nope, Michigan isn’t in their range, and I don’t have the requirements:

*A minimum of $1,000,000 net worth and $250,000 of liquid assets to invest in your California Tortilla franchise;

“IDist, some of the ones I have read/heard, state they aren’t disputing the science behind evolution (at least the science that is correct), but the underlying philosophy and belief that has become so apparent as a result of Darwinism.”

See, that’s funny because the impression they like to give off is we “didn’t come from any damn dirty monkeys” (as my 6th grade science teacher put it).
Pretty much saying God made everything exactly like it is- from saying the grand canyon was carved out of solid granite in 6 days (due to the flood of course) to arguing against stellar formation to saying People and dinosours existed at the same time… it just… I don’t even know how to end this sentence.

According to creationists, we can throw out the following sciences because they’re obviously wrong: Evolutionary biology (obvious in this context), genetics (common genes between like species mean nothing), radiocarbon dating ( car odometer sucks at measuring inches logic), geochronology (earth layers don’t really represent timeline), plate tectonics (crazy theory about continents zooming around the earth and then suddenly stopping, known as catastrophic plate tectonics, again due to the Flood), study of glaciers (only one ice age so all evidence of multiple ice ages must be wrong), erosion (mountains would erode too fast, see theory about grand canyon), astronomy (supernova remnants couldn’t be millions of years old- note, this is why Jon gets so pissed off), Lunar Science (dust on the moon is too fine), stellar formation (no one has directly witnessed a million year process hence it doesn’t happen), Anatomy (eyeballs are irreducibly complex so god made them), study of the coral reefs (they can’t be that old!) and anthropology (Neolithic age couldn’t have happened 7000 years ago because the earth is only 6000 years old). Note that I did not make any of this up- these are all arguments that creationists have made. They say that creationism isn’t about damaging science, but it is- it really is.

There’s a common phrase called the God of the Gaps- the idea that God exists between the gaps in our knowledge. I think that’s the fear of leading creationists- the more we explain, the more science diminishes their God. That’s what Darwin meant when he said “he killed God”- he simply filled in a large gap. There will always be gaps, and there will always be a need for a God (for some people). I have no problem with that. (I find it somewhat ironic that God gave us freewill to blindly follow the bible… seems… almost subverted. But that’s another discusssion entirely). I have a problem with people trying to destroy science to open those gaps back up. And that is exactly what we see happening on so many of the bullet points above.

“At the point of their hypothesis are they crazy? ” It got crazy when the church deemed heliocentrism heresy, leading Coppernicus not to publish until the year he died, or the grief Galileo had to deal with- but that’s neither here nor there. My point was we’ve since learned that these ideas were wrong and fixed them, and now it’s almost as if we’re going backwards. We’ve successfully used the theory of evolution for decades to fight evolving viruses and diseases, as well as learn more about genetic sicknesses and genetic engineering. Saying evolution is bunk is ignoring the many advances across the board that we’ve made in the last 40 years.

As for hope… Hope has no place in science. Hypothesis does, but hope does not. Yes, I do hope I can feed my family tomorrow, but that doesn’t mean that I WILL be able to. It just means I hope I can. You have to follow the data, despite what your emotions may want you to believe. The data says I have a fairly steady job, am able to pay my bills mostly on time, and have multiple options of something horrible was to happen (family, foodstamps, soupkitchens, etc).

The real thing- the REAL thing that bothers me is that the line has become so blurred on A) what a scientific hypothesis is, something we all learned in junior high/middle school and B) that people are so quick to throw out both a true scientific theory and ‘an idea’ because they aren’t able to recognize the difference.

When you throw out both, you lose something much more important. You lose the foundation of science.

It’s important to be able to recognize WHY evolution is an actual scientific theory. I’m not talking about Dawkin’s bullshit psuedo-religious christian bashing. I’m not talking about life being created from nothing, or where the universe came from- hell, I’m not even going to argue that plants and animals evolved from the same single cell critters (if it were autobiogenesis that kicked things off, it’d be silly to presume that it only happened in one instance, unless there’s some strong genetic evidence stating otherwise).

I care what’s taught in our schools because it’s important that in a science class, the people teaching and the people being taught can differentiate between a scientific theory and a philosophical idea. If they can’t differentiate, those gaps are gonna grow.

or what little evidence they did have allowed them to come to these conclusions.

horrible typist in general even worst when I am half asleep.

But here is the issue that is driving the creationist bonkers with evolutionist / Darwinist. I can’t find the exact quote… But Darwin makes a statement along the lines, “I’m afraid I killed God”. Thats not science. And also Dawkins who loathes God and religion, he uses Darwinism (which encompasses evolution) to bolster his claim that God doesn’t exist. They move past science into a philosophy/belief… -> and this creeps into schools under the guise of evolution.

Jon will probably not respond anymore but I have been reading through excerpts from Dawkins “The God Delusion”, and its full of the same fallacies and opinions that are found in “A Case For a Creator”. It’s his opinion, and the scientific facts and theories leads him to believe that there is no God. You could call his book “A Case for NO God”. And thats not to over look what evidence he does present but the fact is he cannot prove there isn’t a God. But does that warrant him as a Grade A idiot?

IDist, some of the ones I have read/heard, state they aren’t disputing the science behind evolution (at least the science that is correct), but the underlying philosophy and belief that has become so apparent as a result of Darwinism. There sheer # of websites that you find if you search for God and Evolution, that follow this belief / philosophy is a testament of this.

“Evolution is the wrong tool for the job- it’s not supposed to cover something coming from nothing (that’s autobiogenesis, aka ‘the tackhammer’). This is the point many biologists are trying to make. Much like the screwdriver, you’re trying to apply it for a job it wasn’t meant to do.”

And this is what quite a lot of Athesis/Darwinist/Evolutionist are trying to do, use evolution for a job it wasn’t meant to do.

Here is a couple video on the philosophical aspect of ID and the philosophy and belief behind darwinism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYW1EBuNkp0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPXXLXA-_YE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUJzmiwQHY0&feature=related

3 part series about 30 min total.

One last point from a quote in the initial posting

Morgajel - “At one time people thought a flaming chariot dragged the sun across the sky - seems silly now, doesn’t it. At one time, they thought the sun rotated around the earth - crazy talk now, huh? Hell, people even used to think the world is flat, but we know better…”

Well here how I see this statement. Sure people at one time didn’t know any better. At the time they had no way or disproving or proving any of these things scientifically. or what little evidence they did had the came to these conclusion. At the point of their hypothesis are they crazy? If they didn’t imagine or wonder, they wouldn’t have tried to even tried to find out what was the actual truth.

Sorta how atheist pokes fun at faith. How can someone belief that something that they can’t see is there.

I would assume morgajel that you have hope in certain things.

Such as you hope that you will be alive tomorrow.
You hope that you can provide a good life for you wife and kids.

But these things cannot be scientifically proven as true so should you have no hope in them?

Is it so crazy for someone to hope that there is a God and that he loves them and at the end of the this, not always so nice life, there is a better place?

Would it be so hard to call people crazy after its been scientifically proven that God does not exist. Or vice versa

Gosh to many thoughts i am ranting….

In conclusion religion shouldn’t not be taught in schools and likewise the philosophy that God doesn’t exist shouldn’t either.

That’s the crux of the whole thing that is driving the scientists bonkers- evolution doesn’t care where it came from! For all an evolutionary biologist cares, god coulda stuck his finger in a pool full of goo and said “let the fittest survive.” Evolution really doesn’t care. Now Jon might, but that’s his deal.

Here’s essentially what you’re saying: “a screwdriver is a useless tool because it’s not heavy enough to pound concrete nails. Screwdrivers are obviously flawed and should not be used.”

Evolution is the wrong tool for the job- it’s not supposed to cover something coming from nothing (that’s autobiogenesis, aka ‘the tackhammer’). This is the point many biologists are trying to make. Much like the screwdriver, you’re trying to apply it for a job it wasn’t meant to do.

BUT, just because it can’t do that job doesn’t mean it isn’t good for the job it’s intended for. When it comes to driving screws, a screwdriver is a great tool. When it comes to explaining why e. coli was suddenly able to start processing citrate as a food source, evolution (via genetic mutation) is the proper tool.

Be it the stirring finger of god or autobiogenesis (maybe they’re the same thing), it’s not evolution’s concern.

“I could care less if ID was tought in schools as a science.”

ID It belongs in a biology class as much as the study of the Ego and Super Ego. There are different types of theories, and much like Freud’s, ID is not a *scientific* theory. As much as I hate to quote wikipedia:

“In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. ”

Where are the testable predictions in ID?

“Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.”
- The U.S. National Academy of Sciences

again, wiki bad, but still a good read:

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