maybe you had a big ape and human being living together in Java about a million years ago. The important point to make about the Java Man discovery is that it's based upon a speculative leap in which two pieces of evidence are put together in a way that is not really warranted."

Not really. Most modern scientists do not assume that the two bones are related. Even so, the skullcap is a very significant find on its own. It is extremely flat, thick, and small-brained compared to modern humans. But it is also far more human-like, and far larger, than any ape's skull. (Java Man is 900-940 cc in volume. Chimps average 400cc, 500 cc max. Gorillas average 500 cc, 750 cc max. Modern humans average about 1350-1400 cc.) The claim that the femur and skullcap belonged together was, as MOM claims, speculative and quite probably incorrect. However it affected the interpretation of Java Man very little, because the femur is actually very similar to the femur that would have belonged to the skullcap. This is known from later finds of Homo erectus, the species to which Java Man belongs. For example, the Turkana Boy skeleton discovered in 1984 in Kenya has a skullcap almost identical to that of Java Man, but it was also a fully erect biped with a femur similar to that of modern man.

(Further information on creationist claims about Java Man)

Charlton Heston

:"At the end of his life, Dubois realized that the skullcap belonged to a large ape and the leg bone was from a man. Nevertheless, the Java Man was prominently displayed at the Museum of Natural History in New York until 1984. Since then it has been removed."

Totally false. Although he did emphasise the ape-like features of the skullcap, Dubois did not say it came from a giant gibbon. He always believed that it was an intermediate between ape and human (correctly), and that the skullcap and thigh bone belonged to the same creature (probably incorrect). Java Man is still recognized as a member of Homo erectus by all competent modern scientists (and as an ape by almost all creationists).The earlier implication that Java Man has been reclassified as an ape is false, as is the claim that it was belatedly removed from the American Museum of Natural History.

According to Phil Nicholls (pnich@globalone.net), Java Man was never removed from the American Museum of Natural History, and is still in their human evolution hall, as it should be. It is also mentioned in"The Human Odyssey", a 1993 book based on the AMNH's human evolution exhibit by its curator, Ian Tattersall)

Michael Cremo

, co-author of Forbidden Archaeology:"

Lucy

the famous australopithecine. Discovered by Donald Johanson. He says she was very human-like. But I was at a conference of anthropologists where many of them were making the case that she was hardly distinguishable from an ape or a monkey."

Johanson claimed that Lucy's locomotion was very human-like, but not Lucy as a whole. Many scientists now believe that Australopithecus afarensis ("Lucy") spent a significant amount of time in the trees;their hands and feet seem adapted to climbing. That does not mean she was "hardly distinguishable from an ape or monkey", and I would be very surprised if any reputable scientist has said any such thing. The pelvis of Lucy, for example, looks a lot more like a human pelvis than a chimppelvis. There appears to be near universal agreement that when on the ground, Lucy was predominantly bipedal, to a far greater extent thanany living ape or monkey.

Richard Milton

: "These bones have been restored to resemble a missing link. Part human, part ape. And Lucy is now thought of as being our long lost ancestor. But this is merely an interpretation. An interpretation of one group. Those same bones can be, and have been, taken by scientists and identified as simply an extinct ape. Nothing to do with us at all."

Milton has not actually presented any evidence in favor of his claim that Lucy is just an extinct ape, except for the fact that some scientists supposedly agree with him. Arguing from authority seems a strange tactic to support an viewpoint that is strongly rejected by scientists. Few scientists would agree that Lucy was no more closely related to humans than chimps are, and even fewer, if any, would say that Lucy was "just an extinct ape". The large majority accept, on the basis of physical similarities, that Lucy was an ancestor of Homosapiens, or a close relative of an ancestor. MOM's treatment of the evidence for human evolution consists of a dubious interpretation of Lucy, and outright falsehoods about Java Man. The rest of the abundant evidence has been ignored. See the Fossil Hominids FAQ for a synopsys of the evidence for human evolution, and creationist responses to it.

Also one of evolutions base principles is the fight for survival. Now you hear stories about people who jeapordize their lives to save a fellow stranger human being. That is a complete defiance to that rule. If it were true than all humans would not be doing those random heroic acts of kindness.

Umm... wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Who taught you about Evolution? Kent Hovind?

Evolution is about Survival of Fitness of genes in a given environment. It has nothing to do with "survival of the fittest".

Evolution is so fake its funny. A great quote i read says "Evolution is the atheist's religion".

So you assert there's no evidence?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

Evolution explains why we humans have a tailbone (our ancestors had tails), why we get goosebumps (a muscle-reaction to extend hair when cold, angry, or frightened... modern humans don't really have hair, but our ancestors did), the problem of the laryngeal nerve, the bad design of our eyes (without our brain, we'd see extremely hazy and upside down), why human embryos resemble exactly fish embryos (human embryos have the makings for gills, fins, a tail, etc, etc, etc), why we share so much of our genetic make-up with chimps, and more.

It is supported by the fossil record, the age of the Earth, genetics, and more. If you are ignorant of the evidence, then go find it.

As far as being the "atheist's religion", if that's true, why do the vast majority of Jews, all deists, many Christians, and even some Muslims accept evolution as a fact?

It is accepted by 99% of the world's scientists, and 100% of the world's relevant scientists (there are NO biologists who don't accept evolution as a fact).

Seriously...

Read Talk Origins. Learn Something.

http://www.talkorigins.org/

[lead ballon]

I highly doubt that statistics like 99% of the worlds scientists and 100% of biologists accept evolution can be accurate.

[Nathan]

I highly doubt that statistics like 99% of the worlds scientists and 100% of biologists accept evolution can be accurate.

I did exaggerate for all scientists. But not on purpose. I was mistaken. I apologize.

Here is information on the actual numbers:

(Talk Origins) Claim CA111: Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism.

(Religious Tolerance) Why biological & geological scientists disagree with religious conservatives

(Religious Tolerance) Results of public opinion polls on evolution and creation science (scroll down to 1997: Gallup Poll comparing scientists with the general population. According to the 1997 Gallup Poll, only 5% of scientists support the creation view. Yes, 40% believe in Theistic Evolution, but that's still Evolution.)

How Many Reputable Scientists Actually Doubt Darwinian Evolution?

(Wikipedia) Level of support for evolution

So it is safe to say that at least 95% of scientists accept evolution. And I was only off by under one-tenth of one percent about Biologists and other scientists who study Life sciences: between 99% & 100% of them accept evolution.

That's why the whole "teach the controversy" claim pisses me off.

What controversy?

[Katuschka]

How's this:

1) If the school is better off, offer two different classes: one based on creationism, and another based on evolutionism. The student can choose which he wishes to learn.

2) If the school is poorer, get textbooks that present both sides of the argument or show no bias at all.

Let's try this on for size.

The main problem is that the whole concept of creationism is essentially biased.

[The Zeppelin]

All Biologists say evolution is true?

Excuse me sir or madam but I went through allot of work to get an Ivy Leage degree in Biology. I have had the concept stuffed down my throat for over 10 years and I can very well make my claim that evolution is a hoax. I am also not the only person with a Masters in Biology that distrusts the THEORY.

[Nathan]

All Biologists say evolution is true?

Excuse me sir or madam but I went through allot of work to get an Ivy Leage degree in Biology. I have had the concept stuffed down my throat for over 10 years and I can very well make my claim that evolution is a hoax. I am also not the only person with a Masters in Biology that distrusts the THEORY.

Okay. Fine.

Why do we humans have a tail bone (the coccyx), when we don't have a tail? Why does the laryngeal nerve take its strange and rather wasteful detour? Why do we humans get goosebumps? Explain the appendix, an organ which is vestigial and even dangerous. Why are our eyes so badly made (and they are)? Why do human embryos have the makings of gills, and fins, and even a tail? Why do we have dormant/useless genes?

Evolution explains all of this quite nicely. But if evolution is a "hoax", as you claim, then what are the answers to these questions?

And by the way, you are one of about 700 biologists, out of over 480,000 of them. You make up less then one-tenth of one percent. That is how many biologists discount evolution. Less then one-tenth of one percent of them.

[Electrophile]

All Biologists say evolution is true?

Excuse me sir or madam but I went through allot of work to get an Ivy Leage degree in Biology. I have had the concept stuffed down my throat for over 10 years and I can very well make my claim that evolution is a hoax. I am also not the only person with a Masters in Biology that distrusts the THEORY.

I'm sorry, but an Ivy League institution gave a Masters in Biology to someone who DOESN'T believe in evolution? Haha, wow.

[Nathan]

I'm sorry, but an Ivy League institution gave a Masters in Biology to someone who DOESN'T believe in evolution? Haha, wow.

I'm guessing Patrick Henry College in Virginia. Google it.

[Electrophile]

The cognitive dissonance that must have been on display for him to get the damn thing had to have been impressive. That would be like someone who is a militant white supremacist getting a degree in African-American Studies or an atheist getting a doctorate in Theological Studies. How do you sit through class after class and write paper after paper and take test after test, for a subject that at its cornerstone, contains something you don't think exists?

It's absolutely mind-blowing.

[Nathan]

The cognitive dissonance that must have been on display for him to get the damn thing had to have been impressive. That would be like someone who is a militant white supremacist getting a degree in African-American Studies or an atheist getting a doctorate in Theological Studies. How do you sit through class after class and write paper after paper and take test after test, for a subject that at its cornerstone, contains something you don't think exists?

It's absolutely mind-blowing.

True, except at a very select few colleges, such as Patrick Henry College, they teach biology from a Young-Earth Creationist perspective.

I was kidding about PHC, but I do wonder what school he got his doctorate from, because I want to know exactly how they taught him biology without using the evolution perspective, since biology is basically an evolutionary science.

[lead ballon]

Or you just do what I would have done under his circumstances: give them what they want to hear. After all that's what getting good marks is all about.

[Nathan]

Or you just do what I would have done under his circumstances: give them what they want to hear. After all that's what getting good marks is all about.

Perhaps, but the cognitive dissonance is, quite frankly, astounding. I really hope he didn't study to be a teacher of biology, because those kids will learn nothing. Whatever he does with his PhD, sooner or later he's gonna realize that biology is bunk without evolution.

[Conneyfogle]

They should teach 'Directed panspermia'

Our Stairway , who art in heaven,

Zeppelin be thy name.

Thy Kingdome come,

thy will be done,

on CD as it is in Vinyl

Give us this day our daily Zep.

And forgive us our Ramblings,

as we forgive those who Ramble on against us,

And led us into temptation,

but deliver us Rock 'n' Roll

For thine is the kingdome, the Hammer of The Gods. for ever and ever.

Amen