tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post4530355877750574257..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Anthony Hopkins Schools Charlie Rose on the Religion in ScienceUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger142125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56823028387957944042015-05-08T09:44:31.174-07:002015-05-08T09:44:31.174-07:00Dr John Lennox, Christian and mathmatician, Oxford...Dr John Lennox, Christian and mathmatician, Oxford, dismantles the modern notion promulgated by the new atheists, and indeed the revisionist history that supports it, that "religion" is and always has been at war with science.<br />Faraday, Babbage, Maxwell,Galileo, Dr Stuart Burgess, Dr Andy McIntosh, Dr Jason Lisle, Dr David Menton, are all scientists and Christians. And many more, <br /><br />John Lennox - The "Religion vs Science" Myth<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxxFh0Kn5TkJames MacArthurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039750431252136442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91915281133962423462011-02-10T15:42:29.532-08:002011-02-10T15:42:29.532-08:00Scott,
You're right as taking a reasonable ap...Scott,<br /><br />You're right as taking a reasonable approach to a discussion with a consistent person... but for Neal, we'll have to see.Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32487437321296242112011-02-10T14:47:05.361-08:002011-02-10T14:47:05.361-08:00Geoxus:Neal's just shooting anywhere he can.
...Geoxus:<b>Neal's just shooting anywhere he can.</b><br /><br />Agreed.<br /><br />However, even if Neal is only throwing out objections to attack a field of science that conflicts with his theological beliefs, his objections along with his positive claims present an implied theory of biological complexity. We can then critique this theory and even compare it to existing interpretations of science, such as instrumentalism, justificationism etc. <br /><br />On one hand, Neal gives the impression that he want's to be taken seriously. But when we assume his objections along with his positive claims are true, in reality, and that all observations must conform to them, we can clearly see it conflicts with his own beliefs and even reveals details about his motivations for rejecting evolutionary theory. <br /><br />In addition, we can point out that this implied theory of an intelligent designer actually fails to explain the biological complexity we observe. While it's possible that his claims could represent some actual state of affairs, in reality, he cannot defend them as an <b>explanation</b>. As such, his argument (creationism) becomes indefensible for the biological complexity we observe.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61857112063476993352011-02-10T14:44:16.907-08:002011-02-10T14:44:16.907-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31393092243115621842011-02-10T11:48:31.430-08:002011-02-10T11:48:31.430-08:00Scott,
I think you're giving too much credit ...Scott,<br /><br />I think you're giving too much credit to Neal's rationalisations. He was simply parroting Duane Gish:<br /><br />http://www.icr.org/article/mammal-like-reptiles/<br /><br />Neal's just shooting anywhere he can. He says that to say that evolution did something is meaningless, and yet somehow it's also contrary to evidence (yes, it has no meaning but he can still test it against evidence!). And if he can't find contradictory evidence, <b>then</b> he'll say that it doesn't explain the evidence. But don't ask him any details or to the address real science. If he were an instrumentalist, he would have expressed that objection upfront. He's simply moving the goalposts. I see no indication of a coherent philosophy of science from his part, other than the infallibility of his interpretation of the Bible.Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55695835501765765672011-02-10T08:54:31.439-08:002011-02-10T08:54:31.439-08:00For an instrumentalist, a scientific theory is sim...For an instrumentalist, a scientific theory is simply a collection assertions about reality which are either observed or not observed. As such, if a prediction is not observed the theory must be false. <br /><br />This is analogous with religious prophecy. Either the prophecy is observed, in which case it's true, or it's not observed, in which case it's false. This is not to say there may not be some underlying chain of events that cause the prophesied outcome, but it's not relevant or necessary as the predicted outcome is the focus. <br /><br />While predictions are valuable in themselves, the real values is a theory's underlying explanations from which these predictions are ultimately derived. It's these explanations of phenomena that initially represent assertions, not the predictions we derive from them. <br /><br />It's likely that in Neal's case, everything is explained by a supernatural cause, which represents a boundary by which human reasoning cannot pass. But if this is the case, then this is actually a justification, not an explanation. The supernatural is essentially unexplainable.<br /><br />As such, it's likely that Neal's search is not for a better explanation of phenomena, but a better justification of phenomena. And that justification is the revelation of God, which he believes is beyond philosophy, induction or even mathematical deduction.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51876529955853090452011-02-10T08:17:22.586-08:002011-02-10T08:17:22.586-08:00I made the above comments from my iPad, which was ...I made the above comments from my iPad, which was logged in to the wrong account.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59737581036402230362011-02-10T07:33:57.806-08:002011-02-10T07:33:57.806-08:00Geoxes,
My guess is that Neal is an instrumentali...Geoxes,<br /><br />My guess is that Neal is an instrumentalist in that science never actually explains anything or that there are some phenomena that cannot be explained. Period.<br /><br />Essentially, he is asserting that biological complexity is beyond human reasoning and problem solving. <br /><br />So, regardless of what observations we make, Neal will always argue that evolution can not explain the organ of Corti. Nor would he consider the details of the organ of Corti relevant in his decision to dismiss it.<br /><br />How smart Neal is irrelevant as he's taken it off the table of phenomena that can be explained. Period.<br /><br />This is the conflict illustrated by the Galileo affair. This is evidence of the warfare between science and the supernatural.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03676779525472905266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10072648106779960612011-02-10T07:08:49.543-08:002011-02-10T07:08:49.543-08:00Neal,
Has science explained anything, let alone ...Neal, <br /><br />Has science explained anything, let alone the biological complexity we observe?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03676779525472905266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32353722679287156932011-02-09T18:53:51.661-08:002011-02-09T18:53:51.661-08:00Neal,
Sure you do. A good theory stands by showin...Neal,<br /><br /><i>Sure you do. A good theory stands by showing how it works. It doesn't stand by default. This is where Geoxus is stuck.</i><br /><br />No, Neal. I'm stuck at getting you to admit that your own ignorance and misplaced trust in pseudo-scientific charlatans led you to make a stupid and false point. If you really had a clue about what the organ of Corti is and how is the structure of the inner ear of amniotes you'd never said that the organ of Corti is inexplicable for evolution. You're not that stupid.<br /><br />Nobody expects you to know everything, just keep yourself from pontificating on things you are ignorant about.Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52820057807182772542011-02-09T18:30:58.070-08:002011-02-09T18:30:58.070-08:00Neal: Sure you do. A good theory stands by showin...Neal: <b> Sure you do. A good theory stands by showing how it works. It doesn't stand by default. </b><br /><br />In case it's not clear, I'm comparing and contrasting two different theories for the biological complexity we observe: your implied theory and the evolutionary theory of biological complexity. As such, I don't need to "show" anything.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6881109499261382642011-02-09T18:03:41.423-08:002011-02-09T18:03:41.423-08:00Scott: I don't have to show anything.
Neal: ...Scott: <i>I don't have to show anything. </i><br /><br />Neal: <b>Sure you do. A good theory stands by showing how it works. It doesn't stand by default. This is where Geoxus is stuck.</b><br /><br />Neal, I don't have to show anything in regards to the particular argument I'm making. Specifically, my argument is that evolutionary theory explains at least part of the biological complexity we observe. However, you're denying this while simultaneously claiming the biological complexity we observe was designed. <br /><br />Scott: <i>Furthermore, you've acknowledged that mutations do effect the biological complexly we observe, even if only negatively. </i><br /><br />Neal: <b>No. I said no such thing.</b><br /><br />It seems that your not actually reading what I wrote. Are you suggesting that mutations never reduce or disable functionality, ever? Again, for you to deny this, you'd need to start flat out rejecting much of modern biology. <br /><br />Neal:<b> think where evolutionists greatly err is assuming that small mutations add up directionally... </b><br /><br />Again, see above. <br /><br />The fact that any particular species existed at on point, as indicated by the fossil record, but has gone extinct some between then and now, represents part of the concrete biological complexity we observe. This is part of the observed phenomena that evolutionary theory explains. <br /><br />For example, let's assume a species incurs a mutation which negatively reduces it's ability as a whole. However, at the time the mutation occurred this functionally was not critical for it's survival, so it did not have a critical impact on it's overall fitness. <br /><br />Now, move forward to some point in the future. This reduction becomes relevant due to a significant change in environmental conditions, variations in food supplies, competition from the introduction of a species that retained this ability, etc. The lost of functionality caused by the mutation in the past ultimately results in the entire species going extinct, while the other species survives in it's absence. <br /><br />What we actually observe is that fewer that 2% of species observed in the fossil record still exist while over 98% went extinct.<br /><br />Is the fact that human beings are part of the less than 2% that survived an undirected, natural out outcome or does it represent an intentional outcome planed by an intelligent designer?<br /><br />If the latter, then this designer would need to either manipulate or compensate for evolutionary processes to ensure the particular species we still observe today retained it's original features and did not go extinct. If the former than evolutionary processes, at least in part, played a part in determining when a species lost features or ended up going extinct since they were not compensated for. <br /><br />So, again, if you claim that the biological complexity we observe really is designed, then evolutionary theory explains at least part of the biological complexity we observe. <br /><br />Can we at least agree on this?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5608047439260852992011-02-09T14:13:07.338-08:002011-02-09T14:13:07.338-08:00Tedford:
A good theory stands by showing how it w...Tedford:<br /><br /><i>A good theory stands by showing how it works.</i><br /><br />I like that and I buy that. <br /><br />Your theory invokes special creation, doesn't it? So let's get some specifics. Such as how and when did God or the design team create tapeworms? Did they create them out of nothing or out of chemicals lying around? Did they create them before or after Adam ate the apple? <br /><br />I have lots more questions, but you can start on these. OK?<br /><br />(Let me remind you, Tedford, that your reputation as a design theorist is on the line.)Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19713825144525266722011-02-09T09:57:21.883-08:002011-02-09T09:57:21.883-08:00Scott, your post and my replies:
I don't have...Scott, your post and my replies:<br /><br />I don't have to show anything. <br /><br />--<br /><br />ME: Sure you do. A good theory stands by showing how it works. It doesn't stand by default. This is where Geoxus is stuck.<br /><br />---<br /><br /><br /><br />Again, I'll remind you that you've claimed the biological complexity we observe represents intentional design on the part of an intelligent agent. <br /><br /><br />----<br /><br />ME: I'll go along with that!<br /><br />-----<br />Furthermore, you've acknowledged that mutations do effect the biological complexly we observe, even if only negatively. <br /><br />----<br /><br />ME: No. I said no such thing. Though beneficial mutations are rare, they do occur. At best, the greater the number of neutral mutations required before an adaptive advantage is available, the greater the improbability of the adaptive advantage occuring. Getting the neutral mutations set in the populations is a further hurdle. Lack of sufficient time and population size are further hurdles. Then, getting the adaptive advantage to become set in a population is still another hurdle. <br /><br />-----<br /><br /> If this is the case, in reality, then the fact that dogs have conserved specific features while not going extinct must be at least in part due to manipulation of these processes by a supposed designer. Otherwise, what we observed could not be considered designed. It's really that simple. <br /><br />You've painted yourself into a corner by making both claims simultaneously. <br /><br /><br />----<br /><br />ME: As I said, mutations can tweak the genome around the fringes, but the basic design hasn't changed. Dogs are still dogs. I think where evolutionists greatly err is assuming that small mutations add up directionally... see above.<br /><br />----<br />Again, you've essentially asserted that the biological complexity we observe is beyond human reason and problem solving. It's off the table to be explained - ever. This is an assertion on your part. <br /><br /><br />----<br /><br />ME: No. The problem with evolutionists is that they subbornly refuse to accept what we do know about nature. We pretty much understand the normal and usual limits of natural selection and mutation. Evolutionists are in denial and are hoping for a zillion lucky unnatural events to occur in too short a time available.<br /><br />Your response to genetic variation in dogs is not logical according to what we know about them. You can't just assume that the forces that govern mutational activity on one level will apply at all levels. The difference between Newton's mathematics, Einsteins general relativity and quantum mechanics show that you can't automatically make assumptions like this about nature. Evolutionists need to give out more than assumptions like this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77698733546003567612011-02-09T07:54:37.342-08:002011-02-09T07:54:37.342-08:00Neal,
Perhaps this question will help clarify th...Neal, <br /><br />Perhaps this question will help clarify the problem. <br /><br />Part of the biological complexity we observe is that some species go extinct, while others have not. In fact, over 98% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. <br /><br />Was this outcome undirected or were the species that survived and the species that went extinct part of God's grand design?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72417765871810316132011-02-09T07:32:28.989-08:002011-02-09T07:32:28.989-08:00Neal wrote: what we observe is some genetic variat...Neal wrote: <b>what we observe is some genetic variation, but notice that fruit flies are still very much fruit flies, dogs are still dogs, cats are still cats, e-coli is still e-coli. Mutations can tinker around the edges of the genome but you can't show anything empirically beyond that. </b><br /><br />Neal, <br /><br />I don't have to show anything. This is because you've made claims about the very same biological complexity which would have implications about these very observations should it actually be true, in reality. <br /><br />Again, I'll remind you that you've claimed the biological complexity we observe represents intentional design on the part of an intelligent agent. Furthermore, you've acknowledged that mutations do effect the biological complexly we observe, even if only negatively. <br /><br />If this is the case, in reality, then the fact that dogs have conserved specific features while not going extinct must be at least in part due to manipulation of these processes by a supposed designer. Otherwise, what we observed could not be considered designed. It's really that simple. <br /><br />You've painted yourself into a corner by making both claims simultaneously. <br /><br /><b>Natural selection is powerless to select for multiple intermediate neutral mutations before an adaptive advantage is conferred. It becomes a probability game with not enough time or population sizes and so evolutionists lose.</b><br /><br />Again, you've essentially asserted that the biological complexity we observe is beyond human reason and problem solving. It's off the table to be explained - ever. This is an assertion on your part. <br /><br /><b>Saying that evolution did it, not only is meaningless, but contradictory to the evidence. Evolutionists are subbornly resisting the facts of natures ability to change.</b><br /><br />Again, you've already admitted that nature makes changes, even if only negatively. If what we observe truly represents design, then this designer must have at least, in part, manipulated evolutionary processes to obtain constancy once any species was created.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2703817012154260892011-02-09T07:19:39.313-08:002011-02-09T07:19:39.313-08:00Neal,
Saying that evolution did it, not only is m...Neal,<br /><br /><i>Saying that evolution did it, not only is meaningless, but contradictory to the evidence.</i><br /><br />It can't be meaningless <b>and</b> contradictory to evidence. If it has no meaning, it can't be contradictory to anything. Make up your mind.<br /><br /><i>Evolutionists are subbornly resisting the facts of natures ability to change.</i><br /><br />Talking about stubbornness, still waiting for you to show the incredible differences between the organ of Corti and the basilar papillae and how they couldn't have evolved.Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61296203345358652692011-02-09T06:44:16.237-08:002011-02-09T06:44:16.237-08:00Scott, what we observe is some genetic variation, ...Scott, what we observe is some genetic variation, but notice that fruit flies are still very much fruit flies, dogs are still dogs, cats are still cats, e-coli is still e-coli. Mutations can tinker around the edges of the genome but you can't show anything empirically beyond that. Natural selection is powerless to select for multiple intermediate neutral mutations before an adaptive advantage is conferred. It becomes a probability game with not enough time or population sizes and so evolutionists lose. You can write a billion words to make excuses, but that's the bottom line. Saying that evolution did it, not only is meaningless, but contradictory to the evidence. Evolutionists are subbornly resisting the facts of natures ability to change.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2861339043748717972011-02-08T18:53:43.869-08:002011-02-08T18:53:43.869-08:00-- continued --
However, should we attempt to ta...-- continued -- <br /><br />However, should we attempt to take your implied theory seriously, in that we assume it is true in reality and that all explanations must conform to it, we realize it is flawed. <br /><br />If your a creationist, in that the fossil record represents individual species that were created separately, either at once or staggered over time, the designer must manipulate this process going forward to maintaining the features he wants, while avoiding the features he does not. He must compensate for this process to ensure just the right species go extinct, while others do not. <br /><br />So, unless you'd like to rethink or clarify your claim that the biological complexity we observe was actually designed, in reality, (or start flat out rejecting much of modern biology) it would seem that evolutionary processes must represent at least part of the explanation for the biological complexity we actually observe. <br /><br />Of course, at this point, we're reached one of many variants of intelligent design, in that some or all of the biological complexity we observe is due to a designer intentionally manipulated evolutionary processes. <br /><br />In these cases, I'd ask does adding an intelligent agent to a theory of evolutionary processes actually explain the biological complexity we observe, in reality? <br /><br />No, it doesn't. What do I mean by this?<br /><br />Again, I'm referring to an attempt to take intelligent design seriously, in that we assume it is true in reality and that all explanations must conform to it.<br /><br />Note that when I say "explain biological complexity", I'm NOT referring to an explanation designed to support your particular beliefs on sin, salvation, etc. which would hinge on theological views of human origin. Instead, I'm referring to concrete biological complexity we observe, such as the specific patterns found in the fossil record, conserved proteins across species in molecular biology, why some species can synthesize vitamin-c while other cannot, why we have five fingers, rather than four size or some other number of digits, etc. <br /><br />Adding an abstract designer to the mix doesn't add any explanatory power to the biological complexity we observe. This is because it fails to explain why a designer would choose this small change rather than some other small change. <br /><br />Saying, "that's just what the designer must have wanted." does't explain why eyes in mammals and mollusks perform similar tasks yet have significantly different structures. Nor does saying there is some mysterious reason which we cannot understand. <br /><br />As such, Intelligent design is an explanation-less theory which represents a convoluted elaboration of evolutionary processes. <br /><br />Explanation-less theories are indefensible as explanations since they fail to explain the phenomena they are attempting to explain. It's really that simple. <br /><br />Of course, I'd invite you, or anyone else, to show how adding a designer to the mix actually helps to better explain the concrete biological complexity we observe.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60332704813903701582011-02-08T18:51:19.211-08:002011-02-08T18:51:19.211-08:00My objection is that universal common descent is n...<b>My objection is that universal common descent is not supported by the fossil evidence or the empirical evidence or by logic.</b><br /><br />When you say, "not supported … by logic", you've drawn an arbitrary boundary where the biological complexity we observe is beyond logic, human reasoning and problem solving. It's unexplainable. You've taken it off the table. <br /><br /><b>It is contrary to the Bible.</b><br /><br />Of course, what you really mean is that it's contrary to *your* interpretation of the Bible. <br /><br /><b>Common Sense is lost to Common Descent. I can't think of any good reason to support it. </b><br /><br />Again, you think an explanation of biological complexity which extends beyond "God did it" is in opposition to common sense. As such, it's no surprise that you can't think of any good reason to support it. This is an assertion on your part. <br /><br /><b>I believe that God created a great mosiac of species over time and that some genetic variation has occured. Natural selection is real but far limited in its ability than the fanciful musings of evolutionists would dogmatically assert.</b><br /><br />On one hand, you acknowledge that evolutionarily processes actually do effect species development, even if only negatively. This is because you use negative mutations as part of your anti-evolutionary argument. But, on the other hand, you also claim that biological complexity we observe represents intelligent design. <br /><br />In claiming both of these views to be true, you're presenting implied theory of biological complexity. While this was probably not your intention, as your real goal is likely to paint such complexity as unexplainable, it's an unavoidable consequence of your claims.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84638404669779017832011-02-08T12:55:44.119-08:002011-02-08T12:55:44.119-08:00Neal,
I must be so patient. As you didn't (su...Neal,<br /><br />I must be so patient. As you didn't (surely couldn't*) point the differences between the basilar papilla and the organ of Corti, here you have a link to a paper illustrating the three major kinds of basilar papilla and the organ of Corti (fig. 2). Note that the authors actually use the term "basilar papilla" for the "organ of Corti" of mammals too!<br /><br />http://zebra.biol.sc.edu/~vogt/trina/evolution%20choclea.pdf<br /><br />If you don't believe me, compare the "mammalian basilar papilla" in fig. 2 to the Wikipedia diagrams of the organ of Corti.<br /><br />What about the remarkable differences between the organ of Corti and the basillar papillae? Turns out that the organ is about as different from any basilar papilla as the three other kinds of basilar papillae are from each other. Which are the features of the organ of Corti that couldn't possibly have evolved?<br /><br />Neal, you found a goldmine here. I suggest you to invent a new term for the mammalian femur. Call it "long bone of Dembski", or something like that. Now you can say that macroevolution is impossible because reptiles don't have long bones of Dembski, they only have plain & stinkin' femurs.<br /><br />* I guess "Dr." Gish wasn't very detalied:<br />http://www.icr.org/article/mammal-like-reptiles/<br /><br />Yet another "good presentation of the facts" I guess.Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13255498244342142362011-02-08T10:48:35.609-08:002011-02-08T10:48:35.609-08:00Scott,
My objection is that universal common des...Scott, <br /><br />My objection is that universal common descent is not supported by the fossil evidence or the empirical evidence or by logic. It is contrary to the Bible. Common Sense is lost to Common Descent. I can't think of any good reason to support it. <br /><br />I believe that God created a great mosiac of species over time and that some genetic variation has occured. Natural selection is real but far limited in its ability than the fanciful musings of evolutionists would dogmatically assert. Evolutionists are staking their science on an "unnatural" naturalism. Nature doesn't do what you say it can do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66312634295631060332011-02-08T08:25:54.811-08:002011-02-08T08:25:54.811-08:00Neal,
If evolution shouldn't be taught as an...Neal, <br /><br />If evolution shouldn't be taught as an explanation for the biological complexity we observe, then what exactly should take it's place?<br /><br />Are you a creationist, in that the fossil record represents individual species that were created separately, either at once or staggered over time, or does your position represent one of many variants of intelligent design, in that some or all of the biological complexity we observe is due to a designer intentionally manipulated evolutionary processes?<br /><br />Or perhaps your real objection is that evolutionary theory conflicts with your religious beliefs?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79706091196589401682011-02-08T07:08:31.563-08:002011-02-08T07:08:31.563-08:00Teford:
It is certainly not for lack of education...Teford:<br /><br /><i>It is certainly not for lack of education that these teachers are not getting on board.</i><br /><br />If you had read the article and looked at the graphic you would have learned that the teachers who were most confident about teaching evolution were those who had completed a course (one course) on evolution. A little knowledge is dangerous, as Satan well knows.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79147696427393500912011-02-08T07:02:35.715-08:002011-02-08T07:02:35.715-08:00Tedford:
Perhaps if Darwinists started with forci...Tedford:<br /><br /><i>Perhaps if Darwinists started with forcing three year olds to chant verses out of the Origin of Species until they memorize them they could get their advocacy rates up a bit for future teachers.</i><br /><br />Hilarious. Apparently you know a lot about forcing three year olds to memorize and chant verses!Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.com