|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/6/2006 3:16:05 PM |
please give me a few examples where public schools are allowed to have prayer or to be taught religion. Please be exact.
I at no point said that Public Schools are allowed to lead prayers. That is misrepresentation of my words.
I did however say that it is acceptable for public schools to teach ABOUT religions. (Notice the word about in the sentence here).
1968, Epperson vs. Arkansas and 1987, Edwards vs. Aguillard. These two cases stated clearly that any teachings that were primarily religious in nature were contrary to the Establishment Clause, but they go further than that. Both Judges ruled that teachings that are not primarily religious in nature are not contrary to the Establishment Clause and as such should be left in the curriculum. Therefore teaching about religion is acceptable as long as you are teaching about that religion for a reason other than to persuade pupils to join that religion, thus it is ok to teach about the religions of ancient Rome and Egypt in history classes.
These are not my interpretations but the rulings of Two Supreme court Justices
sweetheart (the use of this term is protected under amendment 1, us constitution, freedom of speech, and don't forget you defending to the death to protect my rights)
Actually it is not, rights or the individual can be waived when they seriously impinge on the rights of another. You are free to use derogatory terms like the word sweetheart or even niger, but you are not free to refer to an individual or group with those derogatory terms as to do so seriously impinges on their rights.
please give me examples of "lies and disinformation".
Kitzmiller v Dover, 2005.
U. S. District Judge John E. Jones issued a 139-page findings of fact and decision in which he ruled that the Dover mandate was unconstitutional. Judge Jones's decision was surprisingly broad. He concluded that "ID is not science," but rather is a religious theory that had no place in the science classroom. Jones found three reasons for his conclusion that intelligent design was a religious, and not a scientific, theory. First, he found ID violated "the self-imposed convention" of the scientific method by relying upon a supernatural explanation for a natural phenomenon, rather that the approach favoured in science: testability. Second, ID is based on the same "contrived dualism" as creation science, namely its suggestion that every piece of evidence tending to discredit evolution confirms intelligent design. Jones found ID's "irreducible complexity" argument to be "a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design." Finally, Jones concluded that the expert testimony offered by the defendants in support of ID had been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers.
Are you going to join the military to defend to the death so others may have there rights?
No as this was a term of speech and not literal, It would be impossible for me to defend to the death your rights whilst in the army wherein I would have my rights striped down. The army is not there to defend your rights; it is there to defend your interests such as property and home range, and to defend your life and person. Your liberties are guaranteed by the government’s rule of law, not by the army.
I view it as a legal document which inhibits the government absolute any involvement of religion and gives the people complete religious freedom, but outside federal institutions. Is this a dichotomy, no. It does take thought. Public schools are institutions which fall under Federal law. In short, federal law requires these institutions to be void of religion, period.
However that is not what the law actually states. The law states that congress shall make no law regarding OR PROHIBITNG the freedom of expression. The law dose not require the schools themselves to be void of religious teaching. The law requires that the school bodies do not teach religion. This is an important difference as it means that prayer is acceptable at school, so long as it is not taken by the school bodies (i.e. teachers, headmasters, ect.). Bible study groups can have space allocated to them, just as music groups can, because space on school grounds is not part of the school bodies, only premises. But unlike music groups they can not receive school funding as to do so could be seen as an endorsement by the school bodies.
As I have pointed out above, public schools are state institutions. It is a clear example of "separation of church and state".
The separation of church and state is not a literal one; it is a separation of the institutions of the church and the institutions of the state. There is to be no law passed by church, and there is to be no religion in the mandatory of the state. But the church may use state grounds such as schools, jails and courts. In most court houses, hospitals and jails there is a place set aside for religious activity such as prayer that can be used freely by anyone. The law is not against the use state premises being used for religious activity, it is against state legislature contain religious worship.
I would also like to point out that worship and teaching is not the same thing. It is possible to teach about something without worshiping something.
What do her not being an American have anything to do with it except maybe she doesn’t live with it in her heart.
My not being American has no bearing on this discussion at all. It’s just interesting that’s all.
anyone 3 miles off our coast lines, or cross a border, has no standing in American Law, period, get it!
Really? So the fact that I have spent years learning US legislature makes no difference at all, I’m not American and therefore MUST be ignorant and thick? What about US citizens on holiday, do they no longer count as American when they go abroad?
the points she got wrong I pointed out, hence she belittles us Americans and she distributes false laws to unassuming America readers of her so called logic. Those who read her posts should also review her profile.
At no point have I attempted to belittle anyone, nor have I spread false laws. I have explained clearly the law as set out in the US constitution, as any American lawyer would follow.
My school was null of religion except in assembly and only in song, My understanding today is it has been stopped many years ago.
Did you not receive any education in history at all then? It is impossible to teach over half of the history of Britain or America without religion being involved. Or was the Holocaust just never mentioned in your school?
First bit of illogical thinking. States must follow federal law when it comes to federal institutions such as public schools, hereafter mention as school, court house, states and their institutions.
I'm afraid the poor grasp of logic is on your sides. Schools, court houses, ect, are the foundations in which Public institutions are housed, not the institutions themselves. The institution consists of its peoples and its legislature, not its property.
the down side is she confused individual rights with federal law on its institutions including state law to comply with federal law,
No I did not. The sections of amendment 5 and 14 that I posted are further support to amendment 1. Individual rights to worship and to be taught what they chose are part of the debate and can not be ignored. The state must respect the rights of individuals to worship as they chose as is stated in amendment 5 and 14. The state must also allow the citizens to be taught in an atmosphere free from religious persecution and allow the citizens to be taught what they chose. The state can not deny its citizens the right to chose their education.
In other words, the state can not force you to learn about god, nor can it deny you the right to learn about god. This is personal freedom, as guaranteed under amendments 5 and 14. That is why I included them.
About using the word sweetheart, I then read her profile and saw the photo she posted. I kind of understand why she blasted off as she did. It wasn't impressive. I used the word twice and another male follower stepped in
Well to each their own.
“Are you disrespecting me? Do I look bovered?”
 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/6/2006 4:43:08 PM |
Kitzmiller v Dover, 2005.
...He concluded that "ID is not science," but rather is a religious theory that had no place in the science classroom.
This brings up some interesting points that, after reading "Darwin's Black Box," seemed somewhat relevant to me.
Jones found three reasons for his conclusion that intelligent design was a religious, and not a scientific, theory. First, he found ID violated "the self-imposed convention" of the scientific method by relying upon a supernatural explanation for a natural phenomenon, rather that the approach favoured in science: testability.
Looking at it as second-generation Creation science, I'd agree. However, in the book, Michael Behe tries at length to point out that we don't need to have an idea of who the hypothetical designer might be. It suffices, according to his logic, that we can infer that design has occured.
Second, ID is based on the same "contrived dualism" as creation science, namely its suggestion that every piece of evidence tending to discredit evolution confirms intelligent design. Jones found ID's "irreducible complexity" argument to be "a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design."
This is a good point, I'd say. Certainly, the challenges to Darwinian evolution ought to be addressed, and any questions ("how does this system, which appears to be irreducibly complex, come about by Darwinian mechanisms?" etc.) should be valued for their role as a starting point in further investigations. I don't honestly see how this contrived "lack of proof constitutes proof of lack" argument on the part of ID really constitutes a religious point of view, however.
Finally, Jones concluded that the expert testimony offered by the defendants in support of ID had been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers.
"This evidence refutes that interpretation of evidence." Yep, that's the way science works, at least in part. Even guided by an ideological viewpoint, however, it's not necessarily religious. It certainly isn't on the part of those refuting the claims of the ID movement.
Now, I'm not supporting ID here. Anyone who's paid attention to my posts should realise that. The point I'm making is that, while yes, far too much religious support and starting point goes into the ID gig, it's really not necessarily a religious thing. Hell, the UFOlogists could get involved (and, I'm sure probably have) and say that it's not God, but aliens that did the designing. From what I've been reading lately, however, it seems that the conviction to accept design, while in many cases probably motivated by religious fervour or dedication, is really a philosophical position to take. Thus, at least in my view, while the debate over whether or not to include an untested, widely refuted hypothesis as a scientific theory in public schools is a clash of religion and secular society, the real argument between ID and Darwinian gradualism is philosophical. It's more a grudge match between naturalism and a belief that we can divine some "guiding hand" in the patterns of nature. At least, that's what I think so far. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/6/2006 6:28:55 PM | Note: Posts Deleted:
User-"faux-moderating"/Off-topic Posts/Thread-Jacking
Only Warning/Final Warning
Those (above) contributing/posting on-topic = disregard. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/7/2006 3:48:27 AM | well here we go again.
Both Judges ruled that teachings that are not primarily religious in nature are not contrary to the Establishment Clause and as such should be left in the curriculum. thus it is ok to teach about the religions of ancient Rome and Egypt in history classes. the key word is where it is taught, and its no a current day religion. it is taught in history not religion therefore under the establishment clause it is not religion In addition the judges ruled are not primaily regious in nature and not contracy to the establisment clause... my dear, you don't get a passing grade on this
Really? So the fact that I have spent years learning US legislature makes no difference at all,until you become an america citizen it will mean a lot. I’m not American and therefore MUST be ignorant and thick?no, you just don't have any legal standing. What about US citizens on holiday, do they no longer count as American when they go abroad?as long as the have a vail americ passport they can vote, etc
I'm afraid the poor grasp of logic is on your sides. Schools, court houses, ect, are the foundations in which Public institutions are housed, not the institutions themselves. The institution consists of its peoples and its legislature, not its property. thank god we have the constitution over there head the constitution akways comes first!!
However that is not what the law actually states. The law states that congress shall make no law regarding OR PROHIBITNG the freedom of expression. The law dose not require the schools themselves to be void of religious teaching. The law requires that the school bodies do not teach religion.i'm tired answering your posts. if the courts deem it religious the school must cease, period. there will be no christian bible studies in schools, i'm pretty sure of that. see ya sweetheart. it's been fun. This is an important difference as it means that prayer is acceptable at school, so long as it is not taken by the school bodies (i.e. teachers, headmasters, ect.). Bible study groups can have space allocated to them, just as music groups can, because space on school grounds is not part of the school bodies, only premises. But unlike music groups they can not receive school funding as to do so could be seen as an endorsement by the school bodies.
Definition of state
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article discusses states as sovereign political entities; for other meanings, see state (disambiguation).
A state is an organized political community, occupying a territory, and possessing internal and external sovereignty, which successfully claims the monopoly of the use of force.
It may or may not have an organized government to exist. Several states have had episodes were two or more groups dispute control of the government (i.e. China in 1912) but they never lost their state quality. Thus, a government is not necessary for a state to be a state as long as its existence is recognized by the international community. However, recognition of the state's claim to sovereignty by other states, enables it to enter into international agreements. Moreover, it needs a government to control its internal affairs.
ID case laws
Decision
On June 19, 1987 the Supreme Court, in a seven to two majority opinion written by Justice William J. Brennan, ruled that the Act constituted an unconstitutional infringement on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, based on the three-pronged Lemon test, which is:
1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.
However it did note that alternative scientific theories could be taught:
We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. . . . [T]eaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.
Justices Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist dissented, accepting the Act's stated purpose of "protecting academic freedom" as a sincere and legitimate secular purpose by construing "academic freedom" as "students' freedom from indoctrination", in this case their freedom "to decide for themselves how life began, based upon a fair and balanced presentation of the scientific evidence". However, they also critized the first prong of the Lemon test, noting that "to look for the sole purpose of even a single legislator is probably to look for something that does not exist".
Consequences
The ruling had great effect on the creationist movement. It only affected state schools, with independent schools, home schools, Sunday schools and Christian schools free to still teach creationism. Within two years a creationist textbook had been produced Of Pandas and People which attacked evolutionary biology without mentioning the identity of the supposed "intelligent designer". This form of creationism, known as intelligent design creationism started in the early 1990s. This would eventually lead to another court case, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, which went to trial on September 26, 2005 and was decided on December 20, 2005 in favor of the plaintiffs, who charged that ID was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The 139 page opinion of Kitzmiller v. Dover was hailed as a landmark decision, firmly establishing that creationism and intelligent design were religious teachings and not areas of legitimate scientific research.
LAW CENTER
Judge rules against 'intelligent design' in science class
From Delia Gallagher and Phil Hirschkorn
CNN
Friday, December 23, 2005; Posted: 11:19 a.m. EST (16:19 GMT)
vert.jones.ap.jpg
U.S. District Judge John Jones concluded in a 139-page decision that intelligent design is not science.
RELATED
On The Scene: Toobin: 'A very important precedent'
• Judges ask tough questions in evolution sticker case
• Anti-creationism professor: Resignation was forced
Pennsylvania
Intelligent design
or Create Your Own
Manage Alerts | What Is This?
HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- A Pennsylvania school district cannot teach in science classes a concept that says some aspects of science were created by a supernatural being, a federal judge has ruled.
In an opinion issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Jones ruled that teaching "intelligent design" would violate the Constitutional separation of church and state.
State religion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A state religion (also called an established church or state church) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state. The term state church is associated with Christianity, and is sometimes used to denote a specific national branch of Christianity. Closely related to state churches are what sociologists call ecclesiae, though the two are slightly different. State religions are examples of the official or government-sanctioned establishment of religion, as distinct from theocracy.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/7/2006 7:26:14 AM | Looking at it as second-generation Creation science, I'd agree. However, in the book, Michael Behe tries at length to point out that we don't need to have an idea of who the hypothetical designer might be. It suffices, according to his logic, that we can infer that design has occured.
Except of course that Behe is simply dissembling. He's a Catholic Creationist.
The problem I have with the 'stripped down' version of I.D. that says 'design' can be found in nature without claiming 'Goddidit', is that I don't know anyone actually who believes it. All the I.D. proponents are, pretty much, rebranded Creationists.
And as a scientific program of research, it's been a sterile field. You end up with scientific illiterates who grab hold of it as some sort of rational justification for their personal theological cocktail.
The *plus* side of I.D. as poorly-camouflaged Creationism would be that it allows various sorts as Young-Earth, Old-Earth and even the few Flat-Earth Creationists to all agree on a common position. And so far as it does that it will keep running into problems as failing the Lemon test.
On talk.origins we normally refer to the hypothetical aliens-who-created-life as the Xordaxians. It really lightened up the debate when people started making up 'progress reports' back to the Xordaxian High Command about their progress on Earth.
The continued negative impact of the fundamentalists on science in the US keeps on going, from their attacks on evolution, public health, climate science, population issues, etc., etc., etc. One can only hope it doesn't spread.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/7/2006 7:33:40 AM |
i'm tired answering your posts. if the courts deem it religious the school must cease, period. there will be no christian bible studies in schools, i'm pretty sure of that. see ya sweetheart. it's been fun.
Since you posted the text of the 'Lemon test', you might want to try reading it?
I repaste:
1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.
As long as a topic or subject in school does not violate the above, it can be 'religious' in nature.
I.D. could serve as a basis for a non-secular research programme. The problem is that the people pushing I.D. are doing so for secular, Christian, reasons, and so, since the courts *do* look at motive and purpose, it lost in Dover. It didn't help that the trustees who voted for it lied on the stand about their actions. Good Christians all, no doubt.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/7/2006 9:40:48 AM | until you become an america citizen it will mean a lot
Its nice to know that you disregard my rights unless I am an American. Fortunately the law makes provision for anyone who is not a US citizen to still have legal rights, that means that everyone has legal status in the US and can bring or defend actions in the courts despite thier citizency. Or are you forgeting about the countles numbers of brits who have brought actions against American companies in American courts? My standing in any court in America is just as great as yours.
thank god we have the constitution over there head the constitution akways comes first!!
The constituion is PART of the legislaturew of ALL american instatutions and so is not "over thier heads" but at thier core.
if the courts deem it religious the school must cease, period.
At what point did I ever say this was not the case? You seem to be ussing the words Religious and Religion interchangeably. They are not the same thing.
there will be no christian bible studies in schools, i'm pretty sure of that.
Why not? Schools grounds are not part of the state. Go reread that diffinition of the state that you posted and tell me where in that it explains that state is defined by its property?
School grounds are property, not instatutions, and therefore are free for the use of all, the situation only becomes contrary to the establishment clause when the school bodie as an instatuion of the state becomes involved, so long as they are not involved there is no contradiction.
see ya sweetheart
Do not call me sweetheart. I have a name. Please stop ussing derogitory and sexist remarks when you talk to me, I will not be belittled by anyone.
ID case laws
Thank you for everything from there down as it just confirms what I have previously stated. Either you did not actualy read any of it, or your K&U of legal text is not very good because all of that supports my earlier posts, go back and reread if you like.
I have to appologise for not citing many examples of prior cases by the way, it is not easy easy to get hold of casenotes from America when you are in Scotland and I refuse to use the internet as a primary source. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/7/2006 8:35:21 PM | Actually for US legal issues, FindLaw (www.findlaw.com) is an excellent free source.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/8/2006 8:02:39 AM | Answer: Both
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever at all that creationism can not co-exist with evolution.
Don't agree?
Then keep studying. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/8/2006 10:59:43 AM |
Except of course that Behe is simply dissembling. He's a Catholic Creationist.
That's possible, certainly. However, just going by the book, and what I've interpreted from it, it's definitely a philosophical position. Beyond that, however, and I believe Wonka made a similar argument at one point, one needn't be able to identify the designer to be able to infer design. An interesting point you make regarding the personal motivations many have behind supporting the position, I'll certainly grant. However, I'm still somewhat impressed by the distinction that the argument really does seem to boil down to philosophical differences between naturalism and supernaturalism (if that's the proper way to put it). Again, this doesn't justify including ID as science in public schools, but I do find a bit of comfort in the fact that it's truly a philosophical position, equally perverted for ideological religious and political reasons.
And as a scientific program of research, it's been a sterile field. You end up with scientific illiterates who grab hold of it as some sort of rational justification for their personal theological****ail.
I'm afraid I'd also have to agree with you on this one. Unfortunately, in the book, Behe does rather a transparent job of trying to obfuscate the fact that he's simply already decided what the "truth" is, and is only picking out what interpretations will support it. I believe that the trouble with the "sterility" of the field, is something he himself points out, that one can find a great many systems in the biology of organisms that span a range of "obviously not designed," to "could have been designed," to "would have to have been designed." The (probably unintentional) blatant admission that the assignation of value as to what's to be chosen being subjective, seriously hamstrings his argument, if not the philosophical foundation of it.
The *plus* side of I.D. as poorly-camouflaged Creationism would be that it allows various sorts as Young-Earth, Old-Earth and even the few Flat-Earth Creationists to all agree on a common position. I agree. It definitely does seem to support a united front of religious institutions in the face of legitimate science. I just don't feel that this form of abuse completely invaldates the philosophical proposition. And so far as it does that it will keep running into problems as failing the Lemon test. I don't think I entirely agree on this point. Sure, there's a definite correlation, as has been seen in political manouvrings by religious institutions. However, I'm not convinced that, just because a particular idea is embraced by folks of similar groups, that it applies only to them. The continued negative impact of the fundamentalists on science in the US keeps on going, from their attacks on evolution, public health, climate science, population issues, etc., etc., etc. One can only hope it doesn't spread. I'm a bit less worried about the spread than I am about the potency. It's not how many accept it, it's whether they succeed in altering secular policy according to religious notions. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever at all that creationism can not co-exist with evolution. I would be one to invite you to explain how this is meant. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/9/2006 10:06:01 AM |
Answer: Both
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever at all that creationism can not co-exist with evolution.
Don't agree?
Then keep studying.
To be clear, 'creationism' is, to me, a belief in a 'creator'. It's uncontroversial. It's when you make specific detailed claims about the 'creator' that it tends to all fall apart.
What is generally called 'Creationism' is something more detailed, also called 'Scientific Creationism', which is an attempt to put the Book of Genesis on a scientific footing. This normally involves attempts to prove the Earth is some 10,000 years old and the existance of the Noachic Deluge. Lately, assorted Creationists have taken to dissembling about their motives and now support 'Intelligent Design' as a 'no-name' version of Creationism.
Nobody's fooled.
There's no conflict between 'creationism' and evolution, but Creationism and evolution simply don't mix.
--R. | |
|
teajey
|
Joined: 1/1/2006
Msg: 3562 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/12/2006 11:34:11 PM | | Feral, I have to say I enjoy reading your thoughts and opinions on this topic. I'm glad you took the time, as I believe many wouldn't have bothered, to actually read the stuff from Behe and Johnson instead of just writing them off because of their non naturalistic assumptions. I would completely agree with you that it ultimately boils down to a philosophical grudge match between naturalism and supernaturalism. Maybe ''death match'' is more accurate since it's hard to see how they can both be true. I think the tension between the all encompassing enormity of these ideas and the finality of a choice one way or the other is why the mere discussion of it evokes such emotivism and controversy. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/13/2006 1:27:07 PM | Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
By John Rennie
When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.
Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.
Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.
To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
"Survival of the fittest" is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In a pioneering study of finches on the Galápagos Islands, Peter R. Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild [see his article "Natural Selection and Darwin's Finches"; Scientific American, October 1991].
The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.
3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.
This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Galápagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.
The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.
Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.
It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.
4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.
No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept.
Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless.
Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.
5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.
Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more. These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology.
Unfortunately, dishonest creationists have shown a willingness to take scientists' comments out of context to exaggerate and distort the disagreements. Anyone acquainted with the works of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University knows that in addition to co-authoring the punctuated-equilibrium model, Gould was one of the most eloquent defenders and articulators of evolution. (Punctuated equilibrium explains patterns in the fossil record by suggesting that most evolutionary changes occur within geologically brief intervals--which may nonetheless amount to hundreds of generations.) Yet creationists delight in dissecting out phrases from Gould's voluminous prose to make him sound as though he had doubted evolution, and they present punctuated equilibrium as though it allows new species to materialize overnight or birds to be born from reptile eggs.
When confronted with a quotation from a scientific authority that seems to question evolution, insist on seeing the statement in context. Almost invariably, the attack on evolution will prove illusory.
6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.
The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, "If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?" New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.
The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.
Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.
8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.
As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.
9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.
This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.
The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.
More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.
10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)--bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.
Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.
Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.
11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.
Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species.
Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved.
12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.
Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations--sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms' physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership.
Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection--for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits--and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.
13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.
Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.
Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds--it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.
Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.
14. Living things have fantastically intricate features--at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels--that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.
This "argument from design" is the backbone of most recent attacks on evolution, but it is also one of the oldest. In 1802 theologian William Paley wrote that if one finds a pocket watch in a field, the most reasonable conclusion is that someone dropped it, not that natural forces created it there. By analogy, Paley argued, the complex structures of living things must be the handiwork of direct, divine invention. Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species as an answer to Paley: he explained how natural forces of selection, acting on inherited features, could gradually shape the evolution of ornate organic structures.
Generations of creationists have tried to counter Darwin by citing the example of the eye as a structure that could not have evolved. The eye's ability to provide vision depends on the perfect arrangement of its parts, these critics say. Natural selection could thus never favor the transitional forms needed during the eye's evolution--what good is half an eye? Anticipating this criticism, Darwin suggested that even "incomplete" eyes might confer benefits (such as helping creatures orient toward light) and thereby survive for further evolutionary refinement. Biology has vindicated Darwin: researchers have identified primitive eyes and light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and have even tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through comparative genetics. (It now appears that in various families of organisms, eyes have evolved independently.)
Today's intelligent-design advocates are more sophisticated than their predecessors, but their arguments and goals are not fundamentally different. They criticize evolution by trying to demonstrate that it could not account for life as we know it and then insist that the only tenable alternative is that life was designed by an unidentified intelligence.
15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.
"Irreducible complexity" is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap--a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole. What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. He makes similar points about the blood's clotting mechanism and other molecular systems.
Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells.
The key is that the flagellum's component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. Similarly, the blood-clotting system seems to involve the modification and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego. So some of the complexity that Behe calls proof of intelligent design is not irreducible at all.
Complexity of a different kind--"specified complexity"--is the cornerstone of the intelligent-design arguments of William A. Dembski of Baylor University in his books The Design Inference and No Free Lunch. Essentially his argument is that living things are complex in a way that undirected, random processes could never produce. The only logical conclusion, Dembski asserts, in an echo of Paley 200 years ago, is that some superhuman intelligence created and shaped life.
Dembski's argument contains several holes. It is wrong to insinuate that the field of explanations consists only of random processes or designing intelligences. Researchers into nonlinear systems and cellular automata at the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere have demonstrated that simple, undirected processes can yield extraordinarily complex patterns. Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore emerge through natural phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But that is far different from saying that the complexity could not have arisen naturally.
"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics.
In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligences?)
Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion--that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain.
Logically, this is misleading: even if one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. Moreover, it does not make one intelligent-design theory more reasonable than another. Listeners are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituting their religious beliefs for scientific ideas.
Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3564 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/13/2006 1:41:04 PM | Excellent post, this covers most of the creationist arguments, and their subsequent de-bunking in this long thread.
Discover magazine (Feb/05) had a great article on the scientific validity of the fact of evolution, and the theory of natural selection recently:
http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2005/articles_2005_Avida.html
It would be interesting to see a digital model of creationism, with of course: only the biblical definitions of "God(s)" available in various texts, re: who/what/why, ....and see if it plays out......... re: how/what/when, as it does so accuractly in Avida. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/13/2006 2:10:13 PM | Sweet Taking, Thanks for the input just about sums up what we've been learning here. Expect for how tasty brains are.
And Boy! what a huge cat you have there. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3566 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/13/2006 3:15:37 PM | For me, to posit a supernatural deity's existance withing the framework of evolution/scientific method/logic, when one considers the nature of "faith" itself, always reminds me of, "Q.E.D.":
In The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams hypothesises a dialogue between Man and God concerning whether a creature, the babel fish, which allows anyone who places it in their ear to understand any language, is too useful to have evolved purely by chance and therefore must have been divinely created.
GOD: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing."
MAN: "But the babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
GOD: "Oh dear; I hadn't thought of that." Whereupon he promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/14/2006 9:30:22 AM | http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/03/americans_overwhelmingly_suppo.html.
http://idthefuture.com/2006/03/an_interview_with_david_berlin.html | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/14/2006 11:07:39 AM | OK, I have no problem with:
This poll shows widespread support for the idea that when biology teachers teach Darwin’s theory of evolution they should present the scientific evidence that supports it as well as the evidence against it,
People need to know both sides before they can reach an informed conclusion. But then the same should be true for any subject, including religion (see late's post above).
But I still don't get:
students should also be able to learn about scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life.
What scientific evidence? That is/was the whole point of my post to begin with and we ain't seen it yet.
As to the interview with David Berlinski the two of them are just playing games with words and semantics no really info there, thanks. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/14/2006 3:22:30 PM | | http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=719 | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3570 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/14/2006 4:16:50 PM | What scientific evidence? That is/was the whole point of my post to begin with and we ain't seen it yet.
Well, in regards to Creationism/ID, as far as the scientific community is concerned, C/ID isn't a science, the courts agree. If I remember correctly, the judge in the Dover case used words like "lies", and "deceit" in regards to the C/ID arguments.
Of course, the ID/Creationist sites pretty state that they reject any scientific evidence that doesn't agree with their faith, in their "stratements of faith".
......This has all been dealt with on this thread, though I don't recall seeing the Argumentum Ad Populum fallacy 'til now.
when biology teachers teach Darwin’s theory of evolution they should present the scientific evidence that supports it as well as the evidence against it,
So is this scientific evidence counter to the scientific fact of evolution, or just the theory of natural selection that explains it?
Is this "peer review" stuff? ....Or, more pseudo-science? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/15/2006 8:04:48 AM | | "God does not play dice with the universe" - said Albert Einstein | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/15/2006 11:09:07 AM |
"God does not play dice with the universe" - said Albert Einstein
Of course not, God is a sore losser and hates it when the universe wins.
| |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3573 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/15/2006 2:12:15 PM | "God does not play dice with the universe" - said Albert Einstein
A double fallacy argument, .....not a new one on this thread either
- Strawman fallacy...... another example of "mis-quoting"
- Appeal to Authority fallacy.
The objection raised by Einstein in this famous quote was in reaction to something that had absolutely nothing to do with evolution or biology, it was regarding his objection to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
Bose-Einstein condensation effects at near absolute-zero, and later work by The British physicist, John Bell shows that this was one of the things Einstein was wrong about.
Considering Einstein's belief in "God" was the "God of Spinozza", .....to properly correct this mistake of Einstein's, one sould re-state his famous quote.
"God does play dice with the universe."
- All the evidence points to him being an inveterate gambler, who throws the dice on every possible occasion.
Consistant with a "God" who didn't create the universe, but is a product of it, ....and isn't concerned with mankind in the least, .....which is basically what Einstein is talking about when he speaks about, "God". | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/15/2006 2:36:51 PM | | Albert Einstein was born in 1879 to Jewish parents in the city of Ulm, Germany. The definition of his profession is that he was "an American theoretical physicist". There was a persecution of Jews in Germany and he came to America. So you see Einstein was a Jew. Jews are monotheists. They worship One True God Elohim who created everything. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3575 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 3/15/2006 2:42:35 PM | Aside from hijacking the thread topic, ....you are misinformed.
Einstein's beliefs concerning "God" (in his own words), are a matter of record, not an inherited genetic trait (the irony!), as you imply.
If you are still unsure of what is being dicussed in this thread, do yourself a favor and look this up too, it's on the first page, ...also a matter of record. | |
|
|
| Page 143 of 156
|
116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 |
|
Home
login 
