NationStates Jolt Archive

Creationism 2.0, or thats at least what Wired called it. To be perfectly honest I had never heard of ID before I read that article, but it seems as if evolution wont be dominating America's classrooms anymore. The Ohio school board voted to change state science standards, mandating that biology teachers "critically analyze" evolutionary theory. The institute and its supporters have taken the "teach the controversy" message to Alabama, Arizona, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, and Texas.

So long as New York, California, and Florida don't touch it with a 6ft. poll, we're good. Let the south teach what they want, Ohio too. It'll simply make it easier for me here in California to surpass them.

So long as New York, California, and Florida don't touch it with a 6ft. poll, we're good. Let the south teach what they want, Ohio too. It'll simply make it easier for me here in California to surpass them.
Since when were NEw Mexico and Arizona considered the south?

So long as New York, California, and Florida don't touch it with a 6ft. poll, we're good. Let the south teach what they want, Ohio too. It'll simply make it easier for me here in California to surpass them.

My biology classes always had mention of the term "intelligent design" though it wasn't necessarily an official teaching or anything. And I'm in California.

Since when were NEw Mexico and Arizona considered the south?
I dunno...they look pretty far south to me...

You know... if you're good you don't teach evolution as absolute fact, you give the evidence and show how scientists reached the current conclusion. And if you're really good, you actually provide evidence that might be a bit of a mystery.

Controversy in science is a great teaching tool. It livens up the classroom and provides a great platform from which to teach something like evolution.

My horror comes when I think about the number of teachers that won't be able to implement all the wonderful aspects of this and instead will present a debate between creationism and evolution.

I dunno...they look pretty far south to me...

Usually when people refer to the south they're talking about the southeastern states such as tennessee, georgia, arkansas, etc.

You know... if you're good you don't teach evolution as absolute fact, you give the evidence and show how scientists reached the current conclusion. And if you're really good, you actually provide evidence that might be a bit of a mystery.

Controversy in science is a great teaching tool. It livens up the classroom and provides a great platform from which to teach something like evolution.

My horror comes when I think about the number of teachers that won't be able to implement all the wonderful aspects of this and instead will present a debate between creationism and evolution.

So... as long as teachers show all the supposed evidence for evolution and nothing else that challenges it its okay? But for some reason its not alright to not present the two objectively?(sp?)

So... as long as teachers show all the supposed evidence for evolution and nothing else that challenges it its okay? But for some reason its not alright to not present the two objectively?(sp?)

Biology is a science. It's foundation is based in the worldwide theories and evidence held true by scientists. The majority accept evolution as the theory that explains the development and change in species. They do this because there is no accepted, reproducable evidence that challenges that theory.

Presenting the two... I assume you mean creationism vs. evolution. That's been gone over before. Creationism is not science, it is religion. It has no place in a science course, except perhaps as an acknowledgement that it exists.

Biology is a science. It's foundation is based in the worldwide theories and evidence held true by scientists. The majority accept evolution as the theory that explains the development and change in species. They do this because there is no accepted, reproducable evidence that challenges that theory.

Presenting the two... I assume you mean creationism vs. evolution. That's been gone over before. Creationism is not science, it is religion. It has no place in a science course, except perhaps as an acknowledgement that it exists.
Uh, the whole point of ID is secular creationism, and it has been accepted as a legitimate alternative to evolution.

Uh, the whole point of ID is secular creationism, and it has been accepted as a legitimate alternative to evolution.

Would you care to provide a link? I think I want to read this for myself. :p

Would you care to provide a link? I think I want to read this for myself. :p

Original article from Wired:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html

ID website:

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

This:
Eventually, the Ohio board approved a standard mandating that students learn to "describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." Proclaiming victory, Johnson barnstormed Ohio churches soon after notifying congregations of a new, ID-friendly standard. In response, anxious board members added a clause stating that the standard "does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design

Good.

This:
Intelligent design advocates say that teaching students to "critically analyze" evolution will help give them the skills to "see both sides" of all scientific issues. And if the Discovery Institute execs have their way, those skills will be used to reconsider the philosophy of modern science itself - which they blame for everything from divorce to abortion to the insanity defense. "Our culture has been deeply influenced by materialist thought," says Meyer. "We think it's deeply destructive, and we think it's false. And we mean to overturn it."

BAD!!!!

Good in theory, but if they actually have lesson plans with intelligent design in it, bad!

Oh, and nice article. Thanks! :)

This:
Eventually, the Ohio board approved a standard mandating that students learn to "describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." Proclaiming victory, Johnson barnstormed Ohio churches soon after notifying congregations of a new, ID-friendly standard. In response, anxious board members added a clause stating that the standard "does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design

Good.

This:
Intelligent design advocates say that teaching students to "critically analyze" evolution will help give them the skills to "see both sides" of all scientific issues. And if the Discovery Institute execs have their way, those skills will be used to reconsider the philosophy of modern science itself - which they blame for everything from divorce to abortion to the insanity defense. "Our culture has been deeply influenced by materialist thought," says Meyer. "We think it's deeply destructive, and we think it's false. And we mean to overturn it."

BAD!!!!

Good in theory, but if they actually have lesson plans with intelligent design in it, bad!

Oh, and nice article. Thanks! :)

Not really good or bad, just difference in opinion i guess. BTw, read Wired.

I read that article. In my Biology class the main focus was on evolution and the creationsm/intelligent design theme was touched upon to present the fact that there are other views (not that I live in Ohio so it doesn't matter much). The more I learned about creationism/intelligent design, the more I became and become disgusted by it. Here is Evolution: A scientific theory, testable to some extent, provable even in our world today, and accepted through hundreds of years of evaluation and re-evaluation and nothing but utter scrutiny. Now, here is creationsm/intelligent-design: It began with the religious afraid that evolution is the last step in proving God doesn't exist, a notion that has existed ever since the creation of science, and as every new discovery makes evolution more valid, the creationists morph and twist and pervert their "theory" to fit to with these new undeniable facts. Intelligent design is not that new of an idea, and it's one of the most disgusting as there is nothing left to teach: It basically says that someone or something (God, Aliens, Barry White) designed the Earth and it's organisms the way they are. So what is it trying to do? Create doubt in evolution, but leave nothing in it's place. So how can we teach intelligent design? What is there to teach? They're only argument is that things are "too complex" to have happened randomly. Well guess what, out of the 50 kajillion rocks that came out of the big bang, how many of them settled an appropriate distance from a star to support life? How many of those developed a gaseous atmosphere that things could feed off of, or survive in? How many of those had the right chemicals and gasses and heat mix to make water? Of those that made single celled organisms? Of those that a few of those organisms merged? Of those that those multi-celled organisms became specialized? And so on it went. We may not be the only intelligent life, or any life even, in this entire universe, but than again we just might be. Saying the way things are couldn't have possibly been random is like saying that your specific genetic coding, what makes you you, couldn't have possibly been randomly generated from your parents millions of lines of genetic code without some divine intervention, but it's already a fact that it did. So now what do you have to say for yourself, intelligent design?

I dunno...they look pretty far south to me...


Burn in hell! we in arizona are far too west to be part of the south.

The south ends where texas meets new mexico, and people east of that line and south of maryland ARE NOT WELCOME.

I say equal class time should be given to turtle science.

You know, the scientific theory that the entire universe rides on the back of a giant turtle.

"By no definition of any modern scientist is intelligent design science," Krauss concluded, "and it's a waste of our students' time to subject them to it."

I agree with this guy.

There is no reason there HAS to have been an intelligent designer. If you can't understand how something exists, the problem is own your own end, and you should study it, instead of appealing to your right to ignorance by saying "Obviously some divine being created it, so we should never try to work out how it could happen naturally".

People who believe in 'Intelliegent Design' evidently don't fully understand evolution.

On the other hand, I think philosophy should be taught in more schools, and given much more attention. ID could be a great issue to discuss in philosophy. And I'd love a chance to argue against it. But not in science. In science, I want to be taught things that are accepted by SCIENCE. Not by people who are pissed that religion is kept out of the science classes, and who are trying to find a back door into it.

Intelligent design is about as 'scientific' as hitlers racial 'sciences.'

It is a shabby, flim-flam and consummately dishonest attempt by religious nuts and charlatans to force their barbarism onto students.

It is basically uncivilized.

ID's core scientific principles - laid out in the mid-1990s by a biochemist and a mathematician - have been thoroughly dismissed on the grounds that Darwin's theories can account for complexity, that ID relies on misunderstandings of evolution and flimsy probability calculations, and that it proposes no testable explanations.

See that? it's not science. It's not even BASED on science.

It's based on a misunderstanding of science, and bad maths.

Just what we want taught in schools :rolleyes:.

This is one post I can answer with certainty.

I am a Christian, and born again. But I know that all of the Bible is not literally true. Nor is it supposed to be. I know the only way to the Lord is through Jesus, but I also know those who have not had the chance to reject the teaching of Jesus can also find the Lord.

True, Jesus is a proven historical figure - and the synoptic gospels spread his word – but we should not look to the Bible to answer the questions that arise from the mysteries of the universe.

The way I see it is that the Bible should guide our lives, and we should take the teaching of Jesus into our hearts when we deal with one another: We should always show grace and never anger; we should always be forgiving and never grudging; and, we should always fill our hearts with love and never hatred.

But that does not mean that God has not given us the greatest puzzle of all. For he gave us intellect and curiosity. When we examine the world we are delighted with our own discoveries, and this is a blessing from the Lord. It is clear then that the mysteries of evolution, astrophysics and geology are all great gifts that lift us up as a people. My fundamental belief is that God created a great deterministic universe full of questions and mysteries for his children to play with.

So those who hold to creationism and intelligent design are wrong. Where is the mystery? Where is the ineffable nature of the Almighty? God bequeathed us a world that was suited to our questions and gave us a playground for our minds. Part of the very blessing that the Lord gave us is the opportunity to discern the mechanisms behind his Creation, the greatest gift. And indeed it is. So any attempt to “fit” the bible into our world view of science - when it has often been shown that is not the purpose of the text – verges on blasphemous. No, rather we should embrace the puzzles of evolution and stellar physics, for those are one of God’s gift’s to us.

I say equal class time should be given to turtle science.

You know, the scientific theory that the entire universe rides on the back of a giant turtle.


Well, on elephants. But they're on a turtle.

Just because something is a "scientific fact" (something that any good scientist will tell you doesn't exist), doesn't mean that 20 years from now it won't be laughed at as ridiculous.

Who knows? Maybe a few years from now we'll all look back and laugh at all the people who beleived in weird "photons" and "DNA" just like we laugh at phrenology and Newtonian physics today.

I approve. Doubt and science go together like socks and shaving cream. (long story.)

So... as long as teachers show all the supposed evidence for evolution and nothing else that challenges it its okay? But for some reason its not alright to not present the two objectively?(sp?)
If evolution is taught in Science and Creationism is kept with the other "isms" in a Social Studies subset of world religions both should be taught. But there is NO scientific basis for creationism.

Original article from Wired:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html

ID website:

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
You cite the Wired article as a supporting document for ID? The article is clearly NOT in support of the political manuvering to sneak creationism in the back door. As for the ID website I have to ask, "Have you been sharing TRA's pipe with him?"

Part of the very blessing that the Lord gave us is the opportunity to discern the mechanisms behind his Creation

I very much respect your idea, Dave, and it brings up a very good question: Assuming there is a God, and assuming he had originally planned for the human race to exist, as such giving us intellect and curiosiy as you said, then this means he also planned for all the other organisms on Earth to exist, right?

If this is so:
a) Does the mere fact that the organisms are predetermined but still went through the entire evolutionary process still mean that's Intelligent Design (because they were designed beforehand, one of the main claims of Intelligent Design)?
b) Is it Intelligent Design but some way different then the one stated by it's proponents as seen in the WIRED article?

If evolution is taught in Science and Creationism is kept with the other "isms" in a Social Studies subset of world religions both should be taught. But there is NO scientific basis for creationism.


I think thats the best point so far. Evolution is a scientific THEORY. Creationism is not. Evolution has a lot of problems with it, and those should be addressed; Creationism however, has neither a substantial number of scientific evidence or scientific problems with it. So why put it in a science class.

Very good point :)

This is one post I can answer with certainty.

I am a Christian, and born again. But I know that all of the Bible is not literally true. Nor is it supposed to be. I know the only way to the Lord is through Jesus, but I also know those who have not had the chance to reject the teaching of Jesus can also find the Lord.

True, Jesus is a proven historical figure - and the synoptic gospels spread his word – but we should not look to the Bible to answer the questions that arise from the mysteries of the universe.

The way I see it is that the Bible should guide our lives, and we should take the teaching of Jesus into our hearts when we deal with one another: We should always show grace and never anger; we should always be forgiving and never grudging; and, we should always fill our hearts with love and never hatred.

But that does not mean that God has not given us the greatest puzzle of all. For he gave us intellect and curiosity. When we examine the world we are delighted with our own discoveries, and this is a blessing from the Lord. It is clear then that the mysteries of evolution, astrophysics and geology are all great gifts that lift us up as a people. My fundamental belief is that God created a great deterministic universe full of questions and mysteries for his children to play with.

So those who hold to creationism and intelligent design are wrong. Where is the mystery? Where is the ineffable nature of the Almighty? God bequeathed us a world that was suited to our questions and gave us a playground for our minds. Part of the very blessing that the Lord gave us is the opportunity to discern the mechanisms behind his Creation, the greatest gift. And indeed it is. So any attempt to “fit” the bible into our world view of science - when it has often been shown that is not the purpose of the text – verges on blasphemous. No, rather we should embrace the puzzles of evolution and stellar physics, for those are one of God’s gift’s to us.

See? It's your religion you tout and not science. Thanks for your agreement on this fact and now comply with the constitutional requirement that the government not establish religion by including it in the educational curriculum.

See? It's your religion you tout and not science. Thanks for your agreement on this fact and now comply with the constitutional requirement that the government not establish religion by including it in the educational curriculum.


Actually it states that the federal government not RESTRICT the establishment of religion, but anyway...

Actually it states that the federal government not RESTRICT the establishment of religion, but anyway...
Come little Penguin, take my hand and let us view together the First Amendment . . . Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Come little Penguin, take my hand and let us view together the First Amendment . . . Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


LOL alright you win, had it misquoted in my head. I sit here very humbled, thank you. Not that either of these posts have to do with anything...

SOURCE (http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/eclause1.htm) - quote:
The Supreme Court's first, and most comprehensive, statement about the meaning of the establishment clause is found in Justice Black's majority opinion in Everson v. Board of Education (1947). Briefly, Everson concerned a New Jersey statute that subsidized transportation for students attending private religious schools. While the Court voted to uphold the statute, it rejected the narrow reading of the establishment clause in favor of a broadly separationist reading. A number of principles emerge from the case; most of them are to be found in the following, justifiably famous paragraph (which we have broken down into sections for clarity's sake):

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this:

(1) Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.

(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.

(3) Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.

(4) No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance.

(5) No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.

(6) Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.

In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

We note that these words betray no anti-religious bias; on the contrary, the court seems to be at least as interested in protecting the church from the state as it is in protecting the state from the church. In particular, principles 3, 4, and 6 safeguard the right of people to freely practice their religion without interference from the state. Conversely, principles 1, 2, and 5 prohibit the state from favoring any religious belief system above another, or forcing people to support a religion in which they do not believe.

Taken together, principles 2 and 5 constitute what is known as the no-aid-to-religion rule. This rule prohibits the government using tax money to support one religion, or to favor religion above no irreligion. Despite no-aid-to-religion rule, however, the Everson Court upheld the New Jersey statute. It did so by formulating a second rule known as the sacred-secular doctrine. As explained by legal scholar Stephen Monsma, Justice Black distinguished

between programs that would contribute "money to the schools" or would "support them" and those, such as the one that was being challenged in that case, "indisputably marked off from the religious function" of schools. He held that bus transportation was clearly separable from the religious mission of the schools and similar to general public services such as police and fire protection and sewage disposal. Thus it could be supported by public funds.

The Supreme Court thereby established a second crucial legal doctrine, namely, that while public money may not go to support religious programs or organizations, it may go to provide services not directly related to the religious mission of religious organizations. This was the beginning of the legal doctrine that separates the sacred and the secular aspects of a religiously based organization, and holds that public money may flow to its secular, but not its sacred aspects (When Sacred and Secular Mix: Religious Nonprofit Organizations and Public Money, p. 31-32).

In many ways the history of establishment clause jurisprudence has been a matter of working out the details of the no-aid-to-religion and sacred-secular doctrines. What constitutes aid to religion? Does indirect aid violate the law? How can we tell when aid breaches the sacred-secular line? None of these questions admit of absolute answers. Fortunately, as the other articles in this section make clear, the Court has hit on additional guidelines that resolve many of the ambiguities in these questions.

LOL alright you win, had it misquoted in my head. I sit here very humbled, thank you. Not that either of these posts have to do with anything...
NP - Keep an eye out here - I am adding some additional case law examinations for further enlightenment. ;)

SOURCE (http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/eclause2.htm) - quote:
The Lemon test was formulated by Chief Justice Warren Burger in the majority opinion in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). Lemon dealt with Rhode Island and Pennsylvania programs that supplemented the salaries of teachers in religiously based, private schools for teaching secular subjects. The Court struck down both programs as violating the establishment clause.

The purpose of the Lemon test is to determine when a law has the effect of establishing religion. The test has served as the foundation for many of the Court's post-1971 establishment clause rulings. As articulated by Chief Justice Burger, the test has three parts:

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

According to separationist scholars Barry Lynn, Marc Stern, and Oliver Thomas, the fact that a law may have a "religious purpose or be motivated by religion does not mean it is unconstitutional as long as it also has a bona fide secular or civic purpose" (The Right to Religious Liberty, p. 3). Similarly, "a law that has a remote or incidental effect of advancing religion is not unconstitutional as long as the effect is not a 'primary' effect" (p. 3). Finally, the Court has allowed some entanglement between church and state, as long as this entanglement is not "excessive" (p. 3). Hence, the Court has built some leeway into the test so as not to invalidate laws that have only remote connections to religious practice. This is not, in other words, the work of a Court that was hostile to religion. On the contrary, Justice Burger, a Nixon appointee, is generally reckoned as a conservative on social issues.

We note also that the Lemon test is squarely grounded on the principles articulated in Everson v. Board of Education. Accomodationist legal scholar Stephen Monsma, for example, notes that Burger's opinion is:

Deeply embedded in...the sacred-secular distinction and the Supreme Court's evaluation of the state's attempts to separate out the two and subsidize only the latter. His opinion noted that at the trial-court level several teachers had testified "they did not inject religion into their secular classes." And the District Court found that religious values did not necessarily affect the content of secular instruction. Burger agreed, but made the additional, crucial observation that "the potential for impermissible fostering of religion is present." He then went on to conclude that under such circumstances state attempts to assure a strict separation of the sacred and the secular would require continuing state administrative supervision and surveillance, resulting in state entanglement with religion (When Sacred and Secular Mix: Religious Non-Profit Organizations and Public Money, pp. 32-33)

The Lemon test has not escaped criticism. Many scholars (including separationists Leonard Levy and Donald Laycock) have argued that the test is unduly subjective and internally consistent, and it's usefulness has been questioned by a majority of the sitting Justices. Still, as noted by Monsma,

...[the test] has not been formally overruled and the basic principles on which it rests--no-aid- to-religion and the sacred-secular distinction--still form the core of what is the dominant line of reasoning dealing with public funds going to religious nonprofit organizations (p. 33)

See? It's your religion you tout and not science. Thanks for your agreement on this fact and now comply with the constitutional requirement that the government not establish religion by including it in the educational curriculum.

since you obviously have poor comprehension skills I will type this slowly

STFU KTHX

Hey! ID class would be an easy "A" ! All you have to do is answer every question on the tests with "God did it".

Hey! ID class would be an easy "A" ! All you have to do is answer every question on the tests with "God did it".

I had a class like that.

I almost failed :p

SOURCE (http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/eclause3.htm) - Special note: the Everson v Bd of Ed; The Lemon Test and this were all the research work of Jim Allison (http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/eclauidx.htm)

quote:

In a concurring opinion in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), Justice O'Connor interpreted the "purpose" and "effect" prongs of the Lemon test in such a way as to place primary emphasis on the issue of government endorsement of religion. According to O'Connor,

The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community. Government can run afoul of that prohibition...[by] endorsement or disapproval of religion. Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.

The proper inquiry under the purpose prong of Lemon, I submit, is whether the government intends to convey a message of endorsement or disapproval of religion.

Similarly, O'Connor stresses the issue of endorsement under the effect prong of Lemon:

Focusing on the evil of government endorsement or disapproval of religion makes clear that the effect prong of the Lemon test is properly interpreted not to require invalidation of a government practice merely because it in fact causes, even as a primary effect, advancement or inhibition of religion...What is crucial is that the government practice not have the effect of communicating a message of government endorsement or disapproval of religion.

It is important to understand that the endorsement test does not replace the purpose and effects prongs of the Lemon test; it is merely O'Connor's interpretation of these prongs. Nevertheless, O'Connor's argument has been influential, and the Court has made reference to the test in several recent decisions. Additionally, there is some confusion about the relationship between the endorsement and Lemon tests. Some scholars understand the endorsement test as an addition to standards outlined in Lemon, while others view it as a minimal formulation of Lemon, i.e., that while endorsement may not be the only thing that violates the purpose and effects prongs of the Lemon test, it is the first and most important evidence that such a violation has occurred.

since you obviously have poor comprehension skills I will type this slowly

STFU KTHX
Now, Now DD! That is unbecoming.

Using facts and logic I have successfully challenged the assertion by showing that creationism (an ID by any other name) is not science but a religious viewpoint. I have further gone and shown that what is being proposed is just an attempt to get in the back door what was refused entry through the front door.

On the other hand you posted a non sequiter homily that, while a fruity attempt at some dream state persuasion, was off point. Drooling on about Jesus and god while caught up in some sort of BS proselytizing rapture you tried to slip in some crap about how it's all a mystery. Puh-leze! I just gave you the jab of a sharp elbow so you'd snap out of it.

Wake up and smell the coffee. Or don't they serve that at the Kiddie Corner?

Well I think I'm going to throw my two cents in.

one thing I'd to say objectivly covering bouth sides of the creation/evolution issue seems to be simular to trying to explain bouth sides of gay/straight issue. I doupt many are going to change their belifs on wich side is right even after beeing exposed to the information in class

and about this evolution thing, one thing I see over looked a lot is there are differnt types of it as well. there isn't just macro evolution, you got varios forms of micro evolution. I personaly belive that macro never happend, and even if the current ID theroy is flawed there is cerintaly some brains behind how this whole place got started. I also belive Micro evo happend on varios levels and still happens. since that accoutns for the various breeds of animlas of the same spechies. I also think we got natural selection gooing on wich is another variant of micro evolution.

now I don't got all sorts of refrences to pull out of a hat at the time I made this post as it's been a while since I got in to a discussion on this topic, but I do recal that Darwin himself tried to recall evolution after a while. after getting all the fame for making it what motivation would he have to destory the object that had made him so famous? could it be he discovered a major flaw in his theroy ,but by then people where so wrapped up in his proposed Idea that we are indeed the only intelegent things worth mentioning that they wouln't lisen to him.

another thing I'd like to point out is from what I heard them say for how long it should of taken us to get from amobea to humans would make it imposible as the earth can not be that old, due to the fact that our magentic poles could of only be arround for so long due to radioactive half lifes, and the molicules can only be so dense to begin with. so the fact we still have them indicate that the earth isn't a coupple hundred billion years old, more like a billion.

another thing that's been tossed in the argument about how do we explain random events when we where susposed to have such a predefined starting point made by this beeing. my answer to that is take a look at programing you dolts. you can write a program that purposly generates random numbers. and further more that random number algrothium can make it completly random or use "seed" numbers as a range to keep the numbers it generates between. so since we as humans can predictibly make a random event ocur when we want why coun't a beeing with even more powers then us do it on a more grand scale? (assuming such beeing exists, wich I think does)

seems to me that evo has just as many glitches as you say ID has so what's wrong with mentioning bouth and letting the student decide wich they belive actually happened?

Well I think I'm going to throw my two cents in.

one thing I'd to say objectivly covering bouth sides of the creation/evolution issue seems to be simular to trying to explain bouth sides of gay/straight issue. I doupt many are going to change their belifs on wich side is right even after beeing exposed to the information in class

But they don't need to change their views... they just need to accept it shouldn't be taught in a science class because it's not science. It can be taught in philosophy, or another class dealing with religious/faith-based theories... but not in a SCIENCE class. Why on earth they even want it taught as science escapes me.


and about this evolution thing, one thing I see over looked a lot is there are differnt types of it as well. there isn't just macro evolution, you got varios forms of micro evolution. I personaly belive that macro never happend, and even if the current ID theroy is flawed there is cerintaly some brains behind how this whole place got started. I also belive Micro evo happend on varios levels and still happens. since that accoutns for the various breeds of animlas of the same spechies. I also think we got natural selection gooing on wich is another variant of micro evolution.

Since macro is essentially just a large amount of micro, I find your choice to believe in one but not the other amusing. It suggests you really don't understand evolution (micro or macro) all that well. And natural selection is the process that allows evolution to occur... not a 'type' of micro evolution.

Maybe you should actually learn more about what you're trying to preach?

And statements like 'There is certainly some brains behind how this whole place got started' are meaningless. Back it up, or accept it's not a valid point.


now I don't got all sorts of refrences to pull out of a hat at the time I made this post as it's been a while since I got in to a discussion on this topic, but I do recal that Darwin himself tried to recall evolution after a while. after getting all the fame for making it what motivation would he have to destory the object that had made him so famous? could it be he discovered a major flaw in his theroy ,but by then people where so wrapped up in his proposed Idea that we are indeed the only intelegent things worth mentioning that they wouln't lisen to him.

Darwin's 'recalling' of evolution a) has not been proven beyond doubt to have occured, b) does not prove evolution wrong and c) had to do with his religious beliefs, if anything... ie, he was biased. His motivation was his religion, and his fear of dying (he decided he believed in God and thought He would be pissed... or he was under pressure from his church). He also wasn't 'famous' for his theory.. he was abused by the religious sector, and didn't recieve fame until after his death. There is no major flaw in evolution, as anyone who understands the concept well will tell you.


another thing I'd like to point out is from what I heard them say for how long it should of taken us to get from amobea to humans would make it imposible as the earth can not be that old, due to the fact that our magentic poles could of only be arround for so long due to radioactive half lifes, and the molicules can only be so dense to begin with. so the fact we still have them indicate that the earth isn't a coupple hundred billion years old, more like a billion.

Bad, bad science here. You need a source if you want to claim this, because I know that no one here who's involved with science in any way would claim this. Either your source is wrong, or you have misunderstood what they were saying.


seems to me that evo has just as many glitches as you say ID has so what's wrong with mentioning bouth and letting the student decide wich they belive actually happened?

Seems to me you don't understand evolution well enough to discuss it, and perhaps you should get some unbiased sources to study, and maybe double-check facts, rather than argue from a point of ignorance (ignorance as in 'lack of facts'... not calling you stupid).

Also, I'm fine with letting students have the information and choose... but not in SCIENCE classes. It's not science. Let them study it in philosophy, or another subject where it fits and isn't just bollocks.

Here's a thought: how come, depite decades worth of attempts, we cannot reproduce the situations that spontaneously created life? Until someone can crete the conditions to create life where there was no life before, creationism or ID is just as plausable of a theorey as macro-evolution.

Micro-evolution, is a different story. We know this exists. Science has failed to prove, however, that a cat can evolve into a dog, a fish can evolve into a bird, a reptile can evolve into a mammal.

you know, your all nuts if you haven't realized yet that Zeus really is the Chairman of the Heavenly Board.

Of course, his isn't the only corporation UP there. Odin's got a pretty sweet ruling company.

But Zeus has the Sun as one of chariots in his employee parking garage. And we are just animated clay. Very complex, animated clay to be sure...

and as far as recreating the conditions for spontaneous life... look how long it took us to develop the internal combustion engine... and we are still making improvements on it, 150 years later. Dinosaurs (if you are one of us who believe in them) were on the planet for billions of years. We can trace ourselves back about 30k, maybe 35k back... any further back and we didn't know how to leave a lasting enough impression to be found today (AKA cave paintings)...

Expectation that we, as human beings are at the top of our development or understanding of Life, the Universe, and Everything, is absurdly arrogant.

Leave those big decisions up to Zeus and his court for now. We'll figure it all out in time. Because when we finally find the definitive proof of the existance of "God" he will cease to exist. For Proof denies and defeats Faith, and without Faith, "God" is nothing... (Thanks Mr. Adams!)

Allow me to enter in my two cents on this subject - to begin with, while the half-life system is entirely reliable, it must be noted that carbon can seep in and also out, therefor it is not necessarily readily acceptable and reasonable that it should be assumed that the earth is over one billion years old; in reality, it is likely several thousand years old, not greatly exceeding ten thousand years. In relation to this, let me also point out that the heat which is produced by the earth spinning on it's axis has been decreasing by .14 per cent since the Great Flood, which likely happened around 9000 to 11,000 BC, which would have meant that the already hot temperature of the globe would not have allowed to be much of a planet, and it would have been a ball of flaming gas, only shortly before that incident.
Let me also point out that anti-matter is to be considered, the String Theory of physics points more toward creation than evolution, and there seems to be no logical reason to think that the theory of causal determinism is in any way unacceptable, since it offers a reasonable alternative to the religious philosophy (i.e., pseudo-science) of biological evolution.

Having spoken my peace, I will sit back and wait, lol.

:sniper: Micro-evolution, is a different story. We know this exists. Science has failed to prove, however, that a cat can evolve into a dog, a fish can evolve into a bird, a reptile can evolve into a mammal.[/QUOTE]

Or that a dictatorship can evolve into a republic. :)

What lunacy is this?

Why are these theocratic idiots taken seriously?

Here's a thought: how come, depite decades worth of attempts, we cannot reproduce the situations that spontaneously created life? Until someone can crete the conditions to create life where there was no life before, creationism or ID is just as plausable of a theorey as macro-evolution.

Micro-evolution, is a different story. We know this exists. Science has failed to prove, however, that a cat can evolve into a dog, a fish can evolve into a bird, a reptile can evolve into a mammal.

Ahhh, good old banananananafish theory.

Always helps me pinpoint those that have no knowledge whatsoever of the workings of evolution.

Here's a thought: how come, depite decades worth of attempts, we cannot reproduce the situations that spontaneously created life? Until someone can crete the conditions to create life where there was no life before, creationism or ID is just as plausable of a theorey as macro-evolution.
dude, do you have any idea how expensive and complicated it is to create an environment that would precisely simulate the environment on Earth when life began?

obviously not. you obviously are also unaware that abiogenesis and evolution are totally seperate theories that have nothing to do with each other. try reading a book.


Micro-evolution, is a different story. We know this exists. Science has failed to prove, however, that a cat can evolve into a dog, a fish can evolve into a bird, a reptile can evolve into a mammal.
evolution specifically tells us that a cat will not evolve into a dog, or a fish into a bird, or a reptile into a mammal. modern animals cannot evolve into each other, because evolution involves use of common ancestors; two totally different animals are not going to converge into a single new species, and one evolutionary branch is never going to evolve into another branch. they can split into new branches from their starting points, but they will NEVER be able to converge. period.

if you are going to argue against a theory, it's probably best that you learn what that theory actually says, first...whatever you are arguing against, it's not the theory of evolution.

Here's a thought: how come, depite decades worth of attempts, we cannot reproduce the situations that spontaneously created life? Until someone can crete the conditions to create life where there was no life before, creationism or ID is just as plausable of a theorey as macro-evolution.

Macro-evolution is not a theory of abiogenesis. It makes no difference to evolution whether the first life forms were formed from increasingly complex molecules, or whether God squatted down and shat them out ready made. Evolution is how we got from the first organisms to the current ones.

dude, do you have any idea how expensive and complicated it is to create an environment that would precisely simulate the environment on Earth when life began?

obviously not. you obviously are also unaware that abiogenesis and evolution are totally seperate theories that have nothing to do with each other. try reading a book.


evolution specifically tells us that a cat will not evolve into a dog, or a fish into a bird, or a reptile into a mammal. if you are going to argue against a theory, it's probably best that you learn what that theory actually says, first...whatever you are arguing against, it's not the theory of evolution.

Of course not! It's the bananananananananfish theory ("why don't we see bananas evolving into fish?"). I mean, duh :rolleyes:.

:D

It'd be even more funny if I didn't have to assume his point makes sense to him. Considering that it does though, I guess it's more sad than funny...

Of course not! It's the bananananananananfish theory ("why don't we see bananas evolving into fish?"). I mean, duh :rolleyes:.

:D

It'd be even more funny if I didn't have to assume his point makes sense to him. Considering that it does though, I guess it's more sad than funny...
that guy, and all those like him, are the greatest argument for teaching evolution in schools...they don't even know what the theory means, and they are trying to argue against it. that is so anti-science it makes me sick. they can't even use basic logic and scientific reasoning when arguing scientific theories, so for pete's sake let's increase science education funding right now.

The human body was not designed by a superintelligent life-form.

Too many things go wrong with it. It has too many inherent flaws.

It's easier to kill a human than to render a car undriveable.

Our eyes refract images UPSIDE-DOWN, for pete's sake!

The human body was not designed by a superintelligent life-form.

Too many things go wrong with it. It has too many inherent flaws.

It's easier to kill a human than to render a car undriveable.

Our eyes refract images UPSIDE-DOWN, for pete's sake!

Not to mention the lack of claws or teeth or the ability to shoot acid at things.

Some might say god gave us our brain to make up for this.

I'd counter that with the fact that so few people use theirs, it seems ironic that there could have been divine intervention in place to give them to us.

Personally, if I were God, I'd have given the early proto-humans claws and fangs. Then, when they had an argument over who 'gets to sleep on *that* patch of grass', they could kill each other effectively, and I could on with more worthwhile pursuits, like the Aurora Australis, and Spinner Dolphins.

Personally, if I were God, I'd have given the early proto-humans claws and fangs. Then, when they had an argument over who 'gets to sleep on *that* patch of grass', they could kill each other effectively, and I could on with more worthwhile pursuits, like the Aurora Australis, and Spinner Dolphins.

No, see, he was planning long term; if we had claws, then our hands would be unsuited to making nukes, which would decide that argument much more efficiently. :D

Charles Darwin discovered one of the concepts behind evolution, survival of the fittest, using scientific processes. The other essential concept, genetics, is still being worked on and it is much less obvious. I will try to distill it into a few sentences for your collective benefit.

DNA or some other genetic code is responsible for how cells and thereby all life forms function. The way it does this is very similar to how a computer program codes for flashy lights, cheat codes, or different fonts. Basically every group of three base pairs AT, CG, GC, TA, codes for a specific amino acid. These amino acids code for proteins which directly or indirectly affect everything from cellular reproduction to the transmission of neural impulses.

If the genetic code is altered by a mutation the proteins that it codes for will change. These changes can result in cancer or other negative consequences but if they occur in the right way the resulting changes in the physical nature of the next generation of organisms might benefit their chances of surviving and reproducing. This part is survival of the fittest.

To give you a good example lets say that you have two squirrels one of whom has a modification to their genetic code that allows them to produce an enzyme that digest cellulose (essentially wood). They both get trapped in an environment where the amount of calories that they have access to is very limited. If one of those squirrels can eat and digest cellulose in addition to normal food sources his chances of survival are greater then the others.

This greater chance of survival allows him to pass on his genes to the next generation more then the other squirrel that died of starvation. Eventually if the population of squirrels with this ability to eat wood became separated from other squirrels further random mutations will occur that might keep this population from reproducing with normal squirrels in the future. This population of animals is now a different species, and evolution has occurred.

If anyone doesn’t understand my big words like environment, or population, please look them up. If any of you creationists can suggest a mechanism for ID I am all ears.

I know exactly how evolution works, but we're debating the addition of ID or creationism in science classes. Humans, for thousands of years, have wondered where they came from, and how life began. Since we have no proof that we were created by an intelligent bieng, nor do we have proof that we evolved from protazoa, both are valid theories. If people stopped debating evolution vs. creationism for a second, and see that both are viable candidates for the reason life exists, perhaps you would see that it is a good time to introduce an open debate in science classes. I , for one, was tired of teachers droning on about this theorey and that fact without creating open discussion of ideas. Education isn't about spewing facts at exam time, its about learning and exchanging ideas. Its sad that people on both sides of the argument fail to open thier ears to discussion of the others ideas.

Some of us don't follow blindly what we are taught, but question it. Thats when we start to learn.

I know exactly how evolution works, but we're debating the addition of ID or creationism in science classes. Humans, for thousands of years, have wondered where they came from, and how life began. Since we have no proof that we were created by an intelligent bieng, nor do we have proof that we evolved from protazoa, both are valid theories. If people stopped debating evolution vs. creationism for a second, and see that both are viable candidates for the reason life exists, perhaps you would see that it is a good time to introduce an open debate in science classes. I , for one, was tired of teachers droning on about this theorey and that fact without creating open discussion of ideas. Education isn't about spewing facts at exam time, its about learning and exchanging ideas. Its sad that people on both sides of the argument fail to open thier ears to discussion of the others ideas.

Some of us don't follow blindly what we are taught, but question it. Thats when we start to learn.
intelligent design versus non-causal abiogenesis is a debate that belongs in philosophy class, not in a highschool science course. i think many of the people posting on this thread are evidence that our science education is woefully insufficient as things are, and adding philosophical discussions at this point would be foolish because there are so many people who don't understand the basic scientific concepts...first we need to make sure our science classes can cover all the SCIENCE they need to, and once they can do that then maybe we can consider adding philosophical discussions to the mix.

furthermore, since the theory of intelligent design cannot be tested by any scientific means, it is not a scientific theory at all. because it is not a scientific theory, it does not belong in a science classroom in the first place. evolution or various scientific theories of abiogenesis can be tested, can make predictions, and can follow scientific tenets; intelligent design cannot, and is thus not science. i fully support discussions of intelligent design, but they don't belong in the science classroom.

I know exactly how evolution works, but we're debating the addition of ID or creationism in science classes. Humans, for thousands of years, have wondered where they came from, and how life began. Since we have no proof that we were created by an intelligent bieng, nor do we have proof that we evolved from protazoa, both are valid theories. If people stopped debating evolution vs. creationism for a second, and see that both are viable candidates for the reason life exists, perhaps you would see that it is a good time to introduce an open debate in science classes. I , for one, was tired of teachers droning on about this theorey and that fact without creating open discussion of ideas. Education isn't about spewing facts at exam time, its about learning and exchanging ideas. Its sad that people on both sides of the argument fail to open thier ears to discussion of the others ideas.

Nobody is debating Evolution vs Creationism except Christian fundamentalists who want to see creationism taught as science.

In the scientific community, there is no controversy at all. Evolution has been by far the strongest theory for over a century. While it hasn't been conclusively proven, and scientists still try to find flaws in it and discover the underlying mechanisms, there is a vast wealth of evidence from diverse scientific fields supporting it, which you would be aware of if you knew even half what you're claiming.

The theory of evolution has been drawn from available evidence, not proposed arbitrarily and then hastily supported with contrived and suspect evidence, as creationism has. That is why evolution is a valid theory, and creationism is not.


Some of us don't follow blindly what we are taught, but question it. Thats when we start to learn.

This coming from someone who wants to see a religious story based on no further evidence than word of mouth and archaic writings given equal merit as a scientific theory?

Uh, the whole point of ID is secular creationism, and it has been accepted as a legitimate alternative to evolution.Accepted by who? The evidence for evolution is pretty darn strong; and the attacks on it I've seen have been mostly stawman attacks, and the alternate explanations for the fossil and geologic record[1] highly lame. Now as an alternative theory of the mechanism behind evolution, it might have some (wobbly) legs; the history of source code for large programs (which are intelligently designed) is almost uniformly tree-like, and the evolution of organisms is very definitely tree-like. But as far as I've seen the proponents have been too busy flinging doody at evolution through natural selection to develop ID into an alternative that might deserve to be taken seriously. I suspect they can't hack it as scientists.
[1]For some reason, the currently accepted theories for Earth's geologic history is lumped in with evolution by opponents to evolution. They're really not all that closely related.

Accepted by who? The evidence for evolution is pretty darn strong; and the attacks on it I've seen have been mostly stawman attacks, and the alternate explanations highly lame. Now as an alternative theory of the mechanism behind evolution, it might have some (wobbly) legs; the history of source code for large programs (which are intelligently designed) is almost uniformly tree-like, and the evolution of organisms is very definitely tree-like. But as far as I've seen the proponents have been too busy flinging doody at evolution through natural selection to develop ID into an alternative that might deserve to be taken seriously. I suspect they can't hack it as scientists.
ID hasn't been accepted as an alternative to evolution by any reputable scientist, because any scientist knows that ID and evolution aren't related theories. ID is a theory of abiogenesis, and whether or not one believes in ID has nothing to do with one's belief in evolution, so no scientist would be stupid enough to debate ID versus evolution...they aren't on the same subject.

I Since we have no proof that we were created by an intelligent bieng, nor do we have proof that we evolved from protazoa, both are valid theories.

Wrong.

There is evidence that we evolved along with (not exactly "from") protazoa. It's in our DNA, the fossil record, observed speciation, and a myriad of other observable, testable hypothesis.

There is NO evidence that we were intelligently designed. In fact, as has been posted above, the design of the human body points to chance and happenstance, and NOT to an intelligent designer.

First "an intelligent designer would have installed ports so I could drain my damn sinuses" of Two

ID is a theory of abiogenesis,It seems to vary depending on who you ask. Many opponents to evolution seem to have a habit of making up non-standard definitions.

and whether or not one believes in ID has nothing to do with one's belief in evolutionI daresay anyone who believes that abiogenesis occured though entirely natural processes is probably going to believe in evolution occuring through natural selection (though not vice-versa). Whether they understand the latter theory is another matter... But yes, the theory of evolution through natural selection has very little to say about abiogenesis. (There's an assumption of common ancestry for all existing life ('cept prions I suppose)). (Although, on further thought, that assumption is more part of the theory of evolution than the theory of evolution through natural selection).

I personaly belive that macro never happendMacro-evolution happened. The fossil record really dosn't leave doubt. Now if you want to contest evolution through natural selection as the mechanism go ahead, but the details in the fossil record and genomes are rather strange for intelligent designs. (In particular, when you look at the details, examples of convergent evolution look far more like parallel developments than copying of design. This is quite different from program source code, where pieces of code like Doug Lea's allocater can make the rounds among programs without being present in a common ancestor (if any). In plants and animals, it is extremely rare for pieces of genome to jump between genuses. Microbes are something of an exception.)

so the fact we still have them indicate that the earth isn't a coupple hundred billion years old, more like a billion.I believe 4.5 billion is the accepted figure, although it would have taken some time for the surface to cool.

another thing that's been tossed in the argument about how do we explain random events when we where susposed to have such a predefined starting point made by this beeing. my answer to that is take a look at programing you dolts.See above, you biped. I myself don't see any how random events are inconsistent with a God either.
you can write a program that purposly generates random numbers. and further more that random number algrothium can make it completly random or use "seed" numbers as a range to keep the numbers it generates between. so since we as humans can predictibly make a random event ocur when we want why coun't a beeing with even more powers then us do it on a more grand scale? (assuming such beeing exists, wich I think does)Sounds like a clockwork universe with a creator. Fairly popular idea among scientists, and quite consistent with evolution through natural selection.

seems to me that evo has just as many glitches as you say ID has"Evo" has been grossly misrepresented in some quarters.

Can any of you creationists explain intellegent design to me as I explained evolution earlier? Can you derive it using scientific methodology? By the way the two stories at the start of Genisis count as mythology not science. Show me evidence for how ID occured, and stuff that seems to contradict evolution doesn't count.

Time to clear up some things:

I believe in evolution. I also believe in creationism. My personal beliefs, however, are not being debated here.

I am an EMR. I know exactly how messed up the human body is, and, quite frankly, how easy we are to kill. I've yet to figure out why the trachea is at the front of the neck instead of being protected by muscle or at least the esophagus. This would assume that it was a random development as opposed to a built-in weakness.

However, no land-borne animal has a protected throat. You'd think that after billions of years of evolution at least one species, (especially a prey species), would have developed some sort of protection for the throat, the weakest point in the body. Why would so many creatures on earth develop the same weakness?

I don't even know why I'm debating this. Its like a christian vs. athiest fight in here.

And keep up with the personal attacks, Nimzonia, it really helps enlighten more people to your beliefs.

To be honest when I read this article I was surprised with the bias it showed. But even with it, it got all the relevant information across.

Evolution still and always will dominate the classrooms of America. ID doesn't say evolution is wrong IIRC, it says that evolution is how 'god' created man. The fundies can't fight the truth, even they see the evidence for the 'how' is overwhelming, so they have instead shifted to the other question, 'why'. It's nothing new, men of science have pondered the possibility that evolution is not random, that there is some design or plan, for decades. I for one believe that there is some design, but am not naive enough to attribute this to a sentient, ambivilent, father figure type 'god'. Mankind inflates his importance in the grand scheme of things and has created in his vanity the concept of a 'god' in his own image. In truth I don't believe we have the ability or capacity to understand the true nature of the forces or design that shapes our universe. I am content with the knowledge that such concepts may forever be beyond my grasp and see no need to substitute some fantasy to placate myself with. I am secure in the unknown unlike most of my fellow man who choose to ward off the unknown by huddling together under the various blankets of the worlds religions.

Evolution would state that the weakness of an unprotected throat was not developed, but rather not weeded out by natural selection. But your point still stands, as I am unsure why natural selection wouldn't have lead to a protected throat. It could be due to mobility.

And keep up with the personal attacks, Nimzonia, it really helps enlighten more people to your beliefs.

Er... what personal attacks? I don't recall having made any.

Not that I am a Christian of any sort, but lets stick to bashing pretend science here. I am still waiting for someone to submit evidence that favors intellegent design of any sort. The problem with ID and why it is unscientific has little to do with the science establishment and alot to do with the method used by proponents of ID.

In science you make observations and then try to explain them with a theory. ID has always been a process of hunting for evidence to disprove evolution. Please understand that I unlike others am not trying to bash anyone's religious beliefs here, but rather insisting on some science here rather then legalistic of philosophical debate.

This is the case because I belive that if placed under requirements of things conforming to what humanity has actually seen of reality, in a repeatable sense, ID cannot stand not because it violates what America, reason, or proper consciousness says, but because, it, as a doctrine, has no grounding whatsoever in reality.

Ugh, Intelligent Design, nothing but Creationist bullshit trying to push religion into the classroom. So, because we're complex we must be designed? The old watchmaker story? Uh huh, prove it! Exactly what are you basing your belief that we were designed? Yes, you can look at a watch and say it was designed, but, do you know why? It's because we have other man-made watches that resemble it, thus, we have a comparison and can logically deduce that the watch was designed. Unfortunately, ID fails at this when describing humanity. Since we have NO other universe to compare to that we know was designed how can we tell that our own is? Just because it's complex doesn't point to a creator. There's a billion trillion stars in the universe, so the chances that at least one is able to have a solar system with a planet capable of harboring complex carbon lifeforms are pretty good!

Micro-evolution, is a different story. We know this exists. Science has failed to prove, however, that a cat can evolve into a dog, a fish can evolve into a bird, a reptile can evolve into a mammal.

Are you butt buddies with Mr. Kent "Dr. Drano" Hovind? You sound like him in one of his videos! Or maybe you are him? If so, how does it feel being completely ignorant of the evidence in support of evolution and the fact that you don't understand a lick of it?