Arkansas Blog

Thank Goodness!!!

Now we can get back to the ROCK-SOLID TRUTH of "evolution"... featuring such giant holes as......

~How does evolution add information?
~How does evolution happen so quick? (small mammal to elephant in a tiny amount of time)
~Where did the first living cell come from?
~How can we make assumptions by finding one jawbone - what if 'Lucy' was deformed?
~How can evolution make the "JUMP" from simple to complex with GOD'S PLAN -- how do you just "create" a heart one day, how do you just "create" a nucleus -- remember, tiny variations over time WITHOUT A PLAN!
~Who put "the big bang" there anyway?
~Why did the bang explode at all, if it was existing fine on its own?
~Did the "thing" that made a "bang" really exist at all (Creeepy)

****And of course, don't forget: Darwin's book "Origin of SPecies".... it's actual title is:

"The Origin of Species (full title On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES in the struggle for life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"***

Whoa, Darwin was an atheist AND a racist????

Teach on, evolution, teach on!

Darwin is dead.

Score one for God.

Sorry, pathetic, little losers. You need to go to heaven [or the other place soon - or are you already in the other place little mind?] and no wonder #2 you are anonymous; well, you are just a nothing.
Darwin may be dead but he sure was not anonymous like you are.

ThankHeavens! are you kidding or is this really your understanding of evolution (aka creation)? Why do you separate God from evolution? The universe, including people, was not made in 7 days, that is a fact with plenty of evidence to back up. I believe God orchestrated the "big bang" - also God created dinosaurs, carcharodon megladons, and apes. Lucy is one of the first in the evolution of modern humans. This is God's design. Quit resisting education on evolution/creation and "let it make sense," as my 10th grade biology teacher would say. There is no "us" and "them" on this subject. There is only one truth - and you can understand it or keep lying to yourself.

Thanks 4RG, for *************not answering ANY of the questions i asked******************....

You just told me what "you believed" and said "well there are facts to back it up!"

What facts? Hm, I don't see any!

Oh well, at least I can pray at night that I am one of darwin's "FAVOURABLE SPECIES!!!"

What a RACIST ATHEIST! HAHA!

ThankHeavens is absolutely right. I still believe in you, O Great Flying Spaghetti Monster!

I believe in the evolution of intelligence....given time, Democrats will evolve get a brain and become Republicans.

Unfortunately, rascist assumptions were common in 19th century science, philosophy, and amongst regular ole folks. Darwin's theories were extrapolated on Herbbert Spencer, the famed "social darwinist" who concluded that widows and orphans were OK since they were a product of the "survival of the fittest."

Whether George Bush knows it or not, a lot of his working assumptions about how the world works are derived from ole Herbie S.

Pity for us....

oops... that should read "starving widows and orphans"

As Kansas goes, so goes the country! Well, it's a wonderful thought at least. Since the 1850s, Kansas has been like that crazy old aunt hidden in the attic. They look like us, but boy, they sure don't think like us. Until yesterday.

This doesn't bode well for the Republican Party. If Kansas is coming to it's senses, whoa, it could be Christmas in November for the Democratic Party. And just in the nick of time too. If you study history you already know that America has had a lot of those "just in the nick of time" moments.

We finally woke up, got involved and ended WWI in a hurry. It took a while, but America finally looked behind the curtain and saw Joe McCarthy for the sham he was. It took over 58,000 dead US soldiers for us to wake up and get out of Vietnam. And Nixon, not tricky enough to avoid being sent packing.

Looks like Kansas finally realized they were being made a fool by the old Nixon men hiding in the White House today. Lord, it took them long enough, but I welcome this first sign of sanity returning to our 34th state. Perhaps it marks the return of sanity to the other 49 states. If so, we might see the end of the Bush-Cheney crime family in the near future. Support Our Troops! Bring Them Home!

Let us all remember that Darwin's book was written almost 150 years ago. Let us also remember that DNA was not discovered until about 50 years ago. Darwin got the theory right, but the details have only refined and modified his theory. It's called SCIENCE. You base it on what is observable and try to make sense of it all. When something else comes along, it either adds to your theory, or you change it according to the new information. Sure, it seems fantastic if you look at the complexity of life. The secret here is TIME. It's taken billions of years for us to arrive at this point. Paleontology has only been around for a couple of hundred years. New discoveries are made all the time which add to our total knowledge. Who knows what will be found in the next few years. Whatever is will be, I feel certain that it wasn't put here by some sort of deity in order to trick the curious ones.

Mr. ThankHeavens,
Darwin was not an atheist.

And, by the way, I feel quite comfortable with the fact that I am a Christian and I believe in evolution.

so why did the big bang explode? why did it have to explode if it existed fine on its own (remember, all universal forces would be in the "thing" that blows up)? ok, if it was a point of 'singularity' where there was just a bang, not relaly a thing, does that mean we have an EXPLOSION without a CHARGE?

and, who put the big bang there in the first place? who made it? what was before it? what was outside of it?

****REALITY C HECK : YOU ATHEISTS SAY 'OH GOD CAN'T BE REAL BECAUSE THAT WOULD REQUIRE ME TO ASSUME SOMETHING ON FAITH......' YET THE VERY SAME BIG BANG REQUIRES AN ASSUMPTION OF FAITH THAT 'OH YEAH, SOMETHING BLEW UP, EVEN THOUGH NO ONE PUT IT THERE, IT WAS JUST 'THERE'... AND "TIME DIDN'T EXIST"!

***************WHy do you accept these "assumptions of faith" if they are on the atheist side, but reject "assumptions of faith" if they are about God?*******************

Oh yeah -- I remember now -- jerky Christians got under your skin, and/or a family member got sick/died/had a problem and you blamed God for it-- THAT'S why you are atheist clinging to the outdated Big Bang theory just as much as hard core creationsists cling to Intelligent Design.

The Big Bang Theory is in perfect harmony with Hindu cosmology. Do you lump all Hindus with atheists?

If God exists then perhaps He/She/It "created" laws and mechanisms for this universe to unfold. Doesn't it make sense that this divine power would set into motion certain events which could also be known as "The Big Bang"?

Of course it does, pollen, if GOD did it - he could do anything.

Still, no one in the world teaches that BigBabg/Evolution are caused by GOD (at least in any school I know)

SO i ask again, no one has answered my questions about evolution and the big bang... I guess you guys are just mindless lemmings!!

This is what you sound like, athe-dems "MMMMMMMMM... Church says something, must disagree wildly and vocally.... MMMMMMMMMM... can't actually PROVE this, so just scream "SCIENCE!" over and over.. MMMMMMMM... wish I hadn't turned against God due to those hypocrites and/or blaming God for problems & death, now I can just scream hate at anyone who disagrees with me but claim to be tolerant... MMMMMMM..."

Let us remember that the Kansas Board of Education was requiring Creationism to be taught as Science. I think if you opened your eyes and ears you would find several theories taught in the context of cosmology. This subject extends past the knowable realm into philosophy and religion. However, if we are teaching nature then we must limit our teachings to the natural. The supernatural falls into a completely different subject.

You continue to assume that anyone who accepts Natural Selection is an atheist. Isn't that pretty limiting?

What a blow to the Bible thumpers...right thru Jayhawks country...I am laughing my ass off at all of the silly comments.

The Bible was written by men, abridged and edited by men...it is folklore...get over it.

Quit wearing your pathetic faith on your angry sleeve and practice what Jesus taught...

So if it was up to you, TH!!, I guess my children would receive an education as coherent as your posts?

Thanks, but no thanks.

SO i ask again, no one has answered my questions about evolution and the big bang... I guess you guys are just mindless lemmings!!
Posted by: ThankHeavens !!

Please don't take the fact that nobody has bothered to respond as evidence of anything other than that perhaps your naive questions are not worth the time it would take to write about them. It would be a wasted effort.

I suggest you get your answers by going to college and taking a few classes in biology, chemistry, physics and astronomy. Find a book by Carl Sagan and read it. You have much to learn.

Thank Heavens,

I know this is a waste of time so I won't take much.

ALL of this on either side is idle speculation. To say that science or religion has any answers here that are beyond faith is arrogance of the highest order.

From your side, creation is now in disarray due to sin. We can not see creation as it was origionally intended. God created free will and beings with free will and creation has since gone off on its own in a manner of speaking. You are in the midst of that great struggle.

Your Bible says, "Speak the truth in love." You have faith, a platform, ideas, fine, share those with love and give the rest of us the Godgiven right to freewill, faith, ideas, and a platform.

This fight does not belong in school. This is a pluralistic democracy. If you wish you children raised in a religious school like the Taliban, that is your choice.

***THanks very much, you hit the nail on the head with the comment, "ALL of this on either side is idle speculation"

THAT IS MY POINT!! :)

WE CAN NEVER be sure but the bigbangevo trolls scream "it's the truth" without understanding any of it!!

Do you nuts even know what WAMP is? Have you pondered the holes inherent in modern cosmology? Can you name 1 cosmologist other than the eons-ago-oft-repetaed-pop-cosmologist Sagan? What's the deal with dark matter, and does dark energy even exist? WHY can no one explain INLFATION of the cosmos during the initial stages of the big bang other than saying "umm... the big bang DECIDED to speed up, then SLOWED down"

THESE are RELEVANT questions to ACTUAL PROBLEMS with the current model

But, anytime anyone says "hey, here is a hole that doesnt make sense", your side screeches "CREATIONIST! CREATIONIST!!!"

Oh well. I wanted some cogent discussion, and/or possible answers to my questions, I was curious.... But you have reinforced EXACTLY what I typed in the preceding paragraph. (screeching, etc.)

Thanks for once again proving that Democrats are quite INTOLERANT.

Neither side can claim tolerance.

That's what we need more of in the schools and elsewhere.

agreed, mirror. tolerance is needed FROM BOTH SIDES.

I'm just saying you dems get the 'image' of being 'tolerant' and then when someone asks a question you guys respond with:

"pathetic"
"loser"
i'm "lying" and "resisting education"
"naive"
'my faith is pathetic'
etc
etc
etc

How anyone can think you cindy sheehans of the world are "tolerant" "... that is an image which is going to be shattered the more that the Cynthia mckinneys and ned lamonts and cindy sheehans represent you!

>>tolerance is needed FROM BOTH SIDES.<<

No, not really. Tolerance is overrated here. There is no need to tolerate unscientific theories in science classrooms. I'm willing to bet that nobody shows up at your church and tells you to ditch your dogma in favor of science, so do us all a favor and keep your myths out of the science textbooks.

"Thanks for once again proving that Democrats are quite INTOLERANT."
Posted by: ThankHeavens

What should we expect from someone who claims God is a man. The issue is not Democrat's INTOLERANCE it's your IGNORANCE.

Darwin is dead.

Score one for God.

Both sides of this argument are taking it to the extreme. First of all evolution is a process. Having been a scientist all my life, I have witnessed the "survival of the fittest" numerous times with unequivocable proof. One species has a genome that is more conducive to the environment then it has a better chance to survive. This is common sense. This is the essence of change and progress, dating back to Aristotle.

Most scientists take it too far, however. They strive too hard to justify their argument. This is a classical philosophical debate that warrants discussion. Schools in California allow students to discuss darwinism in a philosophy class. What it comes down to is perception.

Question: "If we heat up a glass of water in the microwave, what makes that water heat up."

Some people will respond the water molecules became to move faster creating kinetic energy causing heat to be released. Others would respond that it was the person who turned the knob of the microwave to high. Both are equally correct, but how is one more right than the other.

Science is predicated off of our current method of learning based off of Kant's belief that we shoudl acquire knowledge from perception and experience. This is the core of the current scientific method. Thus, creationsim can't be taught in traditional science class, unless the class includes a philosophy of science session. This is a great argument that shoudl be discussed. I just hope we can start to look at where the argument really lies.

That's a good point anon. Most of the arguments against evolution tryo to base their points on faulty evidence. Thus, they are using the scientific method. You can;t make an argument against the scientific method by using the scientific method.

I also agree it is not a matter of right or wrong. 99.99 percent of the right and left have never thoguht about epistemology or reasoning. We mostly only interpret what we read in the paper without understanding how we derive these opinions and facts. International relations, economics, farming, sales all are based off of classic darwinism. This argument is SO stale and SO misunderstood that we don;t realize we are debating the same thing we debated hundreds of years ago; only in a different form. And for the record, I am a scientist as well. I also believe that scientists are equally misinformed.

TH, how do you expect anyone to tolerate you if you keep insulting everybody? It looks to me like you're the only one screeching anything.
As for Kansas, good for them. I suppose they're not as outlandish as I thought. Maybe Kansas isn't just wheat fields and sad people...

What part of God created everything, including evolution, do we not understand? Who else could create the Big Bang but God?

There is no conflict between faith and science except what man creates out of his ignorance, pride and stubborness.

The Bible gives us faith, and science gives us facts, and those are two different things. I don't look at science to teach me about God, who gave me a brain to use, and I don't look at scripture to teach me about science.

Roland:

I agree. They are perfectly compatible and there is no need for this monumental conflict.

Insignificant we as humans are as related to the universe. But the more science one learns the more strange things become and the more we have to abandon our myths not only in the scientific world but in our evolution.

?In the beginning?. Believe it or not, this our present stage of evolution. This is the most consented belief of our (western) culture. That there must have been a beginning. You started this fight. But in 1905 evolved a man that proved this not to be correct and not only is there no limit to how large the universe may be but there is no limit to how small things may be. Imagine that our solar system may be an atom in a universal being. Strange!

The big bang has one and only thing going for it in that there appears to be a red shift the farther things are. That alone does not prove there was a big bang as did the constant speed of light prove space was full of ether. All of the elements can be recycled in a super nova. In reality why should we expect a photon of light to expand at the rate of four-thirds pie radius cubed for 13.7 billion light-years. The universe goes on to infinity but we can not see it.

Special theory of Relativity:

?1. A properly formulated description of a physical phenomenon can contain NO REFERENCE, either explicit or implicit????..?

The so called Big Bang calls for a REFERENCE to the single point of the beginning of the universe so one must be wrong.

For those less inclined to believe Einstein just imagine an explosion where everything is expanding at the same rate in all directions. How could this be if you were not at the center of the explosion. The mass on the other side of the REFERENCE point of the big bang should be going away from us at a faster rate than the mass near us.

In addition, a finished 3 year study has just been concluded that shows that the distance to the edge of the universe is the same in all directions as measured by the big bang by the best instruments to within one (1) second of arc ( 360x360x60x 60). Again we must be at the center of the universe.

To say the least the big bang has less going for it than the ether theory.

You should Thank Heavens you were not in Japan in 1945 which proved the special theory to the world.

If intelligence is going to survive we must realize that it has not to the extent of how we (well some of us) view it, forever.

Roland -- I couldn't agree more. Evolution does not disturb my faith in any way. I would rather, in fact, believe it than accept that, if Adam and Eve were the first two people, the only ones around for their children to marry would have been related to them. Somehow I don't think the whole human race if the product of incest -- although intellectual giants like ThankHeaven sometimes make me wonder.

Anyway, my God is great enough to have put into motion the intricate and eternal plan of change that we call evolution.

Phaedrus, an even creepier question...

IF there is no God, and evolution is right, IF THE UNIVERSE came from a BIG BANG 13 billion years ago and is expected to exist for TRILLIONS of TRILLIONS of years before it 'collapses', or even 'doesn't end'...................IF we are flying outward from a 13billion year old explosiong.....

............then why is the universe so young? What I mean is, why are we here NOW.

If the universe (like 'science' says) is supposed to survive for 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 Billion years... then why are we alive in the first 13?

Are we just 'lucky'? (and before you say "oh that's just chance, google 'david hibbert hotel problem' and you will see that, well, if the universe is as you say it is... WE SHOULDN'T BE HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!)

AND - if the universe has life on other planets and other solar systems and ours was only formed about 4 B years ago, where are all the aliens? Couldn't SOMETHING have had a quicker start, and build a faster spaceship? I mean, we theorize 'we can travel at light speed in 200 years'... what if aliens had a 1BILLION year head start in tech.... so where are they too?

Let's keep it down to earth there, Heaven$...

I can see you're getting your spaceship all in a knot.

Intelligent life outside of our solar system is waiting for us to catch up...I mean, c'mon...haven't you ever watched Star Trek?!

Evolution doesn't imply there is no God. I believe in both.

".... so where are they too?
Posted by: ThankHeavens (part 2) | August 2, 2006 01:49 PM"

You finally got my point.

Intelligence life has never made it through a super nova. In infinity. God or no God.

TH -- people would take you more seriously if you didn't yell so much.

All this talk about the Big Bang is interesting, but it has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is simply an explanation of the process of genetic change between generations that results in the biodiversity we see. It is a theory, but it is also a fact, the same way that gravitational theory or atomic theory is a fact.

Evolution makes no statements about the existence or non-existence of God. Evolution is only incompatable with religion if you are someone who insists on a literal interpretation of the Bible. If so, you also must believe in a flat earth, the flood of Noah, and that the sun moves around the earth. (Not to mention that you should kill disobedient children, and cut off the hand of a woman who grabs her husband's opponent by the, um, goodies--Dueteronomy 25:11-12.)

The idea that science and religion are incompatible is a false dichotomy set up by extremists who are pursuing their own agendas.

However, the "debate" has no place in public school science classes. It is not scientific, science teachers are not qualified to be talking about their own religions, let alone anyone else's, and it violates the separation of church and state--which isn't there to quash your religion, but to protect it.

For pete's sake. It is a classic philosophical argument that has been APPLIED to science vs. religion. Darwinism is also applied every other dyanimic study in schools as well. Evolution is not just about genetic variance, slection, and re-enforcement. Social chnage says that change must start from innovation, then selection, and reenforcement. This is an example of an application fo Darwinism.

Let's explore the theory of social darwinism: If a group of people become marginalized, they have less access to resources, and a lower chance of survival. Then they resort to extreme means; ie terrorism. This is why both conservative and liberal think tanks describe poverty now as the root of terrorism. This is a product of darwinism as well.

No one has attacked the epistemological basis of Darwinism considering that is where the argument begins in the first place.

Social darwinism has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, nothing to do with biology, and nothing to do with the current conversation. Darwin did indeed talk about "races," but was talking about races of organisms, and not just people. He specifically disavowed the "social Darwinism" of Spencer and Graham in The Descent of Man.

Also, whoever said that Darwin was not an atheist was incorrect. The fabled "deathbed conversion" is nothing but an old wives' tale. Darwin went to his grave disavowing any belief in a creator; he did so in a letter written just a few months before his death. In this letter, written in 1881, Darwin stated that he, like many others, had trouble believing that the universe was only the result of chance. However, he thought that this feeling was the result of weakness of the human mind (including his own), and not from any real purpose in the universe. He was not, however, anti-religious. He believed that the church provided stability and guidance to human societies.

Social Darwinism is an example of the application of a theory; so yes it has everything to do with the current debate. Darwin merely framed a theory that his predecessors had articulated for 100 of years. So throwing out the same mundane quotes that are used in every website about social darwinism is a blatant scope shift and humorous. Do you not have any original thoughts? Why does Darwin's history refute a epistemological question. It's easy to think of one application of evolution, but very few study where it began, what are its philosophical premises. The argument before Kansas is a debate between teh metaphysical and physical. So, yes, the prompt asking people to explore the crux of the argument before arguing the application is warranted and neccessary.

Ok look, folks. I exist, BUT and here's the rub, I don't give a shit about any of your.

As for the "beginning". Well, it's complicated and you earthlings don't have the intellect to comprehend it. Therefore, don't worry about it. You all will be LONG dead before you even come close to attaining the intellience required to understand, "everything".

Also, there's NO after-life. That's a bullshit story.

Relgion is for the fearful, the afraid. I didn't create religion and this Jesus Christ fellow was really an asshole. He wasn't my son. No, anyhow.

Y'all just grow up and behave yourselves.

Thanks.
Sincerely,
God

Evolution is the change in gene frequencies across generations. Society and many of its components are not genetically transmitted. Therefore it doesn't have anything to do with evolution. Just because it has the word "darwin" in the name doesn't mean it has anything whatsoever to do with evolution. I'm not getting my information from websites. I teach a class in evolution in a university. I know what I'm talking about.

The choice before the people of Kansas isn't metaphysical vs. physical. Evolutionary theory doesn't have anything to say about the metaphysical. There is no denial of God, no denial of anything outside the scope of science. The choice is: do you want to teach science in your schools or not? Nobody teaches your "application" in school. Social darwinism is long discredited. You're trying to make this about something it's not. You're the one who's changing the scope. Just like every creationist, you're throwing up red herrings to attempt to drag down a body of knowledge that you find threatening.

You can play your philosophical parlor games all you like. Maybe there are different ways of knowing things. But the only ones that do us a damn bit of good in matters of science are those that are scientific.

Darwin found a great truth about the mystery and wonder of life on this planet and saw in it the hand of God. Creationists fabricated a convenient untruth and stuck the label God on it.
Who do you think really does justice to the might and power of the Prime Mover?
The fascist Christian inquisitors would much rather see the flames of burning heretics than see the light of reason and wisdom which evolution shines upon the open-minded.
Why do Christian Nazis call their God all-powerful but won't give him credit for using evolution? Is he not smart enough to use such a wonderful tool for keeping life abundant and strong?

Congratulations on teaching evolutionary theory at a university. That's really impressive. That defintely makes you the expert on an issue that crossing multiple disciplinary boundaries. My previous school, oxford university, happened to teach the "application" of darwinism quite frequently. As most other evolutionary scientists, you are too inclined to defend every argument related to darwinism that you think every argument relates to your direct knolwedge set.

We're not even talking about the same thing. My point AGAIN is the issue of science and public discourse. Why discuss a moral and sceintific issue without knowing all the permaters involved. I'm a biochemist who studied researched genetics for years. But I'm not so arragont to think that a public discussion that incorporates social beliefs, morality, emotion, economics, and yes science into one public debate doesn't warrant an alternative exploration of the issue besides the scientific or religious perspective. All sides benefit from unique perspectives.

Science is about metaphors, is is about synthesis; taking one disicpline and cross-pollinating with another. Crick said science is nothing more than metaphor. You are the reason science is in such perilous trouble these days. Because you can't imagine ways to describe a phenomenon so that the world can understand. People understand terrorism, loss of life, suffering, but most don't understand about Medelian genetics, cytokines, and kin selection. Why not try to reach out to a broader community by experimenting with abstract thought? Are you afraid you won't be seen as the grand professor anymore?

You're trying to limit the discussion based on your area of expertise. I know what most people focus on in this debate, but heaven forbid that we try to explore an issue from from alternative perspectives.

From a policy standpoint, yes, creationism shouldn't be taught in science class. That seems to be the only thing on your mind. Why don't you start showing everyone how smart and sophisticated you are and talk about speciation and genetic drift. Or, perhaps, you can try to discuss an issue outside of your comfort zone.

Laslty, science is philosophy my friend. Where do you think the scientific method came from.

No. Every argument doesn't have to do with my knowledge set. Philosophy of science is an excellent topic for folks at Oxford University. It has nothing to do with teaching science in Kansas high schools. Do you honestly want to explain different epistemologies to ninth-graders? Do you really want to engage high-school football players in a physical-vs.-metaphysical arguement? Do you honestly think it's the job of high school science teachers to try to relate terrorism and suffering to basic biology? Have you ever even been in a high school?

Do they really teach social Darwinism at Oxford?

Gee Anonymous 8:04, you speak scientific mumbo-jumbo so well. Have you ever though about applying your supercharged cranial capacitor to the science of voodoo? That is an alternative perspective and you seem to relish such crossly-pollinated and metaphorically enriched hybrid belief systems.
And they do some mind-altering, albeit slightly suggestive, dancing with some chickens who've lost their heads about the whole thing.
As my Pa said, "You can dress a pig up in a suit but he's still a pig." Your oinks gave you away, mon frere.

Dude, like science is bogus. I mean, I think that whatever you believe should be okay. You know? Like God made everything, right? What's the problem, dude? Like science sucks. It's boring. It's like numbers and stuff and goggles and funny looking letters. Screw that, dude. That's too hard. Who has time for that? I got my own opinions about things and I think they're just as valid. Dude, there's got to be creator behind laughy-taffy and Taco Bell Gordita Wraps. I mean, dude, that's intelligent design if I've ever seen it.

I'm out.

What if we don't know where we came from or where we're going? What if we're just like really tall ants who wear clothes and invent things? What if what we know would fill a thimble and what we don't know would fill all of space?

What's so bad about just living out your life, keeping your opinions to yourself and having a good time? Watching humans trying to figure all this stuff out with 2000 year old books and whatever whacky feeling they get in the pit of their stomachs late at night and advice from people who always pass the hat makes the entire human race look as dumb as a box of rocks.

Not a soul posting here or anywhere else on earth can offer one shred of evidence to back up their claims. It reads like a transcript from a Star Trek convention panel discussion.

I'd give both arms and legs if it would produce a wise, loving higher power that would stop all the war, all the suffering, the hunger and hurt. Someone who would take us away to a better place after we died. I'd make that deal if a higher power would just make us all get along. But folks, Mom and Dad are gone, there is no Santa, no real magic, no miracles, no telepathy, no nothing.

It's just you and me and the rest of the world. Nature got us born and nature will ease us off the planet, or more likely just 6 feet under ground. God is not guiding our troop's bullets in Iraq. God is not working thru George Bush. God is not watching for leaks in gas lines running in your walls. Everything is up to us, it's all what you make it and whatever luck or bad luck comes your way.

I say all this as an adult, not trying to cause trouble. What you personally believe in your heart is your business. It doesn't matter unless it causes science to be discounted. It's not perfect but science gave us aspirin, penicillin, and heart bypass surgery. It gave us electricity, air-conditioning and Birdseye frozen vegetables. It's given us trips to the moon and to the wreck of the Titanic. It's made it safer to be born and made it possible to live a productive life into very old age.

Science hasn't had a lot to do with putting wise people in government, but men of science have a much better record of governing well than people bent on inserting church into our state. We play this game where if you're a Christian, you're good, if you're anything else, you're bad. That's like saying white people are good, black people are bad. It's foolish to be so simple-minded.

All this fighting about religion here, plus the actually deadly fighting in the Middle East is killing the good times we could be having in our short, fragile lives. We could be enjoying the wonders of our world. We could be making our world a good place to live for everyone on the planet. We could be living it up on the good things science and hard work has brought the world.

I'm OK with just one pass on this earth. I'm in no hurry to die, mostly I'll miss my wife and kids. But like those ants, I was born I did the best I could to do what I was supposed to do every day and when I'm gone they'll be one child born to carry on. It's the deal we get and it's good enough for me.

Evolutionary theory is science. Medicine is science. All of you who use the word 'theory' as if is were a bad word should know that the same process that developed the theory of evolution also developed the treatments, medicines and surgeries that you use to keep yourself and your family well. If you have such an aversion to science and the scientific theory, you should feel just as comfortable taking your sick or dying family member or self to a faith healer rather than to a medical doctor. Or, better yet, do nothing, as God will take care of it for you. Or you can cherry pick the scientific theories you want to believe in. Intelligent design says that there are things that evolution cannot explain. Well, there are many prescription drugs out there that do wonders for many illnesses that we simply don't know why they work. They just do. Someday, through scientific testing, we will know. Just as we will fill the gaps in evolution as more discoveries are made. What happens to intelligent design when scientists are able to explain the 'unexplainable'?

Still the point is the evolution is science. Intelligent design is not. You can teach science in a science classroom and religion in a religion class. Or, you can choose to send your child to a private Christian school that only teaches things that align with your religious beliefs.