'INTELLIGENT DESIGN': ASKING THE HARD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF LIFE

13th August, 2005 DAVID ADAMS It’s the idea that the certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained as the work of a designer rather than a series of random processes. Known as the theory of “intelligent design” (or ID to the initiated), for more than a decade it’s made headlines in the United States and even last week had the president, George W. Bush, giving his support to teaching it in US schools alongside evolution "so people can understand what the debate is about." . Now it seems ID has hit the national agenda in Australia, making front-page newspaper headlines earlier this month and attracting public comments from a senior government minister. PICTURE: Alan Hettinger (iStockphoto.com) “(W)e have simply been exploring - and it’s still only early days - the possibility of would this be a resource that would be useful for people?” says Campus Crusade for Christ's Bill Hodgson when asked about his organisation's interest in the intelligent design DVD 'Unlocking the Mystery of Life'. Much of the focus for the debate locally has been centred on a US-produced DVD called Unlocking the Mystery of Life and Christian mission group, Campus Crusade for Christ Australia. However, the organisation’s national director Bill Hodgson, says the group has not produced the DVD nor is it the official distribution arm for it (in fact, the DVD is produced by US-based Illustra Media with the Australian retail rights held by Focus on the Family). He also says that Campus Crusade for Christ is neither a science nor an education-related organisation and that he he first saw the DVD when given a copy by friends in the US. Hodgson brought it back to Australia where he watched it with other Campus Crusade staff who raised the possibility of it being used as a resource within schools. “So we have simply been exploring - and it’s still only early days - the possibility of would this be a resource that would be useful for people?” he says. The organisation recently spoke to Federal Education Minister, Brendan Nelson, and gave him a copy of the DVD during a visit to Parliament House on another matter. “It wasn’t orchestrated lobbying,” says Hodgson. While giving a speech to the National Press Club in Canberra this week, Nelson said that while he didn’t think it should be a “replacement for teaching of the origins of mankind in a scientific sense”, he did think parents and schools should have the opportunity for students to be taught the theory. “As far as I’m concerned, students can be taught and should be taught the basic science in terms of the evolution of man, but if schools also want to present students with intelligent design, I don’t have any difficulty with that. It’s about choice, reasonable choice.” Campus Crusade for Christ have also approached a number of prominent Christians who are also scientists about the DVD, including Professor Graeme Clark, the Melbourne-based inventor of the bionic ear. He told The Age newspaper earlier this month that the theory should not be confused with creationism. Professor Clark said that one of the first points the theory’s leading proponents, US mathematician, philosopher and theologian Dr William Dembski, makes in a book he has written on the subject - Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology - is that “there is no a priori reason why you must start with what has been accepted by science as a closed book”. “They are thoughtful, intelligent people trying to push the boundaries of knowledge,” he said of Dr Dembski and others behind the theory. Drawing a parallel with his own work, Professor Clark said: “If I had stayed within the box with the bionic ear, I would have been frightened off by scientific colleagues, who said that physiology at the time...was impossible.” “It’s just the hard facts and the case from evidence,” says Bill Hodgson of the theory of intelligent design. “And it’s all scientists talking...It really does stimulate the thinking process. It doesn’t bag out evolution out-of-hand, it actually says ‘What’s the evidence?’.” Hodgson says Campus Crusade would not be lobbying anyone over showing the DVD in schools but would leave it to educational experts to “work that through”. Hodgson notes that the DVD doesn’t approach its subject matter from a religious perspective not does it go into the religious implications of intelligent design. “It’s just the hard facts and the case from evidence,” he says. “And it’s all scientists talking...It really does stimulate the thinking process. It doesn’t bag out evolution out-of-hand, it actually says ‘What’s the evidence?’.” The term intelligent design first began to appear in the US around the end of the Eighties and was more broadly promoted by retired legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson - considered by some as the “father” of the intelligent design movement - after he published his 1991 book Darwin on Trial. While the theory has been pasted by some US-based critics as “creationism in a cheap tuxedo”, the theory of intelligent design does not mention God but simply suggests an “intelligent” designer or designers. Among the key concepts associated with the theory is that of 'irreducible complexity' - a term coined by biochemist Michael Behe in his 1996 book, Darwin’s Black Box. It refers to the argument that the incremental nature of evolution cannot account for the emergence of some complex biochemical cellular systems such as the eye or systems for clotting blood. Another is that of complex specified information (also known as CSI) - the notion developed by Dr Dembski that nature alone cannot produce information that is both complex and specific (take DNA, for example), inferring that it was produced by an intelligent cause. A third key concept is that of a “fine-tuned universe”: that the natural emergence of a universe with all the necessary conditions for life is wildly improbable and thus an intelligent designer is needed to ensure life occurs. Hodgson says that while an increasing number of scientists are saying or inferring that existence must trace its way back to some form of intelligent design, “the difficulty is that scientists are very frightened to go there because they’re at the very edge of their boundaries once they get to that question”. “They know that when they ask that question, the next step is out of their boundaries and into philosophy and religion and theology,” he says. “But the problem is, the question is still inside their boundary, it’s in their border, and there is, I think, too much eagerness to dismiss it - a kind of, ‘Don’t go there, it’s the ends of the earth, don’t go there’.” But, Hodgson says, the question of intelligent designs remains a scientific question and doesn’t raise a debate between Christianity and science but one inside the realm of science itself. “We are not a science organisation, it’s not even one per cent of what we’re about,” he says. “But what we’re about is engaging people with considering the big questions. What concerns me is when I engage young people and adults who are not even interested in asking the big questions, perhaps out of the misconception that they think that somehow the big questions are no longer able to be asked because someone has explained it away...” “We’re simply wanting to say to kids, ‘Ask the question and be informed”.

Your Say

Comment left by JK http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Prasie God for this DVD, in this day and age of mass deception christians need more tools for proclaiming the truth. Brother and sister i urge u to seek God with all your heart, mind and soul the time is extremly short, pray pray pray for this DVD to effect the up and coming generation and also this generation so that Jesus will be lifted up as God and creator of us all. This DVD may be interperted by other religions as evidence for there religions but i'm not sure until i see it (for answers to what other religions believe on the origin of life see the web site link), thats why we need to pray with all our heart that Jesus will be lifted up through this DVD. If there are any christians out there that believe that evoulution could be true, please read the account of Genesis, to believe in evolution is to call God a liar. For answers to alot of questions regarding this subject check out this site, its a blessing. http://www.answersingenesis.org/ God bless all

Comment left by Camila Vika As an education student, I'm very interested and follow this discussion about the teaching of evolution vs creation in schools. I strongly agree that if we're going to be fair to the students and to the community in general we need to present both sides of the argument. People cannot expect or assume that kids these days know about creation and only present the other THEORY evolution. I pray to God that He will be exalted in our schools and government and that all Christians may stand up for His name sake. God bless you all.

Comment left by Rusty Rockets I'm not even going to go into creationism. Instead I want to focus on intelligent design theory that incorporates evolution. Choose any version you like, just so long as its premise is based on a supreme creator. Ok? Now imagine that this rubbish eventually gets taught in schools everywhere, it gets into the mainstream. Now, here's the question! Excluding creationism, as many proponents of particular versions of ID do, what would you teach? What would a lesson plan look like? It would seem to me that it would be a very short lesson! Trying to teach something that you have no concept of at all seems a little difficult.

Comment left by James Hi Rusty, I think the point in this case is not to teach Creationism or any other alternative creation theory. The point is that there are holes in the theory of evolution - as outlined above, one is possible evidence of intelligent design, another is 'irreducibly complex organisms' etc etc - and these should be taught alongside and as part of the theory of evolution in schools. So a lesson plan could run like "okay people, last week we talked about the theory of evolution. Today we're going to look at some flaws in the theory that cannot be easily accounted for" then look at a couple of these problems in more depth. The whole point to the video is that it's not teaching creationism, it's arguing with the theory of evolution - a very interesting topic for class discussion imho.

Comment left by Rusty Rockets What holes in evolution. All I can see are areas that science has not yet answered or are still in the process of answering. And why do "gaps" in evolutionary theory automatically presume a creator? It's just plain illogical, in which case it is already sounding a lot less like science. As for "irreducable complexity", I'm assuming you're talking about Behe, this too has been explained. Try reading "A Biochemists Response to 'The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" [http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/behe.html]. It is just one of a plethora of responses to irreducible complexity from many different fields of science. In fact, in this particular article the author doesn't even have a problem of entertaining the idea of a designer. What you say? Well, like most scientists, he has a vivid imagination, it is what drives a lot of science. But there are many things that a scientist may believe but cannot PROVE. You may suspect that there is a designer, but what evidence is there to show a designers existence. Unfortunately Behe's account does not come up to muster and, in fact, Behe shows a limited ignorance in respect to some of some of the most fundamental knowledge in biochemistry. He also continually claims that there is no literature on certain parts of evolution when there is actually rather a lot. However, most people couldn't be bothered reading a biochemists or immunologists account of complex cells and organisms. Even if you cannot be bothered reading such a response, the most basic fundamental question that remains if you concede a creator is: "Who created the creator?", together with all the implications that this question raises. Seems to be that the invention of a creator raises a much more complicated question/s. My point about education is, how would you start to teach a subject that has no subject topic? To find the subject topic would require finding some evidence of this creator. How would you suppose this be done? If ID is ever taught it should be either in a philosophy or religion class, not as part of a science class. A science class teaching evolution already points out the areas that have not yet been discovered or need more work (they are self evident) why would you need a distincly separate class to do this?

Comment left by James Rusty, you're missing the point. The fact that scientists have to argue against the 'irreducibly complex organism' argument (and the others) means there is a debate, therefore it should be discussed in the classroom. Again, it's not about teaching creationism or anything else, but having a broader, more truthful look at the scientific theory. It's not about a creator, it's about the scientific theory of evolution - so it should be taught in science classrooms.

Comment left by Rusty Rockets Yes, that's right, it is only about evolution. Please let me know what the other theory of life on Earth is. The question of IC has been posed, and it is/has being/been answered by the various relevant scientific fields (I'm guessing you didn't read the article I posted in my response). So what? Why the need to bring in theories like ID and creationism just because a question regarding complex organisms has been raised? Why? Because others want to use this as a vehicle to bring in other accounts of life on Earth that have the same premise as creationism - a creator. That is what IC is implying, is being disingenuous. IC has everything to do with ID, which is no more than, as the article above states, creationism in a cheap tuxedo. IC and ID are joined at the hip. For example, what does IC lead to if we accepted it as true? The so called debate between evolution and ID is a false one because it gives the impression that there are two schools of thought, two theories, when there are not. I assume that what you mean by "debate" is that IC is falsifiable because scientists are actually engaging in discussion on the topic. There is an exchange of ideas, a defense on the part of the scientists. Well, there is a good reason for it. Scientists and others who are no doubt equally concerned, like parents, do not want to see science and ID existing side-by-side on an equal footing. Furthermore, just because ID has a testable component in IC does not mean that the system is falsifiable. This is because everytime someone tries to falsify the statement, the bar gets moved up a notch. How can someone disprove that a creator did not do something? How do you quantify and observe god, a creator or a supreme being?

Comment left by JK Hi Rusty, Who created God? This is often asked of Christians. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question “Who created God?” is illogical, just like “To whom is the bachelor married?”. So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: “If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?” In reply, Christians use the following reasoning: Everything which has a beginning has a cause.1 The universe has a beginning. Therefore the universe has a cause. It’s important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause. In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the Creator of the whole universe, he is the Creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time. Therefore He doesn’t have a cause. In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences. 1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant. 2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum. If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the best solution is that the universe must have been created with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.2 Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause no-one really denies it in his heart. All science, history and law enforcement would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied.3 Also, the universe cannot be self-caused nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it was brought into existence, a logical absurdity. In Summary The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have a beginning. It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause. The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach. God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause. Rusty if you truly seek the truth with your heart God will reveal it to you, there are alot of answers to your questions at this web site www.answersingenesis.org and i pray that you will not let pride interfer with your search. God bless

Comment left by answersingenesis Is evolution 'anti-religion'? It depends. Anti-creationism is becoming increasingly organised and shrewd. The main U.S. pressure group, the so-called National Center for Science and Education (NCSE), regularly advises subscribers to its journal on how to defeat local creationist initiatives. Its chief spokesperson, Dr Eugenie Scott, has lately been urging her constituency to promote the idea that evolution is not ‘anti-God’ or ‘anti-religion’. A self-confessed atheist and winner of humanist awards, Scott’s advice is openly politico-strategic. Since, she reasons, most Americans are ‘religious’, and believe in God, convince them that evolution and religion can co-exist, and they won’t support creationist efforts. To the staunchly anti-God1 propagandists of evolution, compromising Christians are, in Lenin’s phrase, ‘useful idiots’ who have missed the real meaning of evolution.2 When someone asks if God could have used evolution, the answer really depends upon what they mean by ‘God’. If we are not talking about the God of the Bible, but about some abstract idea of an all-powerful being, ‘god’ can, by definition, do anything at all, including creating through apparent chance. Genetic errors, filtered by whatever environment happened to be there, might only seem to be random. (Of course, as the parable about the horse and tractor on page 53 highlights), if chance really were capable of creating this amazingly complex world, it would make the ‘god postulate’ unnecessary, even foolish.) Most notions of ‘god’ are mental constructs, designed to fit what one would like to believe. Since invented deities are limited only by imagination, why couldn’t he/she/it (maybe a three-horned cosmic cow?) have ‘used evolution’? But the Christian God is not ‘any old god’, He is the one, true, living God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He is the triune God, both infinite and personal; the ‘I am that I am’ (Exodus 3:14), and the Word made flesh (John 1:14). And He has chosen to reveal much about Himself in His Word, the Bible. See also the Q&A sections on God, Jesus Christ, the Bible and Genesis. So while imaginary ‘gods’ could do anything, the true God cannot lie—nor deceive us about origins. He tells us, via a specific historical account, of His creation of a good world, in six earth-rotation days—ruined by sin, and still to be restored to a sinless, deathless condition. It is hard to imagine anything more antagonistic to the story of long ages of death and suffering before man. Yet this long-ages story is, sadly, promoted by many otherwise sound evangelical leaders who simultaneously display their ‘anti-evolution’ credentials. So could God have used evolution? It depends. For the true God, the answer is no—for He cannot lie, and He told us plainly what He did. So is evolution ‘anti-religion’? Here again, it depends. Most ‘religions’, including liberal distortions of Christianity, are man-made concepts. Most are either compatible with, or flow from, evolutionary notions. They concern man’s imaginings about how to reach/please ‘god’. But the Gospel is about God reaching down to an utterly lost humanity. God the Son became the obedient ‘last Adam’ (1 Corinthians 15:45), shedding His blood in death, so overcoming the Curse of death and bloodshed introduced by the disobedience of the first Adam. Undermine Genesis, and thus biblical authority, and the only thing left is ‘religion’ — an empty, lifeless shell. So evolution is not inherently ‘anti-religion’, but it most certainly is opposed to biblical Christianity. Eugenie Scott and cohorts currently expend much energy on political struggles against all shades of ‘creationism’ — including ‘intelligent design’ long-agers, progressive creationists, and the like. On such battlegrounds, she has a chance of selling her ‘evolution won’t mess with your religion’ message. For the vaguely god-believing, it’s probably true. Meanwhile, Answers in Genesis invites your help to keep moving ahead on the real spiritual battlefield—the true Gospel vs all man-made religion, including evolution’s neo-pagan claims to usurp God’s glory in creation.

Comment left by Rusty Rockets JK said: >>>“Who created God? This is often asked of Christians. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question “Who created God?” is illogical, just like “To whom is the bachelor married?”.”<<< Yes, it is illogical… JK said: >>>“So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: “If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?” <<< No, it’s not any more sophisticated, it’s the same question repackaged. As you say, everything in the universe has a cause, which actually implies gradual change, rather than “creation”. JK said: >>>“In reply, Christians use the following reasoning: Everything which has a beginning has a cause.1 The universe has a beginning. Therefore the universe has a cause. It’s important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause. In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the Creator of the whole universe, he is the Creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time. Therefore He doesn’t have a cause.”<<< Ah, there is a slight problem here. Mainly being the huge leap in your argument regarding the assumption that God is infinite. Why is the default that the universe had a beginning and God did not and that God is infinite? Why is that assumption made? You argument only works if this is true. We don’t know it is true. In which case you are back at square one. That is, God is an invention, a convenient contrivance for those seeking to explain the origins of life. You try and make it sound more “scientific” by bringing in Einstein but, again, using his theory of relativity the way that you do requires that we assume your basic premise that God is infinite. JK said: >>>“In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.”<<< This is one of many theories still being hammered out. There are also theories that say there have been a number of beginnings; that the universe began with a single particle (inflation theory) or that there are multiple universes. Or even that the universe will just keep on expanding forever. I am not saying that I am an advocate of any of these, just that there is scientific research that has some proof of these that are consistent with our current knowledge of physics. Conversely, there is no theory of God as it is outside the realms of science, as His existence is unfalsifiable; the infinite God that your whole pseudo-scientific theory of creation rests upon. Again you appeal to science where it has no relevance to the premise of your argument. It would only be relevant if God did actually exist, which you have yet to prove. The only way this has been attempted so far is through IC/ID. That life is too complex for it to have evolved naturally. Well, I’m not going to go into a huge account of the literature that discounts that theory by using actual evidence, suffice to say there is an overwhelming amount. Niether is all of it even specifically directed at disproving ID (scientists have better things to do). It just happens, funnily enough, that evolution is a very strong theory. If you really want I can point you in the direction of some of them. JK said: >>>“1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant. 2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum. If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the best solution is that the universe must have been created with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.2” <<< Ditto my above response on theories of the universe. They are inconclusive. Again, this is another appeal to the “God of gaps” argument in scientific understanding. That is, just because something has not been answered definitively it automatically means by default that there must have been God. JK said: >>>“Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause?”<<< Why would I think that? JK said: >>>“The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have a beginning.” <<< It may not have. It may have had many. Who really knows, the science on this is still in its infancy. But I don’t see any dogmatic claims among the science community that they have THE answer like creationists do. Why believe something that there is no evidence for, something that has been made up? You try and sound logical by using science tid-bits, but none of these examples supposes or proves a God. They are unrelated to what you are trying to prove. JK said: >>>“It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.” <<< And…? JK said: >>>“The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach. God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.”<<< That’s your evidence for God, eh? After using all those scientific examples you finally state what you could have just said at the start of your argument: “God has always existed”. Why do you believe this? Not because of the science that you have been using as a thinly veiled attempt at giving creationism more credence than it is due, but because of Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20!!! JK said: >>>“I pray that you will not let pride interfer with your search.”<<< I have pride in being able to accept that I am wrong when the science goes against a theory. It is a part of the scientific process. You, JK, despite having appropriated some scientific theory, have demonstrated no scientific theory that proves the existence of God, or that God is infinite (a premise necessary for all your arguments to be successfully supported). If you mean by pride a blinkered approach in spite of all accumulated evidence, then pride has a lot more to do with people who believe in God.

Comment left by answersingenesis Evidence Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same. The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events. Past and present We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present. However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events. Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know. On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present. Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present. Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions. That’s why the argument often turns into something like: ‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’ ‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’ ‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’ ‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on. These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses. It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions. I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions. It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’. However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions—i.e. starting beliefs. As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’ However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking. What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result. Debate terms If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are: ‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions — see Naturalism, logic and reality. Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ (Psalm 111:10); ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge’ (Proverbs 1:7). ‘But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’ (1 Corinthians 2:14). A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: ‘The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters’ (Matthew 12:30); ‘And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil’ (John 3:19). Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible’s account of the universe’s history is irrelevant to understanding that history! Ultimately, God’s Word convicts 1 Peter 3:15 and other passages make it clear we are to use every argument we can to convince people of the truth, and 2 Cor. 10:4–5 says we are to refute error (like Paul did in his ministry to the Gentiles). Nonetheless, we must never forget Hebrews 4:12: ‘For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.’ Also, Isaiah 55:11: ‘So shall My word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do.’ Even though our human arguments may be powerful, ultimately it is God’s Word that convicts and opens people to the truth. In all of our arguments, we must not divorce what we are saying from the Word that convicts. Practical application When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my response is as follows: ‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.’ One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent Curse on creation, makes sense of the evidence of harmful mutations, violence, and death. Once I’ve explained some of this in detail, I then continue: ‘Now let me ask you to defend your position concerning these matters. Please show me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence. And I want you to point out where my science and logic are wrong.’ In arguing this way, a Christian is: Using biblical presuppositions to build a way of thinking to interpret the evidence. Showing that the Bible and science go hand in hand.1 Challenging the presuppositions of the other person (many are unaware they have these). Forcing the debater to logically defend his position consistent with science and his own presuppositions (many will find that they cannot do this). Honouring the Word of God that convicts the soul. Remember, it’s no good convincing people to believe in creation, without also leading them to believe and trust in the Creator/Redeemer, Jesus Christ. God honours those who honour His Word. We need to use God-honouring ways of reaching people with the truth of what life is all about. Naturalism, logic and reality Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption: A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’ The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason. On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied. This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?

Comment left by answersingenesis Time and time again I have found that in both Christian and secular worlds, those of us who are involved in the creation movement are characterized as ‘young Earthers.’ The supposed battle-line is thus drawn between the ‘old Earthers’ (this group consists of anti-God evolutionists as well as many ‘conservative’ Christians) who appeal to what they call ‘science,’ versus the ‘young Earthers,’ who are said to be ignoring the overwhelming supposed ‘scientific’ evidence for an old Earth. I want to make it VERY clear that we don’t want to be known primarily as ‘young-Earth creationists.’ AiG’s main thrust is NOT ‘young Earth’ as such; our emphasis is on Biblical authority. Believing in a relatively ‘young Earth’ (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator. Recently, one of our associates sat down with a highly respected world-class Hebrew scholar and asked him this question: ‘If you started with the Bible alone, without considering any outside influences whatsoever, could you ever come up with millions or billions of years of history for the Earth and universe?’ The answer from this scholar? ‘Absolutely not!’ Let’s be honest. Take out your Bible and look through it. You can’t find any hint at all for millions or billions of years. For those of you who have kept up with our lectures and our articles in Creation magazine, you will have heard or read quotes from many well-known and respected Christian leaders admitting that if you take Genesis in a straight-forward way, it clearly teaches six ordinary days of Creation. However, the reason they don’t believe God created in six literal days is because they are convinced from so-called ‘science’ that the world is billions of years old. In other words, they are admitting that they start outside the Bible to (re)interpret the Words of Scripture. When someone says to me, ‘Oh, so you’re one of those fundamentalist, young-Earth creationists,’ I reply, ‘Actually, I’m a revelationist, no-death-before-Adam redemptionist!’ (which means I’m a young-Earth creationist!). Here’s what I mean by this: I understand that the Bible is a revelation from our infinite Creator, and it is self-authenticating and self-attesting. I must interpret Scripture with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside! When I take the plain words of the Bible, it is obvious there was no death, bloodshed, disease or suffering of humans or animals before sin. God instituted death and bloodshed because of sin—this is foundational to the Gospel. Therefore, one cannot allow a fossil record of millions of years of death, bloodshed, disease and suffering before sin (which is why the fossil record makes much more sense as the graveyard of the flood of Noah’s day). Also, the word for ‘day’ in the context of Genesis can only mean an ordinary day for each of the six days of Creation [see Q&A Genesis: Days of Creation for more information]. Thus, as a ‘revelationist,’ I let God’s Word speak to me, with the words having meaning according to the context of the language they were written in. Once I accept the plain words of Scripture in context, the fact of ordinary days, no death before sin, the Bible’s genealogies, etc., all make it clear that I cannot accept millions or billions of years of history. Therefore, I would conclude there must be something wrong with man’s ideas about the age of the universe. And the fact is, every single dating method (outside of Scripture) is based on fallible assumptions. There are literally hundreds of dating tools. However, whatever dating method one uses, assumptions must be made about the past. Not one dating method man devises is absolute! Even though 90% of all dating methods give dates far younger than evolutionists require, none of these can be used in an absolute sense either. [See Q&A: Radiometric dating and Q&A: Young age evidence for more information.] Question: Why would any Christian want to take man’s fallible dating methods and use them to impose an idea on the infallible Word of God? Christians who accept billions of years are in essence saying that man’s word is infallible, but God’s Word is fallible! This is the crux of the issue. When Christians have agreed with the world that they can accept man’s fallible dating methods to interpret God’s Word, they have agreed with the world that the Bible can’t be trusted. They have essentially sent out the message that man, by himself, independent of revelation, can determine truth and impose this on God’s Word. Once this ‘door’ has been opened regarding Genesis, ultimately it can happen with the rest of the Bible. You see, if Christian leaders have told the next generation that one can accept the world’s teachings in geology, biology, astronomy, etc., and use these to (re)interpret God’s Word, then the door has been opened for this to happen in every area, including morality. Yes, one can be a conservative Christian and preach authoritatively from God’s Word from Genesis 12 onwards. But once you have told people to accept man’s dating methods, and thus should not take the first chapters of Genesis as they are written, you have effectively undermined the Bible’s authority! This attitude is destroying the church in America. So, the issue is not ‘young Earth’ versus ‘old Earth,’ but this: Can fallible, sinful man be in authority over the Word of God? A ‘young-Earth’ view admittedly receives the scoffing from a majority of the scientists. But Paul warned us in 1 Corinthians 8:2, ‘And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.’ Compared to what God knows, we know ‘next door to nothing!’ This is why we should be so careful to let God speak to us through His Word, and not try to impose our ideas on God’s Word. It’s also interesting to note that this verse is found in the same passage where Paul warns that ‘knowledge puffeth up.’ Academic pride is found throughout our culture. Therefore, many Christian leaders would rather believe the world’s fallible academics, than the simple clear words of the Bible. At Answers in Genesis, we believe this message needs to be proclaimed to the Church as a challenge to return to Biblical authority, and thus stand tall in the world for the accuracy of God’s Word. Ultimately, this is the only way we are going to reach the world with the truth of the Gospel message. Let’s start 1998 by putting more and more pressure on our Christian leaders to take a long, hard look at how they are approaching the question of the authority of the Bible! Please help us fulfill our mission statement: to bring about reformation in the Church!

Comment left by JK What brings you to this website Rusty?? do you enjoy debating? Are you curious about christianity? do you want to try and prove there is no God? these are sincere questions and would just like to know more about why you are contributing to a christian website when clearly you are not christian! its great that you are here and i am enjoying this message board.

Comment left by Rusty Rockets I’m going through a masochistic phase

Comment left by JK Well Rusty i haven't always believed in God as i learnt evolution in high school and thought christians were crazy, but like the bible says 1Corinthians 1:18 -'For to those who are perishing the message of the cross is foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is God's power' i thought it was absolute foolishness i just didn't get it! it was when i took a chance and just said from a sincere heart 'God if your real show me' over time i started to see life differently and God eventually brought me to a point where i could accept him through faith or reject him. I chose that night to accept him and asked him to forgive me and come into my life, i wept so much i couldn't speak and i felt a peace i had never felt before like he had put his arms around me, i was changed from that day forward! your probably thinking yeah right it was emotion, power of suggestion whatever... i went through all those thoughts. As i began to read the bible and pray God revealed and is still revealing so many things to me. Its incredable i became a totally different person as many other christians will testify of their own experience, but it wasn't till i asked with a humble heart that God could move in my life and show me things through the holy spirit. 1Corintians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. Now Rusty if evolution is the truth: i will live my life full of love, peace, hope never fearing death, then die and oh well its all over atleast i lived a good life! If God is real and Jesus died for our sins rose again and defeated death forever: i will go on to live eternaly in a place where there is no death, no tears, no depression so on.... the way God created it in the first place.... wow what an awesome thought! On the other hand if the latter is true and there is a tiny chance that God is real the bible declares that all who have rejected christ will live eternaly apart from God in a place called hell. There are only 2 paths you can go by my friend thats why i urge you even in your doubt just humble yourself and cry out to Jesus to forgive you and change you with the power of the holy spirit! I wouldn't be here wasting my time if i wasn't serious about all this! I am concerned for you Rusty and many others. As Jesus gave his life for us its a christians duty to reach out to others and proclaim the gospel. If would like to chat further about anything please respond. God bless

Comment left by Rusty Rockets JK wrote:>>>"What brings you to this website Rusty?? do you enjoy debating?" Yes, I do. But I can see that I have come to the wrong place for that. There is nothing to debate; you cannot debate against blind faith!

Comment left by Greg I'm with you Rusty. These people have made up their minds about intelligent design before even considering the science. Anything which can be seen to support their faith-based views is seen as valid. It reminds me of the cartoon which shows a scientist asking his pupils "here are the facts, what conclusions can we draw from them?", while in the next panel a creationist is saying to his pupils "here is the conclusion, what evidence can we find to support it?". Intelligent design is backwards science - a tired old faith-based argument that attempts to turn the unknown into evidence for an already believed conclusion.

Comment left by wookie it seems to me that there is an acknowledgement from the science world this is a debate worth having. Science and religion have thier similarities in that they both have thier fallibility in the intervention of humans. In one sense science is as perfect a concept to scientists as God is to Christians and each camp defends thier beliefs with equal viguor. No human belief is infallible and for any camp to presume the answers to creation could be concieved as arrogance. The question may not just be who craeted GOD but who created science.

Comment left by Rusty Rockets Fine, Wookie, back up your comments with some evidence. What evidence does creationism have. You cannot invent and operate planes, cars, explore space, without science. Tell me how creationist science is equal, and why despite other amazing advances you refuse to acknowledge evolution as the only scientific theory with any credibility. Yeah, sure. Science and religion are so similar.

Comment left by wookie relax rusty, don't take it personally. it is a debate we need objective perusal of the facts (this argument normally comes from the scientist). both camps could ask for conclusive evidence to support their theories and the fact is that the evidence is found wanting in BOTH camps. My point is that for either theory to claim inconclusivity would be arrogance. That is one similarity. The belief that evolution is the "only scientific theory with credibility" is refutable. This is not science bashing. Science itself is incredible. Again I ask, where did science come from. Did the universe always exist? Has matter always existed? Perhaps science does not have an end or a beginning, perhaps it has always existed. Again I ask, if science creates all things, who created science? Who made all those scientific laws?

Comment left by Rusty Rockets Wookie, you are conflating a lot of issues in your response, and generally muddying the waters. Confusion is the tool, and natural state, of most creationists. Yes, there could be more evidence for evolution, and it is being found all the time. What evidence would you like to see to support evolution exactly? There is plenty of it! I would hardly say that the evidence for evolution is "wanting". People keep stating that there are alternatives to evolution, but you know it's funny that they never state what they might be. ID is NOT a theory. If anything, it is a critique of evolution, and a very bad one at that. Stating that life is too complex so it must have been created by a higher intelligence is just not a theory. It's not even a very good hypothesis! So, I'll offer you a challenge to your statement: "The belief that evolution is the 'only scientific theory with credibility' is refutable." What are some other theories of life on Earth besides evolution? Remember, it is important that they are proper stand alone "theories," not criticisms of other theories. As for your questions: "if science creates all things, who created science? Who made all those scientific laws?" Science does not, obviously, create all things. Who has ever said that? Science as we know it hasn't been around for that long, because there was quite a bit of mysticism about. But, even this was a way of describing the world. That's what we do as humans, we enquire and observe. This thinking and knowledge of the world and the universe has a cumulative effect, and today we know a great many things and have strong reasoning tools available. This is not to say that we have reached the peak of understanding. Nobody "makes" scientific laws in the sense you are referring to (if you mean creator). As I said, we observe the world and test our own hypothesis about phenomena, if they correlate then we may have a law. The good thing about science is that the law is only as strong as the available evidence that we have at hand. It can change and improve, it is open to enquiry. This does not include, however, making hypotheses about phenomena that are unobservable, or non-existent, such as God. I'll repeat again, saying that life on Earth looks too complex to have evolved from only a few cells millions of years ago does not a theory or hypothesis make. And something else I forgot to mention from you prior post, was that science finds that ID is a debate worth having because they do not want to go back to a dark age of religion and mysticism governing our lives. And to stop creatism and ID being taught in schools. What exactly would you teach children about ID I wonder. What would a lesson plan look like? ID consists of (a) evolutionary criticisms, with its main conclusion being that (b) a creator must have designed evrything. How can you teach that in a science class! What steps does one take to get from (a) to (b) exactly? I notice in your reply that you have not actually added any evidence for creationism, either. It's what amazes me about this whole debate. Evolutionists can referr to endless amounts of physical evidence and data from an incredible array of scientific fields AND have them correlate. Conversely, creationists offer nothing. Can you see a problem here? I do not see creationism as being on an equal footing with science AT ALL. I am quite open to you correcting me on this point if you can show me how they compare by offering something of more substance other than merely stating that it does. By the way, leave out the patronising tone and refrain from telling me to calm down. I'm a big boy now.

Comment left by wookie rusty, there was no patronism meant, I have re-read my reply and could not find it. Can we have an objective debate without being personal or emotional. I am trying to enjoy it, I am not trying to convert you or put you down. Can you point out exactly where I have muddied the waters? I cannot find anything all that contraversial. Asking how physical laws where created and where matter comes from seems to me to be a perfectly reponsible question to ask from science. The confusion and muddying waters exist about these questions not because I have done anything, but because we do not have the answers to these questions. The hypothesis of Intelligent design has is given creedence by many scientists including physicist and astrobiologist Paul Davies and Profesor Michael Behe amongst several who have spoken or written on the issue. I am not a scientist and will not claim to be however it appears there are enough who decree that they know what they are talking about. If you are looking for a sound scientific argument from me then I am going to concede that you will not get it from me. My expertise lies in other areas. Yes I am a believer in God and I also consider myself a rational and logical person (I realise that this will appear to you as an oxymoron). This is what brings me to ask of you and all the science world those very questions I brought up in my last comment. Rusty, it almost seems to me that these very questions make you angry, they are not meant to, they are fair dinkum questions. They should be asked and NOT CENSORED by our schools because they will upset the theory of evolution. Science can no more answer these questions than I can provide irrefutable evidence of creationism and that you can provide irrefutable evidence of evolution. Paul Davies has written a book called "the mind of God". He does not believe in God but raises many questions regarding the origin of life which may be contrary to what is taught. Rusty your 7th paragraph seems to contradict itself. On one hand you concede that science agrees that ID is a debate worth having and on the other hand you say that this is to prevent creationism/ religion etc being taught in school, back to dark ages etc. If ID is such a wild idea why should science pay it lip service at all and why are some scientists not only admitting that it is a viable hypothesis but a likely one. I have to say that I agree with para 6. Science is there to answer questions, one of the questions is how did life begin? The question has to exist before the hypothesis. And there have been many to this question and the question remains. Thanks for the debate Rusty. By the way I am not interested in teaching my children and irresponsible religious or doctrinal view of the world. My children are fascinated with the natural world and science. Science can co-exist with creationism because these questions still exist. If the dark ages that you refer to is the age where science was ignored and worse so that it would not interfere with doctrine then I would agree that they were dark ages.

Comment left by Rusty Rockets >>>Wookie<<< rusty, there was no patronism meant, I have re-read my reply and could not find it. Can we have an objective debate without being personal or emotional. I am trying to enjoy it, I am not trying to convert you or put you down. I would consider telling me to “relax rusty, don't take it personally” a personal, rather than analytical response to my previous post, and patronising. Where, oh where did you ever get the impression that I was taking anything personally? >>>Wookie<<< Can you point out exactly where I have muddied the waters? I cannot find anything all that contraversial. Asking how physical laws where created and where matter comes from seems to me to be a perfectly reponsible question to ask from science. The confusion and muddying waters exist about these questions not because I have done anything, but because we do not have the answers to these questions. Sure, I can show you… >>>Wookie<<< Science and religion have thier similarities in that they both have thier fallibility in the intervention of humans. I assume by this that you mean human interpretation of what we observe, and define logically is never perfect because our perception of sense data will always be mediated through our own biased thinking or our bodily senses generally. Philosophically this is true - to some extent. The glaringly obvious difference is that science accepts its failures tries to correct them and moves on, religion does not. Science takes a position of fallibility from the start. Good science begins with the premise that a hypothesis is yet to be proven true or consistent through observation and experimentation, as well as always being open to challenges to the theories already in place. Scientists are always ready to try and disprove a dominant theory (with more science, I might add. Not just saying that it is all too complex so everything must have been designed), and in this respect science is self-correcting, and our view of the physical world becomes sharper because of this. Again, religion denies new ideas. By definition it has to cling to what has already been dictated. I very rarely hear of creationists challenging the existence of God, for example. Why not? What has religion ever proved that correlates with the physical world? What contributions has the Church made to humanity’s understanding of the world we live in? >>>Wookie<<< In one sense science is as perfect a concept to scientists as God is to Christians and each camp defends thier beliefs with equal viguor. This is likely to be true, but it still does not make Christianity a viable or credible theory. Additionally, scientists probably consider science to be as good as it can be, as good a methodology as we can expect to have as human beings. Your bringing up “perfect concept” as a Christian is quite telling. So, this comment adds nothing to the debate and nothing more than superfluous rhetoric. >>>Wookie<<< No human belief is infallible and for any camp to presume the answers to creation could be concieved as arrogance. The question may not just be who craeted GOD but who created science. That’s correct, you should heed your own advice. Isn’t it Christians who presume that they KNOW that God exists and that he created life on Earth? Scientists begin their journey of exploration with a hypothesis or assumption’s truth or reality pending further investigation. >>>Wookie<<< The hypothesis of Intelligent design has is given creedence by many scientists including physicist and astrobiologist Paul Davies and Profesor Michael Behe amongst several who have spoken or written on the issue. I am not a scientist and will not claim to be however it appears there are enough who decree that they know what they are talking about. If you are looking for a sound scientific argument from me then I am going to concede that you will not get it from me. My expertise lies in other areas. Yes I am a believer in God and I also consider myself a rational and logical person (I realise that this will appear to you as an oxymoron). This is what brings me to ask of you and all the science world those very questions I brought up in my last comment. Rusty, it almost seems to me that these very questions make you angry, they are not meant to, they are fair dinkum questions. They should be asked and NOT CENSORED by our schools because they will upset the theory of evolution. Well, this is a ridiculous statement. Evolution is a theory like any other scientific theory, and is always being tested by people who feel that this or that is not quite right. Don’t get me wrong; if Behe had a good case to make about ID (I have read it myself) the science world would consider it. In fact some in the science community have considered it, as you say, and like all theories or challenges it has been reviewed and disproved quite convincingly. I can point you in the direction of some fantastic papers written by biochemists that show how both his scientific method is flawed and his conclusions wrong, and subsequently do not indicate the implications of complexity that he set out to prove. He does not prove his case. The idea that evolution is a static monolithic stance in opposition to religion is ludicrous. It is made to look as though the theory of evolution is never update or reappraised, which is just plain wrong! Now, getting to the point about schools. Perhaps ID should be taught in schools in order to provide an example of bad science in the name of God. But really, my point is that critiques of evolution are part of science education. And since ID is really only a critique of evolution I do not see why it needs to be highlighted as an area in itself. Again, I ask, what would you teach in an ID class, what would be the content? >>>Wookie<<< Science can no more answer these questions than I can provide irrefutable evidence of creationism and that you can provide irrefutable evidence of evolution. It’s amazing that creationists just dismiss the masses of evidence in favour of evolution. Evolutionists at least have evidence to support their theory, and a lot of it from many fields of science blah, blah, blah… I’ve already said all this before, but it seems to make absolutely no difference. In short, science has answered a lot of questions and they can back these claims up with proof. Let’s see you do that with religion. Evolution is the best theory we have, what is the alternative? (you didn’t answer this question in your response, by the way) >>>Wookie<<< Paul Davies has written a book called "the mind of God". He does not believe in God but raises many questions regarding the origin of life which may be contrary to what is taught. Yes, so what? Notice the key words in your question: “He does not believe in God.” Why doesn’t he believe in God? Because he knows how scientific method should be conducted, that’s why. In fact, I have seen some of Davies’ statements on ID. They are a defence of sorts, but he is defending the science of ID, the critique of evolution that Behe and others argue. In defending one advocate of ID, Davies says: “I’m concerned that the suspicion of a hidden agenda is going to prevent that sort of work from receiving the recognition it deserves. Strictly speaking, you see, science should be judged purely on the science and not on the scientist.” (Quoted in L. Witham, By Design [San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2003], p. 149). As a scientist, Davies is welcome to his views on ID, but until a valid theory is proven to have some substance there is really little to talk about in education facilities. One of the biochemists that I mentioned also claims that ID is not something that should be dismissed out of hand necessarily, but then he stated that he himself does not think ID a valid approach, and then proceeded to tear Behe’s critique of evolution apart. Now, this is another aspect of this whole creationist/ID approach to God that I find interesting, I have to admit. It is something that bugs me about the whole ID movement, in fact. That is, if creationists are backing the idea of ID then why are they also bagging the very science that supports ID? If science is only one worldview among many, why is science used to support an ID critique of evolution? It seems rather selective to me. It is also the reason, in spite of Davies comment, why I think that there is an agenda behind the ID movement, and it is relished by creationists. >>>Wookie<<< Rusty your 7th paragraph seems to contradict itself. On one hand you concede that science agrees that ID is a debate worth having and on the other hand you say that this is to prevent creationism/ religion etc being taught in school, back to dark ages etc. Actually, my comments are not contradictory at all you just failed to understand. Yes, I concede that ID is worth debate, but you confuse the reasons for why it should be debated (trying to muddy the waters again!). ID should be debated publicly to demonstrate how flawed it is as a pseudo-theory. Hopefully by showing this to the public it will become apparent that it is not worthy of being introduced into schools – after all, they already have religious studies (which are, hopefully, optional anyway). With any luck I made myself clearer that time around. >>>Wookie<<< If ID is such a wild idea why should science pay it lip service at all and why are some scientists not only admitting that it is a viable hypothesis but a likely one. Now you’re confusing “scientists” with “science.” Think about it… >>>Wookie<<< I have to say that I agree with para 6. Science is there to answer questions, one of the questions is how did life begin? The question has to exist before the hypothesis. And there have been many to this question and the question remains. Thanks for the debate Rusty. By the way I am not interested in teaching my children and irresponsible religious or doctrinal view of the world. My children are fascinated with the natural world and science. Science can co-exist with creationism because these questions still exist. If the dark ages that you refer to is the age where science was ignored and worse so that it would not interfere with doctrine then I would agree that they were dark ages. I’m glad you agree. Unfortunately, I feel I cannot reciprocate by saying that religion is also necessary. Until either the Church or IDers come up with some substantial theory that can be supported by evidence to prove the existence of a creator, then there should be no mention of ID entering educational facilities. Why would anyone want to teach bad science to children?

Comment left by wookie Not bad science but to question. If we teach our children to swallow all that we teach them, that would be a return to the dark ages. It is interesting that the dark ages that I think you refer to are ages of unquestioned doctrine, is the modern equivalent unquestioned evolution? I still cannot see what is so disgraceful to bring this theory into our schools. ID has no less creedence than the big bang/chemical soup theory, and who is to say that ID and evolution cannot co-exist in some way. What about evolution being built in by a designer? Why not ask these questions of science. I amd sorry Rusty but I still don't see the contraversy in all this. Why the opposition to questioning the evolution theory? Another thing I believe that God is perfect not Christians, and religion isn't God either.

Comment left by Rusty Rockets >>>Wookie<<< If we teach our children to swallow all that we teach them, that would be a return to the dark ages. It is interesting that the dark ages that I think you refer to are ages of unquestioned doctrine, is the modern equivalent unquestioned evolution? You have either not read what I wrote, my writing skills are poor or you just don’t comprehend. Whichever of those three it is I will repeat again: Nobody expects children, or adults for that matter, to swallow anything, and that’s the whole point. Religion does expect people to swallow a doctrine without question, But enough of religion, evolution is always being questioned, it is in a permanent state of being questioned as more evidence comes to light. However, most would agree that the evidence so far is pretty conclusive AS CONCLUSIVE AS IT CAN BE. There are no competing theories. Again, tell me of another theory that can equal evolution, you have AGAIN failed to do so. Your rhetoric and obfuscation is astounding. >>>Wookie<<< I still cannot see what is so disgraceful to bring this theory into our schools. It wouldn’t be a problem if ID were actually a theory, or even science. As it stands, however, ID is NOT a theory. Describe to me the theory of ID. This is the third time I have asked, but what exactly would an ID lesson plane look like, what would be taught that was not already being taught in science classes on evolution, other than there is a designer in the sky (but then, that’s religion, isn’t it?) >>>Wookie<<< ID has no less creedence than the big bang/chemical soup theory, and who is to say that ID and evolution cannot co-exist in some way. Ok, well here you are conflating two separate theories, two separate fields of scientific enquiry, and it is a common mistake or deliberate tactic used by creationists. The ORIGIN of life is not the same as the processes of evolution. It is true that origin of life theories are contested even by other scientific theorists, but the evidence definitely leans toward autocatalysis. What sets these competing scientific theories apart from ID, however, is that there are good arguments, and good evidence for them. Please show me the evidence that ID or religion has in favour of its own “theories”. You must have some reasons for your support of either ID or creationism, so what are they? You obviously don’t have any and your refusal to acknowledge that fact is why science IS so very, very different from scientific enquiry. Autocatalysis, for example, is taken seriously because it can be recreated in the lab using an array of different supposed conditions that may have been experienced on Earth ~3.5 billion years ago. If someone came up with a feasible theory for ID, if they could prove a creators existence (which is what they would have to do) then they could certainly live together as theories. But then this brings me back to your whole point about conflating origin of life with evolution. The theory of evolution has been proved without a doubt. There may be one or two holes here and there, but these are not holes in the theory, just holes in the history of evolution. There is a big difference! The origin of life is still contested, but there are some good theories floating about, with autocatalysis being a very strong contender. Why would you introduce a creator, Especially when every other scientific possibility is far from being exhausted? What about evolution being built in by a designer? Why not ask these questions of science. >>>Wookie<<< I amd sorry Rusty but I still don't see the contraversy in all this. Why the opposition to questioning the evolution theory? Because, as I’ve stated so many times, evolution is always being tested! There is no controversy about questioning ID theory, because that’s what science does. There is nothing that ID can offer to add to this process. If you think there is a fundamental flaw in evolution fine, submit your findings or new theory and we’ll see where it goes. But why any questioning of evolution automatically leads to a God is fallacious, because there is no link. Show me how the link between saying that evolution is fundamentally flawed automatically leads to a creator. Hypothetically, even if evolution were flawed it would just mean that we would need to find other theories. If you decided upon a designer or God as the alternative you would still have to provide evidence to support any hypothesis of a creator or designer. It would be a separate theory. The theory should not have to rely on evolution being real or not. That is, an alternate theory would not depend solely on evolution being wrong for it to be valid. It either is or it isn’t, and so far it has not shown anything that resembles an independent theory. If you want to have a faith and believe in God, a designer or whatever, fine. That’s no problem of mine. It does become a problem, however, when the proponents of this faith try and legitimate itself as a science that needs to be taught to children. ID does not belong in the science classroom, it belongs in Sunday school. I cannot take anything you say seriously until you show: (a) Some proof of the existence of God, or a designer (b) How perceived gaps in evolutionary theory automatically lead to believing in the existence of a creator You have so far refused to even address these questions. Your pleading to ignorance of scientific knowledge is baseless in this instance, because you are here making claims about the inclusion of ID into schools. That is, on what knowledge or scientific basis do you make these arguments? There is no reasoning behind your arguments. If you are truly ignorant of the facts behind this debate it means that you are advocating things on which you have no knowledge yourself, and, therefore, must be regurgitating what you have been told elsewhere. You can try and aim these same claims at me if you wish, but just remember that I have witnessed first hand the very experiments and scientific papers that are fundamental to evolution. I actually have reasons for believing what I do, because they make logical sense, the data is consistent with the observable physical world and I can even recreate some of these experiments myself. Sure, you can query and question methodology, reassess and re-evaluate experiments and data, but at least there is something to work with – what do you have?

Comment left by answersingenesis.org Evidence Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same. The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events. Past and present We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present. However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events. Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know. On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present. Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present. Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions. That’s why the argument often turns into something like: ‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’ ‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’ ‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’ ‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on. These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses. It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions. I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions. It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’. However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions—i.e. starting beliefs. As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’ However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking. What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result. Debate terms If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are: ‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions — see Naturalism, logic and reality. Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ (Psalm 111:10); ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge’ (Proverbs 1:7). ‘But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’ (1 Corinthians 2:14). A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: ‘The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters’ (Matthew 12:30); ‘And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil’ (John 3:19). Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible’s account of the universe’s history is irrelevant to understanding that history! Ultimately, God’s Word convicts 1 Peter 3:15 and other passages make it clear we are to use every argument we can to convince people of the truth, and 2 Cor. 10:4–5 says we are to refute error (like Paul did in his ministry to the Gentiles). Nonetheless, we must never forget Hebrews 4:12: ‘For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.’ Also, Isaiah 55:11: ‘So shall My word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do.’ Even though our human arguments may be powerful, ultimately it is God’s Word that convicts and opens people to the truth. In all of our arguments, we must not divorce what we are saying from the Word that convicts. Practical application When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my response is as follows: ‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.’ One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent Curse on creation, makes sense of the evidence of harmful mutations, violence, and death. Once I’ve explained some of this in detail, I then continue: ‘Now let me ask you to defend your position concerning these matters. Please show me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence. And I want you to point out where my science and logic are wrong.’ In arguing this way, a Christian is: Using biblical presuppositions to build a way of thinking to interpret the evidence. Showing that the Bible and science go hand in hand.1 Challenging the presuppositions of the other person (many are unaware they have these). Forcing the debater to logically defend his position consistent with science and his own presuppositions (many will find that they cannot do this). Honouring the Word of God that convicts the soul. Remember, it’s no good convincing people to believe in creation, without also leading them to believe and trust in the Creator/Redeemer, Jesus Christ. God honours those who honour His Word. We need to use God-honouring ways of reaching people with the truth of what life is all about. Naturalism, logic and reality Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption: A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’ The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason. On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied. This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?

Comment left by answersingenesis.org No proofs for evolution Genetics has no proofs for evolution. It has trouble explaining it. The closer one looks at the evidence for evolution the less one finds of substance. In fact the theory keeps on postulating evidence, and failing to find it, moves on to other postulates (fossil missing links, natural selection of improved forms, positive mutations, molecular phylogenetic sequences, etc.). This is not science.’ Professor Maciej Giertych, B.A., M.A. Oxon, Ph.D. Toronto, D.Sc. Poznan, Head of Genetics Department, Polish Academy of Scienced, Institute of Dendrology, Poland. In the Foreward to Creation Rediscovered, by G.J. Keane, Melbourne (Australia), 1991.

Comment left by JK 'The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce thet there are still more scientists than specimans. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!' Dr Lyall Watson, 'The water people'. Science Digest, vol.90 May 1982, p.44. So..... is evolution fact? or faith?

Comment left by JK 'The temptation to believe that the universe is the product of some sort of design, a manifestation of subtle aesthetic and mathematical judgement, is overwelming. The belief that there is "something behind it all" is one that I personally share with, I suspect a majority of physicists.' Paul Davies, 'The christian perspective of a scientist'. New Scientist, 2 June 1983, p.638.

Comment left by JK 'In fact evolution became in a sence a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it.' H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of physics, University of Manchester, UK)

Comment left by Rusty Rockets Er, "answeringgenesis"... Usually a debate means adding something new to the proceedings. We have already seen this latest post in this thread! It said nothing the first time around and a second helping just clarifies that fact. The anecdotes you use are thin and flimsy, mostly because they always have to assume a God where a God is not necessary. For example, how do you make the logical leap from (a) if random processes, to (b) then no God? I'll tell you how, a leap of faith! Why not just admit it? Secondly, which evidence for evolution would you like me to produce? I suppose you cannot even think of any because you are so obviously ignorant of the science of evolution, which, by the way, does not seem to prevent you from debating the topic. JK, I suggest you go and find out something for yourself for once. If you want to believe a statement that (a) is false and (b) was made in 1983, then you have some problems. Paul Davies? Read my earlier post. He does not say he believes it, he does not even have a hypothesis for it. All Davies says is that there is an overwhelming DESIRE to BELIEVE in a creator. It is merely a faith claim, not science. To say that scientists "'bend' their observations" to fit within evolutionary theory is again confusing scientists with science. Haven't you got that through your head yet! Yet again I ask, what is the alternative to evolutionary theory? What even comes close to such a strong theory?

Comment left by JK >>>Rusty Rockets<< (a) have you checked the resource i provided? if you did you would know that the statement is absolutely true, i think you may have another agenda dear rusty....deception! (b) what are those problems rusty? >>>rusty<<< overwhelming DESIRE to BELIEVE in a creator. Yes there is! God created man to have that overwhelming desire! Why don't animals have that desire? rusty to get into a debate with you i admit you would probably come out on top only because of fine sounding arguments not because of evidence for evolution there is none! i just don't have the time and i apologize. There are so so many resources on the web, if you truly want answers to ID or anything else it is availble on the web, so i ask again why are you here at this website? just to try and win an debate? change peoples minds? or >>>rusty<<< I’m going through a masochistic phase? www.answersingenesis.org is a fantastic resource and theres lots of info there, but somehow i don't think you will do your research. God bless you rusty i will pray for you.

Comment left by Rusty Rockets >>>JK<<< (a) have you checked the resource i provided? if you did you would know that the statement is absolutely true, i think you may have another agenda dear rusty....deception! I am sure that the statement by Dr Lyall Watson was probably made, but it does not follow that the claim is true. I mean, hey, if decided not to use my brain the way that you choose not to I could cut and paste some pretty ludicrous quotes as well. Do you really think that by 1982 there were only enough fossils to fill a coffin? How big was the coffin? Even by the mid 1970s it would had to have held over 4000 hominid fossils, where around 400 of those were classed as either Neanderthal or Homo erectus alone. Obviously since then more have been found and more classified. Even without knowing that you could have deduced for yourself that Watson’s statement was most probably false. >>>JK<<< Yes there is! God created man to have that overwhelming desire! Tell me how you know God created man. People here seem to keep avoiding what should be a very simple question for those who advocate so strongly on God’s behalf. >>>JK<<< Why don't animals have that desire? Are you sure that they don’t? How do you know that they don’t? Is this yet more speculation that I see? >>>JK<<< rusty to get into a debate with you i admit you would probably come out on top only because of fine sounding arguments not because of evidence for evolution there is none! i just don't have the time and i apologize. So are you saying that you cannot explain the reasons why you believe in God? You cannot even attempt to state any reasons for God’s existence other than saying “Yes, there is a God.” >>>JK<<< www.answersingenesis.org is a fantastic resource and theres lots of info there, but somehow i don't think you will do your research. Oh, I do plenty of research. The articles on www.answersingenesis.org appear to be a list of current questions held about evolution. So what? This has been going on for years. YET AGAIN, this is what science does. It is fallible, it is testable, and this is what is happening. It does not disprove the entire theory of evolution, however. Interestingly, and tellingly, there are many, many more articles on www.answersingenesis.org that post current evolutionary research than there is about what the alternative theories are. In fact there is very little space dedicated to explaining or producing evidence for their very own creation. How very odd! Furthermore, the site is littered with comments such as this: “[X] has been used as ‘proof’ of evolution and thus ‘disproof’ of the Bible as the inerrant Word of God.” This is misleading to people who are not aware of how science works. Comments such as this are used to remain consistent with the dichotomous arguments espoused by proponents of the bible against evolution. For example, if we reversed this statement, we get the usual argument that creationists like to use to prove the existence of God: “[X] has been used as ‘disproof’ of evolution and thus ‘proof’ of the Bible.” This dichotomous way thinking on the part of religious bodies is fallacious. Many other articles are just out of date. Look at some of the ones on the Geological Column for starters. Why don’t you just go and find the data or paper for yourself, and see what the actual scientist who made the discovery has to say, as well as other scientists who review the work. The more opinions the better! Which brings me to another point. Don’t you find it kind of disconcerting that creationists are trying to interpret scientific data on evolution? Can’t you see that the conclusion will always be there before any analysis is made? No, this is not the same as pronouncing evolution true before analysing the data. Why? Because discovering something new about evolution does not mean that God enters into the equation automatically. In short, God is argued from a static, infallible position without reason or evidence to do so. Its proponents dictate to its followers from a position of authority. Science, by comparison (if we really have to) does not work in this way, it is the antithesis of religion. Knowing this you should heed Carl Sagan’s words: “One of the great commandments of science is: 'Mistrust arguments from authority’.”

Comment left by JK http://www.icr.org/ This site is really good check it out!

Comment left by BH In all this discussion, the centre has shifted from Intelligent Design theory to Biblical Creationism as if thje two are one and the same. This is unfortunately simply not the case. An old debating trick indeed to redefine your oponents position to suit your own agenda in dismissing it or ruling it "out of court" and one that the press is so obliging to assit in. BUT Intelligent Design advoocates theory IS NOT a biblical creationist account. Check out these web sites to let teh IID scientists speak for themselves and define their own position. Then determine which discussion you want to have, about ID or about Biblical creationism. Both are valid discussions indeed, but they are not the same thing in essence. www.arn.org www.iscid.org www.discovery.org enjoy the new content...and go at it!!

Comment left by Rusty Rockets That's just the point, they are the same thing in essence, because they both imply a creator.

Comment left by Me Yes they do seem alike. I haven’t read the whole debate here but picked up a few things here and there but I don’t want to argue and want to write just this once. I study engineering and have done alot of subjects in science and environment and I find it funny that people who believe in evolution, themselves, believe in a far fetched story and claim science backs it when in fact it doesn’t. All science does is give possibilities as its all we have. Evolutionists claim that Christians have a weird view but evolution suggests that we came from some bacteria but I ask this: where then would that bacteria have come from? To think that somehow "magically" we came from nothing to something is to say very naive. Evolution is a THEORY because they cant prove it but rather some scientists speculate some possible theories. Basically scientists are trying to reverse engineer our situation. We have the answer (us existing) but we are trying to look for the equation. Another thing about "evolving". If it is believed that we were formed billions of years ago then why haven’t we got any historical data until about 10000years ago. Were we progressing really slowly for billions of years and then suddenly thought...oh we better speed up our "evolving". This to me seems really stupid. Think about how much progress we have had in the past 10000years and yet before that you say were we useless and totally dumb? So basically I’m saying 2 things. One is that evolution is far fetched because it suggests we came from nothing which is scientifically impossible. And secondly im saying that it cant be possible that the world has been evolving for billions of years and just in the last 10000 years we have actually achieved something. I’m not a scientist and I don’t really care if you can pick on a small point of my discussion but the fact is that evolution is far fetched and the reason people like Rusty believe it is because they dislike Christianity and would believe anything that says otherwise.

Comment left by NepeAdmiple Hello Greetings!!!Cool page!Cool work! Bye

Comment left by JohnDo Excelent information. Best wishes from New York.

Comment left by oxymissile "...evolution is far fetched because it suggests we came from nothing which is scientifically impossible" Lucky then that evolutionary theory doesn't argue that we came from nothing, 'Me'.

Comment left by oxymissile "...the reason people like Rusty believe it is because they dislike Christianity and would believe anything that says otherwise" That's got to be one of the most grasping-at-straws, illogical, moronic things I think that I've ever had the displeasure of reading.

Comment left by foot arch pain I've only been reading since the last few posts, but I am enjoying your views more and more. I'll be back for more and will be sure to subscribe!

Comment left by ioninycuche I am getting more and more worried about the economy and global meltdown. The more things change the more they remain the same. The fundamental challenges we face today have changed little since Chaucer penned his observations on life and distilled them in a set of tales. In the modern city of Canterbury University Students analyse and dissect the meanings conveyed in texts set in that very locale in the 1300’s. Youngsters face today’s Jekyll and Hyde society not knowing that the Constants remain; love, betrayal, desire, fear. Each story conveys a lesson as we study for our degree in the University of Life, the big diploma mill of which we are all Alumni. We sit grinning like Cheshire cats, thinking we have all the answers. We call it a success when we pollute our atmosphere shooting down our own Satellite USA 193, Market Street Credibility is our preferred accreditation and recognition from our peers and fellow consumers, we Poison our Planet for Profit. Banks have crashed before and remember – you can’t eat money. Globalization has consequences. Everything we do has consequences, even something simple like buying firewood. The Oregon ODA advises not to obtain anything from out-of-state because of all the insects and diseases it might carry. That is just a relatively local issue. Imagine all the things that are carried around the world each day – each hour. We must protect our future, just as we should remember our past. All over the world, From the UK to the USA and the Seychelles to Egypt, still, yes, STILL, there is no REAL alternative to fossil fuels. Are we all going to purgatory in a wheelbarrow telling each other stories to pass the time? Sometimes I wonder! Sorry guys, I had a long day and feel sick of the world. Rant Over!

Comment left by theedger It just seems like it all just for fun and I hope it stays that way.

Comment left by Braxreurf A good way eh? Are you tuned in to my crazy acceptance I have a nice joke for you) What weighs 909 kg (2,000 pounds for all of you inefficient, non-metric "people") and is bare to the bone? A skeleTON!!!

Comment left by EZWilliam Heh. Nice. I am proud of my wonderful electorate Fresh joke! What would you get if you put a light bulb in a suit of armor? A knightlight.

Comment left by Mafioz Hello! All would like to congratulate on coming Christmas!