The current National Geographic issue Was Darwin Wrong? clarifies the confussion for those still in the dark (ages)

Uh, evolution is still just a theory. To claim it IS fact is to be just as blind and biased as the creationists who claim it is not fact because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

It could be fact. But in science a theory can be disproved because we are not certain it is true. This is because we have never demonstrated macro-evolution. Micro-evolution, of course, is easily and frequently demonstrated, but that's not the heart of the debate. Macro-evolution belongs in curriculum, but it should be presented with the clarification that it is still just a theory. What will you do if an even more plausible scientific theory is forwarded? Deny it because "evolution is fact"? That's simply blind.

I don't really care if a person believes in creationism or believes that evolution explains things, it just doesn't make sense to support evolution with the zeal creationists use. Macro-evolution is, ultimately, just a theory (for now?).

"It could be fact. But in science a theory can be disproved because we are not certain it is true. " If this is your argument, then you misunderstand how our institution of science works. Our colloquial definition of 'fact', when applied to the scientific world, describes everything as theory. Thus, adopted and generally understood theories are labled as scientific 'facts'.

"What will you do if an even more plausible scientific theory is forwarded? Deny it because "evolution is fact"? That's simply blind." Actually, your attitude concerning the use of the term 'fact' is 'simply blind.' Scientific 'facts' can be disproven and replaced with others.

HERE ARE THE MUCH ANTICIPATED 2004 NOMINEES: And the year is only 75% completed! Natural Selection At Work

Hard to believe it but another year has almost passed. Once again its time for the Darwin Award Nominees. The Darwin's are awarded every year to the persons who died in the most stupid manner, thereby removing themselves from the gene pool.

NOMINEE NO 1) An unidentified man using a shotgun like a club to break a former girlfriends windhield, accidentally shot himself to death when the gun discharged, blowing a hole in his head.

NOMINEE NO 2) Ken Charles Barger, 47, accidentally shot himself to death in December in Newton N.C. Awakening to the sound of the ringing telephone beside his bed, he reached for the phone but grapped instead a Smith & Wesson 38 Special, which discharged when he drew it to his ear. (For whatever reason residents of Red States always seem to figure prominently among Darwin Norminee's)

Eru,

What you say is mostly true, but I think you are missing an important subtlety. Very few scientific theories are ever "proved", where proof is demonstration of a logical conclusion from axioms and other previously proved theorems. Theories are only “disproved” -- demonstrated to be incorrect when they are shown to be inconsistent with observation.

Furthermore, it is not uncommon that when a flaw is found in a theory, that the flaw is with some special case, and the theory as whole is still "correct", as long as it is applied in the correct context. For example, Einstein's special relativity did not disprove Newton's laws of classical physics, but only showed that they are inadequate to explain what happens when objects are moving relative to each other at velocities approaching the speed of light. As it turns out, the vast majority of the time, these special conditions don't apply, and Newton's laws remain correct. One might say that Einstein refined Newton’s laws.

Evolution has already gone through this kind of refinement. Darwin didn't even know of Mendel's work that became the basis for genetics, let alone that DNA was the molecule that encoded the genome. These advances didn't disprove Darwin's theory -- they merely refined it. Future advances are likely to continue to refine Evolution, and unlikely to ever completely disprove it.

Jim

You liberals are hilarious. If it wasn't a theory, they would call it fact, not theory. It's a theory, which means it has not been proven. By admitting it can be disproved, you are admitting it is not fact.

God created man. How can you explain where the first thing came from? God knew what he was doing when he gave us the human race. When judgment day comes, evolution will just be another liberal fallacy. Just another meaningless ass-plug.

You idiots can't appreciate beauty when you see it. Have a nice time in hell.

Eru, I wonder if you realise how few Western countries with decent standards of education have a significant proportion of their population coming out with the kind of thing you are saying.

Creationists clutch at straws and pounce on the slightest gaps in theories associated with evolution. As a result, uninformed people are often under the impression that Darwin's ideas and those that have followed are somehow vague conjecture with only sketchy evidence to back them up. The fact is any sane biologist is in broad agreement with the concept of evolution. It's a fundamental scientific principle that has been researched, developed, explored and elaborated upon to a huge extent. It underpins so much of what we understand that gives us such a massively better insight into the natural world than we had two hundred years ago. It never ceases to amaze me how many people persist in believing in such a blatant falsehood as creationism.

Don,

Why are you even arguing about proof? By your definitions of "theory" and "fact", is God a theory or a fact? If he is a fact, then where is your proof?

By the way Don, if God created man, then who created God?

Jim

Don, you have completely missed the point of everything on this page. Some theories are true, and some theories are false. The evidence pointing to the truth of the theory of evolution is so overwhelming that if people actually thought rationally this debate would have been over a century or more ago.

As Jim explains, proof in scientific and mathematical terms means something rather more demanding than the colloquial understanding of the word.

I notice you also seem to think, in your assinine way, that evolution is some kind of conspiracy cooked up by liberals to hoodwink the godly. You also threaten people with judgement day and hell. You make idiotic statements like, "You idiots can't appreciate beauty when you see it." I really don't get the impression you have even the slightest understanding of how evolution attempts to explain the complexity and diversity of life. Personally I find the idea of evolution far more beautiful than the fairy story in the book of Genesis. This aesthetic side of things is of course irrelevant when we're considering the truth or otherwise of the theory, but it should be said none the less. I recommend "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins if you're the sort of person who's inclined to read a book now and again.

Finally I notice you still seem to have a fixation on anal insertion. This is becoming quite a theme in your comments. I wonder if in everyday life you pepper your conversations with friends and family with references to "meaningless ass-plugs"?

How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/6/mooney-science.asp

Apparently some people seem to be unaware of the scientific method. That is the process by which the seemingly magical aspects of nature can be scientifically known and understood. This method, firstly, involves the observation of some aspect of nature. Then the scientist proposes an explanation as to why the observed phenomenon behaves the way it does, this is what a scientific theory is. This theory is then used to make predictions about the nature of the phenomenon in question. These predictions are then tested experimentation and additional observation. Based on the outcomes of the experimentation the initial theory is modified as needed and conclusions are drawn.

Because actual science is conducted in this way, evolution can never be stated as scientific. The unfortunate thing about it is that nobody was around to observe the origin of the universe. And for something to fall into the category of actual science one needs to be able to observe the phenomena in question. Therefore the theory of evolution is based solely on a series of assumptions derived from dubious evidence. This so called “evidence” is not a set of scientifically proven facts; they are merely glimpses of knowledge and are not strong enough to prove anything. Since the theory of evolution (whether or not it’s true) is not scientifically provable and therefore requires an element of faith in order to believe. In this way, evolution is not dissimilar from religious beliefs; none of which can actually prove their theories, and require faith (the evidence of things not seen) to believe.

Every theory of origin, religiously derived or not, has claimed that all others theories are incorrect, usually based on the dubious nature of associating assumption with fact. The fact that convincing doubt can be cast on every theory of origin that humans have come up with to date is enough to conclude that we still do not have the answer, and that we may never have it.

Theory of origins is the realm of faith, not science. To call evolution science is the same as to call creationism science, and neither is. Therefore the sticker on the textbook is very appropriate; it does not try to push anyone’s beliefs on someone else, but merely encourages an open minded approach to learning a scientifically improvable theory which is not a fact.

Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.

Before all you dildos launch into me, consider this: how do you explain the footprints that existed alongside the dinosaurs'? How do you explain "why" the world exists? Have you ever considered that maybe you're being tested by a supreme power? Satan's greatest achievement was to cause the unbeliever. You all love to think you've undermined God and all his fantastic might, but you'll get what's coming to you when the time rolls around.

Liberals love to believe they've "figured" everything out and tricked traditional thinking. Just because your thoughts are new doesn't make them true. The Bible teaches us not to succumb to temptation, but obviously none of you lubes are versed.

Keep it up. You'll pay for it soon enough.

don hoe your phone is ringing, pick it up

I always get a kick out of this sort of discussion. I can't help but chuckle at the intense feelings on both sides of the issue. Thanks for posting it, Norm.

I have two main concerns with evolution. First, there is no satisfactory explanation for the origin of life on the planet. I don't buy the whole 'primordial soup' thing. Sure, if you get a bunch of organic chemicals and zap it with a tazer, you might get a few amino acids or simple protiens or something. But the proponents of this theory always seem to work backwards, like this: "The building blocks of life can be created in a primordial soup. Life exists now, therefore there must have been a primordial soup from whence it sprang." Anyway I haven't seen anything very convincing on that point.

The other beef I have with the theory is speciation. That is, when does adaptation becomes so thourough that a new species is created out of an old one? Sure you can mess with fruit flies until you have a bunch of 12-legged, 6 winged fruit flies. But they're still fruit flies, fruitus flyus. Similarly you can breed bacteria that are resistant to penicillin. But they're still the same species of bacteria. At what point do we say we've encountered a new species? It seems to me that there's always a lot of hand-waving in biology classes ... "and after really long while, poof, the little mammal that looked like a squirrel adapted until it became a grizzly bear!"

That said, other parts of Darwin's theory seem perfectly reasonable to me, such as the survival of the fittest bit. But to put it in context, let's consider what seemed reasonable 3,000 years ago. Aristotle was convinced that the world was more or less the center of the universe, and that everything revolved around it. That seemed perfectly reasonable to all the smartest, most learned men around. Then after a long while Gallileo gave it some critical thought and suggested that perhaps the earth revolved around the sun. Copernicus agreed and refined that idea further saying that we all go around in perfect little godly circles. Kepler refined that further and said that well, they're actually less than perfect ovals but it's pretty close anyway. Then Newton thought about why it was we were orbiting the sun and came up with a quantification for the theory of gravity. Einstein came up with some ideas that suggest a reason for the existance of gravity. All along the way, each theory seemed reasonable, and each was useful for describing what was happening, but each was incomplete. I think it's just plain arrogance to think that of all generations of humanity, WE'RE the ones to finally unconver the complete and authoritative truth about anything, least of all evolution. I bet a dozen donuts that 1,000 years from now our posterity will look at our quaint little theories and boggle that people so backward could accomplish anything at all.

So, while the phrasing on the textbook sticker could perhaps be improved, it's message is perfectly valid. Keep an open mind, and examine everything critically, and perhaps you'll discover something new. What's wrong with that?

Sorry for the long post.

-Mike

Mike, why can't I support both evoltionist and creationism theory? Cuz I do.

I see no reason at all why you can't support both of them. The only place they seem to conflict is on the origin of life, which, as I mentioned, isn't exactly Evolution's strength. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that God is indeed responsible for life here on Earth, but he planned it to come about through evolution because he's a clever guy and can do things like that. Do you?

I see it as this, it is frightening for the people who are advocating for this. It is frightening simply because it will unravel their belief system to think that evolution happened as opposed to what The Bible teaches them; it doesn't fit in their pattern of thinking. It is frightening for anyone who is on either side of this because it is a battle over ideals. Hell, it scares me to think that they could eventually start teaching "creation science" to children.

Indeed I do, have for decades, and really I don't want a God that is so small I can understand him, or her. Arrogance is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity. (Famous refrigerator saying)

Obviously, some people here have not been following scientific discoveries in this realm for about, hum... a couple of centuries or so, but the more we learn about the origins of our planet, the more it refines Darwin's theory of evolution. On the other hand, the more we learn, the less we can back up Creationism.

Nobody is telling you what to believe, but the realities on the ground clearly don't follow Genesis. Doesn't anybody else find ironic that those in this site that believe in Creationism, by and large are the same people who believe the Iraq War was justified? I mean, all this Godly folk can do to demonstrate their love for their Lord, is bomb his creations to pieces? Odd

Don H's "You idiots can't appreciate beauty when you see it" is hillarious, after hearing him advocate nuking the cradle of civilization (in a different post).

To understand the origins of our planet (which dates back to 4.5 Billion years, btw), reading some scientific books may be too much to ask, particularly, among those most certain in their faith. But NOVA on PBS, recently run a fantastic documentary ORIGINS which brings all the information available together in a way that even Don can understand.

In gesture of good faith however, I'm willing to take Will Ferrell's compromise between Creationism and Evolution, we can now call Dinosaurs, Jesus Horses.

Do good Christians call people names? Furthermore, do good Christians use terms of sexual toys to call names? I didn't know that. Conservative Christians are generally so uptight about the topic of sex, I would think using that term would immediately reserve a seat in Hell. But apparently it's very Christian behaviour after all!

Some people don't want to understand science. It's scary to them.

Don't throw pearls to swine, I say.

There are some views held by believers which are difficult to reconcile with science, including many parts of the creation story. One chief part of that story which is diffcult is the part about specific, permanent kinds of life being created. But one can't call oneself a Christian in the mainstream sense without confessing that God created the world. So does biology prove that one cannot be a confessing Christian without being ignorant of science? Some of the statements of Stephen Jay Gould and Dawkins seem to suggest this. But I think that this conclusion is hasty, since biology does not take it upon itself to examine the possible range of content which the thesis "God created the world" may take.

Theologians have taken up this question, some of them dispairing of reconciling biblical Christianty with science. But there are others who take both modern biology and the Biblical account of creation very seriously, even if they do admit that some literal interpretations are not very tenable. But I think that supporters of a more serious science education in American schools should point out the fact that Darwinism, while having implications for religious belief, is and should not be understood as equivalent to an ideological attack on Biblical religion. If they fail to do this, they should not be surprised that many Americans equate Darwinist activism with a hostility to the Christian religion.

This message is a long rebuttal to a person who sees themselves religious and supports Mr. Bush.

Dear Mr H. and the rest of your fellows. I hope that you are forgiven someday my brothers and sisters, for you have failed the test, you have given into hate, anger, spite, and disgust and revile for your neighbor, whom I remind you must be loved, as OUR own Saviour said. Have you forgotten how the test works? Hypocrites will be raised and loosed and they will judge all around them who are attempting to bring the truth. The man who raises himself to great power and abuses the real savior’s message is the true anti-Christ. Do you not understand how it works? What HE meant when he died on that cross. Have you forgotten LOVE? I think you have, you may need to reread OUR Bible again. This time with less malice and hate, and with more love. Do you think OUR Savior wanted us to fire missiles into OUR enemy’s homes? No despite all, we are to turn the other cheek and meet hate with love. Embrace your enemies. We are and it is working. This cannot be done by wrapping your arms around your enemy, for the root of their violence is as well deep, you must wrap our spirit around them, and love them, and create communication, a DIALOGUE. I love you Mr H and I hope the best for you and all that you love, and that maybe someday you might for a moment glimpse what you have given up by living in hate.

And by the why, are you afraid of a full investigation into the election? Do you oppose the election system working fairly and with everyone knowing the truth? Why would you be afraid of a full investigation if Mr. Bush didn't lose???? Do not be afraid of the testing of things you have faith in Mr H. Or maybe you don't have that much faith in what you are claiming? This investigation must not be started by any parties that may have electoral or vested interest, such as the 9/11 Commission, but this investigation must be started by the people themselves. That is precisely what is being done. I hope you, Mr. H. my fellow American do not have contempt for us when we exercise our liberty and rights in this land of the free. To ensure that which our forfathers died, real and free elections, the voice of the people, is not completely lost. I am not attempting to attack, merely speaking to the point. You are acting similar to the hypocrites of ancient times. I am not insulting just telling you what others perspectives might be.

We are very worried for the souls of mankind. A man who is IDOLIZED and claims benevolence and peace with one side of his mouth and with the other side reigns missile fire upon cities, he scares us, they scare us, your apparent blind support of them scares us even more though. We NEED you to see reality; we NEED you to stop interpreting government with religion. Ben Franklin thought so, Thomas Jefferson thought so, OUR Saviour thought so. Rend unto Caesar what is Caesars.

This may very well be the great test by a Supreme Power as you stated, do you not think that those who have a vested interest in global money and power, would not lie to keep those things. They lie, Mr. Bush lies, Mr. Kerry lies but his campaign rhetoric was closer to the truth. You are being tested Mr. H. in what you believe and how well you understand the lessons we have learned and what is going on in the world. You are allowing your mind to be shaped and moulded by other HUMANS, who love money and power, not by other HUMANS who love PEOPLE.

PEOPLE ARE REAL Mr. H., WAR is a construct of the mind used to excuse murder and violence. OUR Saviour made this clear to you with his life of forgiveness yet you still rebuke his words and his self sacrifice, THE LAST SACRIFICE mind you. I am concerned for your soul Mr. H. because you play with hate so easily and freely. Mr. H. I hope for us all because there are millions more like you, such as there are millions more like myself. And perhaps my only fear is that we will lose that line of communication. I love you Mr. H. you are my fellow man, my neighbor. We are made to lie down in green pastors Mr. H. in the peace and beauty of the Kingdom of heaven that IS AT HAND. This is heaven Mr. H. our Earth, OUR Saviour brought us here forever, yet we are forsaking it and destroying it, and Eden is being burned and levelled to the ground as I write. Are you blind to the awesome power of OUR God and his divine retribution when we forsake his many gifts? POLITICS is a construct of man and excuses us from creating real diplomacy and spiritual bonds. Please do not give up on communication Mr. H. I have left my email for further communication because I am not afraid. I have given up fear. I am not afraid of you Mr. H. because I love you, I am not afraid of going to War because my version of war is peaceful. We have to protect freedom and truth and life and liberty and human rights in the face of those who would keep us from these things. Modern WAR is a compromise between enemies to sacrifice their own peoples to enrich themselves. This is not the war I will fight now or ever. Violence is unnecessary, even in the face of opposing violence. Love is supreme, God is Love, Love will conquer all, and Mr. H., you and I are powerless before love. It makes us all children like was stated before. We are all Gods children. OUR Saviour is our child, the son of god was killed as last sacrifice, and he became the son of man upon resurrection. We must let him inherit the Earth for good this time for his spirit as, many others before him, and after him, did master love. We must evolve again Mr H. as he is telling us, not in body, somewhat in mind, but completely in Spirit. These lessons I have learned from not being afraid to view the misery of the planet, and all the many horrors which man has wrought upon himself. As I said before Mr. H. we are concerned about mankind’s souls. We NEED your help, we NEED your love. Call me a hippy, or a communist and you place OUR Saviour in the same box, for these are his words. Read them with a clear mind and spirit, devoid of hate, and filled with love. Please think deeply and do not hate me or immediately discredit my statements.

The Bible was written by man and manipulated by those in power to say what they want it to say. The words of Jesus and those who love peace have sometimes been perverted but there are many books in which his true message is still housed. Please reread your Bible and find the ones that are lost that the Council of Nicea decided to remove, such as books written by women and the Gospel of Thomas I think. There are many other sources of the same message, Buddha, Muhhamed, Lao Tsu, Madame Blavatsky, Martin Luther King Jr., Ghandi, the original Caesar. This is a message to you, from those who love you throughout all of time, and want to help save the world and our souls. You have been informed, the rest is your choice.

Matthew 25 : 31-46 Matthew 26 : 61-64 Matthew 5 all, particularly chapters 1-12 and 33-48 Matthew 22 : 17-22 Matthew 22 : 35-40

I oppose abortion and the death penalty, I do not oppose freedom of women's choice over their repoductive lives, and I do not oppose Sentencing murderers to life in prison, as long as they perform a lifetime of community service living in their consequences until they die naturally. Life is not easy to break down into little capsules that kill pain, humankind is spirit and mind and body, life is a complex web, and to attempt to simplify it to make excuses for ethical and moral laziness is polar opposite of what Christ taught. If you believe in him, live by him and his message. It is not governments job to tell us who to worship, therefore each can decide how to follow these universal morals. You have no power to judge and control that which you do not understand, the further attempts at legislating morals like many reactionary causes will lead to opposite reactions that cycle forever. End the cirlce of hate and confusion and violence. PLEASE. Let others think what they want and live their lives accordingly, attempt to give advise, of course, live by example, that is Christlike, DEFEND from attack with preemptive thought and preparadness, dialogue through barricades, not with OFFENSE and preemptive action and missiles from tanks. Do not attempt to judge and control with the power of God, the Universe, Ala, Brahma, whoever, whatever. That is impossible. My answers are not mine they all come from others, we do not own these answers, they own us. I am not right, I am not wrong, I merely am the reflection of this specfic location in the universe, and all which it receives. Forgive me.

I wanted to respond to a few things posted here. Mike Jensen had a couple of "beef's" with evolution. I think the question of speciation is relatively easy to deal with. Imagine a long continuum of lots of "fruit flies." If the continuum is long enough, the critters on one end of the continuum will look extremely different than the critters on the other end. When do we say we have a new species? Well that is just a matter of convention. Some say it is when two critters can no longer create viable offspring by mating. Some way it is a specific level of genetic difference. Each of these conventions is useful for various purposes. The important thing to see here is that there is no hard essence that makes a fruit fly a fruit fly.

On the origin of life, I would agree that we don't have a lot of conclusive evidence for the various Darwinist hypotheses that exist out there. Part of this is because of the difficulty of the problem. There weren't any humans around to observe the origin of life. Historical study is necessarily difficult. I don't think this counts very much against Darwinism. A lack of a full explanation doesn't mean there isn't one. In addition, problematic as the "primordial soup" hypothesis is, I think creation by a divine being is even more problematic.

An explanation should not create more questions than it explains. Okay, so God created life. How did he do it? Did he zap the primordial soup or did he just make creatures just appear ex nihilo? What about this entity God itself. Was it created? How did it come about? Do we get an infinite regress of God's creating God's. What is the nature of this God?

Does the God theory offer us the same power of novel prediction that the Darwinian account offer? I think the God theory is a bad theory because it creates more mystery than it solves.

I would say that I don't mind the idea that God used evolution to create life, clever guy that he is. This is a point that many have made. If you listen to the interview with Richard Dawkins, he doesn't even have a problem with this, militant atheism not withstanding. I don't know what this adds however? If evolution is a good account of the origin of life, we add little by way of explanation by adding that God used evolution. In fact, this has the problem, again, of creating more mystery rather than less.

One thing I forgot. Mike Jensen's point about the fallibility of the scientific enterprise is a good one. He argues for it in a way that philosopher of science Larry Laudan did. No scientific theory, in the history of science has ever been the final answer. They have always been replaced by a new better theory. Keeping an open mind is a good idea as Mike suggests. But as I argued in the previous post, Evolution by natural selection is a better theory than the God theory. As for the sticker on the book, why point out that just evolution is fallible in this way? Isn't this the case for any scientific theory what-so-ever? It is terribly misleading to just single out evolution.

Eru is wrong. No serious biologist disputes the fact of evolution. Where the 'theory' comes in is to do with the mechanisms which make it occur and the pathways it has taken.

I grew up in a Christian, fundamentalist church where I was taught, and convinced, of the falseness of the evolutionist "theory." Being interested in the subject I even studied all the arguements against the theory. After all, I wondered, how could any sane person believe in evolution? Who could believe that the pocket watch found on the beach could have created itself?

I disliked the evolutionists for being overconfident in their proofs, but my own dogmatic overconfidence caused me to be blind to the validity of most of the evolutionist proofs.

In college I paid strict attention in my anthropology, biology, genetics, etc... classes. They were fascinating even while I disagreed with so much of them. After my schooling, I modified my opinions. I became a more sophisticated creationist in order to combat all of this new information. But this was becomming difficult. During school I had been forced to come face to face with the vast ocean of all that was "evolution." The fossil record... of course it was real. There were "missing links" everywhere. And the commonality of all beings was staggering and extraordinary. On and on and on. But I was not deterred. Instead I found clever creationist arguements against as many proofs as I could discover.

At this point, I no longer resorted to, "it's just a theory," argument. Of course every science is just a theory, from atomic theory to genetic theory. And I respected evolutionists; I did not deride them.

After awhile, you grow weary of it all. I am artist by trade and every painting is like a little world. I love my paintings. In way, I wish they could come alive. And so, stepping back from my intellect, I ask myself the question... what if the beings in my paintings could think independently? How would I, as a creative force, desire to create beings with freewill in my paintings? This is interesting. A world within a painting... with freewill.

Would this "freewill" world best be painted in fixed amount of time (like seven days) and appear in it's finished form, ready to go with all the plants, animals, and humans? And then, as if in a supernatural spark, it might all be embedded with freewill. It was even very similar to the way that I, as a mortal, usually worked while I painted my lifeless paintings. Maybe it would work for my "freewill" painting.

Or would this freewill world best be painted by a sort of all-powerful freewill brush? I imagine this brush simply touching the canvas, suddenly the surface explodes into a rush of lights and darks and for a long time nothing can be seen. Soon, shapes start emerging out of the wildness; these shapes surprise me but delight me because they are strange and yet somehow I have always known them. Planets, suns, life, man. It all grows out that single brush stroke, which has grown of me. In a sense, I feel that single brush stroke has grown into my freewill world out the very ingredients of my own... spirit. And so, in a sense, my own spirit is embedded into this universe-painting.

Somehow this second hypothetical scenario seems more correct. People create things in fixed time periods, simple things, like paintings, stories and songs. It's understandable to create a fixed, lifeless being, like a figure in my painting, in a fixed amount of time. We do this because we are finite and small. I imagine the freewill brush as infinitely wondrous. It is not a brush of intellect and planning, perhaps not even of consciousness. It is a brush of the "I Am."

Incidentally, I didn't write this to change anyones mind (not that it's a very convincing argument anyway). If someone believes in a strict creationist viewpoint, or any creationist viewpoint... I don't see them as necessarily against me. Some of that movement is honestly involved in just taking a look around our universe and being inspired and in awe by it.

Dr.Astroboy, you sound like you are self-realized and have attained what only 1 in 10 million people do. God-consciousness. That is exctremely rare indeed. No doubt you will be a geniuse in your art, if not a spirtual teacher. The universe and you are co-creators and will make major contributions to society. Just reading your post shows me you have transcended the formal religion that is commonly subcribed to. You have come to the pure spirituality out of which all religion orginates. You are a evolving, alive, flowing and exquisitey coordinating an evolutionary dance in which significance and source are overwhelming. Even here in blogoshpere I am witnessing how you must dissolve into the landscape of canvas by a Presence who power is infinite, exquisitely gentle, yet rock-solid. Great works of art can trasport us temporarity to consciousness that are universally recongized as inspirational and timeless. My gratitude for what you have said here is eternal, right now in this red hot moment of I am. You must practice the art of allowing, I feel it

Give us a break... you've honestly never heard a painter talk of his art as his own universe? 1 in 10 million...? I'm expecting negative reaction to this, but... really, that sounded like a script out of a Lifetime TV movie. Come on, this is a blog. Step back down to reality. That dripping praise almost sounded sarcastic. Especially on a political blog-- where topics about mass murder, war, fraud, etc is the norm-- how can you take this melodrama seriously, let alone post about it? Go ahead and take it to a spiritual level, but discussion (and debate based on facts) has no room for that. If you think you're a "chosen" being with "god-consciousness," you might want to check out another website that is tailored to you. You're making the rest of us feel a bit nauseous. Capisce?

To respond to Chris: Good to hear from you, herr doktor! Thanks for the comments. I have a few random thoughts to express.

I'd like to point out that I wasn't trying to promote Creationism as a scientific theory. You taught me long ago not to do that! :) I agree with you that, as scientific theories go, it's fairly weak and unsubstantiated. I was about to say that some of the other Darwinist hypotheses you mentioned are equally weak and substantiated, but I'll concede that some of them are slightly less weak logically if equally unsubstantiated.

Fair 'nuff. I think the Creation is primarily a question of religious faith. That's why I think they should teach evolution, not the creation, in schools, because as weak as it is in some parts, evolution is the best the scientific community can come up with at the moment. However, I think the sticker is still perfectly appropriate. Biology is fundamentally different from the 'hard' sciences in several ways that I won't address here, except this one: There will always be some idiot (like me in the next paragraph) who will twist Darwinism into some sort of funky social policy and claim that it's valid because it's 'natural' or worse, 'scientific.' That's harder to do with discoveries in, say, chemistry. Also, Darwinism has historically been used by anti-religious people as a battering ram to claim that among other things, religion is a silly waste of time. Because of the society's (if not science's) controversy with Evolution, singling it out seems reasonable to me.

On the question of speciation: Your explanation has some interesting implications. So applying my squirrel-grizzley bear analogy to your continuum, somewhere along the way on your continuum, two squirrels mated and had an offspring that wasn't a squirrel. This is possible because the definition of what exactly is a squirrel is an arbitrary convention; there's no 'hard essence' that makes a squirrel a squirrel. Applying that standard to homo sapiens, that would imply that at some point two people will mate and have a child that isn't human, right? Do we need to accord that organism its basic human rights, if it's not human? All I need is some scientists to agree that (insert group here) aren't really human, then I can do whatever I want. Thinking like that leads to some terrific atrocities, such as the holocaust and American slavery.

Mike, I don't think you have pointed out a different between biology "hard science." (by the way Biology is usually included in the hard sciences). There are all kinds of funky theories that abuse Quantum physics to say all kinds of bazarre crap. There were a bunch of people who thought that Einstein's theory of relativity meant that all our morals are relative. Abuses of theories don't make them any less objective or "hard."

Which came first the chicken or the egg. It used to be that Religion was used to bash Darwinism. I refer you to the Scopes trial. In fact religion has a long history of bashing science, I refer you to Copernicus. I still don't see why we should single out Evolution.

Again on the question of speciation abuses we make of a theory don't make the theory bad. You cannot derive a moral ought from a factual is. One might say, indeed Christians do say, that we are nasty by nature. But this obviously doesn't mean that it is morally right to be nasty. Apply this mutatis mutandis to your slavery argument.

Also, saying something is a convention, doesn't mean it is entirely unconstrained. It doesn't mean anything goes. The convention is constrained by the uses you make of it. I will give you a better answer for this shortly in the form of describing more specifically what conventions Biologists actually use.

aron, well aren't you just a damn ray of sunshine? It is the power of deciding for oneselve what is or isn't and acting accordingly that satisfies. The foundation of all mental illness is an unwillingness to experience legetimate suffering.(nauseous) Perhaps if I had said Fuck you, you could wake from your slumber of body and have an awakening of your soul. Demanding conformity leads to the unexamined life, which may be a life not worth living. At least that is what I have decided for myself. The sin of pride is the sin of refusing to recongnize his state of entanglement in only the physical. For one to live fully one must partake of all of the fruits of the tree of life. Apparently only the physical will do for you. So I will say, Fuck You, or lift the veil from your mind and open the eyes of understanding. In your case, I think the Fuck You is more fittin'!

Mule, nobody likes to side with Don... but you are absolutely horrible at making that "Inner Self" dribble sound like your own words. You throw profound (and incoherent) quotes around left and right, without citing your sources. It is terribly obvious that you are just regurgitating this stuff. Which would be fine, if you'd just give credit to the authors...

http://www.innerself.com/

Conformity is spewing words that aren't your own. You must realize that this is blatant hypocrisy on your part. To be such an advocate of the idea that the right is made up of sheep following Bush, while at the same time following a self-help website as blindly as a sheep... well, the word for that is "hypocrite." It's not the most noble thing. Neither is plagiarism.

Guess your not for free speech aron, why don't you quit hinding behind aron and come on out and play with a mule? I'll give ya forty acers. Your not really a people person are ya?

You know aron you sound like white trash trailer park. Why don't you come on out and quit hiding behind the aron. You must have voted for Dubya, because you sure act like a dictator with your crowd mentality. What should aron do? Screw up Thanksgiving and get hammered? Maybe a drink is what you need aron, let down those inhibitions and sing, get sloshed enough and let me know who you really are, coward. Lets see what version of Santa Clause is Ccomming to Town you want to sing? Springteen or the Pointer Sisters? Who cares if your tone-deaf? If your feeling traditional, "We Thee Kings?" It is the season of carols after all. Karaoke? Wham's "Last Christmas? What would aron sing? If he only had a name. Come on out and lets see if we can pull that raindeer out of your ass and maybe you can have more fun. Bet your more of the Boombox caroling type. Go ahead and chanllenge the status quo by forgoiong the usual holidau fare. What I'm thankful for is all the free rent I take up in your head.

THAT POST WAS NOT ME.... somebody is using my name.

I am a non-practicing Christian, but I definitely do believe that man is in the image of God. And not so much physical, but in the natural, God given grace we are born with.

I do believe Darwin was mostly right - creatures do evolve, adopting to their environment, but the idea that humans evolved from beasts is absurd. We are not just intellectual beings - we are spirtitual beings - and it's something that you just know - it's in your heart.

Now go to hell you commie fags :) (joking)

And Bush wants to go to Mars.

Somehow, I don't see that happening, if he's dependent upon 'Creation Scientists' and their fundamentally different take on scientific thinking.

Maybe if Bush can find some Chinese scientists or something, he can make it to Mars by, say 2050 or so...

Don H's last comment was interesting. He said that we just know in our heart that we are spiritual beings. I don't want to deny Don's experience and I won't try to reduce it to a bad bit of pizza he ate the night before. However, I don't think it proves that we didn't evolve from "beasts."

I think we can all agree that one person can't experience another person's feelings. There is a priviledged access that we have to our own feelings. So Don, how do you know that "beasts" don't have a similar experience? How do you know they are not spiritual beings as well? And if that is the case, what's so absurd about the idea that we evolved from them?

I promised Mike, a more satisfactory descripition of the conventions of speciation. It turns out that I was mostly right in an earlier post, most biologist define species by which other animals they will mate with in natural circumstances. As for your worry about a pair of critters giving birth to an offspring that is no longer of their species I refer you too the "Salamanders Tale" in Richard Dawkins excellent new book "Ancestor's Tale." This will put your concerns to rest I think.

I found a short passage from the "Salamder's Tale" that will give you a taste of the explanation Mike. I urge you to read the whole tale however. It starts on page 299 and it ends on 310. You could read in a bookstore without even buying the book. I would urge you to buy the book though. So here it is.

"There would never be a generation in which it made sense to say of an individual that he his Homo Sapiens but his parents are Homo ergaster. You can think of it as a paradox if you like, but there is no reason to think that any child was ever a member of a different species from its parents, even though the daisy chain of parents and children stretches back from humans to fish and beyond. Actually it isn't paradoxical to anybody but a dyed-in-the-wool essentialist. It is no more paradoxical than the statement that there is never a moment when a growing child ceases to be short and becomes tall. Or a kettle ceases to be cold and becomes hot. The legal mind may find it necessary to impose a barrier between childhood and majority — the stroke of midnight on the eighteenth birthday, or whenever it is. But anyone can see that it is a (necessary for some purposes) fiction."

This quote was from p. 310. What Dawkins calls a "necessary fiction" is exactly what I was calling a convention. We find it useful to say that a person becomes adult at the stroke of midnight on their eighteenth birthday for legal purposes. Biologist find it useful to differentiate species by who will mate with whom under natural circumstances.

Finally, I would like to say that the "Grasshopper's Tale" on starting on p. 397 of Dawkins has an interesting discussion of race, since you were worried about that as well. It's an excellent book Mike, give it a look.

You know this is such a pressing and important issue to ponder. Never mind that our government has spent $388 Billion and can't tell us where it went. This seems to be of huge concern to some of us who pay taxes and don't spend money like drunken sailors. I mean, unless your don hoe and don't think it's any of your business. Galileo was excommunicated from the church and then executed for believing that the planets orbited around the Sun and that the Earth was actually round, not flat. Where is the fucking $388 Billion? Dose anyone have a spead sheet on this money or are those under lock and key too. Those dad-gummed terrorist are after our spead sheets. Yes that's it. Maybe the $388 Billion is hiding with the WMD. Maybe the $388 Billion is pop change to some of you, but add that to the $500 Billion deficit and the total $8 Trillion and I'd say someone is way over their credit limit. Oh well when we are a Third-World country I'm sure a theory about whether a snake scammed some gal into eating a apple or if said gal climbed out of the bog, will be high on our priority list. But hey, its only going to be a free country for a little longer, so free-speech away. Where is the $388 Billion dollars?????

Missouri Mule: I feel that since you've said "aron" a total of 7 times in your last rant alone, that I should point out it's "anon"- an abbreviation of the word "anonymous." You've been misspelling this word for some time. I don't want to hear you point out a single grammatical or spelling error on Bush's part, or I might have to call you a... hmmm... Hypocrite.

I would like also to point out that you still consistently avoid confronting the charges of plagiarism. You've side-stepped it at least twice now. Again (for everyone's reference), "Missouri Mule" constantly either copies and pastes or blatantly steals ideas and lectures from this site:

http://www.innerself.com/

"White trash trailer park"? You're posting name is "mule" (ass), you talk through your ass (thief), and you spell about as well as an ass (ass... oh, I already said that). I voted for Kerry, I think Bush is a jack-off, but when I see a hack, I don't care who they voted for. It shows how narrow-minded you are, to immediately assume that anyone attacking you (a leftie) is on the right. Well, I'm coming from the left. But that's no excuse for me to play off someone else's words as my own. You seem to respond to every challenge with a "go have a drink." Well, how about next time... explaining yourself?

Why do you steal dribble from self-help websites, and try to pass them off as your own, Mule?

anon, hope Santa gets you that special spanking you forgot to ask for.