Electing Anti-Evolution President Will Lead Nation to Ruin, Says Scientist

By Eric Young|Christian Post Reporter

E-mail
Print
RSS
digg Facebook Twitter Stumble Reddit del.ico.us Buzz Share
Text

Electing a president who does not believe in evolution theory is a way to lead a nation to ruin, according to one scientist.

View Full Image
(Photo: AP Images / Alex Brandon)
Republican presidential hopeful and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee campaigns in Mason, N.H., Monday, Jan. 7, 2008.

“The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health or we have serious energy policy issues because of global warming,” said Dr. Gilbert Omenn, professor of Internal Medicine, Human Genetics, and Public Health at the University of Michigan, during a science media day on Friday – one day after presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucuses.

“I would worry that a president who didn’t believe in the evolution arguments wouldn’t believe in those other arguments either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin,” said Omenn, who was present for the release the pro-evolution book ”Science, Evolution and Creationism,” published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

In May, three GOP candidates had raised their hand during a debate when asked if they don't believe in evolution – the development of organisms and species from a primitive state. Among them was former Arkansas governor Huckabee, who last week rode a wave of support from evangelical Christians to win the opening round among Republicans in the 2008 campaign for the White House

"If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, I'll accept that....I believe there was a creative process," said Huckabee a day after the May 3 debate, according to the Associated Press.
The one time Baptist minister said he has no problem with teaching evolution as a theory in the public schools and he doesn't expect schools to teach creationism.

He is, however, against restricting students to learning only one idea when others exist.

"We shouldn't indoctrinate kids in school," he said. "I wouldn't want them teaching creationism as if it's the only thing that they should teach."

Francisco Ayala, a professor of biological sciences at the University of California, Irvine, however, says creationism should not be taught in schools at all.

“We don’t teach astrology as an alternative to astronomy, or witchcraft as an alternative to medicine. We must not teach creationism as an alternative to evolution,” he said.

Ayala said creationism is not scientific and worried that the teaching of creationism in school will continue if a creationist president is elected.

A poll conducted last year showed that two-thirds of Americans believe in creationism, while only 53 percent said they believe in evolution.

Among those who believe in evolution, however, most people still believe that God was behind the process.

Christian Post correspondent Ruby Hwang in San Francisco contributed to this report.

Next Story : Survey: High School Seniors 'Graduating from God'

Most Popular

Viewed
Commented
Blogged

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.

1 | 2 | 3

matucon312 »

Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:36 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

"theotrek-
You wrote "I happen to think God does not need me to defend him."

You're right, God doesn't need anything, in fact. However, He has most certainly called us to defend Him and His ways and His plans to a lost world that doesn't even know it's lost.

“I am put here for the defense of the gospel” (Phil 1:16).
“Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3).
“Encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it” (Tit 1:9).
“We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor 10:5).
“We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us” (2 Cor 5:20).

Have I misunderstood you? "

Quoting the Bible as evidence is no better than quoting Harry Potter or the DaVinci code, though at least the other two don't promote mass genocide, racism, sexism, homophobia, or execution for such dastardly deeds as picking up stick on Sunday. Religion of one period is the literary entertainment of another. Do you know where ending prayer with "Amen" comes from? That Jesus isn't the author of "The Golden Rule"? Where the stories of both Moses' and Jesus' birth come from? They all far precede the Old Testament, plagiarized and warped from earlier dead religions. If you want to know the future of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or any other religion, look back at what happened to the rest.
tgender »

Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:28 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

theotrek-
You wrote "I happen to think God does not need me to defend him."

You're right, God doesn't need anything, in fact. However, He has most certainly called us to defend Him and His ways and His plans to a lost world that doesn't even know it's lost.

“I am put here for the defense of the gospel” (Phil 1:16).
“Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3).
“Encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it” (Tit 1:9).
“We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor 10:5).
“We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us” (2 Cor 5:20).

Have I misunderstood you?
www.theotrek.org »

Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:51 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

citsonga--Thanks. I happen to think God does not need me to defend him. He just calls me to follow and trust him. The only thing to fear with education is that I might have to give up on some of my pet ideas or traditions. Faith is not about a list of ideas. It is a relationship of dependence and trust. I have found God fully worthy of my trust.
citsonga »

Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:06 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

theotrek:: "The nation is in ruin, not due to science. It is in ruin due to issues of greed, power, and putting self ahead of all others. Some call it the American Dream--step on everyone else in your rise to the top. The church has swallowed that ethic, rather than speak Jesus' message of love, forgiveness, mercy, and reconciliation. If you want to point fingers for our national ruin, point them at our failure to take Jesus to heart. Point them at our unfaithfulness in caring for the needs of the world. Remember USA for Africa? The church did not start that. It was secular musicians. Then we went, "Oops!" Some of us decided to a little something about it, but only when it did not interfere with keeping up with the Joneses. We are called to point the world to Christ by the way we love, not by the way we attack scientists interested in learning more about God's creative processes."

As an agnostice, I would like to say thank you. As far as I have seen, you are one of the few religious folks that post at this site that is a voice of reason.
agentorange »

Sun Jan 13, 2008 5:45 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

ProfessorX,

You're dillusional and so are those thaty think evolutonary theory implys how we should behave ethically towards eachother in this first place. Anyone who takes that out of any scientific theory is already lost. Would a person consult any other theory regarding human ethics? No, of course not. The Evolutionary Theory ivolves how organism adapt and change over time and has no bearing on ehtical or moral implications on human behavior.

We do see how animals can operate in a symbiotic and altruistic nature that is beneficial towards both the host and the other species involved and so you're disilussion that 'survival of the fittest' implys as a license to kill is one from sheer ignorance.

Question for you Professor X, why do all other westernized countries that more readily accept Evolutionary Theory have better rankings for index's like infant mortality rate, crime rate, poverty rate, access to health and education, etc. ?

Why many of these countries out perform us, where in the USA we are far more religious? It's counter to the logic you're saying that evolution will lead to a downfall at all and obviously its one formed from ignorance.

"Have you studied the recent DNA evidence for evolution? This evidence is so powerful, I would bet if you understood it you would accept evolution as much as the biologists do"

I sure have, here are some recent DNA evvidences for just human evolution, nevermind the tons of evidence for other species for now. How would you refute these evidences Professor x?

Evidence of Common Ancestry: ERVs
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA

Evidence of Common Ancestry: Human Chromosome 2
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0

Kenneth Miller on Common Ancestry with Apes
www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_c3CkSmT3c
www.theotrek.org »

Sun Jan 13, 2008 5:34 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Professor X--The nation is in ruin, not due to science. It is in ruin due to issues of greed, power, and putting self ahead of all others. Some call it the American Dream--step on everyone else in your rise to the top. The church has swallowed that ethic, rather than speak Jesus' message of love, forgiveness, mercy, and reconciliation. If you want to point fingers for our national ruin, point them at our failure to take Jesus to heart. Point them at our unfaithfulness in caring for the needs of the world. Remember USA for Africa? The church did not start that. It was secular musicians. Then we went, "Oops!" Some of us decided to a little something about it, but only when it did not interfere with keeping up with the Joneses. We are called to point the world to Christ by the way we love, not by the way we attack scientists interested in learning more about God's creative processes.
BobCu »

Sun Jan 13, 2008 4:48 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

Hello ProfessorX, I bet you're voting for Huckabee.

I'm surprised you think evolution equals no purpose to life. I love evolution and I have been studying it for years. In my opinion evolution is the most interesting science there is. I have so much purpose to my life, I don't have time for all of it. Even if you were right, and evolution meant all the things you listed, that would not prove evolution to be wrong. Have you studied the recent DNA evidence for evolution? This evidence is so powerful, I would bet if you understood it you would accept evolution as much as the biologists do.

You need to understand evolution is just science. Evolution is an important scientific fact, but understanding how it works does not change anyone's life. If a person loves his family, he isn't going to stop loving his family if he accepts the evidence for evolution.

Personally I think when a person understands he is part of nature, instead of being separate from nature, he becomes a better person. He is more likely to respect other animal species, and respect the environment other animals have to live in. For example, the people who are doing the most to protect endangered species are the biologists who accept and understand evolution.
ProfessorX »

Sun Jan 13, 2008 4:08 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 1

THE NATION IS ALREADY IN RUIN AS A RESULT OF DARWINISM!!! It is Obvious that Dr. Gilbert Omenn, professor of Internal Medicine, needs to question his allegence to science-Fiction and open his eyes to see who the theory of evolution has influenced the identity and actions of its subscribers. Such Darwinian elitists rant from the tops of their ivory towers, and are completely clueless of the damage done to future generations of people who now believe their is no purpose to life, no absolute truth, no reason to be faithful, no reason to love or be loved, no reason to feel worth, no reason to value others, and no reason for sound thinking. Surely their philosophy of meaninglessness has gone straight to their head making their own thoughts meaningless along with this evolutionists argument.

THE DELUSIONAL MR. RICHARD DAWKINS

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&blogID=323117331&Mytoken=FF24C707-D791-4E1D-9551E871F5C5CE7152380450
FVThinker »

Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:14 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

LOL BobCu!!! It just goes to show how stupid some of the arguments I hear are!
BobCu »

Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:59 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

FVThinker, I was joking. Sorry, I thought my joke was obvious.The truth is I'm an atheist, I love evolution, and I'm sure a president Huckabee would be a disaster for the entire world.
FVThinker »

Sun Jan 13, 2008 8:56 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

BobCu said: "Everyone knows Baptist ministers like Governor Huckabee are biology experts and know more about biology than any biologist."

WOW! At first I thought you were being sarcastic. I am dumbfounded that those word would knowingly pass your lips!

A question for you BobCu ... what is your position on higher education. Is acedemic schooling a good thing or a bad thing? Is more acedemic schooling (college, graduate school) a good thing or a bad thing?
BobCu »

Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:22 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"Electing a president who does not believe in evolution theory is a way to lead a nation to ruin, according to one scientist."

Scientists don't know what they're talking about. Everyone knows Baptist ministers like Governor Huckabee are biology experts and know more about biology than any biologist. Biologists say dumb things like "Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Huckabee is right about evolution. It's a lie being spread by hundreds of thousands of biologists. Biologists claim they have a mountain of evidence for evolution, but their evidence is nothing compared to the word of God in Genesis.
citsonga »

Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:47 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

seedplanter, fact is that the US supreme court did intervene in the Florida decision. Funny thing about the conservatives on the court that voted in favor of bush. Normally they are all about states rights.

I am not and was not a fan of gore, but he would have been much better than the ignorant fool thats in the WH now.

your comment "Al Gore was a dangerous man"

dude, get a clue.

dumbya bush has the US bogged down in Iraq for years, costing hundreds of billions of dollars, the killing of thousands of people and the destruction of Iraq. The US had no business invading Iraq. Iraq was not a threat to the US and they had nothing to do with 9-11. It was all about the bush ego and OIL and perhaps lobbying by israel. Lets hope the fool doesn't go after Iran, the US has done enough damage in the ME. Its interesting most of the so-called christians that post here and the ones I know were and are in favor of the Iraq invasion. So much for that thou shall not kill thing. But wait, we must save the embryos....LOL.

"He [clinton] won out of default; due to independent candidates skimming votes from Bush Sr."

are you serious, those were legitmate votes. Thats the way the electoral process works. sometimes there are independent candidates. You might recall that it was independent candidates that took votes from gore otherwise gore would have won by an easy majority in florida.
seedplanter »

Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:12 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Citsonga, come on, do you want another recount? Clinton didn’t win the popular vote. He won out of default; due to independent candidates skimming votes from Bush Sr. Al Gore was a dangerous man. Not only did he want to tax oxygen to save the rain forest, but he now wants to see a carbon tax sent to the UN.

Bush won the most states and the most counties. Gore won the popular vote, particularly that of the big cities. This reveals the growing divide between big cities and rural areas. I live in Illinois and most people who live outside of Chicago do not like the Governor. He seems to care little about those who live downstate. He cannot even get along with his own constituents downstate.

http://members.cox.net/mathmistakes/polling.htm
Strudelcookies »

Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:40 pm Agree: 3 Disagree: 0

Electing an anti-evolution president will lead the nation to ruin...

just like electing a Mormon will make everyone mormons...

just like electing a Baptist will make everyone baptist...

just like electing someone who's "anti-feminist" will make everyone hate women...

Geez, is America full of morons?
FVThinker »

Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:29 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 3

maranatha7593 writes: "Electing an Anti-God president will lead this nation to ruin."

The facts would beg to differ. A Creighton University study (a Christian university) showed clearly that the prosperous democracies with the LEAST amount of religion had the FEWEST common societal ills (i.e. violent crime, teen pregancy and many other measures)

"It ain't what you don't know that get's you in trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - - - Mark Twain
citsonga »

Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:22 pm Agree: 4 Disagree: 3

maranatha7593 "Electing an Anti-Christ President will lead our nation to ruin."

Bush wasn't elected, he was selected by the US Supreme Court, but he may indeed be the anti-Christ as you point out, as the last seven years has seen a decline in America to be sure.
www.theotrek.org »

Fri Jan 11, 2008 4:11 am Agree: 4 Disagree: 0

Our nation is already in shambles in many ways. We are led politically by people who vie for power, authority, and control. Some of the same claim to follow Christ. Jesus never accepted political solutions. The tools of politics are coercion, power, and fear of retribution. Jesus was willing to use only the tools of love, grace, mercy, forgiveness, and reconciliation. I hardly think God has a lot vested in our election process. God wants the church to do its own work and assume responsibility to lead the rest of the nation in an appropriate manner.
maranatha7593 »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 6:59 pm Agree: 3 Disagree: 0

Electing an Anti-Christ President will lead our nation to ruin.

"Blessed is that nation whose God is the Lord."
agentorange »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 2:23 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

Tgender-

“Yes, I generally take ID to be non-process, non-gradual creation.”

So, how exactly is this any different than regular creationism that exists under the same premise of poofing organics on a whim according to an unseen agent/god?. Easy, it’s not. ID is a neo-creationism that appeals to ignorance and gaps of knowledge that we’ve YET to figure out.

“I do not think the evidence for speciation on talkorigins (or anywhere else) has been that persuasive.”

Why not? You are just like Behe then. After he realized in court all those works related to the evolutionary processes of the immune system his reply was priceless. He said essentially that all that work wasn’t persuasive enough, or not enough evidence. What a cop out. In other words, Behe’s own admission of guilt is that his view of the immune system via ID was one built from ignorance b/c he hadn’t bothered to even read them such works in the 1st place. Go to ww.Nature.com or other such University.org sites that have front line knowledge.

“I'm curious, as a Christian, don't you believe that God is the Intelligent Agent that created the cosmos and all of life? Why would you object to ID as a way to detect that design?”

Well, of course your Christian god is the Intelligent Designer, even Dembski doesn’t hide this. You won’t hear IDiots saying that our organic life was intelligently designed by aliens, that you wont hear b/c it kills their whole motive.

Why couldn’t it be a Deistic or Pantheist god? Or a Hellenic god like Zeus or Jupiter. Or a Norse god like Thor or Loki? Or an African god like Juju? Or even a Hindu god? Of all the 3000+ recorded gods to choose from, Jesus is by no means the only choice.

The Abrahamic god(s) are always defined as being omibenevolence, among other things, and our universe is anything but benevolent towards life. Black holes, Quasars, Gamma ray bursts, colliding galaxies, colliding meteors and earthly natural disasters daily don’t show great benevolent design, but rather randomness and indifference.

Discussion by Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson
www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw
www.theotrek.org »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:46 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 1

tgender--Caught! ;-)

As to ID, I have trouble with it as being science. I have no trouble with God being the agent behind the process. I happen to understand that God is Creator. I would much prefer, however, to delineate between theology/doctrine/faith and science. We have a bad historical record in dialog between faith and science. Galileo was considered a heretic when he claimed the earth revolved around the sun. Many felt the Bible and faith under attack by such a statement. To me, it is the same argument now. We want the Bible to teach all kinds of truth, rather than understand that there are limits to what it proposes to teach.
Let science describe how the natural world works (as best it can), and let the church speak of God's will and purpose for our lives (as best we can).
Science is still in process of discovery. So is the church in attempting to portray God. That is because as humans we are limited ("seeing through a glass, darkly"). My faith does not depend on having all the answers. It is in knowing the One desiring relationship with us forever.
tgender »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:26 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

theotrek said "I do tend to always think I am right. Of course, I am also known to change my mind. All of a sudden I am right again! (At least until I find out otherwise...) "

Then aren't you a fundamentalist by your own definition! ;-)
tgender »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:24 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

theotrek-
Yes, I generally take ID to be non-process, non-gradual creation. I do not think the evidence for speciation on talkorigins (or anywhere else) has been that persuasive. However, the post that you were responding to was simply trying to make the point that ID was indeed falsifiable, although I do not actually think it is false.

I'm curious, as a Christian, don't you believe that God is the Intelligent Agent that created the cosmos and all of life? Why would you object to ID as a way to detect that design?
www.theotrek.org »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:17 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

tgender--I do tend to always think I am right. Of course, I am also known to change my mind. All of a sudden I am right again! (At least until I find out otherwise...)
www.theotrek.org »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:13 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

bklinepope--thanks for sharing the link to the page with a pdf brochure of the National Academies Press book!
agentorange »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:50 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 1

tgender-

" If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the "

That's a BIG IF. Well, too bad in the Dover trial most of the IDiots didn't even bother to testify b/c they're cowards. B/c Behe's didn't bother to read the 50 articles, 9 chapters and 2 books on the evolutionary process of the immune system he attributed it to ID. What a fool. here's your dunce cap Behe. In other words, b/c of his ignorance he thought it was ID. Same thing with the Bacteria flagellum, blood clotting, the eye, etc. that IDiots love to use as examples of some complexity that can't be resolve via natural means.

For ID to be scientific it must make predictions that are falsifiable, testable and so on. how can we flasify an undetectable, unseen, unknowable invisable agent, like id/god? we can't! it's like trying to falsify elves and gnomes that also don't exist.

what can ID predict? nothing. what else could it predict beyond that certain things are complex, which means and answers nothing.

a snowflake is more complex than a liquid H2O, does that mean it's the result of ID? of course not.

ID Discussion: 'that cell there is very complex, and we will never know how it works....it MUST be ID!'

such asertion that NO ONE will EVER figure it out is the height of arrogance. last century we didn't know how stars worked or what caused their glow. today we know it's b/c they are a giant fission acting under intense gravity. but, if we didn't know ID too would claim the stars as an instance of ID b/c they don't know.

that is an intellectual cop out. its an old argument from ignorance and god of the gaps of ignorance stance. it answers nothing and returns nothing and it useless.

"On the other hand, falsifying Darwinism seems effectively impossible"

what nonsense. easy, find enough credible, testeable evidence that disproves evolution, that's how. find some dinosaur bones in the same layer as H.Sapien ones.
bklinepope »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:45 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

Some people who are commenting on this blog may be doing so without having had the opportunity to read our book, “Science, Evolution, and Creationism.” This conversation might be enhanced and clarified by reading the book online or downloading it in pdf for free at http://www.nap.edu/sec.
www.theotrek.org »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:41 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

tgender--Then you are taking ID as non-process, non-gradual creation. How about speciation as gradual process observed over the last couple of centuries?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
I fail to see how that addresses the issue of intelligent agency (Purposeful Design).
tgender »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:40 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

theotrek-
You wrote "Fundamentalist is generally taken as accepting a basic core of facts (foundation to faith). In practice, it is better associated with a mindset (I am right, and all else is wrong)."

I definitely don't think I am always right and those who disagree with me are always wrong. I'm fallible just like everyone else. But let's be honest. We all hold some things more strongly than other things because of our personal experience and research. For example, I believe quite strongly that Christ is the only way to be forgiven and saved from our sins (and that all other ways are false and therefore futile). I hold much more weakly my belief in the age of the earth and my eschatalogical views.

Thanks for the explanation Chris.
tgender »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:22 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

theotrek-
Falsifiability is merely the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown to be false. This doesn't mean that it actually is false, though. If you present good evidence that some complex organism arose from gradual Darwinian processes then you can falsfify ID.
www.theotrek.org »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:12 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

tgender--
How can you falsify agency that is not verifyable? Even if I find evidence of a "gradual Darwinian process" in development of bacterium, who is to say that there is or is not some agency behind it? Supernatural by definition means beyond the material and observable world. It cannot be measured or identified by scientific means.
www.theotrek.org »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:06 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

tgender--Fundamentalist is generally taken as accepting a basic core of facts (foundation to faith). In practice, it is better associated with a mindset (I am right, and all else is wrong). In SBC life, there have been various periods of fundamentalism that have all based a claim to a different set of doctrinal standards of who is in and who is out. If you gather the leadership together for an honest discussion, they will not truly agree among themselves.
Faith is viewed as a set of doctrines, more so than relational trust in Christ Jesus. I wrote a piece about that difference on faith as accepting facts v. trusting Christ. The difference is where you fall on the continuum between the extremes:
http://www.theotrek.org/resources/th/2003_Controversial_Faith.pdf
tgender »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:04 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 2

agentorange-
I'll quote William Dembski directly on this one:

Is intelligent design falsifiable? Is Darwinism falsifiable? Yes to the first question, no to the second. Intelligent design is eminently falsifiable. Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam's razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely.

On the other hand, falsifying Darwinism seems effectively impossible. To do so one must show that no conceivable Darwinian pathway could have led to a given biological structure. What's more, Darwinists are apt to retreat into the murk of historical contingency to shore up their theory. For instance, Allen Orr in his critique of Behe's work shortly after _Darwin's Black Box_ appeared remarked, "We have no guarantee that we can reconstruct the history of a biochemical pathway." What he conceded with one hand, however, he was quick to retract with the other. He added, "But even if we can't, its irreducible complexity cannot count against its gradual evolution."
www.theotrek.org »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:58 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

SummaTheologica--Values are one thing. Holding fast to ideas in the face of evidence of it not being correct is hardheadedness. I know some who will claim not to believe in evolution, simply so as not to have to defend themselves in certain circles. I know others who use the term inerrancy just to avoid a battle. When it comes to someone who must review conflicting intelligence reports as the rationale for waging a way, I want to know they can assess reality while laying aside as much bias as possible. I want to know that what they say is what they believe to the absolute best of their knowledge.
The problem is that I don't really trust ANY politician to tell me exactly what they believe and with what degree of uncertainty.
agentorange »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:56 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

How is ID science if it doesn't operate under the scientific methods, one of which being falsifiability? if we can't falsify something, which in ID we can't as it assumes 'god did this and that, and that too' and other supernatrual acts, it can't be science by definition as it's not falsifiable. ID isn't science.

falsifiability is the main pillar in the foundation of the scientific process, without it everything ceases to be actual testable, predictable and can't be proven or disproven. in otherwords it reverts back to philosophy, which is at best, exactly where ID belongs.

Ok, but how does ID support its claims that 'something is utterly, ireducible complex'? easy, it inserts an unfalsifiable, disproveable agent, namely the 'intelligent designer', aka GOD who designed such complexity. since this agent in its very design is unfalsifiable it removes the ID agent from even being used in the process of science to begin with.

so in that sense, although ID doesn't state HOW the intelligent designer directed/caused such complexity, it indirectly says 'god made it that way, and we know this simply b/c it's (drum roll) COMPLEX!'

that is creationism 101, which is exactly why the judge in Dover threw ID's claims out on religious grounds.

In a given theory like quantum theory, we certaintly don't know everything about it. however it passes predictions and has never failed. the margin of accuracy is so high that although we lack absolute certainty on all of it, we know absolutely know enough to make testable predictions that yeild falsifiable results.

ID isn't even near this first step of making any predictions that are testable, predictable and falsiiable. instead, they just asert that anything that is too complex must be the result of ID or god. it's an intellectual cop out, a shrug of the shoulders...an 'i dunno...god did it!' solution to explain away ignorance. it helps no one in the end and answers nothing in return. it's about as usefull as tits on a nun.
tgender »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:53 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

ifeelfine72-Apology accepted.

I have never really heard a consistent definition of what people mean by “fundamentalist.” As for me, I hold a very high view of God as all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present, and completely sovereign over His creation. I also hold that the Bible is His inerrant Word (in the autographs). I take exception when people condescendingly describe believers like me as biblical literalists, suggesting that I “always interpret the Bible literally” and also that “literal interpretations are always incorrect.” Like all literature, the Bible should be interpreted as the author intended. Some parts are literal, some are symbolic—even within the same book, chapter, and passage. The trick is to determine the right interpretation based on the rules of hermeneutics.

When the Bible and nature are properly interpreted, they will be in complete harmony because they represent different windows on the one reality created by God. The problem is that, as fallible human beings, we make mistakes in both—we sometimes get our theology wrong (interpretation of the Bible) and we sometimes get our science wrong (interpretation of nature). We should strive to integrate all the evidence to get at the correct view of reality as God created it. If that makes me a fundamentalist, then so be it.
FVThinker »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:39 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

ifeelfine72 writes "Lots of scientists believe in both God and in evolution."

The cold hard facts are different. Of the National Academy of Sciences over 70% state that have no supernatural belief (atheists). Another 23% claim no belief in any personal god (deists). That leaves only 7% of them being theists. If you look at those with an area of expertise that actually has them confront the questions (i.e. biologists and cosmologists), the are almost universally non-believers. I believe that it was mathemeticians that had the highest level of supernatural belief. I don't think 7% constitutes "a lot" ... and the trend downward for the believing segment sharply down.
ifeelfine72 »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:14 am Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

tgender - thank you for your comments. I apologize if I am whisked away with bouts of hyperboly. I don't have even keel or measure of say a theotrek or didymus. In any case, I still feel that fundamentalism is a bad thing - although I should have left the hyperboly out! Fundamentalism takes an extreme view of Christianity. The Christians that I go to church with aren't part of the emergent church (although I don't see anything wrong that) or part of the religious right or left, it is a middle of the road, United Methodist church (150 years old in the middle of the country) and even our old country pastor recognizes the facts of evolution. Fundamentalism's extreme view drives a wedge between Christians and that is very dangerous. I'll say it again, there is nothing in evolution that does anything to dispell my faith.

You mention that I contradict myself by saying I believe in evolution and God's direction of it. That isn't a contradiction at all. By its definition, science cannot include the supernatural. If that is the reason to throw out evolution then you must throw out the theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, etc. Lots of scientists believe in both God and in evolution. Ken Miller is one of the most famous - he wrote the text many high school biology students use and he is a devout, practicing Christian.

I believe someone already mentioned this but evolution is not the study of how the origin of life began in the world. That is a different branch of science altogether.

BTW: Carbon dating is only one of I believe 10-15 different methods for determining the age of the earth, fossils and other "super old stuff." And I'm not sure its the most accurate one. But all of the methods come pretty close to saying the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
maranatha7593 »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:06 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Because when a nation can fall from that place where it was founded - which has been happening in our nation for some time. God help us to get back on track by getting back to His Word as the only righteous standard for our lives.

"Blessed is that nation whose God is the Lord."
SummaTheologica »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:45 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

How could an Anti-Evolution candidate bring a nation to ruins when it was founded on Judeo-Christian Values and practices?
tgender »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:39 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

FVThinker-
You said "Radio-Carbon dating showed that these processes took BILLIONS of years. That offered further support of evolution."

Tha half-life of Carbon-14 is 5,730 years and can be used to determine ages up to about 60,000 years.
tgender »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:35 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

FVThinker-
It may be convenient for you to ignore how life got started, but it makes your worldview incomplete. In fact, it has a VERY LARGE hole in it. That would concern me greatly if I held the evolutionary view. In fact, I've read lots of quotes from honest scientists who are troubled by this.
FVThinker »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:23 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

tgender,
Evolution has nothing to do with how life started. Absolutely nothing. Evolution by natural selection ONLY speaks to how the complexity of life came to pass once the first replicating entity came into existance.

Abiogenesis (how life started) is a completely separate discussion. But on that topic, just because science does not know just how life came to pass, does not give the Christian narrative validity. Just because a cookie is NOT chocolate chip does not make it, by default, make it a shortbread cookie.
FVThinker »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:16 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

maranatha7593 writes: "Electing an Anti-God president will lead this nation to ruin."

The facts would beg to differ. A Creighton University study (a Christian university) showed clearly that the prosperous democracies with the LEAST amount of religion had the FEWEST common societal ills (i.e. violent crime, teen pregancy and many other measures)

"It ain't what you don't know that get's you in trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - - - Mark Twain
tgender »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:14 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

ifeelfine72-
I do not think I called you an atheist. I simply said that any evolutionist who is also an atheist must explain how life came from non-life. It was a general question to anyone who fit that description. It was not intended for anyone in particular and therefore not to you. Please accept my apologies if that was not clear.

I fail to see how slapping labels on people (fundamentalist) and then saying they're the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity helps the debate. It also does not seem Christ-like. We should vigourously debate the ideas but treat each other with civility. This is the essence of tolerance.

I find your comment that Evolution does not deal with origins of life on earth to be an astonishing statement. Evolution deals with how we got the diversity of life we observe today. That necessarily includes the origin of that life. If you omit this, then you don't have a very complete answer, do you?

I also find your comment that Evolution happened exactly the way scientists said, but that God directed every bit of it is contradictory. Scientists say there was no intelligent action in Evolution--that it was the result of purely blind, natural processes. This leaves God out of it in their opinion.

Finally, I endeavor greatly to not close my eyes to any evidence, but I do try to form an integrated worldview that makes sense of ALL the evidence. Easier said than done I admit...
maranatha7593 »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:04 am Agree: 2 Disagree: 1

Electing an Anti-God president will lead this nation to ruin.

"Blessed is that naiton whose God is the Lord."
www.theotrek.org »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:46 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

ProfessorX--Your claim that the "talkorigins.org Darwinist website” is filled with ambiguous language" does not seem to measure up to what I read on the site. Looks sufficiently supported with recent information in articles that I read last night. It is brief, but comprehensive.
torus »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:30 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

ProfessorX, did you actually read the article? The point is that if someone can't follow the science, logic and reason which yields evolution, how could we trust him to make rational judgements on other things? Short answer is that we can't.
ifeelfine72 »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 6:36 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 1

Chris333 - what are the other parts of ID? It seems to me their main tenant is bashing evolution, not proving ID. The only thing they preach is irreducible complexity and then talk about the Cambrian Explosion - but both of those things are swipes at evolution, not proofs of ID.
FVThinker »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 6:33 am Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

Part 2

His observations on the Beagle (of which I only scratched) were compelling on their own. The scientific ‘holy grail’, however, is when completely unrelated fields of science confirm the predictions of the original theory. Enter our discovery of DNA. Once we understood the role of this molecule and had the technology to look at it closely, biologists made a *prediction*. That prediction was that, if Darwinian Natural Selection were true, then the various species’ DNA would closely related to where they fit on the evolutionary tree. DNA jived with evolution exactly.

Darwin *predicted* that there would be many more precursor species to those that he observed. Of course archeology has unearthed gazillions of fossils the perfectly supported evolution.

Darwin also postulated that the changes he theorized could only occur over vast time frames but had no way to predict or test what that time frame was. Enter nuclear physics and our tremendous understanding of the behavior of matter. Radio-Carbon dating showed that these processes took BILLIONS of years. That offered further support of evolution.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.

Comment on this story