The creation of hysteria

Conservative Cabbie

Boy, It's re-assuring that the person who wanted to lead one of our three main parties gets his information about the world from The Daily Kos.

Simon

Creationism should never be taught as part of any science lesson.

If it comes up, it should be explained that there is NO scientific evidence that supports it.

To take any other position is to do the students a great dis-service.

Those who seek to put creationism (or any other variants such as Intelligent Design) into a science curriculum is self-evidently wrong. By all means mention them as part of an examination of comparative religions - but they should never be given scientific credibility by placing them alongside real science.

Obama = Hitler

Creation of hysteria?

Melanie gets her supporters so worked up about Obama that one is moved to write that "his history so far reads nearly identical to that of Adolf Hitler." ("Barker" on Long March thread)

And then she wants to complain that others are creating hysteria.

Dishonesty or stupidity?

Cyclefree

I'm sorry to say this but it seems to me that it is you who is suffering from Palin Derangement Syndrome.

Creationism is a nonsense - equivalent to believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden - and as Simon has so eloquently said should not be taught as science.

I find it extraordinary that someone who wrote "All Must Have Prizes" about the dumbing down of education can seriously believe that science classes should be used to debate all sorts of nonsense which pupils come up with. It is the job of education to pull students out of their ignorance, especially when that ignorance derives from a medieval theology which is anti-rational and dangerously anti-rational, in some cases. The plain fact is that many of the pupils who come to school spouting creationism will come from Muslim backgrounds and we should most certainly not be reinforcing their ignorance. I would have expected Melanie - given everything else she has written on the perils of Islamist thought - to understand that.

Melanie also seems not to understand the concept of separation of church and state, so central to the US Constitution. It is legitimate to ask if someone aspiring to the post of V-P properly understands what that means for what is taught in schools.

Ray

Rather than battling to put Creationism or Intelligent Design on the curriculum, a better strategy would be to ensure that all the gaping holes in Atheistic Darwinism as taught today (such as the problems it encounters with irreducible complexity, cosmological constants, extreme mathematical improbability, and the fact that fossil evidence contradicts much of it) are exposed so that students can see that believing that the Universe came about by accident requires even more faith than ascribing it all to the hand of an omniscience, omnipresent and omnipotent God.

Then, and only then, can people truly approach the questions of how and why with an open mind.

Verity

It shouldn't be in science. It should be in philosophy or religious education. It should be discussed, whether moonbat Marxists want it discussed or not. All Governor Palin said was, if it comes up in class, it should be discussed. In other words, she is not a thought fascist a la Marx and the rabid left.

And she isn't afraid of ideas she doesn't agree with being discussed in the classroom.

eliot

Always spot on!

Verity

Cycle-free (and braincell-free) - Can you understand two things, and I will write them in simple declarative sentences:

1. It is not within the remit of any governor in the United States to determine what is taught in the classroom.

Did you understand that?

Governor Palin understands it, which is why she has never tried to usurp the role of the Senate and the school boards.

2. Governor Palin was asked a question and responded - a major part of humanity would think reasonably - that if a question came up in class, it should not school policy to supress debate.

Did you understand that?

Sarah Palin believes in freedom of speech and thought. But whatever she believes, IT WOULD NOT AFFECT THE SCHOOLS POLICY OF ALASKA OR ANY OTHER STATE, BECAUSE IT IS NOT DETERMINED BY THE GOVERNOR.

In other words, the governor is not a statist dictator. By the American Constitution.

I take it from you're name that you're a cyclist. I pray that you do not wear one of those dinky little cycling hats. Falling off your bike and getting a good whack on the head might clear your brain.

Andy

to those slagging off creationism as if it wasn't scientific, the theory of evolution is not science but a religion devised with one purpose- to do away with the God of the bible, because if the genesis account is inaccurate you may as well forget about the whole text.

just as well then that the genesis account can easily be proved to be scientific, if you look at the evidence ie fossil record with a different set of glasses

Conservative Cabbie

Discussing creationism in class hardly contradicts seperation of church and state. That is just a liberal trick to ensure that kids in the states are indoctrinated properly into a liberal way of thinking.

As Verity says, it should be perfectly acceptable to discuss creationism within say a philosophy class and allow children to make up their own mind.

N

Instead of fighting between Creationism and Evolution and whether they should both be taught together or seperatley why not try something else? The Bible speaks a great deal about the world's begining, it just takes some understanding. Why not bring Evolution and Creation together? If you read in, i think Peter, it says that how we (humans) think of time is not how God thinks of time. To God, one day is many thousands of years, and a thousand years to him is like the passing of one day. Could it be possible that the world was created in six days, it just wasn't "days" as we know it but they were God's timeless days? I mean think about when the bible was written if you told man 3 thousand years ago that the world was many billions of years old he would look at you funny because numbers that large weren't fathomable, maybe "created in 6 days" was easy for simpler people from a simpler time to understand. I wish that you people would devote as much time to this unimportant argument to something of value like, the failing economic markets, or the situations in the Middle East. I understand that man has wondered where we came from, but does it really matter?

Micky

A scientist who accepts evolution and rejects Genesis creation claims creationist arguments arising in a science class should be respectfully refuted using scientific arguments.

He is forced to resign.

Methinks the emperor has no clothes.

Ronnie

'The creation of hysteria' You got that right.

If you don't give this a rest Melanie, you'll have a nervous breakdown.

george

How do you answer a child in school who asks where the world came from? At least creationists have a answer. An honest scientist has to admit that he has no idea.

bored Aussie

Ray, Well said. What I have yet to see in the comments on this topic is the discussion on the difference between theory and fact. As the name suggests the "Theory of Evolution" is just that a theory. The evidence to change it from "the theory of evolution" to the scientific fact that Evolution is the definite mechanism by which intelligent life appeared on the planet has not appeared. There is much evidence to "support" the "theory" however there is even more evidence that diminishes the likelyhood of "theory of evolution" being the mechanism of biological change into different species. I am not a creationist but I beleive that teaching evolution in the classroom as fact is just as bad as teaching creation as fact. No definitive proof for either creation or evolution. And that is what should be taught.

Ben

The account of the creation of the world given in Genesis is close to modern scientific theory in most respects. Modern science posits that the universe began with a Big Bang, before which there was neither space, time or matter. Genesis says that God created the universe out of Tohu Vavohu, out of chaotic nothingness. In contrast we have the discredited scientific Steady State theory of the universe which states that the world has always existed. Genesis describes a progression of creation, from the planets (heaven and earth) to the creation of plants to fish and birds and animals and finally humans. With one disagreement about the order of things, modern evolution theory says pretty much the same. The units of time of the two accounts are different, but that is a minor matter.

It is impossible to understand the history, literature, politics and art of our civilization without knowing the Bible creation story. That in itself is reason enough to teach it. Furthermore, understanding the history of science requires knowing the influence of Biblical beliefs on scientists, especially such titans as Newton.

Science can be regarded as the study of God's creations. Science and religion are not enemies, though many scientists and believers think they are.

bob

I'm surprised Melanie is defending a women who is quite clearly a complete nutcase.

WhoCares

Melanie, if at all possible, do get into a habit of googling out your subject before committing yourself to delusional certitudes. E.g. if you had typed in 'Palin creationism' into the Google search window, you would have instantly seen that the 'Palin Derangement Syndrome' exists only in your mind.

http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2006/10/27/intelligent_design_and_the_ala/

elixelx

Yesterday, while walking in the countryside, I saw some golden plants waving in the wind and sun, plucked three of them, threw them up into the air, AND THEY FELL BACK DOWN TO EARTH AS A FORMED AND READY TO EAT LOAF OF BREAD!
That's my fantasy about Darwinian Evolution....

George

Simon,

Please give an example of one scientifically proven explanation for the creation of the world, including the source for the fully documented test results.

raymond joseph douglas

People who say evolution is proven,are the ones with the closed minds!

Dominic L-R

Bored Aussie raises an interesting point on the difference between theory and fact. The misunderstanding of the term "scientific theory" is part of the problem in this debate. A scientific "theory" is not a kind of hunch or guess or vague idea that we use in an everyday sense (I have a "theory" as to why the English Football team didn't get to the World Cup finals), but an idea, or set of ideas with a substantial body of evidence behind it. It is also falsifiable - to "disprove" the theory of evolution, you would have to find numerous fossils in the wrong places (eg fossil rabbits in the pre-cambrian era). Renaming Creationism as "Intelligent Design Theory" gives it a respectability it doesn't deserve, since it does not meet any of the criteria of a scientific theory - there is no POSITIVE evidence of a creator or designer (all they have is a kind of dumbstruck awe: "isn't the world complex?" and a lack of imagination "We can't imagine how this came to be", followed by an illogical step "it must be a designer"). There are no experiments or tests being done to find the designer or Creator (how could there be? we wouldn't have the faintest idea what to look for or where to look, or even what kind of evidence to look for) Thirdly, the "theory" is not falsifiable - what could possibly disprove it?. As such, it is a scientific dead end. It really ought to be called "Intelligent Design Idea" or at best "Intelligent Design Hypothesis". It is no more a scientific theory than the idea that life on earth began because Extra-terrestrials came down from a planet in the Galaxy of Andromeda, and left behind some bacteria, which then evolved into the myriad forms we see today. That "ET theory" is quite similar to ID - it was plucked out of thin air, has no positive evidence, is non-testable, non-falsifiable and is a total scientific dead end.
A last point - scientific theories cannot be proved. That's a mathematical concept. But when the weight of evidence is so strong and powerful, we accept a scientific theory as true, and (for all intents and purposes) call it a fact. It is only a theory that the Earth is round. We can't PROVE it, but would anyone deny this is a fact?

Alex

George asks "Please give an example of one scientifically proven explanation for the creation of the world, including the source for the fully documented test results."

The world came into being as part of the process that created the Universe and the stars and the planets. Any decent secondary school science primer will provides a perfectly understandable description of how these things happened.

If george really means "how was the Universe created, then the most supported scientific view is "the Big Bang".

If he asks what preceeded the Big bang, scientists don't know, and are honest enough to say so.

If, on the other hand, george is asking "where did life come from", scientists don't know that either, but the Theory of Evolution has nothing to say directly on the subject of the creation of life. ToE describes the development of living forms over time, but it says nothing about the creation of life, apart from observing, from the evidence, that it must have happened hundreds of millions of years ago.

Thta's the bit that upsets creationists because their science book, the Bible, tells them it was created between 4,000 and 6,000 years ago.

Pace george, the Bible does not give "one scientifically proven explanation for the creation of the world, including the source for the fully documented test results." The Bible is abook of myths and has no place in science.

Dominic L-R

George asks us to "give an example of one scientifically proven explanation for the creation of the world" and also says "An honest scientist has to admit that he has no idea".
He is quite right (about the ORIGIN of life, not its evolution) - there is no convincing scientific theory about the origin of life.
But that does not mean it is legitimate to pluck another theory out of thin air, just because we do not want to remain ignorant.
There are thousands of things about which we know very little. We must all have the confidence to say, as all good scientists should: "we don't know" but add "we're working on it", and resist the temptation to fill the gaps of our ignorance with superstitious nonsense because it is satisfying.

logdon

Last night's Any Questions revealed the ignorance of the mindset as a plummy Tory woman from the audience set about Palin in the most disgusting manner, ('she terrifies me') talking down her nose and with not one grasp of fact. Harriet Harman's predictable defence was that Palin is a woman, (gee you don't say?) and then tried to bestride two camps, that of defending a sister and that of belittling a Republican which resulted in much ado about nothing. What amused me was the common ground between the two, one a high Tory and the other a privileged Marxist. Both displayed a class prejudice of equal vehemence and how illuminating, especially from Harman.

Nick Kaplan

Dominic L-R I agree with all that you say except your last paragraph about proof of the earth’s roundness. One can look at satellite photos of the earth that show it to be round, what more proof could there be?

Miranda

Quite agree with the article. Complete hysteria. The idiot 'leftists' and liberals are imposing a world order where common sense, freedom, reason, enlightenment has no place. Semi-morons a la Brave New World rule!!

First they turn the 'science' of climate change into a religiion - and stifle factual debate. Then they stifle real religion with the notion that it is not a provable science.

And supposedly educated, sensible people go along with this. Madness, complete and utter madness.

Robbit

Simon ... are you a complete and utter idiot? can't you even _read_? No one said it should be _taught_ as part of the science curriculum - all that has been said is that _discussion_ of it should not be
banned! - are you capable of making the distinction? ... and that that discussion should be fair and honest and not simply arogant and presumptious.

Infinitely greater minds than yours have puzzled and speculated about creation of the universe from long before Aristotle to after Einstein - such wonder and speculation is an integral part of our cultural heritage - not just some f%&*ing cult like astrology. Marxist socialism is just f*&%ing psuedo-science too - but neither Melanie nor Verity nor I have said that _discussion_ of it should be banned. Though maybe it should.

Morton Nolan

I believe in the creation theory over the evolution theory and I am not ashamed to declare this to my fellow friends.

Having now made that public statement, will anyone take me seriously from now on?

does it affect my proffesionalism in my everyday work and how I communicate with others?

Not as far as I am aware!

I also believe a young 14yr old boy received visions in 1820 and translated new scriptures. I believe his every inspired word.

Do these things change your perception of me?

Robbit

Verity...

Well said your response to halfwits like Cyclefree ... but goddamit it is hard work trying to actually discuss logically the issues with these cretins! They seem to be unable to even grasp the simple literal meaning of what someone says and distinguishing it from what they did not say ... they simply respond to words like a dog responds to smells - pure pavlovian conditioned reflex. And as for stringing the simplest argument together! well that would just be pie in the sky. Lord alone knows what they were taught at school. Presumably to feel good about themselves and "express" themselves on any vacuity that they might find rattling round in their empty brain boxes...

Keep trying...

Kiwi

Ben wrote: "Genesis says that God created the universe out of Tohu Vavohu, out of chaotic nothingness." Ben, please can you explain from whence and whom the book of ‘Genesis’ obtained this irrefutable scientific information.

Since The Beginning of Time - And Before! - The Movie!

All the religious and atheist obsessives here do not understand that whether God exists is not the subject of the post.

No one - and I mean no one on planet Earth - is interested in what you believe about how the world began. Your opinion is worth as much as my cat's opinion. So it doesn't matter what you fiercely believe.

Sticking to the subject of the post and staying off your extremely important and intersting personal beliefs would provide great relief to the people who wish to discuss Melanie's post - not the beginning of the universe.

Verity

Kiwi - It doesn't matter what Ben says in response to you. It doesn't matter. It is just your little thoughts. Neither one of you knows jack about the origins of the universe. So why would anyone want to read your little personal beliefs? No one gives crap what you believe because we all have what we believe and no one on planet Earth is going to be swayed by your closely reasoned arguments.

This isn't what this thread is about. Why are all you silly men personalising this?

John Birch

Whether Palin believes in creationism or doesn't believe in creationism is completely irrelevant to the outcome of the American election. The current president expressed doubt about evolution before the 2000 election and that clearly didn't harm his chances. The fact that people in the UK, including Melanie, are fixated on this issue demonstrates a lack of understanding of the U.S. Those in the U.S. who might be put off by Palin's views on evolution vs. creationism are not going to vote for her anyway and those views are just the reason McCain selected her--he wants to energize evangelicals who have been none too keen on him.

Mike Woodman

Morton Nolan: Do these things change your perception of me?

Certainly. I think you are very misguided but fairly harmless.

Lynne T

Conservative Cabbie
September 18th, 2008 5:17pm
Boy, It's re-assuring that the person who wanted to lead one of our three main parties gets his information about the world from The Daily Kos.

CC:

Just remember, the Liberal-Democratic Party is also the party that sent Baroness Jenny Tonge to the House of Lords, despite her having said the following to a pro-Palestinian lobby about Palestinian suicide bombers: "If I had to live in that situation - and I say that advisedly - I might just consider becoming one myself." And I

oldtora

Man evolved from apes?
Scientific evidence?
Piltdown Man.

charles soper

To Simon and Cyclefree who hold such credulous views about evolution, I wonder if they have considered the origin of pyrimidine nucleotides, especially cytosine - has it really come from outer space as the wildest contemporary theories suggest?! It's extremely difficult to synthesise on Earth under Urey-Miller conditions, and that is just the first millimetre in a lightyear's journey to the first self replicating cell!
Abiogenesis (the foundation of the high religion of materialistic fideism) is as close to fairy tales and the kind of spontaneous generation Pasteur exorcised as one can get.

Morton Nolan

To Mike Woodman (or anyone else): Fairly harmless, is your description of me.

Thank you for neutralising me based on what I have declared about my beliefs.

Now that you know something about me, being that I believe in creation, should I ever enter a casual debate with you about say politics, would you take me seriously?

However, being so harmless, my opinion shouldn't really matter should it. Surely someone who has a belief in creation cannot be taken seriously. If I am misguided in that subject then I must be misguided in all subjects because of my core beliefs, do you agree.

You probably agree and many others will too. But that doesn't change me and it doesn't change anyone like me from having a say about the education of our children, the politics of family values etc...

Sarah Palin has Christian values which may or may not include a belief in creation.

If everyones perception of her changes because of this possible, slight chance that she may personnally believe it then I place you in the catagory of misguided and fairly dangerous.

To be hung up on such a thing disturbs me. election fever seems to bring out the animal in folk. Before long we will be so washed out with this creation/evolution (in the past) thing, we will forget the need to deal with the present problems. will American folk vote against Sarah/McCain because of this exploded issue and forget her other strengths?

I have a theory:
If we believe in evolution then natural selection is the norm. That would mean survival of the fittest and most adaptable species. Humans conquer and destroy the society and soon the world. There are no consequences.

If we believe in creation then humans were always superior to animals as organised. Man was given commandments and laws to abide by. Love one another they were told, forgive one another their trespasses they were told, honour your parents they were told etc...

My perception of things today is that the more we disregard an existance of anything "GOD" and go with the evolution thought pattern then we turn against each other and it becomes dog eat dog, survival of the fittest.

Bill Corr

The existence of opinion boards like this is irrefutable proof that Lord Xenu loves us and wants us to be happy.

Yes, it's true that some of you have awful trouble with thetans messing up your thought patterns but if you nip alone to your nearest Scientology outpost, with a decent amount of ready cash in hand, you can get cracking on understanding how the Universe works and why you're a confused mess.

Ben

"...explain from whence and whom the book of ‘Genesis’ obtained this irrefutable scientific information..."

A religious believer would say that the Biblical creation story was obtained through divine inspiration. A non-believer is obliged to admit that it is at the least a remarkable intuition that is very close to current scientific theory.

"...It is no more a scientific theory than the idea that life on earth began because Extra-terrestrials came down from a planet in the Galaxy of Andromeda, and left behind some bacteria..."

Some very distinguished scientists such as Fred Hoyle believed something very similar, on probabilistic grounds. As for evidence of a creator, well, isn't the creation of the universe evidence enough?

Roy

Live and let live for gods sake! If people want to believe what some of us think is silly ...OK. As long as we who think differently are not forced into their mind set. Definitely no politics in schools though and methinks Sarah isn't far off the mark for the rest.

Matthew Blott

@ Verity

You say "Why are all you silly men personalising this?" But prior to this you say "Cycle-free (and braincell-free) - Can you understand two things, and I will write them in simple declarative sentences".

Tusculum

Hmmm...Seems to me, the Royal Society long, long ago was loaded with believers in a Creator, and that He left a definitive set of books, first the Book of Creation ( The Universe), and the Book of Special Revelation, which those old scientists called "The Bible."

One of those, among many, was...Isaac Newton. If you check, he finished his science work by about age 27, and for the rest of his life, worked on Biblcal theology.

One of Newton's best productions is: "Observations on Daniel and the Apocalypse of John" (1733)

We also have John Locke, a well known philosopher, as you all may recall, who's work "Essay Concerning Human Understanding" was a favorite of America's Jonathan Edwards, the Great Awakening's luminary.

Edwards, who finished his life as President of the College of New Jersey, (now Princeton University) was also regarded as the father of analytical physics, and perhaps one of the top three in I.Q. ever to live in America. His "Freedom of the Will" further developes Locke's essay...

Rather than attack with invalid debate tactics such as innuendo and ridicule, perhaps reading some of Edward's stuff (free on the Internet) will gain one an understanding of 'Creation' as those 'smart guys' saw it.

Incidentally, it looks like Newton, Locke, Bacon &c. all would be banned from the modern Royal Society today for their 'creation' views...

As for Sarah Palen, she seems to be consistant with the Declaration of Independence and its doctrines:

1. Creation, 2. Creator, 3. Supreme Judge of the World, and 4. Firm Reliance upon Divine Providence.

Remember, the Dec. of Ind., and the Constitution are STILL the organic documents of American Government!

Also, consider this from Princeton educated (1804) Samuel Lewis Southard, LL.D.,
to the American Whig And Cliosophic Societies at Princeton, (1837).

He served as: Governor, New Jersey, 1832-33 President, U.S. Senate, 1841-42, Sec. of War, etc, etc.

Southard states:

"The importance of the study of the Bible, in forming the character of literary and scientific men, of scholars of every guide and every occupation...

“May not the study of the Bible be made serviceable in enlarging the circle of your knowledge?—strengthening your powers?—giving you safe principles of action? and fitting you successfully to serve the society in which your lot may be cast!

Just another Internet 'freebie' quote from another old time 'Creationist' politician.

Andy Gill

I firmly believe Creationism should be taught in schools, but it should be done in a proper spirit of multi-culturalism.

Lessons should begin with Bantu creationism, according to which the great god Bumba, in pain from a stomachache, one day vomited up the sun. The sun dried up some of the water, leaving land. Still in pain, Bumba vomited up the moon, the stars, and then some animals: the leopard, the crocodile, the turtle, and, finally, men.

Further lessons should teach Aboriginal, Norse, Inuit, Indian, and Biblical creationism. Pupils might like to ask how we know which one is correct.

C through BS.

Melanie Philips has said, Sarah Palin "is constantly misrepresented as believing in creationism."

Melanie Philips has also said there is no evidence that Sarah Palin believes in anything else "other than a Creator."

Melanie Philips then went on to say that Sarah Palin said that "creationism should be taught alongside evolution in schools."

Can Melanie please explain to me how someone who believes in a creator and believes in creationism being taught in schools is being misrepresented when people call her a creationist !

Fergus Pickering

Whe I was taught science in school, admittedly a ong time ago, but post-Darwin I do assure you, I can't remember any Theory of Evolution coming up. We did rabbits and flowers but not dinosaurs.

Objectivist

Who or what created the creator, etc., etc., etc.?

Epistomological atheism of the Objectivist kind, anyone?

Endogenous retroviruses, anyone?

Who? What?

For all you evolution-denying creationist reasonophobes tucked up snugly in your cosy comfort blankets of theistic delusion, make the effort to watch this amusing ten-minute video, and then pledge to make rational thinking your principal virtue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI

Dave M

No open minded philosophy student should have a problem with the idea there is intelligence behind life. Where we come unstuck is when teachers in American schools then jump from the logical concept of intelligence behind life to Adam and Eve. For example, there is no harm at all in discussing how the cosmos as a whole is governed by rational laws and even mathematical principles. Then, this can be explained as the basis of why many people choose a religious explanation. Even the ancient Greeks and Romans were aware of a structured universe. This is, however, a different approach from the indoctrination most U.S. Presidents would like to see in the classroom.

Howard

Common sense.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.evolution21sep21,0,5732905.story

Ann

"Can Melanie please explain to me how someone who believes in a creator and believes in creationism being taught in schools is being misrepresented when people call her a creationist"

Err ... it's called being open-minded, and allowing kids to think for themselves, and allowing them to be taught to think for themselves.

charles soper

Before 'Objectivist' becomes too comfortable with his delusive certainties, why are the two largest ERV families CERV1 and CERV2 present in some supposed progenitors of humans but not in others, and in exactly the same chromosomal location! - it knocks your silly video's arguments for six! If you want another brief response look here http://www.youtube.com/user/andrew671q

C through BS

"Err ... it's called being open-minded, and allowing kids to think for themselves, and allowing them to be taught to think for themselves." No problems with that Ann ! I support that view 100% its just that Palin has said "I believe we have a creator." I can give your the reference if you want it. This invalidates Melanies arguement that clearly states Palin is being misrepresented and is actually just being pro-choice. Read my blog again. The pro-choice arguement is a standard creationist ploy. You cannot say that you believe in a creator and then claim you are not a creationist this is logically absurd !!!

Nick Kaplan

Ronnie; Whilst I agree that Blair did lie to enhance the apparent authority on which his decision to go to Iraq was based, the evidence/ intelligence was not in fact fabricated, it was just wrong. In any case I have little but contempt for Blair, this being just one incidence of lies he told in a desperate plea to create a legacy to gratify his own enormous ego. The Bush administration however never went into Iraq purely on the basis of WMDs. Neither did Bush lie about the evidence for WMDs he was as misled about the intelligence as the rest of us and acted accordingly.

I do however agree with you that one does not need to “kill hundreds of thousands of people in order to remove one tyrant.” In fact, if you remember correctly, this is exactly what happened. Saddam was initially removed very quickly with very few deaths on either side. In fact the blame for the deaths that have resulted from this conflict should be laid at the hands of the terrorists and the states that have funded them such as Iran who caused the outbreak of violence after Saddam had been removed. Of course some blame must be placed on the disastrous strategy that was adopted after Saddam was removed (e.g. disbanding the police and army was madness) and therefore on the Bush administration. However it is very important to remember that McCain has consistently criticised this strategy and has himself offered more sensible policies such as the troop surge which is currently proving so successful. This for me confirms McCain’s fitness for office.

Nick Kaplan

C through BS; Do you have any understanding of what a creationist is? It is not someone who happens to believe in a creator (sadly that would make the vast majority of people creationists). A creationist is somebody who believes in the literal truth of the story of creation. This means they believe that the earth was created in 6 earth days and that the earth is 6,000 years old and that evolution is false. However a belief in a creator does not mean one necessarily believes in any of this. It is perfectly possible to believe in a creator and in evolution and that the earth is far older than 6,000 years. I have not seen a single shred of evidence that Sarah Palin is a creationist or that she believes anything other than the existence of God (aka a creator), this is no different from Obama, Biden, Brown, Cameron or most other world leaders.

charles soper

Howard, if Rabbis had been more 'savvy' before Hubble, they might have given credence to Aristotle's notion that the universe is eternal. Wisely they rejected the scientific consensus of the day. How presciently Jeremiah writes, 'The have rejected the word of the LORD and what wisdom is in them?' Evolution, uniformitarianism and atheism are woven from the same cloth - and paradoxically one of which the woop and warf are often highly anti-empirical (see wiki on Missoula flood for one recent example of blinkering). Reform and conservative rabbis would do better to avoid syncretism with the idolatry of nature.

Garzukhal

A philosophical point:

A man who is blind could quite reasonably conclude, with empirical science, that there is no such thing as light.

I write this because, the things that are outside the senses form the "Unknown unknown" that atheists try to deny the existence of.

Objectivist

‘Before 'Objectivist' becomes too comfortable with his delusive certainties, why are the two largest ERV families CERV1 and CERV2 present in some supposed progenitors of humans but not in others, and in exactly the same chromosomal location! - it knocks your silly video's arguments for six!’

Charles Soper, overlooking the factual confusion in your statement, I think you surely must be aware that your conclusion here is an embarrassing non sequitur. That two families of endogenous retroviruses (CERV 1 and CERV 2) have been found in the genomes of chimpanzees and gorillas without apparent orthologues in humans quite rightly requires explanation, and as more and more information in this regard is generated there can be no doubt that a rational reality-based explanation will be forthcoming. But none of this – not one iota – has any bearing on the irrefutable fact that numerous ERVs of various families have been found at corresponding loci in the genomes of both chimpanzees and humans such that the compounding odds of these endogenous retroviral insertions having occurred by chance are so astronomically high as to virtually rule out emphatically such a possibility. The only rational reality-based explanation for the homology of so many ERVs in the genomes of chimpanzees and humans is that chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor (an ancestor that lived approximately six million years ago).

Perhaps you would now care to apply your reasoning to the question I posed at the head of my previous post, the question you appear to have so conveniently ignored:

Who or what created the creator?

C through BS

Nick I can say I believe in a God but not a creator. Saying that you believe in a creator does not have to imply that you subscribe to a particular narrative about the story of creation. But I think it is fair to say that you are a creationist if you hold a view that the earth was created by a supernatural being. Otherwise why not just say you believe in a God. You can believe in a God and also believe in the theory of evolution. I think this is the point your making.But a god does not have to be a creator.

Ronnie

OK CthroughBS, you've dragged me into this against my better judgement.

None of the people here are talking about 'a god', they are talking about GOD the one and only. If you believe in GOD then you believe that he is the Creator, otherwise he would not be GOD. You can't pick and choose the bits of GOD that you like, you buy the whole package.

The argument for believers is only about how and when GOD created, not whether he created. For non believers its obviously less complicated.

And here we all are discussing it so its obviously not a dead issue and not something the 'extremist' non-believers should try to suppress.

Skeptic

I think there's an unfair criticism of Palin here. All she said was that she believes in a CREATOR--that is, that she believes in God.

She did NOT say she believes in CREATIONISM--the silly psuedoscintific theory that God created the world in six literal days just like it says in Genesis. Certainly I've seen nothing in her record that shows she supports teaching it, let alone forcing it, on schoolchildren.

I really don't see what the big deal here is.

Tony Jackson

Charles Soper: “Before 'Objectivist' becomes too comfortable with his delusive certainties, why are the two largest ERV families CERV1 and CERV2 present in some supposed progenitors of humans but not in others, and in exactly the same chromosomal location! - it knocks your silly video's arguments for six!”

Objectivist has already responded. However, just so no one is confused, I think Soper has thrown up a ‘sciencey’ sounding smokescreen, probably cut and pasted from some creationist web site, but he clearly does not understand the argument.

The key point to grasp is this: when we look at the DNA of different animal species we find many thousands of sequences clearly derived from viruses. These are the ERVs (for endogenous retroviruses). For various reasons we think that most of these viral-derived sequences (at least in humans) are no longer active – but by studying their detailed sequences and their positions in the genome in many different species, we can play molecular archeologist and infer at what point these various viral sequences were assimilated. Here’s the really neat thing: for those species known on other entirely independent grounds to be closely related (eg humans and chimps) the genome locations of the vast majority of the ERV remnants occur in EXACTLY the same position in the genome in the compared species. Moreover, this is a general phenomenon. You get a similar story in all other animals and plants (although the viral families may be different).

Now this is a truly remarkable fact and a fact is a stubborn thing that won’t go away even if you try and dismiss it as a ‘silly video argument’. How should we explain it? Well, to be honest I don’t know how Soper would explain it other than a shrug and ‘it pleaseth God to make it so’. But the serious answer is that the viruses entered the genome of the common ancestor and were inherited by each of the descendant species. To put it more technically, we can make a strong prediction: ERV's at the same genomic position found in multiple species should fit into a nested hierarchy that agrees with the known phylogeny of these species. This is indeed what is found, within the statistical limits of our analysis. But the key phrase here is ‘at the same position’. Because these viral assimilations occur constantly during evolution, there are some viral sequences in genomes that do not occur in the same location in different species. Their incorporation occurred after the divergence of the species in question. Notwithstanding Soper’s claim to the contrary, the CERVs are not in fact found in the same genomic location between different primate species. Hence, Soper’s objection has no force.

I’m sorry to risk boring people with a rather technical discussion, but it irritates me to see someone like Soper spread disinformation. For those who are genuinely interested or just curious, find out more here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.html

Dominic L-R

Well said Objectivist and Tony Jackson! Keep up the good work.

Ewan

Evolutionism should never be taught as part of any science lesson.

If it comes up, it should be explained that there is NO scientific evidence that supports it.

To take any other position is to do the students a great dis-service.

Those who seek to put evolutionism (or any other variants such as punctuated equilibrium) into a science curriculum is self-evidently wrong. By all means mention them as part of an examination of comparative religions - but they should never be given scientific credibility by placing them alongside real science.

Tony Jackson

Ewan: did you read the website I suggested?

No of course you didn't.

By the way, what is 'evolutionism'? I know of no such subject. The correct term is 'evolutionary biology'.

Ronnie

Careful what you say Tony Jackson. There is no end to the number of new isms sprouting up on this blog.

You

Wow, what a goofy column. Who would ever make such a leap as to think someone who wanted creationism taught in schools would be a creationist? Only someone with the capacity for inductive reasoning

Robert

Which Deity, out of the many Deity’s that have been worshipped as the "true" god, always at the exclusion of all other gods do we state is the "True" god. This must be decided, or measured, or deduced, so that we can know which “Creation” story is true. It will come to pass that a teacher will have to teach little Raja (a devout Hindu), in science class, that his religion/gods are all made up and perhaps even evil and his version of how planets were formed is wrong, and so not only are his gods rubbish but so is his science score. This should make for a loving fun world.

charles soper

Objectivist should watch the video response I posted to his initial video. It would have saved him and Tony Jackson some embarrasing inept comments.

Very little is know about the integration of retroviral DNA in the human genome. We know in the case of HIV by analogy, which is exogenous retrovirus (not an endo virus). That the sites by which it integrates into the T helper cell genome are highly restricted (technically they rely on host LEGDF/p75 nuclear protein complexes). So it is very unlikely not just a matter of random chance were endoviruses end up. To claim that it is a matter of chance as your first video does is just jumping to conclusions, this isn't proper science - it's wishful evolutionary propaganda as anyone who watches it will realise simply from its tone. The area is a matter of active research because it's highly relevant to gene therapy.

Your assertions about my views on the Creator are quite just silly straw men - it's very possible these are the result of cross infections. The germ cells into which endoviruses must insert in order to be inherited are likely to be more restricted than T cells.

Finally the reason why CERV1 and 2 are so damning is that first they are the largest families. Second they are found in some primates but not in humans and not in other primates (specifically the orangutan) who share the evolutionary pathway before humans. The only way this could be explained by inheritance is either: the pathways are fundamentally mistaken or they have been subsequently deleted despite their apparent complete lack of deleterious effects.

For those interested the best starting reference is found at:

Genome Biology 2006, 7:R51 (doi:10.1186/gb-2006-7-6-r51)

Figure 5 clarifies the issues at hand nicely.

charles soper

Sorry a few spelling and grammatical corrections - it's been a long day.

Objectivist should watch the video response I posted to his initial video. It would have saved him and Tony Jackson some embarrassingly inept comments.

Very little is know about the integration of retroviral DNA in the human genome. We know in the case of HIV by analogy, which is exogenous retrovirus (not an endo virus). That the sites by which it integrates into the T helper cell genome are highly restricted (technically they rely on host LEGDF/p75 nuclear protein complexes). So it is exceedinly unlikely to be just a matter of random chance were endoviruses end up. To claim that it is a matter of chance as your first video does is just jumping to conclusions, this isn't proper science - it's wishful evolutionary propaganda as anyone who watches it will realise simply from its tone. The area is a matter of active research because it's highly relevant to gene therapy.

Your assertions about my views on the Creator are just silly straw men - it's very possible these are the result of cross infections. The germ cells into which endoviruses must insert in order to be inherited are likely to be more restricted than T cells.

Finally the reason why CERV1 and 2 are so damning is that first they are the largest families. Second they are found in some primates but not in humans and not in other primates (specifically the orangutan) who share the evolutionary pathway before humans. The only way this could be explained by inheritance is either: the pathways are fundamentally mistaken or they have been subsequently deleted despite their apparent complete lack of deleterious effects.

For those interested the best starting reference is found at:

Genome Biology 2006, 7:R51 (doi:10.1186/gb-2006-7-6-r51)

Figure 5 clarifies the issues at hand nicely. Incidentally in analysing the paper it's important to distinguish between its actual data and the interpretative framework from which inferences are derived in the discussion. CERV 1 and 2 are serious stumblingbocks for your case.

charles sope

By the way Tony, the relevant page on Talk Origins (which is a tendentious site promoting a materialistic views of origins) for ERVs is not the one you've given (it is a general primer on phylogeny) but here:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html.
It's badly in need of an update, the references and data are 8 years old (HERvs make up at least 6% of the human genome not 1%) and just as importantly it doesn't touch on the objections I've raised.

Tony Jackson

Soper again: “Finally the reason why CERV1 and 2 are so damning is that first they are the largest families. Second they are found in some primates but not in humans and not in other primates (specifically the orangutan) who share the evolutionary pathway before humans. The only way this could be explained by inheritance is either: the pathways are fundamentally mistaken or they have been subsequently deleted despite their apparent complete lack of deleterious effects.”

I doubt if anybody else is following this, but no, you have still not understood. The CERVs are NOT found at the same places in the chimp gorilla etc genome (see
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=15737067 ). This is important. The theory of evolution predicts that ERVs in the same place in the genomes of different species should show a nested hierarchy, and guess what - they do. But ERV's that do not occur in the same places in different species’ genomes (ie they are lineage specific insertions, and were acquired after the divergence from a common ancestor) should not show a nested hierachy. Ironically, the CERV pattern Soper finds so puzzling is exactly what we should expect from the theory of evolution.

I chose that Talk Origins website (29 evidences for macroevolution) precisely because it provides a tiny outline of the sort of interlocking evidence for evolution that biologists find so compelling. I note that the site has a wonderful quote from the late great Richard Feynman. Although he was talking about quantum mechanics, it seems his point applies to creationists too:

"... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.
I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "

Tony Jackson

By the way Soper, your more general claim that retroviral insertions in genomes are ‘non random’ and therefore common descent cannot be inferred is also wrong (although I am discovering this is a widespread creationist claim). To see why, read what a real expert who actually works with these viruses says:

http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/07/retroviral-insertion-is-not-random.html

and also:

http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/07/index-to-common-creationist-claims.html

Enough! Now I have a grant application to finish and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council won’t wait.

charles soper

Tony,
I'm pleased to see you're to last getting to grips with the issues, and out of spinal reflex mode. Your latest references are more solid. Sorry I haven't had time to check back here since writing.

Interesting for example that your first paper (Yohn) contains this telling reference,'Second, the PTERV1 phylogenetic tree is inconsistent with the generally accepted species tree for primates, suggesting a horizontal transmission as opposed to a vertical transmission from a common ape ancestor. An alternative explanation may be that the primate phylogeny is grossly incorrect, as has been proposed by a minority of anthropologists '. Hardly overwhelming confirmation of a clairvoyantly prescient model! On the contrary I have found evolutionists in their more honest moments ready to concede that virtually nothing will prevent from fitting new data however different from what they expected to their preconceptions!

As to Feynman's screening, I think you'll find there's abundant evidence that it is not a phenomenon confined to one party, and it behoves us each to examine critically our own presuppositions. Ever heard of the Missoula flood or the Selenka expedition? If not, I wonder why - they both have important lesson for the blinkering dangers of evolutionary assumptions. There are plenty of other examples I'v stumbled overwithout searching too hard,

This is not the time or place for a detailed reexamination of a complex issue, nor do I claim that this is my field of expertise. However having read the papers you and your source have cited, I remind you of just one basic problem, Objectivist cited a rather crass video based on the argument that ERVs were precisely located in exactly the same location, you have quite properly demonstrated this is not the case.

I'd also point out that the delectable S A Smith overeggs her cake by claiming, 'retroelements are just dandy for phylogenetic analysis', what the paper she cites actually says is, 'The presence of a retrotransposon at a single locus in multiple taxa remains an extremely powerful phylogenetic marker, but caution is required before concluding that the existence of a particular SINE at a particular locus in multiple individuals is indicative of common ancestry '. Both of us will no doubt watch the unfolding data with interest to see who's model will stand. I predict with the passage of a few years and some more critical thought (just like claims of masses of 'junk' DNA 15 years ago) the use of ERVs as watertight evidence for phylogeny will look distinctly jaded.

Finally for the lay reader I challenge any objective thinker to examine the nano-cathedral hypercomplexities of DNA decoding, a feat of brilliance that makes Bletchley Park look like a mud hut, then ask if the religion that teaches all this emerged from inorganic gunge by the blind, unguided hand of clumsy chance is not the most laughable of all the world's bizarre creation myths! So well informed and yet so amazingly daft!

Farewell from me - till another thread - now back to your grant paperwork!

cs

Tony quote 1

' Here’s the really neat thing: for those species known on other entirely independent grounds to be closely related (eg humans and chimps) the genome locations of the vast majority of the ERV remnants occur in EXACTLY the same position in the genome in the compared species.'

Tony quote 2

'The CERVs are NOT found at the same places in the chimp gorilla etc genome'

Tony Jackson

CS – thanks for that! The point is really very simple and is well understood by geneticists.

Soper on the other hand just sticks fingers in his ears and shouts “na na na I can’t hear you”.

“I challenge any objective thinker to examine the nano-cathedral hypercomplexities of DNA decoding, a feat of brilliance that makes Bletchley Park look like a mud hut, then ask if the religion that teaches all this emerged from inorganic gunge by the blind, unguided hand of clumsy chance is not the most laughable of all the world's bizarre creation myths! So well informed and yet so amazingly daft!”

Soper, go to the blackboard and write out a hundred times “natural selection is NOT random”.