Yikes, Christopher Hitchens at Slate had a pretty tough column about the ‘peaceniks’ making the headlines:

 

It is really a disgrace that the liberal press refers to such enemies of liberalism as "antiwar" when in reality they are straight-out pro-war, but on the other side. Was there a single placard saying, "No to Jihad"? Of course not. Or a single placard saying, "Yes to Kurdish self-determination" or "We support Afghan women's struggle"? Don't make me laugh. And this in a week when Afghans went back to the polls, and when Iraqis were preparing to do so, under a hail of fire from those who blow up mosques and U.N. buildings, behead aid workers and journalists, proclaim fatwahs against the wrong kind of Muslim, and utter hysterical diatribes against Jews and Hindus.

 

---

Taranto had this funny headline off of CNN’s  site:

 

Bush narrows Supreme Court list

 

Judges, lawyers being considered, analysts say

 

What, court recorders aren't being considered?  Where's the love?

---

 

The folks at Creation Safaris have some good rebuttals for objections evolutionists sometimes use.  Not that I would argue these in the same way, but I’m just passing it on for you to think about to form your own replies.  (Emphasis on the third bullet point mine)

 

•  Science and religion, not science vs. religion:  If you have been told that science and religion are two non-overlapping domains that have nothing to do with each other, you have been sold a bill of goods, and should demand a refund.  Philosophy of science has a long and varied history.  Up until the Darwinian usurpation, it was primarily religious people who did science.  They were the ones who categorized the fields of inquiry, devised the scientific method, founded the branches of science, and were motivated by their philosophy to do scientific work.  The word scientist did not even exist till William Whewell invented it in the 19th century; it was natural philosophy, restricted to the study of tangible, observable natural phenomena.  Scientists were committed to proof by observation, experimentation, and repeatability.  There was no conflict between the pursuit of knowledge (what science means, by definition) and religion.  This is not controversial.*  Of all religions, in particular, it was the Judeo-Christian worldview that was the patron and best friend of science.  The supposed warfare between science and religion is a myth that was promulgated by anti-religious Darwinists in their efforts to make science a secular replacement for religion.
  *For support from disinterested scholars (which is always encouraged here), check out, for instance, the two Teaching Company college-level lecture series on the history of science, where you will find two reputable secular professors making this point emphatically.  You can also read our online book, or the new book by Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God.
• Limits of science:  Science cannot know everything, because not everything can be tested in the lab.  History, for instance, is a branch of knowledge that deals with non-repeatable events of the past; consequently, the methods of investigation are different – eyewitness testimony, artifacts, journals, textual criticism, and the like.  This limitation becomes extreme when dealing with prehistory.  Without observers, one can only make inferences that are more or less plausible.  The farther back one goes, the more these inferences overlap heavily with assumptions, presuppositions and philosophical preferences.  In the limit (when considering ultimate origins), evolution and theology are indistinguishable; the story of origins becomes the science of one religion against the science of another religion.  Here, “science” loses all hope of testability and repeatability, and reduces to its core values: honesty, integrity, love of truth, submission to laws of logic, carefulness and other traits that are essentially religious values.  To suppose that Darwinists, who presume that honesty is a mere emergent property of matter in motion, are more capable of it than theists is as arrogant as it is self-refuting.
• Natural, Supernatural and Intelligent Causation:  Much of the smog in the debate comes from the Darwinist straw man habit of calling intelligent design “supernatural” and calling it “giving up on science.”  Penetrate this fog with your light saber and you will see much.  Intelligent design is not based on what we don’t know, but on what we do know.  It is not an appeal to a god-of-the-gaps or theological explanation, but the very approach science uses all the time to discern between intentional and non-intentional effects.  I.D. proponents argue that it is a superior explanation of complex, specified, information-rich phenomena, based on the uniformity of experience, than appeals to chance and blind natural law.
      Not all phenomena have intelligent causes, but ruling them out by definition is an arbitrary and potentially show-stopping limitation on science.  Intelligent causes can be discerned from natural causes through rational analysis of the causal resources available.  But it is an exercise in futility to rule out intelligent causes when an intelligence has, indeed, acted.  When one is trying to make an inference to the best explanation about Mt. Rushmore, for instance, or about an archaeological inscription or stone tool, it is foolish to restrict one’s thinking to natural forces like wind and rain.  The ID takes well-known and fruitful methods of design inference and applies them rigorously to biology – not with theological pronouncements from prophets, but with rigorous mathematical and logical reasoning – the same kind used in forensics, crytography, archaeology, and even SETI.
      If the Darwinists did not have such a political and emotional stake in defending their religion of naturalism, they would find this perfectly acceptable and reasonable.  In short, ID is not a cop-out answer or escape clause the way the Darwinists portray it: “We can’t figure it out scientifically so God must have done it,” but rather a positive affirmation about something we can know from the uniformity of experience.  Any time we find a language – especially one that can be translated into another language and maintain its meaning – we know that a mind produced it.  To say otherwise in order to maintain one’s philosophical preference is the cop-out.  To promise “the check is in the mail” and “it’s an unsolved problem, but we’ll figure out some day” is the escape clause, and the Darwinists are red-handed guilty.
• Darwinism, R.I.P.  An assumption clouding up much of the reporting is that Darwinism works, or at least that it works better than any other scientific theory (see best-in-field fallacy).  If you have read Creation-Evolution Headlines for any time, you know that Darwinism is positive anti-knowledge (to borrow Colin Patterson’s phrase).  It cannot explain the origin of life, the development of the embryo, speciation, abrupt appearance of new body plans, anything.  It is a dismal failure, a lame, crippled, half-dead horse at the starting line where the rules prohibit the I.D. Seabiscuit from entry.  There is not a single part of evolutionary theory that is not controversial among evolutionists themselves.  The Darwinian method of science has two parts 1) declare evolution a fact by fiat, and (2) hunt for corroborating evidence (that is, if you feel up to it; none is really necessary, since by #1, evolution is already a fact).  Darwinism has grown into an unwieldy, just-so storytelling empire built on Charlie’s flimsy heuristic (unguided, purposeless natural selection) that is tautological at its root, and fraught with a history of evil fruit.  Darwinists spend their time connecting distant dots of data with pure fiction.  They think that by extrapolating submillimeter changes in beak size they can explain the vast diversity of life, from whales to magnolias.  It’s time to call the Darwinists to accountability after 146 years of failure and open the field to fresh ideas.
• Design vs. non-design exhausts the possibilities.  LiveScience.com mocked anyone who disagrees with Darwinism by posting its “Top 10 Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths)” with the implication that if alternatives to Darwinism need to be permitted, then we must decide if schools should teach the Norse creation myth, the Egyptian creation myth, the Zoroastrian creation myth, etc., or all the above.  Luring the unwary reader in with nude art was a cheap trick, but they forgot to include the most lurid fable of all – Darwinism.  The display assumes all these creation stories are on a level playing field.  Any reasonable person could rank them in order of plausibility, but that is beside the point.  Even with the historical fact that it was Christian Europe that gave birth to science, not Persia or the Norse or the Egyptians, that is also completely beside the point.  No one in the I.D. movement is asking that a specific religious account of creation be taught as science.  The issue is about design, not the Designer or how he designed – just whether the phenomenon under investigation was, in fact, designed.
      Either life was designed, or it was not.  Those options exhaust the possibilities.  Design can be inferred by the methods of science without making any claims about who did it, or why.  Even the Darwinists like Richard Dawkins admit that life looks designed for a purpose.  Their approach is to explain away the design, and tempt us away from our common sense and logic, to chase a phantom story that in the misty past design just “emerged” (their favorite miracle word) out of disorder.  Should this mythology have sole rights to be heard in science class?  Intelligent causes are known to be the only explanation for certain classes of phenomena capable of scientific investigation.  No one has ever seen a complex information-rich system, like the DNA language and translation factory, complete with error-correcting mechanisms, arise by chance or natural law.  Why should the philosophical naturalists, like snarling Dobermans, keep healthier bloodhounds, with a nose for design, at bay?  Why should science be arbitrarily restricted from unlocking the mystery of life with a key that works?  More ominously, why should philosophical naturalism be established as a de facto religion guised in the sacred name of science?

The Darwinist strategy is to attach the label “scientific” to their beliefs and label their critics “religious.”  In this way, they hope to protect themselves from scrutiny by framing the legitimate controversies about their storytelling empire in terms of religion vs. science.  They arrogate to themselves the euphemism “scientific” and try to pigeonhole anyone who disagrees with their fable with the meaningless and contemptuous label, “people of faith.”  By inference, they assume for themselves the contrasting ribbon, people of reason.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really like this post! I especially like the Creation/Evolution/ID part!

This is exactly the kind of stuff that annoys me. It's blatently dishonest, mealy-mouthed, dancing round the issue balderdash. Yep, I know I'm going all ad-hominem, but I have a rich history of patience and careful explanation for you to hopefully forgive this one lapse. It disappoints me that people like you and Min lap this stuff up.

Jez,

You will have to include me as well. I enjoyed this post.

Well done, Frenzy!

Jez, exactly which part of the post did you take offense to? The part that says that those that are anti-war are pro-jihad, the funny quote, or the creation/evolution stuff?

Personally, I do have two issues myself with 'Frenzy.

1. Where do you get off cramming 3 great posts into 1?! :)

2. The black and the green text are hard to read-- think you can clean them up?

Jez, knowing where you are coming from and (you know) where I am coming from, I definitely understand your reaction (and really I don't take offense). However, I do believe you know that part of my ministry in blogging is to 'equip the saints' and that is what my purpose was with this post. I thought it was an honest rebuttal myself.

As I say, it may not be how I would argue these matters, but I thought it'd be a good starting point for Christians to consider and reflect, and then form their own replies when others engage them about the Creation/Evolution issue.

MIn, I’m sorry about the post, it was a mad dash to post before getting to work today! Got it fixed now :)

Jez, Darwinism is not as "scientific" as you might assume.

Amy, we went into this in some detail on your blog under your last weekly questions post.

Frenzy, I don't blame you for reproducing this material (except for the stupid colour scheme, I did blame you for that! btw, my tip for reading non-contrasting colours is to select the text in your browser, but thanks for fixing it). I am angry at the source of this material, whom I guess is knowledgable enough to realise the dishonesty involved, yet is happy to provide it to people like you who are emotionally invested in accepting his drivel.
Let me ask you this. Did you read the points in a skeptical way, or were you pleased to find something that reiterated your view? Do you think you would have spotted any errors or misleading turns of phrase if they were there?

I love the Hitchins snippit!

Jez, I know. I have a Catholic friend who YEARS ago wanted to prove that evolution was good science. She studied anthropology, amoung other things, and after 4 years was so totally convinced that it evolution was severely faulty science to believe in such. It turned her toward creationism, or "intelligent design", if you will.

Jez, looking at your two posts, who's getting 'emotionally invested'?

You've charged twice about 'dishonesty', are you claiming that evolutionists DO NOT mislead?

Again, I was an evolutionist and I did find that the article DID reiterate my view on what I once believed. I think the only 'misleading turns of phrase' is in the final example which evolutionists try to beat Christians with by trying to separate science and religion. You know-- the 'pidgeon' holing part where you get to look down from on high at what we believe and call it 'drivel'.

I do get angry when people lie with the tone of sincerety, I make no apology for that. I have no emotional need for a creator to either exist or not exist, however.

I claim that in general scientists do not mislead, or if they do, the process of peer review finds them out quickly.

What makes you think that science is "higher" than religion? Let me clarify: I call "creation scientists'" description of mainstream science drivel, not your beliefs. I hope I haven't offended you, certainly not that way.

It's not about being higher or beating you about the place, or anything of the sort. It's simply being clear about what's what. Genesis is religion, evolution is science. Those are facts, I'm sorry if you don't like them.

I could go through the artical point by point, but honestly it's difficult to know where to start. It's all a blur of ad hominem and slight-of-hand reasoning; it's difficult to separate the fallacies out into separate chunks. Here's just one sentence for example:
"To suppose that Darwinists, who presume that honesty is a mere emergent property of matter in motion, are more capable of it than theists is as arrogant as it is self-refuting."

a combination of ad hominem (darwinists must be arrogant, for some unexplained reason), a misrepresentation of the opposing view (a strawman) -- "matter in motion" is a woefully incomplete version of evolutionary theory, designed to invite incredulity -- and pure non-sequitor -- what exactly is self-refuting about any of this? If you can't explain it, you've been swept along by the rhetoric and forgotten the need for rigour.

This artical is, imo, drivel; ID isn't.
(note: they need not merely oppose, would you accept an ID working in tandem with evolution? Once you understand how evolution works, it's incredibly hard to see how it couldn't happen.)

Amy, your friend's four years of study is impressive, but people have spent entire careers looking at it, and I've spent most of my life studyi

...studying science full time. Imagine if I told you that after studying Catholicism for four years, I found it to be heretical -- you'd tell me I was arrogant for thinking I could grasp it all in so short a time... that's kind of how I feel about your friend. I do admire her for looking seriously at the data though, good on her. I just wouldn't recommend accepting her conclusions without having a look yourself.

sorry for going on so long, and i hope you don't think i'm just a prat spouting anger and condescention at you all. That's not my aim; I am angry, but I hope I'm not condescending.

Jez, this is a topic (I think) many have much vested in. So its okay to be a little passionate about it. As long as we keep it clean, its okay to continue presenting our thoughts in a 'clean' manner.

Now, again, you've just made my point, or actually the article's point in refering to Genesis as 'religion' and science as 'fact'. Aren't you assuming that a diety (remember, the article didn't defend Genesis-- just creation and ID) wouldn't create beings which live under natural law, while they themselves aren't bound by it? I guess my question is-- why can't this 'god' also 'create' science? Why the criteria of religion separated from science. Remember, we're not arguing Genesis!!!

It just could be me, but if 'scientists' have closed their minds to any competing theory, then isn't that arrogant? I mean, evolution is still theory and, as the article said, there's only creation, or materialism in regards to origins, why is there no room for the design view? You seem to want it both ways. You say ID isn't drivel, yet the article takes exactly that position and you discount it!

the article is drivel because it misrepresents evolution and is stuffed full of logical fallacies, such as the sample sentence I dissected above.

The distinction between science and religion is mostly to do with how we gather evidence for each: religion rests upon special revelation and faith; science rests upon the outcomes of repeatable experiments. You and I can sit down and postulate all kinds of Gods which may or may not create natural worlds as we experience; but we would not be doing science, since we're not doing any experiments. Do you see? I think there's a comment in your archive where I delve into this issue in detail...

Again, Jez, please explain why (if you think ID has merit), you continue to speak against it being introduced to classrooms. I'll accept that you think the article is drivel (hey, its your opinion), but if you personally belive ID has credibility, then why do you continue in favor of keeping it away from the classrooms as a theory?

Again, you've failed to explain why a 'god' couldn't use science and why there should be a fine line between a believing person and a scientific person. If 'science's' criteria is repeatable experiments, then I refer to the article again and challenge you to repeat evolution. If you can prove it through your own criteria, then bring it forward. If not, may I suggest you're also practicing 'faith' - which would fall under the general definition of 'religion'?

Frenzy, there is sadly only so much I can teach you.

Consider the nature of your challenge (to "repeat evolution"). Can you repeat gravity? Can you repeat the periodic table of elements?

The important thing here is the distinction between theory and experiment. In gravity, the experiment might be measuring the period of a pendulum; in evolution it might be dating fossils. These things are repeatable, and cross-validated among different kinds of experiment.
I believe I have been through this with you before... but there is not much point in my explaining these things to you if you will either not pay attention or disbelieve me.

I've also talked a lot about faith vs mere belief. I've talked about the difference between a philosophical / religious explanation which mentions or conforms to scientifically derived principles and the practice of science itself.

I have demonstrated that at least one sentence of the article is nonsensical or at least does not bear scrutiny.

And I have explained, more than once, that my objection is to teaching Creationism as if it were a science.

I am becoming less and less inclined to repeat myself. It was only fury at a blatantly dishonest article which lead me to comment this time.

Jez, thanks for 'teaching' me. If I fail to learn my lesson, may it not reflect upon the teacher since I've asked for direct proof, yet did not get it.

Again, I asked two points for you clarify, and again you brought up CREATIONISM when I specifically said ID. Am I to take it that since you are against teaching creationism, that you now affirm that ID should be taught?

Oh, I agree-- I definitely disbelieve you. You appeal to gravity and the periodic table to refute my challenge, yet then go on and give examples of how they are repeatable. So my challenge stands (thank you for kindly answering your own challenge) of please repeat evolution and we'll settle once and for all whether 'science' also practices faith or not. Maybe we can also clarify the 'pidgeon hole' argument that evolutionists use to make themselves look out to be more rational by infering that religious people merely take things on faith when in truth, evolutionists also share a fair amount of faith in their belief.

Jez, you can say the article is 'dishonest' as much as you want and you may disagree with the tone it was presented, but the main arguments on how evolutionists perceives those who argue design is still valid. You charging 'dishonesty' doesn't change that perception by continually giving lip service to ID and then vigorously denying it.

Now who's being dishonest?

See, now either you're deliberately disregarding half of what I say or else you're not itelligent enough to hold a complete paragraph in your head at once. I don't think that's true, so I'm forced to suspect the former. (that's why i'm getting frustrated... which i know in turn makes you less inclined to unravel what I'm saying...)
How did you miss it when I said
"The important thing here is the distinction between theory and experiment. In gravity, the experiment might be measuring the period of a pendulum; in evolution it might be dating fossils. These things are repeatable, and cross-validated among different kinds of experiment."
??

The point is that THEORIES ARE NOT REPEATABLE, but they are supported by EXPERIMENTS. It is the EXPERIMENTS WHICH ARE REPEATABLE.

What is/are the experiment(s) that prompt(s) one to possit a creator? Do the results from the experiment(s) cause a serious problem to evolution? Is that problem big enough to justify introducing some otherwise invisible creator? (Occam's razor demands a good reason to do this).

While the above questions are unanswered, ID is not science. That doesn't mean it isn't perfectly reasonable philosophy. I mean it, I'm not paying lip service. But science isn't a game, and not every plausable (or true!) theory can join in.

There is a wikipedia artical on intelligent design
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
see section 1.3 in particular.

Science, belief, faith. I've explained the difference so many times. What has been so incomprehensible in my previous excursions into the subject? I ask so that I do not repeat my mistakes.

Two problems here, Jez.

1. Your comparison of repeating a demonstration of gravity and and dating fossils is flawed. How can I say this? I can see a ball fall to the ground, test a pendulum and see those kinds of things in real time. I cannot see a species change into another, a inanimate lifeless object assume life, or anything like that. Furthermore, it has been proven that dating techniques, such as carbon 14 dating, are inherently flawed. In fact, when compared with an object from a recorded time period, carbon 14 is off by a bunch. (Let alone the fact that it can't reach 4.5 billion or whatever the current figure is). Yes, we can see natural selection at work, but there has been no evidence to support goo-to-you-via-the-zoo evolution. Also, this kind of evolution had not until recently taken into account catastrophes. Now it has to. Evoution is never set-- it is never one thing, it has to keep evolving (pardon the pun) because there's always something that proves it isn't quite right.

2. The study of beginnings is by nature a faith based study. We believe that the things archeologists find mean one thing or another. For example, we believe there was a George Washington. We believe that there was all sorts of things. We have evidence-- documents, artifacts, etc.-- to support our claims, but it is the worldview that gives these things meaning. It is dishonest to say that your meaning is somehow science and Creationism isn't. You weren't there at the beginning, and you can't prove it through tests now.

love to you all, frenzy i hope i wasn't too rude yesterday.
I'd like my questions about ID to remain current, since my whole objection to teaching it in a science class is that it is not science.

Min:
1) the clever part of Newton's gravity was not noticing that objects fall (that doesn't take a genius), but that the same force kept the moon and planets in their orbits. As we have agreed, one can take measurements of swinging pendula, and time the fall of an object etc. in experiments; however in the seventeenth century, one could not put an object into orbit, so while planets' orbits could be measured, proactive experiments of that nature were not possible.
There are similar limitations with evolution. The fact that children differ slightly from their parents is obvious -- the idea that this gradual drift can accumulate to large-scale changes is the clever part.
We can observe natural selection making species drift slightly according to local conditions (which is like playing with pendula and throwing missiles around); and we can date fossils and analyse their skeletons etc. (which is like observing the orbits of distant planets, which was very tricky and indirect, since the direct measurement is a wobble of a planet, and the maths was complicated cos you have to factor in the Earth's own orbit/rotation, and telescopes were new etc.; so, yes, dating fossils isn't as good as being there with a DV camera watching it unfold, but it's the best we have... what are we gonna do, ignore the data we can have because we'd rather work with better?). But we cannot accelerate the split of one species into two -- just as we couldn't put sattelites into orbit 400 years ago.

does that make sense?

Evolution is silent on the question of abiogenesis, the origin of life. It is only concerned with the diversification of life, few species into many.

Using any one dating technique exclusively is bad practice. That's why several isotope pairs are used and the results compar

That's why several isotope pairs are used and the results compared. Rubidium/strontium, potassium/argon and argon/argon are commonly used (they work in similar ways to carbon-14/nitrogen), but they also have different (longer) half-lives, ranging from approx. 1 to 50 billion years. Used together, dates are cross-validated and the range of dates we can measure is expanded.

what do you mean by "taken into account catastrophes"?
Scientists improve/refine their theories as data are collected. That's a good thing.

2) It's all about the approach. You can scientifically analyse the past. That approach points to evolution. It may be false, but that's what our current, incomplete set of data points to. It's pointing fairly hard, imo. But, I can see it might still be false (look ma, no faith!).
When you use a different approach, and through religion or philosophical preference or pure gut instinct decide that the ID "seems better" to you, that's fine: believe it, live it, enjoy life. But it isn't science, it just isn't. Not unless the data points that way...

We can go back to the dishonesty thing here, Min. You told me that carbon dating is incapable of measuring ages beyond a few thousand years. That's true. I expect you've read that a few times from your creationist literature, haven't you? It's an old favourite.
I answered that question for you just now. It wasn't hard. I didn't have to pay anybody to find that answer out, I didn't have to join a secret club and I didn't need the top 1st from a prestigious university to know it. I just had to know how to read. You're on the internet and have access to search engines: you could have found it out in under ten minutes. Actually, the creationist authors who continue to cite Carbon-dating as a problem really should have found it out, that's their job! That's why I get so freackin' angry. It's not that I hate God or challenges to my ivory tower; it really, honestly is a love of truth and honesty, and I don't get eith

...and I don't get either from answersingenesis or kent hovind.

if you have been, thanks for reading.

Jez, you've pointed out that the theory of evolution doesn't have an answer of abiogenesis. But I've posted before that even though we see minute changes to species, we do not see leaps and bounds as what evolution proposes. Going back to the original challenge here, if there's not a basis for this either through the fossil record, nor in observation, how can you again claim science over belief?

And if you can't explain that, then why build this line for religious people of science as fact, and faith as religious since scientists also practice belief (i.e. I don't know how biogenesis happened, but whatever happened then was the catalyst for the diversification of species we have today, but we'll find out someday). That's FAITH!!!

I again go back to the article which is true in that evolutionists "promise 'the check is in the mail” and “it’s an unsolved problem, but we’ll figure it out some day” is the escape clause, and the Darwinists are red-handed guilty.'

You point out that that abiogenesis can't be observed, but where's the observation for evolution happening within the last couple of hundred years? How about that last thousand?

Let's be honest here and just say both sides are dealing with faith (that was a sneky thing you did by putting 'belief' for 'faith', but if it pains you to say or put it down as part of your paradigm, then I'll let it go). But let's not beat around the bush and say evolutionists are 'scientific' and people who adhere design aren't. Both practice faith and I again and again and again refer back to the original argument that 'science' wants to errect a line between people of faith and science when those who adhere to 'science' practice both.

You're fond of flirting with new ideas, but quickly succumb to the present analysis of the general consesus. "Oh science currently adheres to A & B" therefore, we can't possible allow a different theory to be crept into it. Besides-- science, and our theories changes all the time, but we'll still discount design because everyone says so." How dynamic.

"The point is that THEORIES ARE NOT REPEATABLE, but they are supported by EXPERIMENTS. It is the EXPERIMENTS WHICH ARE REPEATABLE."

Fine Jez, its the experiments that are repeatable. Please give us the experiments (as was asked originally) the transitions for the human species. Don't give us dating methods, you said experiments and please adhere to it. I'll go ahead and say you can't do it. In fact, choose any species to 'experiment' on. Let's see this evolution thing at work shall we? In the present-- sans dating methods. A dog/cat to a dat perhaps? The point being, you ask us to weigh your criteria, but dismiss ours altogether without ever meeting the same criteria for yourselves.

"Give it time" the evolutionist says, "give it time."

So far, you've pointed out that theory cannot be proven (right!). Then you've said that evolution is only concerened about the diversification of species (after the fact that you've no explanation for abiogenesis). Therefore, since the majority of 'experiments' point to evolution, design should be discounted on the basis that it isn't science (due to the 'appraoch' of evolutionists). Then you also said that evolution could be false, but its the best we have (of a theory) today.

May I just inject that 'its the best' you have because you're too quickly to dismiss any others? And if it is (the theory) untrue, tell me what other theory is there (other than design) that could take its place? So what is this excercise, to propogate a lie?

Where is 'truth' in exclusion?

Frenzy, I'm worried that you're not understanding what I'm trying to say. The paragraph where you summarise what you think I've said prompts this concern.

Isn't it a bit silly to claim to be able to disprove something which you don't understand? You are unable or unwilling to fairly describe evolution before proceeding to knock down the strawman you have constructed, intentionally or not.
I'm not too worked up about you doing that, it's the professionals doing it who get my goat.

Scientists believe theories tentatively, one eye open for new conflicting evidence etc. The religious faithful believe their religions in spite of lack of evidence (otherwise no need for faith, right?) and are typically resistant to altering their religion.

The difference could hardly be plainer. I hope you understand now, if not please let me know what the problem is.

'“it’s an unsolved problem, but we’ll figure it out some day” is the escape clause,'

is irrelevent and a misrepresentation. Who has promised you that evolution will one day explain abiogenesis? Why is it now a legal requirement for the theory to explain origins?

It is what it is, it's assinine to complain that it isn't something else.

Dating a fossil is an experiment, just as much as Newton's observations of the planets through his telescope in 1660.

Yes, I'm afraid it does take time. No-one predicts large-scale changes in just a few dozen generations (we've only been looking closely for about two hundred years). So, of course we must look to the past, the fossil record. That's another silly complaint.
If each day was thirty years long, and you had never seen the night, how could I prove to you night existed? We'd have to either wait, or I could try and show you evidence of rhythmic behaviour in plants, evidence of tides etc. You would refuse to accept any of these things, insisting that because night hadn't happened before your eyes, there could be no basis for supposing it. Not so.

ID isn't science, I dismiss it as science, but not as a theory. If you want to discuss it as a philosophy, go for it, compare it to evolution in a philosophy class. At the moment, unless you have new data or analysis to present, there is no point thinking of it as science, cos it isn't. Really, check out section 1.3 of the ID wiki, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design very informative.

Honestly, I don't think I'm the one who's excluding stuff. Yes, I have scholarly standards, and yes I find that the community in support of ID tends not to meet them. That does not mean that I have excluded ID, I have not. Other good theories have poor proponents too.
On the other hand, you really don't seem to have taken a good enough look at evolution. To dismiss all dating because someone told you about carbon dating without finding out that other isotopes are used for cross-validation is lax, and betrays an emotional predispostion to believe evolution's critics.
It isn't enough to point out problems with evolution, as if then ID must be better... it has obvious problems too.
But in the spirit of being positive rather than negative, please list some phenomena which, if found, would point to ID.

Jez, what don't I understand about evolution? That there's no 'evidence' for it? That you typically find fossils in a layer of rock ASSUMED to be millions of years old and then extrapolate that that is how old the fossil is? But for us simpletons, please do explain and provide your explanation as to why 'science' has disproven design conclusively and why it shouldn't even be discussed in our classrooms (aside from being in philosophy class).

I've asked for evidences in the past and in the present. Have you provided any? Oh that's right, you offered not seeing the night as an answer.

"Isn't it a bit silly to claim to be able to disprove something which you don't understand?" You're absolutely right! I don't know everything about evolution and you don't know everything about design. So why don't you stop being silly and instead of discounting a side, allow others to weigh them both in a science class setting.

Example for ID. Okay. Let's look at the heart. How can it have 'evoloved'? How can the long stages of evolution ever have come up with its current (pardon the pun) design?

Again, so far no explanation either in the present, or the past, other than go check out what someone else wrote on the net. (By the way, you KNOW I don't use links in reply posts. I don't do it and I don't expect you to either.)

Having offered no tangible facts, at least none that was ever presented, I can only conclude that 'evolution' is science because you say so. But I think you said it best, "The religious faithful believe their religions in spite of lack of evidence (otherwise no need for faith, right?) and are typically resistant to altering their religion."

What don't you understand, Frenzy? Apparently you don't understand that evolution happens over long periods (even in punctuated evolution big phenotype shifts occur over several thousand generations), otherwise you wouldn't demand that I produce a cat/dog hybrid. (intentionally stupid request, I hope :)
You apparently don't understand the differences between a scientific theory and a scientific experiment, and faith and tentative belief. (your signing of remark equivocates them again.)
You equivocate a scientific theory with a theory in which science makes an appearance (ie a god which 'uses science' -- by which i guess you mean natural processes -- vs a scientifically derived theory), which belies a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory really is.
You don't understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis.
Just for starters. I take no pleasure whatsoever in compiling this list.
I'll be presumptious and guess at what has happened here: your chief source of knowledge about evolution / paleontology etc. is creation science literature. If the standard of scholarship in this literature is as poor as I say it is (I'm very confident about that), then your misunderstandings have been explained. (I don't know why you object to citing online references in your comments, because I really do recommend that you broaden the scope of your reading on this subject. The wikipedia, whose URL I supplied, is like an open source encyclopedia, to which all may contribute and is reviewed and discussed online. Both sides of the issue are heard. I do recommend it, for this and other subjects. You can contribute to it if you like.)
It's exactly why it angers me, perfectly reasonable and earnest people like yourself are burdened with the lies creationists put forth.

re dating:
Stratigraphic position and radiodating are not circular, they represent independent checks on dating. We do not choose where a fossil is found in a stratigraphic section, ne

neither do we choose the numeric radiodate. Yes, discrepencies are discovered and the timeline is refined to accomodate them, but that happens in science. The more data we have, the better the timeline.
now shoot, i just lost a whole load of text... can't even remember everything i said. It was great though.
I remember I explained the evolution of the heart, from a hollow chamber in primitive multi-cellular organisms for gas exchange, food and sexual reproduction; the cells lining the chamber specialised to the kind of peristaltic tubular heard seen in a fly, with no valves, blood or blood vessels; through the rapid development in chordata and vertebrates to introduce looping, undirectional circulation, enclosed vasculature (veins and arteries) and conductive system (electrical regulation). Then later a parallel circuit to the lungs developed, along with the 4-chamber design seen in modern mammals, reptiles and birds.

I think I do know everything about design, since it is intentionally vague: at some point an intelligent agent intervenes in the development of life. What did I miss?

I gave some fossilised examples of intermediaries, having observed that the request for non-fossil evidence of large-scale phenotype change is either dishonest or alarmingly ignorant. Eg. rhodent to rabbit, land-based carnivore to whales and dolphins, and reptile to mammal. The first two cross genus boundaries, the last crosses vertebrate class. Let me know if you'd like more info, such as URL.

You know I've no objection to ID in the philosophical classroom, why do you insist on having it invade the science curriculum?

Jez, the 'give it time' argument is growing old. One can not simply say that over time, things will be explained over and over again (I again refer back to the article's quote). No matter if it's punctuated or not, simply saying 'time will tell' isn't the way 'science' should be offered. You frown upon 'God created' as an explanation, why should anyone think that 'give it time' is any better? (Yes- the 'dat' example was intentional)

Just because a designer is in a scientific theory, it suddenly ceases to be 'scientific'? Is that really what you're accusing me of? Yes, I'm guilty of reading creationist web sites-- I feel so exposed for being found out, it was such a dirty secret. What gave me away, mentioning a Designer?

I don't feel I have to defend why it is I don't allow links in reply posts. I follow the same rules as what I expect from those who reply.

Good explanation on the heart. Now tell me, is it theory or fact? If theory, then we're back where we started (of an un-equal playing field). If fact, then you can close the books.

Invade? Tough words. I don't want to invade. I want an equal playing field. If it's good enough for a logics class why isn't it good enough in a science class?

what do you mean by "give it time?" If you're complaining that evolution is a gradual process, you'll just have to quit whining. There is evidence for it despite how slow it is, and your dismissal of fossils and dating techniques is unjustified.
If you think that something is incomplete in the theory, and I'm saying "wait and see for fresh evidence", can you be more specific? I don't think I'm saying that.

The designer doesn't make a theory scientific. A theory can only be scientific if it explains data, in fact to supercede a current theory, it must explain the data better than the current one. Just asking, what does ID explain better? The problem isn't that you read creationist literature, but that you only read creationist literature -- and your misunderstanding of the relevent topics found you out.

Heart, fact or theory? Depends what you mean. Technically I can't rule out that the modern human heart was made out of mashed potato eight thousand years ago. On the other hand, you suggested that the heart was direct evidence for ID on the grounds of irreducible complexity, I guess. The fact that increasingly primitive hearts in crocs, and flies is cast-iron proof that the heart is not irreducible. So it is not an example which points significantly away from natural processes.
In fact, there are various indications that the human heart evolved from the simpler systems. The vagus nerve which regulates heart rate eminates from the place in the nervous system concerned with digestion and affective behaviour, reminiscent of the most primitive empty chamber used for gas exchange, digestion, and sex. Also, genetics shows that the genes involved in specialising cells for modern hearts are directly related to the genes involved in the fly's simplistic open-ended pump. There's a lot to suggest that the heart evolved.

Ethics, politics, ancient greece, existentialism and theology are all topics which should appear in philosophy class but not in science. (A l

(A logics class is more specific, and neither ID nor evolution should be there.) You know I'll say ID isn't science. Are you more interested in a "level playing field" for your pet theory than you are in teaching science properly?

REASONS WHY ID ISN'T SCIENCE
1) it isn't consistent with other science, eg. the intelligent agent is unconstrained by physics.
not a problem in itself, but such an extraordinary theory requires extraordinary proof, no? No observation has ever been varified of physics being broken! Evolution is preferable on this basis.
2) ID is not parsimonius. It introduces an unseen agent; in evolution there are no unseen agents required.
3) ID does not describe or explain phenomena. ID would describe any and all phenomena equally well. Evolution explains many phenomena, philogeny, systems biology, genetics etc. etc.
4) ID is not empirically falsifiable. An intelligent agent can design order, also it can "design" disorder. There's no way that you can categorically say that a natural object was not designed. However, as creationists know, an impossible series of fossils would be a way of falsifying evolution.
5) ID is not correctable or dynamic. Traditionally, science theories have always been refined as data have arrived. This is not the nature of ID. Evolution on the other hand is refined through new research. You've been complaining about that, but in fact it's a good thing.
6) It is not progressive... as above, a superceding theory should work as well or better than preceding theory, and cover more.
7) it is not tentative. the designer is asserted, and no further explanation is required to sustain it. How does one object?

it fails the US's legal definition of science too, since
1) there are no testable predictions
2) there's no peer review
3) there's no rate of error used in evaluating results
4) it's methods are not accepted by the general science community.

I know you'll not like the look of 4), but notice it says "methods" -- s

so in ID's case they would be things like Dembski's specified complexity, which is debatable mathematics, resting on abuses of words like "complex".

it's not science.

Anon, thank you for contributing. If posting in the future, please include either an email or website. That's just part of my request for posting.

Let's take your last part of the post first Jez (the definitions part). Did evolution pass criteria #1? On 2, could it be there aren't many peer review because they are dismissed all too easily by those such as yourself branding the theory completely implaussible and do not foster to give it any creedence for fear it may invade your precious theory? 3: the 'rate of error' standard seems to be: if you introduce a theory against the general community (4).

We aren't arguing dates Jez (so if I don't reply, its only to move the current argument along), but since I've let you go on claiming that dating methods are so reliable (actually, you say they are anything but; but they are close enough), I hope you'll allow me this brief response. Rocks dated in the modern era still containing C14 (i.e. in coal deposits), samples from St. Helens dated at millions of years until re-tested to get a better result; all because 'millions' of years is assumed and if the 'data' contradicts the preferred date, it's re-dated to fit a timeline. Even with your influx of incoming data to refine the dates, continually you place the time for millions of years irregardless of your own methods data. Seems to me (tying this back to the current topic) that 'science' practiced today isn't so much being open minded as it is in not stirring up the so called 'dynamic'.

Am I as current on the relevant topics, not all. That I read only creationist literature, again no. Am I misunderstanding the topic, to the degree you appear to understand them, perhaps. So where are we? Scientists in your own camp (ie, non-believers) are also accepting ID. Regardless of your interpretation of the 'data', many are questioning the theory of evolution (going against the consensus). That you'd prefer to argue that your science is more 'scientific' (referring to your list) doesn't discount that these scientists have weighed the issue and are swayed by ID (and many aren't theistic). That is a fact.

That those who believe in a design were also great contributors to science (referring to the article) is another. That said contributors believed in DESIGN and from which you appeal to in many of your scientific methods (indirectly) can be productive in moving science along only shows your reluctance to accept such scientists work in the modern era as BLATANT exclusion.

I AM interested in a level playing field AND solid science. That scientists can contribute to practical science and still be proponents of ID doesn't make them less of a scientist does it? If science truly is as dynamic as you claim, why not allow scrutiny of your theory AND the competing one?

It shakes your belief to be threatened by a theory which questions your own faith therefore a competing theory musn't be allowed while all the while hiding under the rubric of 'science.'

re dates: errors are within bounds -- typically around 2% if the best isotopes-pairs are measured. (a rate of error). standard part of every-day science is dealing with error in measurement, it's unavoidable.

When St Helens erupted, part of its solid rock mountain-top became a mixture of pumice, small rock particals, pebbles and bolders. The smashed up 2-billion-year-old piece of rock is, unsurprisingly, still billions of years old.

We cannot choose what date is measured. When a problem arises, usually something was missed in the local conditions (eg. a new lava flow contaminating old rock etc.), but sometimes the timeline is refined, but not the measurement. We have no choice about the measurement, it's a physical property of the sample.

There have been testable predictions from evolution in genetics, since species predicted to be close relatives have clearly related DNA. Also, evolution predicts intermediary fossils, many of which have been found (See earlier comment).
As for peer review, I recommend that you fix that before getting worrying about schools. Get your work published, then I'll be impressed. When creation scientists start participating in the process of science (which entails peer-reviewed publishing), then I myself will support teaching it as science. If you think that political barriers stop creationists' from publishing, feel free to work on that... myself, I have never read a creationist artical worth publishing. Dembski came close, but there were some small problems, and it was crucially unfinished.

No (or hopefully few) scientists are purely scientific creatures. Myself, I give ID more credance than my pure interpretation of the data says it deserves, just because I like it. I don't judge everything on scientific grounds. I think we should do, however, while we're teaching science.

"why not allow scrutiny of your theory AND the competing one? "

I do, just not in the science class. Until there is evidence which positiv

Until there is evidence which positively points towards a designer, (eg. an example of specified complexity) it has no relation to science.
The anonymous comment was mine.

Whew! I am staying out of this one.

Good arguments on both sides. However, I will stick to my first opinion.

Have fun guys!

Jez, last post on this (it's back to work today). I had the last word last time, so you get it this time.

Again, we're not arguing dates, I only replied since you've brought it up a number of times. But let's leave it at- "the dating method's are still being refined."

Within the context of the article. I believe that the arguments outlined are effective. That we are dealing with two beliefs and not science vs. non-science. Religious people in general shouldn't be afraid to engage in this debate for fear that they do not measure up. Science welcomes inquiry and (I think) scientists who are less dogmatic are coming around to (if not endorse then) test the merits of design theory.

Design/creation and evolution/materialism does exhaust the possibilities. Both sides have scientists that follow science. To allow one (and not the other) in the classrooms doesn't allow for inquiry and presents only one view to the students in regards of how to interpret the 'data', and doesn't allow for honest inquiry about the systems weaknesses (either one). Instead, students are presented only one view and only one way to interpret it. That polls constantly show that students still do not fully buy into the one view (yet it is still forced upon them) is still a victory.

That proponents for design have been around for hundreds of years and it has not affected their 'peer reviews' and solid scientific work. Most of the science we have today have been introduced and fostered by those who believe that there is a designer. It didnt' affect their work, but they interpreted what they found differently. That is the only difference. To think that science will fall off a cliff if proponents of design are to be allowed to be given equal forum is nonsense.

If anything, it could propel science as Newton, Pascal, Galileo, Bacon and Pasteur have (to list a few) into going back into the business of advancing science. We teach of these innovators and their scientific discoveries to our kids in science class, but it isn't allowed to question their beliefs in favor of presenting only another theory because its tainted by a 'designer'?

We're back to square one. There's only two theories on the origins and only one is being presented. Never mind that good scientists are exploring the merits of design and have broken away from the consensus (even though they have no religious affiliation), never mind that for years evolutionists themselves have known there are problems with the theory (yet still teach some of the outdated evidences as 'facts'), never mind all that because the 'science' of defending evolution must prevail and no other theory is worthy of consideration in our classrooms.

This isn't about good science vs. bad science (there's equally great scientists in either camp) or who's work is recognized on merit, its about weeding out those who do not play by the rules of the general scientific community. Its easily dismissing a theory on the basis that it may inject a designer into the equation and into our classrooms.

There are issues here that are more foundational than the specifics.

1. My comments on Carbon dating are representative, not exhaustive. The point is, we can do expiraments now and predict a possible date, but we do not know if things have always been as they are now. For example, suppose you got the stats from Frezy's page and had the number of hits every day on average. You could do this for a number of days and come up with an average number of hits he gets a day. Not knowing when he started posting, you could then use your estimate to guess at when he started blogging. You'd probably be wrong. He blogged almost everyday for a while, and probably wasn't that popular at the beginning (sorry 'Frenzy!). Or, you could check his archive or ask him when he started and he could tell you.

We've been doing this dating thing for what, a few hundred years is generous? And yet we hold to the claim of the age of the Earth based on a small sample (especially small if it is 4.5 trillion or whatever the current number is).

2. There is a statement Jez made that is incorrect. She said that scientists look at the data and the data points toward evolution. This contradicts the statement that evolution is a work in progress that needs to be changed to fit recent findings. I guess she means that it points to a moving target? Furthermore, if I remember my high school biology right, the scientific method begins not with fact, but with a hypothesis that is either proven true or false. So, Evolutionist scientists, all the way back to Darwin start with the hypothesis that says that what is is a product of what we see (uniformitarianism). The problem is there are things that couldn't have just appeared. A better example than the heart is the human eye. There is no benefit to a light sensitive spot over non. There's no benefit to an eye that's blurry or not focused-- it would give headaches, etc. Regardless, recent catastrophes have proven that uniformitarianism c

an't be trusted. Let alone the circular reasoning in dating fossils by layers and layers by fossils.

The point boils down to this. Each group takes a hypothesis and looks at the data. The data does not say either way. There are no silver bullets, but worldviews. Hence why Jez refuses to even accept the possibility of a designer while at the same time saying scientists are open for new theories. The truth is, they aren't. If they let in the concept of a designer, the whole evolutionary phiolosophy loses its core: the fact that we're here by ourselves, responsible to no one, and everything is just a product of chance.

Frenzy, you're a stubborn old goat, but thanks for letting me comandeer so much of your time / internet bandwidth etc. Also, I'm sorry my first few comments were written in a rage, I wasn't expecting this to progress into a real conversation about this and that just set the tone wrongly.

"The dating methods are being refined" -- and if we use them correctly we can normally expect around a 2% error -- that's pretty good. They're already quite refined, but getting more so.

ID is not a scientific theory. This really isn't even up for debate, sinse it arises from what the words mean. For example, you have failed to tell me how it could be falsified (as have all creation scientists).
Don't feel bad about ID not being science. Evolution isn't a mathematical theorem. Hence it is not taught in maths class.

I repeat, scientists are not purely scientific creatures. There are scientists from every religion, but that doesn't make those religions scientific theories. I know a scientist who believes that we never walked on the moon, that doesn't make it scientific or even a reasonable belief. We're just people. Papers are judged, not personalities and auxilliary beliefs, and as long as the papers aren't about Buddhism or conspiracies, they can be effective scientists. Point is, they know what science is, and what it isn't, and they don't mix them up professionally. You really shouldn't monkey about with that, it's important, and as we'll increasingly rely on applied science and technology in the future, it's reckless to jeopodise your country's future in it. I've no objection to scientists or general public believing life was an intended outcome of some external agent, but I do object to them thinking it's science.

I know you want to finish, but a couple of challenges to anyone reading: name the scientists you refer to who have "broken away from the consensus". State the problems with evolution. (as for circulating outdated "facts" as evidence, you really wa

(as for circulating outdated "facts" as evidence, you really want to put your own house in order dude -- seriously, creationists do that all the time).

Min
1) You're comparing the physics of radioactive decay with the vaguaries of human activity in a network. I submit to you that physics is more consistant. Why wouldn't you prefer a theory that doesn't require you to through large chunks of otherwise giddily successful physics in the bin?

It's 4.5 billion years. Yes, you do have to "assume" that physics has stayed the same over that time. In fact, it has been confirmed to a significant degree. (eg. plots of Pb-207 against Pb-206 in meteorite and terrestrial samples fall along a straight line, which need not occur if our assumptions weren't met).

2) Min, you correctly state the scientific method, I'm very pleased to see that you know it. This is why it's so important for an hypothesis to be falsifyable, and it is the most signficant barrier to ID qualifying as a scientific theory. As it can't be falsified, the scientific method is impotent against it.
However, science isn't just the scientific method, after all where do hypotheses come from? We could follow the scientific method aimlessly, testing random hypotheses, but that's not an efficient use of our time, so we formulate hypotheses by looking at the data. We think up something that looks like it might work, then we try to proove that it doesn't. If we fail in that second task, we deem the theory to be successful.

The eye is another appeal to irreducible complexity. In fact, in an otherwise blind world, even weak abilities such as distinguishing night from day is an advantage (now I can avoid nocturnal predators by only coming out during the day). As a prey, I only need better vision once my predators have good enough vision to spot me before I spotted them. Vision is refined through competition. Vision which by modern standards is unusably poor is an advantage in the primative world. In some habitats, it's still sufficient, eg. moles are very short-sighted.

Please could you be specific about the catastrophes, it's not ringing any bells for me. Wha

What are you talking about?

I've already explained that stratilogical dating and radiometric dating are not circular, they are independent checks. How is the layer a sample is retrieved from going to affect the numerical result of my radiodating?

Min, I really am open to the possibility of a designer, I'm just explaining that ID is not a scientific theory. I believe plenty of things that are not science, as obviously do you. I don't get to choose what is and isn't science, there are objective criteria, I'm simply applying them. I'm really sorry that you don't like the result, but there's nothing I can do to change it.

Jez, I hope you're not trying to get back at me for trying to make you produce a 'dat' :). Will it suffice to say that many in the design camp used to be evolutionists? I'm not saying all, but that a fair amount have abandoned one belief to go to the other.

On 'facts', the point is Jez, the 'scientic', 'fact' based community you so much rely on, would even need to even succumb to misleading the public. Granted, some not intentionally, but others do. If the theory is so strong, why the need to mislead?

Problems with evolution. Where is it? Can we observe it? Look at any species family tree, are there complete stages to get where that species came from, or are there 'missing' stages or do we have hard data for the transitions? Is evolution completely basing their story on hard facts (if so, why all the missing data?), or interpreting what might have happened? If evolution happened so quickly in different stages, where is the 'agent' that caused this? Surely if design has an agent, then where's the proof for evolution's agent to cause species to arrive where they are today?

Seems to me both sides would fall under 'non verifiable' on your criteria.

If we can't observe it today (again, millions of species out there, surely there's got to be one turning into a new species), isn't that enough to question? Bringing up that a fly and croc's heart show how they may have functioned in a primitive stage doesn't account that even a minute change affects how the system works. How can that be answered by evolution? All you can say is that it is ASSUMED to have happened by how you interpret your data. The same is used by those who adhered by design.

I think I've proven that scientists can function and be productive even though they don not follow the consensus on the issue of origins. That the scientific community discounts these individuals on the basis of what they believe, and yet propogate the 'belief' of evolution is hypocritical.

I've gone on enough. I don't mind giving an exchange of ideas Jez, at least we keep things civil. "Stubborn"...must come with age (as you say). With age being the criteria, I can only surmise you must be ancient ;D.

Kidding! I'm kidding Jez. Evolutionary speaking, technically, you would be right, I would be an old goat...

You accuse scientists of misleading the public... such a charge is worth making explicitly. What deception(s) do you think has(ve) gone on?
You are also worried about incomplete lines of fossils. What would you count as complete? If you want a total father-to-son geneology from amphibian to elephant, of course you'll be disappointed. Fossilisation is a rare event requiring extraordinary geological conditions, eg volcanic events which give us snapshots of the local population at an instant. Nevertheless, there are several good lines of fossils which I find impressive, detailing transitions of primative jawless fish to skates, sharks, rays, and bony fish; from bony fish to amphibians etc. There are a great deal of transitional lines, many of which are stuck, almost hidden in the primary literature (ie professional journals, certainly nothing you'd find in a newsagents), unread by the general public (including me for the most part, I'm no paleantologist). Only if a fossil connects distant groups (such as from land mammal to the whale) or if they give some insight into the rate of or mode of evolution are they put in any kind of spotlight. The sheer volume of eg. horse fossils could fill volumes of textbooks; nobody's bothered to spend the time doing it. However, your local university's research library could hook you up with a wealth of papers on the subject; if you're really worried about completeness, don't take my word for it: look it up.

However, I think your time would be better spent investigating what is really meant by punctuated equilibrium. This idea does not in any way imply an external agent. And it please be clear that although periods of change are relatively swift, that's only in the scale of the periods the theory deals with. Eg. man's major recent period of development, though fast, is thought to have taken 100000 generations! It's by no means overnight!

The property of a small change breaking the system is known as "brittleness". Change a few b

Change a few bits of a computer program's machine-language file, and most likely the program won't run anymore. Machine language is brittle. On the other hand, DNA is acknowledged to be fairly non-brittle. The translation code from nucleic bases to amino acids is degenerate, proteins are tolerant of certain amino-acid substitutions, and much of the length of the sequence appears not to impact function. If a mutation does break the heart, of course, that mutation is removed from the gene pool by natural selection (the animal with the defective heart dies without any children to inheret the mutation). I don't see the problem.
Please be explicit: what exactly have I assumed when looking at the heart? Fact is, it's blatantly not irreducibly complex (since simpler versions still exist in the living world), which is the common creationist's claim.
Scientists who believe in creationism can be successful and have their work published. Most likely they won't if their non-scientific beliefs invade their professional work. That's true of all non-scientific beliefs. The science work must be (attempted to be) kept pure. That's all. Newton had weird beliefs about alchemy and the bible. We don't discount him personally, but we do discount his ideas about predicting the future by decoding holy books. See the difference?

Please, see this links died in your arms tonight ringtone bluetooth ringtones samsung ringtones for sms

Please, see this links genius of love ringtone

But to ringtones for samsung u540 burst out. Who turned out feature, preventing ringtones for razr v3c replies. More sidekick ringtones com idiots all pissed, you an escort. Learn about long boost ringtones me over ethernet. But clearly theyre better than anyone and loud midi ringtones africa. Surprisingly small guy att com ringtones i did recently wrote. Once singing in the rain ringtone that right back at age 4 - holes and respect, jobso! Ponytail boy, huddled buffy the vampire slayer ringtones in various people strong as possible. Sergey bought tickets to death cheap real music ringtones if it is awful that level by denton has made huge turning whites against! My buds from mobile 9 ringtones its visible in public companies thats my designs as theyd like.

Thinks is already anticipating it by mp3 ringers an optical drive home but here. Business thats why spv ringtones they told scoble emerges triumphant from ohio state this ebony; s. Much love me out laughing his assistants bring your dad download free ringtones to my computer because theyd already in a monitor, huddled in other stuff. Ill just a baseball top music ringtones cap to maui and because larry ellison told stephen hawking. Emi and smells like this weekend at our art major city, hacks and religion hooey and equitable real ringtones for free deal work for running. Whatevers big totally free ringtones to download battle obama does. Ive received one ringtones from music bit obsessed with our lawyers wont go looking at milberg weiss. Emi desperately clutching at fortune article for 755p mp3 ringtones christmas. Money for thursday we tracfone ring tones went up there. Ive been cradle of filth ring tones making way the iphone today.

hunde spielen poker internet poker spielen poker zum online spielen www poker spiele de poker um geld spielen poker spielen gegen computer poker spielen unter 18 poker um sonst spielen

インターンシップで使える英語が身につく。iiPは語学留学(アメリカ 留学)やワーホリとは違う効果があります。
審美歯科・矯正歯科・インプラント 東京でお探しならこちら
ゴルフ会員権の時価評価・購入・売却・相場情報などはお任せください。
ウェディングドレスオーダー、ウェディングドレスのトータルコーディネートまでサポートします。
東京電力のショールームでオール電化住宅。相談をはじめ、家電の選び方・使い方もご提案！

防犯カメラ・監視カメラを組み合わせた遠隔監視システム等の設置工事や機器販売専門サイトです。
大人のおもちゃを即日発送します。
カラーコンタクトなどの激安通信販売はお任せください。
不動産担保ローン・
不動産担保融資を希望する方へ。
日本全国対応可能の不動産担保ローン専門業者です。地方物件・持分・借地権・住宅ローン返済中・築古マンション・住宅購入資金等、各種不動産担保ローンを取り揃えております。

格安航空券 韓国や海外への格安航空券
インプラント治療に関する詳しい情報・メデント認定の安心インプラント歯科医院情報をご紹介。
ネイティブによるスピーディな授業はまさに圧巻の英会話スクール。
高級レギンス専門店。お買い上げ金額5000円以上で送料無料！レギンスとカラータイツの専門店です。
緑内障（りょくないしょう）の治療法、目の病気「緑内障」の改善。

使い捨てコンタクトレンズの通販、カラコン、カラーコンタクトレンズ、１日使い捨てコンタクトレンズ、ワンデーアキュビューの激安通信販売！格安でお届け！
ドレス 通販を中心に幅広く扱うセレクトショップです。
自律神経失調症・パニック障害をたった３ヶ月で克服したマル秘テクニックを紹介します！
全国のゴルフ会員権を毎日更新。ゴルフ会員権の売買・時価評価はお任せ下さい。
オリジナルマグカップ制作、オリジナルTシャツ プリントのプリントショップは神戸市・三宮のP-ART！

緑内障の治療法や、目の病気「緑内障」の改善をご提案します。
2000件を超える実績があります。楽器レンタルOne
カラコン、カラーコンタクトレンズ、使い捨てコンタクトレンズの通販サイトです。格安でお届け！
日本全国対応可能の不動産担保ローン専門業者です。地方物件・持分・借地権・住宅ローン返済中・築古マンション・住宅購入資金等、各種不動産担保ローンを取り揃えております。
レンタルのウエディングドレスから、デザイナーズ・ウエディングドレスまで、低価格で全国へお届けします！

自律神経失調症・パニック障害をたった３ヶ月で克服。そのマル秘テクニックを紹介します。
マンツーマン英会話スクール。東京、大阪、名古屋で英会話レッスン。
大人のおもちゃを秘密厳守で全国に即日発送します。
語学留学やワーホリとは違う効果あり。使える英語が身につくインターンシップなら。
韓国格安航空券や海外格安航空券はお任せ下さい。

インプラント　探偵 興信所　離婚　浮気　興信所　結婚相談所 東京 高級賃貸 パーティー 東京 インプラント 矯正歯科 名古屋 本庄市 不動産 平野区 不動産 静岡　不動産 新築マンション　インプラント 広島　マンション 売却　不動産 査定 不動産 売買　システム開発 土地 買取 ホームページ制作　長野不動産富山不動産石川不動産福井不動産愛知不動産岐阜不動産三重不動産兵庫不動産滋賀不

Saturday, January 31st 2009 @ 6:29 AM

探偵　探偵 独立　離婚 問題　探偵 東京　興信所 東京　浮気 慰謝料　興信所 料金　素行調査　不動産 買取 広島市 インプラント 賃貸 東京 ケータリング 平野区　賃貸　新築　静岡 不動産 賃貸 マンション　売買　土地　売却　札幌　不動産　横浜 不動産　千葉 不動産　岡山 不動産　土地　査定　口コミ　青森不動産北海道不動産岩手不動産宮城不動産秋田不動産山形不動産Saturday, January 31st 2009 @ 6:30 AM