firstpusk

Rooster, Both of those websites are run by lawyers not scientists. I am familiar with both organizations. IDN has been involved in the state science standards debate in my state and a couple of school board situations. The IDEA Center is mainly trying to get IDEA clubs started on college campuses and promote speakers and conferences. Neither does any research. There are a lot of grandiose claims, but no empirical scientific evidence for ID on either webpage. The Kitzmiller v. Dover trial gave an opportunity for ID to present their best and brightest. ID had its day in court. The ID 'scientific' evidence did not hold up. You can read it for yourself at the link below. I am pretty sure that you won't trouble yourself to examine this one either. However, it is there if you seek to educate yourself. http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/kitzmiller_decision_20051220.pdf Scoutndad, You raise some fair questions. However, I would say that the outcome of the case reinforces the value of the first point of the scout law. It was clear that the effort to decieve destroyed any merit for their case. The other might be that there are very many valid ways to approach faith. I would disagree that the decision undermines the value of faith. However, I do understand that the decision is problem for some with a particular approach to faith. The discussion here indicated that there are some very strong disagreements about who the 'good guys'are. The tone here can sometimes go well beyond what I would consider appropriate in front of scouts. One must recognize that lying does not put you in the camp of the good guys. The decision makes it clear that dishonesty was at the core of the ID approach in the Dover case.

BrentAllen, that is an interesting list of questions. First off, why do you assume that evolution violates the religious beliefs of Christian students. I went to a Christian elementary school and a Christian university both taught evolution. I think that there are specific churches and denominations that assert this, but it is certainly not universally held in Christianity. Evolution does raise some issues for students that are raised to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. I know a number of biology teachers. Their approach is express understanding of this problem and ask that students talk about it with their parents and/or clergy. That may not make them happy, but it is the best a teacher can do for them. The sources of variation within the gene pool are mutation, recombination and gene flow. I can post some links for you on this later. The basis of the prediction of the age of the universe is the red shift in light from distant stars. This indicated that the universe was expanding. Astronomers work back from data on the rate of expansion to determine how long ago it all started. That's pretty simplistic but it expresses the idea. The models for climatic change and weather prediction are different because they are dealing with different systems. BTW, the universe is around 13 billion years old. You and I are miraculous. I don't think you should assume it is any different whether you are a product of special creation or evolution. Nor do I think that you should assume that someone accepting evolution must be an atheist. I am a member of the BSA in good standing. A lay minister in my church and a recipient of my faith's religious emblem. I also accept evolution as the only scientific explanation of the development and diversity of life. On Thanksgiving I thank my God.

Scoutndad, I am talking about ID as a public relations/political strategy to force religion into the schools. You are right. Folks on my side are fighting a hydra. The ID folks already are arguing for "sudden appearance" or "teach the controversy" instead of Intelligent Design. The Discovery Institute has tried to convince creationists of all stripes conform to their non-biblical strategy. They have promised much but have only delivered big legal bills for the folks in Dover. About the start of life, that is not part of the theory of evolution and it never has been. Evolution explains the development and diversity of life not its ultimate origin. Speciation occurs and has been observed. Many branches of science beyond biology support the theory of evolution. No branch of science supports the "theory" of intelligent design. Your time machine comment is simply a variation of "were you there" argument some creationists ask students to use to confront their science teachers. Thankfully, science has other tools besides time machines to observe the history of life. There is actually a scientific controversy over the the Korean cloning claims. It is instructive about how science is self-correcting. The same can not be claimed for creationists, especially the ID types. They want a creationist big tent were everyone agrees not to bicker until they have slain the dragon of evolution.

"How do new permutations of a species develop? What innate mechanism recognizes the need to change? And how does it transpire and initiate the change?" There is variation within the population. Natural selection acts on the variation. The random part of evolution is the variation of genes within a population. There is no recognition of "the need to change". Those individuals without the advantageous adaptation fail to survive, reproduce and pass their genes on to the next generation. I believe among the links you were given today was one on observed speciation. I know that I have given it to you before. You didn't read it then either. "Arent you being just a little hypocritical? If the Big Bang can be taught as science without recognizing a cause, why not ID? They are both theories whereas the source of the event cannot be identified by observation. And while we may be able to observe rocks and animals, we cannot say with any certainty (by observation) how they were created or evolved. That is to say, evolution is also a past event, which is unobservable." No. He is not being hypocritical. There is evidence for the big bang - verifiable scientific evidence. The universe is expanding and the patterns of that expansion when calculated back point to a sigularity around 13 billion years ago. ID has no scientific evidence to support it. It is not science. It might be philosophy but third rate philosophical speculation. And from my perspective it is bad theology with no respect for Scripture or this powerful mind that God gave us. Evolution is similar to the big bang. We can speculate about what cause that explosion. We can also speculate about how life came into existence. Neither theory is dependent on an explanation of the initial cause. They are both verified by other observations. When it comes to evolution, we can say with a significant degree of confidence that the mechanisms of evolution are capable of producing what we see. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that ID would have to address. The only way ID supporters could address it is by doing research. They don't do research. ID is a dead end as creationism before it. Judge Jones handed the ID crowd their head on a platter. ID is done.

Rooster, You and I have been down this road before - this question of putting God in a box. You claim I can't comprehend a God creating everything in seven days. I can comprehend the idea. The problem is, this doesn't fit any of the observations. As for me easily imagining "a fish crawling out of a pond and growing legs." I can't. That is because you don't understand how evolution is supposed to work. Evolution does not act on individuals but populations. The individuals that are best suited to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce. We have living examples of fish that move pond to pond breathing air when the environment requires it. I read an excellent article in Scientific American in December talking about recent finds and our improved understanding of this transition. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000DC8B8-EA15-137C-AA1583414B7F0000 There were certainly a number of clergy that reacted with anger to Darwin's book. Bishop Wilberforce's reaction would be considered typical, but that is not the case. In general, the theory was pretty well accepted in Great Britain even among the clergy. Darwin was trained as a parson although he never earned a living preaching. However, a significant group of the precursors of Darwin and early adopters of his theory were preachers. Many of the early fossil finds and work in geology was done by country parsons. Most educated folks in England understood that the world was ancient. Radiometric dating was a century away. So they didn't know how old but they knew it was much older than the Bible portrays. Darwin was able to explain many observations that made no sense before his theory. That is why it was quite widely accepted soon after it was proposed.

I will agree with you that the board and their counsel were particularly inept. However, ID doesn't give them much with which to work. The foundation for the poor work of the ID crowd in court was built on nearly two decades of poor (I am being charitible) science. I was not looking to draw you into anything. I simply share the good judge's distaste for hypocracy dressed in religious robes. If you are asking me how I work with scouts and my duty to God, I have no problem. I don't see a conflict between accepting evolution and seeing the gifts that God has given us. My faith is not determined by the outcome of this trial either. I tell my scouts that the beauty of this world and the life on it is an inspiration, that they should be thankful for the gift they have be given. I just don't share the view of some scouters here that I must tell scouts that God created the world in six days a few thousand years ago. I believe He used evolution. That was what I was taught in my church and the schools run by my church. That is what the evidence of science teaches us, also.

"And finally, my $.02 worth on this thread... One poorly run proceeding that causes a judge to rule unfavorably, does not mean that the issue is dead. This was a bad case from the start with very poor testimony. This is not dead by a long shot - anyone hear of Roe v Wade (rhetorical)? Politcal careers are won and lost based on this case as I imagine other careers will be determined on their religious value stance. Faith certainly is not decided in the courtroom..." ID was scientifically DOA when it got to court. I am not sure why you characterize the trial as poorly run. Perhaps you didn't like the outcome. The board and their supporters had ample opportunity to make their case. They could not support the claim that ID was science and not religion. They lied repeated under oath in order to cover their religious motivations. After reading all 139 pages of the opinion, I have tremendous respect for the honesty and competence of Judge John Jones III. I will agree with you that faith is not decided in the courtroom. However, the effort to use government to force religious viewpoints into public school science classrooms got spanked in the Dover trial.

Harriet Miers is the best choice the president could make for a lifetime appointment to the highest court. This is from the Washington Post. "Meanwhile, several constitutional law scholars said they were surprised and puzzled by Miers's response to the committee's request for information on cases she has handled dealing with constitutional issues. In describing one matter on the Dallas City Council, Miers referred to 'the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause' as it relates to the Voting Rights Act. 'There is no proportional representation requirement in the Equal Protection Clause,' said Cass R. Sunstein, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago." Yes, she has a fine legal mind, indeed. Bush should apologize to the country for this selection. We should apologize to the world for ours.

...and how many on that list had their license to practice law suspended twice for non-payment of dues? Yes, she is the most competent person Bush could find to fill this seat. Tells you alot about the president and a bit more about his apologists.

The SCOTUS decided not to decide this question last year by declaring that Dr. Newdow lacked standing on the basis of non-custody of his daughter. He has since found other plaintiffs. It will be interesting if the Supremes find another way to dodge the question. Where I grew up, we recited the 1924 version of the Pledge until well into elementary school. There are two things worth noting. One, we continued to leave "under God" out of the pledge for well more than a decade after Congress mandated it. Two, this was the same for both the Catholic and public schools in my town. A look at the legislative history of the insertion of "under God" makes it clear that this was an effort to establish a specific religios viewpoint by Congress. It is worth noting that many religious viewpoints are excluded by the insertion of the phrase and I'm not just talking about atheism. On that basis, it seems clear that we should be willing to accept that we should not require the recitation of the pledge in public schools. I have one final note to kenk. I found it interesting that your punctuation lesson left out the word indivisible. The addition of "under God" seems to emphasize our divisions.

"if, (the largest word in the English vocabulary) we start and stay with one simple point in the creationism/evolution debate, -"What existed before the big bang and if anything where did it come from?". Perhaps the answers to these questions will the help answer Merlyn's original post for itself. Nothing about dinosaurs, humans, fruit flies or anything else-let step one be step one. I find absolute randomness contains the idea that something has to be "doing" the random. What is it and where did it come from to be random?" First, the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang. Evolution is the only accepted scientific theory of the development and diversity of life. It does not address the origin of life nor does it address the origin of the universe. Evolution is true regardless of how life originated or what existed the instant before the Big Bang. Second, the scientific concept of a theory has a very specific meaning. It is what hypotheses become when they are thoroughly tested and become the best explanation for the data and observations that have been gathered. The Big Bang is accepted because the data and observations conform to this theory. Quite literally, these observations point back to one specific time and one specific place. What existed just before this explosion? We need more data to answer that question. If you want to personally believe that God packed it all in one small point, feel free. There are certainly ideas, but there is no theory. Third, the Theory of Evolution is not simply random. Yes, there is a random element the genetic variation within a population. However, natural selection is anything but random. The non-random quality of natural selection on populations has been observed in the lab and in nature.

I am pretty willing to bet that she has experienced a tolerant smile or two and probably given a few - even to conservatives.

vicki, I think that her article should be taken as a warning to scouters taking groups of scouts out in public. The behavior she witnessed is inexcusable. I have seen scouts behave admirably and I have seen them behave in the manner she witnessed. Charity has nothing to do with it. Like it or not, this example is a reflection on every single one of us. She caught some of our own setting a rather poor example. I think we should be thankful for her warning and try to make sure our own units aren't doing the same.

acco40, here is where we part company. In my church angels are only allowed on the head of a pin.

Pack, good post. The heart of the matter for guys like Ham is to insist that you must agree with his version if you want to be a Christian. It is an effort to manipulate people by the use of scare tactics. I wanted to add one thing about the last paragraph of your post. Ham does indeed try to question the reliability of radiometric dating techniques. This is a common tactic of all YEC's. Ham applies the "Were you there?" argument to the question of rates of radioactive decay. The problem with this approach is that these dating methods are not used alone. In order to date any particular fossil one must gain a complete understanding of the strata that it came from. By examining the strata a geologist can tell you something about the environment in which it was formed. They do the same for the layers above and below the fossil. The idea of an ancient earth came long before radiometric dating. It was understood well before Darwin that there was no way that the earth was only a few thousand years old. Radiometric dating came along and confirmed the ealier relative dating techniques. We knew the earth was very old and radiometric dating gave us a tool that could tell us just how old these rocks were. These methods are not the only method telling us the earth is very old.

bbng, I hate to break this to you, but there is little science to be found at the Answers in Genesis website. It is not the worst in creationist deception, but it might be one of the most popular. Their production values may be high, but their content in terms of truth or science is extremely low. Don't waste you time on them. When I looked at the link you offered, I was not surprised by the fact that Ken Ham was up to his usual rhetorical tricks (to put it far to nicely). Ham always pulls out a number of these tricks in order to deny the reality of evidence for ideas like an ancient earth. One of his favorite is to ask, "Where you there?" Somehow claiming that unless I can affirm to witnessing the passing of millions of years, he can simply deny the relality of millions of years. He is a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) and firmly believes that the earth is at most 10,000 years old. There is not the slightest possibility that this is true. It can be quite entertaining to watch the verbal and intellectual gymnastics he engages in to try to defend this proposition. Another of his favorites is to claim that to accept evolution is to deny God. His faith may be based on a literal reading of the first chapters of Genesis, but most Christians don't share this problem. The page claims that creationists can understand the arguments for evolution, but those accepting evolution can not understand creationism because they fail to understand the "Biblical" world view. That is a pile of hooey. I have been involved in this debate for more than a quarter of a century. I understand the arguments of creationists very well. When they misinterpret science or misquote scientists, I can often tell them where the argument came from and why it is unethical to use it. The simple fact is that I have been looking at this for many years and as yet I have not found a single valid scientific argument that favors creationism.

"I stated earlier that creationists are not necessarily (Bibical)literalists, but that literalists are creationists. And it is not evolution = natural selection. Your comingling comes at the big bang and that which you call evolution is not natural selection." Natural selection is the key concept of the theory of evolution. It is not the only cause of evolution but it is central to the theory. Evolution does not begin until after there is life - around 11 billion years after the big bang. "So the science which you seem to deny-physcis, chemistry, math-can not and do not have theories, hypothesis, or formuli to account for that which was before the big bang. In a void there is nothing and science does not even portend a clue as to where that infinate matter that was compressed into a finite space orgininated. It had to come about somehow-ask a creationist because scientists don't even have a theory.... " And not have a theory for the moment before the big bang is a problem for science that creationism will resolve? Ludicrous. There is no science in creationism much less any scientific theory.

Pack, I agree that creationists have to deny science in general. However, I don't think that they often understand just how much science they are denying to hold to there beliefs.

stlscouter, Let's start by not comingling theories. The big bang is the standard theory to explain the current condition and history of the universe. Evolution is the theory that explains the development and diversity of life. It is of utmost importance to keep clear what each theory addresses. The big bang can explain what happened after the bang but not tell you what was there before. Evolution can tell you about what happened after life began, but it does not address the origin of life. I don't believe that faith is required at all to accept either theory. I view creationism as the denial of evolution. Creationists may or may not deny an ancient universe or an old earth. The evidence that supports the theory of evolution grows with each passing year. There is too much science that must be denied to deny evolution. That is the basis of my statement. You are free to disagree. But if we start to talk about what specifically a creationist will accept or deny, I think that you will begin to see my point.

Science addresses the questions that it can answer. The matter that was compressed into a singularity was there. Much like the answer God gave to Moses it may not satisfy our human couriousity but it is what it is. One can believe that God created the universe and accept science but in order to be a creationist one must reject science.

"step one; start with nothing and cause light. or; start with something compressing into such dense mass that its mass is infinate and its dimensions are finite and there results a big bang. Prove either." Science is a tentative venture. Observations are made. Hypotheses are formed and tested. Eventually theories are developed to explain the observations. Nothing is ever "proven". However, at a certain point it becomes perverse to deny the reality of facts that line up in favor of a theory. Both the big bang and evolution have reached such status. There is plenty of data that fits the idea that our universe started with the big bang. There is the 'red shift' of the light from more distant stars. There is the fact that all of the galaxies are moving away from each other. There are 'echos' from the original explosion. There is the fact that all of the galaxies are moving away from a specific point. All of this points to the reality that our universe had definite beginning about 12 billion years ago. There is absolutely no scientific evidence for the Biblical creation story. You may accept it on faith but you simply can not argue effectively for the position using science.

"so then evolution theory is so small in scope that there is no room for a larger context?" Evolution is the theory which explains the development and diversity of life on earth. One can not use evolution to explain erosion or beach formation. One can not say that an individual in a population evolves. However, our understanding that the earth is ancient and evidence that life has been around for most of that period allows for a context large enough. Geological methods are critical to informing evolutionary theory. The obvious great age of the earth was one of the critical problems that creationists like Lyell and the young Darwin faced. Uniformitarianism in geology and evolution in biology made sense of that extremely old earth. The understanding of both men helped science to move beyond Biblical explanations.

"My old live body doesn't do what it once did is it evolving or eroding?" Neither. Evolution occurs at the level of populations and natural selection acts upon the differences in the population. "so there's a design difference between the stuff my body is made of and the stuff he rock is made of? How do they know which one they are? By random occurance or by some other process?" Same stuff, just organized differently. "It is possible to work the scientific method to explain the process of rock eroding into sand or as evidence that "someone" wanted a beach for an ocean." If you buy that, I am sure that we can find some sharpy willing to sell you "beach front" property,

The article points to the obvious fact that Prof. Johnson does not understand the ideals of the scouting movement. "...the Scouts have to be concerned about youths who are being taught a way of thinking that undermines biblical theism at a fundamental level..." The job of a scoutmaster is to train boy leaders not to teach biblical theism. Beyond that, the majority of Christians do not accept his view of the Bible. For that matter, he fails to understand that scouting is not a Christian movement. Johnson and his ilk throw the stumbling block in front of the boys. It is all or nothing. Either accept that Genesis is a work of natural history or deny God. If my scouts ask me a question about the geological history of Minnesota, I give him a valid geological answer. This answer does not deny God's existence, meaning in life or the brotherhood of man. I don't beleive in evolution. However, I do accept that it is scientifically valid. The theory has been established to the point that it requires extreme feats of logical gymnastics to deny it. One last point, creationism is not a theory in any kind of valid scientific sense. In my book, it is dishonest to claim creationism is scientific.

Pack, I love the way you think. OGE is in the middle of it already and that is where the ref should be. Cow pies would be a wonderful addition. However, I think we will need to reinforce our balistas to handle the additional weight. This is going to be fun!