Kirk Cameron attempts to debunk Darwin

What Mr. Cameron and his Creationist or "intelligent Design" brethren fail to recognize is that Darwin was the starting point, not the final conclusion, of how life came to be what it is now. New evidence – real evidence – arises every day that adds nuance and new understanding to life as we know it now and how it was thousands and, yes, millions of years ago.
For instance, evolution was once widely believed to occur in small, incremental steps. Experts more recently have found that changes in life forms are often abrupt, dramatic and even violent. That is science: examining facts and using this knowledge to shape our understanding of the world, not using facts only when the facts conveniently reinforce our beliefs.
If we did not apply science to our civlizations, we'd still be pounding messages on stone tablets or painting murals in caves and fighting saber-tooth tigers (or modern-day grizzly bears) with spears and rocks.
Science is not static. It constantly evolves. So do we, when we choose not to live in caves.

Let me be the first to say that all Christians are not Kirk Cameron or any of the other over the top talking heads that claim to be the voice of "real" believers.

Thank You

Those people who do not believe in God and Adam and Eve, are going to believe that we evolved from apes, as this is so much easier for them to believe, than in a Supreme Being. Sad, sad, sad!

Ignorance can still be bliss for many. He should try to actually read a book, and study soime science prior to hypocritically suggst that students are being brainwashed....while it is he that has been completely brainwashed by extremists using no facts. There will be a lot of those books in the trash barrels.

I was very disappointed in how CNN has reported this story. They describe it as Cameron being engaged in an effort to ‘debunk’ Darwin’s ‘manifesto’. The choice of words is telling. ‘Debunk’ is defined as “to expose as a sham or falseness”. A more correct choice of words would have been ‘discredit: to refuse to accept as true or accurate; to cause disbelief in the accuracy or authority of’.

Does this choice of words mean that CNN staff and producers regard the keystone of modern biology as a fraud? Or should I take it as an indication that CNN is more afraid of offending potential viewers who are vocal and absolute in their refusal to accept fundamental scientific knowledge? The only other alternative that comes to mind is ignorance on the part of CNN as to either basic English vocabulary, basic science, or both. Since I have already pointed out the difference between the meaning of ‘debunk’ and ‘discredit’, allow me to provide a similar clarification regarding the term ‘evolution’.
Evolution is defined as the change in the characteristics of a population from one
generation to the next. This is not a theory but, like gravity, is an observed phenomenon. Darwin’s contribution was to come up with a theory explaining how evolution works: natural selection. It is a ‘theory’, rather than a ‘law’, because it is an explanation of why nature behaves in a certain way (e.g., why a book falls when you drop it), rather than a mathematical prediction of what will happen in a given situation (e.g., how long it takes the book to reach the ground from a height of 6 feet).

It is unfortunate that CNN reports on this issue in such a way that furthers the credibility of a group of people who are, in many ways, the modern equivalent of ‘flat earthers’. Given the amount of reporting on the issue of job creation and the poor state of the U.S. economy, I think it might be worth considering the correlation between a country's economic health and the quality of the inhabitants’ understanding of basic math and science. CNN’s reporting this morning was part of the problem, rather than the solution.

Kirk looks like he`s down and out looking for some publicity! One is an idiot to believe that evolution does not exist! My problem with religion is how you shouldnt worry about facts and things one can prove but how much you believe! I believe what I see and know, not what I want to see and know! People of the world put entirely too much emphasis on believing instead of knowing! Why does our money have on it in God we Trust?, as if that makes our money legit! Religion was set up back a long time ago to control the masses with fear, now it has no relevance. All it is now is a business that only looks at the profit margin, now thats not what God would want I have to believe!

Why in the world would you have an idiot like Kirk Cameron on? What does this say about your intelligence and taste. Will you be bringing flat earth folks on too?

TV needs to lift and elevate; you have done neither by putting a religious wacko on.

Kirk Cameron is living proof that there is, in fact, no god.

What kind of deity would tolerate a representative like Cameron?

You are right, George. And unfortunately extremist such as these give legitimate ones a bad name in any context. Beware of zealots!

So why is this east end of a horse going west getting attention? Oh, yeah, he's another stupid, uneducated American.

Sounds like a ploy by a washed up actor to try and make himself relevant. If he is truly a "born again christian", he would realize that his God created him to become a living, breathing, LEARNING, EVOLVING SEEKER OF KNOWLEDGE put here to learn and discover the world around him, and this does not involve crawling under a rock to proclaim science as "bunk".

Kirk Cameron, grow up and SHUT UP!

Why is it that the "in your face" christians never seem to grasp the fact that evolution and social darwinism are not related? That in fact it could be noted that evolution has selected against the social darwinists of the last century.
Another thing is that statements of faith , no mater how eloquent or well meaning , are not science. I thank God that I'm an athiest!

How is he qualified to tell anyone anything related to religion or science? Seems that, for scientific info, we should turn to SCIENTISTS.

Kirk = Epic Fail

The more I studied evolution, the more absured it became to me. The universe screams of design and if design, then of a Designer, and purpose. It is willfully absured to think that nothing created everything,

Kirk Cameron is an idiot.

Three cheers for Kirk and his group. Ask any Darwinian evolutionist to give you a solid example of macroevolution among higher species of animals and they are not able to do it.

Not only that; but scientists look at the evidence and then draw conclusions from it. They can change their conclusions as new evidence arises. Creationists, on the other hans, start with a conclusion - which they are intrinsically unable to abandon or change - and then look for evidence which seems to discredit evolution, which they then take as "evidence" in favor of Creation.

No Creationist has EVER come up with ONE affirmative piece of evidence in favor of Creation. Creationist theory can be summed up in two sentences: "either life was Created or it evolved. Thus, evidence which attacks evolution is evidence which supports Creation."

As a Christian I find it interesting that people, like Cameron, insist on an either/or understanding of life. Believing in evolution DOES NOT negate nor disavoy the idea of Christ and God the Father. God created the world in 7 days, theoretically, but there is no definitive understanding of what 1 day represents. I know that I know what I know and I'm content with my God being the Supreme Being.

Good Luck Kirk, you'd have a better chance of debunking Gravity.

"disavow" not disavoy....

We all know the Great Spaghetti Monster created all ife.

a scientific theory has weight. just because the word theory is used, people like to equate it with a casual opinion or idea. but a scientific theory is a very specific thing, it has to undergo rigorous debate and examination and yes evolution! i don't understand why this silly debate continues. nor why it has to be such an either or thing. what are they afraid of really?

in my small catholic elementary school of the 1950's and then even much more so in my Jesuit highschool training of the early 60's there was never ever a question about Evolution...it is fact..it is undeniable...so match your religious faith to somehow live with what we as educated people know is the truth.....or go back to the dark ages..which some uneducated folks would like us to do....in the end..truth does win out..it may take hundreds of years but eventually the truth does win out...

This actor is not educated enough to give his sheepish view on evolution. Blind faith is good for making people feel better.... that said it has NOTHING to do with science at all. Evolution is a theory that is constantly challenged and updated. Kirk Cameron's views are told to him from some other person without basis. As a part of the scientific community I urge people to listen to professors and text rather than actors.

By attacking Evolution and push Intelligent Design, these people are actually attacking the scientific process. By attacking the scientific process, these people are directly impacting how we teach and treat science in our schools. When American power and economic strength depend so much on science and technology, we need American scientists and engineers. These intelligent design people are actually working hard to dumb down American minds. Eventually, we will lose our edge in Science and Technology and so we shall lose our military might, economic strength and our ability to innovate and create.

Many of these Intelligent Designer consider themselves conservative and they consider Patriotism their private domain. How patriotic is someone who actively tries to dumb down American minds so that we lose our ability to compete against rising power such as India, China and Iran?

How patriotic are people who destroy the scientific process so that we risk losing our technological advancements so crucial to our national security and national identity?

Are they American First? or are they Christian First and Conservative first?

"Experts more recently have found that changes in life forms are often abrupt, dramatic and even violent. "

So if changes occur suddenly, then that 's not slow and gradual naturalistic "evolution". That's "dramatic violent changes."

What Mr. Cameron and many credible institutes of science underscore is that the concept of "puncutated equilibrium" erodes evidence for long time scales.

So much in evolutionary thought still hangs on what could have been possible in those long time scales. Without them, and the study of geology erodes them in increasing measure, alternative explanations are in demand.

Please visit the Institute for Creation Research at ICR.org.

Sorry, George – but if you are a "real" believer, you do believe what Kirk Cameron is saying.

You can't just pick and choose what parts of the bible are true, what are allegory, what parts you should subscribe to, and which parts are inconvenient for your life.

The fundamental problem of religion is that it is based on faith and belief in explanations whose only proof is passed down through oral and written tradition. When facts are learned and our understanding and appreciation for existence come more into focus, it often reinforces people's beliefs. But more often than that, these new facts stand in stark contrast to what the bible says.

So, people either adapt their understanding of religion so they don't have a cognitive dissonance between what they know as fact and what they believe, or they act rationally and realize their presuppositions and beliefs were based on fallacy.

Among an endless list of examples are when Galileo proposed the heliocentric model of our solar system. He was outcast and forced to denounce the ideas he knew were accurate by the Catholic church.

The church, eventually, adapted and realized their understanding of the universe as explained in the bible was inaccurate. Rather than these new facts dismantling the fabric of religion, the "believers" simply augmented their understanding of the bible to fit these new facts.

This is dangerous. Picking in choosing what parts of the bible you subscribe to or altering your interpretation of passages to fit what you know is the truth simply means that you're not operating with logic or reason. You are brainwashed and don't want to admit the truth because it is too hard for you to believe some supernatural force didn't craft our existence and isn't looking out for you.

When you adapt religion to fit reality, you're just trying to maintain millenias' old conventions that are outdated and no longer applicable to modern life. Kirk Cameron and his group are trying to send human understanding of reality back 500 years. How ridiculous. To say that a "real" believer doesn't subscribe to this means you are NOT a "real" believer. You are, in fact, someone who refuses to let the facts speak for themselves. You would rather let the brainwashed part of your brain dictate your perception of reality. He is doing what any good Christian would do, according to the bible. It's not that Kirk Cameron is wrong – the religion is wrong.

He's actually acting exactly as the religious doctrine he subscribes to dictates. People like you, George, are living in some midway fantasy land where you won't let your perception of reality be elucidated by fact. Rather, when you can't win an argument because the facts are so strongly stacked against you, you say things like "people who still believe that aren't real believers."

I am a Christian and a scientist. I happen to believe both sides of the story. I believe that God created us in his own image. I also believe that organisms on Earth do evolve over time. I have yet to see evidence linking Homo sapians to apes directly (ever heard of the missing link). However, seeing evidence of animals that have had to adapt to their environment, does support that evolution does occur. I believe that both can occur.
Man has yet to create life from scratch. He has had to use life to create life. (that is a fact!)
Although the Theory or evolution has much evidence to support it, it is still a theory.
On the comment that we (Christians) "choose to live in Caves" because we believe in Creation- Well that is very closed minded thinking that Christians cannot believe in scientific thinking.

while the evidence is clear that we have evolved over time through gene mutations,much as viruses do.who is to say that wasnt the design?God is a forever being and time is not an issue with him. We must be open to a God who is larger and more complex in his actions than we could ever imagine.

I have never encountered an evolution debunker who was not a religious fundamentalist. All the ones I know of have only 1 quarrel with evolution: It cannot be reconciled with a literal interpretation of Scipture. Their alternative, Creationism, is not taken seriously by the overwhelming majority of scientists. The arguments about the legitimacy of Creationism are conducted at high school boards of education, not in the halls of academia. They say that evolution is just a theory. They are right. Creationism supports the Biblical account of the creation of the world. Therefore, for them, it is much more than a theory. Evolution is only as good as the facts that support it. Creationism must be upheld by its supporters no matter the facts because it supports God's holy word. Evolution is science. Science claims to have the latest word, never the last word. Creationism claims to be the last word. Creationism is not science.

CNN did a good job of covering the recent attempt by Kirk Cameron and the Living Waters organization to overthrow the theory of evolution by reprinting Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” with a new introduction. Your coverage was balanced and included a rebuttal by a credible scientist. I continue to be concerned that so many gullible citizens believe celebrities like Jenny McCarthy, Tom Cruise, and Mr. Cameron as they spout off on subjects they know nothing about. The Intelligent Design movement has been unequivocally identified as thinly veiled Creationism in the courts and is nothing less than an all out attack to redefine science itself to substitute supernatural explanations of natural phenomenon in place of rational scientific investigations of cause and effect. Mr. Cameron, we are all are free to believe what we choose about the origins of life, but please do not force my children and grandchildren to abandon science in favor of your religion-science and religion are different things..

Frank in Charlotte

"Former teen idol"? Yeah, I'll take his word for it...roflmao....

To Dave Wilson and all of the others who follow "the Religion of Evolution" - you guys always say "Facts" and "Experts have discovered" – the problem is – every one of your "Facts" and "Discoveries" later are proven to be frauds. That my friend is trying to manipulate science to reinforce your beliefs. Please tell us of the amazing life form changes you have seen - it would surely make the news – because it just doesn't happen – that's the whole issue – there is no evidence. Evolution is a lie pushed by non-believers.

I'm curious. Since giving up acting, just how many hours has he logged in the classroom or in the field studying anthropology, paleontology, archeology, astronomy, biology, etc.? Has he even been to the Galapagos Islands?

Other than becoming all-knowing, does he have any real qualifications to take on the task of re-writing some pretty established science?

I'm a devout Evangelical with a very high view of Scripture and this sort of folly brings unnecessary dishonor to Christians. St. Augustine said it best,

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the [natural sciences] and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?"

The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Volume 1, 39

Kirk Cameron knows absolutely nothing about the theory of evolution. The only thing he is capable of debunking is the idea that he has something intelligent to contribute to the discussion.

You go Kirk, tell it like it is. It's time people see where they really came from. People better get ready because Jesus is coming, the bible says so!!!

Let's see, who do I believe? A has been hack actor, or scientists? I'm so torn.

And then my 19-year-old son will ask me, "Who's Kirk Cameron?"

Then I say, "A guy that used to be a teen idol. He was on a popular show in the 80's."

And he'll say, "So?"

Objective science requires a fact to be observable, verifiable and repeatable. Neither modern science nor Bible scholors can produce this. Thus it is a matter of faith; faith in the scientific explanations or faith in the Biblical record. Although science has found what they believe to be evidence suporting their theory, there is also strong evidence to suggest the Biblical account of intelligent design. As niether is absolutely verifiable it would seem prudent to allow both theories (beliefs) to be presented and considered in the search for truth.

As was said to Job - "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the Earth?" Declare it – if you understand.

I don't see how Kirk Cameron can deny evolution. After all, he evolved into an idiot.

Let me see.
Darwin: celebrated scientist who spent his life using science and fact.
Kirk Cameron: Born-again Christian from the 80's sitcom Growing Pains.
Wow, that is quite the debate.

STOP GIVING THESE MORONS PUBLICITY.

He is an actor and an idiot. That you bothered to mention him gives him a million times (and I changed from 1000 – a million is probably not enough) the attention he deserves. How about publicizing people that think pigs can fly or believe in the easter bunny. Either one of these make as much sense as religious beliefs in general or creation in particular. People may say that I should have respect for people's beliefs but I don't respect people (over the age of five) that believe in Santa Clause either...

I just noticed another thing: You called it a controversy. It is NOT A CONTROVERSY any more than science has a controversy about the earth being flat. There are MORONS that believe it's flat but it is not a controversy – their views are not taken seriously by ANYONE.

Cameron and his obscurantist colleagues can't comprehend "Origin of the Species" (or science apparently) outside of their rigid absolutist framework. It's like suggesting that Physics should be debunked because Copernicus didn't have a comprehensive understanding of the universe.

Kirk Cameron is brainwashing the world into believing falsehoods.

Science also employs methods that the "Creationists" cannot handle – a requirement for repeatable results, the use of independent peer review, and as was pointed out, constant updating of findings and conclusions.

There is a reason it is called "Blind Faith". But it is easy, and you don't have to think....progressive

I agree with Dave to the point that science is constantly evolving. To that point, religeon is evolving, too. Though this might be a laughable statement to some, especially the hard core humanists or christians, the idea of the Bible as allegorical and not literal (re: the word of God interpreted by man) has expanded and made ground with young believers. The point is, nobody truly knows the origin, and adaptation is undeniable, but the timeline is off on all accounts and until somebody is able to travel to the past to bring back definitive observations, I will continue with my faith in both God and science, and NO they are NOT mutually exclusive.

FYI – Before you decide on whether Darwin was racist or not , here is the original title of his book : On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

I would rather be a creation of God than a monkey's uncle, or a former blob, and there are scientists, then and now, much more brilliant than Darwin (assuming he is brilliant) who believe they were creations of God, not former mindless blobs floating around in space or something.

It still seems incomprehensible to me that their are still people so blinded by a dogmatic literal meaning of religion and the bible. After more than 80 yrs. since the Scopes trial we still have people trying to undermine the education system with their fundamentalist philosophy. This is a danger to our society because it is direct contradiction to our fundamental belief in separation of church and state. Are we going to start witch hunts again because religion claims thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Hear is a guy that lets his literal interpretation of the Bible get in the of his rationality. I suppose if the Bible said the earth was flat he would expound his flat earth belief.

Hear is a guy that lets his literal interpretation of the Bible get in the way of his rationality. I suppose if the Bible said the earth was flat he would expound his flat earth belief.

My compliments to Mr. Dave Wilson; I could not have said it any better or more eloquently. And, to George, rational people understand that people like Kirk Cameron are extremists and while they like to think they speak for all Christians–they don't and we know it. Thank you both for the sane dialog.

I would like to point out that the "introduction" of the book is questioning Darwin's personal life and not deconstructing his argument. If creationists wish to debate evolution, don't resort to character assasination...

This is the kind of desperate sensationalism that has me functioning between Agnostic and Atheist. Let's take that leap of faith to explain the unexplainable- wait, let's even do it to question the science that we do have too. Kirk is too much, just like so many of the other devout out there that have to have a devine explaination for everything...

Science – yes. Evolutionism – no.

When did the "Theory" of Evolution become "fact"?

Amen George and Dave, to both counts!!

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org

Actors are accustomed to living in a make-believe world, so I am not surprised at this.

Carol, you forgot to mention that the edition of Origin of species they are handing out has also had 4 chapters removed from it.
ps. Tell J D Roberts that Cameron has been an evangelical since he was a kid, he's the one that got Erika Elienak booted from his show because she posed in Playboy

I just read the Introduction. It claims the world's major religions are Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity. (maybe he just forgot Judaism being in such a state). The introduction then slams the non-christian religions as pure folly in just one paragraph each. This is just a taste of the slanted propaganda being pushed by these people.

cb, a scientific theory is a way of explaining certain known facts with the available evidence. It is not a guess. Gravity is a theory as well as Germ Theory.

To quote Darwin himself;

"I see no good reasons why the views given in this volume should shock the religious sensibilities of anyone." - Charles Darwin, The Origin Of Species, 1869.

I find that the majority of creationists don't even know what evolution actually is. It is not about the origin of life so therefore it doesn't exclude a god. It doesn't say we came from monkeys either. We share a common ancestor with the other primates.

Also, Darwin didn't coin the phrase "Survival of the Fittest..." That was from an economist of the time. When Darwin heard it he said that it wasn't survival of the strongest nor of the most intelligent, but of the more responsive to change.

There is far too much intellectual dishonesty on behalf of the creationist movement.

so if God did it how did he/she/it do it? the Bibnle is moot on that point!!!

Fact: Nothing cannot create something.

Kirk Cameron's attempt to debunk Darwin is laughable. Perhaps he should spend some time thinking about the downfall of his acting career vs. trying to understand the origin of any species. Darwin's legacy cannot be obliterated by anyone, much less by imbicils like Cameron who have neither theological nor scientific expertise/merit. Darwin simply started a dialogue, a thought process, a rhetoric, an analysis of facts. For that he should be saluted. Mr. Darwin, I solute you!

Microevolution is easy to support because it is observable. Macroevolution is the matter in question. Giant, land-roaming mammals evolving in to whales or apes evolving into humans is every bit as much a leap of faith as believing in "intelligent design".

My chief issue with supporters of macroevolution is the use of vast amounts of time (e.g. millions of year) as the primary means of defending a theory as though it were fact. Especially when the means of deriving such "precise" estimates of when species evolved is very subjective and presumptuous. These are not statements coming from an evangelist, just someone who appreciates sound logic. Don't call macroevolution a fact when it is very much still a theory.

Yes, because we should all base our cognition in the fact-based universe on what superstitious pinhead post-teen actors have to say.

Tell you what, Kirk should enroll at UCLA, get his PhD in biology, and then come back and tell us what he thinks about creationism.

Evolution, today, is a fact. I think the uneducated often confuse the concept of speciation for evolution. Evolution can be defined as the change in the gene frequency of a population over time. It is constantly happening. Sometimes evolution is rapid and sometimes populations "appear" to change very slowly, but as long as there is reproduction and or mortality there is a change in the gene frequency and evolution occurs! There is a better chance of the earth being flat than disproving evolution.

There is one simple phrase that sums up CNN, Kirk Cameron, Darwin, creationists, evolutionists and the scientific method that proves all conclusions are idiotic:

From little information comes big extrapolation.

Yes, the scientific community can't debunk evolution... But Growing Pains gives Cameron the experience to. Ha! This is such nonsense.

I actually received a copy of this book on my campus, and it's nothing but slander. Their "debunking" is an attempt to link Darwin's ideas to Hitler's Nazi Germany.

To me, Creationism and the Theory of Evolution don't have to be mutually exclusive. Only those that believe in an extreme literal interpretation of the Bible would be unable to reconcile that they could, in fact, co-exist. You can believe that God spoke the universe and the world into being and still believe in evolution. Yes, the Bible mentions 7 days, but I don't believe that this was literally 7, 24 hour days. Nobody knows how God spoke the world into being. It's really a very short part of the Bible at the beginning. No detail. We know scientifically that there were dinosaurs, but they aren't mentioned in the Bible. We know scientifically that the Earth is billions of years old, but the literal Bible believer would say that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Science and God can co-exist. You don't need to fight against one or the other. Just use some common sense and think the issue over.

It is truly sad when you try to debunk the truth - when you deny reality for your saddly narrow interpretation that ignores facts in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I hate to say this - I genuinely do - but it is the earmark of a small or otherwise brainwashed mind.

I don't believe in evolution, but I'm not a Christian, and barely spiritual at all. Speaking strictly as an engineer, I just simply don't believe that evolution, on its own, is capable of creating what we see around us. It is obvious beyond refute that evolution causes incremental changes, but even evolutions largely agree that this amounts of a shuffling and stretching of genetic code *that is already there*. The writing of new code is an entirely different matter.

I think that biblical creationist thinking is pretty much a joke, and I'm not looking for fitting a preconceived explanation to the fact. Rather, evolution, as a scientific theory, is in my belief a very small part of what is happening. The rest, I assume, is fueled by a natural creative force that we have yet to discover.

It is not scientific to come up with the theory of evolution and then *stop there*. The ideo of evolution raises some pathetically obvious questions, and to be closed minded towards exploring other options, is unscientific and disingenuous. By all means, let's take Christian creationist thinking off the table, that's in the same ball park as Santa Claus. But still, aren't you curious where all this life is coming from, what is fueling the constant rewriting of genetic code, that causes cells to work together in spectacularly complex ways?

Do you really, honestly believe that simple selection between randomly coded genes can create new functional genes? Do you know how destructive mutations are? Change one line of code in Photoshop and it crashes. You have to write millions upon millions of lines of code *correctly* to make it function!

Life reaks of engineering. By whom or what or how, I have no idea. I really would like to know.

Per

Theory is not a guess. Hypothesis is a guess. Then you work on the evidence and test and retest and follow it where it leads you, then you have a theory. Theories are not half-a**ed speculation. They are pretty factual, tested, and found to hold water.

That said, Christians are foolish to decide this is the hill to die on. There is nothing that says evolution, or any science, and God are mutually exclusive. Only the very silly fundamentalists (and we know how bat-sh** crazy they are in most religions) would even bother.

The bible is not a science book. It has to do with our higher selves, not our biology. This is the silliest controversy in the world – as it is completely manufactured.

That the Nazis twisted evolution to their evil purposes is no more a reflection on Darwin than that the Ku Klux Klan twisted Christianity to their evil purposes is a reflection on Jesus.
Kirk couldn't pass freshman logic.

It seems to me that most people do not know what the word 'Theory' means in the context of the scientific method. Most people tend to confuse a scientific Theory with the common use of the word. A scientific Theory is a general explination for observed events. No one has a problem with the cell Theory (all living things are made of cells) or the atomic Theory (all matter is made up of atoms). The common use of the word theory means an idea that has little or no evidence. Many people are uncomfortable with the Theory of evolution because it is in conflict with the idea that a supreme being said "poof", and everything just came into being. And for all you people who say things along the lines that evolution is only a Theory and not a Law, only shows further ignorance into what the definition of a Law is. A Law is a repeating pattern in nature that can be defined mathematically. Such as the Law of Universal Graviation – All objects exert an attractive force upon each other in direct proportion to their mass. There is, however, no Theory of gravity – no one has a good explanation as to how exactly mass exerts this force. We just know that it does. Theories do NOT become Laws – they are two totally separate things.

Just a couple of facts... Darwin's book is very far from the current theory of evolution. Darwin just observed a lot of extremely specialized bird species, and postulated that their variety and specialization could be explained if they had evolved in step with their surroundings. It was the very beginning of evolutionary theory, nothing like the current one (which, by the way, is called the Modern Synthesis).

To suggest that "debunking" Darwin is debunking evolution is like saying that, by showing how Isaac Newton was wrong about some things, you've debunked the gravitational theory. Newton didn't know about relativity, and Darwin didn't know about genetics; but that doesn't mean gravity has been debunked - nor evolution

The whole "only a theory" thing is getting really old. It only sounds convincing if you don't know what you're talking about. Think about this: Gravity is only a theory. Yes, it is. It's a FACT that every time you've dropped a ball, it has fallen to the ground. It's a PREDICTION that this will happen the next time, too. The thing that lets you make that prediction is the THEORY, which was made by observing and explaining the FACTS. That's how it works. Also for evolution.

You could easily make an alternate theory of gravity. You could hypothesize that, every time any object has fallen to the ground, ever, since time began, it has done so because God has reached out His will and deliberately made each individual object behave in the way that was observed. Nobody could ever prove this theory wrongYou could call it "Intelligent Physics" and insist it be taught in public school, since it's just another theory - but that doesn't make it right.

there is also strong evidence to suggest the Biblical account of intelligent design. As niether is absolutely verifiable it would seem prudent to allow both theories (beliefs) to be presented and considered in the search for truth.

Science is based upon observable facts, using fossil records, bones and other data to extrapolate information. While the conclusions reached have a flexible nature, due to the correlation new information or more precise methods, religion has no such self-policing. Religion relies upon scripture, of which extremely small amounts are verifiable and could be by any logical measure call factual. By it's very nature, religion is not precise or accurate, nor does it desire to be. Any conclusions reached using imprecise methods should be subject to change, or evolution. Religion does this only when "the word of god" proves to be inconveniently backwards or unacceptable by the BORG sheep who believe such nonsense. That is why we have "old" and "new" testaments. They had to change some things that were inconveniently brutal or just plain stupid. We have never witnessed a miracle. And we never will. We will, however (assuming these religious nutjobs don't lead us into a new dark age) see a progression of scientific understanding. Religion will never progress.

Silly to argue on this topic. It is most certainly true that evolution is an observed phenomena. It is not theory. No evidence of macroevolution? Lets just ignore the fossils that allow us to explain the natural history of dogs, cats, rodents, birds, and yes, people through the fossil record. That those records may have gaps lacking examples means little. The environments required for fossilization and preservation of an organism's remains are very specific, and not all fossilized organisms have yet been found. It's entirely likely that we are missing a great deal of the fossil record, because many whole species did not die in environments conducive to fossilization. Where do you think fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) came from? they are the products of decaying organic matter.

The theory is natural selection as a mechanism for evolution. That was Darwin's theory. We now know that there are other means of selection, including sexual selection, and selective breeding by people. Evolution is simply reflected by the change in gene frequency in a population over time. The process can occur over time, and it can also occur as more stochastic events. The process occurs more quickly when the environments change rapidly, and it occurs more slowly when the environment is relatively stable. That does not negate the geologic time scale. The geologic time scale was developed independently of natural selection, and stands on its own body of evidence.

There is also radioactive decay of elements, which is an observed process in physics. Half-lives of different elements are measured. This is not theory. It is observable phenomena. To debunk the geologic time scale, you need to debunk radioactive decay. Only once both phenomena have been debunked will evolution's time scale be fair game. But then, that's only time scales. Next, you would have to debunk that gene frequencies in a population can change over time. Those who would even attempt to debunk evolution have an awful lot of work to do. And people like Kirk Cameron are wholly unqualified to even begin that process.

An interesting sidenote: my undergraduate evolution professor is an ardent Christian. He doesn't have ANY problems reconciling both schools of thought. Stephen Jay Gould put it very simply. Science and religion exist to explain different things about the world. Science works to explain what happens and how, while religions work to explain why those things happen. Conflicts occur when one school of thought attempts to explain the other. Some 2000yr old book cannot explain to me what occurs as a tree grows, or how that occurs. Science can. Similarly, science cannot explain why I am alive today. Religion (rather, faith) can.

The scientific evidence for evolution is at present so massive and overwhelming it is irrefutable. Natural selection is not a theory today, it is a time and again proven fact. Anyone who doubts this or proclaims otherwise is either woefully ignorant and delusional, or an outright charlatan.

Creationists have no proof whatsoever to back their fanatical claims, their position relies completely and solely on their own particular religious beliefs.

Lastly, what they're doing with Darwin's monumental, yet Victorian era, achievement ought to be considered a crime against humanity.

cb in this case 'theory' is used in the scientific nomenclature. such as 'theory of gravity'. It is not guess-work. It dismays me that in this day and age that the arguments have to be so shrill and black and white. It is perfectly acceptable to believe in a Supreme Being and still clearly see that evolution is a fact. The Catholic Church resisted the earth orbiting the sun, that continents drift, and that other stars had planets. At some point even 'born-again' Christians will recognize that evolution is real and that it doesn't contradict a belief in God.

Nicely said, Dave Wilson.

"I would rather be a creation of God than a monkey's uncle...."

Wanting something does not make it so. I wish my dad had been a billionaire but he was blue collar. God is an invention of man, a story – just like countless creation stories from other cultures – created to explain where we came from. Of course the story is that we were created in the image of the most powerful figure in the universe. Makes us feel special, sort of like a kindergarten story. But we are in a coming of age, humanity is growing up and learning to separate superstition from reality. Still, taking off the blinders can be scary. Blue pill or red?

The real concern we need to have is that neither the creationists, nor the evolutionists, in spite of people like Dawkins, and the rhetoric of evangelicals, can establish a proof tested theory of origins. Both sides wish to describe as science propositions that are not defensible by scientific scrutiny. Both sides of this mindless discussion all too often appear to have SIMILAR RELIGIOUS FERVOUR in attempting to promote their views. For myself I find it more acceptable to view the cosmos as having some sort of first cause. This is not a scientific belief at all. I have no testable data, but neither does the anti-theist camp which I used to belong to. I feel more comfortable in the "first cause camp", but I am troubled by the misguided ardor on both sides of a quite useless debate. Having chosen by faith alone to believe in some sort of conscious First Cause, I feel more comfortable because if I am wrong, it means little. When I was anti-theist, if I were wrong, it could have been a big deal. If I am right, and I submit I do not know, I think it will give more meaning to what appears to be a rather chaotic appearing world of people and stuff.

I am a born again Christian. And I say these Creationists are morons and I wish they would shut up and stop giving Christianity a bad reputation as being a religion full of nutcases, hillbillies, and morons! Please! Believe what you want to believe Kirk, and shut up and get off television. Keep it to yourself and stop trying to strong arm everybody else into sharing your stupidity. Most of the idiot Christians I know want to believe Creationism is true because then that means it's all about Religion and then they can CONTROL RELIGIOUS THOUGHT and practice in this Country. What scares them about Science is that they don't understand it and so it can't be controlled by them. That's why they "debunk" anything new or scientific or progressive. It threatens them. I don't follow that line of thought. God created Science so we could come to understand His true nature. Science is the trail of crumbs God left for us.

I am a Kirk Cameron denier. I doubt he exists. And that statement is as obviously absurd as his own.

FOR THE CLUELESS PEOPLE who've said that there is "no proof" of evolution, and if there were "it would be in the news":

When was the last time you turned on your TV? Swine Flu? HELLO?!?!? Bacteria that are resistant to many antibiotics, like MRSA? I bet you could type MRSA, Swine Flu (H1N1), or even VRE into any search engine and you'd get an overwhelming number of scientific articles that are horrifying in that they all have one thing in common: they say that bacteria and viruses are evolving to become more and more resistant to our current medical treatment.

Be staunch in your religiosity if you must, but In the least, you should concede that God is behind evolution, whether it be sudden, gradual or variable in rate. You simply can't argue that evolution doesn't happen. IT IS FACT. But please, keep yourself busy and out of my way while you argue that the mechanism as God caused or not.

Just where does the certainty of true belief come from? Genes? Are critical thinking skills not learned? Or just not applied? I am forever grateful that God blessed me with the need & the ability to think independently. Having faith & taking things on faith are not the same. Parse, scrutinize, analyze, question – even if you choose not to subvert the dominant paradigm.

Some of us believe that both accounts are true. Creationism and evolutionism are not mutually exclusive. I firmly believe God is going to reveal to me when I die the facts that link the two. For example, the in the beginning, the Earth was without form and void, and there was an evening and a morning one day. Forget for a moment that you currently believe a "day" to be 24 hours. At the time, the earth was without form and void, so how could it be rotating at its current rate that yeilds a "day" that is 24 hours in length? It is entirely possible that the definition of a "day" was...perhaps...a millenia. Perhaps longer. Time enough for evolution to be working, as God was creating.

Without going on ad nauseum (I'd love to talk about how the Bible seems to omit dinosaurs, but mentions the modern day Cormorant by name), suffice it to say that there is enough evidence for evolution that those who believe in Creationism (as I do), had better open their eyes to the possibilty that God has not yet revealed to us everything there is to know about the beginning.

Here we go again...

I am a Christian and I have been all of my life. I got to church every Sunday, and this week I have been attending special services at 5:30 AM with my wife. I also believe in evolution and I recognize the importance of science and the scientific method, I even got an A in college biology. Creationist theory and intelligent design is all a load of crap, clearly, science and mathematics are the language of God. Regardless of what deity you believe in, or what reality you choose to believe, 1+1 will always equal 2.

Science is science. Faith is faith. "Creation Science" isn't science.

As a Christian, I don't know why God's word in Genesis doesn't match the evidence of his natural world, but it doesn't.

Where did Noah put all the dinosaurs? or the hundreds of millions of species of insects?

Kirk, the world is not 6,000 years old like you nutjobs think. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt: the universe is over 13 billion years old. The science is iron clad.
While, yes, the theory of evolution has had many slight changes, Darwins theories have more often than not proven the bible to be historically inaccurate

get your friggin head out of the sand, ostrich

also, just because some scientists dont believe in "your" god, doesnt mean that they do not believe in a god.

if you would like an accurate view of how the bible was written, check out "Misqouting Jesus".

To atheists, agnostics and so on... if evolution is "THE WAY" then "riddle me this" (smile). What came first the heart or the blood?
It seems that no one posting here contrary to design theory has read or seen the hot news flash so popular approx. 2 years ago... the one where scientist magnified the inner workings of a common cell. It was made up of individual parts... it was in essence a "flesh machine". AND it was determined that if any ONE of those parts did not work or were not there, the entire cell would not function. So what came first the complete cell or one part at a time? Hey I give you all credit... your faith in evolution... I can not muster the faith necessary to believe in evolution. One day, I promise... YOU WILL acknowledge Jesus. Hopefully it's not when you say to yourself, "why didn't I listen to those idiot christians"?

when we look at the earth the oceans and the universe it all is soo complex we still dont know all there is to know. where there is complexity there is a mind where there is a mind there is intelligence. If mindless evolution was responsible life and everything else it should be very simpleto understand. Yet we still dont know what dark matter and dark energy are.Could this be because JEHOVAH GOD is so much more intellient than we are. I dont know why its so hard for people to give him the credit and glory.

Good for Kirk! Evolution isn't even a fact-it's a theory for the reason that you can't justify it using the scientific method. Was there anyone there to observe it? Can it be replicated? Scientists try to connect the dots, but there is no "missing link". Evolution is a concept that also requires faith-just like religion.

Boy oh Boy! If the fundamentalist Christian(s) think creationism is it, then riddle me this: (and correct me if I am wrong.) If Adam and Eve were the first humans created and they had two sons, Cain and Able, two males, how the hell did the rest of us get here???? Who slept w/Eve, and/or did she have other children like maybe a girl? And if we were all born of this creation then it explains how everyone is stone crazy!

The other thing is – and this is for all you good Christians out there – if God is all there is; God is everywhere evenly present, all knowing, all powerful, then wouldn't it stand to reason that he created people like scientists, doctors, architects and on and on? In other words, he put certain people here to show the rest of us how things work, how things are built and on and on. Life is a mystery and a journey. God created every last thing in the universe – ergo the tiniest organism which EVOLVED and EVOLVED and EVOLVED. And what we have is what we have today. Everything imaginable. So take it to heart. Everything has a contrast. Soooo there are the smart people and the stupid people, day and night, life and death etc. etc. The point is to appreciate what you have. If there were no contrasts you wouldn't be able to do that. So yes. There was creation. AND that creation evolved and evolved. God wants us to seek out the mystery to find out who we are.

And yes. Kirk Cameron is an idiot. Nothing is more infuriating than born again Christians because they are zealots and should not be listened to. (Some)People without an education crack me up pontificating on subject matter they know nothing about. And it's those very people who are always shaking their hands in accusation of what someone else is doing when they are the very ones doing the thing they are accusing others of doing. To you I say, get the spec out of thine own eye and he who is without sin cast the first stone!

The universe is three things: it is spiritual – after all we did come from someplace other than the womb; it is mathematical – the world couldn't be built without numbers and a measurement; and magical – which is the wonder of it all – like how a spider knows how to spin a web and where to hook it up or the real power of intuition and psychic abilities.

My faith tell s me that life is about discovery on the journey. The bible was written by men to the great exclusion of women. Some things are good in that book, but a LOT is lost in translation. Imagine for a minute: the bible was written in a different language of a different era; then these men all sat around deciding what could go in it and what wouldn't. Then all that being translated by other men all the way up to today. And we all know how men think..... So go figure.

Not to dis all men. But in those early days somehow they thought they were the only ones who knew anything or could do anything. That's all I'm saying. I love men – the good ones – that is. I know. That's broad, but you intelligent folks know what I mean.

I don't understand rocket science yet I see rockets being launched. Since rocket science is beyond my grasp should I believe that God is the one launching the rockets?

Most extremist “True” believers who promote the Young Earth theory and Intelligent Design use faulty logic, out of date information, phrases taken out of context, and “made up” science in an attempt to convince the not so well informed that their view about the development of life on Earth is true. That type of dilution of science will hurt this country and my fear is that it will relegate us to that of a third world nation when comes to the basic sciences. They say they want to “teach the controversy” in our public schools but what they really want to do is “preach the dogma”. They are spreading religion dictated science, not real science.

Classy idea...plug in your own propaganda as an introduction and hand it out free to the masses under the guise of a classic literary work. Hey, what if someone did the same thing with the bible? I wonder how that would fly with the Christian extremists? Why is it always a one way street with them?

Honestly, do they really think students at UCLA are so stupid they won't see through this scam? Passing off their "enhanced" copies hoping they can convert a few is really pathetic. Most college kids are smarter than that, so why not take all the money you wasted on publishing your propaganda and spend it some other way, like feeding the poor or caring for the sick?You know, truly Christian acts that gain no publicity or sound bytes. How about trying that stuff for a change? Now that would be admirable.

Why is it that wacko Christians feel that they have to change everyone elses minds about the world. You can have your own ideas, but please keep them to yourself.....we dont care.

Intelligent design is neither....

Nature will always weed out dead-end, useless, non-evolving organisms that fail (or refuse) to adapt ie: Kirk Cameron.

I wish these Jesus freaks, flat-earth society believers, and the like would have spent more time in a science classroom than buying into the bible, which by the way, is the single most fictional book of all time.

Micro evolution is plainly evident as can be seen even with our species ie different colors etc, but macro evolution is far from proven and highly unlikely ie breed a donkey and a horse and you get a mule but the mule cannot propagate. Science has not shown in any way that one species can evolve into another it is only supposition.

While I don't totally agree with Cameron at least he is doing something which is more than I can say about the commentators on this board. So I say "speak your mind Cameron and keep going".

Let's not forget the human hierarchy, evolved over eons:

1. Instinct (food, shelter, fear, sex, etc)

trumps

2. Emotionality (heart, love, compassion, hope, etc)

trumps

3. Rationality (reason, logic)

Many religionists understand deep down that Reason is secondary to Emotion and strive for a (however tenuous) co-existence between the two. They make it work in their hearts, and downplay how their heads react. It makes sense to me, and, understanding our Hierarchy, I do not ridicule them for it.

We atheists, having (of course) the same Emotional needs, seek to fulfill them where it doesn't conflict with our Reason: whether regarding community, guidance, spirituality, father figures, explanations for the awesome, fear of death, etc.: all this we fulfill right here on earth, without looking to a large pasta being or Yahweh (or whatever) to give our search validity.

Lastly: look to coexist peacefully!

Religious people are both gullible and delusional!

To me, this attitude and belief is an insult to science. Darwin postulated a theory, which it still is. There are a lot of pieces still missing, but it is a theory, a good theory. The theory of evolution and religion can co-exist, but Kirk Cameron and his cohorts are acting like fools. Why don't they also slam astronomy, medicine, and all other sciences and go live back in the Middle Ages when no one was allowed to believe anything other than Christianity?

Amazing CB, you just won the prize for the gazzilionth customer with that question.

A scientific theory by definition describes and explains known and repeatable facts, observations, experiments, mathematical laws, etc

Evolution is probably the bet proven theory in human history, in fact better supported by fact than the theory of gravity.

You would think after over 150 years, the fact of the evolutionary process would be accepted by all but the most uneducated. The problem is that while our knowledge of creation, the universe and God grow everyday, our underlying system of myth is still a cosmic view based on the knowledge of creation circa 1500 BC. As the modern world grows, as science discovers more, these folks with antiquated belief systems are getting very nervous. Why the judeo christian islamic systems choose to represent their myth as truth and history is thru a misunderstanding of myth itself. According to Joseph Campbell, myth is a metaphor for the infinite mystery we call God. As God is incapable of being understood by man, no matter what the scientific cosmology has discovered, we represent these symbols and concepts with myths. When the myths no longer work, we need to find new ones. Most Creationists i have heard have an almost kindergarten like view of the process. Its fear thats driving these folks not faith.

Thank God I am an atheist!

I just want to know if the 'Creationists' believe that their God put all the scientific evidence (i.e., remains and fossils of Lucy, dinosaurs, other evolutionary species, etc.) on earth just as 'props'? Was that to test their faith or prove us that think freely as the 'unwashed masses'?

The first two posters here (George and Dave) are right on track...thank you for such well stated comments. We need go no further!

cb,

A fundamental misunderstanding of science and its method, sadly a common problem among Fundamentalists. A fact is an observable phenomenon something recorded and documented. The fossil record is a fact. A theory is much more than fact, it is a well tested set of explanations for the facts that we observe. Theories are tested repeatedly, modified when needed, and built upon years of investigation and study. the theory of evolution ties together many disciplines within biological sciences and other areas of science.Putting the word in quotes does not change the scientific meaning of it. If you wish to participate in the discussion at least get your terms right and understand their meaning. Otherwise put your head in the sand and leave those of us with actual minds that work alone.

I just want to say that these people were at my campus giving out copies of Origin of Species on Wednesday. The people giving the books did not say ANYTHING about a 50-page creationist intro; they were screaming, "Free copy of a famous 150-year-old book!" Talk about disingenous! I saw at least one student realize what the book really was, and try to give it back to the Living Waters group.

I would rather comment on fact, than on liking/hating Kirk Cameron. I do not have scientific credentials in biology, geology, paleontology, but I am a registered professional engineer with 3 degrees and 51 years of life experience, who has held senior management positions for about 20 of them. I am now Vice-President of Engineering of one company with a world-class technology, and President of another joint venture company. This does not make me an authority, but should establish clearly that I can learn, observe, and apply reason to what I observe. The reader is free to disagree with my conclusions, but not to simply lambaste my character, as some have done with Kirk . End of preamble...
Nobody can prove the Darwin/creation debate by science, since none of us can recreate the experiment, and nobody observed it. What we know is the product of our observations and the constructs we make to tie them together. Those constructs result in a faith in a theory, whether creation or Darwinism.
Mankind has learned much, and the rate of acquisition of knowledge has increased exponentially. However, we are limited in time and space. We cannot think back rationally to the start of time, nor can we think of an end to time. We cannot imagine the infinitely small, nor the infinitely large. Our brains, though the most complex thinking devices in the world, are limited. This leads us to the rational conclusion that we are not the cause of the observable universe, nor its master, but a tiny part of it, ever groping for more knowledge.
As a professional engineer, I've spent a good part of my career experimenting and applying knowledge to developing new technologies. I observe that people want to know the truth when it applies to their health and safety. They want a doctor with a medical degree, a pilot with a license, working to specified standards of practice, to lead them. However, in matters that can have potentially far greater importance, such as the Darwin/creation debate, they are loath to seek the single truth if it is inconvenient.
Unfortunately, there can only be one truth about the matter. If creation is true, then the Creator must necessarily be the master of the creature. If Darwinism is true, then chance rules supreme, and much of what we believe regarding the value of life is a crock. If there is a third way, it behooves us to discover it. Believing a lie is nonsensical, and can have huge consequences.
What is truth in this matter?
We observe fossils, layers of them, extinct animals, appearance of age of the earth.
We also observe no known macroevolution, no known driving force for increasing complexity of life, a code in DNA that is irrefutable (whether or not you call it intelligent design), fossil fuels formed cataclysmically, no rationality for the decreasing entropy required to drive macroevolution, no logical mechanism for transition between earth and sea, no explanation of the symbiosis required for ecosystems to evolve in parallel.
I could go on for a long, long, time, as could probably every one of my readers. To do so would show some knowledge, but mostly my ignorance and pride in trying to overwhelm with my knowledge. The question is not, "Who knows the most?", but "What is truth?".
I believe that I am the product of creation by a Creator who planned all that I can see. That is the construct that makes the most sense to me. I cannot rationalize Darwinism with observed fact. Although I cannot prove the existence of the Creator, what I see points me in that direction without the need for huge leaps of faith to fill in missing observations.. They only leap of faith I need to take is that a Creator who operates in a realm that I can't understand chose to create the universe in which I live. Once I make that leap of faith, the rest of what I observe matches perfectly.
I believe that everything I can observe points me to truth, but that I may not always draw the right conclusions from what I see, so should never shut out evidence that is difficult for me to comprehend.

Facts are that Darwin took his grandfather's crackpot ideas, and then introduced them to a generation that is historically credited for falling for wild ideas on a grand scale.

I think all high school students should be required to take, concurrently, geology and theology. It's the only way to fairly introduce both points of view. I believe in God, but it seems like everyone who does just doesn't understand science (like it borders on conspiracy or worse). I love science, and the geologic record is supported irrefutably. I just think we continue to try to put a final word on who God is and how He did all of this for us. I would like to see The History Channel or DSC run a series on religion, like it's history and modern contribution to wars. I would also hope that we are teaching biology and geology so that everyone can understand the principles, the mysteries, and why we don't understand it all.

Religion is legalized fraud designed to pray on people's spiritual weaknesses.

If I made millions advertising and selling a highly addictive product that nobody can see, hear or touch, I'd be tried and sentenced to a hundred years in prison at the drop of a hat. Yet, these "preachers of the faith" get away duping entire nations out of billions of dollars, selling fairy tales and promising eternal bliss, just like the mortgage wizards sold those bad loans we all know about.

These predators are happily exploiting human nature's need to believe in something bigger than ourselves and lining their pockets in the process, while half the world is dying of hunger. What would God say to that?

Honor your God not by practicing man-made religion and memorizing scripture but by truly helping all in need. Your suffering neighbor needs your effort more than God needs your prayers or your preacher needs your money.

Christianity is religion one amongst many. The bible is a book written, translated, and edited by men over thousands of years. Historically interesting, but no more than that.

Evolution is a mechanism that makes sense of the biological world, including us. For those who say it's just a theory, please educate yourself about the definition of a scientific theory before expressing any further opinion.

This growing tide of religious ignorance is the greatest threat of the 21st century. You church monkeys will take us back a thousand years.

Matt:
Are you a scientist or a person who claims to understand science? Because no scientist (any decent ones, however) will use the expression "still a theory", because it denotes that he/she does not understand whatsoever how the scientific method or how science works.

Hmmm.....who should I believe? Charles Darwin or Mike Siever from Growing Pains? LOL

Gimme a break. Kirk, please close your mouth, do your homework, and stop making yourself look foolish.

And the world is FLAT, right? Education just doesn't land on some people's shoulders. Incredible that people in these times can debunk science. Shows how little they've learned in 2000 years. I think this shows that the great apes do have more intelligence than some humans.

the issue is something that will never go away...can't we just allow for a difference of opinion? it is sad that those of faith (not all) that continue to make these differences of opiinion an issue cause a further dividion between us all is annoying...as someone who is not a person of faith, but open to the idea it makes me turn away from those that force it down our throats instead of simply allowing for a person to make up their own mind...

I know that perhaps the news cycle slows over the holidays, and that your staff feels the need to find familiar old crap to fill the gaps in the 24-hour news day (This Just In: Daylight Saving Time sucks!), but you really have a responsibility not to report garbage like this.

Why not report on an actor from ALF who believes the Earth is flat, or a dude from a hair-metal band who thinks he can prove, once and for all, that the "THEORY" of gravity is all wrong? The reason is, I suspect, because you'd get laughed off the air.

Look, we all know that there are people who contend that any science that strays from a literal account of Genesis is wrong. That's NOT NEWS. Likewise, Kirk Cameron is not a scientist. He's not even really a theologian or philosopher. He's a washed-up child actor who feeds off attention, and you're giving it to him.

There's a laziness in media that pretends that you have to give all viewpoints equal time in order to be "fair." As a result, you cover crap like this and present it as if you're all about "equal time," no matter how absurd the "controversy." Stop it. Do your jobs. This is a disgrace to journalism.

It is time to debunk religion. Christianity is made up, as well as the others. Prove God. Can't? Religion and God only exists in people’s heads probably those who enjoy fairy tales. Every folk tale has the mysterious dying god. Religion was created as the humans developed ways of burying their dead.

I wonder if Cameron and his ilk also have a different opinion about gravity.

After all, gravity is also only a theory.

And why is this news? Why are you taking this seriously? Why do we take the fringe ideas of a few and treat them as a serious alternative?

There have as many human origin stories as there are cultures. Until Darwin, all were mythological. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection was the first explanation of human origins that was completely naturalistic. The reason that Christian fundamentalists cling on to their literal belief in the Garden of Eden and the fall is that if there was no original sin, Christ died in vain. They don't want to know the truth, so they aren't going to try very hard to find it - here's a testable prediction: only a tiny proportion of PhD's in fields like biology, geology, genetics, biological anthropology etc. are Christian fundamentalists. Sure, there are one or two, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Many of the comments on here are very illogical. For one, you claim because someone is an actor then they can have no knowledge of truth or error.

Your argument goes something like this:

1. Only scientists can know the truth.
2. Kirk Cameron is not a scientist.
Therefore, Kirk Cameron cannot know the truth.

This would also discredit many of you making the comments. But, at last, if you need credible proof from a scientist, then i will name one that graduated from MIT with a Ph.D. and is very involved in science. His name is Dr. Walt Brown and he wrote the book, "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood." So, for your very faulty argument to begin with:

1. Only scientists can know the truth.
2. Walt Brown is a scientist.
Therefore, Walt Brown knows the truth.

Look at evidence people and read for yourself. Ignorance is not bliss.

They are "believers" because they so desperately want to rely on someone else to catch them if they fall. That way, they don't have to take responsibility for what happens to them.

Life can be hard. I understand why one might want support in this manner.

I would love to know that there is some benevolent being watching out for me. The problem is that all that I have observed of humanity in 40-odd years is that such a being is purely imaginary and that this is just a tendency in humans so that we can deal with what is sometimes a difficult life.

Humanity has a creative, fantastical side that sometimes gets out of control – it's the nature of having complete freedom of thought. The manifestation of that is fantasy which we let roll around in our heads to the point where we start to believe it could be true. Then we believe that it IS true, and then our tendency to "group" ourselves (most humans abhor the individual), creates a religion.

This happens over, and over, and over again and will never stop. It is simply part of being human. And as long as it doesn't interfere with my life, then I don't see why it has to stop. Believe what you want – in that sense it's not important that you agree with me.

It is when religion becomes an influential socio-political animal that requires you to conform to their belief system that it must be controlled. That is the road to theocracy.

Thankfully I live in Canada where religion hardly factors into your life unless you want it to. I can't understand why 35 minutes away there is a border between a country where religion seems to be an imperative. What happened to America? Where did it go astray?

Yet another story on this debate. We spend too much time looking back, or looking for a god to take of of us, or arguing points that, at the end of the day, don't change the real issues humanity is dealing with now. Everyone is so busy trying to prove that they know the 'real' truth of the matter, when the truth is this: we value the wrong things, we blame and condemn others without self-evaluation, we over-eat when others starve, we over-buy when others are homeless, we waste resources like water when millions die every year for the lack of simple clean water, and we pretend we need organized groups to tell us how to behave and live. We all know what we should be doing – arguing isn't it. We stopped behaving 'human' a long time ago – don't we have better things to focus on than how we got physically got here?

All evolution naysayers are nutters, period. Evolution is a fact, just as religion and "god" are creations of mans imagination to manipulate and control people and extract money from them all while trying to explain that which their small finds fail to grasp in science and our environment.

What gives Kirk Cameron anymore authority or relevance than any other crackpot? Because he's an actor? If he wasn't an 'actor' than he wouldn't receive any more coverage than any other religious fanatic who annoys students on their way to class. Just because he's an actor or a celebrity doesn't make his opinion (and this is an opinion, not fact) any more valuable or trustworthy than anyone else. I would argue that it's makes it less so.

Just another NUT CASE!

Just remember: if you hear the phrase "The Bible says...," the debate has hit a dead end, and for all intents and purposes, it's over. You might as well talk to the wall.

things should still be evolving if it is true. How come the worm in my backyard and my dog have not evolved into an american woman? has anybody found a human coming out of a gophers hole yet?

Kirk Cameron can try all he wants to convert those of us who don't believe in a supreme being but if he got in MY face I'd tell him to keep his religious beliefs to himself. I find this kind of proselytizing totally obnoxious. Each to his/her own.

It is refreshing to see that the very first post here by Dave pretty much summarizes the crux of the argument–those of us who believe in the scientific method have NEVER argued that Darwin's theory are the "be all and end all". Darwin himself was entirely convinced that his theory was far from complete and would be improved upon (Kirk, did you read the WHOLE book?). Thus, my problem is not that he or anyone else questions Evolution. The problem is that they "counter" it with intelligent design, which essentially says, "Man, this question of the origins of life is really complicated–it must have been done by some supernatural being". This is, at its core, intellectual laziness. If you don't like Darwin's or anyone else's theory, fine. Get into the field, the lab, the library–wherever suits you best–and start working on finding the answers. Throwing up your hands and saying, "God did it" is not good enough. Try harder to answer the tough questions...

Let's remember one very important thing...Evolution is a THEORY. No one has seen evolution happen. To say so would be intellectually dishonest. This idea that "it was once widely believed to occur in small, incremental steps. Experts more recently have found that changes in life forms are often abrupt, dramatic and even violent" is a way to shrug off the lack of transitional species. Nothing else.

Man I love it when A C T O R S are given free reign to insert foot into mouth. Rates up there with the Hollywood defense of Roman Polanski.

cb:

Theories do not become facts. Laymen use the term "theory" to mean what a scientists will call a "hypothesis". For a scientist, a theory is an explanation of the facts, not a fact itself. The theory of evolution will always be a theory in the sense that it will always be an explanation of how life changed over time, a fact that is incontrovertible for anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the fosil record. Darwin's theory could be amended over time as we learn more, but so far it has held up for over 150 years. It now includes a synthesis with genetic theory, and studies of gene mutation support Darwin on every point. Fossils are unearthed on a regular basis, giving us more and more "missing links". So far, not one fossil has ever overturned Darwin's theory. All it would take is one rabbit fossil from the Cretateous period, and Darwin would be dead. So far, no such luck for creationists.

As for the idea of "macroevolution" that is an argument made by creationists who don't understand Darwin. Darwin never said that there would be a transformation of one species into another in one generation, and no evolutionist now claims this (it's known as "saltation", and is discreditied). Darwinian evolution proceeds from microevolutionary steps over very long periods of time. Enough small changes over hundreds of thousands of years can lead to macrochanges, just as one step at a time can lead to a long journey. Humans have already accomplished this through selective breeding. Nature operates on millions of animals over millions of years, and evolution leads to the kind of apparent design that fools people into believing in a designer. Gould's notion of abrupt change, by the way, still takes hundreds of generations. It's only abrupt in relative terms.

As for the idea that the earth is only 6000 years old, how then can we explain the fact that we can see galaxies that are 13,000,000,000 light years away? The speed of light is invariant, according to Eiunstein. Of course, if you want to simply change the laws of physics to suit your argument, no rational appeal can change your mind.

Sorry, but the "theory" of creationism has no support in evidence or logic, and none of the "refutations" of evolutionary theory have yielded even one demonstrable fact or published scientific paper.

Come on! It's simple! There's a magical invisible man who lives in the clouds who loves us so much and made us all with his magic! How can evil science go against that FACT?!

For those who think evolution is not supported experimentally:

Rice, W.R. and G.W. Salt (1988). "Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence". The American Naturalist 131: 911–917. doi:10.1086/284831.

W.R. Rice and E.E. Hostert (1993). "Laboratory experiments on speciation: What have we learned in forty years?". Evolution 47: 1637–1653. doi:10.2307/2410209.

There is just a sample of much, much more experimental & observational evidence.

@cb – A "Theory" in science is a "fact"; the technical term is not used the same as the common term. Gravity is a theory as is evolution because of the over whelming evidence that allows us to accurately predict and explain things. Other people posting are wrong. There are Mnay many examples of transitional species. Kirk and his ilk intentially lie (breaking a commandment I might add) when they ask about such idiocies like croc-o-ducks or other blatent misrepresentations of what evolution is all about.

To those who respond with the tired argument that "I'd rather believe in creation than to believe I descended from apes..."

Common ancestry is not "descended from." Science does not say that man descended from ape. Science says we had a common ancestry, a split (which happened before either species developed into current form) and a separate evolutionary path. Bubbles the Chimp did not suddently morph into Bruno the Man.

Why do some insist upon making God so small...

"cb" asks,
When did the "Theory" of Evolution become "fact"?

We scientists understand that theories are stronger than facts, since they have been tested, not just observed and reported. For instance, the "Theory" of gravitation has the same validity as the theory of evolution. Both have been exhaustively tested, to the point where disputing them the way creationists and flat earthers do is just ignorance on parade.

Why does it matter that evolution occurs? Because that's how complexity arises from simpler systems, and how species form.

Evolution should matter to you because it keeps you alive! Drug resistance arises because the microbes with the least susceptibility survive longest against an antibiotic, so natural selection makes them the ones left alive to proliferate if an antibiotic is stopped too soon. So-called intelligent design" has nothing to do with it. It is simply impossible to understand biology, physiology or anatomy without understanding the role evolution has played, and continues to play.

i am a firm believer of evolution and the big bang. it just makes sense. however i am stuck on one question. if all the universe's matter came from one giant event, who created that matter for the event? God makes sense.

Here's the issue: some "religious" people are not content to live with their beliefs without trying to force or impose them on everyone else. They need to learn to just shut up, and leave everyone else alone. If they want to fight evolutionary theories, start with the one that is closest to them: that their religions share much in common with the classical, polytheistic, mythology of the "pagan" cultures or religions than they might allow. There is no proof for their god(s), but their is more than a scintilla of evidence that Darwin was right. Socrates may have been put to death for less for heresy regarding the existing gods.
Most of the founding fathers of this country were deists. Quit trying to convert them and everyone else. Believe what you want as long as you harm no one else, and then shut the hell up. Darwinism requires fact not faith, which is more than be said for the religions of the world. If you want to believe in things that go bump in the night...do so...but don't force your myths upon others.
And, don't throw out ludicrous pieces of scripture–again mythology–as if they are proof of anything more than the writings of delusional people.

Kirk Cameron is a seriously misguided publicity seeker. He is unable to see how the concept of evolution affected his own 'bible'. It changed over time to suit the religious powers that be, and every argument he clumsily tries to make against evolution could be easily be applied to the New Testament. Given the success of the American Education system, it does not surprise me that this is a topic up for debate, nor that he is being successful in generating interest in his little project.

Oh and didn't he 'evolve' from a teen idol into a prostelytizing zealot? I will give him this, he has tapped into a fundamental lack of scientific understanding and is exploiting it very effectively for sensationalistic purposes. He's a sligtly less crazy, more polished Glenn Beck. And is your God green Kirk? Apparently HE put trees on this earth to be sacrificed for his noble quest.

Who gives a rip what Kirk Cameron says or does? The scientific theory of evolution simply expresses that which has been observed in nature, which is what science does. Darwinism is not in any way an attempt to debunk anyone's belief system. If someone wants to take it that way fine, let's compare observable evidence of God to the evidence of evolution. Trust me, you don't want to go there Kirk. One of the biggest problems in our society is we give so much weight to the whimsical fantasies of the rich and famous and subsidize their ridiculous and largely useless lives. Religion should be something other than an excuse for those either incapable or unwilling to exercise independent, critical thought.

Evolution is a manmade scientific theory on which many other theories are based. Scientists are forced to look through the lens of evolution and build on it-this has been going on for decades. Truly scientific minds will allow alternative theories like Creation and Intelligent Design to be explored.

Many man-made theories have been corrected. For e.g., model of atom-initially it was thought to be indivisible. Then there was a model which compared atoms to watermelon and electrons to its seeds. Then there was a model put forward by Rutherford, which was later discredited by he quantum theory. I am not a physicist but an engineer so please excuse my lay language. The moral of this example is man-made theories often get corrected so we should not hold on to Darwin's theory as if it is 100% accurate.

the bible stated that the earth was round. secondly, macro-evolution is a theory that has never been proven, hence the theory. micro-evolution is a fact, but it does not involve the evolution of one species to the other. if most of you morons actually studied the FACTS, instead of compromising facts with the fiction that goes on in your heads, you would realize that there is and never will be solid evidence for macro-evolution.

There are tons of us christians who believe the scientists and that GOD created all and designed it that way. Read Frances Collins book.

Asking 'do you believe in Evolution' is just as foolish as asking 'do you believe in Gravity'. We actually have a lot more evidence for Evolution than we have to support our understanding of Gravity. Just read Richard Dawkins latest book: 'Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution'.
Even if 'the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection' were false, that would not prove that 'Intelligent Design' is. ID needs to proof its own case. What is the ID theory anyway? A supernatural power (God) did it? Where did this power come from? Who created the creator? ID is not even a real theory because it doesn't explain anything.

As a Christian, I certainly do believe in the existence of the Creator. But I also believe that evolution is the mechanism He chose to create us. What greater display of His power and majesty than to start out with single cell creatures and wind up with us?

Who are these 'true Christians' to place limits on the power and might of our Lord? Do they not believe in evolution because it would be too hard for Him to do? Open your minds, people! When we say the Lord is capable of anything and infinite in his power, this is the proof in the pudding.

Let's see: Evolution is 'only a theory.'
So, since we only have the 'theory of flight,' airplanes don't exist. What about birds?
Since electricity is 'only a theory,' then there is no such thing as electricity generating plants. Not to mention theoretical computers, and the theoretical Internet, powered by theoretical electricity.
What about space flight? That's 'only a theory,' so no such thing as the Space Shuttle, and the International Space Station.
Oh, and don't forget nuclear theory! ONLY a theory. So, no nucler power. No such thing as the 'Nuclear powered United States Navy.' And, don't forget all those 'nuclear power plants.' Those exist only in 'theory.'
The position of the Catholic Church (no that I'm a great fan or even a member of the Church, but I do agree on this point) is clear. God created the Heavens and the Earth, and evolution is the means by which S/He accomplished, and continues to accomplish, His/Her creation.
We accept the realities of air travel, electricity, space flight, and nuclear power, even though they are only scientific 'theories.' Evolution is a scientific theory that is as observable and real as any other.

Bravo to Jamin and his St. Augustine quote. I've never read that quote before nor heard about it, but if all of us Christians would remember that our soul mission in life is to bear witness to Christ's glorious ressurrection and subsequent promise of eternal life like St. Augustine expouses, than the world would be a better and more peaceful place to live. We wouldn't offend others by meddling in affairs that are left best discussed by those considered experts. That being said, I personally like Kirk Cameron, appreciate him for the brother in Christ that he obviously is, even if I happen to disagree where he is spending his time and efforts. I am also puzzled at the aminosity I see being posted about him – he's a man expressing his first ammendment rights and from what I see he is not trampling on the rights of others or causing anyone undue harm in the process. What's the big deal?

Wow...another religious nut. I'm really sick of these wackos constantly trying to debunk the proven theory of evolution. I really like it when they say "the earth is 6,000 years old" and that God "planted" fossils and bones that have been carbon dated as being hundreds of thousands of years or older to "test our faith". I'm sure he also belives its OK to subugate women and keep salves because "the Bible says so".

In my last fifty years I have studied and explored religions of all types.I have found good things in each as well as wonderful people dedicated to the idea of God the Father.What I have settled with is that none of the formed religions for my mind,have THE all knowing answer we humans seek.That is because I believe that the answers are all inside each of us. The questions come from us individually and so then the answers.
It's just mind blowing what we can convince ourselves of..........
I have a linear way of thinking and science is logic to me.To blindly have faith and not ask the questions seems absurd.
I can hardly choke out the word religion in the context that Christianity is the "right" way and only way. Come on now!
I am averse to cramming any religion down anyone's mental throat.There is a real danger in the lemming idea as history proves.
Give it up Kirk.. and other zealots .........what works for you is just that.

One can be spiritual, a Christian and a believer in science. There is no law that says that everyone is entitled to free speech. However, I draw the line when Cameron and his ilk interfere with the education of our children in science classes. Creationism belongs in Sunday School not public school. A country is as great as its technology. The dumbing down of Americans is disturbing. Every primitive tribe developed a belief system to explain their existence in this world. This includes the early Israelites, Aborignes, Native Indians. If they read history, the evolution of humans beings is staring them right in the face.

I do not believe that Kirk Cameron is trying to brainwash anyone, only trying to spread the truth according to the Word of God. The Bible states that God created man and woman in His image. The Bible also clearly states that God created all living things.

This sort of thing never ceases to boggle the mind. How can people be so utterly blind to the intricacies of science. Do they not read??? Are their minds so full of wool they cannot think clearly? Sheep, nothing but sheep.

What nonsense! This is why Christianity is the most dangerous religion on the planet, including Islam. If Evolution can be "debunked" so can the emancipation of slaves, the hold on Jews from killing without restraint,etc, etc etc. Chinese Government: please take note.

I believe that Kirk Cameron might be right, but not for the reasons that he preaches. It wasn't too long ago that somebody or some organization found a direct descendant of man and that, did debunk Mr. Darwin's theory of evolution. I even saw a depiction of how that fossil look like. Since there is a separation of church and state, then the Solomonic solution is for each one to stick to their theory. The church can teach intelligent design and the state can teach the debunked theory of evolution.

Would all of you PLEASE get the following facts straight: creationism is NOT the same as intelligent design. It might make it easier for the non-believers out there to dismiss us all as anti-scientific "idiots" by lumping us all together, but there are profound differences between us. Creationism teaches the book of Genesis is inerrant, that the earth was created in seven human days. Those of us who accept intelligent design acknowledge that the process has taken billions of years, but argue that it was guided by the hand of the Creator, the intelligent designer, and that the Book of Genesis is a human reflection of that grand design. (BTW, this is one of the reasons why atheists hate the "Big Bang Theory": "and God said let there be light," and, boy, was there ever light!). I would direct you to Lee Strobel's "The Case for a Creator," if you would like to see what adherents of intelligent design assert.

Kirk who?

OKAY, if you're going to have an opinion regarding evolution- you should AT LEAST understand the Theory.

The theory does not claim that humans evolved from apes...there was never an ape that just magically birthed a human, that's not how the theory works. The theory explains that humans and apes evolved from the same ancestral form.
Based on the pro-creationist comments out there it's obvious not one of you has tried to understand the theory before claiming that your assumptions are correct. Good work.

Bryan Hupperts said:

"It is willfully absured [sic] to think that nothing created everything,"

That argument has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution does not claim to identify or disprove a creator. Neither does it claim to have proof of how life began from non-life. All it talks about is how new forms of life are derived from existing ones.

Creationists need to stop saying (and saying and saying and saying) that Darwin was trying to disprove the existence of God. No, he wasn't.

@Larry – Preach it, brother!

Mr. Cameron is a literalist in interpretation; calling Kirk and others like him who hold literal views of Scripture idiots is uncharitable. I'd like to think those of us who believe in God and His son have learned from the history of the church when it failed to recognize truth (Galileo and Copernicus) and are willing to suspend judgment until all the facts are in – a position that does not contradict God at all but also one that does not depend on human wisdom alone.

Check out "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis; you'll not see an attack on the theory of evolution or any of the sciences, but a reminder that we are accountable for our behavior and beliefs. Would that more people who profess belief in Christ learn to be more like Him and less like themselves...

Everybody has their opinions and they have their right to express them here and in other forums. However, what annoys me to no end are the comments such as...

"Kirk = Epic Fail" by Mar, or

"Kirk Cameron is an idiot." by Frankie, or

"He is an actor and an idiot." by StevenR

These people do nothing to persuade me to even listen to their views if all they can do is resort to 2nd grade name calling.

Please...it would be nice to have a little civility in these discussions. Please state your case and allow others to do the same.

dear cb.............

Is there anything more of a theory than religion ?

What's amazing, even amongst the supporters of both arguments, is that no one seems to be acknowledging the presence of randomness in nature. When nature is random, there is no plan. Evolution is logically true, because it assigns no plan to the process of life; rather it just allows for the randomness to take control. And evolution has no such requirement that changes be slow and continuous, that's just someone who doesn't understand the science trying to pigeon hole the theory. Changes can be abrupt, as the science allows for discrete random variables as much as it allows for continuous random variables. The assignment of a continuous process is little more than a mathematical convenience; it's not vital to the theory.

You want an example of macroevolution in higher species? Start with Equidae. Sigh, no wonder the U.S. is so low on standardized science exams. The ignorance of the masses is astounding.

Why is is that so many do not understand that Cosmology relates to the origins of the planet and evolution relates to biology and why are both brought into the topic as if interchangeable? Those are two different topics folks.

Creationism is the ultimate lack of faith. It's made up science to prove Chistianity is the truth. The problem is that if Creationism is proven wrong then Christianity is a complete fraud and these so called Christians believe in nothing. True Christianity requires faith. There mysteries that God has given us which require faith. Beware of the religion business, it's not Christianity. The religion business are people that distort Christianity for their own wealth and power. They teach stuff that allows them to maintain control and Creationism is one of their tools. The bible tells us that God created us in his image and that makes us intelligent enough to figure out the science of evolution instead of some wacko creationism lie. Evolution being true does not discount the bible as being true, it discounts those that use the bible for their own schemes. These creationists moron don't speak for all Christians. There are plenty of us that have faith, believe in the bible and use the intelligence that God has given us.

ps: They will tell you that if you don't subscribe to their view or belong to their church you are not a true Christian. Don't believe that lie either, it's how the religion business maintains control and power.

What makes the right-wing think as they do? He is not going to change minds. He is not well informed. He just knows what his church tellsl him to believe, so sad.

why no matter what the subject you leftist allways respond with anger keep your miseryto yourself

Well spoken, "An Educated Christian."

Only a few hundred years ago, the top scientists in the world believed the earth was flat. Who knows what new evidence we will find in the centuries to come? And who knows whether scientists will interpret the evidence correctly?

We will never know for a scientific fact how we came to be, and I am okay with that. Life is too complex and beautiful, I believe, to be a simple product of random evolution. How could a designer NOT be behind this?

Cameron doesn't have the knowledge to debunk evolution. In his useless attempts he displays props, meaningless rhetoric and false information which have no substance. He proves that he knows nothing of science every time he opens his mouth.

cb – The "Theory" of evolution explains the observed "Facts" of the natural world. So, it is a fact that evolution does happen (please check out a science book for a more in-depth explanation). You have to realize that the definition of a scientific theory isn't just a whimsical idea. Before an idea becomes a scientific theory it starts off as a hypothesis and spends years being tested and scrutinized by skeptical scientists.

While China and India are becoming science and technology jaugernauts in the global market, we have zealots running around preaching that the world was created in six days. Yeah, good luck. We're gonna need it.

As a scientist / medical professional and a Christian, I'd like to state that evolutionists like to ignore the fact of God (Jesus) coming down, living an exemplary life, dying on the cross, rising on the third day, asking his disciples to go to all the world and preach the good news of the gospel to all the world, and stating he'll be coming back to all believers to be with Him for ever. This is the greatest practical truth one needs to know.

Americans are evolving....into mush brained college graduates who have been convinced by equally jelly-brained academe that they were once of the tree-swinging variety. Man, such a waste of a country that once was looked up to by others for their brilliant inventors and upstanding institutions who, by the way, most were put up for theological purposes.
Some posters here don't even know that long before Galileo discovered the telescope and long, long before the world was proven to be round, desert dwelling, camel-riding prophets have already declared that God hung the world on nothing (read space), and that it is God who will laugh last, who by the way, sits in the circles of the earth, and not at the edge which the "learned" and "sophisticated" Romans and Greeks (which I am sure you former monkeys admire) thought was flat and populated with sea monsters, or thought rested on the shoulders of Atlas or whoever that idiot god was.

Here's Job, a desert dweller, writing a few hundred years (or maybe a thousand ?) before Christ. And if you all are so fact-minded and evidence conscious, how about pulling that Bible out from somewhere and reading Job 26:7 (oh, by the way, the 26 is the chapter and the 7 is the verse for the ignorant among you bright dudes):

He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

And here's another desert guy. A prophet. Lived about 700 years before the Creator, before whom you all will give account, came in human flesh.

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in Isaiah 40:22.

So, Mr. Cameron may not have the diplomas and the certificates and the Ph.D.'s that you all gush over but who needs them if someone could be so stupid as to believe he was once a monkey ?

You don't seem to understand all the differences between intelligent design and creationism. I am sure Mr. Cameron's church is on the side of creationism rather than intelligent design.

As a Christian, I believe that God has a great and wonderful plan for all of his creation that we humans cannot always understand. I've never understood why other Christians cannot reconcile God and evolution. We are God's works in progress! Science and Christianity CAN live together peacefully.

Creation or "intellegent design" are able to explain the observables far better than an untestable "theory" of macro evolution that requires constant revision. Work in the physical and life sciences is carried on in exactly the same way by creationists and evolutionists except for funding. Macroevolution and man-made global warming are religions that require a great leap of faith.

If you wish to respond, kindly submit your educational credentials so that we are able to judge your qualifications to have an educated opinion in the same manner in which we would choose advice about a heart-lung transplant.

My PhD from Yale is in theoretical chemistry. I also have an MD degree, multiple board certifications, and have taught in medical schools for over 25 years.

Matt writes:

"
I am a Christian and a scientist. I happen to believe both sides of the story. I believe that God created us in his own image. I also believe that organisms on Earth do evolve over time. I have yet to see evidence linking Homo sapians to apes directly (ever heard of the missing link). "

Matt, give this missing link bit a rest. The fossil record of human evolution is more than complete enough to convince any fair minded skeptic.

the Australopithecines have a mixture of characteristics that are human like and ape like. What more do you want? After Lucy came a gradual succession of hominids, homo habilus, erectus, etc.

"However, seeing evidence of animals that have had to adapt to their environment, does support that evolution does occur. I believe that both can occur."

Bully for you.

"Man has yet to create life from scratch. He has had to use life to create life. (that is a fact!)"

Which has no bearing on the theory of evolution.

"Although the Theory or evolution has much evidence to support it, it is still a theory."

So is gravity. Theories explain *facts*, they do not become facts. The theory of evolution explains why life on earth changes through time. The modern theory of gravity , General Relativity explains why things fall when we drop them and a number of other things.

"On the comment that we (Christians) "choose to live in Caves" because we believe in Creation- Well that is very closed minded thinking that Christians cannot believe in scientific thinking."

There are and have been many great Christian scientists. Darwin comes to mind.

However, if you think the Bible is a science book, you won't get anywhere fast.

As was said to Job – "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the Earth?" Declare it – if you understand.

I wasn't. But my good friends U235, U238 and Rb87 were.

Is not the need of so many to believe in continued existence after death in spiritual form or through reincarnation in fact a product of natural selection? A strong will to live and protect our families are crucial needs for success for many organisms including human beings. As humans beings however we must manage this powerful need in the face of absolute knowledge that at some point we and our offspring will die. it is almost a cruel joke in that those most in need of continuity after death are undoubted driven to this need by the process that has been most damaging to their beliefs in a continued existence after death ie natural selection.

"FYI – Before you decide on whether Darwin was racist or not , here is the original title of his book : On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

In the 19th century, 'races" was often used for "varieties" in the botanical literature and biological literature in general. Perhaps Kurt never heard the expression "don't judge a book by its cover."

Darwin was an ardent abolitionist who fulminated at the abuses of slavery. Compare that to Cameron's Christian forebears in the 19th century and the Souther Baptist Convention which only apologized for slavery a few years ago.

You can't criticize a theory by attempting to assassinate the creator of the theory. Newton was an alchemist. I never heard anybody criticize Newtonian Mechanics by saying 'But Newton was an alchemist"

"would rather be a creation of God than a monkey's uncle, or a former blob, and there are scientists, then and now, much more brilliant than Darwin (assuming he is brilliant) who believe they were creations of God, not former mindless blobs floating around in space or something."

How many named Steve?

#1. No where in the Bible doe it say that the Earth revolves around the sun or the sun around the Earth. The whole issue of the Galileo Affair was one man expressing ideas that the Church didn't like. The Church and the people grew up.

#2. What I find most disturbing is how most of the posts here are being just like the Church of Old. Believe what we believe or we'll condemn you. Those are the posts coming from the science side. What's wrong science? Can't just present your arguments and let the people decide if they believe you? Do you have to throw out the insults about being religous?

Last time I looked, science still hasen't found a cure for the common cold. If the universe was created by a Big Bang, care to explain what was around before that bang? How many chemical, biological weapons have been created by SCIENTISTS with nothing better to do than to see how bad bad could get? Come on science, what's the comeback?

Having read some of the comments here, I would strongly recommend that everyone read some philosophy of science to better understand how science works. Science itself is an evolutionary process, utlilizing the best logical and inductive reasoning processes along with all the evidence available. It is not belief – rather it is a growing understanding of the reality we confront. It isn't what you would like to believe – it is what we are led to believe by the best tools available.

Science is never final in it's position – however – given the great amount of evidence evaluated for many major theories – and the evidence based process – it is by far the best we have to understand what is. And yet, it always continues and clarifies further – sometimes demolishing a major point of view. But usually, reinforcing a major theory with greater detail. This has been the case with evolution.

You can believe anything you want – that you evolved from royalty living in the clouds – because it makes you feel more worthy. It doesn't change the scientific evidence and best understanding of what it means. But your actual worth should be measured by your adherence to the rigorous processes of science to understand the universe – which is ultimately beautiful and awesome. Read the philosophy of science -a and unduderstand how it works.

I am fully content with that latter understanding. Check out the NASA image site to see truly awesome information on our place in the universe.

Better yet – please review this site's video on the depth of the universe – the farthest we can see from the newest Hubble telescope version. This coupled with our oneness with the universe says it all.

!!
> Hubble deep field – great animation of red shift to,separate deep
> field shots...and show how far we can see to the edge of the known universe.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAVjF_7ensg&feature=channel.

Paul

cb asked: When did the "Theory" of Evolution become "fact"?

Oh, I don't know, probably around the same time the word "theory" was defined as being an analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another.

I believe many people confuse the definition of a hypothesis with the word theory. Theories are factual and hypothesis are educated guesses.

All is a mystery to the small mind of man. How can one comprehend the magnificence of all creation on earth and in the heavens? Quit drinking milk of children and focus on what is truly important. Like where you are going in eternity. Will all due respect to Kirk, his focus should be on the more important aspects and needs of humanity. All people should humble themselves before the Creator and have faith that he has the answers.

Oh yeah sure I can believe that man came from two people created from dirt (with the woman supposedly having been created with the help of a rib from the man so that right there is....ew), and who had only sons.

People who say evolution is "just a theory" don't understand what a scientific theory is. To give one example, Einstein's theory of relativity in some cases gives different results than Newton's laws of motion. There have been several opportunities to test these – the orbit of the the planet Mercury is one example.

Every time they've tested them, guess what happens? Einstein's "Theory" is correct and Newton's "Laws" are incorrect.

This is not a knock against Newton – his laws of motion are good enough to send spacecraft to other planets

As a die hard creationist I know that the science of creationism is backed by the well known fact that storks bring life to make a family and that that is their purpose as set out by the creator.

I would bet that all the harsh criticism of Mr Cameron are by those that have not actually listened to his points that question the theory (and that is all that it is – a theory of evolution. You don't have to change your faith to listen to and consider other viewpoints that question the very flawed evolution theory.
I would also bet that none of them have read and studied the Bible either. I was critical of people who would give reasons from the bible for answers to many questions and issues. But when I finally decided to read the bible to try to prove them wrong, I found that the bible was overwhelmingly consistent and accurate.
Don't cast judgements of others, do your own research. Listen to what others say, then research for yourselves on whether what they say stands up. You might be surprised.

Why is it so difficult for conservative Christians to believe that God is capable of designing a beautiful, complex, and adaptive system of life? Personally, I'd give Him more credit. I also don't think that God would expect us to ignore the clues and evidence He has left for us to discover. Evolution, as a concept, is not a theory. It's details and mysteries continue to unravel before us everyday. "Creationism", however, is unsupported by anything other than blind faith.

That is so typical of these people to start an ad hominem falacious attack on Darwin. Even if Darwin was a racist and a sexist, that somehow makes him wrong about the unrelated topic of evolution? If he was a racist and a sexist and he said 2+2=4, then he would be wrong. Am I correct in this argument?

Message for George:
Not every person who says "I am a Christian" is a Christian.
Read God's Word and you will discover this.
Especially the part about "Having a form of godliness and denying the power thereof!:

This is the funniest thing I have ever heard. To the gentleman or Lady that produced the 'dumbing down of America by pushing Creationism in schools' argument should be given a Nobel.

You brainwashed, coward, Cristian, Sheep! Don't waste one more second of civilization on your pathetic concept. I will not give you tithes, stay away from my pocket. Your God never existed, you fell for the same power trick–2000 years later, shame on you–that the Federal Government, with these media slimeballs as henchman, are pulling over on the world right now.

Did you know that Jesus was as popular a name as Michael is today back then? Did you know that Mohammed is the most popular name on the planet now? I don't know who to hate more, the old, established, stick-up artist, church, or the newer, bearded, self- martyring, sheep/coward, over-mediacized, Church.

Quit wasting my time, Kirk.

Get your Gods out of the way of truth; do a little research, take a practical look at what's out there, and what makes sense to you as an organism–that will get out of bed, regardless of if there is an afterlife to live for or not–and due something truly legendary. You can start today.

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH THIS.
EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION THAT CAN'T BE PROVEN BUT MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH. IT BUILDS ITS FOUNDATION UPON WORDS OF FAITH LIKE SCIENTIST THINK, OR SCIENTIST BELEIVE. THE STORY OF EVOLUTION CONTAINS THE WORDS BELEIVE AS MUCH AS MOST BOOKS OF FAITH. TRUE SCIENCE SHOULD NOT BUILD ITS FOUNDATION UPON WORDS OF FAITH AS RELIGONS DO. THEN AFTER STARTING WITH A STATEMENT OF FAITH USE THIS AS A FOUNDATION TO BUILD THERE HOUSE THEN CALL IT SCIENCE. I DON'T HAVE FAITH IN EVOLUTION NOR DO I CARE IF THEY TEACH IT BUT TO TEACH SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES SO MUCH FAITH THEN CALL IT SCIENCE IS WRONG. IF GOD DOESN'T EXIST WHY DOESN'T SCIENCE PROVE IT OR STOP IMPLYING SOMETHING IS A FACT WITHOUT INDISPUTABLE PROOF.

Go Kirk!! If the media and education systems would just look at the issue in a truly "unbiased" way....they would find that Darwin was debunked years ago!

Why people would try to discredit a sturdy body of factual scientic evidence regarding the nuanaces and beauty of evolution is beyond belief. Why people also feel the need to slam evolutionists as non believers in God is ignorance. Clearly, evolution is a fact and in my scientific brain, clearly God also exists. The two compliment not cancel each other out.

THE FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIANITY IS A BELIEF IN GOD, A BELIEF HE CREATED EVERYTHING. THIS DOESN'T RUN COUNTER TO MY LIFE EXPERIENCE. I FULLY ACCEPT THAT EVERYTHING I SEE AND USE HAVE A DESIGNER AND BUILDER.

THE FOUNDATION OF EVOLUTION IS A BELEIF THAT NO ONE CREATED OR DESIGNED THE UNIVERSE. AND WHEN NO ONE DID HIS WORK HE USED NOTHING TO DO IT ALL. THEN 1 LIVING THING BECAME MANY. THIS RUNS AGAINST COMMON SENSE AND LIFE EXPERIENCE AND REQUIRES WAY TOO MUCH FAITH. IF I SAID THIS IN COURT AND USED IT A DEFENSE IT WOULD BE REDICULOUS. NO SINGLE LIVING THING WHETHER MAN , ANIMAL OR PLANT COULD LIVE WITH OUT EATING OTHER LIVING THINGS HOW COULD 1 LIVING THING BE ALONE AND BE THE SOURCE OF ALL LIVING THINGS. IT-WOULD-HAVE -TO -BE-A-GOD.

Intelligent Design advocates do not have a problem with evolution, they have a problem with Human evolution, they don't care about evolution of bacteria, flys or viruses, they don't question the evolution of single celled animals, yeast or simple invertebrates, they only get worked up about humans. They don't like to think that humans are the result of evolution, every thing else, who cares, that is why they are more like children in their thought, big ideas, bad, I'm not a monkey, good.
Also, why don't they advocate the idea of intelligent design in the study of astronomy, or chemistry, why just biology? Because, they are like little children...I'm special.

Has science ever witnessed a mutation that led to the addition of information (and the code to interpret that information) to the genome? According to Richard Dawkins it has not. It's a pre-requisite for evolution and yet no trace of any such mutation exists. All mutations –even those that prove beneficial to the organism - result in the loss of information to the genome. Period.

When did a 1,500-year-old book of fairy tales become "fact"? Where are the skeletal remains of Adam and Eve? How did their kids breed an entire planet's population by incest? How did people of other races – negro, asian, pacific islander, caucasian – come to be, if Adam and Eve's kids were all one race? Was it evolution? Where did Cain's wife come from?

Lol...I love these creationists. There's no proof of creation except the book of Genesis, which also states that God pretty much lined up all the animals in the Earth for Adam for inspection and offered them as mates.

So by that logic if Adam had decided instead of not liking any of them, that he was cool with dogs then we would all be dog-people.

Evidence of Evolution is everywhere. You have to be a complete moron not to see evolution in animals and evolution in people. Just because we evolved doesn't mean God didn't have a hand in it.

God is like a clock-maker. He just makes the clock, winds it up and lets it go.

Why on earth would we listen to a Christian fundametalist on important matters having to do with science and archaeology? Religious zealots like Kirk Cameron are wholly unqualified to speak about anything other than their own faith-based mythology (and, in the case of Cameron, given his short career as a second-tier actor, maybe some observations about his life on the B List.).

I once believed in the theory of evolution, but then I once even believed the people giving out the Nobel Peace Prize were intelligent.

Isn't it about time we let factual evidence and champions of such get headlines instead of people like Cameron? Is this really how we want America to be remembered? If so, I'm moving to Crete.

Hey, this IS America, and he has the right to believe and share (what he believes) with others. Remember? Freedom OF religion? Good for him – beats the heck out of a bunch of stuff other folks are spewing each day.

Fate, Chance, Circumstance are those instances where God chooses be Anonymous.
Here's a thought to those of you that do NOT believe in a CREATOR, God, & believe in Darwinism.. why bother playing by the rules? why bother helping a sick family member,if a loved one has cancer, why bother it's survival of the fittest right? why bother allowing the sick, elderly to even LIVE? Isn't the basis of Darwinism "survival of the fittest"? If there is NO God, and Darwinism is correct, Why bother working for a living, why bother trying to better yourself, why bother trying to keep healthy? Why bother following the laws? or even being a DECENT person? thats NOT part of Darwinism, neither is EMOTION, LOVE, CARING, or SYMPATHY. There is a GOD, and you people that blame God for EVERY bad thing that happens.. remember this, in this FALLEN, Desensitised, twisted, what is right is wrong , what is wrong is right, topsy turvy world, GOD will ALLOW anything to happen to get YOUR attention. Obedience to God (following the rules with the choices you make, NOT blind disobedience, God doesn't want robots) brings blessing, disobedience brings discipline. God gives JOY and BLESSINGS, (whether people see it or not, now thats a HUMANISTIC issue) but happiness is up to US. God bless everyone.. GOOGLE pascals wager if you want to compare the odds there is a God, to the odds that there is NOT.

God put is on this earth to help one another and to allow ourselves to be helped when we need it. When we DON'T help one another when we can and are able, and DON'T allow others to help us when we need it the most, that's pride and anger and a true act of hostility.
And for the Darwinists.. why bother helping anyone? that's not a part of the survival of the fittest credo? When there is a tragedy, who do you see helping? Christian groups.. not usually Muslim, buddist, hindu groups, but Christian groups.. Where are the self proclaimed atheist groups out there? that help when and where it's needed the most? just wondering

Everyone is wrong. We are decendants of a lost race of Sea Sponges from the planet BaBaBooey.

Keeping within the context of human evolution, I would say that there is sufficient evidence to support the theory that hominids are evolved from a common ancestor as are the apes. The recent paleontological evidence concerning similar forms of "bipedal" and cranial forms indicates as such. It's true that episodic, sudden events may drastically alter what was normally a slower, less dynamic progression, but the evidence is clear to me. As to the God issue, I think that human behavior mandates the "creation" of such a concept; life is difficult and there are unexplained events which require some solace from it all. I think that the ancients knew this and so, developed these mechanisms for psychic survival. I would love to believe that my departed loved ones still exist somewhere, but I'll have to settle for my heart alone.

I've read many of the comments posted here regarding this story. It's not entirely surprising how this issue continues to polarize humans. There are intelligent arguments on both sides. And neither side has all of the answers. We still have a lot to learn. The difference between the two theories is that while proving its own merits, Evolution does not attempt to disprove the presence of God. On the other hand, Creationism at its heart is used to explain how incredibly cataclysmic events have taken place over the course of history in the blink of an eye, without the presence of Science. I do believe it possible for God and Science to coexist. (History shows many of our greatest scientific minds believed in God, and in fact continued to search for answers despite their religious beliefs.) Scientists can prove to a degree how the Big Bang formed the Universe, but we have not yet traveled beyond that epic moment to determine what was there before. Scientists will continue to search for answers to our most important questions and I hope I am alive to see when we find those answers.

The only sense in which evolution is still just a "theory" is in the particulars of descent, the paths it actually took. The mechanisms of evolution are virtually fact to anyone with more than half an operating brain!
I am constantly amazed at the number of people who are willing to eschew the wisdom of a brilliant man (Darwin) in favor of the rambling screeds of centuries-dead desert lunatics!

...and the universe was created in seven days, 6000 years ago. Forget what the facts say, right Kirk?

Science based evolution created the living being we call human over
a time frame of billions of years. God created an abstract thinking human about ten or twelve thousand years ago.The Bible and
Genesis are correct. The world was created in a very short time from the standpoint of the new thinking being. Thus both Science and God
are real and part of a super set. Science is one of the best parts of the work of God.

Elaine M Brousseau: science is "easier" than accepting fairy tales? Wow.

Kirk Cameron has only uncovered the tip of the iceberg. Darwinism is not the only false belief of the heathen. What about that Satanic theory of gravity falsely invented by that communist Galileo. Things fall down indeed! What if God wants them to fall up? No, the heathen never tell you about things that fall up instead of down do they?

Why do ballistic missiles sometimes miss their targets? Because they are using Galileo's pinko gravity concepts to find their target. The military should start using prayer instead of calculations. Just launch the missile and pray that it hits the target!

And don't get me started on the earth is round thing! What a crock that is!

Fundamentalisim is the product of a mind that can perceive at a basic level of development. It is healthy at certain ages as it helps a person navigate their world in tangible, concrete ways.

But to have an infantile belief about God and religion past a certain age can be quite unhealthy as it does not allow for abstracts and a more mature way of perceiving reality.

The level of development that takes religious stories literally is important but certainly not mature. This happens all over the world in many religions, not just Christianity.

There is a higher state of Christianity that should not be dismissed just because a group of people with a shouting mob mentality have a voice.

Rational thought and the scientific viewpoint is just another viewpoint as well. Although it is more well developed, it is still limited.

Religion is important beyond science. There are states of consciousness that transcend both fundamentalism and rational science.This important fact should not be thrown out or dismissed.

Final note. CNN is simply using this story to cause a rukus of debate and fuel their own interests among readers and viewers. It's a hot topic and CNN knows how to play it at just the right level to serve its own means, like throwing raw chicken to a bunch of alligators.

That's part of the game, too.

The loser in this debate is true spirituality and its expression through many forms of religion. There is a very real place for it. CNN, don't blow it in your haste to get ratings.

Those people who do believe in God and Adam and Eve, are going to not believe that we evolved from apes, as this is so much easier for them to believe... how pathetic

What if he's right?

where are the transitional forms that are supposed to "prove" evolution? why are mutations usually degenerative and not evolutionary? Other than calling people who question the theory of evolution idiots, there doesn't seem to be any scientific support for the proposition that human life evolved from single cell organisims. And, btw, how did the first life form come to be?

"HIS" NAME IS, 'I AM WHO I AM'! LOOK IT UP IN THE OLD TESTEMENT. THOSE OF WHOM AREN'T 'BORN-AGAIN' CAN'T UNDERSTAND 'FAITH'....AND THE WEBSTER DEFINITION OF 'RELIGION' IS; PRACTICE....I'LL PRAY FOR ALL OF YOU WHO KNOW "HIM"...AND ALL THOSE WHO WILL; EVENTUALLY. MAY GOD BLESS ALL OF US. WE ALL NEED IT NOW MORE THAN EVER... (SINCE THE BEGINNING OF HUMANITY). THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SPEAK MY PEACE.

What most people who wish to "debate" evolution fail to realize is that it DOES NOT ADDRESS the creation of life at all. It makes no attempt to explain creation in any way, shape or form. It only addresses how life forms adapt to change over time, in some cases leading to new species.
Comparing creation to evolution is like comparing a bicycle to a manatee.

At least get the name of Darwin's monumental work right: "On Origin Of Species". NO "the". But then again, creationist got everything elses wrong...

FYI cb:
The scientific method: First, hypothesis, you start with an idea, use experiments or observations, once it supports the hypothesis, it becomes a "theory". If the hypothesis is not proven, then the hypothesis cannot be considered a theory. Second, a theory is "an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis." Finally, a scientific law is a statement of fact. It does not need a proof because it is accepted as fact based upon years and years of studying and observations. Scientific law is simple, true, universal and absolute. (http://wilstar.com/theories.htm)
All in all, a theory is much closer to a scientific law than a hypothesis. The only reason evolution is a "theory" is because it has only been written about and "discovered" within the past 150 years, scientific laws are based upon observations that have been studied for 500 years.
Also, Darwin takes all the heat from creationists, but Darwin had to push his publication date earlier than planned because another scientist made the same observations and Darwin wanted his to be the first.
Before the Protestant reformation, religious scholars believed in evolution, along with interpretation of the Bible; it wasn't until the printing press and Martin Luther did people actually read the Bible, and people uneducated in religion decided to tell other people their own view about the Bible.
cb, and other creationists: PAY ATTENTION IN HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY AND HISTORY!

such putrified responses from those that think Darwin knew it all – same people that believe da vinci no doubt

Wackos from both ends of the spectrum. Far right Christians – why wouldn't God use evolution as a tool in his Intelleigent Design? Far left Atheists – there are too many steps in the process unexplained by Darwin's theory.

The Theory of Evolution doesn't state that man descended from apes. It says that at one point man and apes had a common ancestor.

Religion = Opinion
Science = Learning

Stop quoting the opinions of closed scared minds of old and learn something new in your lifetime. Religion is a guild designed to control the minds of children and the lives of women. The "men" who push these religious systems upon our society are always shallow narrow minded control freaks. They are afraid of change, afraid to learn new concepts, and mostly afraid of not being in control of the minds of their own family members. To those free of the mental inbreeding of religion, life is open and free of hatred of race or gender. I see people as people not as types or colors. My mind lets me learn new things from everyone I meet so I can move forward in my evolution.

god IS theory. Not real, but only an opinion.

Science quotes new concepts as "theory" so others will check the results or perform their own tests and prove or disprove the theory. To argue against a theory without studies or testing is opinion not fact.
No one learns from quoting others opinions. You only learn from finding fact and showing it to others. You can talk all day using opinion having never said anything new.

It is sad that this typically american pseudo-debate (creationism vs evolution) is a matter of worldwide jokes. Obscurantism seems so widely spread. Foreigners have difficulties to understand this unique mixture of born again christians-antievolution-antiscience-right wing GOP-Palin-so and so. The Bible is a sacred text but it is not a textbook.

What if everything always was some where. No one knows.

Only religious people must have a creation or a beginning to justify their fantasies of gods.

Scientists on the other hand have some concept of infinity which I think runs in all directions. Scientists can give us a valid understanding of various processes which take place on this planet and even a few in the surrounding observable universe but what of those uncounted (and presumably uncountable) other points in the ether?

Preachers preach what they've been taught to preach much of it incomprehensible gobbledygook about prayer, angels, saints, virgin births, ressurections, heaven, hell, serpents that speak, generations of people who must have come from incestial relationships since god reportedly gave us only one male and one female. Lots of hanky panky going on it that garden, boats which carry two of every animal, (Don't you wish Noah had forgotten mosquitos rather than unicorns.)

'll take observation over belief. I believe nothiing; know very little but I think a lot.

The idea of creationism is not scientific, not logical and is just a quaint bedtime story from the fictional bible book. All religions are cults and Kirk could have just as easily joined the Moonies. I feel sorry for him, but as long as he is not harming anybody...
It's the same thing with Republicans – another ignorant cult of crazies.
The organized religious fanatics around the world including the catholics, the taliban, republicans, radical islamics and jews have been the root cause of most of the evil in this world.

Why can't people reconcile both? I don't understand why there couldn't be a creator who, in His intelligence, set evolution in motion. I'm a firm believer in evolution, but I also believe in God. Seems to me that, in His wisdom, He put things like evolution and stem cells there for us to discover and put to use.

Great for Kirk Cameron. He is out there telling the truth and getting vilified for it. Liars always get a pass from the general population and the media. If the people of the world didnt love lies and fantasy so much Hollywood would have died out long ago. By the way even the stars you see in the sky at night are not even real. They are spirit. They are mechanical.

People who believe that we descended from apes are wrong, wrong and WRONG! Humans are apes, we just like to think that we are better.

I think the self enlightened that feel compelled to ridicule anyone that does not agree with their position need to do their own research to be able to contribute something factual. There's a movie titled "Expelled – No Intelligence Allowed" that shows the hypocrisy of "Science" on this subject. Since when did making fun of someone and someone's beliefs constitute valid debate. Evolution is not a fact and evolutionists still cannot say where life first began that they claim has since evolved. The fact that you don't like the message doesn't make it wrong.

Leave the belief up to the person, the problem with most religions is they feel that they are required to convince others that their version is correct and the only one to follow. I think all religions should preach to their own members, not go on a crusade to convince others they are right.

The sad part is people like Kirk Cameron getting any air time at all. CNN, is this a slow news day? Do you have an interview with a famous person who believes in evolution to show us? The fact is that would probably be every other person in Hollywood and beyond. These naysayers are such a minority....why do we even have to hear about them? They need to quit telling us that the scientists have to prove evolution.....try proving the existence of God to me!

Just because Kirk Cameron did not evolve does not mean that the rest of us haven't.

It's quite obvious from their standpoint that their god is no where near powerful enough to have created the big bang or reality.
Their belief that if science is real their god doesn't exist is truly bizarre.

reply to elaine..
No one ever suggested humans evolved from apes.

Well – what a sad lot most of you have proved to be. Your assault on Cameron is showing your 'religious' enthusiasm for your 'belief' in evolution, not a scientific refutation of what you say Cameron stands for. I believe it was Lord Attenborough, the guy who narrates so many evolution programs, who said, "The reason we scientists believe in evolution is not because we see it in the fossil record, but because the alternative of special creation is truly incredible." Do a little search and discover the problems that even evolutionists agree are insurmountable problems in their system... I hope you find the Lord!

Cannot prove evolution–have not really seen any species "evolve" into another gradually or otherwise. It is just a question of semantics and how scientists choose to classify animals and plants. In my book animals are of the same species if they can interbreed. Creationists use the word "kind" to differentiate between lines of species. Under their definition of species lions and tigers are of the same species because they can interbreed, but are different kinds. Wolves and dogs can inter breed so they are of the same species but different "kinds". Creationists are more in tune with genetic differences. Humans could not be "related to apes" because we cannot interbreed with them–they have a different number of chromosomes– and that is what convinces me human and apes are not related and did not have a common ancestor. Evolution is bogus!

cb,

"When did the "Theory" of Evolution become "fact"?"

About the same time the "theory" of gravity and the "theory" of thermodynamics did.

Seriously, this is not that hard. A scientific theory is not the same as "oh I have a theory about something, let's see if it works."

A scientifc theory is a general model with the purpose of explaining a given set of phenomena or identifying the nature of reality. Testable hypotheses can be derived from theories.

Scientific theories are built by facts and supported by facts. The facts unambiguously support evolution.

Therefore, evolution is.......you guessed it, fact.

To Elaine and all the other crazy creationists here... even most respected theologians don't take literally most of the Bible. There is actually evidence for evolution... none for Creationism. How hard is it to admit you are wrong and that religion has duped you for years?

The Theory of Evolution is accepted as fact in the same way as other well established theories like the Theory of Gravity.

It is sad to see so many people choose to believe in gods, ghosts, and other supernatural phenomena, but won't accept established scientific facts.

The scientific theory of evolution is fact... it has held up since 1859 and despite crazy religious people trying to disprove it... it holds. Gravity is a theory too, do you not believe in it? Any one who has a basic understanding of Biology understands that evolution is fact. Does it prove there is no Creator... almost... does it prove that Creationism is absolutely false... it sure does.

As a devout person of faith, I have to say he is an idiot. You do not have to throw away or ignore science to have a strong belief. that the mystery of the world is enriched by the wonder of evolution, and the beauty of the variety, each specialized to it's particular use and need, if that is not Gods will, then I don't know what is.

These same folks can forget that the Bible says the world is flat and that the Sun circles the world, but can't give up that the world was created in a week, we call that a Biblical Parable created to convey a "bigger picture" than they understanding they had of science at the time.

Shame on CNN if they didn't have a strong rebuttal of the quack & his "theories"

The bottom line here is that Fundies like Kirk worship the Bible, not their creator. This makes them not only silly, but idolaters.

Who stands to benefit from Bible worship? Well, mostly all religious leaders who were too lazy or stupid or egotistical to ever make it in the study of the sciences. Like L Ron Hubbard, and apparently Mr. Cameron, they see where easy money/attention/respect can be garnered.

2000 years of scam, man.

Go read Genesis and check out what the first job was that God gave Adam. Then realize that, even according to your own book, Scientists are the real theologians, the people laboring in the fields in search of truth and (by your lights) learning about their creator through his creation.

If there was a creator, then creation is the only way to learn about him/her/it.

You need absolutes you can hold in your hand? Words you can tilt to your satisfaction? You are afraid of the uncertainties, of searching for answers on your hands and knees, of years of study over a microscope or in a library? How pitiful.

Creationists are busy squeezing their own god into some sort of snazzy magician, pulling rabbits, and everything else, out of a hat. "Ali Kazam" and there is light. That's for childrens' parties.

A much more respectful and adult metaphor would be that of a pottery maker, someone who carefully mixes his own clay, tempering the ingredients over years, slowly and carefully laboring to produce something beautiful with his own hands. He learns as he goes, making many vessels, breaking some along the way.

But, by all means hold onto your book of mythologized history, the oral tradition of a nomadic people suffering from low self-esteem who managed to invent a bigger god than everybody else. (Bugs the hell out of ya that they were Jews and got the patent on the concept of "chosen", don't it?)

Only, for crying out loud, quit trying to cram your beliefs down everybody else's throats! Get over this whole proselytizing thing and just live your faith over there in Delusion Land. If that's not enough to bring in more believers, then your faith doesn't deserve the name.

If everybody not believing like you do brings down god's wrath upon the world, well, that's what you want anyway. So what's your problem here?

Let the rest of the world progress into a mature future using the brains you say god gave us. We won't even laugh (too much) as you continue to benefit from the vast achievements that scientific method provides via the hard won labors of Scientists – god bless 'em.

If you feel science threatens your belief in God, then that belief must not be very strong. Anyone who would question someone's beliefs because of their understanding of evolution should first ask themselves if their beliefs are truly secure.

The sad fact is that evolutionary theory has had to reinvent itself every few years as their theories are constantly being disproven, such as the prior comment about evolution occurring in abrupt, bursts. This has only been postulated, not proven as asserted by Dave Wilson. This theory called, punctuated evolution, was first proposed by Stephen Gould. Here, the best evidence for evolution is that there's no evidence, hence the punctuated evolution.

DInosaurs and man lived together as evidenced by the numerous cave drawings of dinosaurs. If they hadn't lived together, how did these people know what they looked like?

Evolution will always remain only a "theory".

"evolution is science" is an interesting statement. Does the existing evidence support evolution so undeniably that believing in Creationism is just crazy? I don't think so, in fact, I have never the evidence that would lead one conclude that all life must have evolved from other forms of life! The fossil record does not conclude this, though it has been portrayed to seem like it does. Evolutionary theory is nothing more than a possible conclusion, and it cannot be based on the scientific method because mankind has never observed* the evolution of one species to another, and no possible way of producing such a dramatic change has ever been verified. Is this truly "science", or just popular opinion? But I am "'obviously'" a biased, right wing, crazy, uneducated, Christian fundamentalist because I don't support evolution 110%

Kirk Cameron is living proof that God has a sense of humor.

I'm a christian, and I have a lot of Born-again relatives. A lot of Born-Again Christians have a bad habit of simply ignoring the real world.

They've created a parallel 'Christian' universe with their own versions of everything from Rap and Rock to theme parks. They have their own slogan T-shirts (Do the Jew instead of Do the Dew). They use special filter boxes to remove swearing and questionable content from their TV and movies. If something doesn't fit their version of the world they just pretend it doesn't exist (In this world Jesus never drank wine).

There is no room for question or debate. If it's not in the Bible, it's simply wrong. Trying to reason with them is a waste of time.

Elaine, No one believes that people evolved from apes. Scientists have found that Humans and Apes share a common ancestor...

and btw cb, A theory is not a "guess" as you would like to believe. A Theory is our best way of explaining a fact that we observe in nature.

Lending validity to the cause of "Intelligent Design" by way of coverage of this issue does us all a disservice.

Evolution is no more a Theory than gravity is.

Its becoming clearer that the evolution of Homo Erectus in the Great Rift Valley was due to constantly changing environmental conditions in the space of 500-1k year periods, thus forcing our early ancestors brains to evolve highly plastic behavior patterns in order to survive. Often you see creationists asking "Where is evolution in todays world?"
And the answer is all around us.

Modern Humans multiple languages , racial characteristics, and cultural values are all indicative of an ever-changing biology. A great deal of Human Evolution takes place in the confines of the brain as we adapt to modern life's demands and stresses. The current large numbers of Autism cases in children in western societies is evidence of possible brain plasticity adaptations.

I am a semi-religious person in that I acknowledge the existence of "God" (or Gods) but perhaps the Founding Fathers would have served us better by allowing America freedom FROM religion instead of freedom OF religion.

Former mindless blobs? 65% of americans are obese or overweight, and 50 million americans read at a 4th grade level.

"I would rather be a creation of God than a monkey's uncle, or a former blob, and there are scientists, then and now, much more brilliant than Darwin (assuming he is brilliant) who believe they were creations of God, not former mindless blobs floating around in space or something."

Most people do not understand that in the realm of science, a scientific "theory" is essentially a fact. This is because scientists (unlike religous zealots) understand that their findings can someday be refuted. Something such as evolution, which has occurred since the beginning of life, cannot be "proven" as in say mathematics.

To support the theory of evolution however, biologists have studied model organisms (which reproduce much faster than humans) and through classical experiments, have showed that natural selection and evolution do in fact occur in populations of organisms. To anyone who actually works in the field of biology and witnesses the wonders of the natural world, they cannot deny that evolution does in fact occur.

If man did not descend from apes, then why do we have a tail bone? Why do we have an appendix, which is a nonfunctional organ that functions in animals such as cows? Why do we have hair on our bodies? Or how do Christian fundamentalists explain the existence of diseases such as Cancer or Diabetes? Through the lens of evolution, all of these can be explained but creationism fails to explain any of them.

People who "believe" in evolution need just as much faith as people who believe in creation. I have yet to read the writings of anyone who says evolution is a fact that can explain where the original matter came from that started everything. In order to believe in evolutionary science, you have to disregard a scientific FACT, that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. At least not by natural means.

I find it very interesting that people get so very upset at the idea of God, Creationism, and Christianity. Such anger and vehemence one doesn't see addressed towards any other religion or belief. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists. Their beliefs are met with tolerance and are even forced down the collective throats of American children every day. When an actor or "intellectual" gives comment to a world without God, a world based on evolution or atheists views, he or she is not met with the violence of thought that we Christians are. We most often shake our heads sadly at this person. But, oh the anger and outrage when we dare to speak from our places of belief and thought. Why are you so angry at us brothers and sisters? As one old gentleman said, "If you are right, then none of us have anything thing to worry about. In the end, you will be proven right and we will all be dust...of course, if I'm right...well...then..." I'm not angry at any of you, at the moment. I just feel deep sadness and pity. If we are such a bunch of sad sacks why do you feel any more than that? But, please, remember, we Christians/Creationists do only have two cheeks to turn and even Jesus got angry after a bit. Allow us our right to believe what we want. We afford you that right. Keep in mind that many a Christian is getting frustrated with the attack on us and back off. At the moment, we are not in the mind set of the Muslims. We have no jihad. Be grateful and leave us alone to our "fantasy."

where are the monkey-fish??

Even the Catholic Church says Evolution is a fact, What does that say of Creationism? A few hundred years ago, They had a word for It and there was a PC game in 90's that used the word, What was It?

Heretic, Heresy also applies quite possibly, We even know what the Earliest ancestor of the Horse(Hyracotherium) looked like
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse)
and It has 4 toes on each foot and was about the size of a German Shepard Dog, That is evolution, Theory is an idea that is fluid and is not static and unyielding, At one time people and the Church and I think the Bible said the Earth is the center of all creation, We know now that The Earth orbits the Sun and that Sun does not orbit the Earth and that the planet Earth is just one planet among many.

I'd rather be Catholic than somebody like Kirk Cameron... As the Catholic Church has experts in Its ranks, Kirk and Company? Rank Amateurs or Lay people.

Seems to me that Kirk Cameron and Pat Robertson both have a lot in common with their slanted opinions. Don't get me wrong, I belive in Creation and a divine plan to place all of us here in the world we live in. I also believe in evolution, not to the extent that society blew it out of proportion (Humans from Apes). Evolution is not about that. It never was about us coming from Apes. Darwin only alluded to the possibility, as an EXAMPLE to the idiot reporters doing the interview! Evolution is evident in ALL things living. Such as Cameron and his group of highly over rated zealots. They "seem" to evolve, from fairly insane to outlandishly stupid. LOL. What needs to happen here, in my opinion, people need to get over their fear of what they THINK was spoken about a "THEORY" and what actually happened. Earth and all in it evolves, constantly. If we were to stop evolving, we would all end up as early Man, dragging our mates behind us by the hair, clubbing each other, as opposed to the more accepted way, shooting or abusing them. For those religious fanatics waiting in the sidelines to attack anyone that opposes their opinion, be forewarned. Folks like us HAVE evolved enough to educate ourselves and arm our wits enough to counter your pathetic arguments.
That is all.
Peace, FROM the Middle East (Kabul, Afghanistan: Deployed Civilian Contractor)

Is anyone else disgusted by the pretension of validity these people are trying to evoke by including their own work with those of the concepts they are attacking?

The whole strategy has the air of a con artist, of a shell game. I have to question the character of people who have so little strength in their own convictions that they hide them under the name of the very person they are trying to discredit.

Repugnant.

The real issue here is that the article claimed Kirk Cameron is an actor

It amuses me when I hear of evolutionists accusing creationists of "cherry picking" out of the Bible. Yet, when it comes to their own belief in Darwin, they ignore the full title of his famous book: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle of Life"

So if they believe in evolution, do they also believe in racism as well???

I'm still waiting for the explanation from the Creationists on how they feel about the explanation that light and dark are the product of the earth's rotations, even though God created light and dark before he created the earth and the heavens. If you reject evolution based on biblical writings, don't you have to also reject the earth's rotation for the explanation for night and day?

It seems that there is correlation between scientific literacy and acceptance of the scientific fact (as scientists define the word) of evolution. The evidence for biological evolution comes from a multitude of scientific fields and is no longer a matter of debate. However, as a former fundamentalist I am quite familiar with the psychological obstacles that prevent the victims of religious indoctrination from assimilating knowledge that contradicts their preconceived and prepackaged 1st century world view of reality. Such a tragic waste of human effort Mr. Cameron.

Nobody has observed evolution taking place, and nobody observed God creating the earth in six days. Both have to be taken by faith. Just because Kirk Cameron chooses to believe in creation does not make him ignorant or stupid. I believe the earth was created by God...it is easier for me to believe that than to believe it happened by accident.

Amazing how many people posting here can't spell or write for toffee:

John Billings: it's 'assassination'
rrock: it's 'here'
Tim: Darwin 'was', not 'is' brilliant. He died some time ago.
An Educated Christian: really? it's 'religion'.
Benton: neither 'obscurantist' nor 'absolutist' are proper words
Jamin: "a very high view"? from smoking what?
David Shink: 'creationism' is not a proper noun
TPaine18: it's not "naturalistic "evolution"", it's 'evolution'
Tom, San Jose CA: random capitals simply don't belong, or lend weight
Bryan Hupperts: it's 'absurd'
Ken in MT: it's 'Darwinism/Darwinist', 'matter', and 'atheist'

There are lots of other errors, but the point I am trying to make is that the believers in evolution seem to spell and write better, just my two cents. BTW I believe there is a soul, and that Darwin was right – chew on that.

It takes greater faith to believe that the universe and life sprung from nothing than to believe that a perfect, all powerful being created it.

The mathematical probability of a SINGLE CELL coming about by chance is 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros!

Still think Kirk's an idiot?

What Kirk is doing is called a "free expression of ideas" – supposedly an important aspect of a free country. Get over it.

its funny how the religious nowadays use words like design and intelligent. i miss the good old days when they use to debate us with concepts like the burning bush or jonah's great fish.

like everything false intelligent design will die in a whimper not a bang. just wait it out..

the world is round!

Kirk's career in family sitcoms is proof for Darwin's theory: it's yet another evolutionary dead end.

It's easy "not" to believe in God. That way you can live a life without consequence. There are rules to follow for believers of God. So if you are too weak to believe and to weak to follow rules then don't believe and stop hurling insults at the rest of us. BTW, If we evolved from apes then why are there still apes?

Believing in "god" is just as silly as believing in Roman mythology.

I don't believe in Evolution because I think it is an insult to the apes who are constantly being compared humans. I have much more faith in the apes than I do in people. I must admit, just for completeness, that a lot of people I have met are actually sub-animal in both physical and intellectual terms.

No, man did not evolve from the apes, but I sure hope humans evolve into apes, which in my experience, would be a step-up in the food chain of live.

Because we cannot answer all the tiny details in evolution the whole theory is wrong?
Can anyone answer all questions about "god's will"? No. So by their own backward logic god does not exist.
Evolution is real. We have a fossil record to support it.

Are we to go back to the dark ages? That was a time when Galileo was locked in home for daring to espouse the theory for a heliocentric solar system. Why? Because according the the Catholic Church the scriptures told us that the Earth was at the center of creation, surrounded by heavenly spheres within which the stars and planets moved...and they meant that literally. Now, centuries later the arguments of Kirk Cameron, the intelligent design folks and the creationists are EXACTLY the same argument. "You are wrong because the Bible says you are!!!" In other words they have no argument at all, because scripture isn't science. Galileo was proven correct, a fact finally and recently acknowledged by the church and Darwin's theory has stood the test of time and rigourous scientific inquiry for over a century. It is true and no wishing it away will change that,

Right. I should listen to a has-been child actor (who was never that good to begin with) tell me about the origin of humankind? Next you'll want me to go to Tom Cruise for psychiatric help!

There are those who side with evolution as there are those who side with creation. The common ground would be evolution within a biblical creation but each side firm in their perceptions which causes narrow mindedness and parameters of acceptance they cannot break through yet.

Good Monday morning reader and the AM crew. A jump into tomorrow..China has taken over responsibilities in Afghanistan and working towards Iraq. The troops are finally coming home but the war at home grows as the economic collapse is felt throughout the nation.

Government, Industry, Finance, Academic, Military, Media, Religion(spirituality+ethics) and the Peoples= ingredients for a successful society under proper management which currently is not the case. To attack those structures in order to collapse global economies easy when one knows the ingredients.

Over and over again Scientists have found "the missing links" in evolution only to be proven to be a hoax. The structure of our Solar System is similar to that of an atom. A center, the Sun like the protons of atoms with planets orbiting it like electrons orbiting the proton. Everything in our world has strick structure and exacting design and purpose. Scientists know this and yet feel the origin of life was a specific set of strickly random acts. The Theory of evolution goes againist all of that. Explain to me why the DNA of a mustard plat is more complex than that of a Human, Explain to me how scales developed into feathers, when under an electron microscope there are no similarities. The science is totally lacking in the Theory of evolution. It takes a more vivid imagination to accept Darwin than to except Creationism.

The most interesting thing about this story was that Cameron would not answer questions on camera. Darwing thought so strongly about his ideas and theory that he wrote a book about them and subjected them to the critiques and reviews of his professional peers as well as the public. The least this guy could do is answer a couple of questions from a reporter.

2000 years ago, the Christian disciples went into hostile territory (a place where their view was unheard of and/or ridiculed) with a proclamation that challenged the status quo and conventional wisdom of both the Jewish and Greek communities. Just because the message is difficult, does not make it any less true. Criticizing the messenger is intellectually small, because what if the message is, in fact, true? If true, your deeds and life will one day we judged. Are your ready for that for that inevitability today?

Hmmm....

Looks like mommy and daddy didn't bother to raise you in a home with christian values like tolerance and respect for others opinions.

Why all the hostility towards poor Kirk? Does his belief system really matter to all? I think not...

I had heard that at the end of his life, Darwin regrouped on evolution and tried to reexplain that he had found his theory to be full of hot air.

This is what we get for eating from the Tree of Knowledge.

For All the BRAINWASHED:

EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE...

...it is CONJECTURE.

What did Darwin do but sit on an island [Galapagos] and draw conclusions based on his observations.

THAT, my friends is not science, but theory.

FACT
Parents pass on traits to their young
FACT
Reproduction is not duplication, there is observable change
FACT
Some changes make offspring better able to survive
FACT
These changes are passed on
EVOLUTION!
Every year we need a new flu shot because of evolution. We need new antibiotics because of evolution.

I think the headline should be "Kirk Cameron attempts to deny Darwin" not "debunk". The inference of the word debunk implies that it is something dishonest that needs to be corrected. No! Darwin's theory of evolution is science; not some ponzi scheme. His theories revolutionized scientific thought on the origin of mankind and will stand the test of time despite it's deniers. These are basically the kinds of people who deny that we landed on the moon, or that the climate is heating up, or that the holocaust occurred. They like to create controversy to draw attention to themselves. This is nonsense that does not merit CNN's coverage.

I'm going with the spaghetti monster too (Toby's choice). The "ambiguous unsupported proof of an intelligent designer" opens up all possibilities, even a flying spaghetti monster. (Yeah, I'm sure some of you don't like that, I accept that.) And what business is it of Kirk Cameron's? Nice to have a platform just because you were famous at one time. Kirk Cameron or not, it's still a world of science (conclusions based on empirical evidence, not unsupported mythical stories). My choice is science. It's a he!! of a lot more accurate than the other choice.

Haven't we heard all this before?? It's Mr. Cameron and all the other fundamentalists who are to be pitied for having a disease called "cranial rectosis" that prevents them from seeing the true beauty in a system so very evident. It's all around you.
As you grew older you learned there was no Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or Easter Bunny but still cling to simplistic fairy tales of Adam & Eve, Noah(ever wonder how he could fit two of each of the billions of animal species in an ark of given size, let alone the plants and a food supply? No?? I didn't think so. You have "faith"), and all the other imaginary figures.
I'm not saying give up the poetry. Just don't condemn Darwin or Gould or Dawkins who have more going for them in the world than a "god" who pulls rabbits out of hats.

Hi Norm,
God love ya, but your post is the perfect example of fine writing, critical thinking and intelligent debate that makes up the camp of the creationists.

BTW – the word is "strict" and you might want to go back to 8th grade and learn how to diagram a sentence.

Bryan Hupperts November 20th, 2009 3:08 pm ET

The more I studied evolution, the more absured it became to me. The universe screams of design and if design, then of a Designer, and purpose. It is willfully absured to think that nothing created everything,
------------------------------–
Almost as absured as something created everything...which begs for an answer to that famous 2nd question...'which came 1st the chicken or the egg?'

I suppose it is all the way you look at it. We all know that one man's ink blot is another man's fluffy cloud.

It is impossible to reason someone out of something that he did not reason himself into in the first place.

Neither Creationism or Evolution is scientifically provable by the scientific method. The scientific method requires something to be observable and repeatable. No one living observed Creation, thus, it cannot be scientifically proved. In the same vein, Evolution fails the scientific method because it is not observable and repeatable. Name one instance where we have observed one species becoming a new genetically different species? Of course, we have some hybrids, but generally hybrids are sterile and cannot continue their species. And a simple change in appearance of a species is not the creation of a new species. If an interracial couple has children, is that Evolution because the children's skin tone is a different color? I have not seen evidence that is observable and repeatable showing one species transforming into a totally new species. Until such time, it remains theory, unprovable by science, and thus both Creationism and Evolution are faith based and not science.

Norm must not watch the Discovery or Science channel, since his knowledge of science seems to come from a poor memory of his natural history class in middle school, circa 1970's or 80's. Brush up on current scientific findingsand discoveries before you perpetuate your religious superstitions/dogma.

Oh Please....Kirk Cameron does not speak for me.....I gave people brains to use them....that is how science developed....intelligent design is hogwash......my children, you have proved this already...move on and keep growing......enough fear already!

Norm, you are the best. Someone that uses detailed, scientific examples to make their claim, yet can't spell, is a great example of the regurgitating right
. You are just barfing back information that was fed to you by people like Kirk Cameron. So....Wilt Chamberlin and mini-me came from the same set of parents!? If adam and eve looked like us, how and why did our species regress into knuckle-dragging, hair-covered beings? Where are the human bones that are millions of years old? Norm and his kind also believe the world is 6,000 years old and we rode dinosaurs as pets!!! BTW...I'm done having "respect for others opinions" when those opinions come from the likes of sarah palin, pat robertson, and this has-been (never was) Kirk Cameron. Also...Bud...you can't help but attack the messanger when the message is used as a weapon to judge others. I LOVE it when bible freaks start talking about all the bad things that will happen to me because I'm not a sheep. Fear is how you operate. oh yes, and ignorance too....fear and ignorance.

Evolution is a theory and only that. It has not and can not be proven. Nice to know that intollerance toward Christians is alive and well in this country while a muslim that shoots up a military base is innocent until proven guilty. Looking at some of these post makes me want to beleive that some of you haven't 'evolved" all that far.

I just read the Introduction. It claims the world's major religions are Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity. (maybe he just forgot Judaism being in such a state). The introduction then slams the non-christian religions as pure folly in just one paragraph each. This is just a taste of the slanted propaganda being pushed by these people.

IF we are here due to 'Intelligent Design', if we were created by a God who created us 'in his image'......

wouldn't you expect an omnipotent Deity to do a better job? Let's face it, the human design is prone to cancer, arthritis, rotting teeth, apendicitis (Yeah, explain that one!), diabetes, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, poor vision, all kinds of horrific birth defects that would shame Satan, and we can't regrow lost limbs (which a starfish can do!). And dozens, probably hundreds more issues of poor design that make a release of Windows look pristine.

These creationists surely hold their God to a low standard.

Ignorance will eventually destroy our own species because we think we are superior to the natural world.

Luke, in the case of K. Cameron that would be DE-evolution.

As a Christian, I have absolutely no problem with accepting both the scientific explanation of evolution and aliening it with my faith. Something had to start the ball rolling and why not God? M

And this actor is qualified to challenge the findings of every reputable scientist for hudreds of years how????? The Bible is NOT a science book. We go to church to find out who created the universe and we go to school to learn how He did it. It's really that simple.

The fastest way to make someone an atheist is to make them read the bible. no I don't mean read a few select sections I mean read it from cover to cover. The filth, rape, sexisms, incest, murder, and general debauchery you will find is the reason The Origin of Species has never been banned. Everytime someone tries to ban Darwin they realize that their own bible would have to be banned as well.

Can you show an evidence of a god any god. I would like the evidence to repeatable and scientific. Not just an image in burned toast.

"Explain to me why the DNA of a mustard plat is more complex than that of a Human"

–Plants need more genes for secondary metabolism because they cannot move, like animals can. So not only do they need to procure food, but because they're stationary, they need to produce enzymes that defend themselves in an immobile state (i.e. natural pesticides). Moreover, plants undergo many metabolic processes that we cannot, i.e. photosynthesis

"Explain to me how scales developed into feathers, when under an electron microscope there are no similarities."

–There was a genetic mutation amongst a population of scaled organism, and that one particular mutant which now has feather, found a niche where it's competitive compared to all the other scaled organism, and lived to produce more offspring. Biochemically, the mutation could have affected only one nucleotide of one codon (as there are only 20 amino acids that make up all proteins of life), so a drastically different protein structure could have been produced. For example, your hair and and your skin feel very different, but they're both made of a protein called collagen, but with different modifications. So under the microscope, the cells or its products could have very different architecture, just based on a few amino acid changes.

"The science is totally lacking in the Theory of evolution. It takes a more vivid imagination to accept Darwin than to except Creationism."

–No, you're just really uneducated.

Let's not forget the human hierarchy, evolved over eons:

1. Instinct (food, shelter, fear, sex, etc)

trumps

2. Emotionality (heart, love, compassion, hope, etc)

trumps

3. Rationality (reason, logic)

Many religionists understand deep down that Reason is secondary to Emotion and strive for a (however tenuous) co-existence between the two. They make it work in their hearts, and downplay how their heads react. It makes sense to me, and, understanding our Hierarchy, I do not ridicule them for it.

We atheists, having (of course) the same Emotional needs, seek to fulfill them without having to conflict with our Reason: whether regarding community, guidance, spirituality, father figures, explanations for the awesome, fear of death, etc.: all this we fulfill right here on earth and under sky, without looking to a Winged Pasta being or Yahweh (or whatever) to give our search a supernatural validity.

Lastly: look to coexist peacefully!

If evolution is such a scientific certainty, would someone out there please explain to me the evolutionary process of the bombardier beetle?

Any evolutionist can provide plenty of examples of macroevolution. Human evolution is a prime example. People who claim otherwise are either ignorant or liars. Most often they are just self delusional, because they can't accept human evolution. Science has advanced human society greatly because it provides an objective means of determining how the universe really works to counter to the human tendency to believe what we want to believe because it makes us feel good.

An actor trained in projecting falsehoods is certainly a far more likely candidate to spew bunk than to debunk a scientist. Why does anyone pay attention to actors other than as entertainers?

Oh, some things I forgot.....we have a problem with words and their meaning.
Fundamentalists have trouble with the word "theory". They think it is the same as "wild guess". Well, folks I'll try to show you how it works in your own terms.
"wild guess" begat "educated guess" begat "real ideas" begat "theory" which in turn begat "fact" or "truth".
Most of what we know is in the "theory" area. I don't know for a "fact" that Australia exists. Never been there. But I have worked with Aussies, met people I trust that have been there, and seen it on pictures from space. Just never been there. However, the Republic of Kiribati is a "fact" because I lived there. Same thing with evolution. We only see the results, not the process...although selective breeders come close.
The Creation Museum and Institute would have us believe that man and dinosaurs co-existed. They probably watch "The Flintstones" as though it was a documentary!!!!(thank you, Lewis Black).
Also, several of you have called Mr. Cameron and other bible thumpers "idiots". It is wrong to say this as it insults the mentally handicapped. The latter were born that way.......you lowered your IQ by choice.

I would suggest that some of these people commenting actually read the forward to the book before spouting off. I did because I was curious about it. If you read it, you might notice that the article does not say that there are no changes in species, in fact it fully supports "microevolution." I find it interesting that the article is being villified without a proper hearing. Come on people – be grown up scientists and expose the information contained in the article to the rigors of the scientific process rather than dark-ages fear and inquisition.

Perhaps if some of these people read the article they might be surprised that the article addresses some of the most up-to-date findings in microbiology and paleontology. It addresses the question of whether the fact that "microevolution" exists, provides any proof that "macroevolution" can occur. Microbiologists have been aware for a long time that the complexity of DNA in the cell structure of living creatures, as well as the complex interrelationship between body systems necessary to make the simplest bodily function work, in conjunction of the process of mutation, makes macroevolution pretty unlikely. Moreover, the article addresses paleontology finds that should be raising the eyebrows of any serious scientist. For example – do you know that trilobites (yeah – those bug looking animals that they find in really old fossils) had eye structures that were so incredibly complex that it almost rivals the human eye. Do you know that in the Cambrian period (when there was an explosion of life) there are fossil record of a huge number of fully formed and complex life forms? How the heck did that happen?

Come on you budding scientists out there – what are you afraid of – the scientific truth? You intelligent and enlightened people shouldn't be afraid to read something that might raise a question or two. Last I heard – quetsions are the basis of science. I challenge you to read the article, study up on microbiology and paleontology. Once you do that you have earned the right to come back and put another diatribe here.

Like Mr T says – 'Pity the fool". The so called wise are foolish and the humble are wise. As Solomon wrote "Everything is meaningless". Of course, what he goes on to say is all is meaningless without God, if you read on. So it matters zero, what anyone says! There is a truth and that has been revealed to the enlighted and in the end the unenlighted or those how have not accepted will be on their knees when their eyes are opened. What matters is where we are going, not where we came from.

no intelligence allowed.See Ben Stein, Kent Hovind or Ken Hamm!

Cathy, your response and the foreword of the book are typical of the tenet that "the best lies are made of partial truths".

Let me address your arguments one by one, like I did to Norm's.

"Microbiologists have been aware for a long time that the complexity of DNA in the cell structure of living creatures, as well as the complex interrelationship between body systems necessary to make the simplest bodily function work, in conjunction of the process of mutation, makes macroevolution pretty unlikely."

Yes, some microbiologists do believe that, but the VAST MAJORITY do NOT. Most intelligent microbiologists know that if one plasmid transformation can give an entire species of bacteria resistance to an antibiotic, evolution can happen pretty quickly. You make the illogical jump from not fully understanding something to that process not being able to happen. Macroevolution is merely an interplay of the small microevolution steps that occur. For example, let's say we have a firm understanding of all the "micro" evolution at the single cell stage (i.e. bacteria), which you and the book admit to, then we begin to understand things like quorum sensing, where single-celled bacteria communicate with each other and acts a concerted community in response to signals, which then leads to a quasi-multicellular coordinated behavior, which is the basis for tissues, which make up a large multicellular organism, like us. More and more of these systems level understanding are being published daily. Ignorant people just choose to, well, ignore them.

"paleontology finds that should be raising the eyebrows of any serious scientist. For example – do you know that trilobites (yeah – those bug looking animals that they find in really old fossils) had eye structures that were so incredibly complex that it almost rivals the human eye. Do you know that in the Cambrian period (when there was an explosion of life) there are fossil record of a huge number of fully formed and complex life forms? How the heck did that happen?"

You are assuming an anthrocentric perspective on science, much like Norm did, which is simply not true. Believe it or not, humans do not have the most complex genome!! So what if bugs have eyes better than us? Eagles have eyes much better than us. Organisms have advanced their specific capacities to maximize their biological fitness. Homo sapiens conquered the world because we were selected for our advanced mental capacities (which some people obvious lack). If I reverse your argument, I can ask you the rhetorical question, If we were the destined species like God had intended, why are animals like bears or lions stronger than us? Should we have the best capacities in all aspects of life?

Lastly, there being fully formed and complex life forms in existence millions of years ago only supports evolution. It means that evolution on those species occurred, to a very advanced level I might add, but that they were unfortunate because some other species were more fit for the environment at the time. So for the example, dinosaurs were very advanced and evolved, but when a stress came (i.e. meteor, volcanoes), the low laying mammals were able to find cover, while the big dinosaurs died, opening up new niches for the mammals to evolve into. Evolution is NOT static; because of its dynamic nature, there can definitely be periodic nature to evolution, especially since species evolve in response to the environment.

I don't think this is a diatribe, but rather an educated response. If I let ignorant comments go unresponded to, I fear some impressionable minds out there might be led down the wrong path.

I see this as a unecessary debate in that I believe God created evolution by natural selection.

First things first, as a scientist, the first concept you learn is that every thing you know, every hypothesis, theory and law can be changed or replaced. This is science 101, everything from how atoms work to theory of relativity is bound to be replaced.

My question is: Why are all these people trying to compete with something that is continually being changed?

Why are there only negative responses posted here? Is CNN trying to generate some kind of public opinion coop? This country is majority christian. Most americans have at least some doubt about evolution.
Only pro evolution views seems to be posted here. Anyone who thinks that acceptance of a particular scientific theory should be a litmus test to whether or not a person should have a voice in a debate is not being very scientific. In our country we are supposed to be free from the government favoring one faith system over another yet in our public school systems atheism seems to be the state sponsored faith system. In the college classroom any scientific data that doesn't fit the politically correct athiestic interpretation is thrown out the window. Universities are by deffinition supposed to host a wide variety of ideas. This attitude isn't science and it wouldn't be a "university" to exclude his view from campus. Well done Mr. Cameron.

Religion is nothing more than an evolutionary trait that has enabled man to get through his day. Without a belief in a "higher purpose" man is prone to depression and even suicide. Why would an omnipotent and benevolent God create such meaningless feelings? It can be posited that a belief in gods and an afterlife helped our ancestors to look beyond their difficult lives of slavery and disease. A belief in a better life after their mortal lives had ended gave them hope and a will to live on. As long as they lived long enough to have children, their traits including a belief in a god or whatever was passed on to their progeny. Those who couldn't find a purpose to live and find a mate simply died off along with their genes.

Today however, our lives are far better and a need to believe in an all-knowing and all-powerful god is obsolete. Rather we have plenty of stimulation through technology to get us through our day. Hell, why else would all of us be on the internet wasting our time?

#1. No where in the Bible doe it say that the Earth revolves around the sun or the sun around the Earth. The whole issue of the Galileo Affair was one man expressing ideas that the Church didn't like. The Church and the people grew up.

#2. What I find most disturbing is how most of the posts here are being just like the Church of Old. Believe what we believe or we'll condemn you. Those are the posts coming from the science side. What's wrong science? Can't just present your arguments and let the people decide if they believe you?

They can decide what to believe. They don't get to decide what theories are valid. Only data can do that.

Do you have to throw out the insults about being religous?

Dry up.

Last time I looked, science still hasen't found a cure for the common cold.

Please list all of the diseases cured by religion:

How would creationists like it if a "Holy Bible" was published with an introduction that stated that Christianity has led to the murder and torturing of MILLIONS of people? What if it said that Church's should be forced to preach about evolution during mass? What if it said that Jesus was Jewish?!?!?!?

Re: Tuesday's post (11/21/09): re: Adam and Eve / and incest. You do not have the ability to understand and differentiate the apple and the orange.

Being the first humans... originals; their DNA was not degredated as to cause the "problems" we associate with inbreeding. It is quite obvious that Adam & Eve had daughters and they were the "wives". You must bear in mind that Adam lived over 900 years, the bible does not say but I assume that Eve lived a compareable time. If you also account for the fact that the bible records that most of the males only fathered children after they were hundreds of years old, (Have you read any of the bible or even Genisis?) there could have been hundreds of other of Adam and Eve's prodigy around. The "law" regarding incest was not instituted by God until a thousand plus years later. Also something almost never spoken about... some 1,000 plus years after the "fall", mankind was wiped out by the flood, leaving only 8 people as "breeding stock".

Think of the situation as copying a copy then that copy and so on a million times... incremental degredation of the original... this would neccessitate a diversity of DNA pairing to prevent "inbreeding".

Consequently, this kind of implies a de – evolution of the common man, degrading of brain power... natural intelligence. Think that is a stupid statement... when were the vast majority of the truly classic works of literature, artistry, engineering??? Not today. Today's acommplishments are being built upon the shoulders of the greater thinkers of the past, the truly ground breaking ideas. Conception of thought in an area where there was nothing before... eerily like, creating something from nothing! Ever read the Constitution? Think you could conceive and write that? I couldn't. How many people do you know that could? Where are their masterpieces? How are they? Try reading Psalms chapter 8... a particular verse will leap out at you! I promise. And I didn't say it, God did. Talk to Him about it.

So: riddle me this... what are the answers to my 2 questions in my 11/20/09 post? IF evolution IS true... then there MUST be an answer to these questions. If science can not explain these simple questions, even a complcated answer is not forthcoming, then evolution is a lie.

If it weren't so absolutely and devestatingly important, critical for the unbeliever to simply leave the possibility open that maybe God is possible. It's almost comical at the inability for the people of the "world's" perspective to explain "God" and or the Bible, His motivations or goals. Without Himself in your life as the Holy Spirit to teach and interpret HIS word... a person has NO, I mean NO ability to understand what He is saying! What He means is hidden from you, I know I was an atheist... no desire to know Him or acknowledge Him or His son, laughing at those stupid, duped christians... man was I wrong! In Christ and believing for you to know Him! Michael R.

Let us not forget what is deemed to be scientific. It must be observable, measuarble and repeatable. Neither Evolution nor Creationism can be proven to be scientic facts just like historical events. They DO follow into the category of theories regarding origins. BUT, what we can prove is what should be considered to be facts based upon the highest degree of probability. Why has Ben Stein's movie, Expelled, created such a stir in the halls of "free thinking" acedamia? How could have Mr Stein stumped the "great" Richard Dawkins with basic logical questions? Let the facts speak for themselves when considering the fine-tuning of the cosmos to the incredible programing into the strands of DNA; present both theories to the student. It is either In the Beginning GOD... or millions and millions of years ago...(once upon a time , far, far away..) The logical answer will emerge when all facts to both sides are presented.

"The more I studied evolution, the more absured it became to me. The universe screams of design and if design, then of a Designer, and purpose. It is willfully absured to think that nothing created everything"

And apparently in all your learned study, you didn't even grasp the difference between the Big Bang theory and Darwin's theory of evolution. The two have nothing to do with each other. Please demonstrate where Darwin states that something is created from nothing. You can't because he doesn't state it. That's just a nice example of your glaring ignorance about evolutionary theory. Put the bible down and pick up a science book.

What you call "design" can be described simply as order. Matter is self organizing – we know this. You don't need a designer to explain the formation of the universe, because it essentially doesn't answer anything...because we can then ask "Well, what created god?" If the answer is nothing, then you're just replacing the Big Bang with god – which explains nothing. Furthermore, look at the many factual errors in the bible – it names bats as bird (which, clearly, they aren't), it states the Earth is the center of the solar system (again, wrong), it names geographic places in the wrong location, and contradicts itself in so many places as to lose track of them all. Add to that the fact that most of the stories in the bible exist in other cultures which all predate the rise of Christianity and we have little reason to believe in a literal interpretation of the bible. When the bible speaks of the "lamb of god," do you really think it's referring to a lamb? Is evolution more absurd than believing in talking serpents and burning, talking shrubs? Of course, those make perfect sense, right?

Furthermore, why is it impossible to have something come from nothing? Your idea here rests on the assumption that the universe must make sense. Just because human being act and live their lives based on common sense, that in no way entails the universe does the same. And if you simply believe because you've heard it all your life, well, that's no reason to believe anything. All your life, you've heard things like George Washington was the first US President, Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, and Columbus sailed to prove the Earth was round – all of which are entirely false statements. They're just examples of bad information being perpetuated from one generation to the next. John Hanson was the first US President (under the Articles of Confederation), Thomas Edison merely invented the first economically plausible light bulb (about 100 years after the first was invented), and Columbus plotted his course on maps of a round earth – he was attempting to prove it could be succesfully circumnavigated. That was the point in dispute, not the shape of the earth.

Hey Mike and the Bombardier beetle,

Your example of the Bombardier beetlle as a reason why evolution does not work is an argument from incredulity. It is based in part on an inaccurate description of how the beetle's bombardier mechanism works, but even then the argument rests solely on the lack of even looking for evidence. In fact, an evolutionary pathway that accounts for the bombardier beetle is not hard to come up with (Isaak 1997). One plausible sequence (much abbreviated) is thus:

1. Insects produce quinones for tanning their cuticle. Quinones make them distasteful, so the insects evolve to produce more of them and to produce other defensive chemicals, including hydroquinones.
2. The insects evolve depressions for storing quinones and muscles for ejecting them onto their surface when threatened with being eaten. The depression becomes a reservoir with secretory glands supplying hydroquinones into it. This configuration exists in many beetles, including close relatives of bombardier beetles (Forsyth 1970).
3. Hydrogen peroxide becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. Catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, ensuring that more quinones appear in the exuded product.
4. More catalases and peroxidases are produced, generating oxygen and producing a foamy discharge, as in the bombardier beetle Metrius contractus (Eisner et al. 2000).
5. As the output passage becomes a hardened reaction chamber, still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, gradually becoming today's bombardier beetles.

All of the steps are small or can be easily broken down into smaller ones, and all are probably selectively advantageous. Several of the intermediate stages are known to be viable by the fact that they exist in other living species.

From http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html

And Bill in Boston,

There actually is a lot of observable evidence that supports evolution, you just have to actually read a text book other than the Bible. If that isn't good enough for you, I suggest you go to any college evolutionary biology laboratory that works with model organisms. Within a few generations of a fruit fly population one can see evolution right before your eyes! Arrogant and anthropocentric Christians I am sure however will claim that we are special and therefore better than the rest of the animal kingdom. They would claim that we are beyond the realm of evolution because it scares them that our ancestors are different from us. (I bet that scares the hell out of the Southern Bible belt that ALL of us may have originated from Africa.)

Creationists, there is no problem with you preaching whatever it is you have to preach. As long as it is within your church or out in the streets, just keep it out of the science classroom. Hell, you could even discuss it in philosophy or religion courses. But how hard is it to understand that Creationism is NOT a science?

We are so ardently defending evolution because it has been an accepted scientific theory for hundreds of years. A lot has been added to the theory since the time of Darwin. That loser Comfort and his crony Cameron are attacking Darwin whose findings have been reviewed and revised for over 150 years! That would be like someone saying that American democracy is a sham because Washington, Jefferson, and every other founding father owned slaves. It would miss the point that we as a country have changed and developed.

The biggest problem with all of this is that it is because of America's religious right, that the rest of the world laughs at us. It is the reason why European, China, and Japan are closely becoming the scientific leaders of the world. Don't you see that your ignorant "beliefs" are hurting your childrens' futures? But what am I thinking? American Christians don't care about the future. They would rather consume the worlds resources and pollute the Earth until it can no longer support life. If you want evidence of evolution, look at the thousands of species that we have made extinct within the past 100 years or so.

Dear michael rumfield,

You are arguing for the long discredited concept of irreducible complexity-IC. Every example of IC brought up by the intelligent design movement has been shown to be wrong. The favorite ID poster children of IC-the human immune system and bacterial flagellum- have been shown to be improvements on less complex forms found in nature. Confronted by this evidence in court, the ID chief scientist M Behe then concluded in his testimony that, well, these less complex forms are then irreducibly complex! Mr. Behe may be a good biochemist, but is a lousy biologist.

Andrew D... To the dismay of Charles Darwin and the late Stephen J Gould not one transitional form has been discovered. No one can obvserve evolution (macro that is ) in process,hence the lack of transitional forms, specially in the fossil record. And yes Jesus was a Jewish Man. The Bible records it as so,. It is unfortunate that you aren't aware of the Biblical call to Christians to be good stewards (of what we have been given – including the earth and its resources). Lastly, Roman Catholicism is not the dominate denomination over Christianity. And as far as millions dying at the hands of religion, don't forget that 50 million + independent Bible believing baptistic believers died at the hands of cruel leaders of the state churches in Europe. All I am asking is let both THEORIES ( I never claimed Creation to be scientific) have equal footing and let an open minded person decide on the supporting positions. And if Evolution is so obvious why get so bent ouit of shape? It would be our loss and your gain, n'est pas?

"Last time I looked, science still hasen't [sic] found a cure for the common cold."

Yes, that is correct. No external drugs can cure any natural virus, whether it's the common cold, influenza, or HIV. Why? Because viruses EVOLVE extremely rapidly to attain resistance against the drugs easily. Ironic how your argument turns, huh?

I agree that the majority of the posts here are pro-evolution, but I disagree that this should be considered an insult to those who are religious. If you read all the comments, the majority of the posts are educated responses to uneducated conjectures.

Observations like evolution is false because "mustard plants have more complicated genomes than us", or "trilobites have eyes almost as good as ours", or "microbiologists can't figure out macroevolution", or "bombadier beettles suggest an intelligent design" are NOT religious statements. They are ignorant and false statements that warp the truth. Scientists and the educated lay public have a moral obligation to defend the truth.

I believe religion and science can coexist. For example, a recent publication in "Science" discusses the psychological, anthropological, and neurochemical basis for believing in a Supreme Being and the biological fitness this provides for our species. As another example, the Harvard Biological Laboratories are right next door (literally) from the Harvard Divinity School. In terms of this thread, if you read all the posts , you'll notice that those who voice such statements of moderation usually do not receive any indignant rebuttals.

The outrage usually ensues when a militant religious folk put forth an argument that's clearly false, and when someone responds with a rational and educated explanation, he/she defends by using the tenet his/her opinion is just as valid as anyone else's.

When you choose to attack another's position, like Mr. Cameron does, why are you surprised that someone fights back? Moreover, why are the rebuttals all so one-sided? When a scientists gives a rational response to something, why are there no substantive counter-rebuttals? All I've seen as counter-arguments to scientific explanation are mere rhetoric and dogma, but not facts.

I challenge any anti-evolution folks out there to read a science rebuttal made in any of these posts (like the one I made to the common cold example) and come up with a counter-rebuttal using facts and arguments, not just cushy rhetoric.

Where in the bible does it say that the earth is the center of the solar system? The "lamb of God" phrase... obviously the bible is speaking of Jesus Christ... the "lamb" of God. Not that He was a lamb... As a lamb without blemish was the only acceptable sacrifice that a man could give for the temporary attonement of sin... the word lamb was God referring to Jesus as the perfect unblemished sacrifice of God fully acceptable for the payment of ALL sin. This is one of the easiest "hidden" meanings for an unbeliever to grasp. Please detail some of the contradictions for me. I would truly like to see them.. as I can find no contradictions... all are understood with the direction of the Holy Spirit. Michael R.

To Bill in Boston. You ask , "All I am asking is let both THEORIES ( I never claimed Creation to be scientific) have equal footing and let an open minded person decide on the supporting positions." Creationism and evolution can never be given equal footing because creationism is a belief and evolution is a scientific theory-not the same things at all. A belief cannot be tested, proven, or disproven. Scientific theories are used to explain observations and make predictions which can be tested against new observations in an open discourse. The theory can then be modified or rejected accordingly. Beliefs such as Creationism (a.k.a. intelligent Design) cannot be tested or used to make any predictions. Furthermore, if Intelligent Design is how biology works, why aren't its proponents using it to make new discoveries in medicine rather than attacking science in our elementary schools?

Mr. Bill in Boston,

I only get bent out of shape, because you say we don't allow Creationism to be discussed alongside Evolution. But that is exactly what we are doing, we are discussing both evolution and creationism, and why one is scientifically supported whereas the other is religious dogma.

And by the way, there are millions of transitional forms. You clearly have religious blinders on your eyes. Once I again, I suggest you stop regurgitating what you're Christian scientists have told you. Instead you should read a book, visit a museum, or enter a laboratory. For some examples of transitional forms, look at what I found!

The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:

1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.

2. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).

3. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).

4. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).

5. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.

6. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).

From: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

Creationsists claim they want an "equal" footing, but as soon as someone even discusses the faults with the "theory" they cry that their "beliefs" are being challenged. If creationism is truly a scientific theory, it should be able to stand, despite the challenges.

Michael Rumfield,

I have found plenty of contradictions with the Bible. The most important that I found, and one that clearly shows the Bible was written by several MEN and not God.

In the first account of "Creation,"
Genesis 1:25-27
Humans were created after the other animals.
Genesis 1:27
The first man and woman were created simultaneously.

Now in the second account,
Genesis 2:18-19
Humans were created BEFORE the other animals.
Genesis 2:18-22
The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.

Wow, look at that! Even before the end of the first book, the Bible is full of contradictions. Clearly the "word" of an intelligent designer to me. Before you try to argue your side, I suggest you at least read what your side has to say. Do NOT simply sit in church and listen to someone tell you bedtime stores.

Hi Andrew D, Frank in Charlotte & Others

Well Guys. We can go on & on. But you have to admit the bias is against the Bible goons. And if the Christian is spitting back at you in the public debate. Shane on them. Both position are belief systems. What we use (sometimes the very same material)as the foundation on our beliefs is where we differ. And tomorrow I will thank the GOD of the Bible that I live in a land where we can agree to disagree and not persecute the other for their position. . I would assume that we both share the same position of never having a given church or religion to be the state religion.
Happy Thanksgiving Day folks from Hillsborough NC. I hope your thankful for the blessings our nation still posess after all these craxy years
ps

Why didn't Stephen J Gould (Harvard evolutionist Advocate) layout the fossil record of transaction forms for Macro Evolution (not micro evolution – changes within kinds) before his last breath? I am sure this debate has now been resolved for Mr. Gould.

TO: Andrew D.

Trying to point out contradictions in the Bible is petty and not relevant or helpful to the discussion here. Thanks to our Country's principles, we are free to practice any religion and teach our children our beliefs, contradictions and all not withstanding. What is not OK, however,is anyone trying to force their particular religious beliefs on my children in the guise of pseudo-science by trying to take over the elementary school science curriculum as has been attempted in Kansas and Dover PA and other communities.

Andrew D.

No contradiction here. This was two tellings of the same event. The first as a type of overview, the second a more detailed account of mankind and his immediate surroundings. And God's direction to them.

Re: Adam / Eve... as God knows everything that is, was or will be... He new that when He made Adam, He would be later forming Eve from Adam's rib. Therefore Eve was "in" Adam from the first... "made He them". This type of thinking or concidering on God's part is further backed up in:
Hbr 7:9 Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak,
Hbr 7:10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

These refer back to Gen 14:18 – 20 Levi was generations into the future, yet God already knew that Levi would be coming later... same with Eve.

Isa 55:9 "For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts

You see the astonomically large problem that "unbelievers" have in trying to make sense out of the bible is contained in the preceeding verse. No one can truly (to any measurable depth) understand what God is actually saying in the bible without the secret "decoder ring" as it were. You are trying to understand something that is written from a totally "alien" perspective, that is compared to your own. Without God translating what He is saying... you have no hope of really knowing what is going on. The bible will look like a compilation of contradictions because you are trying to understand it from your own mindset.

As far as being written by men... have you ever heard of court reporters? There are millions of cases on record of millions of people stating facts, evidence and so forth. What is it called when a secretary is dictated a letter by their boss? I am grasping... not sure about this... stenography?

Got anymore contradictions? Some I can explain, altho there are some I'm sure that an unbeliever can't understand even if they are explained. You know even a whiz at high school algebra does not have much chance at understanding quantum physics, even if they are explained.

Michael R.

Love all the victimization claims by Xtians. More evidence of their basic insecurities.

All of my relatives and 90+% of my friends are Xtians.

We live together/socialize in peace and good will. The difference for my friends, is that none of them are Fundies and they actually use their brains and have not given up critical thought. Those that talk about it seem to be of the "god as instigator and shepherd of the process of evolution."

I have a lot of respect for their points of view since they have at least, spent time reasoning it out. Unlike the insecure, egocentric Fundies, they have no problem with the idea that man evolved from relatives of apes. What on earth is so terrible about that anyway?

I *never* proselytize my non-beliefs to them nor scorn them for their faith.

There are some Fundies in family and acquantances. I practice lots of tolerance at their ritualistic squee. Because I know many people never got over the boogeyman and need those kinds of security blankies to get through. In most ways, it is better than drug addictions.

Given the examples of illogical argument and incoherent language I see in the Fundie posts here, it is clear why they feel insecure and put upon. Blame your religions for not letting you exercise your minds, don't blame us.

I've never figured out why you aren't standing naked in the fields like lilies, but am glad you are hypocrites so that my tax dollars don't have to pay for all your emergency treatments for exposure and pauper's burials.

The only reason I care a whit about the Fundies like Kirk and others of his ilk, is because they can't seem to just live their faith and leave the rest of the world alone. (Wish they'd take a lesson from the Amish! )

In as much as Fundies and conservative religionists influence politics and society in ways that infringe on science, my freedoms, and what is taught in schools, that is what I criticize and fight against.

In addition, if I can influence even one brain-washed kid to stop, think and read beyond the hogwash he's been handed, that's good too. S/He doesn't have to give up faith, just don't give up thinking because their church pushes fear, or engage in knee-jerk support of everyone who claims to be devout. Think critically!

Dear Frank in Charlotte

As for the IC you mentioned... what came first then on the chain of evolutionary events... the heart or the blood? That is pretty straight forward... I do not know what science claims on the subject. I am not espousing some super intellect in the sciences. I quickly concede that I am most likely the "least" intelligent person posting on this topic of evol vs creat. And I make no claim at being able to debate the scientific on an adequate basis... I am asking a simple question, that if science and evolution is so logical and factual then it should be easily explained.

I am not a theologian, never been to seminary, nor taught by any school etc... learned from listening at church and then going into the bible for myself and asking God to show me what was right and what was wrong. Pretty awesome thing being able to converse with the person that made everything you can see and more that you can't... people here have made statements re: contradictions in the bible etc. and from my humble perspective I have tried to answer. The last thing I want is to belittle someone... however if my eyes were blindfolded and I was running towards the edge of a 1,000 ft. cliff... I would be eternally grateful, if you were around, tackle me before I go over.

I believe that the concept of the IC as you call it (not sure that is what I was describing, may be) is that for the ability for the cell to ever function at all... all the parts had to be there and operating properly from the git go... (that sounds a lot like gitmo... oh well another subject for another day).

I know that to be able to converse re: IC and ID as you do... you have a very capable intellect. And as (it seems) a scientist or one who puts a lot of stock in that line of reasoning... you have to be able to make intuitive "leaps" in thoughts from time to time: I think this is called imagination. Well (as Ronald used to say), for a brief moment, why not allow that imagination to think, what if??? IF? there was really a God as the Christians say... wouldn't it be great to be able to talk with Him??!! It is great Frank (and all you others). Man I was living the life of fantasy, sci-fi, believing all the explainations of what came down the pike... it's a dead end road man. It is different from the road that I now travel (thank YOU Jesus) however your road is going to lead you to the same person that mine is: GOD. The only difference is that for all your life you have been calling Him a LIAR. Now that has got to be a scary situation! The problem is... only during this physical life do we have the opportunity to acknowledge He is the truth sayer and I have been the liar.

Science is of God. The study of the sciences reveals a bit of God, how He made things and why they work. You know: the mechanics of things... how igniting a charge of gasoline in the proper sequence of events and under the right conditions can take me from here to there... you know, the basics. Science's best reason for even being here is to give people a "natural" glimpse at God's awesome person. The bible says that the heavens (sky and space) declare (preach) God. That He is. Does it not make sense that if someone wanted me to "believe" Him: that same person would be willing to introduce Himself to me at the very least... doesn't seem to be a crazy thought to have. All you have to do is ask... not jacking around... really mean it..." IF YOU ARE real, show me, I will believe". If He ain't real, or you don't mean it, He won't show up.

I could say more but I don't believe you can stand the "hard" stuff.
Michael R.

Bill in Boston writes" Andrew D... To the dismay of Charles Darwin and the late Stephen J Gould not one transitional form has been discovered. "

Bill you are repeating someone else's lies. Gould himself has responded to the lies before passing away.

In Hen's teeth and Horse's Toes pgs 258-260 :
"Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy
of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to
buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am for I have become a major target of these practices.

We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibria largely to provide a
different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the differential success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuation and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.

Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the
theory of punctuated equlibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt,a great early geneticist.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is
infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists, whether through design or stupidity, I do not know, as admitting that the fossil record record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups"

From Dinosaur in a Haystack, Gould has some more to say,,,,

"The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains
the fundamental canard of antievolutionism. Such transitional forms are
rare, to be sure, and for two good sets of reasons geological (gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change... ) But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair minded sceptic about the
reality of life's physical genealogy.

Later on..

Still our creationist incubi, who would never let facts spoil a
favorite argument, refuse to yeild and continue to assert the absence of all transitional forms by ignoring those that have been found and
continuing to taunt us with admittedly frequent examples of absence.

Which is it Bill, design or stupidity?

Dear Michael Rumfeld,

From your response to my post, you seem to think that I do not believe in God. Quite to the contrary. I believe that there is a God and that the universe, the small and the large, is so powerful, mysterious, and beautiful that I find it terribly limiting and arrogant for anyone to say they know why or how God did anything.. I believe that God gave me and you a powerful brain that enables us to think about our origins, existence, future and our place in the universe.

Yes, I am a scientist. The more I learn and ponder about the universe, the more I am awed by its mystery. God did not give me a brain just to waste it trying to discredit well-accepted science.

Earth is one tiny planet orbiting one average star which is only one of several hundred billion stars in our galaxy, itself one of billions of known galaxies-each of those with hundreds of billions of stars. Given this wondrous universe, it is so petty to use pseudo-science to attempt to replace real science with religious beliefs in our schools which is the prime motive of the intelligent Design community.

Michael Rumfield, (part 2)

I will try to answer your question about which came first-the heart or blood? The answer is that they evolved together over a long time. The smallest and earliest creatures in the sea did not need blood or a heart for nutrient supply because they could just use natural sea currents or simple fanning to supply nutrients and remove wastes. Larger organisms needed some sort of circulation to provide nutrients and respiration and to remove wastes. The simplest systems were just a tube shaped muscle that moved fluid by peristaltic action. This kind of system is found in simple worms and other invertebrates. Multiple chambered hearts evolved later as animals became larger and more complex and needed more functional circulatory systems. Blood also changed from a simple lymph type fluid to the complex fluid found in many animals today. It carries oxygen, fights disease, provides nutrients, removes waste, and clots over wounds. Quite amazing beginning from simple sea water.

What kind of ‘hard stuff’ are you referring to that I can't handle?

Frank

I have no problem with religon, what you want is what you will believe. As for Cameron, to try and regress our nations youth to a form of education that can be viewed upon with the same scruples as a medieval bloodletting doctor! Woe to the church which hath gone stagnant. No one religon is right, if he wants his christian beliefs in the schools, first his kids must learn about islam buddhism and all the other beliefs in the world! Then when him and his progeny have absorbed all that infromation, maybe then they will have a better vantage point from which to think from, a platform of religous bs if you will...

Dear Frank,
Sorry I have not checked this post lately. I don't "see" the explanation of the heart/blood question. As a scientist, bound by the pervue (?) that "it" must be provable, observable and repeatable... these are the "rules" science says a person should govern their thinking by; Is there proof of the heart/blood evolving together or is it possibly logical deduction or some such to arrive at this explanation?
You state that the science we are speaking of is well accepted... by who? And I state that the God of the bible and the bible itself is the inherent word of God; that while written by men, they were as it were being dictated that word by God. We both have faith it seems. Now I also have faith in science that which follows the above rules... as this is merely science which is making known to me attributes of God that I can understand with my natural senses. If I step off of the cliff, I fall! Gravity while not understood (especially by me), is clearly observable, repeatable etc. How do vessals form to carry a fluid that does not exist to and from a pump that needs the very fuel that the fluid carries? Postulating that it "must" have or could have happened that way does not follow the scientific rules.
Isn't there some sort of law, re: entropy... doesn't science say that "things" degrade, not improve or get stronger? How can evolution be possible (to the extent we are speaking of)? Shouldn't the complex come first; to entropy to the state that we are in now?
Do you believe in the God of the bible? His name is Jesus... the name we have been given to recognise Him by. There are all sorts of gods, with all different kinds of names. I hope that you are a bonofide believer. If not... your choice.
Two "scientists" of the christian persuasion; each have 180 degree views on the timing aspect of creation... it would seem that at the very least one of them would be wrong... so what ... both truly profess Jesus as their savior. They agree on the fundamental, that is crucial. By the way one's name is Hugh Ross (reasonstobelieve.org) and the other is Carl Baugh (creationism.org). Both have extraordinary websites. Both were athiests, I believe, and both tried to disprove God by refuting the veracity of the bible. They set out to disprove the bible... of course this meant they had to read it, check out It's claims, etc.
Hugh Ross speaks to the creation of the cosmos and statistical impossibilities (also explains why the entire universe, all of it is necessary to even make our life possible here on earth... which Carl Baugh also speaks to) that will "test" your "faith". Carl Baugh has fossilized dinosaur footprints on display at his museum that clearly has human footprints fossilized inside the outlines of the dino. print. By the way, I believe there are also sets of the same prints left in their natural state, there are quite a few of them. In a stream bed in Glen Rose Tx. He also has an "old" hammer (steel) head with part of the handle still in the head, encased in a metamorphic rock... the rock was broken to reveal the head... fortunately the rock broke in such a way that a portion of the rock still surrounded the handle shaft... the two pieces of rock show the hammer "inside" the rock. This is a rock supposedly millions of years old???
You speak of arrogance re: knowing how or why God did a thing and then shortly after speak of this powerful brain that He has blessed us with... of course He wants us to think... use those minds etc. Yet that mind is not God. He did NOT give us that mind to go chasing after "OUR" explanation of how, why things came to pass. And Jesus of the new test. and "God" of the O.T. both spoke of telling man, men of what, when, where, why & how He did, does and is going to do things concerning mankind, creation etc. It is not arrogance to know how,why etc... It is a privilage.
I WILL state one thing staight up. No One, you, me, or whomever can believe in or "know" the God of the bible without knowing the bible of God.
I do not mind a debate, debate is good for the most part. Strife, arguing and disrespect serves no good purpose. If fact I wiuld like to continue discussion... this venue does not seem condusive to either "side". Possibly the moderator would be so kind as to pass on my email addy if you want to discuss those hard issues?
Sincerely Michael R.

Dear Mr. Rumfield,

I suggest you learn to spell before you try to argue. Carl Baugh is a brainwashing creationist who got his degree at Pacific International University. The university has no accreditation and has no campus. I wonder where you "learn" about creation? And before you cite the second law of thermodynamics as a reason to refute evolution, I suggest that you actually read and understand what the law means.
The second law simply says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because the earth is not a closed system. Sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
Entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000). Even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system. In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.
The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).
Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).
Nonetheless I am sure that Mr. Rumfield will not even read this post and that he will not read a book for himself. Creationists claim they do not mind arguing but you have no idea how hard it is to argue with people who do not know the facts themselves and who are unaware of the rules of logic. Hopefully you read this because I would really like to here what you have to say. However I implore you to present an educated and factual argument, that is both logical and coherent. Also, please do not, and I mean DO NOT, cite the works of pseudoscientists and their fabricated "findings."

Sincerely,
Andrew D

Micheal,

Ok, I accept that you have a strong faith that is unshakable. So so I.

My biggest problem with this fight over evolution is that the Evangelical Christian movement through the Discovery Institute (http://www.discovery.org/) is using evolution as a wedge to change how science taught in our elementary schools–to replace scientific reasoning with supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.. The name of their manifesto, in fact, is "the WedgeStrategy". If you want to teach your children the Bible, please do so in your home or in your church, not in my kid's science class.

Frank

Michael,

Another thing.

You ask who accepts the science? How about the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine for starters (WWW.nap.edu/catalog/11876.html).

I am not interested in changing your mind or refuting the Bible. Please just stay out of elementary school science class. Frank

LOL Is Christian right and Muslim wrong is Muslim right and Jews are wrong or how about the Hundreds of other Religions out there when will people understand Religion was MAN MADE. Has anyone read these books lol. Now I don't know if there is a Higher Power out there I would like to believe there is, BUT no one knows repeat NO ONE KNOWS THINK FOR YOURSELFSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Frank... as far as the classroom goes, how can you justify not teaching creationism or design; at least as a theory, while insisting on teaching, as irrefutable... evolution? I am perfectly willing to have them both postulated side by side, so to speak. As far as teaching the "bible" in class... I am totally against it... have some secular teacher try and teach God's word when they do not know it themselves; no, bible teaching belongs to those who understand it. Myself, I am a novice... I fumble at the word, stumbling along; time to time "seeing" what God is saying. But when I do... wow, nothing like it... the world has nothing to compare with the knowledge of and privilage of speaking to and understanding at least some of Him who made it all! And on top of that, out of 6 billion plus; He KNOWS me and He loves... me. Absolutely, totally, without a doubt... the world has NOTHING to compare. Now as everyone knows I can not, to the burden of proof that the science community demands, can "PROVE" God exists. The life and death of Jesus, thru not only the bible, but Roman records is easily proved... the claims of savior etc... fall under faith. And it seems to me that if science were really so sure of "itself" then "it" wouldn't be afraid of competition in the classroom. God is not afraid of the comp.

Andrew... I stand corrected on the entropy or it's wrong use. I was not thinking of thermodynamics. An example... why don't we age the way Mork did on the Mork and Mindy sit / com. We begin life in the womb and get a start at growing, when we grow enough to survive outside the womb we are birthed and continue to grow. This will continue till each person reaches the "tipping point"... things begin to fade, grow weaker... cells no longer duplicate "exactly" etc. Complexity degrades over time. Yet science wants me to believe that my brain, evolving over time from a chimp (?); became amazingly complex. Does not stand up to basic reasoning (at least mine). I readily admit that I'm kinda dumb and sometimes even a bit stupid. Can't spell, etc. But you see the people I talk and debate with are really smart. Like you, even despite my pore spelling you could read whatever word I mis spelled
and know it was mis spelled. By the by, starting with the word "findings" at the end of your post, count back 41 words and take a look. Also while attacking C. Baugh... I heard nothing about the specific "evidences" I spoke about. Science places so much credibility in the geologic record... how does a human footprint become fossilized not only "in" a fossilized dino. footprint... but overlapping the edges (border) of the same? I just don't know? Does it not speak contrary to what secular scientist's are continuelly (oops, spelling) saying... and does so in the exact manner that science puts so much store in? I noticed you did not attack Hugh Ross??? And by the way how many millions of years have the chimps been around? How come they are not "humans"? Have they remained the same for how long? Maybe changes in physical sizes... ?? possibly they were a LOT more smart back then and de – evolved to this state. Cause, really, being hear (41) that long shouldn't they have some sort of history in writing or at least one skyscraper to their credit? Someone wrote way early on this post page that science is continually evolving. Wrong, science is only discovering the mechanics of God. Only learning of knowledge that already exists. If you postulate a theory that is 99% right and "travel" down that theory 10,000 miles; how far off truth are you? Well if you start 99% wrong where are you 10,000 miles later?
I'm thinkin' your travelin' "100 mph in the wrong direction. However we each have that perogative of doin' it my way! Proverbs 14:12
In Christ Michael R.

It doesn't support your argument, Mr. Rumfield, to admit you are an idiot. By the way your "dino-man" tracks never stood up to scientific scrutiny and they were even abandoned by most creationists. Many of them were even carved out (clearly you don't know what I mean by "fabricated", I suggest you purchase a dictionary) by supporters of creationists, trying desperately to support their cause.
I have a great idea Mr. Rumfield. How about I say claim there is a mystical Flying Spaghetti Monster that rules the world and created this great planet and all of the creatures on it. Although I have absolutely no evidence, I have this great book that was written by this guy who knew this guy who talked to the great Flying Spaghetti Monster. My mommy and daddy told me to believe in it so I do. I was so inspired by the teachings of the great Flying Spaghetti Monster, that I decided to spread the word by publishing new versions of the Bible that refute the existence of Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ, and Mary. Say I then go from parish to parish spreading the word of the great Flying Spaghetti Monster telling people that they are wrong. Would I be wrong for trying to get your children to believe in the great Flying Spaghetti Monster?

And the theory of evolution says nothing about evolving to become an immortal and perfect creature. All it says is that the genomes of populations of organisms change through time and that the changes, reflect selective pressures. In other words, populations only change to be just good enough. As long as an organism can live long enough to survive and reproduce more than other members of their group, their genes are passed on.

An example would be chimps and humans as you cited. When a population of ancestral primates became split into two distinct populations, the separated populations evolved into two distinct species. From here, each species evolved different over time as they became exposed to different selective pressures in two different environments. For our lineage, it became advantageous to develop a sophisticated cerebrum and to begin walking upright. For the chimps however, it became advantageous to maintain their distinct walking stance. In their environment, chimps were far more successful at surviving and reproducing. That is why they never evolved as we did. I suggest you try moving into the jungles of Africa and that you try and fight a chimp and see what happens. They are clearly more "highly evolved" for their particular environment than we are. So to say that they didn't "evolve as much as we did" is both arrogant and ignorant.

Before you try to refute something, Mr. Rumfield, you should know what you are refuting.

Michael,

No, Intelligent Design ID (aka Creationism) cannot be taught alongside evolution as I have explained already. ID is a belief, not a theory and not science—it cannot be tested nor can it make predictions that can be tested against future observations.

For me, it comes down to this. Which would you rather believe—A) that an intelligent designer (the ID people now make it a point that the designer is not God because they have been stuffed in the courts for pushing religion in biology class) somehow with magical powers designed billions of different species (e.g., there are over 40,000 known species of beetle!), each imperfect, with built in flaws, competitive to the point that they kill and eat each other, or B) that organisms adapted to their environment over hundreds of millions of years to arrive at today’s spectrum of flora and fauna?.

Evolution theory does not say that complexity is favored-this is a common misrepresentation. Evolution requires only change- mutate, survive, reproduce. Many, most likely most, mutations are not beneficial, even toxic. Those will be selected against in the harsh environment.

Make no mistake; the ID community is out to replace science in our schools, not just biology, with evangelical Protestant beliefs. So far, the courts have stopped this, but the fight continues.

Frank

Andrew.. #1 – I did not admit that I was an idiot. Idiocy and dumb and a bit stupid are very far apart. In fact it was a poor attempt at humility. #2 – I still did not hear any response about Hugh Ross (reasonstobelieve.org). #3 – My point re: chimps, is the number of years without measurable (or observable) evolution.
As some nature shows have shown a social "skill" or heierarchy system in their groups... invariably, it comes down to strength. Might makes right... one on one or several against one... still the strongest wins out.
So I suppose "if" I could beat the snot out of you (or vice versas) that would make my position "right"... truth.
#4 – Doesn't science say that humans and "chimps" came from the same environment? If the chimp was far more successful in it's environment... as you say, then humans should have never evolved. If the chimp is the apex of the species and humans came from that species, then we actually devolved from chimps? Why would there be a need for a split in the species population to evolve to dominate an environment that did not exist?
#5 – My "evolved" brain would encourage me to not fight a chimp.

My experience has been to observe... that when you disagree with someone else's idea; knowledge etc. They take it personal. Why? Because the person in question tends to identify with that
"knowledge" as themselves. So in essence you are attacking that person (their perception). So when I disagree with another's idea, in their mind (person who identifies so fully) "hey, this guy is attacking me. I'm not important. He is saying that my idea is a lie, so I am a lie." Gets very personal to this person.

The truth does not need defending. "IT" IS the truth, no matter what you or I say contrary to said truth. The truth takes no offence because the truth is not insecure. The truth does not have to "fight"... or belittle... it is the truth and it will NEVER be wrong. All truth knowledge is God or the compilation thereof in some kind of way that I can not explain or fully understand. My brain or intellect has seemingly not "evolved" far enough to "know" this.

Yet it is not possible for the truth to not testify of itself. At least as long as untruth is around.

In short then according to secular sciences and world view...Truth has evolved from untruth. So in fact untruth is the dominate species... especially in it's environment of deception, survival of the fittest, manipulation, greed, self serving, stinginess, social heierarchy... LIE not Truth reigns supreme. All bow to the great name of logic... human reasoning. The name of God (your god) seems to be science or self.

Bubba, if I were to ever devolve back into this dogma... returning to my vomit as it were (Proverbs 26:11)... shoot me now. Cause there ain't no hope.

Andrew, God does not work that way. He loves you and He is real. He is not appealing to your intellect, He is appealing to your soul. In the end Truth will win out. It is not possible for any other outcome. So what happens to the lie in the end? It becomes irrelavant... completely disposable and deposed. I think it better to find oneself counted in the camp of the Truth at that final reckoning. In Christ Michael R.

Wow, Mr. Rumfield. I had given up paying attention to this discussion. I see why when illogic such as yours pops up. One gets so tired.

But I'm taking a shot at trying to make some sense here.

It appears you need to actually read some books on evolution and not make up scenarios in your own head based upon false ideas of how you imagine it works. There are lots of books out there, many written for various comprehension levels.

You disclaim:
"Doesn't science say that humans and "chimps" came from the same environment? If the chimp was far more successful in it's environment... as you say, then humans should have never evolved. If the chimp is the apex of the species and humans came from that species, then we actually devolved from chimps? Why would there be a need for a split in the species population to evolve to dominate an environment that did not exist?"

Below is a simplistic description of what actually happened as evidenced by rational interpretation of the fossil record and our current physiology and study of various subsistence cultures. Please check out some of the afore-mentioned books for the plethora of details.

Pre-human hominids evolved in African jungle habitats, yes. Chimps still live there. Due to climate change somewhere around 1.7m years ago, lower rain fall meant the jungles shrank. Competition drove Mankind's ancestors out into the expanding savannas to survive.

So you see, we weren't competing directly with our cousins, the Chimpanzees, we were actually started competing with other meat eaters.

The big cats for example. It's possible that the challenge of trying to adapt to survival then helped our brains evolve. If we hadn't gotten smarter, we probably wouldn't have survived.

It wasn't chicken or egg, whatever of our earliest ancestors got forced out, had to adapt or die. Our existence shows they survived.

Cleverness gave us the key edge to holding our own and thriving – learning to become scavengers; band together to stampede herds off cliffs, among other tricks.

There probably was competition when it came to gathering of fruits and veggies – that remaining our actual dietary mainstay. But early humans weren't quite the whimps modern man is. They were shorter, stockier and much more muscular.

And again, the evolution of human brains was the real key. We just excelled at developing weapons and using them as a pack. Science is still examining how that came about. There are other things that worked to our advantage: upright walking and loss of most hair made survival in a hotter environment possible.

The whole problem with your use of the word "truth" is that you are begging the question. You argue from the assumption that what you believe IS the truth and that this is without question.

It's too bad that you think that criticism or questioning of your beliefs is attacking you. For my part, I'd just like to see you using logic in your arguments.

For example: You said: "In short then according to secular sciences and world view...Truth has evolved from untruth. So in fact untruth is the dominate species."

Truth doesn't evolve. Truth IS. What evolves is our understanding of what the facts are. This is of course, an ongoing thing. We still have a great deal to learn and discover. Plus we have to interpret what we discover – how things all fit together to make the whole. We often get it wrong, or not all right. And some scientists can get married to their beliefs too, of course.

But the scientific method is the best way we have to ferret out the truth.

I am not a person of faith, but I confess i don't understand why believers can't see that they should be using their god-created minds to study *creation* to try to "know" their creator. Rather than some totally fallible book(written in human language with fallible human brains/understanding).

And you begged your question by automatically making evolution the "untruth" in your statement. You WANT/NEED the Bible to be the only truth, so you deny logic to make it so.

I see this as worshipping a book and not your creator.

In fact, you insult your own creator.

Because you disdain the very thing that allows you to conceive of a creator and a soul and supernatural things in a world with only finite things are evident. You deny the reasoning portion of your brain – the part that is designed to question, to wonder.

Why do you do that? Why look for mythological miracles when you have the tangible existence of one right there inside your skull?

You don't NEED the Bible to believe, to seek, to find. It's like a security blanket. Grow up and see the world. It's beautiful, it's wonderful, it's miraculous.

To really know an artist, you study his works, not some unauthorized biography written by biased authors and interpreted by those whose power and livelihoods depend upon your buying the slant they put on it.

If there is a sentient, sympathetic, interactive being in charge outside of what we can experience then the world, the universe is where to look. The subtle articulation of your own hand is a greater indication of the miraculous than any words hands have carved into stone.

There is a lot of wisdom (and comfort too) to be found in the books of Man, not just one book. We *have* learned things from experience, and observation as you mention. But you need an unbiased eye to observe if you look for truth.

So please, don't give up your god-given, questioning mind. Don't automatically buy what self-appointed religious leaders would sell you. Ask first what those people have to gain from keeping you from asking questions, or condemning your for asking. It appears that Jesus questioned the prevailing religion of his time/locale. I don't see anything to indicate mankind was meant to stop doing that after he was gone.

Finally, let me quote Proverbs 26:11 accurately: "As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly."

Just who is returning to the repetition of foolish (illogical) things? Time and again, history proves that hope lies in mankind's' continued seeking after knowledge, using his mind, questioning, hunting, looking at the REAL world thru the eyes of logic. It isn't perfect for sure, nor does it claim to be.

It just makes so much more sense than the kind of obsessive beliefs that squeeze their god down to fit into one, tiny, book-shaped box.

Jesus Christ Michael, please learn to read and write.

First of all, Hugh Ross does not make Creationism correct. He may not be as big an impostor as Carl Baugh, but he is just as misguided. Secondly, I did not say that chimps and humans evolved in the same environment. Once again, you demonstrated that you cannot read critically. I sure would like to see you struggle with reading the Bible. Clearly the many contradictions slip right past your tiny little mind. Even if you do recognize them, I am sure you just play it off as 'I am not meant to understand this, it is god's will.' Sorry Michael, but it isn't god's will that you are unable to understand this. It is because you are stupid, as you already admitted.
Once again, the ancestors of chimps and the ancestors of homo sapiens (humans) were in fact separated into two distinct populations in two DIFFERENT environments. Empirical evidence (do you know what that word means?) shows that the many TRANSITIONAL forms between this ancestor and homo sapiens evolved in extensive grasslands whereas the chimps remained in the jungles of Africa. Selective pressures on human ancestors favored an ability to stand upright and run on the grasslands of Africa. This did not happen for the other original population that remained in the forest. That is why they evolved into the way chimps did.

I am sure however that you will come back once again with another incoherent rambling. You will not cite any empirical evidence to your argument. Instead you will cite Jesus Christ and God and all those fairytales that you hold so dearly. You will say that it is not our place to know anything that God has to tell us. We are not meant to know that the Earth revolves around the sun, to know that microbes cause disease, that chemotherapy treats cancer, that man is not the center of the universe, etc. Instead we are supposed to bury our heads in the sand and remain the same stupid people that have been killing in the name of religion for thousands of years. I pray for your soul, Mr. Rumfield, but I also pray for you little ignorant mind as well. Hopefully God will someday enlighten you.

Andrew D.

Frank,

This has arrived at the "tip" point... I put forward that, in fact, evolution is not theory or science. IT is also belief (a type of faith). If it were not theory... there would be no debate AT ALL. Case in point; releasing a static object from your hand 4 feet above the floor... that object is going to fall. And if you describe the above situation to anyone and ask them "what is going to happen to the object"? Their answer will be the same as your's.

Belief is being taught in schools. Safe sex; total "belief", not fact. Many, many other beliefs... what ever is poitically correct... not offensive.

Science is the art of discovery of "natural" manifestations or laws of a supernatural creator. Science does seem to be, actually a church which is worshipping or attempting to, a God which it does not know.
I refer you to Acts 17:23.

Ever wonder why there is only "one" way to God (thru Jesus)? Why not multiple ways? It seems many ways would "save" more people.
There are many aspects of this requirement of God... yet think of this. If Man lost his position (Adam...) by one wrong decision. Then a "man" (you / me) can regain his position (right relationship) with God with one right decision. As He was the one to give the first decision... it is He who gives the opportunity for a person to make this decision for themselves. God is fair in giving every person the opportunity to "speak" for themselves, make their own decision, as you or I had no say in being born in this state of life that we find ourselves. Adam did that in the garden. But God, made a way of escape... as there are consequences for every decision, so it is with this one. And they are dire for a wrong decision. Everything hinges on ONE decision.

If we evolved then when we die there is nothing else. I'm refering to your point of which would you rather believe? ID (God) or evolution? This IS the decision I was speaking about... and you brought it forth. When I die, if you are correct then I've lost nothing. "IF" I am correct, then when an unbeliever dies they have lost ALL! What does logic dictate a person do in that instance?

Frank; as with most others posting here... I can see that you are intelligent, thoughtful and compassionate. I believe in your heart of hearts you too would rather believe in a real God. You asked, "which would you (rather) believe"... any rational person would rather there be a hope of continueing on after I die... some other plane of conciousness, awareness; not just – nothing – gone as if I were never here at all.

The same way you open your mind to possibilities science puts forward... there is another area within yourself... your soul, emotions, imagination, your will... give God access, a chance... He will raise your level of thinking to a higher plane. Even more sure than something "provable" as gravity. Gravity is observable, measureable (and it is only at this present time does science have a possibility at explaining how or understanding why gravity works) by our senses and our tools. A person can't prove God without the senses or tools to do so... you have to "purchase" the tools, you have to decide and there is only one supplier. He is the monopoly.

I would rather not call a "chimp" grandpa... I DO call God, Father. We all have the ability and do identify ourselves with what we believe. We also can change our minds.

Hope this finds you doing well and prospering. In Christ Michael R.

Michael.

Now I see one of the problems. You have bought into the Intelligent Design mantra "it's just a theory". But you don't seem to know what a theory is.

You say, "This has arrived at the "tip" point... I put forward that, in fact, evolution is not theory or science. IT is also belief (a type of faith). If it were not theory... there would be no debate AT ALL. Case in point; releasing a static object from your hand 4 feet above the floor... that object is going to fall. And if you describe the above situation to anyone and ask them "what is going to happen to the object"? Their answer will be the same as yours.”

Taking your example, gravity is a fully developed theory, but there is actually only a very little that we know about it and there is enormous debate about the theory of gravity-what happens on the quantum scale? Is it really a 1/r squared field everywhere? What is the intermediating particle? Why is gravity so weak compared to the other fundamental forces (electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces)? Why does gravity not fit into a unified theory of physics? How can dark energy have antigravity? and many other deep questions that aim to improve our understanding of it. Any theory is constantly examined, debated, and tested by other investigators with the objective of refining it, rejecting it, or replacing t it with something that fits observations better than the old theory.

Likewise for evolution theory. There is considerable debate about it in the scientific community-how fast does it happen? What paths does it take? What is a species? Are new findings in the fossil record understandable within the theory? These issues are debated and tested openly and rationally. Despite efforts by the ID crowd to claim otherwise, there is no serious debate about its basic processes. The ID crowd offers no sound reasoning for their claims nor do they use ID for any beneficial purpose. Their only objective is to redefine science by invoking supernatural explanations for natural phenomenon.

Creationism/ID cannot predict anything, nor can it be used to develop new understandings of nature or any new medicine or treatment for disease because it has no theoretical underpinning that can be used to model or predict anything.

I have read lots of ID literature. It all boils down to two points 1). Things are the way they are because the designer did it that way and that’s that(they avoid the word God in a vain attempt to fool the courts); and 2) evolution is wrong. Nothing more is ever said to support point 1 and everything else is aimed at point 2. Check out the Discovery Institute site and you will see what I am talking about. Even if somehow someone could prove evolution wrong, which no one has ever done, that does nothing to support ID.

You also seem to fall into the ID rut of a false supposition-it's either ID (God) or evolution (atheism and science is God.) The universe is so much more powerful and beautiful than that small mindedness.

Did not Jesus say to the fishermen when He appeared to them on the water on the stormy sea, " Step out of your small boat". Perhaps you could do the same.

Frank

Mr. Rumfield,

Just because you would rather have a god and an afterlife doesn't make it the "truth". Instead it just sounds like you're scared about what will happen when you die. What's the matter, is your mortal life here on earth not good enough? Are you really that greedy that you need to live forever in some sort of fantasy heaven? It seems like most people just can't face reality and would rather live in ignorance. Although such a belief may make your life slightly less depressing, one may not live their life to the fullest in the belief that they will be rewarded in heaven. It's as though we're all a bunch of 5 year olds who do not want to believe that Santa isn't real.

'Mikey, Santa doesn't exist.'
'Yes he does!'
'But I just told you that your mommy and daddy buy your presents and puts them under the Xmas tree!'
'I don't care, he exists because mommy and daddy say he does!'

What's the matter Mr. Rumfield, can't accept the TRUTH?

And a chimp isn't your grandpa, he's your very distant cousin. Your grandpa is still a human. You just demonstrated how Creationists make outlandish claims to brainwash others into believing that evolution is wrong. Fundamentalists like Ray Comfort, Carl Baugh, and Kirk Cameron need to spread lies, such as the one that evolution means that our family members are chimps. Or that Darwin was racist and sexist and that he created the Nazi party (seems like history isn't their strong suit, either). Such despicable claims really do show just how desperate these nut-jobs are.

It appears that I truly am misunderstood... woe is me. I was not complaining about myself being attacked. I could care less what you say or think of me. I was drawing a conclusion to the reason why some people attack when their way of thinking is questioned. It shows insecurity. And as long as there is evidence of your insecurity, then thank God there is some measure of doubt. With that speck of doubt there is hope for a change in your perspective.

As a matter of fact... my continual writing is also an evidence that God is still holding out an opportunity for you. And do not think I am tootin' my horn... I am not. I do not personally enjoy this type of communication nor the level of uncivility that comes along with it. However I do enjoy thinking about the thoughts that you all put forth... they remind me of where I used to be.

This so called split in population happened millions of years ago? right? According to rational thinking and evidence interpretation... is this really your position. It so seems most worldly scientists follow this line of thinking. And since I obviously can't or refuse to use my "God – given" brain... I suppose I should swallow science's story hook, line and sinker. So tell me, in spite of the population of tribal people in Africa (seeing as how that's where we all came from), shouldn't there be some species evident... I'm talking alive and funtioning now... somewhere "in between" chimp and human. If the competition and population theory is correct then the indigenous chimp population should have split again and again over the eons.

Come on... logical thinking also dictates that a person takes into account of what is missing, the thing that should be there if a theory is correct. Why didn't the population split at the grasslands, to the marshes... into the sea... oh wait we have Atlantis and mermaids... maybe there is another species of humans...

Well excuse me a moment... I see this from my perspective... you, science, the world & anyone not naming the Lord Jesus as their savior... can not rightly interpret the evidence as you do not have the "faith" necessary to rightly understand that newly discovered knowledge. Did science "invent" that knowledge? Or was it there just unknown to man? Why do the science books have to be upgraded every few years? Isn't science's established dogma strong enough to last more than a few years before having to be changed... clarified? The bible is the most printed, sold and believed manuscript of all time. Yet science continues to evolve? I have the perspective of knowing how the world thinks and now I have the experience of knowing God and what He says. And contrary to what has been said here, there are no real controversies or disagreements in what the bible teaches. The problem arrives at "your" inability to process the so called contradictions.

I am not interested in calling names or establishing how 'STUPID" anyone is... it is obvious that I am low man on the IQ pole. I am interested however in possibly getting "you" to concider that science may not be the end all to human knowledge.

As far as killing in the name of religion... I will nor can not defend any type of killing for religion's sake. That would be murder and it is one of ten big don't do that.

I will concede the point of individual evolution. ( The kind found in Romans 12:2 ). I invite you to join me in becoming a member of a new species... be born again... start new... have a fresh perspective. I don't care how old you are all things are possible. Ever went swimming, it's a little cold... you know the water is going to be a shock... finally as others urge you... you jump in; quickly starting to enjoy the experience. Here I am saying to you... come on, jump in the waters fine... it'll wake you up! You really don't know what you are missing! In Christ Michael R.

I don’t know if anyone is still checking this post, but I am moving on and this will be my last post here (unless of course something interesting comes up).

I find no real conflict between my religious beliefs and science. Many of my scientist friends are devout in their faiths and feel the same way.

Please be sure about this–what this dust up over evolution is all about is a concerted movement by the Intelligent Design community organized and funded by the Discovery Institute to rip out the teaching of scientific methods (all science, not just biology) from our elementary classrooms and replace it with fundamentalist, evangelical, Protestant religious beliefs-which are basically, the reason for anything is "God did it". Not only is that morally bankrupt and unconstitutional, if successful it will drive American science further down than it is already. American elementary school students consistently rank last or next to last in mathematics and science compared to the rest of the world.

I encourage each of you to not allow this invasion of your local schools and school boards.

Frank

Andrew... you could take some lessons from Frank and learn to communicate without derision and childishness. I believe anyone reading my post would not see I was claiming a chimp as an actual "grandpa" or as any type of family ancestor. Your statement clearly shows not even the common curtesy to acknowledge "MY" perspective... I do not believe in any type of connection between man and ape of any kind... other than we exist on the same planet.

As far as afterlife goes... well "if" my faith is correct ("if" for your benefit)
there is no question about afterlife... believer and unbeliever alike will experience "afterlife" (I am experiencing now). An unbeliever will experience an eternal burning in hell... no hope of reprieve and thousands of years later remembering the stupid idiot christian who tried to say; hey think about this...

Frank seeing that you are leaving discussion, this will probably be my last... I had been thinking of it also... Peter said to Jesus, "if it is You Lord, bid me to come on the water". Jesus said come. Peter asked. Same today... a person must ask... "is that You, Jesus?"... show me.

The ID "theory" is not theory to me nor other believers... I have no problem acknowledging that and also the motive of using "ID" is to get a toehold (back) into the classroom. Remember evolution made it's way into public schools by the pressure of one man ( and no I don't remember his name)... did it with Darwin's book etc.

Is it such a stretch for secular people to not see the correlation of our nation's morale and morality decline and the taking of prayer and teaching of a creator out of the classroom? Decline of family structure and etc... all contributing factors.

Andrew... you could take some lessons from Frank and learn to communicate without derision and childishness. I believe anyone reading my post would not see I was claiming a chimp as an actual "grandpa" or as any type of family ancestor. Your statement clearly shows not even the common curtesy to acknowledge "MY" perspective... I do not believe in any type of connection between man and ape of any kind... other than we exist on the same planet.

As far as afterlife goes... well "if" my faith is correct ("if" for your benefit)
there is no question about afterlife... believer and unbeliever alike will experience "afterlife" (I am experiencing now). An unbeliever will experience an eternal burning in hell... no hope of repreive and thousands of years later remembering the stupid idiot christian who couldn't write or spell tried to say; hey think about this...

Frank seeing that you are leaving discussion, this will probably be my last... I had been thinking of it also... Peter said to Jesus, "if it is You Lord, bid me to come on the water". Jesus said "come". Peter asked. Same today... a person must ask... "is that You, Jesus?"... show me.

The ID "theory" is not theory to me nor other believers... I have no problem acknowledging that and also the motive of using "ID" is to get a toehold (back) into the classroom. Remember evolution made it's way into public schools by the pressure of one man ( and no I don't remember his name)... did it with Darwin's book and some real idiots in the court system.

Is it such a stretch for secular people to not see the correlation of our nation's morale and morality decline and the taking of prayer and teaching of a creator out of the classroom? Decline of family structure and etc... all contributing factors.

Short of a miracle or a huge catstraphy... a reason to seek the Lord... I don't know. I'm hopeful for people to, out of fairness give God a shot. Hey if you ask and mean it and He is who I say He is, then He will show up. And should He show up... then you have gained. And if not, then so what you are where you were before.

I have hope for you. In Christ & God Bless you all. Michael R.

What is a real believer George?

Ted, your money analogy is humorous. Especially because the US dollar is backed by "faith"!! lol. So Why not have faith in our Creator.