[A Balrog of Morgoth]

Actually, I tend to believe in evolution, and that it is all part of God's plan.

Funny how so many who take evolution as an article of faith constantly try to alter our behavior to prevent global warming or whatever the useful environemtal meme of the day is. If evolution works as advertised, will a 2 degree change in the earth's temperature really cause mass extinctions? Wouldn't the most adaptable species prosper, while those that are less adaptable will either migrate, die out, or evolve? If evolution is such a basic scientific principle, who are we to attempt to halt it?

They constantly preach the awesome power of nature, all the while trying to convince us to freeze nature in stasis like a fly in amber.

[nyconse]

One of the most fascinating bits of science lately is that Palies now believe that all modern men (and women) are descended from one woman who came out of Africa-imagine that. It reinforces the biblical version of creation. I have never believed evolution contradicted the biblical version-things evolve...so?

[G.Mason]

" ... The isolated quotation [organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed”] strips out the implied emphasis on “appear to”, leaving exactly what a simple-mindedly pious audience — in Kansas, for instance — wants to hear."

What a pomous English a$$. This bloke has as much of an idea of what people in Kansas think as the U.S. Senate.

[patriot_wes]

The Bottom line is really quite simple....

(1)Do you believe in a creator God and the words & teachings He's given us in His book?

(2)Or do you choose not to believe.

You're side may be correct. Our side my be right. BUT If our side is correct, I sure wouldn't want to be in your place at the last roundup!

[Junior]

Dawkins isn't religion bashing. He's creationist bashing. There is a big difference.

[Junior]

Ping.

[snarks_when_bored]

I'm afraid I don't see any 'religion bashing' here; Dawkins is simply criticizing creationist canards.

[wideawake]

Watch all the so-called conservatives who will applaud this raging leftist assh*le as he bashes Kansans.

Any other Eurotrash writer who showed such overweening, obnoxious contempt for Middle Americans would be derided - Robert Fisk wouldn't get a pass.

But Dawkins will get one from many FReepers.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Science mines ignorance out of boredom.
Creationists mine ignorance as a tool to challenge scientific dogma.
Dawkins makes a fine preacher.

[PGalt]

We were all created. Many devolve.

[wallcrawlr]

ping

Creation ping list
See my profile for info

[Raycpa]

7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
but fools [a] despise wisdom and discipline.

Proverbs 1:6-8

[ArGee]

Notice the biased logic: if theory A fails in some particular, theory B must be right!

This statement is absolutely true. The logic is biased and is my chief complaint with "Scientific Creationism." It's not an attempt to put forth proof of creationism, it's an attempt to debunk Darwinism. If they succeed, they will not have proven creationism, they will merely have left a vacuum.

That said, there is a lot of good research that can come out of Intelligent Design study. Whether the end result is to prove or disprove a design to the universe, it should not be merely tossed off.

It is obvious that Mount Rushmore did not happen by natural causes. Even if we did not know the history of the sculpting of that mountain, we would never believe it was created by erosion or any other natural cause of which we know.

But "It is obvious" is problematic in science. The first task of ID is to define the characteristics of something that was designed vs. something that wasn't. This would provide the basis for discussion.

There is no need to stop either naturalistic nor super-naturalistic researchers in their tracks while the discussion is going on. Trying to shut ID down because you don't like the implication is a bad idea.

Shalom.

[narby]

I've just found a new tag....

[SerpentDove]

Madalyn Murray O'Hare used to be an atheist.

[cyborg]

I guess I'm ignorant. Oh well...science is forever trying to catch up with God anyway. Nothing special about them. When they've made a human being from scratch on the first try, I'll be impressed.

[FatherofFive]

"The standard methodology of creationists is to find some phenomenon in nature which Darwinism cannot readily explain."

It's not evolution, but I am still seeking a scientific explanation for the Big Bang. How could all the matter in all the galaxies and the universe come from a single point, the size of the head of a pin?

Creation makes more sense to me.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The deceitful misquoting of scientists to suit an anti-scientific agenda ranks among the many unchristian habits of fundamentalist authors.

This should say, "...un-Christian..."

[MEGoody]

More proof that evols believe that others' disagreement with evolutionary theory will somehow negatively impact their lives in a signficant way.

Sure wish I knew what they are so afraid of.

[little jeremiah]

Ping to self for later pingout.

One point the august author fails to mention is that there are many creationists who do not toe the standard "Biblical" line. Creationists or intelligent design people who recognize that the earth is millions of years old, but do not swallow Darwinist theory for a plethora of reasons.

Trying to promote evolution by dismantling "the earth is only 6,000 years old" and then patting oneself on the back is silliness.

"Forbidden Archeology - The Hidden History of the Human Race" by Michael Cremo is a good place to start.