Evolution or Intelligent Design??

Scientific advisers from the National Academy of Sciences and its Institute of Medicine have released a new document emphasizing the importance of teaching evolution in schools. This is a follow up on a report released in 1995. This new study includes recently discovered evidence supporting evolution, including new and important fossil discoveries.

The report released today also takes swipes at Creationism and Intelligent Design.

“Despite the lack of scientific evidence for creationist positions, some advocates continue to demand that various forms of creationism be taught together with, or in place of, evolution in science classes,” the report says.

Evolution is a continuing topic of debate in many ‘Bible belt’ states. In Texas, Chris Comer, the state’s director of science curriculum, says she was forced to resign recently due to evolution politics. Comer had came under pressure after forwarding an e-mail that her Bosses felt made the agency appear to be biased against the instruction of intelligent design, an alternative to evolution espoused by some religious conservatives.

Intelligent design believer’s say that evolution cannot explain the universe’s order and complexity

Josh Rosenau, a spokesman for the California-based National Center for Science Education, which supports the teaching of evolution, said the new report is very important because the debate over teaching evolution in school is not going away anytime soon.

Casey Luskin, who is a program officer for the Discovery Institute, a Seattle religious think tank, that supports teaching students about the criticism of evolution, was critical of the document.

“Students should learn about the evidence for and against evolution,” he said.

An overwhelming majority of scientists, around the world, believe that Intelligent Design is an attempt to insert conservative religious views into school curriculum’s. This is against the constitutions ‘separation of church and state,’ directive.

Schools science classes are no place for religious arguments. Evolution does not destroy religion it ignores it.

The evidence for humans being alive on Earth for much more than 6,000 years is impossible to refute.

There is no scientific evidence supporting ‘Noah’s Ark.’ Creationists have been trying for over 1,000 years to find the Ark and any geologic evidence, and there is none.

Intelligent Design proponents keep arguing that the mile deep stratigraphy record that is actually a record of millions of years of our Earths past was caused by less than a years covering by the ‘Great Flood,’ at approximately 2250-2275 BCE. No credible or slightly credible evidence exists.

That leaves the Creationists and Intelligent Design people spluttering and complaining, but never fear, next year they’ll be back again.

demotivational posters
see more deMotivational Posters

Add to Technorati Favorites


About the word of me
Interested in family and friends,grandchildren, photography, darkrooms, history, archaeology, scuba diving, computers, software, fast cars, journalism, writing, travel, ecology, news, science, and probably most other subjects you could think of. Did I mention family and friends?? I require iced tea or cold brewed coffee and a internet connection to be fully functional. Sometimes there are just so many words in my head they spill out.

21 Responses to Evolution or Intelligent Design??

  1. Ronald Cote says:

    Splitting hairs by trying to categorize some science as religious and some as fact to support evolution is shameful. Students should be taught science in the science classroom not predetermined, censored, prefiltered information to proselitize one view over another. Teach science and let the weight of the evidence be the determinant as to the outcome. Evolutionists are so concerned that their mythical hypothesis will come unravelled, that censorship seems the best way to combat exposure to the truth. Teach both and see which one can stand the test of scrutiny!!

  2. thewordofme says:

    Hi Mr. Cote,
    Yes, you are right. My alluding to Intelligent Design as science is shameful. We all know that ID is not science, but magic.

    You see, the thing is the science that is taught in science classrooms all over the country is exactly that…Science…testable science.

    What the ID crowd wants to insert into science classes is…magic.
    seems to be a dichotomy there…don’t you think.

  3. Sandman says:

    Absolutely. Accusing ID of being science is inexcusable. It’s science fiction.

    It’s funny how his own comment, with a few changes, can be applied equally appropriately to the creationists. Evolution has been tested thoroughly, reviewed and revised by true scientists for 150 years. Creation, on the other hand, has been dogmatically repeated with only minor adjustments (Intelligent Design) applied as the argument becomes increasingly tenuous.

    There’s never been anything to either Creationism or Intelligent Design. Neither have any business in a science classroom.

  4. Ronald Cote says:

    With many years experience as a biologist, creationist, ex-evolutionist, and teacher, I wonder what special knowledge that Sandman andthewordofme have for making such irresponsible statements. If either of you had any conviction in the veracity of the myth of evolution, you would be unafraid to have it exposed and scrutinized in the classroom for fear of it being exposed as the fraud that it remains. A sure sign of the desperation of evols is typified by statements like yours that make blatant, unsubstantiated claims as if saying so makes it right. Your ploy is “When all else fails, then deny”. What is especially shameful is that you would deny students the rare opportunity to become active participants in an important contemporary controversy and allowing them participation in the scientific process of weighing the evidence and drawing their own conclusions. It is not only unscrupulous and unconscienable, but terribly bad science.

  5. The obstacle to teaching ID in the classroom

    There are at least 20 states, including Florida, Texas, and South Carolina that are considering legislation which would add Intelligent Design to science curriculums. Eventually every high school will come under the rulings. The only obstacle is the lack of a resource based on verifiable science.

    Prior to The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, proponents of Intelligent Design ran up against a seemingly impregnable barrier. Perhaps Mr. Michael Novacek, the senior vice president and provost for American Museum of Natural History said it best: “A theory can’t only criticize another theory; it has to offer something in its place. What [Intelligent Design] offers in place of evolution is not science because it calls on a creator.”

    Against the backdrop of a nation embroiled in debate and legal battles over whether Intelligent Design or evolution, or both, should be taught in the classroom, THE QUEST FOR RIGHT proclaims a “Day of Victory!” The extensive investigative effort is not only better at explaining natural phenomena, but also may be verified through testing. As a result, creationism will no longer be considered a “matter of faith” and, hence, will not violate the so-called constitutional separation of church and state. Intelligent Design is true science that will have a long-term sustainability, replacing the down-trodden doctrine of evolution.

    More than an academic resource

    The Quest for Right is not only an academic resource designed for the public schools, but also contains a wealth of information on pertinent subjects that seminarians need to know to be effective: geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and in-depth Biblical studies. The nuggets from the pages of Biblical history alone will give seminarians literally hundreds of fresh ideas for sermons and teachings. The ministry resources contained in The Quest for Right serve as invaluable aids that will enrich graduates beyond their highest expectations.

    For more information, visit the official website: http://questforright.com

  6. bobcu says:

    Ronald Cote said “With many years experience as a biologist, creationist, ex-evolutionist, and teacher”

    I don’t get it. How can a person be both a biologist and a creationist? Since when did biologists claim everything was magically created? Also, he’s a teacher? Is he teaching his belief in magic?

  7. bobcu says:

    C. David Parsons said ” Intelligent Design is true science”

    I don’t get it. You mean to tell us a designer, also known as a supernatural magician, also known as god, is true science? Since when did scientists start invoking magic to explain anything? Did I miss something?

  8. Ronald Cote says:

    bobcu, your statement,” I don’t get it” is most revealing. You just don’t get it!! There is more magic in evolution than in creation. When teaching, science is used to expose the serious and numerous flaws, frauds, lies, denials and gaps in evolution. Evolution is so vulnerable to these that no magic needs to be involved, only intelligence and knowledge, something you apparently lack in abundance.
    A biologist can be a creationist and an ex evolutionist through knowledge and understanding and by abiding to the scientists’ training and credo to seek the truth. There is a scripture that says,” the truth shall set you free”. That is what did it for me. But what do you know about scripture, biology or even magic when you just don’t get it?

  9. thewordofme says:

    Hi to both Bobcu and Mr. Cote,
    I went to the website advertising the Quest for Right ‘Science books’
    The book and the book publisher are religious. I got quite a laugh as I checked out some of the material in the books. Below is an excerpt.

    “The outlined premises, based on the dictates of classical physics, justify the disposition that the scientific record of creation, heretofore considered religious dogma by obstructionists and not worthy of scientific regard, remains intact as a responsible and verifiable truth; the evidence upholds the fact that the moon was formed within a 24-hour period only 6000 years ago. The conceptional errors of Baldwin are annulled by the bona fide truths presented by the investigation.”
    Bobcu, can’t you just see our youth being indoctrinated with that crapola.
    Mr. Cote, I’m sorry but your case just got harder to pursue with anyone who has a lick of sense.

    One more little tidbit.
    “The surprise findings, taken from the pages of the Bible, tighten the reins on those theorists who permitted their imaginations to slip past the boundaries of true science, beyond the pale of investigation. The vain assertions of geologists are pitted against classical physics, the old physics of cause and effect, and the scientific record of creation, the Bible.”

  10. Ronald Cote says:

    Word of me, Same sick evol response. Call all opposing information by a name ( in your profound wisdom,”crapola”) and that makes it legitimate. Your response is tedious, and mundane and to anyone with any quest for truth, your case does absolutely zilch to add any substance or sense to the controversy.

  11. thewordofme says:

    Mr. Cote,
    I stand by my statement that those books makes the job of recruiting for your cause harder. As I stated I haven’t seen the books in person, I am just going by the website supplied excerpts. I am not a scientist just a lifelong follower of it.
    The Bible is by no stretch of the imagination a scientific record. It is a good record of historical places and peoples, and to a certain degree, happenings in that era.
    The statement in the book Quest for Right that the moon is 6,000 years old and created in 24 hours is nothing more than disproved creationist C–pola.

    I am sorry but this myth about the earth being around 6,000-10,000 years and man being created in 4,000 BCE or thereabouts is just wrong. And to keep bringing it up and spreading it around..Again..is useless.

    Trying to make a case for a controversy on the matter is a waste of time. It is evangelical religion trying to once again lie (purposely) their way into the school curriculum. Trying to make another ‘Dover’ and get in the courts, are you?

    You wrote: “in your profound wisdom,”crapola”
    Hey, I’ve admitted to being Semi-literate 🙂

  12. Ronald Cote says:

    Admitting to being semi-literate, does not inspire any strong feelings that your denials of earth’s age and six day Creation do much for your credibility. If you have no clue why not save your C-pola for the cesspool.

  13. thewordofme says:

    Mr. Cote, I tend to believe the scientists, who are a whole lot smarter than I in this matter.

    One of the nicest things about today’s technology is the access, via the the Internet, to tens or hundreds of thousands of books and scientific papers that one can peruse at will. Nowadays I can log on to an archeology site in the city of UR in real time.

    Back when I was in school we had fairly limited resources for research, and our knowledge base was much smaller.

    I can now read original research papers and know whats going on in Archeology, Paleoarcheology, Botany, Biology, etc., etc. The knowledge of earth and all it’s systems have undergone an amazing explosion of research and every day finds science understanding more than they did the day before.

    I am semi-literate because of this knowledge explosion. There is so much to learn and remember, because I am interested in so many fields of knowledge. As hard as I try I will never know it all. And you know the old saying…”so many books…so little time.”

    I suspect that I learn more every day than you do because I find, from my own experience, that religious people tend to stop learning science because it conflicts with their views. That is a very mysterious action that perplexes me no end.

    The world is such a beautiful and intriguing thing to behold and study, and so far, all things learned about it have been explainable by physical processes.

    You have a nice day now.

  14. Ronald Cote says:

    the word, I admire and respect your candor and, suspecting that your search for the truth is genuine, the sheer volume of knowledge is frightening and it can be overwhelming. Being a biologist with six tears taken to study creation and evolution, I can assure you that iit has been a long and arduous journey. There is still much to know and there still needs to be a large measure of faith, moreso to believe evolution than creation. With the hundreds of references to creation in the Bible how can any sane person dismiss it and yet accept the guessworks of a human, Darwin. The world is a beautiful and intriguing testimony to a living and loving God. It didn’t happen by sheer chance over billions of years!

  15. Look, natural laws can explain how the order in life and universe operate but undireceted natural laws cannot fully explain the origin of that order.

    Yes, once you have a complete and living cell then the code and mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells. The problem for evoloutionists is how did life originate naturally when there was no already existing directing mechanism in nature.

    Gravity can explain how the precise order of trillions of stars in space is maintained but undirected gravity cannot explain the origin of that order. Is it becoming clear?

    If not, please read “The Natural Limits of Evolution” at http://www.religionscience.com.

    Just because something exists in nature doesn’t mean nature originated it or invented it.

  16. One further word. The disorder in the universe is because of chance, but the precise order can only be ultimately explained as due to an intelligent cause.

    There is much more to be said. Again, please read my comprehensive article “The Natural Limits of Evolution” at http://www.religionscience.com. Thank you.

  17. thewordofme says:

    Hi Mr. Ranganathan, thank you for your reply.

    You write:
    “Look, natural laws can explain how the order in life and universe operate but undirected natural laws cannot fully explain the origin of that order.”

    Well sir, the alternative is magic; do you believe in magic?

    Nature from what I have seen and read about can do some pretty amazing things. All of the evolutionary data I have read makes perfect sense to me. If you follow the literature you will see we are getting closer and closer to creating life. Will that make us Gods, or will it simply mean we are very good scientists?

    Life has had almost 4 billion years to work on its problems here on earth…that’s a lot of time, and a lot of changes can happen over billions of generations.

    We have already seen undirected nature evolve living things out in the natural world. I would suggest you read Richard Dawkin’s new book, “The Greatest Show on Earth,” Free Press, 2009 it explains evolution and the new data that is out there much better than I can.

    Looking at life from the creationist viewpoint automatically makes your ‘Science’ depend on magic and suspect to almost all real scientists and followers of science. I have found that if a real scientist of the proper field reads and interprets creationist ‘science’ he or she can always find the flaws in it. Refer to Michael Behe and his various theories…especially “Irreducible Complexity,” which has been thoroughly discredited and shown to be false.

    You write:
    “Gravity can explain how the precise order of trillions of stars in space is maintained but undirected gravity cannot explain the origin of that order. Is it becoming clear?”

    Gravity is a natural thing that is dependent on mass…it does not have to be directed, it does what it does because of its nature. Anything that has mass has a gravity field. Sorry, I don’t have the math, but I understand what’s going on and I don’t see a magic hand behind it.


  18. PETER MANY says:

    Whether you believe in evolution or creation you have to have faith. Either you believe in an creator who has always been, or you believe that an explosion out of nothing created all the order thet you see in the universe, and that here on earth in resulted in a primodial soup that over billions of years organised itself the complex oganrisms we see in fossils and in creatures that walk today. That takes a lot more faith than believing in God. All scientists know about entropy, that all things left to there own device tend towards choas not order. An expolsion leading to intricate tapestry that is our universe, atoms just happening to bump into each other to make DNA, these evoutionist are truely great men of faith.

  19. thewordofme says:

    Hi Peter Many, thanks for writing

    You need to study science a little bit before you comment on this stuff.


  20. PETER MANY says:

    My experience with science has been that the more I study it, the more it daunts me how much more I dont know. But since you are so learned please tell me what are the chances of, given that all necesary conditions where right, a strand of DNA say just 100 non nonsence base pairs could spontaneously form. My point is wether you belive in a creator or not we all need faith, and its only pride which makes people deny and ignore the compeling evidence for intelligent design.

  21. thewordofme says:

    Hi again Peter Many, thanks for your reply.

    Sorry for the attitude in my reply to your first reply. I was rushed and didn’t take the time that I should have.

    The explosion that created everything I reserve judgment on, but everything past that possible point has perfectly logical explanation. The entropy point has been explained many times over and creationists just can’t seem to understand or accept it, so I will not go there anymore.

    The fossil record is perfectly logical and explainable and datable, but again the creationists just cannot understand or accept it.
    It’s kind of funny that the only science that creationists don’t understand or accept has to do with evolution. They believe the scientists in all other things, but think they’re crazy about evolution. How sad .

    You write:
    My experience with science has been that the more I study it, the more it daunts me how much more I dont know. But since you are so learned please tell me what are the chances of, given that all necesary conditions where right, a strand of DNA say just 100 non nonsence base pairs could spontaneously form.

    It doesn’t matter that the odds for the DNA strands is 1 million to one, or 6000 trillion to one, the point is that it DID happen and we are getting closer and closer to replicating it in the lab.

    You write:
    My point is wether you belive in a creator or not we all need faith, and its only pride which makes people deny and ignore the compeling evidence for intelligent design.

    I don’t know about anyone else, but pride has nothing at all to do with my position. Intelligent Design is not science, it is creationism with a different name to try and sneak by school boards so that the Christian God can be taught in public funded schools.

    There is no science or compelling evidence behind it at all, there are no studies, experiments , or peer reviewed or published work going on in the name of ID. It is pure hokum and the courts have recognized this so far and kept it where it belongs…out of our public schools.

    A few things you might want to look up is the evidence that there was no Noah’s flood, no tower of Babel, no Adam and Eve, therefor no original sin, and no Exodus…these facts kind of mess with the Biblical authority and lend some doubt that the old myths are true.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: