Stones Cry Out

You and Tom seem to advocate teaching intelligent design in public school science classrooms. Tom seems truly to believe this is a good thing, though he won't say why. I suspect that you realize the weakness of such a defense but choose to capitalize on ID for pure political reasons. If this is not the case, then please address the following. I wrote the same paragraph in a past comment and got no response. Do ID proponents actually have a response, or are they forced to deceive the public about their intentions, as the Dover school board was repeatedly caught doing? Here are my points:

One of the biggest criticisms of ID is that it is not science so it should not be taught in science class. If you or any other ID proponent disagrees with this assertion, perhaps you could articulate a response here. To my knowledge none has ever been written. To me, this confirms the suspicions of people who accuse ID proponents of waging a duplicitous campaign to establish government endorsement of religious teaching in public schools. Why else do ID proponents denigrate evolution as a mere "theory" when the same label applies to every other well-established idea in science such as gravity or cancer, for which there is incomplete understanding? If you disagree, then please just explain what basis ID has in science class. What predictive power does it have? How is it testable?

First of all, the Dover case was not about teaching ID. Students would not be taught any of it's theories, nor would they be tested on it. The case was all about a 4-paragraph, 100-word statement to be read on the first day of class; a 2-minute mention. So now, these schools are barred from even mentioning that some folks think a Higher Power may have been involved. Love that tolerance of alternative viewpoints, as though the mere mention of it establishes a state religion.

I will admit to not being a scientist, which makes asking me for a research paper on this less than helpful for either of us. However, that doesn't mean it's not being done. At a blog about ID, this post talks about a paper submitted with an ID-derived hypothesis in the area of (interestingly) cancer prevention and early detection. And this post discusses, among other things, why the field of Creation Science is, in fact, testable and falsifiable (search for "testable" on the page to quickly find the reference, but there is a lot there).

I'll defer to the experts, since you're asking questions they're best able to deal with. But I do find interesting the similarities between Scopes and Dover, especially since the ACLU takes a position now on variety in studies diametrically opposed to their view then. Back then, they advocated for giving all sides a hearing, based on First Amendment issues. Today, conveniently, they advocate against it using the same First Amendment, and, as Clayton notes, their reliance on the First Amendment is ahistorical.

Is ID a scientific theory? Not in the sense of being a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. But ID isn't the only player in the field suffering from a testability problem, is it? During cross-examination in the Kitzmiller trial, Professor Behe pointed out that at least one scientist devoted twenty years to attempting to cause speciation in bacteria--a long enough time to get hundreds of thousands of generations. He failed.

What ID is, is a critique of Darwinian evolution. ID raises some interesting questions about the validity of the theory, and as such, deserves to be listened to--for the same reason that Darwin's theories deserved to be listened to in 1860, and 1870, when the evidence was less developed than it is now.

Most important: science needs to be taught as a process of asking questions and testing theories--not as dogma. The way that evolution is taught in many classrooms is perilously close to dogma--and the reaction of evolutionary fanatics to the questions that ID asks make me think of some medieval archbishop screaming, "Heresy!"

Dem says - "Why else do ID proponents denigrate evolution as a mere "theory" when the same label applies to every other well-established idea in science such as gravity or cancer, for which there is incomplete understanding?"

Incomplete Understanding?!? Apparently, dem has been reading articles and information that have left him hopelessly (purposely?) confused. Gravity is a LAW in science and the understanding of it is pretty complete. Objects attract one another proportionally to their mass. (dem, why don't you test it now by holding your computer out the window of a tall building and letting go. The LAW of gravity predicts what will happen). Evolution is a theory, distinguished by the fact that it has to be altered constantly to accommodate new information as it is discovered. It predicts nothing. To call this 'incomplete understanding' is a gross understatement. Cancer is a disease, not a theory or a law. Researchers use theory to attempt to cure disease. However, when the test a theory and it proves to be useless, they move on. Evolution was interesting in 1930, but it has been tested and it is useless and needs to be abandoned like bad medicine. (For more on this, see http://www.drdino.com/). Arguments against evolution are not religious statements. Evolution should die on its own lack of merits. Mentioning the alternative is not required.

However, it's the alternative that makes the Evolutionists so desperate and die-hard. If they admit their theory is bunk, they see it as lending credibility to the alternatives. That's what they want to avoid at all costs. Denying God is their religion. That's fine, they are free to practice this as a religion, but they insist that their religion become the established religion of the US. They insist it be taught in public schools. They insist my tax dollars pay for it. And they cry 'foul' (or Heresy as stated above) if anything else is shown the light of day. This is becoming a problem.

Clayton Cramer writes: ID raises some interesting questions about the validity of the theory...

This is news to me. I have yet to see the proponents of Incompetent Design raise any questions of interest to the application of science.

What questions would these be?

If I may interject? I do enjoy when people get up tight about ID. I enjoy hearing the ‘it’s not science’ mantra. I enjoy the fact that Darwinism has to, finally, be proactive in its own defense but should that defense take the form of juvenile insults? (Incompetent Design—is simply adolescent name calling like saying the ‘Monkey Theory’ Grow up and then join the debate.

First of all, those in science who support ID have not tossed out elements of evolution/Darwinism entirely. If anyone thinks that, they don’t understand the debate, are ignorant of their opponents or areliars. And, yes, people do lie.

The problem with scientific rationalists and Darwinian materialist is anything which smacks of ‘intelligence’ computes directly to a ‘divine’ intelligence. And that is simply a ridicules lack of imagination. (I am not in anyway referring to aliens from outer space either—I don’t think they exist—ever).

The problem is Darwinianism/Evloution as a whole has holes in the theary which are addressed by the empty perennial ‘answers:’ We will find the answer. There’s ‘missing link’ (which is the classic). And a biggie: You’re not a scientist and can’t understand. (Elites clap trap at its best!).

While I say religion should stay out of science, I think science should stay out of philosophy (scientific rationalists and Darwinian materialist) because it’s not qualified.

Darwinism and evolution have interesting ‘stuff’ going on, but the theories have become dogmatized. Any questioning of the theories brings—sneering attacks—and why?

Why because the theories are 100% correct! Even though they haven’t been proven—and that is dogma for the scientific rationalists and Darwinian materialist True Believers.

Bruce says "gravity is a LAW and understanding of it is pretty complete, but evolution is a theory distinguished by the fact that it has to be altered constantly to accommodate new information as it is discovered". But Bruce's example of gravity is Newtonian. Has he never heard of the alterations by Einstein? And oh yes, Einstein's so-called theory of relativity has been tested and passed every test. Still there are contradictions between relativity and quantum mechanics at the level of very small dimensions so maybe we will have to make some changes there too.

But then what knowledge in science is immutable when we learn more and get better observations? Thank goodness scientists have the ability to change their minds when evidence warrants it. Science is not based on faith, and scientists have the good sense to seek new facts and better observations. I realize that many on this blog cannot be so open minded and don't have the background or experience to think critically, but don't you realize our real objection to the teaching of your so-called intelligent design is that we want kids to have a chance to grow up and respect science and its approach to reality. We have no objection to your faith-based beliefs; just don't force them om impressionable young minds.

Doug,

I appreciate your response to my comment. However, I object to several things you said. First, by singling out evolution as a questionable theory, the 100-word statement to be read to science students in Dover, PA was most certainly a statement about ID. Who in their right mind who heard that statement wouldn’t know that the alternative was a creationist argument? In that case, the public school system is endorsing a religious view. And that was certainly the intention of the school board, as was clear from the undeniable lies that school board members made that were revealed during the trial. If their intentions were innocent, why did they lie repeatedly?

Second, the paper you cite as evidence of ID science is not in a peer-reviewed journal. The author is stretching credibility so far that he even cites abstracts and meetings at which he has presented his work. Abstracts and meetings have even lower standards than published papers.

As to your link to why “the field of Creation Science is, in fact, testable and falsifiable”, I find the author’s explanation lacking. Here is an example of the semantic game that he plays:

“Laudan notes that, though creation scientists ‘are committed to a large number of factual . . . claims,’ available evidence contradicts their empirical claims.[108] As he explains, “no one has shown how to reconcile such claims with the available evidence—evidence which speaks persuasively to a long earth history, among other things. In brief, these claims are testable, they have been tested, and they have failed those tests.

Yet, Laudan notes, if creationist arguments have been shown false by empirical evidence (as Ruse and other expert witnesses at the Arkansas trial no doubt believed), then creation science must be falsifiable.[110] But if it is falsifiable, then by Ruse’s own criterion, it must qualify as scientific.”

In other words, creationist arguments (like Bruce's) have proved to be false, thereby making them falsifiable, thereby making them scientific, according to the author. But if they fail scientific tests, then in fact they rely strictly on faith, which is not testable, thus making them unscientific (my interpretation).

The author also tries to claim that ID is no different than science because both often rely on indirect observations. But in the case of traditional science, these observations are testable and survive multiple experiments before being accepted. Again, as I stated in the last paragraph, ID is untestable.

Finally, I object to your interpretation of the ACLU’s intentions in 1925. Please cite evidence other than Clayton’s assertion.

Clayton,

Speciation is usually defined as a genetic separation of two groups to such an extent that they can no loner breed with each other. Since bacteria typically multiply by simple cell division (admittedly not under certain circumstances), they aren’t the best examples of speciable organisms. Even so, bacteria can clearly evolve (i.e. change) when placed under appropriate selection pressure. The appearance of drug-resistant mutant strains of bacteria in hospitals provides evidence of this. Studies of laboratory fruit flies also support the idea that some semblance of speciation can be observed. In this case, genetically identical animals clearly accumulate mutations in their DNA by natural means over several years in captivity. Small changes in genetic makeup are clearly sufficient to cause certain strains of animals to avoid mating with others, thus leading to reproductive isolation of genetically different groups of animals. In other words, there is experimental evidence to support speciation and evolution even if the former hasn't been directly observed in the wild. Probably much more so than I am citing, but I haven’t devoted time to studying evolution in particular. It would be a much more interesting (and less acrimonious) discussion to have between anti-evolutionists and supporters of evolutionary science if the former were actually to read some of the significant literature that has been written on evolution instead of quoting from creationist literature. Despite what Bruce seems to think, there is no conspiracy among proponents of evolution to undermine Christianity. I don’t get any secret newsletters, and in fact I support your desire to pursue your beliefs. I just don’t appreciate it when creationists try to introduce religion into public classrooms - which certainly was the goal the (former) Dover, PA school board had in mind.

You make an interesting point about asking questions and testing theories. How does ID do that? I would argue that it doesn’t, so it doesn’t belong in science class. Evolutionary science may not be TAUGHT that way either, but that isn’t a problem inherent with the science; it’s with teaching, and it applies to far more than evolution. There is too much emphasis on memorization and regurgitation and not enough on critical thinking.

I disagree with you about proponents of evolutionary science being fanatics. Evolution is based on evidence. And there is a LOT of it. Evolutionary science also makes predictions, which satisfies the requirement that it be testable. For example, evolutionary science predicts that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. This prediction was supported by the sequencing of the human and chimpanzee genomes. Not only are the DNA sequences of each species extremely related, but as I said in a comment to Tom’s post on Dec 2:
“The degrees to which harmful genetic mutations are represented in the human and chimpanzee genomes are more similar than in comparisons between human and non-primate mammalian genomes.” That is consistent with the science of evolution. It seems inconsistent with ID.

Albert E. Of course. I studied both Newtonian and Modern physics in college. Thanks for making my point for me. Some aspects of science are law, and some theory, and there are rules to distinguish the difference. Evolution is a theory. It seems the evolutionists are the ones that have trouble with this, and are offended when the theory of evolution is called what it is ... a theory.

Some theories have more credibility than others. Some theories are very credible, and you have sited some examples. However, you are tring to confuse people to assign credibility to the theory of evolution becasue another theory (Relativity?) has merit. Credibility by association? Nice trick.

Well, other thoeries are seem to have credibility for a time, but then are abandoned due to lack of evidence. This is my observation of evolution. It has been shown to be without credibility for so long, it should be abandoned. {Darwin said this himself toward the end of his life}. The latest discoveries about the complexity of the cell and the lack of DNA for alternate species all weigh heavily against evolution as taught in high school. However, some desparately hang on to this crazy theory. The modifications can no longer account for the evidence, and it is way past time evolution die by natural selection.

Again, an argument against evolution is not a religious statement. The claim that 'you can't present evidence against our theory or you are violating the constitution' is also nutty.

Bruce,

I don’t object to the IDEA of gravity, and you know it, insulting tone notwithstanding. Obviously things fall when dropped. But the explanation for that phenomenon is still just a theory, just as the model of the atom is based on a theory. How are the various physical forces (strong, weak, gravity, electromagnetic) related to each other? If they are all more than theories we should have an answer, but we don’t. Should we thus toss out all physics? No, because such theories explain a lot and make testable predictions. And we are still in the process of discovery. Same with evolution, as with all science. That is why science in general welcomes and recalibrates to new information. And in fact evolution DOES make testable predictions. See my response to Clayton for one example of many.

As to your objection to cancer, it is an explanation based on theories of cell division. If we truly understood how it worked, we might be able to stop it. But we can’t. We are still altering our understanding of it “constantly to accommodate new information as it is discovered”, to use your own words. Did you know that most cancer research is performed in non-human organisms, some as low on the evolutionary ladder as yeast? This is because, in accordance with evolutionary science, many important physiological processes have been conserved over time. Most scientists don’t study fruit flies and yeast just to understand the biology of these organisms. They certainly wouldn’t receive much NIH funding if that were the case. No, they study these organisms because they are easier to study – and more ethical to do so – than humans. AND because they tell us something about how humans work. As predicted by evolution and borne out by experimentation, ancient processes are preserved in modern humans.

If you think evolution “has been tested and it is useless and needs to be abandoned like bad medicine,” then I suggest you stop seeing a doctor and taking all prescribed medications. Because the vast majority of medicine is based on animal research, which itself requires evolution to be correct. Otherwise those medications wouldn’t be developed using animals before being tested on humans.

Your comments offer no specific critiques of evolution and no specific defense of ID. Your website (drdino.com) spouts various misinformation intended to deceive the ill-informed (e.g. the often-repeated fallacy about carbon dating). Either that or you haven’t read much about the field you seem bent on undermining. Either way, you should be ashamed of yourself. If you are not trying to exploit the uninformed, I suggest you provide a comments section on your site to allow people to critique the various misstatements you make. If you are afraid to, then you are a charlatan. Also update your site. We have been in the molecular age for awhile now. Genome sequencing has reinforced the previous anatomical and archaeological bases for evolution, which you seem stuck on.

Lastly, proponents of teaching unadulterated evolutionary science in science class (many of whom believe in creationism, by the way – see today’s NYT letters to the editor) are not denying you your God, contrary to your feelings of victimization. We just believe He belongs in a church, not in science class. The only “problem” is people like you pretending your intentions are anything but innocent. That is what got the Dover, PA school board in trouble.

Next time back up your assertions with specifics. You’ll have a lot more credibility than you did in your rant.

If anyone here is interested in reading information about evolution or some brief responses to common criticisms of evolution (such as the mistruths Bruce disseminates), below are some sites to check out. Sorry - I still don't know how to post links.

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=41

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

http://www.evolutionhappens.net/
and the related
http://www.evolutionhappens.net/radiometric.htm

Bruce,

I'm glad you tried to study Newtonian and Modern Physics in college. It is too bad you did not develop analytical abilities from the experience of taking a physics course.

You say some theories are more credible than others. I am glad you recognize that. Now can you carry that thought one step further, and understand why? I'll help you. They have more credibility because there is more evidence to support them, and because there is not evidence to contradict them.

Since intelligent design has no supporting evidence it has no credibility.

I also don't know what credibility you can claim for your observation of evolution. Tens of thousands of scientists have looked at the evidence and accepted it, and you assume the right to call it a crazy theory? On what authority? Do you know more than they do? Do you have greater intelligence and experience than their combined wisdom and experience? Do you communicate with the supernatural and get insights not accessible to mere mortals who are nevertheless highly trained, scientifically accomplished, and who think you are wrong?

Finally your last statement is so inane that I can't imagine how to respond. There is no evidence for intelligent design. Do you even understand the meaning of evidence?

Bruce,

I am curious how you feel about the creation of the earth or the cosmos? Do you accept the age of the Universe? Do you accept the Big Bang? It raises a lot of questions we don't have answers to yet. Do you believe the Hubble pictures showing galaxies being created are fakes or are being misinterpreted?

The universe is complex and with variations beyond the human imagination. Do you believe that it took an intelligent designer to create it? Do you feel the two creation stories in Genesis have more credibility than the enormous amount of data on the age and extent of the universe just because we still have ongoing scientific investigations?

If you do accept the scientific evidence here and reject the need for an intelligent designer to explain the complexity and still existing mysteries of the universe, what makes the scientists' approaches here different than their approach to explaining the diversity and complexity of life? Is your concern that man may not have been uniquely created by God, and thus have a special place in the universe?

I find it so hard to understand people like you who assume they know more or have insights that thousands of experts coming from many different specialties don't have, that I would like to gain some insight as to the thought processes which makes them feel they have such insight and authority.

I'm sure arguing with you is useless, but I want to address a couple things here, especially the personal attacks.

Primarily, you have my position wrong. I have not been making arguements supporting creation here. I've merely been correcting the mis-information being stated about evolution. I'm stating the evolution is a worthless theory, not deserving the love and devotion of its followers.

You claim "I suggest you provide a comments section on your site to allow people to critique the various misstatements you make. If you are afraid to, then you are a charlatan". Thanks for the name calling. Again, however, you have your facts wrong. I do provide a comments section on my website. (Dr.Dino is not my website, if that is what has you confused).
You challenge me to 'update my site'. I do, daily. (and you say my posting was a rant?).

Personally, I have an engineering degree, although I've worked a large part of my career in science, specifically light and magnetism. I use science and the scientific methods daily.
I have studied evolution in depth. I used to follow it more closely when I was in college (20 years ago now). The arguments have changed somewhat on both sides since. However, I've tried to stay up to date.

Mostly, the new arguemnts revolve around advancements in genetics. Darwin believed that, say a dog, would have the genetics for everything, man, horse, etc. It was all there, and just needed to be mutated to come out. The current information shows that the DNA for other species are not there, making is extrememly unlikely that one species (a cold-blooded lizard) could give birth to another (a warm-blooded bird capable of flight).

To me (and most scientists), the distinction between law and theory is important. Obviously, you disagree. Fine. However, some things are laws - and if you can't accept that, sorry.

Evolution has not produced testable predictions. (sorry). You claim all medicine as the example? That's a new one. Yes, animal research is valuable, but that is not evidence of evolution. You can't credit evolution with the development of medicine. That's nuts. (and you accuse me of exploiting the uninformed?)

Here's an example (a specific critique). Evolutionary scientists have put together all kinds of 'soup' in their labs, using all the research and power of thier educations, and zapped it with all the lightning and what-have-you imaginable in order to reproduce the theory of life origins. If they passed, then evolution might be more than a bad theory. However, they all failed, and have for over 50 years. Consider the irony - intelligent scientists, very planned tests, lots of research, ideal conditions, etc., and to show "NO INTELLIGENCE" was necessary ... and they've failed, and failed, and failed.

Here's another. Math weighs against evolution. Years ago, the population of the world was small. Yet to get all this evolution, you would need lots of advanced mutations. Today, the population is big. There are more births daily today than in a 1000 years in the past. Yet we see nothing. There are tons of other specific critiques on Dr.Dino and elsewhere.

This was Darwin's problem with his own theory. He thought the evidence would be discovered to support his theory. At the end of his life, he determined the lack of evidence found as a problem 'weighing heavily against (his) theory".

There are so many, many other reasons to throw out evolution. I wouldn't know where to begin. Do a google on 'evolution disproved', or buy Dr.Dino's tapes ... or ... are you afraid???

You posted before as Einstein. You should know that Einstein believed in creation, not evolution. His goal in life was to 'know what was in the mind of God when he created the world'. Check out the book "Men of Science Men of God" and you will find that most of the founders of science believed in God and did not believe Darwin. Therefore, you should not discredit people's scientific knowledge just because they believe.

You said: "I'm sure arguing with you is useless, but I want to address a couple things here, especially the personal attacks."

Um, I think those personal attacks began with you.

You again: "Primarily, you have my position wrong. I have not been making arguements supporting creation here. I've merely been correcting the mis-information being stated about evolution. I'm stating the evolution is a worthless theory, not deserving the love and devotion of its followers."

Are you Bruce Malone? I think you are. If so, then your statement about your position is disingenuous. I read your "articles" at the drdino web site, and I saw other references to your writings on the web. You are clearly a creationist. And your writings at drdino are based on misconceptions or outright lies about science. If I am wrong about your identity, then I apologize. But few people seem to vehemently question evolution as you do unless they are trying to promote creationism.

I previously said: 'I suggest you provide a comments section on your site to allow people to critique the various misstatements you make. If you are afraid to, then you are a charlatan'.

To that you replied: "Thanks for the name calling. Again, however, you have your facts wrong. I do provide a comments section on my website. (Dr.Dino is not my website, if that is what has you confused). You challenge me to 'update my site'. I do, daily. (and you say my posting was a rant?)."

If I believe you are misinforming people (if you are Bruce Malone), what other word should I call you? Drdino may not be your site, but (if you are Bruce Malone) you contribute frequently enough you must have some influence about the format.

You again: "Mostly, the new arguemnts revolve around advancements in genetics. Darwin believed that, say a dog, would have the genetics for everything, man, horse, etc. It was all there, and just needed to be mutated to come out. The current information shows that the DNA for other species are not there, making is extrememly unlikely that one species (a cold-blooded lizard) could give birth to another (a warm-blooded bird capable of flight)."

Frankly, I never read Origin of the Species. I know it was written in the 1800s and evolutionary science has come a long way since then. Modern evolutionary theory does not say that horses can beget dogs simply by accumulating mutations.

You again: "To me (and most scientists), the distinction between law and theory is important. Obviously, you disagree. Fine. However, some things are laws - and if you can't accept that, sorry."

I think we disagree not about the distinction between laws and theories but which ideas meet the requirements for each.

You again: "Evolution has not produced testable predictions. (sorry). You claim all medicine as the example? That's a new one. Yes, animal research is valuable, but that is not evidence of evolution. You can't credit evolution with the development of medicine. That's nuts. (and you accuse me of exploiting the uninformed?)"

First, drug development using animals is an example. I can see how you might not make the connection, so here are three other examples to which I would be interested to hear your response. I mentioned drug-resistent bacteria before, which you ignored. I also gave you the example involving mutations in chimps and humans which you also ignored. Now here is a final one. Evolutionary theory predicts that speciation should lead to greater selection pressure for some genes and less selection pressure for others. Extreme cases of the latter, genes for which there is no selection pressure, should be eliminated by accumulation of mutations over time. Evolution predicts that for a given species you should find some genes that have become non-functional as they begin to disappear. In fact, such genetic elements, called pseudogenes, have been discovered in numerous organisms, including humans. Evolution accounts for the existence of pseudogenes. ID has no explanation.

You again: "Here's an example (a specific critique). Evolutionary scientists have put together all kinds of 'soup' in their labs, using all the research and power of thier educations, and zapped it with all the lightning and what-have-you imaginable in order to reproduce the theory of life origins. If they passed, then evolution might be more than a bad theory. However, they all failed, and have for over 50 years. Consider the irony - intelligent scientists, very planned tests, lots of research, ideal conditions, etc., and to show "NO INTELLIGENCE" was necessary ... and they've failed, and failed, and failed."

How does the inability to generate life in a test tube (a much smaller vessel than the size of the planet) invalidate evolution? First, not a lot of scientists have tackled the problem you describe (Urey and Miller were the first - have there been others?) Second, most experiments fail. That doesn't mean the ideas underlying them do. Third, simple organic molecules like those that have been predicted to have been utilized by primitive life WERE produced in the experiment you described! Fourth, science doesn't claim that life arose spontaneously on earth; it acknowledges that some early form of life might have colonized the planet from a meteor(ite?). Evidence that it COULD have arisen here, however, DOES exist. A variety of work has been published (some of which led to a Nobel prize) involving RNA, which is thought to be an evolutionary precursor to DNA, showing that RNA is capable of catalyzing its own replication in the absence of a cell. With sunlight, lightning, or the right redox potential as an energy source, and with water and simple organic molecules in abundance, it is not inconceivable to think that in a sequestered environment self-replication by RNA might have led to something more organized.

You again: "Here's another. Math weighs against evolution. Years ago, the population of the world was small. Yet to get all this evolution, you would need lots of advanced mutations. Today, the population is big. There are more births daily today than in a 1000 years in the past. Yet we see nothing. There are tons of other specific critiques on Dr.Dino and elsewhere."

If you had read as much about evolution as you claim, you would know the answer to your question. Much like small bureaucracies can move faster than big ones (admittedly a bad metaphor), small populations of animals can change faster than big ones. A mutation affecting a significant gene in an individual in a small population is going to have a bigger impact on the group than a mutation in an individual in a very large population. In a small population the chance of that gene getting represented in all the progeny quickly, either by genetic drift or by natural selection, is greater than in a large one. Geographic isolation - more common for humans in earlier times - expedites the process. Combined with advances in modern medicine, which have eliminated many selection pressures that could have acted on early humans, these reasons refute your argument. I suggest drdino do a little reading.

You again: "This was Darwin's problem with his own theory. He thought the evidence would be discovered to support his theory. At the end of his life, he determined the lack of evidence found as a problem 'weighing heavily against (his) theory'.

All good scientists focus on the potential pitfalls of the work they publish. Einstein fretted about the cosmic constant he used to describe the acceleration of the universe, calling it his "biggest mistake". But modern science has in fact proved his "mistake" to be correct. Time has also proved the bulk of Darwin's ideas to be entirely defensible.

You again: "There are so many, many other reasons to throw out evolution. I wouldn't know where to begin. Do a google on 'evolution disproved', or buy Dr.Dino's tapes ... or ... are you afraid???"

As I said before, I read a number of the articles at the drdino website. They were garbage, and I referenced (URLs of) refutations of much of that nonsense in my last comment to you. I think I have adequately addressed many of your other points here. Perhaps you could do me the courtesy of attempting to do the same. Specifics please.

You again: "You posted before as Einstein. You should know that Einstein believed in creation, not evolution. His goal in life was to 'know what was in the mind of God when he created the world'. Check out the book "Men of Science Men of God" and you will find that most of the founders of science believed in God and did not believe Darwin. Therefore, you should not discredit people's scientific knowledge just because they believe."

I have only posted as dem. The Einstein poster has his own gripes with you. I addressed your point about other scientists. I have no problem with their belief in God, just as I have no problem with yours. My objections to your slander of evolution have to do with your reasons, which I find to be very, very flawed.

I'm not Bruce Malone. Since you are not Einstein, I guess we are even on the assumptions thing. I've never posted to that site, although I have seen the drdino tapes.

I'm a relatively young earth creationist. I don't believe 6000 years is the likely number as most young earthers. I believe about 40K years. I'm sort of along on this one, but I think for myself. However,I'm refering to my arguments. Shooting holes is evolution is easy. The theory is ridiculous, and is a stumbling block to science. Proving creation from a scientific standpoint is difficult, and I'm not going to attempt to do it here. Likewise, I don't care to much about this topic as it relates to this public school. It's hard to get excited about a tiny bit of creation frosting on a giant evolutionary cake. I don't understand why the opposition to ID is so excited either. Why are they afraid of such a small paragraph?

One thing: The 'simple organic molecules' you describe were less than a protein, which is less than a DNA, which is less than a cell. Not enough complexity to get excited. A long way from paradise. This does not prove creation, nor would greater success prove evolution. However, it is one example of a lack of supporting evidence for evolution.

I think we should call a truce here, as this is not a creation/evolution web site. We are probably boring the others, if anyone is reading at all. I will commend you for actually reading the drdino site. I'll leave you with one last one. It covers ID as well, and has a place for comments :). If should satisfy you need for specifics. The approach is a little more careful, although not as fun. (I have no affiliation with this site either).

http://www.godandscience.org/

My favorite portion of this page is the 'Famous Scientists' page. Definately worth a read.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

For me, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. (That's why I homeschool). I know God is real because I spoke with him this morning. No experiments needed. However, I'd claim that since a huge number of people from all kinds of backgrounds, in all kinds of places, at all times in history, that never met each other. describe the same thing, that's a lot like a controlled experiment. Maybe that sounds dramatic. However, as C.S. Lewis said "When the author walks on stage, the play is over."

Bruce,

Sorry about thinking you were someone else. You do seem to have a similar background to Malone though, and you frequent the site that he publishes articles at.

I'll check out the sites you recommend. Meanwhile, keep in mind that I have responded to ALL your points and read some of the artievolution articles to which you referred me. It seems only fair that you respond in kind by reading the pro-evolution sites I recommended AND give some thought to the examples I gave you. You continue to claim that it is easy to poke holes in evolution, yet you haven't done so, and you refuse to respond to the points I made (e.g. drug-resistant bacteria, chimp/human genome, pseudogenes). I'm willing to call a truce, but if you continue to make unsubstantiated claims, especially when you haven't informed yourself about refutations to your arguments, then I'm going to call you on them. In the end, you rely on faith. Believe it or not, I'm OK with that - just not the other stuff you wrote.

Peace.

William writes: ...but should that defense take the form of juvenile insults? (Incompetent Design—is simply adolescent name calling...

p1. My word, you *do* seem to have an inflated sense of self-importance to take this criticism as a personal insult.

p2. Any designer that would purposely make Cephalopelvic Disproportion a limiting factor of the reproductive system is an incompetent boob.