ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ

Dear Newsnight

I think tonight's stories might be more about the symptons of stuff in the world rather than the causes.

The news and political agenda on all fronts limping sadly along, with progress so painfully slow.

re the Creationist stuff could I make a plea for Newsnight and other media outlets to be careful who they interview for stories about various religions and to be careful as identifying them necessarily as 'representatives'of their faiths.

I'm a Christian and I have to be careful what I say here, but really I have being puzzled by some of the things I have heard said-

Please be careful if someone from a position in the Christian faith or any other religion suggests something extreme, because I promise you it may not be the view of quite a few, whether they are right or not in what they are saying is another question

that said I did write an essay as part of my degree in Fine Art Painting, 'why evolution is wrong', I passed maybe i was being a bit bolshy but last night I did watch with a friend a beautiful programme about the Sea on the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ, Planet Earth, and there was so much wonderful stuff on it with one memorable image of seahorse identical to the coral. its hard not to see a creative hand behind all of this.

By the way if you have Richard Dawkins on perhaps ask him why he is trying so hard to de-bunk Religion? he tries so hard it does suggest some sort of inner struggle going on.

Best wishes
Bob Goodall

How can Hillsideboy say,

"we should not permit specific-interest groups to lobby our children with free hand-out to schools. I suggest a set of Professor Dawkins' DVDs be issued to all secondary schools"

Evolutionists are a specific interest group who have had free access to lobby our children with Darwinian theories since the 19th Century. Up until now all schools have taught Dawkins theory of evolution. All the school textbooks teach it as a 'fact'. Isn't it about time that our children were told the other side to this debate? It does specify this on the new Science GCSE specification.

Even up the river before eden there were gardens hybridisation breeding and selection...

There are plenty of heiroglyplics to indicate application to provisional and judicious caring and gardening...

Eden was probalby satans garden before god: ram o'er seas the first came with his goats and made the inhabitants so ignorant they had to wake up with the influence of the women snakes and fruit

I hope Newsnight will continue this brave new course in challenging rationalism in our schools. I hope you will have a proponent of Intelligent Falling (I.F.) to counter this nonsense of the "Law" of Gravity being taught as Science in our schools on your show very soon.

IRAQ: WE SHOULD HAVE EXPORTED A HIGHER LEVEL OF CIVILISATION NOT A LOWER LEVEL OF DEMOCRACY

De-mock-racy..the most unpleasant form of governance..isn't that what we exported so inappropriately

Creationism v Evolutionism: Investigating evolution critically in the classroom has been long overdue. Whether you are a creationist or an evolutionist, you believe that science proves your point of view. Why should students not have the opportunity to investigate these and decide for themselves, rather than having the definition of evolution staring him/herself in the face on one of the first few pages of the prescribed textbook - presenting it as a given. A move in the right direction.

The person opposing discussing creationism in the classroom seemed to miss the point completely, or perhaps purposely.
Is he part of the humanist group? If so, isn't this a religion?
He was shocked that the christian god was being introduced into science, but my admittedly shallow understandng of the subject leads me to see this as a discussion with intelligent people being asked to use their intlligence to look at the idea of the intelligent designer, whoever, or whatever that may be.
Surely Darwinism can stand up to scrutiny? what is wrong with looking at other alternatives?
I thought his attitude to the whole idea was rude, dismissive, patronising and frankly defensive.

Collective Adaptive Request Systems and the way they got to know each other:

"hello you must be one of those amoeba thingies fancy joining me..?" "not sure if I wont! seems a bit of an evolution that..." "want to become a dinosaur.." "god gave me the impression I used a part of an arse of one; but who would know? I hear birds may popular next season.." "got an electron to spare? my entropus feels the need for more stable equilibrium... fancy joining in.. in a whole new relationship better for the both of us? who knows where we might go together? "

Da Capa ad prosperity

IssacsMum may wish to look a little deeper into evolution before dismissing it.
"Dawkins theory of evolution"
I'm sure Prof. Dawkins would be flattered, but to claim he came up with evolution by natural selection is giving him far far too much credit.

Frankly I'm amazed Newsnight gave oxygen to this nonsense, even the American court system can see this isn't science...

You have to feel sorry for Paxman, his interview with Ann Coulter allowed him to give this nonsense a proportionate response.

Im sorry, but Im a 20yr old student, and I was horrified someone wanted to introduce religion into science classes.. If this had happened at a younger age, I would be a very confused person. Not saying I am religious or not, but for me religion at the moment is the most childish thing on the planet, grasping at the "me first" idea of creationalism, unity, understanding and directional force of the human race. Bollocks. Read a science book, do a test of some sort, get your head down and out the clouds and then maybe you can make a comment on what you know or dont know.
Get off your knees with alsorts of wierd voices in your head and stop reading books 1000s of years old. Wake up, the world is falling apart around us and we dont have time for wierdos infiltrating the basics of education!!!

I think the issue of the growth of creationist and/or intelligent design beliefs needs systematic investigation. It is one of the 'wedge issues' that the religious right(whether Christian as in the USA or not) uses so effectively. About three years ago, I started talking about the growing power of this strand in the UK because I noted that one of the Pew surveys that marked out a significant minority - between 25- 35% of the population - here in the UK who do believe in creationism. Compared to the USA, this seems slight but this was/is quite extraordinary given that there is a whole TV/radio/book/church industry in the USA devoted to espousing such views, whereas here their power base is so small. In the past year, there were two other articles in the Guardian Education section -- one reporting on sixth forms and the other on first year science undergraduates: in both cases teachers expressed serious concerns that a a majority of students believed in creationism and/or intelligent design.
I fear that there is little to stop this growing influence; we are less equipped than the USA to confront the religious right on this and other issues (eg abortion, women's status, etc.) On this scientific issue, four British characteristics limit the response.
Firstly, most university graduates - especially 'opinion-formers' are actually quite scientifically illiterate - they quit studying science very early-- 16; linked with this is the growth of anti-rationalism/contempt for experts/relativism and the lack of grasp of what constitutes good evidence and valid argument -- again a tiny minority of university graduates have had any exposure to philosophical arguments about knowledge and logic; debates around animal rights and medical issues such as vaccination both display and re-enforce a 'common sense' anti-science; finally the power of faith schools means that such teaching has been going on unchallenged for a very long time.
I have found most 'very well-educated' people here very ill-prepared to argue successfully against the more sophisticated proponents of intelligent design- partly because their own grasp of basic science let alone evolution is so tenuous.

Isn't it reasonable to say that, the theory of evolution has amassed criticism over its history? Whether right or wrong, it has an immense history of analysis, affirmation, and ironically evolution in its main contentions. Given the colossal implications of its conclusions. i.e. .if true, evolution becomes the ultimate explanation of everything that exists, it seems only reasonable in schools to discuss the science of it in science classless, (along with its shortcomings, criticisms and modifications) and its implications in religion/philosophy classes as a purely academic exercise. And anyway, if the evidence is so clear-cut in its favour, surely every school kid who is taught it will see the sense of it anyway. So what’s wrong with teaching apposing views in schools? Don't we want our children to grow up understanding freedom of opinion and expression and interpretation of all groups? What is the harm given the strength of its conclusions? No child is going to be convinced are they?

What is it about politics that renders people incapable of admitting they were wrong until hundreds of years later? Today we have Blair apologising for slavery and the Defence Secretary caught like a rabbit with headlights by simple non-aggressive questions put by Jeremy Paxman. Are the Govt so out of touch with reality that they cannot forsee the obvious questions on everybody's mind about Iraq? Even the Bush Administration immediately changed the rhetoric and started to cede that the sun is not always shining in Iraq, though it took the election results to prompt it. Browne is both staying the course and withdrawing from Iraq. He and his colleagues at Westminister must be alone with George Bush in believing that the world is safer today, and that Iraq is more stable now than under Saddam. By ignoring the obvious, this Govt is losing credibility to the point that when a war may really be neeeded, it will not be allowed happen. How many generations will pass before a future British prime minister will admit that the decision to attack Iraq was wrong and apologise.

The Ethical Man's quest to make driving and flying more enjoyable again by encouraging the masses to quit is doomed to failure. The public will become more suspicious that climate change fears are being used cynically by the Government to increase taxation and make the counry a more pleasant place for the landed gentry to live in. When the masses are taxed off the roads and out of the skies, the wealthy will enjoy their travels on the roads and in the air without the dregs of Ryanair creating queues and hordes of Fords, Vauxhalls and Toyotas slowing them down.

Schoolchildren have been taught evolution because there is clear evidence for it.

The theory has been repeatedly tested through scientific procedures such as observation and experimentation, and supported by the results.

Of course, that doesn't make evolution an absolute incontrovertible 'fact'. Just the best-supported theory available to date. This is why it is pre-eminent in education.

However, there is no evidence for an 'intelligent designer' - just assertion that complexities that allegedly can't be explained other ways might be down to an intelligence.

Creationism is not proposing an answer and testing it. It's pointing at things, asserting we don't know the answer, making one up, but is unable to prove it.

That is not scientific behaviour.

What there is clear evidence for in creationism is that those pushing it have a strong religious connections.

Surely most schools also have religious education lessons where their ideas about intelligent 'creators' can be discussed.

So what is driving these fanatics to shoehorn their beliefs into into other areas of education?

I'm still recovering from seeing my own evolution played out on my tv screen and on Newsnight too. The handsome prince later evolved back into a beast stalking the West End as Munkustrap in CATS; but is currently safely tethered in a grove of academe, but only on a visiting lecture basis, so who knows what next? I shall be consulting some prophet or other directly.......

My dearest friends,

I must say that this person pretending of being scientist on today's programme talking about Evolution Theory is the perfect example that that theory does not apply to him (he was talking indeed as he was the most clever person in the World - "poor fella", let's leave him in the jungle "surviving" and "perfectioning the species").

Indeed, the alternative view to Evolution Theory has a religion stink but seriously, to believe that something so perfect as for instance the human brain is a product of "Evolution" you definitely need to be either on drugs or in an advanced state of dementia.

Creationism vs Evolution

The debate as presented was clearly fraudulent. On one side, a scientist saying we must operate on the basis of evidence. On the other, a religious creationist saying we must "critically examine" that evidence.

In short - the same thing! Where, then is the difference? Simply that the creationist did not in any way *want* a critical examination. Rather, he wanted to impose a religious view in science for which there is no evidence whatsoever that *can* be examined. For his claim in favour of examination to be true, he would be obliged *not* to introduce a new claim but to restrict himself to that evidence and its examination. This is clearly not at all what he wants.

As a scientist, I not only have no objection to a critical examination of evidence, I percieve it as an absolute requirement of science and one which natural selection and the process of evolution has withstood for centuries. However, I do not accept, nor will I ever accept, that evidence-based science can ever be "debated" by comparison to what is perfectly clearly a religious belief with no basis in nor supporting evidence for, actual demonstrable reality.

Dear Newsnight

re the Jeremy Paxman interview with Des Browne, I found it extremely depressing and worrying. Mr Paxmans interview was outstanding but I thought as Des Browne struggled to answer the questions, you having a laugh arent you, is what you are saying a example of the quality of our Governments strategic planning,

on this and the other big decisions about to be made if tonights interview is anything to go by,

we appear to be doomed

Bob Goodall

chris @11

Well I'm a 50 year old, and the idea of creationism being taught alongside science horrifies me too. I’m not an atheist but science is about testable hypothesis and religion deals with untestable beliefs. If you think that creationism provides a better explanation for biological complexity and diversity than evolution then go ahead and teach that, in a Religion class. It has no place alongside science.

Bob Goodall commits the number 1, best selling fallacy that plagues the evolution / creationism debate. It's called the 'argument from incredulity' and it's utterly useless from an explanation point of view: I'll paraphrase rather clumsily but hope it gets the point across: "That's amazing / I don't understand / it's so complex and therefore it must have been designed / have a purpose / a work of god". To explain how useless this bit of pseudo-reasoning is, I might now ask the child's question - but who designed the designer?

A more logical explanation might be demonstrated by the following example. Only today I was musing on how amazing tower cranes seem at first sight. Their slenderness, their fine balance, and above all their height. Isn't it a miracle that we can put them up? But then of course, it's simple. You use a smaller crane (or jacks). And to erect the smaller crane you could you use an even smaller crane. And so on. There are no skyhooks in this argument. That is essentially Darwinism (don't confuse this argument with evolution by natural selection however, because a crane obviously has a human designer). I admit that you get to a point, some time in the past, where you can't explain any more, but that is where the scientist puts her hand up and honestly states, "I don't know. This is the limit of my knowledge" whereas a person of faith will invoke his god. But how does that help the explanation? Ergo paragraph 1.

I agree that Richard Dawkins perhaps lays in to religion too much, because it undeniably has a benign side. I was brought up as a Christian and it never did me any harm.

But I know why he does it: because right now there's virtually nobody else to speak up for rational thinking. This country has got many fine scientists who seem to be unwilling to enter the evolution / creationism 'debate' even though they know full well (and can easily prove) that Intelligent Design is nonsense. Who did we have tonight on the side of evolution? A pleasant, though slightly bewildered old chap from the humanist society. Where were the Big Guns from the Royal Society?

Many believe that the battle can be won simply by not engaging with the proponents of ID. This is a dangerous strategy, as the recent 'Truth in Science' packs demonstrate. Dawkins lays in while other scientists vacillate (and not about the science itself, I might add, just when and if they should come down from their ivory towers!). Some people might think that he has overstepped the mark - gone outside the boundaries of science. Well if creationism isn't religion stepping outside the boundaries then I don't know what is. Sorry, the gloves are off and ye of faith asked for it!

Don't believe for a minute that creationism has anything to do with a crisis in Darwinism. It is, however, about getting a particularly narrow-minded and sub-intellectual form of Christianity into the mainstream and we in the silent majority should do everything in our power to stifle it now, before it gets out of hand.

Unfortunately I switched on too late to catch all but the last few minutes of the Evolution/Design debate. Who was the Professor(?) talking about design and the second law of thermodynamics? Now that, is REAL Science, but is lost on the majority of people. Whereas evolution is based upon very little scientific fact and a considerable amount of conjecture and supposition and is in itself a FAITH.
Survival of the fittest is clearly observable, but how can we have an upward trend in complexity without an input of intelligence. The intelligence within the Concorde airliner is minimal compared with the complexity of life and it required the combined intelligence of hundreds of design engineers over a period of around 15 years, could it have happened by chance?
I think that the intelligence required to give variation within a species come from WITHIN the genome not from some arbitrary unintelligent force from without. You have only got to look at dogs for example to see what huge variations are possible, but they are still dogs!
Religion is NOT essential to analyse these two approaches to the origins of life.

Am I the only person so far to ask if you would tell us please - who or what is Truth in Science; where are they based and how are their activities funded?

When the interviewee Prof. McIntosh first emerged in the media back in early October I penned the following to the Times ... sadly it did not get published , but I think my argument still stands ...

Sir

It is hard to tell if Prof. McIntosh (Science v. Faith, 7/10/2006) is writing with tongue in cheek . If not , much as I admire and defend the freedom of all academics to say write what they wish , I would earnestly recommend that any of his students now coughing up Β£ 3,000 a year be completely sure they are getting something better than this in return .
I commend to readers - and Prof. McIntosh - The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins , and Why Intelligent Design Fails edited by Young and Edis, which together demolish the concept of intelligent design much more elegantly and informatively than I could ever hope to do . The former address the concept in somewhat general but common-sense terms , and the latter is a collection of articles thoroughly and elegantly taking apart the pseudo-scientific literature propagated by the proponents of ID. Suffice it to say here that their concept of science bears as much relation to real science as astrology does to astronomy - quite possibly less - and the idea of a meaningful "origins debate" is consequently as much a non-starter as a vote between Hamlet and Thomas the Tank Engine for the title of best-ever piece of English literature .
It is , I regret to say , a great pity that the scientific establishments in both the UK and the USA have been both slow and somewhat gentle in fighting-back against such hooey , but many of us live in hope .

The reason that 'the other side of the debate' isn't taught in schools is because there are no other valid theories that explain the diversity of life on Earth and the evidence from the fossil record. And the evidence is overwheming, coming from numerous branches of science - biochemistry, molecular genetics, radiological dating, information theory and so on and on and on.

Creationism and Intelligent Design are not scientific theories because they are fundmentally untestable - they explain everything as the result of a miracle caused by supernatural forces.

Creationism relies on a particular telling of a creation myth from one family of religions; if it wasn't bad enough that this myth conflicts with other creation myths, almost all theologicians would speak of the power of Genesis lying in its figurative language, not in whether either of the creations in the Bible are true or not.

Intelligent Design is a slightly more sophisticated argument (although American courts have ruled it is nothing more than a retelling of the Genesis myth); but it makes an assumption that there is some level of complexity below which organisms cannot function. The evidence for this fundamental irreducability is much less sound than they make out, indeed, their textbook example of a bacterial flagellum (a tail used for swimming) has been demolished. IDers used to claim that it was impossible to make a flagellum any simpler - it was irreducably complex, take away any part of it and it wouldn't work. Not true, more simple mechanisms are now know and some of the genes involved are found in other bacteria governing completely different tasks.

The same for haemoglobin and other complex molecules - each held up by IDers as irreducably complex - each proved not to be. The argument of ID - that we haven't solved every step so far - therefore we never can - therefore a miracle must be involved - is a falsehood. We haven't solved controllable nuclear fusion yet, we're clearly missing some knowledge, but no one seriously thinks it can't be done. Creationism and ID just close off part of the story with a glib 'oh that bit's a miracle'. Their thinking goes as follows. You can't recreate 'Let there be light' in the lab, so creationism and ID can't be disproved which means they must be valid scientific theories. The fact there is no evidence for a miraculous creation outside of the Bible is almost irrelevant to creationists and IDers - they believe in one, so there must be a Creator. But where does this stop? Do we give up on Newtonian gravity and resort to Aristotle because it's more common sense, or should we replace it entirely with 'intelligent falling'?

Darwinism, in contrast, makes predictions and it can be replicated in the lab or out in the field. It's been tested on everything from RNA to bacteria to worms to fish to lizards - and it keeps coming up trumps.

Every aspect of Darwin's theory can be tested, so far it hasn't been broken - it has been modified slightly, but the fundamental part of it remains intact. Darwin couldn't explain the mechanism behind his theory, he came up with the concept of gemmules - inheritable packets of characteristics, but other scientists couldn't find them. This caused him great problems, but he retained absolute faith in his theory. It wasn't until Mendelian genetics came along that Darwin's inheritable packets could be explained in terms of genes - which were then decoded, firstly as genes, which could be located in chromosomes, and in the 1950s, inside DNA.

The amazing fact is that we can observe evolution occuring inside DNA and its relative, RNA. Individual genes have ancestors from which they have evolved mutation by mutation.

There are fundamental questions as yet unanswered but there is no reason to assume they are unanswerable; the evolution of DNA and RNA are two fascinating ones that are still some way from resolution. The origin of life itself is still mysterious - although a working definition of 'life' is more tricky than it may seem. We have theories, none of them entirely satisfactory, but none of them break the laws of chemistry as we know them. It's a formidable problem and an exciting one - we should be getting kids excited by these problems not looking for a Creator.

We know interstellar space contains relatively complex organic (in the chemical sense of the word - not 'living') molecules. Unimaginable amounts of amino acids, carbohydrates, aromatic alcohols and ketones are being manufactured by the action of starlight on simple materials like methane and ammonia - right now. We know the moons of the ice giants Uranus and Neptune are coated in frozen black ooze, we've even found meteorites containing these organic molecules. Spark lightning into ammonia, methane and water and you end up with organic goop, do the same with molten rock - same result. The building blocks from which we're made from were certainly slopping around on the early Earth.

Take a planet sized stew of tar, cook for few million years and you'd be a fool to bet against something extraordinarily complex appearing - perhaps even a replicating molecule - the ancestor of RNA perhaps. And a replicating molecule only had to appear once, after that, Darwinian evolution gets to work - complexity appears.

If the creationists and IDers want their theories to be taken seriously they've got to produce the man with the white beard. Until then they can go and join the homeopaths and spoon benders.

I'm still recovering from the shock of seeing my own evolution played out on my tv screen and, bizarrely, on Newsnight too. The so called handsome prince later retrovolved - assuming previous beastliness and stalking the West End as Munkustrap in CATS. Although currently safely tethered in a grove of academe, who knows what phase may be next? Maybe I should be consulting some prophet or other.......

Creationism v Evolution: Jeremy umpired excellently but its a confused argument. Religion has its tests just like science. A successful religion put to the test produces a surviving culture. But as scientific observation develops, the understanding of any religion needs updating. We can now see Jesus taught evolution through natural selection. Read the parable of The Sower again. He even explained how his listeners at the time would not understand that, and why he spoke in parables, so it would make sense to later generations at another level. The 'knowledge' for any design comes from experience, and the universe is just that. Wolpert's valid point is: don't confuse small repeatable tests (science) with the total experiment of universal existence and speculation on the nature of alpha and omega. Enjoy both, one can inform the other, but don't confuse.

Just want to comment on 27/11 newsnight programme which talked about Iraq. I guess Mr.Jalal Talabani is the President of Iraq, not the prime Minister, just to be note for the next time.,

Re: Interview with Des "Swiss Tony" Browne MP.

Despite being unable to truthfully answer direct and frankly mild questioning by Mr Paxman, the Defence Secretary has shown us the theme we can now expect to be developed by the Downing Street PR machine. Namely, how can the utter failure of Government policy be presented as a success to the public while the Army gets the heck out of town before the roof falls in on top of them?

In other news the troops in Afghanistan will 'get everything they need' to 'do the job'. Who defines 'need' - backsliding MOD mandarins or frontline commanders? - and what exactly is the 'job'?

Our Government's approach of cynical media management in preference to well thought out policy was long ago exposed over their domestic agenda. Sadly they have continued in this vein while conducting foreign policy, with inevitable and tragic consequences.

Could anyone contributing tonight on the broadly anti-evolution front tell me how an Intelligent Designer would actually help further the course of scientific discovery?

For instance, how would this hypothesis have helped us map the human genome? Or grow new tissue from Stem cells? Or create energy crops? Seriously - if we adopted Intelligent Design tomorrow as a working hypothesis, how would we benefit?

And in response to, "Just an ordinary imperfect person" who wrote that, to believe that something so perfect as for the human brain is a product of "Evolution" you definitely need to be either on drugs or in an advanced state of dementia, just wanted to say... or perhaps a neuroscientist??

Final posting, I promise!

.....I also think that many people are spectacularly badly read on the subject of evolution, and science in general. Many of the comments I have heard on this forum tonight are simple fallacies committed time and again. Anyone who considers themselves to have an open mind on this should now go and read (if they haven't already):

Massimo Pigliucci's "Denying evolution".

Daniel Dennett's "Darwin's dangerous idea"

Anything by Dawkins, but as previously mentioned by someone else "Blind watchmaker", "Selfish gene" and "The Ancestors Tale". He might be the atheist that everyone loves to hate, but his earlier science writing is established and revered.

I'm an unashamed reader of popular science books but it's better than making up all my own theories!

As Andrew Ruddle commented, and which makes a fantastic brief summary, 'intelligent design' is to evolution what astrology is to astronomy.

Both focus on the same theme, one offering conjecture, the other scientific observation.

If 'intelligent design' is permitted in science education, then we might as well start teaching kids the 'theory' of how planetary movements affect our love lives in science lessons too.

Evolution is the name for a theory which sole purpose was "to separate science from Moses" - and yes, I have read the books, have you?

Mid to late 1800s the theory of evolution was "proven". Along came the rest and jumped on the evolution band wagon. A decade later a panel of professors dismissed the proof and discredited the author of the research. Why? Because the evidence was modified to conform to the authors' theory (instead of the other way round) - the authors' defense was a β€œMany people do this, so why can’t I” one. Still, the ride is now too comfortable (on the conscience) and they fail to get off.

2 Timothy 4:3 "For the time will come when they will not keep to sound doctrine, instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great many teachers, saying the things their itchy ears want to hear".

And if you do not keep to sound doctrine , what would you want to hear? That it is OK to do as you please? That you have no accountability for the things you do in life? That your actions have no implication on your salvation?

The Bible has been proven correct and accurate both historically AND scientifically, with a coherent message over several hundreds of years. That is not just by chance.

And when you have determined that there is indeed a Creator, I'd suggest you better do what He says. Or not …

I rather think that an "intelligent designer" would have produced something a great deal better than we have actually got.

What "intelligent designer" would leave its own existence to be such a mystery that the species that it supposedly created as its ultimate achievement would spend so much of its time and effort making up a vast number of competing fanciful stories in speculation about the nature of the "intelligent designer" and what it wants us all to do.

A designer of even limited intelligence would perhaps have realised that this rather basic flaw in its design would lead to enormous conflict, suffering and bloodshed of vast numbers of innocent people.

If we are to put before our children the idea that there may have been a "designer" a bit of honesty is also required.

The term "intelligent design" will have to go and be replaced by "not particularly competent design" and/or "rather malicious design"

Creation v Evolution
The only tool some people seem to have is ridicule. It seems almost a tactic to laugh at creationists like small children.

1. I note a few points from above relating to the assertion that you cannot be a real scientist if you are not an evolutionist,
Re: Isaac Newton mentioned on scientific testing: Creationist
Michael Faraday - Creationist
Pascal - Creationist
Pasteur - Creationist (now after Darwin)
Einstein even has a few very interesting quotes on a designer
A bit of a dream team there.

2. Below is a link to a page showing hundreds of current scientists (with a doctorate and above) who believe in a creator:
www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

This is not a lunatic theory, this is believed by hundreds of emminent scientists and should be examined.

3. The origins of everything - Re response no. 27 'Take a planet sized stew of tar' - A few questions arise - Where did the 'tar' come from? is it eternal? something must be. You cannot get something from nothing (test that in a lab!). Where did matter come from?

4. I personally come from a Christian perspective. Jesus believed the old testemant literally. Jesus died and rose again to prove all he taught (different debate on the ressurection for later).
I am with the man who came back from the dead.

5. Implications of believing in a creator
- you have to do what he says
- you are accountable to someone
- there is a moral code to live by
- it means there is something after death and the choices you make now count.

6. Evidence for creation - I am not into closing my eyes to evidence and I do not think Prof McIntosh is either. In fact he was asking for scientific testing with a neutral starting point. Evolutionists and creationists do not have neutral starting points. Lets take up the prof's challenge and see where the evidence leads. Evolutionists do not seem to want to open the debate.

IF there is a God (which I believe there is and you can know Him) and he is omnipotent (all powerful) then creating something like the earth would be no problem at all. In fact why did he take as long as 6 days to do it? He could have done it in an instant. Jesus claimed to be God, Jesus also did miracles (which his opponents did not deny at the time, they claimed he was doing them through some dark forces).

Get on the side of the man who rose from the dead, they implications of not doing that are terrible.

from reading some of the posts here, it is absolutely frightening how ignorant about the subject some of the posters are, Creationism or Intelligent Design is being touted as an aklternative to Evolution, this is simply not true, Intelligent Design has no scientific basis, no evidence and is purely a religious viewpoint. Evolution is based on Scientific Method and belongs in the Science Class, ID does NOT.

The Age of Enlightenment seems to have bypassed a large group of people who are still residing in the Dark Ages.

Just to say, the guy who spoke on evolution seemed very aggressive and closed-minded. As a scientist, I know that good science demands an open mind and the ability to go where the evidence leads. It sounded to me like this was what the scientist advocating intelligent design was proposing; simply to consider the evidence with an open mind and not a preconceived set of ideas. If it hadn't been for such open-mindedness, the world would still be seen as flat, medicine would be comparatively medieval and the sun would be rotating around us.

Any good scientific experiment requires collection of evidence, and going where that evidence leads. And to those who say there is no direct evidence for an intelligent designer, there is also no direct evidence for evolution (when for example mathematics demands that there should be at least hundreds of "halfway species" populating the earth). As good, honest scientists, we can only go where the evidence most clearly points. But before we can do that, we need to remove any prejudiced thinking one way or the other, as we would for any other experiment.

I therefore think it's fair enough to teach both sides of the argument (design/no design) in a purely scientific atmosphere without links to any specific religion, and let students come to their own conclusions.

I don't doubt for a moment that 'hundreds' of scientists, like so many in other professions, hold religious beliefs.

But the idea that because not all scientists are atheists there must be some scientific basis for religious beliefs worth examining typifies the reasoning acrobatics of the creationists.

I'd be perfectly willing to play along with the clever 'teach the controversy / evolutionists don't want to debate' strategy of the creationists and examine any 'evidence' for an intelligent designer. If only there was any to examine.

All creationists have in the real world is claiming we can't yet explain some things, not evidence for their preferred 'explanation'-one that just so happens to suit their obvious religious predilections.

Yet many things about our world that were a mystery to us in previous centuries have proved to have rational scientific explanations.

The obvious further question to follow on from those perfectly valid ones asked in response 38 (point 3)is where did the alleged 'creator' come from? Quote: "You cannot get something from nothing".

Contrary to the creationist propaganda, there is no serious scientific controversy, debate or challenge to evolution being made by 'intelligent design'. Which is why it does not merit being brought into science lessons.

"I therefore think it's fair enough to teach both sides of the argument (design/no design) in a purely scientific atmosphere without links to any specific religion, and let students come to their own conclusions."

So what real evidence is there for creationism/intelligent design?

In response 32, Dave H wrote:
"Could anyone contributing tonight on the broadly anti-evolution front tell me how an Intelligent Designer would actually help further the course of scientific discovery?
For instance, how would this hypothesis have helped us map the human genome? Or grow new tissue from Stem cells? Or create energy crops? Seriously - if we adopted Intelligent Design tomorrow as a working hypothesis, how would we benefit?"
You might very well ask the same question about evolution.
First, science itself was established at a time when the vast majority of scientists believed in a Creator. In fact, some historians of science argue that modern science could not have evolved(!) at that time without the belief that the world was created in an orderly way and therefore was open to rational analysis.
Second, mapping the human genome, growing new tissue from stem cells and creating energy crops can all be done quite happily with no reference to evolution. All you need is an understanding of genetics.
Prof Philip Skell, a member of American's National Academy of Sciences (majority pro-evolution) says, "My own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
"I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss."
(Source:www.uncommondescent.com/archives/805)

As an extremely passionate athiest, I can safely say that creationism should not be taught in schools for to reasons. One, being that Creationism is a completely Christian ideology and neglects any other beliefs such as Hindu or Muslim. The second being that I believe children should choose there own religon and not have one forced onto them!

Fact - Religion, Creationism and Intelligent Design are NOT scientific in any way. Religion is fine for a religious class. Not for a science class.

The theory of evolution is a theory just in the same way gravity is. And it does stand up to scientific scrutiny, where religion cannot.

No practical scientific gain can be made in the science lab from promoting religion as an 'alternative' to science. Religion is a matter of faith. It works best that way.

Religion is not an alternative for science, they are two distinctly seperate subjects. It should not be taught in science class just because certain people misunderstand the concept of science.

Comment 41 - JohnC

I have serious doubts to your claim as a scientist. You are obviously neither a biologist or a mathematician. A mathematitian has no business criticising biology for the same way a chef couldn't criticise a ship designer. Thank goodness there are plenty of other people knowledgeable in mathematics who would disagree with you.

Comment 44 - Andrew Halloway

If you are using the uncommondescent site as your source of information, you won't get very far in the world of science. It should be noted that those who frequent that site had plenty of chances to present their scientific 'evidence' in court at Dover, USA. There so-called 'evidence' was found wanting and shown to be nothing more than 30 year old bad arguments against evolution which have been debunked many times over.

Perhaps Intelligent Design should work on providing some TESTABLE evidence before manipulating the school boards to get it taught before they've completed their 'research'.

Can we please all get our facts straight on the Intelligent Design ruling by the judge in the USA.

1. This was one opinion by one judge (who is not a scientist) in a local court (who possibly did not begin from a neutral position?).

2. The ONLY official ruling was that ID was linked to religion and therefore could not be raised in school as of course state and religion are completely seperate in the USA.

No more points on the USA courts saying ID is wrong - You would be wrong to say that.

Creationism vs. Evolution

Errrm. As worrying as it is having ID brought in to a science lesson, it is even more worrying and atrocious that the so-called 'Science' teachers have allowed it to be. Evidently they do not know their own ethos and standards, cannot tell the difference between beliefs and sciences, Science and Faith, or myths and facts. This gives me no faith (with a small 'f') in the education system, its practitioners or the future of our society. We need to stand up and show the achievements of unbiased reasoning and method; what inspiration would ID give us?

David said:

"Can we please all get our facts straight on the Intelligent Design ruling by the judge in the USA."

Agree.

"1. This was one opinion by one judge (who is not a scientist) in a local court (who possibly did not begin from a neutral position?)."

And the so-called scientists in favour of intelligent design equated it with astrology (Behe). Kind of blew away the idea of it being science, didn't it? Also, would he have been considered neutral if he ruled in favour of creationism? And again, I point out that the ID crowd had plenty of time to present their 'evidence'. They failed - miserably. Oh, and by the way, the result of the decision turned out NOT to be local. It is illegal to teach ID ANYWHERE in the USA.

"2. The ONLY official ruling was that ID was linked to religion and therefore could not be raised in school as of course state and religion are completely seperate in the USA."

Yes, they are. And if religion is taught as science in the UK, many of us will wish we had that law here.

"No more points on the USA courts saying ID is wrong - You would be wrong to say that."

Wrong.

I see you also fail to point out how intelligent design IS scientific.

As for the UK, science belongs in a science class. Religion belongs in a religious class. Teaching religion in a science class would be like teaching football strategies in a woodworks class.

As a Christian I believe in Darwinism [1a] & Evolution [1b] & Science ….. & God.

As a healthy sceptical professional, I am open to examine tangible evidence based arguments on virtually any subject.

Therefore, as a rational adult, I cannot stomach the myopic self supporting, self serving & deluded notions of:

- Intelligent Design [2]
- Creationism [3]

MOTIVATION: Religious fundamentalism
REASON: Recruitment & Influence
EVIDENCE: disingenuous use of 'faith'

Religious fundamentalists (whether Christian or Islamic or other) are undermining their respective faiths & peoples tolerance for such when they tout such pap.

I note with some interest, that often those who promote & buy into Intelligent Design & Creation also do similar with 911 Conspiracy Theories & similar.

In this case CREATIONISM does live up to its name, as they attempt to CREATE the 'faith based evidence' with pseudo science & 'faith based reason'

If they are right & we are ALL wrong, then suppose many/all will happily be converted by the production & upheld investigation into their real tangible evidence !

Until then (if ever) such fundamentalists cannot wish something into existence * & expect that to be taught in lieu of credible scientific findings of universal acclaim.

* counting the years in the bible ** to 'determine' the age of the earth (6,000 years?) & the discounting dinosaur remains as planted evidence.

** an historic record of innumerable rewrites & of questionable historic impartiality.

Fundamentalists, who tout Intelligent Design & Creationism are demanding PARITY based on their scientific notion of clicking a pair of 'ruby slippers' combined with a faith based exclamation of 'abracadabra'

Such pap should not be let near schools & young impressionable minds, period.

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1a]
[1b]
[2]
[3]

isaac'smum - surely 'Darwin's theory of evolution'? [although Dawkins may well subscribe to it.

Regarding this debate - it would be useful to link this to the climate change debate. Just because there are there are inconsistencies / debates about climate change doesn't mean it is not happening.

And likewise we cannot prove evolution didn't happen. So should we not move the debate on to say that we can believe in evolution / climate change despite us not having a complete knowledge of them.

Stating that 'evolution is a fact' is like saying 'climate change will cause a 2 degree rise in temperature this century and an x-metre rise in sea-levels.' Good from a viewpoint of getting people to take it seriously.

But it walks into the trap of denying other theoretical projections.

Also, for David's (comment 49) benefit...

Local decision, eh? I think you're playing games.

In response to Andrew Halloway's rebuttal (44) to my post (32), you didn't answer my question.

How does Intelligent Design make a practical contribution to science?

And in response to DavidW, posting 38 point 6: what do you define as a neutral stating point? If said neutral starting point could be found and then we explained life on earth without the need to invoke a creator, would you still believe in God?

Have you ever seriously asked yourself: What evidence would you need to stop believing in God? Would there ever be enough?

Because I don't think it's possible to persuade the true believer against God. Religions programme you to maintain a strong Faith against all odds. In fact, adversity strengthens. That's the genius of Faith.

To question one's Faith is rarely seen as healthy. At best it is something that can be sympathised with and 'prayed for' - like an unfortunate illness (presumably because most people go through it at least once in life, until the Faith reflex kicks in!). At worst the devil must be banished and the unbeliever punished.

But to actively encourage scepticism? Why are religions so averse to it? Of course some more devious elements use a kind of faux-scepticism to grant themselves intellectual credibility. I frequently note as I walk round my university campus the Christian Union posters purporting to ask, "Why should we believe if there's no evidence for God?" We know what your conclusions are, and we know you don't want a real debate.

What i've never understood about religion though (Christianity in particular, because that's how I was brought up) is the need to evangelise. Why does 'spread the good news' equate so often to 'recruit'? Does the strength of their Faith depend on the number of fellow believers?

Why the childlike willingness to accept 'because it is' as an answer? How can you live with yourself intellectually if you settle on a conclusion and then look for the evidence to support it? What would the world be like if our justice system worked in such a way?

Just because you've reached your conclusions and you're unwilling to think again, doesn't mean others shouldn't try.

Point 55.
There are so many scientists arguing for a young earth. So many websites. It is terrible that again you resort to ridicule when you can find over 600 science PHD holders with this view. One of the main issues it centres around is whether there was a global flood (in which case you would expect millions of dead things in layers of sediment (which there is), without the flood this gives an illusion of time (but curiously still no intermediate stages between species)).

Point 54.

Why Evangelise/Recruit?

This is no Sunday club, this is no part time hobby.

The conclusions of this debate are eternally significant. If the Bible is true (which I concluded it was 100% after 17 years of scepticism) then we must face the issues:

If God created we are accountable to Him and he makes the rules. If we do not accept His route and way of living then the consequences are clearly presented, sheep and goats, heaven and hell.

The reason it is presented to people is out of love (whether you like that motivation or not). I believe personnally that Christianity is the only way (it is what Jesus claimed) to be eternally safe. If I 100% believe that to be true then that is a huge motivation to tell others that they are mistaken and heading for a lost eternity. It is then up to those people to accept or reject. This isn't a game, it is a plea to listen and understand where this could lead.

here are a few questions for you good people.

if you are on the side of evolution, i take it that Christmas is out this year for you then? or are you actually not TRUE evolutionists and really cafeteria christians, you take the bits you like, and leave the rest?

if evolution is true, why cant science demonstrate it? science is done in this order: study, theory, then prove theory. they may breed fruitfies over and over to get variations, but they never end up with anything but a fruitfly!

if evolution is right, why try to conserve endangered species? if they die out, this is part of survival of the fittest! - evolution!

where is the missing link? simple it is still missing!

if life evolved by chance in a pea soup, why cant science replicate this under laboratory conditions?

the simple cell is far from simple, so where is this simple cell?

Creation is not unreasonable, it answers many questions for mankind.
and raises many that some do not want to face.

hmmmmmm.....

To DavidW: So what's the starting point for this debate then, that God exists?

Great, a level playing field as ever.

"600 PHD holders" - is that statistically significant? How big was the sample? What fraction of a percentage does that represent?

You want ridicule, i'll give you ridicule. You batter people into your naive, superstituous worldview because you love them? Funnily enough it took me 17 years to realise that it was mostly bollocks - the first 17 years of my life, from childhood to adulthood, then I grew out of it. One day perhaps you will too.

To martinmart:

Go and read some books on evolution for crying out loud!

Creation answers all the questions but so does the phrase, "because I said so".

I was extremely disconcerted by the news that the so-called 'Intelligent Design' theory is threatening to filter into school science lessons.

Firstly, this is clearly a religiously motivated attack on a scientific theory. Evolution is an obvious target for religious fundamentalists (in particular those who believe in the Judaeo-Christian God) for the sole fact that it disagrees with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament (and mainly Genesis). Indeed, there is no real debate within the field of biology (nor geology, nor cosmology, etc.) about the legitimacy of Darwinism. If one wants to dismiss a scientific theory for religious reasons, fair enough, but it is ridiculous to suggest that views should find their way into the teaching of science. There is as much scientific reason for someone to propose a supernatural rival account of Gravity or Electrodynamics.

Secondly, scientific theories ultimately depend on how they explain the evidence. For Intelligent Design to trump Evolution (or even challenge it), it must account for the data at hand (DNA, fossils, etc.). Does I.D. account for these better than Evolution? Well, how can it? I.D. has no predictive power, and in this sense is undoubtedly unscientific. The sole premise is β€˜the universe was designed’. Given the lack of a specific predictive framework, all we can deduce is that the theory suggests that the universe will look as if it were designed. This is a rather cryptic suggestion, and it is far from clear what evidence could suffice.

Let us assume I.D. does have a clear predictive framework. How would we judge it successful? As I have suggested, it must account for the evidence. Evolution has overwhelming evidence, so let us suggest that I.D. accounts for all the same evidence. Then, do we have a genuine dilemma? Again, I would say no. We would simply have an extremely ad hoc theory.

I’m sorry, but we really must respect the integrity of this country, and leave science free of this religious bias.

Time and time again in this ID/evolution debate the opinion is offered that "ID is not science - it is a religious position." By that I'm sure is meant that ID is based upon religious presuppositions rather than being logically inferred from empirical evidence.

Well, what of Evolution? Before it even examines any evidence it completely rules out the possibility of Divine creation or intervention. It presupposes that there was not a Creator, and then seeks to explain life and its origins from a completely naturalistic viewpoint whether that is true or not. If any evidence does point to a creator or intelligent designer, it must be ignored or made to fit into the naturalistic mould.
With leading evolutionists the anti-religious, anti-God presuppositions and biases are easily seen. Dawkins is the best-known example, and even other evolutionists are made uncomfortable by his public hatred for religion. Like others before him, you could sum up his theology thus: "God doesn't exist, and I hate him."

Prof. McIntosh was making the point on Newsnight that students should be allowed to critically examine the theory of Evolution within the classroom, rather than force-fed it as scientific fact. He repeatedly mentioned that students should be allowed to see 'where the evidence leads.' Without a mention of other theories of origins such as ID, they are not given the opportunity to do that which is exactly what fundamentalist anti-religionists like Dawkins want. They have an agenda too - to do all they can to destroy belief in God. That is not an overstatement - Dawkins is not silent about his agenda. The respective truth of theory of evolution or creation has tremendous spiritual implications and he and others like him are well aware of that. Part of the agenda is obviously to inhibit the ability of students to think critically and evaluate theories of origins - but if evolution is the truth, it will stand up to critical examination.

Dawkins has said; "Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory, we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories." Just how scientific is that? Atheism, humanism is his 'religious' position and he holds to it steadfastly.

Philip Johnson has written an excellent article (a 'must-read' as part of this discussion) which shows the dogmatic assumptions and presuppositions upon which the theory of evolution is built:

No-one is neutral, we all have presuppositions. If the truth of the Bible is presupposed, the corresponding science (Creationism - not just ID) is presented at this site - also a helpful resource for this discussion:

At 08:13 PM on 27 Nov 2006,

Bob Goodall wrote:

"By the way if you have Richard Dawkins on perhaps ask him why he is trying so hard to de-bunk Religion? he tries so hard it does suggest some sort of inner struggle going on."

Dawkins answers your question in "The God Delusion" Chapt. 8, "What's wrong with religion? Why be so hostile?"

Regards,

F Giles.

Intelligent design, is there any evidentiary basis? Can you give me one testable hypothesis?

Are there any alternate scientific theories to that of evolution? If so can you tell me about them?

And can you define who the intelligent designer is? Who do you have in mind? Aliens???

To Ken Patterson:

"Intelligent design, is there any evidentiary basis?"

I don't see any evidence for anything other than that species have always reproduced after their own kind as specified in the book of Genesis. Can you prove otherwise? You can speculate.

Evolution is really not concerned with the evidence at all. It rules out divine Creation even if the evidence points to it. It has an agenda. The whole theory of evolution is built upon the mistaken and non-neutral presupposition that God did not have had anything to do with creation.

Evidence is interpreted by presuppositions. One scientist looks at the Grand Canyon and says "This immense canyon could only have been carved out over millions of years - evidence for an old earth." The young-earth creationist looks at the same and says "This was carved out quickly by powerful cavitation as the waters of the Noahic flood receded - evidence for the biblical account of creation." Who is right? You'll answer according to your presuppositions.

To Aaron.

"I don't see any evidence for anything other than that species have always reproduced after their own kind as specified in the book of Genesis."

I see, you see what you want to see.

"It rules out divine Creation even if the evidence points to it."

But there's no evidence at all that points to divine creation.

Further you say 'evolutionary theory is not concerned with evidence'; not worth remotely arguing. But just in case, try apple maggots.

"The whole theory of evolution is built upon the mistaken and non-neutral presupposition that God did not have had anything to do with creation."

Is there any evidence that you can present here and now to show he did? Why do you need a spiritual/divine intervention to be added into a scientific theory for creation?

To Aaron:

About presuppositions, I suppose you have a point, but only a limited one.

To put a date to the creation of the Grand Canyon with reference to the Noahic Flood is one thing. But when we find fossils and carbon samples which can be radioactively dated and found to be orders of magnitude older than that, that theory is found to be wanting. In science this would be grounds to reconsider one's theories or assumptions, but not for young earth zealots.

You see, this isn't really about evolution. It's about the subversion of Orwellian proportions that the creationist camp indulges in. If the facts don't fit the theory, then they deliberately go out of their way to conceal, misinterpret or just plain deny the things they don't want to hear. There are countless examples that can be found. This is propoganda, or, if you prefer, lying and cheating.

Another method of subversion is to question the method or the interpretation of the science rather than the evidence itself. This again is a rather desperate tactic, since they seldom propose a better way - apart from turning to the Bible, of course.

Aaron said:

"Well, what of Evolution? Before it even examines any evidence it completely rules out the possibility of Divine creation or intervention. It presupposes that there was not a Creator, and then seeks to explain life and its origins from a completely naturalistic viewpoint whether that is true or not. If any evidence does point to a creator or intelligent designer, it must be ignored or made to fit into the naturalistic mould."

Let us be clear, ALL science deals ONLY with natural causes. Anything supernatural cannot be detected and therefore cannot be scientifically tested. If evidence was found for an intelligent designer, the evidence would NOT be ignored. It simply hasn't been FOUND.

There is a false dichotomy which seems to be pushed by those interested in promoting creationism, where evolution leads to atheism and you have to choose between God or evolution. This is NOT true. It is entirely okay to agree with evolution AND believe in God. They are two seperate subjects and should be treated as such. Science deals with evidence. Religion is a matter of faith. Evolution does not rule out God since God is capable of anything. But gives us very little useful predictive power in science. That is why it is NOT scientific.

NOTHING in science is presupposed - it just goes where the evidence leads. The reason why creationism is not taught in science is the same reason that we don't teach that the world is flat - the evidence tells us otherwise. If we were to be "fair" to every viewpoint, then we could give equal time to 'flat earthism' or naziism being a good idea. It would be ludicrous. Science itself is a meritocracy - if evidence appears for any alternate theory, it would be considered and evaluated scientifically.

Aaron:

If you are quoting Philip Johnson and 'Answer In Genesis', I would remind you to check out Vikingar's links (comment 52). Also here:

www.talkorigins.org

Philip Johnson is also an AIDS denier, see:

This is evidence enough that the scientific minority (creation scientists) may have PhD's, but are not necessarily qualified to critique scientific consensus. This is why anti-science endangers lives.

I am also aware that 600 'scientists' (many of whom are engineers!) disagree with evolution, but there are at least 700 scientists that agree with it. And they are ONLY allowed on that list if they are called: STEVE.

Richard Drake said:

"In my view, you shouldn't worry about the kids, for this reason: although they are unsophisticated in many other ways, they are extremely good at sussing out the phonies. In this area as in every other this is a key protection. For them."

If that is the case, then why have lots of adults in the USA been convinced that Intelligent Design has scientific validity? If adults can be persuaded, why should children taught that ID is science be able to tell?

To be sure, the universe IS an amazing place and the idea of a creator is perfectly valid from a philisophical standpoint, but that is still not science. People can teach children any philisophical or religious viewpoint they wish, but to introduce that into science class would be changing it's subject. Science is not the search for Truth - that is always subjective to one's personal opinions. Science is for explaining observations and predicting new ones. It does this by rejecting theories which are false (after investigating them, of course).

"Does the universe look as if it was designed?"

Again, totally philosophical. There is certainly no evidence for it. So there is no way to test it. There is no way to compare a designed universe to a non-designed one. The fact that life is here may be unlikely but it doesn't mean that life couldn't happen in another universe that turned out differently.

Whether God exists or not is a question that science can't currently answer and may never be able to do so. This does not invalidate God in anyway. In fact, it would be bad theology if your faith in God was based only on proof via science.

The idea of an intelligent creator is best left for religion and philosphy. Intelligent Design as a scientific concept, however, has shown itself to be nothing more than 20 to 30 year old creationist arguments which have been proved false time and time again. This is why (rightly or wrongly) creationists have been ridiculed and scientists understandibly get frustrated by those with an anti-scientific agenda trying to push their religion as 'scientific truth'.

The Discovery Institute, the people behind Intelligent Design, have not done any scientific research and do not even have any science labs in order to do any. Though they have spent millions on PR campaigns.

They were also the author's of the Wedge Document that showed their intention to replace science with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions",[1] and to "affirm the reality of God."

See:

They have since tried to influence school boards and government to get Intelligent Design Creationism taught as a legitimate scientific theory. Again, no actual research has ever been done.

Remember science is not against God. Religion is ideal for spiritual enlightenment while science is best left to science.

Ken, Dave & Nick - thanks for your contributions.

I do believe they serve to prove my point about presuppositions and how they inevitably inform our interpretation of the evidence available to us.

Creationists admit that their presuppositions inform their interpretation of evidence, but can evolutionists be honest enought to admit that too? It's not only creationists who interpret according to belief. Evolutionists hold as their first presupposition that God cannot have had anything to do with the origin of life, hence your statement Nick: "Let us be clear, ALL science deals ONLY with natural causes." But what if the origins of life were not due to purely 'natural causes'? Even so, evolutionary science still seeks a naturalistic (designer-less) explanation of origins because that is its aim.

It is simply not true to say that science, in this case the science of evolutionists, just goes 'where the evidence leads.' The simple fact is there is prima facie evidence for the biblical account of Creation, but this possibility is not explored (seldom even considered) by evolutionists because their first rule of interpretation is to deny the supernatural whether that is the truth or not. It's just the rule.

Ken said "But there's no evidence at all that points to divine creation." That is simply not true. There is no 'evidence' available to us and nothing we see around us that contradicts the biblical account of creation as recorded in Genesis. As I stated before there is, on the contrary, prima facie evidence for the biblical account of creation and it is incumbent on the evolutionist to prove his theory for which there is little evidence. All evidence available shows that animals have only ever reproduced according to their own kind as is specified in the book of Genesis. It is incumbent upon the evolutionist to prove otherwise, which hasn't (can't) be done.

The overwhelming complexity of myriad biological systems from the smallest insect to the human eye is prima facie evidence for a supremely intelligent Designer, in the same way that an engineered machine is evidence for an engineer. It is unquestionably a faith position (atheist humanistic) to deny the imprint of design seen in nature. I am not saying you can prove decisively that God created life from this evidence, but you can't prove there wasn't a designer/creator either and I ask you which is the most likely interpretation. You'll answer according to your presuppositions.

The 'cambrian explosion,' the lack of any evidence of transitional fossils or species, are all prima facie evidence for the biblical account of creation and serve as a prime example of how evolutionists ignore contradictory evidence. The evidence of the fossil record "had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs..." (as reported by evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould) because it didn't fit with the worldview he was desperate to find evidence for. Rather, it plainly contradicts it. Richard Dawkins himself said (with regard to the sudden appearance of complex organic designs) "It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." Well, shouldn't that possibility be explored? That in fact these animals were Created as complex structures? Of course not! The evidence must be made to fit naturalistic evolution however elaborate and unlikely the speculative scheme might be.

Dave, you say "If the facts don't fit the theory, then they deliberately go out of their way to conceal, misinterpret or just plain deny the things they don't want to hear." You are referring to creationists, but in line with Darwin's distress and Dawkins' comment above can't you see how that is easily said of evolutionists?

You also say "But when we find fossils and carbon samples which can be radioactively dated and found to be orders of magnitude older than that..." - but you fail to mention the possibility of inaccuracies in radioactive dating which is based on assumptions that, if wrong, completely undermine the accuracy of the method. Samples of volcanic rock from recent lava flows (1949, 1954 and 1975) at Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand were radioactively dated by a respected lab (Geochron USA 1999) to be millions of years old despite the fact that this rock was known to be at the time of testing (but not by the lab) a maximum of 50 years old. If blatant failures of that kind happen with rocks of known ages, what about those of unknown?

Whether you agree with me at all or not at all, going back to the original subject of the Newsnight discussion and having the opportunity to debate and critique here - should we deny that opportunity to students in the classroom?

Nick, with regard to my providing a link to Phillip Johnson's article - whatever his opinions on AIDS might be (I was not aware of those until I saw the wikipedia entry) he makes good points in his article about the dogmatic assumptions (presuppositions) that evolutionists hold. I refer to him only to the extent that he correctly demonstrates that evolutionists hold those presuppositions, and not as an authority with regards to all scientific matters. After reading the wikipedia entry, I would point out that to call him an 'AIDS denier' is misleading since it seems he doesn't dispute that AIDS exist but disputes whether HIV leads to AIDS. However, like I said I didn't refer to him as an authority in everything and faulty opinions on AIDS do not mean he is wrong about evolution's dogmatic assumptions.

As to the question of whether evolution and God can co-exist, that really isn't the problem being discussed. The concern should be what the truth actually is. However, it is certain that the Christian God - as Creator and Redeemer - cannot co-exist with the theory of evolution. To assert evolution is to deny the Bible - not just the account of creation, but the subsequent fall of Adam and the necessity of redemption in Jesus Christ. It also denies man's accountability to God and the objective morality that his law provides. In short, to deny Creation is to deny the whole basis of the Christian faith. That might be the one thing Dawkins and I agree on. However, the Bible explains that man will do that naturally because of his sinfulness and desire for autonomy. I offer that this is clearly the driving force behind the theory of evolution and those like Dawkins who eagerly promote it.

Richard Drake said:

"I've been thinking about why this passionate concern about one detail of what our poor children are taught in school."

Specifically, I am concerned that religious views are threatening to undermine a legitimate scientific theory, and a particularly important one at that. It is simply wrong to play with a child's education like that. I don't for a moment think that evolution will be fully censored, but I am irritated that there is any sort of threat. It would set a dangerous precedent if religion should interfere with science education. Children do not need protecting from the results of honest work by scientists.

Richard Drake also said:

"However little science we understand, even just watching a beautiful sunset, we are being given more, perfectly valid evidence."

You go some way to undermining your point here. As I said in my previous post, let people believe what they want. There is absolutely no problem with people philosophising about existence and suchlike. However, this is not scientific, and thus deserves no place in a science lesson (the place for that is Philosophy or Religious Studies). This 'valid evidence' is scientifically redundant.

Furthermore, the issue at hand here is evolution. This deals with the progression of life forms/species. Any 'evidence' of your variety here would surely relate to something like a wonder at the complexity of life, or of certain organs, like the eye. Unfortunately, this is explained by evolution, and logically cannot be used as evidence against it. If you know of some organism/part of organism which cannot be explained by natural selection, feel free to declare it.

I can't help feel that your response attempts to invoke the question of religion, or supernatural belief in general. It must be made clear that in teaching evolution in science classes, one is not teaching about God, religion, or anything similar. There is no need to widen the debate. Once you mention awe, God, etc. you have ceased to be scientific, and this debate has strayed from the relevant issue.

Bob Goodall complains that Prof Richard Dawkins, is trying TOO hard to convince people that Darwins theory of evolution is unchallengeable. I think he's simply trying to redress the balance, as we appear to hear nothing else these days but hardlined opinions from all branches of religion. I watched his mini series on tv a few months ago, when he visited the 'Bible belt' of the southern USA. What a scary bunch of zealots they were. This is where 'Intelligent design' has the most support. Prof Dawkins saw it as a backdoor way of having creationism re-introduced (as scientific fact) into the classrooms of the USA.He is quoted as saying---the problem with religion is that, it is a untestable theory only---and all thats left is belief. Strangely ( for me ) there ARE scientists who believe in creationism. How they square things is beyond my ken.

Aaron says...

"There is no 'evidence' available to us and nothing we see around us that contradicts the biblical account of creation as recorded in Genesis."

So what are stating is that you have no evidence; or more bizarrely that the absence of evidence is evidence to support your case.

Your arguments are circuitous and basically revolve around the bible is right, though totally unsupported by any evidentiary facts.

Evolution and anything contrary to the ideas espoused in the Bible are contestable even though there is evidentiary support.

Further you are saying that being or follower of Darwinism is myopic as you are not open to other possibilities; but belief in the Bible is the only correct choice as evolution and belief in god are mutually exclusive and you are not allowed any other view?

Goodness what happens to your views if and I suspect when they find life has existed on Mars or one of the Jovian moons. Not sure that cropped up in Genesis, though it could be a pointer to panspermia; where will that leave you……?

Ken, thanks for your response, but I don't think you understood what I was saying in the excerpt you quoted.

My point was that the world around us submits a multitude of prima facie evidence for the biblical account of creation which states that animals reproduce (and have only ever reproduced) according to their own kind and were designed by an intelligent Creator.

The burden of proof is upon the evolutionist, to show evidence for his view that that life came into being from nothing by natural processes (not just that they could but that they did) - a view for which is there is no prima facie evidence. The field of Origins is rife with speculation that is fuelled by the atheistic desire to make the theory of evolution work, rather than being impartially inferred from the empirical evidence.

Aaron.

Stating that "biblical account of creation which states that animals reproduce (and have only ever reproduced) according to their own kind and were designed by an intelligent Creator." just doesn't cut the mustard. I'm sorry but it's quite preposterous to even attempt to use this as any kind of justification.

I'm sure we could use the Harry Potter books to introduce magic and assorted witchcraft lessons into mainstream schools on the same basis. Devination and the reading of tea leaves would probably be a good start. Think they were also keen on astrology as well?

For ID to be taught within science lessons at schools then burden of proof is upon them to:-

a) Demonstrate this has any scientific basis
b)Provide imperical evidence in support of it.

Until that happens, I will actively campaign to stop, and have already had discussions with my sons school, any mention of ID within science lessons. Fortuantely with my son's school this is a non issue as any chance of this happening is zero.

To Richard Drake: I concur! There's nothing less wonderful about the universe, even if you don't believe in god. Wonder isn't the preserve of the faithful. Read Dawkins "River out of eden" should you need any persuading (the title is ironic, before you get too excited Aaron).

And I quite agree about the quality of science teaching in schools. All too often it's left to the recently-qualified graduates with scant experience in their field, to pass on the same boring curriculum that they had barely finished reciting themselves. I generalise of course, i'm sure there are some good examples of young science teachers out there too!

I was fortunate to have experienced an inspiration and extremely knowledgeable biology teacher who had spent many years working as an entemologist. To this day i've never met someone who has read as many books or can retain as much information. He opened my eyes to evolution and the mass of evidence to support it. By virtue of the work he did (study of insects) he could illustrate the most extraordinary, counter-intuitive, and entertaining adaptations by reference to any number of examples brought forth from his memory.

And it's not just the vast body of evidence available for evolution by natural selection that is important. It's the obvious contradictions that can be found to the work of a Biblical god, particularly the idea of an all-loving one.

Consider parasites. How does the god-squad explain them? Here's an extract from "Parasite rex" by Carl Zimmer:

"The mysterious nature of parasites created a strange, disturbing catechism of its own. Why did God create parasites? To keep us from being too proud, by reminding us that we were merely dust. How did parasites get into us? They must have been put there by God, since there was no apparent way for them to get in by themselves. Perhaps they were passed down through generations within our bodies to the bodies of our children. Did that mean that Adam, who was created in purest innocence, came into being loaded with parasites? Maybe the parasites were created inside him after his fall. But wouldn't this be a second creation, an eighth day added on to that first week? Well, then, maybe Adam was created with parasites after all, but in Eden parasites were his helpmates. They ate the food he couldn't fully digest and licked his wounds clean from within. But why should Adam, created not only in innocence but in perfection, need any help at all? Here the catechism seems to have finally fallen apart."

And this, from Darwin himself:

"It is derogatory that the Creator of countless systems of worlds should have created each of the myriads of creeping parasites". He found that parasitic wasps are a particularly good antidote to sentimental ideas about God. The way that the larvae devoured their host from the inside was so awful that Darwin once wrote of them, "I cannot persuade myself that a beneficient and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae (one group of parasitic wasp) with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars".

And the eye. Who said anything about it being perfect? If we were made in the image of God, why do we have a blind spot? When faced with a grisly bear, why can't we fly away? Our vestigial organs - how do you explain them? What's our appendix FOR? Our coccyx - why do you think it's called a 'tailbone'? I've got four limbs and at the end of each I have five digits. So do monkeys, cats, dogs and pigs. That's why we're in the same group as them - mammals.

We evolved from a common ancestor and you'd have to be mad to deny it. Yet I know people who call that 'evidence planted by God'. It's pathetic.

Aaron said:

"Creationists admit that their presuppositions inform their interpretation of evidence, but can evolutionists be honest enought to admit that too? It's not only creationists who interpret according to belief. Evolutionists hold as their first presupposition that God cannot have had anything to do with the origin of life, hence your statement Nick"

ALL scientists presuppose everything that is observable is natural, not just evolutionists. Once something becomes observable, it is considered to be 'natural' as opposed to 'supernatural'. If evidence of God WAS found, then it would be considered NATURAL.

"It is unquestionably a faith position (atheist humanistic) to deny the imprint of design seen in nature."

Once again, you are equating evolution with atheism. As I stated above, that is not true. Scientist Francis Collins is an evolutionary biologist and yet he believes in God. I already pointed out why God could have used evolution in his creation and you seem to be trying to place limitations on God. Evolution may disagree with a LITERAL interpretation of the Bible, but it should be noted that many Christians for example take the literal account of the Adam & Eve story to be metaphorical.

You say evolution's goal is to promote atheism and you quote Dawkins an Darwin as evidence of that. While it may be Dawkins goal, Darwin believed in God at first, but he died an agnostic (NOT an atheist). This was a combination of many factors, not only from his work on the 'Origin Of Species' but the death of his daughter hit him quite hard.

Your arguments against evolution are unfortunately fallacious and show a lack of understanding of the scientific method. I've already given the link for www.talkorigins.org which address many of the bad arguments that creationists use and have been using for more than 25 years. The fact that the answers may not satisfy creationists is not the problem of the scientists.

It should be noted that it is not just consensus on evolution which disagrees with the literal interpretaion of the Bible, but also geology, paleontology, biology, astrophysics among others. To say that evolutionists in particular are trying to steer people away from a literal account of Genesis would be a lie - the entire field of science seems to contradict it. Also equating atheism as a faith position is also wrong since atheism is about a LACK of faith.

Despite your claims of COMPLEXITY = DESIGN, that is simply not the case. "I can't understand how something came to be, therefore it must be God" is an argument from ignorance. To be sure, the theory of evolution is also very complex and requires a thorough knowledge of the relevant biology to understand completely, the same as understanding any other scientific field requires the proper scientific knowledge. If I were to say: "I can't get my head around quantum mechanics, therefore it must be wrong." would be foolish. But this is what the creationists use as an argument against evolution.

With all their fallacious arguments regarding common descent it should be noted that creationists have provided very little in the way of evidence. Evidence AGAINST evolution does not automatically give credence FOR creation. And as scientists have pointed out to them for years, Complexity = Design just doesn't cut it. Creationists often talk about the Cambrian Explosion as if it were a sudden event, which, Geologically speaking, is true, but this event STILL took place over many millions of years, meaning plenty of time for the relevant organisms to evolve.

You also said: "It also denies man's accountability to God and the objective morality that his law provides. "

And: "I offer that this is clearly the driving force behind the theory of evolution and those like Dawkins who eagerly promote it."

You are obviously unaware that there are also evolutionary explanations of 'morality'. I would point out that science in itself (ALL of it) is completely amoral, it merely observes what is happening and makes no moral judgements. That does not mean that scientists themselves cannot be moral. Atheists may say that accountability to a being we cannot see or detect may be irrelevant, but that would not automatically make them amoral either. ALL humans share the same morality, regardless of their religious and philisophical upbringing and all make their own choices. It was God who gave man his own free will, according to the Bible. But it is up to people themselves whether or not we act responsibly. And we are ALL capable of it.

Christians (or people of ANY religion) are no more moral than athiests or vice versa. And I would once again point out Francis Collins and Professor Robert Winston who both agree that evolution and God can co-inside.

"Whether you agree with me at all or not at all, going back to the original subject of the Newsnight discussion and having the opportunity to debate and critique here - should we deny that opportunity to students in the classroom?"

Debate is fine, and one of this nature is mainly for a philosophy class. But it is out of place in a science class. Science already examines things critically and evolution has stood up to scientific peer review for 150 years. Your fallacious understanding of biology does not give the right for a non-scientific idea to be given equal time in a science class. If it is to be debated in a philosophy/religious class, that's fine, but until Creationism is able to come up with peer-reviewed scientific literature, it cannot have a free pass into a science lesson.

Richard Drake:

"In my experience the people with the most wonder tend to be those who are really in touch with the god - and I fully support your dropping of the capital G, by the way - who has amazingly revealed himself in the life, death and resurrection of the man Jesus Christ."

While I respect your beliefs, I would like to point out to you that I too am capable with looking at the universe with as much awe and wonder as any person can. I am not religious, nor do I have any interest in promoting atheism or any other religious or philosophical worldview. I consider myself agnostic and whether or not there is a creator is purely a philosophical view. It is certainly interesting to talk and debate the idea, yet I consider it to be irrelevant to a science class. Any discussion of this nature is ultimately the personal opinion of however one perceives the world around them regardless of what religion or non-religion they hold. Not everyone will agree with each other. Not everyone who are Christians for example agree on the correct interpretation of the Bible. So who is to say who is correct? Which religion is the right one?

This is why everyone is free to have their own personal opinions on anything they choose, but promoting any one philosophy in science class is a mistake. And that is my only interest in this debate: to promote good science. Religious opposition to evolution'ism' from creationists who don't understand the meaning of science or philosophy should not be the scientists problem. That should be left for the philosophy class.

Richard Drake said:

β€œVery often it seems that certain kinds of teaching take it away from them. That is the worst kind of robbery. There should be wonder in science. Hawking and Penrose have it - in fact I would argue that all the great scientists have it. That we must strive to preserve. And of course stick ruthlessly to the evidence.”

By no means am I suggesting that we should deny children the right to marvel at the complexities of modern physics and the universe. I myself am constantly preoccupied with thoughts such as these. However, let’s make this clear; Hawking, Penrose, Greene, Davis, etc. all show their wonder *at* science; this wonder is not itself part of science. When Hawking is dealing with formal cosmology, mapping black holes, etc., wonder plays no part in the process. The philosophy of physics is separate from physics itself. (I personally think every child should be taught philosophy at school; it is an absolutely essential subject.) However, this debate concerns what is taught in science lessons; while some context/explanation is required for teaching numerous theories, actual science should emphatically take precedence. So once again, I do not feel that discussions of awe, mysticism, supernaturalism and the like should interrupt the teaching of evolution in science lessons.

p.s. If anyone is left skeptical of natural selection due to an amazement of what it purports to explain, it is understandable. However, it does indicate that one should study the theory further.

Most interesting to see so many comments regarding the creationism issue and even more so to see so many who are well aware of the appaling status of creationism as a topic of any sort in science classes. It most assuredly does not belong there despite the many ludicrous claims that have been made in some of these comments. Let us be perfectly clear and not try to dress up what are undeniable facts.

ID and creationism are religious issues and presuppose a supernatural creator. A clearly religious stance.

Conversely, evolution, natural selection and "Darwinism" in general does not. However, it also does not, as some have claimed, presuppose that there can be NO creator. Rather, it deals with life as it exists now and the manner in which small changes during breeding can be magnified by the stresses of survival. That breeding and those stresses can, do, and must occur whether there is or is not a creator. Darwin himself believed to his dying day and remained a christian.

ID and creationism are only believed in by those who also believe there is a creator. The religious position is inherent in the opinion.

On the other hand, since evolutionary theory holds no religious position of any sort it is not only possible, but to be expected, that scientists, who support evolutionary theory, should be either religious or not. The religion makes no difference to their position. Similarly, religious people who hold senior positions in the church, such as the Archbishop of Canterbury, have no difficulty whatsoever accepting and agreeing with evolutionary theory since, once again, its acceptence does not affect in any way their religious belief.

ID and creationsim do not represent a scientific theory and neither provide testable predictions nor explain the diversity and changing nature of living organisms here on the planet today. Even less can it explain the more diverse and more radical living creatures of the past.

Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory and began with observations of those very features. It was devloped explicitly to both explain them and describe how they arose. It provides a mass of testable predictions and explanations that have stood up to every scrutiny and the most detailed examinations for over two centuries. Despite claims from some other writers, every prediction of evolutionary theory as it stands today has been proven true. Not even the trotting out of the utterly unscientific and irrelevant claims about "transitional forms" can rescue those who have claimed otherwise. We have now, and have long had, detailed descriptions of the changes that have accrued between the different forms of those species we see today and their evolutionary ancestors. It is all there to see, much of it in the fossil record. We have even demonstrated the detailed devlopment of features such as the eye, which is yet another of the silly examples often quoted by ID supporters as "irreducibly complex" despite it having been proven that not only is it NOT "irreducibly complex" but that there are today, in organisms still living on the Earth, examples of every stage in the development of the eye as we see it in higher animals.

ID and creationism do not provide a basis for any form of debate with a scientific theory. They are and will always remain a matter of religious conviction utterly outside the scope and reach of science and similarly utterly unable to provide any scientific basis of their own. It has not now and can never have anything whatever of value to contribute to scientific debate.

The theory of evolution by natural selection, however, is always subject to debate within the scientific community. Such debates are the fundamental and absolute driving core of all science and are the one way in which science develops, extends, grows and becomes ever more accurate in its predictions. It is the fundamental tenet of science that such debate is permitted. The claim that we should "teach the debate" is therefore a smart move by ID supporters since they already know that science relies upon debate. To then claim that ID has a scientific position, which we have already seen it does not, serves to further muddy the waters. Yet ID does not have any contribution of its own to such debate at all. It offers no alternatives to the predictions of evolutionary theory, nor does it make any predictions of its own. It has no position on the nature of inheritance, of mutation, of selection or of any part of the many and complex interactions that go to make up evolutionary theory.

It is, in short, not in a position of debate but of denial. Yes, it is reasonable to "examine the evidence" on which evolutionary theory is based and science does so all the time. It is not, however, rational nor reasonable to instead of such an examination of evidence merely present a position of denial which cannot be defeated by ANY form of logic or reason since it is a position that does not depend on logic or reason but is only a matter of faith.

As such, the entire question of "teaching the debate" is a moot one. There is always debate within science, it should always remain so and it should always be dealt with clearly and effectively in schools. However there is not, and nor should there ever be, a debate between science and religion regarding the existence or otherwise of a creator. That is fundamentally and precisely what the adherents of ID and creationism are demanding. Debates of such a nature belong, most firmly, in classes dedicated to religion which is where ID and creationism should stay and which science should never enter.

Hi Richard,

Going back to your post 80 and my 79, sorry if I wrongly put the words into your mouth!

I suppose my idea of 'wonder' can be descibed in two ways. One is the 'I get it' feeling, such as when I toil for hours trying to understand a concept then it finally clicks. Another is a deep admiration for the products of evolution in nature or the inventions of the human mind, most of which I could never have dreamt to think of myself. Such things can be both wonderful in their complexity or sheer simplicity.

'Awe' is perhaps a different thing. This to me signifies big, or truly incomprehensible, like trying to imagine the vastness of the night sky. I suppose it's a way of describing the limits of my own imagination and comprehension.

Either way, both 'wonder' and 'awe' are only words. We speak, think and dream using the imperfect and limited tools of language that are available to us (including mathematics). It is also extremely difficult (though i'm not going to say impossible, because I speak only for myself!) to think or imagine outside of our own experiences, e.g. what does four dimensions look like? Is that a valid question? Does it 'look' like anything?

I don't deny that the tools we use to describe our existence can take us extremely high, by our own standards. Witness the art, music, poetry, literature, philosophy and scientific understanding that we have developed over the ages. This is all 'wonderful' in the sense that I have described above.

But it is also why I think that any notion of god is inextricably linked with our human limitations. I'm afraid to say, there's no compelling reason why such affectations of greatness, purpose or eternal life should not just be another product of our complex, evolved minds and culture. I say culture because everything you learn about god is inherited, from other 'limited' human beings. We are all 'born atheists' if you like, not that i'm going to use that statement lightly because it will probably have the same inflammatory effect as me being told i'm a 'born sinner'!

To push the point a bit further, even to ask the question "Why are we here?" may be invalid. By that I mean, you come across a rock and say, "how did that rock come to be here?". This you know to have an answer, even if you can't explain it personally. But you wouldn't ask "Why does that rock exist?" Sometimes I think philosophy leads us up the garden path in that respect. Discuss!

"Meteorite yields life origin clue" [1]

Yet again how inconvenient to the Creationist & Intelligent Design brigade.

These things just keep falling out of the sky :)

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1]

CREATIONSIM IN SCHOOLS SCIENCE TEACHING
In the 27 November programme,Professor Andy McIntosh (speaking in favour of Intelligent design) made 2 assertions -that information in DNA had no basis in matter or energy, and that "English" similarly had no basis in matter or energy.
Are these the words of a scientist? Does he believe in Plato's Forms ?

Thank you, ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Newsnight(Jeremy & the participants), for having the courage to debate the right of Creation Science & ID to challenge the monopolistic dominance of the Theory of Organic Evolution being taught in science education.

Despite the National Curriculum requiring: "Pupils should be taught ... how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence (for example, Darwin's theory of evolution)", evolutionists in science and government/civil service jealously ensure that our young people are denied this and instead indoctrinated with only one "uncontroversial" interpretation! Characteristically many of the comments above display the same traits.

Yet another example of the customary tirade and characteristically dismissive & disrespectful opposition occurred recently with the launch of the "Truth in science" website initiative by a group of UK academics for schools, which immediately triggered the wrath of the British Humanist Association (I wonder why?), Proff. Michael Reiss of the RS (against the objectives of their motto!) and the British Centre for Science Education.

However, as some have already said, one believes ultimately in one theory or the other by faith alone (philosophically), as succintly put by Dr. George Wall, professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University & Nobel Prize winner in biology. (From an article in Scientific American):

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

And then there is Prof. Michael Ruse, ex-professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph from "How evolution became a religion Creationists correct?: Darwinians wrongly mix science with morality, politics”, National Post, Saturday, May 13, 2000):

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."

And we educate & program our children this way!

I am very confident that I can explain to Bob Goodall and others here what it is that they seem not to understand about evolutionary theory.

All I would require is that they listen carefully and fairly to the explanation and tell me which parts they find difficult to accept.

Any Takers?

Brian Mallalieu wrote:

"Thank you, ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Newsnight(Jeremy & the participants), for having the courage to debate the right of Creation Science & ID to challenge the monopolistic dominance of the Theory of Organic Evolution being taught in science education."

I would just like to point out to Brian (again) that Creation "Science" and ID have not produced ANY peer reviewed scientific literature or performed any tests of any kind. Evolution, I'm afraid, has just as much "monopolistic dominance" as gravity, geology or astrophysics. This is how science works:

1. Observe
2. Record
3. Form a hypothesis
4. Test hypothesis (and retest as often as necessary)
5. Form theory based on results (modify hypothesis as necessary)

A theory is not just a 'guess' but rather the best possible explanation that fits current observations and can make predictions based on them. If these steps are not being followed, you're not doing science. Perhaps Brian could show us how (by using the above scientific method) we could test the idea of a supernatural creator? What possible predictions would we be able to make?

This is why ever since its' inception, Creation 'science' has failed to produce ANY useful achievements in the realm of science for the past 100 years. And ID has done nothing except try push its way through school boards and government policy ammendments without any kind of research programme. Evolution, however has passed (and still does pass) rigourous testing - it is the foundation of modern biology. It helps us when developing new treatments against diseases. Creationism may help someone lead a spiritually fulfilling life, that is up to the individual. But that is not the realm of science.

Intelligent Design has been proved to be nothing more than a political ploy to get religion taught as science. They failed in the USA and now they're trying here. Brian Mallalieu is an example of an ID proponent, arguing from ignorance and making appeals of 'teaching both sides', 'fairness' and playing on peoples emotions, like forcing people to choose between evolution or religion. I have already pointed out why that argument is flawed: you can agree with both - you don't have to choose.

All they have to do to become science is just DO some actual science (see the outline above). It's been 100 years. We still wait with baited breath.

Nick on 4th Dec writes This is how science works:

1. Observe
2. Record
3. Form a hypothesis
4. Test hypothesis (and retest as often as necessary)
5. Form theory based on results (modify hypothesis as necessary)

As a biologist I entirely agree. But the problem is that you cannot 'observe' what went on long ago (millions of years according to evolutionists). Nor can you test and retest it!
The only evidence we have, even fossils, only exist in the here and now. All scientists have the same evidence in front of them but they interpret what they see, according to their mindset. So a creationist geologist and an evolutionary geologist come to different conclusions from exactly the same evidence.
Since all the coded language we experience for example on CD's, books and in speech comes from an intelligent mind, it is reasonable to conclude that the DNA code language must therefore also have come from an 'intelligent mind', thus it would be reasonable to suggest this is evidence for a Designer. Surely it would be sensible to discuss this in a Biology lesson.

In Post 91 Wensy Sharpless writes:

As a biologist I entirely agree. But the problem is that you cannot 'observe' what went on long ago (millions of years according to evolutionists). Nor can you test and retest it!
The only evidence we have, even fossils, only exist in the here and now.

Fossils are by no means the only evidence for evolution. Molecular biology has revealed mountains of evidence in DNA.

The evolution of the genetic code can be explained very easily without recourse to an intelligent designer. It is a fallacy to suppose that just because humans design languages that's the only way that they can happen.

Apologies if this double posts, connection problems.

Wendy Sharpless said:

"As a biologist I entirely agree. But the problem is that you cannot 'observe' what went on long ago (millions of years according to evolutionists). Nor can you test and retest it!"

Indeed, many criminals in prison have thought the very same thing. They are probably cursing the forensics team that examined their crime right now.

"The only evidence we have, even fossils, only exist in the here and now. All scientists have the same evidence in front of them but they interpret what they see, according to their mindset. So a creationist geologist and an evolutionary geologist come to different conclusions from exactly the same evidence."

Again, it is a fallacy that anyone who agrees with the idea of an old earth of going in with a mindset. After all, it is not just evolutionary biologists. It includes biologists, geologists, paleontologists, and astrophysicists who have all in their seperate fields of study, conluded that the evidence shows the earth to be more than 6000 years old. Creationists all assume FIRST (before any incestigation has begun) that the evidence MUST coincide with scripture. There has yet been no scientific evidence of people rising from the dead, walking on water, talking reptiles or anyone living for 900 years. Bats are not birds and the value of Pi is NOT exactly equal to 3. The Bible is not a science text, nor should it be used as one. Actually, creationist ministers back in the 1980's were so confident that the evidence would support their interpretation of the Bible that they sent creation 'scientists' out into the field to do some research. Unfortunately, they all came back with bad news. The evidence simply did not corroborate the idea of a young earth. The scientists did not turn their back on their faith, however - they became theistic evolutionists. Thereafter, creationists stopped sending scientists out into the field.

"Since all the coded language we experience for example on CD's, books and in speech comes from an intelligent mind, it is reasonable to conclude that the DNA code language must therefore also have come from an 'intelligent mind', thus it would be reasonable to suggest this is evidence for a Designer. Surely it would be sensible to discuss this in a Biology lesson."

If you are a biologist as you say, I find your words curious since you must know that many of your colleagues are likely to disagree with you. You should know then, that the 'code' attributed to DNA was done so by human beings. The letters A, C, G and T correspond to chemicals: adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine. More info regarding the genetic code can be found here:

Creationists often use the argument about the genetic code, but they are conflating the word 'information' with 'intelligence'. A geologist could examine a simple rock and probably write lots of information about it. They could tell you the weight and dimensions, what it's made from, how it was formed and possibly which parts of the world you are likely find rocks of this type. But it's just a simple rock. Even ID proponents haven't shown us what it is about the rock that indicates 'intelligent design'. In fact, they have yet to come up with ANY detail of what exactly indicates design in any biological system or how it was designed and then 'created'. Admitedly, it would be hard for them to TEST their 'hypothesis', missing out one of the most important parts of the scientific method. So the best they can say is: "Wow, that's complex. It must be designed!". Unless any testable evidence turns up to show exactly what or who this designer is and how they designed or created anything, it will always be a matter of theology. Indeed, if there IS an intelligent designer, there is no reason to believe it is the God of Christianity. ANY religious deity could be invoked; the Hindu God(s) for example (who, if I recall correctly, believe in a world trillions of years old). Or it could be space aliens. And then, there would be no reason not to speculate the origins of the designer(s), but again, it would be untestable.

This is why Creation 'science' has been shown to be nothing more than religious apologetics in a poor disguise. They believe if they can convince people who don't know any better (including schoolchildren) that their particular brand of theism has scientific validity, they will be able to bring more people to God. While they should be free to preach and express any views they wish, their evangelism has no place in a scientific discussion. It should also be noted that not all Christians agree with their literal interpretation of the Bible. Evolution does not deal with how life first arose (abiogenesis), it simply deals with what happened after it did. We may not ever be able to know, but until more evidence comes to light, scientists are content to say "We don't know yet.". Some people fill this gap with theology, which is fine, but something that science is unable to comment on, nor does it need to.

Hello Nick,

Thanks for your comment & especially pointing me to "The Scientific Method", which is exactly the reason why you & I ultimately have to believe by FAITH alone. It is because we cannot set up the COMPLETE (N.B. not tiny supposedly contributive tests) experiment of genesis (i.e.origins)& observe it --- and repeat it, that neither of us can ever scientifically prove our hypothesis.

Here are some more quotes:

"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ...That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. ...The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46

"A major problem in proving the theory (of evolution) has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fuelled the creationist argument that each species was created by God." (Czarnecki, Mark, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56)

" 'Survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection.' No matter what phraseology one generates, the basic fact remains the same: any physical change of any size, shape or form is strictly the result of purposeful alignment of billions of nucleotides (in the DNA). Nature or species do not have the capacity for rearranging them, nor adding to them. Consequently no leap (saltation) can occur from one species to another. The only way we know for a DNA to be altered is through a meaningful intervention from an outside source of intelligence: one who knows what it is doing, such as our genetic engineers are now performing in their laboratories."

Cohen, I.L. (1984), Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities, New York: NW Research Publications, Inc., p. 209

(N.B. My comment: I would be grateful if you could provide me with just ONE example from genetic research worldwide [in any scientific pursuit] over the last decades that demonstrates how such work has taken place WITHOUT any intelligence being utilised whatever?)

With best wishes,

A response again to Brian Mallalieu (wondering if there is anyone left even reading this thread). He wrote:

"Thanks for your comment & especially pointing me to "The Scientific Method", which is exactly the reason why you & I ultimately have to believe by FAITH alone. It is because we cannot set up the COMPLETE (N.B. not tiny supposedly contributive tests) experiment of genesis (i.e.origins)& observe it --- and repeat it, that neither of us can ever scientifically prove our hypothesis."

You are showing a misconception about evolution, which again shows why people who lack the scientific understanding of it (especially those who object purely for theological reasons) are unsuitable for criticizing scientific theories. As I have stated before, evolution does not deal with Abiogenesis (the moment of when life first appeared). It merely describes what happens AFTER it did. We currently do not know the 'origin' of life - it may be something that we may never know. Scientists are quite happy to say "We don't know - YET.". But it is always possible that evidence may turn up in the future that help us answer those questions and science will do it's best to investigate it. God might have done it, but again, there is no way to tell (or test it). But if that is what your faith tells you, that's fine. Just don't expect scientists to take your word for it.

"(N.B. My comment: I would be grateful if you could provide me with just ONE example from genetic research worldwide [in any scientific pursuit] over the last decades that demonstrates how such work has taken place WITHOUT any intelligence being utilised whatever?)"

Regarding this comment, I find it a curious one. No-one is suggesting that any scientific pursuits are taking place without the use of intelligence. This does not mean however, that life itself does not continue. All life will continue to reproduce naturally as it always has and evolution will occur with or without human intervention whether we like it or not (barring major catacylism of course).

The quotes you um, quoted follow the standard creationist tactic of attacking the theory of evolution, yet providing no useful alternative (or evidence for creationism). It is not simply enough to find criticisms of one theory, there needs to be evidence put forward for another. Evidence against one theory does not automatically mean evidence for another. POSITIVE evidence must be provided. I believe your quotes also may have been taken out of context. Niles Elderidge worked with Stephen Jay Gould (a creationist favourite) on the 'Punctuated Equilibrium'. Here is a quote from Gould's Wiki article: "One reason for such criticism was that Gould appeared to be presenting his ideas as a revolutionary way of understanding evolution, which relegated natural selection to a much less important position. As a result, many non-specialists inferred from his early writings that Darwinian explanations had been proven to be unscientific (which Gould never wanted to imply). His works were sometimes used out of context as a "proof" that scientists no longer understood how organisms evolved, giving creationists ammunition in their battle against evolutionary theory. Gould himself corrected some of these misinterpretations and distortions of his writings in later works."

And that is the very point. Scientific controversies do happen in science, different people interpret the data in different ways, true. And it should be left for the world of science to discuss these kinds of debate. But creationists go in already "knowing" the answer before the evidence has even been looked at and come up with no evidence whatsoever of their own. People like Elderidge and Gould may have a scientific basis to stand on, but creationists don't. And it is up to people like Elderidge to push for their ideas to gain scientific acceptance. If they are right, time will prove them right. If they are wrong, it won't. Science is not about forcing political policies or school boards, insisting we teach theology in its' place. And AGAIN, I would like to point people towards the following link that deals with all of the above 'criticisms' of evolution:

Also to this one, here, which shows there is still hope for good science education in the UK yet:

N.B. Brian's opening comment. The "faith" I have in evolution is the same as the "faith" I have in gravity and the Table of Elements and boiling water.

Nick - I am still reading this thread periodically, just not contributing so regularly as I feel others can better elocute what I don't have the time to say!

I'm very pleased that the government has taken some positive action against those dreadful 'Truth' in Science teaching packs. You've brightened up my day!

They say creation is a theory. They say evolution is a theory. Why is it so dangerous to teach both?

DaveH, thanks for your kind words. I'm glad it made your day - it made mine too! :)

lawstudent:

"They say creation is a theory. They say evolution is a theory. Why is it so dangerous to teach both?"

I think dangerous may be a bit of a strong word, but it would certainly be wrong to teach creation as a theory. Creationism has no theory. If you read the whole of this thread (as any good law student should do) you will see these questions have already been answered.

lawstudent: read any of the above.

Creation is a Biblical story, not a theory.

Evolution is a fact and a theory, but you need to understand what that means. See here:

evolutioists found a tooth, they confirmed it was a humans tooth, they drew up what the human looked like and 5 years later they foung out it was a pigs tooh..evolution is a theory backed up by science text books, creation is backed up by the bible the true word of God!
Gemma

gemma
evolution is not just backed up by science text books, it is backed up by a huge number of tests and observations that have then been condensed into science text books to help people understand them.
creation on the other hand is backed up by a book writen in 300BC full of contradictions and blatant falsities, and frankly if you would rather believe in utter imposiblity(creationalism) rather than mathematical certainty (evolution)then thats fine with you, but dont try and subvert scientific fact and hence stop the development of our society and lives through science.
michael

Ah, don't be too hard on wee Gemma, she just wanted to get the 100th post! ;)

(And I thought this thread was dead) :)

I think that evolution and other theories are just that, theories. Although many have tried to prove these theories are just someone's idea, not necessarily a scientific fact that has been proved.
With Christianity, it is not just a belief or faith but, a way of life.