"Intelligent Design": Fine for the philosophy class, but anything more than a brief mention of it (perhaps in a historical perspective, the way that alchemy might briefly be mentioned when introducing chemistry) in an actual science class seems to me like a waste of time. (Unless it's a module specifically about the difference between science and pseudoscience, in which case ID is a fine example of pseudoscience.)

Teaching "the controversy" is impossible. There is no scientific controversy about ID. Political controversy, sure, and perhaps a philosophical controversy, but ID is not even science--how could there be a scientific controversy over something that isn't even science? Using the phrase "teach the controversy" is misleading.

Curious if Stan Persky has a specific place in a specific science class that he feels would be appropriate to include information on ID, and what he would choose to leave out to make room for this (assuming that it would take up more than a few minutes).

-Travis

I've long sort of admired Mr Persky for his activism, but I would never - and would even less now - select him as my intellectual "pinch hitter", not even for an intended walk.

There is no proof of any kind to support a belief in a God of any description, not even for some sort of wussy "cosmic consciousness".

This is why it is called Faith. You have to believe whoever told you, for if you'd never been exposed to the concept of a God, you'd never, ever, come up with it on your own, since it runs so contrary to simple experience or logic.

Giving credence to I D is just more postmodernist BS of the kind which destroys our (unattainable) quest for "truth" and replaces it with a "oh well, everybody has their own right to an opinion". Can you imagine teaching such nonsense to budding scientists in whom you are trying to instill a necessary respect for Scientific rigor?

There are good reasons why religion is not taught in our schools, and university students don't need to be softened up preparatory to their becoming teachers.

Sure, Persky likes a good argument and a good fight, but we don't need to see teachers who follow his example being run out of their jobs if they offend some fundamentalist's child.

For the last few years American technology has given us coloured cling wrap and wood grain on microwave ovens.

Teaching creationism in science class will just speed up america's decline.

Canada will need to align ourselves with advanced countries and not theocracies.

If you have faith e.g. believe in god then yes god exist or so Kant concluded. You cannot deny them their god simply because you`re a non-believer.

YOu just have to look at G Bush and his comrades to sort of fall off the chair laughing at the idea of "intelligent design" - of course, it raises some questions as well about "evolution", insofar as that is supposed to mean things getting better over time...

This push to include "Intelligent Design" in science classes as an alternative to evolution is just the latest movement from evangelical and fundamentalist Christians to weasel their way around having lost the debate about teaching creationism as an alternative to evolution. I bet it wouldn't be long before the Bible was introduced into the classroom as the source of the "Intelligence". That is the purpose of the movement, of course, to use the power of the state to indoctrinate children into the (literalist) Christian mythos of the universe.

If taught in schools, so called intelligent design would surely have to include explanations of a non-Christian "intelligence". The old Egyptian one would be an example - a masturbating creator god. There are many more such explanations from religious sources. If these were taught watch the ire of the Christian religious right inflame.

This subject rightly belongs in churches, not schools, but even if it were to be included in schools, it should be in philosophy or social studies courses, certainly not modern science classes.

As Persky asserts, most people do not understand evolution (I'm not saying that my comprehension of it is expert). Case in point, the individual on the Larry King show arrogantly questioning why monkeys are still around. Also, evolution became a familiar starting with Darwin; however, Darwin's version of evolution is hardly the one scientists use today. Since Darwin, evolution has been built upon, added to, and refined by countless scientists and academics.

There are two "things" commons in most cultures: one is the incest taboo, and the other is the existence of a creation myth. No matter what you call it, it appears that intelligent design is simple our new creation myth.

Darwanism; Where are all the fish walking out of the ocean now ? Did evolution stop millions of years ago ? I think there a lot of questions not aswered by evolution, but this was supposed to be a dead settled issue like abortion. Not to be discussed.

There's a tremendous difference between the narrow minded description of God in religious scriptures, and what a real God, who can create universes, might be like.

Even out here in the bush we get Bible thumpers banging on our door. One day I asked one, if Earth is only 7000 years old, where did all those polished stones come from in our gravel pit, without a stream anywhere near, plus the fossils etc. His answer was "God put them there to test our faith!"

I could quote such nonsense forever, like the story of Abraham and Isaac, Moses' stone tablets, the Jews lost in the desert for 40 years covering a distance that should have taken them 40 days, Calvin's predestination theories, and so on and on. Anybody who believes in such nonsense deserves it.

At the same time, having witnessed a number of happenings that could almost be called miracles, I have been wondering for many years whether, for example, our specific talents originate in our own minds, or are we born with certain capabilities to switch onto something like radio waves from a "super intelligence" that give us answers unexpectedly, from the blue?

E.g. I'm a firm believer in ESP as it happens to all of us, all the time. We think of somebody and the phone rings, or a letter arrives, or the person knocks on the door. Marilyn Ferguson's "Aquarian Conspiracy" is a very interesting examination of the power, or the receiving power of the human mind.

There are a lot of things we don't and may never understand, but we'll certainly not find the answers in religious scriptures that describe their gods as half cut, raving maniacs. How can a god be angry, or happy ?

Although I'm a hard boiled realist here's something I was never able to figure out. I was working on a small engine on the floor of my shop about 20 years ago, when the 1/2" wrench I was using flew out of my hand, twirled over my right shoulder and fell on the floor with a clang. I reached back, then looked all over the place, the floor was clean, but there was no wrench. Ultimately, I had to go and buy a new one. About 10 years later I walked into my shop and there was the wrench on the floor, where it fell. In the meantime the shop was swept hundreds of times. I called my wife to come and witness what happened and she can vouch for the event. I still have the same wrench and also the replacement one.

So, where was that wrench for 10 years? Where do we go in our dreams, or under hypnosis? Where do we get answers from on important questions that just pop into our heads? Why do all empires in history always self destruct, as we can witness it here and now ?

I have notebooks filled with definitions and answers that just came out of the blue when I was working on my Economic Efficiency Principle, 15-20 years ago and when I had enough to destroy the Friedmanite neoclassical theory, they stopped. Where did they come from, why then and why no longer?

By the way, evolution is still going on as we can witness in the ways birds and animals are changing and developing their shapes, forms and methods for survival according to prevailing conditions. Ed Deak, Big Lake.

As Persky asserts, most people do not understand evolution

In walks Ron Erwin:

Darwanism; Where are all the fish walking out of the ocean now ? Did evolution stop millions of years ago ?

This is why it is called Faith. You have to believe whoever told you

Hear, hear, Scylla!

I agree that this is a matter of philosophy, rather than science, because it pertains to the unprovable. The faithful will always find lame "proof" of their god which only appeals to those who already believe in their fairy tales.

I also wish moral philosophy would come to the rescue in ethical debates -- I'm tired of hearing faith-based so-called "arguments" that suggest that there is no moral foundation outside of religious revelation. What an ignorant cop-out!

Ron,

You asked:

Darwanism; Where are all the fish walking out of the ocean now ?

I think somebody must have blabbed. The fish, and those mammals at home in the water, got to learn of the mess that has occurred on terra firma and decided that theirs was the safer habitat.

Sadly for them, we're even screwing with that.

"If you have faith e.g. believe in god then yes god exist or so Kant concluded. You cannot deny them their god simply because you`re a non-believer."

ANd you can't force their beliefs on others.

Ron: The fish aren't walking because that point of evoloution is over. six million years from now strange blobs will be talking about how "walking humans" eventually lost their feet and became blobs.

Evolution:

With the new prices of fuel, we (humans) had better start growing wings!

Check out a book called Darwin's Black Box by Michael J. Behe.
Behe, a professor of biochemistry, makes a biochemical argument for I.D. theory.
I.D. theory is not creationism or "scientific creationism" or "creation science" wrapped in a new package because while creationism denies all forms of evolution, I.D. theory does not.
Moreover, the founders of I.D. theory -- like Michael Denton, a biochemist who received his PhD in biochemistry from King's College, London University -- were serious scientists; the founders of "scientific creationism" were not.

I wonder if teachers in France, Nicaragua and the Philippines are poised to teach "both" sides of the story this year just because Bush has brought up the subject. Persky writes of CBS and Gallup polls. I object to having so many essays in the Tyee to be centered on things American. I really don't give a damn if Americans believe or don't believe in God or if they think that the world was created as it is now, 10,000 years ago. Both Mexico and Canada, alas must suffer (translated from the Spanish)the tragedy of being so close to the United States and so far from God.

Personally, I'm more concerned with where where going than where we came from. We all have the right to our own beliefs. We all have the right to our opinions, and we all have the right to do as the government and corporations tell us. Most important, we are just another animal on this planet and have just as much right to go extinct as the next species! Have a nice debate.

alexwh:
Yes, we do suffer living next door to the U.S.
But I could probably name a dozen or more countries under which we would suffer a lot more had we them as neighbours.
Can you imagine what our defence budget would be if the Chinese were next door?
It wouldn't be the current budget of $9-12 billion, which is, by the way, half of what this province spends on health care every year.
America's sheer size, power and proximity, and our lack of size and power but close proximity make it even more necessary that we scrutinize everything that happens down there, whether it's a stupid idea or not.

My favourite essay on god is `The Colloid and the Crystal` by Joeseph Wood Krutch in a book titled `Great Essays in Science` and it says the only real limitation of god is humankinds imagination or lack of same. I believe in a direct connection between god and aesthetics e.g. when I see a beautiful sunset I see god or at least gods work and that is as close to god as any of us will ever get.

When I see a beautiful sunset asvelte275 (especially one with purples and pinks in it), I can't help but think that without a polluted atmosphere, this sunset isn't possible.

Persky's idea of teaching the controversy is supposed to result in the "outing" of the ridiculous ID campaign, I guess, but it doesn't sound like it.

And I get troubled by sentences like :45 per cent of the American population believe that God created human beings more or less in their present form, all at once, sometime within the last 10,000 years, a belief that is almost certainly wrong.

Almost certainly wrong? Does this mean Persky would disregard scientific evidence to teach some pressure group's idea? Schools are supposed to teach tested and provable science, not religious speculation.

Science is based on evidence. Why would we teach unverifiable religious beliefs in a science class? (And last time I checked, they didn't have scientists teaching evolution in church services.)

The "If it's here, somebody had to have made it" theory just shows the lack of imagination of its believers, . . . and a gross ignorance of science.

My feeling, and I once was one, is that high school or younger children do not possess the intellectual maturity of the grammar to discuss what is essentially a metaphysical question (why are we here and what influence(s) do we have on our environment). I agree with Stan, let's discuss this at colleges - the deeper I go in science, the more metaphysical it becomes.

What's so "ridiculous" about I.D., especially considering the fact that it's founders were all biochemists who held PhDs from respectable universities.
If there is a scientific argument against I.D. I would like to hear it, specifically what about Denton and Behe's arguments is wrong?
Can anybody answer that?

There HAS to be SOMETHING out there. As someone once noted, in the positioning of the ears, who could have foretold that some would need glasses?

Perhaps when this goes into the dumper, Crawford will motivate us on the topic of life after life.

I know only this, upon losing someone very close to me, I had a very strange conversation with a seagull, after which I had to get an expensive, tweed jacket drycleaned.

Even hard-boiled scientists are often confounded by unexplainable "miracles" such as the Queen's University oncology professor recently interviewed on CBC regarding a woman whose "incurable" and "fatal" cancer went into remission without any treatment whatsoever - only the prayers of her R.C. parishioners.

My son has done doctoral research on the same topic so he sought out this professor out of intellectual curiousity. She told him she was baffled by the case, which she had researched thoroughly, including examining all the medical records of this woman. In the end she (the prof) consented to a request from the Vatican for a private interview with the Pope, in which she told him that there was no doubt that this woman had this form of cancer and that there was no scientific explanation for its remission. The Holy See then issued a proclamation that this was indeed a miracle of prayer, and the prof said she had to ruefully admit that the Vatican had been thorough in its research of this "miracle."

The case was the talk of the campus and the attached teaching hospital in Kingston. Even the head of oncology there told a med class that, "Either prayer works or what we're doing (oncology) is full of (it)."

Of course, cancer research continues apace, but these scientists are humbled. A little humility is not a bad thing.

That's not enough to get it taught as science -we can't teach every unproven assertion. You have to show verifiable and reproducible evidence, . . other than just your need to believe it.

The evidence of science shows us that intelligence is the creation of the universe, not the other way around.

The fossil evidence also undermines assertions of ID: If our "designer" were so smart, why do we see so much tinkering with styles in the fossil record - why did he have to invent eyes at least five different times?

Why go through all those thousands of species now extinct, and all those hundreds of millions of years of calamaties, just to get to us?

Doesn't sound so smart to me. Looks more like the random deviations and adaptations to conditions of life one would expect in a Natural system.

gkam:
Since you haven't even responded to either Denton's or Behe's arguments, I'm under the impression that you don't even know what they are arguing.
Is that true?
Behe responds to your fossil argument on pgs 22 and 27 of his book, Darwin's Black Box, The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (paperback edition.
How can you refute an argument if you don't know what you are actually refuting.
Futhermore, your allusion to evolution at the end of your thread is a "red hearing" as I.D. theorist don't entirely dismiss evolution.
Moreover, when I wrote..."If there is a scientific argument against I.D. I would like to hear it," I wasn't arguing that I.D. should be taught as science.
I was just asking if those who really know the ins and outs of I.D. -- and judging by the responses on this thread there seem to be a lot of them -- can actually refute it and educate somebody who is not a scientist: me.
I'm looking for a good argument against I.D., which means I'm looking to hear from somebody who actually knows about the theory and can challenge it.
Maybe I'm asking too much from this forum, but I would sure like to think I could learn a thing or two here -- beyond name calling, childish putdowns, and, of course, anti-U.S. diatribes.

Yes, Kurt. And four hundred years ago the Church burnt women at the stake for using plants as talismans to get the Devil's help in curing people.

There is a discussion of Intelligent Design in an article titled "Intelligent Design The Scientific Alternative to Evolution" by William S. Harris and John H. Calvert at http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf

The article argues in favour of ID, but it is simply a legalistic rationalisation. That is what so much of the alternative explanations to evolution come down to. The scientific aspects are missing and they depend instead on wordplay and semantics. A typical example is the argument against evolution that the expression "natural selction" is an "oxymoron", since "selection" involves a personality to select or choose. Arguments like that obfuscate rather than clarify, and that is usually the purpose.

Many of the arguments are just modern updates to old arguments. Instead of saying the eye could not function before it was complete, for instance, they now argue that a flagella on a bacterium could not work until all the motor proteins were in place. A simple assertion like that sounds valid, but there is no scientific proof presented to support the assertion that all the motor proteins are necessary. The assertion about the eye not being usable until fully developed was debunked, and the lack of scientific data about the flagella will be too.

The basic problem for ID apologists is that science requires testable and repeatable evidence of some kind. Simple assertions are just not good enough. There must be a valid evidentiary basis for making claims and without any evidence, claims are not scientific. With evolution there is a lot of testable evidence from the fields of paleontology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, etc.. Even if it is not absolute, it is still there. For ID there is none, not a shred. No matter how rational the arguments are that are used, ID therefore has no place in scientific explanations for our being here. This is a basic, fundamental tenet of modern science. The scientific viewpoint is clear, only when testable evidence of an intelligence's existence is presented can an intelligence be considered as a scientific cause.

However, the real purpose behind the push for consideration of Intelligent Design is found in the concluding comments of the article. It says, "What if life really is designed and truly has purpose? What then for science? If so, then religion not only deserves a place at the table, it may deserve to be at the head."

Ron Erwin asked, why aren't Fish still walking out of the water.

They are.

Its called the Chinese Snakehead.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/07/0702_020702_snakehead.html

Fiat Lux

Interesting comments, particularly those regarding your missing wrench. I too had a similar experience 33 years ago. I was sitting on the couch in my parent's basement making an adjustment on my guitar with a small screwdriver. I dropped the screwdriver and saw it bounch off the floor by my right foot, then it just disappeared. I looked everywhere thinking that it rolled under the couch or some other piece of furniture, but to no avail. About 2 years later I was sitting in the same spot playing my guitar when I looked down and saw my screwdriver.

Up until the age of 32 I had many such experiences and at one point even questioned my sanity. As I feel that the human species is still in it's infancy, it will be centuries, even millenia before we've evolved to the point where we can start to understand some of the more puzzling aspects of our planet and universe.

"(why are we here and what influence(s) do we have on our environment)."

I've been asking myself that question since I was a kid. I think all kids do. One is never too young for that question, though the answer may change as you age.

As for intelligent design, I don't necessarily believe in it, but when I look at a flower, it's hard not to.

Science is great. But, don't assume we've reached the point where we can dismiss other's superstitions as false just yet. There may well be a Creator Spirit. Just because it hasn't manifested itself in your world doesn't mean it doesn't exist (Unless you're a Kantian I guess ;-)

I'm with Stump, why do we want to nail things down on either side of the issue? What's wrong with just exploring? I don't think certainty is all's it's cracked up to be.

I've always liked what physicist, Richard Feynman said in this regard:

"God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time -- life and death -- stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out. "

One argument I've often heard from ID proponents is the old "Have you ever heard of a (car/building/whatever) without a designer?", with the implication that all things are designed, and that evolution cannot produce complex results.

So here, for your reading pleasure, is an abstract to a paper I read regarding the use of evolutionary principles to design an electronic circuit. Though they aren't completely certain just how it works, since there are critical bits of the circuit that are not conventionally connected in any way, it still works within the range of evolutionary pressures they applied.

http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/users/adrianth/ascot/paper/paper.html

Lynn:
Nailing down an issue is important in the whole exploration process.
You're right; we should explore these issues.
But in this whole I.D. debate, we have to "nail down" what the theorists actually argue before we can explore the ideas.
Unfortunately, almost every I.D. debate I've seen and heard -- including one in which CNN's Anderson Cooper moderated between I.D. proponents, creation scientists and evoluntionists -- has descended into a sort of name calling in which hypothesis and the facts supporting those hypothesis are lost or even ignored amidst yelling.
If people disagree with I.D., or for that matter back it up, I want to know why and I want a good argument.
I think people should challenge evolution -- if they think they have the facts to challenge it -- just because I think humans run into a major problem when a topic is considered orthodox and therefore removed from debate.
Remember Galileo?
We should question everything, most importantly those ideas and opinions which we hold close to our hearts and minds.
Anyways, thanks to all who posted comments to my questions.

I'm not for forcing religion down students throats but under Social Studies it would not be out of place to discuss beliefs and, for that matter, political systems.

Re:

"Perhaps when this goes into the dumper, Crawford will motivate us on the topic of life after life."

My apology to Stan Persky. In a previous post I mistakenly attributed his article to Crawford Killian.

I'm surprised no one picked up on it - maybe not surprising.

The sentiment expressed it the thought remains.

I like Lynn's spin on this discussion. Yes, it's true that ignorance of awesome unexplainable events were explained away by the invocation of a god (or God). As we evolved along the path of current human history, events became explainable and voila! we don't need a god to get us over it. God was also used against the indigenous peoples of the world, since early imperial designs appeared. Who went in first to the wilds of New Guinea, perhaps, or Africa, or Central America, in the 14th century? None other than the jesuits; not the army, not the freebooters, not the merchants, but the messengers of God. World events are now bringing many to the realization that the concept of (g)God is being used to exploit for material gain, and God is being viewed as an accomplice to the transnational corporations that are looting the resources of this planet. Just consider the reaction of millions of South America, who are up in arms over the interference by capitalism, (U.S., et al), in their affairs, through the CAFTA's and other free(?) trade arrangements. Is it any wonder that the Vatican has concern for the disdain shown by the South American populations towards religion? As well, fundamentalists of many stripes are now suggesting that we don't need to be concerned about global warming, after all, we're spitting distance away from Armegeddon, and we'll be in a better place with God.

on another note: would it be possible for the Tyee to insert a spell checker into the forum?

First there is a mountain
Then there is no mountain
Then there is

Those who have eyes to see, may see.

I don't know exactly who to attribute these two ancient thoughts to. I just thought they were apropos.

Darwanism; Where are all the fish walking out of the ocean now ? Did evolution stop millions of years ago ? Mudskippers. but they got competition so they do not walk far.
Bush just wants intel dezign thought in schools in order to control the schools and turn the kids into republican zombies. Just think. All inteligent design people are loyal republicans. What better way to reward the thickie ones with jobs that no democrat would ever apply for? He gets the thought police into the schools too. Perfect.

Dave A,

"on another note: would it be possible for the Tyee to insert a spell checker into the forum?"

Damned good idea - also the ability to preview one's message - probably a cost involved though.

Lynn mentioned the other day that she had mastered the underlining techique. From that, we can probably conclude that she is accomplished in writing in bold. italics and boxing her quotes also.

It would be great if she/he would share that knowledge.

Though I, and others, have expressed a desire to make use of these writing embellishments, the board operators seem reticent to part with the knowledge. I don't like to SHOUT, but please?

Rudimentary BB code is allowed on this dicussion board
One can underline, embolden, and italicise quite easily. Spell check? Just paste your comments into a word doc and do it there. Or not - we know what you mean.
As far as the topic at hand - Stan Persky has every right to "teach the controversy" in his PHILOSOPHY lectures - in fact, he'd be remiss NOT to. As far as I'm concerned, ID (intelligent design) is merely an adjunct of creationism, and has no standing in legitimate science whatsoever. Much of the 'mystical' anecdotal mysteries related here are quite possibly easily explained. Mysterious happenings, inexplicable events, and questions posed today may become laughably simple tomorrow. I simply cannot bring myself to commit the intellectual sucide necessary to embrace this thing called god. Any god. But especially the god dished out by those fundamental christians who quote the precepts of Jesus whilst bombing the hell out of innocents.

b Test for bold without preview: Dear Sir or Madam

tommymoore,

Remiss of me. Thanks for trying. I can use Wordpad and copy and paste, but one shouldn't HAVE to. It becomes very cumbersome with my slow system.

Am in accord with your observations re: Religious killing. The scary thing is that some of those with a finger on the nuclear button feel that if push comes to shove it won't matter much because we sinners are doomed anyway while they and other true believers will be "enraptured" up to that golden place.

All the more scary when a prominent talk show moderator wonders at the mental stability of an assailed, killer Bush (his words) - that attack coming even from fellow Republicans.

As a scientist, I agree, that children should be exposed to varying points of view. In social studies class aspects of ALL faiths (not just the apple eating ribless adam variety of the crop) be discussed and explored - including their take on why and how we came to be on this colossal mess called Earth. Evolution became less of a descriptive science when we cracked the genome. There is little denying the fact that the genes tell the entire tale - from duplication to transposable elements - the phylogenetic tree is revealed in our genetic footprint and our closest relative does resemble Bush more than most homo sapiens, so how he can deny this relativity is just delusional - but then he also did say there were WMD in Iraq... and climate change has no proof (which put god in a fury and sent forth katrina...). Miracles abound - and I am reminded of this everytime I see the most self-destructive species still surviving their own metabolic by-products.

brokenback: There are plenty of places to find out the answers to your questions all over the internet. If you really want to know, you'll find them easily. Perhaps when you've finished, if you still believe in that BS you can come back and explain why the rebuttals to Behe and Dembski et al. don't satisfy you.

Is the theory or philosophy of creation any less valid than the theory of evolution? Sure, certain elements of evolution can be proven by scientific study, but that doesn’t mean that creation did not happen. Did life just appear spontaneously? Where did the universe come from? Can order appear from disorder?

The problem is that small questions lead to big questions and despite all the pompous talk, the truth is we really haven’t got a clue...so my money is on creation with a bit of evolution mixed in.

I experimented to learn to use the tools illustrated at the top of the posting box. Just hilite the text you want to modify, click the style you want and the crittur puts a text message before and after what you choose. The real thing shows up when you post.

Besides a preview, I'd also like a quicker, easier route to the thread, shown perhaps under the headers on the main page. The style offered by Straight Goods is very convenient, and it also shows if the thread is active, saving you time.

BOLDItalics Underlined

Here goes!

Wow! So simple. Thank you, scylla.

I think I see Stan's point of view. Science cannot always be the answer - it's been proven wrong too many times, even when there is plenty of evidence supporting it. Newton was a genius, but that did not make him a priori correct. It turned the world upside down to recognize that our complacency in believing everything science has to offer is not always the best way to figure out how the world works. Of course science will be a major factor in determining where we came from, but it has it's limits: even if we follow the Big Bang theory, there is no accounting for what happened in that first trillionth of a second that set these events in motion. A pure reliance on science is as foolhardy as a pure reliance on religion.

Actually, no there does not. I agree with Lynn's earlier post re: god being a concept used to explain mysteries.

Religion should not be taught in high school at all. It has no place in a pluralist society's basic education system.

There would be an endless list of cults and religions who would have a "right" to be included in such a curriculum. Can you imagine the fight which would occur if a particular religious "authority" didn't approve of the way in which a religion was taught? What a nightmare!

And what about the endless schisms and sub-faiths: who would represent Christianity? Baptists? Pentecostals? Catholics? Methodists? Which branch of Islam would receive the most attention? Wahhabism? (shudder, shudder)

Teaching religion in high school is almost as misguided as Ontario's attempt to use shariah principles to settle domestic disputes. As much as I respect Marion Boyd (former Ontario NDP A-G who wrote the report stating that introduction of shariah in Ontario law wouldn't hurt women), I think she is out to lunch on this one.

Back to the point: religion is something best left for exploration outside of primary & secondary school. There are plenty of institutions would be overjoyed to teach the curious about their faith. The difficult thing is to find a public space in which they don't spew their dogma!

At the college level there is room for the depth required to do these different faiths justice, through religious studies, anthropology & sociology. But not primary & secondary school.

Good one, Stan. I tried to wite a quick comment but my piece rambled on to 4750 characters and I was advised by the ghost in the machine to reduce it to 3500 or get lost. Anyways...Stan, you got a lot of things pretty well spot on, including Deepak's estimtes of the time spans of universe, earth and homo sapiens. (notwithstanding Stockwell Day's absurd pretenses.) However, you're much too in awe of the theory of evolution by means of natural selection, as Darwin called it. (An idea that goes back to Aristotle, by the way.) This theory ranks right up there with grace by birth, (Judaism), grace by belief, (Christianity) and grace by submission. You guessed it. I don't want to be fatwasized, or anything, eh. C'est-a-dire, they're all a bunch of crap. Natural selection, and its silly tautologtical little brother, "the survival of the fittest," easily rivals these degenerate religions in its goofiness, not to mention lack of observable demonstrastion, which would furnish it with a kind of intellectual grace. I'm not going to pander too much to the ignorant folks (Bush would say),but it should be suffice to say: try to imagine the human eyeball as a bit of random, natural-selection-constructed machinery. Darwin admitted to being confused about how the eyeball could possibly fit into his mostly appropriated paradigm, and most neo-evolutionists from Dickee Dawson (the inheritable memes and selfish gene guy) to the "punctuated equilibria" guy, Stephen Jay Gould, have written specious tracts pretending that they had solved the puzzle. The eyeball, the archetypical "organ of extreme specialization" as Darwin called it, is comprised of a bunch of components which could never have been included in the finished machine by any degree of natural or random selection. Subtract cornea, retina, iris or lens and have exaactly nothing. Therefore it was constructed by teleological exigency. (oops)Okay,to cut to the chase, life, algorithmed, or not, was constructed by a method not unlike the methods by which human beings have built all past and present civilizations and the pieces of machinery that run them: the conscious remembrance of that which came before. As evolutionary biologist, Elisabet Sahtouris writes, "It seems reasonable to suppose that our genomic sytem, too, is behaving intelligently as a constant hive of activity now known to edit and repair itself. If it did not know what it was doing, I believe it would revert to chaos in very short order. Also: Gene Myers, the Celera computer scientist who actually assembled the human genome map says: "The system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed. There's a huge intelligence out there. I don't see that as being unscientific. Other's may, but not me." To be continued.

"Religion should not be taught in high school at all. It has no place in a pluralist society's basic education system."

That's not very pluralistic is it?

I don't see why the students can't choose the questions and the areas they wish to know more about. Then they can also find the answers, without the teacher necessarily promoting one belief or dogma over another.

stan: Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, or "creation." You're confusing two separate issues.

Truman Green: Blah, blah, blah. Standard creationist "talking points." You have no idea what you're talking about. Go read a book or something.

More random thoughts on the peppered moth. The theory of evolution is a child of speculation, not observation. In my sillier youth I tried to construct a thought game in which the pressure of variation would dresult in speciation. Notwithstanding, the claims of scientists such as UBC's Dolph Schluter (that he has watched his stickleback fish demonstrate natural selection (sopposedly "evolution in action" according to a Margaret Munro Canwest article) (see limnetic and benthic species), there is no case of natural selection being demonstrated--not Galapogos finches or marine or land iquanas (the same species) or top or bottom-feeding stickleback.) In order to demonstrate "natural selection leading to speciation, speciation must be demonstrated, and to this date it has not been. In spite of the faith of the darwinian evolutionists the only undisputed case of natural selection, occurs in the reproduction of exponentially-dividing bacteria. Hence methicillin-resistant staphlococcus aureus, appearing soon at a hospital near you. Of course the larger joke in the creation-intelligent design "debate", Stan, is that the theory of evolution is not about the orign of life, but rather, the origin and progression of SPECIES. (Darwin had little to say by the orign of life. (Read his autobiography.)The theory of evolution by natural selection is very elegant, but very wrong. For example, 5000 years of artifically-selected dogs (they're all the same species and genetically capable of reproducing--(Shih Tzuhs and Great Danes, for example) So-called evolutionist should have, by now, been able to hypothesize a hidden algorithm into the mix (mathematical relationship between artifical and "natural" selection) to understand that there must be a reason that the most profound variations will not lead to speciation, but rather to a rather fitting "cul de sac" (tail of the donkey)of sterile hybrids, such as the mule. I once had my very own personal theory of evolution in which speciation occurred due to the saturation of variation. The idea is at least as good as "natural selection" but requires a teleologic aspect. I still believe that my variation saturation theory is a better explanation for the demise of the dinosaurs than the nemesis star, and I had no backward-evolving whales. Sorry for typos but I've only got two minutes left on the library computer.

Travis, ole buddy, do you understand my refence to the peppered moth? Do you really think I'm a creationist? Thanks for commenting, regardless. On First Causes, Darwin wrote in his autobiography: "...But I may say thast the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existencse of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a First Cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came, and how it arsoe. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense aount of suffering through the world. I am, also induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of the many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems to be that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect; but man can do his duty."

See what I mean, Travis? You might think I'm full of crap but I think Darwin would agree with me if he was still around. He really wasn't theorizing about God, eh, but rather, how one species morphes into another. Apes to Travises, for example. Same thing goes for Gould and Dawkins, (I think they're full of crap) A good primer for you might be, "Competitive and Facilitative Evolutionary Diversification" by Troy Day and Kyle A. Young.
Good work, Stan Persky, and of course you are correct.

Hi, skeptikool, sorry I couldn't back to you sooner on the underlining but I have much company staying at my little abode right now and busy making curry and chapatis for all the crew here. I'm glad scylla could help.

This is a great discussion...I'll just add that I don't think reverence, wonder and science have to be at odds with each other, even the aetheist Feynman who believed the origins of religions were based in irrationality, held mystery and wonder in high regard:

"I wonder why I wonder why. I wonder why I wonder. I wonder why I wonder why I wonder why I wonder!"

I like to keep a pretty loose net when it comes to these questions because I really don't know... certainty is only certainty until it is proven wrong...so the assuredness and consolation it carries with it can be deceptive and short-lived. Nah, William Blake had a better take..."kiss the joy as it flies."

"He who bends to himself a joy
Does the winged life destroy
But he who kisses the joy as it flies
Lives in eternity's sunrise."

Stump:

I find your argument for tolerance of religious education in schools very tempting, but I just can't swallow the part about teachers "not necessarily promoting one belief or dogma over another."

I think this high ideal would be very difficult to realize in practice! I mean, could you justify, to the satisfaction of a local imam, the practice of non-voluntary female "circumcision"?

Wouldn't it be simpler to suggest that this is something for civil society, rather than state-run schools, to provide?

deep forbidden lake:

How is admitting that we do not have all the answers the same as pushing an agenda? Evolutionists can’t explain how life began and the reason for it anymore than creationists can prove there is a God. Isn’t it just as absurd to say that life just started on its own as it is to say we have a creator?
By the way, George Bush and Ralph Klein are two of the people on my “least favorite people” list because they are so narrow minded. Unfortunately, some of the people who argue against them are just as narrow minded.
Violence is not limited to religious organizations: scientists used “science” (eugenics) to justify violence, slavery and murder against the so called inferior races (Slavs, Gypsies and Jews) in Nazi Germany.

Travis:

The origin of the universe and evolution are not separate issues because, in the case of our planet, one has led to the other. So, either you believe (because it cannot be proven) that these events happened randomly and spontaneously or you believe that there is some sort of intelligent design taking place.

PS: I’m not Stan Persky

Godwinned!!!!!!!!!!!

Why is it that so many creationists believe that disputing material from over 100 years ago disproves evolution. Do we still surgically remove legs without anaesthesia as they did in Darwin's time? Do we still travel by coach and pair as they did in Darwin's time. The world has progressed. MODERN evolutionary thought is based on molecular biology, genetics, DNA comparisons and so on, not on 100 year old theories from the ancient (in scientific terms) past. Evolutionary scientists don't consider a moth's population changing from white to brown (or vice versa) an example of evolution, and haven't done so for more than 50 years, if they ever did. It's a straw man.

Modern evolutionists talk about proven, factual information such as the latest evidence of the human and chimpanzee genomes differing by about 1.2% in significant base pairs. If you really want to discuss evolution on a scientific basis rather than the pseudoscientific criticism of moths and eyeballs, discuss those kinds of things, because that is where the science is today. Please start by explaining why there are so many non-active base pairs (the junk DNA) if evolution is not so.

Over the last 20 years in the U.S. religious organisations have been taking over repulican party organisations and school board elections because the general population showed little interest in this level of organisation.

Since then these religious fanatics have been trying to "evolve' the curriculum to reflect their views and no one else's. The latested being teaching theology in science classes.

A stupid population is easier to manipulate.

Stan: Huh?

Truman Green: Not a creationist? Okay. You're not a creationist. You just talk like someone steeped in their literature.

He's a Lamarkian. Flawed, fundamentally. The proponents of so-called Intelligent Design Theory are also flawed in their basic understanding of natural selection and random mutation, mitotic crossing-over inherent in the origin of gene proliferation.

Science is correct but you have to recognize its limits and these are determined by experimentation following the scientific method. There is no accounting for the 1st 10-37 seconds before the Big Bang yet and maybe there will never be. Science is a process as well as a collection facts and these have to be varifierd by experimentation. Newton's scientific and mathematical work is of the highest order. He believed that a penis should not be used for procreation since it was used for eliminating waste. He spent a lot of time working on alchemy, using mercury to try to make gold out of base metals. He, along with many others suffered from its effects. This did not deter industrialists from using Hg to extract gold and in other processes. It wasn't until Minamata (sp) in the 50's I believe, that we recognized the dangers of mercury and started to stop its use. Some industries still like to use it and you will find some in the Heartlands of BC and in some doctors' offices.
When I went to school, I attended a religion class every day. I went to a catholic elementary school and for seconday school we had a religion class for a half hour before regular classes started. Many of these classes were very interesting esp. in grades 10-12. we had a very[B] civilized discussion of the morality of topics current at the time such as disarmament, birth control, civil rights, war and terror among many others. A priest led the discussion but all points of view were allowed and NO demeanng remarks or put-downs were present. All points of view were permitted providing they were respectful. We had a very civilized discussion considering we were in high school. Perhaps present politicians, editors and bloggers could have benifited from this type of exchange of ideas during their schooling.

Travis:

Do you believe that the origin of the universe and the appearance and evolution of life that followed were random occurrences? If so, prove it. "Huh?" is not a valid answer.

While religious teaching (or lack) is pretty clearly the purview of parents, reverence for life is a shared attribute of all our belief systems. Our schools could (should) teach that... somehow. But science class is probably not the proper arena.

I applaud those for whom the questions of how and why the universe was created matter. It's enough for me that it does. I have smaller fish to fry. I'd rather high school had taught me more economics and less biology, but that's just me.

Intelligent design is clearly code for a supreme being, (a)God if you will, and for some, is a clever subterfuge to return religion to the classroom.

While I do not agree with this, I see nothing wrong in discussing with students the moral and common sense attributes of doing unto others...etc. - and how that builds a civilized society rather than a warring jungle.

deep forbidden lake, it's ok...I forgive you.

Science can never absolutely prove anything and that is the nature of science. But it is all we have.
There may or may not be a God. There is no scientific test one way or the other. I guess for us earthlings, any species that journeys here from another planet with a bigger gun will be a wrathful god or multitude of gods.
I suggest you leave it up to the individuals imagination.
For those of you who mix up science and philosophy, why not read small gods? It suggests that the power of gods is proportional to the numbers of people that believe in them.
So, which came first? The believers or the god? Evolution would suggest that people came first, and history suggests lots of gods early on, many of whom disappeared through violent confrontation and now not so many gods are left battleing it out for the minds and souls of a lot more people.
Perhaps someone should do a graph showing number of gods and number of people over time? It seems that the more people in the world, the less gods. Why? Can we extropulate the extinction of gods at some time in the near future? Or will the people population stabilize or reduce, thus allowing room for more gods?
Is there a theory of creativity just waiting to be discovered?
Could it be that people created at least some of the gods? Just because they had no friends or pets?
Theres the questions, wheres the answers?
Brian

Forget intelligent design. Just give me clarity.

Ah silly argument, creationism versus evolutionism. It all comes down to brains in vats, as any good existentialist would realize. Creationism is there to comfort our need for emotional reassurance, so we can fell that we're not just an accident, a byproduct of some repetition gone wrong. Evolution was created to distract those of us who became nosy, by allowing us to think that the fittest survived. And along comes intelligent design, to comfort those of us who are nosy, but insecure.

But really, more religions and cultural thoughts should be taught in school. Its fine teaching evolution, but what's wrong with teaching creation myths, and not just the presbeterian version. Hey, the mesopotamiums had flood stories, and native indians have creation myths, something about eagle's or seagulls or something. Students should be taught that we have evidence that our activities were happening hundreds of thousands of years ago, (as long as the earth wasn't closer to the sun, to affect radiology tests.) But, the development of religion and the evolution of ideas are something that teach us a lot about our ways of thinking, and should be taught.

Anyways, God is like French or Aramaic, as long as we speak it, it will exist.

Alexwh: I'm sorry, but what is this "god" you speak of? I thought the whole point of this discussion was to stimulate debate on the controversial topic of evolution theory versus so-called intelligent design--which, it must be said, only came about after certain scientific breakthroughs put paid to virtually every creationist belief.
I mean, leaving aside your anti-American feelings, with which I heartily concur, by the way, why drop in a mention of a "god" as if it (or he/she) is some kind of a given?
I'm willing to accept that a majority of people in the world have accepted some kind of religious belief as a result of childhood brainwashing and/or refusal to accept their inevitable mortality--it seems a human constant. In fact, it seems, in some ways, to be the overwhelmingly insidious characteristic that infects human social intercourse.
You can imagine how this affects thos of us who honestly belive that those who believe in a "god" are well and truly, although socially sanctioned--mentally ill.
Hmmm.
Please debate from a more valid viewpoint. I could argue that I was handed a manifesto from Venusian tennis balls that decreed that I spend my life harassing white-tailed deer.
Hey, I'm thinking about it.
What did they ever do for me?

To split hairs, belief in a soul isn't necessarily requisite for belief in a God. She might not give a damn about us.

To play the Devil's Advocate, one might argue that the farther our science allows us to see, the more it becomes obvious that our planet, and the creatures on it, remain unique. Could it be argued that natural selection and evolution should have resulted in more life in the universe than there appears to be?

Stump: No offense, but no, one might not argue. The fact that the Hubble telescope has allowed us to view computer-enhanced images from many light years away doesn't change the fact that we still can't do anything but guess at the number of planets in the universe, much less our galaxy. The pretty colour-enhanced pictures of star systems you might be used to looking at could hide planetary groups crawling with life far more advanced than ours and we would never know unless they came up to our doors and knocked.
We haven't looked at even one billionth of one percent of the universe, and what we can see tells us not one thing about the presence or absence of "life".
That argument will, unfortunately, not be resolved within our lifetime, and probably not within the lifetime of our species, because we will surely exterminate ourselves within a century or so, if some natural calamity doesn't do the job before then.
It's almost enough to make one wish there was a god or heaven or something, doesn't it?

And THAT, of course, is what the debate is all about.

Thanks, Dangrice. I'm saving it. Is it yours, or are you quoting/paraphrasing someone else?

Cookie:

We see very far... and see no other life at this time. The scientist in me says that I observe us to be alone. Until other evidence (which may well be beyond our ken at this time) comes in, we remain alone in the universe for all intents and purposes. Whether we are the product of chemical coincidence or divine intervention isn't proven either way at this point, but the current evidence points towards uniqueness no matter what our provenance.

stan: You continue to lump together unrelated subjects that don't have anything to do with the topic at hand. I'm not sure how much more clear I can be. The origin of the universe has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. This should be self-evident.

On another note, it hardly merits pointing out that glib rhetoric about the development of the eye (etc.) is a far cry from the serious discussion of a scientific issue (to be clear, I'm no scientist, but let's just say it doesn't take a good actor to recognize a bad one). And anybody who would talk about Darwin's "confusion" about the eye is probably somebody who has never actually read the passage where Darwin discusses the "problems" the eye poses for his theory, but someone who has instead spent his time reading creationist works or their equivalent in order to buttress his scientifically unsupported position.

As I see it, the question is simply do we allow non-science to be taught as science in a science classroom? I say no. Relevant bad/non-science or pseudoscience could be mentioned in passing as part of the history of a given field of inquiry, or as part of a class specifically about pseudoscience, but anything more than that I wouldn't support.

Travis has nailed it!

Finis, Travis,

And vive C I R E !

Stump: Again, and respectfully, I must say that a lack of evidence doesn't mean that evidence is lacking.
There may be tens of quadrillions of planets in the universe, or even our galaxy! If even one-tenth of one percent of them had conditions just favourable for life--whether carbon-based or otherwise--we could be looking at trillions of planets that, statistically, could bear life. We came pretty far in a relatively short period of time, but we've still only brought back a few rocks from one moon and studied a couple from a great distance on only ONE planet.
You can't keep your head in a hole and say that we remain alone in the universe when, statistically, it is an incredibly remote possibility that that is the case.
We have no more idea of what is out there than a worm at the bottom of the Marianas Trench has of our existence. Or ever will.
Cheers.
CIRE lives!

Deep:

No, I forgive you because it’s obvious that intelligent design missed the gene pool you swim in.

Travis:

I already explained how these subjects are related. If you don’t want to go there...fine. Let me simplify the question: prove that evolution happens randomly. Once again, “Huh?” is not a valid answer, nor are insults or trying to change the topic.

Hey Stump, we dont see clearly very far. They havnt even figured out yet if there is or was ever life on mars when they visited the damn place. What makes you think they can tell with other planets in other systems?
If you stick the right type of planet in a decent orbit in a steady stream of solar radiation or volcanic heat in water, experiment shows that organic (carbon) chemistry gets rapidly more complex over time. It is a fundimental process that yields life as a product. The steady stream of energy passing through the system is a key. Creationists used to say that life violates one of the laws of thermodynamics (something about systems tending towards the lowest energy over time in the system). (Earth has oxygen in the athmosphere, which in the lowest energy state would be joined with iron in the core) They conveniently ignored the fact that the earth is not the system just a tiny part of it and exists in a relatively steady stream of energy. You too are ignoring the size of the universe in your arguements. It is vast beyond our comprehension. With the planetry finds over the last 5 years, (Lots and lots of them) Life on other planets is far more likely than what they thought even 10 years back.
commentor: Stump
posted: 13 Hours Ago
Cookie:

We see very far... and see no other life at this time. The scientist in me says that I observe us to be alone. Until other evidence (which may well be beyond our ken at this time) comes in, we remain alone in the universe for all intents and purposes. Whether we are the product of chemical coincidence or divine intervention isn't proven either way at this point, but the current evidence points towards uniqueness no matter what our provenance.

Deep:

I say again, how is stating that we don’t have all the answers the same as pushing an agenda? I gave my opinion, which is the point of this commentary site - a forum for discussion. Unfortunately, you feel that you have the right to deprecate and insult everyone who does not agree with you. If you're so smart and have so much integrity, answer the same question I gave to Travis: Prove that evolution happens randomly. It would be nice to see an actual answer instead of insults.

By the way, if you think I’m Persky why don’t you ask him yourself:

From my humble read of Persky's article he isn't advocating the teaching of the non-science of science, so to speak, but rather discussion...(in Persky's words) "since 99 per cent of scientists (and 99 per cent of the rest of us secular humanists) believe that evolution is the best theory to explain the development of the universe and human beings"... and that even then, amongst the general populace there still exists widespread ignorance about evolution.

So he just seems to be saying, again in my humble opinion, that there is a need to consider and perhaps re-consider how evolutionary theory affects our belief systems. Intelligent design would be one of those belief systems, that's all.

I hold no regard for organized religion but I respect the rights of people to worship. I'm also aware of the many terrible things done in the name of religion, and its often cruel hypocritical sting.

Still, much has also been carried out in the name of intolerance, in the name of "nailing it" or "finis" ... or in the name of that favourite phrase "end of story" often used here by one of the neo-con trolls.

So I don't get why Persky's idea of a discussion centering around how evolution affects our belief systems is seen as so threatening to surprisingly so many of you?

Would you rather have the discussion limited to those "fundamentalist-filled stadiums"? Do you not think a scientific discussion about evolution and it's philosophical ramifications on "life as we know it" would be a most worthy one?

Please excuse my clumsy syntax in some of the sentences above... I'm still "evolving" as a writer.

deep:

I’m not surprised to get a rant and not an answer. You’re as predictable as Ron Erwin, only you’re much more arrogant and rude. I suspect that you are a closet neo-con because you have learned a couple of their tactics well: answer questions with other questions or try not to answer them at all, and most importantly, be insulting the whole time.

If you’re not careful, transcripts of this discussion will be shown to your parole board and you’ll never get out.

"You too are ignoring the size of the universe in your arguements. It is vast beyond our comprehension."

Actually, I'm not. And, I agree with you. However, isn't it a bit of a contradiction to say the universe is vast beyond our comprehension, and then posit that a divine intervention (which might also be beyond our comprehension) can't have been the spark of life? Which isn't what you're saying perhaps, but if we admit all things as being possible, even in the absence of evidence... then God(s) are possible too. Improbable, but possible.

Actually deep, you didn’t answer the question: “Prove that evolution happens randomly.” Then you twist it around and say I should prove that “evolutionists can’t explain how life began and the reason for it.” No, YOU should prove this statement wrong because if evolutionists could explain why life began then the whole topic of creation would wither and die.

Perhaps after they give you your medication you will re-read your posts and finally realize that you can’t have it both ways: say you don’t want to prove the theory of evolution but then go on and attack anyone who questions it.

This is beginning to look like the arguments of those guys hundreds of years ago who spent entire careers arguing over inconsequencialities such as how many angels could fit on the head of a pin.

Ok, I have to stay out of the chicken and egg soup after this. Intelligent Design answer: God designed the world!
Scientific question. Who made God?
You guys just invoke God to explain the beginning. But that just shifts the beginning back to the creator of the creator. and who created the creator of the creator of the creator? How about giving yourself a break and stop screwing up your mind?
I can have spirituality in my life but I am not going to dishonour spirituality or science by mixing the 2 together. Science cannot explain a beginning (perhaps there was no beginning) and inteligent design turns us into lab rats.
And spare me the images of tiny mexican dogs mating with great danes.
Sounds like fiction to me.

Some of my fellow believers are "young earth" creationists. I'm not one of them. The Bible says that the heavens declare the glory of the Lord--the light from stars spotted by the Hubble has been travelling our way far more than 6000 years (or 10,000--whatever). It is simply illogical to conclude the earth is that young. The Bible is not a biology text but the "order" of creation generally follows what the evolutionists assert. Frankly, I don't have enough "faith" to be a evolutionist, as there are so many gaps in the theory. An evolutionist from Mars would find a Rolex and declare that there was no evidence of an intelligent watchmaker--and an amoeba is far more complex. I like that Persky is asking the questions and talking about this issue--the close-mindedness of many evolutionists is really quite anti-intellectual.
As far as "Adam and Eve" being the "first humans", I think it is a story about the first humans to be endowed with souls, not the first biological humans--why else would God look for (but not find) a "suitable helper" among the creatures already created. Man created in the "image" of a spiritual being is what makes us unique among the "animals" of creation. So I have no problem accepting the fossil evidence of a 1.5 million year australopithecus humanoid or 70 million year old dinosaurs or that "humans" arrived 10,000 years ago--God made them all.

Deep:

Notice how the posts after yours are thoughtful and respectful. That’s the whole point of this exercise: to share ideas and give others something to think about.

My logic is not weak - that’s just your excuse to avoid giving an answer. It’s quite obvious that you don’t have an answer and you just find it easier to rage at people who question your intellect.

You are also deluded in your belief that neo-cons and Christians are one and the same. In fact, it is the attitude of you and your ilk that is actually driving Christians into the arms of the neo-cons. The neo-con motivation is greed and power, and by presenting themselves as people who believe in the “good ol’ days ” (where the streets were clean, everyone went to church on Sunday and hard work paid off), they are the lesser of two evils in the eyes of many Christians.

George W. is not a Christian. Christ did not ask people to “hunt down and kill” their enemy. Ralph K. doesn’t openly advertise his faith - I doubt he’s Christian, but I still think he’s a jerk because of the way he treats the poor in his province. Gordon Campbell...who knows. Also a jerk.

Do yourself and the world a favour, deep: reflect on your paranoia and choose your enemies wisely. People like you are the ones who create divisions in society. It will be your own fault if you’re not one of the stronger/smarter/luckier ones.

lynn: Upon rereading Stan Persky's article, I see that your take on it is more accurate than my initial take was. I still have a problem with, among other things, his casual use of the language of the ID proponents (i.e. "teach the controversy") and his apparent sympathy for the Discovery Institute, and I see now that strictly speaking he's not saying as much that I disagree with as I first thought.

The question of how to deal with the philosophical implications of scientific discoveries in the science classroom is, granted, not so cut and dried. When I reflect on it, I think that the philosophy of science, as well as so-called "critical thinking," could be a much larger part of science education. But that's easy enough to just say, the real question is in the specifics.

Persky writes, "Rather than snootily saying that there’s no controversy because there’s no evidence for intelligent design, or that science teachers should stick to science and not discuss theology or philosophy, I think that we teachers (both philosophers and scientists) ought to recognize that it’s completely reasonable for people to ask, “If evolution is true, then what does it mean for our belief in a God and for everything else?”"

I think that science teachers could reasonably point out that evolution has nothing to say about God. I don't see the connection, and I don't really see what there is to teach.

And I don't think it's "snooty" to say that there's no controversy, since there isn't. Stan Persky seems to be using the word controversy to mean the confusion that may occur in people's heads when they learn about evolution and it conflicts (somehow) with their beliefs. People at the Discovery Institute and others mentioned are using the word controversy to mean actual scientific controversy. I think it's a good idea to keep those two concepts straight.

He continues, "It’s reasonable for students, once they get their minds around the notion that “evolution” is not an agent and does not have teleological purposes, to ask, “Are we living in a purposeless universe? And if we are, then what’s the meaning of our lives?” Since we teachers believe evolution is true, I think it’s our responsibility to answer that question.

I think this is a bit of a stretch. Teachers are to give the meaning of life? And what exactly are teachers supposed to say, when asked for the meaning of life in Biology 9?

Once students "get their minds around the notion that evolution is not an agent and does not have teleological purposes," what more is there to teach? Seriously.

And I would be careful to watch how much we let the current media climate affect what we put in our science curriculum.

I am sympathetic to the call for more philosophy in the science class. I think, though, that the specifics (what class, when, how long, what philosophy, etc.) are crucial, and that the case for going off on (value judgement:) philosophical tangents ought to be quite strong.

Open to concrete suggestions, though. Any science teachers out there?

stan: I have no idea what you're going on about.

deep forbidden lake: Evolution and the origins of life are not the same thing. Evolutionary biologists and abiogenesis researchers (who are biochemists, I believe) are not the same people, and don't work on the same things. So stan's claim that "Evolutionists can't explain how life began and the reason for it" is true, if meaningless. (Also, the origins of life are as of yet unknown although there are, of course, hypotheses.)

dfl: Okay. (BTW, I just figured out what "xianity" means. I thought you were referring to some fringe cult, or something--not so fringe after all.)

Deep:

Let’s take this slowly so you don’t get confused.

I asked: “Prove that evolution happens randomly.”

Your reply was:” I’m not here to prove anything.” (This is very surprising since you’ve spent so much time trying to prove my opinion wrong. Thus, you did not answer the question.)

Then you asked me to justify/prove the statement: “Evolutionists can’t explain how life began or the reason for it.” (Since your previous “answer” was not really an answer, it turns out that you are actually answering a question with a question.)

I replied: “If evolutionists could explain why life began then the whole topic of creation would wither and die.” (This is self evident, otherwise Persky would not have written the article, and we would not be “discussing” it.)

Prove that you said neocons and Christians are one and the same: A day or so ago you ranted that your mission in life is to be a pain to the “shoit for brains neocons and deluded godboys and godgirls.” (Since you’re tarring all those people with the same brush, obviously you are convinced that they’re one and the same.)

I find it amusing to be accused by you of “personal attacks.” If you don’t like personal attacks then perhaps you shouldn’t fire the first shot.

“FYI: In order to be successful making personal attacks in a public forum you need to understand what the other guy is all about by reading his work carefully enough to find the faulty logic/BS and you have to have remember everything that preceeded (sic) the most recent posts including your own output.” (That’s right!)
“I'm not here to be nice or make friends..I've clearly stated my purpose...I'm not hiding my agenda..” (Your “purpose”?! You have as much purpose as the crazy guy standing on the street corner, shaking his fist and yelling at the sky or at passerbys. In fact, you’re the internet version of this. And any valid points that you’ve expressed have no respectability because of the way you express them.)

Who made God? What flicked the switch on the Big Bang? Neither the priests nor scientists have answered those ones yet. But it's kind of the same question. Whenever I try to contemplate it I get dizzy after a few minutes and have to sit down ;-).

BTW, it's all very well and good to lay the blame for death and destruction at the feet of religious extremists, but it's the scientists who've made the process so damn efficient.

"explain 'why' life began"

There doesn't have to be a reason, and I suspect there isn't. It just began.

"Why" indicates purpose, and such statements as above are indicative of the way belief in deities pervades our whole culture. There is no "why", only "how".

well, you know I gotta ask it, ammonra...

"How" do you know there is no "why"?

For all you believers ...

All Hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

http://www.venganza.org/

Darwin was a xian.

re: darwin was a Christian.

Hope this UBB code works...

deep:

In my haste I wrote "anything" instead of "any particular theory..." So what. That doesn't change the meaning and it's still a non-answer. What makes you think that you can condemn one theory and not support another without showing a total lack of integrity? In any case, it's quite clear that my "small mindedness" is getting under your skin.

Keep on shaking your fist and yelling at the sky...nobody really cares.

Logic is wasted here dfl.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster reigns!!!!

"How" do you know there is no "why"?

Of course you had to ask. Because it presupposes a deity. Prove the diety first then ask. Until then there can be no "why".

We must all become pirates to save the earth! So says the greatness that is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. May his noodly appendage touch us all.

http://www.venganza.org/

And Stan:

Isn't creationism and ID two different things? Maybe that's why you seem so confusing? We know creationism is not Science. The court in the US has already decided that you can't teach creationism in the public school system. Religious types that really hate losing have tried introducing ID as a replacement. If they were the same thing they'd be really screwed.

Personally, I wish they'd let teachers teach both sides of the issue. I'm sure God fearing parents would be overjoyed at hearing their children argue and give evidence why the Christian God and Jesus are mythological constructs. Yup ... really pleased.

deep:

Reading your posts these past few days reminded me of a line I heard in a song long ago: “...I’m right because I say I am.” Unfortunately, I know several people who display this childish trait in real life. Not much can be done to help them because it might be the result of FAS. Still, your rants have certainly been amusing. By the way, I don’t see too many people rushing to support you either, but I guess that doesn’t matter because... you’re right.

Try not to get hurt when patting yourself on the back. And next time I see that crazy guy on the corner shouting at the sky I’ll think of you.

Save your breath Stan. This guy is as whacko as they get. He's already been banned from this site as 'sleepswithangels' and he has obviously figured out how to re-register with a new moniker. He'll most likely be banned again because he won't be able to stay under control for long and when he loses it he is quite disgusting indeed. As for the story, how could there be anything wrong with teaching the various theories, whether they be scientific or religious? That's what education is all about.

Nemesis:

True on all counts. Still, it was kind of fun watching this nutbar spin his wheels. I read on some other thread about a "committee to ignore Ron Erwin." It would probably make more sense to put dfl on the list before R E. Might save dfl's life too...he's going to have a seizure if he continues spazzing out like he has been.

What's this about Christians being neo-cons? Where does that leave Tommy Douglas? (my dad heard him speak over 40 years ago and said it was like being at a gospel tent revival meeting, with fire and brimstone from the Baptist preacher that Douglas was... although my agnostic/atheist dad didn't hold that against him) What about Martin Luther King? The Rev. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? COPE councillor Tim Stevenson is a man of the cloth, is he not? I could go on but I think you get my drift...

I could not agree with Nemesis more. They must teach all theories whether scientific or religious. The Flying Spaghetti Monster will be pleased!

http://www.venganza.org/

One thing is for certain. Even the most intelligent amongst us, cannot tell us what is and isn't. Measured against man's own stark ineptitude (on a philisophical and humanistic front at least), there is none in our midst who has the authority, or the knowledge to say anything other than, the opportunities for anything and everything are wide open, the sky is the limit, and (kids) the world is your oyster..enjoy." If the great and the meek all spent about 5 per cent of their time allowing for possibilities of many dimensions, spiritual, anthropological, etc. we as a society would take such leaps forward in true progression, (not stated ideological progression), that our collective hearts and minds would be blown (quite lovely).

September 11, 2005

ROBBINS Sce Research (1998)
robbinssceresearch.com

Deputy Premier Christy Clark orders political hit on Herb Dhaliwal and One-Half of Lower Mainland British Columbians believe their Members of Parliament and MLA's are corrupt (Will history repeat itself?)

Question #1
For purposes of this question, the word corruption is meant to mean a lowering of ethical standards. Is it your opinion right now that all provincial and federal politicians are more or less corrupt?
Yes 58 %
No 42 %

Question #2-
It has been widely reported that BC Deputy Leader Christy Clark's husband and brother, the chief organizers and fund raisers in British Columbia for Prime Minister Paul Martin, participated in the overthrow of the constituency association of former federal liberal Cabinet Minister Herb Dhaliwal, including using dubious or fraudulent memberships to accomplish this political objective. In your opinion, is Deputy Premier Christy Clark, at least in part, politically responsible for the actions of her brother and husband in this regard?
Yes 42. %
No 58 %

Question #3-
If it were revealed that Christy Clark's constituency office located in Port Moody Westwood was involved either directly or indirectly in the overthrow of former federal minister Herb Dhaliwal's riding association, would it be your opinion that Christy Clark was politically responsible?
Yes 95 %
No 05 %

Question #4-
If it were proved that Christy Clark's BC constituency office was involved and that Deputy Premier Christy Clark had direct knowledge of the events, and of the alleged corrupt manner in which the overthrow of Herb Dhaliwal's riding association was undertaken, including the use of dubious or fraudulent memberships, would it be your opinion that Deputy Premier Christy Clark should resign?
Yes 84 %
No 16 %

Commentary Although most respondents do not think Deputy Premier Christy Clark is politically responsible for her husband or brother, a large majority is of the opinion that she had to know what was going on. Respondents also believe that if Deputy Premier Christy Clark had any knowledge of the events she should resign.

The fact of the matter is that Christy Clark, her husband and her brother were responsible for the overthrow of Herb Dhaliwal. Her operatives Tony Roy (constiuency association) and his fiance Anne Wicks were behind the overthrow. Both people are connected to the Port Moody constituency office, Christy Clark, and her brother (Bruce) and husband, Paul Martin lieutenant Marke Marrisen.

Insight (September 11, 2005)-This retro poll reflects in part the kind of politics that Vancouver Mayor wannabe Christy Clark practices. Known for her ruthless take no prisoners style, her flagrant neglect of any broad based grassroots work, and her close relationship with certain elements of the Indo-Canadian community, makes one wonder whether the Sam Sullivan controlled Membership Committee of the NPA will find anymore phony or fraudulent members for Clark during the race for the NPA nomination for Mayor.

Also, what percentage of Christy Clark’s so-called new NPA members is Indo-Canadian? To be blunt, if Sam Sullivan wins, considering who brought these members/pumpkins to the party, they may very likely be useless to him in the race for Mayor.

Glen P. Robbins

(604) 942-3757
-30-

Robbins; I checked out your website and learned that you have an obvious bing-on for Christy Clark and will do anything you can to discredit her. I hope you realize that this makes your 'surveys' about as legitimate as Glennochio's budgets.

Nemisis-I don't know about Glennochio (if you mean Glen Clark), but for what it is worth, I have never personally supported the NDP(yet). I am not certain, but I believe most of my cohorts in ROBBINS are more inclined to be conservative although I know a few 'like' Christy Clark. None of my associates who like Christy Clark have a difficulty with the re issuance of these surveys/polls. It will be interesting to see how these memberships turn out! The questions for the survey posted originate in the 'legitimate news'.

You obviously didn't check very closely, or you would have (prior to writing anything) made the connection between the date on the polls relative to their (re)issue now. Christy Clark is moving from Port Moody to Vancouver and wants to be Mayor. These surveys/polls are probably the most relevant depictions of Christy's political history at this time. Just as the press squeezed Mr. Brown in the states over his bogus resume during a time when he was in the spotlight, so too should Christy be squeezed.

There is not one survey that I have posted relating to Christy Clark that any journalist of any merit would say is inappropriate. The one posted here is over a year old but relates to memberships she submitted this weekend.

If I truly had a bing-on for Christy Clark, these surveys you have logistically circularized as illegitimate would be published, or re-published during the campaign for Mayor. I have published them during her run for the NPA nomination, an entirely different 'action' which any first year political science/journalist could explain to you.

Christy's achilles heal is her lack of being tested. She has raised the bar running for Mayor of a large city when she is another smaller one. Trust me, only elements in the crowd would see these polls soley as a 'bing-on' (an expression which I feel diminishes me somewhat). People in the game see it for what it is, a fair and true testing of Ms. Clark while she moves through the testing period, prior to running for Mayor of Vancouver, if she in fact wins the nomination.

uh,uh ammonara, you are pre-supposing that "why" means there is a deity...

What if it is a purposeless God?

What kind of universe would a purposeless God make?

What if God is evolution itself? What if God is change itself? What if God is mutation itself?

Since when did the possibility of God have only to do with the smallness and triviality of religion?

I don't have any problem with you being an atheist, why do you have such a problem with my agnosticism?

Anyway, I'll repeat my first questions:

What if it is a purposeless God? What kind of universe would a purposeless God make?

Way back when, Ammonra wrote: "This subject rightly belongs in churches, not schools, but even if it were to be included in schools, it should be in philosophy or social studies courses, certainly not modern science classes."

Two points in support (I hope) of Persky:

1) I don't believe there is any subject that does not rightly belong in schools, as long as it questions. Scientists who opposed "teaching the controversy" instead ask students to accept evolution as received wisdom, or what fundamentalists would call revelation. This is not an appropriate attitude for science, which at every turn should ask: if this is the case for; what is the case against?

2) The intellectual fragmentation that leads us to separate science from the humanities (let alone all the branches within each) has created the mythic committee of blind persons examining the elephant. It is no surprise that Persky must bring a scientist to class to teach evolution, which his students likely already have accepted before they learn what it is. Conversely, a look at the corporatized science so present in our universities (and the rule outside them) should make us revolt against leaving science in the lab hermetically sealed from the ethical consequences of its discoveries.

i'm following the tyee stories less frequently as time goes by and it's because of 'stories' like this one. poor authorship and a really lame punchline.

either deal with hard facts and take a position as a medium or lose your audience. this flaky 'intelligent design' crap is not for thinkers, it is for believers.

i'm not going to follow or believe in the tyee. either choose to be careful about the issues you raise and the 'stories' or articles you choose to print or drift into obscurity as an online paper that never had a point.

it's been a couple of weeks at least since i checked in on what's being written. after this piece of junk (sports metaphors????), i'll give it a month and then maybe call it quits (game over, for those who think sports to understand everything).

Teach the Controversy!

I propose that all students have at least one session in which they are presented with the alternate theories.

Health and Medicine:
The Stork Theory of Human Reproduction, the Evil Vapours Theory of Disease, and the Tiny Humans Theory of Spermatazoa must all be given time in the curriculum.

Geology:
The Flate Earth Theory
The Instant Grand Canyon Theory
The Six-day Fossils Theory

Astronomy:
The Earth-Centric Theory
The Old-Age-of-the-Universe is Just a Trick Theory

Physics:
The Deity-is-Pushing-Everything-Down Theory of gravity

`````````````````````````````````````
What implication has the science of evolution for one's belief in God? None. They are two non-intersecting systems. Or, "Non-overlapping Magisteria" as Gould expressed it.

The true and only reason for this non-existant "controversy" is the promulgation of theocracy. Pure and simple.

one final comment:

this is typical of bad research, setting up a false dichotomy (i.e. creationism vs. 'intelligent design'), which forces readers to think there are only two ways to look at an issue. there are myriad ways of interpreting every issue, including that of how the world came to be, how human beings develop or evolve, etc., etc.

to get an idea of what i mean, check out this article in the recent _common ground_ paper.
http://www.commonground.ca/iss/0509170/cg170_geoff.shtml

no, this is not an endorsement of that particular print medium. unlike many, i don't refer to one source for all of my info. i pick and choose based on how well articles are written and if the material being discussed is relevant at all.

in this particular case, readers are challenged to think about other theories about the 'evolution' of human beings as a species beyond religion and beyond darwinism. darwinism fits well with the economic model that dominates our world. religious or pseudo-religious notions of god's involvement support their theocratic understanding of the world. there are so MANY other ways of looking at things.

no wonder this 'story' bored me; it's poorly written and it relies on the readership being forced into a dualistic mentality of 'this or that.'

you know, the world started going downhill more rapidly (again) when the famous bush speech (written by a canadian) said 'us vs. them' and 'with us or against us.'

people: start rejecting these false dichotomies as soon as you see them. don't even give it time. explore all ideas but don't let yourselves get pidgeonholed by some 'writer.'

I'm no fan of Ms. Clark, but the answers to the questions in that survey after #2, pretty much write themselves don't they?

To paraphrase: If someone were proven guilty of dishonesty, would you trust them less?

At least that's my interpretation.

BTW, talk about a threadjack... We WERE talking about God and the classroom, not politicians with parachutes.

Beyond Dualism:

If you believe the Tyee is so bad then why give it a month? Leave now and never come back. You can go on with your life and I'm sure the good people at The Tyee or anyone who posts here won't really care. You can keep reading Norman Spector for insightful views. LOL!

Hey all you athiests, agnostics and general unbelievers out there:

Can't you see that though it may be fun like shooting ducks on the water, all you are doing is giving the religionists the attention they need to prove their (unresolvable) arguments require serious attention?

Hot-button issues such as abortion, evolution, etc, are issues necessary for born-agains to impress upon their faithful that they are being "attacked" yet again by us pagans who are about to destroy civilised society.

Dangrice said it well:

Good on ya, Stan. Scientists have for too long held out in their isolated, "objective" corner, never admitting that wherever there is human endeavour there is human bias.

Given the massive and not entirely salutary effects of science on the world, it's time scientists got off their high horse and involved themselves in the larger debate.

If god was purposeless then there would be no "Why" because such a question requires explaining purpose.

I have no probelm with your agnosticism or anyone else's religiosity. The subject is why ID should not be taught in science classes and that is all.

Just Me quoes me in a previous post, but then ignores relevant comments that I later wrote in a second post:-

Science does not work by examining sides of a question. Science examines evidence and seeks to explain it. It makes no attempt to explain subjects on which there is no evidence, except in the formation of rudimentary hypothyses so that evidence can be found and tested. The hypothesis is that an "Intelligence" directed evolution. What is the objective evidence to support it. Present the evidence so we can scrutinise it and evaluate it.

As to there being no subjects which should not be taught in our schools, how about pornograpy, NAZIism, Christian Satanism, pedophilia, bomb making, poison plants of BC? I could think of literally dozens more.

Religious doctrines, no matter how inocuously they are made to appear (like ID) have no place in science classes. To put them there would be using science to infer they have some scientific validity by association, when they do not. Faith is not evidence in the scientific sense and science should not be prostituted in such a fashion.

"If you believe the Tyee is so bad then why give it a month? Leave now and never come back. You can go on with your life and I'm sure the good people at The Tyee or anyone who posts here won't really care."

His/her posts were as insightful as anyone else's in the thread. Let's not discourage that. Better than the phallus-fueled swordfights that distinguish a lot of the rest.

$0.02 for you

dfl et al-First of all, I know the comment about the Christy's son's relationship to the Premier was meant to be flippant and within the context of the discussion, but it is a little hurtful don't you think?

All is fair in politics but I have seen Christy and her husband Mark with that child, and they are like any other loving couple who with their son are a happy family.

Once again, the survey followed the news, our people designed the questions based on a political legal type of questioning, that is, if her office was in on it she was guilty. The previous question which one writer believes answers itself, was designed that way to test the resistance to condemning Christy at that level of questioning, the implications of her brother or husband against her own political life. The respondents distinguished Christy from this in a relatively high number considering the question.

This isn't a push poll as many misinterpret it. As a matter of fact the contrarian tone is advantageous to Christy. Often, a lawyer will ask his or her client questions on the stand that are tough, and designed to permit the client to explain tough situations with some clarity. It also takes the wind out of the sails of say the prosection (criminal) who will use a tougher tone. Once asked however, in the legal context the prosecutor would really have to change course and reflect on the answer given, rather than the question, which in the course of a jury trial might have been more influential coming from the person (the prosecutor in this instance) asking the question.

So, Christy performs well in the lower mainland in a line of questioning that is certainly contra to a puff piece.

She is 'hung' on the office involved question. I knew the office was involved because they told me. The press when I first published the poll knew the question was valid, and like any good attorney would, I had an idea what the response would be. So when only 42% go against Christy on one of the questions she is innocent of that 'charge'. When well over 90% go against her, she is 'guilty' of that charge.

The press did not pursue the information in the 90% question because they now knew that this would hang Christy, and possibly finish her career.

Once again, that survey is perfectly well suited to the issue of the memberships for the NPA candidate for Vancouver Mayor. Christy has raised alot of memberships, sufficient it would seem to win. Will we find out from the press how many memberships she submitted were valid? Probably not. Will all of 'her' members show up? This we will get an answer to.

deep forbidden lake: In answer to your question...so far it's all quite simple...just some jamaican rum, a few tokes and dancing on the sandbar...but who knows ...there is much territory left to be explored...so many possibilities...a beer volcano could erupt at any moment....

ammonra: I would agree only that I think "why" and "how" are human questions and that perhaps "if" there is a God they may not be his/her greatest consideration.

Sometimes, if you think of this planet without the presence of humans, it is quite a beautiful thought...though I'm still rooting for us humans...still in that scenario a tree or flower's purpose (if they have purpose), would be free of the assumptions of man. Though evolution, to me at least, seems both purposeful and purposeless at the same time.

deep forbidden lake: In line with this discussion, I'll just say I'll hold to the mystery. ;-)

"My phallus never misses a chance to figuratively bone a buggered again xian."

Y'all are mostly just waving 'em around however. I have one. I know what they look like. Put it away.

Pre Christian North American culture is rife with examples of a creature that ran accross the land and transformed different people into all the creatures we see today. This was thier religeon. When Whitie came over with thier JC/Savior crap, they declared the native religeons of NA as heathens, savages, godless, as well as the work of the devil. What would the founders of american society say about today's scientologists?

dfl-Never mind the wars and such (man's evil), or free will (God'a apparent grace), how is it possible that evolved 'rule of law' man would push this with all they have to marry gay people of whom two-thirds are male, and yet basically abandon the right of one gay man in Stanley Park to have the rest of his natural after a group of obviously unsocialized young men beat him for 30 minutes 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 until he is dead.

Personally, I have no ethers or Tim Leary's so from time to time I must imbibe in the so-called illusion. Otherwise, for me at least, dealing with some of this hardcore would ultimately make it impossible for me to read bedtime stories to my youngest daughter, or understand her efforts when she and her friends choreograph their own dances.

It would be just too cold. I have tasted the pavement from time to time, and yes that makes getting up from the same...interesting, exhilerating, challenging. But sometimes I need to rely on my spirit and my heart, and not just my head (certainly not just my head), or there is very little I (personally) can add to life.

Is my sense of creationism...escapism? I don't see it that way, but perhaps it is because I know that personally I cannot afford to.

Stump:

Beyond Dualism was saying that The Tyee was so bad that he was contemplating not coming back. Who cares how insightful his comments were. If he truly believes the site is so lacking of real insight, good journalism, and thought provoking views and opinions, why would he want to come back? It would be like continually eating at a restaurant where you hated the food. What's the point of returning? Is he punishing himself? I mean, if that is really how he feels.

dfl-I undertand.

Hey Chris

I've been Touched by his Noodly Appendage!

The Flying Spaghetti Monster theory must be taught alongside other so-called scientific theories!

Ramen!

I myself favour Punctuated Equilibria:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
as God's way of doing things. After all, if you are an omnipotent and omniscient
entity, wouldn't you want at least the pretense of a little variety to relieve the millenia......?

"God is dead." -deep forbidden lake

"deep forbidden lake is dead" -God?

Back in the 4th century St Augustine postulated his theory of evolution. It wasn't until about 1,000 years later (Renaissance) that Special Evolution theory came into being, in an age that valued Mutability. The Victorians were becoming skeptical of Creationism and were quite accepting of Darwin's theories (and Malthus, Huxley, etc.). Scientific discoveries such as that of DNA have answered most of the questions raised by evolutionary theory and possibly may one day answer the remaining question ("the missing links" such as the transitional species between those with stubs and those with wings).

But what about devolution? I'm becoming quite skeptical of Darwin's ideas that the species are struggling to improve and think Wagner was probably closer to the truth. We're singing while we head for destruction; "fiddling while Rome burns."

Oops, it was "Special Creation" that came into being during the Renaissance.
Yours in malapropism