"The bible was not meant to be taken literally no matter what the church may tell you. The stories are meant to guide you not be taken as scientific proof."
Actually, to his credit Pope John Paul stated that the bible was meant to be a guide on how to get to heaven not a description of how it was created. Unfortunately, the religious zealots in country have ignored the late Pope's insightful comments. "Hank" actually seems to not know many creationists: "the real difference between most biologists and creationists is how the spark of life was created, not how it evolved after that. If people want to believe an old guy with a beard kicked things off, that's okay, as long as actual science gets taught in schools."
That is not even close to what most creationists believe. More importantly, it is not okay that people believe in a divine "first mover". "Actual science" excludes miracles. The actual topic of debate regarding evolution and creationism is over what science is. Creationists, ID'ers, etc. fail to accept that science is testable, falsifiable, and uniformiatian, not mention their general fundamental lack of comprehension of evolutionary theory (calling it "Darwinian", and/or "just a theory").

I was wondering what you evolutionists think about this article:

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4650/

I know it has creationist agenda behind it, but can you deny the facts of the article?

At the very least is it proof that we dont understand decay?

If chemistry is wrong, then present the alternative. If physics is wrong then present the alternative.

Don't simply say that you don't believe it, because quite frankly your belief or disbelief is irrelevant.

But that's not the scientific method, western science (built on its Catholic roots) requires falsification of a hypothesis, not ex nihilo synthesis of a new one.

Couldn't agree with you more on the use of the word 'belief', it should be stricken from scientific discourse because it is an inappropriate appellate that can only lead to misunderstandings. I also find that the use of the word 'belief' or its close cousins encourages an 'us vs. them' attitude in the target audience. Because of this, I question the efficacy of the use of such words and urge everyone to stick to more clear verbiage.

I reject the premise of the original author - evolution is NOT the foundational/uniting factor of modern biology. We do have a foundational and uniting factor, we call it quite obviously, the Central Dogma. This basic model goes - DNA to RNA to Protein. The evolutionist attempts to hijack the foundational principle is intellectually dishonest and they should know better. Without the aptly named Central Dogma, one could not construct a model of evolution. Furthermore, to say that evolution is 'foundational' to modern biology is putting the cart before the horse. Aside from the philosophical warm-fuzzy feeling its advocates gain, what does evolution REALLY do to affect a person's life? Drugs don't care about evolutionary related mechanisms, they simply work or do not work based on the mechanisms in vivo. Our knowledge of interspecies homology does not advance based on our devotion to evolution, we have good, hard sequencing and structure data on what stuff looks like on the molecular level, we gain nothing (other than the throw away line in grant applications and publications) that "based on homology, structure P is evolutionarily linked to structure Q". No data is required to support this conjecture, we don't need a large infrastructure of philosophical hand waving to note that two similar things may be relate for practical reasons.

Allow me to throw in my credentials before being shrugged off as a fundamentalist kook, I hold a BS in Biochemistry and I'm working on a PhD in Neuropharmacology, so my training and familiarity with the literature is quite up to date. I know credentialism is not sufficient to vette an idea or prove a point, I only mention it to invalidate the first tier arguments on debating 'expertise' so that we may focus on more important (and interesting) matters at hand.

I further reject the premise that evolution has been properly established by traditional scientific methodology. Evolution has never been observed, its been conjectured. All of the laboratory experiments to 'prove' evolution have a fatal flaw in that the protocol was designed by an external intelligence.

Do not misunderstand me - Evolution as a hypothetical model is different from the mountain of data amassed on a key principle of evolution, namely natural selection. Natural selection works great to explain the transition from wolf to dog but fails when attempting to explain speciation events like dog to cat. We simply don't have a theory to explain why a common ancestor would be sufficiently split off and develop in such a way that the number of chromosomes or embryonic structure would create distinct species. We do have lots of conjecture and hand waving about a speciation event (i.e. a pair of lizards stowed away on hurricane debris to make their way to the Galapagos) but we don't have any actual data. This is a key point the evolutionist fails to prove. Personally, I am open to this kind of data drastically changing my view, and in a way I would like to see it proven so that we could put this whole kerfuffle to bed one way or the other, but simply put, the leg work has not been done. It may not be possible to collect this type of data, if that is the case then the theory of evolution must be bounded by what we can prove while we hold proper, professional agnosticism on such causal events.

Philosophically, the major objection to evolution is the dogmatic devotion to 'randomness'. There is no data to prove the process is random, indeed I am not certain that is knowable on a fundamental level. None the less the evolutionist asserts it as gospel. Until we can prove one way or the other through competing falsifiable hypotheses, the evolutionist is making a prejudicial argument with a fundamental logical fallacy.

I further reject the notion that high school biology teachers who personally disagree with evolution wouldn't teach it in class. This is a case of transference. The 'Evilutionary' blogger is transferring his prejudice to another group, the blogger knows that he wouldn't teach something in class he doesn't believe so he mistakenly asserts that everyone else would do the same. By this logic an evangelical postman wouldn't deliver pornography, every political science department would have to carefully balance the party affiliations of its faculty (instead of the >95% Democrat majority, as campaign contribution data indicate), and Muslim cab drivers would refuse transport seeing-eye dogs for the blind.... oh wait, that last one already happened. Like it or not, evolution is the current hypothesis of origins, one of the fundamental (though in my view, misplaced) questions of modern biology. High school biology teachers are paid to teach the current, best understanding of biology and most take this as a point of professional duty. My personal experience with high school biology teachers concerned about the evolution debate is that they tend to emphasize natural selection (which has been empirically proven) and de-emphasize the macro hypothesis of evolution. Those that deviate from the academic consensus of random evolution (like global warming) are more likely to include the flaws of the theory, which are legion and serious. Shouldn't we applaud those that encourage young people to develop individual and critical thinking skills? As a scientist seeking to better understand a principle of nature, shouldn't we be honest and open about the weak points in a model instead of sticking a finger in the dyke? I have never understood the elitist hostility directed at those who question evolution. The inability/unwillingness to broach certain fundamental (and quite obvious) flaws in the theory means that the evolutionary argument will not advance. Such intellectual stagnation will only hurt the evolutionary argument in the long run.

A final misunderstanding by the evolutionists - science and religion cannot be in conflict. It's simply not possible for a creator god to build a universe with certain rules that are counter to his plan (also known as 'squaring the circle'). The fault always lands on us. On Scientist. One must have humility when interpreting the data, simply put, 'the data are what the data are'. If the data disprove the scripture then its our fault for misinterpreting the scripture. If the data does not properly reflect the actual state of the universe (must we recount the number of falsified theories that were thought 'rock solid' by their contemporaries?), its due to a flaw of experimental design or misinterpretation of the observer.

A bit less intellectual snobbery by the evolution side of the argument would go a long way to resolving the debate. Both creationists and IDers have some good, legitimate questions about evolution. They're poking holes in a 'theory' that has grown beyond the scope of the data. Elites in the universities really don't have much to gain by patronizingly frowning down on fundamentalists ('Brights' vs. 'Dims' if you prefer). Elites have always made the false assumption that their opinion will disproportionately impact the masses, where in actuality the large swaths of evolutionary skeptics already have a firm belief system in place and tend to ignore the Elites the belittle or insult them. Just have some humility about the interpretation of the data, use clear language, seriously consider the objections of the evolutionary skeptics, and I guarantee you will reach a better level of understanding between the two groups.

All that being said, evolution and its teaching is an issue that will take at least a case of brandy to figure out.

Regardless of the state of your personal beliefs, that simply isn't enough to qualify as an opinion in science.

I've never been accused of that before. Maybe I simply wasn't clear. I never made an argument hinging on an understanding of scripture that is somehow disgronified into a scientific analysis.

Gerhard also seems to have overlooked one of the foundations of science that I had referenced earlier, the scientific method. It isn't the imperative of the creationist or the IDers to hold up a scientific rationale for the universe, its the job of the scientist to make the proper measurements and work through the data to build a theory. Simply put, the creationist has an explanation for the universe, God did it, they can give logical reasoning to explain certain parameters but the base of the argument is faith. Science plays by different rules, the base of its pillar is also faith, faith in our ability to interpret the data, faith that we're making the right measurements, and faith that others publishing in the field are competent. The scientist has a method of going about building his case and that requires use of a falsifiable hypothesis. For the creationist or IDer to cross over and play on the scientist's side of the street, they don't have to bring their own measurements because the don't grant the premise of the argument, that man is capable of knowing everything inside this universe.

It's not a bit fair that the creationists and IDers can poke holes in the logic or the data of evolution. Sorry but thems the rules. If a scientist wanted to make an epistemological argument against the creationist, he would have to speak the creationists language and find the proper kind of data to advance the argument. If you're going to fight the creationists on their own turf you have to take theology.

The idea that creationists don't fight within our parameters is hardly new nor is it all that relevant. Gerhard mentions the myopic creationist but to be honest I've never met one and I've lived in Texas my entire life (supposedly I should be able to swing an axe and hit a dozen of them).

I'm afraid Gerhard walked right into what I've previously cautioned against, which is assuming the motives of his opposition. Both creationists and IDers know the classical arguments against evolution and generally understand the theory pretty well simply because it's not that hard. Evolution just doesn't have laboratory or experimental data to it so to actually hold it up as a scientific model you've got to be willing to debate it philosophically. Predictably, modern scientists don't do philosophy very well. The result seems to be an attempt to dismiss the questioner (which isn't working particularly well) or using big words ("well then how do you explain punctuated evolution of protein homologies?") or claiming that everyone agrees with you (a scientific consensus, anyone?).

I am not attempting to ascribe bad motives to any of the players but I've seen to many egos hurt by probing questions on scientific methodology or data interpretation. This is completely understandable since a scientists theory is the basis of his career, most when challenged will at least outwardly express a welcoming of the question in an attempt to prove his own broad mindedness. Traditionally this is called paying a penny of humility for a pound of pride.

The casual dismissal of the creationist because he simply 'can't understand the complexity of the cell' simply does not work. At this time I'm not questioning the validity of the argument, I'm questioning its efficacy. Science is complex stuff but if we can't make it understandable to the layman then we are making a critical mistake which is only worsened by asking him to foot bill (who here has not received money from the NIH?).

As I stated earlier, questions are not the problem. The primary focus seems to be unfounded criticisms followed up with assertions as to the truth of THEIR position. There is no open discussion when admission of any flaws is touted as a defeat for evolution and a victory for creationism. That's not honest discourse.

I'll wrap up by once again asking who Gerhard is talking about. I've never met these people. I've never seen them in any significant publication. We must recognize the 'Elvis Effect' which quite plainly references polling data that shows about 12% of Americans think Elvis is still alive. 25% also believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by a cabal of Jews. You simply can't convince some people. The vast majority of people are open to reasoned argument and you will make progress if you actually treat their objections with proper weight and reply in easy to understand language. The problem is that most scientists, when challenged by a creationist or IDer, roll their eyes and give a smarmy answer or dodge the question or use some intellectual hand waving technique like, "we haven't quite figured out how evolution explain creation of new intracellular organs but I'm sure we eventually will." Most creationists and IDers have at least a rudimentary understanding of philosophical debating techniques and they know an answer like the one cited means the creationist has won the argument. Once a scientist has to argue from a position of faith, the creationist wins. It's not fair but that's the way it is.

One last note - anyone notice that creationists and IDers and evolution skeptics in general tend to rely on the same arguments? Maybe they do that because it works. The majority of people have no problem with evolution and creation sitting side by side in their heads, simple answer is - God directed evolution, have a nice day.

Instead of complaining that creationists have to have it "THEIR" way, do something about it. Figure out how to answer their questions or learn how to explain why the question doesn't make sense. Creationists know what you mean if you point out that their question is similar to arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, just be ready to explain why without proving that random or directed evolution has as little impact on their lives as the legions of angels on ever smaller pins.

Great, I have your attention for a moment.

What I did was experiment because whenever someone starts reading theosophy, they run into the admonition that they should not take what they read on faith, but should put it to the test. They ask us to test, for instance, the existence of the masters, and so we begin to search for them. Sometimes it is written as if we will find them inside of us on some other level of existence.

What I did to attempt a discovery was follow the instructions as they are presented. I became vegetarian - which you know needs at least 7 years to be a firm feat (all cells or whatever). I abstained from smoking, and drinking, and from sex for a time (I have two children.) I practiced many forms of worship (theosophy promotes most) and I became enthralled with a group that is separate from the claims of theosophy. In fact, the fundamental classes of the "I AM" Temple contain reference to H.P. Blavatsky and that her work failed. Even while a life member of The Theosophical Society, I managed to participate in The Saint Germain Foundation ("I AM" Temple) without comment upon this separate organization in order not to engage in conflict or ruin my chances at participating willingly in their study.

What I discovered is that while there are many differences in the two organizations and their approach to life, they partially confirm the other group's claims. In theosophy, we read that someone is needed (in the last quarter of the last century) to bring to light H.P. Blavatsky's work in a new way. I joined in 1975 and my epiphany occurred in 1995. In theosophy, we read that Blavatsky's work was to have included a fifth volume to THE SECRET DOCTRINE, a work that would include biographical and character details of a list of adepts or masters. She died before it could be written, however the Saint Germain Foundation contains a long list of characters which they ask us to address and associate with for our activities. The "I AM" activity, as it is called, does not suggest to us other races and rarely comments upon H.P.B.'s work. Instead, they have Saint Germain claiming the present earth (and humanity) is 4 million years old.

Isn't it true that what might constitute a human to one group may not be within the scope of the word's use by another group? I expect that many people would not consider a human as any other than 5th race due to the influence of the girasas kingdom upon this race and its advent within the past few million years. Of course, the first person of the 5th race would not necessarily be a starting point except in some people's minds. It might take a larger number in existence before an inception could be established in the mind's of scientists. It's a difficult discussion, but we could do it.

I only want to bring to attention my findings. I do not want to attempt to direct the entire scientific or religious world in what steps they should take upon hearing about my work. I haven't had any success in getting the idea discussed in all these years and I am painfully aware that it is my own lack of talent that likely decides my fate, but why does this have to be the final word for mankind on the whole. We, each of us, have very marvelous abilities which could make up for lacks within me. I need help and I have asked for it repeatedly for over 13 years, but I still haven't seemed to be able to make any friends or partners in this venture - not even The Theosophical Society, painfully enough.