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.

This is why the USA pumps in money to those countries.

Sergey

ID is neither science nor religion, it is a philosophy seeking reconcile them. It points out (rightly) that concept of adaptive evolution through natural selection can not explain arising of complex systems, because half-made prototypes tend to be completely unworkable. This is a long-standing problem, and honest scientists aknowledge this and do not pretend that they have a solution. May be, some day purely matherialistic resolution of this contradiction would be found; may be, no. This was a central idea of a famous book of a famous French philosopher Henri Bergson "Creative Evolution", so you can enlist him as creationist, too. (He is also Nobel Prize winner.)
But these philosophy ideas are too complex to be included in high school curriculum, of course. So Palin position is a quite resonable and liberal.

The Beginning of Time And Before - The M ovie!

I tune in to a sophisticated political magazine with knowledgable, articulate analysists to a discussion of a political candidate and get a long, dense, jaw-cracking thread by a bunch of obsessive men who have hijacked an intersting friend and turned it into a discussion amongst themselves.

Your nit-picky, finer points on a subject which isn't the point of the thread, and don't interest anyone here except yourselves, is rude and de trop.

Isn't there a club you could join where you could be sequestered to make your fussy, picky, triumphant points all alone?

We were discussing the candidature for Vice President of the Governor of Alaska, not the beginning of the damn' universe. Surely there are blogs for people like you?

Augustus

Movie man, you may well be right, but it's more interesting than the investigation for allegedly putting pressure on a police chief to sack a trooper involved in a messy divorce with his sister, or other media obsessions. But let me try to get back on track. As the first woman ever to be on the Republican ticket, she will appeal to the 'disgruntled Hillary Clinton vote'. True or false?

Verity

Augusto - "As the first woman ever to be on the Republican ticket, she will appeal to the 'disgruntled Hillary Clinton vote'. True or false?"

One million per cent (I know there's no such thing) false. You do not understand the Hillary vote. You do not understand American politics.

I guarantee you, the Hillary voters will hold their noses and vote for Obama, who is at least a loony (if spiteful, and mysteriously financed) lefty, or they'll stay at home.

My bet: a large percentage will stay home in a huff out of solidarity with Hillary.

Governor Palin is everything they loathe. Her 17-year old daughter's not even getting an abortion, for God's sakes! Is this where 30 of hardcore femininism has got us? A seventeen-year old who doesn't want an abortion? Governor Palin is a throwback to the Stone Age! An evolutionary retard!

No. Wild horses would not pull them from the Hillary camp onto the sunny uplands of Republicanism.

Nick T.

"The Beginning of Time And Before - The Movie!" wrote:

"Your nit-picky, finer points on a subject which isn't the point of the thread, and don't interest anyone here except yourselves, is rude and de trop."

You say that the creationism/ID debate is not the point of this thread. But it was the point of Melanie Phillips' lightweight article, or at least the 80% of it devoted to parading her scientific ignorance and smearing the American judiciary. If you want knowledgeable, articulate analysis, look elsewhere.

Nick Kaplan

Matt sys; “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.”

Debate is a format of argument in which both sides can put their case across and rationally seek to persuade the other that they are correct. This seems to me the best format for addressing confusion around issues such as evolution and creationism (a format in which, i believe, evolution would come out best). It seems to me that you would rather sit a student down and just repeatedly shout at them that “Evolution is correct” until they concede defeat (which is never really going to convince anyone is it!).

Still, it doesn’t surprise me to learn a leftist Democrat supporter (who presumably believes in the awesome power of the state) cannot understand the difference between persuasion and coercion.

Werner Patels

For someone who believes in the world having a Creator and in Creation itself, she sure enjoys killing God's creation when she takes great joy in killing innocent animals (some of which are smarter than most humans these days).

Verity

Werner Patels - Name one animal that is smarter than one human - and, as a courtesy, I am leaving Harriet Harpic and Jack Straw out of this argument.

She hunts, but her family eats what they kill. The Bible, in which she believes, tells us that God gave man dominion over the animals. I personally say a little blessing when I spray a cockroach, but I am sure that Governor Palin is a good shot and can kill with a single bullet.

Governor Palin believes that God created the universe. The people of 5,000 years ago, with their tiny understanding of their surroundings, reckoned it would have taken pretty close to six days. That doesn't mean to say that Christians today are not perfectly alert to the surge in advancement of science and do still believe in "six days". My guess is Governor Palin believes in evolution. In any event, it's irrelevant, because the laws of the state are made by the Senate, for God's sake, not the Governor! She is not some supreme tribune or something!

I haven't seen this mentioned, but speaking of the Senate in Juneau, they passed a Bill forbidding the payment of benefits - of state employees - to same-sex partners.

Hang onto your seats, boys and girls! Governor Palin vetoed the Bill.

Marian C

Melanie - Yet another excellent article; well done.

Augustus

Verity, I defer to your superior knowledge. I wondered, off the cuff, whether gender would be stronger than party, given the obvious appeal to women of another determined ceiling breaker. In many cases, I fear, it may be both American politics and women that I do not understand.

Verity

Augustus - ask yourself this: in an election, for you, do you give more weight to gender than policies?

If this question strikes you as daft, please realise that you suggested that 50% of the human race is too stupid to get up in the morning.

I'm a gal and I love politicians who think on my wavelength and further my agenda of a rich and secure society. I loved Ronald Reagan and now I love Sarah Palin. They're cut from the same cloth.

Olly

Beginning of Time wrote:

"Your nit-picky, finer points on a subject which isn't the point of the thread, and don't interest anyone here except yourselves, is rude and de trop.

Mel's comment was about Palin's alleged creationism, the difference between creationism and intelligent design, and whether ID conflicts with evolutionary theory. So the thread discussion which follows is right on target. But we do apologise, Beginning of Time, for discussing boring Boffin, egghead, irrelevant ideas like evolution and the beginning of life rather than whatever it is you want to discuss.

GalapagosPete

"Debate is a format of argument in which both sides can put their case across and rationally seek to persuade the other that they are correct. This seems to me the best format for addressing confusion around issues such as evolution and creationism (a format in which, i believe, evolution would come out best). It seems to me that you would rather sit a student down and just repeatedly shout at them that “Evolution is correct” until they concede defeat (which is never really going to convince anyone is it!)."

You know, seriously, that's a great idea! Once the kids have been through a year of biology and understand the subject well enough to understand why ID is non-science (and believe me, Biology 101 is plenty to accomplish that), at the end of the year they have a debate.

Of course, after the pro-ID side continuously gets whupped, I suspect there will be little enthusiasm among pro-ID parents to keep their kids in the debates.

But that's OK. In formal debate, debaters often have to take a side they don't agree with, and by having to present the pro-ID argument with which they disagree, this would be good experience for future scientists to learn how to respond to these sorts of attacks effectively.

charles soper

Olly, I don't think creationists 'whine', I have known and seen the extraordinary persecution evolutionary 'academics' throw at those who don't bow to their sacred cow. I know researchers who's hard work was deliberately sabotaged by lab colleagues simply because of hatred of their creationist/ID views. In one lecture on abiogenesis I organised, there was a hysterical level of abuse and shouting by colleagues who felt threatened by a calm, polite and dispassionate demolition of the materialist myth of 'soup to cell'.

As to Ken Miller, do you think it inappropriate to critically consider a man's actual public record of honesty and integrity or otherwise, in evaluating his argument? To those in doubt his own videos make his harsh polemic character very plain. This is quite distinct from personal abuse or gratuitous insult, frankly your comment about MP's 'sub-GCSE levels of understanding' is running very close to that.

If you want an honest,clean debate, I suggest you some work to do at home first.

field

I think one thing emerges from the recent conventions...

The USA is still an amazing country - well democracy if you like.

Can anyone seriously believe that the mixed race son of a single parent aged 18 who was educated in Indonesia would have any chance of leading the UK. Or that a housewife, mother of five, ex-beauty queen from the Orkneys could aspire to the position of Deputy Prime Minister?

They had a black head of the armed forces, while Prince Charles was still trying to get one into the guards.

And yet...smug Brits are never happier than indulging in a bit of cheap anti-Americanism.

Abdullah al-Libi

The whole ID/Creation issue has been so beaten to death that I am ready to depart for Mars. Stephen Jay Gould said it best: keep religion and science apart. Religion cannot empirically prove a creator; science has little to say on how to answer metaphysical questions. One can speculate on the intersections between the two but that's part of philosophy class, not biology.

ID shouldn't be taught as science, and *scientism* should be kept out class as well. Just teach the kids the biology and if they ask "what does it all mean?" then tell them to ask the PARENTS.

The ONLY issue that matters in 2008 is "who is going to fight Islamofascism, and who is going to cave to the likes of CAIR?"

Kevin Dunn

I don't think Intelliget Design can be called a scientific theory Because it cannot be proved or disproved. But this does not mean that it is totally illegitimate as an idea or speculation. Thank you, Melanie, for another greeat article!

Buddynoel

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

This apparently doesn't apply to health care, where govt-run systems erode quality and kill people, taxes - where higher taxes choke business and drive millions into poverty "in the name of fairness," free debate - where Democrats plan to enact rules limiting the ability to give opinions without the scrutiny of a govt censor, or education, where items like ndm's hated intelligent design are treated not as opinions but "fantacies" which allow smart people to crush the First Ammendment rights of those who don't agree. Let's call it like it is, ndm, you are trying to enact the new KGB because you cannot defend your views with intelligent people, so why not grab your pitchforks and surround yourself with self appointed national socialists. I would also suggest you wear armbands and burn conservative books as well.

Tony from Australia

TIP - Obama Attack Plan revealed against Sarah Palin from ‘Obama ally’
Guys,

I'm in Australia. A liberal newspaper here has an senior executive/reporter, an Obama follower, in the USA talking to the Obama camp. It makes me as mad as hell.

His article over the weekend, picked up by Tim Blair - http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair
and in the newspaper, The Sydney Morning Herald, itself - http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-election/palin-hailed-but-mccain-is-the-main-game/2008/09/06/1220121599264.html

This is a significant resource you need to publicise as a standing item in your site

He says

"An Obama ally assessed what Palin means: "This is a turnout election and the right will now turn out. I still think this is Obama's race to lose but he could lose it unless our folks turn up the energy.
"Obama needs to help identify her over the weekend as a book burning fundamentalist with a secessionist husband, a wacky minister of her own and an appetite for pork barrelling. They need to marginalise her as a nice but extreme, fringe, inexperienced and slightly less than honest politician. Right now, she is America's sweetheart …
"They have to demonstrate she is a radical conservative mannequin with a stylist.""
This is a significant resource you need to publicise as a standing item in your site. This will be the theme of the US Democrats for the next 2 months

Anon

Well, Verity - if Palin's really like Ronald Reagan then that's the most convincing argument I've heard against her. Fortunately, she appears to be far more intelligent than he was.

As for the Creationism vs. ID vs. Evolution gunk - I can't believe it's generating this much claptrap in spite of what Melanie said. However, at least she's put it out for debate at all levels of comprehension.

Surely those are also the things that matter about a politician's approach to education: support for academic freedom and debate? That's what Palin seems to believe in.

Robert W.

Greetings from Canada's Left Coast, Melanie, where by the way, I'm definitely a duck swimming in the wrong pond!

I frequently listen to BBC London FM 94.9 so I think I have a pretty good handle on the zeitgeist of the British public. My sense is that many in the UK simply don't understand that the US is primarily a center-right country. So there's a massive cognitive dissonance about how "Paula Bunyan" could suddenly come out of the hinterlands of Alaska and completely turn upside down what was, in their minds, a certain victory for the Obamanation Messiah on November 4th.

It's really not that difficult to understand though. Barack Obama has been a sympathetic & intriguing figure because of his race. But in just one week it has become blatantly obvious to everyone that Sarah Palin is even more intriguing. During the same week, the Democrat Propaganda Department ... errr, I mean the American Mainstream Media (MSM) has learned a very painful lesson: Palin is also a MUCH more sympathetic figure to most Americans than Obama. She's never given one hint that she wants or needs anyone's sympathy, but when the extreme left bloggers started smearing her and her children, all but devout Obama supporters felt an innate sense of duty to come to her defense. For she is their sister, their daughter, and their mother all rolled into one. The MSM didn't pick up on this at first and started running "news" stories based solely on rumours and innuendo; some of them beyond preposterous. But just like what happened in 2004 with Rathergate, a massive number of conservative bloggers started dispelling smear after smear after smear. It's gotten so comical that one fellow has actually compiled a list: http://explorations.chasrmartin.com/2008/09/06/palin-rumors As I write this it's at 66 but will likely be higher by tomorrow.

Sidenote: I'm not an artist but have the perfect idea for a political cartoon. It would feature an exasperated Barack Obama screaming at the top of his lungs, "Please SHUT UP!!!" The audience around him, each wearing different Palin Rumours on their shirts would be most of the major American news outlets. Behind them, appearing just as beady little eyes underneath rocks, would be the legion of nutty left-wing bloggers.

Who knows for sure what will happen two months from now but my sense is that John McCain victory is pretty much assured now and he has Obama's most strident, unhinged supporters to thank for it.

If I may, I'd like to recommend some excellent columns published recently on this side of the pond:

George Jonas: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=83dd43e5-bfc0-4ada-ad4e-5ce5b8a519cb
Peggy Noonan: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122059352189503479.html?mod=todays_columnists
Conrad Black: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/09/06/conrad-black-americans-face-the-most-important-election-choice-since-ronald-reagan.aspx

Reading these, any open-minded reader of yours will begin to realize what a huge hurdle Barack Obama and Joe "Who?" Biden have in front of them.

Sincerely,

Robert W.
http://Pelalusa.blogspot.com

Kit9

Sarah Palin does NOT support the teaching of Creationism or ID in schools. People(liberals)have worked dilligently to spread this lie. It isn't true.

kit9

Oops, forgot to add that her father was a science teacher. One thing that hasn't gotten much traction given the left's efforts to trash her-she's got a strong libertarian streak in her. She's comfortable with her own beliefs but isn't consumed with shoving them down anyone else's throat.

Aylios

Yet another good article by Melanie. However she is wrong to perpetuate this myth that Palin said 'creation should be taught alongside evolution'. Palin did not say that and the word 'alongside' implies that both should be taught in science class, which is the whole sticking point in this creationism debate. Palin just casually said "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information." She made no allusion to the context in which they were to be taught.

Lee

Your analysis of "Intelligent Design" seems to be describing something far different from what we see here in the states. Here Intelligent Design is simply creationism warmed over.

If you want to understand what Intelligent Design means in the US, watch the following documentary:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

Also, evolution does not make any claims about the origin of life on earth, only how it has changed over time.

There have been many claims about how life began, but unless and until a claim emerges that can be tested and falsified and withstands such scrutiny, then any attempts to explain how life began are purely conjecture.

It might well be that ET stopped here for a bathroom break and we're all the descendants of the alien e-coli he deposited when nature called. That is not a claim that can be tested however. Such a claim is not a theory. It is not even a hypothesis. It has a lot in common with "Intelligent Design" in that regard.

Jeremy

Dear Melanie

I read your article with interest but, as a practising biochemist, I must take issue with some of your comments concerning intelligent design (ID). It is not the case that growing numbers of scientists are adopting intelligent design. I don’t know of any reputable scientists working in my area of research who invoke this theory as a way of explaining their results. Contrary to your assertion, the reason is that intelligent design is not science. Faced with the complexity of a biochemical system- the famous example cited by ID proponent Michael Behe was the bacterial flagellum- ID asserts that no explanation for its formation is possible, based on currently understood physical and chemical laws. It must, therefore, have been created by an intelligent designer. The flawed logic behind this argument is readily apparent: there is no reason to invoke supernatural explanations for natural phenomena, merely because we have not yet verified the detailed mechanisms behind the formation of some complex biochemical systems.

You also state that ID opposes ‘the claim that evolution somehow spontaneously created itself’- this statement makes no sense, and current evolutionary theory certainly makes no such claim. I think you are confusing evolution, which provides an explanation for how organisms change and adapt over time, with abiogenesis, which deals with the original formation of life. ID is emphatically not, as you state, a ‘well founded theory’: since its proposal over ten years ago, it has largely been ignored by the scientific community. Meanwhile, research in biochemistry and other areas of biology continues apace, without recourse to explanations based on imaginary forces originating from outside the known physical world.

Ian C

Aylios - a reaaly helpful contributin. Can you name a source. It was even staed by the wmanon the Marr show this morningthat she is a creationist - and she was a guest, and ID-S did not counter it. He/they both need to be better informed as do the rest of us.

Gregg Davis

Dear Melanie,

I generally agree with everything you say, but you are very wrong on the I.D. issue. It is not simply an innocent "theory," nor is it believed by "increasing numbers" of respected scientists. It is a pseudo-scientific version of creationism that was specifically developed by creationists to get religious doctrine taught in public school science classrooms. There is plenty of evidence to attest to this. You need to learn a bit more about this topic. I suggest you search and thoroughly read Charles Johnson's many posts on evolution, creationism, and I.D. on littlegreenfootballs.com. The court decision on the Dover, Pennsylvania, I.D. case is also an eye-opener.

There's nothing wrong with believing the Universe has a creator or even that a divine force "guided" evolution. But this is not "all" I.D. is. I.D. attempts to express this belief...specifically, the first chapter of John...in scientific terms, and that's not possible without twisting the definition of science beyond all recognition. And actually, the major I.D. proponents recognize this, and never intended that I.D. be an actual scientific theory. It was very specifically crafted to sound just scientific enough to fool school boards and state legislatures (especially those that lean toward creationism anyway) and subvert the U.S. Constitution's establishment clause. In other words, it is a lie and a fraud, and I hope you will recognize this and stop promoting it as just the innocent view that God had some part to play in the origin and development of life. There is already a philosophy for this--it's called teleology.

By the way, I'm a strong Palin supporter.

john doe

The Beginning of Time and Before..The Movie:

That's the moniker of the century...no, the millenium...no,for eternity.

And the blog our debating friends should go to is Little Green Footballs, where the regular posters need the urgent attention of a proctologist.

David123456

Melanie is right about Palin, and the difference between creationism vs intelligent design. Don't listen to those on the Left who try to convince you there's no difference. They are either bold faced liars (all for a "good cause", I'm sure), or they're just hopelessly ignorant.

Verity

Anon - No. Melanie didn't put the creation/whatever/blah blah blah out for discussion. She mentioned it in passing and all the train spotters in Britain picked it up on a secret psychic message beamed off Jupiter and bored for Britain on what had been an interesting thread. Go away. No one cares about your important little thoughts on the beginning of the universe.

Alyios or however your name is spelled - I'm not going to scroll down through 100 posts to remind myself. This is the most stupidly designed correspondence column I have ever encountered on the internet. One has to scroll up through 100 posts to reply to a point, then back down again to the next post one wanted to respond to. Then back up again through 100 posts. The person who designed this is some little techie-head who doesn't understand the point of writing in words.

But Governor Palin did not say, "Teach them alongside each other." She mentioned casually that if either subject came up in the course of a class discussion, the class should be free to discuss it. There should be no lid on free discussion.

End of story.

You British have to understand this point: She is not the grand tribune of Alaska. The governor is the head of state. She doesn't - and indeed, constitutionally cannot - decide what is to go in school curricula!! The school boards themselves, and the Senate, decide what is to be taught. It's nothing to do with the Governor, for God's sake. She has enough to do without nit-picking about what's being taught in classrooms!

DavidM

When I see a Swiss watch I see intelligent design. Darwinism says that it is the result of millions of incremental beneficial mistakes in copying the blueprints for an hourglass. It's impossible for a rodent's forearms to turn into wings and become a bat over millions of years; there's no fossil evidence of this happening. It's absurd. A tv show said that a lungfish "is on it's way to becoming a land animal". Does that mean otters are becoming seals and seals are becoming whales?

Anon

Verity, if your opinions on Palin are as ill-founded as your response to me, then I must ignore them. However, she stands for herself, despite your virulence to her supporters. She doesn't need you as an attack dog.

I agree that if I had any ideas about creation, they would be irrelevant to the present mish-mash - or really to anyone. What I advocate(d), however, is what I think Palin might believe in for students at all levels: freedom to learn based on all the most up-to date information; freedom to analyze that information and arrive at individual conclusions about its validity; and freedom of speech about the process and the topic.

Melanie referred to the evolution/creation arguments in her post, so I say she put them out there for debate. However, you dominate her Blog, and that puts terminates discussion of any interpretation but your own.

You'll waste your time and energy if you scream at me for daring to answer you back; I shan't be visiting this blog to see it.

SUSAN HILL

(she doesn't believe humans are causing it, even as her state melts)?
This is a non-sequitur. The ice may be melting but this does not prove that humans are causing it to do so. There has been no global warming for the last 9 years.. there has been some cooling. FACT. Arctic ice is melting but a far bigger area - the Antartctic - is freezing harder. The globe has warmed and cooled, warmed and cooled over millions of years and we are a long way from understanding why. But the hubris of men who think they can alter the climate of the universe over a couple of hundred years at most defies belief. During the last 9 years there has been no measurable global warming - in fact a slight cooling - at a time when carbon emissions have never been higher ? Never mind creationism versus Darwinism, it is time some proper climate science was taught in schools as well as warmista propaganda.

C.

'Elide'? Did you mean 'merge'/'blend'/'mingle' perhaps?
How do those who consider the word 'creationist' a smear get over the question of what 'days' meant before the sun was allegedly created

Verity

Anon - Just in case you didn't take your ball and go home, "Palin might believe in for students at all levels: freedom to learn based on all the most up-to date information; freedom to analyze that information and arrive at individual conclusions about its validity; and freedom of speech about the process and the topic."

Yes. That's what she said quite some time ago. Here father was a science teacher. She imbibed talk about science at the dinner table.

Konstantin

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

precisely!! I have no clue why we still teach myth of evolution from common ancestor??

jose garcia

To 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."

"time" is a really nasty variable, you could argue that there was time before the big bang, the big bang is just an explosion , a very big one, explosions dont "create" time/ or bend it ,

unfortunately a lot of people try to avoid the issue of creation with that simple asumption. why was time conviniently created by the big bang?

you could say "time" was a useless variable before the big bang, but there is no way an explosion creates/bends/modifys "time".

there could be time before the big bang, why not?

what angrys me a lot is the fact that no-one can explain how on earth can we evolve from that big explosion, without any other variable that chance and time, and when somebody thinks maybe a higher being was involved, they are treated as retards, this is an arrogant presumption based on humans being the center of the universe
therefore not needing a god or any external frame of reference for behaviour except ourselves.

therefore atheists/humanists/nihilists/ etc will accept ANY theory THAT LEAVES GOD OUTSIDE. NO matter how nuts/illogical/unscientific. it is.

if you analize the scientific process, it requires "physical proof" of the theory.

how can you have physical proof about the birth of physics (big bang)

it is illogical/cant be replicated asumes that nothingess created something(matter is changed or modified into energy, matter cannot be destroyed.(scientific basis for most of the physics i learn at school)
,and from what i heard the mathematical equations of quantum mechanics dont stack up , laws of repulsion.

if we cant even explain black holes how do you expect to explain something infinitely bigger than it?.

to say "it just happened" is the nuts proposition, not the creationist proposition .

does any of you atheist looks outside and wonders how to make a human out of a blast of energy billions of years ago all by itself?

and you call us ignorants?
get real

London Calling

Personally I think Sesame Street was way ahead of its time. It had a Black cast, a friendly Big Bird and the children learnt how to count chocolate chip cookies whilst watching a pig in a wig sing.

Watching the presidential election in the US is no different...except that someone else rewrote the script and the lip movement is out of sync.

But I wouldn’t worry about who's under the spot light, its those in the shadows who are the true performers at work and pull all the strings, every actor knows that.

Anyone for popcorn? ;0

It not over until the Big Bird Sings...

GalapagosPete

"When I see a Swiss watch I see intelligent design." Probably because you know what a watch is, and you're heard of Switzerland.

"It's impossible for a rodent's forearms to turn into wings and become a bat over millions of years; there's no fossil evidence of this happening." Really? Let me show you why getting your "science" from creationist websites is not a good idea. (Because they're so often wrong, that's why.)

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/11/a-quantum-leap.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/13/bat.evolution?gusrc=rss&feed=science

"A tv show said that a lungfish "is on it's [sic] way to becoming a land animal". Does that mean otters are becoming seals and seals are becoming whales?" No.

GalapagosPete

jose garcia posted, "what angrys me a lot is the fact that no-one can explain how on earth can we evolve from that big explosion..."

In fact, astrophysicists, geologists, paleontologists and biologists together have a very good explanation. Of course, the details are still being thrashed out, but that's why it's science and not religion. Science is an ongoing process of learning how nature does what it does. Scientists know and admit they don't have all the answers, or even most of them, but they're working on it. Religions believe they have all the answers, direct from their particular god as written in their particular book, in spite of the number of times they're shown to be wrong.

I suspect you know science has good answers to these questions but the answers make you uncomfortable because of your religious beliefs. You need to stop leaning on feel-good creationist websites and seek out science websites where you can learn the truth about what we do and don't know about reality. At least then, when you criticize scientific knowledge, you'll know what you're talking about. Right now, you don't.

Nick T.

So Sarah Palin "imbibed talk about science at the dinner table". Well, thank the Designer for that! And there was me thinking that she was a long-time member of the Wasilla Assembly of God, which believes in the "end times" and the damnation of Democrats.

I'm relieved to know that, should President McCain die in office, we can all look forward to a new dawn for science, with the USA at the forefront of stem cell technology.

purpleberry

hi, Verity

good to hear from you again.

You refer to 'you British' - aren't you British, despite living in wherever it is these days?

Augustus

To jose garcia -

The 'time' which I was referring to was, for want of a better description, our time. Not God's time. I also happen to be a Christian and a believer. To use an analogy, when a Eurostar train leaves St. Pancras station, the time it takes to arrive in Paris concerns only those within the universe of its carriages. Before it travelled it was without (its) time. After it arrives it is again devoid of time. But in the greater scheme of things there is other time. As human beings are too insignificant to ever be able to discover all the answers, a belief in a greater power, an Almighty, is natural (for some).
Why, for example, does matter have mass, allowing it to make planets, while other phenomena, such as light, do not?
What is dark matter? How does gravity really work? If God was a machine He might, or might not, be able to tell us the answers. If He is a deity, he would know anyway, and the believers amongst us would simply be content to leave matters to him. For, at the end of the day, not even our entire universe is infinite in time.

BeagleBob

DavidM: And when you see a formula one car, you see the results of evolutionary algorithms that mimic the way natural selection works.

Seems to me that if an omnipotent being wanted its creation to develop complexity, it could actually do a lot worse than natural selection.

PS: Evolution does not claim either or to explain how the universe arose, nor how life first came into existence. It does claim to explain how complex life forms can arise, over aeons, from simpler life forms, through the mechanism known as natural selection. It bases these claims on evidence.

Verity

Purpleberry - Yes. I am British. But I'm not complicit in the roiling economic and civil mess that Britain is in because I, like three million others, fled. When I say "You British", obviously, I am referring to those responsible. Those who let it happen. Those who were cowed by Alastair Campbell into not daring to complain about Tony Blair's taking a wrecking ball to our Constitution - and that, shamefully, includes editors of our big national dailies - "the freest press in the world!".

France published pictures of the motoons, for God's sake! France! So did Sweden. So did Jordan. So did Mexico. All well aware of the threat. That's how supine you had become. It's gone downhill since then.

Colonial

Why all this jabbering about Sarah Palin's views on evolution? Who cares? America is not electing a vicar. Once you open the lid on religion the areas for debate are endless and you're onto woman as priests, pretending homosexual clerics represent normality, the Islam idea conflicts, etc, etc. Forget the religious side.

What the non - left wing majority really miss are down to earth, honest people in politics who hack through the taboos and loony mind controls the left have erected around today's ghastly, spineless, self indulgent, multicultural nanny state.

Mark

Melanie,

As a conservative American I can't tell you how embarrassing it is to have Palin on the ticket. It is a total disgrace. She is barely qualified to be the governor of a minor state, much less a heartbeat away from the Presidency. McCain is out of his mind, and is blinded by ambition. He is putting the US and the rest of the world at risk by nominating this nice, but completely unqualified person.
I dare say I've been considering voting for Obama, as at least he is serious about the job.

Mtn

ndm is right--in america, ID is a political movement designed to be a 'wedge' in the classroom so biblical creationism will get in. It has been exposed as such by people listening to school board discussions. Google it please.

I agree that the 'idea' of a creator is not an objectionable one and is held by millions but this is not *provable* by science--it cannot be tested or *disproven* by theory and is therefore not a scientific idea and does not belong in science class. Especially not when evangelical or other very religious teens stonewall in classes and simply refuse to believe (read learn, memorize) the material presented on evolution.

Verity

Mark writes, of Sarah Palin, "He is putting the US and the rest of the world at risk by nominating this nice, but completely unqualified person."

I strongly object. Governor Palin is not "nice". She has a killer instinct. On the basketball court in high school, or was it college? - anyway, she was so aggressive she was nicknamed Barracuda. She hunts. She does deep sea fishing. She compares herself with a pit bull. She's highly intelligent, she thinks along the right lines and, like all successful politicians, she's ruthless. When she became Governor, she had a big clearout out of all the former Governor's allies. Poof! Gone! Sarah Palin's a brilliant politician and a fast learner, but she doesn't do "nice".

You lumber on: "I've been considering voting for Obama, as at least he is serious about the job." He certainly is! The man is unemployable. Forty-seven years and no real employment record except as a ward-heeler in Cook County. Oh, and 2 1/2 years in the US Senate, during which time he ignored his constituents and pursued his bizarre ambition to be president of the most powerful country in the world, when he's never even held a job. As Rudy Guiliani said at the Convention, "At the end of her first day in office as the Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Sarah Palin already had 100% more executive experience than Barack Obama. At the end of her second day, she had 200%."

Have a nice vote!

Ann

"It's impossible for a rodent's forearms to turn into wings and become a bat over millions of years; there's no fossil evidence of this happening. It's absurd"

Impossible. Absurd. The eternal cry of the scientifically ignorant.

Joe

"I am British. But I'm not complicit in the roiling economic and civil mess that Britain is in because I, like three million others, fled."

Exactly. You ran away. So it's no longer for you to say how we should move this country into the future. "You no play the game, you no make the rules." In other words, it's no longer anything to do with you.

Tony

Obama serious about the job? Don't make me laugh. He has run nothing whatsoever, not a state, not a city, not a school, not a whelk stand. Palin has 100 times his experience and 1000 times his personality and humanity. Obama is a jumped-up nonentity.

All this whining and smearing of Palin proves that the Obambis are running scared: excellent!

ndm

Derek Thompson of Slate has produced a handy FAQ about Sarah Palin.

cyllan

To NDM.

Nobody is doing any "deep investigations" about the vice president for the democrats, in fact i cant even recall his name as i never read anything about him in the MSM.....

i watched the speech , it was just fantastic.

what a lot of rubbish from people saying she is some sort or nutcase, she even has a bigger track record than obama, who was four years in the senate and never did pass a single meaning law.

Verity

No, Joe, who I sense was too fearful to flee - put a sock in it.

The Vice Presidential debate is in around 24 days. I can't wait.

Joe

I will most certainly not 'put a sock in it', and furthermore what you 'sense' is in your own silly imagination. I was not 'fearful' - it's you who is the coward who ran away. I chose to stay and take the rough with the smooth. It's called loyalty, but I am sure you don't understand the concept.

Robin

Joe,

Verity is entitled to express her opinions about things, regardless of where she used to live and where she now lives.

I may disagree with many things she posts, but I'm with Verity on Sarah Palin. Having watched the speech through twice, I'd be voting McCain/Palin if I was a US citizen. Palin puts our limp and ineffectual ministers to shame. Can you imagine Harriet Harman with the same vigour and enthusiasm?

Alaska may be a thinly populated state, but it sits on enormous oil & gas reserves and Palin has grasped their importance.

In the UK we sit on at least 350 years of usuable, extractable coal reserves, but our government is too inadequate to tell the EU to get stuffed - and they've been compliant in that area for 10 years.

Sarah Palin had an excellent speech writer (Rove?), but the delivery was hers. No wonder the Republican Convention got excited. Would that we had the same enthusiasm for politics here.

Verity

No, Joe. I didn't "run away". I resigned. As one does when one hits the buffers in a dead end environment.

The spite and envy of many - certainly not all - British regarding Sarah Palin is quite astounding.

Colin

"..there is nothing remotely odd about a person of faith believing in God"

If God is God is it then 'remotely odd' to believe in a god (God) who can do great and wonderous things in six days - or indeed in any timescale which He so chooses?

Louise

Not surprisingly, the hideously biased BBC News website has an article poking fun at America's Rednecks and implying that Sarah Palin is one of them.
That attractive articulate lady certainly has the enemy ruffled. More power to her!

GregK

Some versions of intelligent design may be a version of creationism, but there is nothing inherently religious about intelligent design. The designer could be an alien or a time traveling human.

About the charge that Palin promotes the teaching of creationism in government-run schools, Newsweek says it's a smear.

See http://www.newsweek.com/id/157986

john doe

'They say the lice crawl off a dying body,' said Birkin, with a glare of bitterness. 'So I leave England'. ...DH.Lawrence.

As with Verity, I abandoned Blighty. Couldn't take the decadence, depravity and degeneracy anymore. The betrayal, the sell-out, the dumbing down and hoodwinking. And after having read Melanie's latest post on Obama, I can see the Gramscian tentacles that are strangling Britain to cultural death.

Roger Scott

Melanie Phillips doesn't understand what creationism is, doesn't know what ID is, doesn't say who the distinguished scientists are who support ID, doesn't understand the judgements made against ID in science education. Why is she writing about them?

iain rae

Melanie, Creationism is simply a belief,and the trouble with belief with no evidence is that you can believe anything you wish.I may choose to believe the Queen of the Fairies prefers dark chocolate to plain.

Tom the Redhunter

The best thing about Sarah Palin is that she drives the leftists nuts. They don't know what to make of her.

She's smart, attractive, young, articulate, pro-life, pro-gun, pro-traditional family, a reformer who goes after corruption in her own party. More, she lives the pro-life argument by carrying her son with Down Syndrome to term. With a son headed to Iraq they can't even use their favorite "chickenhawk" argument!

Because they don't have any real arguments against her, the lefties founder around sputtering one inane smear after another.

You just gotta love it!

Ewan

Creationism neither stands in opposition to science or reason. Rather, it is naturalistic science and its unsubstantiated just-so stories like evolution that are anti-science and anti-reason. I'm a big fan of Melanie's, but when it comes to the philosophy of science, she has a lot to learn.

dray patriot

She is smart, strong, and tough as woodpecker lips! True Americans now have an opportunity to vote for Liberty and Freedom. Do not be fooled by Barry Hussain Muhammed Obama and his slick lies - the change he offers is marxism. Send him back to the south side of Chicago !

william

Islamism is the real threat to the western world. It should be challenged in its heartland militarily and in our heartland ideologically. Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan are due for some payback. They have been supporting terrorists for a long long time. The growing climate of appeasement in the UK specifically and the west generally has to be stopped and pushed back. Muslims must be made to feel very unsafe if they even whisper seditious remarks about the nation in which they shelter.
Incidentally, I don't ever remember the Europeans of the world being consulted about the importaion of millions of foreigners with a totally alien culture, religion and legal outlook.
It was a palpable mistake and it isn't too late to rectify that mistake. Better to remove a Trojan horse now and suffer the inevitable outrage from muslims all over the world (let's face it 'outrage' is their stock in trade) than the butchery of our own people in our own land.

Monty P:ython's Flying Pig in Lipstick

What William said.

roger

I think you are being naive about the intelligent design movement and its origins.
It is a direct descendant of the same sort of people who have been religiously or ideologically hostile to Charles Darwin's theory.

I also do not swallow the fatuous appeal to "open debate" made by those sympathetic to ID. It is the last refuge of those who know full well they cannot put any evidence for ID that would pass muster with actual scientists to earn its place in a science syllabus( like any other theory has), so make a spurious appeal to "fairness".
Open debate is undoubtly a worthy ideal. But you have to use some commonsense. We cannot teach or debate everything in a class simply to be fair. In any case, fairness does not require any learning institution to be all inclusive.

Eric

Intelligent design *is* the same thing as Creationism (do your homework).

You ask for proof of Sarah Palin's religiosity? See the well-circulated video of her speaking at her church, or her hacked inbox full of prayer-filled emails and other religious talk.

As for scientists supporting Intelligent Design (hah!), I challenge you to provide some names (some biologists would be great -- please find those whose job has some relevance to the issue, as 'scientist' can be taken broadly, and it is ever those whose credentials barely qualify them for the label of scientist who are held up as examples of scientists believing in Creationism).

And yes, Sarah Palin *is* "out there in fruit-cake land" for believing in God, Jesus, and all that religious nonsense.

We need some reason, some critical thinkers, some ATHEISTS for politicians. Some day, that final 'glass ceiling' will be shattered. Some day...

Chris

YeshuaImsure, I'm sorry but you do not even deserve a response. You must educate yourself before moving your mouth to allow such stupid statements out.

Palin believes the earth is 6000 years old and that man walked with dinasours, she made a statement that there is fossil evidence of this. MCain is pushing it in terms of age, this woman could reasonably be expected to take on the preisdancy. This is the one time I would like there to be a god so he could protect us all. it's obscene, these religous wing nuts will be the death of us all. They will melt the planet down in the puruit of the 'truth' and their one true religion.

egalligan

Really disappointed with Melanie here. ID belongs in the dark ages coupled to belief in fairies and demons. It is simplely not true to say scientists support ID. Science is about gathering data, about evidence. ID is founded on 'belief'. If something is complex it must have a designer. Wrong.
A politian with these beliefs would continue the diaster of Bush.