The point is that science as it is currently being taught has become religious to the exclusion of other very valid and powerful scientific tests and theories.
For instance if a scientist makes note of the complexity of a certain organism, and examines the biology, the DNA, the mechanics and then postulates that it points to intelligent design not random chance. And this theory is based on examination of everything around us which over and over points to those same principles in life and science that infact all nature itself points to intelligence. His theory will be excluded from all public teaching, accepted scientific journals and the like simply because he is not agreeing with a Creator-less mindset. And thus he is ridiculed and excluded from the mainline scientific community.
As atleast one poster stated here, "Evolution is not a thoery. It is a fact." actually reflects the mindset of many of the scientist/politicians that are seeking to lock all opposing views out of the public eye. Religiously.
You can see why their is a growing uproar from the other side of this debate. This is not science but biased, and blind faith. Evolution is a theory! And if it is a good one, it should not fear opposing postulations but must allow debate and opposing valid views. It does not need to try and close the door on all other options, but should welcome other views without feeling threatened.
There are only two scientific arguments for the origins of this world, and the origins of the species. One says that everything came from a Big Bang that started or enhanced natural processes which, over large amounts of time, has led to the world as we know it now. The other says all of creation and the scientific laws and observable organization points to a Creator (Intelligence) that designed this universe and did so in a much faster way than the other view states because this creator is still interacting with this creation. And there are mixed views which combine the two.
Both look at the same evidence with different presuppositions, and the evidence is used to support their theories.
I have been to creation verses naturalistic science debates and am always amazed how much more valid and "scientific" the creation perspective is. It seems to stick more to observable and repeatable science with out alot of the wild theories that later are proven incorrect. There are some things that just can't be theorized around or in the case of the "evolution of man" some of the so-called evidence was even falsified to support the theory. Did you know that? That virtually all of the "transitional" ape to man forms shown in evolutionary textbooks have been proven wrong, and the ones that are left are really just humans. Take away the misleading artwork and bad case of arthritis and put them in a business suit, and there you have...Arnold Schwarzenegger... yes he is really a human.:)
All we are saying, is lighten-up evolutionists. Don't be so close-minded as you claim the creationists are. You can allow opposing views to exist in the arena that matters most the public schools, journals, and halls of science, anything else really isn't science.
I believe that most scientist would agree that they don't have all knowledge, nor do they have all understanding or tools... the minute you add "but" to that statement, you cease to be scientific.
CAREFUL!! Your starting to think logically...this has no place in our evolved evolutionary society. Everything must be viewed through the glasses of evolution and long naturalistic timeframes its the way we do things here. Now be quiet and go away!
I am not surprised that this journal would make this postulation. Its not science, its politics.
The hypocrasy is astounding and goes to prove the reason and need for the debate and teaching of the creationism origins scientific view.
Although I guess an evolutionary view of origins naturally leads to a disrespect and hatred for others of opposing views, calling them idiots and retards because they believe that science proves that evolution DID NOT happen and even can't happen because it is in itself anti-scientific is hypcritical in the highest.
The scientist that have studied long and hard and thought through the physics, biology, mathematics, geology etc. have very powerful reasons to doubt the evolution and naturalistic theories of origins as they are non-scientific in many cases.
Some of the biggest reasons are: 1) life never comes from non-life although there were earlier scientists who believed that maggots appeared from nowhere on rotting meat. This theory is based on non-science err nonsense either works.
2) explosions don't bring order...although one naturalistic-scientist boldly stated, " as a matter of fact, given enough time, a tornado passing through a junkyard could assemble a working Beoing 747"
3) Mutations occur but almost always bring harm and NEVER add new information to a genetic chain. New information is required for one species to change or evolve into another and this does not occur in observable nature anywhere. Infact, DNA which was discovered after the evolution theory is a huge slap in the face to evolution and a dramatic proof of intelligent design.
4) Science itself was vastly vived by a creationist perspective. The creation around us suggests a Creator that is why it is called creation. And the God of Creation created us in His image to create, explore, examine, study, analyze, record, name, etc. which is why us humans are having this whole debate on this thing we created called the world-wide-web in the first place.
These are just a few of the reasons why creationism is a more excellent science than the blind faith of an evoltuionary naturalist viewpoint. Evolutionists can't take the heat which is why they get so angry at opposing views. Step back folks and think for yourselves, study both sides and you will begin to change your mind, its inevitable because reason will hold out where it is free to exist.!!
Reading through many of the comments here, I am amazed!
The hypocrasy is astounding and goes to prove the reason and need for the debate and teaching of creationism.
Although I guess an evolutionary view of origins naturally leads to a disrespect and hatred for others of opposing views, calling them idiots and retards because they believe that science proves that evolution DID NOT happen and even can't happen because it is in itself anti-scientific is hypcritical in the highest.
The scientist that have studied long and hard and thought through the physics, biology, mathematics, geology etc. have very powerful reasons to doubt the evolution and naturalistic theories of origins.
Some of the biggest reasons are: 1) life never comes from non-life although there were earlier scientists who believed that maggots appeared from nowhere on rotting meat. This theory is based on non-science err nonsense either works.
2) explosions don't bring order...although one naturalistic-scientist boldly stated, " as a matter of fact, given enough time, a tornado passing through a junkyard could assemble a working Beoing 747"
3) Mutations occur but almost always bring harm and NEVER add new information to a genetic chain. New information is required for one species to change or evolve into another and this does not occur in observable nature anywhere. Infact, DNA which was discovered after the evolution theory is a huge slap in the face to evolution and a dramatic proof of intelligent design.
4) Science itself was vastly vived by a creationist perspective. The creation around us suggests a Creator that is why it is called creation. And the God of Creation created us in His image to create, explore, examine, study, analyze, record, name, etc. which is why us humans are having this whole debate on this thing we created called the world-wide-web in the first place.
These are just a few of the reasons why creationism is a more excellent science than the blind faith of an evoltuionary naturalist viewpoint. Evolutionists can't take the heat which is why they get so angry at opposing views. Step back folks and think for yourselves, study both sides and you will begin to change your mind, its inevitable because reason will hold out where it is free to exist.!!
Hi Copid!
I am an armchair scientist. Just a computer tech-support guy who has been force-fed an evolutionary view since childhood in my schools, and in my entertainment. Stopped going to Imax, stopped listening to the typical "100 million years ago this fish needed protection from its enemies, so it evolved poisonuos spikes and camoflage..." voice overs in many "science documentaries" and started thinking a little more for myself. Now I just say BS.
It is almost like the dark ages when the "church" held services in all Latin and said to the common folk that the words of scripture are to lofty for you to try and understand so we will interpret it for you. The same is coming from the general sceintific community. "we have bigger words and know more than you so stop trying to discover on your own, and just know that we are correct."
The problem is I met God and got saved and that has screwed me up for this world. I am no longer able to see things the way the tv tells me I should. Sorry but I think there is a shift occurring towards an ID worldview. You look at some layers of rock and say, the naturalistic geologists have written textbooks that prove the truth of how theses layers are formed. I look at the same rock and say wow, thats just like the mini-grand canyon that was formed in hours after Mt. St. Helens erupted... layers and buried animals and all.
"In science class, we teach established scientific results and the scientific method. ID is not an established scientific result and it completely discards the scientific method."
I would say to you that missing links (most of which have been completely debunct) are not the scientific method but art and philisophy. The chain of man to monkey, beautiful artwork, not science... or should I say, a theory not a fact like it is presented in our secular classrooms.
"The geological column clearly shows a time when there were dinosaurs but there were no rabbits. We know that the dinosaurs died somewhere along the lines. Where did the rabbits come from, though?"
Are you sure the dinosaurs are all dead? what makes you say that? I remember hearing about the apparent plesiosaur pulled in the fishing nets of a Japanese fishing boat in 1977 http://www.creationscience.com/FAQ25.html (sorry its the only pic I could find at the moment)
there are also the world wide sightings and legends across the globe of giant creatures that man would hunt and kill. Some of these stories are very recent in the Congo and so forth.
You say the geological column clearly shows a "time" but I say, "BS". The geological column itself is very suspect and has a LOT of hypothesis and theory behind it that many creation scientists and others disagree with. There are layers of rock and sediment with fossils in them is agreed and is seen clearly, but how they got there and when is hotly debated.
As I said, I am not a scientist, just a skeptic. There are many more things that could be said here, but I gots to get to sleep its 4am... yikes.
gnite y'all
" With all due respect, there is no debate. There have been no articles in respectable scientific journals that support ID"
"There is no debate" are you out of your tree? of course there is debate and it is massive has been going on since the Scopes trials and before that. I imagine that the scientific journals of which you speak as being "reputable" are only the ones that have been supporting an evolutionary view. There are many journals and scientists that are purposely not published in those journals because of there "reprehensible" belief in special creation.
If you really feel you've got it all together, then you may want to check out some of the opposing sites like http://www.icr.org/ or http://www.answersingenesis.org/ amongst many.
You have been led to believe and lied to blatantly in some cases where evidence has already proven so called evidence wrong. Yet the school textbooks and Discovery channels still proclaim as absolute fact.
If you can take a step back and just analyze what you hear and see being taught and broadcast everyday from a perspective that is open to all options, you will begin to get a sick feeling in your stomach that you have been misled.
There are basically two main sides both looking at the same evidence and both examining that evidence through their own colored glasses.
Evolution has become more than just a theory, it is a religious belief of its own. The only difference is the secular humanist society wants no other views to be allowed and will use whatever means to shut opposing views down. Thus Intelligent design which is supported by more and more scientists is being locked out of public view.
Science is observations and tests to hypothesize the why's and how's of the world around us. Creation does not stop this process it simply starts with an understanding that intelligence started it all. Evolution says that nothing started it all. The problem is that if there was a creator as the Bible and other religious books and faiths suggest, then evolution as is almost soley taught in our secular society is wrong from the get go, and the evidence will show it.
Creation or intelligent design seems to line up much more than evolution does with real science. For example, you will never see an explosion create an ordered system however evolution starts with this theory as a basis. You will never see an animal involve into another animal as DNA shows this cannot happen. Creation postulates that an intelligent designer created the universe around us and that there is order to the universe. DNA is a genetic blueprint that is incredibly complex and was only realized long after the likes of the first evolutionists who believe that cells were no more complex than a ping pong ball and yet even ping pong balls require an intelligent designer and the tools to make it.
An evolutionist believes that the eye evolved over time through mutations even though it does not make any scientific sense nor is it observable. Can you imagine a retina existing for no reason at all with no lens just a ball forming in the socket of some creature flailing about in the sludge, then thousands or hundreds of thousands of years later, a lens forms and the creature begins to see.
What about the fossil record which shows a massive deluge of water covered the earth and literally buried millions of animals some while they were still eating. entombing and fosillizing them. But the concept of a worldwide flood is shut out of our schools because it points to a God
If you ask theoretical question like where did the Universe come from? you will get two very different views, one that says that God who is eternal pre-existed and created. The other says that sub-atomic particles existed and then exploded.
Both views must be taught it is the only scientific way. I think evolutionist are just scared that their fantasies will be made clear.
Usually the creation (intelligent design) side of the debate is beat down by the religiously pro-evolution bias in the media and elsewhere. Talk about blind faith. Proclaiming to be the only "scientific" viewpoint, they push an unviable and anti-scientific theory as the only option. (ex. a random explosion causing order, or species evolving into other species, etc.)
Now here is a guy who is working in an institution that is actually taking a stand to teach the obvious science of intelligent design, and yet he chooses to begin teaching the regular propoganda. Whats up with that?
It is sad though that some goofballs would beat him up. They were acting like apes lol!
Slashdot Mirror
Is your cheek soar?
:)
Your tongue was pressing into it so powerfully there.
I appreciate your honest feelings in this debate.
...Arnold Schwarzenegger... yes he is really a human. :)
... the minute you add "but" to that statement, you cease to be scientific.
The point is that science as it is currently being taught has become religious to the exclusion of other very valid and powerful scientific tests and theories.
For instance if a scientist makes note of the complexity of a certain organism, and examines the biology, the DNA, the mechanics and then postulates that it points to intelligent design not random chance. And this theory is based on examination of everything around us which over and over points to those same principles in life and science that infact all nature itself points to intelligence. His theory will be excluded from all public teaching, accepted scientific journals and the like simply because he is not agreeing with a Creator-less mindset. And thus he is ridiculed and excluded from the mainline scientific community.
As atleast one poster stated here, "Evolution is not a thoery. It is a fact." actually reflects the mindset of many of the scientist/politicians that are seeking to lock all opposing views out of the public eye. Religiously.
You can see why their is a growing uproar from the other side of this debate. This is not science but biased, and blind faith. Evolution is a theory! And if it is a good one, it should not fear opposing postulations but must allow debate and opposing valid views. It does not need to try and close the door on all other options, but should welcome other views without feeling threatened.
There are only two scientific arguments for the origins of this world, and the origins of the species. One says that everything came from a Big Bang that started or enhanced natural processes which, over large amounts of time, has led to the world as we know it now. The other says all of creation and the scientific laws and observable organization points to a Creator (Intelligence) that designed this universe and did so in a much faster way than the other view states because this creator is still interacting with this creation. And there are mixed views which combine the two.
Both look at the same evidence with different presuppositions, and the evidence is used to support their theories.
I have been to creation verses naturalistic science debates and am always amazed how much more valid and "scientific" the creation perspective is. It seems to stick more to observable and repeatable science with out alot of the wild theories that later are proven incorrect. There are some things that just can't be theorized around or in the case of the "evolution of man" some of the so-called evidence was even falsified to support the theory. Did you know that? That virtually all of the "transitional" ape to man forms shown in evolutionary textbooks have been proven wrong, and the ones that are left are really just humans. Take away the misleading artwork and bad case of arthritis and put them in a business suit, and there you have
All we are saying, is lighten-up evolutionists. Don't be so close-minded as you claim the creationists are. You can allow opposing views to exist in the arena that matters most the public schools, journals, and halls of science, anything else really isn't science.
I believe that most scientist would agree that they don't have all knowledge, nor do they have all understanding or tools
CAREFUL!! Your starting to think logically...this has no place in our evolved evolutionary society. Everything must be viewed through the glasses of evolution and long naturalistic timeframes its the way we do things here. Now be quiet and go away!
Dang!! hadn't thought about them....oh snap You're right!
I am not surprised that this journal would make this postulation. Its not science, its politics.
:)
The hypocrasy is astounding and goes to prove the reason and need for the debate and teaching of the creationism origins scientific view.
Although I guess an evolutionary view of origins naturally leads to a disrespect and hatred for others of opposing views, calling them idiots and retards because they believe that science proves that evolution DID NOT happen and even can't happen because it is in itself anti-scientific is hypcritical in the highest.
The scientist that have studied long and hard and thought through the physics, biology, mathematics, geology etc. have very powerful reasons to doubt the evolution and naturalistic theories of origins as they are non-scientific in many cases.
Some of the biggest reasons are:
1) life never comes from non-life although there were earlier scientists who believed that maggots appeared from nowhere on rotting meat. This theory is based on non-science err nonsense either works.
2) explosions don't bring order...although one naturalistic-scientist boldly stated, " as a matter of fact, given enough time, a tornado passing through a junkyard could assemble a working Beoing 747"
3) Mutations occur but almost always bring harm and NEVER add new information to a genetic chain. New information is required for one species to change or evolve into another and this does not occur in observable nature anywhere. Infact, DNA which was discovered after the evolution theory is a huge slap in the face to evolution and a dramatic proof of intelligent design.
4) Science itself was vastly vived by a creationist perspective. The creation around us suggests a Creator that is why it is called creation. And the God of Creation created us in His image to create, explore, examine, study, analyze, record, name, etc. which is why us humans are having this whole debate on this thing we created called the world-wide-web in the first place.
These are just a few of the reasons why creationism is a more excellent science than the blind faith of an evoltuionary naturalist viewpoint. Evolutionists can't take the heat which is why they get so angry at opposing views. Step back folks and think for yourselves, study both sides and you will begin to change your mind, its inevitable because reason will hold out where it is free to exist.!!
PS Merry Christmas
Reading through many of the comments here, I am amazed!
:)
The hypocrasy is astounding and goes to prove the reason and need for the debate and teaching of creationism.
Although I guess an evolutionary view of origins naturally leads to a disrespect and hatred for others of opposing views, calling them idiots and retards because they believe that science proves that evolution DID NOT happen and even can't happen because it is in itself anti-scientific is hypcritical in the highest.
The scientist that have studied long and hard and thought through the physics, biology, mathematics, geology etc. have very powerful reasons to doubt the evolution and naturalistic theories of origins.
Some of the biggest reasons are:
1) life never comes from non-life although there were earlier scientists who believed that maggots appeared from nowhere on rotting meat. This theory is based on non-science err nonsense either works.
2) explosions don't bring order...although one naturalistic-scientist boldly stated, " as a matter of fact, given enough time, a tornado passing through a junkyard could assemble a working Beoing 747"
3) Mutations occur but almost always bring harm and NEVER add new information to a genetic chain. New information is required for one species to change or evolve into another and this does not occur in observable nature anywhere. Infact, DNA which was discovered after the evolution theory is a huge slap in the face to evolution and a dramatic proof of intelligent design.
4) Science itself was vastly vived by a creationist perspective. The creation around us suggests a Creator that is why it is called creation. And the God of Creation created us in His image to create, explore, examine, study, analyze, record, name, etc. which is why us humans are having this whole debate on this thing we created called the world-wide-web in the first place.
These are just a few of the reasons why creationism is a more excellent science than the blind faith of an evoltuionary naturalist viewpoint. Evolutionists can't take the heat which is why they get so angry at opposing views. Step back folks and think for yourselves, study both sides and you will begin to change your mind, its inevitable because reason will hold out where it is free to exist.!!
PS Merry Christmas
Hi Copid! I am an armchair scientist. Just a computer tech-support guy who has been force-fed an evolutionary view since childhood in my schools, and in my entertainment. Stopped going to Imax, stopped listening to the typical "100 million years ago this fish needed protection from its enemies, so it evolved poisonuos spikes and camoflage..." voice overs in many "science documentaries" and started thinking a little more for myself. Now I just say BS. It is almost like the dark ages when the "church" held services in all Latin and said to the common folk that the words of scripture are to lofty for you to try and understand so we will interpret it for you. The same is coming from the general sceintific community. "we have bigger words and know more than you so stop trying to discover on your own, and just know that we are correct." The problem is I met God and got saved and that has screwed me up for this world. I am no longer able to see things the way the tv tells me I should. Sorry but I think there is a shift occurring towards an ID worldview. You look at some layers of rock and say, the naturalistic geologists have written textbooks that prove the truth of how theses layers are formed. I look at the same rock and say wow, thats just like the mini-grand canyon that was formed in hours after Mt. St. Helens erupted ... layers and buried animals and all.
"In science class, we teach established scientific results and the scientific method. ID is not an established scientific result and it completely discards the scientific method."
I would say to you that missing links (most of which have been completely debunct) are not the scientific method but art and philisophy. The chain of man to monkey, beautiful artwork, not science... or should I say, a theory not a fact like it is presented in our secular classrooms.
"The geological column clearly shows a time when there were dinosaurs but there were no rabbits. We know that the dinosaurs died somewhere along the lines. Where did the rabbits come from, though?"
Are you sure the dinosaurs are all dead? what makes you say that? I remember hearing about the apparent plesiosaur pulled in the fishing nets of a Japanese fishing boat in 1977 http://www.creationscience.com/FAQ25.html (sorry its the only pic I could find at the moment)
there are also the world wide sightings and legends across the globe of giant creatures that man would hunt and kill. Some of these stories are very recent in the Congo and so forth.
You say the geological column clearly shows a "time" but I say, "BS". The geological column itself is very suspect and has a LOT of hypothesis and theory behind it that many creation scientists and others disagree with. There are layers of rock and sediment with fossils in them is agreed and is seen clearly, but how they got there and when is hotly debated.
As I said, I am not a scientist, just a skeptic. There are many more things that could be said here, but I gots to get to sleep its 4am ... yikes.
gnite y'all
" With all due respect, there is no debate. There have been no articles in respectable scientific journals that support ID" "There is no debate" are you out of your tree? of course there is debate and it is massive has been going on since the Scopes trials and before that. I imagine that the scientific journals of which you speak as being "reputable" are only the ones that have been supporting an evolutionary view. There are many journals and scientists that are purposely not published in those journals because of there "reprehensible" belief in special creation. If you really feel you've got it all together, then you may want to check out some of the opposing sites like http://www.icr.org/ or http://www.answersingenesis.org/ amongst many. You have been led to believe and lied to blatantly in some cases where evidence has already proven so called evidence wrong. Yet the school textbooks and Discovery channels still proclaim as absolute fact. If you can take a step back and just analyze what you hear and see being taught and broadcast everyday from a perspective that is open to all options, you will begin to get a sick feeling in your stomach that you have been misled.
I am glad this debate is here because it is huge.
There are basically two main sides both looking at the same evidence and both examining that evidence through their own colored glasses.
Evolution has become more than just a theory, it is a religious belief of its own. The only difference is the secular humanist society wants no other views to be allowed and will use whatever means to shut opposing views down. Thus Intelligent design which is supported by more and more scientists is being locked out of public view.
Science is observations and tests to hypothesize the why's and how's of the world around us. Creation does not stop this process it simply starts with an understanding that intelligence started it all. Evolution says that nothing started it all. The problem is that if there was a creator as the Bible and other religious books and faiths suggest, then evolution as is almost soley taught in our secular society is wrong from the get go, and the evidence will show it.
Creation or intelligent design seems to line up much more than evolution does with real science. For example, you will never see an explosion create an ordered system however evolution starts with this theory as a basis. You will never see an animal involve into another animal as DNA shows this cannot happen. Creation postulates that an intelligent designer created the universe around us and that there is order to the universe. DNA is a genetic blueprint that is incredibly complex and was only realized long after the likes of the first evolutionists who believe that cells were no more complex than a ping pong ball and yet even ping pong balls require an intelligent designer and the tools to make it.
An evolutionist believes that the eye evolved over time through mutations even though it does not make any scientific sense nor is it observable. Can you imagine a retina existing for no reason at all with no lens just a ball forming in the socket of some creature flailing about in the sludge, then thousands or hundreds of thousands of years later, a lens forms and the creature begins to see.
What about the fossil record which shows a massive deluge of water covered the earth and literally buried millions of animals some while they were still eating. entombing and fosillizing them. But the concept of a worldwide flood is shut out of our schools because it points to a God
If you ask theoretical question like where did the Universe come from? you will get two very different views, one that says that God who is eternal pre-existed and created. The other says that sub-atomic particles existed and then exploded.
Both views must be taught it is the only scientific way. I think evolutionist are just scared that their fantasies will be made clear.
Usually the creation (intelligent design) side of the debate is beat down by the religiously pro-evolution bias in the media and elsewhere. Talk about blind faith. Proclaiming to be the only "scientific" viewpoint, they push an unviable and anti-scientific theory as the only option. (ex. a random explosion causing order, or species evolving into other species, etc.) Now here is a guy who is working in an institution that is actually taking a stand to teach the obvious science of intelligent design, and yet he chooses to begin teaching the regular propoganda. Whats up with that? It is sad though that some goofballs would beat him up. They were acting like apes lol!