American Morning

Tune in at 6am Eastern for all the news you need to start your day.
November 20th, 2009
09:08 AM ET

Kirk Cameron attempts to debunk Darwin

Former teen idol Kirk Cameron is on a crusade to debunk evolution. He's a born-again Christian and part of a group that wrote a new 50-page intro to Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" to mark its 150th anniversary.

Cameron and his group are handing out thousands of copies of the book on universities across the country. CNN's Carol Costello reports.


Filed under: Controversy • Religion • Science
soundoff (381 Responses)
  1. Jeff

    Ted, your money analogy is humorous. Especially because the US dollar is backed by "faith"!! lol. So Why not have faith in our Creator.

    January 30, 2010 at 10:51 pm |
  2. Jeff

    What is a real believer George?

    January 30, 2010 at 10:46 pm |
  3. michael rumfield

    Andrew... you could take some lessons from Frank and learn to communicate without derision and childishness. I believe anyone reading my post would not see I was claiming a chimp as an actual "grandpa" or as any type of family ancestor. Your statement clearly shows not even the common curtesy to acknowledge "MY" perspective... I do not believe in any type of connection between man and ape of any kind... other than we exist on the same planet.

    As far as afterlife goes... well "if" my faith is correct ("if" for your benefit)
    there is no question about afterlife... believer and unbeliever alike will experience "afterlife" (I am experiencing now). An unbeliever will experience an eternal burning in hell... no hope of repreive and thousands of years later remembering the stupid idiot christian who couldn't write or spell tried to say; hey think about this...

    Frank seeing that you are leaving discussion, this will probably be my last... I had been thinking of it also... Peter said to Jesus, "if it is You Lord, bid me to come on the water". Jesus said "come". Peter asked. Same today... a person must ask... "is that You, Jesus?"... show me.

    The ID "theory" is not theory to me nor other believers... I have no problem acknowledging that and also the motive of using "ID" is to get a toehold (back) into the classroom. Remember evolution made it's way into public schools by the pressure of one man ( and no I don't remember his name)... did it with Darwin's book and some real idiots in the court system.

    Is it such a stretch for secular people to not see the correlation of our nation's morale and morality decline and the taking of prayer and teaching of a creator out of the classroom? Decline of family structure and etc... all contributing factors.

    Short of a miracle or a huge catstraphy... a reason to seek the Lord... I don't know. I'm hopeful for people to, out of fairness give God a shot. Hey if you ask and mean it and He is who I say He is, then He will show up. And should He show up... then you have gained. And if not, then so what you are where you were before.

    I have hope for you. In Christ & God Bless you all. Michael R.

    December 15, 2009 at 12:27 am |
  4. michael rumfield

    Andrew... you could take some lessons from Frank and learn to communicate without derision and childishness. I believe anyone reading my post would not see I was claiming a chimp as an actual "grandpa" or as any type of family ancestor. Your statement clearly shows not even the common curtesy to acknowledge "MY" perspective... I do not believe in any type of connection between man and ape of any kind... other than we exist on the same planet.

    As far as afterlife goes... well "if" my faith is correct ("if" for your benefit)
    there is no question about afterlife... believer and unbeliever alike will experience "afterlife" (I am experiencing now). An unbeliever will experience an eternal burning in hell... no hope of reprieve and thousands of years later remembering the stupid idiot christian who tried to say; hey think about this...

    Frank seeing that you are leaving discussion, this will probably be my last... I had been thinking of it also... Peter said to Jesus, "if it is You Lord, bid me to come on the water". Jesus said come. Peter asked. Same today... a person must ask... "is that You, Jesus?"... show me.

    The ID "theory" is not theory to me nor other believers... I have no problem acknowledging that and also the motive of using "ID" is to get a toehold (back) into the classroom. Remember evolution made it's way into public schools by the pressure of one man ( and no I don't remember his name)... did it with Darwin's book etc.

    Is it such a stretch for secular people to not see the correlation of our nation's morale and morality decline and the taking of prayer and teaching of a creator out of the classroom? Decline of family structure and etc... all contributing factors.

    December 15, 2009 at 12:14 am |
  5. Frank

    I don’t know if anyone is still checking this post, but I am moving on and this will be my last post here (unless of course something interesting comes up).

    I find no real conflict between my religious beliefs and science. Many of my scientist friends are devout in their faiths and feel the same way.

    Please be sure about this–what this dust up over evolution is all about is a concerted movement by the Intelligent Design community organized and funded by the Discovery Institute to rip out the teaching of scientific methods (all science, not just biology) from our elementary classrooms and replace it with fundamentalist, evangelical, Protestant religious beliefs-which are basically, the reason for anything is "God did it". Not only is that morally bankrupt and unconstitutional, if successful it will drive American science further down than it is already. American elementary school students consistently rank last or next to last in mathematics and science compared to the rest of the world.

    I encourage each of you to not allow this invasion of your local schools and school boards.

    Frank

    December 14, 2009 at 12:48 pm |
  6. michael rumfield

    It appears that I truly am misunderstood... woe is me. I was not complaining about myself being attacked. I could care less what you say or think of me. I was drawing a conclusion to the reason why some people attack when their way of thinking is questioned. It shows insecurity. And as long as there is evidence of your insecurity, then thank God there is some measure of doubt. With that speck of doubt there is hope for a change in your perspective.

    As a matter of fact... my continual writing is also an evidence that God is still holding out an opportunity for you. And do not think I am tootin' my horn... I am not. I do not personally enjoy this type of communication nor the level of uncivility that comes along with it. However I do enjoy thinking about the thoughts that you all put forth... they remind me of where I used to be.

    This so called split in population happened millions of years ago? right? According to rational thinking and evidence interpretation... is this really your position. It so seems most worldly scientists follow this line of thinking. And since I obviously can't or refuse to use my "God – given" brain... I suppose I should swallow science's story hook, line and sinker. So tell me, in spite of the population of tribal people in Africa (seeing as how that's where we all came from), shouldn't there be some species evident... I'm talking alive and funtioning now... somewhere "in between" chimp and human. If the competition and population theory is correct then the indigenous chimp population should have split again and again over the eons.

    Come on... logical thinking also dictates that a person takes into account of what is missing, the thing that should be there if a theory is correct. Why didn't the population split at the grasslands, to the marshes... into the sea... oh wait we have Atlantis and mermaids... maybe there is another species of humans...

    Well excuse me a moment... I see this from my perspective... you, science, the world & anyone not naming the Lord Jesus as their savior... can not rightly interpret the evidence as you do not have the "faith" necessary to rightly understand that newly discovered knowledge. Did science "invent" that knowledge? Or was it there just unknown to man? Why do the science books have to be upgraded every few years? Isn't science's established dogma strong enough to last more than a few years before having to be changed... clarified? The bible is the most printed, sold and believed manuscript of all time. Yet science continues to evolve? I have the perspective of knowing how the world thinks and now I have the experience of knowing God and what He says. And contrary to what has been said here, there are no real controversies or disagreements in what the bible teaches. The problem arrives at "your" inability to process the so called contradictions.

    I am not interested in calling names or establishing how 'STUPID" anyone is... it is obvious that I am low man on the IQ pole. I am interested however in possibly getting "you" to concider that science may not be the end all to human knowledge.

    As far as killing in the name of religion... I will nor can not defend any type of killing for religion's sake. That would be murder and it is one of ten big don't do that.

    I will concede the point of individual evolution. ( The kind found in Romans 12:2 ). I invite you to join me in becoming a member of a new species... be born again... start new... have a fresh perspective. I don't care how old you are all things are possible. Ever went swimming, it's a little cold... you know the water is going to be a shock... finally as others urge you... you jump in; quickly starting to enjoy the experience. Here I am saying to you... come on, jump in the waters fine... it'll wake you up! You really don't know what you are missing! In Christ Michael R.

    December 12, 2009 at 9:57 pm |
  7. Andrew D

    And a chimp isn't your grandpa, he's your very distant cousin. Your grandpa is still a human. You just demonstrated how Creationists make outlandish claims to brainwash others into believing that evolution is wrong. Fundamentalists like Ray Comfort, Carl Baugh, and Kirk Cameron need to spread lies, such as the one that evolution means that our family members are chimps. Or that Darwin was racist and sexist and that he created the Nazi party (seems like history isn't their strong suit, either). Such despicable claims really do show just how desperate these nut-jobs are.

    December 11, 2009 at 4:34 pm |
  8. Andrew D

    Mr. Rumfield,

    Just because you would rather have a god and an afterlife doesn't make it the "truth". Instead it just sounds like you're scared about what will happen when you die. What's the matter, is your mortal life here on earth not good enough? Are you really that greedy that you need to live forever in some sort of fantasy heaven? It seems like most people just can't face reality and would rather live in ignorance. Although such a belief may make your life slightly less depressing, one may not live their life to the fullest in the belief that they will be rewarded in heaven. It's as though we're all a bunch of 5 year olds who do not want to believe that Santa isn't real.

    'Mikey, Santa doesn't exist.'
    'Yes he does!'
    'But I just told you that your mommy and daddy buy your presents and puts them under the Xmas tree!'
    'I don't care, he exists because mommy and daddy say he does!'

    What's the matter Mr. Rumfield, can't accept the TRUTH?

    December 11, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
  9. Frank

    Michael.

    Now I see one of the problems. You have bought into the Intelligent Design mantra "it's just a theory". But you don't seem to know what a theory is.

    You say, "This has arrived at the "tip" point... I put forward that, in fact, evolution is not theory or science. IT is also belief (a type of faith). If it were not theory... there would be no debate AT ALL. Case in point; releasing a static object from your hand 4 feet above the floor... that object is going to fall. And if you describe the above situation to anyone and ask them "what is going to happen to the object"? Their answer will be the same as yours.”

    Taking your example, gravity is a fully developed theory, but there is actually only a very little that we know about it and there is enormous debate about the theory of gravity-what happens on the quantum scale? Is it really a 1/r squared field everywhere? What is the intermediating particle? Why is gravity so weak compared to the other fundamental forces (electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces)? Why does gravity not fit into a unified theory of physics? How can dark energy have antigravity? and many other deep questions that aim to improve our understanding of it. Any theory is constantly examined, debated, and tested by other investigators with the objective of refining it, rejecting it, or replacing t it with something that fits observations better than the old theory.

    Likewise for evolution theory. There is considerable debate about it in the scientific community-how fast does it happen? What paths does it take? What is a species? Are new findings in the fossil record understandable within the theory? These issues are debated and tested openly and rationally. Despite efforts by the ID crowd to claim otherwise, there is no serious debate about its basic processes. The ID crowd offers no sound reasoning for their claims nor do they use ID for any beneficial purpose. Their only objective is to redefine science by invoking supernatural explanations for natural phenomenon.

    Creationism/ID cannot predict anything, nor can it be used to develop new understandings of nature or any new medicine or treatment for disease because it has no theoretical underpinning that can be used to model or predict anything.

    I have read lots of ID literature. It all boils down to two points 1). Things are the way they are because the designer did it that way and that’s that(they avoid the word God in a vain attempt to fool the courts); and 2) evolution is wrong. Nothing more is ever said to support point 1 and everything else is aimed at point 2. Check out the Discovery Institute site and you will see what I am talking about. Even if somehow someone could prove evolution wrong, which no one has ever done, that does nothing to support ID.

    You also seem to fall into the ID rut of a false supposition-it's either ID (God) or evolution (atheism and science is God.) The universe is so much more powerful and beautiful than that small mindedness.

    Did not Jesus say to the fishermen when He appeared to them on the water on the stormy sea, " Step out of your small boat". Perhaps you could do the same.

    Frank

    December 11, 2009 at 12:46 pm |
  10. michael rumfield

    Frank,

    This has arrived at the "tip" point... I put forward that, in fact, evolution is not theory or science. IT is also belief (a type of faith). If it were not theory... there would be no debate AT ALL. Case in point; releasing a static object from your hand 4 feet above the floor... that object is going to fall. And if you describe the above situation to anyone and ask them "what is going to happen to the object"? Their answer will be the same as your's.

    Belief is being taught in schools. Safe sex; total "belief", not fact. Many, many other beliefs... what ever is poitically correct... not offensive.

    Science is the art of discovery of "natural" manifestations or laws of a supernatural creator. Science does seem to be, actually a church which is worshipping or attempting to, a God which it does not know.
    I refer you to Acts 17:23.

    Ever wonder why there is only "one" way to God (thru Jesus)? Why not multiple ways? It seems many ways would "save" more people.
    There are many aspects of this requirement of God... yet think of this. If Man lost his position (Adam...) by one wrong decision. Then a "man" (you / me) can regain his position (right relationship) with God with one right decision. As He was the one to give the first decision... it is He who gives the opportunity for a person to make this decision for themselves. God is fair in giving every person the opportunity to "speak" for themselves, make their own decision, as you or I had no say in being born in this state of life that we find ourselves. Adam did that in the garden. But God, made a way of escape... as there are consequences for every decision, so it is with this one. And they are dire for a wrong decision. Everything hinges on ONE decision.

    If we evolved then when we die there is nothing else. I'm refering to your point of which would you rather believe? ID (God) or evolution? This IS the decision I was speaking about... and you brought it forth. When I die, if you are correct then I've lost nothing. "IF" I am correct, then when an unbeliever dies they have lost ALL! What does logic dictate a person do in that instance?

    Frank; as with most others posting here... I can see that you are intelligent, thoughtful and compassionate. I believe in your heart of hearts you too would rather believe in a real God. You asked, "which would you (rather) believe"... any rational person would rather there be a hope of continueing on after I die... some other plane of conciousness, awareness; not just – nothing – gone as if I were never here at all.

    The same way you open your mind to possibilities science puts forward... there is another area within yourself... your soul, emotions, imagination, your will... give God access, a chance... He will raise your level of thinking to a higher plane. Even more sure than something "provable" as gravity. Gravity is observable, measureable (and it is only at this present time does science have a possibility at explaining how or understanding why gravity works) by our senses and our tools. A person can't prove God without the senses or tools to do so... you have to "purchase" the tools, you have to decide and there is only one supplier. He is the monopoly.

    I would rather not call a "chimp" grandpa... I DO call God, Father. We all have the ability and do identify ourselves with what we believe. We also can change our minds.

    Hope this finds you doing well and prospering. In Christ Michael R.

    December 10, 2009 at 11:13 am |
  11. Andrew D

    Jesus Christ Michael, please learn to read and write.

    First of all, Hugh Ross does not make Creationism correct. He may not be as big an impostor as Carl Baugh, but he is just as misguided. Secondly, I did not say that chimps and humans evolved in the same environment. Once again, you demonstrated that you cannot read critically. I sure would like to see you struggle with reading the Bible. Clearly the many contradictions slip right past your tiny little mind. Even if you do recognize them, I am sure you just play it off as 'I am not meant to understand this, it is god's will.' Sorry Michael, but it isn't god's will that you are unable to understand this. It is because you are stupid, as you already admitted.
    Once again, the ancestors of chimps and the ancestors of homo sapiens (humans) were in fact separated into two distinct populations in two DIFFERENT environments. Empirical evidence (do you know what that word means?) shows that the many TRANSITIONAL forms between this ancestor and homo sapiens evolved in extensive grasslands whereas the chimps remained in the jungles of Africa. Selective pressures on human ancestors favored an ability to stand upright and run on the grasslands of Africa. This did not happen for the other original population that remained in the forest. That is why they evolved into the way chimps did.

    I am sure however that you will come back once again with another incoherent rambling. You will not cite any empirical evidence to your argument. Instead you will cite Jesus Christ and God and all those fairytales that you hold so dearly. You will say that it is not our place to know anything that God has to tell us. We are not meant to know that the Earth revolves around the sun, to know that microbes cause disease, that chemotherapy treats cancer, that man is not the center of the universe, etc. Instead we are supposed to bury our heads in the sand and remain the same stupid people that have been killing in the name of religion for thousands of years. I pray for your soul, Mr. Rumfield, but I also pray for you little ignorant mind as well. Hopefully God will someday enlighten you.

    Andrew D.

    December 10, 2009 at 10:58 am |
  12. Liz1388

    Wow, Mr. Rumfield. I had given up paying attention to this discussion. I see why when illogic such as yours pops up. One gets so tired.

    But I'm taking a shot at trying to make some sense here.

    It appears you need to actually read some books on evolution and not make up scenarios in your own head based upon false ideas of how you imagine it works. There are lots of books out there, many written for various comprehension levels.

    You disclaim:
    "Doesn't science say that humans and "chimps" came from the same environment? If the chimp was far more successful in it's environment... as you say, then humans should have never evolved. If the chimp is the apex of the species and humans came from that species, then we actually devolved from chimps? Why would there be a need for a split in the species population to evolve to dominate an environment that did not exist?"

    Below is a simplistic description of what actually happened as evidenced by rational interpretation of the fossil record and our current physiology and study of various subsistence cultures. Please check out some of the afore-mentioned books for the plethora of details.

    Pre-human hominids evolved in African jungle habitats, yes. Chimps still live there. Due to climate change somewhere around 1.7m years ago, lower rain fall meant the jungles shrank. Competition drove Mankind's ancestors out into the expanding savannas to survive.

    So you see, we weren't competing directly with our cousins, the Chimpanzees, we were actually started competing with other meat eaters.

    The big cats for example. It's possible that the challenge of trying to adapt to survival then helped our brains evolve. If we hadn't gotten smarter, we probably wouldn't have survived.

    It wasn't chicken or egg, whatever of our earliest ancestors got forced out, had to adapt or die. Our existence shows they survived.

    Cleverness gave us the key edge to holding our own and thriving – learning to become scavengers; band together to stampede herds off cliffs, among other tricks.

    There probably was competition when it came to gathering of fruits and veggies – that remaining our actual dietary mainstay. But early humans weren't quite the whimps modern man is. They were shorter, stockier and much more muscular.

    And again, the evolution of human brains was the real key. We just excelled at developing weapons and using them as a pack. Science is still examining how that came about. There are other things that worked to our advantage: upright walking and loss of most hair made survival in a hotter environment possible.

    The whole problem with your use of the word "truth" is that you are begging the question. You argue from the assumption that what you believe IS the truth and that this is without question.

    It's too bad that you think that criticism or questioning of your beliefs is attacking you. For my part, I'd just like to see you using logic in your arguments.

    For example: You said: "In short then according to secular sciences and world view...Truth has evolved from untruth. So in fact untruth is the dominate species."

    Truth doesn't evolve. Truth IS. What evolves is our understanding of what the facts are. This is of course, an ongoing thing. We still have a great deal to learn and discover. Plus we have to interpret what we discover – how things all fit together to make the whole. We often get it wrong, or not all right. And some scientists can get married to their beliefs too, of course.

    But the scientific method is the best way we have to ferret out the truth.

    I am not a person of faith, but I confess i don't understand why believers can't see that they should be using their god-created minds to study *creation* to try to "know" their creator. Rather than some totally fallible book(written in human language with fallible human brains/understanding).

    And you begged your question by automatically making evolution the "untruth" in your statement. You WANT/NEED the Bible to be the only truth, so you deny logic to make it so.

    I see this as worshipping a book and not your creator.

    In fact, you insult your own creator.

    Because you disdain the very thing that allows you to conceive of a creator and a soul and supernatural things in a world with only finite things are evident. You deny the reasoning portion of your brain – the part that is designed to question, to wonder.

    Why do you do that? Why look for mythological miracles when you have the tangible existence of one right there inside your skull?

    You don't NEED the Bible to believe, to seek, to find. It's like a security blanket. Grow up and see the world. It's beautiful, it's wonderful, it's miraculous.

    To really know an artist, you study his works, not some unauthorized biography written by biased authors and interpreted by those whose power and livelihoods depend upon your buying the slant they put on it.

    If there is a sentient, sympathetic, interactive being in charge outside of what we can experience then the world, the universe is where to look. The subtle articulation of your own hand is a greater indication of the miraculous than any words hands have carved into stone.

    There is a lot of wisdom (and comfort too) to be found in the books of Man, not just one book. We *have* learned things from experience, and observation as you mention. But you need an unbiased eye to observe if you look for truth.

    So please, don't give up your god-given, questioning mind. Don't automatically buy what self-appointed religious leaders would sell you. Ask first what those people have to gain from keeping you from asking questions, or condemning your for asking. It appears that Jesus questioned the prevailing religion of his time/locale. I don't see anything to indicate mankind was meant to stop doing that after he was gone.

    Finally, let me quote Proverbs 26:11 accurately: "As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly."

    Just who is returning to the repetition of foolish (illogical) things? Time and again, history proves that hope lies in mankind's' continued seeking after knowledge, using his mind, questioning, hunting, looking at the REAL world thru the eyes of logic. It isn't perfect for sure, nor does it claim to be.

    It just makes so much more sense than the kind of obsessive beliefs that squeeze their god down to fit into one, tiny, book-shaped box.

    December 9, 2009 at 9:27 pm |
  13. michael rumfield

    Andrew.. #1 – I did not admit that I was an idiot. Idiocy and dumb and a bit stupid are very far apart. In fact it was a poor attempt at humility. #2 – I still did not hear any response about Hugh Ross (reasonstobelieve.org). #3 – My point re: chimps, is the number of years without measurable (or observable) evolution.
    As some nature shows have shown a social "skill" or heierarchy system in their groups... invariably, it comes down to strength. Might makes right... one on one or several against one... still the strongest wins out.
    So I suppose "if" I could beat the snot out of you (or vice versas) that would make my position "right"... truth.
    #4 – Doesn't science say that humans and "chimps" came from the same environment? If the chimp was far more successful in it's environment... as you say, then humans should have never evolved. If the chimp is the apex of the species and humans came from that species, then we actually devolved from chimps? Why would there be a need for a split in the species population to evolve to dominate an environment that did not exist?
    #5 – My "evolved" brain would encourage me to not fight a chimp.

    My experience has been to observe... that when you disagree with someone else's idea; knowledge etc. They take it personal. Why? Because the person in question tends to identify with that
    "knowledge" as themselves. So in essence you are attacking that person (their perception). So when I disagree with another's idea, in their mind (person who identifies so fully) "hey, this guy is attacking me. I'm not important. He is saying that my idea is a lie, so I am a lie." Gets very personal to this person.

    The truth does not need defending. "IT" IS the truth, no matter what you or I say contrary to said truth. The truth takes no offence because the truth is not insecure. The truth does not have to "fight"... or belittle... it is the truth and it will NEVER be wrong. All truth knowledge is God or the compilation thereof in some kind of way that I can not explain or fully understand. My brain or intellect has seemingly not "evolved" far enough to "know" this.

    Yet it is not possible for the truth to not testify of itself. At least as long as untruth is around.

    In short then according to secular sciences and world view...Truth has evolved from untruth. So in fact untruth is the dominate species... especially in it's environment of deception, survival of the fittest, manipulation, greed, self serving, stinginess, social heierarchy... LIE not Truth reigns supreme. All bow to the great name of logic... human reasoning. The name of God (your god) seems to be science or self.

    Bubba, if I were to ever devolve back into this dogma... returning to my vomit as it were (Proverbs 26:11)... shoot me now. Cause there ain't no hope.

    Andrew, God does not work that way. He loves you and He is real. He is not appealing to your intellect, He is appealing to your soul. In the end Truth will win out. It is not possible for any other outcome. So what happens to the lie in the end? It becomes irrelavant... completely disposable and deposed. I think it better to find oneself counted in the camp of the Truth at that final reckoning. In Christ Michael R.

    December 9, 2009 at 12:02 pm |
  14. Frank

    Michael,

    No, Intelligent Design ID (aka Creationism) cannot be taught alongside evolution as I have explained already. ID is a belief, not a theory and not science—it cannot be tested nor can it make predictions that can be tested against future observations.

    For me, it comes down to this. Which would you rather believe—A) that an intelligent designer (the ID people now make it a point that the designer is not God because they have been stuffed in the courts for pushing religion in biology class) somehow with magical powers designed billions of different species (e.g., there are over 40,000 known species of beetle!), each imperfect, with built in flaws, competitive to the point that they kill and eat each other, or B) that organisms adapted to their environment over hundreds of millions of years to arrive at today’s spectrum of flora and fauna?.

    Evolution theory does not say that complexity is favored-this is a common misrepresentation. Evolution requires only change- mutate, survive, reproduce. Many, most likely most, mutations are not beneficial, even toxic. Those will be selected against in the harsh environment.

    Make no mistake; the ID community is out to replace science in our schools, not just biology, with evangelical Protestant beliefs. So far, the courts have stopped this, but the fight continues.

    Frank

    December 9, 2009 at 7:46 am |
  15. Andrew D

    And the theory of evolution says nothing about evolving to become an immortal and perfect creature. All it says is that the genomes of populations of organisms change through time and that the changes, reflect selective pressures. In other words, populations only change to be just good enough. As long as an organism can live long enough to survive and reproduce more than other members of their group, their genes are passed on.

    An example would be chimps and humans as you cited. When a population of ancestral primates became split into two distinct populations, the separated populations evolved into two distinct species. From here, each species evolved different over time as they became exposed to different selective pressures in two different environments. For our lineage, it became advantageous to develop a sophisticated cerebrum and to begin walking upright. For the chimps however, it became advantageous to maintain their distinct walking stance. In their environment, chimps were far more successful at surviving and reproducing. That is why they never evolved as we did. I suggest you try moving into the jungles of Africa and that you try and fight a chimp and see what happens. They are clearly more "highly evolved" for their particular environment than we are. So to say that they didn't "evolve as much as we did" is both arrogant and ignorant.

    Before you try to refute something, Mr. Rumfield, you should know what you are refuting.

    December 8, 2009 at 10:47 pm |
  16. Andrew D

    It doesn't support your argument, Mr. Rumfield, to admit you are an idiot. By the way your "dino-man" tracks never stood up to scientific scrutiny and they were even abandoned by most creationists. Many of them were even carved out (clearly you don't know what I mean by "fabricated", I suggest you purchase a dictionary) by supporters of creationists, trying desperately to support their cause.
    I have a great idea Mr. Rumfield. How about I say claim there is a mystical Flying Spaghetti Monster that rules the world and created this great planet and all of the creatures on it. Although I have absolutely no evidence, I have this great book that was written by this guy who knew this guy who talked to the great Flying Spaghetti Monster. My mommy and daddy told me to believe in it so I do. I was so inspired by the teachings of the great Flying Spaghetti Monster, that I decided to spread the word by publishing new versions of the Bible that refute the existence of Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ, and Mary. Say I then go from parish to parish spreading the word of the great Flying Spaghetti Monster telling people that they are wrong. Would I be wrong for trying to get your children to believe in the great Flying Spaghetti Monster?

    December 8, 2009 at 10:30 pm |
  17. michael rumfield

    Frank... as far as the classroom goes, how can you justify not teaching creationism or design; at least as a theory, while insisting on teaching, as irrefutable... evolution? I am perfectly willing to have them both postulated side by side, so to speak. As far as teaching the "bible" in class... I am totally against it... have some secular teacher try and teach God's word when they do not know it themselves; no, bible teaching belongs to those who understand it. Myself, I am a novice... I fumble at the word, stumbling along; time to time "seeing" what God is saying. But when I do... wow, nothing like it... the world has nothing to compare with the knowledge of and privilage of speaking to and understanding at least some of Him who made it all! And on top of that, out of 6 billion plus; He KNOWS me and He loves... me. Absolutely, totally, without a doubt... the world has NOTHING to compare. Now as everyone knows I can not, to the burden of proof that the science community demands, can "PROVE" God exists. The life and death of Jesus, thru not only the bible, but Roman records is easily proved... the claims of savior etc... fall under faith. And it seems to me that if science were really so sure of "itself" then "it" wouldn't be afraid of competition in the classroom. God is not afraid of the comp.

    Andrew... I stand corrected on the entropy or it's wrong use. I was not thinking of thermodynamics. An example... why don't we age the way Mork did on the Mork and Mindy sit / com. We begin life in the womb and get a start at growing, when we grow enough to survive outside the womb we are birthed and continue to grow. This will continue till each person reaches the "tipping point"... things begin to fade, grow weaker... cells no longer duplicate "exactly" etc. Complexity degrades over time. Yet science wants me to believe that my brain, evolving over time from a chimp (?); became amazingly complex. Does not stand up to basic reasoning (at least mine). I readily admit that I'm kinda dumb and sometimes even a bit stupid. Can't spell, etc. But you see the people I talk and debate with are really smart. Like you, even despite my pore spelling you could read whatever word I mis spelled
    and know it was mis spelled. By the by, starting with the word "findings" at the end of your post, count back 41 words and take a look. Also while attacking C. Baugh... I heard nothing about the specific "evidences" I spoke about. Science places so much credibility in the geologic record... how does a human footprint become fossilized not only "in" a fossilized dino. footprint... but overlapping the edges (border) of the same? I just don't know? Does it not speak contrary to what secular scientist's are continuelly (oops, spelling) saying... and does so in the exact manner that science puts so much store in? I noticed you did not attack Hugh Ross??? And by the way how many millions of years have the chimps been around? How come they are not "humans"? Have they remained the same for how long? Maybe changes in physical sizes... ?? possibly they were a LOT more smart back then and de – evolved to this state. Cause, really, being hear (41) that long shouldn't they have some sort of history in writing or at least one skyscraper to their credit? Someone wrote way early on this post page that science is continually evolving. Wrong, science is only discovering the mechanics of God. Only learning of knowledge that already exists. If you postulate a theory that is 99% right and "travel" down that theory 10,000 miles; how far off truth are you? Well if you start 99% wrong where are you 10,000 miles later?
    I'm thinkin' your travelin' "100 mph in the wrong direction. However we each have that perogative of doin' it my way! Proverbs 14:12
    In Christ Michael R.

    December 8, 2009 at 8:43 pm |
  18. eric b

    LOL Is Christian right and Muslim wrong is Muslim right and Jews are wrong or how about the Hundreds of other Religions out there when will people understand Religion was MAN MADE. Has anyone read these books lol. Now I don't know if there is a Higher Power out there I would like to believe there is, BUT no one knows repeat NO ONE KNOWS THINK FOR YOURSELFSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

    December 8, 2009 at 1:35 pm |
  19. Frank

    Michael,

    Another thing.

    You ask who accepts the science? How about the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine for starters (WWW.nap.edu/catalog/11876.html).

    I am not interested in changing your mind or refuting the Bible. Please just stay out of elementary school science class. Frank

    December 8, 2009 at 12:30 pm |
  20. Frank

    Micheal,

    Ok, I accept that you have a strong faith that is unshakable. So so I.

    My biggest problem with this fight over evolution is that the Evangelical Christian movement through the Discovery Institute (http://www.discovery.org/) is using evolution as a wedge to change how science taught in our elementary schools–to replace scientific reasoning with supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.. The name of their manifesto, in fact, is "the WedgeStrategy". If you want to teach your children the Bible, please do so in your home or in your church, not in my kid's science class.

    Frank

    December 8, 2009 at 11:49 am |
  21. Andrew D

    Dear Mr. Rumfield,

    I suggest you learn to spell before you try to argue. Carl Baugh is a brainwashing creationist who got his degree at Pacific International University. The university has no accreditation and has no campus. I wonder where you "learn" about creation? And before you cite the second law of thermodynamics as a reason to refute evolution, I suggest that you actually read and understand what the law means.
    The second law simply says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because the earth is not a closed system. Sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
    Entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000). Even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system. In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.
    The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).
    Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).
    Nonetheless I am sure that Mr. Rumfield will not even read this post and that he will not read a book for himself. Creationists claim they do not mind arguing but you have no idea how hard it is to argue with people who do not know the facts themselves and who are unaware of the rules of logic. Hopefully you read this because I would really like to here what you have to say. However I implore you to present an educated and factual argument, that is both logical and coherent. Also, please do not, and I mean DO NOT, cite the works of pseudoscientists and their fabricated "findings."

    Sincerely,
    Andrew D

    December 7, 2009 at 5:58 pm |
  22. michael rumfield

    Dear Frank,
    Sorry I have not checked this post lately. I don't "see" the explanation of the heart/blood question. As a scientist, bound by the pervue (?) that "it" must be provable, observable and repeatable... these are the "rules" science says a person should govern their thinking by; Is there proof of the heart/blood evolving together or is it possibly logical deduction or some such to arrive at this explanation?
    You state that the science we are speaking of is well accepted... by who? And I state that the God of the bible and the bible itself is the inherent word of God; that while written by men, they were as it were being dictated that word by God. We both have faith it seems. Now I also have faith in science that which follows the above rules... as this is merely science which is making known to me attributes of God that I can understand with my natural senses. If I step off of the cliff, I fall! Gravity while not understood (especially by me), is clearly observable, repeatable etc. How do vessals form to carry a fluid that does not exist to and from a pump that needs the very fuel that the fluid carries? Postulating that it "must" have or could have happened that way does not follow the scientific rules.
    Isn't there some sort of law, re: entropy... doesn't science say that "things" degrade, not improve or get stronger? How can evolution be possible (to the extent we are speaking of)? Shouldn't the complex come first; to entropy to the state that we are in now?
    Do you believe in the God of the bible? His name is Jesus... the name we have been given to recognise Him by. There are all sorts of gods, with all different kinds of names. I hope that you are a bonofide believer. If not... your choice.
    Two "scientists" of the christian persuasion; each have 180 degree views on the timing aspect of creation... it would seem that at the very least one of them would be wrong... so what ... both truly profess Jesus as their savior. They agree on the fundamental, that is crucial. By the way one's name is Hugh Ross (reasonstobelieve.org) and the other is Carl Baugh (creationism.org). Both have extraordinary websites. Both were athiests, I believe, and both tried to disprove God by refuting the veracity of the bible. They set out to disprove the bible... of course this meant they had to read it, check out It's claims, etc.
    Hugh Ross speaks to the creation of the cosmos and statistical impossibilities (also explains why the entire universe, all of it is necessary to even make our life possible here on earth... which Carl Baugh also speaks to) that will "test" your "faith". Carl Baugh has fossilized dinosaur footprints on display at his museum that clearly has human footprints fossilized inside the outlines of the dino. print. By the way, I believe there are also sets of the same prints left in their natural state, there are quite a few of them. In a stream bed in Glen Rose Tx. He also has an "old" hammer (steel) head with part of the handle still in the head, encased in a metamorphic rock... the rock was broken to reveal the head... fortunately the rock broke in such a way that a portion of the rock still surrounded the handle shaft... the two pieces of rock show the hammer "inside" the rock. This is a rock supposedly millions of years old???
    You speak of arrogance re: knowing how or why God did a thing and then shortly after speak of this powerful brain that He has blessed us with... of course He wants us to think... use those minds etc. Yet that mind is not God. He did NOT give us that mind to go chasing after "OUR" explanation of how, why things came to pass. And Jesus of the new test. and "God" of the O.T. both spoke of telling man, men of what, when, where, why & how He did, does and is going to do things concerning mankind, creation etc. It is not arrogance to know how,why etc... It is a privilage.
    I WILL state one thing staight up. No One, you, me, or whomever can believe in or "know" the God of the bible without knowing the bible of God.
    I do not mind a debate, debate is good for the most part. Strife, arguing and disrespect serves no good purpose. If fact I wiuld like to continue discussion... this venue does not seem condusive to either "side". Possibly the moderator would be so kind as to pass on my email addy if you want to discuss those hard issues?
    Sincerely Michael R.

    December 6, 2009 at 11:49 pm |
  23. tim

    I have no problem with religon, what you want is what you will believe. As for Cameron, to try and regress our nations youth to a form of education that can be viewed upon with the same scruples as a medieval bloodletting doctor! Woe to the church which hath gone stagnant. No one religon is right, if he wants his christian beliefs in the schools, first his kids must learn about islam buddhism and all the other beliefs in the world! Then when him and his progeny have absorbed all that infromation, maybe then they will have a better vantage point from which to think from, a platform of religous bs if you will...

    December 3, 2009 at 5:10 am |
  24. Frank

    Michael Rumfield, (part 2)

    I will try to answer your question about which came first-the heart or blood? The answer is that they evolved together over a long time. The smallest and earliest creatures in the sea did not need blood or a heart for nutrient supply because they could just use natural sea currents or simple fanning to supply nutrients and remove wastes. Larger organisms needed some sort of circulation to provide nutrients and respiration and to remove wastes. The simplest systems were just a tube shaped muscle that moved fluid by peristaltic action. This kind of system is found in simple worms and other invertebrates. Multiple chambered hearts evolved later as animals became larger and more complex and needed more functional circulatory systems. Blood also changed from a simple lymph type fluid to the complex fluid found in many animals today. It carries oxygen, fights disease, provides nutrients, removes waste, and clots over wounds. Quite amazing beginning from simple sea water.

    What kind of ‘hard stuff’ are you referring to that I can't handle?

    Frank

    December 2, 2009 at 3:03 pm |
  25. Frank

    Dear Michael Rumfeld,

    From your response to my post, you seem to think that I do not believe in God. Quite to the contrary. I believe that there is a God and that the universe, the small and the large, is so powerful, mysterious, and beautiful that I find it terribly limiting and arrogant for anyone to say they know why or how God did anything.. I believe that God gave me and you a powerful brain that enables us to think about our origins, existence, future and our place in the universe.

    Yes, I am a scientist. The more I learn and ponder about the universe, the more I am awed by its mystery. God did not give me a brain just to waste it trying to discredit well-accepted science.

    Earth is one tiny planet orbiting one average star which is only one of several hundred billion stars in our galaxy, itself one of billions of known galaxies-each of those with hundreds of billions of stars. Given this wondrous universe, it is so petty to use pseudo-science to attempt to replace real science with religious beliefs in our schools which is the prime motive of the intelligent Design community.

    December 2, 2009 at 12:38 pm |
  26. Stuart

    Bill in Boston writes" Andrew D... To the dismay of Charles Darwin and the late Stephen J Gould not one transitional form has been discovered. "

    Bill you are repeating someone else's lies. Gould himself has responded to the lies before passing away.

    In Hen's teeth and Horse's Toes pgs 258-260 :
    "Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy
    of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to
    buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am for I have become a major target of these practices.

    We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibria largely to provide a
    different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the differential success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuation and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.

    Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the
    theory of punctuated equlibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt,a great early geneticist.

    Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is
    infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists, whether through design or stupidity, I do not know, as admitting that the fossil record record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups"

    From Dinosaur in a Haystack, Gould has some more to say,,,,

    "The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains
    the fundamental canard of antievolutionism. Such transitional forms are
    rare, to be sure, and for two good sets of reasons geological (gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change... ) But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair minded sceptic about the
    reality of life's physical genealogy.

    Later on..

    Still our creationist incubi, who would never let facts spoil a
    favorite argument, refuse to yeild and continue to assert the absence of all transitional forms by ignoring those that have been found and
    continuing to taunt us with admittedly frequent examples of absence.

    Which is it Bill, design or stupidity?

    November 26, 2009 at 12:38 am |
  27. michael rumfield

    Dear Frank in Charlotte

    As for the IC you mentioned... what came first then on the chain of evolutionary events... the heart or the blood? That is pretty straight forward... I do not know what science claims on the subject. I am not espousing some super intellect in the sciences. I quickly concede that I am most likely the "least" intelligent person posting on this topic of evol vs creat. And I make no claim at being able to debate the scientific on an adequate basis... I am asking a simple question, that if science and evolution is so logical and factual then it should be easily explained.

    I am not a theologian, never been to seminary, nor taught by any school etc... learned from listening at church and then going into the bible for myself and asking God to show me what was right and what was wrong. Pretty awesome thing being able to converse with the person that made everything you can see and more that you can't... people here have made statements re: contradictions in the bible etc. and from my humble perspective I have tried to answer. The last thing I want is to belittle someone... however if my eyes were blindfolded and I was running towards the edge of a 1,000 ft. cliff... I would be eternally grateful, if you were around, tackle me before I go over.

    I believe that the concept of the IC as you call it (not sure that is what I was describing, may be) is that for the ability for the cell to ever function at all... all the parts had to be there and operating properly from the git go... (that sounds a lot like gitmo... oh well another subject for another day).

    I know that to be able to converse re: IC and ID as you do... you have a very capable intellect. And as (it seems) a scientist or one who puts a lot of stock in that line of reasoning... you have to be able to make intuitive "leaps" in thoughts from time to time: I think this is called imagination. Well (as Ronald used to say), for a brief moment, why not allow that imagination to think, what if??? IF? there was really a God as the Christians say... wouldn't it be great to be able to talk with Him??!! It is great Frank (and all you others). Man I was living the life of fantasy, sci-fi, believing all the explainations of what came down the pike... it's a dead end road man. It is different from the road that I now travel (thank YOU Jesus) however your road is going to lead you to the same person that mine is: GOD. The only difference is that for all your life you have been calling Him a LIAR. Now that has got to be a scary situation! The problem is... only during this physical life do we have the opportunity to acknowledge He is the truth sayer and I have been the liar.

    Science is of God. The study of the sciences reveals a bit of God, how He made things and why they work. You know: the mechanics of things... how igniting a charge of gasoline in the proper sequence of events and under the right conditions can take me from here to there... you know, the basics. Science's best reason for even being here is to give people a "natural" glimpse at God's awesome person. The bible says that the heavens (sky and space) declare (preach) God. That He is. Does it not make sense that if someone wanted me to "believe" Him: that same person would be willing to introduce Himself to me at the very least... doesn't seem to be a crazy thought to have. All you have to do is ask... not jacking around... really mean it..." IF YOU ARE real, show me, I will believe". If He ain't real, or you don't mean it, He won't show up.

    I could say more but I don't believe you can stand the "hard" stuff.
    Michael R.

    November 25, 2009 at 10:55 pm |
  28. Liz1388

    Love all the victimization claims by Xtians. More evidence of their basic insecurities.

    All of my relatives and 90+% of my friends are Xtians.

    We live together/socialize in peace and good will. The difference for my friends, is that none of them are Fundies and they actually use their brains and have not given up critical thought. Those that talk about it seem to be of the "god as instigator and shepherd of the process of evolution."

    I have a lot of respect for their points of view since they have at least, spent time reasoning it out. Unlike the insecure, egocentric Fundies, they have no problem with the idea that man evolved from relatives of apes. What on earth is so terrible about that anyway?

    I *never* proselytize my non-beliefs to them nor scorn them for their faith.

    There are some Fundies in family and acquantances. I practice lots of tolerance at their ritualistic squee. Because I know many people never got over the boogeyman and need those kinds of security blankies to get through. In most ways, it is better than drug addictions.

    Given the examples of illogical argument and incoherent language I see in the Fundie posts here, it is clear why they feel insecure and put upon. Blame your religions for not letting you exercise your minds, don't blame us.

    I've never figured out why you aren't standing naked in the fields like lilies, but am glad you are hypocrites so that my tax dollars don't have to pay for all your emergency treatments for exposure and pauper's burials.

    The only reason I care a whit about the Fundies like Kirk and others of his ilk, is because they can't seem to just live their faith and leave the rest of the world alone. (Wish they'd take a lesson from the Amish! )

    In as much as Fundies and conservative religionists influence politics and society in ways that infringe on science, my freedoms, and what is taught in schools, that is what I criticize and fight against.

    In addition, if I can influence even one brain-washed kid to stop, think and read beyond the hogwash he's been handed, that's good too. S/He doesn't have to give up faith, just don't give up thinking because their church pushes fear, or engage in knee-jerk support of everyone who claims to be devout. Think critically!

    November 25, 2009 at 10:21 pm |
  29. michael rumfield

    Andrew D.

    No contradiction here. This was two tellings of the same event. The first as a type of overview, the second a more detailed account of mankind and his immediate surroundings. And God's direction to them.

    Re: Adam / Eve... as God knows everything that is, was or will be... He new that when He made Adam, He would be later forming Eve from Adam's rib. Therefore Eve was "in" Adam from the first... "made He them". This type of thinking or concidering on God's part is further backed up in:
    Hbr 7:9 Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak,
    Hbr 7:10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

    These refer back to Gen 14:18 – 20 Levi was generations into the future, yet God already knew that Levi would be coming later... same with Eve.

    Isa 55:9 "For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts

    You see the astonomically large problem that "unbelievers" have in trying to make sense out of the bible is contained in the preceeding verse. No one can truly (to any measurable depth) understand what God is actually saying in the bible without the secret "decoder ring" as it were. You are trying to understand something that is written from a totally "alien" perspective, that is compared to your own. Without God translating what He is saying... you have no hope of really knowing what is going on. The bible will look like a compilation of contradictions because you are trying to understand it from your own mindset.

    As far as being written by men... have you ever heard of court reporters? There are millions of cases on record of millions of people stating facts, evidence and so forth. What is it called when a secretary is dictated a letter by their boss? I am grasping... not sure about this... stenography?

    Got anymore contradictions? Some I can explain, altho there are some I'm sure that an unbeliever can't understand even if they are explained. You know even a whiz at high school algebra does not have much chance at understanding quantum physics, even if they are explained.

    Michael R.

    November 25, 2009 at 9:31 pm |
  30. Frank in Charlotte

    TO: Andrew D.

    Trying to point out contradictions in the Bible is petty and not relevant or helpful to the discussion here. Thanks to our Country's principles, we are free to practice any religion and teach our children our beliefs, contradictions and all not withstanding. What is not OK, however,is anyone trying to force their particular religious beliefs on my children in the guise of pseudo-science by trying to take over the elementary school science curriculum as has been attempted in Kansas and Dover PA and other communities.

    November 25, 2009 at 12:55 pm |
  31. Bill in Boston

    Hi Andrew D, Frank in Charlotte & Others

    Well Guys. We can go on & on. But you have to admit the bias is against the Bible goons. And if the Christian is spitting back at you in the public debate. Shane on them. Both position are belief systems. What we use (sometimes the very same material)as the foundation on our beliefs is where we differ. And tomorrow I will thank the GOD of the Bible that I live in a land where we can agree to disagree and not persecute the other for their position. . I would assume that we both share the same position of never having a given church or religion to be the state religion.
    Happy Thanksgiving Day folks from Hillsborough NC. I hope your thankful for the blessings our nation still posess after all these craxy years
    ps

    Why didn't Stephen J Gould (Harvard evolutionist Advocate) layout the fossil record of transaction forms for Macro Evolution (not micro evolution – changes within kinds) before his last breath? ;) I am sure this debate has now been resolved for Mr. Gould.

    November 25, 2009 at 12:01 pm |
  32. Andrew D

    Michael Rumfield,

    I have found plenty of contradictions with the Bible. The most important that I found, and one that clearly shows the Bible was written by several MEN and not God.

    In the first account of "Creation,"
    Genesis 1:25-27
    Humans were created after the other animals.
    Genesis 1:27
    The first man and woman were created simultaneously.

    Now in the second account,
    Genesis 2:18-19
    Humans were created BEFORE the other animals.
    Genesis 2:18-22
    The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.

    Wow, look at that! Even before the end of the first book, the Bible is full of contradictions. Clearly the "word" of an intelligent designer to me. Before you try to argue your side, I suggest you at least read what your side has to say. Do NOT simply sit in church and listen to someone tell you bedtime stores.

    November 25, 2009 at 11:21 am |
  33. Andrew D

    Creationsists claim they want an "equal" footing, but as soon as someone even discusses the faults with the "theory" they cry that their "beliefs" are being challenged. If creationism is truly a scientific theory, it should be able to stand, despite the challenges.

    November 25, 2009 at 11:14 am |
  34. Andrew D

    Mr. Bill in Boston,

    I only get bent out of shape, because you say we don't allow Creationism to be discussed alongside Evolution. But that is exactly what we are doing, we are discussing both evolution and creationism, and why one is scientifically supported whereas the other is religious dogma.

    And by the way, there are millions of transitional forms. You clearly have religious blinders on your eyes. Once I again, I suggest you stop regurgitating what you're Christian scientists have told you. Instead you should read a book, visit a museum, or enter a laboratory. For some examples of transitional forms, look at what I found!

    The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:

    1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.

    2. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).

    3. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).

    4. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).

    5. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.

    6. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).

    From: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

    November 25, 2009 at 11:08 am |
  35. Frank in Charlotte

    To Bill in Boston. You ask , "All I am asking is let both THEORIES ( I never claimed Creation to be scientific) have equal footing and let an open minded person decide on the supporting positions." Creationism and evolution can never be given equal footing because creationism is a belief and evolution is a scientific theory-not the same things at all. A belief cannot be tested, proven, or disproven. Scientific theories are used to explain observations and make predictions which can be tested against new observations in an open discourse. The theory can then be modified or rejected accordingly. Beliefs such as Creationism (a.k.a. intelligent Design) cannot be tested or used to make any predictions. Furthermore, if Intelligent Design is how biology works, why aren't its proponents using it to make new discoveries in medicine rather than attacking science in our elementary schools?

    November 25, 2009 at 10:57 am |
  36. michael rumfield

    Where in the bible does it say that the earth is the center of the solar system? The "lamb of God" phrase... obviously the bible is speaking of Jesus Christ... the "lamb" of God. Not that He was a lamb... As a lamb without blemish was the only acceptable sacrifice that a man could give for the temporary attonement of sin... the word lamb was God referring to Jesus as the perfect unblemished sacrifice of God fully acceptable for the payment of ALL sin. This is one of the easiest "hidden" meanings for an unbeliever to grasp. Please detail some of the contradictions for me. I would truly like to see them.. as I can find no contradictions... all are understood with the direction of the Holy Spirit. Michael R.

    November 24, 2009 at 7:51 pm |
  37. Jimmy

    "Last time I looked, science still hasen't [sic] found a cure for the common cold."

    Yes, that is correct. No external drugs can cure any natural virus, whether it's the common cold, influenza, or HIV. Why? Because viruses EVOLVE extremely rapidly to attain resistance against the drugs easily. Ironic how your argument turns, huh?

    I agree that the majority of the posts here are pro-evolution, but I disagree that this should be considered an insult to those who are religious. If you read all the comments, the majority of the posts are educated responses to uneducated conjectures.

    Observations like evolution is false because "mustard plants have more complicated genomes than us", or "trilobites have eyes almost as good as ours", or "microbiologists can't figure out macroevolution", or "bombadier beettles suggest an intelligent design" are NOT religious statements. They are ignorant and false statements that warp the truth. Scientists and the educated lay public have a moral obligation to defend the truth.

    I believe religion and science can coexist. For example, a recent publication in "Science" discusses the psychological, anthropological, and neurochemical basis for believing in a Supreme Being and the biological fitness this provides for our species. As another example, the Harvard Biological Laboratories are right next door (literally) from the Harvard Divinity School. In terms of this thread, if you read all the posts , you'll notice that those who voice such statements of moderation usually do not receive any indignant rebuttals.

    The outrage usually ensues when a militant religious folk put forth an argument that's clearly false, and when someone responds with a rational and educated explanation, he/she defends by using the tenet his/her opinion is just as valid as anyone else's.

    When you choose to attack another's position, like Mr. Cameron does, why are you surprised that someone fights back? Moreover, why are the rebuttals all so one-sided? When a scientists gives a rational response to something, why are there no substantive counter-rebuttals? All I've seen as counter-arguments to scientific explanation are mere rhetoric and dogma, but not facts.

    I challenge any anti-evolution folks out there to read a science rebuttal made in any of these posts (like the one I made to the common cold example) and come up with a counter-rebuttal using facts and arguments, not just cushy rhetoric.

    November 24, 2009 at 5:54 pm |
  38. Bill In Boston

    Andrew D... To the dismay of Charles Darwin and the late Stephen J Gould not one transitional form has been discovered. No one can obvserve evolution (macro that is ) in process,hence the lack of transitional forms, specially in the fossil record. And yes Jesus was a Jewish Man. The Bible records it as so,. It is unfortunate that you aren't aware of the Biblical call to Christians to be good stewards (of what we have been given – including the earth and its resources). Lastly, Roman Catholicism is not the dominate denomination over Christianity. And as far as millions dying at the hands of religion, don't forget that 50 million + independent Bible believing baptistic believers died at the hands of cruel leaders of the state churches in Europe. All I am asking is let both THEORIES ( I never claimed Creation to be scientific) have equal footing and let an open minded person decide on the supporting positions. And if Evolution is so obvious why get so bent ouit of shape? It would be our loss and your gain, n'est pas?

    November 24, 2009 at 5:37 pm |
  39. Frank in Charlotte

    Dear michael rumfield,

    You are arguing for the long discredited concept of irreducible complexity-IC. Every example of IC brought up by the intelligent design movement has been shown to be wrong. The favorite ID poster children of IC-the human immune system and bacterial flagellum- have been shown to be improvements on less complex forms found in nature. Confronted by this evidence in court, the ID chief scientist M Behe then concluded in his testimony that, well, these less complex forms are then irreducibly complex! Mr. Behe may be a good biochemist, but is a lousy biologist.

    November 24, 2009 at 1:19 pm |
  40. Andrew D

    And Bill in Boston,

    There actually is a lot of observable evidence that supports evolution, you just have to actually read a text book other than the Bible. If that isn't good enough for you, I suggest you go to any college evolutionary biology laboratory that works with model organisms. Within a few generations of a fruit fly population one can see evolution right before your eyes! Arrogant and anthropocentric Christians I am sure however will claim that we are special and therefore better than the rest of the animal kingdom. They would claim that we are beyond the realm of evolution because it scares them that our ancestors are different from us. (I bet that scares the hell out of the Southern Bible belt that ALL of us may have originated from Africa.)

    Creationists, there is no problem with you preaching whatever it is you have to preach. As long as it is within your church or out in the streets, just keep it out of the science classroom. Hell, you could even discuss it in philosophy or religion courses. But how hard is it to understand that Creationism is NOT a science?

    We are so ardently defending evolution because it has been an accepted scientific theory for hundreds of years. A lot has been added to the theory since the time of Darwin. That loser Comfort and his crony Cameron are attacking Darwin whose findings have been reviewed and revised for over 150 years! That would be like someone saying that American democracy is a sham because Washington, Jefferson, and every other founding father owned slaves. It would miss the point that we as a country have changed and developed.

    The biggest problem with all of this is that it is because of America's religious right, that the rest of the world laughs at us. It is the reason why European, China, and Japan are closely becoming the scientific leaders of the world. Don't you see that your ignorant "beliefs" are hurting your childrens' futures? But what am I thinking? American Christians don't care about the future. They would rather consume the worlds resources and pollute the Earth until it can no longer support life. If you want evidence of evolution, look at the thousands of species that we have made extinct within the past 100 years or so.

    November 24, 2009 at 11:43 am |
  41. Andrew D

    Hey Mike and the Bombardier beetle,

    Your example of the Bombardier beetlle as a reason why evolution does not work is an argument from incredulity. It is based in part on an inaccurate description of how the beetle's bombardier mechanism works, but even then the argument rests solely on the lack of even looking for evidence. In fact, an evolutionary pathway that accounts for the bombardier beetle is not hard to come up with (Isaak 1997). One plausible sequence (much abbreviated) is thus:

    1. Insects produce quinones for tanning their cuticle. Quinones make them distasteful, so the insects evolve to produce more of them and to produce other defensive chemicals, including hydroquinones.
    2. The insects evolve depressions for storing quinones and muscles for ejecting them onto their surface when threatened with being eaten. The depression becomes a reservoir with secretory glands supplying hydroquinones into it. This configuration exists in many beetles, including close relatives of bombardier beetles (Forsyth 1970).
    3. Hydrogen peroxide becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. Catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, ensuring that more quinones appear in the exuded product.
    4. More catalases and peroxidases are produced, generating oxygen and producing a foamy discharge, as in the bombardier beetle Metrius contractus (Eisner et al. 2000).
    5. As the output passage becomes a hardened reaction chamber, still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, gradually becoming today's bombardier beetles.

    All of the steps are small or can be easily broken down into smaller ones, and all are probably selectively advantageous. Several of the intermediate stages are known to be viable by the fact that they exist in other living species.

    From http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html

    November 24, 2009 at 11:17 am |
  42. Phobos

    "The more I studied evolution, the more absured it became to me. The universe screams of design and if design, then of a Designer, and purpose. It is willfully absured to think that nothing created everything"

    And apparently in all your learned study, you didn't even grasp the difference between the Big Bang theory and Darwin's theory of evolution. The two have nothing to do with each other. Please demonstrate where Darwin states that something is created from nothing. You can't because he doesn't state it. That's just a nice example of your glaring ignorance about evolutionary theory. Put the bible down and pick up a science book.

    What you call "design" can be described simply as order. Matter is self organizing – we know this. You don't need a designer to explain the formation of the universe, because it essentially doesn't answer anything...because we can then ask "Well, what created god?" If the answer is nothing, then you're just replacing the Big Bang with god – which explains nothing. Furthermore, look at the many factual errors in the bible – it names bats as bird (which, clearly, they aren't), it states the Earth is the center of the solar system (again, wrong), it names geographic places in the wrong location, and contradicts itself in so many places as to lose track of them all. Add to that the fact that most of the stories in the bible exist in other cultures which all predate the rise of Christianity and we have little reason to believe in a literal interpretation of the bible. When the bible speaks of the "lamb of god," do you really think it's referring to a lamb? Is evolution more absurd than believing in talking serpents and burning, talking shrubs? Of course, those make perfect sense, right?

    Furthermore, why is it impossible to have something come from nothing? Your idea here rests on the assumption that the universe must make sense. Just because human being act and live their lives based on common sense, that in no way entails the universe does the same. And if you simply believe because you've heard it all your life, well, that's no reason to believe anything. All your life, you've heard things like George Washington was the first US President, Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, and Columbus sailed to prove the Earth was round – all of which are entirely false statements. They're just examples of bad information being perpetuated from one generation to the next. John Hanson was the first US President (under the Articles of Confederation), Thomas Edison merely invented the first economically plausible light bulb (about 100 years after the first was invented), and Columbus plotted his course on maps of a round earth – he was attempting to prove it could be succesfully circumnavigated. That was the point in dispute, not the shape of the earth.

    November 24, 2009 at 8:59 am |
  43. Bill in Boston

    Let us not forget what is deemed to be scientific. It must be observable, measuarble and repeatable. Neither Evolution nor Creationism can be proven to be scientic facts just like historical events. They DO follow into the category of theories regarding origins. BUT, what we can prove is what should be considered to be facts based upon the highest degree of probability. Why has Ben Stein's movie, Expelled, created such a stir in the halls of "free thinking" acedamia? How could have Mr Stein stumped the "great" Richard Dawkins with basic logical questions? Let the facts speak for themselves when considering the fine-tuning of the cosmos to the incredible programing into the strands of DNA; present both theories to the student. It is either In the Beginning GOD... or millions and millions of years ago...(once upon a time , far, far away..) The logical answer will emerge when all facts to both sides are presented.

    November 24, 2009 at 8:44 am |
  44. michael rumfield

    Re: Tuesday's post (11/21/09): re: Adam and Eve / and incest. You do not have the ability to understand and differentiate the apple and the orange.

    Being the first humans... originals; their DNA was not degredated as to cause the "problems" we associate with inbreeding. It is quite obvious that Adam & Eve had daughters and they were the "wives". You must bear in mind that Adam lived over 900 years, the bible does not say but I assume that Eve lived a compareable time. If you also account for the fact that the bible records that most of the males only fathered children after they were hundreds of years old, (Have you read any of the bible or even Genisis?) there could have been hundreds of other of Adam and Eve's prodigy around. The "law" regarding incest was not instituted by God until a thousand plus years later. Also something almost never spoken about... some 1,000 plus years after the "fall", mankind was wiped out by the flood, leaving only 8 people as "breeding stock".

    Think of the situation as copying a copy then that copy and so on a million times... incremental degredation of the original... this would neccessitate a diversity of DNA pairing to prevent "inbreeding".

    Consequently, this kind of implies a de – evolution of the common man, degrading of brain power... natural intelligence. Think that is a stupid statement... when were the vast majority of the truly classic works of literature, artistry, engineering??? Not today. Today's acommplishments are being built upon the shoulders of the greater thinkers of the past, the truly ground breaking ideas. Conception of thought in an area where there was nothing before... eerily like, creating something from nothing! Ever read the Constitution? Think you could conceive and write that? I couldn't. How many people do you know that could? Where are their masterpieces? How are they? Try reading Psalms chapter 8... a particular verse will leap out at you! I promise. And I didn't say it, God did. Talk to Him about it.

    So: riddle me this... what are the answers to my 2 questions in my 11/20/09 post? IF evolution IS true... then there MUST be an answer to these questions. If science can not explain these simple questions, even a complcated answer is not forthcoming, then evolution is a lie.

    If it weren't so absolutely and devestatingly important, critical for the unbeliever to simply leave the possibility open that maybe God is possible. It's almost comical at the inability for the people of the "world's" perspective to explain "God" and or the Bible, His motivations or goals. Without Himself in your life as the Holy Spirit to teach and interpret HIS word... a person has NO, I mean NO ability to understand what He is saying! What He means is hidden from you, I know I was an atheist... no desire to know Him or acknowledge Him or His son, laughing at those stupid, duped christians... man was I wrong! In Christ and believing for you to know Him! Michael R.

    November 23, 2009 at 11:02 pm |
  45. Andrew D

    How would creationists like it if a "Holy Bible" was published with an introduction that stated that Christianity has led to the murder and torturing of MILLIONS of people? What if it said that Church's should be forced to preach about evolution during mass? What if it said that Jesus was Jewish?!?!?!?

    November 23, 2009 at 5:27 pm |
  46. Stuart

    #1. No where in the Bible doe it say that the Earth revolves around the sun or the sun around the Earth. The whole issue of the Galileo Affair was one man expressing ideas that the Church didn't like. The Church and the people grew up.

    #2. What I find most disturbing is how most of the posts here are being just like the Church of Old. Believe what we believe or we'll condemn you. Those are the posts coming from the science side. What's wrong science? Can't just present your arguments and let the people decide if they believe you?

    They can decide what to believe. They don't get to decide what theories are valid. Only data can do that.

    Do you have to throw out the insults about being religous?

    Dry up.

    Last time I looked, science still hasen't found a cure for the common cold.

    Please list all of the diseases cured by religion:

    November 23, 2009 at 4:34 pm |
  47. Andrew D

    Religion is nothing more than an evolutionary trait that has enabled man to get through his day. Without a belief in a "higher purpose" man is prone to depression and even suicide. Why would an omnipotent and benevolent God create such meaningless feelings? It can be posited that a belief in gods and an afterlife helped our ancestors to look beyond their difficult lives of slavery and disease. A belief in a better life after their mortal lives had ended gave them hope and a will to live on. As long as they lived long enough to have children, their traits including a belief in a god or whatever was passed on to their progeny. Those who couldn't find a purpose to live and find a mate simply died off along with their genes.

    Today however, our lives are far better and a need to believe in an all-knowing and all-powerful god is obsolete. Rather we have plenty of stimulation through technology to get us through our day. Hell, why else would all of us be on the internet wasting our time?

    November 23, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  48. Chuck

    Why are there only negative responses posted here? Is CNN trying to generate some kind of public opinion coop? This country is majority christian. Most americans have at least some doubt about evolution.
    Only pro evolution views seems to be posted here. Anyone who thinks that acceptance of a particular scientific theory should be a litmus test to whether or not a person should have a voice in a debate is not being very scientific. In our country we are supposed to be free from the government favoring one faith system over another yet in our public school systems atheism seems to be the state sponsored faith system. In the college classroom any scientific data that doesn't fit the politically correct athiestic interpretation is thrown out the window. Universities are by deffinition supposed to host a wide variety of ideas. This attitude isn't science and it wouldn't be a "university" to exclude his view from campus. Well done Mr. Cameron.

    November 23, 2009 at 2:52 pm |
  49. Saab

    First things first, as a scientist, the first concept you learn is that every thing you know, every hypothesis, theory and law can be changed or replaced. This is science 101, everything from how atoms work to theory of relativity is bound to be replaced.

    My question is: Why are all these people trying to compete with something that is continually being changed?

    November 23, 2009 at 2:28 pm |
  50. Chris O

    I see this as a unecessary debate in that I believe God created evolution by natural selection.

    November 23, 2009 at 12:28 pm |
  51. Jimmy

    Cathy, your response and the foreword of the book are typical of the tenet that "the best lies are made of partial truths".

    Let me address your arguments one by one, like I did to Norm's.

    "Microbiologists have been aware for a long time that the complexity of DNA in the cell structure of living creatures, as well as the complex interrelationship between body systems necessary to make the simplest bodily function work, in conjunction of the process of mutation, makes macroevolution pretty unlikely."

    Yes, some microbiologists do believe that, but the VAST MAJORITY do NOT. Most intelligent microbiologists know that if one plasmid transformation can give an entire species of bacteria resistance to an antibiotic, evolution can happen pretty quickly. You make the illogical jump from not fully understanding something to that process not being able to happen. Macroevolution is merely an interplay of the small microevolution steps that occur. For example, let's say we have a firm understanding of all the "micro" evolution at the single cell stage (i.e. bacteria), which you and the book admit to, then we begin to understand things like quorum sensing, where single-celled bacteria communicate with each other and acts a concerted community in response to signals, which then leads to a quasi-multicellular coordinated behavior, which is the basis for tissues, which make up a large multicellular organism, like us. More and more of these systems level understanding are being published daily. Ignorant people just choose to, well, ignore them.

    "paleontology finds that should be raising the eyebrows of any serious scientist. For example – do you know that trilobites (yeah – those bug looking animals that they find in really old fossils) had eye structures that were so incredibly complex that it almost rivals the human eye. Do you know that in the Cambrian period (when there was an explosion of life) there are fossil record of a huge number of fully formed and complex life forms? How the heck did that happen?"

    You are assuming an anthrocentric perspective on science, much like Norm did, which is simply not true. Believe it or not, humans do not have the most complex genome!! So what if bugs have eyes better than us? Eagles have eyes much better than us. Organisms have advanced their specific capacities to maximize their biological fitness. Homo sapiens conquered the world because we were selected for our advanced mental capacities (which some people obvious lack). If I reverse your argument, I can ask you the rhetorical question, If we were the destined species like God had intended, why are animals like bears or lions stronger than us? Should we have the best capacities in all aspects of life?

    Lastly, there being fully formed and complex life forms in existence millions of years ago only supports evolution. It means that evolution on those species occurred, to a very advanced level I might add, but that they were unfortunate because some other species were more fit for the environment at the time. So for the example, dinosaurs were very advanced and evolved, but when a stress came (i.e. meteor, volcanoes), the low laying mammals were able to find cover, while the big dinosaurs died, opening up new niches for the mammals to evolve into. Evolution is NOT static; because of its dynamic nature, there can definitely be periodic nature to evolution, especially since species evolve in response to the environment.

    I don't think this is a diatribe, but rather an educated response. If I let ignorant comments go unresponded to, I fear some impressionable minds out there might be led down the wrong path.

    November 23, 2009 at 12:00 pm |
  52. JH

    no intelligence allowed.See Ben Stein, Kent Hovind or Ken Hamm!

    November 23, 2009 at 11:59 am |
  53. Patrick

    Like Mr T says – 'Pity the fool". The so called wise are foolish and the humble are wise. As Solomon wrote "Everything is meaningless". Of course, what he goes on to say is all is meaningless without God, if you read on. So it matters zero, what anyone says! There is a truth and that has been revealed to the enlighted and in the end the unenlighted or those how have not accepted will be on their knees when their eyes are opened. What matters is where we are going, not where we came from.

    November 23, 2009 at 11:50 am |
  54. Cathy

    I would suggest that some of these people commenting actually read the forward to the book before spouting off. I did because I was curious about it. If you read it, you might notice that the article does not say that there are no changes in species, in fact it fully supports "microevolution." I find it interesting that the article is being villified without a proper hearing. Come on people – be grown up scientists and expose the information contained in the article to the rigors of the scientific process rather than dark-ages fear and inquisition.

    Perhaps if some of these people read the article they might be surprised that the article addresses some of the most up-to-date findings in microbiology and paleontology. It addresses the question of whether the fact that "microevolution" exists, provides any proof that "macroevolution" can occur. Microbiologists have been aware for a long time that the complexity of DNA in the cell structure of living creatures, as well as the complex interrelationship between body systems necessary to make the simplest bodily function work, in conjunction of the process of mutation, makes macroevolution pretty unlikely. Moreover, the article addresses paleontology finds that should be raising the eyebrows of any serious scientist. For example – do you know that trilobites (yeah – those bug looking animals that they find in really old fossils) had eye structures that were so incredibly complex that it almost rivals the human eye. Do you know that in the Cambrian period (when there was an explosion of life) there are fossil record of a huge number of fully formed and complex life forms? How the heck did that happen?

    Come on you budding scientists out there – what are you afraid of – the scientific truth? You intelligent and enlightened people shouldn't be afraid to read something that might raise a question or two. Last I heard – quetsions are the basis of science. I challenge you to read the article, study up on microbiology and paleontology. Once you do that you have earned the right to come back and put another diatribe here.

    November 23, 2009 at 11:34 am |
  55. Robert Doucet

    Oh, some things I forgot.....we have a problem with words and their meaning.
    Fundamentalists have trouble with the word "theory". They think it is the same as "wild guess". Well, folks I'll try to show you how it works in your own terms.
    "wild guess" begat "educated guess" begat "real ideas" begat "theory" which in turn begat "fact" or "truth".
    Most of what we know is in the "theory" area. I don't know for a "fact" that Australia exists. Never been there. But I have worked with Aussies, met people I trust that have been there, and seen it on pictures from space. Just never been there. However, the Republic of Kiribati is a "fact" because I lived there. Same thing with evolution. We only see the results, not the process...although selective breeders come close.
    The Creation Museum and Institute would have us believe that man and dinosaurs co-existed. They probably watch "The Flintstones" as though it was a documentary!!!!(thank you, Lewis Black).
    Also, several of you have called Mr. Cameron and other bible thumpers "idiots". It is wrong to say this as it insults the mentally handicapped. The latter were born that way.......you lowered your IQ by choice.

    November 23, 2009 at 11:32 am |
  56. Mark

    Any evolutionist can provide plenty of examples of macroevolution. Human evolution is a prime example. People who claim otherwise are either ignorant or liars. Most often they are just self delusional, because they can't accept human evolution. Science has advanced human society greatly because it provides an objective means of determining how the universe really works to counter to the human tendency to believe what we want to believe because it makes us feel good.

    An actor trained in projecting falsehoods is certainly a far more likely candidate to spew bunk than to debunk a scientist. Why does anyone pay attention to actors other than as entertainers?

    November 23, 2009 at 11:31 am |
  57. Mike

    If evolution is such a scientific certainty, would someone out there please explain to me the evolutionary process of the bombardier beetle?

    November 23, 2009 at 11:18 am |
  58. Atheist in Charlotte

    Let's not forget the human hierarchy, evolved over eons:

    1. Instinct (food, shelter, fear, sex, etc)

    trumps

    2. Emotionality (heart, love, compassion, hope, etc)

    trumps

    3. Rationality (reason, logic)

    Many religionists understand deep down that Reason is secondary to Emotion and strive for a (however tenuous) co-existence between the two. They make it work in their hearts, and downplay how their heads react. It makes sense to me, and, understanding our Hierarchy, I do not ridicule them for it.

    We atheists, having (of course) the same Emotional needs, seek to fulfill them without having to conflict with our Reason: whether regarding community, guidance, spirituality, father figures, explanations for the awesome, fear of death, etc.: all this we fulfill right here on earth and under sky, without looking to a Winged Pasta being or Yahweh (or whatever) to give our search a supernatural validity.

    Lastly: look to coexist peacefully!

    November 23, 2009 at 11:18 am |
  59. Jimmy

    "Explain to me why the DNA of a mustard plat is more complex than that of a Human"

    –Plants need more genes for secondary metabolism because they cannot move, like animals can. So not only do they need to procure food, but because they're stationary, they need to produce enzymes that defend themselves in an immobile state (i.e. natural pesticides). Moreover, plants undergo many metabolic processes that we cannot, i.e. photosynthesis

    "Explain to me how scales developed into feathers, when under an electron microscope there are no similarities."

    –There was a genetic mutation amongst a population of scaled organism, and that one particular mutant which now has feather, found a niche where it's competitive compared to all the other scaled organism, and lived to produce more offspring. Biochemically, the mutation could have affected only one nucleotide of one codon (as there are only 20 amino acids that make up all proteins of life), so a drastically different protein structure could have been produced. For example, your hair and and your skin feel very different, but they're both made of a protein called collagen, but with different modifications. So under the microscope, the cells or its products could have very different architecture, just based on a few amino acid changes.

    "The science is totally lacking in the Theory of evolution. It takes a more vivid imagination to accept Darwin than to except Creationism."

    –No, you're just really uneducated.

    November 23, 2009 at 11:17 am |
  60. mike

    Can you show an evidence of a god any god. I would like the evidence to repeatable and scientific. Not just an image in burned toast.

    November 23, 2009 at 10:56 am |
  61. JTF

    The fastest way to make someone an atheist is to make them read the bible. no I don't mean read a few select sections I mean read it from cover to cover. The filth, rape, sexisms, incest, murder, and general debauchery you will find is the reason The Origin of Species has never been banned. Everytime someone tries to ban Darwin they realize that their own bible would have to be banned as well.

    November 23, 2009 at 10:55 am |
  62. Liz

    And this actor is qualified to challenge the findings of every reputable scientist for hudreds of years how????? The Bible is NOT a science book. We go to church to find out who created the universe and we go to school to learn how He did it. It's really that simple.

    November 23, 2009 at 10:41 am |
  63. neffin8tor

    Luke, in the case of K. Cameron that would be DE-evolution.

    As a Christian, I have absolutely no problem with accepting both the scientific explanation of evolution and aliening it with my faith. Something had to start the ball rolling and why not God? M

    November 23, 2009 at 10:32 am |
  64. Snairad

    Ignorance will eventually destroy our own species because we think we are superior to the natural world.

    November 23, 2009 at 10:27 am |
  65. Charles

    IF we are here due to 'Intelligent Design', if we were created by a God who created us 'in his image'......

    wouldn't you expect an omnipotent Deity to do a better job? Let's face it, the human design is prone to cancer, arthritis, rotting teeth, apendicitis (Yeah, explain that one!), diabetes, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, poor vision, all kinds of horrific birth defects that would shame Satan, and we can't regrow lost limbs (which a starfish can do!). And dozens, probably hundreds more issues of poor design that make a release of Windows look pristine.

    These creationists surely hold their God to a low standard.

    November 23, 2009 at 10:23 am |
  66. Frank

    I just read the Introduction. It claims the world's major religions are Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity. (maybe he just forgot Judaism being in such a state). The introduction then slams the non-christian religions as pure folly in just one paragraph each. This is just a taste of the slanted propaganda being pushed by these people.

    November 23, 2009 at 10:23 am |
  67. Scott

    Evolution is a theory and only that. It has not and can not be proven. Nice to know that intollerance toward Christians is alive and well in this country while a muslim that shoots up a military base is innocent until proven guilty. Looking at some of these post makes me want to beleive that some of you haven't 'evolved" all that far.

    November 23, 2009 at 10:13 am |
  68. coach knight

    Norm, you are the best. Someone that uses detailed, scientific examples to make their claim, yet can't spell, is a great example of the regurgitating right
    . You are just barfing back information that was fed to you by people like Kirk Cameron. So....Wilt Chamberlin and mini-me came from the same set of parents!? If adam and eve looked like us, how and why did our species regress into knuckle-dragging, hair-covered beings? Where are the human bones that are millions of years old? Norm and his kind also believe the world is 6,000 years old and we rode dinosaurs as pets!!! BTW...I'm done having "respect for others opinions" when those opinions come from the likes of sarah palin, pat robertson, and this has-been (never was) Kirk Cameron. Also...Bud...you can't help but attack the messanger when the message is used as a weapon to judge others. I LOVE it when bible freaks start talking about all the bad things that will happen to me because I'm not a sheep. Fear is how you operate. oh yes, and ignorance too....fear and ignorance.

    November 23, 2009 at 10:09 am |
  69. God

    Oh Please....Kirk Cameron does not speak for me.....I gave people brains to use them....that is how science developed....intelligent design is hogwash......my children, you have proved this already...move on and keep growing......enough fear already!

    November 23, 2009 at 10:04 am |
  70. Shrike

    Norm must not watch the Discovery or Science channel, since his knowledge of science seems to come from a poor memory of his natural history class in middle school, circa 1970's or 80's. Brush up on current scientific findingsand discoveries before you perpetuate your religious superstitions/dogma.

    November 23, 2009 at 10:03 am |
  71. David

    Neither Creationism or Evolution is scientifically provable by the scientific method. The scientific method requires something to be observable and repeatable. No one living observed Creation, thus, it cannot be scientifically proved. In the same vein, Evolution fails the scientific method because it is not observable and repeatable. Name one instance where we have observed one species becoming a new genetically different species? Of course, we have some hybrids, but generally hybrids are sterile and cannot continue their species. And a simple change in appearance of a species is not the creation of a new species. If an interracial couple has children, is that Evolution because the children's skin tone is a different color? I have not seen evidence that is observable and repeatable showing one species transforming into a totally new species. Until such time, it remains theory, unprovable by science, and thus both Creationism and Evolution are faith based and not science.

    November 23, 2009 at 9:59 am |
  72. Craig

    It is impossible to reason someone out of something that he did not reason himself into in the first place.

    November 23, 2009 at 9:58 am |
  73. jkinorlando

    Bryan Hupperts November 20th, 2009 3:08 pm ET

    The more I studied evolution, the more absured it became to me. The universe screams of design and if design, then of a Designer, and purpose. It is willfully absured to think that nothing created everything,
    ------------------------------–
    Almost as absured as something created everything...which begs for an answer to that famous 2nd question...'which came 1st the chicken or the egg?'

    I suppose it is all the way you look at it. We all know that one man's ink blot is another man's fluffy cloud.

    November 23, 2009 at 9:50 am |
  74. Confucious

    Hi Norm,
    God love ya, but your post is the perfect example of fine writing, critical thinking and intelligent debate that makes up the camp of the creationists.

    BTW – the word is "strict" and you might want to go back to 8th grade and learn how to diagram a sentence.

    November 23, 2009 at 9:45 am |
  75. Robert Doucet

    Haven't we heard all this before?? It's Mr. Cameron and all the other fundamentalists who are to be pitied for having a disease called "cranial rectosis" that prevents them from seeing the true beauty in a system so very evident. It's all around you.
    As you grew older you learned there was no Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or Easter Bunny but still cling to simplistic fairy tales of Adam & Eve, Noah(ever wonder how he could fit two of each of the billions of animal species in an ark of given size, let alone the plants and a food supply? No?? I didn't think so. You have "faith"), and all the other imaginary figures.
    I'm not saying give up the poetry. Just don't condemn Darwin or Gould or Dawkins who have more going for them in the world than a "god" who pulls rabbits out of hats.

    November 23, 2009 at 9:42 am |
  76. Vicki

    I'm going with the spaghetti monster too (Toby's choice). The "ambiguous unsupported proof of an intelligent designer" opens up all possibilities, even a flying spaghetti monster. (Yeah, I'm sure some of you don't like that, I accept that.) And what business is it of Kirk Cameron's? Nice to have a platform just because you were famous at one time. Kirk Cameron or not, it's still a world of science (conclusions based on empirical evidence, not unsupported mythical stories). My choice is science. It's a he!! of a lot more accurate than the other choice.

    November 23, 2009 at 9:34 am |
  77. Brian

    I think the headline should be "Kirk Cameron attempts to deny Darwin" not "debunk". The inference of the word debunk implies that it is something dishonest that needs to be corrected. No! Darwin's theory of evolution is science; not some ponzi scheme. His theories revolutionized scientific thought on the origin of mankind and will stand the test of time despite it's deniers. These are basically the kinds of people who deny that we landed on the moon, or that the climate is heating up, or that the holocaust occurred. They like to create controversy to draw attention to themselves. This is nonsense that does not merit CNN's coverage.

    November 23, 2009 at 9:29 am |
  78. Jay

    FACT
    Parents pass on traits to their young
    FACT
    Reproduction is not duplication, there is observable change
    FACT
    Some changes make offspring better able to survive
    FACT
    These changes are passed on
    EVOLUTION!
    Every year we need a new flu shot because of evolution. We need new antibiotics because of evolution.

    November 23, 2009 at 8:44 am |
  79. russell

    For All the BRAINWASHED:

    EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE...

    ...it is CONJECTURE.

    What did Darwin do but sit on an island [Galapagos] and draw conclusions based on his observations.

    THAT, my friends is not science, but theory.

    November 23, 2009 at 8:32 am |
  80. The balance

    This is what we get for eating from the Tree of Knowledge.

    November 23, 2009 at 8:13 am |
  81. Rick

    I had heard that at the end of his life, Darwin regrouped on evolution and tried to reexplain that he had found his theory to be full of hot air.

    November 23, 2009 at 7:58 am |
1 2 3 4