Comments on: Darwin Day: A Celebration of Science, Not Conflict

By: stephane mot

stephane mot — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 02:00:40 +0000

The imposture of Intelligent Design lies in fake debates. There is no debate between science and religion. ID is about fundamentalism and restoring theocracy : ID is about fundamentalism v. religion and about fundamentalism v. democracy, science, and education.

Genuine people of faith must join genuine people of science to fight this imposture.

By: Kzog

Kzog — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:15:52 +0000

I enjoyed the tone of this article. Science has much to thank religion for. In fact, Proverbs 25:2 (New International Version) states, “2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.” You note that it doesn’t state that the kings actually discover any truth…but that they search. Both sides want to claim the high-ground, but both sides are populated by fallible people.

By: Michael F. Sarabia

Michael F. Sarabia — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:36:26 +0000

Darwin is the best example of how an unproven hypothesis can become a “Scientific Fact” without any proof.
There is no need to prove the existance of a “Missing Link” we only need to find one. Some of us have met likely candidates from time to time but we never bother with the proof that there must be one. All we need to do is find one, or convince others, we found one.
We cannot even agree on the test that must be met by a “Missing Link”. A Human-looking person unable to think?
Gee, I know some like that!
Or, you mean, unable to think logically? Now, it gets personal, I best stop here or, I’ll be nominated.
On the other hand, the fact that animals evolve is clearly accepted, even in my family, the youngest were taller than all the others, including my parents. Clearly, we evolve.

On the other hand, why study a hypothesis on how a monkey could become human? What would be the benefit of that?
Do we think we could improve on the process and begin with a better monkey? Didn’t Hitler assume something like that?

The money wasted on the teaching of evolution could be better used to heal all those unable to work and pay for their medicines. Or, do we want Mother Teresa to take care of the poor and the homeless? Careful, this has nothing to do with religion, she, and her people, helped people of all religions and always respected all religions. Too bad she is not as influential as Darwin.
Did you know that his key paper was written by Wallace and he merely added his name because he had the power to do it as head of the organization? Gee, how little has the world evolved since then.
Did you know that there was no basis for his “theory” that had anything to do with the Galapagos Island.
His preparation to be a Naturalist on the expedition was his suddenly terminated studies of Religion?
His father had to pay for him to board the ship, while the practice was, otherwise, for the Naturalist to be a paid position. Why was he in a hurry to leave?
He never completed his religious studies to be a minister.

His sole proof that he had written anything before Wallace was a copy of a letter he SENT to an American woman that had gone back to America.
Why would anybody keep a copy of a personal letter SENT?
The, alleged, original was never found, if it existed.
————-
I can hardly wait until DNA segments are added to a monkey and they begin to write poetry, better than I, no doubt.
I would drink to that, but not with the monkey, probably, they don’t like alcohol. Hey, who is superior?

By: IrnBru001

IrnBru001 — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:07:23 +0000

You contradict yourself in this post. You state a fact:

“Gallup polls taken over several decades consistently show that roughly 45 percent of Americans agree with the stunning statement, “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.””

And then draw a completely opposite conclusion.

“…then our vast middle of compromisers and reconciliationists—those who understand the gist of evolution by natural selection, but do not experience that knowledge as a solvent of their religious beliefs.”

If 45%, via the Gallup polls are crazy fundamentalists about evolution it’s impossible to have a ‘vast middle of compromisers.’ This middle you promote couldn’t be any greater then 55%, which isn’t even close to vast, and that assumes the first category, atheists, is zero and it’s not.

I know there is an appeal to say there really exists a middle ground between reason and religion, and believe that’s where most people are anyways, but it doesn’t seem to actually exist. I’m not sure it should.

By: N Waff

N Waff — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:08:02 +0000

=============================
= GOOGLE PROMOTES
= DARWIN’S FINCHES –
= EVIDENCE OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN
=============================
I’m so glad Google used “Darwin’s Finches” in their logo since they are evidence of Intelligent Design and not evolution. All the finches have the same DNA/genes, so there is no “evolution” from one beak sized bird to another. Designed in the finch is a regulator in the brain that releases the appropriate amount of protein to cause the beak to grown long or short. The same finch can have either a long or short beak – what an Intelligent Design.