A star is born

ndm

"Intelligent design" is an intellectual fraud designed to skirt the First Amendment's establishment clause.

Our schools should not be in the business of teaching fantasies as fact, regardless of how many people believe them to be true.

mareeS

Sarah Palin has my best wishes as an apparently fine woman, wife and mother. She's a fresh cold breath of Alaskan air through the dust of DC politics.

I'm not interested in creationism/ID, other than it's being used by dems and thems to muddy what seems to me a clear message.

S Brown

Yes indeed. She's great. Compare her to the 'NuLab' females (I hesitate to use the word women!) like Harriet Harperson, Tessa Jowell and Jackboot Jacqui Smith (Littlejohn's nickname for her). No comparison!

Apart from that I'll be a sexist pig and say she's very attractive too! Not a bad thing in politics of course.

JimG

The only ignorant assertion comes from you. These judges you degrade heard cases involving evolution, not the origins of life (which is a separate topic believe it or not). If you read the books on ID you would know ID isn't at all limited to origins of life as you falsely imply. And to imply ID isn't creationism (without using the G word)is laughable at best. ID is religion, not science. Who wants a VP who doesn't know the difference (especially after 8 years of a president who was equally ignorant).

D Gray

Her creationism is not the problem,its her desire to trample through the wilderness gunning down animals.Obviously her motherly instinct dosen't stretch to cubs left without 'parents'

Apart from that she kicked the liberals in the crotch with jokes at Hussain Obama expense which was a long time coming.I'd vote for McCain because of his astonishing character.Go Republicans

Kennybhoy

Absolutely inspired choice by Senator McCain.

David

The latest chattering class wisdom about her speech is that she didn't write it.

This little nugget is particularly ironic given that Biden got drummed out of the primaries 20 years ago for plagiarising a Neil Kinnock speech.

Brian O'Connor

I agree with you that Palin is dynamite, and politically she's going to really shake things up. We'll be a better nation for her being on the ticket.

But about religion . . .

There are, of course, a couple of issues here. One is what Palin personally believes and what she would like to see taught in a classroom as part of a formal curriculum. (Though the American VP has precious little to say about what must be taught in classrooms . . ..)

For those who are un-believers, there is the additional issue of where in the curriculum religious thinking ought to occur, if it is to be taught at all. There are probably many places where religion and religious ideas could (and probably should) be taught. But inserting them into science classes should be avoided.

At it's heart, science is based on the ideal that its hypotheses are, ultimately, falsifiable. And while one can gather data consistent with an hypothesis, the ultimate test of an hypothesis is for it to withstand attempts at its falsification. Thus, the strength of a scientific hypothesis increases as tests designed specifically to falsify it fail.

At it's heart, religion is based on faith, and it is impossible to test this faith empirically: one can certainly gather data consistent with the existence of God (as with any scientific hypothesis), but it is logically impossible to falsify the existence of God. (How do you prove a negative?)

Augustus

I have no idea at all to what extent creationism is taught in schools in America, or ideed if it is a subject on the curriculem at all. The theory of the Evolution of Man, on the other hand, supported by observations within the fields of anthropology, paleontology, and molecular biology, which depicts life branching out from a common ancestor through gradual genetic changes over millions of years is usually the most accepted modern teaching on the subject as it is altogether factual and experimentally proven.

That is not to say that there is not a common convergence in evolutionary terms between the various homologous anatomies of all different and unrelated species. Whether this convergence arises because of the need for specific functionality, or whether it is the result of metaphysical powers, is reliant on belief, not proof.

BJ

Princess Sarah speaks - What a freakshow!

John B

On the subject of Creation being a matter of faith versus Evolution being pure science, there is an interest quotation in yesterday's Daily Telegraph. Steve Jones, Professor of genetics and a very outspoken opponent of Creation said 'Evolutionists and economists make confident statements based on guesswork'. Are Creationists not equally entitled to make confident statements based on the Word of God, The Bible? In any case, if they were wrong, why would anyone feel threatened by such a belief? Belief in a Creator didn't noticeably harm scientists such as Newton and Faraday, nor even such a politician as Lincoln.

YeshuaImsure

to ndm

But you are happy presumably that schools are teaching the 'theory' of evolution as if it was fact, while silencing the teaching of the theory of Creation.
You have more faith than I have if you believe that nature sparked itself into existence and then evolved itself by chance after chance. Now that is real intellectual fraud.

London Calling

"Stars are born within giant gas clouds. Dust swirls deep into the gas clouds"

You have certainly done your homework this time Melanie, the American media are having a field day on Sarah Palins family "Ups and Downs" and the high rate of teenage pregnancy here and the US has just got the moral hug of acceptance on the political world stage, and it sends just the right message the media are now feasting on.

Sarah is certainly a star in the making, only time will tell how much of it was Star struck gas or the dust clouds from Hurricane Gustav, Hannah, Icke or Josephine.

I thought Creationalism was the 45 minute sexed up dossier that took our two countries to war with Iraq...but I dont think they will be introducing that into the curriculum within the next six days...do you?

Too much Starbucks by the sounds of it and not enough Truth Fairies...:0

Lee Bowman

I have to agree with you regarding her ethics, her fortitude, and limited but viable administrative experience. But equally important, and I'm glad you brought it up, is the cascade of straw man attacks against her religiosity, and the false assertion that she has advocated, and would likely push, if elected, a creationist agenda. In the US, that essentially equates with subverting science with religion.

We're already seeing offensive bristling from liberal blogs, and some murmuring from Barry W. Lynn, chief curator at Citizens United for Separation of Church and State, in which he alludes to Palin having "old stale misunderstandings by the now-Governor about science, good education and acting like students are supposed to be able to distinguish between religion masquerading as pseudoscience." ref: Beliefnet, 8/31/08

This is an old, timeworn theme, that had some merit in a few isolated instances which included some court challenges, but which today is largely without merit. The Dover PA v. Kitzmiller case comes to mind, in which a jurist incorrectly ruled ID as "religion disguised as science", a contrived and pretentious decision.

As you correctly point out, the concept of Intelligent Design is an emerging hypothesis regarding complexity and organization in nature, and is finding favor with many scientists. I would add that rather than threatening science, it will serve to strengthen it, by either verification or falsification of evolutionary hypotheses, in particular, natural selection as the sole source of novelty.

But moving on to Palin and her qualifications, and ignoring your historical bias in favor of, and crusades on behalf of women, I totally agree with you. At least from what I know of her at this point, she displays qualities we should look for in a leader. Would I vote her into office? Even as a 'stateside liberal', I just might ...

Steve

"... creationism is the same thing as Intelligent Design. It is not."

That seems to me to be an extremely poorly informed and naive view. ID was only created as a subterfuge when the courts ruled against creationism being taught as a science. Its ideology, core beliefs, and people are identical.

sean birnie

Actually I'm not sure that panic is the correct word. The Dems are too self obsessed to have realised the disaster that is about to befall them. I think that the emotion that Palin has inspired is shame. Confronted by a genuine person who actually has some values has hi-lighted their own corrupt souls. That's why they are chucking manure. They are trying to persuade themselves, and it's always all about themselves, that she is as morally moribund as they are.

The panic will set in later, too late, when they realise they can neither belittle nor defeat her.

Then the derangement will be hilarious to behold.

Verity

JimD - Why do you imagine that the right or, indeed, any normal person of any political persuasion would be interested in getting involved in your definitions of all these new arcane destructive lefty constructs? Who cares how they have defined "intelligent design" or "creationism"? Who cares?

Brian O'Connor, Sarah Palin has shown a strong lack of interest in interfering in the beliefs of other parents.

I don't know what the point of your long, laboured dissertation is. Even if she were interested, WHICH SHE IS NOT, as the Governor, she is not some kind of supreme commander. She cannot dictate what is taught in schools, even if so so wished, which she does not.

Dear God!

Anyway, Obama is not going to recover from that speech. By the time of the Vice Presidential debates, she will have been coached and made smoother. Her pronunciation needs tidying up if she is not to be dubbed a backwoods hick. She has to learn to pronounce Iran and iraq. I noticed that on the auto-cue, they had written 'new-clear' - which tells me that they had to stop her from pronouncing it nukuler. They'll iron all those bits out and she will blow Joe Biden out of the water.

Let's face it, anyone who would judge a state-owned jet for private use was uncessary and sell it on eBay is not a person to be taken lightly.

Bruce Chapman, President, Discovery Institute

You are one of the very few writers in the U.K. or the U.S. to get this story right—especially as regards the difference between creationism and intelligent design. The Darwinian left usually succeeds in confusing people about terminology, but as the organizational home for a number of scientists who support intelligent design (and scientists like David Berlinski who are just good Darwin critics), Discovery Institute has tried hard to make it clear that the education policy goal is letting students know the scientific evidence for and against Darwin’s theory. Period. Of course, we’d also like teachers to be free to answer questions about ID, or creationism, or atheism, for that matter. In fact, they probably have that freedom in most schools now, unless they use it to launch a hortatory lecture. But the real educational goal is just letting students know the truth about the debate going on regarding the scientific claims of Darwinism and its counterpart materialism in cosmology (multiverse theory, etc.).
For more, go to: www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
Bruce Chapman, President, Discovery Institute

steve

So Melanie regularly decries those supporting Obama as suffering from Princess Obama Syndrome but after hearing one speech from someone who almost no one had heard of a week ago she's singing her praises to the sky. That's intellectual consistency for you.

Anika

Right on, Ms. Phillips! Intelligent design simply is not the same thing as creationism, and it stands with science and reason rather than against it.

Intelligent design is not religion; it's a scientific theory based on the evidence for purpose in our universe. Anyone who doesn't see that isn't looking at it through clear lenses.

C Powell

Oh dear Mel: not much rational thought going on here. Yes: it's true that she represents a part of America which is not much talked about but is often sneered at and misunderstood. That is a good thing and it is refreshing too that the liberal mindset, which assumes that anyone who doesn't agree with them, is somehow evil is challenged and shown up for the intolerant smugness it often is. And she can certainly give a good speech (but Obama can do that and you weren't impressed with him so why the difference this time?) and rally the faithful. But will she win over the undecideds? I don't think so and I suspect that while lots of people will agree that John McCain is a hero etc that won't be enough to make them vote for him. (Lots thought Robert Dole was also a war hero and look what happened to him.) And as for your attempts to defend her views on creationism, this is bizarre. If I believe that the French for "to eat" is "danser" or that 2 + 2 = 5 does that mean that these matters should be debated in class? Creationism is not science and should not be a matter of debate in a science class. Its place is in a religious knowledge class, if there, but here's the rub: the separation of church and state in the US and if someone wanting to be VP doesn't understand that (and, indeed, that this is one of the strengths of the American constitution) then it raises serious questions about their fitness for high political office. Conservatism is not made attractive by being put in the hands of people who do not seem to understand their own country's political structure and history. It seems to me that the Republicans are doing an excellent job of talking to themselves but a much less good job of talking to the country at large. Whether Obama will do a better job I don't know but the steely way he's seen off the Clintons suggest that he may well do so.

Ben

Creationism should be taught in schools.

It is impossible to understand history, art, music and philosophy without knowledge of the Bible, including knowledge of the Creation story.

Creationism also illuminates science. Current cosmological theory posits an event in the past called the Big Bang, which was when the universe was created and before which even time did not exist. This is eerily similar to the description of the emergence of heaven and earth from Tohu Vavohu, as described in the Book of Genesis. Similarly, current evolutionary theory posits a chronolgy of development of life forms that is almost identical to that described in the Book of Genesis. Only the time-scales are different.

By contrast, discarded scientific theories such as the Steady State theory of the Universe, and Lamarque's theory of inheritance of acquired attributes have no parallels in the Bible.

Joe Strummer

I'm an old-fashioned one-nation Tory and I'm sorry but David Cameron simply couldn't accept anyone with Sarah Palin's views into any major role within the Conservative Party, and I'm not talking about any credo or belief she may or may not have regarding Creationism or Intelligent Design which is simply insane.

The "modern" Conservative Party are simply clones of Nu-Labour and the same anti-family, pro- human rights to do anything you want with no responsibilities nonsense will continue unabated.

JosephU

Part of the article states:

"Creationism is very specifically the belief that the world was literally created in six days. Millions of believers in God agree that this is absurd and irrational."

Q. Who could possibly support creationism?
A. All those who believe the 10 commandments:

Exodus 20
The Ten Commandments

1 And God spoke all these words: ...
8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.
9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. ...
11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea,
and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.
Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus20;&version=31;

A reason God took six days to create and one day of rest is to provide
us with a pattern for the 7 day week:
"The seven-day week has no basis outside of Scripture. In this Old Testament passage (Exodus 20: 11), God commands His people, Israel, to work for six days and rest for one—thus giving us a reason why He deliberately took as long as six days to create everything. He set the example for man. Our week is patterned after this principle. Now if He created everything in six thousand (or six million) years, followed by a rest of one thousand or one million years, then we would have a very interesting week indeed."
See: In Six Days - Why Is It Important? (par. 47)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/could-god-have-created-in-six-days

Joe Camel

A very small detail that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere else, and which is interesting only because of the fact that Obama was criticized for not wearing a flag pin and ending up yielding to pressure.

The flag pin that Sarah Palin wore for her acceptance speech is not the Stars & Stripes but the Service Flag or Service Star Flag, which is only to be worn by close relatives of men and women serving in the Armed Forces in wartime.

Her eldest son is off to Iraq shortly.

Gary Vineberg

Creationism/Intelligent Design? How about global warming (she doesn't believe humans are causing it, even as her state melts)? Abortion (not to be permitted even in cases of rape)? Speaking in tongues (she attended a congregation that indulged in that practice)?

I'm no lefty, but this woman is a fruitcake and the idea that she could be president of the United States in the event that her well-seasoned boss can't do the job is truly terrifying.

Roy

I'm a fan.

Tas Walker

Hi Melanie,
I would love to know what you mean by creationism. People use it as a club to win arguments without having to give an argument. Just say the word, 'Creationist', and presto you have discredited your opponent. And this is one rare place where you seem to have fallen for that ruse. Until the term is defined we can't even decide if what they are talking about is good or bad.

logdon

Two articles dominated the online media yesterday. One, Palin and two, the so called 'concrete ceiling'. As an aside, from what I remember from my youth and casual building labouring work is that all ceilings are, er concrete. Behind that pretty facade of polystyrene squares is the actual ceiling, also doh, the floor of the room above. I helped tamp down and pour quite a few of the buggers but no, there were no women slopping around, up to knees in wet concrete and tripping over the steel reinforcing in rain, hail or baking heat so maybe they are unaware of what lies beneath. And maybe that is the problem with these socially engineered women who talk such bull it makes me weep. What I find both amusing and irritating is the vile abuse these British liberal/marxist indoctrinated women who know not one jot about America are now hurling, pontificating from on high about 'hokey' Palin. So on the one hand they whine on and on about 'workplace discrimination' but when a woman actually is placed to reach the second most powerful job in the world, they pick and pick obsessively around the minutae of her personal life. These urban parasites find the fact that she can field dress a moose so amusing and nose wrinklingly outre. They are the new Antoinettes, disguised beneath a wafer thin veneer of socialism where entitlement trumps experience. Where membership of the chattering salons counts for more than the true reality of that diverse world out there which isn't controlled by targets, ethnic and gender quotas and work flow charts. Where actually getting on with it is how it is, rather than organising a meeting about a meeting on a paper produced by some lofty think tank. For these women it's all doctrinaire and ideological theory and gasp, rolling sleeves up and getting stuck in is such a strange experience they cannot understand the reality of the word, 'work'. We live in strange times. God help our children.

AllanS

Many things can be confirmed by evidence, but is there evidence that everything of importance can be confirmed by evidence, or do we simply believe this by faith?

David McAdam

All credit to Sarah Palin for standing up for the individual's right to exercise liberty of conscience - the defence of a basic principle that today's prominent left has abandoned and actively tries to deny the rest of us. I've never been persuaded by the fanciful idea that Mozart's Requiem evolved from the scream of a monkey anymore than a garden shed suddenly appearing overnight from a pile of cut grass. It takes a peculiar type of mindset to believe this. Evolution is bad science; no cause and effect evidence to observe; it relies on imagination. Evolution is every bit a religion as any other.
Sarah Palin is a real breath of fresh air to millions of us ordinary people totally fed up by the bitterness, self-guilt, self-flagelating, politically correctness imposing, negativity that constantly drips from an ever increasingly arrogant, bullying and hate-filled left.
I only wish I was an American at this time of great opportunity to sweep all its socially destructive infestations into oblivion.

Ian C

I had to wait until Thursday evening to watch her speech and by then I had read and seen much comment, most complimentary, some of it what you'd expect from opponents of the GOP.

It was even better than I was expecting. As Tom Ridge said afterwards on Fox - "someone else may have written it with her but you canot get delivery and the personal nuance without the deliverer's input. As for the delivery, you can't teach that, she's a natural."

McCain has chosen well.

raymond joseph douglas

It seems to me,that if you do not sign up to everyone of the humanist, liberal left articles of faith,you are a outcast and heretic!Witness what happens to people who are not sure about the concept of man made global warming!No one has ever proved the theory of evolution.What is so wrong about exploring alternative explanations?I would vote For Palin in a flash were she standing for power here!

Dominic L-R

Sarah palin may or may not be a Creationist, but I don't think she comes out of this particularly well.
First possibility: she is a Creationist. If true, we should all be seriously concerned that a potential vice-president of the most powerful country in the world beleives the world was created 6000 years ago in six days. However, this seems unlikely until further evidence is in.
2nd Possibility: she isn't a Creationist but "welcomes discussion of alternative views". Oh yes, very liberal you may think. But we are talking about science here, not some lesson on pop psychology, where everyone can put forward their own pet theories. Alternative views? Sure, why not have the "Alchemy hour" after chemistry, or even the "Astrology Hour" after a lesson on astronomy. Alternative scientific views? Fair enough if they are genuine science, but ID is not a science. ID proponents basically just say "we cannot imagine how this complexity could have arisen... it must be a designer", but provide no positive evidence whatsoever. That's not science, that's just poor imagination. It's the equivalent of a caveman coming across a radio and, being unable to explain its origins, evokes a God to explain it.
3rd possibility: as Melanie Phillips says - she "had never even thought much about Creationism". Hmm - one of the most divisive issues in American society and she had "never even thought about it.."!!
How's that for a potential vice-president?

Alex

Melanie says "As far as I can see, all she has ever said on the subject, as reported in the Anchorage Daily News two years ago, is that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in schools.... The following day she explained that all she had meant by that was that

discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms: ‘I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum’."

OK so.

let's try that again...

"As far as I can see, all she has ever said on the subject, as reported in the Anchorage Daily News two years ago, is that flat earth geography should be taught alongside other sciences in schools.... The following day she explained that all she had meant by that was that

discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms: ‘I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum’.

Melanie. You're a product of a sensible upbringing and a good education. There's no excuse, apart from your own strange views on life and politics, for you to give any of this nonsense the slightest airing. It's bonkers.

Or at best , it's religion (if far out at that). It is certainly not science. And, given the separation of religion and the state, a good idea I'm sure that you will agree, in the USA, it's not even legal there.

Bluejewel

Your ignorance on the subject of ID/creationism is breathtaking, not least beacuse it is wilful.

Anyone who has done even the most basic research into the subject knows that ID is simply creationism dressed up in order to give it the status which you foolishly advertise for it here in order that it it may be promoted as legitimate to be taught in science lessons.
Of course, as you say, it is absurd and irrational, which is to say the very least.

Ellen

As usual with Ms Phillips, she "gets it".

And so does Richard Littlejohn:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1052592/LITTLEJOHN-A-pistol-packin-Looby-Loo-Lefts-worst-nightmare.html

The trouble with all of the mud being hurled at her is that it's so 'bitty' - none of it amounts to a hill of beans.

One loose comment on creationism suddenly stands on a par with 20 years' kow towing to Jeremiah Wright?

They'll have trouble selling that one.

MJE

Well she certainly supports teaching creationism:

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html

And from Oliver Kamm's blog:

http://timesonline.typepad.com/oliver_kamm/2008/09/palin-and-creat.html

Intelligent design (ID) is a euphemism for biblical Creationism. I recommend an illuminating study of the content and tactics of this perverse cultural tendency, Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, 2005, by Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross, which demonstrates the point. The authors note (p. 291): "Despite doctrinal and 'scientific' differences with intelligent design, young-earth creationists [i.e. Creationists who believe the Earth is around 6,000 years old] recognize enough commonality in content to ally themselves with the movement." ID is not a scientific theory. It yields no predictions and makes no findings. It merely labels natural phenomena in such a way as to force the unexplained conclusion that natural selection cannot account for them. The correct, and only correct, amount of time to allocate ID in science education is no time at all. That is true in Alaska, Minnesota and everywhere else.

Bob Latchford

I would imagine that all apart from the most wild eyed of acolytes would see the utter irony of Ms Phillips commenting on supposed 'smears' from the left, when for the last 12 months she has taken it upon herself to attack Barack Obama ('smear' wouldnt do it justice) on an almost weekly basis about every aspect of his life, with little regard for fact

Robbit

For God's sake ndm, no one is saying that ID should be taught "as fact"! It is a VIEW, a theoretical possibility and ALL anyone has said is that in a free society no one has the right to ban the discussion of a view! Even Quantum Physics is not generally taught "as a FACT" - it is taught as a THEORY, that best accounts for certian facts.

Of course pukka mainstream science should be the vast core of the scientific curriculum but
WHO, ndm, shall lay down the law as to what theories may or may not be so much as discussed in schools? - the high-priesthood of militant atheist scientists under Pope Richard Dawkins?

Colin Walls

You neglect to mention that she is a member of the "Assemblies of God", a Dominionist Pentacostal sect who are bible literalists and hence creationists. If you look at their web site (www.ag.org) you will find that they deny evolution.

Alan C

Intelligent design is Creationism in a lab coat. It is not a theory and in any case it is not testable. It may not stand in opposition to science, but neither does religion necessarily oppose science. ID is a religious belief and should not be dressed up as a scientific theory. Many scientists hold deep, and sometimes whacky, religious beliefs that don’t stop them from doing good science; Isaac Newton for example.

Ciaran

Then there is the further confusion – fomented in large measure by the astoundingly ignorant assertions made by lawyers and judges in the various US court cases over the teaching of creationism in American schools – that creationism is the same thing as Intelligent Design. It is not. Intelligent Design simply holds that life could not have originated spontaneously, but must have been at source the product of some kind of purposeful force. It does not deny evolution, rather the claim that evolution somehow spontaneously created itself. It is a view held by growing numbers of scientists, several of great distinction, and arises out of the very complexity of life that science has uncovered. Whether or not this is a well-founded theory it cannot be argued that, like creationism, it stands in opposition to science and reason.

What a load of self-serving anti-intellectual twaddle. ID is simply a way to gull idiots into thinking their is some sort of scientific basis to creationism. So, step forward isiot number one, Melanie Phillips.

A

I would say the following quote from Bob Latchford serves as a very good definition of a "smear" :

she has taken it upon herself to attack Barack Obama ('smear' wouldnt do it justice) on an almost weekly basis about every aspect of his life, with little regard for fact."

James Sturdevant

I say: Who would you rather vote for for Vice President? The Senator from the MBNA credit card company or the governor who is the first vice presidential candidate since Teddy Roosevelt who knows how to dress a moose?

YouCannotBeSerious!

When you stop smearing opponents, then you can criticise others for doing so. And not before

charles soper

'Anyone who has done even the most basic research into the subject knows that ID is simply creationism dressed' Bluejewel.
As a publishing and practising physician and a creationist, you're quite wrong, Bluejewel.
Read Behe, Johnson or Denton or the movement's historian Thomas Woodward and you'll find ID is very far from Biblical literalism when it comes to a young earth and the period of creation.
On the other hand I have know a number of bioscience professors, post docs and others, as well of course as historical opponents of evolution like the outstanding theoreticians Maxwell, Faraday, Kelvin, Ambrose Fleming and more recently Damadian all of whom took Genesis more seriously than IDers. No wonder, given that it analyses the human predicament far more cogently and more precisely than the junk of psychology or liberal theology, as even TH Huxley acknowledged in his famous Romanes lecture.

Paul McLaughlan

Why is everyone so against a 6-day creation? I'm constantly being told that you can be a christian and believe in evolution. I'm afraid you cannot. The Apostle Paul makes it very clear that death did not occur until Adam and Eve sinned. Putting death before it (as you would have to do with evolution) would undermine the entire basis of salvation and the need for Christ. I would not ask that we teach it in schools, but I would like to see evolution treated as a theory and not fact. Any honest observer must agree there are many holes in evolution and it is NOT proven. Please stop mocking creationists - I know it's faith, but I've yet to see evidence which disproves it.

Barry Larking

In her anxiety to see Sen Obama kept out of the White House Melanie Philip's has stooped to some crudities and fast talking. I know little of Guv. Palin's view's beyond what I have read here and some of her own words in the speech she gave at the Republican Party's Convention at Denver, but I shrewdly guess she and Ms Philip's may not make easy bosom companions.

To transpose the political right and left from the UK into the USA and vice versa is often done, rarely with convincing results. Certainly there has been a vigourous trade in campaigning tactics and some famously ill-advised "borrowings" of speeches, providing these were vague enough to survive the journey. But right and left are not useful. Both societies are just too different, internally and externally for this to work.

Sen McCain is loathed by many voters in the Republican camp (one cannot, in truth, say party, since that again conveys something very different in the UK in comparison to the USA). He needs someone to stand beside him in order to woo the majority who might have preferred 'one of us' rather than this not very conservative figure who got this far in politics by being shot down at the right time in the right place.

I suspect Ms Philip's enthusiasm for Guv. Palin and her subsequent bizarre thoughts about Creationism, Intelligent Design and the Church of England are motivated by concerns to do with what Sen. Obama plans to achieve in foreign policy terms affecting the Near East, The Persian Gulf and subsequently in the wider world. She should not let herself run away with the idea that in opposing a dangerous laxity towards those who mean what they say about 'destroying' the west one should feel obliged to take quack medicine and then claim it works.

Paul McLaughlan

ID simply suggests that evolution is not sufficient to explain the massive jumps in complexity that we now see in life. So they attribute it to a designer (just not a blind one!).

Creationists, believe on faith that the God of the Bible created the world in 6 days. They do find common ground with ID, but certainly the big gaping difference is the recognition of God. A fact which separates Christians from Atheists. Therefore ID is NOT creationism clothed in a scientific way. They just find the same evidence overwhelming and refuse to see God. It really shows that there is evidence against evolution and it's not religious nuts (like me) disagreeing, but genuine scientists who are seeing evolution for what it is. The atheists doctrine and what to move back to true science.

Nick Kaplan

What is wrong with people like Dominic L-R and Alex that makes them want to ban discussion about creationism? I am an atheist, I think creationism is absurd, but this is the exact reason why I think it must be discussed in science classes. Instead of ignoring the fact that many people believe this nonsense it seems to make a lot more sense to allow those who believe it to raise it in class. A balanced discussion about the merits of the theory of evolution and creationism should be enough to prove to those with open-minds which theory is correct and at least sow doubt in the minds of young creationists. Likewise, if a child were to raise the idea that the earth was flat during a science lesson, it seems ludicrous to me to just ignore that child and allow them to persist in this crazy belief. Instead a good teacher would ask the child why they thought this and then show them why they are mistaken.

In my view there is nothing wrong with what Palin has said on this issue, and as far as I know all she has said is exactly what Melanie has written. The fact that the left has gone to such lengths to distort a perfectly sensible suggestion proves just how scared they are of the threat Palin poses to their messiah Obama.

Nick T.

Melanie Phillips wrote: "Intelligent Design ... is a view held by growing numbers of scientists, several of great distinction ...". Can she, I wonder, name even one biologist of great distinction who endorses ID? And please don't say Michael Behe, who has been comprehensively and repeatedly discredited.

ID is not a viable, verifiable scientific hypothesis, let alone a theory (in the scientific sense). As Judge John E. Jones ruled in the landmark Kitzmiller v. Dover case, ID is not science. It is religion dressed up as science and has no business being taught as if it were science.

WhoCares

Whether "somehow created" by evolution or By God himself, the fact remains that there are mud-heads who do not grasp the the difference between science and faith and thus the issue of the separation of church and state.

CBW

Robbit: If I have a view that 2 + 2 = 5 or that the French for "to eat" is "danser", can that be debated in class too - on the grounds that it's just a theory? It's a nonsense to say that every half-witted idea should be taught as education simply because someone - however ignorant - thinks it true or that it might be. Conservatives above all should want people in public life to have some basic level of education and intelligence and understanding of the importance of the value of education not have them justify ignorance and prejudice being taught in our schools. It is particularly depressing to have the author of "All Must Have Prizes" trying to gloss over Palin's nonsense on this issue.

More concerning is the fact (if true) that Palin is reported to have asked a library to ban books. Does Melanie not understand why the idea of having a VP who believes in banning books does not fill some of us with glee?

It seems to me that despite all the castigation of the Princess Obama phenomenon Melanie is falling for a similar Princess Palin hype. Making a good speech is not, as she has so eloquently argued, enough to make one a good politician and leader.

Overall the Republicans have done a good job in making their convention exciting and speaking to their supporters. Have they done a good job in talking to the country as a whole and persuading the undecideds? Hmm....

London Calling

"Stars are born within giant gas clouds. Dust swirls deep into the gas clouds"

You have certainly done your homework this time Melanie, the American media are having a field day on Sarah Palins family "Ups and Downs" and the high rate of teenage pregnancy here and the US has just got the moral hug of acceptance on the political world stage, and it sends just the right message the media are now feasting on.

Sarah is certainly a star in the making, only time will tell how much of it was Star struck gas or the dust clouds from Hurricane Gustav, Hannah, Icke or Josephine.

Creationalism was the 45 minute sexed up dossier that took our two countries to war in Iraq...but I dont think they will be introducing that into the curriculum within six days...do you?

Too much Starbucks by the sounds of it and not enough Truth Fairies...:0

Sean Healy

And here I thought Melanie would use the occasion to rail against the elevation to sainthood of the candidate's 17 year old daughter, pregnant by her fellow high school student. I'm much happier with the conservative family values the Obamas actually practice. And still nothing on the Jews for Jesus link.

London Calling

"Stars are born within giant gas clouds. Dust swirls deep into the gas clouds"

You have certainly done your homework this time Melanie, the American media are having a field day on Sarah Palins family "Ups and Downs" and the high rate of teenage pregnancy here and the US has just got the moral hug of acceptance on the political world stage, and it sends just the right message the media are now feasting on.

Sarah is certainly a star in the making, only time will tell how much of it was Star struck gas or the dust clouds from Hurricane Gustav, Hannah, Ike or Josephine.

Creationalism was the 45 minute sexed up dossier that took our two countries to war in Iraq...but I dont think they will be introducing that into the curriculum within six days...do you?

Too much Starbucks by the sounds of it and not enough Truth Fairies...:0

Lee Bowman

I have to agree with you regarding her ethics, her fortitude, and limited but viable administrative experience. But equally important, and I'm glad you brought it up, is the cascade of straw man attacks against her religiosity, and the false assertion that she has advocated, and would likely push, if elected, a creationist agenda. In the US, that essentially equates with subverting science with religion.

This is an old, timeworn theme, that had some merit in a few isolated instances which included some court challenges, but which today is largely without merit. The Dover PA v. Kitzmiller case comes to mind, in which a jurist incorrectly ruled ID as "religion disguised as science", a contrived and pretentious decision.

As you correctly point out, the concept of Intelligent Design is an emerging hypothesis regarding complexity and organization in nature, and is finding favor with many scientists. I would add that rather than threatening science, it will serve to strengthen it, by either verification or falsification of evolutionary hypotheses, in particular, natural selection as the sole source of novelty.

But moving on to Palin and her qualifications, I must say that I totally agree with you. At least from what I know of her at this point, she displays qualities we should look for in a leader. Would I vote her into office? Even as a 'stateside liberal', I just might ...

Olly

Sad to see Melanie allying hrself with this rubbish. The "intelligent design" movement, as promoted by Behe and Dembski in the US, has been treated with well-deserved contempt by serious scientists. In Behe's version, it essentially consisted of taking complex biological organisms such as the flagellum bacterium or the immune system, and declaring "I cannot think of any evolutionary intermediates, therefore none exist, therefore it is a miracle from God". Quite apart from the hopeless logical inadequacy of arguments from ignorance of this type, Behe was subsequently overwhelmed by a tide of serious scientific analyis to demonstrate the evolutionary pathways to the immune system in particular - much of it, incidentally, esential to modern medicine. Hence Judge Jones, to whom Melanie alludes with her characteristic contempt and spite, was on very strong ground in dismissing Behe's ideas as being unscientific.

Why does Melanie believe any old nonsense when it comes to science? Melanie's published articles on subjects such as evolution, global warming and MMR demonstrate sub-GCSE levels of understanding.

Brian Moshe

Sarah Palin is a brilliant and inspired choice by John McCain.

If only Britain had a Conservative Party that really upheld conservative beliefs and values there might be the same feelings of hope here that millions of Americans can suddenly now enjoy.

We do, of course, have a woman in these islands who is just as inspiring and just as sensible as Sarah Palin: her name is Melanie Phillips....

Ellen

Bob Latchford, Melanie Phillips has not smeared Barack Obama at all. She has provided an abundance of evidence for every single point raised in connection to him and she certainly didn't repeat the smear about his wife being in a video with Louis Farrakhan, which many other commentators did.

Apart from the good news on the other side of the Atlantic, now for the bad. The New York Sun looks as if it is about to close. I hope the website will remain available to trawl if it is closed because the archive is useful. And, before she gets a chance to put her hand over the microphone, I think Madeleine Bunting will be pleased if the New York Sun does close as we all know what it showed her up to be.

http://www.nysun.com/opinion/narcissism-on-stilts/43660/

John Thomas

No, JimG (4 Sep, 7:27) it is Evolutionism that is religion, or at least ideology/materialist philosophy. Materialists deceptively portray it as "science" or "reason", when it's nothing of the sort - except to those who have a deep-seated need to believe in materialism/atheism, which serves to insulate them from the idea of consequences resulting from their own actions and/or lifestyle(normally hedonism, or egoism). Evolutionism (the "ism" is the tell-tale bit) has fooled a lot of (willing?) people for a long time - but perhaps it's day is approaching its end - let's hope so.

Joe Strummer

Has this thread went clinically insane.? Creationism, ID, call it what you like and its adherents are both nuts. Next there will be proponents of how shape-shifting reptilians are looking down on us and controlling our every hour from their high altar of the New World Order. LOL
Should individuals who actually believe this stuff be allowed to vote, never mind stand for election.?

Tony Ballinger

Melanie, you are a breath of fresh air in this horrid left-wing hybrid of a world we live in. A world that is always surrendering noble values. And yes, if Israel goes the war against Chaos is lost too

cuffleyburgers

Oh dear Melanie you were doing really well, then you lost it.

Intelligent design is utter tosh and I think you would be hard pushed to find many eminent scientists believing it.

Still I agree with you about Mrs Palin who seems a thoroughly refreshing candidate.

Max Kaye

As an athiest I don't care what gods or idols people believe in, so long as they don't inflict these beliefs on the public.

From what I know, Sarah Palin has not stated that she intends to do so.

As for her speech: it was the best political speech given in the US since the days of Ronnie Reagan. A star is born, indeed.

Palin for President in 2012!

David Lindsay

Intelligent Design seems to be a sort of Deism, and it therefore comes as no surprise that it is so popular in a country founded by Deists.

Something that can vaguely be called "God" sets everything going, but then just leaves it alone, and therefore might as well not exist.

ID is an example of the arrogant streak among lawyers and scientists. Rather than ask the clergy assigned to the sorts of parishes or congregations that contain lots of lawyers and scientists, they have instead concocted this for themselves.

But I like Palin, though. Roll on a tie in the Electoral College, so long as Congress then delivers Obama-Palin (i.e., Obama-Paleocon) rather than McCain-Biden.

George of Currumbin

'Intelligent Design simply holds that life could not have originated spontaneously, but must have been at source the product of some kind of purposeful force. It does not deny evolution.'
I think this is wishful thinking and indeed it were so there might be some respectability in ID. However those I have discussed this with including an Australian PHD refuse to recognise that we are related to Apes and also refuse to accept that dinosaurs are more than a few thousand years old. And they are extremely aggressive about this.
there may be a few who limit ID to the origin of life itself but I gave never come accross them

charles soper

'Olly' wrote, 'In Behe's version, it essentially consisted of taking complex biological organisms such as the flagellum bacterium or the immune system, and declaring "I cannot think of any evolutionary intermediates, therefore none exist, therefore it is a miracle from God".
Frankly you do yourself great discredit by caricaturing Behe in such a shallow fashion. His argument is based on irreducible complexity, which basically means that a system for which each individual component is essential will utterly fail down if one part is missing. Explaining the gradual step by step evolution of such mechanisms is indisputably a major challenge. For those who believe Behe has been comprehensively debunked, I encourage them to read the literature a little more carefully and critically. Ken Miller's arguments for example are full of great rhetorical swirl and flourish but not so much substance - his claim that components of the flagellum (the type III secretory system, see http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html for his defence) subserve other functions by no means disposes of the problem, far from it (most evolutionary authorities in the field actually claim the reverse from Miller that TTSS evolved from the flagellum not vice versa ( J. Mol. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2(2):125–44, April 2000)). By the way if you want a sense of the mechanism examined here's a short clip (http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=6da0a25216521ee6fbe4).

There are also serious allegations about Ken Miller's integrity that deserve investigation (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1826).

Nick T.

Actually no, ID is not "an emerging hypothesis regarding complexity and organization in nature ... (which) is finding favor with many scientists". It is in fact a cynical and intellectually bankrupt attempt to circumvent the USA's First Amendment and sneak religion into American public schools by the back door, as Judge John E. Jones, a devout Christian by the way, ruled entirely correctly in Kitzmiller v. Dover, the defendants having failed lamentably to demonstrate any scientific basis for ID. Its advocates like to pretend that it is gaining ground and that evolution theory is "in crisis". In fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Lee Bowman ought to know this and so ought Melanie Phillips. Shame on them both.

Mladen Andrijasevic

Krauthammer, once more:
Palin's Problem
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/04/AR2008090402845.html

Bob

Ref ndm (first comment) and others

"Our schools should not be in the business of teaching fantasies as fact, regardless of how many people believe them to be true"
Quite right! This is the very reason that evolution should be banned from the science class, and maybe added to the comparative religion lessons. Evolution has ALL the criteria that various comments in this column have defined as religion or "faith".
For over a century we have been looking for the "missing link" between man and beast, when we actually need millions of links. Blind faith is the biggest ingredient of evolution. Evolution is rarely examined without a blindfold to the true requirements, many of the historic finds have been fraudulent, (yes, just as in many religions).
When the same benchmark is applied to evolution as to faith, then and only then have they a right to condemn those who take a different view of the start of life.

Geoff M

The Republicans are hailing her as America's Thatcher!

And just when the Tories are trying to bury her memory! Well timed Cameron.

Social Conservatism is the natural and best state for any society. Family, the rule of law, decency and love of country & culture all go to create a stable, prosperous and safe nation.

What Labour has created is a society where family is denegrated, homosexuality elevated, country & culture is rubbished, borders are broken, violence and terrorism is what we can look forward to - with a Police State to contol the new "Zoo Nation".

I only hope that the Liberals and their "social units" are forced to experience the fallout at first hand!

I certainly won't step forward to save them.

Verity

What a bunch of silly blethers you men are. Why are you obsessing about "creationism" and "intelligent design"? The Governor of Alaska has already indicated she is not interested in introducing religious theories into the classroom, unless they come up in discussions of something else, in which case, she doesn't think free debate should be banned. I think this is perfectly intelligent and sound and non-controversial.

But she has already stated that she does not think creationism belongs in the schoolroom, so it's moot.

Why cannot you accept this?

And why cannot you accept that it's not up to the Governor in any case?

Lee Bowman

Olly wrote,

"Sad to see Melanie allying herself with this rubbish. The "intelligent design" movement, as promoted by Behe and Dembski in the US, has been treated with well-deserved contempt by serious scientists."

The one who speak out do so from a politically defensive position, i.e. to defend Darwinist 'naturalism' since funding, tenure, AND keeping their 'day joy' depends on it.

"In Behe's version, it essentially consisted of taking complex biological organisms such as the flagellum bacterium or the immune system, and declaring "I cannot think of any evolutionary intermediates, therefore none exist, therefore it is a miracle from God". "

Behe's right about irreducible complexity, and I would go further. Beneficial mutations are rare, and the cascade of them necessary to construct any of 40 or so eye designs would NEVER occur by chance. Each one would need to confer a reproductive or survival advantage, AND become fixed in the population. Monkeys typing Shakespeare is more probable.

"Quite apart from the hopeless logical inadequacy of arguments from ignorance of this type, Behe was subsequently overwhelmed by a tide of serious scientific analysis to demonstrate the evolutionary pathways to the immune system in particular - much of it, incidentally, essential to modern medicine."

None of the stack of literature presented at trial was presented with citations. Just a stack, no references, utter courtroom theatrics.

"Hence Judge Jones, to whom Melanie alludes with her characteristic contempt and spite, was on very strong ground in dismissing Behe's ideas as being unscientific."

He simply sided with the 'power' side, gained paid speaking engagements, prestige and honorary diplomas. The school board had possible religious motives, and was adjudged accordingly. Jones overstepped his authority (and knowledge) in ruling on ID.

"Why does Melanie believe any old nonsense when it comes to science? Melanie's published articles on subjects such as evolution, global warming and MMR demonstrate sub-GCSE levels of understanding."

Or possibly more 'progressive' reasoning than many. She's definitely not a 'yes' person.

Lee Bowman

Nick T wrote,

"Judge John E. Jones, a devout Christian by the way, ruled entirely correctly in Kitzmiller v. Dover, the defendants having failed lamentably to demonstrate any scientific basis for ID."

You forgot to mention he was a "Bush appointee", both irrelevant points. If you'll review the charges filed, ID was not on trial there, just the actions of the school board. Jones was allowed to by the defense (wrong decision), to rule on the efficacy of a scientific hypothesis (ID), and its alliance (if any) with religion. Because Wm. Buckingham adopted the ID term, and was shown to have religious motives, Jones conflated the two. Current ID synthesis is purely science based, and Judge Jones erred grievously in his ruling on ID.

George of Currumbin

the issues of irreducible complexity have been well answered and there is much on the net from reputable sources re flagelli and the evolution of the eye.
To deny that we are not related to the apes with which we share over 90% of our genetic code is to my mind sheer human arrogance.
to claim that Darwinism is the complete panacea is also arrogant. There are many aspects still undiscovered such as the origin of life itself and to be fair to Darwin his theory was never aimed at basic molecular biology.
For those who consider ID surely the path to take would be to suggest that Gd was the original creator of life itself and that through the trials and tribulations of evolution we are what we are today.

davidka

ID is proposed mainly by Christian apologists at the Discovery Institute and their allies, who oppose the science of evolution because it threatens their narrow views of Bible narratives.
ID is a hoax because Darwin's theories are perfectly compatible with the notion of a Creator who does not interfer in the evolution of life on our planet. At least not in a way that is understandable to our still primitive intellects.And what about life on the millions of other planets in the universe? Is Gd interfering with their evolution too? It is indeed petty to believe that He would interfere with eyeballs and cilia etc.
DNA for example has evolved over billions of years Its mind boggling complexity was not achieved over the course of a few thousand years..If He does exist would He not marvel at the wondrous path the orignal seed has taken with life on this planet.
There is not conflict between the belief that god created the universe and the theory of natural selection

Ann

"What a bunch of silly blethers you men are"

Trust Verity to come up with a disgusting sexist comment.
You wouldn't be Harpic Harridan in disguise, would you?

Ann

"Beneficial mutations are rare, and the cascade of them necessary to construct any of 40 or so eye designs would NEVER occur by chance"

Making such a categorical statement shows that you don't understand science, probability or the age of this planet.

Ann

"Materialists deceptively portray it as "science" or "reason", when it's nothing of the sort - except to those who have a deep-seated need to believe in materialism/atheism, which serves to insulate them from the idea of consequences resulting from their own actions and/or lifestyle(normally hedonism, or egoism)"

Here we go, right on cue: theists displaying their ignorance-based contempt for atheists. I am an atheist, and take full responsibility for my actions. I am neither a hedonist nor an egoist. I don't have a god to blame, so I accept that my actions cause definable consequences. The same is true for most thinking atheists.

Olly

Why are creationists always such incorrigible whiners?

The typical creationist screed runs roughly as follows:

"None of the serious academic scientists at any of the reputable universities agrees with me therefore they are all corrupt, tenure-seeking conspiracists, I lost this decision in court and the judge ruled against me so he is fraud and was only in it for judas-gold and publicity, no serious academic journal will publish my stuff so they are all...etc, etc"

Can't you see how pathetic this looks?

Charles Soper - can we not have reasonable academic dispute on serious and complex topics without resorting to smears and ad hominem abuse? Ken Miller is a committed family man and devout Roman Catholic. He is also a serious and dedicated scientist who treats his opponents with unfailing courtesy and respect. And you resort to smears about his integrity without even having the guts to make specific allegations...are you a christian as well as a creationist?

Simon Milligan

It would appear that Governor Palin's values include denying the right to an abortion to a woman who has been raped, supporting capital punishment, and a belief that the invasion of Iraq was part of "God's Plan" - it is unclear how she has arrived at that conclusion. Personally, I can do without these values.

Nick T.

Lee Bowman wrote:

"Current ID synthesis is purely science based, and Judge Jones erred grievously in his ruling on ID."

In Kitzmiller counsel for the plaintiffs showed that the textbook, Of Pandas and People, which the creationist-controlled Dover school board wanted to introduce, was a crude rehash of an earlier, overtly creationist book, with all the references to "God" removed and replaced by the word "designer".

Purely science-based? Yeah right.

Verity

Simon Milligan, I would like to see where Governor Palin said women who have been raped should be denied an abortion. Reference, please. It is most, most unlikely. You seem not to understand the role of a Governor. I can't be bothered because I don't care as much as you do, but you might want to look up the political constituency of the Senate.

The Governor signs bills into state law, as the President signs federal bills into law. She doesn't bloody make them up!

As for capital punishment, I like that bit. But that is up to the state legislature. Not the Governor!

jose garcia

to NDM

"Intelligent design" is an intellectual fraud designed to skirt the First Amendment's establishment clause.

"Our schools should not be in the business of teaching fantasies as fact, regardless of how many people believe them to be true."

you are right, our schools should stop preaching ridiculous illogical ideas like atheism ,

i mean can you believe these guys? , they actually believe human intelligence, phisiology, and psycology came out of nowhere!!!!!, no-one / nothing , no begining , no system, no explanation, we just are , we just come out some big huge proverbial fart billions of years ago, and now we are here!!!!!!

and now i can apreciate art.

quite a leap from a big universal fart.

you call this science?
i call this a lie and a fantasy by atheists bigots like you.

no matter how many times you try to spin a lie the universe is jus a little too big to explain itself, and people do know it

Jane

May I endorse Ms Phillips' comments above on Mrs Palin and just add in relation to Mr McCain that this was my favourite line in his speech:

"We are going to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much."

Now why can't we hear a British politician ever say anything like that? They've spent enough time bankrupting our own country by writing cheques for abroad that they had no business doing so and now look: we're broke.

The US deficit is $800bn and could be slashed at a stroke if it would stop funding countries that are intent on trouble.

And Mr Community Organiser's response to an $800bn deficit? Walk in the door and spend $50bn.

Matt

Palin says that there should be a "debate" if the issue of Creationism comes up. No, if students misunderstand a theory, or think an incorrect theory is true, the teacher has an obligation to explain their mistake to them. "Debate" is a different thing entirely.

The Democrats must be delighted with McCain's choice.

Augustus

jose garcia - One way of explaining the pent up energy that created the 'big bang' and the millisecond of expansion that led to the expanding universe in which we now find ourselves is to say that at that moment time also began. Without a universe you have nothing, the same goes for time. Without that you have nothing either, no past, and no future.

Roy

Reading through the above, Brian Moshe has stolen my thoughts!
As far as the dawn of life goes; if some of the evolutionists among us are waiting for another evolutionist to fill their political aspirations, we may be waiting for a long time! Just be patient for another century or two, and one may turn up who is prepared to admit to their voting electorate, that yes they believe the human race is part and parcel of the evolutionary biology … as is a butterfly. That will be the breakthrough if this person is elected.

Nick T.

I would like to pick up on just a few of the misleading statements made here so far.

Evolution is “only a theory”: Wrong. That life has evolved is a fact which has been known (from the fossil record) since the early 19th century. The “theory of evolution” (specifically natural selection) merely proposes a mechanism for it. And when scientists speak of a “theory” they do not mean a wild hunch, but rather a coherent and well tested group of propositions which explain certain natural phenomena. Gravity is also “only a theory”, but don’t try jumping off a high building! By this definition, on the other hand, ID is not a “theory”.

There are many holes in evolution. It is not proven: Again, misunderstanding of the scientific method. Science does not deal in certainties. Everything is provisional and subject to challenge. And of course there are gaps in our knowledge. But these are being rapidly filled in. The evidence for the accuracy of evolution theory is overwhelming and is accumulating almost on a daily basis.

How can complexity arise by chance? One poster likened it to a garden shed appearing from a pile of grass – a version of Fred Hoyle’s jumbo jet argument. But this poster, like Hoyle, fails to appreciate that, while genetic mutation is random, natural selection is not.

The scientific establishment is stifling free debate. What is the harm in “teaching the controversy”? The problem is that it is like demanding equal time for stork theory in sex education classes. There is no real scientific “controversy” over the fundamentals of the theory – only the details (gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium, whether natural selection is the sole driving force of evolution etc).

ID is the province of “genuine scientists”, not “religious nuts”. To my knowledge all exponents of ID are religiously motivated, although they may not always admit it!

Evolution is a religion. No. It is the product of observation and logical thinking, not revelation. It has no immutable dogmas. Everything is subject to challenge and revision.

Irreducible complexity makes sense because “explaining the step-by-step evolution of such (complex) mechanisms is a major challenge”. Yes, it is a challenge, which scientists are working on, and very successfully. ID advocates, on the other hand, do not even try. They simply say: “It’s too difficult for us. Let’s give up and say God (er … the Designer) did it”.

field

Jane says:

"...in relation to Mr McCain that this was my favourite line in his speech:

"We are going to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much."

Now why can't we hear a British politician ever say anything like that? They've spent enough time bankrupting our own country by writing cheques for abroad that they had no business doing so and now look: we're broke.

The US deficit is $800bn and could be slashed at a stroke if it would stop funding countries that are intent on trouble."

Yes, but which countries might those be? Let me have a guess: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan are probably up there.

These countries are all capable of collapsing in on themselves with huge consequences for the region.

We at least need to recognise there is an issue there.

T