The Bible also says that Joshua made the sun stand still (not that the earth stopped) This is a myth from the centuries of belief that the sun revolves around the earth.

The point is, the Bible says alot of stuff that science has clearly shown to be untrue. I would be interested to see the context of your Biblical "assertion" that the Universe is not only expanding, but eccelerating as well.

Revalation, it seems obvious to me, (along with Psalms) is THE book of the Bible with the most symbolism. I suspect your 'quote' is part of some poetic apocolypse that is highly subjectable to interpretation

The book of revelation says the universe will have fled away in the distant future. This did not comport with ANY cosmological theory. 1998 at the high-Z supernova survey team observing type 11A's in distant galaxy's dicovered that the expansion of the universe is accelerating and has proven once again the Bible is the Word of God and atheist based science is a joke.

That judge is courageous- a bush selected judge went for the truth.

I remember that biology book. The only problem was remembering all that information like the outer layers of plant skin.

Intelligent Design is merely an admission on the part of Christians that Biblical Creationism is a failed doctrine. It is a repackaging into a watered down version; in a last ditch effort to save some remnant of their dogma.

In fact, by so adamantly defending I.T., they are denouncing their faith in the Bible and Christianity.

Of course, many claim that to God "one day is as a thousand years", and so, when the Bible says 6 days, it could easily mean 14 billion years. But Genesis clearly states what a day is; God seperated the light from the dark and called it day and night.

Furthermore, in every other instance where the Bible mentions a certain number of days, it is taken as Gospel. It is only in the disproven Creation story where they try to falsely rationalize away very clearly stated scripture.

But, let us suppose that God may have meant 14 billion years by 6 days. (i know that 14 billion years is not accurate..i merely round down to make a point) Then each day consisted of 2.3billion years.

That means that it took God 2.3billion years to create man, which sounds to me like there must have been some evolution taking place. Not to mention that it is silly to claim that God doesn't say what he means. If their God says it took 6days to create the universe, how dare these Christians belittle his acheivement and discount his word by claiming it took so much longer?

Pat Robertson is only one man who rants on his views about him . Not every single person is like but there are .

It makes me laugh to see people really don't pay attention to what others say. In the video it CLEARLY states (several times might I add) what the term "theory" means in science. I'm amazed at how stubborn people are to facts and truth. It actually makes me angry that the Dover board members knew they were in the wrong, but were trying to save their own asses by hiding behind "good intentions."

I am a Christian, but I also strongly believe in evolution and science. I believe God created the universe, but not in "6 days." 6 days to God could be billions and billions of years to us mere humans. The harmony of religion and science is all intended by God. I also believe that God gave us intelligence and logic. For all those "Christians" out there who have such large egos to think that humans are superior to everything else on earth, is contradicting their belief. Who was it that created the universe? Man? I think not! Look in Genesis, it says God did. Don't forget, we humans could very well be minor players in God's world if he so chose it.

Please don't call yourself "Christian" if you can't learn to abide by the most fundamental of Christian beliefs. It gives the rest of us, who love science, who believe in evolution, who aren't threatening people, who live in the modern world, and who are religious a bad name.

It's amazing to me that, time and time again, the defenders of ID--so-called "good Christians"--threaten to kill any person who opposes them in any way. And Pat Robertson continues to prove just how despicable he is. Do these folks, including Robertson, really think that God is happy when they belittle human life and threaten others with murder? And these are the same folks who say evolution deprives humans of their dignity. Unbelievable.

Ramen, Casey.
I had an anthropology professor who made us watch this film, and I was left dumbfounded by the absurd claims made by creationists and their sneaky little cousins, Intelligent Designers.

In all this debate, I haven't found one person who mentions the fact that a theory in the context of science is very different from the conventional interpretation of the word.
In science, a theory is a hypothesis (a testable explanation of a phenomenon) that has been repeatedly tested, and is well supported by current evidence and experimental testing. (Source: the fifth edition of Human Antiquity: An Introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology by Kenneth L. Feder and Michael Alan Park)
Based on this definition, intelligent design and creationism are not "scientific theories". They are not even hypotheses, because it is impossible to test these ideas. These ideas are beliefs, that rely on faith in a higher power (created by what, I ask you?).
It is absolutely ridiculous that scientific curriculum could be changed based on the argument that "evolution is not a theory", when it fits, in all aspects, the very definition of a theory.
On a note of more personal complaint: "Intelligent design is not about religion"? Are you kidding me? Telling me that an invisible, omniscient, intelligent entity controls how life on earth came to exist is somehow different from asking me to believe in a god? My disbelief in religion aside, this is a nonsensical statement. No, intelligent design and creationism are not the same thing, but they are both religious concepts.

I will admit that I am a Christian and do not believe in macroevolution, but I do believe in microevolution. I am a proponent of intelligent design. I will however say that I don't believe intelligent design is a Science (it is a belief) and I don't believe it belongs anywhere in school besides religion courses, especially if it is going to be taught by people who are so adamantly against it.

As an evolutionary biologist I would like to say that this documentary barely scratches the surface. We know an obscene amount about evolution. For instance, we know that
1 extra genes are accidentally made
2 genes move around
3 entire genomes have multiplied and/or combined with other genomes
4 entire chromosomes can mutate and hybridize or be multiplied even reorganized
5 organisms have moved inside of others (chloroplast in plants, mitochondria in plants and animals)and coordinated their DNA replication
6 viruses and bacteria move DNA from one organism to another all the time.
7 Tiny mutations in genes that regulate other genes can have drastic effects. This is responsible for countless quantities of evolution. Think about centipedes and millipedes with multiple segments that are all identical. Its one set of genes being turned on again and again.
These are the mechanisms that drive macro-evolution. Single mutations are responsible for very little evolution. We also know now that behavioral isolation is far more powerful than geographic isolation as an evolutionary trigger (if you stop mating with something it is as powerful as having never come in contact). When I started studying evolution I thought there was still a lot to discover, but DNA and molecular biology blew the lid off years ago.
Today's most interesting work is being done by population and bacterial ecological that can actually track gene flow and the resulting behavioral changes in real time. Its amazing to watch a pesticide resistance gene in a crop pest or antibiotic resistance gene in a bacteria travel around a population. It can trigger radical changes in the organisms behavior that ultimately yield new species.
Finally, the idea that biologists have never witnessed speciation is not really true. We watch bacteria evolve all the time and the more we look we see genes "self segregating" in all types of organisms. The real problem lies in the idea of the species itself. There is still no set defenition of a species. We use a different set of rules for plants, animals, and various microbes. In animals it is generally defined by the ability to produce fertil offspring. But this ability can be dependent on a single protien on the egg wall (or the sperm's shell) that allows for sprem recognition. Therefore a single mution could prevent two individuals of the same species from reproducing (COMMON IN HUMANS) while two organisms that evolved away from each other for millemium can still reproduce because the mutations didn't occur in sperm or egg genes (this results in a diverse gene pool instead of new species but diverse gene pools are a fundamental part of evolution). It is at this point that either 1) behavioral differences (generally preference for a mate) among members of the population or 2) geography, must force the individuals into isolation to trigger accelerated evolution. We see this happening all over the place. So we see speciation happenening all the time but we dont have the genetic code for all the sperma and egg recognition genes to be sure when and where its happening (it wouldn't be glamorious work). BUT ITS HAPPENING EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Indeed, SeanP. I couldn't have said it better myself.

I love that in all of the religious fight against science the most commonly used tools are the internet, computers, blogging, television and text messaging. As I have said before the wolves are leading the sheep. I resent the fact that they had the brass to use the word Intelligent in Intelligent Design.
Remember your scorn of science when your children or loved ones are sick and you rush them to a hospital. Somehow I think your reliance on prayer will take second place when someone you love is stricken with a disease or have an accident.

Fairy tales don't heal bones and imaginary friends don't provide cures, science does.

Charles Darwin
Survival of the fittest
I am looking for online for the same movie

Jesus, what are you waiting for, Christmas?

do not worry my child, soon i will come and destory all of the non beleivers and save all of my children

R3DS74R - You are so smart and so brave. You put your thoughts out here and challenge another man's thoughts by calling him cawardly...yet you use your "star wars" name. No need to reply back. You've aped the lies of the textbooks quite nicely. There is nothing else to say on either side of this argument.

@ Bill Vollrath, primarily. You made a number of statements which can easily be refuted. Let's discuss for a sec.

1: First, the only assumptions evolution "must" make (namely, that A: species undergo mutations which may, on occasion, be beneficial to their survival and, B: these mutations can accrete over time and result in speciation) are easily testable and have been consistently supported by evidence - such as the fossil amphibi-fish presented in the program.

2: Your anecdote about the fish and your cat demonstrates a fundamental mis-understanding about how the geological record is interpreted. No one would ever assume that your cat had somehow evolved from the fish heads - because fish heads can be found in layers of rock that are far older than the layers of rock we've ever found anything resembling a cat in. This is due to a process called stratification - I have a feeling you'd learn something by Googling the term "geological stratification". This comment box is too small to really address it.

3: You expressed a basic misunderstanding of how astronomical forces (specifically universal expansion, star formation, and planetary accretion) are understood to work in your second comment. There is no accepted theory which says that "nothing" exploded. The universe was always made of something; it just wasn't anything like the form we observe it in today. Rocks are agglomerations of heavy elements that have been formed over billions of years in supernova explosions. Rain, being water, is a relatively common compound throughout the universe, born of simple chemical reactions that occur easily, on their own, with no special assistance.

4: The question of life's true origin is difficult, but I think your definition could use a revision. The first "life" may really just have been an organic molecule capable of creating copies of itself in its own exact chemical likeness. It didn't _do_ anything else - didn't breathe, eat, interact with the environment in any meaningful way, etc. It just underwent chemical reactions and made copies of itself. This was all "life" amounted to for millions and millions of years. But because mutations were also occurring, the molecules slowly changed.

5: I don't see how the idea of evolution requires any faith whatsoever; it simply requires one not to be intellectually lazy and expect to understand a 13-billion year process immediately and with minimal effort. I have no special scientific education (I'm a recording engineer), but over the past five years or so I've devoted a bit of my time each week to learning something about the universe I live in. I've now got a fair (basic) understanding of what's known, and even understand parts of it in fine detail. I'd warrant that if you took the time you spend in church, and instead spent it reading books on astronomy, biology, and chemistry, you'd find it required very little "faith" to believe in evolution.

If you want a readable, accessible book that's a broad primer on all three subjects, try The Dragons Of Eden by Carl Sagan. It's about twenty years old, and should be at any library worth a damn.

6: How is micro-evolution acceptable, but not macro-evolution? If you allow micro-evolutions to accumulate over millions of years, you've got macro-evolution. That's all it is. Nothing "instantly" changes; it's not as though fish are hatching humans from their eggs (as you suggested). Next time you think about it, try thinking much smaller, because that's the scale it works on. Don't think of "a fish becoming a human". Think "a fish becoming a fish-like amphibian". Then, think of that becoming a full-fledged amphibian - then that, an amphibian-like reptile, and so on. Evolution doesn't happen in huge leaps. It takes miniscule baby-steps.

Finally, despite what you say, I don't think you or anyone else is fundamentally "stupid". Humans are smart creatures who are great at learning from their environment - the continual success of our species over the past 10,000 years is evidence enough for me. If your environment has presented wrong information to you as fact, then that's no fault of yours. I applaud you for naming yourself a "Seeker". If you keep seeking, doing your own research and not making cowardly intellectual compromises, I have no doubt you'll gain a much better understanding of the world, and find that nature's truth often holds even more wonder, beauty, and inspiration than mankind's fictions.

Well, besides the fact that america is not the "stupidest nation on earth" (whatever that means); why would you want innocent children to be indoctrinated into a life of delusion?

All believers start out as innocent non-believing babies.

All humans are essentially clones of each other , by an accident of birth, however you would call me an american. Nations are arbitrary separations, we are all humans and we all deserve to be taught the truth.

Parental indoctrination of youth is disgusting in all its forms, everywhere.

Americans should be allowed to teach their children whatever fairy-tale they want, that way they will continue to be the stupidest nation on earth. Fundamentalists deserve their religion. I have evolved to be a superior being than the faithful, pathetic, scared, bullies, deviants.

Hi Jesus,
Thanks for dropping a line.
Are lot of shit has been hitting the fan down here.
Where have you been when we needed you?

hello my children

No-one suggested Canadians live in igloos or are stupid lol. It is very true though to say that in North America there is much more of an issue made of the evolution v religion debate, as this documentary shows very well.

Neither would I suggest people take Wikipedia as the absolute truth. The information in it comes from other sources that can be checked and verified however. Unlike religious people, I don't need an absolute truth, science rarely affords us such things, we can't be 100% sure about so many things, we can only infer something is true. However I think there's a lot more truth on Wikipedia than in the Bible. What astounds me is that people take the Bible to be the supreme truth, allowing for no others, and there are people who would die for their belief in what the Bible says.

Well here in Canada we're just all nice and stupid and live in igloos. Heck we don't even regard everything we read at Wikipedia as truth! pfffttt

I'm familiar with the correlation between IQ and religions but I'm sure the most important correlation is cultural. Isolation from outside influences as well as threatening indoctrination are powerful causes. Dawkins' states that there could be biological influences which increases the possibility of accepting religion or that it could play an important role in natural selection. However, I have another idea. What if many who are indoctrinated from a young age simply get a mental blockade (we know from neurology how the brain can reprogram itself) which rejects any outside influence which could contradict their dogmas by triggering feelings of severe anger or hate? It could seem farfetched but fundamentalists tend to like sending hate-mails to public atheists. On the other hand, the Bible doesn't really refrain from violence. You can also find correlations between religion and crimes by violence by comparing statistics of American states.

Well said Henrik. Also I'd like to point out that in the few studies done on religion and intelligence, a negative correlation was found i.e. those with a higher IQ were less likely to believe in a God.

This is from Wikipedia:

Commenting on the study in The Daily Telegraph, (Richard) Lynn said "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

I don't want to sound too arrogant but I get the impression that debates like these can only be taken seriously in USA. I have never been there so I might be wrong, but the impression I get through the Internet and from the media is that it's frighteningly dogmatic in its religious believes and in its patriotism. I wonder if someone has objectively studied this phenomenon? I'd like to know exactly how/why USA and Europe has become so culturally different.

Sepheryn, I too have been on both sides of this argument having subscribed to atheism for a number of years in my late teens and early 20s when being accountable to God was not in the least bit interesting to me. But as I grew older and studied more I found that I just could not rationalize the idea of nothing exploding, producing rocks which then got wet from rain that came from nowhere turning them into soup which somehow came to life and evolved into human beings. The idea of evolution requires much more faith than believing that God (the only God...the God of the Universe...the Creator) made everything just the way they are. The evidence I have is the wonder of the world and everything in it.

Now, micro-evolution which produces variations like big dogs, little dogs, wolves and foxes, I can rationalize; but macro-evolution like a fish becoming a human I can't.

However, I did not mean to belittle you or anyone else on their own search for truth. Looking back at my comments I see that I may have appeared to have done that. I apologize. Trying make myself look smart by making someone else look stupid is just not right...but I do tend to get called stupid by a lot of evolutionists and am tempted to retaliate. I am not really very smart...but I do believe I am reasonable...and I know I am a skeptic. I can't rationalize a man living in the belly of a fish for 3 days either.

So, my religion, I suppose, is "Seeker." I want to belive that Jesus Christ was who he said he was and I do believe that there is only one God. What you or I call him, her or it does not matter.

Tigerass, having been a believer on both sides of this debate I find I am in a privileged position to compare the two conflicting sides. It just so happens that one side is much more enthralling and convincing than the other. I don't regret finding 'reason' for a second. It almost seems as if some people are scared to believe in evolution.

You can contact me if you like sepherynx@hotmail.co.uk =)

wow Sepheryn.... You're my new best friend...

It is far from 'rediculous'. Evolution is NOT a religion, despite what fundamentalists may think. It is based on observing the facts and coming to logical conclusions. Are you telling me that nearly all scientists and biologists, certified in their fields, are wrong? That's such a silly position to take.

What distinguishes science from a religion is that scientific ideas change. The ancients had an Earth-centric view of the universe, until Copernicus and Galileo showed that the Earth is not the centre of the universe, or even the solar system. Yet they were persecuted for their findings and by who? The church, which held back science.

See, when new evidence comes to light that contradicts an accepted theory, the theory is modified, and we learn a little more about our world. However, for religious people like you, they refute all evidence that contradicts their 'theory', and they learn nothing new. Your theory is thousands of years old, and we live in the year 2009. Scientific theories advance by the day.

Now, unlike a belief in a creation event, there is actually evidence for evolution, mountains of evidence. You obviously have a limited understanding of how evolution works. It is very simple in principle, that the animals with the traits that help them best survive in their environment are those which are most likely to breed and therefore pass on their useful genes, while the weaker creatures die off. Over a long long time, the changes lead to entirely new forms of life. It is very simple to grasp.

The reality of our world (as best as we know it) is that we are the result of 13.7 billion years of stellar evolution, the evolution of our solar system and also life on this planet, from simple organisms to the human brain. In essence, we are nature reflecting upon and questioning it's own existence.

If you think that is less awe-inspiring than some jealous 'God' created in the mind of man, who is all too human himself, then you need to rethink your outlook on life. It is the most satisfying feeling I have known. Like I said, I used to be a born-again Christian, and now I'm leaning towards atheism. There is no comparison, the reality of life is far more beautiful than the tired old myths of the Bible and similar texts, and the evidence for the two isn't worth comparing.

You believe yourself to be the most superior of God's creations? I believe myself to be one stepping stone in a story of life that goes on billions of years. Scientists are not rigid fundamentalists, they are educated people who observe the evidence. What evidence do you observe to back up your theories? And which God exactly would you suggest one believe in? Zeus? Thor? Vishnu? What makes yours any more or less real than those?

So your religion then is fundamental humanist. Look, human chromosome 2 may be thought by scientists to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes but I think God made monkeys with 24 and humans with 23. The scientists have to ASSUME there was a common ancestor which will inevitably lead them back to searching for skeletons that are half man/half monkey which they won't find. What about the flat-headed fish carcass? There are all kinds of ways that 2 different kinds of species would be found preserved in the same spot where they died a thousand years ago. I just threw some fish heads in the garden where the family cat is buried. 1000 years from now maybe some smart scientist will dig up those bones and postulate that the cat evolved from a fish. Rediculous!

There are some very misinformed comments here, and some are spot on. The evolution of life on Earth is pretty indisputable. I refer all 'non-believers' to research human Chromosome 2, an outstanding proof that are are related to other primates, and share a common ancestry with them. I used to be a fundamentalist Christian, and a creation believer. It was the so-called 'science' of creationism that drew me in. After a few years, I grew away from this. I researched subjects I'd avoided before, mainly evolution and cosmology. Having seen both sides, and believing both, I can truly say there is no controversy or debate to be had. Evolution might as well be a fact, and the chances that there is a god are slim. Religion brings more bad to the world than good. I would go as far to say ban the bible. It infects people's minds and they act irrationally, thinking they know everything, when all they know in reality are the ravings of bronze age nutters.

Evolution IS a religion! I don't care how complicated the science is...The THEORY of evolution has to ASSUME something...that means it has to BELIEVE something that can't be proven...when that happens...it's religion...so you can't seperate church and state because they are both religions

I don't understand why anyone would believe that a species would evolve to fit into it's environment. The birds that were created with long beaks gather in an area where food is in holes and those with short beaks go to where the food is on the surface. It's not rocket science! Why the heck don't humans have wings? Why are there still fish, birds and humans here on earth? Shouldn't we all evolve into a creature perfectly suited to all environments? Heck, we'd have jet engines built in. C'mon...we are what we are.

Well, this is just crazy. Whether you are or arent christian, muslum jewish or anything you shouldnt dwell on others religions. That isnt the modern christian idea. Well, oh well. It was a great picture.

Gotten to the end of this clip. Lol @ the Christians who lied under oath.

Yet the scientists didn't. The irony.

P.S Evolution does NOT cancel out the idea of another intelligence...

The bible was written when man was quite young. Perhaps he had us taught that way due to our young age ?

Do you go and teach a child year 12 science in first grade?

Everyone looks at the matter to final.

Maybe learn both ? But learn them APPROPRIATELY. In a way that moves FORWARD, and leads to KNOWLEDGE. NOT to ingorance.

Science is FOR science.

If you want your children to learn about Creationism, they take religious education.

You cannot teach creationism ( in the sense of Christianity) as a science, at a high school level.

There ARE Scientists who are interested in the topic of "Intelligent Design". I DO think it is worth the thought. It is so we can learn more about humanity. BUT, if you want to study creationism as a science, you must start in some VERY hefty science ! We're talking IN DEPTH astrophysics and cosmology, VERY intense biology and the likes.

If you want someone to have faith in God, in creationism, etc, Let them have it through KNOWLEDGE. Not through blind faith.

Teaching children NOT to question the world around them, to have a greater understanding, leads to ignorance.

They will blindly follow ANY authority figure who claims to have the same beliefs as them.

You are encouraging them to take away the very WONDER that makes advancement in our consciousness possible.

Having said this, the ignorance can be just as bad in a scientist, yes, but atleast with a scientist, you can work with REASON. You can EDUCATE a scientist. You cannot educate someone who believes they have ALL THE ANSWERS.

Do these religious people REALLY think our littly bubby human brains, have a full grasp and understanding on the world around us ?

We do not know that either side has the 'answers' but what we CAN know, is that we MUST look to all learning with critical thinking.

If these religious people want to let the children know there are other "theories" on how life and different species came to be, they can rest assured: they already are! It's called riligion. It's a class here atleast, and I expect it to be in America too. There you learn about what each religion believe in, such as Christianity. The children will be briefly introduced to Creationism there...

You know rvolution isn't referred to as a theory? It's no more referred to as a theory than the fact that the Earth is round.

When speaking of "the Theory of Evolution" it is always as a reference to Darwin's works, because back then it was a theory. "THe Theory of Evolution" is the theory by Darwin, the CONCEPT of evolution is a widely acknowledged fact.

I know that it isn't to be trusted just because it is widely acknowledged. "Truth isn't democratic" and "science" has been wrong before. This is not the case this time however. Although I abhore Dawkins and his arrogance, he does give proof of evolution. DNA IS PROOF! I can't explain _how_ it is proof here, because people that try to explain something they don't have a profound knowledge about usually don't do a very good job. You can just google it tho'.

Small town, small people, small minds. They are the providers of the physical world for the people that are going to make a difference, people willing to question surroundings, and then investigate.

"In the beginning God created, to me thats all i need to know."

Ignorance. Utter ignorance. Religion is the root of all evil. It divides us. Wake up people. Science is the way foward, so drop these old fantasies of Gods,prophets and saviours, and get learning new concepts to better foward our race. A race amongst many no doubt.

This would have been quite hilarious if it wasn't so scary that there are really people out there that believe in all that creationist shit.
Makes one proud once again NOT to be american.

"Macroevolution is a fanatical religion that is being taught in our public schools with our tax money! This is a fraud!"

Wait a second here...a religious fanatic is accusing evolution of being a fanatical religion? That's too funny, I've never known science to receive tax exemption, ask its believers for money, or ever dictate how somebody ought to live their life.

Dear Travis:
Science class is NEVER about only presenting facts: it's teaching how to come to a conclusion: you know, basic scientific query: the building blocks upong which our entire modern society is built.
DO you know?
DO you know what scientific query is?
Science class also teaches critical thinking.

If science class was only about teaching fact, it would NOT be science class.
All science is theory, and the better theories are backed up by peer review, and built upon, even revised - when more evidence presents itself.
The argument for evolution is only still called a theory because there may always be the possibility that new evidence comes along to disprove, or radically change, the theory.

Creationism has been thoroughly disproved as nothing but religious propaganda masquerading as science - and it was easily done.

All religion is religion - and does not belong in science class.

The religious zealots commenting here are really quite hilarious.
We on the side of evolution have mountains and mountains of evidence proving out theory - and within that theory, many facts have been proven. It goes without saying now that Darwin's caveat has been fully dealt with, but it seems that to creationists, if they close their eyes then such evidence doesn't exist.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus existed as they wish him to(as a superhuman being), nor is their any scientific evidence that god exists.

The arguments creationist use would be laughed out of court, or any 101 science paper at varsity.

Amnd if the chilkdish zaliots within religion are so sure of their god, and so mistrstful of science: why do they partake in modern medicine? Why do they aprtake in computers, cars, most modern food(which is destropying us), etc etc.

The other thing which disturbs me about creationists: along with massive corporations, they are using their phony propaganda to deny that reality that we humans are having a massively negative impact on our habitat. The earth will undoubtedly survive well beyond humanity - and if we want to live on this planet, we had better start tasking care of our home - NO god is going to clean up for us.

We need to ignore the flat earth society: they are actively participating in the destruction of society and our habitat, in the belief that the rapture will save them, then the apocalypse will wipe all of us non-believers away - and then the born agains will inherit a clean planet.

They REALLY believe that - and they have no incentive to be responsible members of society and our species.
Therefore they must be excluded - such an apocalyptic cult, no matter the size - has no place in a democracy.

Travis,
I find what you have to say interesting... You say that there are differences between books in the 1960s and in the 2000s? YOU MEAN SCIENCE ADAPTS? If something is incorrect and they learn that it's incorrect they change it? Oh your god, those heathens... You realize the bible has changed(minorly mostly it's just the same piece of crap as always)?

Evil is not ALWAYS evil across the board... Yes, rape is terrible regardless, but...
"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24"

Also, your comment is full of creationist BS... "You're brainwashed"... Right... like some stupid guy who is too lazy to figure out what he doesn't know and instead decides that "it must be god if I don't know the answer"... How arrogant are you, you dumb SOB? You think that if there is a god that A) s/he cares about you? Noone cares about you, B) you know what s/he wants? How would you know that? Do you hear voices?...

Also, how do you know that your god isn't what you think of as the devil... Because everything supposedly said in the bible was his words right? Sounds like he cant even keep his lies straight...

Refusal to change your dogma in 10000 years is goddamned pathetic if you ask me and stubborn...

But no, please keep being a creationist lemming

Adrian, to address your comment would be an effort in fruition, but I will try anyways!

quote "The forces of evil are too powerful? Who's evil and who gets to decide? and while I agree that human beings tend to believe things which may not be true, I don't think they do it because of "evil". What storm are you refering to?

You keep talking about evil, but what you might think of as "evil" might be survival to someone else.." end quote

Wow what a comment and a very absurd one! The notion that somehow a wrong can be excused to allow for another to be able to justify it, makes no sense at all. First you need to try to understand that there is a huge difference between "evil" and moral right. Evil is evil across the board regardless of creed or nationality. Rape is evil, plain and simple. Not drinking is a moral decision, hence not bound to others. Maybe what you meant to say is what is moral to some is not the law for others!

quote "and obviously, you don't understand or can't comprehend what a scientific theory is... if you want to kill Evolution, prove it wrong, can you do that with your ad hominem attacks?" end quote

Ignorance is bliss!!!!! Maybe you should learn, along with millions of others, what a scientific theory is. See if you go back just a few years scientist actually had the moral fortitude to not pass of baseless and unproven theories as fact. They were not taught in schools until they had gone from theory to fact, but that is no longer the case. With evolution, it is taught and believed as if it is a fact and has been proven, yet it is not fact nor has it come anywhere near being proven. To go a step further, the theory of evolution has changed multiple times as numerous parts of it has been proven wrong! Do not believe me, pick up a book that teaches evolution written in lets say 1960 and then get one written in 2009 and find all the differences. Now lets wait just 10 years more and lets do this again. You will again see multiple changes to the theory due to science finding out their belief was wrong. This is why it is nothing but a theory and takes 10 times the faith to believe the dribble than what it takes to believe in ID! No one has to kill evolution as there is nothing to kill. It is nothing more than a faith based belief just as religion is! You nor anyone else can prove evolution is viable, no more than anyone can prove God excists! Maybe you have learned something and now see you are a believer in a invisible "god" also!

As far as you other jokes called comments, I will pass on going into them as it is easy to tell you are just a bitter small person that feels as if what you have been brainwashed, i mean told is the only thing to believe in and any religious person deserves your contempt. I say this because the dribble you spewed out is just regurgitated rhetoric that all anti religious people use. You should have at least tried to be original and come up with your own religious bashings!

But anyways, you are yet another fool who believes in the writings of a person which his own writings no longer even resemble the current belief of darwinism, and the belief today will not be the belief of tommorrow. Funny it is so stupid to believe in a faith where the fundamentals have remained the same for well over 10000 years, yet is the "smart" way to go by following a THEORY that has changed hundreds of times in just the last 50 years!

Maybe you need to sit down and learn more about what you believe in so that next time you open your goober hole, you can actually discuss your beliefs rather than only being able to try to bash anothers beliefs because you do not know even what you believe in other that what has been told to you!

this is flabergasting to teach creationism after evolution like the alchemy class after the chemistry class and the astrology class after the astronomy class.

Ghyslaine ROC,

The forces of evil are too powerful? Who's evil and who gets to decide? and while I agree that human beings tend to believe things which may not be true, I don't think they do it because of "evil". What storm are you refering to?

You keep talking about evil, but what you might think of as "evil" might be survival to someone else..

and obviously, you don't understand or can't comprehend what a scientific theory is... if you want to kill Evolution, prove it wrong, can you do that with your ad hominem attacks?

Calling people who look at the evidence and make a judgement bigoted, ignorant, and/or misled proves that you have no argument...

Also, where is your proof that "In real fact, all the evolutionary evidence put forward are absolute lies, imaginary and fabrications. "

As for your god(small g), where is the proof? I see a lot of proof of absence... wars, famine, and child molestation among them... What kind of creator would allow that? A pathetic excuse for one

You want to talk about lies? Religion is full of them. Maybe I'll just act like you and not include any evidence to back it up....

Congratulations on being a religious zealot who just spouts off creationist talking points as if they're fact with no evidence...

AS WE SOW - SO SHALL WE REAP !

“On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” Charles Darwin 24 November 1859

“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, ant that is unthinkable.” Sir Arthur Keith

I was just talking on the telephone to a close friend and Brother of the Faith. He too was a science teacher and head of Biology for some time. He reminded me that the whole of Mankind is incurably sick and nothing can be done to make things better because the forces of evil are too powerful. In their great majority, humans (even good people) are not interested in truth and sow the seeds of destruction thinking, believing, and hoping that they will never reap what they have sown. But, when the storm comes, they would scream and blame everybody else except themselves and their own lack of courage and dedication.

All of us have our own prejudices, priorities and preferences. Some care about themselves, their loved ones, their neighbours, and the welfare of the whole of mankind, but they are too few. Others, the majority, seemingly care only about themselves, and do not give a damn about anybody else. They are utterly selfish and are in the business of life for self-aggrandizement, greed, and profit, and profit alone. But, both types, the good and the evil ones are weaknesses or sicknesses. One is not good and the other is bad; both are bad. But, humans keep on pretending doing what they do not believe in, and doing the same things over and over again.

If truth had any value at all, would we disagree about it? If goodness was really good why are most of us so evil? Sincerity in humans is rare as most of us are only hypocrites, and examples of hypocrisy and mendacity are there in the millions for people who are interested in human behaviour and how to improve it.

Macroevolution is not a scientifically established fact, but an ideological theory that has been proven wrong so many times! It was not even a scientific theory as it was not based on scientific facts, but only observations, mainly of a physical kind, by a “naturologist”. Knowledgeable (scientific minded) and honest people will readily admit this truth, but ignorant and dishonest (working for the forces of evil) will never accept it nor even allow others to accept it because this goes against their vested interest. Money-minded people care only for their purse, and amoral people defend their amoral way of life and thinking. They would manufacture lies and sell them all their lives, and mind-controlled people are always ready to buy those lies and defend them no matter what.

“Ernst Haeckel…was taken to court at his own university, the University of Jena. And he was convicted of fraud in 1874. One hundred and twenty-five years ago Ernst Haeckel confessed to lying about this embryology thing. He lied. And he confessed it. But guess what? That concept is still in textbooks today. Holt Biology 94 edition shows the human embryo with gill pouches. Proven wrong 125 years ago. Glenco Biology showing the human embryo with gill pouches. Simply a lie. College textbooks still have it. Proven wrong in 1874.” (Transcript from Dr Kent Hovind Creation Seminar 4 – “Lies in the textbooks”)

But, most people (bigoted evolutionists, ignorant and misled people) have rather attacked the person of Dr Hovind instead of proving him wrong. The fact is that lies are continuously being taught in the corporation-controlled (big business) science textbooks that are imposed on our youth in our public schools. In real fact, all the evolutionary evidence put forward are absolute lies, imaginary and fabrications.

I do not give a damn whether we are created by a Supreme Intelligence or we have evolved from the rock or an ape. If this is a proven scientific fact, why should we not accept it? Why should Evolutionists persecute those who argue that Evolution is a hoax? I do not respect Dr Hovind for his religious bigotry and prejudice against Muslims and Islam, but I never caught him lying about his science whereas I caught Evolutionists (Christian apostates) lying all the time and with a visceral hatred for God and religion, in particular Christianity. I do not hold a Freemasonic Ph D, but, why should I be less qualified to write about the origins of my own kind? I know many great academics that lie constantly, for example, one of the greatest of them all – Pr Alan M. Dershowitz. Pr Norman Finkelstein ridiculed him so many times.

Ghyslaine ROC
Monday 1st of June 2009

Charlie Bucket: "...just because the word theory is used, it does not mean that it's not completely factual..."

My dear

You must check again the definition of the terms "theory" and "fact".

A theory is merely a tool by which facts (statements that can be proven true) can be analysed. But the “Theory” of (Macro) Evolution was based on observations made by Charles Darwin when science was very ill equipped. In his book “On the origins of species and the survival of the fittest by natural selection”, Darwin himself proved his theory wrong. He wrote a book based on previous works and did not prove the origins of species in it.

It can easily be proved that the Theory was based also on fabricated lies, one of which is the “geological column”. (Charles Lyell’s imaginary “geological layer”) Darwin did know absolutely nothing about genes. I wish you could do your own research in the matter with sincerity and without prejudice. A fact will always remain a fact and a theory only a theory until it is proven true. In this case, it has not only been proven wrong hundreds of times, but also deceitful and a hoax. The “Theory of Evolution” is an ideology, a belief, a religion and a fanatical one that our tyrannical rulers are imposing upon our children with our tax money.

Check also the writings of amateur geologists like Sir Charles Lyell and James Hutton.

Ghyslaine ROC
31st May 2009

P.S. I used to teach science

@ROC

I don't know what scientific research you have but just because the word theory is used, it does not mean that it's not completely factual. Evolution is a theory by different definition than "an idea that has not been proven".

"Most mainstream religions made peace with evolution decades ago". (Intelligent Design on Trial)

THIS IS NOT TRUE!

NOT A SINGLE HONEST SCIENTIST CAN EVER "MAKE PEACE" WITH MACRO EVOLUTION AT ALL UNTIL AND UNLESS THE "THEORY" IS PROVEN TO BE FACT!

According to Darwin himself, if within his own lifetime the fossil record does not come up with evidence of intermediary species HIS THEORY IS THEREFORE WRONG!

To this day not a single fossil has been found to prove his theory right!

However, on the contrary, recent scientific research is more in favour of INTELLIGENT DESIGN which does not necessarily mean GOD or a god or the Christian God!

Even if Christian beliefs are proved wrong, this still does not prove macroevolution right!

Download for free video or PDF Evolution Deceit at

http://www.harunyahya.com/evolution_specialpreface.php

Ghyslaine ROC
28/5/6009

"Soon the schoolboard wanted to introduce Intelligent Design into the classrooms, despite it being regarded as a fraud by many scientists."

THIS IS A BLATANT LIE! IT IS MACRO EVOLUTION THAT HAS PROVED TO BE A FRAUD, A LIE, A DECEPTION, A HOAX by countless scientists and researchers!

For example, Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins (Zoologist) lies to the public when he says on television that MACROEVOLUTION IS A FACT AND NOT A THEORY! When asked for a single proof, he has none to give!

Macroevolution is a fanatical religion that is being taught in our public schools with our tax money! This is a fraud!

Ghyslaine ROC
28/5/6009

The video was definitely an eye opener for me. I never realized that people would be so obsessed with their belief that logical explanation won’t matter to them anymore. I am not taking any side here; however, it all looks like common sense to me to make my choice.