The question is not what God could do, but what He actually did. God could have created the universe while wearing a pink tutu, but there is no evidence for it.

Also, I have no problem with evolution defined as change over time or even adaption within a species. There is certainly evidence for that. However, the fossil evidence is lacking good evidence for intermediate fossils showing change from one type to another (i.e. reptile to bird).

Classic Darwinism called for random changes over time. To say that God directed a random change is an oxymoron.

Evolution proponents need better evidence to reach the conclusions they give us and should not disallow contrary evidence in text books that does not suit their philosophical bias. That is the real problem that we are faced with in our educational system.

Bennie, where does the complete and total lack of scientific support for creationism fit into the curriculum?

Bennie, get over it. The Creation belief is religion, but Evolution is SCIENCE. Guess which one should be taught in SCIENCE classrooms.

Ed,What do you mean by scientific support? Do you mean scientific evidence or support from the scientific commununity? Why do you believe that there is no scientific "support" for creation? What evidence causes you to arrive at that conclusion? Have you ever read articles or books that question Darwinism and looked at their reasons for those questions?

Stacy, I changed my mind due to your intelligent comments and superior mind! What should I get over? The search for the facts and the truth? My questioning the high priesthood of philosphical naturalism taught in science classes? Contrary, to your assumptions and your stereotypes, I believe that good science should be taught in the classroom. Good science should allow alternate points of view and questions in the textbooks, from teachers and students. If you have an open mind, I can recommend some books that look at the evidence (and lack of in some cases) of Darwinism and you can make an informed decision after examining the evidence on both sides.

Bennie, science is entirely consistent with your desire for openness to alternative viewpoints. Any scientific conclusion may change in light of better data.

However, you confuse evidence, which is testable according to the scientific method, with doctrine, which is founded on belief and authority. Injecting a specific interpretation of the creation stories into science classrooms is as wrong as requiring theology students to "prove" the existence of heaven by using the scientific method.

Science and theology both enrich our understanding of the world; faith and scientific understanding don't need to be mutually exclusive. But it's a mistake to confuse what each seeks to illuminate, and the "evidence" they use to get there.

Ian, I never mentioned teaching the Genesis account as science. You people are knocking down straw men. Deal with the arguments I present and not what you think that I think. I have no desire to have the Genesis account taught in public school by someone who does not accept it as being true or would not teach it well from a doctrinal standpoint. I am saying that the evidence for intelligent design (information found in the DNA, the fine tuning of the universe for life, irreducible complexity of living organisms, etc.) should be introduced into the discussion. Then let the students decide which side presents the best evidence. I believe students can handle a healthy, scientific debate and that would lead to a higher level of interest in the topic. The book "Icons of Evolution" gives a very accessible look at the problems with the "evidence" for evolution. There are many other books that address the problems with Darwinism.

Sigh...

This isn't about EVOLUTION as a theorized set of circumstances, and DIVINELY-GUIDED CREATION as another theorized set of circumstances, and which of the two is what REALLY happened, at all.

Neither is it about appreciating either one of them for its own sake, in contemplation and wonderment about it. Most of the proponents on both sides don't CARE about the mechanics involved. That's not what this is about.

This is about power, and having an instrument of control over people. How else can it be that a person can be castigated and condemned for uttering above the level of a polite whisper that he believes life arose on its own, or that it was intelligently designed and nurtured into being? It's not because of the BELIEF in and of itself. It's because the mere admission of subscribing to that belief runs counter to the desires and plans for acquiring more power by those that hold to the opposite belief.

Why is it that Creationism vs. Evolution is a fight that is always concentrated on public schools? Because both sides want to influence the coming generation that "theirs" is the "correct belief". But NOT so that the next generation can think and consider with their own minds, or appreciate beauty for its own sake without it referring back to themselves somehow. No, they want tomorrow's men and women to be subject to a measure of control beginning now. It's not enough to understand why the other set of beliefs is wrong: they must accept that "they" ARE wrong, and irredeemably evil, and take that as a matter of faith. But then they aren't even allowed to think about why it is that their OWN side should be "right" or "good" at all!

Rabid Creationists and Rabid Evolutionists: I despise 'em both, for the chains that either would put on the minds of their fellow man under the guise of supposed "righteousness".

In case anyone wonders where the heck does THAT leave a guy: I have been a Rabid Creationist, and a Rabid Evolutionist, at one point or another. As a Christian and student of nature and history, I've wondered also just how it is that the universe, this Earth and the life upon it came about: the physical cosmos is just too perfectly structured for one to believe that it could be anything BUT intentionally and intelligently designed. But there also problems with believing Creationism in the way that it's strictly interpreted by its more vocal adherents: inconsistencies with many things involving physics and other sciences, which should be a logical impossibility since God is by nature never inconsistent or self-contraditory even in His handiwork. Only recently (like, three days ago) have I come to understand how it is that the physical and the spiritual realms are not only NOT mutually exclusive of each other but are definitely one and the same. It's no longer a question for me whether or not God did create the universe, but whether or not He had a choice in the matter at all.

Might post that entire theorem to my blog sometime, or something. Dunno yet: it's long, covers just about EVERYTHING and if this is the way that God allowed the physical universe to come into being as we understand it... well, it's pretty astonishing. It's something that jibes completely with empirical science, but at the same time it adheres perfectly with Judeo-Christian teachings and scriptures. With NO inconsistencies at all! Or at least any that either myself or the friends that I've shared it with have been able to find so far. Would love to publish it and see what others might think of it: gotta be some "holes" in it somewhere and if anyone finds any and they're enough to sink the whole thing... well, guess it's back to the drawing board :-)

The only reason I mention all that is because I feel sorry for both Creationists and Evolutionists, because they both want an understanding but are corrupting that out of lust for power. If only BOTH would let that lust die, they may realize that they have far more in common with each other than they yet realize.

Bennie, I don't know who "you people" are, but I asserted that you want to introduce an interpretation of the creation stories into science. Not that you literally wished to teach Genesis as scientific fact. Intelligent design, now that you've made your exact position clear, is simply another means of injecting doctrine into science.

The problem remains that intelligent design isn't science. It's a set of interpretations based on flawed or illogical assumptions, and which ignores natural phenomena that contradict it.

The real strawman is "philosophical naturalism," which is an ID-inspired ruse to camouflage ID's lack of credibility within the scientific community. Articles supporting ID appear almost exclusively within publications supporting ID; peer review is conducted almost entirely by ID supporters. That's not good science.

Finally, Dr. Wells' "Icons of Evolution" has been thoroughly rebutted. At best, it's poor scholarship. At worst, it's maliciously biased. Which is it? I'll quote Wells' own words: "Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism...." The entire article is posted at http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/talks/wells/DARWIN.htm.

That's quite a riff, Christopher. You managed to equivocate, stereotype, and hand down a huge dose of pity, all in one post. I have to hand it to you.

"That's quite a riff, Christopher. You managed to equivocate, stereotype, and hand down a huge dose of pity, all in one post. I have to hand it to you."

Not EVERYONE that would claim to be a "Creationist" or an "Evolutionist" can fall into this kind of camp, Ian. There are some - on BOTH sides - that have arrived at their beliefs only after a long, tremendous and sometimes painful process of thought and experience and discovery. Creationist though I am, I do have to respect the man who believes in evolution as a matter of personal conviction.

One of the problems in this debate though, is the assumption that no one can have a change of those convictions. That once a person declares himself/herself an Evolutionist, that the person is forevermore condemned to believe in evolution and thus is a damned heretic forevermore amen. That's not the truth of it at all: each of us as individuals has the capacity for growth and change and to become something different than whatever we are now. That's all too easily forgotten when it's lost in this meaningless factionalism: Creationists, Evolutionists, Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Conservatives...

sigh...

...why does it seem that we don't appreciate the fact that a person can change unless it's because he changes in a way that suits us?

The ones who demand that Creationism be indoctrinated as absolute truth - despite the beliefs of the children or their parents - do not want those children to really grow: they want them to be controlled. And the same goes for the ones who demand that Evolution be taught as immutable scientific fact on the basis that it is science and not religion.

It's two different armies, Ian, fighting tooth and nail for the same thing... and they've either forgotten about or don't care, or maybe ever understood in the first place, why it is that they believe in it enough to fight for it.

Christopher, I read the article by Jonathan Wells, so what follows from that? Are you saying that anyone who has an agenda can't be trusted? If that's true, then I can't trust your response because you have an agenda! You make a lot of assertions that ID isn't science. Studying the fine tuning of the universe isn't science? Examining the information in the DNA code isn't science? It isn't if you have a predisposition to the philosophy of naturalism and won't allow anyone to question it! I don't agree with Wells' religious beliefs, but I can look at the arguments he gives on the reliability of the evidence for Darwinism in spite of theological differences. Tell me specifically what has been refuted and why it was refuted and we'll have something intelligent to discuss.

Bennie, ID is founded on a hypothesis that cannot be proved or disproved by testing and experimentation. So, it's not science. You either fail to grasp this, or choose not to. Either way, I'll bow out and wish you a good day.

Evolution is also founded upon a hypothesis that cannot be proved or disproved by testing and experimentation, so it's not science either. Theories about the origin of the world are philosophical, not scientific, because they are not observable and repeatable. Once you tackle an inquiry that cannot be deduced by the scientific method, you have moved outside the realm of science. Evolution and intelligent design are thus on an equal footing--until one begins to observe the available evidence.

The utter lack of transitional evolutionary forms in the fossil record is strong evidence against Darwinism. If it really were true that all life forms evolved slowly over eons of time, the fossil record would contain literally millions upon millions of "in-between" organisms. Scientists find fossils of completed dinosaurs and fossils of completed birds, but where are all the dino-birds? The fossil record is screaming a clear message: there are no transitional forms because all forms of life originated at about the same time.

Another death knell to evolution comes from logic (and how brilliant scientists miss this is beyond me). Take the fish-to-amphibian process. Suppose a fish's gills begin to mutate into lungs. Does it progress up the evolutionary ladder? No. It drowns.

The human body is another example. There are hundreds of millions of interacting parts and operations that must function in total unity to keep a human alive. Would a man have survived millions of years waiting for all those parts and systems to slowly mutate into operability? Hardly. This same principle applies to all life systems including plants, animals, ecosystems, microorganisms, and everything else you can name. For anything to have survived long enough to reach the next rung of development, all its components had to be present and working at the same time. So much for slow, random mutations.

To have an intelligible discussion about what should be taught in public schools, people need to have an intelligible discussion about what makes the most sense in light of the facts. Evolution is hardly a qualified candidate for this position. It is intelligent design that best explains the world around us, and it is intelligent design that must take precedence in the classroom.

The North Carolina constitution calls for religion to be a part of our state's public education (Article IX, Section I). Are we going to embrace the theory whose religious precepts include a rejection of the divine even to the point of irrationality? Or will we embrace the theory whose religious precepts include the acknowledgement of a Designer in the physical world, the only reasonable conclusion?

Justin, Thank you for a good summary of the problems with evolution. The points you bring up sound like science to me. The people in the evolution camp think that design proponents are biased in our views (and we probably are), but they have no bias whatsoever. Give me a break! All of us have a bias in our views. Regardless of motivation, it's the facts that matter and they don't like their "facts" being questioned.

Justin, you should have skipped misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and jumped straight to your final sentence. When the truth is so self-evident, why bother with facts? Good day to you, too.

Bennie, I think Ian's last post is an excellent illustration of your final statement: "They don't like their 'facts' being questioned." I presented rational arguments against evolution supported by the available evidence. In other words, I presented "facts" and dissertated on the implied conclusions of those facts. And instead of countering those weighty arguments, Ian ignored them all and made a broad accusation that I am somehow misrepresenting the facts to make room for my bias. If I said something wrong, Ian, please tell me what it is and why it's inaccurate. It is difficult to make tracks in a debate on the wheels of glittering generalities.

I didn't ignore your argument. I dismissed it the same way I might dismiss a seemingly plausible, but factually incorrect argument by someone claiming the sun rotates around the earth.

Those interested in facts can go to http://www.talkorigins.org/. The site also links to creationist/ID sites, for a look at the subject from that point of view.

I dismissed it the same way I might dismiss a seemingly plausible, but factually incorrect argument by someone claiming the sun rotates around the earth.

We can formally dismiss each other's arguments and call them fairy tales all day long and get nowhere. I pointed out legitmate holes in the theory of evolution--large, substantial holes. Until someone explains why those arguments are as invalid as saying the sun rotates around the earth (rather than simply stating that they are), the debate cannot progress along these lines.

Justin, You are correct in stating that why an argument is invalid or unsound is necessary to refute that argument. This business of I have my expert or website that can refute your expert or website gets us nowhere. It is the evidence or reasons why the experts have come to a particular conclusion that is important. Most or the time, the person has no idea or does not understand why an expert come to a particular conclusion. They then just dismiss your argument or call you a name.

Exactly, Bennie.