digg

Join DiggAbout

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

The Collapse of Intelligent Design - Ken Miller watch!

uk.youtube.com — "Ken Miller's talk on Intelligent Design at Case Western University. Ken Miller basically rips Intelligent Design apart in a 2 hour long expos é of the claims of intelligent design and the tactics that creationists employ to get it shoehorned into the American school system." Sans blog spam.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Roblodocus, on 12/31/2007, -34/+257I don't know why they entitled it "The Collapse of Intelligent Design" I never realised it stood up in the first place. *shrugs*
    • Waterrat, on 12/31/2007, -18/+32 Your right...iI never had a leg to stand on. "Intelligent" design is just a sneaky way to force religion into the brains of children and try and make um all into christians. .But it's not down for the count yet...these creations will not give up so easy. ..So get ready for round two,three,four...Rinse and repeat. when they come up with another scheme to convert everyone to their little meme.
      • wonderchemist, on 12/31/2007, -9/+34Good thing it can't evolve legs to stand on.
      • TheNuminous, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3Irony: "these creations will not give up so easy."
      • TrinitronX, on 01/02/2008, -0/+2It seems it's more of a way to change the definition of science to allow pseudoscience into it's spectrum. This does much more harm than simply to "force" religion onto people... it mainly sets up a situation where children would be forced to choose between religion and science. For some people it seems that science and religion just can't coexist since they probably have some sort of philosophical block in their heads about it. Sad really.
    • chingy1788, on 12/31/2007, -24/+6i needs some viagra to stand up
      • chingy1788, on 12/31/2007, -17/+7***** i just realised the typo i made...
        • MacParrot, on 12/31/2007, -1/+2Actually, it's pretty funny just the way it is. I dugg you up
    • skyscape, on 12/31/2007, -52/+3It is easy to speak your mind out when you don't have another side defending itself. How come such guys as Ken and Dawkins can never win a debate against a Christian Scientist? Answer. because the argument of the other side is more powerful and more convincing.
      • Roblodocus, on 12/31/2007, -2/+31Ken Miller is a Christian scientist. Burried.
      • cranium, on 12/31/2007, -3/+35The Dover trial was such a debate, and the creationists went down in butt-flames.
        • the6thReplicant, on 12/31/2007, -0/+16Precisely. The best ID people in the world couldn't even define what science was let alone generate enough evidence for ID to be deemed a science. So I think skyscape should read the pdf of the Dover summary.

          You might learn something.
      • codegeek2004, on 12/31/2007, -2/+6christian Scientist is an oxymoron
      • arcangelgabriel, on 01/01/2008, -0/+3If you were any denser, radiation would not pass through you.
    • collective, on 12/31/2007, -7/+12Digg has always been good at bringing religious whack jobs down a notch, especially the ones with political power such as the infamous Kansas school board. It's good to know that this community would never support an anti-evolution, fundamentalist christian who didn't believe in the separation of church and state and who sought political power.. oh wait, Ron Paul qualifies as all those things.
    • Myztry, on 12/31/2007, -2/+21Intelligent design is absolute. It's written in a Good Book. The God Ra and his advanced race entered our Universe through a Stargate and shaped life on Earth. Finding the Stargate is the holy grail of our existence. As crazy as it sounds, you can't deny it, for it is written in a book... and that's proof enough :)
      • GBladeCL, on 12/31/2007, -0/+7Don't forget the Ori
      • Myztry, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3Come on people. You ignored the Pyramids whereas I was going to bring in ancient testament... Anyway, HAPPY NEW YEAR :) woohoo
    • Neem, on 12/31/2007, -1/+3This Religious pandemic works in very tricky ways, and seeks to expand itself at all costs. Its as if it has a will of its own.
    • Jugalator, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3Unfortunately, it did, and still does despite this. That's the troubling part. We can live in denial, sure, but it IS being taught and it IS supported by a movement. :-(
  • donttaseme, on 12/31/2007, -21/+62"Ken Miller's talk on Intelligent Design at Case Western University. Ken Miller basically rips Intelligent Design apart in a 2 hour long exposé of the claims of intelligent design and the tactics that creationists employ to get it shoehorned into the American school system."
    Now you have the facts. Good luck trying to change peoples minds when they think by what they believe in their hearts. We don't need that kind of irrational thinking in schools.
    • Navigator7, on 12/31/2007, -57/+7Far more valuable would have been the same amount of time with both men debating their case.
      I've talked to Behe.
      He and Miller are good friends.
      They both disagree vehemently. Hearing one and without the other is a travesty.
      It's like...If you are a Ron Paul fan...you cherish every good news story and abandon any negative story.

      Once again...Its a question of faith.

      • Drogoganor, on 12/31/2007, -2/+51Facts are not a matter of faith.
        • Nellyp86, on 12/31/2007, -11/+2and intelligent design is faith trying to explain facts, soo if you're saying you believe in intelligent design, you're wrong
          • bruenig, on 12/31/2007, -0/+15Intelligent design is a total lack of an explanation. What it does is say "hey this thing needs an explanation, I know: x did it." This explanation begs the question, who is x? How did x do this?

            The cdesign proponentsists refuse to even address these questions. So what they effectively do is say "this thing which cannot be explained, I am explaining with x, but I am not explaining x?" So they have simply transferred the lack of explanation one step and done absolutely nothing.

            cdesign proponentsists - http://youtube.com/watch?v=dqNH-Hnsfgg
      • FTLJohnson, on 12/31/2007, -8/+2Actually, as a Ron Paul fan myself, I personally focus on the negative stories, and negative comments such as yours. I like to try to educate naysayers, set a positive example, and see where they have gone so awry. Either that, or I try and discover the ways and reasons how the person who is against Ron Paul supports violence, and make that apparent to them and those around them. I even have things that I wish were different about Ron Paul - for example, I wish he were more like Michael Badnarik or Harry Browne... but Paul is the best shot this country has at a brighter future with increased prosperity, health, education, and he is our only shot at eliminating our role as the arrogant assholes of the world and restoring America's once noble potion as the land of freedom and opportunity, rather than the land of oppression, security, bigotry, welfare, and censorship.
      • bloomanchoo, on 12/31/2007, -2/+8Faith is NOT science.
      • iainc, on 12/31/2007, -2/+3One man's faith is not the yardstick by which national policy should be set ... especially in a multi-faith / secular society.

        Faith is a personal matter and should remain that way! Don't you agree?
    • 47f0, on 12/31/2007, -5/+55You are completely welcome to have all the faith you want in the invisible hippopotamus that lives in your back yard - but you don't get to make science policy, foreign policy, or school policy based on your private delusions.
      • heartless_, on 12/31/2007, -32/+1Then why do you? Would you go back and tell the founding fathers that they were not allowed to put God on any important historical document? Face the FACT, faith has a part in this world and just because you can't explain it doesn't me it doesn't belong. Last I checked, evolution was still a theory, backed by nothing more than theory work.
        • blaze03, on 12/31/2007, -1/+22Please educate yourself on the definition of a scientific theory: http://www.notjustatheory.com/
        • seantubridy, on 12/31/2007, -0/+11heartless, did you not watch this video? Theory is not guesswork. It is based on facts!
        • slvrbullet87, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3Gravity is only a theory please prove me wrong by jumping off of something really tall
      • JackHarkness, on 12/31/2007, -0/+6Bad analogy. Anyone openly expressing belief in an"invisible Hippopotamus that lives in [their] backyard" would be put into an asylum.
        However if the people deciding who gets put into the asylum also foster the belief that they have an invisible hippopotamus living in their backyard then they would be rater hypocritical to "treat" you. we need rational people in the top jobs.
    • S1ngular1ty1, on 12/31/2007, -5/+17You heard it here creationists, ID believers, and religious nutters everywhere. It is over, you have lost. Please retreat back under the rock from which you came.
    • skyscape, on 12/31/2007, -25/+1people are rational in nature, and most people arent blind when they see how Atheist Evolutionists get shredded into pieces when debating the Theists.
      • otakushark, on 12/31/2007, -0/+7Dream on.
      • nitsuj, on 12/31/2007, -0/+6Fortunately, the only place such a 'shredding' takes place is in your head.
      • MindMyst, on 01/01/2008, -4/+0Sadly, there are no debates. The evolutionists have been challenged many times, and they have refused. It seems the evolutionists have too much to lo$e, and they know they would lose, so they don't play.

        Contending for the faith.
        Have a great 2008!
  • Error601, on 12/31/2007, -85/+17Good...now get a life and stop posting the flame war ***** over and over and over.
    • mrgreenjeans9, on 12/31/2007, -3/+6dick
    • kreneskyp, on 12/31/2007, -4/+25sure as soon as people stop trying to pass of religion as science.
      • Jereome209, on 12/31/2007, -14/+2Of course the theory you agree with is science.
        • darienphoenix, on 12/31/2007, -2/+15I wish these idiots would learn what the word 'theory' means in a scientific context.
        • pintomp3, on 12/31/2007, -0/+5http://www.notjustatheory.com/
        • nitsuj, on 12/31/2007, -0/+4This sentence is worse than not knowing what a scientific theory is. Jereome209 clearly doesn't even know what science is, never mind scientific theory.
        • slvrbullet87, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1Which is why it is taught in science classrooms. ID isnt a theory... it is faith
    • bowens44, on 12/31/2007, -1/+11As long as ignorance is given special privilege in this country it must continue to be challenged.
  • Cerpin_Taxt, on 12/31/2007, -13/+48Solid lecture. I had a high school teacher who used to used to put down evolution in her philosophy class. I tried to argue in its favor, but all she did was tell me to read some book by Behe. I which I knew then as much as I do now.
    • m0laria, on 12/31/2007, -8/+29I would tell her to read some book by Darwin, then come back and argue evolution with me.
      • heartless_, on 12/31/2007, -33/+3Have you even read Darwin's works? He even admits so much that his theory of evolution can be disproved. Science, the bastion of evolution, could someday prove evolution false.
        • phronko, on 12/31/2007, -2/+37Good. A true scientific theory needs to be falsifiable. Intelligent design is unfalsifiable, and thus not science. It's also unlikely to be true, since anyone could pull any infinite number of unfalsifiable theories out of their ass right now, and nobody could prove them wrong. That doesn't make them right, nor does it even make them plausible.
        • kingmanic, on 12/31/2007, -0/+23Darwins work was one of the various starting points it is not that close to the modern theory. What changed was we discovered DNA, the field of genetics spawned and now we have refined his initial theory. As well, it's iron clad. There is evolution observed at all levels. Philogenetic trees strongly support evolution and no plausible alternative theory exists. In as much as science is sure of anything, it is sure of evolution.
        • karel747, on 12/31/2007, -1/+4
          Needless to say, if you think falsifiability is a determent to science, you are ignorant. I heard Wikipedia has a free cure for that...
        • ApokalypseNow, on 12/31/2007, -0/+12Wow, it is a good thing we don't use Darwin's model anymore then, but instead use Stephen J. Gould's refinement of it, called Punctuated Equilibrium!

          Retards. Science changes with evidence. Religion stagnates despite it.
        • joshuabowers, on 12/31/2007, -0/+6@ApokalyseNow: Not everyone agrees with Gould's ideas nor his arguments. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_Equilibriu ... In fact, before Gould died, there are a bit of a long held rivalry between him and Dawkins over a number of biological theories.
          • ApokalypseNow, on 12/31/2007, -0/+6I was referencing it because I was taught that it was the most widely used model (though I'll admit that this was a few years ago, and things could have changed between then and now). Thanks for the update there, and again for demonstrating my point for me - science changes!
    • drummerjoe, on 12/31/2007, -7/+2I agree. I really don't like how religious activists are trying to incorporate I.D. into the classroom as a way to get God in the classroom. But if one were to read Behe's book, he would see that Intelligent Design is more of a critique on evolution rather than proof of God. The idea of irreducible complexity and various functions that really cannot be fit into the survival-of-the-fittest mantra. That aspect of I.D. is truly fascinating but isn't given much credit because of Behe's assertions that since something is irreducibly complex, it was intelligently designed.
      • TheEgghead, on 12/31/2007, -0/+8The whole idea of "irreducible complexity" is BS. Its a "theory" made up to prop up another "theory" - I.D. Take a look at the work being done in digital evolution that shows that even complex things can be generated by evolution: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/papers/nature2003/
    • carpespasm, on 12/31/2007, -0/+5I read that book. It's logic and argument have more fallacies than a gay pride parade. ;)
    • GreenAlien, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3"That aspect of I.D. is truly fascinating but isn't given much credit because of Behe's assertions that since something is irreducibly complex, it was intelligently designed."

      While I agree with you, I'm not so sure on that last statement. I would give them credit if there was a creature known to us demonstrating that it's irreducibly complex. That would be a strong argument. Unfortunately no such creature has been found. The organism they based their assertion on was looked at and then proven NOT to be irreducibly complex. Scientists argue that there are no creatures that are irreducibly complex and not that the assertion (of creationism) that would arrive from such evidence is flawed.
    • bobartig, on 01/01/2008, -0/+5Wow. My highschool biology teacher taught evolution as a fact, and would not waste class time entertaining any other possible explanations. This is of course appropriate within an AP bio curriculum, and didn't cause any issues.
  • chingy1788, on 12/31/2007, -19/+3any downloadable version? cause this will take me forever to load... (capped)
  • TGMD, on 12/31/2007, -23/+112I don't really think 2 full hours is necessary, I think I can tear it apart in one sentence:
    "Intelligent design is magic!"
    • Navigator7, on 12/31/2007, -49/+3I agree. Way too long.
      Evolution sows the seeds of genocide.
      • jwkep, on 12/31/2007, -0/+28wrong. exclusiveness, xenophobia, imperialism, arrogance, fear, ignorance, the list goes on and on. "Evolution sows the seeds of genocide" is a comment made by ignorant people looking to scare people into religion. "If there is no god then there are no morals, so if you don't want to be hacking up your neighbor you better believe in god... Ever notice how prisons are filled with the god fearing types. But I don't believe that god makes them commit crime. But you'll always think that evolution begets genocide. Interesting.
      • 47f0, on 12/31/2007, -1/+19"Evolution sows the seeds of genocide"
        Really? Because the most murderous, bloody, psychotic history of repeated acts of genocide I've ever seen is the Old Testament. Weird, huh.
        • PabloMac, on 12/31/2007, -16/+1Nice to know you've been reading Scripture. Now look around the world today.
          • fyngyrz, on 12/31/2007, -1/+19I really don't see anything to compare with drowning the entire world's population minus one family, and all the animal life minus breeding pairs that fit onto a boat, albeit a largish one. And that's just one example. "Scripture" is the tale of a vicious, self-centered, pandering and disgusting "god" followed up by an intercessionary son who is generally less bloody-minded, but still working for the same mob.

            Good thing it's just a myth, or I'd be upset.
        • 47f0, on 12/31/2007, -1/+11Maybe, just maybe, dear Pablo, you should look around the world today. Abortion clinic bombers. Irish Protestants and Catholics bombing and gunning down each other. Fanatical Muslims battling with an equally fanatical and murderous Christy president. Teachers threatened with death for naming a teddy bear. Women being raped, then executed in the name of Allah.

          What part of psychopathic don't you get?
          • Jomwilli, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1Eh, this stuff has always happened, we just have 29,000 world television channels to show it and report it all now. Everyone has a camera, camera phone, tape recorder, technology has allowed us all, Ostriches Fundamentalists and narrow minded and all, to see what we humans have been doing since the dawn of man.
        • MacParrot, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3Yeah see? I'm Jesus see? You listen to me see?

          (hint: this is much funnier if you use a James Cagney accent)
      • slvrbullet87, on 12/31/2007, -0/+2How about this one Hittler was a practicing Christian
      • razor150, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3Didn't God tell the Jews to kill every Canaanite, man, woman and child? That my friend is genocide ordered by God, not brought to you by evolution.
    • Nudar, on 12/31/2007, -56/+9Intelligent Design is not magic. God is the most intelligent Scientist in the universe. He created science. It's like saying television is magic. Yes it may appear that way to someone 500 years ago but in reality it's just science.
      • datdamonfoo, on 12/31/2007, -3/+26Worst argument...ever.
      • jwkep, on 12/31/2007, -3/+18Who created god? If the universe cannot exist forever then how can god?
        • Wartz, on 12/31/2007, -13/+2isnt that the point of being "god"? you live forever, etc.
          • fyngyrz, on 12/31/2007, -1/+10If "forever" is an ok explanation for a being, then why isn't it an ok explanation for the universe? And further, since we have evidence for the universe, but no evidence for said being, which is more reasonable to contemplate?

        • PabloMac, on 12/31/2007, -7/+2Can you leave open the possibility that we may never answer answer all of our own questions?
      • sdlvx, on 12/31/2007, -5/+23no, I created the universe. I just came back in human form for fun. This god you worship is me.

        Prove me wrong.
        • aguynamedjoe36, on 12/31/2007, -2/+7God would get dugg up.
        • PabloMac, on 12/31/2007, -8/+4Create something from nothing. Raise someone from the dead. Be omnipresent.
          • Jomwilli, on 12/31/2007, -0/+6How dare you order our God sdlvx to do something sdlvx did not design?
          • slvrbullet87, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3When did your god do that while you or any reputable source observed
        • MacParrot, on 12/31/2007, -3/+3God would know how to spell, capitalize properly and wouldn't act like a 12 year old.
          • Jomwilli, on 12/31/2007, -0/+6or is that just his test of your faith?
        • nitsuj, on 12/31/2007, -0/+6"Create something from nothing. Raise someone from the dead. Be omnipresent."

          I've seen sdivx do all of that. sdivx is not doing that anymore though because he believes followers should have 'fiath' instead of requiring proof. Sound familiar?
      • zappa027, on 12/31/2007, -1/+8From Oxford Dictionary: "Magic- the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces"
        Sounds an awful lot like intelligent design to me.
      • the6thReplicant, on 12/31/2007, -1/+4Which is precisely why religion is looked down upon. If the Bible was the word of God then we would have bit and pieces that would only make sense to other generations: nuclear forces, a nice proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, a description of DNA, etc etc. Anything that shows that the Bible is a work of the actual creator. Instead the Bible reads like a series of excuses for one man to have power over another. And women...let's not get into that.
    • Ivthypain, on 12/31/2007, -2/+20this 4 minute segment from the video sums up everything :)
      http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
    • theyac3, on 12/31/2007, -18/+1Magic? Like something coming out of nothing with no outside force acting upon it? I would define evolution as magic
      • xike, on 12/31/2007, -18/+2I don't know why they're digging you down...both evolution and intelligent design are magic...
      • karel747, on 12/31/2007, -0/+14How so? Evolution states that an outside force - natural selection - acts on a physical entity - organisms (or genes, ala Selfish Gene Hypothesis) - in such a way that it causes change to the organism (in terms of a species, not necessarily a single individual). There's no magic involved at all - only your willful ignorance of biology and science makes it seem as if there is no force acting on anything.
      • trogdoor, on 12/31/2007, -0/+8What does the theory of evolution through natural selection have to do with "something coming out of nothing" ?
        • StarlessKnight, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1I think they just crossed rebuttals against the Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution.
      • bloomanchoo, on 12/31/2007, -0/+2The physical entity's environment is a force of change.... thats something.
    • GreenAlien, on 12/31/2007, -0/+2Now all we need is a conference where they spend 2 hours speaking in favour of intelligent design. I have no idea what points or evidence would fill those 2 hours (or even if it's humanly possible to ***** through the whole conference) but it would make interesting viewing.
    • bobartig, on 01/01/2008, -0/+2It's only about 67 minutes of talk, and a good long QA session afterwards that delves deeply into ohio board of education politics. Still, a very good talk if you have the time.
    • ec92009, on 01/01/2008, -2/+1That whole evolution thing, it's so complicated, you have to take it on faith!
  • siszam, on 12/31/2007, -84/+19God says, the fool has said in his own heart, "There is no God."
    • Drogoganor, on 12/31/2007, -11/+53To have faith is to deny reason. To claim both is to have neither.
      • aguynamedjoe36, on 12/31/2007, -22/+2way to post the exact same thing on two different articles two months apart. did you write that down so you could copy and paste it every time the topic came up?
        10/30/2007
        http://www.digg.com/politics/The_rise_of_secular_A ...
        • Drogoganor, on 12/31/2007, -3/+21So?
          It's a famous quote.
          Piss off, comment stalker.
          • aguynamedjoe36, on 12/31/2007, -13/+3I actually googled it to see who said it, and the first article was your comment in october. It must not be that famous if that is the number one result. you sir might be an idiot.
        • mikesuds, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3He may not have, but now I am going to!
      • skyscape, on 12/31/2007, -7/+2next time try practicing your REASON with your Girlfriend, lets see how far it goes.
        Reason is only 50% of the solution in any relationship, the other 50% if not more, is called TRUST.
        • hiikeeba, on 12/31/2007, -2/+1That's exactly why a real scientist can never win against a "Christian Scientist." 50% of the latter's argument is trust in the Bible.
          • dildoolielly, on 12/31/2007, -1/+2Oh, fvck that, If you don't like evolution then publish evidence that challenges it. No more debates filled with fancy symantics, just back up your statments with actual science.

            Feel free to believe in whatever brand of bullsh1t you want, but when those beliefs begin to turn into laws and campaign platforms, you've overstepped the boundry separating church from state.
        • emer, on 12/31/2007, -1/+2earned trust and blind trust are quite different
        • dildoolielly, on 12/31/2007, -1/+1WHat, are you kidding me?

          The best blo-jobs are given by lonely wives of Bible-thumping preachers who think doing it "doggie style" in a bathtub full of Jell-o is a direct ticket to Hell. I remember getting with the wife of this one preacher for about 3 months. Geez! She became my fu*king sex slave and once fu*ked me in kitchen while her entertaining, secretary-fvcking preacher husband was upstairs napping.
    • Eallan, on 12/31/2007, -2/+18Convenient
    • dildoolielly, on 12/31/2007, -9/+42"When it comes to *****, big time major-league *****. You have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims... religion. Think about it, religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man… living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever 'til the end of time... But he loves you... He loves you... He loves you, and he needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing and all-wise, yet somehow, just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more, now, you talk about a good ***** story... Ho-ly *****!"
      -George Carlin
    • sdlvx, on 12/31/2007, -1/+14Well my imaginary friend says otherwise.
    • mauri824, on 12/31/2007, -13/+1I dugg you up.
    • captric, on 12/31/2007, -3/+15Do you have any original thoughts of your own or do you always quote a bronze age document written by men who thought a donkey cart was high technology?
    • rivasj, on 12/31/2007, -2/+2No God
    • phauwn, on 12/31/2007, -3/+4anyway.... Ken Miller is Catholic.
      • JQP123, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1More importantly, when it comes to biology and evolution, Ken Miller is right.
    • bowens44, on 12/31/2007, -2/+3Please provide evidence that a god or gods exist then provide evidence that this god or gods actually said this.
    • UncleCrapper, on 12/31/2007, -1/+3Which god said this? I'll let you get back to me on that.
    • Jandels, on 01/02/2008, -0/+2> the fool has said in his own heart, "There is no God."
      ... and the wise man says it out loud.
  • iraq, on 12/31/2007, -14/+28It's easy to peddle faith based spirituality and emotional propaganda, it's not so easy to peddle faith-based "facts" to the public at large. The demise of "creationism" will likely parallel the neo-conservative movement's decline. At least until they can figure out how to get "Osama Bin Laden" another million or two so he can scare America into submission, again.
  • sobe86, on 12/31/2007, -8/+69I love the chromosome argument he briefly skips through, starting at about 35:35, its just such a neat bit of science, and such a compelling piece of evidence, especially as it deals directly with human evolution. Whenever anyone asks me to show proof of evolution, either online, or even in real life a couple of times, I link them to this.
    • bajesus, on 12/31/2007, -1/+10Mapping the genome really should have been the nail in the coffin of this whole ridiculous debate. When all the hypothesis's evolutionary theory laid out keep getting proved correct it boggles my mind that people can still argue.
  • Navigator7, on 12/31/2007, -82/+6My small town voted three times to pass a bond to build a hospital.
    A small minority created enough interest to pass the bond after three tries.
    The reality was about 12% passed the bond.
    Some suggested why not the best three out of five elections?
    Ken Miller essentially suggests the same thing. Simply because one court case overruled Intelligent Design that means debate and future knowledge is abandoned?

    Miller is just as guilty of crimping science as global warming proponents.

    What I got out of the YouTube video? A evolution relieves believers of guilt, conduct, values and morals.
    Miller is using what he can't know about science to make his argument.


    • Drogoganor, on 12/31/2007, -2/+21"evolution relieves believers of guilt, conduct, values and morals."

      Judge not lest ye be judged.
      • Navigator7, on 12/31/2007, -13/+2I'm not judging you..its simple common sense.. I'm pointing out, if you stand for nothing you will fall for anything.
        Intelligent Design aside.....If we are created from glop...what difference do laws make? So what ... if we abort children cause they don't match the couch? If a strong mans wants something he can just take from another. Don't like my woman....kill her and get another. Kids piss me off.....lunch snacks.
        That is the bottom line in evolution.
        Evolution, It's a free for all.

        A critical comment brings criticism by the car load. I suspect my -34 diggs is spot on.

        Great comment by the way! I Dugg ya up.
        • darienphoenix, on 12/31/2007, -1/+10Your first error is that you assume belief in evolution is impossible if one is religious. This is false.

          Your second error is the mindless assertion that a secular society has no reason to follow laws or morals.

          You're an idiot.
          • Navigator7, on 12/31/2007, -11/+2First....I'm really smart. That's your error.
            Evolution is to mankind what a .5ºf temperature change is to Man Made Global Warming.
            I know stuff evolves. Simply put, man did not come from glop.

            You might give an example of a secular society that has got it right?
            A fair and closer look at any society in history will back my claim.
            Really....Evolutionists need Darwinism so whatever they do or think every single day is correct.

            You are misguided.
          • ApokalypseNow, on 12/31/2007, -1/+3@Navigator7

            Correct, man did not come from glop - man and all other life on earth evolved from common ancestry.
          • JoeVet, on 12/31/2007, -1/+5@Navigator7: I think we all need a second peer reviewed opinion on your intelligence. You say so is not good enough for science, we need evidence. And it is the religious fundamentalist who need their book to tell them that whatever they do or think every single day is correct. Scientists just look at the facts and continually adjust accordingly. Religion does not allow for adjusting to new data.
          • plhearn, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3"Really....Evolutionists need Darwinism so whatever they do or think every single day is correct."

            could just as easily be reworded as:

            "Really....creationists need intelligent design so whatever they do or think every single day is correct."
          • steakface3, on 12/31/2007, -0/+2"You might give an example of a secular society that has got it right?"
            and i suppose you have in mind a christian society that has gotten it right?
        • karel747, on 12/31/2007, -1/+12Please, elaborate. How exactly does evolution - the notion that a process of natural selection can alter organisms so that the most suited for the environment are more likely to pass on their genes, thus leading to an every increasing trend towards specialization - undermine human morality? I'm utterly stricken by this total non-sequitur: Because we came from apes...we should kill and pillage without remorse! It makes perfect sense!

          Except it doesn't - none of your post makes any sense at all, despite your claim that it is "common sense".

          Law don't make any difference. Just saying "You will be punished for doing X" doesn't make X wrong - it only means that you will be punished for doing X. That's *all* that laws do. Your claim is that if they were definitively handed down to us by some transcendental being, they somehow have more meaning? That claim is faulty in so many ways (read Euthyphro to begin with; it has important philosophical implications different from the ones I'm going to state). I don't kill people who piss me off (e.g., creationists, or ignorants in general), not because some mystical diety says killing is bad - I don't kill people because killing people is bad. Why is killing people bad? Well, one would need to use *actual* common sense: If everyone killed everyone for no reason, humanity would not survive - this is a conclusion which natural selection has embedded in all living creatures. How would a solo man fare out in the woods alone? Probably well, if he's intelligent and knowledgeable of his environment. But what does a solo man surviving matter if he kills everyone around him (including women)? Nothing. After he's dead, all is done - no genes are passed, no continuation of the local population - eventual extinction. This isn't the kind of behavior natural selection would breed in us. Does this make any sense?

          I don't go around raping women, not because some mystical god says raping women is bad, but because raping isn't a behavior which would be bred into a species universally - sure, every once in a while someone will rape someone, but it isn't common practice. Why is raping bad? Well, in terms of the modern age, rape is actually a beneficial activity (speaking from a evolutionary point of view), since we have a welfare society. But, consider what rape is in terms of nature: It's impregnating a single female and then leaving her to tend to the offspring. If your species is such that you require a hunter and a gatherer, then your offspring won't survive; the female will invariably love her child - it's biologically essential and controlled by genes - but without the second entity, the child will die, and you've expended your energy on a pointless practice. This type of activity isn't bred into us through natural selection.

          If you would dare, you will find that nearly *all* of the important moral questions can be answered through conceptualizing evolution - evolution is the source of morality in all organisms. Why don't dolphins, lizards, chimpanzees, mice, lobsters needlessly kill and rape each other? For the same reasons we don't.
        • bloomanchoo, on 12/31/2007, -1/+3I don't get it either Navigator.
          But, I am glad you have your religion to keep YOU from doing those awful things you mentioned.... me? I don't need them to determine right from wrong.
        • slvrbullet87, on 12/31/2007, -0/+2Nav i wasnt aware that nobody who had faith in god ever did something wrong. I forgot they were perfect in everyway.
    • 47f0, on 12/31/2007, -2/+26Perhaps you got that message from the video because without some big guy in the sky, you would be relieved of guilt, conduct, values and morals. Which says a lot about your basic character.
      The rest of us have no problem conducting our lives in a moral, ethical, decent and charitable way without your fairy tales, thank you.
      • Navigator7, on 12/31/2007, -19/+2"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,...."

        My study of Hitler's fascination with Darwin and evolution formed my opinion. The video inspired the post.
        I don't buy your premise: "The rest of us have no problem conducting our lives in a moral, ethical, decent and charitable way without your fairy tales, thank you."

        A godless people can not create a great nation.

        I'd say the precise failure in America right now is people turning away from God. Putting it bluntly...its more a liberal characteristic than conservative. My posts have a consistent theme which is not particularly liberal friendly with good reason.

        I'm not talking about turning away from religion...simply turning away from God. Religion is one of many paths. None of us knows what is in another man's heart......But when he tells me there is no God in his heart...I believe him.
        We are fouling our own bed......without God,we no longer thrive but seek to survive.

        Liberalism is messing up the best experiment in civilization mankind has ever conducted.
        • 47f0, on 12/31/2007, -1/+13BIzarre, isn't it, how the Phoenicians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Chinese, the Egyptians all never managed to create great civilizations without even a whiff of -your- god.
          But then, let's face it, most great civilizations were built on the backs, the blood and sweat of the peasants - and nothing keeps the peasants in line better than a nice fairy tale - and apparently, any fairy tale will do.
        • joshuabowers, on 12/31/2007, -1/+6A few points:

          First, the bulk of the Founders were Deists, and a number of them could possibly have been atheists; any mention to deities in any early documents is done in the same vein that Einstein and other great scientists refer to god, which is to say, as to the universe itself rather than an invisible sky-deity.

          Second, all evidence points to Hitler as a solid Christian, rather than being atheist. Even if this is not damaging to your argument, consider the fact that the Catholic church did nothing about the Nazi's atrocities before you bring Hitler into play.

          Nihilistic religious fascism hell-bent on promoting egregious jihad's is was is "messing up the best experiment in civilization mankind has ever conducted"; not liberalism.
    • jwkep, on 12/31/2007, -3/+13Again with the "religion brings morals" argument. So all atheists are completely moralless. Take a look at the prison system. No one is denying god to be able to sin and lead a shameless life. People do not believe in god because they want reason to dictate their lives.
      • Navigator7, on 12/31/2007, -10/+2How can you say evolution brings morals or values?
        Should I not be just as emphatic?
        Besides...there is nothing more pityful than the musings of men....without faith.

        • trogdoor, on 12/31/2007, -0/+6Nobody is claiming that Evolution brings morals.
          • Navigator7, on 12/31/2007, -9/+2Eggsackery.

            If man came from goop...then there is no God.
            If there is no God....then there is no spirtual traffic cop.
            Which means....you can fish out of season, drive over the speed limit.
            Abort living humans.
            Wage wars of conquest...or do what Hitler did...Try to improve the gene pool like the AKC tries to improve dog breeds.
          • ApokalypseNow, on 12/31/2007, -1/+9@Navigator7
            So you're saying that you need a reason to not be an ***** other than "It's the right thing to do"? I submit that you, then, are not following the precepts of your religion, but are just playing lip-service to it to avoid an undesirable afterlife - that just means you're lying, and don't tell me that your deity can't tell the difference.
          • 47f0, on 12/31/2007, -1/+10"Nobody is claiming that Evolution brings morals."

            Actually trogdoor, I'll claim that. If you want to see altruism, self-sacrifice, hard work, and devotion to community, you don't have to look much further than an ant-hill in your back yard. Support of community is a viable evolutionary strategy, and we see it in species after species that don't spend their time and money at the altar of superstition.
          • slvrbullet87, on 12/31/2007, -0/+2Here is how evolution brings morals.

            Group of animals(humans in this case) live in a group. When one steals from the others they punish him. he gets less food and care. His son does the same, less food less care. When it gets to the point where the son can barely survive his brain makes him quit stealing in order to survive.
        • otakushark, on 12/31/2007, -1/+4"If man came from goop...then there is no God."
          Wrong. Evolution does not preclude a God starting the process and then taking a back seat.

          "If there is no God....then there is no spirtual traffic cop."
          So? It's not like God writes you a speeding ticket for doing 60 in a 45. We have human police and traffic cams for that. Man gets along just fine making laws and enforcing them.

          "Which means....you can fish out of season, drive over the speed limit."
          Yep, and plenty of God-fearing, church-going people do that every single day.

          "Abort living humans."
          Or kill innocent people with a illegal war. I wonder how many children have been killed by the bombs God-fearin' George Bush dropped on Iraq, with the blessing of his mostly religious supporters?

          "Wage wars of conquest...or do what Hitler did...Try to improve the gene pool like the AKC tries to improve dog breeds."
          I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2
    • macweirdo42, on 12/31/2007, -4/+17You defeat your own argument. Thank you for saving me the time.

      By arguing that we need religion to instill morals, you imply that those morals are good and necessary in their own right. Why should an atheist care about morals if they have no value outside of religion? Since, however, you imply that morals have inherent value, not simply the value ascribed by religion, we can conclude that the atheist can find value in morals without religion.
      • Navigator7, on 12/31/2007, -10/+3That's fairly confusing talk for a Macweirdo. I think I followed.

        The natural order of man is evil. You may think you are good...you are not. Me neither.

        I have to agree...an atheist can make up 'his' morals as he wanders. No disagreement.
        Today its bagging a goat.
        Tomorrow bagging another's wife.
        Three days after that he might bag his own child.
        The morals of men left on their own vary with the day....like a bad of feral dogs running cross country.
        • macweirdo42, on 12/31/2007, -1/+12Apparently my argument is too confusing. What I meant was, you appeal to the notion that society needs morals in order to function. If this is the case, then we do not need religion to instill morals, because their necessity is self-evident.

          In other words, it's a circular argument. You can't say "Regardless of religion, we all agree that murder is bad. Therefore, we need religion to tell us that murder is bad."

          Ugh, never mind... You don't get it and you don't care.
        • otakushark, on 12/31/2007, -1/+9So, according to you, atheists are horrible, immoral people predisposed to all kinds of criminal activity. You seem particularly interested in the potential for deviant sexual behavior, so let's stick with that.

          Pastor Ted Haggard, Priest John J. Geoghan, Priest Paul J. Mahan, Rev. Paul Shandley, Father Charles Sylvestre. Just five "men of God" who were caught up in sex scandals over the past few years (and I could name a LOT more). Since belivers outnumber atheists at least 5-1, please list more than 25 atheists who have been caught in similar situations in the past few years.

          Fun fact: 75% of US prison inmates are Christian. 0.2% are Atheists. -Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1997.
    • kreneskyp, on 12/31/2007, -1/+8actually religion (catholicism at least) relieves those who commit sins from their guilt, it also shields the immoral. Nothing like having sins washed away just by admitting them semi-anonymously. The argument that religion brings morals is flawed. If you say you can't be moral without god, then you are inherently immoral. Morals come from empathy, if you lack empathy you are just pretending to be a good person.

      He hasn't ruled out further debate. You just need some new, or any, evidence.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 12/31/2007, -3/+6"evolution relieves believers of guilt, conduct, values and morals."

      You really shouldn't post when you're THAT drunk...
      • Navigator7, on 12/31/2007, -10/+2The comment is quite intoxicating.
        If you believe man is essentially good....I am a drunkard.
        If you believe man is essentially evil....I am a drunk that won't shut up.


        If you 'believe'...What difference does it make?
    • ApokalypseNow, on 12/31/2007, -2/+7If you need religion to scare you into having morals, then you are not really a good member of your religion, you're just practicing it to avoid going to your particular flavor of *****'s "bad place".
    • bowens44, on 12/31/2007, -1/+6What you science deniers fail to realize is that there is no debate as to the validity of evolution or global warming in the scientific community. Your morality argument is ridiculous. It amazes me how many christians would be running around killing, raping and stealing if not for the threat of fiery punishment!
      HIlarious!!
  • theexitwound, on 12/31/2007, -5/+23This was a really good lecture. He's easy to listen to, provides evidence for his stances, and has a good time interacting with the crowd.

    It frightens me that he ends the lecture with the 'Critical Analysis' point though. This battle needs to go away, needs to let science be science, and philosopy be philosophy. The squeeze that reason is feeling is becoming worrisome. How long until someone *does* succeed in pushing Intelligent Design into a classroom legally?
    • Drogoganor, on 12/31/2007, -12/+3I say let them push their farce of science into people's faces. It will do more to discredit them than anything.
      • karel747, on 12/31/2007, -0/+6"There is a God who loves you, created you in his image, protects you, and offers you eternal happiness."

        "You are nothing more than a animal, and when you die you die."

        Which do you think an impressionable 8 year old would rather believe in?
        • nitsuj, on 12/31/2007, -1/+7Well, the first one is a lie. Candy coated lies do not prepare children for the world.

          Try this replacement for the second sentence:

          "We are part of life on this amazingly beautiful planet. Each of us is here but for the briefest time - let's learn, be happy and cherish each other while we're here."
    • ZooCoug, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3I agree. It's frustrating for the scientifically-minded to see such an eloquent and rational speaker and know that the creationists' response is going to be, "Whatever. God still designed everything."
    • pencilneck, on 01/02/2008, -0/+2The first time I hear "Critical Analysis", I will then say sounds like a great idea, lets take a closer look at the Bible.
  • SyntraFTW, on 12/31/2007, -13/+2Stole my name!
  • had3l, on 12/31/2007, -19/+4WOW, 117 minutes... That's the longest Youtube video I've ever seen... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uZr3JWYdy8 comes close though.
    • jaalin, on 12/31/2007, -1/+0hey thats a creative one
    • S1ngular1ty1, on 12/31/2007, -0/+2Massive fail.
    • skyscape, on 12/31/2007, -10/+2Ken miller would lose in the debate in 15 minutes. Nothing convincing about his speech, I ve heard of his arguments before, they are way outdated. The only people he convinced and imboldened are clueless atheists
      • S1ngular1ty1, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3Your reply doesn't seem to fit into this group of comments.
      • the6thReplicant, on 12/31/2007, -0/+5So you knew about the "missing" chromosome? And you still think evolution is wrong. I guess ID has so much more evidence than evolution except when you ask them to present it (like in court) they seem to say the same discredited thing over and over again.
  • had3l, on 12/31/2007, -19/+100Do any other Non-American Diggers wonder why people in the USA need to constantly prove the obvious?
    • Azerael, on 12/31/2007, -8/+90It's because America is one of the few societies in the world where intelligence has a social stigma.
    • 47f0, on 12/31/2007, -5/+34I'm an American digger, and frankly, it baffles the snot out of me. One would, for example, think that four years of idiocy was enough, but apparently not. At least, according to Diebold.
    • MaiSacNjoMouf, on 12/31/2007, -3/+30Because there are a lot of retards over here that just wont listen... We keep trying to teach them though, that is what you are seeing...
    • JITerraza, on 12/31/2007, -2/+23i'm from argentina, and i am baffled. we're here mostly christians (mainly because most of us are descendants of people emigrated from spain, italy and other catholic domained countries). to see a sector of your society (sadly, it includes people in a position of power) argue that religion should be taught in science class doesn't cease to astound me. specially since the arguments are anything but scientific.
      poking holes in the original theory of darwin? those mistakes have been mostly corrected. check the current corrected theory, don't make fun of original theories from previous centuries, or you'll have problems with galileo galilei, newton, and even einstein.
      you have problems with the word "theory"? get a dictionary! yes, one of the definitions in english (as in spanish and i suppose other languages) is "something not yet proven" or something like that. but "scientific theory" means fact or group or fact proven by the scientific method. do you have a problem with the "germ theory", the "gravitational theory"?
      the evolution theory makes you amoral? discovering how fire is made doesn't make you a pyromaniac (being a fundamentalist, though...) discovering the rules of nature and HOW (not why, by whom, etc) we came to be (or if you believe it, how we were made) won't make you more or less moral or ethical about life that you already are.
      etc, etc, etc.

      do you have a problem with the big bang theory, the evolution theory? go to www.talkorigins.com
    • macweirdo42, on 12/31/2007, -2/+9Many of us, sadly, deny the obvious. Really, it's just that many of us are too afraid/lazy to think for ourselves, and we readily hand over control to anyone claiming to have all the answers. Unfortunately, no honest person would ever claim to have all the answers, so we're led around by a pack of cheats, liars, and charlatans.
    • evodude, on 12/31/2007, -2/+13As an American, your statement made me laugh. At least I think I was laughing. Come to think of it, I wasn't really laughing out loud, my chest was just heaving and my eyes were leaking. I keep forgetting; what do you call it when that happens?
    • gibler, on 12/31/2007, -1/+11Doesn't seem to be even a debate here in New Zealand. I have to say anything with religious connections is the kiss of death in politics here.
      • Navigator7, on 12/31/2007, -10/+3That explains the abundance of sheep.
        • 47f0, on 12/31/2007, -2/+7It took me a couple of minutes to "get that", Navigator, and I must say, you do seem to have a twisted and perverted little mind. Perhaps, after all, you really do need an ancient and distorted dusty manuscript to keep you on track.
          Sheesh.
        • iainc, on 12/31/2007, -1/+4Hmmm, and what about the flocks of idiots in the US with the same IQ as New Zealand's sheep?
      • karel747, on 12/31/2007, -1/+5But then again, New Zealand has the highest average IQ of any country in the world... Maybe there's a correlation?
      • bsmang, on 12/31/2007, -0/+4I wish the US was a lot more like NZ.
      • Jandels, on 01/02/2008, -0/+2One of the big reasons I moved to NZ (originally from Canada ... which isn't so bad itself).
    • KingGorilla, on 12/31/2007, -2/+4Our country is really big thus making it easy to shut out what's going on in the outside world
    • NationalistROC, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1I sure as hell do, but its fun to listen to the arguments of each side. Especially the side of the obviously wrong, they try hard to get their point across.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 12/31/2007, -3/+4It's because religion has mush out of some peoples' brains.
    • nebion, on 12/31/2007, -2/+10As a non-American, I've always considered it amusing...AFAIK aside from parts of the Middle-East, there aren't many other countries in the world where evolution is "controversial".

    • cruzlee, on 12/31/2007, -1/+5I'm from the Netherlands and I didn't wonder for a second. This debate is very much alive anywhere there are christians, Netherlands are no exception.
      One article in NRC, a leading newspaper here, some time ago labelled God "The God of the gaps". It stated that christianity has always tried to find the gaps in the theory of evolution. Whenever this gap seemed to have been filled they started to find new ones. What we have now is a stupendously compelling construction of evidence for evolution. But they will always focus on the weak spots and ignore existiing evidence.
      ID will die, but it will while biting, kicking and screaming murder. Doesn't matter where you live.
    • halfnormalform, on 12/31/2007, -1/+3Being an American, and living in "the greatest country on earth" is easy, but thinking is hard. That's our problem.
  • dildoolielly, on 12/31/2007, -21/+13824000 people die every day from hunger or hunger-related causes, 74% of them are children. About 800 million people haven’t enough food.

    5700 die each day of aids

    We have Cancer, Aids, Polio, Yellow Fever, Influenza, Measles...etc.

    67% of the people on this planet who die will supposedly burn in hell fire for all time because they don't believe in the equivelant of Santa Claus

    Yeah, some "Intelligent Designer"
    • bauxzaux, on 12/31/2007, -3/+11***** happens.
      • TheSwashbuckler, on 12/31/2007, -5/+5Yes, Republicans do happen.
      • the6thReplicant, on 12/31/2007, -1/+3I think what dildiilielly is trying to say is that given the number of people dying, the number of people going through more torture than Jesus' Passion, and yet he still has time to make sure a born-again Christian can score a touchdown for his winning team. Because Jesus likes killing people who aren't young enough to know what he is but helping overweight retarded born-agains that's OK.
    • blaze03, on 12/31/2007, -5/+30Exactly. God is the adult equivalent of Santa Claus, except there's no grown up to tell you he doesn't exist. It still baffles me how irrational grown adults can be.
    • MrWally, on 12/31/2007, -16/+2Yeah, because hundreds of millions of people think that Santa gave his life to save the world from their own sins?

      I thought he just ate cookies and gave my nieces presents.
      • BahJayJay, on 12/31/2007, -0/+16If you're going to poke holes in the feasibility of a fat man fitting through a chimney, at some point you have to poke holes in the feasibility of an omnipotent omniscient all-loving god needing to kill some triune part of himself or not part of himself (depending on your denomination) simply to change his own mind.
    • kirakun, on 12/31/2007, -3/+19Oh come on. Didn't you listen in your Sunday school classes? If good things happen, it's God's credit. However, if bad things happen, it's our fault.

      Why is that true? Cuz the bible says so. Well, if you don't believe it, then it's you at your own fault again. Convienient Rah?
      • wm2010russ, on 12/31/2007, -9/+2and where do you get this sense of "right" and "wrong" from? what makes it "wrong" for you to lie, cheat, or steal? why is it "good" to help other people who suffer? who says that its "right" for people to live? if you are going to argue that there is no God in the universe, and that humans are just wild animals who will take advantage of other people in order to get ahead, then at least you admit that there is some kind of right and wrong, tame and wild, and i think that you need some sort of ultimate, underlying "Goodness" (with a captial G) to be able to differentiate these things... and I believe that that is where God can be found.
        • dildoolielly, on 12/31/2007, -2/+7Last time I went to Church, and I do mean the LAST time, I kept hearing our Pastor yak on and on about certain "needy" causes and people the Church was "giving" to only to find out after a few months of giving my tithe, the Church is now going to build a new gymnasium. Then they declared last week, they were also purchasing a brand new tour bus for road trips.

          Now, how much of my tithe do you think actually went to helping the needy or feeding the Children?! There is no way of knowing how much the church really actually gave to the needy or hungry. They just say "trust us"?

          Churches are in the business of scamming money just like anything else. Panhandlers in a Fancy building!

          If you want to really help needy people then give your money directly to them or at least a credible charity, but never give your money to a Church!
          • CaptainLando, on 12/31/2007, -3/+2Let me point out that your church is not my church. My church supports four organizations for the needy in the city. I myself have had the opportunity to spend a few Saturday nights caring for the homeless. A better written statement on your end would read something like, "please be careful when you give your money to the church."

            It is the same way with many charities, sadly. Many charities today squander generous funds on useless things.
        • Grym11, on 12/31/2007, -0/+4Unfortunately, yours is a classically flawed position in that it posits God to be responsible for or present in a currently unenlightened area of human knowledge--a "God of the Gaps". In the past, such arguments might have been used to justify belief in spontaneous generation or how the stars moved across the sky.

          As someone of faith, such an argument puts you in a dangerous position. For instance, what if the neurological basis for moral intuitions were succinctly defined and explained using an evolutionary model. Would you be obliged to become an atheist or concentrate on another unknown area? And would conceding such a defeat mean that God had become less powerful or influential in your worldview?

          Not trying to shake your faith or anything, just food for thought.

        • kirakun, on 12/31/2007, -2/+2Oh no. Quite contrary. I do believe there is a God. He says whatever he said is right and whatever he said is wrong. He said so in his bible, no?

          In his eyes (and that's the only thing that counts), everything he does is right, but us human are incapable of doing nothing but wrong. Isn't that what I said before?

          So whatever "goodness" happens, give praise to God because good things come from him. But whenever ***** happens, you can only blame yourself because it's your fault that these bad things happen. Believe me, I'm on your side in this matter. :)

        • Fratz, on 12/31/2007, -0/+2Social behavior for the benefit of the group isn't limited to humans. Do you believe that animals who act to protect the group are doing it because they're practicing Christians?
    • bieber, on 12/31/2007, -7/+4We managed to completely and utterly ***** up the world, therefore God can not exist. Surely infallible logic...
      • Daz3, on 01/01/2008, -0/+2How was the tsunami that hit Indonesia our fault? God being all powerful could have prevented it. God being all knowing knew it would occur. God being all loving would have prevented it. The tsunami did occur; therefore God, as defined, can not exist.
    • Navigator7, on 12/31/2007, -0/+4Good thing our existence wasn't farmed out to the lowest bidder.
    • sammypai, on 12/31/2007, -2/+4what are you trying to say? the existence of god would mean that we all live perfect lives? no. that's just life.
      • epiccollision, on 12/31/2007, -0/+2he sure isn't making it any better/easier
    • StarlessKnight, on 12/31/2007, -6/+2There can be a God without him having to directly intervene in our lives or our world. We make the world the way it is; we make it better or we make it worse. God walks with us, but he does not act for us.

      Personally I believe in something akin to a Domino Effect with God (watch out, incoming bad explanation, but I don't feel up to creating a Thesis right now)... a constantly shifting floor full of dominoes falling every which way that he might subtly change ever so slightly so that the outcome, short and long, is changed. He will not, however, remove an entire field of dominoes, paint them pink, and put them in another area. If even that is too much, then God is there for moral support. Either way, I don't expect God to do things for me.
      • dildoolielly, on 12/31/2007, -1/+3-----"... a constantly shifting floor full of dominoes falling every which way that he might subtly change ever so slightly so that the outcome, short and long, is changed. He will not, however, remove an entire field of dominoes, paint them pink, and put them in another area. If even that is too much, then God is there for moral support. Either way, I don't expect God to do things for me."-----------------

        Are magical invisible green elephants who control the universe from their homes inside doorknobs any less real in the minds of psychopaths in insane asylums?

        Seek help
    • 4eloBek, on 12/31/2007, -6/+2It is "intelligent design", but its called natural selection...
      • dildoolielly, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3you obviously don't know the meaning of either. That, or you are getting paid to post this *****
    • Veretax, on 12/31/2007, -5/+3Funny, its not God's fault that man takes the gift of Free Will and uses it for evil ends. Besides if God had just made us all Mindless Zombie Slaves, there wouldn't be much glory in it for him now would there?
      • dildoolielly, on 12/31/2007, -1/+6I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

        Now, the next thing you have to do, is to present the yardstick you use in order to decide what in the bible is literal and what is fantasy. can you do that?

        You must also show that your interpretation is the correct one and that every other interpretation is incorrect, can you do that?

        Yeah, funny how Christians only interpret the Bible anyway they seem fit. Funny how they interpret it to justify their intolerance, their own politics, their hypocrisy and the self-righteous bullsh1t they impose on others, huh?
      • Daz3, on 01/01/2008, -0/+2Humans could be free and still always freely make the morally correct choice.
        Despite what you think there is no contradiction here. So why would God not just make the people who freely make the correct choice every time?? Thereby eliminating the problem of evil (if all evil is spawned from morally incorrect decisions).
  • killerkabuki, on 12/31/2007, -10/+29Now who is gonna rip apart the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Long live the FSM!!!
    • yoyoverizon, on 12/31/2007, -1/+11AYYYYYY!!!!! All these scientist can't stand up to my noodley appendage............ long live pirates in volcanos with strippers, or something like that..
      • bauxzaux, on 12/31/2007, -10/+2Well it's more believable than evolution.
    • SEN5241, on 12/31/2007, -1/+9I respect your belief in FSM, but I think you should keep it in the Italian Restaurants where it belongs, but stay out of our churches and schools. Thank you very much.
    • Missy942, on 12/31/2007, -0/+7Separation of church and pasta? This could ruin all 3rd Sunday pot lucks forever. Hurray!
  • Lane, on 12/31/2007, -14/+2higher quality link please?...
  • DarkReign16, on 12/31/2007, -23/+126If a creationist ever denies the fact of evolution, ask him the following:

    What do you have to say and how do you scientifically explain endogenous retrogene insertions without evolution?

    Endogenous retroviruses are a great example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses, like HIV, make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.

    There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, indicating common ancestry. I'll say it again, the same insertion occurs at the same DNA marker in two totally different species at a rate that is far far greater than chance.

    Kent Hovind was asked this when he called into IG.com - he had no answer.

    What do you have to say about the biochemical similarity of all life on earth, and how do you scientifically explain this without evolution?

    The only organic polymers used in biological processes are polynucleotides, polysaccharides and polypeptides - chemists have mades hundreds, if not thousands of additional organic polymers, but only these three contribute to biological life as we know it.

    In addition, all the proteins, DNA and RNA in every organism known to man use the same chirality (twist), so for example out 16 different possible isomers of RNA, all organisms use one and only one, and they all use the same one.

    Also, there are something like 300 (forget the exact number) naturally occuring amino acids in nature. Only 22 acids are used in life as we know it, and all organisms use the same 22 acids to build proteins and carry out biological processes.

    All of this points to a common ancestor to ALL life on earth. The fact that no known organisms differ from this fundamental scheme when countless other schemes could work equally well should smack anyone who examines it in the face. If evolution were NOT true the odds that ALL organisms would use the same biochemical schemes is utterly astronomical.

    Oh, and another example, all organisms use the same 4 nucleotides to build DNA - out of something like 100 naturally occuring nucleotides.
    Oh, and all life on earth derives metabolic processes from ATP, plenty of other natural compounds would have worked equally well.

    The biochemical evidence for evolution is some of the strongest evidence for evolution we have.

    What do you have to say about the hominid fossil record? Do you still think there are no fossilized “missing links” now?

    http://img388.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hominids2 ...



    We should expect related species to look similar.

    What do you have to say about these observed speciation events?

    Salamanders and Songbirds: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ch ...

    More details on the salamanders, with additional links: http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences/ensatina.htm

    London mosquitos: http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00188.h ...

    Another article on Himalayan song birds: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1123973.stm

    Speciation by reinforcement: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/04112 ...

    Lots of examples here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm ...

    More examples: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

    Speciation models: http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/21.Models.HT ...

    Links on examples and models: http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/freemane ...

    More on the London mosquitos: http://www.astmh.org/newsltr/news10-98/scinotes.ht ...

    Ringed-speciation model and examples, plus links: http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.ht ...

    In Drosophila (fruit flies) : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531. ...


    -------

    How do creationists explain coccygeal retroposition (true human tails) and other atavisms and vestigual structures?

    An atavism is the reemergence of a lost phenotypical trait from a past ancestor and not specific to the organisms parents or very recent ancestors. For example, perhaps you would care to explain well documented coccygeal projections (true tails) that are occasionally found on human newborns? Do you have a better explaination than the tails resulting from the incomplete regression of the most distal end of the normal embryonic tail found in the developing human fetus?

    You can see about 100 medically recorded instances of this phenomena here:

    PubMed links: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ...

    And just so there is no misunderstanding, these are true tails, with vertebrae extending from the human tail bone as shown in this x-ray: http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/4548/tail6yz.jp ...



    What about other vestigual structures like molecular vesitges in the form of human viatamin C definciency? Why does the gene for manufacturing viatamin C exist as a psuedogene in humans and also as a broken gene in chimps, orangutans and other primates - as predicted by evolutionary theory? Why can more distant relatives like dogs make their own viatamin C? This is only one of the molecular atavisms found in humans. What is your scientific explanation for this, if not evolution by common descent?
    • bingobongony, on 12/31/2007, -42/+8How does ANY of what you just listed prove that God does not exist?
      • Roblodocus, on 12/31/2007, -3/+38It doesnt, it proves evolution. Evolution doesn't disprove the existance of god, it isn't what it seeks out to do.
        • bingobongony, on 12/31/2007, -12/+4You are right. I am not knocking evolution. I am knowing the asshoels oin Digg who absolutely DO think that proving evolution dosproves God. Spend an hour searching through old stories and see for yourself.
          • Roblodocus, on 12/31/2007, -0/+9It's mainly because a great number of theists bring religion in to it. Evolution has nothing to do with religion yet theists always pick this tiny section of science out for ridicule whilst disregarding all other sciences. Evolution has got _nothing_ at all to do with god or religion just as geology doesn't.
          • seantubridy, on 12/31/2007, -1/+2Well, then they are incorrect. But know that evolution does not attempt to disprove a creator.
          • LokitheComplex, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1But the theory of evolution does make it more possible to be a disbeliever.
            Science does not deny faith. But it does make disbelief more possible.
          • Genjeta, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1What...? How does evolution have nothing to do with religion? Evolution proves origin of man, which is already defined in several major religions with some non-sensible magic, and thus creates a big hole in their "faith".....or it should anyways, but people are retards.
      • macweirdo42, on 12/31/2007, -2/+10Many Christians, including the Catholic Church, embrace evolution, deeming it a question of science, not religion. Look it up, expand your mind.
        • bingobongony, on 12/31/2007, -8/+5I never said that evolution and religion are exclusive. It is the idiot atheists on Digg who say that.
          • macweirdo42, on 12/31/2007, -1/+4My bad. Though I consider myself an atheist, I agree it's a little out of hand. The way I see it, science answers "How" and religion answers "Why." Never understood why so many people on both sides think they overlap.
      • Shirt, on 12/31/2007, -1/+5That's how I feel. I personally embrace evolution as (while technically still a theory) pretty much obvious, but it isn't, nor should it be, an argument against the existence of God.
        • bani, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3universal gravitation is also technically a theory.
      • S1ngular1ty1, on 12/31/2007, -0/+8See, this is where you religious nutters fail miserably. Believing in evolution doesn't mean you don't believe in God.
      • the6thReplicant, on 12/31/2007, -1/+5Your statement is precisely why ID is ridiculed. There was nothing about proving or disproving God in any of his arguments. Yet, you take evolution as a personal assault on your, and may I remind you, your Constitutionally guaranteed right, religion.

        Once you can separate the two we might have a world a little less divided.

        Remember you can't fool nature.
      • LokitheComplex, on 12/31/2007, -1/+1Evolution as is a lot of science in conflict with most fundamentalist religions.
        You cannot be a literalist and a respected scientist.
        However if you a very liberal believer you can interpret you're religious books in very loose ways to fit science. But it is a stretch.
        But then I think atheists and liberal believers should not be in conflict.
    • PovRayMan, on 12/31/2007, -6/+16GOD WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS!
      • captric, on 12/31/2007, -5/+2The discussion is about intelligent design versus evolution, a belief in God is a little beneath the discussion here dont you think?
      • JoeVet, on 12/31/2007, -0/+4So does Santa.
        • StarlessKnight, on 12/31/2007, -0/+4No he doesn't.. he has an army of elves and a sled pulled by reindeer that probably exceeds the speed of light so that he's capable of time travel thus explaining how he can get to every house practically at the same time. It's in countless books! Well, not the last bit, but the kids get bored during that part, so they left it out.
    • evodude, on 12/31/2007, -2/+29Exhaustively and well put. Trouble is, you could give a two hour speech like Dr. Miller, but the ID crowd would still reply with something that amounts to magic. You can't really argue with people like that. Most of them really believe the garbage that they're spewing. My pop is an engineer, and he has this quote taped up on his wall that goes "Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in the mud; after awhile, you realize the pig is enjoying it." Same seems to apply here. These people love the idea that there is a group of people that they can specifically name as "persecuting" them. Things like evidence, reason and logic all fail, because they have the power of faith. It really makes you wonder where we went so wrong.

      Even if you'll always have a specific group of people that abhor rational thought, the number of people in the US that are undecided on the validity of evolution is WAY too high. Science education is a joke in this country. Right or wrong, it just isn't something that this nation values. The sad thing is that it takes no foresight whatsoever to see that that may well be the downfall of this country. ID may not be the cause, but it sure as hell is a symptom of a much greater problem.
    • MrObjectional, on 12/31/2007, -24/+1The argument I find interesting is whether an atheist believes that moral beings can be created from immoral matter. I've seen quite a few flustered at that one.

      And for the record only the most fundamentalist of christians believe that God and evolution are mutually exclusive. Some of these ignorant God-bashing comments make evolution look bad imo.
      • macweirdo42, on 12/31/2007, -1/+20That's a bizarre question. Morality is a human construct. Morality is simply our attempt to bring order to society. I can imagine many atheists would be flustered because the question is so nonsensical, like asking if Jesus can microwave a burrito so hot that even He can't eat it.
      • kingmanic, on 12/31/2007, -1/+10"The argument I find interesting is whether an atheist believes that moral beings can be created from immoral matter. I've seen quite a few flustered at that one."

        Likely because the question you pose is stated with several ambiguous words. The actual answer from one definition of moral, immoral, beings, and matter is of course. Since morality is a set of expectations and immorality is deviation from some set of expectations then any future change would make it moral. of course the problem is the universe is amoral in regards to people and morality itself is simply defined by the agents in the system. Thus an ant that enjoys eating other ants of it's own tribe would be seen as immoral to other ants simply because it isn't what they expect. The universe itself doesn't care a bit.
      • TheSwashbuckler, on 12/31/2007, -1/+2"is whether an atheist believes that moral beings can be created from immoral matter."

        Since when is matter immoral?
        • steakface3, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1i think a lot of people have trouble comprehending the difference between "immoral" and "amoral"
      • ryan850, on 12/31/2007, -1/+7I agree with macweirdo42 in that morality is a human construct. I believe it flustered the atheists because they were forced to try and rationalize such a logically flawed question. There is a huge false premise there. It takes time for them to actually construct an answer to something like that while simultaneously trying to keep their brains from oozing out of their ears. You're probably a nice guy that is just trying really hard to hold on to his beliefs. I spent quite a bit of my younger life trying to find flaws in evolutionary theory. I didn't really want to find myself heading down the path of atheism. I finally gave in and realized that evolution is arguably the most perfect and most beautiful of scientific discoveries. God existing or not doesn't really make it more or less extraordinary. I would like to add, given that morality is a human construct and can't be compared to something as unrelated as primordial soup, It's easy to see how it is yet another by-product of the evolution of all social animals. We rely on others to survive. Ultimately our survival rate and the subsequent passing of our DNA can in many ways depend on how we interact with others (i.e. our moral code).
        • Navigator7, on 12/31/2007, -2/+4""""I would like to add, given that morality is a human construct and can't be compared to something as unrelated as primordial soup, """

          That's not correct.
      • JackHarkness, on 12/31/2007, -3/+1moral relativism ftw
      • LokitheComplex, on 12/31/2007, -0/+4Morality is a probably a loose biological tendency which evolved for social reasons. If you look up game theory and evolutionary psychology you will find plenty of explanations for all manner of moral behaviour. There is even ideas of a biological explanation for religion. Check out Matt Ridley and Robert Wright on this.
      • rebotfc, on 01/01/2008, -0/+4The same way as the bible endorses slavery or female subjucation, morality is an emergent social construct agreed upon for a functioning and fair society and is largely relative dependent on the current age we live in.
      • vervalsing, on 01/02/2008, -1/+1By "flustered" do you mean "floored by laughter"?
    • KingGorilla, on 12/31/2007, -0/+5This would probably dismiss a majority of the people because, due to you being so specific, they wouldn't have any idea what you're talking about. I didn't but I read the comment so now I know :)
    • Sacrifice, on 12/31/2007, -10/+3Here is an explanation: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/ ...
      • otakushark, on 12/31/2007, -0/+6I'm sure he meant a scientific explanation. Those don't include quotes like, "Exogenous viruses might have been created simultaneously with their endogenous counterparts during the Creation Week." and "...biological events performed by retroviruses after the Fall, or even after the Flood, when God decided to shorten the human life span."
    • ad33lshahid, on 12/31/2007, -4/+3what would you say to those people that said God created the "common ancestor" and then everything else came about by evolution?
      • BahJayJay, on 12/31/2007, -0/+9then that's just the same as saying the theory of evolution in the first place, nothing about evolution states anything other than evolution, it does not say god doesn't exist or that god doesn't create the first being or that god made us two seconds ago with all the memories we have, it still exists and provides a rational basis for predicting, understanding, and affecting our world. that's all it is, it works for that.
      • Daz3, on 01/01/2008, -0/+4I'd say Occam's Razor.
    • bieber, on 12/31/2007, -5/+2Not going to get into trying to prove or disprove your argument here, but your math is just a little bit flawed. Supposing some deity were to sit down and create life on earth, he wouldn't be randomly picking bits and pieces of genetic material out of a hat for each species, in which case there would truly be astronomical odds of all life on earth having such similar structure. But creation, by definition, isn't random, and we've no reason to believe that our hypothetical deity wouldn't make all life similar for whatever reason, or just for the hell of it...
      • JackHarkness, on 12/31/2007, -5/+1I agree. All this proves is that creationism is wrong not ID. That doesn't make ID right, but there is no argument against ID as it is still faith not science and shouldn't be taught in schools
        • Viral, on 12/31/2007, -1/+2There is an inverse correlation between the use of Creationism and ID in the documentation released for each, with said documents having literal swaps of Creationism for Intelligent Design when a court decision labeled the creationist movement as a religious lobby. The name change was thus an attempt to legitimize creationism as something non-religious.

          In other words, Creationism=ID
    • HotDogBun, on 12/31/2007, -1/+6Best digg post on this topic, ever.
      • end3rthe3rd, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3Seriously it seems like this person spent a good amount of time collaborating all of this info, i wish i could dig it more.
    • solarsavior, on 12/31/2007, -1/+2Concerning this radiograph: http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/4548/tail6yz.jp ...
      This is an image of a normal sacrum and coccyx. The sacrum is usually composed of 5-7 vertebrae and the coccyx is usually composed of 3-5 vertebrae. There is a whole book on normal roentgen variants that most Radiologists have in their offices. http://www.amazon.com/Normal-Roentgen-Variants-Sim ...
      /BS degree in Radiologic Science
      • DarkReign16, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1It's a medically documented case of a vestigial tail, verified by pubMed. Don't make me bust out a Dr. House style speech.
    • askegg, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3One of you best posts Darkreign - right up until you mentioned Kent Hovind as if he was the pinnacle of creationist logic.
      Upon reflection I reconsidered my judgement - perhaps the convicted felon IS the best the ID crowd have to offer.
    • GreenAlien, on 12/31/2007, -4/+3
      I'm not religious and I don't agree with the idea of creationism. And your facts are all probably sound. But I don't see how you can draw the conclusions you gave based on those facts.

      For example, here's a counter argument...

      "What do you have to say and how do you scientifically explain endogenous retrogene insertions without evolution?"

      That's just how God decided to put it together.

      "What do you have to say about the biochemical similarity of all life on earth, and how do you scientifically explain this without evolution?"

      If God has the ingredients to make one creature, why reinvent the wheel.

      "out 16 different possible isomers of RNA, all organisms use one and only one, and they all use the same one."

      As above.

      "Only 22 acids are used in life as we know it"

      As above.

      "The fact that no known organisms differ from this fundamental scheme when countless other schemes could work equally well should smack anyone who examines it in the face."

      As above.

      "If evolution were NOT true the odds that ALL organisms would use the same biochemical schemes is utterly astronomical."

      Who needs odds when it's deterministic.

      "Oh, and another example, all organisms use the same 4 nucleotides to build DNA - out of something like 100 naturally occuring nucleotides."

      As above.

      "Oh, and all life on earth derives metabolic processes from ATP, plenty of other natural compounds would have worked equally well."

      As above.

      Frankly your argument is not compelling at all and you're only saying things that give creationists a basis to argue back against to cement their beliefs.

      I think it's better to just understand how everything evolved and derive proof and explanations for the whole process, and then come to the conclusion that if we have an elegant intuitive explanation for the whole thing right from the beginning up to the present day, then why believe in an opposing explanation that has no basis or proof whatsoever and which would actually require a far greater degree of complexity.
      • Daz3, on 01/01/2008, -2/+2Yes it is possible that God created things that way (This would rule out the Christian or any other current god worshipped by modern or ancient religion) however, Occam's Razor would suggest that we don't need to include God in our explanation.
        • troon, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1Occam's Razor is a suggestion for the best place to look first, not an infallible rule.
    • jnesbitt, on 12/31/2007, -2/+6Very well thought out and articulate series of arguments. For all of your evidence, however, I still think that evolutionary theories still have a lot of 'splaining to do.
      I should preface by saying that I'm not a religous person, so I don't have a dog in the creationism fight.
      I can see evolution as the most valid explanation of our existence here, and I can buy natural selection as the hand that guides evolution. But what of the engine that propels mutation? All of your arguments center around the "see how similar these things are?" school of thought. Fair enough; I can see that the genome similarities between humans and other primates are astonishingly similar. But the suggestion that their similarities must be attributed to natural selection smacks of the "correlation proves causation" logical fallacy. The fact that the similarities bolster evolutionary theory is not enough; the onus is on scientists to account for large scale, anatomical changes to a species over the course of its evolution. Modified stripes on songbird wings is one thing; the massive anatomical changes in the progression of the ***** species is another thing entirely. Is the jump from one "level" to another simply a long progression of trial-and-error mutations? If so, wouldn't there be a tremendous number of genetic culls found in the fossil record? If it's not just random mutation, what molecular decision-making is going on under the hood to facilitate an educated guess as to what traits would make survival (and procreation) more likely? I've always found Behe's objections along the same lines (irreducible complexity) to really h