==> Pls visit new site at http://malaysia-today.net/ <==

Russia needs intelligent thinking, not intelligent design......

And Malaysia need functional brain, not functional leeching. Just look at our leaders in BNs.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 7

yes, the rise of intelligent design and creationism is something you only wish upon your enemies.
one way for us to catch up with nations that are technologically far more advanced than us - such as the u.s.a, is if their scientific works are slowed down or even pulled back by religious fundamentalists.
luckily for malaysia, the supposed educationists are only interested in playing racial cards and not the creationist card, yet.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 3

correct...correct..correct..ah correct...now god can go pom pom pom too..

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

and malaysia is gravely in need of a real leader! not some islam hadhari leader that sleeps a lot!

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

Open your mind. Listen to Ken Miller YouTube presentation on ID: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...re=related . It will clear up a lot of things regasrding Intelligent Design.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 3

The explaination given in the link is typical of creationist propagandists. Little substance but loads of name calling and little substance to debunk what the proves are clarly. Mind you, Miller made it clear that if the ID camp follows the accepted way to prove their point, the science community will be more than willing to accept.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 1

Just for argument sake, what is wrong to think like this:
"If God can come out of nothing, why not the universe"

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 3

If god can come out of nothing then that thing is not god la!

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 1

To Kritz who says "There are Atheist Scientist, Muslim Scientist, Christian Scientist, ID Scientist".

The science community I am refering to include those who takes a scientific approach to proofing or accepting a matter. It is ok whehter they are Atheist Scientist, Muslim Scientist, Christian Scientist or ID Scientist. We look at the manner they aregue their case, not their 'brand'.


To Saint: The trouble with dogmatic religion is that they do not need to be reasonable or scientific. Prominently, they take a position and try to get science and reason to fit their views.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 2

Creationism is for the indoctrinated mind

... and the other 98% of biological and earth scientists believe in Evolution

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 1

... and the other 98% of biological and earth scientists believe in Evolution

Densemy! Where's your facts? From where do you get the 98% figure?

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 0

Evolution as a model that explains our existence explains nothing more than what Darwin thought was a reasonable accounting for similarities and differences between members of species and members across species.

Time has proven that as a model the theory has done nothing for science except generate a body of researchers who constrain their thinking within the very narrow framework of evolution. Examples of adaptation are thought to be evidence of evolution but no concrete proof exists to tell us that one species can jump its genetic track and morph into another entirely different species. What we have demonstrated is that genetic errors result in an altered offspring of the SAME species as the parent only. There is nothing in the data to suggest that plants and animals do not always produce after their own kind. This is a crippling piece of data for evolution theory.

Can adaptation have another explanation unrelated to evolution? Yes it can. ID theorists would offer that adaptation is designed (coded for in DNA) to ensure the persistence of life forms in an ever changing environment.

Until recently a mechanism for DNA to scan its inner and outer environments was not known. It is now known that DNA uses a scripted language to think about and respond to its environment. It senses it environment using a holographic matrix through which it can ping its interior and exterior environments via electromagnetic resonance and acoustic signaling. DNA interpret (understands) its surroundings and has algorithmic action codes to select from to respond to the information it gathers. This is far too intelligent to have happened by chance. How can random events lead to the design of a holographic quantum bio-wave computer complete with a computer program language and billions of lines of response codes? If this is not the clincher for design theory I don�t know what is.

Genetic sequencing turns out to be for more than protein synthesis and now can be seen as the mechanism behind so called instinctive behaviors. Animals contain programming for behavior as well as programming for cellular function and tissue repair. Animals are run the same way we run automated devices. Comparing our intelligent agency for the design, construction and programming for our feats of machine automation to that of bio-machines seems a fair comparison. No other natural condition allows for such things without intelligent agency.

Given the evidence against it, and lack of evidence for it, evolution theory is questionable at best and absurd at worst. As geneticists delve deeper into the inner workings of DNA design becomes the better explanatory model.

report abuse

disagree 2

agree 2

Kritz:"2.Michael J. Behe (born January 18, 1952) is an American biochemist and intelligent design advocate. Behe is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. He advocates the idea that some structures are too complex at the biochemical level to be adequately explained as a result of evolutionary mechanisms. He has termed this concept "irreducible complexity". "
___________________________________________

This point "irreducible complexity" (like many others, blood clot, immume system, missing link, genome link between man and monkey, etc. put forth in the Dover Court Case) is already disproven by scientists beyond doubt lah! Watch Ken Miller talk at case university again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...re=related , then comment on the proof. All the ID supporting scientists' arguement put forth at the Dover trial were completely torn apart.

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 2

Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’
‘Religious alternative’ to evolution barred from public-school science classes
[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/]

HARRISBURG, Pa. - In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district Tuesday from teaching “intelligent design” in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

The ruling was a major setback to the intelligent design movement, which is also waging battles in Georgia and Kansas. Intelligent design holds that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by some kind of higher force.

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 2

See how the religious people are willing ti "Lie under oath" in court to "defend" their views:

Quote from the the Dover Judge in deciding the case:

".....The verdict is based in part on the actions of the board, as the judge has ruled that any reasonable observer would conclude that they were attempting to advance religion. Judge Jones's ruling is remarkably contemptuous towards the board, noting that "In fact, one unfortunate theme in this case is the striking ignorance concerning the concept of ID amongst Board members." He also recognized that they had intentionally attempted to mislead the court: "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy." This deceit worked against them, as Jones indicated:

Defendants’ previously referenced flagrant and insulting falsehoods to the Court provide sufficient and compelling evidence for us to deduce that any allegedly secular purposes that have been offered in support of the ID Policy are equally insincere."

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 1

Intelligent Design is based on the arguement that if we cannot explain some complex observations today, there must be a designer who created it. The ID approach assumes the truth cannot be found FOREVER and this suit their needs! They also do not provide any proof other than to say their assumption is definitely right. Science is based on empirical evidence. It is self-critical and gives the benefit of doubt that what is "proven" today can still be disproven tommorrow. This is one of the key difference of approach between ID and science avocate.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 2

Based on observations of chaotic development of the universe and the 'errors" on earth, the designer (if he exists at all) is anything but intelligent!

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 2

http://youtube.com/watch?v=V8r-YIAg430

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

Milo, ID is strictly an academic endeavor run by professional scientists, creationism is run by laymen Christians who know little about biology, geology, paleontology,etc. . ., so they make the most revolting errors when trying to make their case.

As for Judge Jones, in that case the school board clearly had a creationist agenda, one member exclaimed in a board meeting where they were arguing about fighting the legal battle “after all, someone died on a cross for this!” The Judge was correct about the agenda of that board; they were at high risk for abusing the ID material by casting it into a religious light. The Judge was not qualified to rule on the scientific merit of the model however, and no judge should be about the business of refereeing on scientific literature, papers or models, ever!

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 1

What Darwinism Can't Do
The Edge of Evolution
By
Chuck Colson
Christian Post Guest Columnist
Sat, Oct. 20 2007 10:19 AM ET

....
"Behe does no such thing. What he does is provide a series of case studies, such as the malaria virus, the AIDS virus, and the human immune system, and shows what evolution did or did not do for them. For example, he shows that although human cells have evolved in many ways to combat malaria, many humans are still vulnerable to it—and in some cases, those human cells are even worse off than they were before. This means that evolution is not always as progressive as Darwinists would have us believe. As Behe puts it, what Dawkins and others have called an “arms race” is really much more like “trench warfare,” unleashing forces that can damage organisms as easily as it can help them. So evolution has its limits.

I suggest you ignore the forces that would stifle all dissent, and take a look at Behe’s book The Edge of Evolution. Even if you do not agree with everything in it, as I do not, you do not need to follow the Darwinist line that everything you disagree with must be squashed. Dare to think for yourself. You just might learn what the Darwinists and the anti-theists do not want you to know."

http://www.christianpost.com/a...n't_Do.htm

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 0

12 December 2006
Judge Jones: Towering Intellectual or Narcissistic Putz?
William Dembski
“Judge Jones tours the American countryside seeking the adulation of our intellectual elite and extolling the genius of his Kitzmiller v. Dover decision. The press release below indicates that Jones let the ACLU essentially dictate his decision. Instead of original and impeccable reasoning, Jones uncritically took extensive material from the ACLU’s proposed “findings of fact and conclusions of law” and either copied it directly or modified it ever so slightly. Outside the legal system this is called plagiarism. But since judges are allowed to draw on briefs of the parties, this is called legal scholarship. Even so, courts frown on decisions in which judges extensively copy and paste from other briefs — which is exactly what Jones did! Wired Magazine voted Jones one of the sexiest geeks of 2005. Time characterized him as a legal genius. Truth be told, Jones is a narcissistic putz.”

“Judge John Jones copied verbatim or virtually verbatim 90.9% of his 6,004-word section on whether intelligent design is science from the ACLU’s proposed ‘Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law’ submitted to him nearly a month before his ruling,” said Dr. John West, Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.”

http://www.uncommondescent.com...stic-putz/
http://www.uncommondescent.com...d_ACLU.pdf

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

I think it is important that we are not purely looking at how Judge Jones wrote his judgement, but the essence as we can actually watch part of the going on in the Case Part 1-9. Go to NOVA to see actually what scientists like Behe said during the trial: http://video.aol.com/video-det.../503114379

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/judg-nf.html

Quote:
ID is not science
After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while intelligent design arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, intelligent design is not science. We find that intelligent design fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that intelligent design is science. They are: (1) intelligent design violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to intelligent design, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) intelligent design's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. It is additionally important to note that intelligent design has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 1

written by Kritz, January 29, 2008 | 18:16:37
"Evolution as a model that explains our existence explains nothing more than what Darwin thought was a reasonable accounting for similarities and differences between members of species and members across species."
_____________________________

The progress in genetics could have disproved evolution, but it instead confirms the theory.

And what about the ID proponents' use of 'transformed' Creationism materials and when they 'lie under oath' during the Dover case? See:http://video.aol.com/video-detail/nova-judgment-day-intelligent-design-pbs-comments-part-1/503114379

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 2

Kritz, what is the ID 'scientific' views on the findings of scientists that the genome of the big apes has proven that we evolve from them? Are they denying the findings?

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

Milo wrote:
The progress in genetics could have disproved evolution, but it instead confirms the theory.

Milo, in the Theory of Evolution there’s only two processes that involved; the genetic mutation and natural selection! Nothing else, notably only with insights into the genetic similarities between humans and chimps coupled with more circular reasoning over the meaning of it all. It is a well affirmed circle of reasoning all right; it just isn't scientific reasoning. Observations of mutations don't prove the theory meant to explain their cause or the mechanism by which they are supposedly propagated; they only serve to affirm that living things can and do undergo modifications consistent with their environments. Adaptive genetic modifications do not prove that one species can or will morph into a new species over time.

To date biologists have failed to offer direct evidence that one species ever leads to another kind of species, all they can demonstrate is that there are genetic variations within any given kind of species. The fact is that breeding nth number of generations of bacteria does produce strains that have mutations not present in their distant cousins but it does NOT produce anything other than the kind of bacteria than what the researchers started with, ever! Once an E-coli always an E-coli, life forms are very stubbornly persistent about their identity (the fossil record proves this to always have been the case).

Observations of genetic variance out in the field suggest to the faithful that there stills exists the possibility that such variance can or does lead to new species, even though no experiment has demonstrated that this ever happens, not even in fast colony growing bacteria.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

A few quotes regarding mutations:

“The late Hermann J. Muller, Nobel laureate in genetics, said:
“Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences” (1950, 38:35, emp. added).

Evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky candidly admitted that favorable mutations amount to less than 1% of all mutations that occur (see Davidheiser, 1969, p. 209). Dr. Dobzhansky even remarked that “most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors...” (1955, p. 105).

C.P. Martin, also an evolutionist, wrote in the American Scientist:

“Accordingly, mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability, and, to the best of our knowledge, invariably affect it adversely. Does not this fact show that mutations are really assaults on the organism’s central being, its basic capacity to be a living thing?” (1953, p. 102, emp. added).

Almost twenty-five years later, in addressing the rarity of these “good” mutations, one researcher commented:

“From the standpoint of population genetics, positive Darwinian selection represents a process whereby advantageous mutations spread through the species. Considering their great importance in evolution, it is perhaps surprising that well-established cases are so scarce” (Kimura, 1976, 138[6]:260).

Continue..

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

..continuation
And twenty-five years after that, Harvard’s eminent taxonomist, Ernst Mayr, remarked that

“…the occurrence of new beneficial mutations is rather rare” (2001, p. 9. Numerous researchers through the years have written in agreement (Winchester, 1951, p. 228; Martin, 1953, p. 100; Ayala, 1968, p. 1436; Morris, 1984, p. 203; Klotz, 1985, p. 181; Margulis and Sagan, 2002, pp. 11-12).

As Ariel Roth put it:

…[T]housands of laboratory experiments with bacteria, plants, and animals witness to the fact that the changes that a species can tolerate have definite limits. There appears to be a tight cohesion of interacting systems that will accept only limited change without inviting disaster. After decades or centuries of experimentation, fruit flies retain their basic body plan as fruit flies, and wool-producing sheep remain basically sheep. Aberrant types tend to be inferior, usually do not survive in nature, and, given a chance, tend to breed back to their original types. Scientists sometimes call this phenomenon genetic inertia (genetic homeostasis) [1998, pp. 85-86, parenthetical item in orig.].

Other points bear mentioning here as well. For example, as paleontologist Kurt Wise observed:

Of carefully studied mutations, most have been found to be harmful to organisms, and most of the remainder seem to have neither positive nor negative effect. Mutations that are actually beneficial are extraordinarily rare and involve insignificant changes. Mutations seem to be much more degenerative than constructive… (2002, p. 163, emp. added).

Favorable mutations are indeed “extraordinarily rare.” It also is a well-known fact that “most mutations are recessive—that is, they will not manifest themselves unless present in both parents. Furthermore, while mutations producing minor changes may survive, those causing significant modification are especially detrimental and unlikely to persist” (Roth, p. 86, emp. added).

Lester and Bohlin also addressed this point: “Overall, however, mutations would primarily be a constant source of genetic noise and degeneration…. Mutations occur in organisms that are already adapted to their environment. Any large-scale, rapid alteration to the organism will not only be deleterious but most likely lethal” (1984, pp. 171,6.

Plus, as David DeWitt of Liberty University observed:

“Successful macroevolution requires the addition of new information and new genes that produce new proteins that are found in new organs and systems” (2002, emp. in orig.).

And therein lies the problem. Mutations do not add new information. Jonathan Sarfati correctly commented:

“The issue is not new traits, but new genetic information…. If evolution from goo to you were true, we should expect to find countless information-adding mutations. But we have not even found one” (2002a, emp. in orig.).

Mutations do not result in new information! And this is what evolution is all about. Lester and Bohlin noted:

The usual answer given to the dilemma of new genetic information is that as a gene continues to mutate, eventually something different will arise. But immediately, several questions come to our minds. What function, for example, is this protein performing while all this mutating is going on? Is its function slowly changing? If so, is its former function still needed? If not, why not? And if so, then how is the former function being handled? (p. 87).

continue..

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

..continuation
Mutations in bacteria, to use just one example, may result in antibiotic resistance. But in the end, the resistant microorganisms are still the same species of microorganisms they were before the mutations occurred. Alan Hayward was right on target when he wrote that

...mutations do not appear to bring progressive changes. Genes seem to be built so as to allow changes to occur within certain narrow limits, and to prevent those limits from being crossed. To oversimplify a little: mutations very easily produce new varieties within a species, and might occasionally produce a new (though similar) species, but—despite enormous efforts by experimenters and breeders—mutations seem unable to produce entirely new forms of life (1985, p. 55, emp. added, parenthetical item in orig.).

In the end, after mutations have occurred, no macroevolution has taken place. Evolutionary theory requires that mutations occur—in order to add the information needed to push evolution “uphill.” But the mutations that we observe, generally are neutral (i.e., they do not alter the information or the “message” of the DNA code), or else they go “downhill” (from an informational standpoint), which results in the loss or corruption of information. In addition, the rare “beneficial” mutations that do occur and that do confer some type of survival advantage, still result in the loss of information, and thus are headed in the wrong direction, from an evolutionary vantage point.

Evolutionists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, in their 2002 book, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species, expressed their strong disagreement with genetic mutations as the alleged mechanism of evolution.

"We certainly agree that random heritable changes, or gene mutations, occur. We also concur that these random mutations are expressed in the chemistry of the living organism…. The major difference between our view and the standard neodarwinist doctrine today concerns the importance of random mutation in evolution. We believe random mutation is wildly overemphasized as a source of hereditary variation.

Mutations, genetic changes in living organisms, are inducible; this can be done by X-ray radiation or by addition of mutagenic chemicals to food. Many ways to induce mutations are known but none leads to new organisms. Mutation accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or new tissues. If the egg and a batch of sperm of a mammal is subjected to mutation, yes, hereditary changes occur, but as was pointed out very early by Hermann J. Muller (1890-1967), the Nobel prizewinner who showed X-rays to be mutagenic in fruit flies, 99.9 percent of the mutations are deleterious. Even professional evolutionary biologists are hard put to find mutations, experimentally induced or spontaneous, that lead in a positive way to evolutionary change (pp. 11-12, emp. added). "

They went on to say:

"We agree that very few potential offspring ever survive to reproduce and that populations do change through time, and that therefore natural selection is of critical importance to the evolutionary progress. But this Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric. Although random mutations influenced the course of evolution, their influence was mainly by loss, alteration, and refinement…. Never, however, did that one mutation make a wing, a fruit, a woody stem, or a claw appear. Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of hereditary change shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation (pp. 28-29, emp. added). "

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

Milo wrote:
..the genome of the big apes has proven that we evolve from them!

Sorry Milo, there is no proof that human evolved from big apes. The theory suggested that human evolved from ape-liked common ancestor.

The time of the split between humans and living apes used to BE THOUGHT TO HAVE occurred 15 to 20 million years ago, or even up to 30 or 40 million years ago. Some apes occurring within that time period, such as Ramapithecus, used to be considered as hominids, and POSSIBLE ancestors of humans. Later fossil finds indicated that Ramapithecus was more closely related to the orang-utan, and new biochemical evidence indicated that the last common ancestor of hominids and apes occurred between 5 and 10 million years ago, and PROBABLY in the lower end of that range (Lewin 1987). Ramapithecus therefore is no longer considered a hominid.

From Talkorigin.

Just read from above! The evolutionist using the words BE THOUGHT TO HAVE, POSSIBLE and PROBABLY. I don’t think this is what we would refer to as SCIENTIFIC.

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 1

Milo,

Please help me here! Could you please define for me "The most evolved" and please tell me which organism, plant or animal that is the most evolved in the Phylogeny Tree as suggested by The Theory of Evolution in plain English!

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

You are using what pro-evolution scientists term as negative arguements. Just because there are gaps in evolution (which is only natural of all science), the ID supporters win by default!

If you care to watch the documentary on the dover case trail done by Nova,Case Part 1-9. you will actually observe what scientists like Behe said during the trial: http://video.aol.com/video-det.../503114379 and how they were torn apart in the arguements. For instant, at one point Behe mentioned that no "substantial" evidence has ever been provided for one aspect of evolution, he was almost shock when he was shown a stack of books on the topic written by scientists on the matter. His theory on "irreducible complexity" to debunk evolutionary theory (like many other famous ones like how blood clot, immume system, missing link, "disproof" evolution) put forth in the Dover Court Case, have been systematically dismantled by other scientists. Up till today, no credible counter arguements could be given. One Pastor Robertson even have the audacity to go on television rebuking the people of Dover because they "voted" out God!

Well, I do not know what proof you need to show that we came from a common ancestor as the great apes. In the latest revelation by the genome project, chromosome 2 contains the fused chromosomes of the great apes, that's why we have 46 and they have 48!

Quote from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2: Chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. [2][3] The evidence for this includes:

The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan. [4][5]
The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 we see remnants of a second. [6]
The presence of vestigal telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 we see additional telomere sequences in the middle. [7]

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

kritz, I strongly suggest you discard the usual negative arguement used by ID supporter to argue their case. That is as plain in English I can say to you.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 1

There are now loads of "proofs" are still being revealed on a regular basis by scientists of fossils of intermediate between land mammals and sea mammals, and how dinasaur evolve into birds.

E.g. The cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) are descendants of land-living mammals. Their terrestrial origins are indicated by: (1) the fact that they must breathe air from the surface; (2) the bones of their fins, which resemble the jointed hands of land mammals; and (3) the vertical movement of their spines, characteristic more of a running mammal than of the horizontal movement of fish. The question of how land animals evolved into ocean-going leviathans had been a mystery for a long time, owing to gaps in the fossil record. However, recent discoveries in Pakistan have managed to solve many of these mysteries, and it is now possible to see several stages in the transition of the cetaceans from land to sea.

So far, all these have demonstrated that we do not need a "designer". There is simply no answer from the ID proponents on these latest scientific revelations other than to quote from outdated science (as you have done)sources and perhaps hope the audience is not knowledgable enough to recognised them.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 1

Kritz, what scientific basis are you basing on to say "Adaptive genetic modifications do not prove that one species can or will morph into a new species over time."

You are assuming that in future, the progress in science definitively cannot show the proof of this, and therefore by default, the ID concept is right? This is another cogent example of negative arguement.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

Milo, about chromosome2 fusion!
I’ve read about this thing from one evolution site.

Human Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes
by Alec MacAndrew

Introduction
All great apes apart from man have 24 pairs of chromosomes. There is THEREFORE A HYPOTHESIS that the common ancestor of all great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that the fusion of two of the ancestor's chromosomes created chromosome 2 in humans. The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

The point is simply this, Mr Milo: the evidence points to the fusion of human chromosomes, but gives no indication WHEN THIS HAPPENED, except that it MUST HAVE OCCURRED TO A CREATURE that was the ancestor of all living humans. Since none of the apes share this fused chromosome, there is no reason at all to date this fusion any further back than warranted, so it becomes unnecessary to even posit the existence of a common ancestor between apes and humans based on this evidence alone.

Here’s other guy’s opinion about the so-called conclusive evidence of yours regarding the common ancestry thing! Quotes:
“Evidence for Fusion in a Human Chromosome Tells you NOTHING about whether Humans Share a Common Ancestor with Living Apes.”
“All Miller has done is documented direct empirical evidence of a chromosomal fusion event in the human line. But evidence for a chromosomal fusion event is not evidence for when that event took place, nor is it evidence for the ancestry prior to that event.”
From: http://www.ideacenter.org/cont...hp/id/1392

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 0

kirtz, firstly evolutionary scientists DID NOT say or pretend they have all the answers YET, therefore they are very careful with their words. It is still work-in-ptrogress, but the increasing body of evidence points clearly in one direction - that evolution is real!

Quote: "Every few years scientists unearth the bones of humanity's forefathers. From Lucy to the Hobbits of Flores Island -- we are gradually seeing building the puzzle of mankind's evolution." - Ker Than

Chronosome 2 discovery is important because it would otherwise totally disprove the theory of evolution of man from Apes DERSPITE of all the fossil records pointing that way. So you have two things now, genetics and fossil records supporting the theory of evolution, and it is getting stronger by the day.

ID proponents have no answers other than to simply say that THE MAKER made things that way! This is simply not scientific, which is what the pro-evotionists are merely saying. They did not say they have proved beyond doubt that ID is definitely wrong and wrong in all aspects other than those which can be observed empirically; but merely saying current discovery points in favpur of evolution. Of course, the ID proponents are not sitting down and is fighting back. But so far, their "scientific" arguements have been torn apart by the pro-evolutionists camp. The Dover Court Case shows that without a shadow of a doubt.

The anti-evolutionists have time and again use the negative arguement that "if you cannot totally and irrefutably proof that evolution is real, then shut up." They like winning by default. As revealed in the Dover case, the Pandas and People book used by ID proponent to teach the ID theory turn out to be a creationist book that was repackage so that it may sneak into the science classroom. The term Intelligent Design also appeared after the US Federal Court says the Creationist's model is not science and therefore cannot be taught as a science subject. That was one of the key reasons why the ID movement is highly suspected, and despite having a "ID friendly' judge appointed by President George Bush, ruled in favour of the proevolutionists. In the case, it was shown that many of the pro-ID folks are even willing to LIE to get their way, much like terrorists are willing to kill to state their case. And that's dangerous!

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 1

Milo, evolutionists are quite funny.

First they proposed that all living things share a common ancestry that dwells from sea/water. The very first unknown replicator in primordial soup got mutated and evolved 4 billion years ago to single celled organisms then evolved further to become Multicelled organisms. These prokaryotes then mutated again and evolved to become eukaryotes then to fishes. Fish then out of boredom decided to crawl on land and their gene mutated further to become Amphibians then to reptiles and finally to mammals. Over time these mammal got some pressure from their natural environment and this cause mutation to their genes and suddenly evolved gradually to become unknown hominid. These hominids then also undergo random mutation, genetic drift and evolved over time of course to become Homo habilis and finally to Homo sapiens while others evolved to become gorillas, orang-utan, chimps etc . Then they got confused because Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises are mammals that live in the sea/water, so they then frantically decided to create a new wonderful hypothesis contrary to their previous assumptions. Now they say that some animal decided to evolved back into the sea by none other than natural selection and mutation. Evolutionist then got confused further when dealing with fossil evidences from the Cambrian Explosion, so they propose a new hypothesis that called Punctuated Equilibrium because some creature just popped out fully formed out of nowhere and not by gradual progress over time that they previously think!

And Milo, I like to stress again that given the evidence against it, and lack of evidence for it, evolution theory is questionable at best and absurd at worst. In the future, with further research and findings, The Theory of Evolution will eventually be the greatest hoax in the history of science!

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 0

Evidence for Evolution ... Massive and growing daily, in fact all the biological and earth sciences are based on the concept of evolution

Evidence for Creationism... Zilch. Nothing but the stubbornness of the indoctrinated who are too lazy to try to understand what they are so against

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 1

You guys argue as tho evolution is solely restricted to the man/ape scenario. Instead the whole of the universe, this planet and everything on it, above it and beneath the surface is the end product of evolution to this day

Kritz... stop nitpicking the finite details of who said what and when and try to understand the whole picture

And remember... the onus is on the proposer to prove his thesis...You propose that God ( dunno which one) created the universe... Prove it. You dont prove anything by disproving your opposition

That's why evolutionists are winning and you are treading water

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 1

Kirtz says: Here’s other guy’s opinion about the so-called conclusive evidence of yours regarding the common ancestry thing! Quotes: “Evidence for Fusion in a Human Chromosome Tells you NOTHING about whether Humans Share a Common Ancestor with Living Apes.”
_______________________________________________________ __

The word NOTHING in the sentence sounds so definitive. Wow! It is like saying that if everytime you press a certain switch a certain bulb lights up, that tells you NOTHING that that switch and a certain light buld is linked. Or maybe what we saw in the TV on a live event proves NOTHING that the event is realy happening as shown on the screen.

My friend, the fall of apple also did not prove to young Newton that gravity but merely gives an indication that time. But by picking up on that important "lead", gravity was proven. If this is the type of standard we use to judge a proof, then a lot of accepted scientific theory would fall. In fact, the very basis of science and scientific theory would not work anymore.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 1

Correction: My friend, the fall of apple also did not prove to young Newton that gravity exists but merely gives an indication that it does.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 1

Milo wrote: There are now loads of "proofs" are still being revealed on a regular basis by scientists of fossils of intermediate between land mammals and sea mammals, and how dinosaur evolves into birds.

The origin of whales has dominated media headlines over the past several years as scientists have wrestled with why aquatic creatures would grow legs, walk the Earth, and then inexplicably decide to return to the water (thus explaining the differences between fish and aquatic mammals such as dolphins and whales). Scientific American’s editor, John Rennie, in his now-infamous July 2002 issue, concluded: Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition (2002, 287[1]:83). Daryl Domning, a paleontologist at Howard University, stated: We essentially have every stage now from a terrestrial animal to one that is fully aquatic (Mayell, 2001). That bold declaration was made in National Geographic News on-line, October 10, 2001, after a sea-cow skeleton was found in Seven Rivers, Jamaica. Evolutionists contend that this find, which they have labeled an entirely new genus and species, played an important role in helping terrestrial animals make the transition from land to water.

In 1859, Darwin SUGGESTED THAT WHALES AROSE FROM BEARS, sketching a scenario in which selective pressures might cause bears to ultimately evolve into whales. But, embarrassed by criticism (and, we might add, rightly so!), he removed his hypothetical swimming bears from later editions of the Origin of Species (see Gould, 1995, p. 359). Evolutionists were unsure how to proceed, since they knew that whales were different from fish; thus, a different evolutionary account was required. Whales are warm-blooded vertebrates that regulate their internal temperature via heat generated by a high metabolism. Like most mammals (the exception being the duck-billed platypus), female whales bear live young, which are nursed by mammary glands. While adult whales are not covered in hair or fur, they do acquire body hair temporarily as fetuses. These features make whales unequivocally mammalian a fact that poses a mountainous hurdle for evolutionists.

The November 2001 issue of National Geographic presented additional propaganda in an article titled Evolution of Whales. While the official scientific names and full-color reconstructions contained in the article appear quite impressive, the data are far from it. A closer examination of two alleged whale predecessors Pakicetus and Ambulocetusreveals that these creatures had little in common with whales, and thus do not represent the animals ancient ancestors.
continue..

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

..continuation
Pakicetus was discovered in 1983 by Gingerich, who claimed the find as a primitive whale even though he found only a jaw and skull fragments (see Gingerich, 1994, 2001). So what makes National Geographic so sure this creature is the long-lost walking ancestor of modern whales? Douglas Chadwick (author of the November 2001 article) stated: What causes scientists to declare the creature a whale? Subtle clues in combination the arrangement of cups on the molar teeth, a folding in a bone of the middle ear, and the positioning of the ear bones within the skullare absent in other land animals but a signature of later Eocene whales (2001, 200:6.

So, from mere dimples in teeth and folded ear bones, this animal somehow qualifies as a walking whale? Interestingly, prominent whale expert J.G.M. Thewissen and his colleagues later unearthed additional bones of Pakicetus (Thewissen, et al., 2001). The skeletons of Pakicetus published by Thewissen, et al. do not look anything like the swimming creature featured in either Gingerich’s original article or in National Geographic. In fact, in a commentary in the same issue of Nature in which the article by Thewissen, et al. was published, the following statement appeared: All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground (see de Muizon, 2001, 413:260). National Geographic, however, deceptively chose to display the Pakicetus in a swimming position, obviously trying to sway the reader into believing that Gingerichs fossilized jawbone and skull fragments represented some type of aquatic creature which they do not.
The lovely Pakicetus

The artist imagiantion of Ambulocetus

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 0

Densemy: You guys argue as tho evolution is solely restricted to the man/ape scenario. Instead the whole of the universe, this planet and everything on it, above it and beneath the surface is the end product of evolution to this day.
------------------------------------

I certainly agree with you, but the expansion of the topic would be too big to handle - especially for the anti-evolutionists..LOL. .

kirtz: "The Theory of Evolution will eventually be the greatest hoax in the history of science!"
---------------------------------------------

Wow! with all the evidence described here and elsewhere, you can still make such a definitive statement. No wonder the pro-evolutionists are winning so easily. It is a no brainer to anyone neutral to see that standard of both-sides in the arguement.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

Milo, have you read this hoax before? The dino-bird story?

The editor of National Geographic, Bill Allen, published an article that proved to be one of the worst debacles in the long and storied history of the magazine. It also proved to be one of the worst fiascos in the long and storied history of evolutionary theory.

Mr. Allen published a feature article by Christopher P. Sloan titled “Feathers for T. Rex?” The article claimed to provide “a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds” (Sloan, 1999, 196[5]:100). The fossil, named Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, was discovered at Xiasanjiazi in China’s northeastern Liaoning Province, and appeared to have the body of a primitive bird with the teeth and tail of a small, terrestrial dinosaur or dromaeosaur. This definitely fit the criteria of the type of fossil that evolutionists had hoped to find to fill in some of the gaps in their popular “dinosaur-to-bird” scenario because it manifested the long, bony tail of dromaeosaurid dinosaurs along with the specialized shoulders and chest of birds.

National Geographic found itself in the embarrassing position of having to retract the entire article because, as it turned out, the Archaeoraptor fossil was a fake—a neatly contrived composite of a bird and a dinosaur tail! In the March 2000 issue of National Geographic, the magazine published a letter to the editor” from Xu Xing, one of the scientists who first examined and discussed the fossil find:
“After observing a new, feathered dromaeosaur specimen in a private collection and comparing it with the fossil known as Archaeoraptor, I have concluded that Archaeoraptor is a composite. The tail portions of the two fossils are identical, but other elements of the new specimen are very different from Archaeoraptor, in fact more closely resembling Sinornithosaurus. Though I do not want to believe it, Archaeoraptor appears to be composed of a dromaeosaur tail and a bird body (2000, 197[3]:no page number).”

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

kRITZ SAYS: Milo, evolutionists are quite funny. First they proposed that all living things share a common ancestry that dwells from sea/water. The very first unknown replicator in primordial soup got mutated and evolved 4 billion years ago to single celled organisms then evolved further to become Multicelled organisms.
_________________________

Indeed they are funny...but certainly not more funny that how you came into existence as proposed by biologists. Basing on the foundation of the way you agrgue, how can a tiny worm-like substance call a sperm finally evolve to become you which is million times bigger and has a brain to debate evolution? It is impossible, isn't it! That's why, we have to explain to kids that the stork brought us.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

Densemy!
The space here is very limited for us to discuss, so to avoid being too lengthy I just want to ask a simple question for you to answer! What is the origin of Water (H2O)? And please be scientific and logical.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

Sorry mate, typo error: The question should be, what is the origin on water on Earth!

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

Kritz, Milo, have you read this hoax before? The dino-bird story? ..
_______________________________

My friend, you are still using negative arguement that will bring us no where. In science, disproving others does not make your theory right. You have to be positive and provide proof that yours is true based on natural explanations. No doubt, the evolution theory, like most scientific theories still have gaps to be filled, but those gaps can be bridge with time. However, the "gaps"found in the ID Theory are getting wider over time. That's why they are losing. pure and simple.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

To Milo and Densemy,

My point here is that evolution theory is still really an unsubstantiated hypothesis in that it has not been put to the scientific method to test and confirm and as such it does not belong in biology class either.

Please do not confuse the science of biology with the theory of evolution that biologists use to gather their findings into a meaningful framework. Evolution theory is used to make sense of real scientific data, but it is not essential to understanding biology (what it’s made of, how it works, how to fix or improve it). In all other areas of science theories are used as guiding principles in that they direct research and inspire specific experiments. A theory that only helps gather information into a framework is not scientifically useful or necessary. The science of biology will march on WITH OR WITHOUT evolution theory (which only allows us to couch findings of mutations into a speciation framework).

There are two perfectly imaginable theories of origins on the table, which is accurate seems impossible to determine experimentally, but it is a certainty that the IDists observation that intelligent agency alone has ever produced highly improbable arrangements of materials or symbols to produce information is a significant one (and is not a magical basis for the theory). Until and unless some as yet unidentified force with the capacity to self arrange things into information in the absence of intelligent agency is identified; I personally will remain convicted that ID is the more reasonable of the two theories. Be that as it may, I still believe ID belongs in a class of philosophies of science because scientific method cannot experimentally test the theory, it rests solely on observations and what they imply to our imagination, and the same is true of evolution theory.

Observations of mutations imply to evolutionists that mutations are limitless such that one species can give rise to many species, yet no case that this actually does happen has convincingly been provided. We can morph bacteria until they are mutated almost beyond comparison with their first generation, except that they are still recognizable as a bacteria (or viruses if you start out with a virus) in the end. So; while speciation seems plausible to our minds, it is not substantiated experimentally and as such does not belong in text books as if it has been anything more than implied by observation.

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 0

Milo wrote: how can a tiny worm-like substance call a sperm finally EVOLVE to become you which is million times bigger and has a brain to debate evolution?

Milo, I’ve studied human reproduction, biochemistry, molecular biology, microbiology, genetic and other field of biological science. You call that evolution? This is the most incredibly idiotic statement coming from you.

Evolution is a highly debatable model with huge gaps and holes that ought not to be ignored. You placate your biased mind with the soothing thinking that the resolutions to evolution's problems will be revealed sometime in the future. There is nothing on the record that supplies anyone with a reasonable hope that this will turn out to be the case. I do not prefer fantasy to reality like you appear to. I see evolution’s flaws as reasons to consider alternatives. You see them as temporary and therefore dismissible. Not here in this rational mind. Hopefully others will wake up to the flaws and limits of evolution theory and openly look for a sensible alternative. ID scientists did that. Are they right or wrong? Decide that on the evidence, not your bias that compels you to denounce it without faithfully and honestly examining the evidence.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

kritz, ..Evolution theory is used to make sense of real scientific data, but it is not essential to understanding biology (what it’s made of, how it works, how to fix or improve it).
----------------------------

Wow! What can I make of this statement? Top biologists including the science adviser to George Bush (one of the prominent person who says ID should be introduced to school as a science subject),Jack Marburger, says that evolution is the cornerstone to the study of biology. Others (too many to name here) says that it is the foundation on which they use develop medicine and make sense of other biological studies. Whic Bible school did you graduate from?

Anyway, despite all these, I do admire your

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 1

Kirtz, Milo, I’ve studied human reproduction, biochemistry, molecular biology, microbiology, genetic and other field of biological science. You call that evolution? This is the most incredibly idiotic statement coming from you.
--------------------------------------------------

Of course, I know reproduction is not evolution (since my lower grade in school)! I am only using that as a metaphor to show how incredulously you have used your knowledge to reframe scientific evolutionary observations to make them ALL looks ridiculous. What technique you used is a sales skill, which in today's environment would be considered unethical. It is also becoming quite suspicious that you may be using the "wedge" strategy of the creationists. Basically, if they conclude that evolution theory is destructive to mankind, they can use any means, including lies and reframes, to destroy that theory.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

kritz, Evolution is a highly debatable model with huge gaps and holes that ought not to be ignored. You placate your biased mind with the soothing thinking that the resolutions to evolution's problems will be revealed sometime in the future.
______________________________________________

I merely placed my judgement based on what we can find on the table - both from the ID and the evolution proponents. I am equally happy if ID proponents have the upper hand and win their case based on real proofs and solid logic. My mind is still open, but has not been convinced yet of the ID concept based on what has been presented thus far. If there are any biasness at all, ithey are probably caused by what I see as all round bias and dogmatically doctored "scientific" arguements put forth by ID proponents. To me, I am very much open to be convinced by either party or even by a yet to be introduced "new" science, so the issue of biasness does not arise.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

Milo, its not Jack la! He is Dr. John H. Marburger III, the current Science Advisor to the President and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the administration of President George W. Bush. Marburger grew up in Maryland, finally graduating from Princeton University in 1962, with a BA in PHYSICS, followed by a PhD in APPLIED PHYSICS from Stanford University. He was a professor of PHYSICS AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, later becoming Chairman of the PHYSICS DEPARTMENT. In 1980 he became president of SUNY Stony Brook, as it became the university with the most federal funding in the northeast. He later served as trustee of Princeton University.

Mind you, he’s not a Top Biologist!

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

Milo, example of Top Biologist (Professor in Genetics) that says 'No!' to evolution.

Maciej Marian Giertych (born March 24, 1936 in Warsaw) is a Polish social conservative politician of the League of Polish Families (LPR). He favours state intervention in the economy. Member of the Sejm (between 2001 and 2004) and a current Polish member of the European Parliament (since 2004). He was a candidate in the 2005 Polish presidential elections, but withdrew from the race because of low vote results (circa 3%).
In 1954 Giertych passed his final school exams and entered Oxford University. He received the BA and MA in dendrology. Between 1958 and 1962 he studied at the University of Toronto, where he received his PhD for studies on tree physiology.
In 1962 Giertych returned to Poland, where he completed his qualifications for an assistant professorship at the Institute of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN) in Kórnik near Poznań. In 1964 he married Antonina née Janik. In 1970 he received his Habilitation degree for his studies on FOREST GENETICS at the Agricultural University of Poznań. Since 1976 he has lectured at the Nicolaus Copernicus University of Toruń. He has also published more than 200 works and studies, mostly on forest-related topics. The same year he also became a member of the Forest Sciences Committee of the PAN.

His view of Evolutionary Theory

Maciej Giertych documents how his views changed from assuming evolution is true to being skeptical of it.[1] Giertych rebutted the accusation that he advocated creationism in schools. He stated: "I am a scientist — a population geneticist with a degree from Oxford University and a PhD from the University of Toronto — and I am critical of the theory of evolution as a scientist, with no religious connotation."[2] As a skeptic, Giertych referred to what he called 'growing evidence against evolution.'Giertych asserts that his genetics studies led him to examine the claims that evolution is supported by genetics and found them wanting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maciej_Giertych

By Maciej Giertych
As a forester, I study populations of trees and breed more productive ones. I have done much reviewing of forest genetic literature and writing of monographic volumes on various forest tree species for the Institute of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, where I work. I often contribute chapters on genetics. I know of no biological data relevant to tree genetics that would require evolutionary explanations. I could easily pursue my career without ever mentioning evolution.
EVIDENCE LACKING
However, being also an academic teacher in population genetics, I found it necessary to play down the evolutionary explanations given in textbooks, for the simple reason that I find no evidence to support them. In fact, it was my teaching of population genetics, coupled with the discovery that my children are being taught evolution in secondary school on the claim that population genetics provides evidence for it, that made me enter the debate publicly.
I had been taught that palaeontology gives the bulk of the evidence for evolution. To my surprise, I found that evidence is lacking not only in genetics but also in palaeontology, as well as in sedimentology, in dating techniques, and in fact in all sciences. However, here I shall restrict myself to a review of the arguments for evolution drawn from my field, genetics.
Perhaps the most evident misinformation in textbooks is the suggestion that microevolution is a small-scale example of macroevolution.

http://www.answersingenesis.or...netics.asp

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

To Densemy:

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

I think the above cartoon is a cheap shot, as usual the approach to things presented from the creationists platform. Those with good self-esteem do not feel any insult if it can be shown we came from the apes or even from a worm. The past may provide a link but have nothing to do with who I am in the present. Those with a poor self-esteem will be the ones affected by the truths. Perhaps this is the reason why, they NEED to proof we are created in the image of God. I am ok what ever the truth is.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

Yep, I got the name of Bush's science adviser wrong. Copied wrongly on the internet. But his views on evolution is reported correctly. And you do not need a top biologist to determine whether evolution makes sense based on presentations made on both opposing camps. Like what Ken Miller said, most pro-evolutionary scientists are prepared even to argue for ID as a science if the scientific process of proving something is followed. But most ID proponents are actually christians who use the Bible as a basis to shape their thinking. The ID concept as I have mentioned earlier is develop to make it looks more neutral and scientic. So the fact is, it is a repackaged concept of creationism based on Christian's dogmatic beliefs.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

Milo wrote: But most ID proponents are actually christians who use the Bible as a basis to shape their thinking.

On what basis do you come up with that kind of conclusion/generalisation?

As for the cartoon, it was meant for Densemy as a joke!
And Milo, you haven't answer my earlier questions on the definition of "The Most Evolved"! No idea??

Here's a bit of reading for you about ID as A Theory of Information!Hope you can grasp what the author is trying to convey!
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

Milo, so you have concluded that ID is a repackaged concept of creationism based on Christian's dogmatic beliefs. What about dogmatic believer of Evolution?

Henry Fairfield Osborn, one of the most famous evolutionists of the early twentieth century, suggested: “In truth, from the earliest stages of Greek thought man has been eager to discover some natural cause of evolution, and to abandon the idea of supernatural intervention in the order of nature” (1918, p. ix).

Henry Morris has noted: “Evolution is the natural way to explain the origin of things for those who do not know and acknowledge the true God of creation. In fact, some kind of evolution is absolutely necessary for those who would reject God” (1966, p. 9.
Sir Arthur Keith of Great Britain wrote: “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable” (as quoted in Criswell, 1972, p. 73).

Professor D.M.S. Watson, who held the position of the Chair of Evolution at the University of London for over twenty years, echoed the same sentiments when he stated that “evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is incredible” (1929, 123:233).

Almost seventy years later, evolutionist Richard Lewontin wrote:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen (1997, p. 31, emp. in orig.).

These kinds of statements leave little to the imagination, and make it clear that those who make them believe in evolution not because of the evidence, but instead because they have made up their minds, a priori, that they are not going to believe in God. The Theory of Evolution is not science pe se but a dogmatic belief.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

Kritz: On what basis do you come up with that kind of conclusion/generalisation?
_______________________________________

That generalisation came about because of how the concept come into being. It came into being in after the the US Court decided that creationism is not science and cannot be introduced to the school as such. The Dover case is one case that have brought this into the open. Perhaps my generalisation is not totally accurate from today's perspective because others, like some muslims and other monotists have jumped into the bandwagon.

In case you think I do not believe in any form of intelligent forces in the universe and a pure science-based person, I am not. I do believe there are intelligent "forces" (which is neutral and with the absence of an all powerful 'designer') existing in the universe but not in the concept of creation as proposed by the monotists. There are religions (such as Janism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc.) which have creation theory that are compatible with evolution. In fact, they went beyond evolution, which is why they are not considered a science because most part of the concept are not testable. But their concept of creation, destruction and recreation of the universe are more compatible with modern day progress in science than those of the intelligent designer concept.

For example, in the Aganna Sutta of buddhisim, the Buddha describes the universe being destroyed and then re-evolving into its present form over a period of countless millions of years. The first life formed on the surface of the water and again, over countless millions of years, evolved from simple into complex organisms. All these processes are without beginning or end and are set in motion by natural causes. These information are available in original pali text (which is over two thousand years old) as well as modern day translation.

If you consider that life in matter requires "intelligent inputs", then I would say 'intelligent forces' rather than an 'intelligent designer' or God is more logical. The latter will automatically begs the question "who create the designer?", whereas in the later case, this question does not arise(which at the vary least makes it more compatible to modern day scientific thinking).

I have no wish to go into a debate of religious comparison but you can get some information of what I said from: http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda03.htm.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

Correction: whereas in the FORMER case, this question does not arise(which at the vary least makes it more compatible to modern day scientific thinking).

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

Milo, the link that you've posted is not working.

FILE NOT FOUND

The page may have been moved, renamed or deleted.

You could try to find it using our search engine, or site map.
Alternatively you can return to the BuddhaNet home page.

You will be automatically transfered to the BuddhaNet Sitemap in 10 seconds.


© Buddha Dharma Education Association 1992-2002 > home > sitemap

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

Try goggle: Buddhism and the God Idea

Also try wikipedia to have glimpse of Buddhism and Jainism alternate creation theories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F..._questions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

Also read the book: The Buddha's Explaination of the Universe by C.P. Ranasinhe

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

What or where is Nirvana?

It is a dimension transcending time and space and thus is difficult to talk about or even to think about. Words and thoughts being only suited to describe the time-space dimension. But because Nirvana is beyond time, there is no movement and so no aging or dying. Thus Nirvana is eternal. Because it is beyond space, there is no causation, no boundary, no concept of self and not-self and thus Nirvana is infinite. The Buddha also assures us that Nirvana is an experience of profound happiness. He says:
Nirvana is the highest happiness

So does Buddhism have a code of morality?

Yes, it does. The Five Precepts are the basis of Buddhist morality. The first precept is to avoid killing or harming living beings. The second is to avoid stealing, the third is to avoid sexual misconduct, the fourth is to avoid lying and the fifth is to avoid alcohol and other intoxicating drugs.

Quite an interesting concept!

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

imagine this:

we human - truth seekers
the book (chose anyone you fancy) - the whole truth, nothing but the truth, anything that contradict it is not truth since and before it was written 2000 years, or less, ago.
science - a method of seeking truth methodically, sometimes by trials and errors, gradually building on learned fact, slowly but surely moving closer to the truth.
the race has began less than 1000 years ago (i'm giving a lot of leeway here...).
one has remained on the same position for all that time, or so some claim.
one has moved leaps and bounds, discovering new facts and correcting old misunderstandings at increasing speed
you don't have to agree who is closer to the truth now
but just slow down your pulse rate, relax, put your emotion aside for a while, and picture in your mind the most likely scenario... in 50 yeas, 100 years, 200 years, 1000 years!
imho, time is obviously on the side of one, and the only real chance the other side has is for the development of humanity to end before all their negative arguments run out. and to keep the masses from remaining as ignorant as possible for as long as possible.
unfortunately, desperate people are often dangerous people.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0