March for Science or March for Secularism?

The upcoming march is not defending science. It's undermining it.

A sign at the Washington, D.C. Women's March, January 21, 2017.

By John West Published on April 17, 2017

On April 22, a “March for Science” will take place in Washington, D.C. and hundreds of other cities around the world.

March organizers say they believe that “science works best when scientists come from diverse perspectives.” They also claim that the “scientific community is best served by including voices and contributions from people of all identities and backgrounds.”

Discovery Institute asked to become a “partner” for the March. We were turned down flat.

Tell that to scientists who think there is evidence of intelligent design in nature. Discovery Institute represents many of those scientists, and so asked to become a “partner” for the March. We were turned down flat.

I asked the March co-chair Jonathan Berman to explain why. He emailed me that “it is not our policy to advance specific worldviews or ideas outside of current consensuses of scientific fields.”

Really?

Defend Intelligent Design? You’re Out!

Most scientists think genetically modified foods are safe. That didn’t stop the March for Science from accepting partner groups that think otherwise.

Or what about the pat assurance that the March doesn’t want to “advance specific worldviews” that go beyond science?March organizers were happy to accept a number of high-profile groups that use science to debunk God. These include the Secular Student Alliance, the Secular Coalition for America, and even the American Humanist Association.

The March for Science has shut out scientists who see design in nature and embraced groups that use science to attack faith.

That last group has a statement that claims “unguided evolutionary change” is proof against the supernatural. In other words, they think science disproves God. So, for the March’s leadership, the idea that science disproves God is not a “specific worldview” that goes beyond science.

Then there is the March’s honorary co-chair Bill Nye, the “Science Guy.” A few years ago, Nye was named “Humanist of the Year.” He claims “evolution is not guided by a mind or a plan.” He also invokes science to argue that humans are “insignificant” and “suck.”

So according to the leaders of the March for Science, if you argue that science provides evidence of purposeful design, you’re anti-science. But if you argue science disproves God and shows humans “suck,” that’s fine.

Using Science to Bash Religion

March for Science organizers fret about “underrepresented” groups in the sciences. But the biggest underrepresented group among scientific elites by far may be theists.

Only 51 percent of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science believe in the existence of God or a higher power. That’s in contrast to 95 percent of the public. That’s an astounding gap of 44 points.

The scientific elite’s secularism has all sorts of real-world impacts. For one, it fosters a culture where it’s okay to misuse science to bash religion. If March for Science organizers were truly concerned about not advancing worldviews beyond science, they should have thought twice about partnering with groups that use science to bash God.

Scientists Assume Rational Design

The irony here is that it was intelligent design, not secularism, that gave rise to modern science in the first place. Science grew in large part because early scientists thought nature was the product of a rational agent. This meant it could be investigated as something rational and orderly rather than as the result of a haphazard process.

Even today, scientists tend to assume that nature is rationally designed.

Even today, scientists tend to assume that nature is rationally designed — whatever they may believe personally. I have a biologist friend at a state university. He likes intelligent design because it tracks with what he does in his lab. When he studies a biochemical system, he starts by treating every part as if it’s needed. He can’t just write off this or that piece as a random accident if he wants to grasp how it works.

In contrast, the March for Science has shut out scientists who see design in nature and embraced groups that use science to attack faith. That’s not defending true science. It’s undermining it. And for all of us who value science, that’s truly unfortunate.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Timothy Horton

    You Intelligent Design Creationists are more than welcome to submit your positive evidence for ID-Creation to any and all mainstream scientific journals for critical review by the appropriate qualified science professionals. But you won’t because all you have is a bunch of hand waving idiotic propaganda which won’t stand up to the slightest bit of scientific scrutiny. You know it, we know it.

    If you want to be considered anything more than a bunch of religiously motivated clowns then you follow the same scientific protocols and rigorous scientific vetting every other idea in science was required to follow.

    • Gary

      Question: What scientific protocol was used to make the assumption that one kind of living thing can reproduce a different kind of living thing, (a key component of evolution)??? Answer: NONE. There was no protocol. There were no observations. There were no experiments. There is no actual proof of any kind, and certainly none that could seriously be deemed “scientific”.

      • Timothy Horton

        There is no scientific meaning or definition of “kind”. That’s a meaningless Creationist term straight from the Bible.

        If you mean speciation through common descent there is overwhelming physical evidence from both the fossil and genetic records. The scientific literature is filled with literally millions of research papers documenting both the mechanisms and the results of speciation over the last 500+ million years.

        • Gary

          BS. You’re both a liar and a fool.

          • Timothy Horton

            Then give us the scientific definition of “kind” and describe the objective method for determining what “kind” a species belongs to.
            Over to your liar and blowhard. 🙂

          • Gary

            Use “species” if you want to. It won’t help you. You still can’t overcome the fact that cats never reproduce anything but cats. And you must overcome that in order for evolution to be true.

          • Timothy Horton

            LOL! Look at the blowhard backpedal. 😀

            Why are there no modern cats in the fossil record beyond a few million years ago when the fossil record extends back 3.8 billion years? Why are there no cats of any kind in the fossil record before around 40 million years ago?

          • Michael

            Bravo, Timothy. Your academic prowess is impressive. The nastiest person wins the argument. Good for you!

          • Timothy Horton

            Actually the person with the scientific understanding and evidence wins the argument. That’s why Creationism always loses.

          • Thomas Smith

            Are you sure? Our science will bury your pet fairytale!

          • Michael

            Quite sure. Your “science?” In reality a bunch of just so stories created to prop up a tottering paradigm.

          • GLT

            I remember Nikita Krushchev pounding his shoe on the table screaming about how the Soviet Union would bury the United States.:)

          • Timothy Horton

            DA! DA! CANADA!
            NYET! NYET! SOVIET!
            🙂

          • GLT

            A friend from university was there in ’72. Now I’m giving away my age. He said the area of the stands where the Canadian fans sat was surrounded by the police. Every time the Canadians got up to cheer the guards would swat them with their batons and tell them to sit down and be quiet. This simply led to them standing up and cheering even more. After a while the police just gave up. He said it was the wildest thing he had ever seen. One of his friends was grabbed after one game and showed up at the hotel the next morning with a prisoners tattoo on his foot. 🙂

          • Michael

            Nah. The person who kisses the backsides of his profs in university and continues the process during his career is the one who gets the funding and the accolades. This gives the intellectual sycophant an unfair advantage.
            But lies and misinformation will eventually fade and truth will prevail.

          • Timothy Horton

            The person who kisses the backsides of his profs in university and continues the process during his career is the one who gets the funding and the accolades.

            Spoken by someone who has never attended college.

            But lies and misinformation will eventually fade and truth will prevail.

            Yes, the ID-Creation movement will eventually be classified as woo with the Flat Earthers and the 9/11 Truthers.

          • Michael

            your assumptions about my background are as well founded as your “science.” Evolutionists should be forced to take a few courses in software engineering. That would (or would if they were even slightly less narrow minded) cure them of the idiotic notion that chance mutations and their pantheistic “god” of natural selection could produce even a simple life form in the time that the universe has existed.

            I don’t think so, Tim. You need to check your math.

          • Timothy Horton

            Evolutionists should be forced to take a few courses in software engineering.

            Maybe if software engineers took a few basic biology courses they wouldn’t be so ignorant on actual evolutionary theory.

            You need to check your math.

            Let’s see your calculations showing evolution is impossible. Be sure to justify any assumptions you make. Be sure to include the iterative feedback provided by evolutionary processes in your work.

          • Michael

            So now natural selection is iterative. Please cite the peer reviewed papers describing this iterative mechanism.

          • Timothy Horton

            (facepalm) It’s called reproduction. Beneficial mutations which pass through filtering selection tend to accumulate and are carried forward as heritable traits. Each generation serves as the baseline for the next generation.

            I’ve met some dirt ignorant Creationists before but never one who didn’t understand how animals reproduce.

          • Michael

            Sorry, old son, but that isn’t iteration. It’s sequence. You really should consider those courses in software engineering.

          • Timothy Horton

            LOL! I see you’re too ignorant to understand what an iterative process is too.

          • Michael

            Next thing, the evolutionists will be trying to tell us that natural selection can branch and make choices based on a decision tree stored in its collective consciousness. At the very least, you should hire software engineers help you compose your tall tales. At least they’d be a tad more credible.

          • GLT

            Do you get the feeling the series just shifted? 7-0, OUCH!

          • Timothy Horton

            I fear it was just a temporary anomaly. I expect a much closer game 5 back in Edmonton.

          • GLT

            Yeah, I expect a closer game as well, but a drubbing like that can have an effect on a young team.

          • Timothy Horton

            Question is will Draisaitl get a game or just a $$$ fine. That was a pretty nasty spear.

          • GLT

            I’m one who has little tolerance for spearing, it can do a lot of damage and is always intentional. He should get at least one game.

          • Thomas Smith

            This is not an ID question and I doubt you have the knowledge to even know the difference. This is an example of the arrogance of the evolutionists for they don’t even understand what they are talking about when it comes to ID, but I digress. A creationist answer to your question is that the oceans were much less deep prior to the flood. There were abundant amounts of trilobites and other shellfish in the oceans and the vast explosion of water within the earth swirled trees and the land animals above, while vast areas of shellfish and other marine life were deposited at the lower regions. This alluvial layering created the vast layers we see today. In certain areas we do see mixtures of many species such as the tar pits! Also, the layering is what you would expect from one gigantic flood and not what you would expect from many little floods separated by vast amounts of time. We even see trees extending through several geological layers, which should never happen if the evolutionary story was true.

          • Timothy Horton

            I don’t want to hear BS creation “coulda been” excuses. Support your claims with evidence from geology. You can’t of course because it was Creationist geologists way back in the 1700’s who realized the geologic record made their Flood scenario impossible. Go read up about Hutton’s angular unconformity at Siccar Point, Scotland.

          • Timothy Horton

            OK, let’s go with “kind” = ‘species”.

            Lions and tigers are different species. Are tigers and lions the same “kind”? How about tigers and house cats?

            Have you ever seen a house cat give birth to a tiger?

            Let’s see that wonderful Creation Science in action with some explanations!

        • Thomas Smith

          Again, you have been taken in by the evolutionary dogma and have not even considered the fact that you are observing Design. How do you know that the change you see is not programmed into the cell so the life-form can survive? How do you know for sure it is purely caused by mutations and natural selection?

          • Timothy Horton

            Present some positive evidence for your claimed “change programmed into the cell” and we’ll talk. Otherwise you’re just producing empty verbiage.

    • Thomas Smith

      Do you really believe we would get a fair hearing? I doubt it from the uproar that was created many times before when others have attempted to publish in the journals.

      • Timothy Horton

        We’ll never know when the ID clowns are too afraid to even try.

        • Thomas Smith

          Ok, I will give it a try!

  • Timothy Horton

    I asked the March co-chair Jonathan Berman to explain why. He emailed me that “it is not our policy to advance specific worldviews or ideas outside of current consensuses of scientific fields.”

    The Flat Earthers, Geocentrists, and “Stork-Brings-The-Babies” advocates were turned down for the exact same reason.

    When you ID-Creation clowns get off your lazy butts and do some real scientific work which supports your claims, get back to us. Otherwise go pound sand with the rest of the disingenuous morons.

    • GLT

      Hey, Thornton,

      “When you ID-Creation clowns get off your lazy butts and do some real scientific work,…”

      It was those very clowns which developed the modern scientific system. If it was not for the work of these clowns you very likely would not have the scientific basis of enquiry you so love to expound. That’s simply historical fact.

      As for science being the answer to everything, I think right now prayer is going to be more effective in helping out your Sharks than will Bill Nye. (Now there’s an image for the imagination, Bill Nye playing hockey.) I’m still optimistic they can come back, but right now it seems the Oilers have their number. I am still cheering for them to win the Cup this year as I know my Leafs will not get that far even though they are playing really well right now against Washington.

      • Timothy Horton

        It was those very clowns which developed the modern scientific system.

        No it wasn’t. None of the ID-Creationist clowns today had anything to do with developing modern science. The early scientists who developed modern scientific methods may have been very religious but took great pains to keep their religion out of the science. They let the empirical scientific evidence speak for itself.

        How’s the leg Nic? Still in the walking boot? I’m afraid the Sharks are toast. Too old, too injured, can’t match the young Oilers’ fire in the belly. It’s been a pleasure watching McDavid continue to grow and develop. Could be another Golden Age starting in Edmonton. I see your Leafs are giving the Caps all they can handle too. Youth will be served!

        I have to admit talking hockey with you is more fun that trying to explain high school science to most of the cement heads around here. 🙂

        • GLT

          Thorton,

          “The early scientists who developed modern scientific methods may have been very religious but took great pains to keep their religion out of the science.”

          They did not. In fact they were very clear that their motivation was to understand God through his creation. As Kepler put it, he was thinking God’s thoughts after him. They made no effort whatsoever to separate their faith from their science. Their faith is what drove their desire to do science.

          I am out of the walking boot now and each day is a little better. However, it appears some of the earlier nerve damage which came about via the leukemia may be permanent. It’s not that bad though. I can walk normally, which is the most important thing.

          “It’s been a pleasure watching McDavid continue to grow and develop”

          Yes, McDavid is a joy to watch. A little improvement on their defense and I think you’re right about a future Oiler powerhouse. As for my Leafs, it is easier being a Leafs fan these days.

          Yeah, I enjoy our hockey banter as well. At least we can agree on that subject. 🙂 However, I don’t think I am a cement head. 🙂 Hope the family is doing well.

          • Timothy Horton

            They did not. In fact they were very clear that their motivation was to understand God through his creation. As Kepler put it, he was thinking God’s thoughts after him. They made no effort whatsoever to separate their faith from their science. Their faith is what drove their desire to do science.
            Their motivation to do science and the “nuts and bolts” of the scientific method are two very different things Nic. None of the early scientists ever included any supernatural or God intervention in their work, EVER.
            Sorry to hear about the nerve damage. Is that and end to skiing / skating, even recreationally on the pond? Family is good, thanks for asking. Had a huge Easter family dinner yesterday, now have to diet the rest of the week. 😮 Hope all is well with your family too.

          • GLT

            Thorton,

            “None of the early scientists ever included any supernatural or God intervention in their work, EVER.”

            It was not deemed necessary to discuss the role of God in the process as in that time it was presumed.
            Though it has been around since ancient Greece, naturalism did not become widely popular until the 18th century.

            “Is that and end to skiing,…”

            I can still ski, just not as aggressively as I used too. Skating is a little more difficult as it demands more motor skill in the lower leg than skiing does.

            Had a quiet Easter this year as there was no family around. One daughter lives quite far away, another was working and my son, an RCMP officer, was making sure everyone else had a safe weekend. Yes, all is well with us, thank you.

    • jeromel

      “When you ID-Creation clowns get off your lazy butts and do some real
      scientific work which supports your claims, get back to us. Otherwise
      go pound sand with the rest of the disingenuous morons.”

      Apparently you know nothing of the work of Michael Behe, Douglas Axe, Steven Meyer, et al. or you studiously pretend that it doesn’t exist.

      • Timothy Horton

        I know of a bunch of self-published garbage by those disingenuous clowns. It was laughably bad, like Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt “Intelligent Designer came by in the Cambrian” brain fart. Or Behe’s claim The “Intelligent Designer” recently gave malaria resistance to anti-malarial drugs. Then there was Axe and Gauger’s “research” showing one extant protein can’t evolve into another extant protein, something that no one is science says or thinks happened anyway. None have published any support of ID-Creationism in the primary scientific literature.

        • qedlin

          Here is why no one in science that you read acknowledges the protein issue:
          1.There are thousands of essential proteins in living things.
          2.Proteins are almost exclusively produced by the coded RNA and enzymatic elements within the cell.
          3.The enzymes and RNA are coded within the DNA, which discloses how to produce not only the protein producing RNA, but DNA itself.
          4. Natural selection, the only identified “power” within evolution, requires replication.
          5. Replication is DNA reproduction.
          6. DNA is constructed of proteins.
          7. Proteins are only produced within DNA

          Where do the proteins come from, except DNA, which is constructed of proteins. Naturalistic science cannot answer this and refuses to seriously consider it. The present origin of life research is a chaotic mess with no answers for homochirality, homopolymerization, cell membranes, amino acids, proteins, nucleotide coding, all withing the context of colocation, coincidence, and contamination mitigation.

          You can continue to read you narrow naturalistic science publications all you want but you will never discover the truth of creation, the Big Bang, the fine tuning of the universe, the Anthropic principle, the origins of life or sentience. I encourage you to expand your study to the presently ostracized elements of scientific investigation that are pursuing the truth of all things, not the narrow ideology of naturalism.

        • Thomas Smith

          You obviously don’t understand the probability problem with evolution or the origin of life problem! So you have faith that all biological systems can be accounted for by random mutations and natural selection? Do you even understand the faith you have in evolution?

          • Timothy Horton

            Go ahead and explain the probability problem. Please justify any assumptions you make about the initial conditions and processes involved before you do the math. That’s the step the IDiots always forget. For example they assume an extant protein had to fall together all at once from its constituent parts instead of evolving slowly over time from simpler precursors. That makes their probability calculations worthless. GIGO.

          • Thomas Smith

            I have explained it on other posts!

    • qedlin

      What Jonathan did not confess to you is that his real policies ultimately promote narrow, naturalistic specific worldviews of his own making, so the logic of his position is invalid and incoherent. Their narrow, ideological fixation on what is the true scope of science is the problem. Who are they to say what science is or is not? What arrogance and unscientific postulates. Until some serious scientific investigation is performed, it is pure ideological fixation that restricts the scope of what science pursues.

    • Thomas Smith

      Many have and their work is denigrated not on the scientific merits of the arguments but on the fact that it challenges the evolutionary dogma preached from our academic synagogues by disingenuous morons!

      • Timothy Horton

        Examples please. Every piece of ID-Creationist work to date has been rejected because the “science” they contain is just wretched. That’s one reason the clowns only self-publish and don’t submit their work for proper critical peer review by experts.

        • Thomas Smith

          Ok, I will start publishing and we will see where it gets us. You are right, though, we need to publish more!

  • Gary

    Most of the evolutionists believe that natural things are all that exists. That means they don’t believe in God. And, they claim that their beliefs are “scientific”. When they do that, they want all competing views to slink away in embarrassment. By design, they intend for what they believe to dominate in “science”, and they are not going to agree to allow those who believe that the universe was created to have a seat at the table. This all wouldn’t be so bad except that a lot of people give these bigots respect when they deserve scorn.

    • Timothy Horton

      Science isn’t a democracy. You have to EARN your seat at the table by providing a sufficient quantity and quality of positive evidence to support your position. All the ID-Creationists have done in the last 30 years is lie about the huge amount of evidence for evolution and quote Bible verses.

      • It only seems that way because evolutionists generally refuse to look at the evidence as it is actually presented in reality. For example, when’s the last time you were able to write code that, at one and the same time, worked forward, backward, left, right and up? You say no one can write code that works in 5 dimensions at once? Really? Haven’t studied the workings of DNA lately, have you? You rather believe that that happened randomly than that it is the product of a superior coding intellect, wouldn’t you?

        • Timothy Horton

          It only seems that way because evolutionists generally refuse to look at the evidence as it is actually presented in reality

          I have access to any number of mainstream scientific journals and read 1-2 new evolutionary biology papers a week on average, and scan many more. Where was all this evidence for ID-Creation published? Sorry but I don’t frequent self-published Creation propaganda sites.

          • qedlin

            Virtually all scientific journals only promote evolution because they are required to ideologically or else they will not exist. Science has been restricted to a philosophically naturalistic belief system that can never discover all truth because of its materialistic limitations. The truth is out there but much of science is not pursuing truth, only naturalism.

          • Timothy Horton

            Virtually all scientific journals only promote evolution because they are required to ideologically or else they will not exist.

            That is the standard Creationist lie for why Creationists never produce any scientific results to support their idiocy, yes.

          • Thomas Smith

            Many Creationists and ID proponents have been discriminated against in the sciences. You live in a fantasy world if you don’t recognize this! Now I grant you that we should try more often to publish, but the sad truth is that many have tried and were rejected purely on the basis that they would question evolution! Many try to publish but are continually rejected!

          • Timothy Horton

            Many Creationists and ID proponents have been discriminated against in the sciences.

            No. Many stupid Creation and ID claims have been rejected for lack of evidence. There’s nothing that stops the IDiots from trying again as many times as they like.

            Many try to publish but are continually rejected!

            I asked you to provide a list of the papers/authors which were submitted and rejected and you can’t name a single one. So much for that dumb claim.

          • Thomas Smith

            Yes, and you are brainwashed to such an extent that you cannot properly understand the evidence that is presented! You see evolution when it was actually Design! If you look at the amount of money going into the evolutionary propaganda, compared to the pittance going into ID, then yes evolution would appear to have more evidence, but there are many good books written on ID. You just need to be objective enough to read them!

          • Timothy Horton

            You ID-Creationist haven’t presented any positive evidence. You lose.

      • Gary

        The evidence proves that humans did not evolve from non-humans. But you evolutionists still insist they did. You believe something that is impossible and unproven. And you have the arrogance to claim your absurd beliefs are “scientific”. Your “emperor” has no clothes, and every thinking, honest person knows it.

        • Timothy Horton

          It you waved your hands any faster denying the scientific evidence I believe you’d get airborne.

          • Gary

            You have not produced any “scientific evidence”. And you won’t because you can’t. You’re such a fool that you think people are going to believe your lies just because you claim it is “science”.

          • Timothy Horton

            You have not produced any “scientific evidence”. And you won’t because you can’t.

            www(dot)talkorigins(dot)org/faqs/comdesc/

            A nice overview of the evidence for common descent. Several hours worth of reading if you want to understand it, which you don’t.

          • Gary

            I’ve seen the absurd arguments for “common descent”. I know they can’t be true.

          • Timothy Horton

            LOL! So you can’t explain or rebut the evidence provided, you just “know”.

            Still you wonder why Creationists get laughed at by real scientists.

          • Gary

            Your side can’t provide any evidence. If what you believe to be true really was, there would be some actual evidence for it. But there isn’t.

          • RbtRgs

            See talkorigins dot com, as you were instructed earlier. Your ignoring evidence does not mean that there is none.

          • GLT

            RbtRgs,

            “talkorigins”

            You’re not serious, please tell me you’re not serious. They still promote the junk dna argument, as well as atavisms, so you have got to be kidding.

          • RbtRgs

            Evolution is fact. We are evolved from filthy monkey men. 😉

          • GLT

            “We are evolved from filthy monkey men. ;-)”

            Sure we did. 🙂

          • qedlin

            You did not specify which type of evolution you are declaring as fact. I recommend you specify which one and define it accurately.

          • RbtRgs

            Evolution by natural selection. Micro and macro are misnomers used by ID people. They are the same thing over longer time periods.

          • qedlin

            Natural selection is a process that has 5 manifestations or results:
            Chemical evolution is a myth which is why the origin of life research naturalistically is a chaotic mess
            Microscopic evolution is viable for species adaptation to environment
            Macroscopic evolution is the supposed accumulation of all the microscopic evolutionary steps that supposedly lead to new species/genuses/kinds etc. It is a true measure of evolution but it is false and unproven. The fossil record refutes it.
            Microbial evolution is the changes within microbes with replication but never leads to new genuses, only microbes.
            Speciation evolution is the possible change within a species that changes it to another, but never beyond that.

            Neither micro nor macro are misnomers, they are problematic terms for naturalists, so they insist on contending against them.

          • RbtRgs

            I’m glad you’re not teaching science class.

          • Thomas Smith

            It is your faith, but it is based on a purely naturalistic doctrine! You can look at the same evidence and argue for Design!

          • RbtRgs

            You could do that, but you don’t have any evidence to support ID. There is plenty evidence for natural changes.

          • Timothy Horton

            LOL! The Creationist way. “LA LA LA I DON’T SEE ANY OF THAT STINKY EVIDENCE!!”

            😀

          • Thomas Smith

            You have no clue what you are talking about!

          • Thomas Smith

            All we have to do is point you to the talk origins site and just look at the evidence without all the evolutionary dogma attached! Basically, it needs to be reinterpreted from the ID perspective!

          • Thomas Smith

            So you “just know” that evolution is happening when you see the adaptation? How exactly do you know it isn’t Design where biological triggers and switches are operating based on pre-programmed intelligence in the cell and genome?

          • RbtRgs

            Oh they are true, alright. Incompatible with the Bible, yes, but the Bible is just a book of old folklore.

          • qedlin

            I do not believe you could have ever seriously read the Bible, as it precisely discloses a number of fundamental scientific truths, like the Big Bang, the fixation of physical laws, the expansion of the universe and the second law of thermodynamics, to name a few. Proper reading reveals historical understanding of the universe, solar system, Earth and living things. Christianity is the philosophical and promotional basis for the start of science, so there is nothing inconsistent within it from what science proposes. God invented science, humans only discovered it, but science has been hijacked and usurped by naturalists who incoherently believe, like Carl Sagan, that only what exists materially can explain cosmic reality.

            Many refuse to seriously consider the truth of Christ and Christianity because then they may have to live differently.

          • RbtRgs

            We live better without religious superstition.

            The Bible is not a reliable source for anything, not science or historical study or any other thing. It does show that people in the Middle East in the early modern era were deeply superstitious, but that is no surprise.

          • qedlin

            Your own religious superstition is a bigger threat: without the objective reality of God’s ownership of all nature and everything metaphysical, then you have no instruction or objective measure of truth to bring stability to human life.

            The Bible is the greatest source of law, natural history, science recorded in religions, The Bible is a reliable source of all that God intended fur us to learn, unfortunately, many are unwilling to objectively study it to learn all its truth.

            The people in the Middle East were no more superstitious than humans in the present day. Even today there are scientists who believe the universe created itself, that human sentience came about by itself, that life created itself, that there are powers in the universe powerful enough to accomplish this through the laws of physics and the forces of the universe, a cosmic oneness and invisible power. This is a form of neo-pagan animism that arose early in human history. Instead of worshiping rocks, planets and the heavens, they worship and put their trust in the laws of physics and materialistic processes.

          • RbtRgs

            Dang. Take off the god goggles.

          • Timothy Horton

            The Bible is the greatest source of law, natural history, science recorded in religions, The Bible is a reliable source of all that God intended fur us to learn, unfortunately, many are unwilling to objectively study it to learn all its truth.

            I especially like the part where you can get solid colored cattle to produce striped offspring by having them mate in front of a striped tree. I wonder why that wasn’t included in my Genetics courses? 🙂

          • RbtRgs

            Because the laws of physics are real and demonstrable, unlike imaginary supernatural entities.

          • Thomas Smith

            ID does not need the Bible to test the Design Inference! Do you know anything about ID?

          • RbtRgs

            To get to ID, you have to presuppose a designer, for which there is no evidence.

          • Thomas Smith

            There are billions of people around the world who claim that God has impacted their lives. This is evidence. Why would you automatically assume no God when naturalism has no answers for abiogenesis?

          • RbtRgs

            Science not knowing something is not evidence for a supernatural explanation.

          • RbtRgs

            Belief is not evidence. One billion times zero evidence equals zero evidence.

          • Thomas Smith

            Yes, there are no clear lineage or step-by-step process of evolutionary development! We are supposed to trust the huge gaps that it somehow shows evolution! If you raise this objection you get howls and hoots that we should never expect to see the step-by-step development! But lack of evidence does not support the theory even if you can “explain” the lack of evidence! These geniuses are a real joke!

          • RbtRgs

            He won’t look.

          • Timothy Horton

            They never do.

          • RbtRgs

            Sometimes they wake up. Religiosity is dropping, slowly but surely.

          • glenbo

            >>”Religiosity is dropping”<<
            Thank God!

          • RbtRgs

            Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Gods are not real, as far as the evidence goes.

          • Thomas Smith

            Really, even if evolution was true, the fact that life is preprogrammed in the universe would still beg the question if there was God! You faith in naturalism is notable!

          • RbtRgs

            Life preprogrammed? Where the fuc/ do you get that?

          • Thomas Smith

            We have absolutely no idea how abiogenesis could even occur! Either life would have to be built into our universe or it must be the product of a supernatural event! Both would necessitate God!

          • RbtRgs

            There are plenty of things we don’t know, like what came before the Big Bang and how the first life forms (bacterium) began. But you don’t just make up a story or believe a book of obvious Bronze Age folklore like the Bible to be a factual account of anything.

          • Thomas Smith

            ID does not use the Bible, but creationism does. The Bible is an historical book, where you can see the cultural practices of many different time periods, which are consistent with history! This is very strong evidence that the Bible is historically accurate, which should not surprise us!

          • RbtRgs

            Talking animals, 900 year old men, and a global flood? Never happened, pure folklore. And an all powerful supernatural entity watching us? Gimme a break, that is more folklore.

          • eddiestardust

            Then why are you commenting if God does not exist?

          • RbtRgs

            Because supposed gods achieve a sort of pop icon status for bad reasons, and that affects the rest of us negatively.

          • Thomas Smith

            Your bias is showing! Why don’t you like the concept of God? Could it well influence your faith in evolution?

          • glenbo

            >>”Your bias is showing!”<>”Why don’t you like the concept of God?”<>”Could it well influence your faith in evolution?”<<

            The two (religion and evolution) are impossibly
            incompatible.

          • qedlin

            There is no evidence for common descent that cannot also be interpreted as common design. There is no fossil evidence for common descent, there is no genomic evidence. There are zero viable naturalistic theories for origin of life. I would like to read the reference, but do not need to to know the present state of biological scientific theory validity has been misinterpreted of forcefully pushed into a naturalistic ideology. Do not consider young earth creationism as anything viable to base your own belief system on.

          • Timothy Horton

            There is no evidence for common descent that cannot also be interpreted as common design.

            Which is exactly why ID is not scientific. There is no piece of evidence found that can’t be fobbed off as the work of a mysterious omnipotent “Designer”. There are plenty of things which if found would falsify the idea of common descent, but there is literally nothing which can be found which would falsify ID.

          • qedlin

            What refutes common descent is known – the fossil record, incompatible aspects of naturalistic evolution, e.g., abject absence of any naturalistic origin of life plausibility, historical contingency, homology, irreducible complexity, sentience. Naturalistic biologists will never admit it. While God created the universe, the laws of physics, the development of the universe, solar system and Earth, and created the first life and subsequent, it logically follows that He did work it all out for his own purposes.

            ID can be refuted, all the naturalist have to do is demonstrate how all the complexity, order and design of life came about naturalistically. But they cannot and will never be able to accomplish that, consequently, they have redefined science and severely restricted its scope.

            Genomic and morphologic similarity is no justification to declare descent. There is no historic progression or consistency: the fossil record is not an “easily refuted stupidity.” The current origin of life chaotic mess is additional proof.

          • Timothy Horton

            What refutes common descent is known

            LOL! Sure it is. It’s just never been published in any scientific journal or book anywhere. Meanwhile millions of scientists worldwide keep doing useful science and making new discoveries based on the common descent paradigm. Creationists can only sit on the sidelines crying.

          • Thomas Smith

            Again you don’t tell the truth! There are many Creationist and ID proponents who work in various fields of science where they apply design principles to abstain solutions to different biological or medical challenges!

          • Thomas Smith

            ID is not scientific because you cannot falsify it? This is another one of your (and others) BS statements that sets me off! You are lying through your teeth, assuming you even understand Dembski’s EF process, which you claim! This is typical evolutionary propaganda which really shows your duplicity and dishonesty and why I take what evolutionists say with a grain of salt! Dembski’s EF will either show Design or it won’t! As I have shown before in other posts you can test it by setting up experiments. The power of the EF is that it forces those using it to use the known laws of physics. In other words

          • Thomas Smith

            But all that evidence could be argued that it supports robust design! Life has to be robust or it will just die out. So the small adaptations that are seen can be argued to show programmed intelligence rather than mutations and natural selection. So you automatically assume evolution when you really could be hi-jacking design, but you would never know it because you have been so programmed to believe evolution!

          • Thomas Smith

            Exactly what evidence do you have? Every evidence you could produce could be argued to be evidence for design!

      • Thomas Smith

        You have no knowledge of ID! Your ignorance is glaring. Have you heard of Dembski’s Explanatory Filter? Please get educated before you criticize something you don’t even understand!

        • Timothy Horton

          Are you aware Dembski’s EF had such glaring flaws identified in it, especially in the area of producing false positives, that Dembski himself recommended not using it as an ID argument anymore?

          • Thomas Smith

            Please explain how it would produce “false positives”. I don’t buy that argument!

          • Timothy Horton

            The filter only declares “design” when you have eliminated ALL instance of chance and necessity, or combinations thereof. But since you have imperfect knowledge of what chance and necessity and combinations exist you’re going to get a lot of false positives. Dembski finally realized this fatal flaw which is why he quietly stopped supporting the EF and urged his fellow IDiots to do the same. Looks like you didn’t get the memo.

          • Thomas Smith

            Imagine an alien race long ago flying to earth from a distant planet in another galaxy. One day they fly a lander vehicle from their large space station orbiting earth but they experience a malfunction and have a crash landing on earth. Soon another lander vehicle shows up, picks up the aliens and takes them back to the orbiting space station. Soon the aliens leave earth never to return again. Suppose that some explorers are deep in the jungle and they find the alien vehicle. Now if scientists are called to examine this vehicle, then based on your view of ID nothing could said about the vehicle since there can always exist some unknown law or improbable event to explain the vehicle. Intuitively, everybody reading this knows this is plain BS!

          • Timothy Horton

            Only if you assume the aliens make a lander that looks exactly like a human could have produced it then it may be identified as a manufactured item. If the lander looks like a nondescript chunk of rock no one would notice it.

            Where is your evidence biological life is exactly the way humans would have designed it?

          • Thomas Smith

            You disappoint me Tim! How exactly would a chunk of rock work as a lander? Is this even intelligent? You would not need to know anything about the designer to determine design! Why can’t you get this?

          • Timothy Horton

            I get you’re making the same dumb mistake every Creationist who presents this argument makes. You’re assuming we have sufficient knowledge beforehand to identify the object we find. That is not applicable to biological life.

          • Thomas Smith

            You are full of it! We don’t need to know anything before hand (assuming we are modern day men and women who are the scientists working on this project having enough of the lander vehicle to look at) to understand the systems work together for a purpose. We can see the advanced materials. We can see the interrelated systems! We would understand the underlying physics. If you can’t understand this is designed then you would have to be a complete moron! Timmy, please don’t disappoint me!

          • Timothy Horton

            Still making the same dumb mistake with your analogy. You still have nothing to pattern match to biological life.

  • RbtRgs

    Well, both. They are entirely compatible.

  • Gary

    Sorry evolutionists, I don’t believe what you believe. And I don’t agree that what you believe is “science”. Its religion pretending to be science. Like a man pretending to be a woman.

    • Timothy Horton

      You want to see how much science cares about your ignorance-based opinion?

      Stick your hand in a bucket of water and make a fist. Then pull your fist out. Now look at the size of the hole you left in the water. That much. 🙂

      • Gary

        My opinions are based on reality and truth. Those whose opinions are also based on reality and truth will agree with me.

        • Timothy Horton

          My opinions are based on reality and truth.

          The reality and truth of your abject scientific ignorance.

          • Thomas Smith

            Do you know how the Second Law of Thermodynamics supports ID?

          • Timothy Horton

            LOL! Please tell us. It’s always hilarious to watch an ID-Creationist make a fool of himself with the silly 2LoT argument.

          • Thomas Smith

            Who is the old fool? Open systems don’t allow just anything to happen! If lightning bolt struck a truck with wood, nails, sheet rock, and other supplies, would a house be built? How times would the lightning have to hit before the house would be built? Uncontrolled use of energy does not build the first cell or even allow new biological systems to develop! Your faith is strong in evolution! Fight the fight!

          • Timothy Horton

            Bwahahaha! See, I knew you’d make a fool of yourself.

            Be a good little Creationist and look up how endothermic chemical reactions work.

            Then look up the fact local processes can and do locally reverse entropy as long as the overall system entropy increases.

            Let us know what you find, OK?

          • Thomas Smith

            So you are telling me that any process can occur in an open system? What do you need for this local decrease of entropy?

          • Timothy Horton

            Still too lazy to look up endothermic chemical reactions I see.

            Here’s another clue – when the temperature drops below 32F and the pond in your back yard freezes that another local decrease in entropy. Ice has much less entropy than liquid water. Why doesn’t that violate the 2LoT?

          • Thomas Smith

            But that in no way compares to evolution where the process is moving AWAY from equilibrium. When the temperature of the pond decreases below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, then there is a 100% chance that the water will freeze assuming it is pure water. The possible micro-states of water decrease significantly at freezing. There is no temperature that will trigger precise mutations bringing added function to life-forms. The Second Law of Thermodynamics has everything to do about the direction of processes.

          • Timothy Horton

            Look moron, go read about how endothermic chemical reactions work. Then read up on how photosynthesis works. There are plenty of known chemical processes which do work / increase complexity / reduce their local entropy by absorbing heat and/or light energy from the environment. Life is the same way.

          • Thomas Smith

            Who is the moron? There are simple systems in nature where the boundary conditions are easy to form that allow entropy decreasing processes, but what they can “construct” is limited. Tectonic plates can push against each other lifting up mountains but you won’t get a Mount Rushmore which would require precise constrained energy use, machines, and intelligence. A river may cause a mound of sand and rocks to form, but you will not see a beautiful mosaic form from colored rocks creating a beautiful picture of a mountain scene. Again, you would need precise use of energy, machines to convert energy to different forms, and intelligence to get the mosaic. So the problem of natural mechanisms that allow entropy decreasing processes is that they have to have natural highly probable mechanisms that control the boundary conditions and the flow of energy. Since these natural mechanisms are so limited, you can never get much out of them because the probability of more complex mechanisms that utilize and controls the energy becomes too small. You are limited by the mechanisms that can naturally occur in nature. Now some may say that life is natural, but evolutionists must concede that it is a miracle because of the improbability of abiogenesis. Life requires too many precise uses of energy to materialize the first cell, so only a miracle can properly describe it! Again, when you need very detailed and precise use of energy to obtain your constructed object, the boundary conditions become too improbable in nature.

          • Timothy Horton

            You’re the moron for refusing to understand the beginner’s mistakes you keep making even when I give you hints big enough to sail a battleship through. Moron.

          • Thomas Smith

            I just gave you a very lucid and cogent response and you don’t have the intellect to process it. Who is the moron? Where is your battleship? I am waiting!

          • Timothy Horton is manifesting schadenfreude … He’s more to be pitied than scorned.

          • Timothy Horton

            LOL! Another Creationist coward crawls out from under his rock just to fling poo. Feel free to defend the “2LoT disproved evolution” Creationist stupidity.

          • Timothy Horton appears to be manifesting schadenfreude …

      • qedlin

        more snarky childish hostility, very disappointing

        • @Timothy Horton: To borrow from Samuel Johnson, argumenta ad hominem: the last refuge of an evolutionist.

      • Thomas Smith

        But then why don’t you read up on intelligent design and then you would have something intelligent to contribute. Who has the “ignorance-based opinion? Can you tell me what ID says?

        • Timothy Horton

          As a science professional I’ve followed the IDiots for close to 20 years. From Behe and Meyer’s early books, to Dembski’s “explanatory filter”, to Wells and his disgusting dishonest “Icons” book. I watched you guys do a major face plant at Kitzmiller v. Dover. The IDiots had every chance to make their scientific case in front of a nationwide audience and couldn’t have failed any worse. If it weren’t for the religious think tank Discovery Institute dumping money into the dead corpse ID would have shriveled up and blown away a decade ago.

          What ID says is “science can’t explain this to my satisfaction, therefore GAWDDIDIT!”. Of course science rejected such God-Of-The-Gaps nonsense over 300 years ago.

          • Thomas Smith

            For an educated man who claims to have read about Design and understands it, you really show your ignorance! You are a propagandist for evolution and hardly objective on the topic! The joke about the Dover case was there were a bunch of blow hearts like yourself, who made your ignorant statements and the judge not knowing any better went along with them. It was hardly objective. What is so dishonest about you o

          • Timothy Horton

            You’re never going to entertain us with your “2LoT makes evolution impossible” nonsense, are you?

            And what in the world is a “blow heart”?

          • Thomas Smith

            Blowhard! It was getting late.

          • Timothy Horton

            LOL! I liked blow heart better. I may have to use that again sometime, with attribution of course.

          • Thomas Smith

            Yes, I’m famous for getting words wrong! LOL!

  • Sandy Kramer

    It seems like only yesterday, when I studied science at Princeton. Science was science then, and not thinly disguised political propaganda, designed only to enrich the coffers of the apparatchik, and control the masses.

    Here’s a poem by Jane Hirshfeld which gives you the perspective of the March for “Science”:
    ————————————————————————————————————

    On the Fifth Day

    A poem about the presidency.

    By Jane
    Hirshfield April 14

    Jane Hirshfield is a chancellor of the
    Academy of American Poets. Her most recent collection is “The Beauty.” She will
    read this poem from the stage at the March for Science on April
    22.

    On the fifth day

    the scientists who studied the rivers

    were forbidden to speak

    or to study the rivers.

    The scientists who studied the air

    were told not to speak of the air,

    and the ones who worked for the farmers

    were silenced,

    and the ones who worked for the bees.

    Someone, from deep in the Badlands,

    began posting facts.

    The facts were told not to speak

    and were taken away.

    The facts, surprised to be taken, were silent.

    Now it was only the rivers

    that spoke of the rivers,

    and only the wind that spoke of its bees,

    while the unpausing factual buds of the fruit trees

    continued to move toward their fruit.

    The silence spoke loudly of silence,

    and the rivers kept speaking,

    of rivers, of boulders and air.

    Bound to gravity, earless and tongueless,

    the untested rivers kept speaking.

    Bus drivers, shelf stockers,

    code writers, machinists, accountants,

    lab techs, cellists kept speaking.

    They spoke, the fifth day,

    of silence.

    (Dr.) Sandy Kramer
    PrincetonUniversity@Cox.net

  • Michael

    It’s not only science that has an atheist bias, you also find it in the arts. I attended a music program at a major university only to leave in disgust. And their worldview comes through in their music. Aural garbage.

    To see the results of this bankrupt self-serving philosophy in the fine arts, simply visit a gallery featuring “modern art.” Emptiness and technical incompetence hides behind an aura of respectability conferred by academic approval and letter behind the “artist’s” name. But of course, and common sense argument that the art is actually garbage is rebuffed and the unwashed masses simply lack the sophistication to understand.

    The problem goes deeper than science. I believe it goes down to the roots of academic politics and th old adage that dead wood floats to the top.

    We see the phenomenon all too well in the political sphere at this moment in history. Anyone smart enough to do the job is also smart enough not to want it,

  • “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist”

    by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek.

  • glenbo

    I will gladly accept that there is an “intelligent designer”
    if it can be proven to me that there is one.

    Can we do this via the Scientific Method?

    The Scientific Method is as follows:

    Inquiry/question.
    Hypothesis.
    Prediction.
    Test/experiment.
    Analysis.
    Replication.
    Conclusion.
    Peer review.

    Can we demonstrate that God exists by the Scientific Method?

    No, we cannot.

    Can we demonstrate that the universe was “intelligent designed”
    by the Scientific Method?

    No, we cannot.

    How then does one come to a factual, rational, logical,
    reasonable and scientific conclusion that all came to be via an “intelligent designer?”
    A book written by humans during the Bronze Age? Sorry, but an anonymously
    written text cannot be acceptable as true fact.

    Can we prove why an “intelligent designer” would intentionally/deliberately
    design (or allow the design of) cancer, tsunamis, disease, birth defects, war
    etc.? Or does said “designer” need some sort of lame cop-out excuse why his
    design is abysmally flawed and/or failed because someone ate fruit because a
    talking snake suggested it. Scientific? Or nonsensical foolish myth intended to
    manipulate weak minds. You decide.

    Conclusion:

    By virtue of the fact that an “intelligent designer” cannot
    be proven to exist, the concept of “intelligent design” cannot be accepted as
    scientific fact in any venue.

    If your only defense and/or so-called “proof” of God’s
    existence is to demonize science and dissenters, then you not only hold an
    empty sack, you are vacuous of credibility, merit and integrity.

    Any questions?

    • Alexander Hamilton

      Inquiry/question.
      Hypothesis.
      Prediction.
      Test/experiment.
      Analysis.
      Replication.
      Conclusion.
      Peer review.

      Can this iteration of the scientific method itself be verified using the scientific method? No, it cannot not. Therefore the principle you are using is self-refuting. Here are some more things that cannot be scientifically proven but that we are all rational to accept: 1. Logic and Mathematical truths. 2. Metaphysical truths (such as that there are other minds besides my own). 3. Ethical beliefs. 4. Aesthetic judgments. 5. (As mentioned before) Science itself. You simply cannot narrow yourself to such a limited requirement for explaining phenomena (including scientific data), as it is incoherent to do so. Detection of an intelligent designer is a justified inference from the data.

      • glenbo

        >”Detection of an intelligent designer is a justified inference from the data.”<
        Irrelevant to the fact God cannot be proven to exist.
        Nit picking methodology is a disingenuous cop-out and demonstrates desperation. Just like appointing an "origionalist" judge for the sole purpose to eradicate LGBT rights.

    • Alexander Hamilton

      I also couldn’t resist this:

      Can we prove why an “intelligent designer” would intentionally/deliberately
      design (or allow the design of) cancer, tsunamis, disease, birth defects, war etc

      The issue here is that even what you might term a “bad design” is not proof that something was not designed. Think of the first car ever invented – by today’s standards it may rightly be viewed as badly designed by comparison to the latest Ferrari – but it doesn’t follow that it therefore wasn’t designed.

      • glenbo

        >>”Think of the first car ever invented”<<
        Thank you for using the car manufacturer analogy.
        The Ford Pinto's claim to fame was it exploded in rear-end collisions. Firestone tires tore apart at high speeds. Tragically, both defects resulted in lives lost.
        Had either company not corrected their design flaws, they would have gone out of business long ago.
        It baffles me how God stays in business as more death, suffering viruses and natural catastrophes continue to emerge.

    • Alexander Hamilton

      Can we demonstrate that the universe was “intelligent designed”
      by the Scientific Method?

      Since I have proven that the scientific method is an inadequate measure of truth, we may rightly assess whether the Universe was designed by other means. Such arguments may include the teleogical argument and the kalam cosmological argument – where the conclusion of each arguments follows necessarily from the premises and one could only deny the premises by pain of irrationality.

      • glenbo

        >>”Since I have proven that the scientific method is
        an inadequate measure of truth”<>”one could only deny the premises by pain of
        irrationality.”<<

        Good Lord.

        First you question science and then you question reason.

        Let me address reason:

        God defied all the laws of nature, physics and science (which you now label as suspect) to impossibly and magically “create” matter in record time out of a vacuum while geology and radiometric dating speak otherwise.
        But I get your game…you can’t win by your own merit so you are forced to demonize your challenger. This is how republicans took control of America.

        But let’s talk more about rationality:

        The god in question used magic (irrational) to create a
        universe from nothing, never mind used magic to create himself, or was created by magic from a yet to be discovered source. (Also irrational.) The god in
        question demands specific abuses of humans (slavery) and dictates specific uses of their sex organs (homosexuality) and condones murder of children. (Noah’s flood, 1 Samuel 15:3)

        But it gets better: We live in a magically created universe
        created by an immensely powerful “perfect” creator who for some reason allows death, suffering, wars, disease and natural catastrophes that kill millions. Oh…and said “perfect” creator allows 20,000 children to die of malnutrition, disease and lack of basic medical care every single day.

        And all this happens within said perfect creator’s magical universe because Adam ate fruit?

        And you want to talk about being rational?

        All you are saying is “My truth must be true because your
        truth isn’t absolute truth.”

        Sorry, but I’m going with evidence to determine “truth”
        based on scientific observation and not by a single self-contradictive text anonymously written by humans during the Bronze Age when the earth was still flat.

    • Thomas Smith

      If you were walking along the beach and you noticed writing in the sand that read, “I am God and I exist!” Would you say that some natural process created the writing? Of course not! You would know that an intelligent agent made the writing. It could be God, another human, or an alien from another planet! Using ID you could determine if the writing was natural or designed. So yes, ID is a completely scientific way to determine if something is intelligently designed. The real joke is the fear that supposedly scientific folk have for ID and all we have to do is to continue moving the field forward through research and experimentation.

      • Timothy Horton

        You can recognize written English because you already know English vocabulary and syntax. That doesn’t help you in biological life because you have no examples of previously known “designed” biological life to compare against.
        Big time FAIL with that argument.

        • Thomas Smith

          We do see the majority of planets where there is no life! ID can be used to examine life to see if it is natural or designed. That is the question! We can look at the information of life to see if it is complex specified information (CSI). If it is, then we can say it is designed. For example, we can look at the required mutations needed to bring about advancement in a life-form and look at the probability of it happening. If we can show the process is complex, contingent and significantly improbable then we can identify CSI and conclude it was designed. This is the scientific way to evaluate if life is natural or designed!

          • Timothy Horton

            We do see the majority of planets where there is no life!

            How do you know that? How many other planets besides Earth have you or any other ID-Creationist visited and explored?

            If it is, then we can say it is designed.

            Life contains complex information because natural iterative feedback processes like evolution produce complex results. You haven’t identified any before-the-fact “specification” in biological life, only defined it to be “specified”. That’s a completely circular and completely worthless argument.

            When will you be explaining how the 2LoT makes evolution impossible?

          • Thomas Smith

            What I mean about not finding life on planets is that we have looked very hard to find life! We haven’t yet found it which suggests it may never arise naturally! Evolutionists tend to believe that life should be easy to find based on their ideas that life arises rather easily – well at least many popular evolutionists have stated this. I know these are not absolutes per se but we know evolutionists would celebrate if life was found on other planets. If it was not found, this would bring into question just how easy life could evolve. Here both sides need to be careful in making these statements because if there is a designer we are presupposing that we know what the designer would or would not do. Also, we know that there is a flow of sediments and materials between the planets, with the possibility that microbes hitched a ride.

          • Timothy Horton

            What I mean about not finding life on planets is that we have looked very hard to find life! We haven’t yet found it which suggests it may never arise naturally!

            We’ve barely scratched the surface of ONE other planet, Mars, and had probes on a few others with lifespans measured in minutes. That’s not a very thorough search.

            Evolutionists tend to believe that life should be easy to find based on their ideas that life arises rather easily

            No, what was said is life may spontaneously arise if the proper conditions are there. Right now we really have only the faintest clue how many places in the universe that encompasses.

          • Thomas Smith

            “No, what was said is life may spontaneously arise if the proper conditions are there. Right now we really have only the faintest clue how many places in the universe that encompasses.”
            So you are saying that life is an entropy increasing process? This is a Bigly mistake and shows your utter ignorance of Thermodynamics!!

          • Timothy Horton

            Look moron, go look up how endothermic chemical reactions and photosynthesis work. I’m tired of giving you advice on how to cure your ignorance.

      • glenbo

        >>”Using ID you could determine if the writing was
        natural or designed.”<>” So yes, ID is a completely scientific way to
        determine if something is intelligently designed.”<>”The real joke is the fear that supposedly
        scientific folk have for ID”<>”and all we have to do is to continue moving the
        field forward through research and experimentation.”<<

        And exactly how does one go about “research and experimenting” to prove God’s existence?

        • Thomas Smith

          You show your own ignorance for ID is all about identifying complex specified information which is a positive marker of ID. All the time in real life we identify between things that are natural and things that are designed! Was that smooth pebble natural or something designed. Is the stone an arrowhead or a natural rock! Did the person slip and fall and die, or was he murdered? Is the path ahead the designed trail or just the natural landscape? Are the rock formations seen in the dessert something natural or are they made by some intelligent designer? ID is the scientific method used to identify design. You obviously know nothing about ID from your posted comments! For example, design doesn’t say anything about the designer, so exactly how is it “sneaking religion into schools”? We use research/experiments to test our ability to identify patterns and events that are designed versus those that are natural. For example, we can look at patterns in the sand and see if they are natural or designed. Also, we could write algorithms and program them into computers to identify design!

          • glenbo

            >>”design doesn’t say anything about the designer”<<
            So is cancer, dwarfism, viruses and being born with two heads "intelligent design?"

          • Thomas Smith

            This is a boneheaded comment hardly worth a reply!

          • glenbo

            >>”This is a boneheaded comment hardly worth a reply!”<<

            I apologize for being so "boneheaded" and "ignorant."
            Perhaps you can politely answer a simple question without insulting me:
            If life was intelligently designed, why do so many of us suffer from the many afflictions as I mentioned above?

          • Timothy Horton

            We use research/experiments to test our ability to identify patterns and events that are designed versus those that are natural

            We can only match and identify patterns we already know about. Where did you get before-the-fact patterns in biological life to match?

          • Thomas Smith

            I am not sure what you mean by your comment here. What I do mean about “research” here is that we can investigate patterns and see if they are designed or natural. For example, you could build a device that allows colored marbles to fall onto a flat board with circular holes cut out to constrain the marbles. So you allow colored marbles to fall below, freely roll around until they are captured in a circular hole and then look at the pattern formed. You develop an algorithm that decides if the pattern is natural (freely allowed to fall) or intelligently design by say a person creating a design.

          • Timothy Horton

            You’re right back where ID was 20 years ago. What will be your criteria for deciding “design” over “not design”?

          • Thomas Smith

            You are correct that this is very simple but it is a tool to investigate design. Obviously, you would not be able to approach the universal probability bound, for you would have to raise the probability significantly for a man-made device. Possibly, for a programmed digital device, you could keep it closer to a universal probability bound, but still I think you would have to raise it. I would have to think on it but possibly you could calculate a form of entropy as your criteria for Design – more of a statistical mechanics approach. Do you have any ideas?

          • Timothy Horton

            Do you have any ideas?

            Yep. If you want to determine design you must look for external signs, not internal ones. You look for evidence of the manufacturing process – tool and dye marks, the forces used to manipulate matter, the source of raw materials. You establish the manufacturing time line. You hypothesize and investigate the powers, limitations, and identity of the Designer(s). And you do it all openly, in the primary scientific literature, with proper peer review by qualified experts.

            The professional IDiots have known that for 20 years too. They just refuse to do any tests because they don’t want to deal with the tests coming back negative.

          • Thomas Smith

            Yes, some very good ideas! This would work on examining the fictional space lander that I described on another post, but I am trying to make something simpler. We should be able to look at patterns of colored marbles and distinguish design. The reason not much has been published, I think, is that it can be very complex to implement! For example, going through all known laws of physics looking for possible natural explanations is no trivial task!

    • Gary

      You already know God exists and that God made the universe and life on earth. You already know it. But you don’t like it. And that is why you deny it.

      • glenbo

        >>”You already know it. But you don’t like it.”<<
        Cue cuckoo clock sound byte.

        • Gary

          Everyone knows you are a liar. Even you know it.

    • ericdijon

      By the same method, you can prove that the method itself fails to be useful to disprove ID. If you are a good practitioner of the method, you can work it out. Surprise!

      • glenbo

        >>”By the same method, you can prove that the method itself fails to be useful to disprove ID.”<<
        Not likely.
        First, one cannot prove a negative. (Logic 101)
        Second, I don't need "proof" God exists. All I need is a slight hunch. Sadly for religion, there is no such hunch.

        • Bryan

          glenbo, you said you cannot prove a negative, which I’ll agree with, but in your original thread you’re using the same logic to prove a negative (that an intelligent designer does not exist). Which one do you want to stick with?

          • glenbo

            >>”in your original thread you’re using the same logic to prove a negative”<<
            Incorrect.
            I am not claiming a negative. I am only not accepting the claim God exists. While in my mind God is non-existent, it cannot be proven God exists. The burden of proof in upon the one making a claim.
            Not on the one who rejects the claim.
            If you insist God is real, you have the burden to prove it. Otherwise, you hold an empty sack and subsequent religious dictates are immaterial.

          • Bryan

            The burden of proof rests with both parties because both are claiming to make true statements. If both statements cannot possibly be true at the same time then one must be false. For example, one person claims a specific car is man made and another person claims the same car materialized out of thin air. Unless we’re in the Star Trek Universe both claims cannot be true at the same time for the same car. Either it was built by man or man controlled machine, or it wasn’t there and then *poof* it was there.
            You said that you could not prove God exists from the scientific method and that you could not prove the universe had an intelligent designer by the scientific method. Your conclusion is that there cannot be a God or an intelligent designer because they cannot be proven to exist. That is taking the opposite of your original hypothesis and drawing the conclusion. But you cannot prove that conclusion because, by your admission, you cannot prove a negative. You said as much above.
            Yet you’re arguing from the side that your claims are true and the others are false. Since you cannot prove your claims are true and the other side cannot prove their claims are true, it would seem both sides, as you put it, “hold an empty sack and subsequent religious dictates are immaterial”.
            I commend you for arguing for your worldview. I think you’ll be move effective if you recognize that you are arguing a worldview and not from the position of abstract science and reason. You’re detractors are arguing from a worldview as well. Some of them probably know that and some of them probably don’t. When you argue a worldview, you cannot let an opposing worldview win because then you have to accept or reject that worldview as truth. When you argue evidence, then you can draw a different conclusion from the evidence and make your case for your conclusion based on the evidence. If someone draws a different conclusion from the same evidence, they can argue that conclusion. You argue over what the evidence means, not what life means because of the evidence.

          • glenbo

            >>”The burden of proof rests with both parties because
            both are claiming to make true statements.”<>” Your conclusion is that there cannot be a God”<>”you’re arguing from the side that your claims are true”<>”you are arguing a worldview and not from the position of abstract science and reason.”<>”When you argue evidence, then you can draw a different conclusion from the evidence and make your case for your conclusion based on the evidence.”<>”You argue over what the evidence means, not what life means because of the evidence.”<<

            Wrong!
            You have this backwards. There is NO evidence. There’s nothing to interpret.

            Science: Here’s the evidence, let’s come to a conclusion.
            Religion: Here’s the conclusion, let’s find some evidence.

            This is why religion ultimately is a failure.

          • Bryan

            I’ve been trying to reply to your last statement for about 16 hours, glenbo. For some reason, The Stream’s moderators or the computer that runs through the comments before they post, will not allow my response to be included. I’m not sure why. It was long but about the same length as your earlier responses. It wasn’t defamatory or obscene. I started with a quote from your last response and discussed the logic of the arguments going back and forth. Maybe we should grab lunch sometime and continue the conversation. Then we could verbally challenge each other to our heart’s content.

          • glenbo

            >>”For some reason, The Stream’s moderators or the
            computer that runs through the comments before they post, will not allow my response to be included.”<<

            What I do is copy your post, paste in on Word, then compose my response.

            Copy the response, then click on your profile, then click “reply” and paste it.

            Click on the blue “Glenbo,” and it should take you directly to my post that you wish to respond to. It goes directly through. The bigger the discussions get, the longer it takes on the original website, so it’s best
            to do it on the Disqus website.

            But perhaps I can circumvent any further tedious discussion with this message:

            If you cannot prove God exists, you have no case.

          • Bryan

            I tried that too and still nothing. Oh well. Thanks for the suggestion. I’ll keep it in mind for the next lengthy commented article. Thanks again!

        • Thomas Smith

          The statements of the second law of Thermodynamics are expressed as a negative! Why do we accept the 2nd law?

          • glenbo

            >>”The statements of the second law of Thermodynamics are expressed as a negative!”<<

            The second law of thermodynamics only works in a closed system. Earth is an open system with energy entering it from the sun. The earth also sustains meteor strikes. You may argue that the universe is a closed
            system, but reaching out that far is futile to support that argument.

            The second law of thermodynamics applies everywhere. It just doesn’t say what creationists think it says. Religious views have no scientific value.

    • eddiestardust

      So if God doesn’t exist then why are you here commenting on God?

      • glenbo

        >>”why are you here commenting”<<
        Because I take offense at the damage religions does to society and the environment.

        • Thomas Smith

          So you don’t mind the damage atheism has done on the world?

          • glenbo

            >>”So you don’t mind the damage atheism has done on the world?”<<
            What damage has been done in the name of Atheism?
            Be careful with your answer.
            The inquisition, the Crusades and anti-LGBT persecution were/are done in the name of Christianity.
            What has been done in the name of Atheism?
            Merely being an Atheist committing atrocities doesn't count, unless you can prove the atrocities were done in the name of Atheism.

          • Thomas Smith

            Moa alone caused the death of around 70 million people! How much death did the Crusades cause? A pittance compared to Moa! This doesn’t include Stalin, the killing fields, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba and so many more people! Atheism has been a major world killer!

          • glenbo

            Thank you for engaging me in this discussion.
            It has been a pleasure.

        • AwokenJo2012

          “Because I take offense at the damage religion does to society and the environment.”
          You are like Jesus and God then. Jesus warned multiple times against misleading corrupt religious leaders. Religion has been hijacked from the very beginning. This is why in the Old Testament we see so many laws given to God’s then chosen nation, the Israelites. They were surrounded by false religions and even had some of these people of other religions among themselves. God told us through Jesus exactly what sort of worship he requires of his people. Unfortunately the truth has been hidden away or twisted by religious leaders to suit their own sick agenda. Read Matthew chapter 23 and you’ll get an idea how strongly God feels about false religions and false prophets (teachers). Read Revelation chapter 18 to see what He said He will do to all false religions, Babylon the Great. Also, read Matthew 4:8,9, 2 Corynthians 4:4 and Revelation 12:9 to see who is behind all this deception and corruption that we see in the world, not only in religions, but also all other matters, like education, politics, science, entertainment industry, all things that can be used to deceive and brainwash humanity. This is nothing new, it has been done to us since the very beginning. Check out Genesis 3, where the first people were sold the same lies we are being sold today, just dressed in different feathers. “You will not certainly die” (transhumanism, eternal soul, spirits/ghosts, reincarnation). “Your eyes will be opened and you will be like god, knowing good and bad” (hidden knowledge, secret societies, the new age movement with ascention to a higher intelligence, E.T., evolution plays a big part in this). When you think about that chapter, what it really says, it is about God’s right to rule mankind. I don’t know about you, but I don’t believe humanity has the ability to fix all our social problems, no matter how advanced the science gets. We will always have to deal with corruption and greed. Humanity has had how long to prove we can do it on our own, but things are only getting worse if it comes to matters like hunger, poverty, wars, diseases, inequality, lack of freedom, etc. These things are somehow above our ability, no matter how advanced our civilization. The only hope I have is for God to do what He promised, to rid the world of all evil by removing from it “the father of the lie”, “the ruler of this world”, to reverse all damage and bring peace and happiness to earth. This can only be done by someone who cannot be corrupted, so certainly not by a man.

          • glenbo

            >>”Read Matthew chapter 23– Read Revelation chapter 18– read Matthew 4:8,9, 2
            Corynthians 4:4 and Revelation 12:9– Check out Genesis 3”<>”I don’t believe humanity has the ability to fix all our social problems, no matter how advanced the science gets.”<>” The only hope I have is for God to do what He promised, to rid the world of all evil”<>” This can only be done by someone who cannot be corrupted, so certainly not by a man.”<<

            How sad God chooses to conceal himself, and deliberately leaves everything up to greedy corrupt men. That’s not how I would run my business, never mind my creation.

          • AwokenJo2012

            “I have no reason to believe the bible is in any way the least bit true.”
            I didn’t either, until I started researching it and studying it. It doesn’t make much sense, unless one really wants to find the truth, then God helps to understand. Now I have no reason to not to believe that the Bible is God’s message for humanity. If you’re not curious, if you don’t want to know what it says, then you shouldn’t comment about God, as you do not know Him. This is why I don’t comment on subjects I don’t know anything about. If you want to comment about God, you should take time to read about Him, otherwise you will not be taken seriously when you display your ignorance in the matter.

            “Can you show me that religion has “fixed any social problem?” More than it has created?”
            You missed my point completely. Religion cannot fix the problems as it is run by corrupt people. God can. And He will, according to the Bible. I thought I was clear on this.

            “How unfortunate God had to create evil in the first place then allow it to flourish and propagate.”
            God didn’t create evil. But He did give people free will, which He generally respects. Funny how when the Bible records that He intervened and distroyed an evil nation people say He’s ruthless, and when He doesn’t intervene, people say He allows evil. Whichever way it is, He cannot win. But He will in the end, the world will be exactly as He planned from the very beginning.

            “How sad God chooses to conceal himself, and deliberately leaves everything up to greedy corrupt men. That’s not how I would run my business, never mind my creation.”
            He has respected the wish of the first humans to be their own bosses. This is something a loving father would do with his grown up children. Prep them for the world, which is what God did, and let them leave home if they wish so. Unfortunately things got much worse after Satan was cast down to earth, thus is called “the ruler of this world”. But even this God will fix, according to the Bible. He partially did it already by sending His favourite as a ransom, a perfect life for a perfect life, Jesus for Adam, and to pay for all Adam’s offsprings lives, too. What a perfect plan to distroy “the wicked one’s” evil scheme. Now we just have to accept this wonderful gift, if we wish to. All up to us individuals.

    • Ryan Harding

      I will gladly accept that the Laws of Mathematics exist if it can be proven to me.

      Can we do this via the Scientific Method?

      The Scientific Method is as follows:

      Inquiry/question.
      Hypothesis.
      Prediction.
      Test/experiment.
      Analysis.
      Replication.
      Conclusion.
      Peer review.

      Can we demonstrate that the Laws of Mathematics exist by the Scientific Method?

      No, we cannot.

      Conclusion:

      By virtue of the fact that the Laws of Mathematics cannot
      be proven to exist via the Scientific Method, the concept cannot be accepted as scientific fact in any venue.

      Questions?

      • glenbo

        >>”By virtue of the fact that the Laws of Mathematics cannot be proven to exist via the Scientific Method”<<
        Therefore, since mathematics don't exist, we never went to the moon.

        • Ryan Harding

          Precisely, except we did go to the moon. My point is that not everything that exists can be shown via the Scientific Method. Even the concept of science itself can’t be proven this way.

          Science is a great tool for measuring the natural realm. It’s a very poor tool for testing things outside of the natural realm – like the Laws of Mathematics. But of course, that doesn’t mean math doesn’t exist. Just like it doesn’t mean an intelligent creator doesn’t exist.

          This of course isn’t solid proof for a creator, but you can’t simply dismiss it out of hand because you can’t test it in a lab.

          • glenbo

            >>”you can’t simply dismiss it out of hand because you can’t test it in a lab.”<<
            True.
            I don't need extraordinary proof of extraordinary claims. All I need is a smidgeon of proof.
            How revealing it is that nobody can present any. None. Not one iota. This says something.

          • Thomas Smith

            The natural laws of physics cannot explain how the first cell came to be! It even goes against the Second Law of Thermodynamics! So naturalism rests on faith where the evolutionary story is hard pressed to explain the billions of complex biological systems that are seen in life. A personal God creating life is a rational belief, which should not be automatically ruled out! When “science” automatically rules out the possibility of God, then science is harmed because it artificially constrains the possible reasons for our existence.

          • Timothy Horton

            Still waiting for you to explain how the 2LoT makes evolution impossible.

            BTW science doesn’t rule out the possibility of a God. Science just excludes all supernatural intervention because 1) it’s unpredictable and 2) there’s no evidence for it. That is true for all science, not just evolution.

          • Thomas Smith

            The Second Law can be seen in the genome where on the one hand you have evolutionists claiming that the most remarkable biological systems just magically arise through mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, etc, and on the other hand you have ID proponents arguing it violates basic principles. If you have all the information programmed into the genome with all the detailed instructions, then the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not violated and embryos can grow from fertilized eggs all the way to full grown humans. In other words, all the systems are present that allow the precise movement of atoms, precise chemical reactions, the precise building of scaffolding, the production of energy, the focused use of energy, the precise movement of energy, the precise movement of nanomachines, the precise construction of nanomachines, the vast processing of chemicals, and so much more. Vast numbers of systems must all precisely work together to result in the full grown human. The problem arises when you must explain the development of new complex systems by evolution. There are no new instructions explaining the vast number of mutations that lead to the added mechanisms, allowing the function. Everything must somehow come together to allow greater function so that selection is favorable allowing the trait to permeate the population. The problem is that there are vast numbers of evolutionary steps that require a large number of very specified mutations. These very precise mutations are what Dembski calls Specifications, where it can be shown to be CSI! In other words, we can show that life is designed.

          • Timothy Horton

            (cough cough) endothermic chemical reactions

            There’s no ignorance quite so dense as Creationist willful ignorance.

          • Thomas Smith

            Your statement is very ignorant! Can you explain why? Hint: Open systems are still constrained by the 2nd law.

          • glenbo

            >>”It even goes against the Second Law of Thermodynamics!”<>”When “science” automatically rules out the possibility of God, then science is harmed”<>”it artificially constrains the possible reasons for our existence.”<<
            Religion artificially restrains society from behaving civilly and for no rational reason.

          • Thomas Smith

            The Second Law of Thermodynamics is important because it flies in the face of evolution. It is about the natural direction of processes-entropy increasing. We find some natural entropy decreasing processes but they are simple in nature. Water evaporates allowing water to rise where it condenses falling to earth as rain. Crystals form and allow beautiful gems to be found and cut. I should point out that these simple systems have specific boundary conditions, which nature can readily allow given the low probability of these events. When we see complex entropy systems with contingency, complexity and specification, this would indicate ID. So the second law can be used to distinguish design, where we need to use Dembski’s EF, which is a perfectly valid way of identifying design, contrary to what some people will tell you (based on misinformation). The road ahead for ID looks very promising!

          • glenbo

            >>”Good design or bad design, if we can identify CSI then we can determine it was designed! “<<
            No "intelligent" designer would design cancer, tornadoes and tsunamis.

          • Timothy Horton

            I see you were too lazy to look up endothermic chemical reactions to understand how they work. Go look up photosynthesis. Nothing in life doesn’t violates the 2LoT.

            There are a lot of really dumb Creationist arguments out there but “2LoT makes evolution impossible” is one of the dumbest.

          • Thomas Smith

            You say the 2nd law argument is “one of the dumbest” because you don’t understand the Second Law! What do the statements of the Second Law say? Do they apply for opened or closed systems?

          • Ryan Harding

            Actually, there are many Christians who have made cases for God’s existence reasoning from logic and available scientific knowledge. And many people over the years have found those arguments to be convincing.

            I guess the question is, what kind of evidence would you find persuasive? What kind of proof would you need to see?

          • glenbo

            >>”I guess the question is, what kind of evidence would you find persuasive? What kind of proof would you need to see?”<<
            The least little bit you can muster up.
            Go.
            I'm listening.

    • FrankensteinsMonster

      Can we demonstrate that the universe was “intelligent designed”
      by the Scientific Method?

      We can’t demonstrate that life arose from chemistry. Neither can we demonstrate that all the species on the planet today have a common ancestor. That life was indeed designed is so obvious, even Richard Dawkins agrees:

      Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose

      -Richard Dawkins, “The Blind Watchmaker”, 1986, page 1

      He just has to dismiss his own observation as illusion to accommodate his presupposition. Where is he as a scientist if he has to submit his observation to his worldview? Teleology is the backbone and driving question of medical research. i.e. “What is the purpose of organ x?” That’s because each structure obviously does serve a purpose.

      Materialism is a bane to science. This incoherent philosophy will destroy science in the end.

      • glenbo

        >>”Neither can we demonstrate that all the species on
        the planet today have a common ancestor.”<>”Richard Dawkins agrees:”<>”Materialism is a bane to science. This incoherent philosophy will destroy science in the end.”<<

        You couldn’t have said it better.

        • FrankensteinsMonster

          Incorrect. We all share similar DNA signatures right down to bacteria.

          Craig Venter would disagree, but it’s irrelevant. Similar DNA for the majority of sequenced species doesn’t prove squat. All engineers use the same basic wheel design for cars. Correlation doesn’t mean causation.

          No he doesn’t. Saying it “seemed” designed isn’t admitting to a designer.

          He agrees that life looks designed, can’t deny it, but has to toss out his observation to accommodate his backward worldview which runs contrary to what he sees with his own eyes.

          Why would a designer create cancer, dwarfism or a child with two heads?

          That’s a theological question, not scientific. Was Darwin trying to answer theological question? Much of his first book was in fact about theology. Supposed “bad design” or “natural evil” doesn’t negate obvious design. How does spontaneous generation, i.e. life from chemistry, work? 100 years without a solid theory, without a single bit of empirical evidence, renders that line of research the equivalent of alchemy.

          • Timothy Horton

            Similar DNA for the majority of sequenced species doesn’t prove squat. All engineers use the same basic wheel design for cars. Correlation doesn’t mean causation.

            Your problem is there are literally billions of ways a designer could have mixed and matched genetic sequences which would clearly disprove common descent yet the one we observe creates a distinct branching nested hierarchy, a phylogenetic tree which is a clear hallmark of common descent. As a bonus, the phylogenetic tree created from the fossil record matches the one from the genetic record by over 99.9999%.

            Why did your Common Designer pick a sequence out of the billions that looks exactly like evolution through common descent occurred? AND made the fossil record phylogeny match so closely to the genetic providing a second independent confirmation of common descent?

          • glenbo

            >>”but has to toss out his observation to accommodate
            his backward worldview”<>”How does spontaneous generation, i.e. life from chemistry, work?”<<

            It’s okay to say “we don’t know yet.”

            It is absurd and presumptuous and unprofessional to fabricate a magical god to answer an unanswerable question. But to answer the unanswerable question…how did we come to be… the miller urey experiment is a start.

            You didn’t answer my question:

            Why would an intelligent designer create cancer, dwarfism or a child with two heads?

          • FrankensteinsMonster

            Nonsense. He has no “worldview.” He has a strictly scientific point of view, as do I. Religion is a worldview.

            ROTFLMAO!!!! He is an Atheist, and I capitalize that word because it is a religion, and worldview. In the example I gave, his conclusion was based on his worldview, not on science which starts with observation, which he dismisses in this instance.

            Science has to be demonized because it threatens religion.

            Who demonizes science? Some theories have been rejected because they’re crap. They lack explanatory power, logic and have no supporting evidence. But materialists use those theories to hold up their worldview. Meaning a rejection of Evolution doesn’t equate to the demonization of all science, because Evolution isn’t all of science, it isn’t even a decent theory.

            Science doesn’t threaten religion. It was started by Christian believers to point out the order in the universe that is best explained by a Creator that has built guiding principle into its fabric.

            This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; ,,,
            This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator, or Universal Ruler;,,, The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect;,,,

            -Isaac Newton, Principia

            It is absurd and presumptuous and unprofessional to fabricate a magical god to answer an unanswerable question.

            Is it presumptuous and unprofessional to say that Stonehenge was built by intelligent beings? No. It’s the best inference.

            the miller urey experiment is a start

            The 50-60 year old Miller-Urey experiment is a failure. Its only success came about when an intelligent designer, Miller, added a trap, something unnatural, to his experiment, to get a desired result, which wasn’t life, but tar, using a gas mixture that most geologists say doesn’t accurately portray earth’s early atmosphere. He got racemic amino acids, but all life is made up of left-handed amino acids and racemic is toxic. To say Miller-Urey’s tar is a start is to say stones scattered over the countryside is the start of a Gothic Cathedral.

            Why would an intelligent designer create cancer, dwarfism or a child with two heads?

            That’s a theological question. If you want to discuss theology, we can. But on the scientific side, the existence of such doesn’t negate a designer. There have been many car models through history that might equate with what you mentioned, but they were still designed. A child with two heads will still have two sets of exquisitely functioning eyes, better than any camera system man has invented, an incredible heart, a self-repairing pump to last a lifetime, and two brains each more sophisticated than all the computer networks on planet earth combined.

          • Timothy Horton

            Some theories have been rejected because they’re crap. They lack explanatory power, logic and have no supporting evidence.

            That’s a perfect description of why science has rejected ID-Creationism.

            Meaning a rejection of Evolution doesn’t equate to the demonization of all science, because Evolution isn’t all of science,

            Evolutionary theory incorporates consilient evidence from dozens of different scientific fields – biology, paleontology, geology, genetics, radiometric physics, botany, chemistry, astronomy, etc. If you reject the data from them which supports evolution you have to reject pretty much all of modern science.

            it isn’t even a decent theory

            LOL! What’s wrong with it, besides the fact it directly contradicts your religious mythology?

          • Thomas Smith

            “Evolutionary theory incorporates consilient evidence from dozens of different scientific fields – biology, paleontology, geology, genetics, radiometric physics, botany, chemistry, astronomy, etc. If you reject the data from them which supports evolution you have to reject pretty much all of modern science.”
            Yes, trillions of dollars have been spent to prop up the theory but the evidence is slim. Most change used to support evolution is microevolution, which is programmed intelligence into life-forms so they don’t just die out giving life robustness. This robustness is more difficult Design because the life has to endure more types of environments. Engineers understand this when they design missiles. When the requirements are given that a missile must withstand the undersea, atmosphere, space, and re-entry environments, then the engineer understands implicitly that the design will be much more difficult! When it comes to life, these systems make our designs look like toys and we fully don’t understand the molecular processes that allow the building of life from the “ground up”. We see the resilience and robustness of life and automatically assume it is the evolutionary game of chance, when it most likely is a grand display of design working right before our eyes. In other words, evolution neatly hi-jacks design propping up this monstrosity glass tower we call evolution, when we actually look at the details, there is little evidence to back it up! For example, there is supposedly junk DNA that allows fluidity and design space for evolution, when actually, the more we study the genome, we see tightly compressed genomic information which disallows a fluidic free design space we assume for evolution. Without this free design space and having the highly compressed genomic information, evolution always has to worry about messing up the original design and not only building new function! One ID prediction is that we will only see the complexity increase over time as we discover more and more built-in preprogrammed intelligence giving life its robustness! The supposedly evolutionary process will be shown to be preprogrammed intelligence! Ironically, I also predict that the thieving evolutionists – stealing from design- will never concede any ground, but will only produce grander evolutionary fictional stories!

          • Timothy Horton

            Standard C&Ped Creationist blithering skipped.

          • Thomas Smith

            Notice that ID does make predictions! Notice how Tim puts his fingers in his ears when cogent arguments against evolution are presented!

          • Timothy Horton

            ID doesn’t make a single prediction that is logically derived from the ID position. Casey Luskin’s nonsensical list of ID “predictions” are either post-dictions or non sequiturs like “ID predicts the sky will be blue”.

          • Thomas Smith

            Come now, are you that obtuse? There are many predictions that ID can make! How many do you want me to make?

          • glenbo

            >>”He is an Atheist, and I capitalize that word because it is a religion”<<
            Atheism is a religion? Like not collecting stamps is a hobby?
            I guess I'm protected by the 1st amendment!
            And I guess I am too late…your implanted microchip has already been activated.
            Oh well.

          • FrankensteinsMonster

            Atheism is a religion? Like not collecting stamps is a hobby?

            It is the foundation for what you believe about the world and your morality, or lack of. Just like any other religion. Buddhism is a religion, but it doesn’t have a god.

          • glenbo

            >>”It is the foundation for what you believe about the world and your morality”<<

            Ummm…No. I am a naturalist. I get/got my "worldview" from nature.
            My objective moral principles are based on the well-being of others.

            Sorry, you lost me with the atheism=religion.

            But just one more.

            If one can get their morality from atheism, then religion is unnecessary.

          • FrankensteinsMonster

            Not all moralities are equal. Stalin got his morality from Atheism. Hitler got his morality from Nietzsche, who was an Atheist. Were they any good? I’m sorry you’re too thick to understand that you have a worldview. Denial tends to run strong in godless circles.

          • glenbo

            >>” you’re too thick”<<
            Alrighty then.
            It's been a pleasure.

          • Timothy Horton

            That’s OK. Scientific ignorance tends to run strong in religious Fundamentalist circles.

          • Thomas Smith

            I think your stereotype is just that a stereotype that doesn’t necessarily match everyone! There are many Fundamentalists with doctorates in the sciences who don’t believe the lie of evolution.

          • Timothy Horton

            Willful scientific ignorance is still scientific ignorance.

          • Thomas Smith

            Well then I would have to say you demonstrate scientific ignorance! You fail to objectively evaluate evolution! You are ingrained by the dogma of evolution and willfully ignore scientific evidence against evolution. Yes this is strong, but what else can I say?

          • Shaquille Harvey

            how does one get their morality from something naturalistic do explain ?

            As for the crusades most identify the crusades as being a defensive war
            “anti LGBT persecution” as you put it,has been done by numerous of groups why do you single out christians,please explain?
            why is morally wrong to ” persecute gays”, by what standard do you hold that says being against homosexuality is bad and why should we all adopt that standard ?
            and why don’t atheistic atrocities count explain?

          • Timothy Horton

            “anti LGBT persecution” as you put it,has been done by numerous of groups why do you single out christians,please explain?

            Because they’re the largest and most visible group in the U.S. actively doing it now.

            why is morally wrong to ” persecute gays”, by what standard do you hold that says being against homosexuality is bad and why should we all adopt that standard ?

            Because gays and all non-hetero people have done nothing to deserve persecution. Just because your religion teaches you to be intolerant of the non-hetero population is not a valid basis for discrimination under secular law.

          • glenbo

            >>”how does one get their morality from something naturalistic do explain?”<>”As for the crusades most identify the crusades as being a defensive war”<>”anti LGBT persecution” as you put it, has been done by numerous of groups why do you single out christians, please explain?”<>”why is morally wrong to “persecute gays””<>”by what standard do you hold that says being against homosexuality is bad”<>”and why should we all adopt that standard?”<>”and why don’t atheistic atrocities count explain?”<<

            Name just one “atheistic atrocity” that was done in the name of, or for the sake of, because of, or to promote/support atheism.

      • Timothy Horton

        Materialism is a bane to science.

        I’d be ecstatic if you could please explain how to do science, any science, without relying 100% on materialism. How do you test a hypothesis and trust the results when you have to allow for a Loki God changing the results on a whim?

        I ask this to every person who complains about materialism in science and have yet to receive an answer.

        • FrankensteinsMonster

          25 To establish a weight for the wind,
          And apportion the waters by measure.
          26 When He made a law for the rain,
          And a path for the thunderbolt

          Job 28, cir. 2,000 B.C.

          Look at that. In 2 verses recorded 4,000 years ago, air has weight, earth has a limited supply of water, rain follows natural law (if rain does, what else?), and lightning follows a channel, instead of being chucked from Mt. Olympus. The idea of Natural Law, foundational to all modern science, comes from this ancient passage. How do we have an ordered, instead of chaotic, universe without guiding principle?

          This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; ,,,This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator, or Universal Ruler;,,, The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect;,,,

          -Isaac Newton, Principia

          I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.,,, All my discoveries have been made in answer to prayer.

          -Isaac Newton

          Atheism is senseless and odius to mankind that it never had many professors.

          -Isaac Newton

          It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.

          -J. B. S. Haldane

          Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.

          -CS Lewis, The Case For Christianity p.32

          Materialism is incoherent, undermining reason itself. How can anything worthwhile be based on it? Certainly not science.

          Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared—the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true.

          -C.S. Lewis, Miracles

          Newton – Christian
          Boyle – Christian
          Pasteur – Christian
          Faraday – Christian
          Maxwell – Christian
          Galileo – Christian
          Copernicus – Christian

          Ptolemy – (supposedly enlightened) Greek

          • Timothy Horton

            You didn’t answer the questions asked. Please try again.

            How do you do science, any science, without relying 100% on materialism? How do you test a hypothesis and trust the results when you have to allow for a Loki God changing the results on a whim?

          • FrankensteinsMonster

            You didn’t understand the answer. Must be because the thoughts you imagine you have, some materialist philosophers call that experience an illusion, is based on chemistry and not logic, which is immaterial. Mathematics and logic are immaterial and all science grows from this. Reason is immaterial. Testing is a material process, but invention of the tests is from immaterial thought. Evolution, by the way, doesn’t stand up to, nor, in the minds of its believers, is refuted by, any empirical tests.

            How do you test a hypothesis and trust the results when you have to allow for a Loki God changing the results on a whim?

            Loki isn’t the Christian God and that’s a misrepresentation of the Judeo-Christian position, from which the idea of Natural Law originates. Please try to understand and please try to refute without straw-man.

          • Timothy Horton

            You didn’t answer the questions asked. Please try again.

            How do you do science, any science, without relying 100% on materialism? How do you test a hypothesis and trust the results when you have to allow for a Loki God changing the results on a whim?

            If you have no answer just say so. Blithering about philosophy is no help. I’m looking for a practical answer. You claim materialism is bad for science yet can’t explain how to get good results without relying 100% on materialism. BTW the non-material supernatural encompasses ALL Gods, not just your Judeo-Christian one. And immaterial thoughts and reasoning rely 100% on your material brain, so that angle fails too.

            Looks like your original claim has been pretty well refuted.

          • FrankensteinsMonster

            Blithering about philosophy is no help.

            Materialism is a philosophy and philosophy is our discussion.

            How do you do science, any science, without relying 100% on materialism?

            Newton, Maxwell and Faraday did just fine without relying 100% on materialism. Are you asserting they did? The quotes from Newton I provided say otherwise. Here’s the basic premise: God created the universe to operate according to laws that he set in place. Like an engineer creates a machine to operate the way he wants. What are those laws and how do the obvious mechanisms operate? What are the purposes of the various components we observe? We can discover them and use them to our benefit.

            Your whimsical Loki doesn’t describe the God in Job that set up laws to govern rain and other natural processes. The pagan Vikings didn’t do science, but Christians did, not Atheists. They started science on the above premise, not materialism.

            Looks like your original claim has been pretty well refuted.

            ROTFLMAO!!! 🙂 Go ahead and pat yourself on the back. You’re welcome to think your imagination is more valuable than reality.

          • Timothy Horton

            Newton, Maxwell and Faraday did just fine without relying 100% on materialism.

            Wrong again. They were smart enough to keep their religious beliefs completely out of their practical work. Nowhere in any of their discoveries or equations are there provisions for any supernatural intervention, pixies or fairies or Loki Gods affecting the outcome of experiments.

            What are those laws and how do the obvious mechanisms operate? What are
            the purposes of the various components we observe? We can discover them
            and use them to our benefit.

            Once we learn them we rely 100% of them not changing at the whim of some supernatural being. In science we rely 100% on predictable materialism. Just as I said.

          • FrankensteinsMonster

            Wrong again. They were smart enough to keep their religious beliefs completely out of their practical work.

            You must not have read them.

            This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; ,,,
            This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator, or Universal Ruler;,,, The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect;,,,

            -Isaac Newton, Principia (his most practical work)

            According to these two biographies, Faraday’s and Maxwell’s religious beliefs drove them:
            silas(dot)psfc(dot)mit(dot)edu/Faraday/
            silas(dot)psfc(dot)mit(dot)edu/maxwell/

            Newton clearly stated it explicitly:

            I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.,,, All my discoveries have been made in answer to prayer.

            You’re like the Communist trying to force-fit all of history into the dialectic.

            Once we learn them we rely 100% of them not changing at the whim of some supernatural being.

            Straw-man. The one God I know was described in the Bible as establishing Natural Law that we have actually discovered and used for our benefit. Broadbrushing to equivocate Him with Loki doesn’t work.

            One example of the influence of his theological perspective on his science is Faraday’s preoccupation with nature’s laws. `God has been pleased to work in his material creation by laws’, he remarked, and `the Creator governs his material works by definite laws resulting from the forces impressed on matter.’ This is part of the designer’s art: `How wonderful is to me the simplicity of nature when we rightly interpret her laws’. But, as Cantor points out, `the consistency and simplicity of nature were not only conclusions that Faraday drew from his scientific work but they were also metaphysical presuppositions that directed his research.’

            -I.H.Hutchinson, MIT website, Michael Faraday: Scientist and Nonconformist (linked above)

          • Timothy Horton

            You must not have read them.

            Show me in their equations where they plugged in the variable for “Supernatural Entity Effects Here”.

            You claims are getting more ridiculous and over the top each post.

          • Timothy Horton

            Evolution, by the way, doesn’t stand up to, nor, in the minds of its believers, is refuted by, any empirical tests.

            If evolution through common descent doesn’t stand up to any empirical tests then how does DNA paternity testing work? Why can we positively identify distant relatives and genealogies going back hundreds of years through DNA tests?

          • FrankensteinsMonster

            How does DNA, a digital code, prove unguided, random, chance evolution? We only know information to come from mind. That is the only source. We can’t even produce an equivalent information system on purpose and you say it happened by chance?

          • Timothy Horton

            Why can’t you answer a simple question without squirting the squid ink? You claimed evolution (i.e. common descent) doesn’t stand up to empirical tests. I gave you an empirical test of common descent we use every day and all you can do is dodge.

            I’ll accept your admission you were wrong again.

          • FrankensteinsMonster

            I gave you an empirical test of common descent

            You waived your hands. I asked you how DNA serves as an empirical test. Common Descent isn’t the only explanation for homologous DNA.

            We know of any number of natural processes which create new information, such as DNA replication.

            How is DNA replication, the copying of existing information, a sufficient source for all the existing information? Not only is DNA digital code, it’s semiotic digital code. There is no physical law that compels it to be arranged the way it is, like there is no physical law that drives the placement of the characters in this post. Mind is the only known source for such a thing.

            We only need a mind to assign meaning to the information.

            B.S. DNA is a semiotic code which means it is read and meaning is derived.

          • Timothy Horton

            I asked you how DNA serves as an empirical test.

            I told you already – it’s used to establish paternity as well as the family relationship to more distantly related ancestors. That’s means your claim about no empirical tests using DNA is flat out wrong.

            How is DNA replication, the copying of existing information,

            When DNA replicates it doesn’t make identical copies of itself. There are random changes due to things like frame shifts, insertions, deletions, and SNPs (not to mention sexual recombination) which produce new, never before genetic sequences. That’s new information no matter how much you wave your hands.

            That makes you 0 for 3 so far in dumb Creationist claims.

            DNA is a semiotic code

            No, it’s not. the DNA–> protein process is a long complex chemical reaction. There is no intelligence or “meaning” anywhere in the process. That makes you 0 for 4 in your Creationist propaganda today..

          • FrankensteinsMonster

            it’s used to establish paternity as well as the family relationship to more distantly related ancestors

            …of the same species. We can conclusively prove you’re related to Donald Trump, or not. But we can’t prove you’re descended from syphilis, a dung beetle, or the postulated last universal common ancestor. That’s fantasy.

            When DNA replicates it doesn’t make identical copies of itself. There are random changes due to things like frame shifts, insertions, deletions, and SNPs (not to mention sexual recombination) which produce new, never before existing genetic sequences. That’s new information no matter how much you wave your hands.

            We all know this, but have we seen anything but deleterious change from such a process? One that can’t be classified as birth defect? No. Wait….if it isn’t deleterious, it’s neutral, because we really don’t know if anything bad resulted because we don’t understand the entire system so can’t necessarily recognize a consequence. It’s an extraordinary claim without the needed extraordinary evidence. Sure we can produce a four-winged fruitfly by manipulating DNA, but that’s by design, and the result is a defective fly that, well, can’t.

            Here’s where your reasoning is circular: where did the original information, and the replication machinery come from? You need information that means something before you can make a copying mistake that produces something else. This is where your explanation degrades into the analogy of apes on typewriters producing the works of Shakespeare with random keystrokes. It’s absurd to think anything of value can result.

          • Timothy Horton

            …of the same species.

            The divergence time of different species too. You can easily find online the phylogenetic trees and data for all species of canines, all species of felines, etc. Seriously, this is Biology 101 stuff you’re trying to hand wave away.

            We all know this, but have we seen anything but deleterious change from such a process?

            Yes, we have. Google the APO-A1 Milano mutation which helps prevent high cholesterol. Or the EPAS1 mutation in Tibetans which gives them higher oxygen intake at the extreme altitude they live. Or even the Lenski LTEE experiment where a frame shift mutation gave one sample of E coli a beneficial advantage in digesting citrates. Again, this is Biology 101. Why don’t you know about any of it?

            Here’s where your reasoning is circular: where did the original information, and the replication machinery come from?

            Once we had the simplest imperfect prebiotic self-replicators 4 billion years ago we had evolution start. Ever since then genomes have been gaining information through mutations and genetic drift filtered through selection. That’s where.

          • FrankensteinsMonster

            The divergence time of different species too. You can easily find
            online the phylogenetic trees and data for all species of canines, all
            species of felines, etc. Seriously, this is Biology 101 stuff you’re
            trying to hand wave away.

            Define species. The definition is so plastic to be almost meaningless. All dog breeds, and species, can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Are there many dog species or one that is incredibly diverse? When phylogenetic trees aren’t strictly speculative, they point to the limits of change. Breeders know this well. There is a boundary, a limit, that if you cross it, you produce an incredibly defective organism that can’t survive or reproduce.

            Lenski’s bacteria are no proof for evolution. His cultures didn’t produce the ability to metabolize citrate. It triggered a pre-programmed response to the environment he subjected them to. They already had the machinery to metabolize citrate, and his conditions triggered a pathway to the existing mechanism. ID scientist Scott Minnich, I think at Iowa State, did the same thing in a matter of weeks. It happened so rapidly, uniformly and consistently, it was like switching from 2-wheel to 4-wheel drive in a pickup truck, which is designed in case you wondered. No gradual, step-by-step, random change here. You should look up Minnich on YouTube.

            Once we had the simplest imperfect prebiotic self-replicators 4 billion years ago we had evolution start.

            That’s your creation story. Reads like a Navajo, or Egyptian cosmogeny. There is no evidence for this. 100 years of origin of life research has not produced a single useful theory to back your magical story.

            Genomes degrade, as population genetics demonstrates. They don’t increase in functional complexity. That’s what we consistently observe.

          • Timothy Horton

            All dog breeds, and species, can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

            I didn’t say dogs I said canines. The canidae are a family with 36 species including domestic dogs, foxes, wolves, jackals, dingos, dholes. They all can’t interbreed. Same with the Felidae. 38 known species from house cats, lions, tigers, lynx, pumas, ocelots, bay cats, etc. Do you think tigers and house cats can interbreed? The fact is the phylogenetic trees of those families are created strictly from their DNA sequencing, something you say can’t happen. The same analysis will produce ancestral trees above the family level. Another major FAIL for you I’m afraid.

            Lenski’s bacteria are no proof for evolution.

            Zoom! Looks at those goal posts fly! You claimed all mutations were detrimental or neutral. I gave you three which are clearly beneficial and you changed the topic so quickly you left skid marks.

            Genomes degrade, as population genetics demonstrates.

            Population genetics shows no such thing. You’re repeating a standard Creationist canard with no idea what you’re talking about. The population of humans for example has gone from a few million to 7.5 billion in the last 2000 years. The life span has increased from 30 years to over 80. That’s not a degrading genome.

            They don’t increase in functional complexity.

            Another creationist canard. You can see examples of how evolutionary processes can cause increased functional complexity on YouTube – search for “Evolving Soft Robots with Multiple Materials”.

            You seem to have no understanding of actual evolutionary biology at all. Why are you trying to BS your way through?

          • FrankensteinsMonster

            he canidae are a family with 36 species including domestic dogs, foxes, wolves, jackals, dingos, dholes.

            They can all interbreed and produce fertile offspring. One incredibly diverse species. Cats are a different matter. Some can interbreed like Lions and Tigers, but they don’t have fertile offspring. But they’re all dogs and cats. We have no evidence of them being anything else and no evidence they can be anything else.

            Darwinists used to think Pygmy’s and Australian Aborigines were sub-human, and a different species.

            You claimed all mutations were detrimental or neutral. I gave you three which are clearly beneficial and you changed the topic so quickly you left skid marks.

            They are either deleterious or neutral. Ability to change within limits is obviously there. Some animals change color with seasons. Because the change that opens a pathway to citrate metabolism has been demonstrated with regularity, uniformity and so quickly, it isn’t a “random, unguided mutation”, but a built-in response. Do you understand the difference?

            Like the pickup I mentioned, the ability to shift modes for different terrains is there, but it isn’t a random mutation that causes a truck to go from 2-wheel to 4-wheel drive. Finch beaks don’t “evolve”, they oscillate around a mean with alternating periods of rain and drought the way a rabbit can go from brown to white as the snow falls. Built-in, pre-programmed response.

            The life span has increased from 30 years to over 80. That’s not a degrading genome.

            Misattribution. There are other factors to consider when looking at average human lifespan, like living conditions, medicine, cleanliness. John Adams lived 91 years when the average lifespan of his day was much lower because of living conditions not evolution.

            DNA is known to degrade and it causes the extinction of many species. The blindness of blind cave fish is an example. They recently interbred 2 different populations and 2 generations later the offspring could see. An isolated variety of frog in east Asia doesn’t have lungs and will die if put into a bucket of water. It’s a variety of a species that is found in other areas without this problem. A term in population genetics is mutational meltdown. When a population reproduction has dropped to such a point that the animals have no option but to mate with close relatives and further degrade the genome. Some say California condors are in such a state.

          • Timothy Horton

            They can all interbreed and produce fertile offspring

            LOL! Still squirming and ducking the point which is the DNA can be used to create phylogentic trees. You failed on that one big time too.

            They are either deleterious or neutral.

            If you’re just going to flat out lie about the examples of beneficial mutations I provided there’s not much point in discussion, is there?

            DNA is known to degrade and it causes the extinction of many species.

            What a cowardly evasion. You claimed ALL genomes in ALL species “degrade”. That bit of stupidity I’m sure you got from YEC John Sanford’s “Genetic Entropy” idiocy. Cave fish don’t have a “degraded” genome. They have one which is perfectly well adapted to their current environment where sight is not needed. Small populations suffer from the negative effects of inbreeding but that is not occurring in 99%+ of the species on the planet. Ask Australians if the genomes of the rabbits introduced to the country in the 18th century and which now cause a major problem due to their overpopulation have degraded.

          • Timothy Horton

            As to not derail the main topic I’ll post this separately

            Lenski’s bacteria are no proof for evolution. His cultures didn’t
            evolve the ability to metabolize citrate. The conditions triggered a
            pre-programmed response to the environment he subjected them to. They
            already had the machinery to metabolize citrate, and his conditions
            triggered a pathway to the existing mechanism.

            That’s demonstrably false also. The LTEE had 12 colonies all cloned from the same initial E coli. As to be expected when the 12 colonies were all isolated each one followed its own independent evolutionary pathway. Only one colony had the mutations (it took two independent ones some 5000 generations apart) which allowed it to digest citrate. The other 11 colonies were in the identical environment but didn’t get those beneficial mutations. That kills the Creationist “pre-programmed response to the environment” hooey dead in its tracks.

    • “Can we demonstrate that God exists by the Scientific Method? No, we cannot.”

      Can we demonstrate that existence exists by the Scientific Method? No, we cannot. Therefore, we must conclude that existence does not exist…or at least simply lack a belief in existence until someone can provide empirical evidence for it.

      • glenbo

        >>”Can we demonstrate that existence exists by the Scientific Method? “<<
        Why would it be necessary to do so?

        • Your insistence to only believe in God and live as though he exists if it can be proven through the Scientific Method demands consistency.

          In other words, it either demands that you likewise believe and live as though existence does not exist…

          …or that you accept the possibility things can exist without being demonstrated through Scientific Method and, thus, accept the possibility of God. Which is it?

          • glenbo

            >>”Your insistence to only believe in God and live as though he exists if it can be proven through the Scientific Method demands consistency.”<>” In other words, it either demands that you
            likewise believe and live as though existence does not exist…”<>”…or that you accept the possibility things can
            exist without being demonstrated through Scientific Method and, thus, accept the possibility of God.”<<

            I clearly accept that many things exist without the
            slightest need for scientific method in order to believe they exist. But that does not mean I must accept the “possibility” of God. Why should I? Why would I
            ever need to? Why would I want to?

            Or better yet…why should I NOT accept the “possibility” of God? Why not? Because so much of the teachings about/from God defy too much of
            the science and rationale I currently know and accept. The teachings were composed during the Bronze Age when science was in its infancy at best. I can
            only imagine what Galileo must have been thinking as he was locked away for demonstrating scientific facts. The biblical/God teachings condone slavery,
            rape and the murder of children…just for starters. The murder of innocents in the bible is rampant. Why would any reasonable person want to accept the “possibility”
            of the existence of such a barbaric monster? One might as well wish there was a North Korea that one can relocate to.

            "Belief in God" doesn't require any method never
            mind the scientific method specifically.

            Proof of God's existence, however does for it to have merit.

            Without solid evidence of the existence of God, I can
            conclude:

            A) Nobody has any reason to believe in God.
            B) Nobody has any reason to accept anything allegedly postulated by any god alleged to exist.
            C) Nobody has any power or authority over others and society based only upon their “belief” in a god.

            In other words, if you cannot prove it, you cannot impose it. If something cannot be proven, it has no power unless one is weak of mind enough to allow themselves to be controlled by the non-existent and purely imaginary.

            But you are free to believe whatever you choose to believe. You are free to conjure up anything you wish within your imagination, where it ONLY exists. Just please don’t bother me or others who are unwilling with your non-existent imaginary folly.

          • “I can use different methods to conclude many things to my liking…”

            That statement alone speaks volumes. Start with a conclusion to your liking and then only use the methods that will help you get to it. Demand to others that they use the scientific method to prove to you there is a God, even though you will allow other methods such as “mere observation” to accept things you are already okay with. If someone told you there clearly is a God from mere observation would that be acceptable to you?

            The whole demand for use of the scientific method for acceptance of the existence of God is a ludicrous as the demand for it for acceptance of existence. It’s putting a condition for God’s existence that can never happen in the first place. Just as existence can never be “tested” because there is nothing outside of it do so with, so there is nothing outside of God to test God with by the very definition of who he is.

            “But that does not mean I must accept the “possibility” of God. Why should I? Why would I ever need to? Why would I want to?”

            Again, a statement that speaks volumes. Not wanting to accept something to exist and whether it actually exists are 2 different things.

            Why bring up the “biblical” God here? Why bring up one who orders the murder of rape and children? That’s irrelevant to the discussion of whether there is simply a God.

            Aside from demanding a method from others you don’t demand of yourself, your next argument is to do the same as bringing up a leprechaun. Invent a God that you already knows doesn’t exist or that nobody would like to exist, and then shoot that God down on the grounds that it already doesn’t exist or would be a terrible God to exist.

            The only question being debated at this point is whether there is a God (any kind of God) at all.

            You say you can’t believe in a demanding God, yet you have no problems with existence, which itself is pretty demanding. Have you ever tried to disobey the laws of existence? Have you ever gone against it’s rules for flourishing?

          • glenbo

            >>” Start with a conclusion to your liking and then
            only use the methods that will help you get to it.”<>” Demand to others that they use the scientific
            method to prove to you there is a God, even though you will allow other methods such as “mere observation” to accept things you are already okay with.”<>” If someone told you there clearly is a God from
            mere observation would that be acceptable to you”<>” The whole demand for use of the scientific method
            for acceptance of the existence of God is [a] ludicrous”<>” Not wanting to accept something to exist and
            whether it actually exists are 2 different things.”<>” Aside from demanding a method from others you
            don’t demand of yourself”<>” Why bring up the “biblical” God here? —That’s
            irrelevant to the discussion of whether there is simply a God.”<>” The only question being debated at this point is
            whether there is a God (any kind of God) at all.”<>” You say you can’t believe in a demanding God”<>” Invent a God that you already knows doesn’t exist
            or that nobody would like to exist, and then shoot that God down on the grounds that it already doesn’t exist or would be a terrible God to exist.”<>”yet you have no problems with existence”<>” Have you ever tried to disobey the laws of
            existence?”<
            >”Have you ever gone against it’s rules for
            flourishing?”<<

            I don’t know…what is your definition of “flourishing?”

          • Hi glenbo,

            I want to apologize. My last response to you did come across wrong. I had just started typing my response to you when I suddenly realized I had to be somewhere in a few minutes, so I rushed through the whole response. I should not have done that. Instead of being constructive dialogue, it came across as attacking your methodology – as you rightfully pointed out. Plus my very final statements just didn’t make a lot of sense. I realized this not long after I typed it all, but unfortunately was unable to get back to the post until now.

            We can continue dialogue if you are up to it. But the main thing for me is to apologize. Please forgive.

          • glenbo

            >>”We can continue dialogue if you are up to it. But the main thing for me is to apologize. Please forgive.”<<
            Oh, no problem! Apology accepted. Please forgive me for my bluntness, but that's my style. One accepts the consequences of debate as one chooses them.
            I absolutely am up to continue our dialogue.
            The ball is in your court.

          • Thanks for your understanding and I apologize for my very delayed response.

            I would like to continue. I feel I need to back up a bit re: Scientific Method, but before I do that I want to address one question from your previous post:

            >>(referring to the notion of the “biblical” God) ”Then where did the notion of the existence of God come from in the first place?”
            It didn’t really start with the Bible. Humankind has believed in the notion of a god or gods since its very beginnings – well before the Israelite religion and even more so before the writings that eventually became known as the Bible.

            Whenever people didn’t understand something that occurred in the world (and there was a lot to not understand) they naturally attributed the cause and effect to unnatural forces or gods.
            Not knowing the common science behind all the different things, many cultures assumed there were multiple gods – different forces behind all aspects (weather, fertility, the sea, crops, etc). Of course, they often witnessed what appeared to be a lot of chaos in the world (storms, disease and death, war, etc) and, giving the gods human-like qualities, they perceived these gods also to be chaotic, often at battle or trying to undermine each other.

            What Judaism did, however, was introduce, in the middle of polytheistic cultures, the concept of a more unified world (and universe), subject to the power of a singular force (the one true God), as well as other related concepts such as linear time that moved toward a future goal (as opposed to circular) and ways of living that could bring unity in the culture (as opposed to the chaotic, self-destructive ways of living such as human sacrifice, etc). Yes, there was still evil and chaos in the world, but it was still always subject to the power of the one force.

            This, of course, fit more hand in hand with actual science (sometimes attributed as the other great monotheism) which sees common forces behind everything and often seeks to point to a grand unifying force or Theory of Everything.

            The biblical accounts merely sought to record the development of that thought system. This is why the Bible makes a weak apologetics resource in terms of the question of “Does God exist?”. While there is some evidence for very small pockets of atheist thought in ancient times, for the most part everyone assumed there was a god or gods to begin with. Thus, the questions it was answering were never “Does God exist?” but always “Which God exists?” and “What is that God like?”.

            That’s why it’s important in discussions about specifically the existence of God that everyone needs to back out of debates about the “biblical god” and first just answer the initial question: does, or at least, could God (or gods) exist? Only then once it has been established can you move onto the next question of: if a god or gods do exist, how many and what are they like? Only when you start with the assumption God exists, can you even move into discussions about whether the biblical account most accurately describes what that God is like.

            The other problem in debates about the existence of God is that the opposing parties fail to establish up front how they actually define “God.” Most often the debates are about self-defined concepts of God that neither party really believes exist in the first place.

            For example, while you were speaking metaphorically in comparing to belief in a leprechaun you described it as “he demands you obey him or else he’ll tie you to a tree and shove his shillelagh up your butt for an eternity if you don’t obey him.” I’m making an assumption here, but my guess is that speaks much about the way you see “God” when we are debating about his existence. But the thing is, I don’t even believe that type of God exists, nor would I want to.

            I was wrong to imply that you purposefully make up a God only to discredit him. What I mean to say is that most likely you have a concept or definition of God that, in fact, really does not exist. Therefore, it would be impossible for me on my end to prove to you that type of God exists.

            I would say that most atheists also have a definition of God that, in fact, does not exist. I would also argue that most theists also have at least some false concepts of God that they unintentionally bring forth in their debates. And at the very least, even if correct, they fail to translate their understanding of God in a way that the opposing recipients see the same way. Thus, most apologetics debates are just both sides throwing up and discrediting strawmen arguments rather than about the actual, real God.

            Now, backing up to the notion of Scientific Method and God.
            I think what I’m hearing you say is that, while there are other possible methods for concluding that something exists, the Scientific Method is simply the ultimate method for you and if someone could prove God to you through that, then you could at least accept his existence. Am I correct in that?

            If so, I think that is totally legit and very sound reasoning.

            I have debated with other atheists before who have argued that the Scientific Method was the only method for proving God’s existence and that if he can’t be proven through it, then he definitively cannot exist. That I would disagree with and why I pointed out that other things (such as existence) exist that cannot be proven that way.

            I was wrong to assume that about you.

            Part of the reason I get passionate about this point is because, by how I’ve come to conceive of and define God, I don’t believe God ever can be proven via the Scientific Method – for the same reason “existence” can’t.

            I have come to the conclusion that God exists, but I had to start there first – then decide if that definition is consistent with the biblical version. I do believe it is, but as a result of re-looking at how I define God, I probably read the text of the Bible from a radically different POV than you and a lot of people do and, in a sense, see it as a very different God that I can readily accept.

            It is also when, going back to the original topic of the article, is completely compatible with science. I don’t see a separation or contradiction.

            Thanks for the discussion. Sorry this last one was a bit long.

          • glenbo

            Hey. Nice to hear from you, HT.

            Here we go.

            You said:

            >>”What Judaism did, however, was introduce, in the
            middle of polytheistic cultures, the concept of a more unified world (and universe), subject to the power of a singular force (the one true God)”<>”This, of course, fit more hand in hand with actual
            science (sometimes attributed as the other great monotheism)”<>”which sees common forces behind everything and
            often seeks to point to a grand unifying force or Theory of Everything.”<>”Only when you start with the assumption God exists,
            can you even move into discussions about whether the biblical account most accurately describes what that God is like.”<>”I think what I’m hearing you say is that, while
            there are other possible methods for concluding that something exists, the Scientific Method is simply the ultimate method for you and if someone could prove God to you through that, then you could at least accept his existence. Am I correct in that?”<>” Part of the reason I get passionate about this
            point is because, by how I’ve come to conceive of and define God, I don’t believe God ever can be proven via the Scientific Method – for the same reason “existence” can’t.”<>”as a result of re-looking at how I define God, I
            probably read the text of the Bible from a radically different POV than you and a lot of people do and, in a sense, see it as a very different God that I can readily accept.”<>” It is also when, going back to the original topic
            of the article, is completely compatible with science. I don’t see a separation or contradiction.”<<

            Science doesn’t rely on individual personal interpretations
            of what exists within the imaginations of scientists.

            Scientists address only reality and do not allow imaginary
            conceptions to cloud their judgement of facts and evidence. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have modern medicine.

            Beliefs are purely imaginary concepts. Scientific facts and
            evidence are not.

          • >>”Correct. But science never reverts to a “creator.” That is
            presumptuous. Science is not presumptuous.”

            Where did I mention the word “creator?” Regardless, help me understand how a “Theory of Everything” would be less presumptuous than a “creator.” What is the difference between the two, in your opinion – without simply stating one is in the “imagination” and one is not and without resorting specifically to “biblical” references, but instead discussing the larger concept of God/creator.

            >>”Yes, but not exclusively. If God appeared before me, other
            than in my imagination, that would be sufficient.”

            Curious – what would God appearing before you look like?

            I actually agree with you that we each have our own individual imaginations of what God is like; consequently, your conception of what God would be like if he/it existed would equally be a “mere 1/7,500,000,000 of the rest of the planet’s conceptuability of what a god really might be,” meaning that you have no more chance of being any more accurate than anyone else. That said, how would you know if it was really God appearing before you? Or in reverse, how would you know it is not.

            True – your imaginary version of what God would be like if he existed has not appeared before you. But what’s the objective measurement for the “test” if everyone has an individualized conception?

            >>”That’s because God exists exclusively only within your imagination and existence doesn’t exist exclusively only within your imagination.”

            Are you saying that existence is a definite fact, but my idea of God is definitively only within my imagination?

            I have not even provided you with my definition of God yet. At this point you would have to be relying on your own imaginative version of what you think I think God is like (or inserting your own) to make that determination. How can you jump to that conclusion without knowing all the facts?

            >>”Only when you start with the FACT that God exists not an “assumption” then we can move on.”

            If I can demonstrate to you that God is FACT, would you then really be willing to move on? (Not doubting you on this, but am honestly wanting to know)

            Of course, if your definition of God starts with that he is only “imagination,” then that would be an impossible feet – since an “imaginative” God can only ever be imaginative. Which would mean that testing or seeking evidence would have no point.

          • glenbo

            >>”Where did I mention the word “creator?””<>”Regardless, help me understand how a “Theory of
            Everything” would be less presumptuous than a “creator””<>”Curious – what would God appearing before you
            look like?”<>”That said, how would you know if it was really
            God appearing before you? Or in reverse, how would you know it is not.”<>”Are you saying that existence is a definite
            fact, but my idea of God is definitively only within my imagination?”<>”If I can demonstrate to you that God is FACT,
            would you then really be willing to move on?”<>”Of course, if your definition of God starts with
            that he is only “imagination,””<>” an “imaginative” God can only ever be
            imaginative.”<>”Which would mean that testing or seeking
            evidence would have no point.”<<

            Now you got it! Well said. You might as well try to seek
            evidence for the existence of the tooth fairy.

          • Ah, so I guess that since you define God as an imaginary concept and you state that I have that imagination, we can therefore conclude by your own definition God does indeed exist, correct? 😉

            But seriously, this all goes back to my main point. You start with a definition of God that could never exist in the first place and then shoot it down. But that is starting with a presumption before the actual “test.” Where’s the objectivity in that?

            A more honest approach would be to at least start with a definition that could possibly exist, then weigh it against the evidence of what you observe and make your deduction from there. Perhaps you did that at an earlier point in your life – only you would know that. But right now you start with a conclusion that can never be found to be anything but what it is….”imagination.”

            I prefer instead to start with a definition for God that is something real. I start with that and then look to since if it potentially weighs out with what often people conceive of for “God.”

            Thus, I start with the definition of God as simply “existence” (or “being” if you prefer), which of course we know exists. In fact, you have already admitted that existence is FACT (or factual). Therefore, by my definition, God does indeed exist – without even the need for the Scientific Method to prove it.

            Oh come on, that’s just ludicrous, you say? Well, let’s see how well that proves out:

            We know that existence has always existed and will always exist. Once existence stops, everything stops. We also know it was first, because nothing could exist before existence. Thus, it’s the “alpha and omega” so to speak.

            We know it’s the highest (and, therefore, most powerful) thing there is because nothing can exist outside of it. We also know that everything that exists (all of creation) is a reflection of it. Nothing could exist without being a part of it. Existence was the initiator of all things that exist and, thus, the creator.

            We also know it controls everything because it is the source of everything – including the natural laws of the universe. Furthermore, we know that it is relational because relational exists. In fact, as the highest of all possible laws, you could say it is the highest of relational beings there is. It’s also quite demanding of it, because existence says if you don’t love others, if we don’t treat each other with compassion, we will reap the consequences of that behavior.

            Existence also appears quite regularly before you – as evidenced by all of creation for you to see and the nature of its character.

            Is it a biblical idea? Sure. I wasn’t the first to come up with that definition. When Moses asked for a name, God responded with I Am that I Am – which when you actually get down to the Hebrew can be translated to “I Am Existence.” Moses’ significant encounter, thus, may have been just as much of a philosophical realization as much as a spiritual.

            Does this bear out? I encourage you to give it a try and see what you find when you replace every time in scripture where it says “God” with “existence.” Furthermore, for strange reasons I won’t go into, most every time you see the word “Lord” in the Old Testament it is actually a substitute for “Yahweh” which is considered the 3rd person version of “I Am.” Thus, replace those with “existence” as well. Suddenly, the Bible will begin to have a whole different meaning to you.

            It will also give you an idea of a God that is simultaneously scientific (the “Am” part) and personal/relational (the “I” part). Most of us have a very hard time even conceiving of that – thus, we tend to fall onto one of two sides – the secular/naturalistic or the theistic/supernatural. But with the “I Am” as existence, it can actually be both.

            Anyway, just some things to think about.

          • glenbo

            >>” Ah, so I guess that since you define God as an
            imaginary concept and you state that I have that imagination, we can therefore conclude by your own definition God does indeed exist, correct?”>>

            You are correct. God exists in your imagination just like Mohamad and Allah exists in a Muslim’s imagination.
            All of the thousands of known gods existed at one time or another, but only within the imagination of those who believe it.

            >” You start with a definition of God that could never exist in the first place and then shoot it down. But that is starting with a presumption before the actual “test.” Where’s the objectivity in that?”<>” But right now you start with a conclusion that can
            never be found to be anything but what it is….”imagination.””<>” I prefer instead to start with a definition for
            God that is something real. I start with that and then look to since if it potentially weighs out with what often people conceive of for “God.”“<>” Thus, I start with the definition of God as simply “existence”—Therefore, by my definition, God does indeed exist “<>” nothing could exist before existence.”<>”Existence was the initiator of all things that
            exist and, thus, the creator”<>” Existence also appears quite regularly before you
            – as evidenced by all of creation for you to see and the nature of its character.“<>” if we don’t treat each other with compassion, we
            will reap the consequences of that behavior.”<>” Is it a biblical idea? Sure.”<>” It will also give you an idea of a God that is
            simultaneously scientific”<<

            Once again you are being presumptuous. You are presuming God exist by the mere fact existence exists. There is nothing scientific about that. That is what is known as the argument from ignorance. Please look it up.

            Other than the argument from ignorance, what mechanism do I use to determine God exists?

          • >>” It is my moral duty to question their authority”

            Duty according to whom? What authority gives you the power to tell others what is right and wrong?

            >>”You are presuming existence had a cause. You are being closed minded to the possibility that existence might have always existed.”

            #1, I didn’t say that. Even if existence has always existed, the statement that “nothing could exist before existence” is still always true whether existence had a start or always was.

            #2, I specifically stated, “We know that existence has always existed.” I think the presumption is on your part.

            >>”That is not proof that existence had a beginning or a
            creator. It only means we simply don’t know.”

            Again, never stated existence had a “beginning” nor that it had a “creator” – considering that I equivocate existence and creator as one and the same. Nothing created “existence” because existence always was. And a creator didn’t make existence because otherwise the creator could not have previously existed.

            >>”You are beginning with a presumed/assumed conclusion.”

            The fact you do not see the irony of that statement in relation to your own presumed/assumed conclusions” shows that you simply have no interest in allowing evidence to speak for itself. You’ve drawn your own conclusions already and filter everyone else’s evidence or interpretations through that.

            I have proved to you that God exists. You simply do not like the definition that I give.

          • glenbo

            >>” Duty according to whom?”<>” What authority gives you the power to tell others
            what is right and wrong?”<>” I didn’t say that.”<>” I specifically stated, “We know that
            existence has always existed.”<>” And a creator didn’t make existence because
            otherwise the creator could not have previously existed.”<>” You’ve drawn your own conclusions already and
            filter everyone else’s evidence or interpretations through that.”<>” I have proved to you that God exists.”<<

            Ok then. It’s been fun.

          • Thanks for the good and challenging conversation.

  • Timothy Horton

    LOL! I just looked at the Discovery Institute’s website. Apparently they’ve made an agreement with The Stream to have a “Tell A Science Lie For Jesus” week here. Every day one of their paid professional flunkies will make another OP with the usual whining about how ID is so oppressed and how science is so mean to them.

    Anyone willing to be we’ll get the same smelly batch of rehashed lies they’ve been telling for the last 11 years, ever since they got their sorry butts handed to them at Kitzmiller v. Dover? We’ll hear about Irreducible Complexity, and Specified Complex Information, and the ginormous protein search space, and “IT’S TOO IMPROBABLE!!” , and every other piece of sciency-sounding BS they could dream up.

    Maybe Dougie Axe will pimp his new book in which he tells us we should ignore the scientific evidence and just trust our instincts, like the one which tells us the Sun revolves around a stationary Earth. 😀

    I can hardly wait. 🙂

    • qedlin

      A rather disturbingly cynical broad-based polemic with no credible propositional explanation of any particular justification for such irrational emotionalism. The present usurpers of scientific strategic superiority have forced a purely naturalistic ideology on all understanding of natural phenomenon, so anyone pursuing true truth from a scientific perspective can fully expect such verbal insults as yours. The failures of naturalism with regard to origins of life and failure to explain such straightforward propositions as ID presents at least warrant an adult, intellectual response.

      • Timothy Horton

        Please explain how to do science, any science, without relying 100% on naturalism. How do you test hypotheses or trust experimental results when you have a Loki God changing the outcome on a whim?

        • qedlin

          While the primary tools of science are for investigation of natural phenomenon, the philosophy, principles and methods of science are not naturalistic, rather metaphysical. The expansion of the scope of science over the centuries has elaborated on and allowed the redefinition of what science is relevant to use to understand the universe. Who has the right to rigidly restrict or specify the limits of science’s application. The expansion of science invariably will encounter non-naturalistic aspects of the universe, which must be allowed to happen, if in fact, science is pursuing truth, otherwise, science is self-limited and unable to fully determine truth. The Big Bang, fine-tuning of the universe e.g., dark energy universe surface expansion, the emergence of sentience, the encoding of DNA, all promote scientific investigations that push the limit of naturalism. To deny this is to deny objective reality that the universe is greater than merely the sum of all naturalistic phenomenon.

          There is no evidence that your last sentence is anything more than impulsive fantasy. Everything the creation, development and construction of the universe has demonstrated relates to order and logic.Otherwise, science would not be possible.

    • Thomas Smith

      ID is much more scientific than evolution, which is based on a bunch of “just so” stories! Can we use science to identify ID? Of course we can! Just ask any forensic scientist! Or how about an archaeologist? The glaring problem for evolution is the probability problem! You simply cannot “naturally” constrain the boundary conditions because there are too many points that you need to constrain, which naturally does not happen. There is this belief that given enough time just any complex system can arise! This is why evolution is a crack pot religion rather than real science!

      • Timothy Horton

        Forensic science and archaeology both investigate by assuming the “intelligence” was HUMAN and that it used known HUMAN produced mechanisms. They then test against that hypothesis which may confirm or falsify the hypothesis.

        Are you saying your Intelligent Designer of all biological life was human? What evidence if found would falsify the claim an Intelligent Designer with unknown, possibly omnipotent power POOFED all extant life into existence?

        • Thomas Smith

          That is not always the truth. In fact you very well know you don’t need to know anything about the designer to distinguish complex specified information! For example, if we found a complex artifact with advanced materials and systems, we could possibly have found evidence for an extraterrestrial being coming to earth. We would not need to know anything about the designer to identify the design! If you think differently, any sane individual would know you are either dishonest or living in a fantasy world!

          • Timothy Horton

            Natural processes can and do produce complex information. By the vague and non-standard definition of “specified” offered by ID-Creation as “performs a function” then everything in nature is “specified”.

            FAIL again.

          • Thomas Smith

            Do you know the difference between complex information and CSI? Dembski says that “specification” ensures the object exhibits the type of pattern characteristic of intelligence. For example, the SETI folks in looking for intelligence from space signals looked to see if they could identify the prime numbers from 2 to 101.

          • Timothy Horton

            Do you ever do anything but C&P the usual IDiot unsupported bluster with zero understanding or ability to defend?

            WHERE IS YOUR BEFORE-THE-FACT SPECIFICATION FOR BIOLOGICAL LIFE?

            Regurgitating Dembski’s analogies is not evidence of anything except your inability to answer.

          • Thomas Smith

            Not all these were Dembski’s analogies- if you have forgot. And I don’t understand your question here. What are you getting at? It seems to me to be an impossible request. We can in a general sense look at the number of mutations required to bring about advancement in life-forms and examine the probability. For example, when you require about 20 very specific mutations, then you approach the universal probability bound, which essentially shuts evolution down. In looking at complex systems with compressed data like found in life, I find most added function would require at least 20 mutations, which brings the whole evolutionary story into question!

    • ericdijon

      Ask an evolutionist to replicate nature scientifically and the response is that “they don’t have time for that.”

      • Timothy Horton

        We’ll replicate nature scientifically as soon as you get your Omnipotent Deity to POOF another entire universe into existence. Heck, I’d settle for a few new de novo created species. But that’s not going to happen, is it?

        • Gary

          If there was any truth in what you believe, there would be evidence to support it. Instead, all of the evidence contradicts what you believe.

          • Timothy Horton

            www(dot)talkorigins.(dot)org/faqs/comdesc/

            Evidence for common descent. Lots of evidence. Evidence the Creationists are too afraid to even look at.

          • Gary

            You only BELIEVE there is evidence for common descent because of your presuppositions. There actually is NO evidence for common descent.

          • eddiestardust

            Fossils are what then? And how about Geology? You don’t believe that the Earth changes? What about Stars?

          • Gary

            The fossils DO NOT support evolution. Those who presuppose evolution to be true think that fossils prove evolution, but they don’t.

        • ericdijon

          When you use the expression POOF is that a euphemism for The Big Bang Theory introduced by a Jesuit priest? I’m confused here since you are agreeable to a few new de novo created species which would entail settling an argument of it being truly new or simply discovered at last.

        • AwokenJo2012

          Never happy. There is plenty of evidence to study on earth here and now, most of it still left to discover, and in our universe. No need to create another one. And even if God did start to create another one, and you’d be alive to witness it (what makes you think it happens by POOF), atheists would still persistently try to explain it away “scientifically” and say that “nature” did it.

      • eddiestardust

        I’m a practicing Roman Catholic. Evolution is just the term that we use for how The Holy Spirit creates:)

        • Gary

          You do realize that most evolutionists would disagree that The Holy Spirit has anything to do with evolution?? And, do you realize that The Holy Spirit says he made everything in six days, and did not make anything evolve?

          • eddiestardust

            Possibly but they would shudder if they realized who most of the classical scientists were:)

          • eddiestardust

            I sincerely doubt that you are Catholic and NO The Holy Spirit did not say he created everything in 6 days. I don’t believe and most Catholics are not taught and do not believe the Bible (Old Testament) is the literal truth. IF you were to ask a Catholic Priest he would say something like the meaning of Genesis was that God created , period. Remember that 5,000 years ago, Moses did not know what Stars were, nor did he understand Meteorology or Science. God appeared to him as a voice from a burning bush…what he could understand. He didn’t try to explain things in terms that we understand today. We Catholics are taught and believe that The Bible is the inspired word of God:)

          • Gary

            I’m not Catholic. I’m a Christian. I agree that you, and other Catholics, don’t believe the Old Testament is true. You don’t believe the New Testament is true either. That’s one of the reasons you all go to Hell.

          • ericdijon

            That’s a fairly uniformed comment. Catholics are obliged to attend Mass. In the order of Mass, The Liturgy of the Word follows the Introductory Rites. For most of the year, the readings in the liturgy include Old and New Testaments and a Psalm at all Masses. The readings conclude with the reader stating,
            “The Word of the Lord.”
            and the response is,
            “Thanks be to God.”
            The priest or deacon then announces the reading from the Gospels whereby the congregations says,
            “Glory to you, oh Lord.”
            The reading concludes,
            “The Gospel of the Lord”
            with a response of
            “Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ.”
            Your comment effectively states that Catholics are not believers in the Mass readings. Catholics must believe that the New and Old Testaments are true or they are experiencing the Liturgy of the Word with tongue-in-cheek. Remember Christian, Catholics use the same bible, but they use the unabridged edition.

          • eddiestardust

            No I didn’t say that..what I did say is that we believe The Bible is “The Inspired word of God”. Do I believe everything in The New Testament? Yes I do! There’s a BIG difference! Do I believe the Earth is ONLY 6,000 years old ? NO I do not! Do I understand that “Adam” was millions of years old? Yes I do.

      • glenbo

        >”Ask an evolutionist to replicate nature scientifically and the response is that “they don’t have time for that.”<<
        Are you sure about that?

        • ericdijon

          you flat-out missed the joke. But since you asked – yes, I am certain. And no, I prefer not to hear otherwise.

        • Thomas Smith

          Minor changes can be attributed to the robustness found in life and can have absolutely nothing to do with mutations and natural selection! This is in fact evidence for Design given that the changes can be shown to be to be programmed into life.

          • Timothy Horton

            given that the changes can be shown to be to be programmed into life.

            Then show how changes are programmed into life.

          • Thomas Smith

            We see some triggers for example in seaweed where the plant will grow differently if it is under water or on the surface near the shore. This can be shown to be design programmed into the seaweed.

          • Timothy Horton

            Evasive non-answer noted. What you are describing are epigenetic effects only found in a handful of species, not any internal “programming” common to all.

            Another major FAIL for you.

          • Thomas Smith

            Exactly how is this NOT internal programming? Why does the environment always trigger these effects?

          • glenbo

            >>”This is in fact evidence for Design given that the changes can be shown to be to be programmed into life.”<<
            Does this "design" include "robust changes" that lead to cancer, dwarfism, microcephaly, or being born with two heads?
            Is this "designer" utterly reckless, incompetent, has a sick sense of humor, or viciously cruel? Taking into account the vast variety of design flaws amongst the human population I can conclude your "designer' is all of the above.

          • Thomas Smith

            Why does someone write a book? Why does someone create a pot? Doesn’t the Designer have a right to design for their own reasons? Good design or bad design, if we can identify CSI then we can determine it was designed!

          • glenbo

            >>”Good design or bad design, if we can identify CSI then we can determine it was designed! “<<
            What is CSI?

          • AwokenJo2012

            That’s right, let’s blame God for “design flaws” whilst testing nuclear weapons for decades, spraying our food supplies with toxins, genetically engineering it, injecting babies and pregnant mothers with foreign dna and more toxins, spraying DDT on healthy people and using chemical weapons. Maybe you should reconsider who really is “utterly reckless, incompetent, has a sick sense of humour, or viciously cruel”.

          • glenbo

            >>”That’s right, let’s blame God for “design flaws””<<
            What is your explanation for cancer, viruses, evil, war, tornadoes and tsunamis?

          • AwokenJo2012

            See, this is what I think is your true problem with ID. Not that there is no evidence for an intelligent design in nature, but that you have a problem with God. You have been told in the past, most likely multiple times, that God is cruel (and other things). Have you studied the Bible to find out the truth about Him? Have you done your “homework” properly? I can totally relate to your feelings of disappointment and anger, if you blame God for all the evil. We were all made to believe it from the very beginning of humanity. This is what Satan has been doing since then. Make us think that God is ruthless, that He has no right to rule us, and finally that He doesn’t exist. Science has been used for these purposes, unfortunately. The word “God” has been replaced with “science”. I don’t know how many times I heard people say “I believe in science”. To unswer your question, God created humans with perfect body that was supposed to live forever in earthly paradise. But because the first people chose to rebel against their Creator, because they chose to disobey the only commandment that was given them, they have lost their eternal life and the perfect bodies. Them and their offspring became prone to disease and decay. But why is God punishing us, we haven’t made the choice to disobey God, it was Adam and Eve, one might ask. To us God says “[I] will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore” (Rev 21:4). “No resident will say: ‘I am sick’.” (Isaiah 33:24). “All those in the memorial tombs will… come out.” (John 5:28,29). “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.'” (Isaiah 46:9-11) So now we are subject to decay and disease, but it is only temporary. God assures us that He will fix it, even reverse death, as He proved He can in Jesus’ times. As for viruses, there are millions of them in the environment, they are necessary to life, as we are only learning now, and only a few are dengerous to us, for whatever reason. Some say they were transferred from animals, where they shouldn’t, but I think we will never find out the truth, if this was the case (HIV). I believe that the problem lies with us, the host, certain viruses don’t belong in our body and can kill us, especially when we’re malnurished and live in highly occupied area with bad sanitation. It is not how God created it originally, so I wouldn’t blame God. None of this wouldn’t happen if the first people used their free will more wisely. As for tornadoes and tsunamis, I admit that I don’t know. But I do know this: “It is unthinkable for the true God to act wickedly, for the Almighty to do wrong!” (Job 34:10, I highly recomment for you to read this book to see what happened to Job). Re: evil and war, war=evil, God didn’t create evil, but he gave people free will, which they misuse.

          • Timothy Horton

            Nuclear testing and DDT didn’t cause us to have a crappy spinal design with disks prone to crushing and rupturing. We have our bad backs because human ancestors were tetrapods. When walking on all fours the spine is horizontal with all the weight slung below, a very strong and efficient mechanical configuration. When humans began bipedal walking it freed up our hands for all sorts of useful tasks. However, the negative trade-off was it took our horizontal spines and stood them vertically, subjecting them to loads and stresses they never evolved to handle. It was like taking a suspension bridge and turning it on end.

            A competent Designer could have easily come up with a better mechanical solution, say stacked ball and socket joints. Instead we have over 50% of the population with disk issues and lower back pain.
            Either we evolved or the Designer was an incompetent boob.

          • AwokenJo2012

            Could the back problems be due to sedentary life style and bad diet? If evolution, or lack of it, of our spine was the main cause, would not all of us had the problems? And where is the evidence to prove that we ever were tetrapods? If we originated from apes, there is a lot (!) of evidence missing, as the differences don’t stop at the spine.
            Things like bad back, along with diseases, like cancer, MS, etc. are symptoms. God designed perfect human beings with ability to live forever. We have lost our perfect bodies when the first humans rebelled against God. All this is recorded in the Bible. God didn’t create evil, evil grew in the hearts of humans because of the lack of love for God. The first humans were given everything they needed for a happy life, yet misled by “the father of the lie”, they decided to turn away from their Creator. They showed lack of appreciation and love of themselves. They wanted to rule themselves, and althought God warned them they would lose their eternal life, He still respected their free will and let them live outside of Eden. But damage has been done, humanity has become weaker and our body prone to disease. According to the Bible the first humans lived over 900 years, now we live on average 80-90 years. If we keep distroying our food and the environment, even this number will go down.

          • Timothy Horton

            Could the back problems be due to sedentary life style and bad diet?

            No. It’s simply the mechanical set up for bearing vertical loads is all wrong. A freshman mechanical engineer could have come up with a better solution than your incompetent Designer.

            And where is the evidence to prove that we ever were tetrapods?

            In science museums, colleges and universities, the professional scientific literature, and all over the web. The last places a Creationist would ever think to look.

          • Thomas Smith

            Come now, the spinal cord is a marvelous design for it is light weight (ball and socket joints would be heavy an inflexible) and flexible!

          • AwokenJo2012

            Are you a specialist in anatomy and medicine now, too? You are hugely arrogant, if you think you know the truth. God can read your heart, He allows your mind to be blinded by all misinformation in academics. It is not up to you to see the truth, it is only by the power of God that you can be shown the truth. It is certainly not in museums, colleges and universities, neither is it in professional scientific literature. “For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled. They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories”.

          • AwokenJo2012

            I don’t mean all that the scientific data shows is false. Science can explain how things work, but there is no evidence for macroevolution, that is all a fairytale and wishful thinking. Btw, I did look in these places. I wasn’t always a Christian. And I see a lot of misinformation. Gaps filled in with ideas, not actual prove. Funny how the Creator is being called a God of the gaps. I can see it is rather “evolution of the gaps”. Science-fiction.
            Anyway, I have waisted more than enough time on here. Take care, God bless.

          • Timothy Horton

            Are you a specialist in anatomy and medicine now, too?

            You don’t have to be a specialist to know humans have a sucky “design” for our backs. You can easily find a mechanical analysis online if you’re honestly interested.

          • glenbo

            >>”Maybe you should reconsider who really is “utterly reckless”<<
            I have…it's the one who created all of this then turned his back on us…because Adam ate fruit.
            Makes sense, right?

          • AwokenJo2012

            Oh, how you don’t understand what it was about. It wasn’t about a fruit! Use your brain when you read Genesis 3. Think about what it says, maybe even ask God to help you understand. Your mind is trapped in your textbooks and life long propadanda. Only God can help you free it.

          • glenbo

            >>” It wasn’t about a fruit!”<<
            So sin entered the world…because???

          • AwokenJo2012

            Think about it. Would a loving father punish his son and his son’s children just because the son ate a fruit that the father told him not to? What sort of a monster would that be!? So what Genesis 3 is about must be something else, something much worse. The Bible reads that God specially for Adam “planted a garden in the east, in Eden”, and in this garden “God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground – trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food”. This shows God’s love for Adam, which can be seen further when looked at the tasks, or jobs, that God gave Adam: “to work [the garden] and take care of it” and to “[give] names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals” that God had just created. God even made a “suitable helper” for Adam, a perfect woman, Eve. What a wonderful life Adam had! On top of that, Adam was “free to eat from any tree in the garden” apart from just one tree, the symbolic “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”. There was one more symbolic tree in Eden, the “tree of life”, from which Adam was not told not to eat. He already had eternal life. So what was the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” symbolic of that it was so important to God that Adam didn’t eat from it? Was it a hidden knowledge? I don’t think so, as when you read the story you get the feeling that God and Adam were in good contact with each other, God was “walking in the garden in the cool of the day”, so I think if Adam wanted to have any knowledge about anything, he had plenty of opportunity to ask God directly. So lets see what else the Bible says about Adam and Eve. It says that “they were naked” but didn’t cover themselves with leaves until after they ate the forbidden fruit. They didn’t even realize that they were naked, just as a small child doesn’t realize, it doesn’t realize there is something wrong with it until being told by a parent. So after they ate the fruit, they decided that being naked is wrong and they hid away from God and covered themselves with leaves. They decided themselves that being naked is wrong. Even God asked them “who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” God new that the right to decide what is good and what is not, the right to make rules, was supposed to be His. And rightfully so, as He is the Almighty Creator of everything, the all-knowing and just eternal being who cannot be corrupted by our “fleshly desires”. Adam and Eve reached for God’s right to rule. This is why God banished them from the garden of Eden, cursed them and the ground that was given to them and took away their eternal life. It wasn’t about a fruit. You would probably figure it out by yourself if you put your mind to it, if you really wanted to know the truth. What is also important in this story, is what God told Satan after he misled Eve: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed [Jesus]; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” God already then knew He will send His beloved angel, His Son, to earth as a human, not weakened by Adam’s chromosome and inherited sin, to die as a perfect man (“second Adam”) and to be resurrected to “go back to [the] Father” (thus only “bruise his heel”) and to win the war in heaven and cast Satan down to earth (thus “bruise his head”), all being part of the plan to, in the end, save God’s people and establish God’s Kingdom “as in heaven, also on earth”. This is the sort of intelligence we Christians are talking about and defending. This is our God that we choose to love. A God, who would sacrifice His “only begotten Son” for us. A God who never changes, who always keeps his word, who we can trust. Unlike scientific consensus.

          • Timothy Horton

            Would a loving father punish his son and his son’s children just because the son ate a fruit that the father told him not to? What sort of a monster would that be!?

            The same sort of monster who would drown every human on Earth, including women, children, and unborn babies along with almost all the innocent animals on the planet, except for a handful he let live on a big wooden boat?

          • Thomas Smith

            A loving God requires perfection because ANY rebellion to God’s standards leads to utter corruption, murder, rape, war and general chaos in society! Just look at our world today! Also a perfect God requires justice and His standard is perfection where any violation justly deserves death because it essentially ruins all his creation! Now God was gracious because he wanted to rescue a people for Himself of every nation and tribe of the earth! He did this by sending His Son to live a perfect life and to die to take our punishment – for those who believe. It was a costly act for God to do for we fully don’t understand the great price Jesus paid and exactly what he endured being fully God yet fully man. This gift of eternal life is offered to all – including you. Accept the free gift and the benefits are unimaginable but reject it and you will see the full wrath of God! Confessing our sins to God and agreeing to live for Him will bring us into relationship with God where you will experience the unimaginable joy that God gives. I can testify to this as well as all the other true believers in the world! God is good and so gracious to take away all my sin!!!!

          • Timothy Horton

            Thanks for admitting yet again your ID-Creationist woo has nothing to do with science, not like anyone ever thought differently.

          • Thomas Smith

            I am not talking science here but religion. You are the one claiming God is a monster and I just argued against your point!

          • glenbo

            In one of your recent (edited?) posts you said:
            >>”you have a problem with God”<>”Have you studied the Bible to find out the truth about Him?”<>”The word “God” has been replaced with science”.”<>”But because the first people chose to rebel against their Creator, because they chose to disobey the only
            commandment that was given them, they have lost their eternal life and the perfect bodies.”<>”It is not how God created it originally, so I wouldn’t blame God.”<>”It is not how God created it originally, so I wouldn’t blame God.”<<

            Then who or what is to blame for the death, suffering, disease and natural catastrophes that kill millions every
            year? Adam?

            You are a cafeteria Christian.

            You cherry pick the bible. You accept only the parts that make you feel comfortable and push out of your mind the murder and horrors that God caused and allows.

            You make illogical excuses for an obviously flawed so-called “creator” that makes no sense.

            How anyone can “worship a god that drowns children is beyond reason.

            I don’t “have a problem” with God. I simply have not been convinced any god exists. And any magical "creator" worth his salt wouldn’t let his creation fall.

          • AwokenJo2012

            Re: “condones rape (Judges 21:10-24—Deuteronomy
            22:28-29”

            Where does it say in these scriptures that God condones rape? The book of Judges is a record of what the Israelites did, not necessarily what God told them to do or condoned. “Each one [Israelite] was doing what was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 21:25). Actually, in the second chapter it reads “So the Israelites did what was bad in the eyes of Jehovah and served the Baʹals. Thus they abandoned Jehovah, the God of their fathers, who brought them out of the land of Egypt. And they followed other gods, the gods of the peoples who were all around them, and they bowed down to them and offended Jehovah. They abandoned Jehovah and served Baʹal and the Ashʹto·reth images. At this Jehovah’s anger blazed against Israel […]”. And further it reads “So Jehovah would raise up judges who would save them from the hand of their plunderers. But
            they refused to listen even to the judges and would prostitute
            themselves to other gods and bow down to them. They quickly turned aside
            from the way in which their forefathers had walked, those who had
            obeyed the commandments of Jehovah. They failed to do that. Whenever Jehovah did raise up judges for them,
            Jehovah would be with the judge and save them from the hand of their
            enemies all the days of the judge; for Jehovah was moved to pity over their groaning caused by those who oppressed them and those who were treating them abusively.
            But
            when the judge died, they would again act more corruptly than their
            fathers by following other gods, serving them and bowing down to them. They did not abandon their practices and their stubborn behavior.

            Finally Jehovah’s anger blazed against Israel, and he said: “Because this nation has violated my covenant that I commanded their forefathers and they have disobeyed me, I for my part will not drive out from before them even one of the nations that Joshua left behind when he died.”

            In Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 it doesn’t say that God condoned rape either. The custom then was different than it is today in western countries. When a man wanted to marry a girl he had to pay her father “bride price”, or dowry. The verses you quoted talk about a virgin girl being raped, yes, but “if they are discovered” means that if she had a witness of the rape (which would guarantee that she wasn’t falsely accusing a man), the rapist would have to take her as his wife, pay the father the dowry, and could never divorce her. That way her future would be secured (in those times no other man would marry a raped girl and being single all life was for a girl shameful; if she was raped and single that would destroy her life even more) and her family would benefit as from a normal wedding. So this seems like God was looking out for a young girl if unfortunately she got raped, not condoning rape. Again, knowing the context would help you understand the scriptures and maybe you’d know not to use it to slander God. See, the Bible is different to other secular records of kings and rulers, it doesn’t shy away from telling the truth about how bad people were in those times or what mistakes they made. Actually, it uses them as a warning for future generations that it was written for. Just look at what is says about King David in 2 Samuel 11! Honesty and truth are everywhere in the Bible.

          • AwokenJo2012

            “I get it. We have cancer and disease because Adam ate fruit. Such irrational nonsense.”

            Think about it. Would a loving father punish his son and his son’s
            children just because the son ate a fruit that the father told him not
            to? What sort of a monster would that be!? So what Genesis 3 is about
            must be something else, something much worse. The Bible reads that God
            specially for Adam “planted a garden in the east, in Eden”, and in this
            garden “God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground – trees that
            were pleasing to the eye and good for food”. This shows God’s love for
            Adam, which can be seen further when looked at the tasks, or jobs, that
            God gave Adam: “to work [the garden] and take care of it” and to “[give]
            names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild
            animals” that God had just created. God even made a “suitable helper”
            for Adam, a perfect woman, Eve. What a wonderful life Adam had! On top
            of that, Adam was “free to eat from any tree in the garden” apart from
            just one tree, the symbolic “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”.
            There was one more symbolic tree in Eden, the “tree of life”, from which
            Adam was not told not to eat. He already had eternal life. So what was
            the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” symbolic of that it was so
            important to God that Adam didn’t eat from it? Was it a hidden
            knowledge? I don’t think so, as when you read the story you get the
            feeling that God and Adam were in good contact with each other, God was
            “walking in the garden in the cool of the day”, so I think if Adam
            wanted to have any knowledge about anything, he had plenty of
            opportunity to ask God directly. So lets see what else the Bible says
            about Adam and Eve. It says that “they were naked” but didn’t cover
            themselves with leaves until after they ate the forbidden fruit. They
            didn’t even realize that they were naked, just as a small child doesn’t
            realize, it doesn’t realize there is something wrong with it until being
            told by a parent. So after they ate the fruit, they decided that being
            naked is wrong and they hid away from God and covered themselves with
            leaves. They decided themselves that being naked is wrong. Even God
            asked them “who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the
            tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” God new that the right to
            decide what is good and what is not, the right to make rules, was
            supposed to be His. And rightfully so, as He is the Almighty Creator of
            everything, the all-knowing and just eternal being who cannot be
            corrupted by our “fleshly desires”. Adam and Eve reached for God’s right
            to rule. This is why God banished them from the garden of Eden, cursed
            them and the ground that was given to them and took away their eternal
            life. It wasn’t about a fruit. You would probably figure it out by
            yourself if you put your mind to it, if you really wanted to know the
            truth. What is also important in this story, is what God told Satan
            after he misled Eve: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and
            between your seed and her Seed [Jesus]; He shall bruise your head, and
            you shall bruise his heel.” God already then knew He will send His
            beloved angel, His Son, to earth as a human, not weakened by Adam’s
            chromosome and inherited sin, to die as a perfect man (“second Adam”)
            and to be resurrected to “go back to [the] Father” (thus only “bruise
            his heel”) and to win the war in heaven and cast Satan down to earth
            (thus “bruise his head”), all being part of the plan to, in the end,
            save God’s people and establish God’s Kingdom “as in heaven, also on
            earth”. This is the sort of intelligence we Christians are talking about
            and defending. This is our God that we choose to love. A God, who would
            sacrifice His “only begotten Son” for us. A God who never changes, who
            always keeps his word, who we can trust. Unlike scientific consensus.

          • glenbo

            You realize I don’t believe in God nor do I believe the bible is true. To attempt to convince me God exists by referring to the bible is pure folly.

          • glenbo

            >>”Oh, how you don’t understand what it was about. It wasn’t about a fruit!”<>”Would a loving father punish his son and his son’s
            children just because the son ate a fruit that the father told him not to? What sort of a monster would that be!?”<<
            Then why is there evil and suffering in the world?

          • AwokenJo2012

            >>”Would a loving father punish his son and his son’s
            children just because the son ate a fruit that the father told him not to? What sort of a monster would that be!?”<<

            "Then why is there evil and suffering in the world?"

            Is this the only thing you got from my whole comment? Because I think I answered the question why God was so very angry with the first people. Adam's disobedience, lack of appreciation and wrongful attempt to take God's position as a ruler caused God's anger and resulted in Adam and Eve's losing their perfect bodies, thus making them susceptible to decay and disease. As for why there is evil and suffering in the world, out of love God gave humans free will, which they misuse. Being deceived and made to believe that there is no God, thus no one to answer to, many people think they will get away with what they do/did. Also, if life evolved randomly by some yet unknown power of nature, it makes it insignificant. Thus people give it very little value, and in some cases no value at all, unfortunately. "All of this I have seen,
            and I applied my heart to every work that has been done under the sun,
            during the time that man has dominated man to his harm." (Ecclesiastes 8:9). "I have seen something further under the sun, that the swift do not always win the race, nor do the mighty win the battle, nor do the wise always have the food, nor do the intelligent always have the riches, nor do those with knowledge always have success, because time and unexpected events overtake them all." (Ecclesiastes 9:11) But all human suffering is only temporary from God's perspective. He promised to fix it all and He assured that He will do what He said He will do. And I have no reason not to believe Him.

          • glenbo

            >>”Is this the only thing you got from my whole comment? Because I think I answered the question why God was so very ang ry with the first people. Adam’s disobedience, lack of appreciation and wrongful attempt to take God’s position as a ruler caused God’s anger and resulted in Adam and Eve’s losing their perfect bodies, thus making them susceptible to decay and disease. “<<
            What do you mean by "Adam's disobedience?"
            Why would a perfect creator create evil and suffering?
            Why would a perfect creator need to "fix" his creation?
            Your non-existent imaginary god doesn't sound so perfect.

          • AwokenJo2012

            Adam disobeyed the only commandment God gave him. There was no laws in Eden, Adam was as free as a person can ever be. The only commandment God gave him was to stay away from the symbolic “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” = to stay away from God’s rulership. Adam disobeyed God when he (and Eve) chose to believe Satan.

            God did not create evil, he created people in His own image, capable of thinking, feeling, investigating, making their own choices. The problem is, Satan is “the ruler of this world”, who “blinds” people’s minds and “misleads the entire inhabited world”. So people’s minds get twisted, moral standards get worse, good is bad and bad is good. This is what God ensures us He will fix. Satan will be gone and God’s standards will be known to everyone. For His people to be able to enjoy life in His Kingdom, He will have to give them back their perfect bodies and eternal life. Earth will be just as God intended it to be from the very beginning.

          • glenbo

            >>” Adam disobeyed God when he (and Eve) chose to
            believe Satan.”<>” The problem is, Satan is “the ruler of this
            world”<<

            Why did God create Satan?

            If God did not create evil and suffering, how did evil and
            suffering come into existence?

          • AwokenJo2012

            The Scriptures indicate that the creature known as Satan did not always have that name.
            Rather, this descriptive name was given to him because of his taking a
            course of opposition and resistance to God. The name he had before this
            is not given. God is the only Creator, and ‘his activity is perfect,’
            with no injustice or unrighteousness. (De 32:4) Therefore, the one becoming Satan was, when created, a perfect, righteous creature of God. He is a spirit person, for he appeared in
            heaven in the presence of God. (Job chaps 1, 2; Re 12:9)
            Jesus said of him: “That one was a manslayer when he began, and
            he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him.” (Joh 8:44; 1Jo 3:8)
            Jesus here shows that Satan was once in the truth, but forsook it.
            Beginning with his first overt act in turning Adam and Eve away from
            God, he was a manslayer, for he thereby brought about the death of Adam
            and Eve, which, in turn, brought sin and death to their offspring. (Ro 5:12)
            Throughout the Scriptures the qualities and actions attributed to him
            could be attributed only to a person, not to an abstract principle of
            evil. It is clear that the Jews, and Jesus and his disciples, knew that
            Satan existed as a person.
            So, from a righteous, perfect start, this spirit person deviated into sin and degradation. The process bringing this about is described by James when he writes: “Each one is
            tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. Then the desire,
            when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn, sin, when it
            has been accomplished, brings forth death.” (Jas 1:14, 15) In the course that Satan took, there seems to be, in some respects, a parallel with that of the king of Tyre as described in Ezekiel 28:11-19. “You were the model of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eʹden, the garden of God. You were adorned with every precious stone —Ruby, topaz, and jasper; chrysʹo·lite, onyx, and jade; sapphire, turquoise, and emerald; And their settings and mountings were made of gold. They were prepared on the day you were created. I assigned you as the anointed covering cherub. You were on the holy mountain of God, and you walked about among fiery stones. You were faultless in your ways from the day you were created until unrighteousness was found in you. Your heart became haughty because of your beauty. You corrupted your wisdom because of your own glorious splendor. I will throw you down to the earth.” This parallel shows how someone can start loving himself, and in the case of Satan that love was expected and wanted from everyone else, including Jesus. In Matthew 4:8,9 Satan tempts Jesus and says to him “All these things [all the kingdoms of the world and their glory] I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me.”
            The Scriptural account, therefore, makes it plain that it was Satan who spoke through the medium of a serpent, seducing Eve into disobedience to God’s command. In turn, Eve
            induced Adam to take the same rebellious course. (Ge 3:1-7; 2Co 11:3)
            As a consequence of Satan’s use of the serpent, the Bible gives Satan
            the title “Serpent,” which came to signify “deceiver”; he also became “the Tempter” (Mt 4:3) and a liar, “the father of the lie.”—Joh 8:44; Re 12:9.
            When Satan approached Eve (through the speech of the serpent), he actually
            challenged the rightfulness and righteousness of Jehovah’s sovereignty.
            He intimated that God was unrightfully withholding something from the
            woman; he also declared that God was a liar in saying that she would die
            if she ate the forbidden fruit. Additionally, Satan made her believe
            she would be free and independent of God, becoming like God. By this
            means this wicked spirit creature raised himself higher than God in
            Eve’s eyes, and Satan became her god, even though Eve, at the time,
            apparently did not know the identity of the one misleading her. By his
            action he brought man and woman under his leadership and control,
            standing up as a rival god in opposition to Jehovah.—Ge 3:1-7.
            The Bible, in lifting the veil to give a glimpse into heavenly affairs, reveals that Satan later as a
            rival god appeared before Jehovah in heaven, challenging Jehovah to His
            face, saying that he could turn God’s servant Job, and by implication
            any servant of God, away from Him. He charged God, in effect, with
            unrighteously giving Job everything, along with full protection, so that
            he, Satan, could not test Job and show what was really in his heart,
            which, Satan intimated, was bad. He implied that Job served God
            primarily for selfish considerations. Satan made this point of his
            argument clear when he said: “Skin in behalf of skin, and everything
            that a man has he will give in behalf of his soul. For a change, thrust
            out your hand, please, and touch as far as his bone and his flesh and
            see whether he will not curse you to your very face.”—Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7.
            In this special case, Jehovah allowed Satan to bring calamity upon Job by not interfering when Satan brought about a raid from Sabean marauders as well as destruction of flocks and
            shepherds by what Job’s messenger called “the very fire of God” from the
            heavens; whether this was lightning or other fire is not stated. Satan
            also brought a raid by three bands of Chaldeans, as well as a windstorm.
            These things caused the death of all of Job’s children and destroyed
            his property. Finally, Satan inflicted a loathsome disease upon Job
            himself.—Job 1:13-19; 2:7, 8.
            These things reveal the might and power of Satan, as well as his vicious, murderous attitude.
            It is important to note, however, that Satan recognized his impotence in the face of God’s express
            command, for he did not challenge God’s power and authority when God
            restricted him from taking Job’s life.—Job 2:6.
            By his challenge of God and his charging God’s servants with lack of
            integrity, Satan lived up to his title “Devil,” meaning “Slanderer,”
            which title he deserved for having slandered Jehovah God in the garden
            of Eden.
            As for Adam, he should have known better not to take the fruit, regardless of who was giving it to him. He knew God personally, everything he had and knew he was given by God. He should have chosen to trust God, not Eve.

          • AwokenJo2012

            See, this is what I think is your true problem with ID. Not that there
            is no evidence for an intelligent design in nature, but that you have a
            problem with God. You have been told in the past, most likely multiple
            times, that God is cruel (and other things). Have you studied the Bible
            to find out the truth about Him? Have you done your “homework” properly?
            I can totally relate to your feelings of disappointment and anger, if
            you blame God for all the evil. We were all made to believe it from the
            very beginning of humanity. This is what Satan has been doing since
            then. Make us think that God is ruthless, that He has no right to rule
            us, and finally that He doesn’t exist. Science has been used for these
            purposes, unfortunately. The word “God” has been replaced with
            “science”. I don’t know how many times I heard people say “I believe in
            science”. To answer your question, God created humans with perfect body
            that was supposed to live forever in earthly paradise. But because the
            first people chose to rebel against their Creator, because they chose to
            disobey the only commandment that was given them, they have lost their
            eternal life and the perfect bodies. Them and their offspring became
            prone to disease and decay. But why is God punishing us, we haven’t made
            the choice to disobey God, it was Adam and Eve, one might ask. To us
            God says “[I] will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will
            be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore” (Rev
            21:4). “No resident will say: ‘I am sick’.” (Isaiah 33:24). “All those
            in the memorial tombs will… come out.” (John 5:28,29). “I am God, and
            there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the
            end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I
            say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.'” (Isaiah
            46:9-11) So now we are subject to decay and disease, but it is only
            temporary. God assures us that He will fix it, even reverse death, as He
            proved He can in Jesus’ times. As for viruses, there are millions of
            them in the environment, they are necessary to life, as we are only
            learning now, and only a few are dangerous to us, for whatever reason.
            Some say they were transferred from animals, where they shouldn’t, but I
            think we will never find out the truth, if this was the case (HIV). I
            believe that the problem lies with us, the host, certain viruses don’t
            belong in our body and can kill us, especially when we’re malnourished
            and live in highly occupied area with bad sanitation. It is not how God
            created it originally, so I wouldn’t blame God. None of this wouldn’t
            happen if the first people used their free will more wisely. As for
            tornadoes and tsunamis, I admit that I don’t know. But I do know this:
            “It is unthinkable for the true God to act wickedly, for the Almighty to
            do wrong!” (Job 34:10, I highly recommend you read this book to
            see what happened to Job). Re: evil and war, war = evil, God didn’t create
            evil, but He gave people free will, which they misuse.

    • NotFred

      The case you reference was not a victory for one side or a butt kicking for the other. It is a sad example of an overbearing judiciary and parents who are not strong enough in their convictions to handle contrary conversations with their children. The decision itself is the canary in the coal mine signifying that meaningful conversation in this country has ended and schools as a place of learning are transformed into houses of indoctrination for singular ideas.

      • Timothy Horton

        What color is the sky in your world? A bunch of Creationists got caught taking a book on Biblical Creation, literally doing a Word “replace” function of “Intelligent design” for “Creation” and tried to pass it off as a science book. Breathtaking inanity was indeed an apt description of this debacle for the ID-Creationist charlatans.

        • NotFred

          Color blind actually; thanks for the reminder. Surely the word substitution is not what offends you; everyone knows those two terms are synonymous. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the blatant incorrect substitution of fact for theory. And the point was — educate kids with all aspects of a conversation. Both sides have taken a position that the other side is indoctrinating the students … and if only one side is presented, the other side is correct in that view. If one side is so confident its position is infallible, it should welcome the open discourse.

          • Timothy Horton

            If one side is so confident its position is infallible, it should welcome the open discourse.

            Science does welcome open discourse. All honest scientific debate is done in the professional scientific literature, not on ID-Creationist web sites or popular press books. Problem is the ID pushers will never submit anything to the professional scientific community for discussion and critical vetting, events which every other scientific idea must go through.

            The fact is Creationism was shown to be scientifically impotent and bankrupt a century ago. Re-branding it as ID and trying to sneak it back into science classrooms without doing any supporting scientific work was the Discovery Institute’s amazingly dishonest strategy. The DI is an organization of nothing but liars and clowns. All they try and do is avoid science every chance they get and peddle their lies directly to the lay public. The liars got caught at Dover and had their dishonest butts handed to them.

            We don’t teach kids the world is flat just for the sake of “balance”. We don’t teach them the sun orbits a stationary Earth. And we don’t teach the the DI’s lies about ID-Creationism.

          • NotFred

            If Creationism is that blatantly wrong, then there should be not problem with including it for historical reference …. like Galileo’s and Newton’s theories led to Einstein’s. Because where in our scientific community today does anyone truly challenge the Theory of Evolution if we exclude the Creationists? Because the theory deserves to be challenged – there is significant speculation in the interpretation and extrapolation of observations; where does it get challenged and pushed to be more accurate? Our scientific community suffers by excluding creation scientists. Whether or not you agree with their conclusions, their examination of the data and critical analysis should be openly welcomed … if they are so wrong, then it will just result in sharpening the argument for Evolution. But alas …. there’s the problem – they are raising valid questions and the result is – Atheists cannot allow those questions to be asked … and now our scientific community is compromised.

            “science works best when scientists come from diverse perspectives” …. you don’t have to agree with them.

            “scientific community is best served by including
            voices and contributions from people of all identities and backgrounds” …. apparently not.

            But this article made me think about whether to participate in the Earth Day march … I decided to hike and not support the hypocrisy. It was a much better way to spend the day.

          • Timothy Horton

            If Creationism is that blatantly wrong, then there should be not problem with including it for historical reference

            Fine, we’ll discuss the total failure of Creationism in History class. Trying to get already failed nonsense pushed back into science classrooms is a waste of everyone’s time.

            Our scientific community suffers by excluding creation scientists

            They’re not excluded. They’re perfectly free to provide their positive evidence for their Creationist claims, submit it to the appropriate peer reviewed scientific journals and have it published. But they never do because they have no evidence which can withstand the slightest scientific scrutiny.

          • Timothy Horton

            I suppose you think we should teach kids the world is flat for the sake of “balance”. Maybe we teach them the sun revolves around a stationary Earth too just to be “fair and equal”. As Bugs Bunny would say – what a maroon.

          • NotFred

            Actually, those two examples are taught in science education courses. They are referenced as valid demonstrations of how repeatable experiments which result in consistent observations can move an idea from theory to fact. Similarly, students are presented with the progression of observations by Galileo, Newton, and Einstein to show you they each developed progressive and more accurate gravitational theories. But just because the Theory of Relativity is more accurate than Newton’s laws , do we kick Newton to the curb? Or because the Theory of Relativity is more widely adopted, do we refuse to consider other modern theories which are valid based upon the same observations as Einstein’s?

        • Thomas Smith

          You obviously don’t know the difference between ID and Creationism! You sound more like a rabid atheist than one trained in the sciences. What is your profession anyway? Denny’s manager who reads science?

          • Timothy Horton

            The only difference is Creationism is at least honest enough to admit their “Designer” is the Christian God who POOFED everything into existence. The IDiots are still trying to hide the fact and pretend they’re scientific.

  • TFJ

    Thank you. You are a needed voice in a community that has turned science into a religion which basically supports an atheist world view who attack and suppress outside their viewpoint that mindless matter created all of the information systems found in living things including human beings with minds that apparently arose from dumb matter by itself as did the language of life (DNA) and its necessary cast of supporting organelles necessary for translation, transfer and transformation of this information into usable proteins upon demand.

    Instead, what is called “science” is a wasteland of speculative fantasy defended by assumption rather than evidence. A wasteland which is becoming more exposed with each passing month as further research into how DNA expresses itself is far more organized and complex than anything previously assumed. So called “junk DNA” is now found to have programming capabilities far beyond previously assumed and in fact supplies each of us with our unique individuality.

    Discovery Institute, which you mentioned, has produced a number of good books on the issue such as “The Signature in the Cell” and “Darwin’s Dilemma” which raises questions based on scientific evidence that have yet to be effectively answered by the self appointed experts.

    Meanwhile, their most potent weapons are suppression and attack which they impose by having the numbers as you alluded to with your statement:

    “Only 51 percent of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science believe in the existence of God or a higher power. That’s in contrast to 95 percent of the public. That’s an astounding gap of 44 points.”
    And that is the true key to why evolution is the accepted world view. It’s not science. It is a prejudice based upon a world view, not real, empirical, evidence based science. The world view of atheism vs. God. A conflict of ideas not evidence nor even logic for that matter.

  • Gary

    Materialists would like for everyone to believe what they believe. But that won’t happen.

  • Ray

    I would like to hear a scientist explain scientifically how no one could possibly know the age of the wine Jesus made at that wedding of Canna of Galilee, in John 2, just by examining it and performing scientific tests. So what could that possibly have to do with the age of the world? We might have to bring in a math teacher for the answer to that one, since this was called by John, “..this beginning of miracles which Jesus did.” Please note the word “beginning” here.

    • Sally Richter

      Who said nobody could know the age of the wine?

  • Sally Richter

    This article is a bit silly; having theists represented in a “March For Science” makes about as much sense as having an atheist preacher at a Baptist church. I would argue that the whole *point* of religion is to be unscientific. For example, if you take away the events in the Bible that are scientifically impossible: the virgin birth, Jesus walking on water, rising from the dead, etc., you are left with just another history book. Now, I do agree that including groups that are anti-GMO (and anti nuclear power) is a mistake, but the solution is not to go even further off the rails and include groups that have nothing to do with science whatsoever.

    As an aside, there is one moment in the Bible that I would consider somewhat “scientific”: Elijah’s test of the hypothesis that Jehovah is superior to Baal in 1 Kings 18. He stated what the expected results should be before the fact, and made sure it would be definitive by soaking his pile of wood with water. That’s how science works (though slaughtering those whose hypothesis turned out to be wrong is not really part of the scientific method).

    On a final note, I see that a few commenters have accused science of becoming a religion. Notice how scientists never accuse religion of being scientific?

    • Gary

      It isn’t necessary to be an atheist in order to be a scientist, although many people claim it is.

      • Pofarmer

        It isn’t necesary, but it doesn’t hurt.

        • Gary

          Actually, it does hurt. Unless science can be divorced from truth. Atheists deny reality. That makes it hard to trust their opinions about science.

          • Pofarmer

            riiigggghhhhhhttttttt.. Science is the problem. Obviously. Tell ya what. You go through your week with only the products of religion, and I’ll go through my week with only the products of science. Bet you don’t make it out the front door.

          • Gary

            Since God made the air, the water, fire, meat and vegetables, I think I could survive a week just fine.

            Tell you what. You go into eternity with only the products of science, and I’ll go into eternity with only religion, and let’s see who fares better.

          • Timothy Horton

            Where you’re going you better take that science produced asbestos underwear.

          • Gary

            You don’t believe in Hell. Yet.

          • Timothy Horton

            Send me a postcard when you get there.

          • Thomas Smith

            Timothy, you are a rather insulting person, why don’t you grow up.

          • Timothy Horton

            Why don’t you graduate from high school first and take a few college level science courses before embarrassing yourself with your ID-Creation idiocy any further.

          • Stephen Polkowske

            Problem with product of religion vs products of science is that they are virtually the same thing, people that have faith in god see everything as being of its design or influence, while those who have no faith see it the sameway, just without adding god into their thinking.

    • Thomas Smith

      “On a final note, I see a few commenters have accused science of becoming a religion. Notice how scientists never accuse religion of being scientific!”
      I have made that statement, because religion is associated with “faith” and “belief” rather than science. Evolution is more like a religious doctrine than a scientific endeavor.

      • Sally Richter

        But that’s exactly my point; it is as if both sides agree that faith and belief is inferior to science when it comes to discerning the actual truth.

        • Thomas Smith

          But I would say that both ID and Creationism ARE scientific. You may not like their original presuppositions, but they do use the scientific method to look at the evidence. The bandwagon mentality of evolution wants their atheistic presuppositions to be the only way to look at science, where the presuppositions are philosophical rather than scientific in nature. This rigid adherence to atheistic presuppositions in science artificially constrains the scientific possibilities and could lead us down a rabbit trail of evolutionary thinking should the atheistic presuppositions be wrong! We need to free science and be willing to look at other rational philosophic presuppositions in the scientific process!

          • Timothy Horton

            But I would say that both ID and Creationism ARE scientific.

            That’s because you don’t understand either one.

  • Dee

    Why is anyone wasting time on this Timothy Horton he is spiritually dead, you can’t give pearls to swine and think they will unberstand it. I never talk to people who are spiritually dead when it comes to what I believe! He is not worth one minute of your time he is just here to insult to try and make himself look smart, he thinks he knows it all and you can never win with someone like that so leave the spiritually dead to themselves. OH! AND don’t bother writing me anything back Mr. Horton I won’t read it remember your not worth the time!

    • Timothy Horton

      Another Fundy scared to death of science. Sad. 🙁

      • Thomas Smith

        Do I look like I am scared of the science? Without God you don’t have any hope! How can you even embrace our ideals as found in our constitution? There is no basis for freedom, inalienable rights, morality and so much more! Once you are dead you are gone and no matter how many “he lives on in our thoughts” you hear, everything is meaningless – without God! Accept Jesus as the son of the living God! Confess your sins to God and make Jesus the Lord of your life. You will be so glad you do! We have this indescribable joy given by God in our hearts! It is no lie for it is the truth!

        • Timothy Horton

          Do I look like I am scared of the science?

          I don’t know about scared but you’re certainly clueless about science.

          • Thomas Smith

            I would say you are clueless about science! It is a sad testament of affairs. What did you say your profession is?

    • Steve Stoll

      Science doesn’t claim to know it all or anything close to that at all. That is the point of science, to pursue the truth by looking at the evidence. Science follows the evidence. Intelligent design twists and skews the evidence to support their ideology. There is no evidence for intelligent design. Dee, YOU’RE not worth anyone’s time.

      • Dee

        Awww! Somebody got but hurt!

        • Steve Stoll

          Lol, my butt doesn’t hurt. Please entertain me with more of your ignorance. It’s hilarious.

      • Thomas Smith

        And what science do you know Steve? Just saying it is not science doesn’t make it “not science”.

  • Ray

    Isn’t it funny how someone will put oxygen and hydrogen together and say, “Look at the water that appeared” …like out of thin air, and call that “Science”, but what would it be without the human being that did the “experiment” or demonstration?

    • Timothy Horton

      Chemistry.

      Was that a trick question?

    • glenbo

      >>”but what would it be without the human being that did the “experiment” or demonstration?”<<
      Nature.

    • glenbo

      >>”Look at the water that appeared” …like out of thin air”<<
      Just like God did?

    • Timothy Horton

      Chemistry.

      Next question.

  • thinksmart

    So let’s see diversity is good only if you are in agreement with certain believes in science. What??? So the consensus is what we change with whatever the fad maybe? Climate cooling became climate warmer and now is climate change. So how is science settled?

    • glenbo

      >>”So how is science settled?”<<

      Peer review.
      Please research "the scientific method."

      • thinkingabovemypaygrade

        The scientific method sometimes is not so clear…in 1970s it was Global Cooling. Now Global Warming…Perhaps a different permutation…of the 2 with some differing aspects 10 years from now. For complex issues…might take many years of observations experiments…

        • glenbo

          >>””For complex issues…might take many years of observations experiments…”<<
          But not 6 days.

          • Ryan

            It has been almost 200 years and there have been zero observations and zero experiments that have proven evolution.
            Zero, at least it is a consistent record.

          • glenbo

            >>”It has been almost 200 years”<<
            OH MY GAWD!
            That long???

          • Ryan

            And still zero.

          • glenbo

            >>”And still zero.”<<
            And the Earth is…how old?

          • Ryan

            Got proof?

          • glenbo

            >>”Got proof?”<<
            Radiometric dating of rocks.
            And you?

          • Ryan

            Radiometric dating can only be accurate if you know the exact date the isotopes you are using to date something else, became active. Do you or anyone else know the exact date radioisotopes became radioactive? Because if you don’t, you have nothing.
            Radioactive materials are also effected by heat, heat increases the speed of radioactive decay, the hotter the heat, the faster the decay. Lava from a volcano, when it cools will read up to several million years only days after it cools. There are many more examples but you will only go to evolution sites to get your information. Which will be false, evolutionists are not scientists, they are story tellers and make good money from those who believe their stories.

          • glenbo

            >>”evolutionists are not scientists”<<
            I see.
            And your proof of the earth age is?

          • Ryan

            How long did it take the Grand Canyon to form?

          • Timothy Horton

            It didn’t form all at once. Various parts have been forming for at least the last 70 million years. The main portion of the canyon was carved in the last 20 +/-5 million years.

          • Ryan

            Really? most geologists from both sides of the argument are now taking the path that it only took a very short time to form, all of it by a vast amount of water released from an inland lake that used to cover the Colorado Plateau. Geologists now think it took only thirty to forty five days for the vast amount of water to cut the canyon out. There is no sediment at the lower end of the canyon that would have formed if it had taken millions of years.

          • glenbo

            >>”How long did it take the Grand Canyon to form?”<<
            Since you reject science and consider scientists "story tellers," I can only assume your reasoning abilities are incompatible with mine.
            But thanks for engaging me in conversation. It has been a pleasure.

          • Ryan

            You don’t know so you just go with the story tellers because of your lack of knowledge. The pleasure has been all mine.

          • glenbo

            >>”How long did it take the Grand Canyon to form?”<<
            You tell me.

          • Terry Frank

            Radiometric dating also begins with the assumption that the rock had 100% of the measured content when the rock was formed which is another flaw in this method.

            Fact is, radiometric ages often vary markedly. One group, led by a creationist geologist PhD, submitted flow from Mt. St. Helens to radiometric dating services and they came up with ages of 45,000 years and older.

            Most times, the person submitting is asked for the origin of the rocks. Then, they use circular reasoning by dating the rocks according to the fossils located in the vicinity. The fossils in turn are dated according to the rocks found in the vicinity. It ain’t science. it’s dogma clinging to a Godless world view.

          • Timothy Horton

            Fact is, radiometric ages often vary markedly. One group, led by a creationist geologist PhD, submitted flow from Mt. St. Helens to radiometric dating services and they came up with ages of 45,000 years and older.

            That was a classic case of Creationist willful dishonesty. They took a sample known to contaminated with xenoliths – older pieces of rock that often get mixed in with fresh pyroclastic flows when volcanoes erupt. The lab told them the samples were contaminated and the radiometric dates did not show the age of the Mt. St. Helens lava but the dishonest Creationist charlatans pushed the bogus dates anyway.

            Most times, the person submitting is asked for the origin of the rocks. Then, they use circular reasoning by dating the rocks according to the fossils located in the vicinity. The fossils in turn are dated according to the rocks found in the vicinity.

            That’s not even close to being true. What happens is some fossils are dated to a range by radiometric dating of igneous rock immediately above and below the fossils. Then when the identical fossils (known as index fossils) are found at a different location the rocks at the different location can be assigned the same ages as the first site. There’s no circularity at all, just the simple math if A=B and A=C then B=C.

          • Ryan

            I watched a show on a PBS station where two young, “scientists,” said they subjected a scull to a radiocarbon test to see if the age of the scull was what they said it was. They found the radio carbon read the scull to be around 2,000 years old. They did not accept that and did more tests, long story short, they finally got the age of the scull to be 175 thousand years old just like they thought it would be. The problem no one explained to the audience was that carbon dating would show no carbon beyond 50 thousand years.
            My wife quit watching PBS after that.
            Mt. St. Helens eruption was a real pain for the evolutionists, it showed everything they choose to believe to be wrong. They still don’t except it.
            God knows how to confound those who think themselves to be wise.

          • Timothy Horton

            Except for the several million documented in the primary scientific literature and easily available online to anyone brave enough and honest enough to look for them.

            Oh, you’re a Creationist. I see that doesn’t include you.

          • Ryan

            Richard Dawkins, one of your top evolutionists, has said; “we have never observed evolution happen, we just know it has.”
            You are probably one of those who believes soft tissue found in the remains of a T-Rex in Montana, is 65 million years old. One of more than 30 such finds over the last few years. You people are hilarious.

          • paul kolifrath

            And after ryan masters finger painting, he will dicuss world PEACE

          • Ryan

            I mastered finger painting by the time I was four years old, if you want to discuss world peace, start.

          • Steve Stoll

            I know 200 years seams like forever to you but, 200 years isn’t even a blink of the eye in the evolutionary time scale. What do you expect to see, a crocoduck?

          • Ryan

            Evolution is just a theory, not a time scale.

          • Steve Stoll

            Please educatate yourself. You might want to start with the definition of scientific theory. It shows how ignorant you are by using the word “just” to dismiss it.

          • Ryan

            Which theory are you talking about, scientific theory or evolution theory. The two aren’t related.

          • Steve Stoll

            Aaaaa… the theory of evolution IS a scientific theory…

          • Ryan

            A very unproven theory at that.
            What do you think of the soft tissue find of a T-Rex in Montana? Can soft tissue survive 65 million years?

          • Steve Stoll
          • Ryan

            I’ve already read all that. It still doesn’t explain soft tissue 65 million years old. Experimenting with blood in iron for two years does nothing for proving blood can survive 65 million years. Think about it, even the one who made the discovery said it could not exist. Schweitzer really was no dummy.

          • Steve Stoll

            Blinded by faith. Keep twisting the facts to fit your dogma. Reject the evidence against your views and cherry pick the rest. You’re only lying to yourself.

          • Ryan

            You are the one lying to yourself. I have read the facts and haven’t rejected evidence or cherry picked any of it. Even Schweitzer could not reject the truth because of her evolutionist beliefs.
            The one blinded by his faith, is you.

          • Steve Stoll

            Maybe you should re-familiarize yourself with what the words preserved and protected environment mean. Science will change based on the evidence. Your faith in myths does not.

          • Ryan

            Yes, science will change, but, not one iota of the evidence in this case does not support 65 million years. The bone the evidence came from was not fossilized. Do you even have a clue how long 65 million years is?

          • Steve Stoll

            You’re still ignoring the facts. Stop getting your info from pseudoscience sites like answers in genesis and discovery institute. Where’s the DNA? Surely, that would have suvived if the earth were only 6000 years old. Calling you ignorant is a compliment at this point. You are stupid. Everything is there in front of you and you continue to misquote and ignore the truth because it’s easier and lazy to believe.

            Read some more, moron.

            https://letterstocreationists(dot)wordpress(dot)com/dinosaur-soft-tissue/

          • Ryan

            Schweitzer, the one who made the discovery, is the one who extracted the DNA. Why don’t you ask her.
            Calling names is not only a detractor, it is an admission you don’t have the truth on your side.

          • Timothy Horton

            Neither Schweitzer not anyone has recovered any DNA from dino fossils. That’s another ridiculous YEC claim made from ignorance.

          • Ryan

            The original reports about the DNA have been yanked from the internet, even some of the secular sites that had those reports are now not showing them. Schweitzer is the one who found the soft tissue in the dino remains, not those who criticize her for posting her report about it. I read the original report and a day later that original was changed to read in line with the consensus crowd. I have a copy of both. Schweitzer was very unhappy about it but didn’t want to lose her place in the system.
            More scientists are leaving the consensus crowd that works more for preserving itself than it does for preserving truth. Who could blame those who work for truth only to have it yanked because it doesn’t agree with the consensus of those who don’t work because it is easier to just go along.
            Science, in the end, has nothing to do with the status mongering of both the evolutionists and environmentalists. Their pseudo-religion is more intent on enriching their movement and themselves, at the expense of people all over the world, than they are at helping to improve the lives of anyone else.
            The idea of shutting people down who don’t go along with your idea of global warming, is the exact opposite of real science.

          • Steve Stoll

            HA HA HA HA HA, hilarious! You’re the one that needs to talk to Schweitzer to get your facts straight. Of course, I’m sure you wouldn’t believe her.

          • Ryan

            On the contrary, I did believe her. She said, “the soft tissue should not be there, but it was.” Only part of the T-Rex was fossilised, the rest wasn’t. How long do you think bones can hold soft tissue? Can you even comprehend 65 million years?

          • Timothy Horton

            No one found fresh bleeding meat as the Creationists like to lie about. What were found were mineralized traces of biological materials, mostly collagens. It was a neat scientific find but doesn’t cast the slightest doubt on the proven techniques used to determine the age of the specimen.

          • Ryan

            There was enough secular input on the find that the creationists you are talking about actually said nothing. Use your head for a few moments at least and think about soft tissue that Schweitzer discovered and made the announcement of the soft tissue from the bone that was not fossilized. Only part of the bones were fossilized. It was the evolutionists who were scrambling to find some kind of answer to cover the truth of the soft tissue. Even Schweitzer said it was impossible for soft tissue to be found in the bones. But, she is the one who discovered it.
            How about another evolutionist idea, dark matter. It is invisible but your side of the argument says it is there. Just more smoke and mirrors.

        • glenbo

          http://climate. nasa. gov/climate_resources/144/
          To make this link work, delete the space between the dot and nasa, and the dot and gov.

      • Bud Frawley

        The Scientific Method has been all but ruled irrelevant on the topic of “Global Warm…” er, I mean “Climate Change”. Folks like Bill Nye and Al Gore have called for legal sanctions, including imprisonment, for those who would dare to debate the ‘consensus’.

        • Timothy Horton

          No they haven’t. They’ve called for sanctions against political organizations who deliberately ignore or misrepresent the overwhelming evidence for anthropogenic climate change to push their often harmful to the public political agenda.

          Right now we punish nutjob parents who let their sick children suffer and die instead of allowing them access to medical treatments which would easily help the kids. It’s the same principle.

          • Bud Frawley

            Would you be kind enough to cite some of this ‘overwhelming’ evidence for AGW?

          • Timothy Horton

            The National Research Council and National Academy of Sciences have a video outlining the evidence for anthropogenic climate change.

            www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=gIUN5ziSfNc

            The major evidence is 1) the drastic rise in CO2 levels in the last 50 years 2) the physics for greenhouse gases causing temperature rise is well understood, and 3) isotopic analysis shows the CO2 rise is almost all from fossil fuel burning.

          • paul kolifrath

            1 volcano erupting dumps more co2 into the atmosphere, then a century of himan activity. Stfu moron

          • Steve Stoll

            Wrong, stfu moron.

            www(DOT)skepticalscience(DOT)com/volcanoes-and-global-warming(DOT)htm

          • Thomas Smith

            One false assumption of global warming is that the energy flow is primarily serial, where it is actually more parallel! Obama pushed the Climate Change scare for political reasons where the real scientific questions related to it were ignored!

          • david

            So they did say to imprison people who disagree with them though. Right? The whole point of peer review is to allow new ideas, or counter culture ideas to present, then let the scientist/masses decide. Like Newton and Galileo did. Of course, politics, including liberal politics, present a bias. Historically science has been influenced by religion and politics. Atheism may not be a religion, but still suffers from the effects of religion that result from a groupthink mentality. Time will tell who is right. I personally don’t care if evolution is correct or not. But it is currently to politically involved to say it’s not being influenced by biased outside science on both parties. Note, I believe it’s correct.

        • glenbo

          Go here:
          http://climate. nasa. gov/climate_resources/144/
          To make this link work, delete the space between the dot and nasa, and the dot and gov.

  • thinkingabovemypaygrade

    One would think they would practice the healthy skepticism of good scientists…I.e. Letting in those scientific groups whose views…are not…currently…the most popular. Yet I know many credentialed scientists do believe in God…but those people(including my biologist…chemist husband) are excluded by the current anti deity thought fashions of Nye and followers.

    • Timothy Horton

      No. That’s not how it works. You provide the scientific evidence to support your position FIRST, then your ideas are welcome. That’s what keeps the woo merchants out – the Flat Earthers, the Geocentrists, the anti-vaxxers, the ID-Creationists. Science isn’t a democracy, you have to earn your seat at the table.

      • bob

        You seem to miss that fact, Timothy, that the evidence is the same. There need not be any different evidence to provide a different interpretation.

        This is not true for flat-earthers (if any truly exist), and some others, but the same evidence evolutionists use is accepted and consistent with the models of ID folks and most creationists.

        You use this word “woo,” Timothy, but I don’t think you know what it means, LOL.

        • Timothy Horton

          This is not true for flat-earthers (if any truly exist), and some others, but the same evidence evolutionists use is accepted and consistent with the models of ID folks and most creationists.

          Only if your magic Designer God created every last piece of evidence to mimic exactly as if unguided natural evolution over the last 3.8 billion years has occurred. Planting all those phony fossils, concocting all that phony genetic evidence, even going as far as simulating five major mass extinction events and subsequent re-radiations of different species.

          Why do you suppose your Designer God did that? He must be quite the practical joker, eh?

          • bob

            God is not “mine,” Timothy. That said, I will state clearly that the evidence actually does not show unguided evolution at all

            To speak only to the issues you mentioned in order:

            1. Fossils cannot possibly, due to their nature, demonstrate whether creatures are related by descent or not, since they are all dead. They do show similarities and differences between different individuals. The only relatedness in fossils such as the ones of fish fossilized in the process of birth do show that the mother and her offspring are related.

            2. Genetic evidence can show only similarities and differences between and among various creatures … relatedness by descent is not shown without relatedness and descent being observed.

            Have you read about the several layers of instructions fairly recently identified in DNA, which overlap the protein coding which has been understood for some time?

            3. Extinction is not evidence of evolution, but rather evidence that living things have died. The extinction events, no matter how understood, are simply deaths, not evidence of ancestry or descent.

            4. Radiations of different species, again, are primarily evidence of similarities and differences, and variations within a given kind of animal such as the wolf-coyote-dog related group or the horse-donkey-zebra group or the cattle-buffalo-bison-yak group.

            IMO, Timothy, you need to think about what scientists actually observe and follow their analyses and interpretations of what has been observed. This is lacking in what you’ve said here in these posts.

    • Bud Frawley

      “practice the healthy skepticism of good scientists”
      You mean apply the Scientific Method? No. It’s far better to kneel to the religion of consensus than to ask ‘what if?’ and be ostracized by those who set the trends. (Do they even teach about Galileo anymore?)

      • Timothy Horton

        You can ask “what if” all you want. You can publish research contradicting the consensus view all you want, if you have any. You don’t get to ignore the large quantity of existing evidence for anthropogenic climate change or evolution unless you have a better explanation / rebuttal for the data and conclusions drawn.

        • Thomas Smith

          As I have said before, most all evidence for evolution can be examined and found to be evidence for ID. Life has to be robust or it just dies out, which can be shown to be more involved Design requiring more complexity. Rather than seeing mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, etc., evolutionists are seeing the preprogrammed genetic mechanisms in action, that allow life to be robust. In other words, evolutionists are craftily stealing Design and attributing it to natural causes and ignoring the programmed complexity in life. ID proponents can make hundreds if not thousands of predictions about this complexity we see in life to test this ID Theory on the Robustness of Life. The days ahead for ID will be exciting!

          • Timothy Horton

            The theory of evolution can easily be falsified. Finding the phylogenetic tree created form the fossil record and the phylogenetic tree from DNA was widely discordant would do it nicely. So would discovering an actual genetic barrier which 100% prevented micro-evolutionary changes from accumulating over time into macro-E ones.

            What evidence if found would falsify your Intelligent Designer hypothesis? Merely discovering natural processes won’t do it because a sufficiently powerful Intelligent Designer could use natural processes to do his work for him.

            Remember if your claim can’t be falsified it isn’t science.

          • Thomas Smith

            Timothy, you show your ignorance of ID by your statements! We can use Dembski’s Explanatory Filter to identify ID where we follow a process to identify design where we don’t consider about what a designer could or would do. Our process rules out design

          • bob

            People arranging the observed similarities and differences observed in the fossil record into a “tree” and people arranging the observed similarities and differences of DNA observed in the present into a “tree” will turn out to have similar trees … especially if they have ignored the DNA sections they considered “junk.”

            The fossil record does not document any descent or ancestry; it documents dead creatures without studying their relatedness.

            DNA discoveries are being published so fast that IMO it is much too early to be able to make a “tree” of any sort.

            I predict that trees similar to Darwin’s “Tree of Life” will be abandoned before another decade or two for a new design as more is learned about DNA. The fossils will be linked to new “tree” designs based on DNA similarities and differences without hesitation, thus revealing that the fossil record didn’t support the tree designs you are talking about after all, Timothy.

            BTW, “my” ID hypothesis begins with, “The history revealed in the Bible is accurate.” It is a faith, really, just as your belief in evolution is a set of assumptions. Neither can be falsified as they are faith/assumptions.

            If we could organize a formal debate, Timothy, I’d suggest the topic, “Evolution (defined as ‘common ancestry of all vertebrate phyla’) is not yet well enough supported by evidence to be considered a scientific theory.”

        • bob

          There is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change so far published, Timothy.

          IMO, Rachel Carson presented (in popular form) an evidence-based body of research about warming and cooling in 1951 in _The Sea Around Us_ which is *still* a better explanation than the conclusions drawn in the last thirty years by cherry picking data about carbon dioxide concentrations (hockey stick and such).

          I am less than convinced.

          • Timothy Horton

            There is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change so far published, Timothy.

            Nature, arguably the most highly respected science publishing organization in the world, has a whole separate journal Nature: Climate Change dedicate solely to the topic. They’ve published thousands of papers on the topic in the 10 years since it was specially created specifically for that purpose. There are dozens of other mainstream science journals publishing similar evidence and findings too.

            It’s hard to know how to respond when a climate change denier makes such a ridiculous, over-the-top claim.

          • bob

            And yet, Timothy, there is nothing about the human cause that is better than Rachel Carson’s book from 1951.

            Sure the articles you mention document a bunch of changes, but I’m not convinced of the anthropogenic part, as I said in my comment. No one has ever given a convincing reason to think that carbon dioxide emissions from humans have anything to do with the warming and cooling cycles referenced by Ms. Carson in her popular-style book, nor have they shown that these cycles are incorrect or unlikely to continue … Or, Timothy, have you found one I didn’t? That’s certainly possible. How about a citation for one?

          • Timothy Horton

            And yet, Timothy, there is nothing about the human cause that is better than Rachel Carson’s book from 1951

            LOL! An hour ago you didn’t even know all those papers documenting the human causes of climate change existed and now you magically know they’re all wrong.

            That’s a new leading candidate for dumbest thing a climate change denier has said this week.

          • bob

            What makes you think I didn’t know about the articles you mentioned? I have read a good many, and am confident that they are as I characterized them, to wit, have a lot of evidence of climate change and nothing at all compelling about humans causing this.

            I notice that you do not here actually respond to what I said in the previous post, and that you did not give the single example of what I asked as a citation for an article.

            I suspect that your understanding stops at the claim that some high percentage of climate scientists “agree” with your political opinions.

          • Timothy Horton

            What makes you think I didn’t know about the articles you mentioned?

            The fact you claimed no such articles existed when thousands of them do. That was a pretty good tell as to your ignorance on the subject.

          • bob

            Again, Timothy, you don’t answer my request for a citation of even one article which makes a compelling case for humans causing climate change OR that the previous consensus of cooling and warming cycles should be dropped.

            Like I said, I am confident that my characterization of the articles is accurate. None make a compelling case for the changes observed being anthropogenic, though many document changes in the climate.

            What, in your opinion is the reason that the consensus on global warming and cooling changed among scientists?

            BTW, did you know that we all benefit from the more than thirty degrees of global warming estimated to be provided us earth-dwellers by water vapor?

          • Timothy Horton

            Again, Timothy, you don’t answer my request for a citation of even one
            article which makes a compelling case for humans causing climate change

            You’re just as ignorant as the Creationists who are constantly demanding THE paper which proves evolution. Human produced climate change, like evolution, is based on a consilience of evidence from many different fields. You have to read them and look at the picture they paint as a unified whole, not demand like the moron Creationists do that we look at each piece of evidence in a vacuum. There’s no way on this tiny forum to even accurately summarize all the lines of evidence.

            I’ve given you references where to find the papers and evidence. That you’re too lazy to read them or too slow to understand them is not my problem.

          • bob

            Timothy, you don’t seem to read very carefully, even your own writing.

            I haven’t asked you for one paper which proves anything, I’ve asked for one paper which provides any observation or analysis making a compelling case that either the model described by Rachel Carson in 1951 should be abandoned OR which makes a compelling case that humans are causing the climate changes you are talking about.

            I have read a great many papers from _Nature_ which you mentioned, and a great many from other sources which document climate changes and make proposals for how humans have influenced this, but none which makes a compelling case for the anthropogenic aspect of what you have stated without references.

            I can’t tell you how many papers but I can tell you that I began this quest in response to Al Gore publicizing these ideas as political issues … and at least as early as the early 1990s.

            I don’t think I am lazy here. Why can you not provide even one paper which makes either case from evidence? Were you convinced by evidence or by the claimed percentages of scientists or propaganda or what?

            If there is a “consilience of evidence from many different fields,” as you say, why has no one written a paper summarizing and footnoting this evidence?

            I think what really exists is a consilience of political opinions making up a propaganda effort, rather than of actual evidence.

          • Timothy Horton

            Tsk tsk. Still making the stupid demand for THE paper which conclusively demonstrates AGW. There are any number of websites and videos put out by NOAA and NCDC which summarize the arguments. I’ve reference them many times on Stream. Sorry but I can’t help with your laziness and/or intellectual blindness.

          • bob

            Yes, Timothy, there are lots of websites and videos as you mentioned, but not a single one presents anything but evidence that changes happen and nothing but asssertions that humans have caused it. I am left with the suspicion that you know of no such evidence.

            How could you possibly be so adamant about this but not know of a single example to cite?

            Remember your statement in another post? “Just because is not an explanation.” 🙂

            On that, at least, we seem to agree.

            What video from NOAA are you speaking of, Timothy? I’ve seen a few, but none gave any sort of evidence for human causes, though they do assert this.

          • Timothy Horton

            I can’t do anything about your willful ignorance. Nothing anyone shows you will ever be sufficient because you aren’t looking for reality, you’re just knee-jerk defending your science-free personal incredulity.

  • Jeudi Juetten

    What an ignorant excuse for an article; pure opinion, falsehoods, logical fallacies, and twisted misstatements of reality. The “author” should be ashamed of himself. If you have to blatantly lie, perhaps you should rethink your position.

    • Timothy Horton

      I take it you’re not familiar with the Discovery Institute’s standard M.O.

  • John

    scientism = false religion

  • Steve Stoll

    Intelligent design is not science. It’s no wonder why they were turned down. The Discovery institute is a deceptive organization with an agenda. What a joke.

    http://faculty(DOT)smu(DOT)edu/jwise/big_problems_with_intelligent_design(DOT)htm

  • bowie1

    If humans “suck” I suppose he is including himself?

  • DoctorDJ

    The Discovery Institute treats science the way a baby treats its diapers.

    • bob

      Hey, Doc. I’m less than convinced. What does this even mean? I’m hearing, “I don’t like Discovery Institute,” and nothing more.

  • linmalki

    Real “science” doesn’t close its eyes to unpopular opinions–going in with an a-priori opinion makes for fad “science.”

    • Timothy Horton

      Real science does require positive evidence for a position before the position is accepted however. All the ID-Creationists have ever offered is the negative “evolution can’t explain this to my satisfaction, therefore my Intelligent Designer God wins by default”.

      That’s called the God-Of-The-Gaps approach and was rejected by science as worthless over 300 years ago.

      • Thomas Smith

        When the Explanatory Filter signals design it IS a positive indication of design. Timothy you fail to understand this! It can only be described as willful ignorance! For example, if we found an alien vehicle floating in space, we could use Dembski’s Explanatory Filter to identify design. We would know this because there would be multiple interconnected systems all signaling ID because of the vast amounts of CSI observable. Any natural explanations would be shown to be false.

  • idratherpostasguest123

    “Intelligent Design” is not science and has no place in anything related to science.

    • Thomas Smith

      And please tell us why it is not science. To say ignorant things like this shows you kno nothing about science!

      • Timothy Horton

        ID-Creationism isn’t science because

        1) it offers no testable hypotheses
        2) it has no explanatory power. Saying “the Designer did it this was JUST BECAUSE!” isn’t an explanation.
        3) it makes no predictions which derive solely from its stated position
        4) it isn’t falsifiable

        • Thomas Smith

          1) I have already shown how you can use an experiment to test Dembski’s EF. Remember the marbles experiment? It is certainly better than cosmology!
          2) ID could force us to look for more preprogrammed intelligence in the genome revealing amazingly complex design! That is Explanatory power! It will enable us to unravel the intelligent programming behind life if a Designer can be shown to be the cause of life.
          3) It can make millions of predictions about the details of the robustness of life, leading us to the exact causes.
          4) How exactly can the statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics be falsified? Haw can evolution be effectively falsified? On the other hand, the Dembski approach to ID sets up a construct that can be falsified. We look for Design that scientific laws can identify.

          • Timothy Horton

            Major FAIL.

            ID has zero testable hypotheses regarding the “design” of biological life. You can’t name a single one.

            ID has no evidence for any “preprogramming”of life. Fantasizing about what ID could do is meaningless.

            ID makes zero predictions which flow from ID’s hypotheses. You can’t name a single one.

            You moronic “2LoT makes evolution impossible” has already been falsified. Endothermic chemical reactions, remember?

            I already gave you ways evolution can be falsified. Show the fossil and DNA derived phylogenetic trees are widely discordant. Show the magic barrier which makes it impossible for micro-E changes to accumulate into macro-E. There is literally no observation which can falsify the claim of an omnipotent supernatural “designer”.

          • Thomas Smith

            1) It offers no testable hypothesis: I have already shown you one about junk DNA. Another one would be the incompleteness of the Darwinian mechanism. As I have stated elsewhere natural thermodynamic mechanisms found in nature are limited due to their inability to constrain the process. The same is experienced in life when you go outside of the region of the design where all the precise detailed processes are defined. In other words, we should see a region where we see design enabling the robustness of life, but outside that region the adaptation will stop. So to describe this experiment, we should be able to change an environmental parameter that stresses a microbe and show there are limits that “evolution” can go.
            2) The explanatory power we are looking for is to answer scientific questions. Perhaps the ID Robustness of Life Theory is a better explanation than the Neo-Darwinian Theory.

          • Timothy Horton

            The little Fundy admits defeat, runs for the exit! 😀

          • Thomas Smith

            I realize I am throwing my pearls uselessly to the swine. Why waste my time? Defeat? Hardly! I will attempt to publish some articles and write a book on the topic! I am tired of the pomposity and arrogance of people like you!

          • Timothy Horton

            Let us know when you do that instead of all the childish bluster, OK?

          • Ryan

            You are correct, he really doesn’t know how to think for himself. All his meaningless posts in answer to your posts prove that.

          • glenbo

            >>” ID could force us to look for more preprogrammed intelligence in the genome revealing amazingly complex design! “<<

            If science can explain why an intelligent designer intentionally designed cancer, dwarfism, Down syndrome and children with two heads etc., I'm all for it.

          • Thomas Smith

            From a ID perspective, we do know the the Second Law of Thermodynamics is even at play in life, where we expect bad mutations to occur leading to less function! The bad mutations far exceeds the number of good mutations, so all advancement would be destroyed. This is the central problem with evolution no matter how much time you have! The bad mutations will always destroy any advancement you will get. The supposed evolution that is seen is the robustness of life that is a signal of design.

          • glenbo

            >>”we do know the the Second Law of Thermodynamics is even at play”<>”The bad mutations will always destroy any advancement you will get….The supposed evolution that is seen is the robustness of life that is a signal of design.”<<

            Why did God design cancer?

    • Ryan

      Evolution is not science, it is story telling devoted to an unproven theory.

    • Thomas Smith

      We can conduct experiments with it! It has explanatory power. It is falsifiable as good or better than the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and evolution.

      • Timothy Horton

        Yet you can’t describe a single one of these experiments or explain why no one from the ID crowd has ever tried them.

        • Thomas Smith

          I have already stated a bunch of possible experiments. One is concerning the junk DNA. ID would predict that this junk DNA is not junk but is highly compressed information detailing lengthy chemical processes allowing spectacular function at both the nano and macro scales! So to examine this, ID scientists could probe into the junk DNA looking for advanced compressed data enabling advanced nanomachines and other complex machines showing great purpose!

          • Timothy Horton

            It’s been 11 years since the IDiots got creamed at Kitzmiller v. Dover.

            Why haven’t any of them done these experiments you say will support ID?

          • Thomas Smith

            Not creamed, just the gestapo out to get real science!

          • Timothy Horton

            ID would predict that this junk DNA is not junk but is highly compressed information detailing lengthy chemical processes allowing spectacular function at both the nano and macro scales!

            Why does ID predict this? Do you know the mind set of the Designer? Why doesn’t ID predict there will be lots of junk DNA so the Designer would have ready access to spare parts if needed?

          • Thomas Smith

            We do have life before us that shows itself to be the highest quality design! Life is robust at the individual level and the population scale, which requires more advanced design! The 2nd law doesn’t allow the NeoDarwinian mechanism to work because it is not constrained enough. Implicitly, we must find the controlled mechanisms that allow the processes enabling the robustness of life.

          • Timothy Horton

            You farted and blustered but forgot to answer the question.

            Why does ID predict those things you claim it does?

            Why haven’t ant IDiots done the experiments you claim ID can do?

          • Thomas Smith

            I very well answered the question but you prove yourself incapable of following my logic. Shame on you! As we probe in deeper on life we see more and more very complex design. The evolutionary make believe story can never explain the multitude of mechanisms found in life! Following the Explanatory Filter reveals life to be designed, for natural explanations always fall short! In other words, we see CSI everywhere in life, which is a positive indication of design.

  • Steve Stoll

    Oh, the irony of it being called “Intelligent Design”. In order to believe in it, you must be very unintelligent.

    • Thomas Smith

      Do you even know anything about ID? Have you read any books on it? I doubt it for you are all bluster.

      • Steve Stoll

        Oh, please. ID is nothing more than creationism based on blind faith that uses pseudoscience to back it up. It’s the exact opposite of real science. ALL evidence points to evolution and there is not one single piece that can disprove it. ID only looks at the evidence that can be twisted to support it and ignores or tries to discredit all the rest. Do you know anything about ID or the scientific method or peer review? You talk about what it could predict but what has ID ever really done? Nothing.

Inspiration
The Strangely Mysterious Beauty of Christmas
Tom Gilson
More from The Stream
Connect with Us