Translation: You ignorant Christians shut up and don't give your opinions about science, morality or anything that interferes with my liberal agenda. Just feed the poor so my taxes don't go up too much.

Every letter I have read against ID amounts basically to name calling or defining "science" so narrowly that Darwinism couldn't possibly be challenged. There are never any specific "scientific" arguments or evidence to either show ID is false or that macroevolution is true (or even likely). Any challenge to Darwinism is merely shouted down by atheists.

Hey, Ecuman. Would you really understood if I quoted Thewissen's beautiful work on whale evolution, with its amazing transitional fossils for the whole series from land to sea? Or how about some of the very recent work on DNA sequencing that shows the close relation of whales to hippos? What about the well-preserved avian-dinosaurian links coming out of China-- Sivornis, Apiornis, etc? These are just two of the "smoking guns" in recent paleontology and biochemistry that add to the overwhelming body of evidence for macroevolution.

Our failure to understand every nuance of evolution does not indicate that the entire structure is flawed; it is filling in these chinks that is the aim of science. The recent deliberate gross "misunderstandings" among evolution foes shows that they either fail to understand what science is and does, or they are the ones ignoring reality to fit their own "agendas" (a word that I have grown recently to despise, by the way). I say let the ball be in the other court--the burden of proof should be on the naysayers to evolutionary theory to demonstrate the merits of ID.

"There is grandeur in this view of life." C. Darwin

Are you calling me dumb? Ok, show me some evidence and I'll try to "understand". Seeing some evidence would be a refreshing change from what usually is presented on this forum.

By the way, how can someone present evidence when they are not allowed to in scientific journals, classrooms, etc? I don't think the evidence is any different in terms of classical operational science. I think the two sides are looking at the same evidence and have two different interpretations of that evidence. Sometimes evidence is ignored if it doesn't fit in with a particular model.

http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/whale_origins/index.html

Dobzhansky, Th: 1937. Genetics and the Origin of Species, Columbia University Press

Eldredge, N: 1992. Macroevolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches and Adaptive Peaks, McGraw-Hill

Eldredge, N: 1995. Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate, Weidenfeld and Nicholson

Goldschmidt, R: 1940. The Material Basis of Evolution, Yale University Press

Gould, S: 2003. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory

Niwrad,

Obviously I can't read all those books and give you a quick response. I can address the whale evoutionary "evidence" with this website. I hope you'll read it with an open mind.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/whale.asp

"Every letter I have read against ID amounts basically to name calling or defining "science" so narrowly that Darwinism couldn't possibly be challenged."

Darwinism was challenged and fought over for nearly 100 years after it was first proposed. Science has accepted it, with necessary corrections.

I'm curious, though. What would science really look like if the ID crowd had their way? How would you add a supernatural option to ANY scientific inquiry? Care to enlighten us on that?

As a Christian, I value honesty. The problem I have with the folks pushing Intelligent Design is that they are not being totally honest. What the agenda seems to be is teaching Creation Science.

I am not making a value judgement on Intellegent Design, Creation Science or evolution. What I am saying is there is something more important for Christians than teaching the creationism and that is honesty.

So, Mr. Kobelev, you don't believe in God and want our schools to teach against Him?

Eric, I won't pretend to speak for the ID community. I'm just looking for an honest evaluation and the most reasonable interpretation of the facts and evidence.

What are you guys afraid of? Christians are not somehow commanded to turn the USA into a theocracy? Quit overreacting and spreading fear and hatred for all things Christian. Yes, some Christians behave like jerks and are not very thoughtful in their discourse. So are many atheists, Darwinists and liberals. Let's side aside the name calling (Obviously, I like labels though!) and ridicule that happens on both sides and look at the issues and arguments themselves.

Hey, Boris. Do us a favor, please. Go find a picture of the design of the old Indian Head nickle, then tell us exactly why it is a government statement "against Him."

The letter writer only said that Christians are trying to suvbert the teaching of science. He said nothing about teaching "against God" in schools. Teaching science in science class is as much teaching "against God" as the old Buffalo nickle is a statement of atheism.

Is it just me or is their a biting hatred between the lines of this letter. Christian fundamentalists?, so-called "intelligent design"?, Christian ideological dogma?

The use of these terms identify the writer as someone who has a personal problem with Christian beliefs.

Science is great. New ways of interpreting things are discovered every day. We have come along way to being able to understand the things around us. But we have still only scatched the surface. I have no problem with a quest for knowledge. But shouting down the opposition is no real way to make that quest. With all of our knowledge, we are still so very very ignorant about what is in this universe and beyond. I believe that some things are even beyond the ability of humans to process. I see no problem in trying, but if that is what you seek for fulfillment, you'll never attain it.

And I'm sorry, science or not, IMO embryonic stem-cell research and cloning animals and humans is sick and disturbed regardless of the intellectual implications of it.

ECUMAN,

I couldn't get link to work. Please check it (and I'll be trying some more).

Thank you.

Oops. Sorry, just got it.

Dough,

You could try to copy, then paste to your browser. If that doesn't work, go to www.answersingenesis.org. Then type "Thewissen" in the search field. It is the first article.

Stem-cell research is sick only if you don't have a loved one who could benefit from such research. Thankfully, the Reagans and Bill Frist are now working to pass stem-cell research legislation.

Those of you reading and posting on this blog who are Christian are no doubt familiar with this verse: "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

The wisdom of the world is foolishness to God, and the wisdom of God is foolishness to the world. Read 1 Corinthians if you need to be reminded of this. We're not called to argue people into truth. We're called to love them.

Truth, the SKoreans are cloning dogs for food since the population of those critters has declined rapidly, especially the tender, edible variety. They export the lesser variety to the North. Surely you would not withhold such a treat from these folks. :>)

Never looked at it like that MP. :)

What's scary is that we have these people cloning animals and working on cloning humans that have NO idea of the long-term ramnifications of what they are doing. In our grasp for knowledge, it is very feasible that we could also be creating our own self-destruction of the human race.

And, Craig, all of us have had sick relatives or loved ones at some time in our lives. Embryonic stem-cell research proponents argue that this research can save all kinds of lives. That has yet to be proven, but even if it is true, does the end justify the means?

And what if we do start miraculously saving people who are dying from disease? Then what happens. Where do we put all these people? Either overpopulation will create other problems that will kill people, or we'll be stacked on top of each other.

I think Nancy Reagan and the Reagan's position is one of selfishness due to their loved ones pain and grief. Like I said before, all of us have had people die from illness. That doesn't rationalize or excuse barbarianism.

"Quit overreacting and spreading fear and hatred for all things Christian."

I'm not overreacting, mon. I merely asked a question of practical importance. You've derided the "narrow definition of science" quite a few times, so I'm wondering how your version of science would differ.

I mean, does the Discovery Institute or any of those other ID think tanks have some supernatural science work going on that we haven't heard of yet? Do you know of any links that could help show us what to expect when the votes finally go against materialist science?

To expand my argument.

What if we cure cancer and heart disease with stem-cell research. Wonderful, right? Wrong. Then people will hang on longer and we'll have to find ways to care for these people who aren't dying. They'll still continue to get old and still encounter other health problems. Of course, maybe we can cure all those too. Then we'll have to have mandatory abortions, birth control, euthanazia, etc to limit the population on earth.

We now have the technology to do tremendous things. With that technology comes the responsiblity to think LONG and HARD about what we are doing.

Truth says: "We now have the technology to do tremendous things. With that technology comes the responsiblity to think LONG and HARD about what we are doing."

Boy, ain't that the truth! I agree wholeheartedly.

Eric,

When I refer to a "narrow definition of science", I am refering to scientists (and others) who will NOT even ALLOW the POSSIBILITY of a supernatural cause for the origin of the universe, no matter if the evidence points to a designer. I'm not saying that EVERYTHING has to be explained with supernatural explanations. In fact, in my view God created a universe with natural laws and causes that explain a majority of events. That doesn't exclude Him from intervening at times.

There are two basic causes for any event, event causation (a prior event causing another event) or agent causation (someone deciding). If a prior event doesn't explain another event, then an intelligent agent may be the cause. For example, if my son's bedroom looks like a tornado hit it; I might check the local news to see if a tornado had been spotted in the area. If there was no tornado, then it would be perfectly reasonable for me to ask--WHO did this?

Why do we continue this pointless discussion? The tone indicates an intention to change anothers mind. Any been changed? Believe what you want...in the end it won't matter who is right. We'll all be gone. And, don't give me the crap about intellectual pursuit, etc.

Is America great because of science or Christianity? Our ethics, morality, constitution, all of it comes from our freedom. The basis of that freedom comes from the Christian faith.

Who do you trust with advanced technologies? Koreans? Germans? I don't think so. Sorry Eric, but not the bloody English either.

Opinionated, it is WRONG to try to change someone else's mind?

I have read books by or heard stories of both Christians and atheists who have changed their minds by someone else's argument. Anthony Flew one of the most prominent atheists over the last fifty years recently became a deist (although not yet a Christian) because of the ID arguments.

How do you KNOW that nobody has changed his mind or never could? If you could KNOW that, then you would be God and I win the argument that there is a God and creator!

This subject has been beat to death since before the days of Darwin, from the pulpit, to the courts, to the newspapers and even on courthouse squares. So far it's the same old argument, your wrong and I 'm right. Unfortunately few have bothered to look that there may be some truth in both.

I disproved the theory of ape to man a few weeks ago while trying to paint my 20 ft ceiling. I found that man is not capable of swinging from rafters inorder to extend his reach. :>)

of no significance but did anyone else besides me, notice that the person who posted as 'niwrad selrahc' must be an identical twin from a separate mother, cause his name is charles darwin spelled backwards.

Good catch Buz,

You're either really smart or cixelsyd. (;-}

"You're either really smart or cixelsyd. (;-}"
well i know i'm not dyslexic and uncertain about being really smart.....maybe i'm hardwired differently (or miswired) !

You don't know theres a god.

You may believe there is one, but you DON'T KNOW!

This is fact.

We don't know that man evolved from lesser primates.

We may believe he has, but we DON'T KNOW!

This is fact.

This is an issue that has strong feelings based on personal beliefs on both sides. Saying one is wrong and the other is right is ignorant. Let ID be taught in the classrooms. It's not like they're gonna be teaching using Jesus's name anyway.

Buz, That was a good catch. I should have recognized a dead, backwards argument.

I was out of town and could not reply to the discussion earlier. I believe that people missed the main point of my letter - I am not against Christians nor am I trying to say that ID will install theocracy in America. What I am merely pointing out is that in a globalized and competitive world education is the one thing that distinguishes loosers from winners. If we want to maintain our standards of living and ensure that our children don't end up loosers in a globalized economy we must teach them skills that are needed to be competitive. Teaching religous doctrine won't get you jobs and it won't help with cancer research. One needs science to advance technology and innovation and our kids deserve to be given the tools to compete on a level playing fields with Koreans, Indians, Chinise and others.