[Chi-townChief]

You have to wonder that why, if this theory of evolution is all that great, do these sycophant "journalists" like McNamee need to continuously shill for it and talk down others to try to make it look good.

[steve8714]

I don’t agree that 40% believe life has existed in its present form since the beginning of time.
40% reject the argument that random chance caused it all.

[ChocChipCookie]

I turned to my son and shook my head and said: "Jesus. ..."

Charming.

[muawiyah]

McNamee suggests that evolution is as solidly grounded as the theory of gravity.

Interestingly enough it's barely been a century now since Einstein questioned the theory of gravity and came up with something entirely different.

Even now there are physicists working on more advanced theories of gravity.

The current theory of evolution, if it's no better grounded than the theory of gravity, is definitely one doomed puppy. (Bwahahahahahahaha)

Reporters should learn something before they write nonsense.

[Stark_GOP]

“A diorama of Adam and Eve tossing Frisbees to dinosaurs?”

“But step outside the realm of real science and rational thought...”

“...swayed by the junk science and misinformation of religiously motivated critics...”

“...it’s impossible to reason with zealots.”

---

No bias here. /s

[bigcat32]

Macro-evolution is a fairy-tale for the mathematically challenged.

[cookcounty]

""We already know that there is a theological explanation available for any unresolved question about nature. But that is not science," he wrote.

"....But this is not science."

Hokum. In the life sciences, "Science" starts with the assumption that Darwinian evolution is the explanation for any unresolved question about nature.

[Ozone34]

Yeah, once my office pc is powerful enough to make basic observations and calculations about the stuff in my house it will conclude that my DVD player evolved from my VHS player, and my microwave oven from my toaster!

[ahayes]

"There's a huge number of the population that really doesn't care," he said. "So they go to a spiritual adviser. It's not as though they've looked at the evidence and decided evolution is wrong."

Bingo. Most people really don't give a darn and have never bothered to look into the evidence because they're too busy with other things in their lives. Unfortunate, but that's the way humans work.

[stefanbatory]

Its opposing “theory” is a part of the best-selling book of all-time. No news person can claim that title for themselves...

[Non-Sequitur]

You have to wonder that why, if this theory of evolution is all that great, do these sycophant "journalists" like McNamee need to continuously shill for it and talk down others to try to make it look good.

Probably because no other area of science is being attacked to regularly by people who offer even less evidence supporing their own theory.

[Logophile]

And that, in fact, was Grande's overarching message in the e-mail debate: Science is science, and religion is religion. They are not necessarily in conflict but belong in different realms.

This is an important point, one that the writer should have kept in mind before composing this article. If he had, he would not have set up a false dichotomy between "real science and rational thought" on the one side and "pseudo-science and faith before reason" on the other.

The truth is, one can accept the theory of evolution and yet believe that God created the earth. There need be no conflict, not even a philosophical one.

This journalist could have written a truly useful article showing how one can be both a scientist and a religious believer. Instead, he has written a not-so-subtle dig at religious people. What a wasted opportunity.

[Hoodat]

"Evolution is one of science's best-supported theories."

The Big Lie. Evolution is without support.

(See: Cambian Explosion)

[MrB]

"The theory of evolution," Grande says, "benefits a society interested in improving."

Faith in a Creator to which all will be held accountable improves society immeasurably more than some theory whose whole purpose is to remove belief in said Creator to the end that all will define their own morality, leading to anarchy and eventual enslavement to those who garner enough power to define right and wrong for everyone else.

[petro45acp]

Best supported?

PSHAW!

1. “Theory”
2. Evolution of the eye animation.....non-existent
3. Cambrian jump... big hole.
4. Lack of fossil record... proven.
... list continues in “GODLESS” by Ann Coulter.

Just more “consensus” science, the doctrine of secular religionists.

Ruefully,

[js1138]

You have to wonder that why, if this theory of evolution is all that great, do these sycophant "journalists" like McNamee need to continuously shill for it and talk down others to try to make it look good.

You could ask the same question about capitalism and conservatism.

[BibChr]

“Logic weak: ratchet up rhetoric”

[trebb]

You'd be wrong, of course. You'd be on the same side of history as the biblical literalists who mocked Copernicus and Galileo for saying the Earth revolves around the sun.

I wonder where the Bible says that the Earth is the center of the universe? That inane statement makes the rest of his article worthless.

[TalonDJ]

and about this there is zero controversy -- among scientists.

That is always a good way to start a discussion. Just accuse the other side of unscienctificness. Sort of sets things on the right footing right from the start.

It's not as though they've looked at the evidence and decided evolution is wrong.

Keep telling yourself that.

Grande's reply was to point out that every time proponents of ID resolve a mystery of nature by crediting an "intelligent designer," they create a scientific "dead end."

Funny, that is EXACTLY the sort of thing I say about how evolutionary theory just throws out 'it took millions of years' anytime something is shown to be statistically nearly infinitely improbable. Yes, if you just tack 'God did it' onto anything you don't want to explain then the line of inquiry is stifled. But if you start from he assumption that everything MUST have arisen from chance because there is no meaning or design to the universe then you are also cutting off lines of inquiry. IF we all think that way, and IF an intelligent designer did design things, then we will never figure out things.

"The theory of evolution," Grande says, "benefits a society interested in improving."

Careful, your socialist agenda is showing.

[Zionist Conspirator]

1)The evolution=gravity argument is dishonest. Gravity is a theory about how the world works. Evolution is a theory about how everything came into existence (ie, the former is science, the latter is history). And since "natural laws" are a part of "everything," they could not have governed its creation.

2)"Theistic evolutionists" contradict themselves when they say that evolution does not exclude G-d but that evolution was not Divinely guided (which is all that ID really says). If Divine guidance of evolution is "creationism dressed in different clothes," then evolution excludes G-d. So why claim otherwise? Unless one is congenitally dishonest, that is. And the argument that a Divine hand guiding evolution will one day be made unnecessary by new knowledge most certainly renders the arguer unqualified to insist that "evolution does not exclude G-d."

3)These people who mock "creationists" are very, very careful about which creationists they choose to mock. These people are perfectly willing to respect and "live and let live" when it comes to Black Baptists, Orthodox Jews, or (goodness knows!) "indigenous pipples." After all, the eighteenth century "enlightenment" gave us the "noble savage," didn't it? No, since religious fundamentalism is a common denominator to all these groups but only one is consistently ridiculed and told to give up their religious beliefs and cling to "reason," then we know scientifically that religious fundamentalism is not the reason this one group is always singled out. And that's a theory about how the world works, not about something that once happened.

[RightWhale]

why, if this theory of evolution is all that great, do these sycophant "journalists" like McNamee need to continuously shill for it

Nobody actually uses the TOE except as a topic of dinner debate.